oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Development Document for Final
Action for Effluent Guidelines and
Standards for the Construction
and Development Category
March 2004
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821 -B-04-001
-------
Disclaimer
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or other
employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of such use of, any information, apparatus,
product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not
infringe on privately owned rights. References to proprietary technologies are not intended to be an
endorsement by the Agency.
Questions or comments regarding this technical document should be addressed to:
Mr. Jesse W. Pritts, P.E.
Engineering and Analysis Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (4303T)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566 - 1038
pritts.iesse@epa.gov
-------
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Contents
SECTION 1: SUMMARY AND SCOPE 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND 2-1
2.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY 2-1
2.2 CLEAN WATER ACT 2-1
2.2.1 BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE 2-1
2.2.2 BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 2-2
2.2.3 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE 2-3
2.2.4 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 2-3
2.2.5 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES 2-3
2.2.6 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES SCHEDULE 2-3
2.2.7 NPDES PHASE I AND II STORM WATER RULES 2-4
2.3 POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT OF 1990 2-5
2.4 STATE REGULATIONS 2-5
SECTION 3: DATA COLLECTION 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 LITERATURE SEARCH 3-1
3.3 COMPILATION OF STATE CONTROL STRATEGIES, CRITERIA, AND
STANDARDS 3-1
3.4 OTHER DATA SOURCES 3-2
3.4.1 PHASE II STORM WATER RULE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 3-2
3.4.2 USDA NATIONAL RESOURCES INVENTORY 3-3
3.4.3 CENSUS OF CONSTRUCTION 3-3
3.4.4 SOILS DATABASES, REVISED UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION AND
SEDCAD 3-3
3.5 REFERENCES 3-4
SECTION 4: INDUSTRY PROFILE 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2 INDUSTRY PRACTICES AND TRENDS 4-1
4.2.1 OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES 4-1
4.2.2 CONSTRUCTION SITE SIZE CATEGORIES AND ESTIMATES OF
AMOUNT OF DISTURBED LAND 4-4
4.2.2.1 National Estimates of Disturbed Acreage 4-4
4.2.2.2 Distribution of Acreage by Project Type 4-7
4.2.2.3 Distribution of Developed Acreage by Project Size 4-13
4.2.2.4 State-Level Estimation of Developed Acreage and Sites 4-15
March, 2004 i
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
4.2.2.5 Estimates of Number of Sites and Acreage Covered by Regulatory
Options 4-16
4.3 REFERENCES 4-17
SECTION 5: TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 5-1
5.1 CONSTRUCTION EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS 5-1
5.1.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.1.2 PROCEDURE FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 5-2
5.1.2.1 Identification of Performance Goals 5-2
5.1.2.2 Goals, Environmental Impact Areas, And Assessment Scales 5-3
5.1.2.3 Qualitative Versus Quantitative Assessment 5-4
5.1.3 REVIEW OF HISTORICAL APPROACHES TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL 5-5
5.1.4 GOALS, CONTROL STRATEGIES, CRITERIA, AND STANDARDS 5-7
5.1.4.1 Goals, Control Strategies, Criteria, And Standards: How They Relate 5-7
5.1.4.2 Levels of Performance or "How Well Do The Strategies Work?" 5-10
5.1.4.3 Strategies, Criteria, Standards, And Enforcement 5-10
5.1.5 CONTROL TECHNIQUES, BMP SYSTEMS 5-14
5.1.5.1 Erosion Control and Prevention 5-14
5.1.5.1.1 Planning, Staging, Scheduling 5-14
5.1.5.1.2 Vegetative Stabilization 5-16
5.1.5.2 Water Handling Practices 5-40
5.1.5.2.1 Earth Dike 5-40
5.1.5.2.2 Temporary Swale 5-43
5.1.5.2.3 Temporary Storm Drain Diversion 5-50
5.1.5.2.4 Pipe Slope Drain 5-52
5.1.5.2.5 Stone Check Dam 5-56
5.1.5.2.6 Lined Waterways 5-58
5.1.5.3 Sediment Trapping Devices 5-62
5.1.5.3.1 Silt Fence 5-63
5.1.5.3.2 Super Silt Fence 5-69
5.1.5.3.3 Straw Bale Dike 5-71
5.1.5.3.4 Sediment Trap 5-74
5.1.5.3.5 Sediment Basin 5-79
5.1.5.4 Other Control Practices 5-86
5.1.5.4.1 Stone Outlet Structure 5-86
5.1.5.4.2 Rock Outlet Protection 5-88
5.1.5.4.3 Sump Pit 5-91
5.1.5.4.4 Sediment Tank 5-93
5.1.5.4.5 Stabilized Construction Entrance 5-94
5.1.5.4.6 Land Grading 5-96
5.1.5.4.7 Temporary Access Waterway Crossing 5-97
5.1.5.4.8 Dust Control 5-100
5.1.5.4.9 Storm Drain Inlet Protection 5-103
March, 2004 ii
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5.1.5.4.10 Polyacrylamide (PAM) 5-105
5.1.6 SUMMARY 5-107
5.2 REFERENCES 5-119
SECTION 6: REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT AND RATIONALE 6-1
6.1 REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR FINAL ACTION 6-1
6.1.1 OPTION 1 - INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION 6-1
6.1.2 OPTION 2 - CODIFY PROVISIONS OF THE EPA CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL PERMIT WITH INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION 6-5
6.1.3 OPTION 3 - NO REGULATION 6-14
6.1.4 OPTION 4 - CODIFY PROVISIONS OF THE EPA CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL PERMIT 6-14
SECTION 7: APPROACH TO ESTIMATING COSTS 7-1
7.1 OVERVIEW 7-1
7.2 ANALYSIS OF STATE EQUIVALENCY 7-2
7.3 DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL CONSTRUCTION SITES AND ESTIMATES OF
BMP QUANTITIES 7-6
7.4 ESTIMATION OF BMP COSTS 7-11
7.5 REFERENCES 7-14
SECTION 8: APPROACH TO ESTIMATING POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 8-1
8.1 OVERVIEW 8-1
8.2. CATEGORIES OF REPORTED IMPACTS AND POLLUTANTS 8-5
8.2.1 INTRODUCTION 8-5
8.2.2 POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT STORM WATER RUNOFF 8-6
8.2.2.1 Sediment 8-6
8.2.2.2 Metals 8-13
8.2.2.3 PAHs, and Oil and Grease 8-17
8.2.2.4 Pathogens 8-18
8.2.3 PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES 8-21
8.2.3.1 Hydrologic Impacts of Construction and Land Development Activities . . . 8-23
8.2.3.2 Impacts on Geomorphology/Sediment Transport 8-27
8.2.3.3 Changes in Habitat Structure 8-30
8.2.3.4 Thermal Impacts 8-31
8.2.3.5 Direct Channel Impacts 8-31
8.2.3.6 Site Differences in Physical Impacts 8-34
8.3 ANALYSIS OF SOIL TEXTURE BY REGION 8-35
8.4 ESTIMATION OF SOIL EROSION RATES 8-35
8.5 ESTIMATION OF BMP REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES 8-40
8.5.1 APPLICATION OF SEDCAD 8-40
March, 2004 iii
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
8.5.2 CUSTOMIZING BMP REMOVALS FOR STATE-ECOREGIONS 8-42
8.6 CALCULATION OF NATIONAL LOADINGS AND REMOVALS BY
REGULATORY OPTION 8-46
8.7 INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL LOADINGS INTO NWPCAM 8-49
8.8 NWPCAM ASSESSMENT OF IN-STREAM SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS . . 8-49
8.8.1 NWPCAM SYSTEM OVERVIEW 8-49
8.8.2 CONSTRUCTION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MODELING PROCESS .. 8-50
8.8.2.1 Construction and Development Loads 8-50
8.8.2.2 Distribution of Construction Sites and Loads 8-50
8.8.2.3 Removal of Background NPS TSS Loads 8-52
8.8.2.4 Routing Construction and Development Loads to the RF3Lite Network . . . 8-53
8.8.2.5 Water Quality Modeling and Economic Benefits Analysis 8-54
8.9 RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT MODELING
ANALYSIS 8-54
8.10 REFERENCES 8-56
Figures
Figure 5-1. Flow Diagram Showing Relationship Among Goals, Strategies, Criteria
and Standards 5-9
Figure 8-la. State-Ecoregions in the Western United States 8-3
Figure 8-lb. State-Ecoregions in the Eastern United States 8-4
Figure 8-2. Stream Channel Enlargement as a Function of Watershed Imperviousness 8-23
Figure 8-3. Runoff Coefficient as a Function of Impervious Cover 8-25
Figure 8-4. Sediment Production from Construction Sites 8-29
Tables
Table 3-1. State Requirements for Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control 3-2
Table 4-1. Acres Converted from Undeveloped to Developed State, 1992-1997 4-5
Table 4-2. State Rankings by Rate of Non-Federal Land Developed, 1992 - 1997 4-6
Table 4-3. New Single-Family and Multifamily Housing Units Authorized, 1995-1997 4-7
Table 4-4. Average and Median Lot Size for New Single-Family Housing Units Sold,
1995-1997 4-8
Table 4-5. Average Building Square Footage 4-10
Table 4-6. Typical Building Sizes and Size Ranges by Type of Building 4-11
Table 4-7. National Estimates of Land Area Developed Per Year, Based on Building
Permit Data 4-12
Table 4-8. National Estimates of Land Area Developed Per Year, Based on National
Resources Inventory Totals 4-13
Table 4-9. Distribution of 14 Community Survey Permits by Site Size 4-14
Table 4-10. Distribution of National Construction by Site Size and Development Type 4-15
Table 4-11. National Construction Acreage Subject to Effluent Guidelines Requirements .... 4-16
Table 4-12. Acreage Incurring Costs Under Options Considered 4-17
March, 2004 iv
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-1. Description of Levels of Performance of Three Control Strategies 5-10
Table 5-2. Descriptions of Levels of Difficulty in Enforcement 5-11
Table 5-3. Scheduling Considerations for Construction Activities 5-15
Table 5-4. Conditions Where Vegetative Streambank Stabilization Is Acceptable 5-19
Table 5-5. Maximum Permissible Velocities for Individual Site Conditions for Grass Swales . 5-21
Table 5-6. Typical Mulching Materials and Application Rates 5-30
Table 5-7. Measured Reductions in Soil Loss for Different Mulch Treatments 5-31
Table 5-8. Cubic Yards of Topsoil Required for Application to Various Depths 5-39
Table 5-9. Grassed Swale Pollutant Removal Efficiency Data 5-48
Table 5-10. Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs for a Grass Swale 5-50
Table 5-11. Recommended Pipe/Tubing Sizes for Slope Drains 5-53
Table 5-12. Slope Drain Characteristics 5-54
Table 5-13. Maximum Slope Lengths for Silt Fences 5-64
Table 5-14. Typical Requirements for Silt Fence Fabric 5-66
Table 5-15. Slope Lengths for Super Silt Fences 5-70
Table 5-16. Minimum Requirements for Super Silt Fence Geotextile Class F Fabric 5-71
Table 5-17. Maximum Land Slope and Distances Above a Straw Bale Dike 5-72
Table 5-18. Weir Length for Sediment Traps 5-76
Table 5-19. Range of Measured Pollutant Removal for Sediment Detention Basins 5-77
Table 5-20. Common Concerns Associated with Sediment Traps 5-78
Table 5-21. Common Concerns Associated with Sediment Basins 5-84
Table 5-22. Riprap Sizes and Thicknesses (SHA Specifications) 5-89
Table 5-23. Application Rates for Spray-On Adhesives 5-102
Table 5-24. Turbidity Reduction Values from PAM 5-106
Table 5-25. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.1) 5-108
Table 5-26. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.2) 5-111
Table 5-27. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.3) 5-113
Table 5-28. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.4) 5-117
Table 7-1. Total Costs of Options 7-2
Table 7-2. State Equivalency with EPA CGP Requirements 7-4
Table 7-3. Land Use-Specific Impervious Cover Factors 7-7
Table 7-4. Percentage of Construction Site in Each of Three Flow Pathways 7-8
Table 7-5. BMP Quantities Required by EPA CGP for Model Construction Sites 7-10
Table 7-6. Unit Cost Factors For BMPs 7-12
Table 7-7. State Cost Adjustment Factors 7-13
Table 7-8. Design and O & M Costs as a Percentage of Installation Costs 7-14
Table 8-1. Loading Reductions and Benefits of Regulatory Options 8-2
Table 8-2. Studies of Uncontrolled Soil Erosion as TSS From Construction Sites 8-7
Table 8-3. Sources of Sediment in Urban Areas 8-8
Table 8-4. Source Area Concentrations for TSS in Urban Areas 8-8
March, 2004 v
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-5. Sediment Impacts on Receiving Waters 8-10
Table 8-6. Metal Sources and Hot Spots in Urban Areas 8-15
Table 8-7. Metal Source Area Concentrations in Urban Areas (in ug/L) 8-16
Table 8-8. Metals Impacts on Receiving Waters 8-17
Table 8-9. Effects of PAHs and Oil and Grease on Receiving Waters 8-18
Table 8-10. Percentage Detection of Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in
Subwatersheds and Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent in the New York City
Water Supply Watersheds 8-20
Table 8-11. Effects of Bacteria on Receiving Waters 8-21
Table 8-12. Physical Impacts of Urbanization on Streams 8-22
Table 8-13. Hydrologic Differences Between a Parking Lot and a Meadow 8-24
Table 8-14. Comparison of Bulk Density for Undisturbed Soils and Common
Urban Conditions 8-26
Table 8-15. Ecoregion Surface Soil Texture Characterization 8-36
Table 8-16. Range of Annual Erosion Estimates by Dominant Soil Type in Each Ecoregion
(tons/acre/year) 8-38
Table 8-17. Estimated Soil Grain Size Distribution 8-40
Table 8-18. Description of EPA Construction Site Analysis for BMP Removal Estimation . . . 8-41
Table 8-19. Methodology for Estimating BMP Removal Rates 8-44
Table 8-20. Range of BMP Percent Removals (Weighted by Grain Size Distribution) 8-46
Table 8-21. National Annual Construction Load Estimates 8-47
Table 8-22. State Annual Construction Load Estimates (Tons) 8-48
Table 8-23. Summary of Construction and Development Loadings 8-51
Table 8-24. Example of Output from Site and Load Distribution Process 8-52
Table 8-25. NPS TSS Loads Modified for Construction and Development Analysis 8-53
Table 8-26. Summary of Construction and Development TSS Loads 8-54
Table 8-27. Summary of Waters Affected (Option 2/4) 8-54
Table 8-28. Economic Benefits Using the WQL Approach (Option 2/4) 8-55
Table 8-29. Economic Benefits Using the WQI Approach (Option 2/4) 8-55
Appendices
Appendix A: Model Construction Site Geometry
Appendix B: Supporting Cost Data
Appendix C: RUSLE Evaluation Information
Appendix D: State Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements
Appendix E: State Distribution of Construction Sites by Site Size, Land Use and Erosive Risk
Appendix F: Supporting Loads Data
March, 2004
vi
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SECTION 1: SUMMARY AND SCOPE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
EPA published a final action withdrawing proposed effluent guidelines for storm water discharges
associated with construction activities in March of 2004. This document presents technical
information to support the Agency's decision and compliments "Economic Analysis for Final
Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category,"
EPA-821 -B-04-002.
A summary of the information contained in the sections of this document is as follows:
Section 2 presents a summary of the legal authority for effluent guidelines and the existing EPA
storm water program.
Section 3 summarizes the data collection activities and the analytical tools and processes
followed to support the final action.
Section 4 summarizes the characteristics of the construction and development industry,
including major indicators of industry size and annual construction activity.
Section 5 presents information and data on erosion and sediment control (ESC) best
management practices (BMPs) used by the construction and development industry, including
applicability, costs, and efficiencies of various technologies..
Section 6 presents a description of the regulatory options considered by EPA for the final
action.
Section 7 presents EPA's methodology for estimating the costs of the options considered.
Section 8 summarizes the approach used by EPA to estimate the pollutant loads, load reductions
and environmental benefits of the options considered.
March, 2004
1-1
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
March, 2004 1-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND
2.1 LEGAL AUTHORITY
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes Effluent Limitation Guidelines under the
authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act), 33 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318, 1342, and
1361.
2.2 CLEAN WATER ACT
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters" (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters except in compliance
with the statute. CWA sec. 402 requires "point source" discharges to obtain a permit under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These permits are issued by EPA
regional offices or authorized State agencies.
Following enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (Pub.L. 92-500,
October 18, 1972), EPA and the States issued NPDES permits to thousands of dischargers, both
industrial (e.g. manufacturing, energy and mining facilities) and municipal (sewage treatment
plants). As required under Title in of the Act, EPA promulgated effluent limitation guidelines and
standards for many industrial categories, and these requirements are incorporated into the permits.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub.L. 100-4, February 4, 1987) amended the CWA. The NPDES
program was expanded by defining municipal and industrial storm water discharges as point
sources. Industrial storm water dischargers, municipal separate storm sewer systems and other
storm water dischargers designated by EPA must obtain NPDES permits pursuant to Section 402(p)
(33 U.S.C. 1342(p)).
2.2.1 BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
In guidelines for a point source category, EPA may define Best Practicable Control Technology
(BPT) effluent limits for conventional, toxic,1 and non-conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT,
EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also considers the age of the equipment and
facilities, the processes employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the
1 In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for
control of the "classical" pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However, nothing on the face of the statute explicitly
restricted BPT limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub.L. 95-217,
December 27, 1977) with its requirement for point sources to achieve best available technology limitations to control
discharges of toxic pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to developing BAT limitations for the listed priority toxic
pollutants.
March, 2004
2-1
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and such other factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA sec. 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally,
EPA establishes BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performance of facilities
within the category of various ages, sizes, processes or other common characteristics. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than
currently in place in a category if the Agency determines that the technology can be practically
applied. See "A Legislative History of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972," U.S. Senate Committee of Public Works, Serial No. 93-1, January 1973, p. 1468.
In addition, the Act requires a cost-reasonableness assessment for BPT limitations. In determining
the BPT limits, EPA considers the total cost of treatment technologies in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits achieved. This inquiry does not limit EPA's broad discretion to adopt BPT
limitations that are achievable with available technology unless the required additional reductions
are "wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level of reduction." See
Legislative History, op. cit., p. 170. Moreover, the inquiry does not require the Agency to quantify
benefits in monetary terms. See, for example, American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA. 526 F. 2d
1027 (3rd Cir., 1975).
In balancing costs against the benefits of effluent reduction, EPA considers the volume and nature
of expected discharges after application of BPT, the general environmental effects of pollutants,
and the cost and economic impacts of the required level of pollution control. In past effluent
limitation guidelines and standards, BPT cost-reasonableness removal figures have ranged from
$0.21 to $33.71 per pound removed in year 2000 dollars. In developing guidelines, the Act does
not require consideration of water quality problems attributable to particular point sources, or water
quality improvements in particular bodies of water. See Weyerhaeuser Company v. Costle. 590 F.
2d 1011 (D C. Cir. 1978).
2.2.2 BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for
conventional pollutants associated with Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for
discharges from existing point sources. BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces Best
Available Technology (BAT) for control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors
specified in sec. 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after
consideration of a two- part "cost-reasonableness" test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand
(BODj), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants defined by
the Administrator as conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional
conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501). A primary pollutant of concern at
construction sites, sediment, is commonly measured as TSS.
March, 2004
2-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
2.2.3 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
In general, Best Available Technology (BAT) effluent guidelines (CWA sec. 304(b)(2)) represent
the best existing economically achievable performance of direct discharging plants in the
subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving
BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the processes employed,
engineering aspects of the control technology, potential process changes, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such factors as the Administrator
deems appropriate. The Agency retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be
accorded to these factors. An additional statutory factor considered in setting BAT is "economic
achievability." Generally, EPA determines the economic achievability on the basis of the total cost
to the subcategory and the overall effect of the rule on the industry's financial health. The Agency
may base BAT limitations upon effluent reductions attainable through changes in a facility's
processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, EPA
may base BAT upon technology transferred from a different subcategory or from another category.
In addition, the Agency may base BAT upon manufacturing process changes or internal controls,
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
2.2.4 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on
the best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the opportunity to install
the best and most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment technologies. As a
result, NSPS should represent the greatest degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the best available demonstrated control technology for all pollutants (i.e.,
conventional, non-conventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, CWA sec. 306
directs EPA to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy requirements.
2.2.5 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
The CWA also defines standards for indirect discharges, i.e. discharges into publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). These are Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) under sec. 307(b).
2.2.6 EFFLUENT GUIDELINES SCHEDULE
Clean Water Act section 304(m) requires EPA to publish a plan every two years that consists of
three elements. First, under sec. 304(m)(l)(A), EPA is required to establish a schedule for the
annual review and revision of existing effluent guidelines in accordance with sec. 304(b). Section
304(b) applies to ELGs for direct dischargers and requires EPA to revise such regulations as
appropriate. Second, under sec. 304(m)(l)(B), EPA must identify categories of sources discharging
toxic or nonconventional pollutants for which EPA has not published BAT ELGs under sec.
March, 2004
2-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
304(b)(2) or new source performance standards under sec. 306. Finally, under sec. 304(m)(l)(C),
EPA must establish a schedule for the promulgation of BAT and NSPS for the categories identified
under subparagraph (B) not later than three years after being identified in the 304(m) plan. Section
304(m) does not apply to pretreatment standards for indirect dischargers, which EPA promulgates
pursuant to sec. 307(b) and 307(c) of the Act.
On October 30, 1989, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), and Public Citizen, Inc.,
filed an action against EPA in which they alleged, among other things, that EPA had failed to
comply with sec. 304(m). Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to a settlement of that action in a consent
decree entered on January 31, 1992. (Natural Resources Defense Council et al v. Whitman. D.D.C.
Civil Action No. 89-2980). The consent decree, which has been modified several times, established
a schedule by which EPA is to propose and take final action for eleven point source categories
identified by name in the decree and for eight other point source categories identified only as new
or revised rules, numbered 5 through 12. EPA selected the Construction and Development (C&D)
category as the subject for new or revised rule #10. The decree, as modified, calls for the
Administrator to sign a proposed ELG for the C&D category no later than May 15, 2002, and to
take final action on that proposal no later than March 31, 2004. A settlement agreement between
the parties, signed on June 28, 2000, requires that EPA develop regulatory options applicable to
discharges from construction, development and redevelopment, covering site sizes included in the
Phase I and Phase IINPDES storm water rules (i.e. one acre or greater). EPA is required to
develop options including numeric effluent limitations for sedimentation and turbidity; control of
construction site pollutants other than sedimentation and turbidity (e.g. discarded building
materials, concrete truck washout, trash); BMPs for controlling post-construction runoff; BMPs for
construction sites; and requirements to design storm water controls to maintain pre-development
runoff conditions where practicable. The June 2002 proposal contained discussion of these issues
and the public docket contains further information. The settlement also requires EPA to issue
guidance to MS4s and other permittees on maintenance of post-construction BMPs identified in the
proposed ELGs. Since EPA's proposal or final action did not contain requirements for post-
construction BMPs, this guidance is no longer necessary and therefore was not fully developed.
However, a draft of the maintenance guidance that was prepared while EPA was considering
including options for post-construction BMPs is contained in the public docket.
2.2.7 NPDES PHASE I AND II STORM WATER RULES
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a permit system established
under the CWA to enforce effluent limitations. Operators of construction activities, which include
clearing, grading and excavation are required to apply for permit coverage under the NPDES Phase
I and II storm water rules. Under the Phase I rule (promulgated in 1990), construction sites of 5 or
more acres must be covered by either a general or an individual permit. General permits covering
the Phase I sites have been issued by EPA regional offices and state water quality agencies.
Permittees are required to develop storm water pollution prevention plans that include descriptions
of BMPs employed, although actual BMP selection and design are at the discretion of permittees (in
conformance with applicable state or local requirements).
March, 2004
2-4
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Construction sites between 1 and 5 acres in size are subject to the NPDES Phase II storm water rule
(promulgated in 1999). The construction activities covered under Phase II are termed small
construction activities and exclude routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the original
line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility. Under the Phase II program,
NPDES permit requirements for construction activities are similar to the Phase I requirements
because they will be covered under similar general permits. EPA issued a new general permit that
covers all sizes of construction sites subject to the NPDES rules on July 1, 2003.
2.3 POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT OF 1990
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November
5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the national policy of the United States. The PPA identifies an
environmental management hierarchy in which pollution "should be prevented or reduced whenever
feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or release into the environment
should be employed only as a last resort..." (42 U.S.C. 13103). In short, preventing pollution before
it is created is preferable to trying to manage, treat or dispose of it after it is created. According to
the PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous substances, pollutants,
wastes, contaminants or residuals at the source, usually within a process. The term source reduction
"...includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications,
reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in
housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control. The term 'source reduction' does not
include any practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume
of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not
integral to or necessary for the production of a product or the providing of a service." In effect,
source reduction means reducing the amount of a pollutant that enters a waste stream or that is
otherwise released into the environment prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or disposal.
Although the PPA does not explicitly address storm water discharges or discharges from
construction sites, the principles of the PPA are implicit in many of the practices used to reduce
pollutant discharges from construction sites. These include controls that minimize the potential for
erosion such as proper phasing of construction, retention of on-site vegetation and stabilization of
disturbed areas as soon as practicable. These controls and practices are described in Section 5 of
this document.
2.4 STATE REGULATIONS
States and municipalities have been regulating discharges of runoff from the construction and land
development industry to varying degrees for some time. A compilation of state construction
general permits and regulations was prepared to help establish the baseline for national and regional
levels of control. Data were collected by reviewing state construction general permits, web sites,
summary references, state erosion and sediment control and/or storm water management guidance
March, 2004
2-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
manuals. The state regulatory data are summarized in Section 3 and 7 of this document and the
complete data sheets are included in Appendix D.
March, 2004
2-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SECTION 3: DATA COLLECTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
EPA gathered and evaluated technical and economic data from various sources in support of this
final action. EPA used existing data sources to profile the industry with respect to general industry
description, industry trends, environmental impacts, and erosion and sediment control best
management practices (BMPs) and costs. This section details the data sources used in the
development of the final action.
3.2 LITERATURE SEARCH
A literature search was performed to obtain information on various BMPs that pertain to the
construction and land development industry. Journal articles and professional conference
proceedings were used to summarize the most recent BMP effectiveness data, design and
installation criteria, applicability, advantages, limitations, and cost.
3.3 COMPILATION OF STATE CONTROL STRATEGIES, CRITERIA, AND
STANDARDS
A compilation of existing State programs for the control of construction site storm water was
prepared. The data were collected by reviewing State construction general permits, web sites,
summary references, and State regulations and erosion and sediment control design and guidance
manuals. A summary of criteria and standards for construction site erosion and sediment control
that are implemented by States as of September 2003 are presented in Table 3-1. More information
on this analysis can be found in Section 7.2 and State-level data sheets are contained in Appendix D.
March, 2004
3-1
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 3-1. State Requirements for Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control
Element
Number of States with
Equivalent Requirement
Initiate soil stabilization with 14 days after construction activity
has ceased
27
Install sediment basins that provide storage for the 2-year, 24-
hour storm or 3,600 cubic feet per acre for drainage areas with
10 or more disturbed acres at one time
30
Install smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps for
drainage areas serving less than 10 acres
22
Remove sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation ponds
when the design capacity has been reduced by 50 percent
25
Conduct inspections at least every 7 calendar days or at least
every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a
storm event of 0.5 inches or greater
41
3.4 OTHER DATA SOURCES
3.4.1 PHASE II STORM WATER RULE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule (USEPA, 1999) estimated Phase II
Storm Water Rule compliance costs for two major categories of pollutant controls for construction
sites: erosion and sediment control BMPs and post-construction storm water management controls.
Total costs for implementing the Phase II Rule encompass expenditures for installation of erosion
and sediment control technologies, labor requirements for submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to be
covered by a general permit, a Notification to Municipalities, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP), and maintenance costs. Costs were derived on a per-site basis and then aggregated
to the State and national level based on the number of the building permits issued. As described in
the Economic Analysis Report for the Phase II Rule, census data were used to project the annual
number of construction permits by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code and construction
permit data from 14 municipalities were used to categorize construction activities by site size.
EPA used several data sources collected for the Phase II economic analysis in this rulemaking,
including construction permit data collected in 14 municipalities and estimates of BMP installations
on small construction sites.
March, 2004
3-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
3.4.2 USD A NATIONAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
The National Resources Inventory (NRI) (USDA, 2000) is a statistically based survey that has been
designed and implemented using scientific principles to assess conditions and trends of soil, water,
and related resources on non-Federal lands in the United States. The NRI is conducted every 5 years
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
in cooperation with the Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory. The inventory provides
scientifically valid, timely, and relevant information that is used to formulate effective agricultural
and environmental policies and legislation, implement resource conservation programs, and
enhance the public's understanding of natural resources and environmental conditions.
The NRI is a compilation of natural resource information on non-Federal land in the United
States-nearly 75 percent of the country's land base. The inventory captures data on land cover and
use, soil erosion, prime farmland, wetlands, habitat diversity, selected conservation practices, and
related resource attributes at more than 800,000 scientifically selected sample sites. The NRI can be
accessed at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/.
EPA used the NRI data in support of several analyses. First, NRI data was used to determine the
amount of annual construction acreage in each state, which served as a basis for calculating state-
level compliance costs of the options considered. NRI data was also used to estimate the amount of
construction activity occurring in each of the watersheds in the U.S. based on the Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) cataloging system. HUC-level data was used to estimate the number of construction
sites and the associated loads occurring in each HUC and to link these loads to stream reaches for
modeling of water quality improvements and benefits estimates using EPA's National Water
Pollution Control Assessment Model (NWPCAM).
3.4.3 CENSUS OF CONSTRUCTION
The census of construction was used as a data source in a number of analyses including determining
the amount of construction activity by sector (single-family residential, multi-family residential,
commercial and industrial) and in EPA's analysis of financial impacts of the options considered.
Additional information on these analyses can be found in the document "Economic Analysis for
Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development
Category," EPA-821-B-04-002.
3.4.4 SOILS DATABASES, REVISED UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION AND
SEDCAD
EPA utilized data from the USDA State Soil Geographic STATSGO database (USDA, 1995) to
determine county-level soil textural information in support of the loadings estimates and BMP
removals estimates. EPA utilized the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) in
combination with the soils data to determine soil erosion rates from model construction sites in
different areas of the county. In order to evaluate BMP removal efficiencies and to calculate
March, 2004
3-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
national loadings reductions of the options considered, EPA used the SEDCAD (Warner, 1998)
model to evaluate removals under various control strategies.
3.5 REFERENCES
USEPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. Washington D.C.
USDA. 1995. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database, Miscellaneous Publication 1492,
Revised 1994.
USDA. 2000. 1997 National Resources Inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
Warner, R.C. and P.J. Schwab. 1998. SEDCAD 4 for Windows 95 & NT-Design Manual and
User's Guide. Civil Software Design, Ames, IA.
March, 2004
3-4
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SECTION 4: INDUSTRY PROFILE
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The construction sector is among the largest and most important sectors in the national economy.
The construction industry is divided into three major subsectors: general building contractors,
heavy construction contractors, and special trade contractors. General contractors build residential,
industrial, commercial, and other buildings. Heavy construction contractors build sewers, roads,
highways, bridges, and tunnels. Special trade contractors typically provide carpentry, painting,
plumbing, and electrical services. Additional information, including detailed descriptions of
industry size and revenues, can be found in the document "Economic Analysis for Final Action for
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category," EPA-821-B-
04-002.
4.2 INDUSTRY PRACTICES AND TRENDS
4.2.1 OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES
Constructing a building or facility involves a variety of activities, including the use of equipment
that alters the site's environmental conditions. These changes include vegetation and top soil
removal, regrading, and drainage pattern alteration. The following provides a brief description of
typical land-disturbing activities at construction sites and the types of equipment employed.
Construction Site Preparation. Construction activities generally begin with the planning and
engineering of the site and site preparation. During this stage, mobile offices, which are usually
housed in trailers, are established on the construction site. The construction company uses these
temporary structures to handle vital activities such as preparing and submitting applicable permits,
hiring employees and subcontractors, and ensuring that proper environmental requirements are met.
The entire construction yard is delineated with erosion and sediment controls installed and security
measures established. The latter includes installing fences and signs to warn against trespassing
and to mark dangerous areas. After the site is secured, equipment is brought to the site (and is
stored there throughout the construction period).
Clearing, Excavating, and Grading. Construction on any size parcel of land almost always calls for
a remodeling of the earth (Lynch and Hack, 1984). Therefore, actual site construction begins with
site clearing and grading. Organic material—in particular, roots—cannot support the weight of
buildings and must be removed from the top layer of ground. (Some developers stockpile the
organic material for use during the landscaping phase of construction rather than paying for it to be
hauled from the site.) Construction contractors must ensure that earthwork activities meet local,
state, and federal regulations for soil and erosion control, runoff, and other environmental controls.
The size of the site, extent of water present, soil types, topography, and weather determine the kinds
of equipment used in site clearing and grading (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989). Material that will
not be used on the site must be hauled away by tractor-pulled wagons, dump trucks, or articulated
trucks (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989).
March, 2004
4-1
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Equipment used for lifting excavated and cleared materials include aerial-work platforms,
forwarders, cranes, rough-terrain forklifts, and truck-mounted cranes. In addition, track loaders are
used for digging and dumping earth (Caterpillar, 2000; Construction Equipment On-Line, 1996-
1998; Lynch and Hack, 1984; and Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989).
Excavation and grading are performed by several different types of machines. These tasks can also
be done by hand, but this is generally more expensive (Lynch and Hack, 1984). When grading a
site, builders typically ensure that new grades are as close to the original as possible, to avoid
erosion and storm water runoff (Lynch and Hack, 1984). Proper grading also ensures a flat surface
for development and drains water away from constructed buildings.
Excavation and grading equipment includes backhoes, bulldozers (including the versatile tracked
bulldozer), loaders, directional drilling rigs, hydraulic excavators, motor graders, scrapers,
skid-steer loaders, soil stabilizers, tool carriers, trenchers, wheel loaders, and pipeliners. Equipment
selection depends on functions to be performed and specific site conditions (Caterpillar, 2000;
Construction Equipment On-Line, 1996-1998; Lynch and Hack, 1984; and Peurifoy and
Oberlender, 1989). Therefore, multiple types of equipment are used throughout the clearing and
grading process.
Self-transporting trenching machines, wheel-type trenching machines, and ladder-type trenching
machines are also used during site excavation. Self-transporting trenching machines are used to
create shallow trenches, such as for underground wire and cables. This type of machine has a
bulldozer blade attached to the front, is highly maneuverable, and can be used to dig narrow,
shallow trenches. Wheel-type trenching machines also dig narrow trenches, most often for water
mains and gas and oil pipelines. Ladder-type trenching machines are used to dig deep trenches,
such as for sewer pipes. These machines might have a boom mounted at the rear. Along the boom
are cutter teeth and buckets that are attached to chains. As the machine moves, it digs dirt and
moves it to the sides of the newly formed trench (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989).
Power shovels can also be used for excavating soils. They are used on all classes of earth that have
not been loosened. For solid rock, prior loosening is required. As materials are excavated, they are
immediately loaded onto trucks or tractor-pulled wagons and hauled from the site (Peurifoy and
Oberlender, 1989). Hydraulic excavators, with either a front or a back shovel, are also used to dig
into the earth and to load a hauling vehicle. There are several categories of hydraulic excavators,
including backhoes, back shovels, hoes, and pull shovels. Hydraulic excavators are one of the most
widely used types of excavating equipment because of their ease of use and their ability to remove
the earth that caves as it is moved. They are effective excavating machines, and they are easy to
use in terms of loading some a hauling vehicle (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989).
Draglines, used to dig ditches or build levees, can transport soil within casting limits, thus
eliminating the need for hauling equipment (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989). Draglines have a
bucket that hangs from a cable. The bucket is brought through the dirt and toward the operator
(Lynch and Hack, 1984). Draglines can be used on both wet and dry ground and can dig earth out
of pits that contain water (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989). They are most useful for making large
March, 2004
4-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
cuts and channels below the level of the machine as well as for making valleys, mounds, slopes, and
banks (Lynch and Hack, 1984). Draglines have a lower output than power shovels, and do not
excavate rock as well as power shovels (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989).
Draglines can be converted to clamshells by replacing the dragline bucket with a clamshell bucket.
A clamshell is typically used for handling sand, gravel, crushed stone, sandy loam, and other loose
materials; it is not efficient in handling compacted earth, clay, or other dense materials. A
clamshell is lowered into a material, and the bucket closes on the material. It is then raised over a
hauling vehicle and the materials are deposited (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989).
Scrapers, either self-powered or drawn by tractors, dig and compact materials by taking up earth
from its underside with toothed scoops and loading it into hauling vehicles. Scrapers are useful in
removing earth and weak or broken rock, and for excavating hills and rock faces. Some scrapers
are designed for long hauls; others with good traction are used on steep slopes (Lynch and Hack,
1984).
A crawler tractor, which pulls a rubber-tired self-loading scraper, is often used for short-haul
distances. The crawler tractor uses a drawbar pull to load the scraper. It has good traction and can
operate on muddy roads. It is, however, a slower vehicle and thus is more appropriate for shorter
hauls.
Wheel-type tractor-pulled scrapers, which come in two- and four-wheel tractors, are used for longer
hauling distances. Unlike the crawler tractor-pulled scrapers, the wheel-type tractor-pulled scrapers
do not maintain good traction. Under such conditions, a helper tractor, such as a bulldozer, might
be used (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989).
All of these machines shape and compact the earth, a crucial site preparation step. In addition,
earthwork activities might require that fill be brought in. In such cases, the fill must be spread in
uniform, thick layers and compacted to a specified density with an optimum moisture content.
Graders and bulldozers are the most common earth-spreading machines. Machines that compact
include tractor-pulled sheep's foot rollers, smooth-wheel rollers, pneumatic rollers, and vibrating
rollers, among other equipment (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989). Rollers and scarifiers are used
either to compact or to break up the ground (Lynch and Hack, 1984).
To remove rock, it must first be loosened and broken up-usually through drilling or blasting.
Drilling equipment includes jackhammers, wagon drills, drifters, churn rills, and rotary drills; each
is designed to work on a specific size and type of rock. Dynamite and other explosives are used to
loosen rock (Peurifoy and Oberlender, 1989).
Once materials have been excavated and removed and the ground cleared and graded, the site is
ready for construction.
March, 2004
4-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
4.2.2 CONSTRUCTION SITE SIZE CATEGORIES AND ESTIMATES OF AMOUNT OF
DISTURBED LAND
The regulatory options evaluated apply to construction sites of all types (i.e., residential,
commercial, and industrial) of more than 5 acres of disturbed land. Because the costs of best
management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control are largely driven by site size, EPA
must estimate the distribution of construction sites by size category, land use type, and geographic
region to estimate the total cost of the options. In addition, estimating distribution of sites by type
allows EPA to estimate the cost to each construction sector.
The method used to estimate the number of construction sites by size category-and therefore the
total area disturbed-is based on a number of data sources, including U.S. Census data and data
collected during the Phase II Storm Water rulemaking.
4.2.2.1 National Estimates of Disturbed Acreage
EPA used the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 1997 National Resources Inventory
(NRI) to estimate the level of new U.S. development each year. NRI is designed to track changes in
land cover and land use over time. The inventory, conducted every five years, covers all non-
federal lands in the U.S. (which constitutes 75 percent of the total land area in the U.S.). The
program captures land use data from approximately 800,000 statistically selected locations. From
1992 to 1997, an average of 2.2 million acres per year were converted from non-developed to
developed status. Table 4-1 shows the allocation of this converted land area by type of land or land
cover. Table 4-2 shows the national allocation of developed acres by state.
March, 2004
4-4
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-1. Acres Converted from Undeveloped to Developed State, 1992-1997
Type of Land
Acres Converted to
Development® 1992-1997
(thousands)
Annual Average
Percent Contribution by
Type of Land
Cropland
574.8
26.6%
Conservation Reserve
Program land
1.5
0.1%
Pastureland
391.2
17.4%
Rangeland
245.9
11.0%
Forest land
939.0
41.9%
Other rural area
89.1
4.0%
Water areas and federal
land
1.8
0.1%
Totalb
2,243.4
100.0%
a NRI defines developed land as a combination of the following land cover/use categories large urban and built-up areas, small
built-up areas, and rural transportation land. These are defined as follows:
Large urban and built-up areas. A land cover/use category composed of developed tracts of at least 10 acres—meeting the
definition of urban and built-up areas.
Small built-up areas. A land cover/use category consisting of developed land units of 0.25 to 10 acres, which meet the definition
of urban and built-up areas.
Rural transportation land. A land cover/use category which consists of all highways, roads, railroads and associated
right-of-ways outside urban and built-up areas; also includes private roads to farmsteads or ranch headquarters, logging roads,
and other private roads (field lanes are not included).
Urban and built up areas are in turn defined as:
Urban and built-up areas. A land cover/use category consisting of residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land;
construction sites; public administrative sites; railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage
treatment plants; water control structures and spillways; other land used for such purposes; small parks (less than 10 acres) within
urban and built-up areas; and highways, railroads , and other transportation facilities if they are surrounded by urban areas. Also
included are tracts of less than 10 acres that do not meet the above definition but are completely surrounded by urban and built-up
land. Two size categories are recognized in the NRI: areas of 0.25 acre to 10 acres, and areas of at least 10 acres.
b Excludes Alaska
Source: USDA, 2000.
March, 2004
4-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-2. State Rankings by Rate of Non-Federal
^and Developed, 1992 - 1997*
Ranking
State
Average
Annual
Conversion
Rate (acres)
Ranking
State
Average
Annual
Conversion
Rate (acres)
1
Texas
178,700
26
West Virginia
35,360
2
Georgia
170,380
27
Oklahoma
35,340
3
Florida
165,040
28
Arkansas
33,780
4
California
110,680
29
Louisiana
26,720
5
Pennsylvania
109,020
30
Arizona
22,760
6
North Carolina
101,320
31
Colorado
22,500
7
Tennessee
80,380
32
Puerto Rico
22,480
8
Ohio
72,960
33
Maine
22,220
9
Michigan
72,820
34
Oregon
20,780
10
South Carolina
72,400
35
Kansas
19,300
11
Virginia
68,700
36
Idaho
18,380
12
New York
63,520
37
Utah
16,260
13
Alabama
63,060
38
Montana
15,260
14
Illinois
49,300
39
Iowa
13,820
15
Washington
48,160
40
New Hampshire
12,520
16
Kentucky
47,420
41
South Dakota
11,560
17
Minnesota
46,360
42
Nebraska
11,020
18
Missouri
44,840
43
Connecticut
7,880
19
New Mexico
43,440
44
Wyoming
6,880
20
New Jersey
42,720
45
North Dakota
6,560
21
Massachusetts
42,360
46
Nevada
5,340
22
Mississippi
41,280
47
Delaware
4,620
23
Indiana
39,060
48
Vermont
2,300
24
Wisconsin
37,640
49
Hawaii
1,360
25
Maryland
35,520
50
Rhode Island
1,320
* Excludes Alaska
It is important to note that the 2001 NRI data was becoming available as EPA was finishing its
analyses. However, since the national total of acres developed annually (2.2 million acres) was the
same for both the 1997 and 2001 NRI datasets, EPA elected not to update its evaluation to reflect
the 2001 values.
March, 2004
4-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
4.2.2.2 Distribution of Acreage by Project Type
To allocate the NRI acreage among the various segments of the industry, EPA has estimated the
distribution of acres developed by type of project in the following way. First, EPA multiplied the
number of building permits issued annually by estimates of the average site size for each project
type. Thus for single-family residential construction, EPA multiplied the number of new single-
family home building permits by the average lot size for new single-family construction. Estimates
for other types of construction were based on extrapolations from the U.S. Census permit data and
EPA estimates of average project size. Second, EPA adjusted the estimates of acres converted to
reconcile any differences between the total number of acres accounted for using this approach and
the total acres developed as estimated in the NRI.
Single-family Residential
Census data indicate that in recent years the number of new single-family housing units authorized
has averaged just over 1.0 million units per year (see Table 4-3). The average lot size for new
single-family housing units is 13,553 square feet, or 0.31 acres (1 acre = 43,560 square feet). Using
the average lot size (see Table 4-4), however, will underestimate the total acreage converted for
single-family residential projects because it does not include common areas of developments not
counted as part of an owner's lot-for example, streets, sidewalks, parking areas, storm water
management structures, and open spaces.
Table 4-3. New Single-Family and Multifamily Housing Units Authorized, 1995-1997
Year
All Housing Units
Single-Family
Housing Units
Multifamily
Housing Units
1995
1,332,549
997,268
335,281
1996
1,425,616
1,069,472
356,144
1997
1,441,136
1,062,396
378,740
1995-1997 avg
1,399,767
1,043,045
356,722
Source: BOC, 2000b. Series C40 New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized
March, 2004
4-7
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-4. Average and Median Lot Size for New Single-Family Housing Units Sold,
1995-1997
Year
Average Lot Size
(Square Feet)
Median Lot Size
(Square Feet)
1995
13,665
9,375
1996
13,705
9,100
1997
13,290
9,000
1995-1997 avg
13,553
9,158
Source: BOC, 2000a. Series C25 Characteristics of New Housing
To account for these differences, EPA examined data obtained from a survey of municipalities
conducted in support of the Phase II Storm Water rule (EPA 1999). This survey identified 14
communities that consistently collected project type and size data as part of their construction
permitting programs.2 EPA's review of permitting data from these communities covered 855
single-family developments encompassing 18,134 housing units. The combined area of these
developments was 11,460 acres. This means that each housing unit accounted for 0.63 acres
(11,460 acres ^ 18,134 units = 0.63 acres per unit). This estimate, essentially double the average lot
size, appears to more than account for the common areas and undeveloped areas in a typical single-
family residential development. For this reason, EPA averaged the Census estimate of the national
average lot size (0.31 acres) and the Phase II estimate of 0.63 acres per unit to arrive at an estimate
of 0.47 acres per unit. This number was multiplied by the average number of single-family housing
units authorized by building permit, 1.04 million, to arrive at an estimate of 490,231 acres (see
Table 4-7).
Multifamily Residential
For residential construction other than single-family housing, EPA divided the average number of
units authorized during 1995-1997 (356,722, from Table 4-3) by the average number of units per
new multifamily building. The average number of units per building was obtained by examining
the distribution of units by unit size class in Census data (BOC 2000b). EPA estimated the number
of buildings in each size class by dividing the number of units in each class by the average number
of units. The total number of units was then divided into the estimated number of buildings to
arrive at an average number of 10.8 units across all building size classes.
EPA next examined data on the average site size for multifamily residential developments. The
Center for Watershed Protection reports survey results showing that an average building footprint
2 The communities were: Austin, TX; Baltimore County, MD; Cary, NC; Ft. Collins, CO; Lacey, WA;
Loudoun County, VA; New Britain, CT; Olympia, WA; Prince George's County, MD; Raleigh, NC; South Bend,
IN; Tallahassee, FL; Tuscon, AZ; and Waukesha, WI.
March, 2004
4-8
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
occupies 15.6 percent of the total site (CWP 2001). EPA assumed that the average-sized
multifamily building (10.8 units) would have two floors and that each unit would occupy the
national average of 1,095 square feet (NAHB 2002). The total square footage accounted for by
living space is thus 11,826 square feet. Multiplying by a factor of 1.2 to account for common areas
and other non-living space (utility rooms, hallways, stairways), and dividing by 2 to reflect the
assumption of a 2-story structure, EPA obtained a typical building footprint of 7,096 square feet
(11,826 x 1.2 ^ 2 = 7,096). Combining this with the CWP estimate of the building footprint share
of total site size (15.6 percent), the average site size was estimated to be 45,487 square feet (7,096
0.156 = 45,487), or just over 1 acre (1.04 acres).
EPA compared the average site size obtained using this approach with data from the 14 community
survey referenced above under the Phase II Storm Water rule. That study's review of permitting
data identified 286 multifamily developments covering a total of 3,476 acres. The average site size,
12.1 acres, is considerably higher than that calculated above. EPA has no indication that the
permits reviewed in these communities are for projects of a larger-than- average size. Therefore, for
purposes of this analysis, EPA has taken the midpoint of the estimates, 6.5 acres, as the average size
of multifamily projects. This number was multiplied by the average number of multifamily housing
developments authorized by building permit, 35,672, to arrive at an estimate of 231,868 acres (see
Table 4-7).
Nonresidential Construction
EPA lacked current data on the number of nonresidential construction and development projects
authorized annually because the Census Bureau ceased to collect data on the number of permits
issued for such projects in 1995. EPA used regression analysis to forecast the number of
nonresidential building permits issued in 1997, based on the historical relationship between
residential and nonresidential construction activity. Using this approach, EPA estimates that a total
of 426,024 nonresidential permits were issued in 1997. These represent a variety of project types,
including commercial and industrial, institutional, recreational, as well as nonresidential,
nonbuilding projects such as parks and road or highway projects.
EPA first combined a number of project types into a larger "commercial" category, which included
hotels and motels and retail and office projects, as well as religious, public works, and educational
projects.3 EPA's reasoning for including the latter categories under the commercial category is
based on engineering judgment that erosion and sediment control practices would be similar across
each project type. The total estimated number of commercial permits in 1997 was 254,566 (59.7
percent of the nonresidential total). (EPA calculated an estimate for the industrial category, which
totaled 12,140 permits (2.8 percent), separately.) The residual 159,318 permits (37.4 percent), are
nonbuilding, nonresidential projects that include parks, bridges, roads, and highways. EPA
accounts for these projects in the steps described below.
3 The commercial category included: hotels/motels, amusement, religious, parking garages, service stations,
hospitals, offices, public works, educational, stores, and other nonresidential buildings.
March, 2004
4-9
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
For the industrial and commercial categories, EPA reviewed the project size data collected from the
14-community Phase II rule survey referenced earlier (EPA, 1999). This study identified 817
commercial sites occupying 5,514 acres and 115 industrial sites occupying 689 acres. The average
site sizes are 6.7 and 6.0 acres, respectively.
EPA also reviewed estimates from CWP (2001) on the average percent of commercial and
industrial sites taken up by the building footprint. These percentages, 19.1 and 19.6 respectively,
were multiplied across the model project site sizes of 0.5, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres to estimate
building size on each site, assuming single-story buildings in each case. These estimates are shown
in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5. Average Building Square Footage
Project Size
(Acres)
Commercial
Industrial
0.5
4,160
4,269
3
24,960
25,666
7.5
62,400
64,164
25
207,999
213,880
70
582,397
598,863
200
1,663,992
1,711,037
Estimates were obtained by multiplying the site size in square feet by the percentage of the site estimated to be
occupied by the building footprint, based on data from CWP (2001).
As seen in the table, the average building size corresponding to the 6- to 7- acre sites estimated
from the 14-community study are in the 60,000 square feet range. EPA next examined R.S. Means'
Building Construction Cost Data (2000), which provides cost data for "typical" commercial and
industrial buildings. As part of the cost data, R.S. Means identifies the typical range of building
sizes based on a database of actual projects. Table 4-6 shows the typical size and size range for a
variety of building types that would fall into either the commercial or industrial category. While
some of the building types correspond with the estimated average of 60,000 square feet, these
appear high for other categories, such as low-rise office and supermarkets, warehouses, and
elementary schools. EPA believes generally that there are more small projects than large ones. As
a result, EPA inferred that this approach would suggest an average building size of 25,000 square
feet, which implies an average site size of 3 acres, based on Table 4-5.
To reconcile the estimates obtained from the two approaches, EPA has taken the midpoint of the
estimates. For commercial development, EPA assumes an average site size of 4.85 acres (the
average of 6.7 and 3.0 acres) and for industrial development EPA assumes an average site size of
4.5 acres (the average of 6.0 and 3.0 acres).
March, 2004
4-10
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-6. Typical Building Sizes and Size Ranges by Type of Building
Building Category/Type
Typical Size
(Gross Square Feet)
Typical Range
(Gross Square Feet)
Low
High
Commercial - Supermarkets
20,000
12,000
30,000
Commercial - Department Store
90,000
44,000
122,000
Commercial - Low-Rise Office
8,600
4,700
19,000
Commercial - Mid-Rise Office
52,000
31,300
83,100
Commercial - Elementary®
41,000
24,500
55,000
Industrial - Warehouse
25,000
8,000
72,000
" For the purpose of this analysis EPA combined a number of building types, including educational, under the
commercial category.
Source: R.S. Means, 2000.
The resulting average project sizes were then multiplied by the estimated number of commercial
and industrial permits to obtain an estimate of the total acreage developed for these project
categories. Table 4-7 shows the results of this "bottom-up" approach to estimating the number of
acres of land developed. The overall estimate of the amount of land developed is 2.01 million acres
per year. Residential single-family development accounts for 24.4 percent of the total, multifamily
development for 11.5 percent, commercial for 61.4 percent, and industrial for 2.7 percent.
March, 2004
4-11
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-7. National Estimates of Land Area Developed Per Year, Based on Building Permit
Data
Type of Construction
Permits
Average
Site Sizea
Acres Disturbed
Number
Pet. of
Total
Number
Pet. of
total
Residential
Single-family
1,043,045
77.5%
0.47
490,231
24.4%
Multifamily
35,672
2.7%
6.5
231,868
11.5%
Nonresidential
Commercial11
254,566
18.9%
4.9
1,234,645
61.4%
Industrial
12,140
0.9%
4.5
54,630
2.7%
Total
1,345,423
100.0%
—
2,011,374
100.0%
" For single-family residential, this is the average of the average lot size for new construction in 1999 (BOC, 2000b)
and the average obtained in EPA (1999). For all other categories, the site sizes are EPA assumptions based on
representative project profiles contained in R.S. Means (2000) and the 14-community survey conducted in support of
the Phase IINPDES storm water rule (EPA, 1999).
b A number of project types were grouped together to form the "commercial" category, including: hotels/motels,
amusement, religious, parking garages, service stations, hospitals, offices, public works, educational, stores, other
nonresidential buildings.
This estimate of 2.01 million acres of annual developed land (Table 4-7) is close to the estimate of
2.2 million acres obtained from NRI. For the purpose of developing national compliance costs of
the options and calculating loadings reductions, EPA has allocated the entire NRI developed
acreage (excluding Puerto Rico and Hawaii) into the four land use categories according to the
percentages shown in the final column of Table 4-7. This revised estimate is shown in Table 4-8.
March, 2004
4-12
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-8. National Estimates of Land Area Developed Per Year, Based on National
Resources Inventory Totals
Type of Construction
Developed Area Based on Permits
Data
Developed Acres
Based on NRI Data b
Acres3
Pet. of Total
Residential
Single-family
490,231
24.4%
540,800
Multifamily
231,868
11.5%
253,358
Nonresidential
Commercialc
1,234,645
61.4%
1,366,387
Industrial
54,630
2.7%
59,009
Total
2,011,374
100.0%
2,219,553
aFrom Table 4-7.
b This column distributes the total acreage estimated in NRI to be converted on an annual basis according to the distribution by
type of development estimated through analysis of permits data. See also Tables 4-2 through 4-6.
c A number of project types were grouped together to form the "commercial" category, including: hotels/motels, amusement,
religious, parking garages, service stations, hospitals, offices, public works, educational, stores, other nonresidential buildings.
4.2.2.3 Distribution of Developed Acreage by Project Size
For each of the four land use categories in Table 4-8, EPA developed procedures to allocate
developed acre estimates into six site size categories: 0.5, 3, 7.5, 25, 70 and 200 acres. EPA
evaluated the survey data collected from 14 municipalities in support of the Phase II storm water
rule. This survey identified 14 communities that consistently collect project type and size data as
part of their construction permitting programs. From this data set, EPA was able to determine the
percentage of projects and developed acreage for each of the six site size groups and four land use
categories. Table 4-9 shows the distribution of the 14 community survey data by project size for
each of the four land use categories (single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial
and industrial). The percentages shown in the "Percent Acres by Size" column of Table 4-9 for each
land use type were used to assign total estimated developed acres to site sizes for each of the four
land use categories, based on the total developed NRI acreage by category shown in the last column
of Table 4-8. The result of this allocation is shown in Table 4-10. The totals differ slightly as
fractional sites were rounded to whole numbers. EPA further subdivided developed acreage to a
state-level based on the state-specific developed acreage estimates contained in the NRI data and
shown in Table 4-2. This distribution to a state-level was necessary for the costing analysis, since
costs were calculated on a state-level basis to account for the existing state programs in place. Sites
were further subdivided to a watershed level (based in Hydrologic Unit Codes, or "HUCs) for the
loadings analysis. At both of these steps, fractional sites were again rounded to whole numbers. As
a result, the state and HUC totals of sites and developed acreage do not sum to the national totals.
However, the variation is minor.
March, 2004
4-13
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-9. Distribution of 14 Community Survey Permits by Site Size
Site Size
(Acres)
No. of
Permits
Acres by
Size
Pet. Acres
by Size
Site Size
(Acres)
No. of
Permits
Acres by
Size
Pet. Acres
by Size
Single-Family Residential
Commercial
0.5
266
133
1.2%
0.5
266
133
2.5%
3
228
684
6.0%
3
356
1,068
19.8%
7.5
138
1,035
9.1%
7.5
86
645
12.0%
25
175
4,375
38.6%
25
91
2,275
42.3%
70
30
2,100
18.5%
70
16
1,260
23.4%
200
15
3,000
26.5%
200
0
0
0.0%
Total
852
11,327
100.0%
Total
815
5,381
100.0%
Multifamily Residential
Industrial
0.5
43
22
0.6%
0.5
39
20
2.9%
3
100
300
8.7%
3
55
165
24.6%
7.5
61
458
13.3%
7.5
10
75
11.2%
25
71
1,775
51.4%
25
8
200
29.9%
70
10
700
20.3%
70
3
210
31.4%
200
1
200
5.8%
200
0
0
0.0%
Total
286
3,455
100.0%
Total
115
670
100.0%
Total
0.5
614
307
1.5%
3
739
2,217
10.6%
7.5
295
2,213
10.6%
25
345
8,625
41.4%
70
59
4,270
20.5%
200
16
3,200
15.4%
Total
2,068
20,832
100.0%
Based on permitting data from the following municipalities or counties: Austin, TX; Baltimore County, MD; Cary, NC; Ft.
Collins, CO; Lacey, WA; Loudoun County, VA; New Britain, CT; Olympia, WA; Prince George's County, MD; Raleigh, NC;
South Bend, IN; Tallahassee, FL; Tuscon, AZ; and Waukesha, WI.
Assumes sites less than 1 acre are represented by an average of 0.5 acres.
Source: USEPA, 1999
March, 2004
4-14
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-10. Distribution of National Construction by Site Size and Development Type
Site Size
(Acres)
No. of
Permits
Acres by
Size
Pet. Acres
by Size
Site Size
(Acres)
No. of
Permits
Acres by
Size
Pet. Acres
by Size
Single-Family Residential
Commercial
0.5
12,753
6,377
1.2%
0.5
67,590
33,795
2.5%
3
10,932
32,796
6.1%
3
90,458
271,374
19.9%
7.5
6,611
49,582
9.2%
7.5
21,845
163,838
12.0%
25
8,387
209,675
38.8%
25
23,116
577,900
42.3%
70
1,431
100,170
18.5%
70
4,564
319,480
23.4%
200
711
142,200
26.3%
200
0
0
0.0%
Total
40,825
540,800
100.0%
Total
207,573
1,366,387
100.0%
Multifamily Residential
Industrial
0.5
3,178
1,589
0.6%
0.5
3,491
1,746
3.0%
3
7,408
22,224
8.8%
3
4,931
14,793
25.1%
7.5
4,514
33,855
13.4%
7.5
888
6,660
11.3%
25
5,258
131,450
51.9%
25
710
17,750
30.1%
70
732
51,240
20.2%
70
258
18,060
30.6%
200
65
13,000
5.1%
200
0
0
0.0%
Total
21,155
253,358
100.0%
Total
10,278
59,009
100.0%
Total
0.5
87,012
43,507
2.0%
3
113,729
341,187
15.4%
7.5
33,858
253,935
11.4%
25
37,471
936,775
42.2%
70
6,985
488,950
22.0%
200
776
155,200
7.0%
Total
279,831
2,219,554
100.0%
Based on permitting data from the following municipalities or counties: Austin, TX; Baltimore County, MD; Cary, NC; Ft.
Collins, CO; Lacey, WA; Loudoun County, VA; New Britain, CT; Olympia, WA; Prince George's County, MD; Raleigh, NC;
South Bend, IN; Tallahassee, FL; Tuscon, AZ; and Waukesha, WI.
Assumes sites less than 1 acre are represented by an average of 0.5 acres.
Source: USEPA, 1999
4.2.2.4 State-Level Estimation of Developed Acreage and Sites
Based on the state-level estimates of the amount of construction acreage occurring annually, the
number of national construction sites by land use in Table 4-9 was distributed to the state level.
Table E-l in Appendix E indicates the number of construction sites by site size and land use for
each state.
March, 2004
4-15
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
4.2.2.5 Estimates of Number of Sites and Acreage Covered by Regulatory Options
Based on the information in Table 4-9 and 4-10, EPA was able to estimate the amount of acreage
covered under the various regulatory options considered. This information is illustrated in Table 4-
11. It is important to note, however, that these estimates include all national construction acreage
occurring annually in the U.S. The actual number of sites that would be required to implement
controls in response to the Option 4 is actually much lower than for Options 1 and 2, since in many
states the existing requirements are equivalent to or more stringent than the requirements contained
in this option. For Options 1 and 2, however, since no states currently have equivalent inspection
and certification requirements the number of sites and acreage incurring costs are the same as the
entire universe of sites that would have been subject to the guidelines under these options. Table 4-
12 contains EPA's estimates of the number of sites and acreage that are actually expected to incur
costs as a result of the regulatory options considered. This table integrates the results of the state
equivalency analysis presented in Section 7 with the state-level estimates of construction sites by
site size and land use presented in Table E-l in Appendix E.
Table 4-11. National Construction Acreage Subject to Effluent Guidelines Requirements
Type of
Construction
Option 1
Options 2 and 4
Acres
Number of
Construction
Sites
Acres
Number of
Construction
Sites
Single-family
Residential
534,424
28,072
501,628
17,140
Multi-family
Residential
251,769
17,977
229,545
10,569
Commercial
1,332,592
139,983
1,061,218
49,525
Industrial
57,263
6,787
42,470
1,856
Total
2,176,047
192,819
1,834,860
79,090
Percent of
National Total
98.0 %
68.9 %
82.7 %
28.3 %
March, 2004
4-16
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 4-12. Acreage Incurring Costs Under Options Considered
Type of
Construction
Option 1
Option 2
Option 4
Acres
Number
of Sites
Acres
Number
of Sites
Acres
Number
of Sites
Single-family
Residential
534,424
28,072
501,628
17,140
324,478
11,087
Multi-family
Residential
251,769
17,977
229,545
10,569
148,481
6,837
Commercial
1,332,592
139,983
1,061,218
49,525
686,450
32,035
Industrial
57,263
6,787
42,470
1,856
27,472
1,201
Total
2,176,047
192,819
1,834,860
79,090
1,186,881
51,159
Percent of
National Total
98.0 %
68.9 %
82.7 %
28.3 %
53.5 %
18.3%
4.3 REFERENCES
BOC. 2000a. 1997 Economic Census-Construction Sector Special Study: Housing Start Statistics,
a Profile of the Homebuilding Industry. Issued July 2000. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington,
DC.
BOC. 2000b. New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits in Permit-
issuing Places, Annual Data. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
Caterpillar. 2000. Caterpillar, Inc.
Construction Equipment On-line. 2000. Reed Business Information, U.S.,
CWP. 2001. Impervious Cover and Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Ellicott City,
MD: Center for Watershed Protection, January. Additional data table, "Chesapeake bay watershed
impervious cover results by land use polygon," received via a facsimile from Tetra Tech, Inc.,
September 20, 2001.
Lynch, Kevin and Hack, Gary. 1984. Site Planning (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
NAHB. 2002. Characteristics of New Multifamily Buildings 1987-1999. National Association of
Home Builders, . Accessed May 29, 2001.
March, 2004
4-17
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Peurifoy, Robert L. and Oberlender, Garold D. (1989). Estimating Construction Costs (4th ed.).
New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
R.S. Means. 2000. Building Construction Cost Data 58th Annual Edition. R.S. Means Co.,
Kingston, Massachusetts.
USDA. 2000. 1997 National Resources Inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. .
USEPA. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. Washington, DC.
March, 2004
4-18
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SECTION 5: TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
This technology assessment of available data sources is intended to determine the depth and breadth
of effectiveness data for various erosion and sediment controls, and to identify the amount and
quality of data available to describe the performance of all currently used and innovative
construction site runoff control practices, the ability of each practice to effectively control impacts
due to runoff, and the design criteria or standards currently used to size each practice to ensure
effective control of runoff.
5.1 CONSTRUCTION EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS
5.1.1 INTRODUCTION
This assessment addresses the erosion and sediment control BMPs for the construction phase of
development. Prior to initiating this aspect of the work, EPA reviewed the findings of information
sources and literature assessments to identify the appropriate definition of "performance" or the
various definitions or "levels" of performance that are considered in evaluating and defining the
levels of performance for these BMPs. A scientific-based approach to describe the performance of
erosion and sediment control BMPs was devised similar to the approach developed by Barfield and
Clar (1985) in the evaluation of the Maryland Erosion and Sediment Control Standards, as well as
the one recently developed in the American Society of Civil Engineers BMP Database (ASCE,
1999). The approach used in this assessment has been designed to provide the information needed
to address several important issues, including whether to use a design-based approach, or an
effluent-based concentration, or a loading approach in reporting on the current status of the
technology. This sub-section identifies the following:
The amount and quantity of data available to describe the performance of all currently used and
innovative runoff control practices.
The ability of each practice to effectively control impacts due to runoff.
The design criteria or standards currently used to size each practice to ensure effective control
of runoff.
Before a detailed evaluation of the BMPs can be provided, some background information is
necessary. Sub-section 5.2 describes the procedure for assessing the technology. Sub-section 5.3
provides a historical background on the subject. Next, sub-section 5.4 presents a discussion of
goals, control strategies, criteria, and standards in general, and sub-section 5.5 provides a detailed
description and discussion of each BMP.
In the discussion of BMPs in sub-section 5.5, the major focus will be on sediment. This does not
imply that there are no other impacts; however, construction BMPs have focused on erosion and
sediment control rather than on other impacts.
March, 2004
5-1
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
In the assessment of BMPs, considerable attention is focused on whether to use a design-based
approach, an effluent-based concentration, or a loading approach in reporting on the current status
of the technology. Attention is also given to the recent emphasis in the literature on the use of an
integrated approach to evaluate impacts to the receiving waters and downstream areas.
5.1.2 PROCEDURE FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
5.1.2.1 Identification of Performance Goals
In assessing the literature, particular consideration was given to definitions of performance of
BMPs and how they addressed the range of receiving water impacts identified. It is important to
point out that the overarching performance goal of all the BMPs is to minimize the impact of
construction site runoff on receiving waters and downstream areas.
Control strategies that have been identified for construction BMPs can be divided into three
categories.
Strategy 1. Control Based on Design Standards—Control at this level is based on standard designs
that may include such things as volume requirements for reservoirs, detention time, and trapping
efficiency that do not directly limit an allowable discharge to receiving waters or limit a
downstream impact.
Strategy 2. Control Based on Effluent Standards—Control at this level is based on limiting the
quantity of one or more substances such as peak discharge, runoff volume, TSS, and settleable
solids. This directly addresses effluent but does not directly address downstream impacts.
Strategy 3. Control Based on an Integrated Approach—Control at this level uses an integrated
approach (Snodgrass et al., 1998), including biological, chemical, and physical criteria, to define
BMP performance. A combination of water quality, biohabitat, and geomorphic criteria is used to
evaluate whether a receiving stream meets the targeted goal of fishable and swimmable, or the
extent of departure from this goal.
The majority of BMPs address Strategies 1 or 2. Although Strategy 3 is being discussed in the
literature, it has not been adopted in practice. There is an analog in the surface mining industry,
where a cumulative hydrologic impact analysis on a watershed basis is required by the U.S. Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977 (PL95-87). When moving from Strategy 2 to Strategy 3, a
number of other parameters are added to the performance criteria in Strategy 2, including (1) stream
buffer retention and thermal impacts considerations, (2) volume control considerations such as
these presented in the Low Impact Development concept approach, which are added to the peak
discharge and ground water recharge criteria to achieve maintenance of hydrologic function at a
site-specific level, and (3) geomorphic criteria as described by Lane (1955), Leopold et al. (1964),
Rosgen (1996), and others.
March, 2004
5-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
An important point must be made about controlling sediment. From a practical standpoint, a
reasonably sized structure should not necessarily be expected to meet an effluent TSS standard
unless the TSS specified in the standard is set at a very high value or unless some form of chemical
treatment is used to enhance flocculation. The settling velocity for primary clay particles is in the
range of feet per month for all but the largest particles. Since these size particles are frequently
encountered in large percentages in sediment from construction sites, the expected trapping
efficiencies will not approach 100 percent, nor will the effluent TSS be in the range of 100 mg/L or
lower (Haan et al., 1994).
5.1.2.2 Goals, Environmental Impact Areas, And Assessment Scales
For the purposes of this report, impact areas are divided into three categories: local area, receiving
water, and downstream areas.
Local Area. This is the area between the construction site and the receiving stream. Typically,
these areas have ephemeral streams with low baseflows and highly variable flow rates. In these
areas, flows fluctuate widely, with geomorphology and habitat being very susceptible to changes in
hydrologic regime (Klaine, 2000). In some developments, there would essentially be no local area,
and flows would exit directly into receiving waters.
Receiving Waters. This is the point at which flows enter a well-defined stream. Depending on the
local geology, flows may primarily be ephemeral, there may be a well-established baseflow, or
there may be intermediate flow. The degree to which flows, sediment, and chemicals impact
receiving waters depends largely on the type of receiving water. For example, if the receiving
waters have a low baseflow and highly variable flow rates, the habitat and geomorphology will be
very sensitive to significant changes in the hydrologic regime. However, if the receiving waters
have a high baseflow, the sensitivity to changes in flow rate will be much less and the primary
problems will likely be chemical in nature. Thus, it is important to address impacts on a site-
specific basis.
Downstream Areas. A definition of the downstream area can be somewhat nebulous. (A
definition of the aerial extent of "downstream areas" is something that needs to be developed in
follow-up studies.) However, consideration of this area is important. For example, use of peak
discharge criteria may directly control the local area impacts and impacts to the point at which flow
enters the receiving waters. If the watershed being considered is combined with other downstream
watersheds and all use peak discharge control without controlling runoff volume, there can be an
increase in flooding due to superposition of long duration peak flows exiting the numerous
reservoirs (Smiley and Haan, 1976). This increased discharge can negatively impact channel
geomorphology, habitat, and riparian areas.
Another important issue related to construction is the fraction of the watershed under construction
at any one time. One argument about the relative importance of the construction phase versus the
post-construction phase is that the construction phase is short-lived and the impact may be
reversible after the site has stabilized. While this argument may have some validity on the local
March, 2004
5-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
area, it is invalid when considering the downstream areas. On a larger watershed under
development, major construction may occur in the watershed for a long time, with a potential long-
term major cumulative impact. When considering the entire watershed, it may be desirable to limit
the area under construction at any one time to prevent exceeding some threshold that would result
in an irreversible impact. This indicates the need to conduct a cumulative impact analysis on a river
basin scale to evaluate the potential for such an impact to occur.
When considering area impacts, the following comments can be made about the strategies listed
above.
Strategy 1. No guarantees can be made that impacts would be controlled at any level unless the
design standards are highly conservative. This would result in overdesign for most situations so
that the standard would be adequate for all situations.
Strategy 2. This strategy should ensure control at the local level. Downstream, the impacts may be
positive or negative as a result of the control. Examples include the control of peak discharge only
in storm water runoff. Control of peak discharge on all construction areas at the local level can
result in increased peak discharge downstream (Smiley and Haan, 1976). These increases result
from detaining increased volumes of runoff resulting from urbanization and releasing them at the
predisturbed peak rate over a long period of time.
Strategy 3. This approach should ensure control in both the local area and downstream areas.
Scale is very important to BMP effectiveness analyses. A given BMP may be quite effective in
controlling impacts nearby but have a significant negative impact when applied over a large area.
In the final analysis, effectiveness should be evaluated at multiple scales before a decision is made.
This will require both local- and watershed-level analyses.
5.1.2.3 Qualitative Versus Quantitative Assessment
In the assessments, impacts may be addressed on a qualitative or a quantitative basis. The
difference can be explained in the following manner, using water temperature as an example. It is
well known that turbidity impacts the depth of penetration of solar energy into a waterbody; hence,
turbidity impacts temperature. When evaluating the impact of standards on water temperature, it is
obvious that a TSS standard directly addresses water temperature because of the impact of TSS on
turbidity. Thus, a qualitative analysis would simply state that TSS standards may impact water
temperature, but give no degree to which the standard does impact temperature. A quantitative
analysis, however, would define the degree to which a given TSS standard increased or decreased
the impact of TSS on temperature.
March, 2004
5-4
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5.1.3 REVIEW OF HISTORICAL APPROACHES TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL
Most early sediment control was related to agriculture and was installed as a way to maintain our
natural resource base. On-site control was the primary emphasis, attempting to prevent erosion
rather than trap sediment. Strategies were developed to minimize exposure of bare soil to the
erosive power of rainfall and runoff, using aboveground cover management, residue management,
strip cropping, and terracing to limit the length of overland flow. Impacts to receiving streams and
downstream areas had not yet been identified as an issue. In the 1960s, concern began to be
expressed about the quantities of sediment in streams and reservoirs, and sediment was first
identified as a pollutant. Initially, the major focus of sediment control was on the surface mining
industry, with the passage of the Clean Water Act and then the Surface Mining, Reclamation, and
Control Act (SMRCA) (PL 95-87). The first approach taken to sediment control was a design
standard, requiring a sediment detention basin with a 24-hour detention time; TSS standards of 35
mg/L average and 70 mg/L peak were also promulgated, but were not typically enforced. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) later evaluated the TSS standard and moved to a
settleable solids standard of 0.5 mL/L, based on a modeling effort that showed that it was not
possible to trap fine sediments, but that a 0.5 mL/L settleable solids standard could be met with a
reasonably sized sediment basin (Ettinger and Lichty, 1979).
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, sediment in streams and waterways originating from urban
construction sites became an issue, which was then addressed in the Clean Water Act. EPA
developed a list of BMPs and standards for their construction (USEPA, 1971). In general, these
standards were adopted from those of other agencies and were not based on studies related to urban
runoff.
In 1987, the Clean Water Act was amended to include storm water discharges from urban areas.
The Phase INPDES Storm Water regulations were published in 1990, requiring all municipalities
with Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) serving populations greater than 100,000,
construction sites 5 acres and larger, and certain industrial sites to obtain a permit. The permit
required the development of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that typically
included a storm water and sediment control plan. In 1999, the Phase II NPDES storm water
regulations were published, extending permit coverage to construction sites of 1 acre or larger and
municipalities with populations greater than 50,000 (or populations greater than 10,000 where
population density is more than 1,000 people per square mile). The regulations allow use of general
permits in lieu of individual site or facility permits. The degree of oversight of construction varies
widely among the states.
In the last two decades, increased concern at the local level has been focused on sediment pollution
of streams and waterways, particularly originating from construction, while less concern has been
focused on the impacts of increased construction on storm water and chemical production. Much of
this government concern originated from the Phase I and Phase II NPDES storm water regulations.
A number of states and their local agencies have developed standards and BMPs for sediment
control, most of which do not have a scientific basis, but were adopted from other agencies. Some
March, 2004
5-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
states, however, did conduct studies that gave their standards some scientific basis. For example,
Maryland evaluated its BMP standards in the 1980s by using modeling techniques, and the state
changed its sediment basin standards to account for the impacts of surface area on the trapping
efficiency in sediment ponds. Based on typical soils in the region and modeling studies, the state
adopted a surface area to peak discharge ratio of 0.01 cubic feet per second (cfs) per acre as a
criterion (Barfield and Clar, 1985; McBurnie et al., 1990). Maryland was thus the first state to use a
design criterion that was related to the overflow rate. Other states also used some of Maryland's
results (Smolen et al., 1988).
Recent efforts have moved closer to an effluent standard approach. South Carolina conducted a
detailed analysis and published regulations that required a trapping efficiency or settleable solids
standard (SCDHEC, 1995). In addition, results from a detailed model were used to develop
simplified design aids (Hayes and Barfield, 1995; Holbrook et al., 1998). Some municipalities are
following suit to develop scientifically based standards of their own. For example, in 1998
Louisville, Kentucky, (Hayes et al., 2001) developed standards and design aids for storm water and
sediment control, following the example of South Carolina.
There are no analogous examples in which the integrated approach to storm water and sediment
control have been used on construction sites. The closest analog is the Cumulative Hydrologic
Impact Analysis (CHIA) required in surface mining by the SMRCA. SMRCA requires each
applicant for a surface mining permit to conduct a hydrologic impact analysis. Subsequently, the
regulatory authority is required to conduct a CHIA for the entire watershed. It should be pointed
out that although a CHIA is required, it is seldom undertaken on a scale that is useful.
Many of the advances in sediment control have been based on the capability to predict, a priori, the
ability of a given design to meet a standard. For example, when the settleable solids standard was
developed for surface mining, most regulatory authorities adopted it with the requirement that
permit applicants would demonstrate through the use of widely accepted computer models that the
proposed design would meet the settleable solids standard.
Most of the early work in modeling sediment production stemmed from efforts in the 1950s to
develop a soil loss equation that would apply to the entire nation and allow evaluation of alternative
erosion control practices. This led to the relationship known as the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) (Wischmeier and Smith, 1965) and its subsequent derivative, the Revised USLE (RUSLE)
(Renard et al., 1994). These efforts focus on erosion control; thus, the relationships do not predict
sediment yield. A flurry of efforts in the late 1970s and early 1980s lead to the development of
sediment yield relationships such as the Modified USLE (MUSLE) (Williams, No Date), the
CREAMS model (Knisel, 1980), SEDCAD (Warner, 1998), and SEDIMOT II (Wilson et al., 1982)
and its derivatives. The MUSLE and CREAMS models did not include methods to evaluate the
impact of sediment trapping structures, but SEDIMOT II contained relationships developed at the
University of Kentucky to predict the impact of reservoirs (Ward et al., 1977; Wilson and Barfield,
1984), check dams (Hirschi, 1981), and vegetative filter strips (Hayes et al., 1984). The MUSLE
and , SEDCAD and SEDIMOT II models were based on single storms, while the CREAMS model
March, 2004
5-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
was based on continuous simulation modeling. Details on these models can be found in Haan et al.
(1994).
More recently, modeling has improved, resulting in several new relationships. The WEPP
watershed model is one example of a continuous simulation approach. It includes computational
procedures for a wide variety of sediment control structures (Lindley et al., 1998). Another
example of a single storm-based model is SEDIMOT HI (Barfield et al., 1996), which modifies the
earlier SEDIMOT II model to include channel erosion routines and a wide variety of sediment
control techniques. A significant drawback in the SEDIMOT HI and WEPP models is that they do
not have a good technique for predicting the impact of filter fence, which is the most common
technique used today for sediment control. The authors of SEDCAD have attempted to provide
algorithms to represent (silt) filter fence removals, although work remains prior to global
acceptance in the literature.
Concerns for changes in geomorphology resulting from flow alterations have resulted in several
modeling approaches. Early efforts were focused on what is known as the regime theory, in which
changes in channel property are linked, qualitatively, to changes in flow. Examples include models
of Lane (1955) and Schumm (1977). In addition, some statistically based models were developed,
but they are not universally applicable (Blench, 1970; Simons and Albertson, 1960). More recently,
models have been developed using physically based concepts to predict changes in geomorphology
as related to changes in flow. The models of Chang (1988) are good examples. It is possible to
predict, to a limited extent, the change in channel properties as impacted by changes in flow.
The impact of changes in flow and geomorphology on habitat is one major area where information
is lacking. Although this deficiency can be addressed in a qualitative manner, it is not possible to
predict quantitatively how a given change in geomorphology will impact habitat. Additional
information is needed to develop a strategy based on the integrated assessment approach.
5.1.4 GOALS, CONTROL STRATEGIES, CRITERIA, AND STANDARDS
5.1.4.1 Goals, Control Strategies, Criteria, And Standards: How They Relate
The relationship between goals, control strategies, criteria, and standards can sometimes be
confusing. For the purpose of the discussion of construction BMPs, the following definitions will
be used.
Goal. The overarching objective of having a storm water, sediment, and pollution control program
is known as the goal. It is what the program is trying to achieve. All BMPs should relate to that
goal. As stated earlier, the goal of this program is to minimize the impact of construction on
receiving water and downstream areas. The impacts of concern are identified in the Environmental
Assessment.
Control Strategies. The methods by which the regulatory agency tries to achieve the goal are
called control strategies.
March, 2004
5-7
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Criteria. The particular variables that are targeted by a given strategy are known as the criteria.
For example, if the strategy is to control impacts by limiting the discharge of sediment to the
receiving waters, then sediment becomes the criterion.
Standard. The specific variable chosen for the criteria and its numeric value is referred to as the
standard. For example, if the control strategy is to limit sediment discharge to the receiving waters,
the criterion is sediment, and the particular limiting variable and numeric value chosen is a peak
settleable solids concentration of 0.5 mg/L, then the standard would be a peak settleable solids
concentration of 0.5 mg/L.
The relationship among goals, control strategies, criteria, and standards is shown graphically in
Figure 5-1.
March, 2004
5-8
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure 5-1. Flow Diagram Showing Relationship Among Goals, Strategies, Criteria and
Standards
uwzt ef
XHaaMm flrtiMM
iuMfl DfinvwIniiH] AnfufeH
I
uiMi
Mnrii(4*
fiMMggf S
Ua* EttpM
Muliiai lor
nuatmm Wklin
UMliAantad
*•¦•¦¦1111111
Ctan««
Vetum
Crttirta 2
Tlapphl
HTWtnty
SiffeiHI
Htrdrslotfit
VllUlM
lh*?
Tin-
i
nmmtt
Mniafi 2
PHk
-L
SMhrtaa
Badkwnl
VtrttlM
ttaxbid 1
Criteria 3
Cf di»1
VHtMl
Hew VMiAIm*
Sea imnt VaiUBIu*
CMltl
SfrMlseM
SKwfcni 1
Pwfc Magtwigti
F*aKTB*i-
O* mump Honey
Btafd** 1
Tii ¦*
DaveiopAd
VHtltlH
ftiAndiid 1
Piifc.
Conn
Mlmtfart! 1
Wmmk Oofia
BtandudS
rm\
MnM 3
TfiU! Utttft
March, 2004
5-9
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5.1.4.2 Levels of Performance or "How Well Do The Strategies Work?"
Table 5-1 provides a description on the level of performance for the three strategies discussed in
sub-section 5.2.1.
"able 5-1. Description of Levels of Performance of Three Control Strategies
Level
Description of Performance
0
No consideration of impact.
1
Performance defined by a design standard. No guarantee that the design will control
the impact to a desired level on the specific watershed. Example: reservoir volume
standard for runoff control.
2
Effluent standard based on controlling a single entity entering receiving waters.
Control of the single parameter will not guarantee that the desired protection will
occur for receiving waters or downstream impact. Example: controlling peak storm
water discharge or peak TSS.
3
Effluent standard based on controlling two or more entities entering receiving waters,
but not all entities causing environmental impact. Example: controlling peak
discharge and sediment, but not storage volume or runoff volume.
4
Effluent standards for all entities entering receiving waters and causing environmental
impact. Even controlling all quantities entering receiving waters will not guarantee
that there are no undesired downstream impacts. Example: Controlling runoff rate,
runoff volume, peak discharge, and TSS in receiving streams does not guarantee that
there will be no undesirable biological impacts.
5
Control based on integrated evaluation of impacts on receiving stream and
downstream.
5.1.4.3 Strategies, Criteria, Standards, And Enforcement
The effectiveness of a given strategy, criterion, or standard is directly related to the ability of an
enforcement agency to enforce the rules. Thus, a given standard may theoretically provide
excellent protection to the environment, but be so difficult to enforce that it is less effective than a
less stringent standard that is enforceable. In general, the difficulty in enforcement increases as the
level of desired performance increases. An estimate of relative difficulty in enforcement is given in
Table 5-2 for the various levels of performance from Table 5-1. For example, it is easier to enforce
the design standard, since enforcement is based entirely on reviewing plans and inspection of the
site to ensure that the plans are put into action properly.
March, 2004
5-10
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Important issues related to enforcement include the following:
• A priori demonstration by the best computational technology that the proposed design can meet
the standard.
As-built inspections to verify that the installed practices match the approved plan.
Self-monitoring of effluent in the case of effluent standards, with spot checks by the regulatory
authority to make sure that evaluations are being done properly.
Evaluation of downstream impacts.
Clearly defined rules for monitoring the effectiveness of a practice.
Table 5-2. Descriptions of Levels of Difficulty in Enforcement
Level of
Performance
from Table 5-1
Difficulty in
Enforcing
(Relative)
Description of Difficulty
0
0
Nothing to enforce.
1
1
Enforcement consists of reviewing plans and ensuring
proper installation and maintenance.
2
2
Enforcement requires some monitoring and typically
requires a preconstruction review of plans and
submission of calculations showing that the standard can
be met.
3
2.5
Same as above except multiple variables.
4
2.5
Same as above.
5
5
Enforcement requires some a priori demonstration of the
expected flow and concentration changes and their
impact on receiving waters and downstream variables. In
addition, routine monitoring of downstream variables
such as geomorphology, aquatic life, aesthetics, and
riparian zones would be required.
A Priori Demonstration of Performance. A priori demonstration that a given design can meet the
standard is very important. Experience with the surface mining industry indicates that a sediment
control plan is no better than its design. In other words, if the best computational technology
indicates that the design will not meet the standard, then field monitoring of the BMP is not likely
to show that the standards are being achieved. Thus, it will be important to have scientifically
based and verified computational technologies to predict the performance of BMPs relative to
meeting a specified standard.
March, 2004
5-11
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
In recognition of this need EPA funded the development of the National Stormwater BMP Database
project by the Urban Water Resources Research Council of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE, 1999) to establish the state of the art of BMP performance with respect to
pollutant removal and peak discharge control (Level of performance 3, see Table 5-1). The database
can be found at: http://www.bmpdatabase.org/. The ASCE project team prepared a report that
contains several different methods for evaluating BMP efficiency data. This report presents
statistically based approaches that involve conducting a statistical analysis to characterize inflow
and outflow event mean concentrations (EMCs), and then evaluates whether or not there is a
statistically significant difference between the two. The application of this approach in evaluating
the data contained in the database has led the study team to conclude that evaluating effluent quality
is a good indicator of performance of BMPs with respect to pollutant removal. Although the
database currently is designed to address only permanent stormwater management practices, the
methodologies could easily be adapted to the evaluation of erosion and sediment controls.
As-built Inspections. Another important issue related to enforcement is as-built inspections of
installed practices. Although the rules may call for certification by an appropriately licensed
professional, it is important that the regulatory authority conduct routine inspections to ensure that
the licensed professionals are doing their job properly.
Monitoring. Finally, there are issues related to self-monitoring versus monitoring conducted by
the regulatory authority. The use of effluent standards would require some type of monitoring to
ensure that performance meets the standards. However, storm water and sediment control
structures that control flows are highly variable and temporally stochastic. This means that it is not
possible to plan ahead when the monitoring will occur. It will be necessary to have trained
professionals to conduct the monitoring.
A monitoring methodology for BMPs should meet three criteria: (1) provide scientifically based
numbers to evaluate effectiveness, (2) be executable and sufficiently simple to allow the use of
trained technicians who would reasonably be available to do the monitoring, and (3) be adequate to
ensure that the desired standards are met without excessive sampling or analysis. The first criterion
could be met by providing clear documentation on the monitoring methodology that specifies times,
frequency, and location of sampling relative to storms, as well as clearly articulated protocols for
handling samples. The second criteria can be met by being sure that the techniques proposed have
actually been field-applied by technicians in the monitoring business. The third criterion can be
evaluated by an error analysis that determines the expected accuracy of measurement as a function
of number and frequency of sampling.
Several possible criteria or standards have special measurement problems that should be mentioned.
These include criteria or standards based on trapping efficiency, and/or effluent TSS and settleable
solids (average or peak). The issues associated with these criteria are discussed below.
Trapping Efficiency. Literature citations frequently include studies that attempt to measure
trapping efficiency by sampling one or more inflow and outflow concentrations (Barrett et al.,
March, 2004
5-12
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
1995). While this simplicity seems attractive, it is a grossly erroneous measure of trapping
efficiency. A correct definition of trapping efficiency is given in Equation 1:
where: Mt is inflow total mass
Ma is outflow total mass
is given by integrating the product of inflow concentration and inflow rate over the duration
of a hydrograph
where: C; is inflow concentration
q; is inflow flow rate
t is time
tD is the duration of the storm
Outflow total mass M0 is calculated by substituting the subscript o for i in Equation 2. Thus, to
monitor trapping efficiency correctly, it is necessary to measure both flow and concentration as a
function of time over the duration of both inflow and outflow. Such measurement is quite difficult
and time-consuming, requiring many samples.
Statistical Evaluation of Inflow/Outflow Data (mean, median, standard deviation, coefficient
of variance). To measure average or peak TSS, it is necessary to measure TSS in the effluent over
the duration of the outflow hydrograph as well as the flow rate. This requires that multiple samples
be taken and that the samples be centered around the peak discharge. The ACSE database data
analysis document has the ability, depending upon the number of samples collected, to show a
difference between various samples. Again, this is time-consuming and difficult since the timing of
an event and the timing of the peak discharge are not known a priori. The average concentration is
a weighted concentration, using flow rate as a weighting function.
March, 2004 5-13
Equation 1: TE — (Mt - MJ / Mi
or
D
Equation 2:
o
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5.1.5 CONTROL TECHNIQUES, BMP SYSTEMS
5.1.5.1 Erosion Control and Prevention
5.1.5.1.1 Planning, Staging, Scheduling
General Description
A construction sequence schedule is a specified work schedule that coordinates the timing of land-
disturbing activities and the installation of erosion and sediment control measures. The goal of a
construction sequence schedule is to reduce on-site erosion and off-site sedimentation by
performing land-disturbing activities and installing erosion and sediment control practices in
accordance with a planned schedule (Smolen et al., 1988).
Construction site phasing involves disturbing only part of a site at a time to prevent erosion from
dormant parts (Claytor, 1997). Grading activities and construction are completed and soils are
effectively stabilized on one part of the site before grading and construction commence at another
part. This differs from the more traditional practice of construction site sequencing, in which
construction occurs at only one part of the site at the time, but site grading and other site-disturbing
activities typically occur simultaneously, leaving portions of the disturbed site vulnerable to
erosion. Construction site phasing must be incorporated into the overall site plan early on.
Elements to consider when phasing construction activities include the following (Claytor, 1997):
Managing runoff separately in each phase.
Determining whether water and sewer connections and extensions can be accommodated.
Determining the fate of already completed downhill phases.
Providing separate construction and residential accesses to prevent conflicts between residents
living in completed stages of the site and construction equipment working on later stages
(USEPA, 2000).
Applicability
Construction sequencing can be used to plan earthwork and erosion and sediment control activities
at sites where land disturbances might affect water quality in a receiving waterbody.
Design and Installation Criteria
Construction sequencing schedules should, at a minimum, include the following (NCDNR, 1988;
MDE, 1994):
The erosion and sediment control practices that are to be installed
March, 2004
5-14
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
The principal development activities
The measures that should be installed before other activities are started
The compatibility with the general contract construction schedule
Table 5-3 summarizes other important scheduling considerations in addition to those listed above.
Table 5-3. Scheduling Considerations for Construction Activities
Construction Activity
Schedule Consideration
Construction survey stakeout
Prior to initiating any construction activity a construction survey
stakeout should be conducted. The stakeout should identify the limits
of disturbance and location of control structures, especially perimeter
controls.
Pre-construction meeting between
owner, contractor, and regulatory
agency
This meeting should take place before any construction activity begins
at the site. The survey stakeout is reviewed, especially the limits of
disturbance and location of controls.
Construction access—entrance to site,
construction routes, areas designated
for equipment parking
This is the first land-disturbing activity. As soon as construction takes
place, any bare areas should be stabilized with gravel and temporary
vegetation.
Clearing and grading required for the
installation of controls
In conjunction with the construction access, the clearing and grading
required for the installation of E&S controls should take place.
Sediment traps and barriers—basin
traps, silt fences, outlet protection
After the construction site has been accessed, principal basins should
be installed, with the addition of more traps and barriers as needed
during grading.
Runoff control—diversions, perimeter
dikes, water bars, outlet protection
Install key practices after the installation of principal sediment traps
and before land grading. Additional runoff control measures may be
installed during grading.
Runoff conveyance system—stabilize
streambanks, storm drains, channels,
inlet and outlet protection, slope drains
If necessary, stabilize streambanks as soon as possible, and install the
principal runoff conveyance system with runoff control measures. The
remainder of the systems may be installed after grading.
Land clearing and grading—site
preparation (cutting, filling, and
grading; sediment traps; barriers;
diversions; drains; surface roughening)
Implement major clearing and grading after installation of principal
sediment and key runoff control measures, and install additional
control measures as grading continues. Clear borrow and disposal
areas as needed, and mark trees and buffer areas for preservation.
Surface stabilization—temporary and
permanent seeding, mulching, sodding,
riprap
Immediately apply temporary or permanent stabilizing measures to
any disturbed areas where work has been either completed or delayed.
Building construction—buildings,
utilities, paving
During construction, install any erosion and sediment control measures
that are needed.
Landscaping and final
stabilization—adding topsoil, trees, and
shrubs; permanent seeding; mulching;
sodding; riprap
This is the last construction phase. Stabilize all open areas, including
borrow and spoil areas, and remove and stabilize all temporary control
measures.
March, 2004
5-15
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Effectiveness
Construction sequencing can be an effective tool for erosion and sediment control because it
ensures that management practices are installed where necessary and when appropriate. A
comparison of sediment loss from a typical development and from a comparable phased project
showed a 42 percent reduction in sediment export in the phased project (Claytor, 1997).
Limitations
Weather and other unpredictable variables may affect construction sequence schedules. The
proposed schedule and a protocol for making changes resulting from unforseen problems should be
plainly stated in an applicable erosion and sediment control plan.
Maintenance
The construction sequence should be followed throughout the project, and the written erosion and
sediment control plan should be modified before any changes in construction activities are
executed. The plan can be updated if a site inspection indicates the need for additional erosion and
sediment control as determined by contractors, engineers, or developers.
Cost
Construction sequencing is a low-cost BMP because it requires a limited amount of a contractor's
time to provide a written plan for the coordination of construction activities and management
practices. Additional time might be needed to update the sequencing plan if the current plan is not
providing sufficient erosion and sediment control.
Although little research has been done to assess the costs of phasing versus conventional
construction costs, it is known that it will be to implement successful phasing for a larger project
(Claytor, 1997).
5.1.5.1.2 Vegetative Stabilization
Vegetation can be used during construction to stabilize and protect soil exposed to the erosive
forces of water, as well as post-construction to provide a filtration mechanism for storm water
pollutants. The following discussion refers to vegetative stabilization as a construction BMP that
stabilizes and protects soil from erosion.
General Description
Vegetative stabilization measures employ plant material to protect soil exposed to the erosive forces
of water and wind. Selected vegetation can reduce erosion by more than 90 percent (Fifield, 1999).
Natural plant communities that are adapted to the site provide a self-maintaining cover that is less
March, 2004
5-16
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
expensive than structural alternatives. Plants provide erosion protection to vulnerable surfaces by
the following (Heyer, No Date):
Protecting soil surface from the impact of raindrops.
Holding soil particles in place.
Maintaining the soil's capacity to absorb water.
Using living root systems to hold soil in place, increasing overall bank stability.
Directing flow velocity away from the streambank.
Acting as a buffer against abrasive transported materials.
Causing sediment deposition, which reduces sediment load and reestablishes the streambank.
The designer should be aware of and respond to local conditions that may influence the
development of vegetative stabilization measures. As with any planting design, climate,
maintenance practices, the availability of plant material (including native species), and many other
factors will influence such considerations as plant or seed mix selection, installation methods, and
project scheduling.
Slope Stabilization. On slopes, the goal of vegetative stabilization is not only to reduce surface
erosion but also to prevent slope failure. Vegetation should provide dense coverage to protect soils
from the direct impact of precipitation and help intercept runoff. A variety of plants should be used
to provide root systems that are distributed throughout all levels of the soil, increasing slope shear
strength and giving plants a greater ability to remove soil moisture. Uniform mats of shallow
rooting plants should be avoided because, while such plants may increase runoff infiltration, they
cannot remove soil moisture beyond the surface level, leaving slopes potentially saturated and
prone to slippage. Shallow, interlocking root systems may also increase the size of a soil slippage
by holding together and pulling down a larger area of slope after a small section has given way.
Large trees that have become unstable may also pull down slopes and should be removed. Using
plants with low water requirements can reduce the potential for soil saturation from irrigation.
Swale Stabilization. On swales, the goal of vegetative stabilization is to prevent erosion within the
swale, where runoff is concentrated and flows at higher velocities. If natural stream channels are
involved, vegetation with deep root systems should be preserved, or if absent, planted above the
channel to help maintain the channel banks. More information is provided in the subsequent
section dealing with grass-lined swales.
Surface Stabilization. On large, flat areas, the goal of vegetative stabilization is to reduce the loss
of surface soil from sheet erosion. Vegetation should provide complete coverage to reduce the force
of precipitation, which can shift soil particles to seal openings in the soil, reducing infiltration and
March, 2004
5-17
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
increasing runoff. Vegetation should also provide many stem penetrations to slow runoff and
increase infiltration. Deep rooting plants are less critical for erosion control in flat areas than on
slopes because soils are not subject to the same forces that may cause slippage on a slope. However,
trees and shrubs can increase infiltration, lessening the buildup of runoff, and transpire large
volumes of water, reducing soil saturation.
In areas susceptible to wind erosion, the goal of vegetative stabilization is to establish direct
protection of the soil. Vegetation should provide dense and continuous surface cover. Binding the
soil deeply is generally not a requirement. The ideal vegetation for this purpose is grass, which
forms a mat of protection. In areas where the vegetation is developed, the grass generally has high
maintenance requirements. In less developed, open areas, unmown grass, including perennial native
species, can be used to provide protection. Trees and shrubs also can provide protection from the
wind.
Shoreline Stabilization. In lakes and ponds, the goal of vegetative stabilization is to prevent
erosion of the shoreline. Wetland plants anchor the bottom of the lake or pond adjacent to the shore
and help dissipate the erosive energy of waves. An important consideration in planting along
shorelines is the need to establish favorable conditions for plant establishment and growth. These
include the proper grading of side slopes and the control of upland erosion to prevent the buildup of
silt and associated pollutants in the water. Designers should maintain awareness of regulatory
requirements that may influence vegetation projects in a wetland environment (USAF, 1998).
Vegetation used for shoreline stabilization work should be native material selected on the basis of
strength, resiliency, vigor, and ability to withstand periodic inundation. Woody vegetation with
short, dense, flexible tops and large root systems works well. Other important factors include rapid
initial growth, ability to reproduce, and resistance to disease and insects.
According to Heyer (No Date), most streambank stabilization plantings have used various willows,
including black willow (Salix nigra), sandbar willow (S. interior), meadow willow (S. petiolaris),
heartleaf willow (S. rigida), and Ward willow (S. caroliniana). The size used depends on the
severity of the erosion and the type of bank to be stabilized. Whatever the size, it is important to use
dormant cuttings and to remove all lateral branches. Most tree revetment projects used either
eastern red cedar (.Juniperus virginiana) or hardwoods such as northern pin oak (iQuercus
ellipsoidalis). Important suggestions include the following:
Choose trees with many limbs and branches to trap as much sediment as possible.
Select decay-resistant trees.
Use recently cut trees—dead trees are more brittle and likely to break apart.
The tree size-diameter of the tree crown should be about two-thirds of the height of the eroding
bank.
March, 2004
5-18
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Cut off any trunk without limbs.
Place the tree revetments overlapping, butt end pointing upstream.
Begin and end revetments at stable points along the bank.
Choose an anchoring system according to the bank material to be stabilized and the weight of
the object to be anchored.
Vegetative measures for streambank stabilization offer an alternative to structural measures and are
becoming well known as bioengineering techniques for streambanks. Utilizing vegetative material
for streambank stabilization could be the first step in the reestablishment of the riparian forest,
which is essential for long-term stability of the streamside and floodplain areas. Each site must be
evaluated separately as to the feasibility of using natural material (Heyer, No Date).
Vegetative streambank stabilization, with the goal to protect streambanks from the erosive forces of
flowing water, is generally applicable where bankfull flow velocity does not exceed 6 ft/sec and
soils are erosion resistant (Smolen, 1988). Table 5-4 includes general guidelines for maximum
allowable velocities in streams to be protected by vegetation.
Table 5-4. Conditions Where Vegetative Streambank Stabilization Is Acceptable
Frequency of Bankfull
Maximum Allowable Velocity
Maximum Allowable Velocity
Flow
for Highly Erodible Soil
for Erosion-Resistant Soil
> 4 times/yr
4 ft/sec
5 ft/sec
1 to 4 times/yr
5 ft/sec
6 ft/sec
< 1 time/yr
6 ft/sec
6 ft/sec
Source: Smolen, 1988.
Temporary Vegetative Stabilization. Temporary vegetative cover such as rapidly growing
annuals and legumes can be used to establish a temporary vegetative cover. Such covers are
recommended for areas that (Fifield, 1999):
Will not be brought to final grade within 30 days or are likely to be redisturbed.
Require seeding of cut and fill slopes under construction.
Require stabilization of soil storage areas and stockpiles.
Require stabilization of temporary dikes, dams, and sediment containment systems.
Require development of cover or nursery crops to assist with establishing perennial grasses.
Examples of temporary vegetation include wheat, oats, barley, millet, and Sudan grass. Temporary
seeding may not be effective in arid or semi-arid regions where seasonal lack of moisture prevents
March, 2004
5-19
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
germination. It may be necessary to use a mixture of warm and cool season grasses to ensure
germination. Mulching and geotextiles can be used to help provide temporary stabilization with
vegetation, particularly in situations where establishing cover may be difficult.
Permanent Vegetative Stabilization. Permanent vegetative cover such as a perennial grass or a
legume cover can be used to establish a permanent vegetative cover. Permanent vegetation is
recommended for (Fifield, 1999):
Final graded or cleared areas where permanent vegetative cover is needed to stabilize the soil
Slopes designated to be treated with erosion control blankets
Grass-lined channels or waterways designed to be protected with channel liners
The following sub-sections discuss the various types or means of providing vegetative stabilization.
5.1.5.1.2.1 Grass-lined Channels
General Description
Grass-lined channels, or swales, convey storm water runoff through a stable conduit. Vegetation
lining the channel reduces the flow velocity of concentrated runoff. Grassed channels are usually
not designed to control peak runoff loads by themselves and are often used in combination with
other BMPs such as subsurface drains and riprap stabilization.
Applicability
Grassed channels should be used in areas where erosion-resistant conveyances are needed, such as
in areas with highly erodible soils and slopes of less than 5 percent. They should be installed only
where space is available for a relatively large cross-section. Grassed channels have a limited ability
to control runoff from large storms and should not be used in areas where velocity exceeds 5 feet
per second unless they are on erosion-resistant soils with dense groundcover at the soil surface.
Design and Installation Criteria
Because of their ease of construction and low cost, vegetation-lined waterways are frequently used
for diversion and collection ditches. USDA's Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) Engineering Field
Manual (1979) recommends the maximum permissible velocities for individual site conditions
shown in Table 5-5.
March, 2004
5-20
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-5. Maximum Permissible Velocities for Individual Site Conditions for Grass Swales
Site Location
Velocity
Areas where only a sparse cover can be
established or maintained because of shale,
soils, or climate
3.00 ft/sec (0.91 m/sec)
If the vegetation is to be established by seeding
3.00 to 4.00 ft/sec (0.91 to 1.22 m/sec)
Areas where a dense, vigorous sod is obtained
quickly or where the runoff can be diverted out
of the waterway while the vegetation is being
established
4.00 to 5.00 ft/sec (1.22 to 1.52 m/sec)
Source: USD A, 1979
Grassed waterways typically begin eroding in the invert of the channel if the velocity exceeds the
sheer strength of the vegetation soil interface. Once the erosion process has started, it will continue
until an erosion-resistant layer is encountered. If erosion of a channel bottom is occurring, rock or
stone should be placed in the eroded area or the design should be changed (UNEP, 1994).
Grassed waterways on construction land must be able to carry peak runoff events from snowmelt
and rainstorms (in some areas limited to up to 1 cubic meter of water per second). The size of the
waterway depends on the size of the area to be drained. A typical grassed waterway cross-section is
parabolic with a nearly flat-bottom, a bottom width of 3 m, and channel depth of at least 30 cm.
Side slopes usually rise about 1 m for every 10 m horizontal distance but may be as steep as a 1 m
rise for every 2 m of horizontal distance. The waterway should follow the natural drainage path if
possible (Vanderwel and Abday, 1998). The design should be site-specific and be derived using
well-established procedures.
Lined channels are a means of carrying water to lower elevations along steep parts of a waterway.
Those portions of the waterway are precisely shaped and carefully lined with heavy-duty erosion
control matting (a geotextile product). The lining is covered with a layer of soil and seeded to
grass. The resulting channel is highly resistant to erosion. Lined channels are appropriate for
waterways that only carry water occasionally and have slopes of up to 10 percent. Companies that
sell geotextile products provide detailed information on installation of their products (Vanderwel
and Abday, 1998). The design should be site-specific and be derived using well-established
procedures. No standard procedure is available for evaluating the effectiveness of geotextile liners
for pollutant removal.
Grass-lined channels should be sited in accordance with the natural drainage system and should not
cross ridges. The channel design should not have sharp curves or significant changes in slope. The
channel should not receive direct sedimentation from disturbed areas and should be sited only on
the perimeter of a construction site to convey relatively clean storm water runoff. They should be
separated from disturbed areas by a vegetated buffer or other BMP to reduce sediment loads.
March, 2004
5-21
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Although exact design criteria should be based on local conditions, basic design recommendations
for grassed channels include the following:
Construction and vegetation of the channel should occur before grading and paving activities
begin.
Design velocities should be less than 5 ft/sec.
Geotextiles can be used to stabilize vegetation until it is fully established.
Covering the bare soil with sod or geotextiles can provide reinforced storm water conveyance
immediately.
Triangular-shaped channels should be used with low velocities and small quantities of runoff;
parabolic grass channels are used for larger flows and where space is available; trapezoidal
channels are used with large flows of low velocity (low gradient).
Outlet stabilization structures might be needed if the runoff volume or velocity has the potential
to exceed the capacity of the receiving area.
Channels should be designed to convey runoff from a 10-year storm without erosion.
The sides of the channel should be sloped less than 3:1, with V-shaped channels along roads
sloped 6:1 or less for safety.
All trees, bushes, stumps, and other debris should be removed during construction.
Effectiveness
Grass-lined channels can effectively transport storm water from construction areas if they are
designed for expected flow volumes and velocities and if they do not receive sediment directly from
disturbed areas. The primary function is to carry the flow at a higher velocity without eroding or
overtopping the channel.
Limitations
Grassed channels, if improperly installed, can alter the natural flow of surface water and have
adverse impacts on downstream waters. Additionally, if the design capacity is exceeded by a large
storm event, the vegetation might not be sufficient to prevent erosion and the channel might be
destroyed. Clogging with sediment and debris reduces the effectiveness of grass-lined channels for
storm water conveyance.
March, 2004 5-22
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Maintenance
Maintenance requirements for grass channels are relatively minimal. During the vegetation
establishment period, the channels should be inspected after every rainfall. Other maintenance
activities that should be carried out after vegetation is established are mowing, litter removal, and
spot vegetation replacement. The most important objective in the maintenance of grassed channels
is the maintaining of a dense and vigorous growth of turf. Periodic cleaning of vegetation and soil
buildup in curb cuts is required so that water flow into the channel is unobstructed. During the
growing season, channel grass should be cut no shorter than the level of design flow, and the
cuttings should be removed promptly.
Cost
Costs of grassed channels range according to depth, with a 1.5-foot-deep, 10-foot-wide grassed
channel estimated to cost between $6,395 and $17,075 per trench, while a 3.0-foot-deep, 21-foot-
wide grassed channel is estimated at $12,909 to $33,404 per trench (SWRPC, 1991).
As an alternative cost approximation, grassed channel construction costs can be developed using
unit cost values. Shallow trenching (1 to 4 feet deep) with a backhoe in areas not requiring
dewatering can be performed for $4 to $5 per cubic yard of removed material (R. S. Means, 2000).
Assuming no disposal costs (i.e., excavated material is placed on either side of the trench), only the
cost of fine grading, soil treatment, and grassing (approximately $2 per square yard of earth surface
area) should be added to the trenching cost to approximate the total construction cost. Site-specific
hydrologic analysis of the construction site is necessary to estimate the channel conveyance
requirement, however, it is not unusual to have flows on the order of 2 to 4 cfs per acre served. For
channel velocities between 1 and 3 feet per second, the resulting range in the channel cross-section
area can be as low as 0.67 square foot per acre drained to as high as 4 square feet per acre. If the
average channel flow depth is 1 foot, then the low estimate for grassed channel installation is $0.27
per square foot of channel bottom per acre served per foot of channel length. The high estimate is
$1.63 per square foot of channel bottom per acre served per foot of channel length.
5.1.5.1.2.2 Seeding
General Description
Permanent seeding, is used to control runoff and erosion on disturbed areas by establishing
perennial vegetative cover from seed. It is used to reduce erosion, decrease sediment yields from
disturbed areas, and provide permanent stabilization. This practice is both economical and
adaptable to different site conditions, and it allows selection of the most appropriate plant materials.
Seeding is a best management practice that is particularly susceptible to local conditions such as the
climatic conditions, physical and chemical characteristics of the soil, topography, and time of year.
March, 2004
5-23
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Applicability
Permanent seeding is well-suited in areas where permanent, long-lived vegetative cover is the most
practical or most effective method of stabilizing the soil. Permanent seeding can be used on
roughly graded areas that will not be regraded for at least a year. Vegetation controls erosion by
protecting bare soil surfaces from displacement by raindrop impacts and by reducing the velocity
and quantity of overland flow. The advantages of seeding over other means of establishing plants
include lower initial costs and labor inputs.
Design and Installation Criteria
Areas to be stabilized with permanent vegetation must be seeded or planted 1 to 4 months after the
final grade is achieved unless temporary stabilization measures are in place. Successful plant
establishment can be maximized with proper planning; consideration of soil characteristics;
selection of plant materials that are suitable for the site; adequate seedbed preparation, liming, and
fertilization; timely planting; and regular maintenance. Climate, soils, and topography are major
factors that dictate the suitability of plants for a particular site. The soil on a disturbed site might
require amendments to provide sufficient nutrients for seed germination and seedling growth. The
surface soil must be loose enough for water infiltration and root penetration. Soil pH should be
between 6.0 and 6.5 and can be increased with liming if soils are too acidic. Seeds can be protected
with mulch to retain moisture, regulate soil temperatures, and prevent erosion during seedling
establishment.
Seedbed preparation is critical in established vegetation. Spraying seeds on a scraped slope will
generally not provide satisfactory results. Typical seedbed preparation will begin with a soil test to
determine the amount of lime or fertilizer that should be added. In addition, tillage should be
performed that will break up clods so that seed contact can be established. When the seed is
applied, it should be covered and lightly compacted. A natural or synthetic mulch is recommended
to provide surface stabilization until the vegetation is established. In addition to providing surface
stabilization, the mulch will also retard evaporation and encourage rapid growth. A suitable tack to
hold the mulch may be necessary if the mulch is not otherwise anchored. Mulch as an erosion
control practice is covered in a subsequent sub-section.
Depending on the amount of use permanently seeded areas receive, they can be considered high- or
low-maintenance areas. High-maintenance areas are mowed frequently, limed and fertilized
regularly, and either (1) receive intense use (for example, athletic fields) or (2) require maintenance
to an aesthetic standard (for example, home lawns). Grasses used for high-maintenance areas are
long-lived perennials that form a tight sod and are fine-leaved. High-maintenance vegetative cover
is used for homes, industrial parks, schools, churches, and recreational areas.
Low-maintenance areas are mowed infrequently or not at all and do not receive lime or fertilizer on
a regular basis. Plants must be able to persist with minimal maintenance over long periods of time.
Grass and legume mixtures are favored for these sites because legumes fix nitrogen from the
March, 2004
5-24
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
atmosphere. Sites suitable for low-maintenance vegetation include steep slopes, streambanks or
channel banks, some commercial properties, and "utility" turf areas such as road banks.
Effectiveness
Seeding that results in a successful stand of grass has been shown to remove between 50 and 100
percent of total suspended solids from storm water runoff, with an average removal of 90 percent
(USEPA, 1993).
Limitations
The effectiveness of permanent seeding can be limited because of the high erosion potential during
establishment, the need to reseed areas that fail to establish, limited seeding times depending on the
season, and the need for stable soil temperature and soil moisture content during germination and
early growth. Permanent seeding does not immediately stabilize soils—temporary erosion and
sediment control measures should be in place to prevent off-site transport of pollutants from
disturbed areas. Use of mulches and/or geotextiles may improve the likelihood of successfully
establishing vegetation.
Maintenance
Grasses should emerge within 4 to 28 days and legumes within 5 to 28 days after seeding. A
successful stand should exhibit the following:
Vigorous dark green or bluish green seedlings—not yellow
Uniform density, with nurse plants, legumes, and grasses well intermixed
Green leaves—perennials remaining throughout the summer, at least at the plant bases
Seeded areas should be inspected for failure, and necessary repairs and reseeding should be made as
soon as possible. If a stand has inadequate cover, the choice of plant materials and quantities of
lime and fertilizer should be reevaluated. Depending on the condition of the stand, areas can be
repaired by overseeding or reseeding after complete seedbed preparation. If the timing is bad, an
annual grass seed can be overseeded to temporarily thicken the stand until a suitable time for
seeding perennials. Consider seeding temporary, annual species if the season is not appropriate for
permanent seeding. If vegetation fails to grow, the soil should be tested to determine whether low
pH or nutrient imbalances are responsible. Local NRCS or county extension agents can also be
contacted for seeding and soil testing recommendations.
On a typical disturbed site, full plant establishment usually requires refertilization in the second
growing season. Soil tests should be used to determine whether more fertilizer needs to be added.
Do not fertilize cool season grasses in late May through July. Grass that looks yellow may be
March, 2004
5-25
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
nitrogen deficient. Nitrogen fertilizer should not be used if the stand contains more than 20 percent
legumes.
Cost
Seeding costs range from $200 to $1,000 per acre and average $400 per acre. Maintenance costs
range from 15 to 25 percent of initial costs and average 20 percent (USEPA, 1993). R. S. Means
(2000) indicates the cost of mechanical seeding to be approximately $900 per acre, and
demonstrates that the coverage cost varies with the seed type, seeding approach and scale (total
acreage to be seeded). For example, hydro or water-based seeding for grass is estimated to be $700
per acre, but seeding of "field" grass species is only $540 per acre (Costs include materials, labor,
and equipment, with profit and overhead). If surface preparation is required, then the installation
costs increase. R. S. Means suggests the cost of fine grading, soil treatment, and grassing is
approximately $2 per square yard.
5.1.5.1.2.3 Sodding
General Description
Sodding is a permanent erosion control practice that involves laying a continuous cover of grass sod
on exposed soils. In addition to stabilizing soils, sodding can reduce the velocity of storm water
runoff. Sodding can provide immediate vegetative cover for critical areas and stabilize areas that
cannot be vegetated by seed. It can also stabilize channels or swales that convey concentrated flows
and reduce flow velocities. While sodding is not as dependent as seeding on local conditions, it
does depend on soil and climatic conditions to be successful. Watering immediately after
installation and occasionally until establishment is generally beneficial.
Applicability
Sodding is appropriate for any graded or cleared area that might erode, requiring immediate
vegetative cover. Locations particularly well-suited to sod stabilization are:
Waterways and channels carrying intermittent flow
Areas around drop inlets that require stabilization
Residential or commercial lawns and golf courses where prompt use and aesthetics are
important
Steeply sloped areas
March, 2004
5-26
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Design and Installation Criteria
Sodding eliminates the need for seeding and mulching and produces more reliable results with less
maintenance. Sod can be laid during times of the year when seeded grasses can fail. The sod must
be watered frequently within the first few weeks of installation. Some seedbed preparation is
recommended, including smoothing to provide contact between the sod and the soil surface and soil
testing to determine liming and fertilizer application rates. Since sod provides instantaneous cover,
mulches are not typically recommended, but anchoring may be appropriate on steep slopes.
The type of sod selected should be composed of plants adapted to site conditions. Sod composition
should reflect environmental conditions as well as the function of the area where the sod will be
laid. The sod should be of known genetic origin and be free of noxious weeds, diseases, and
insects. The sod should be machine cut at a uniform soil thickness of 15 to 25 mm at the time of
establishment (this does not include top growth or thatch). Soil preparation and addition of lime
and fertilizer may be needed—soils should be tested to determine whether amendments are needed.
Sod should be laid in strips perpendicular to the direction of water flow and staggered in a brick-
like pattern. The corners and middle of each strip should be stapled firmly. Jute or plastic netting
may be pegged over the sod for further protection against washout during establishment.
Areas to be sodded should be cleared of trash, debris, roots, branches, stones, and clods larger than
2 inches in diameter. Sod should be harvested, delivered, and installed within a period of 36 hours.
Sod not transplanted within this period should be inspected and approved prior to its installation.
Limitations
Compared to seed, sod is more expensive and more difficult to obtain, transport, and store. Care
must be taken to prepare the soil and provide adequate moisture before, during, and after
installation to ensure successful establishment. If sod is laid on poorly prepared soil or unsuitable
surface, the grass will die quickly because it is unable to root. Sod that is not adequately irrigated
after installation may cause root dieback because grass does not root rapidly and is subject to
drying.
Effectiveness
Sod has been shown to remove between 98 and 99 percent of total suspended solids in runoff
(USEPA, 1993). It is therefore a highly effective management practice for erosion and sediment
control.
Maintenance
Watering is very important to maintain adequate moisture in the root zone and to prevent dormancy,
especially within the first few weeks of installation, until it is fully rooted. Mowing should not
result in the removal of more than one-third of the shoot. Grass height should be maintained to be
2-3 inches long. After the first growing season, sod might require fertilization or liming.
March, 2004
5-27
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Permanent, fine turf areas require yearly fertilization. Warm-season grass should be fertilized in
late spring to early summer, and cool-season grass in late winter and again in early fall.
Cost
Average installation costs of sod average $0.20 per square foot and range from $0.10 to $1.10 per
square foot; maintenance costs are approximately 5 percent of installation costs (USEPA, 1993). R.
S. Means (2000) indicates the sodding ranges between $250 and $750 per 1000 square feet for 1"
deep bluegrass sod on level ground, depending on the size of the area treated (unit costs value are
for orders over 8,000 square feet and less than 1000 square feet, respectively). Bent grass sod values
range between $350 and $500 per 1,000 square feet; again the lower value is more likely for most
construction sites because it is for large area applications. (Costs include materials, labor, and
equipment, with profit and overhead).
5.1.5.1.2.4 Mulching
General Description
Mulching is a temporary erosion control practice in which materials such as grass, hay, wood chips,
wood fibers, straw, or gravel are placed on exposed or recently planted soil surfaces. Mulching is
highly recommended as a stabilization method and is most effective when anchored in place until
vegetation is well established. In addition to stabilizing soils, mulching can reduce the velocity of
storm water runoff. When used in combination with seeding or planting, mulching can aid plant
growth by holding seeds, fertilizers, and topsoil in place; by preventing birds from eating seeds; by
retaining moisture; and by insulating plant roots against extreme temperatures.
Mulch mattings are materials such as jute or other wood fibers that are formed into sheets and are
more stable than loose mulch. They can also be easily unrolled during the installation process and
are particularly useful in steeper areas or in channels. Netting can be used to stabilize soils while
plants are growing, although netting does not retain moisture or insulate against extreme
temperatures. Mulch binders consist of asphalt or synthetic materials that are sometimes used
instead of netting to bind loose mulches, but these have been found to have limited usefulness.
Applicability
Mulching is often used in areas where temporary seeding cannot be used because of environmental
constraints. Mulching can provide immediate, effective, and inexpensive erosion control. On steep
slopes and critical areas such as waterways, mulch matting is used with netting or anchoring to hold
it in place. Mulches can be used on seeded and planted areas where slopes are steeper than 2:1 or
where sensitive seedlings require insulation from extreme temperatures.
March, 2004
5-28
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Design and Installation Criteria
When possible, organic mulches should be used for erosion control and plant material
establishment. Suggested materials include loose straw, netting, wood cellulose, or agricultural
silage. All materials should be free of seed, and loose hay or straw should be anchored by applying
tackifier, stapling netting over the top, or crimping with a mulch crimping tool. Materials that are
heavy enough to stay in place do not need anchoring (for example, gravel). Steepness of the slope
will also affect the extent of anchoring the mulch. Other examples include hydraulic mulch
products with 100 percent post-consumer paper content, yard trimming composts, and wood mulch
from recycled stumps and tree parts. Inorganic mulches such as pea gravel or crushed granite can
be used in unvegetated areas.
Mulches may or may not require a binder, netting, or tacking. All straw and loose materials must
have a binder to hold them in place. Mulch materials that float away during storms can clog
drainage ways and lead to flooding. The extent of binding depends on the type of mulch applied.
Effective use of netting and matting material requires firm, continuous contact between the
materials and the soil. If there is no contact, the material will not hold the soil and erosion will
occur underneath the material. Grading is not necessary before mulching.
There must be adequate coverage, or erosion, washout, and poor plant establishment will result. If
an appropriate tacking agent is not applied, or if it is applied in an insufficient amount, mulch will
not withstand wind and runoff. The channel grade and liner must be appropriate for the amount of
runoff, or the channel bottom will erode. Also, hydromulch should be applied in spring, summer, or
fall to prevent deterioration of the mulch before plants can become established. Table 5-6 presents
guidelines for installing mulches, but local conditions may warrant additional requirements.
March, 2004
5-29
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-6. Typical Mulching Materials and Application Rates
Material
Rate per
Acre
Requirements
Notes
Organic Mulches
Straw
1-2 tons
Dry, unchopped,
unweathered; avoid weeds.
Spread by hand or machine;
must be tacked or tied down.
Wood fiber or
wood cellulose
0.5-1 ton
Use with hydroseeder; may
be used to tack straw. Do
not use in hot, dry weather.
Wood chips
5-6 tons
Air dry. Add fertilizer N,
12 lb/ton.
Apply with blower, chip
handler, or by hand. Not for
fine turf areas.
Bark
35 yd3
Air dry, shredded or
hammermilled, or chips.
Apply with mulch blower,
chip handler, or by hand.
Do not use asphalt tack.
Nets and Mats
Jute net
Cover
area
Heavy, uniform; woven of
single jute yarn. Used with
organic mulch.
Withstands water flow.
Excelsior
(wood fiber) mat
Cover
area
Fiberglass roving
0.5-1 ton
Continuous fibers of drawn
glass bound together with a
non-toxic agent.
Apply with compressed air
ejector. Tack with
emulsified asphalt at a rate
of 25-35 gal/1,000 ft2.
Effectiveness
Mulching effectiveness varies with the type of mulch used and local conditions such as rainfall and
runoff amounts. Percent soil loss reduction for different mulches ranges from 53 to 99.8 percent
and associated water velocity reductions range from 24 to 78 percent (Harding, 1990). Table 5-7
shows soil loss and water velocity reductions for different mulch treatments.
March, 2004
5-30
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-7. Measured Reductions in Soil Loss for Different Mulch Treatments
Mulch characteristics
Soil loss
reduction (%)
Water velocity reduction (%)
relative to bare soil
100% wheat straw/top net
97.5
73
100% wheat straw/two nets
98.6
56
70%) wheat straw/30%> coconut fiber
98.7
71
70%o wheat straw/30%> coconut fiber
99.5
78
100%o coconut fiber
98.4
77
Nylon monofilament/two nets
99.8
74
Nylon monofilament/rigid/bonded
53.0
24
Vinyl monofilament/flexible/bonded
89.6
32
Curled wood fibers/top net
90.4
47
Curled wood fibers/two nets
93.5
59
Antiwash netting(jute)
91.8
59
Interwoven paper and thread
93.0
53
Uncrimped wheat straw-2,242 kg/ha
84.0
45
Uncrimped wheat straw-4,484 kg/ha
89.3
59
Source: Harding, 1990, as cited in USEPA, 1993.
Limitations
Mulching, matting, and netting might delay seed germination because the cover changes soil
surface temperatures. The mulches themselves are subject to erosion and may be washed away in a
large storm if not sufficiently anchored with netting or tacking. Maintenance is necessary to ensure
that mulches provide effective erosion control.
Maintenance
Mulches must be anchored to resist wind displacement. Netting should be removed when
protection is no longer needed and disposed of in a landfill or composted. Mulched areas should be
inspected frequently to identify areas where mulch has loosened or been removed, especially after
March, 2004
5-31
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
rain storms. Such areas should be reseeded (if necessary) and the mulch cover replaced
immediately. Mulch binders should be applied at rates recommended by the manufacturer. If
washout, breakage, or erosion occurs, surfaces should be repaired, reseeded, and remulched, and
new netting should be installed. Inspections should be continued until vegetation is firmly
established.
Cost
The costs of seed and mulch average $1,500 per acre and range from $800 to $3,500 per acre
(USEPA, 1993). R. S. Means (2000) estimates the cost of power mulching to be $22.50 per 1,000
square feet, for large volume applications. In addition, hydro- and mechanical seeding are
approximately $700 to $900 per acre. Coverage cost varies with the seed type, seeding approach,
and scale (total acreage to be seeded). For example, hydro or water-based seeding for grass is
estimated to cost $700 per acre, but seeding of "field" grass species is only $540 per acre. (Costs
include materials, labor, and equipment, with profit and overhead.) If surface preparation is
required, then the installation costs increase. R. S. Means (2000) suggests the cost of fine grading,
soil treatment, and grassing is approximately $2 per square yard of earth surface area.
5.1.5.1.2.5 Geotextiles
General Description
Geotextiles are porous fabrics also known as filter fabrics, road rugs, synthetic fabrics, construction
fabrics, or simply fabrics. Geotextiles are manufactured by weaving or bonding fibers made from
synthetic materials such as polypropylene, polyester, polyethylene, nylon, polyvinyl chloride, glass,
and various mixtures of these materials. As a synthetic construction material, geotextiles are used
for a variety of purposes such as separators, reinforcement, filtration and drainage, and erosion
control (USEPA, 1992). Some geotextiles are made of biodegradable materials such as mulch
matting and netting. Mulch mattings are jute or other wood fibers that have been formed into sheets
and are more stable than normal mulch. Netting is typically made from jute, wood fiber, plastic,
paper, or cotton and can be used to hold the mulching and matting to the ground. Netting can also
be used alone to stabilize soils while the plants are growing; however, it does not retain moisture or
temperature well.
Geotextiles can aid in plant growth by holding seeds, fertilizers, and topsoil in place. Fabrics are
relatively inexpensive for certain applications—a wide variety of geotextiles exist to match the
specific needs of the site.
Applicability
Geotextiles can be used for erosion control by using it alone. Geotextiles can be used as matting,
which is used to stabilize the flow of channels or swales or to protect seedlings on recently planted
slopes until they become established. Matting may be used on tidal or streambanks where moving
March, 2004
5-32
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
water is likely to wash out new plantings. They can also be used to protect exposed soils
immediately and temporarily, such as when active piles of soil are left overnight.
Geotextiles are also used as separators. An example of such a use is geotextile as a separator
between riprap and soil. This "sandwiching" prevents the soil from being eroded from beneath the
riprap and maintaining the riprap's base.
Design and Installation Criteria
Many types of geotextiles are available. Therefore, the selected fabric should match its purpose.
State or local requirements, design procedures, and any other applicable requirements should be
considered. In the field, important concerns include regular inspections to determine whether
cracks, tears, or breaches are present in the fabric and to identify when repairs should be made.
Effective netting and matting require firm, continuous contact between the materials and the soil. If
there is no contact, the material will not hold the soil and erosion will occur underneath the
material.
Effectiveness
A geotextile's effectiveness depends upon the strength of the fabric and proper installation. For
example, when protecting a cut slope with a geotextile, it is important to properly anchor the fabric
using appropriate length and spacing of wire staples. This will ensure that it will not be undermined
by a storm event.
Limitations
Geotextiles (primarily synthetic types) have the potential disadvantage of being sensitive to light
and must be protected prior to installation. Some geotextiles might promote increased runoff and
might blow away if not firmly anchored. Depending on the type of material used, geotextiles might
need to be disposed of in a landfill, making them less desirable than vegetative stabilization. If the
fabric is not properly selected, designed, or installed, the effectiveness may be reduced drastically.
Maintenance
Regular inspections should be made to determine whether cracks, tears, or breaches have formed in
the fabric—it should be repaired or replaced immediately. It is necessary to maintain contact
between the ground and the geotextile at all times.
Cost
Costs for geotextiles range from $0.50 to $10.00 per square yard depending on the type chosen
(SWRPC, 1991). Geosynthetic turf reinforcement mattings (TRMs) are widely used for immediate
erosion protection and long-term vegetative reinforcement, usually for steeply sloped areas or areas
exposed to runoff flows. The Erosion Control Technology Council (a geotextile industry support
March, 2004
5-33
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
association) estimates TRMs cost approximately $7.00 per square yard (installed) for channel
protection (ECTC, 2002a). Channel protection is one of the most demanding of installations (much
more demanding than general coverage of denuded area). The ECTC (2002b) estimates the cost to
install a simple soil blanket (or rolled erosion control product), seed, and fertilizer to be $1.00 per
square yard.
5.1.5.1.2.6 Vegetated Buffer Strips
General Description
Vegetated buffers are areas of either natural or established vegetation that are maintained to protect
the water quality of neighboring areas. Buffer zones reduce the velocity of storm water runoff,
provide an area for the runoff to permeate the soil, allow ground water recharge, and act as filters to
catch sediment. The reduction in velocity also helps to prevent soil erosion.
Applicability
Vegetated buffers can be used in any area that is able to support vegetation, but they are most
effective and beneficial on floodplains, near wetlands, along streambanks, and on steep, unstable
slopes. They are also effective in separating land use areas that are not compatible and in protecting
wetlands or waterbodies by displacing activities that might be potential sources of nonpoint source
pollution.
Design and Installation Criteria
To establish an effective vegetative buffer, the following guidelines should be followed:
Soils should not be compacted.
Slopes should be less than 5 percent.
Buffer widths should be determined after careful consideration of slope, vegetation, soils, depth
to impermeable layers, runoff sediment characteristics, type and quantity of storm water
pollutants, and annual rainfall.
Buffer widths should increase as slope increases.
Zones of vegetation (native vegetation in particular), including grasses, deciduous and
evergreen shrubs, and understory and overstory trees, should be intermixed.
In areas where flows are concentrated and velocities are high, buffer zones should be combined
with other structural or nonstructural BMPs as a pretreatment.
March, 2004
5-34
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Vegetated strips have been studied extensively, with emphasis placed on their effectiveness in
removing sediment and other pollutants. Vegetated strips are most appropriate at sites where
sediment loads are relatively low, as high sediment loads will cause large quantities of deposition
along the leading edge of the vegetation. This deposition will cause the flow to divert around the
vegetation in a concentrated flow pattern, which will cause short-circuiting and greatly reduce
removal efficiency. Variability in vegetation density and uniformity often causes similar problems.
Removal efficiency depends on a combination of slope, length, and width of the filter; density of
the vegetation; sediment characteristics, hydraulics of the flow; and infiltration. The interaction of
these variables is complex and prevents the process from being reduced to a simple relationship
except on a local basis. For site-specific local conditions, methods have been developed that allow
trapping to be related to strip length and slope.
Effectiveness
Considerable data have been collected on the effectiveness of buffer strips for specific conditions.
Numerous factors such as infiltration rate, flow depth, slope, dimensions of the buffer, density and
type of vegetation, sediment size, and sediment density impact removal rates. Recent studies show
that even short vegetative buffers can trap high percentages of sediment and certain chemicals. A
significant concern is whether flow is allowed to concentrate, which will greatly reduce the travel
time through the buffer and prevent the removal of pollutants.
Several researchers have measured greater than 90 percent reductions in sediment and nitrate
concentrations; buffer/filter strips do a reasonably good job of removing phosphorus attached to
sediment, but are relatively ineffective in removing dissolved phosphorus (Gillman, 1994).
However, since the hydraulics of flow through buffer strips are not well defined and can vary
considerably based on site conditions, it is difficult to consistently estimate the effectiveness of
buffer strips.
Limitations
Vegetated buffers require plant growth before they can be effective, and land must be available on
which to plant the vegetation. If land costs are very high, buffer zones might not be cost-effective.
Although vegetated buffers help to protect water quality, they usually do not effectively mitigate
concentrated storm water flows to neighboring or downstream wetlands.
Maintenance
Keeping the vegetation in vegetated buffers healthy requires routine maintenance, which
(depending on species, soil types, and climatic conditions) can include weed and pest control,
mowing, fertilizing, liming, irrigating, and pruning. Inspection and maintenance are most important
when buffer areas are first installed. Once established, vegetated buffers do not require much
maintenance beyond the routine procedures listed earlier and periodic inspections of the areas,
especially after any heavy rainfall and at least once a year. Inspections should focus on
encroachment, gully erosion, density of vegetation, evidence of concentrated flows through the
March, 2004
5-35
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
areas, and any damage from foot or vehicular traffic. If there are more than 6 inches of sediment in
one place, it should be removed.
Cost
Conceptual cost estimates for grassed buffer strips can be made based on square footage using unit
cost values. R. S. Means (2000) estimates the cost of fine grading, soil treatment, and grassing to be
$2 per square yard. This cost estimate is based on application of traditional lawn seed. The cost for
field seed is lower than lawn seed, reducing the coverage price. Where gently sloping areas just
need to be grassed with acceptable species, the cost can be as low as $0.38 per square yard.
5.1.5.1.2.7 Erosion Control Matting
General Description
Erosion control mats can be either organic or made from a synthetic material. A wide variety of
products exist to match the specific needs of the site. Organic mats are made from such materials as
wood fiber, jute net, and coconut coir fiber. Unlike organic matter, synthetic mats are constructed
from non-biodegradable materials and remain in place for many years. These organic mats are
classified as Turf Reinforcement Mats (TRMs) and Erosion Control and Revegetation Mats
(ECRMs) (USDOT, 1995).
Erosion control matting aids in plant growth by holding seeds, fertilizers, and topsoil in place.
Matting can be used to stabilize the flow of channels or swales or to protect seedlings on recently
planted slopes until they become established. Matting can be used on tidal or streambanks where
moving water is likely to wash out new plantings. It can also be used to protect exposed soils
immediately and temporarily, such as when active piles of soil are left overnight.
Applicability
Mulch mattings, netting, and filter fabrics are particularly useful in steep areas and drainage swales
where loose seed is vulnerable to being washed away or failing to survive dry soil (UNEP, 1994).
Erosion control mats can also be used to separate riprap and soil. This results in a "sandwiching"
effect, maintaining the riprap's base and preventing the soil beneath from being eroded.
Design and Installation Criteria
Matting is especially recommended for steep slopes and channels (UNEP, 1994).
Many types of erosion control mats are available. Therefore, the selected product should match its
purpose. Effective netting and matting require firm, continuous contact between the materials and
the soil. If there is no contact, the material will not hold the soil and erosion will occur underneath
the material.
March, 2004
5-36
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Woodfiber or curled wood mat consists of curled wood with fibers, 80 percent of which are 150
mm or longer, with a consistent thickness and even distribution of fiber over the entire mat. The
top side of the mat is covered with a biodegradable plastic mesh. The mat is placed in the channel
or on the slope parallel to the direction of flow and secured with staples and check slots. This is
applied immediately after seeding operations (USDOT, 1995).
Jute net consists of jute yarn, approximately 5 mm in diameter, woven into a net with openings that
are approximately 10 by 20 mm (or 0.40 to 0.79 inches). The jute net is loosely laid in the channel
parallel to the direction of flow. The net is secured with staples and check slots at intervals along
the channel. Placement of the jute net is done immediately after seeding operations (USDOT,
1995).
Coconut blankets are constructed of biodegradable coconut fibers that resist decay for 5 to 10 years
to provide long, temporary erosion control protection. The materials are often encased in ultraviolet
stabilized nets and sometimes have a composite, polypropylene structure to provide permanent turf
reinforcement. These materials are best used for waterway stabilization and slopes that require
longer periods to stabilize (USDOT, 1995).
Within the synthetic mat category are TRMs and ECRMs. Turf reinforcement mats are three-
dimensional polymer nettings or monofilaments formed into a mat. They have sufficient thickness
(>13 mm or 0.5 inch) and void space (>90 percent) to allow for soil filling and retention. The mat
acts as a traditional mat to protect the seed and increase germination. As the turf establishes, the
mat remains in place as part of the root structure. This gives the established turf a higher strength
and resistance to erosion (USDOT, 1995).
Erosion control and revegetation mats are composed of continuous monofilaments bound by heat
fusion or stitched between nettings. They are thinner than TRMs and do not have the void space to
allow for filling of soil. They act as a permanent mulch and allow vegetation to grow through the
mat (USDOT, 1995).
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of erosion control matting depends upon the strength of the material and proper
installation. For example, when protecting a cut slope with an erosion control mat, it is important to
anchor the mat properly. This will ensure that it will not be undermined by a storm event.
While erosion control blankets can be effective, their performance varies. Some general trends are
that organic materials tend to be the most effective (Harding, 1990) and that thicker materials are
typically superior (Fifield, 1992), but there are exceptions to both of these trends. Information
about product testing of blankets is generally lacking. One notable exception is the Texas
Department of Transportation, which publishes the findings of their testing program in the form of a
list of acceptable and unacceptable materials for specific uses.
March, 2004
5-37
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Limitations
Erosion control mats (primarily synthetic types) are sensitive to light and for this reason must be
protected prior to installation. Some erosion control mats might cause an increase in runoff or blow
away if not firmly anchored. Erosion control mats might need to be properly disposed of in a
landfill, depending on the type of material. Effectiveness may be reduced if the fabric is not
properly selected, designed, or installed.
Maintenance
Regular inspections are necessary to determine whether cracks, tears or breaches have formed in the
fabric. Contact between the ground and erosion control mat should be maintained at all times and
trapped sediment removed after each storm event.
Cost
Costs for erosion control mats range from $0.50 to $10.00 per square yard depending on the type
chosen (SWRPC, 1991). Geosynthetic turf reinforcement mattings are widely used for immediate
erosion protection and long-term vegetative reinforcement, usually for steeply sloped areas or areas
exposed to runoff flows. The Erosion Control Technology Council (a geotextile industry support
association) estimates that TRMs cost approximately $7.00 per square yard (installed) for channel
protection (ECTC, 2002a). Channel protection is one of the most demanding of installations (much
more demanding than general coverage of denuded area). The ECTC estimates the cost to install a
simple soil blanket (or rolled erosion control product), seed, and fertilizer to be $1.00 per square
yard (ECTC, 2002b).
5.1.5.1.2.8 Topsoiling
General Description
Topsoiling is the placement of a surface layer of soil enriched in organic matter over a prepared
subsoil to provide a suitable soil medium for vegetative growth on areas with poor moisture, low
nutrient levels, undesirable pH, and/or the presence of other materials that would inhibit the
establishment of vegetation. Advantages of topsoil include its high organic matter content and
friable consistency and its water-holding capacity and nutrient content. The texture and friability of
topsoil are usually more conducive to seedling emergence and root growth. In addition to being a
better growth medium, topsoil is often less erodible than subsoils, and the coarser texture of topsoil
increases infiltration capacity and reduces runoff. During construction, topsoil is often removed
from the project area and stockpiled. It is replaced on areas to be grassed or landscaped during the
final stages of the project.
Applicability
Conditions where topsoiling applies include the following:
March, 2004
5-38
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Where a sufficient supply of quality topsoil is available.
Where the subsoil or areas of existing surface soil present the following problems:
The structure, pH, or nutrient balance of the available soil cannot be amended by reasonable
means to provide an adequate growth medium for the desired vegetation.
The soil is too shallow to provide adequate rooting depth or will not supply necessary
moisture and nutrients for growth of desired vegetation.
The soil contains substances toxic to the desired vegetation.
Where high quality turf or ornamental plants are desired.
Where slopes are 2:1 or flatter.
Design and Installation Criteria
The topsoil should be uniformly distributed over the subsoil to a minimum compacted depth of 50
mm (2 inches) on slopes steeper than 3:1 and 100 mm (4 inches) on flatter slopes. Thicknesses of
100 to 150 mm is preferred for vegetation establishment via seeding. The topsoil should not be
placed while in a frozen or muddy condition or when the subsoil is excessively wet, frozen, or in a
condition that is detrimental to proper grading or seedbed preparation. The final surface should be
prepared so that any irregularities are corrected and depressions and water pockets do not form. If
the topsoil has been treated with soil sterilants, it should not be placed until the toxic substances
have dissipated (USDOT, 1995). Table 5-8 summarizes the cubic yards of topsoil required for
application to various depths.
Table 5-8. Cubic Yards of Topsoil Required for Application to Various Depths
Depth (inches)
Per 1,000 Sq
Ft
Per Acre
1
3.1
134
2
6.2
268
3
9.3
403
4
12.4
536
5
15.5
670
6
18.6
804
Source: Smolen et al., 1988.
On slopes and areas that will not be mowed, the surface may be left rough after spreading topsoil.
A disk may be used to promote bonding at the interface between the topsoil and subsoil (Smolen et
al., 1988).
Effectiveness
No information is available describing the effectiveness of applying topsoil as a BMP.
March, 2004
5-39
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Limitations
Limitations of applying topsoil can include to following:
Topsoil spread when conditions are too wet, resulting in severe compaction.
Topsoil mixed with too much unsuitable subsoil material, resulting in poor vegetation
establishment.
Topsoil contaminated with soil sterilants or chemicals, resulting in poor or no vegetation
establishment.
Topsoil not adequately incorporated or bonded with the subsoil, resulting in poor vegetation
establishment and soil slippage on sloping areas.
Topsoiled areas not protected, resulting in excessive erosion.
Maintenance
Newly topsoiled areas should be inspected frequently until the vegetation is established. Eroded or
damaged areas should be repaired and revegetated.
Cost
Topsoiling costs are a function of the price of topsoil, the hauling distance, and the method of
application. R. S. Means (2000) report unit cost values of $3 and $4 per square yard, for 4 and 6
inches of topsoil cover, respectively. This price is for furnishing and placing of topsoil, and
includes materials, labor, and equipment, with profit and overhead.
5.1.5.2 Water Handling Practices
5.1.5.2.1 Earth Dike
General Description
An earth dike is a temporary or permanent ridge of soil designed to channel water to a desired
location. Dikes are used to divert the flow of runoff by constructing a ridge of soil that intercepts
and directs the runoff to the desired outlet or alternative management practice, such as a pond. This
practice serves to reduce the length of a slope for erosion control and protect downslope areas. An
earth dike can be used to prevent runoff from going over the top of a cut and eroding the slope,
directing runoff away from a construction site or building; to divert clean water from a disturbed
area; or to reduce a large drainage area into a more manageable size. Dikes should be stabilized
with vegetation after construction (NAHB, No Date).
March, 2004
5-40
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Applicability
Earth dikes are applicable to all areas; the size of the dike is correlated to the size of the drainage
area (NAHB, No Date).
Design and Installation Criteria
The location of dikes should take into consideration outlet conditions, existing land use,
topography, length of slope, soils, and development plans. The capacity of earth dikes and
diversions should be suitable for the area that is being protected, including adequate freeboard, or
extra depth that is added as a safety margin. For homes, schools, and industrial buildings, the
recommended design frequency storm is 50 years and the freeboard is 0.5 feet (NAHB, No Date).
Earth dikes can be employed as a perimeter control. For small sites, a compacted 2-foot-tall dike is
usually suitable, if hydroseeded. Larger dikes will actually divert runoff to another portion of the
site, usually to a downstream sediment trap or basin. Therefore, the designer should ensure that
they have the capacity for the 10-year storm event, and that the channel created behind the dike is
properly stabilized to prevent erosion (Brown and Schueler, 1997). In addition, the downstream
structure must be sized to handle the flow from the dike. Dikes should be designed using standard
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and certified by a professional hydrologist or engineer.
Diversion dikes should be installed prior to the majority of the soil-disturbing activity. As soon as
the dike form is completed, it should be machine compacted, fertilized, and either seeded and
mulched or sodded. Excavated materials should be properly stockpiled for future use or disposed of
properly. Dikes should have an outlet that functions with a minimum of erosion. Depending on site
conditions and outlet structures, the runoff directed by dikes may need to be conveyed to a
sediment-trapping device, such as a sediment basin or detention pond. As grades increase over
4 percent, geotextile material or sod may be required to control erosion. Slopes greater than 8
percent may require riprap. Dikes may be removed when stabilization of the drainage area and
outlet are complete (NAHB, No Date). Dike design criteria must incorporate site-specific
conditions, as dimensions depend on expected flows, soil types, and climatic conditions. All of
these inputs vary tremendously over different sections of the country.
Effectiveness
No information has been found on the effectiveness of earth dikes used as BMPs, although terraces
often have sediment removal rates of up to 90 percent.
Limitations
An erosion-resistant lining in the channel may be needed to prevent erosion in the channel caused
by excessive grade. In addition, the channel should be deepened and the grade realigned if there is
overtopping caused by sediment in the channel where the grade decreases or reverses. If
overtopping occurs at low points in the ridge where the diversion crosses the shallow draw, the
ridge should be reconstructed with a positive grade toward the outlet at all points. Finally, if there
March, 2004
5-41
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
is erosion at the outlet, an outlet stabilization structure should be installed; if sedimentation occurs
at the diversion outlet, a temporary sediment trap should be installed.
Maintenance
An earth dike should be inspected for signs of erosion after every major rain event. Any repairs
and/or revegetation should be completed promptly (NAHB, No Date). The following actions can
be taken to properly maintain an earth dike:
Remove debris and sediment from the channel immediately after the storm event.
Repair the dike to its original height.
Check outlets and make necessary repairs to prevent gully formation.
Clean out sediment traps when they are 50 percent full.
Once the work area has been stabilized, remove the diversion ridge, fill and compact the
channel to blend with the surrounding area, and remove sediment traps, disposing of unstable
sediment in a designated area.
Cost
The cost of an earth dike depends on the design and materials used. Small dikes can cost
approximately $2.00 per linear foot, while larger dikes can cost approximately $2.00 per cubic yard.
EPA states that an earth dike can cost approximately $4.50 per linear foot (NAHB, No Date).
An alternative means to estimate conceptual costs for earthen dikes is to use unit cost values and a
rough estimate of the quantities needed. Shallow trenching (1 to 4 feet deep) with a backhoe in
areas not requiring dewatering can be performed for $4 to $5 per cubic yard of removed material
(R. S. Means, 2000). Based on this value, $2 per linear foot provides for 11 square feet of flow area
and $4.50 per linear foot provides for 24 square feet of flow area. This suggests that the size of the
dike is required prior to specifying a cost, which requires a site-specific hydrologic evaluation.
Based on standards for Virginia, most small drainage areas (made up of 5 acre or less) require 18-
inch tall diversion dikes with a 4.5-foot base. Assuming the excavation volume equals the volume
of the dike, the resulting excavation volume is approximately 7 cubic feet per linear foot, which
(conservatively) equates to $1.03 to $1.30 per linear foot for construction costs.
If the earthen dikes are to be permanent, then additional costs are incurred to vegetate the dike. R.
S. Means (2000) estimates the cost of fine grading, soil treatment, and grassing is approximately $2
per square yard of earth surface area. This adds approximately $6 per linear foot of dike. Where
gently sloping areas just need to be grassed with acceptable species, the cost can be as low as $0.38
per square yard.
March, 2004
5-42
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5.1.5.2.2 Temporary Swale
General Description
The term swale (grassed channel, dry swale, wet swale, biofilter) refers to a series of vegetated,
open channel management practices designed specifically to treat and attenuate storm water runoff
for a specified water quality volume. As storm water runoff flows through these channels, it is
treated by filtering through the vegetation in the channel, filtering through a subsoil matrix, and/or
infiltrating into the underlying soils. Variations of the grassed swale include the grassed channel,
dry swale, and wet swale. The specific design features and methods of treatment differ in each of
these designs, but all are improvements on the traditional drainage ditch and incorporate modified
geometry and other features for use of the swale as a treatment and conveyance practice.
Applicability
Grassed swales can be applied in most situations with some restrictions and are very well suited for
treating highway or residential road runoff because they are linear practices. Perimeter dikes/swales
should be limited to a drainage area of no more than 0.8 hectare and usually work best on gently
sloping terrain. Perimeter dikes may not work well on moderate slopes, and they should never be
established on slopes exceeding 20 percent (UNEP, 1994).
Regional Applicability. Grassed swales can be applied in most regions of the country. In arid and
semi-arid climates, however, the value of these practices needs to be weighed against the water
needed to irrigate them.
Ultra-Urban Areas. Ultra-urban areas are densely developed urban areas in which little pervious
surface exists. Grassed swales are generally not well suited to ultra-urban areas because they
require a relatively large area of pervious surface.
Storm Water Hot Spots. Storm water hot spots are areas where land use or activities generate
highly contaminated runoff, with concentrations of pollutants in excess of those commonly found in
storm water. A typical example is a gas station or convenience store. With the exception of the dry
swale design, hot spot runoff should not be directed toward grassed channels. These practices
either infiltrate storm water or intersect the ground water, making use of the practices for hot spot
runoff a threat to ground water quality.
Storm Water Retrofit. A storm water retrofit is a storm water management practice (usually
structural), put into place after development has occurred, to improve water quality, protect
downstream channels, reduce flooding, or meet other specific objectives. One retrofit opportunity
using grassed swales modifies existing drainage ditches. Ditches have traditionally been designed
to convey storm water away from roads as quickly as possible. In some cases, it may be possible to
incorporate features to enhance pollutant removal or infiltration such as check dams (for example,
small dams along the ditch that trap sediment, slow runoff, and reduce the longitudinal slope).
Since grassed swales cannot treat a large area, using this practice to retrofit an entire watershed
March, 2004
5-43
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
would be expensive because of the number of practices needed to manage runoff from a significant
amount of the watershed's land area.
Cold Water (Trout) Streams. Grassed channels are a good treatment option in watersheds that
drain to cold water streams. These practices do not retain water for a long period of time and often
induce infiltration. As a result, standing water will not typically be subjected to warming by the sun
in these practices.
Design and Installation Criteria
Temporary swales should be designed using standard hydrologic and hydraulic calculations.
Designs should be certified by a professional hydrologist, engineer, or other appropriate
professional.
Perimeter dikes/swales should be established before any major soil-disturbing activity takes place.
Dikes should be compacted with construction equipment to the design height plus 10 percent to
allow for settlement. If they are to remain in place for longer than 10 days, they should be stabilized
using vegetation, filter fabric, or other material. Diverted water should be directed to a sediment
trap or other sediment treatment area (UNEP, 1994).
In addition to the broad applicability concerns described above, designers need to consider
conditions at the site level. In addition, they need to incorporate design features to improve the
longevity and performance of the practice while minimizing the maintenance burden.
Siting Considerations
In addition to considering the restrictions and adaptations of grassed swales to different regions and
land uses, designers must ensure that this management practice is feasible at the site in question.
Depending on the design option, grassed channels can be highly restricted practices based on site
characteristics.
Drainage Area. Grassed swales generally should treat small drainage areas of less than 5 acres. If
the practices are used to treat larger areas, the flows and volumes through the swale become too
large to achieve storm water treatment through infiltration and filtration.
Slope. Grassed swales should be used on sites with relatively flat slopes (less than 4 percent).
Runoff velocities within the channel become too high on steeper slopes. This can cause erosion and
does not allow for infiltration or filtration in the swale.
Soils /Topography. Grassed swales can be used on most soils, with some restrictions on the most
impermeable soils. In the dry swale, a fabricated soil bed replaces on-site soils to ensure that runoff
is filtered as it travels through the soils of the swale.
March, 2004
5-44
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Ground water. The depth to ground water depends on the type of swale used. In the dry swale
and grassed channel options, designers should separate the bottom of the swale from the ground
water by at least 2 feet to prevent a moist swale bottom or contamination of ground water. In the
wet swale option, treatment is enhanced by a wet pool, which is maintained by intersecting the
water table.
Design Considerations
Although the grass swale has different design variations, including the grassed channel, dry swale,
and wet swale, some design considerations are common to all three. One similarity is their cross-
sectional geometry. Swales should generally have a trapezoidal or parabolic cross-section with
relatively flat side slopes (flatter than 3:1). Designing the channel with flat side slopes maximizes
the wetted perimeter, which is the length along the edge of the swale's cross-section where runoff
flowing through the swale is in contact with the vegetated sides and bottom of the swale.
Increasing the wetted perimeter slows runoff velocities and provides more contact with vegetation
to encourage filtering and infiltration. Another advantage to flat side slopes is that runoff entering
the grassed swale from the side receives some pretreatment along the side slope. The flat bottom of
all three should be between 2 and 8 feet wide. The minimum width ensures an adequate filtering
surface for water quality treatment, and the maximum width prevents braiding (the formation of
small channels within the swale bottom).
Another similarity among all three designs is the type of pretreatment needed. A small forebay
should be used at the inflow area of the swale to trap incoming sediments. A pea gravel diaphragm
(a small trench filled with river run gravel) should be used to pretreat runoff entering along the
sides of the swale.
Two other features designed to enhance the treatment ability of grassed swales are a flat
longitudinal slope (generally between 1 and 2 percent) and a dense vegetative cover in the channel.
The flat slope helps to reduce the velocity of flow in the channel. Dense vegetation also helps
reduce velocities, protect the channel from erosion, and act as a filter to treat storm water runoff.
During construction, it is important to stabilize the channel before the turf has been established,
either with a temporary grass cover or with the use of natural or synthetic erosion control products.
In addition to treating runoff for water quality, grassed swales need to convey larger storms safely.
Typical designs allow the runoff from the 2-year storm to flow through the swale without causing
erosion. Swales should also have the capacity to pass larger storms (typically a 10-year storm)
safely.
The length of the swale necessary to infiltrate runoff can be calculated by using a mass balance of
runoff and infiltration for a triangular-shaped cross-sectional area.
March, 2004
5-45
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Design Variations
The following discussion identifies three different variations of open channel practices, including
the grassed channel, the dry swale, and the wet swale.
Grassed Channel. (Discussed in more length in sub-section 5.5.1.2.1) Of the three grassed swale
designs, grassed channels are the most similar to a conventional drainage ditch, with the major
differences being flatter side slopes and longitudinal slopes and a slower design velocity for water
quality treatment of small storm events. Of all of the grassed swale options, grassed channels are
the least expensive, but they also provide the least reliable pollutant removal performance. The best
application of a grassed channel is as pretreatment to other storm water treatment practices.
One major difference between the grassed channel and most of the other structural practices is the
method used to size the practice. Most water quality practices for storm water management are
sized by volume. This method sets the volume available in the practice equal to the water quality
volume, or the volume of water to be treated in the practice. The grassed channel, on the other
hand, is a flow rate-based design. Based on the peak flow from the water quality storm (this varies
from region to region but a typical value is the 1-inch storm), the channel should be designed so
that runoff takes, on average, 10 minutes to flow from the top to the bottom of the channel. A
procedure for this design can be found in Design of Storm Water Filtering Systems (CWP, 1996).
Dry Swales. Dry swales are similar in design to bioretention areas. These practices incorporate a
fabricated soil bed into their design. The existing soil is replaced with a sand/soil mix that meets
minimum permeability requirements. An underdrain system is used under the soil bed. This
system is a gravel layer that encases a perforated pipe. Storm water treated in the soil bed flows
through the bottom into the underdrain, which conveys this treated storm water to the storm drain
system. Dry swales are a relatively new design, but studies of swales with a native soil similar to
the man-made soil bed of dry swales suggest high pollutant removal rates.
Wet Swales. Wet swales intersect the ground water and behave similarly to a linear wetland cell.
This design variation incorporates a shallow permanent pool and wetland vegetation to provide
storm water treatment. This design also has potentially high pollutant removal. One disadvantage
of the wet swale is that its use in residential or commercial settings is unpopular because the
shallow standing water in the swale is sometimes viewed as a potential nuisance by property
owners.
Regional Variations
Cold Climates. In cold or snowy climates, swales may serve a dual purpose by acting as both a
snow storage/treatment practice and a storm water management practice. This dual purpose is
particularly relevant when swales are used to treat road runoff. If used for this purpose, swales
should incorporate salt-tolerant vegetation, such as creeping bentgrass.
March, 2004
5-46
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Arid Climates. In arid or semi-arid climates, swales should be designed with drought-tolerant
vegetation, such as buffalo grass. As pointed out in the Applicability discussion, the value of
vegetated practices for water quality needs to be weighed against the cost of water needed to
maintain them in arid and semi-arid regions.
Effectiveness
Swales act to control peak discharges in two ways. First, the grass reduces runoff velocity,
depending on the length and slope of the swale. Second, a portion of the storm water runoff volume
passes through the swale and infiltrates into the soil. Table 5-9 summarizes grassed swale pollutant
removal efficiencies.
March, 2004
5-47
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-9. Grassed Swale Pollutant Removal Efficiency Data
Grassed Swale Removal Efficiencies
Study
TSS
TP
TN
no3
Metals
Bacteria
Type
Goldberg, 1993
67.8
4.5
-
31.4
42-62
-100
Grassed channel
Seattle Metro and Washington
Department of Ecology, 1992
60
45
-
-25
2-16
-25
Grassed channel
Seattle Metro and Washington
Department of Ecology, 1992
83
29
-
-25
46-73
-25
Grassed channel
Wang et al., 1981
80
-
-
-
70-80
-
Dry swale
Dormanetal., 1989
98
18
-
45
37-81
-
Dry swale
Harper, 1988
87
83
84
80
88-90
-
Dry swale
Kercher, Landon, and
Massarelli, 1983
99
99
99
99
99
-
Dry swale
Harper, 1988
81
17
40
52
37-69
-
Wet swale
Koon, 1995
67
39
-
9
-35 to 6
-
Wet swale
Occoquan Watershed
Monitoring Lab, 1983
-100
-100
-100
-
-100
-
Drainage channel
Yousef et al., 1985
-
8
13
11
14-29
-
Drainage channel
Occoquan Watershed
Monitoring Lab, 1983
-50
-9.1
-18.2
-
-100
-
Drainage channel
Yousef et al., 1985
-
-19.5
8
2
41-90
-
Drainage channel
Occoquan Watershed
Monitoring Lab, 1983
31
-23
36.5
-
-100 to 33
-
Drainage channel
Welborn and Veenhuis, 1987
0
-25
-25
-25
0
-
Drainage channel
Yu, Barnes, and Gerde, 1993
68
60
-
-
74
-
Drainage channel
Dormanetal., 1989
65
41
-
11
14-55
-
Drainage channel
Pitt and McLean, 1986
0
-
0
-
0
0
Drainage channel
Oakland, 1983
33
-25
-
-
20-58
0
Drainage channel
Dormanetal., 1989
-85
12
-
-100
14-88
-
Drainage channel
Limitations
Common problems associated with swales include excessive erosion along unlined channels
(usually because of excessive grade), erosion or sedimentation at the outlet point, or overtopping of
the dike at low points (UNEP, 1994).
Additional limitations of the grass swale include the following:
Grassed swales cannot treat a very large drainage area.
March, 2004
5-48
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Swales do not appear to be effective at reducing bacteria.
Wet swales may become a nuisance because of mosquito breeding.
If designed improperly (for example, improper slope), grassed channels will have very little
pollutant removal.
A thick vegetative cover is needed for these practices to function properly.
Maintenance
As with any BMP, swales must be maintained to continue to effectively remove pollutants.
Maintenance may include occasional mowing, fertilizing, and liming. In addition, any areas that
become damaged by erosion should be immediately repaired and replanted. The swales should be
protected from concentrated flows and be checked periodically for downstream obstructions.
Cost
To produce a conceptual cost approximation, grassed channel construction costs can be developed
using unit cost values. Shallow trenching (1 to 4 feet deep) with a backhoe in areas not requiring
dewatering can be performed for $4 to $5 per cubic yard of removed material (R. S. Means, 2000).
Assuming no disposal costs (i.e., excavated material is placed on either side of the trench), only the
cost of fine grading, soil treatment, and grassing (approximately $2 per square yard) should be
added to the trenching cost to approximate the total construction cost. Site-specific hydrologic
analysis of the construction site is necessary to estimate the channel conveyance requirement and
the desired retention time in the swale. It is not unusual to have flows on the order of 2 to 4 cfs per
acre served.
For a design channel velocity of 1 foot per second, the resulting range in the channel cross-section
area can be as low as 2 but as high as 4 square feet per acre drained. If the average channel flow
depth is 1 foot, then the low estimate for grassed channel installation is $0.74 per square foot of
channel bottom per acre served per foot of channel length. The high estimate is $1.48 per square
foot of channel bottom per acre served per foot of channel length.
Table 5-10 summarizes additional costs of grass swales.
March, 2004
5-49
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-10. Average Annual Operation and IV
aintenance Costs for a Grass Swale
Component
Estimated
$ for Swale
$ for Swale
Comments
Unit Cost
Size:
Size:
($)
0.5 m Deep X
0.3 in Bottom
Width X 3 m
Top Width
1 m Deep X 1
in Bottom
Width X 7 m
Top Width
Mowing
0.89/100 m2
145.0
241.0
Mow 2-3 times per
year
General grass
8.8/100 m2
162.98
274.0
Grass maintenance
care
area is (top width + 3
m) x length
Debris/litter
0.51/m2
93.0
93.0
removal
Reseeding/
fertilization
0.35/m2
5.9
10.37
Area revegetated is
1% of maintenance
area per year
Inspection and
0.74/m2
231.0
231.0
Inspection once per
general
administration
year
TOTAL
638.0
850.0
Source: Ellis, 1998.
5.1.5.2.3 Temporary Storm Drain Diversion
General Description
A temporary storm drain diversion is a pipe that reroutes an existing drainage system to discharge
flow into a sediment trap or basin. This practice reduces the amount of sediment-laden runoff from
construction sites that enters waterbodies without treatment. Temporary storm drain diversions can
be used when a permanent storm water drainage system has not yet been installed. It should be
recognized that diversion channels can also be installed but are not considered in the following
discussion.
Applicability
A temporary storm drain diversion should be used to temporarily redirect discharge to a permanent
outfall and should remain in place until the area draining to the storm sewer is no longer disturbed.
Temporary storm drain diversions can also be combined with other structures and used as a
sediment-trapping device when the completion of a permanent outfall has been delayed;
alternatively, a sediment trap can be placed below a permanent outfall to remove sediment before
the final flow discharge.
March, 2004
5-50
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Design and Installation Criteria
Since the diversion is only temporary, the layout of piping and the overall impact of the diversion's
installation on post-construction drainage patterns must be considered. Once construction is
completed, the temporary diversion should be moved to restore the original system. The following
activities should be done at this time:
The storm drain should be flushed before the sediment trap is removed.
The outfall should be stabilized.
Graded areas should be restored.
State or local requirements should be checked for more detailed requirements and an
appropriate professional should certify that the design meets local hydrologic and hydraulic
requirements.
Effectiveness
If installed properly to capture the bulk of runoff from a construction site, temporary storm
diversions can be effective in reducing the discharge of sediment-laden, untreated water to
waterbodies. When used in combination with other erosion and sediment control practices
minimized clearing or vegetative and chemical stabilization, the level of pollution from a
construction site can be substantially reduced or eliminated.
Limitations
Installation of a temporary storm drain diversion may result in the disturbance of existing storm
drainage patterns. Care must be taken to ensure that the original system is properly restored once
the temporary system is removed. The most common source of problems is excessive velocity at
the outlet. Installation of an outlet stabilization structure is typically required and may be
constructed of riprap, reinforced concrete, geotextile linings, or a combination.
Maintenance
Once installed, temporary storm drain diversions require very little maintenance. Frequent
inspection and maintenance of temporary storm drain systems, especially after large storms, should
ensure that pipe clogging does not occur and that runoff from the site is being successfully diverted.
After removal of the temporary diversion, the permanent storm drain system should be carefully
inspected to ensure that drainage patterns have not been altered by the temporary system.
drain
such as
March, 2004
5-51
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Cost
Depending on the size of the construction site, a temporary storm drain diversion can be costly.
Costs include those associated with materials needed to construct the diversion and sediment trap or
basin (mainly piping, concrete, and gravel), and also labor costs for installation and removal of the
system, all of which may involve excavation, regrading, and inspections. Based on the variety of
conditions that can affect storm drain diversion designs, typical costs per installation are not
presented here. However, site-specific cost estimates can be produced using unit cost values along
with site-specific quantity estimates. R. S. Means (2000) indicates a range of pipe costs for surface
placement, between $5.00 per linear foot for 4" diameter PVC piping, and $9.20 per linear foot for
10" diameter PVC piping. On construction sites, temporary inlets and outlets are usually formed by
small rock-lined depressions. Assuming 4 cubic yards of crushed rock (1.5" mean diameter) per
opening, an inlet and outlet combine to add approximately $200 per pipe installation, based on $25
per cubic yard of stone (R. S. Means, 2000).
5.1.5.2.4 Pipe Slope Drain
General Description
Pipe slope drains are used to reduce the risk of erosion on slopes by discharging runoff to stabilized
areas. Consisting of a metal or plastic flexible pipe if temporary, or pipes or paved chutes if
permanent, these drains carry surface runoff from the top to the bottom of a slope that has already
been damaged by erosion or is at high risk for erosion. These drains are also used to drain saturated
slopes that have the potential for soil slides.
Applicability
Temporary slope drains can be used on most disturbed slopes to eliminate gully erosion problems
resulting from concentrated flows discharged at a diversion outlet. Slope drains should be used as a
temporary measure for as long as the drainage area remains disturbed. They will need to be moved
once construction is complete and a permanent storm drainage system is established. Appropriate
restoration measures will then need to be taken, such as adjusting grades and flushing sediment
from the pipe before it is removed (UNEP, 1994).
Design and Installation Criteria
Pipe slope drains can be placed directly on the ground or buried under the surface. The inlet should
be located at the top of the slope and should be fitted with an apron, attached with a watertight
connection. Filter cloth should be placed under the inlet to prevent erosion. Flexible pipes, which
are positioned on top of the ground, should be securely anchored with grommets placed 10 feet on
center. The outlet at the bottom of the slope should also be stabilized with riprap. The riprap
should be placed along the bottom of a swale that leads to a sediment-trapping structure or another
stabilized structure.
March, 2004
5-52
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Slope drain pipe sizes are based on drainage area and the size of the design storm. Pipes should be
connected to a diversion ridge at the top of the slope by covering it with compacted fill material
where it passes through the ridge. Discharge from a slope drain should be to a sediment trap,
sediment basin, or other stabilized outlet (UNEP, 1994).
Pipe slope drains should be installed perpendicular to the contour down the slope, and the design
should be able to handle the peak runoff for the 10-year storm. Recommendations of slope drain
diameter are summarized in Table 5-11 (NAHB, n.d).
Table 5-11. Recommended Pipe/Tubing Sizes for Slope Drains
Maximum Drainage
Area (acres)
Pipe/Tubing
Diametera(inches)
Pipe/Tubing
Diameterb (inches)
Pipe/Tubing
Diameter0 (inches)
0-0.5
0.5
12
12
8
0.75
10
1.0
12
1.5
18
18
Individually designed
2.5
21
3.5
24
24
5.0
30
a UNEP, 1994.
b USDOT, 1995
c IDNR, 1992.
Recently graded slopes that do not have permanent drainage measures installed should have a
temporary slope drain and a temporary diversion installed. A temporary slope drain used in
conjunction with a diversion conveys storm water flows and reduces erosion until permanent
drainage structures are installed.
The following are design recommendations for temporary slope drains:
The drain should consist of heavy-duty material manufactured for the purpose and have
grommets for anchoring at a spacing of 10 feet or less.
Minimum slope drain diameters should be observed for varying drainage areas.
The entrance to the pipe should consist of a standard flare end section of corrugated metal. The
corrugated metal pipe should have watertight joints at the ends. The rest of the pipe is typically
corrugated plastic or flexible tubing, although for flatter, shorter slopes, a polyethylene-lined
channel is sometimes used.
March, 2004
5-53
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
The height of the diversion at the pipe should be the diameter of the pipe plus 0.5 foot.
The outlet should be located at a reinforced or erosion-resistant location.
Temporary slope drains should be designed to adequately convey runoff for a desired frequency
storm, typically either 2 years or 10 years depending on local regulations. Both the size and the
spacing can be determined based on the contributing drainage area. Drains are spaced at intervals
corresponding to the specified drainage areas. For larger drainage areas and critical locations, the
drains should be sized on an individual basis (USDOT, 1995).
Slope drains should be constructed in conjunction with diversion berms such that the berms are not
overtopped. At the pipe inlet, the top of the berm should be a minimum of 300 mm (11.81 inches)
higher than the top of the pipe. The entrance should be constructed of a standard flared end section
or a Tee section if designed properly. The entrance should be placed in a sump that is depressed
150 mm (5.90 inches) (USDOT, 1995).
The outlet of the slope drain must be protected with a riprap apron. If the slope drain is draining a
disturbed area and sufficient right-of-way is available, the drain may empty into a sediment trap
(USDOT, 1995). Table 5-12 summarizes slope drain characteristics.
Table 5-12. Slope Drain Characteristics
Capacity
2-yr frequency, 24-hr-duration storm event
Material
Strong, flexible pipe, such as heavy duty, nonperforated, corrugated
plastic
Inlet section
Standard "T" or "L" flared-end section with metal toe plate
Connection to ridge at top
of slope
Compacted fill over pipe with minimum dimensions, 1.5 ft depth, 4
ft top width, and 6 in higher than ridge
Outlet
Pipe extends beyond toe of slope and discharges into a sediment trap
or basin unless contributing drainage area is stable
Source: IDNR, 1992.
Effectiveness
There is currently no information on the effectiveness of pipe slope drains.
Limitations
The area drained by a temporary slope drain should not exceed 5 acres. Physical obstructions
substantially reduce the effectiveness of the drain. A common slope drain problem is overtopping
of the inlet due to an undersized or blocked pipe, or erosion at the outlet point due to insufficient
protection (UNEP, 1994). Other concerns are failures from overtopping because of inadequate pipe
inlet capacity and reduced diversion channel capacity and ridge height.
March, 2004
5-54
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Solutions to common problems include the following (IDNR, 1992):
Washout - A washout along a pipe due to seepage and piping may be caused by inadequate
compaction, insufficient fill, or installation that may be too close to the edge of the slope.
Overtopping caused by undersized or blocked pipe - The drainage area may be too large.
Overtopping caused by improper grade of channel and ridge - A positive grade should be
maintained.
Overtopping caused by poor entrance conditions and trash buildup at the pipe inlet - Deepen and
widen the channel at the pipe entrance and frequently inspect and clear the inlet.
Erosion at outlet - The pipe should be extended to a stable grade or an outlet stabilization
structure is needed.
Displacement or separation of pipe - The pipe should be tied down and the joints secured.
Maintenance
Pipe slope drains must be inspected after each significant runoff event for evidence of erosion and
uncontrolled runoff. Any repairs to the drain should be made immediately. Significant amounts of
sediment trapped at the outfall should also be removed in a timely manner and disposed of properly
(NAHB, No Date).
The following actions should be taken to properly maintain a pipe slope drain (IDNR, 1992):
Inspect slope drains and supporting diversions once a week and after every storm event.
Check the inlet for sediment or trash accumulation; clear and restore to proper entrance
condition.
Check the fill over the pipe for settlement, cracking, or piping holes; repair immediately.
Check for holes where the pipe emerges from the dike; repair immediately.
Check the conduit for evidence of leaks or inadequate anchoring; repair immediately.
Check the outlet for erosion or sedimentation; clean and repair, or extend if necessary.
Once slopes have been stabilized, remove the temporary diversions and slope drains, and
stabilize all disturbed areas.
March, 2004
5-55
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Cost
The cost of pipe slope drains and their installation varies with the design and materials used. Site-
specific cost estimates can be produced using unit cost values with site-specific quantity estimates.
R. S. Means (2000) indicates a range of pipe costs for surface placement between $5.00 per linear
foot for 4-inch diameter PVC piping, and $9.20 per linear foot for 10-inch diameter PVC piping. On
construction sites, temporary inlets and outlets are usually formed by small rock-lined depressions.
Assuming 4 cubic yards of crushed rock (1.5-inch mean diameter) per opening, an inlet and outlet
together add approximately $200 per pipe installation, based on $25 per cubic yard of stone (R. S.
Means, 2000).
5.1.5.2.5 Stone Check Dam
General Description
A check dam is a small temporary barrier constructed across a drainage channel or swale to reduce
the velocity of the flow. By reducing the flow velocity, the erosion potential is reduced, detention
times are lengthened, and more sediments are able to settle out of the water column. Check dams
can be constructed of stone, gabions, treated lumber, or logs (NAHB, No Date).
Check dams are inexpensive and easy to install. They may be used permanently to settle sediment,
reduce the velocity of runoff, and provide aeration. However, the use of check dams in a channel
should not be a substitute for the use of other sediment-trapping and erosion control measures. As
with most other temporary structures, check dams are most effective when used in combination
with other storm water and erosion and sediment control measures.
Applicability
Check dams are commonly used (1) in channels that are degrading but where permanent
stabilization is impractical because of their short period of usefulness and (2) in eroding channels
where construction delays or weather conditions prevent timely installation of erosion-resistant
linings (IDNR, 1992).
Check dams are also useful in steeply sloped swales, in small channels, in swales where adequate
vegetative protection cannot be established, or in swales or channels that will be used for a short
period of time where it is not practical to line the channel or implement other flow control practices
(USEPA, 1993). In addition, check dams are appropriate where temporary seeding has been
recently implemented but has not had time to fully develop and take root. The contributing drainage
area should range from 2 to 10 acres. Check dams should be used only in small open channels that
will not be overtopped by flow once the dams are built and should not be built in stream channels,
either intermittent or perennial (UNEP, 1994).
March, 2004
5-56
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Design and Installation Criteria
Check dams can be constructed from a number of different materials. Most commonly, they are
made of rock, logs, sandbags, or straw bales. Rock or stone is often preferred because of its cost-
effectiveness and longevity. Logs and straw bales will decay with time and are not recommended
as they may cause waterway blockage if they fail. When using rock or stone, the material diameter
should be 2 to 15 inches. The stones should be extended 18 inches beyond the banks, and the side
slopes should be 2:1 or flatter. Lining the upstream side of the dam with a foot of 1- to 2-inch
gravel may improve the efficiency of the dam (NAHB, No Date). Logs should have a diameter of 6
to 8 inches. Regardless of the material used, careful construction of a check dam is necessary to
ensure its effectiveness.
The distance between rock check dams will vary depending on the slope of the ditch, with closer
spacing when the slope is steeper. The size of stone used in the check dam should also vary with the
expected design velocity and discharge. As velocity and discharge increase, the rock size should
also increase. For most rock check dams, 3 inches to 12 inches is a suitable stone size. To improve
the sediment-trapping efficiency of check dams, a filter stone can be applied to the upstream face. A
well-graded coarse aggregate that is less than 1 inch in size can be used as a filter stone.
All check dams should have a maximum height of 3 feet. The center of the dam should be at least 6
inches lower than the edges. This design creates a weir effect that helps to channel flows away
from the banks and prevent further erosion. Additional stability can be achieved by implanting the
dam material approximately 6 inches into the sides and bottom of the channel (VDCR, 1995).
When installing more than one check dam in a channel, outlet stabilization measures should be
installed below the final dam in the series. Because this area is likely to be vulnerable to further
erosion, riprap or some other stabilization measure is highly recommended.
Effectiveness
Field experience has shown that rock check dams are more effective than silt fences or straw bales
to stabilize wet-weather ditches (VDCR, 1995). Straw bales have been shown to have very low
trapping efficiencies and should not be used for check dams. For long channels, check dams are
most effective when used in a series, creating multiple barriers to sediment-laden runoff.
Limitations
Check dams should not be used in perennial streams unless approved by an appropriate regulatory
agency (USEPA, 1992; VDCR, 1995). Because the primary function of check dams is to slow
runoff in a channel, they should not be used as a stand-alone substitute for other sediment-trapping
devices. Also, leaves have been shown to be a significant problem, as they clog check dams;
therefore, increased inspection and maintenance might be necessary in the fall. Common problems
with check dams include channel bypass and severe erosion when overtopped and ineffectiveness
due to accumulated sediment and debris. When designing check dams, the fact that they will
March, 2004
5-57
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
reduce the capacity of a channel to transmit storm water runoff and thus will need to be sized
appropriately should be taken into account (UNEP, 1994). The check dam may also kill grass
linings in the channel if the water level remains high after it rains or if there is significant
sedimentation. In addition, a check dam may reduce the hydraulic capacity of the channel and
create turbulence, which erodes the channel banks (NAHB, No Date).
Maintenance
Check dams should be inspected periodically to ensure that they have not been repositioned as a
result of storm water flow. In addition, the center of a check dam should always be lower than its
edges. Additional stone may have to be added to maintain the correct height. Sediment should not
be allowed to accumulate to more than half the original dam height. Any required maintenance
should be performed immediately. When check dams are removed, care must be taken to remove
all dam materials to ensure proper flow within the channel. The channel should subsequently be
seeded for stabilization (NAHB, No Date).
Cost
The cost of check dams varies based on the material used for construction and the width of the
channel to be dammed. In general, it is estimated that check dams constructed of rock cost about
$100 per dam (USEPA, 1992). Brown and Schueler (1997) estimated that a rock check dam would
cost approximately $62 per installation, including the cost for filter fabric bedding. Other materials,
such as logs and sandbags, may be a less expensive alternative, but they might require higher
maintenance costs.
5.1.5.2.6 Lined Waterways
General Description
Lined channels convey storm water runoff through a stable conduit. Vegetation lining the channel
reduces the flow velocity of concentrated runoff. Lined channels usually are not designed to
control peak runoff loads by themselves and are often used in combination with other BMPs such as
subsurface drains and riprap stabilization. Where moderately steep slopes require drainage, lined
channels can include excavated depressions or check dams to enhance runoff storage, decrease flow
rates, and enhance pollutant removal. Peak discharges can be reduced through temporary detention
in the channel. Pollutants can be removed from storm water by filtration through vegetation, by
deposition, or in some cases by infiltration of soluble nutrients into the soil. The degree of pollutant
removal in a channel depends on the residence time of the water in the channel and the amount of
contact with vegetation and the soil surface, but pollutant removal is not generally the major design
criterion.
Often construction increases the velocity and volume of runoff, which causes erosion in newly
constructed or existing urban runoff conveyance channels. If the runoff during or after construction
will cause erosion in a channel, the channel should be lined or flow control practices instituted. The
March, 2004
5-58
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
first choice of lining should be grass or sod because this reduces runoff velocity and provides water
quality benefits through filtration and infiltration. If the velocity in the channel would erode the
grass or sod, riprap, concrete, or gabions can be used (USEPA, 2000). Geotextile materials can be
used in conjunction with either grass or riprap linings to provide additional protection at the soil-
lining interface.
Applicability
Lined channels typically are used in residential developments, along highway medians, or as an
alternative to curb and gutter systems. Grass-lined channels should be used to convey runoff only
where slopes are 5 percent or less. These channels require periodic mowing, occasional spot-
seeding, and weed control to ensure adequate grass cover (UNEP, 1994).
Lined channels should be used in areas where erosion-resistant conveyances are needed, such as in
areas with highly erodible soils and slopes of less than 5 percent. They should be installed only
where space is available for a relatively large cross-section. Grassed channels have a limited ability
to control runoff from large storms and should be used with the recommended allowable velocities
for the specific soil types and vegetative cover.
Design and Installation Criteria
The design of a lined waterway requires proper determination of the channel dimensions. It must
ensure that (1) the velocity of the flowing water will not wash out the waterway and that (2) the
capacity of the waterway is sufficient to carry the surface flow from the watershed without
overtopping.
Vegetation-Lined Channels. Grass-lined channels have been previously discussed in detail and
are only summarized in this section. The allowable velocity of water in the waterway depends upon
the type, condition, and density of the vegetation, as well as the erosive characteristics of the soil.
Uniformity of vegetative cover is important because the stability of the most sparsely covered area
determines the stability of the channel. Grasses are a better vegetative cover than legumes because
grasses resist water velocity more effectively.
Vegetative-lined channels may have triangular, parabolic, or trapezoidal cross-sections. Side slopes
should not exceed 3:1 to facilitate the establishment, maintenance, and mowing of vegetation. A
dense cover of hardy, erosion-resistant grass should be established as soon as possible following
grading. This may necessitate the use of straw mulch and the installation of protective netting until
the grass becomes established. If the intent is to create opportunities for runoff to infiltrate into the
soil, the channel gradient should be kept near zero, the channel bottom must be well above the
seasonal water table, and the underlying soils should be relatively permeable (generally, with an
infiltration rate greater than 2 centimeters [0.78 inches] per hour).
Rock-Lined Channels. Riprap-lined channels may be installed on somewhat steeper slopes than
grass-lined channels. They require a foundation of filter fabric or gravel under the riprap. Generally,
March, 2004
5-59
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
side slopes should not exceed 2:1, and riprap thickness should be 1.5 times the maximum stone
diameter. Riprap should form a dense, uniform, well-graded mass (UNEP, 1994).
Lined channels should be sited in accordance with the natural drainage system and should not cross
ridges. The channel design should not have sharp curves or significant changes in slope. Channels
should not receive direct sedimentation from disturbed areas and should be established only on the
perimeter of a construction site to convey relatively clean storm water runoff. They should also be
separated from disturbed areas by a vegetated buffer or other BMP to reduce sediment loads.
Basic design recommendations for lined channels include the following:
Construction and vegetation of the channel should occur before grading and paving activities
begin.
Design velocities should be less than 5 feet per second.
Geotextiles can be used to stabilize vegetation until it is fully established.
Covering the bare soil with sod or geotextiles can provide reinforced storm water conveyance
immediately.
Triangular-shaped channels should be used with low velocities and small quantities of runoff;
parabolic grass channels are used for larger flows and where space is available; trapezoidal
channels are used with large flows of low velocity (low slope).
Outlet stabilization structures might be needed if the runoff volume or velocity has the potential
to exceed the capacity of the receiving area.
Channels should be designed to convey runoff from a 10-year storm without erosion.
The sides of the channel should be sloped less than 3:1, with V-shaped channels along roads
sloped 6:1 or less for safety.
All trees, bushes, stumps, and other debris should be removed during construction.
Effectiveness
Lined channels can effectively transport storm water from construction areas if they are designed
for expected flow volumes and velocities and if they do not receive sediment directly from
disturbed areas.
March, 2004
5-60
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Limitations
Lined channels, if improperly installed, can alter the natural flow of surface water and have adverse
impacts on downstream waters. Additionally, if the design capacity is exceeded by a large storm
event, the vegetation might not be sufficient to prevent erosion and the channel might be destroyed.
Clogging with sediment and debris reduces the effectiveness of grass-lined channels for storm
water conveyance.
Common problems in lined channels include erosion of the channel before vegetation is fully
established and gullying or head cutting in the channel if the grade is too steep. In addition, trees
and brush tend to invade lined channels, causing maintenance problems.
Riprap-lined channels can be designed to safely convey greater runoff volumes on steeper slopes.
However, they should generally be avoided on slopes exceeding 10 percent because stone
displacement, erosion of the foundation, or channel overflow and erosion resulting from a channel
that is too small can occur. Thus, channels established on slopes greater than 10 percent will
usually require protection with rock gabions, concrete, or other highly stable and protective surfaces
(UNEP, 1994).
Maintenance
Maintenance requirements for lined channels are relatively minimal. During the vegetation
establishment period, the channels should be inspected after every rainfall. Other maintenance
activities that should be carried out after vegetation is established are mowing, litter removal, and
spot vegetation repair. The most important objective in the maintenance of lined channels is
maintaining a dense and vigorous growth of turf. Periodic cleaning of vegetation and soil buildup
in curb cuts is required so that water flow into the channel is unobstructed. During the growing
season, channel grass should be cut no shorter than the level of design flow, and the cuttings should
be removed promptly.
Cost
Costs of grassed channels range according to depth, with a 1.5-foot-deep, 10-foot-wide grassed
channel estimated at $6,395 to $17,075 per trench, while a 3.0-foot-deep, 21-foot-wide grassed
channel is estimated at $12,909 to $33,404 per trench (SWRPC, 1991).
Readers are also referred to the discussion of costs for grass-lined channels, which contains many of
the design and cost elements required for installing lined waterways. Designers have a range of
options for lining new channels. Geosynthetic turf reinforcement mattings (TRMs) can be used for
immediate erosion protection in channels exposed to runoff flows. The Erosion Control Technology
Council (a geotextile industry support association) suggests TRMs cost approximately $7.00 per
square yard (installed) for channel protection (ECTC, 2002a). R. S. Means indicates machine-
placed riprap costs of approximately $40 per cubic yard. The riprap maximum size is typically
between 6 and 12 inches, depending on the channel design velocity. A cubic yard of riprap will
March, 2004
5-61
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
cover between 36 and 18 square feet of channel bed for these riprap sizes (assuming depth of riprap
is 1.5 times the maximum size). These estimates suggest that riprap lining will be between $10 and
$20 per square foot of channel (costs include materials, labor, and equipment, with overhead and
profit).
5.1.5.3 Sediment Trapping Devices
The devices listed under this group of BMPs trap sediment primarily through impounding water and
allowing for settling to occur (Haan et al., 1994). Silt fence, super silt fence, straw bale dikes,
sediment traps, and sediment basins all control flow through a porous flow control system such as
filter fabric or straw bales or they use a dam to impound water with a pipe, open channel, or rock
fill outlet. The filtering capacity of silt fence (filter fabric) contributes only a small amount of
trapping, but serves to make the fence less porous and hence increases ponding. For steady-state
flows, the trapping that occurs behind the flow control device can be shown to be directly
proportional to the surface area and indirectly proportional to flow through the system (Haan et al.,
1994). The ratio of the surface area to flow is known as the overflow rate, and trapping in such
systems is predicted by the ratio of overflow rate to particle settling velocity. Although flows in
nature are inherently non-steady state and more complex than steady-state systems, studies have
shown that the best predictor of trapping in such systems is still the ratio of settling velocity to
overflow rate (Hayes et al., 1984). In the case of non-steady state, the overflow rate is best defined
by the ratio of peak discharge to surface area (Hayes et al., 1984; McBurnie et al., 1990).
The amount of trapping in these structures depends on the size of the structure, flow rates into the
system, hydraulics of the flow control system, the size distribution of the sediment flowing into the
structure, and the chemistry of the sediment-water system (Haan et al., 1994). Trapping can be
enhanced by chemical treatment of flows into the structure, but the impacts have not been widely
defined for varying mineralogy and chemistry of the sediment-water system (Haan et al., 1994;
Tapp and Barfield, 1986). Recent studies have been conducted on the application of
polyacrylamides (PAM) to disturbed areas for enhancing settling (Benik et al., 1998; Masters et al.,
2000; Roa-Espinosa et al., 2000), but results have not been definitive. No known studies have
evaluated the impacts of PAM application to disturbed areas on settling in sediment trapping
devices.
Sediment flowing into sediment trapping devices is composed of primary particles and aggregated
particles. Aggregates are formed when clays, silts, and sands are cemented together to form larger
particles that have settling velocities far greater than those of any individual particles alone,
although the degree of aggregation depends on the amount of cementing material present (typically
clays and organic matter). Since the aggregates have higher settling velocities than primary
particles, the degree of aggregation that is present has a large impact on the trapping that occurs.
Procedures are available to measure the combined size distribution of aggregate and primary
particle size distribution (Barfield et al., 1979; Haan et al., 1994). Procedures are also available to
predict particle size distributions of aggregates and primary particles (Foster et al., 1985), but have
not been found to be very accurate for subsoils exposed during construction in at least one study
(Barfield etal., 1983).
March, 2004
5-62
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
In the absence of chemical treatment, the sediment that can be captured in sediment trapping
devices is typically the larger settleable solids. To trap the smaller size clay particles, structures
with surface areas larger than the construction site itself would have to built in many cases
(Barfield, 2000). Chemical treatment can be used to reduce the size captured, but it has not been
adopted on a wide scale because of the cost and complexity of the operation (Tapp et al., 1981).
Sediment trapping devices also provide some storm water detention by virtue of detaining flows
long enough to allow sediment to settle out and be deposited. However, to operate as a storm water
detention structure, the design should include adequate volume for detention.
Virtually all of the available information on sediment trapping structures, both theoretical and
experimental, is on impacts to receiving waters and not downstream effects. In a very limited
analysis, Barfield (2000) combined the SEDIMOT II computer model together with the FLUVIAL
model to theoretically evaluate the impact of sediment trapping structures on downstream
geomorphology in a Puerto Rican watershed.
5.1.5.3.1 Silt Fence
General Description
Silt fences are used as temporary sediment barriers consisting of filter fabric anchored across and
supported by posts. Their purpose is to retain sediment from small disturbed areas by reducing the
velocity of sediment-laden runoff and promoting sediment deposition (Smolen et al., 1988). Silt
fences capture sediment by ponding water and allowing for deposition, not by filtration. Silt fence
fabric first screens silt and sand from runoff, resulting in clogging of the lower part of the fence.
The pooling water allows sediments to settle out of the runoff. Silt fences work best in conjunction
with temporary basins, traps, or diversions.
Applicability
Silt fences are generally placed at the toe of fills, along the edge of waterways, and along the site
perimeter. The fences should not be used in drainage areas with concentrated and high flows, in
large drainage areas, or in ditches and swales where concentrated flow is present.
The drainage area for the fence should be selected based on design storms and local hydrologic
conditions so that the silt fence is not expected to overtop. A typical design calls for no greater than
Vi acre of drainage area per 100 feet of fence, but this is highly variable depending on climate. The
fence should be stable enough to withstand runoff from a 10-year peak storm. Table 5-13 lists the
maximum slope length specified by the USDOT. These slope lengths should be based on sediment
load and flow rates. This would mean that the values given below should be adjusted for climatic
conditions instead of "one size fits all" to ensure maximum effectiveness.
March, 2004
5-63
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-13. Maximum Slope Lengths for Silt Fences
Slope (%)
18- inch (460 mm)
Fence
30- inch (760 mm)
Fence
<2
250 ft (75 m)
500 ft (150 m)
5
100 ft (30m)
250 ft (75 m)
10
50 ft (15 m)
150 ft (45 m)
20
25 ft (8 m)
70 ft (21 m)
25
6 m (20 ft)
55 ft (17 m)
30
15 ft (5 m)
45 ft (14 m)
35
15 ft (5 m)
40 ft (12 m)
40
15 ft (5 m)
35 ft (10 m)
45
10 ft (3 m)
30 ft (9 m)
50
10 ft (3m)
25 ft (8m)
Source: USDOT, 1995.
Typical standards and specifications call for the silt fence to be located on fairly level ground and
follow the land contour. However, field evaluations by Barfield and Hayes (1992, 1999) in South
Carolina and Kentucky indicate that installations on the contour as well as along a slope have
problems with undercutting. In either case, the installations are such that a slight slope may occur
along the fence in spite of the best installation practices. Runoff can move down the contour until a
weak spot occurs in the buried toe and undercuts the fence. Alternatively, flow may move to a low
spot where it accumulates and causes an overtopping. In either case, trapping by the silt fence is
essentially zero, and flows will then have been concentrated, causing downslope erosion.
Design and Installation Criteria
Design criteria are of two types:
Hydrologic design for a required trapping of sediment and flow rate to pass the design storm.
Selection of appropriate installation criteria such that the silt fence will perform as designed.
Hydrologic Design
The fence should be designed to pass the design storm without causing damage while trapping the
required amount of sediment. It is necessary to use either a database or some type of model to
develop the appropriate hydrologic design. Efforts to model the sediment trapping that occurs
through the use of a silt fence have resulted in models that predict the settling in the ponded area
upstream from the fence (Barfield et al., 1996; Lindley et al., 1998). The results from model
simulations show that trapping depends primarily on the surface area of the impounded water and
the flow rate through the filter. The models utilize a clear water flow rate, typically specified by the
manufacturer, to predict discharge. However, numerous studies have shown that sediment laden
flows cause clogging of the geotextiles used to construct the fence, dependent on the opening size
March, 2004
5-64
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
and size of the sediment (Britton et al., 2001; Wyant, 1980; Barrett et al., 1995; Fisher and Jarret,
1984). Thus, results from model studies to date are suspect and need to be modified to account for
the impacts of clogging on flow rate. Barfield et al., (2001) developed a model of flow rate using
conditional probability concepts, but the results have not been experimentally verified.
Design aids have been developed for silt fence, using simulations from the SEDIMOT in model
(Hayes and Barfield, 1995). In the model, predictions are made about trapping efficiency using the
ratio of settling velocity for the d154 of the eroded sediment, divided by the ratio of discharge to
ponded surface area. The design aids yield conservative estimates as compared to the SEDIMOT
in model, but the database used for generating the design aid is based on the assumption that
clogging does not impact flow rates. The discussion above shows that assumption to be erroneous.
SEDCAD takes the approach of using a slurry flow rate, not a clean water flow rate, when it
simulates fence effectiveness, reporting slurry rates rangING between 0.1 and 15 gpm/sq. ft. Based
on this discussion, one can conclude that it is difficult to predict with accuracy the trapping
efficiency of silt fence under a given set of conditions. In addition, the quality of installation and
maintenance are important to the long-term performance of the fence. The best available estimate of
sediment trapping obtained from modeling of hydrologic events should be applied with care in any
site design problem.
Installation Criteria
General installation criteria for the silt fence should incorporate the following factors:
The fabric must have sufficient strength to counter forces created by contained water and
sediment (Sprague, 1999).
The posts must have sufficient strength to counter the forces transferred to them by the fabric
(Sprague, 1999).
The fabric must be installed to ensure that the loads are all adequately transferred through the
fabric to the posts or the ground without overstressing (Sprague, 1999).
The fence must be designed based on site-specific hydrologic and soil conditions such that it
will not overtop during design events.
The fence must be installed (anchored) with a buried toe of sufficient depth so that it does not
become detached from the soil surface.
4d15:15 percent by weight of suspended solids are smaller than those that are trapped by
this device; Similarly d50 indicates that 50 percent by weight of suspended solids are smaller
than those trapped.
March, 2004
5-65
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
In general, the fence requires a metal wire backing to provide sufficient strength to prevent
failure from the weight of trapped sediment and to prevent the toe of the fabric from being
removed from the ground.
Maximum drainage area behind the fence should be determined based on the local rainfall and
the infiltration characteristics of the soil and cover.
Silt fence material is typically synthetic filter fabric or a pervious sheet of polypropylene, nylon,
polyester, or polyethylene yarn. The fabric should have ultraviolet ray inhibitors and stabilizers to
provide for a minimum useful construction life of 6 months or the duration of construction,
whichever is greater. The height of the fence fabric should not exceed 3 feet. If standard strength
filter fabric is used, it should be reinforced with a wire fence, extending down into the trench that
buries the toe. The wire should be of sufficient strength to support the weight of the deposited
sediment and water. In general, a minimum 14 gauge and a maximum mesh spacing of 6 inches is
called for (Smolen et al., 1988). Typical requirements for the silt fence physical properties, as
specified in selected local BMP standards and specifications, are included in Table 5-14.
Table 5-14. Typical Requirements for Silt Fence Fabric
Physical
Property
Requirements
Woven Fabric
Non-Woven Fabric
Filtering
Efficiency
85%
85%
Tensile Strength
at 20%
(maximum)
Elongation
Standard Strength —30
pound/linear inch
Extra Strength —50
pound/linear inch
Standard Strength —50
pound/linear inch
Extra Strength —70
pound/linear inch
Slurry Flow
Rate
0.3 gallon/square feet/minute
4.5 gallon/square feet/minute
Water Flow Rate
15 gallon/square feet/minute
220 gallon/square feet/minute
UV Resistance
70%
85%
Source: NCDNR, 1988; IDNR 1992.
It should be pointed out that these numbers, particularly the flow rates, could vary widely
depending on the local soil condition due to possible clogging of the filter material.
Material for the posts used to anchor the filter fabric can be constructed of either wood or steel.
Wooden stakes should be buried at a depth sufficient to keep the fence, when loaded with sediment
and water, from falling over. The depth of burial should depend on post diameter and soil strength
characteristics when saturated. Many standards and specifications set a minimum post length of
5 feet with 4-inch diameter for posts composed of softwood (e.g, pine) and 2-inch diameter for
posts composed of hardwood (e.g., oak) (Smolen et al., 1988). Steel posts should also be designed
based on local wet soil strength characteristics. Some standards and specifications for these posts
set a minimum weight of 1.33 pounds per linear feet with a minimum length of 4 feet. Steel posts
should also have projections to adhere filter fabric to the post (Smolen et al., 1988).
March, 2004
5-66
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
A silt fence should be erected in a continuous fashion from a single roll of fabric so as to eliminate
unwanted gaps in the fence. If a continuous roll of fabric is not available, the fabric should overlap
from both directions only at posts with a minimum overlap of 6 inches and be rolled together with a
special flexible rod to keep the ends from separating. Fence posts should be spaced at a distance
based on wet soil strength characteristics and post size and strength; generally, the posts are spaced
approximately 4 to 6 feet apart. If standard strength fabric is used in combination with wire mesh,
the spacing can be larger. Typically, standards and specifications call for the posts to be no more
than 10 feet apart. If extra-strength fabric is used without wire mesh reinforcement, some standards
call for the support posts to be spaced no more than 6 feet apart (VDCR, 1995). Again, this spacing
should depend on wet soil strength characteristics and post size.
A silt fence must provide sufficient storage capacity or be stabilized over flow outlets such that the
storage volume of water will not overtop the fence. The return period event (size of the rainfall
event managed) used for design is typically a prerogative of the regulatory agency. For temporary
fences, a 2-year storm event is typically used as a design standard. Fences that will be in place for 6
months or longer are commonly designed based on a 10-year storm event (Sprague, 1999). The
space behind the fence used for impoundment volume must be sufficient to adequately contain the
sediment that will be deposited. Each storm will deposit sediment behind the fence, and after a
period of time the amount of sediment accumulated will render the fence useless. Frequency of
fence management is a function of its sizing (i.e. whether the fence was installed for a 2-year or a
10-year storm event) (Sprague, 1999) and the amount of erosion that occurs in the area draining to
the fence.
Effectiveness
The performance of silt fences has not been well defined. Laboratory studies using carefully
controlled conditions have shown trapping efficiencies in the range of 40 to 100 percent, depending
on the type of fabric, overflow rate, and detention time (Barrett et al., 1995; Wyant, 1980;
Wishowski et al., 1998). Field studies have been limited and quite inadequate; however, the results
show that field-trapping efficiencies are very low. In fact, Barrett et al. (1995) obtained a value of
zero percent trapping averaged over several samples with a standard error of 26 percent. Barrett et
al. (1995) cite the following reasons for the field tests not showing the expected results:
Inadequate fabric splices
Sustained failure to correct fence damage resulting from overtopping
Large holes in the fabric
Under-runs due to inadequate "toe-ins"
Silt fence damaged and partially covered by the temporary placement of stockpiles of materials
March, 2004
5-67
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Field inspections conducted by Barfield and Hayes (1992) were made in which more than 50
construction sites in South Carolina and Kentucky were visited. Inspections found that silt fence
was seldom installed and, when installed, was rarely set up according to specifications. In areas
where installations did meet standards, it was obvious that flows sought the weakest spot on the
fence and either flowed through cuts in the fabric or undercut or overtopped the fence. This flow
was thus changed from the overland flow coming into the site to concentrated flow, causing
significant erosion.
Silt fences are effective at removing large particle sediment, primarily aggregates, sands, and larger
silts. Sediment is removed through impounding of water to slow velocity. It is argued that the silt
fence will not contribute to a reduction in small particle sediment and is not effective against other
pollutants (WYDEQ, 1999). EPA (1993) reports the following effectiveness ranges for silt fences
constructed of filter fabric: average total suspended solids removal of 70 percent, sand removal of
80 to 90 percent, silt-loam removal of 50 to 80 percent, and silt-clay-loam removal of 0 to 20
percent. However, the EPA numbers from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program should not be
considered to apply to every location. The actual trapping will vary widely for a given design
because of differences in hydrologic regimes and soil types.
The advantages of using silt fences include minimal labor requirement for installation, low cost,
high efficiency in removing sediment, durability, and sometimes reuse (Sprague, 1999). Silt fences
are the most readily available and cost-effective control options where options like diversion are not
possible. Silt fences are also a popular choice because contractors have used them extensively and
their familiarity makes silt fence use more likely for future construction activities. The visibility of
a silt fence is also an advantage (i.e., the fence is "advertising" the use of erosion and sediment
control practices). In addition, the silt fence visibility makes site inspection easier for contractors
and government inspectors (CWP, 1996).
Limitations
Silt fences should not be installed along areas where rocks or other hard surfaces will prevent
uniform anchoring of fence posts and entrenching of the filter fabric because an insufficient anchor
will greatly reduce their effectiveness and may create runoff channels. In addition, open areas
where wind velocity is high may present a maintenance challenge, as high winds may accelerate
deterioration of the filter fabric (Smolen et al., 1988). When the pores of the silt fence fabric
become clogged with sediment, pools of water are likely to form uphill of the fence. Siting and
design of the silt fence should account for this problem, and care should be taken to avoid
unnecessary diversion of storm water from these pools which might cause further erosion damage.
Silt fences can act as a diversion if placed slightly off-contour and can control shallow, uniform
flows from small, disturbed areas and deliver sediment-laden water to deposition areas.
Silt fences will sag or collapse if a site is too large, if too much sediment accumulates, if the
approach slope is too steep, or if the fence was not adequately supported. If the fence bottom is
not properly installed or the flow velocity is too fast, fence undercuts or blowouts can occur
March, 2004
5-68
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
because of excess runoff. Erosion around the end of the fence can occur if the fence ends do not
extend upslope to prevent flow around the fence (IDNR, 1992).
Maintenance
Site operators should inspect silt fences after each rainfall event to ensure they are intact and that
there are no gaps at the fence-ground interface or tears along the length of the fence. If gaps or
tears are found, they should be repaired or the fabric should be replaced immediately. Accumulated
sediments should be removed from the fence base when the sediment reaches one-third to halfway
up the height of the fence. Sediment removal should occur more frequently if accumulated
sediment is creating a noticeable strain on the fabric and there is the possibility that the fence might
fail from a sudden storm event.
Cost
There is a wide range of data on installation costs for silt fences. EPA estimates these costs at
approximately $6.00 per linear foot (USEPA, 1992) while SWRPC estimates unit costs between
$2.30 and $4.50 per linear foot (SWRPC, 1991). Silt fences have an annual maintenance cost that
is 100 percent of installation cost (Brown and Schueler, 1997). These values are significantly
greater than that reported by R. S. Means (2000), which indicates a 3-foot-tall silt fence installation
cost between $0.68 and $0.92 per linear foot (for favorable and challenging installations). It should
be noted that the R. S. Means value covers just a single installation, without the expected costs of
maintenance (e.g., removal of collected sediment). In addition, the type of silt fence fabric
employed will also affect the total installation costs.
5.1.5.3.2 Super Silt Fence
General Description
Super silt fence is a modification of a standard silt fence. The two central differences between the
standard silt fence and the super silt fence is that the super silt fence has toe that is buried more
deeply and the backing material is chain link fence held in place by steel posts—a concept that
originated in Maryland. The Maryland super silt fence requires a Geotextile Class F fabric over a
chain link fence to intercept sediment-laden runoff from small drainage areas. The super silt fence
provides a barrier that can collect and hold debris and soil more effectively than a standard silt
fence, preventing material from entering critical areas. It is best used where the installation of a
dike would destroy sensitive areas, woods, and wetlands.
Applicability
Super silt fences can be used in the same conditions as a silt fence. Fences should follow the
contour of the land. Table 5-15 lists the distance a super silt fence should be from a slope to ensure
maximum effectiveness (MDE, 1994).
March, 2004
5-69
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-15. Slope Lengths for Super Silt Fences
Slope (%)
Slope Length
Minimum
Maximum
0-10
Unlimited
Unlimited
10-20
200 feet
1,500 feet
20-33
100 feet
1,000 feet
33-50
100 feet
500 feet
50+
50 feet
250 feet
Design and Installation Criteria
As with the standard silt fence, design criteria are of two types, hydrologic design for a required
trapping of sediment and flow rate to pass the design storm and selection of appropriate installation
criteria such that the silt fence will perform as designed.
Hydrologic Design
Hydrologic design criteria are the same as the criteria for the standard silt fence.
Installation Criteria
The criteria used for the Maryland super silt fence indicate the following, although they have not
been tested with field data:
The fence should be placed as close to the contour as possible, with no section of the silt fence
exceeding a grade of 5 percent for a distance of more than 50 feet.
Fabric should be no more than 42 inches in height and should be held in place with a 6-foot
chain link fence.
Fabric should be attached to the steel pole using wire ties or staples. Fabric should be securely
fastened to the chain link fence with ties spaced every 24 inches at the top and midsection.
Fabric should be embedded into the ground at a minimum of 8 inches.
Edges of fabric should overlap by 6 inches.
Table 5-16 describes the physical properties of Geotextile class F fabric (MDE, 1994).
March, 2004
5-70
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-16. Minimum Requirements for Super Silt Fence Geotextile Class F Fabric
Physical Properties
Requirements
Tension Strength
50 pound/inch
Tensile Modulus
20 pound/inch
Flow Rate
0.3 gallon/ft2/minute
Filtering Efficiency
75%
Effectiveness
Performance data have not been collected for super silt fences. The fences have been proposed for
locations within a sensitive watershed, or where site conditions prohibit the use of a standard silt
fence. However, until performance data are collected under field conditions, effectiveness is
speculative.
Limitations
Super silt fences are not as likely to fail structurally as are standard silt fences, but they are more
expensive than standard silt fences.
Maintenance
Maintenance requirements for super silt fences are generally the same as for standard silt fences.
Cost
The cost of the super silt fence is more than the standard silt fence because of deeper burial at the
toe and the cost of chain linked fencing. R. S. Means (2000) indicates a rental price of $10 to $11
per linear foot of chain linked fence for periods up to 1 year. Overall, rental is expected for most
construction site installation because rental rates are approximately half the price of permanent
chain link fencing.
5.1.5.3.3 Straw Bale Dike
General Description
The straw bale dike is a temporary measure used to trap sediment from small, sloping disturbed
areas. It is constructed of straw bales (not hay bales) wedged tightly together and placed along the
contour downslope of disturbed areas. The bales are placed in a shallow excavation, and the
upslope side is sealed with soil. Stakes are driven through the bales into the soil to help hold the
bales in place. The dike works by impounding water, which allows sediment to settle out in the
upslope area (Haan et al., 1994). Straw bale dikes are recommended for short duration application
and are usually effective for less than 3 months because of rapid decomposition (USDOT, 1995).
March, 2004
5-71
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Applicability
Straw bale dikes are generally placed at the toe of fills to provide for a broad shallow sediment
pool. The dikes should not be used in drainage areas with concentrated and high flows, in large
drainage areas, or in ditches and swales. The location of the straw bale dike should be fairly level,
at least 10 feet from the toe, and should follow the land contour. Table 5-17 lists the distance a
straw bale dike should be placed from a slope to ensure maximum effectiveness.
Table 5-17. Maximum Land Slope and Distances Above a Straw Bale Dike
Land Slope
Maximum Distance Above
(%)
Dam (ft)
Less than 2
100
2-5
75
5-10
50
10-20
25
More than 20
15
Source: USDOT, 1995.
Design and Implementation Criteria
Hydrologic Design
Hydrologic design dictates the structure necessary to withstand a storm without causing damage
while trapping the required amount of sediment. Either a database or some type of model are
needed to find the appropriate design. Efforts to model the sediment trapping that occurs in straw
bale dikes have resulted in models that predict the settling in the ponded area upstream from the
fence (Barfield et al., 1996; Lindley et al., 1998). The results from model simulations show that
trapping depends primarily on the surface area of the impounded water and flow rate through the
filter. The models use a clear water slurry flow rate to predict discharge. It is anticipated, based on
visual observations, that sediment will clog the straw bale barrier, reducing the slurry flow rate.
Thus, results from model studies to date are suspect and need to be modified to account for the
impact of clogging on flow rate.
Installation Criteria
The US DOT's BMP Manual and the Indiana BMP Manual call for bales to be:
Anchored by driving two 36-inch long (minimum) steel rebars or 2 x 2-inch hardwood stakes
through each bale;
Sized according to the standard bale size of 14 inches x 18 inches x 35 inches;
Placed in an excavated trench at least 4 inches deep, a bale's width, and long enough that the
end bales are somewhat upslope of the sediment pool;
March, 2004
5-72
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Abutted tightly against each other; and,
Sized such that impounded water depth should not exceed 1.5 feet.
The USDOT BMP Manual does not require that straw bale dikes be designed; however, the Indiana
Manual limits the drainage area to 1/4 acre per 100 feet of dam and the total drainage area draining
to a straw bale dike to 2 acres.
Effectiveness
The information on performance of straw bale dikes is very limited. In laboratory studies of bales
at varying orientations, Kouwen (1990) found that trapping efficiencies ranged from 60 to 100
percent. Field data on trapping have not been collected; however, visual inspection of sites indicate
that straw bales are not properly installed to prevent flows from undercutting or flowing between
bales (Barfield and Hayes, 1992, 1999). In addition, bales deteriorate rapidly and need to be
replaced frequently. Because of these problems, the use of straw bale dikes as a perimeter control
is not recommended, except in special circumstances. Only 27 percent of erosion and sediment
control experts rated the straw bale dike as an effective erosion and sediment control practice,
although its use was still allowed in half of the communities surveyed (Brown and Caraco, 1997).
Limitations
Straw bale dikes should not be used as a diversion, in streams, in channels, or in areas with
concentrated flow. The bales are not recommended for paved areas because of the inability to
anchor the bales (IDNR, 1992).
Care must be taken to ensure that the bales are not installed in an area where there is a concentrated
flow of runoff, in a drainage area that is too large, or on an excessive slope (IDNR, 1992). Under
these conditions, erosion around the end of the bales, overtopping and undercutting of the bales, and
bale collapsing and dislodging are likely to occur. Overtopping will also occur if the storage
capacity is underestimated and where provisions are not made for safe bypass of storm flow (IDNR,
1992). Undercutting will occur if the bales are not entrenched at least 4 inches and backfilled with
compacted soil or were not abutted or chinked properly. Straw bale dikes are likely to collapse or
dislodge if the bales are not adequately staked, or if too much sediment is allowed to accumulate
before cleanout (IDNR, 1992).
Maintenance
For the straw bale dike to be most effective, it is important to replace deteriorated bales when
appropriate.
March, 2004
5-73
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Cost
The cost of straw bale dikes are relatively low, making their use attractive. R. S. Means (2000)
indicates a staked straw bale unit cost of $2.61 per linear foot (Costs include materials, labor, and
equipment, with profit and overhead).
5.1.5.3.4 Sediment Trap
General Description
A sediment trap is a temporary control device used to intercept sediment-laden runoff and to trap
sediment to prevent or reduce off-site sedimentation. It is normally a more temporary type of
structure than a sediment pond and is constructed to control sediment on the construction area
during a selected phase of the construction operation. A sediment trap can be formed by excavation
and/or embankments constructed at designated locations accessible for cleanout. The outlet for a
sediment trap is typically a porous rock fill structure, which serves to detain the flow, but a pipe
structure can also be used. A temporary sediment trap may be located in a drainageway, at a storm
drain inlet, or at other points of discharge from a disturbed area. They may be constructed
independently or in conjunction with diversions and may be used in most drainage situations to
prevent excessive siltation of pipe structures (USEPA, 1992).
Applicability
Sediment traps can simplify the storm water control plan design process by trapping sediment at
specific spots at a construction site (USEPA, 1992). They should be installed as early in the
construction process as possible and are primarily effective as a short-term solution to trapping
sediment from construction sites (WYDEQ 1999). Natural drainage patterns should be noted, and
sites where runoff from potential erosion can be directed into the traps should be selected. Traps
are most effective when capturing runoff from areas where 2 to 5 acres drain to one location.
Sediment traps should not be located in areas where their failure resulting from excess runoff can
lead to further erosive damage of the landscape. Alternative diversion pathways should be designed
to accommodate these potential overflows. Traps should be accessible for clean-out and located so
that they do not interfere with construction activity. In addition, the traps are easily adaptable to
most conditions.
Design and Implementation Criteria
Hydrologic Design
A sediment trap should be designed to maximize surface area and sediment settling. This will
increase the effectiveness of the trap and decrease the likeliness of backup during and after periods
of high runoff intensity. The design of a trap includes determining the storage volume, surface
area, dimensions of spillway or outlet, and elevations of embankment (USDOT, 1995). Sediment
March, 2004
5-74
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
traps should be designed to meet a 2-year, 24-hour storm event, but the selection of a return period
varies among regulatory agencies (IDNR, 1992).
Storage volume is created by a combination of excavation of land and construction of an
embankment to detain runoff (USDOT, 1995). Trap storage volume and length of spillway are
determined as a function of the runoff volume and rate for the design storm. These parameters will
vary depending on return period rainfall and watershed hydrologic characteristics. Some standards
specify a storage volume per acre disturbed. For example, Smolen et al. (1998) specified that
approximate storage capacity of each trap should be at least 67 cubic yards per acre disturbed
draining into the trap, but more recent guidelines suggest 134 cubic yards per acre of drainage area
(VDCR, 2001). Any national standard, however, should be based on runoff volume and peak
discharge to be generally applicable. Local regulations can translate this into applicable volume
and area standards.
A more important criterion than storage volume relates to sediment trapping. If a trapping
efficiency is specified, as in the case of South Carolina (SCDHEC, 1995), it is necessary to design
for trapping efficiency. If a TSS or settleable solids effluent criterion is adopted (SCDHEC, 1995),
settleable solids must be estimated. In both cases, a national standard should address how to
estimate trapping efficiency or settleable solids. Efforts to model the sediment trapping that occurs
in sediment traps have resulted in models that predict the settling in the ponded area (Barfield et al.,
1996; Lindley et al., 1998). The results from model simulations show that trapping depends
primarily on surface area of the impounded water and flow rate through the rock fill outlet. In fact,
the ratio of peak outflow rate to surface area is the best simple predictor of trapping. The models
use a modification of the Herrera and Felton (1991) relationship developed by Haan et al. (1994) to
predict discharge rates. The predicted flow rates do not take into account clogging that can occur in
rock fill. No models or procedures are available to estimate this clogging or its impact on flow
criteria.
Design aids have also been developed for sediment traps, using simulations from the SEDIMOT HI
(Barfield et al., 2001; Hayes et al., 2001). In the model, predictions are made of trapping efficiency
using the ratio of settling velocity for the d15 of the eroded sediment, divided by the ratio of
discharge to ponded surface area. The design aid yields conservative estimates, but the database
used for generating the design aid is based on the assumption that flow rates are not impacted by
clogging. This latter assumption is not likely to be a critical issue, but should be addressed in future
research.
Installation Specifications
USDOT standards call for the embankment to be constructed of compacted earth, at a maximum
height of 5 feet (1.5 meters), a width of 4 to 5 feet (1.2 meters), and side slopes of 2: lor flatter.
These values may change as a result of local criteria and with changing soil characteristics.
Temporary vegetation should be applied to the embankment.
March, 2004
5-75
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Two types of outlet structures are typically used for sediment traps, a rock outlet and a pipe outlet.
Spillways of large stones or aggregate are the most common type of outlet designed for sediment
traps. The crest of the spillway should be constructed 1 foot below the top of the embankment and
the spillway depth 1.5 feet below the top of the embankment. Weir length of the spillway is
determined based on the contributing drainage area (Table 5-18) (USDOT, 1995). The outlet apron
should be a minimum of 5 feet long, and situated on level ground with a filter fabric foundation to
ensure exit velocity of drainage to receiving stream is nonerosive (IDNR, 1992).
The length of the rock outlet should be determined based on peak discharge required and rock
characteristics, typically rock diameter. Flow rate calculations can be made with the relationship of
Herrera and Felton (1991) as modified by Haan et al. (1994). Alternatively, the USDOT has
specified the weir length for a given drainage area as shown in Table 5-18. However, the values
should be adjusted for each climatologic area to account for local hydrologic and return period
rainfall.
Contributing
Drainage
Area
Weir Length (ft)
1
4
2
5
3
6
4
10
5
12
Source: USDOT, 1995.
The pipe outlet, constructed of corrugated metal or PVC pipe riser, is an alternative to the rock
outlet. Pipe diameter is based on the peak discharge rate required. To obtain appropriate
freeboard, the top of pipe should be placed 1.5 feet below embankment elevation. Perforated pipe is
sometimes used. USDOT suggests perforations of 1-inch (25 mm) diameter holes or 0.5 x 6 inch
(13 x 15 mm) slits in the upper two-thirds of the pipe; however, the discharge should be calculated
for this pipe specification to ensure that it matches the required peak discharge.
The pipe should be placed vertically and horizontally above wet storage elevation (USDOT, 1995).
Riprap should be used as an outlet protection and placed at the outlet of the barrel to prevent scour
from occurring (USDOT, 1995). A stable channel should be provided to convey discharge to the
receiving channel (USDOT, 1995).
Effectiveness
If it is assumed that the flow can be accurately controlled by the rock fill outlet, sediment traps
should operate as effectively as sediment basins, with trapping efficiencies reduced as a result of
smaller surface areas. The NURP study (USEPA, 1993), Stahre and Urbonas (1990), and Haan, et
al., (1994), report that sediment basins effectively trapped sediment and chemicals as shown in
Table 5-19.
March, 2004
5-76
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-19. Range of Measured Pollutant Removal for Sediment Detention Basins
Removable
Item
Percentage
Total suspended solids
(TSS)
50-70
Total phosphorus (TP)
10-20
Nitrogen
10-20
Organic matter
20-40
Lead
75-90
Zinc
30-60
Hydrocarbons
50-70
Bacteria
50-90
Source: Stahre andUrbonas, 1990.
Information on the actual effectiveness of sediment traps is limited. The discussion should start
first with the flow hydraulics of the rock fill outlet typically employed as a principal spillway for
sediment traps. Procedures for estimating flow through rock fill have been developed by Herra and
Felton (1991) to estimate flow as a function of average rock diameter, standard deviation of rock
size, and flow length. If these parameters could be controlled in an actual situation, the flow could
be accurately predicted. However, given that standard construction practices consist of end-
dumping the rock fill in place, one would expect little correlation between design and construction
and the actual discharge and trapping efficiency would be expected to be dramatically different
from the design. This analysis does not mean that sediment traps are ineffective, but that a given
design could not be guaranteed to meet the effluent criteria, even though the predictions indicate
compliance. Sediment trapping efficiency is a function of surface area and inflow rate (Smolen et
al., 1988). Those traps that provide pools with large length-to-width ratios have a greater chance of
success.
Sediment traps remove larger sized sediment, primarily sized from silt to sands, by slowing water
velocity and allowing for sediment settling in ponded water (Haan et al., 1994). Although sediment
traps allow for settling of eroded soils, because of their short detention periods for storm water they
typically do not remove fine particles such as silts and clays without chemical treatment. Sediment
settling ability is related to the square of the particle size; halving particle sizes quadruples the time
needed to achieve settlement (WYDEQ 1999). To increase overall effectiveness, traps should be
constructed in smaller areas with low slopes.
Sediment traps are typically designed to remove only sediment from surface water, but some non-
sediment pollutants are trapped as well (Haan et al., 1994).
Limitations
Common concerns associated with sediment traps are included in Table 5-20.
March, 2004
5-77
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-20. Common Concerns Associated with Sediment Traps
Common Concern
Result
Inadequate spillway size
Results in overtopping of the dam and
possible failure of the structure
Omission or improper installation of
geotextile fabric
Results in piping under the sides or bottom of
the stone and outlet section
Low point in embankment caused by
inadequate compaction and settling
Results in overtopping and possible failure
Stone outlet apron does not extend to stable
grade
Results in erosion below the dam
Stone size too small or backslope too steep
Results in stone displacement
Inadequate vegetative protection
Results in erosion of embankment
Sediment not removed from the basin with
enough frequency
Results in inadequate storage capacity
Contact slope between stone spillway and
earth embankment too steep
Results in piping failure
Outlet pipe installed in vertical side of
trench
Results in piping failure of embankment
Corrugated tubing used as outlet pipe
Results in crushed pipe and inadequate outlet
capacity
Source: IDNR, 1992.
Maintenance
The primary maintenance consideration for temporary sediment traps is the removal of accumulated
sediment from the basin, which must be done periodically to ensure the continued effectiveness of
the sediment trap. Sediments should be removed when the basin reaches approximately 50 percent
sediment capacity.
A sediment trap should be inspected after each rainfall event to ensure the trap is draining properly.
Inspectors should also check the structure for damage from erosion or piping. The depth of the
spillway should be checked and maintained at a minimum of 1.5 feet below the low point of the trap
embankment.
Cost
The cost of installing temporary sediment traps ranges from $0.20 to $2.00 per cubic foot of storage
(about $1,100 per acre of drainage). EPA estimated the following costs for sediment traps, which
vary as a function of the volume of storage: $513 for 1,800 cubic yards, $1,670 for 3,600 cubic
yards, and $2,660 for 5,400 cubic yards (USEPA, 1993). Evaluation of a series of more recent data
sources (USEPA, 2003) indicated that sediment traps have an average cost of $0.30 per cubic foot
of storage. In addition, it has been reported that a sediment trap has an annual maintenance cost of
20 percent of installation cost (Brown and Schueler, 1997).
March, 2004
5-78
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5.1.5.3.5 Sediment Basin
General Description
A sediment basin is a storm water detention structure formed by constructing a dam across a
drainageway or excavating a storage volume at other suitable locations and using it to intercept
sediment-laden runoff. Sediment basins are generally larger and more effective in retaining
sediment than temporary sediment traps and typically remain active throughout the construction
period. Jurisdictions that require postdevelopment flow to be less than or equal to predevelopment
flow during construction may employ the designed detention facilities as a temporary sediment
basin during construction.
When sediment basins are designed properly, they can control sediment pollution through the
following functions (Faircloth, 1999):
Sediment-laden runoff is caught to form an impoundment of water and create conditions where
sediment will settle to the bottom of the basin.
Treated runoff is released with less sediment concentration than when it entered the basin.
Storage is provided for accumulated sediment, and resuspension by subsequent storms is
limited.
Applicability
Sediment basins should be located at a convenient concentration point for sediment-laden flows
(NCDNR, 1988). Ideal sites are areas where natural topography allows a pond to be formed by
constructing a dam across a natural swale; such sites are preferred to those that require excavation
(Smolen et al., 1988).
Sediment basins are also applicable in drainage areas where it is anticipated that other erosion
controls, such as sediment traps, will not be sufficient to prevent off-site transport of sediment.
Choosing to construct a sediment basin with either an earthen embankment or a stone/rock dam will
depend on the materials available, location of the basin, and desired capacity for storm water runoff
and settling of sediments.
Rock dams are suitable where earthen embankments would be difficult to construct or where riprap
is readily available. Rock structures are also desirable where the top of the dam structure is to be
used as an emergency overflow outlet. These riprap dams are best for drainage areas of less than
50 acres. Earthen damming structures are appropriate where failure of the dam will not result in
substantial damage or loss of property or life. If properly constructed, sediment basins with earthen
dams can handle storm water runoff from drainage basins as large as 100 acres.
March, 2004
5-79
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Design and Implementation Criteria
Hydrologic Design
A sediment basin can be constructed by excavation or by erecting an earthen embankment across a
low area or drainage swale. Sediment basins can be designed to drain completely during dry
periods, or they can be constructed so that a shallow, permanent pool of water remains between
storm events. Depending on the size of the basin constructed, the basin may be subject to
additional regulation, particularly state and federal regulations related to dam safety.
Sediment basins can be used for any size watershed, but the U.S. Department of Transportation
recommends a drainage area range of 5 to 100 acres (USDOT, 1995). Components of a sediment
basin that must be considered in the hydrologic design include the following (Haan et al., 1994):
A sediment storage volume sized to contain the sediment trapped during the life of the structure
or between cleanouts.
A permanent pool volume (if included) above the sediment storage to protect trapped sediment
and prevent resuspension as well as providing a first flush of discharge that has been subjected
to an extended detention period.
A detention volume that contains storm runoff for a period sufficient to trap the necessary
quantity of suspended solids.
A principal spillway that can be a drop-inlet pipe and barrel, a trickle tube, or other type of
controlled release structure.
An emergency spillway that is designed to handle excessive runoff from the rarer events and
prevent overtopping.
The following recommended procedures for conducting the hydrologic design are summarized from
Haan et al. (1994).
Sediment Storage Volume. This volume should be sufficient to store the sediment trapped during
the life of the structure or between cleanouts. Sediment storage volume can be calculated based on
sediment yield using relationships such as the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation with an
appropriate delivery ratio (Renard et al., 1994) or a computer model such as SEDIMOT HI
(Barfield et al., 1996) or SEDCAD (Warner, 1998). Many design specifications, however, base the
sediment storage volume on a volume per acre disturbed. This volume is highly site-specific,
depending on rainfall distributions, soil types, and construction techniques. It is recommended that
care be exercised in developing appropriate values to be sure that variations in rainfall throughout a
state or region are incorporated in statutory requirements.
March, 2004
5-80
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Permanent Pool Volume. Providing a first flush of discharge that has been subjected to an
extended detention period can help to minimize degradation of water quality and justify some
permanent pool. The recommended capacity of the permanent pool varies with the regulatory
agency. The U.S. Department of Transportation, for example, recommends 67 cubic yards per acre
(126 m3/ha) (USDOT, 1995). If an effluent criterion such as allowable peak TSS or peak settleable
solids is used, the final design of both permanent pool and detention volume should be selected
only after using a computer model to predict the expected peak effluent concentrations.
Detention Volume. Storm runoff must be contained for a period of time sufficient to trap the
necessary quantity of suspended solids. Since inflow is occurring simultaneously with outflow, the
detention time for each plug of flow is different and should be considered individually. The size of
the detention volume, as stated above, should also be developed in concert with determining the
size of the permanent pool volume as well as the size of the principal spillway. When effluent TSS
and settleable solids criteria are used, the size of the detention volume and permanent pool volume
should be determined through a computer model calculation of expected effluent concentrations for
a given design. The return period used to size the detention volume depends on the regulatory
agency, but a return period of 10 years is typical for sediment basins that eventually become storm
water detention ponds (i.e., are used to limit future flooding due to storm water). EPA's review of
State construction site regulations found the majority of States specify detention volume in terms of
cubic feet per acre that drains to the sediment basin. State design values range between 1,800 and
5,400 cubic feet per acre, with 3,600 cubic feet per acre as the typical value.
Principal Spillway. The principal spillway is a hydraulic outlet structure sized to provide the
appropriate outflow rate to meet the effluent or trapping efficiency criteria. The principal spillway
should have a dewatering device that slowly releases water contained in the detention storage over
an extended period of time and at a rate determined to trap the required amount of sediment and/or
provide for the appropriate effluent concentration in the design storm. The more common outlet
structures are the drop-inlet structure and the trickle tube. Sizing of the principal spillway should
follow standard design procedures with respect to hydrology and sediment considerations, but
sizing the structure to simply pass the design storm is inappropriate and will not result in meeting
an effluent or trapping efficiency standard. The size to be used in a given structure should be
determined based on the effluent or trapping efficiency standard being targeted and site-specific
hydrologic and soil conditions. Appropriate design will require the use of a computer model such
as SEDIMOT HI (Barfield et al., 1996) or design aids such as those developed for South Carolina
(Hayes and Barfield, 1995). In general, the design is developed to maximize surface area, which
will minimize peak discharge. Since failure of the dam could result in downstream damage, the
design should be done and certified by a licensed engineer with expertise in hydrologic
computation.
It has been proposed that a surface skimmer made of PVC, aluminum, or stainless steel and
designed to prevent trash from clogging can also be used to replace conventional principal
spillways. The skimmer puts the basin drain just below the water surface, allowing for a constant
head rather than variable head from the bottom. It is proposed that the skimmer allows water to be
released from the top of the basin, which would be the cleanest water, and that the skimmer
March, 2004
5-81
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
properly regulates the filling and draining of the basin (Fairchild, 1999). The skimmer floats on the
surface of the basin and rises as water in the basin rises during a storm. After the storm the
skimmer slowly releases water from the basin. As the basin drains, the skimmer settles to the
bottom, draining the entire pool except for a pool directly under the skimmer. The skimmer can be
attached directly to an outlet pipe that drains through the dam or can be attached to an outlet pipe
through a riser. It is important to point out that use of the skimmer is controversial and not
universally recognized as a good concept. Conventional hydraulic flow theory would not concur
with the statement that the flow would come only from the surface, unless the pond had significant
thermal gradients preventing flow from deeper levels. A single hole placed just above the sediment
cleanout level can also dewater the basin slowly.
Emergency Spillway. Since overtopping of the dam can cause failure and downstream damage, an
emergency spillway is necessary to handle excessive runoff from the larger, less frequent events
and prevent overtopping. The design storm for the emergency spillway will depend on the hazard
classification of the sediment basin. Typical return periods vary between 25 and 100 years, with 25
years recommended by the USDOT. Sizing of the emergency spillway is typically accomplished to
simply transmit the rare event without eroding the base of the spillway. Procedures for making the
hydrologic and hydraulic computations are summarized in Haan et al. (1994). Again, since failure
of the dam could result in downstream damage, the design should be done and certified by a
licensed engineer with expertise in hydrologic computation.
Installation Criteria
The embankment for permanent sediment basins should be designed using standard geotechnical
construction techniques. The fill is typically constructed of earthen fill material placed and
compacted in continuous layers over the entire length of the fill. USDOT recommends 6- to 8-inch
layers (USDOT, 1995). The embankment should be stabilized with vegetation after construction of
the basin. A cutoff trench should be excavated along the centerline of the dam to prevent excessive
seepage beneath the dam and be sized using standard geotechnical computations. USDOT
recommends that a minimum depth of the cutoff trench should be approximately 2 feet (600 mm),
the height should be to the riser crest elevation, the minimum bottom width should be 4 feet (1.2 m)
or wide enough for compaction equipment, and slopes should be no steeper than 1:1.
Sediment basins can also be constructed with rock dams in a design that is similar to a sediment
basin with an earthen embankment. It is important to remember that rock fill is highly
heterogeneous and that flow rates calculated with any available procedure are not likely to match
those that will actually occur. Since sediment trapping is inversely proportional to flow rate, the
trapping efficiency will be impacted significantly. No data are available to determine the variability
of rock fill in actual installations so that confidence intervals can be placed on predicted flow rates.
Such data should be collected and the confidence intervals calculated prior to recommending the
use of rock dams as outlets on any structures other than sediment traps.
March, 2004
5-82
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of a sediment basin depends primarily on the sediment particle size and the ratio
of basin surface area to inflow rate (Smolen et al., 1988; Haan et al., 1994). Basins with a large
surface area-to-volume ratio will be most effective. Studies by Barfield and Clar (1985) showed
that a surface area-to-peak discharge ratio of 0.01 acres per cubic foot would trap more than 75
percent of the sediment coming from the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions in Maryland. This
efficiency might vary for other regions of the country and should not be used as a national standard.
Studies by Hayes et al. (1984) and Stevens et al. (2001), however, show that similar relationships
can be developed for other locations.
Laboratory data collected on pilot-scale facilities are available on the trapping efficiency of
sediment basins, effluent concentrations, dead storage and flow patterns, and the impacts of
chemical flocculants on sediment trapping (Tapp et al., 1981; Wilson and Barfield, 1984; Griffin et
al., 1985; Jarrett, 1999; Ward et al., 1977, 1979). In general, the laboratory studies show that pilot-
scale ponds can be expected to trap 70 to 90 percent of sediment, depending on the sediment
characteristics, pond volume, and flow rate. The trapping efficiency and effluent concentration are,
in general, related to the overflow rate and can be reasonably well predicted using a plug flow
model (Ward et al., 1977, 1979) and a Continuously Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) model (Wilson et
al., 1982; Wilson et al., 1984). Extensive field-scale data are available on long term trapping
efficiency in storm water detention basins (Brune, 1953) in which the annual trapping efficiency is
related to the annual capacity inflow ratio of the basin. These structures are not representative of
those used for sediment ponds but would be representative of those used for regional detention. A
more limited database is available on single storm sediment trapping in the larger structures (Ward,
et al., 1979) and on a field laboratory structure at Pennsylvania State University (Jarret et al., 1999).
For maximum trap efficiency, Smolen et al. (1988) recommend the following:
Allow the largest surface area possible, maximize the length-to-width ratio of the basin to
prevent short circuiting, and ensure use of the entire design settling area;
Locate inlets for the basin at the maximum distance from the principal spillway outlet;
Allow the maximum reasonable time to detain water before dewatering the basin; and,
Reduce the inflow rate into the basin and divert all sediment-free runoff.
Jarett (1999) has shown that the smaller the depth of the basin, the more sediment is discharged. A
0.15-meter-deep (0.49-foot-deep) basin lost twice as much sediment as a 0.46-meter-deep (1.50-
foot-deep) basin. Jarrett also found that the performance of a sediment basin will increase with the
use of a skimmer in the principal spillway. The sediment discharged was 1.8 times greater with
only a perforated riser than with a skimmer in the principal spillway. In addition, increasing the
dewatering time, which will allow for more sediment deposition, decreases the sediment loss from
the basin (Jarett, 1999).
March, 2004
5-83
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Limitations
Neither a sediment basin with an earthen embankment nor a rock dam should be used in areas of
continuously running water (live streams). The use of sediment basins is not intended for areas
where failure of the earthen or rock dam will result in loss of life, damage to homes or other
buildings, or interference with the use of public roads or utilities.
Because sediment basins are usually temporary structures, they are often designed poorly and rarely
receive adequate attention and maintenance. As a result, these basins will not achieve the function
for which they were designed, especially when conventional outlets cannot properly meter outflow
to create an impoundment, thus allowing rapid release of sediment-laden water from the bottom of
the basin to escape (Faircloth, 1999).
Common concerns associated with sediment basins are included in Table 5-21.
Table 5-21. Common Concerns Associated with Sediment Basins
Common Concern
Result
Improper compaction, omission
of anti-seep collar, leaking pipe
joints, or use of unsuitable soil
Results in piping failure along conduit
Inadequate vegetation or
improper grading and sloping
Results in erosion of spillway or embankment slopes
Inadequate compaction or use of
unsuitable soil
Results in slumping or settling of embankment
Steep side slopes
Results in bank failure due to slumping
Inadequate outlet protection
Results in erosion and caving below principal spillway
Basin not located properly for
access
Results in difficult, ineffective, and costly maintenance
Sediment not properly removed
Results in inadequate storage capacity and potential
resuspension
Lack of anti-flotation measures
Results in the riser and barrel being blocked with debris
Principal and emergency spillway
on design plans
Results in improper disposal of accumulated sediment
Gravel clogging the dewatering
system
Results in a safety or health hazard from pond water
Principal spillway too small
Results in frequent operation of emergency spillway
and increased erosion potential
Source: IDNR, 1992.
March, 2004
5-84
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Maintenance
Routine inspection and maintenance of sediment basins is essential to their continued effectiveness.
Basins should be inspected after each storm event to ensure proper drainage from the collection
pool and determine the need for structural repairs. Erosion from the earthen embankment or stones
moved from rock dams should be repaired or replaced immediately.
Sediment basins must be located in an area that is easily accessible to maintenance crews for
removal of accumulated sediment. Sediment should be removed from the basin when its storage
capacity has reached approximately 50 percent. Trash and debris from around dewatering devices
should be removed promptly after rainfall events.
Cost
If constructing a sediment basin with less than 50,000 cubic feet of storage space, the cost of
installing the basin ranges from $0.20 to $1.30 per cubic foot of storage (approximately $1,100 per
acre of drainage) with an average cost of approximately $0.60 per cubic foot of storage (USEPA,
1993). If constructing a sediment basin with more than 50,000 cubic feet of storage space, the cost
of installing the basin ranges from $0.10 to $0.40 per cubic foot of storage (approximately $550 per
acre of drainage) with an average cost of approximately $0.30 per cubic foot of storage (USEPA,
1993). A review of state highway project bids and county bonding estimates conducted in 2003
confirmed this value of $0.30 per cubic foot (USEPA, 2003). Annual maintenance costs are 25
percent of installation costs (Brown and Schueler, 1997).
As an alternative costing method, designers can use cost curves developed for permanent basins
used to manage storm water from urban areas. However, since permanent storm water basins
typically include design features that would not be included in temporary sediment basins, this
approach is expected to greatly overestimate the actual costs to construct sediment basins. For
many sites, sediment basins installed for erosion and sediment control during the construction phase
are retained/modified to meet other runoff management requirements. For example, site flood
prevention requirements for the 10-year rainfall event can be met with a pond made from a
converted sediment basin. As a result, sediment basin installation costs are partially offset by a
later cost reduction or savings. Work by the Center for Watershed Protection (1996) provides
capital cost equations for different types of sediment basins for permanent installations. For
example, for dry extended detention ponds, the following equation can be used to estimate costs:
CC = 8.16 (Vs)0'78
For all ponds regardless of type (including wet ponds), the following equation can be used:
CC = 20.18 (Vs)070
March, 2004
5-85
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Where:
CC = base construction cost, not including design, engineering, and contingencies
Vs = Storage volume below the crest of the emergency spillway, in cubic feet
Design, engineering, and contingency costs are given as approximately 32 percent of the base
construction costs. Base construction costs for permanent ponds are composed of approximately
48 percent excavation/grading cost, 36 percent control structure cost, and 16 percent appurtenances
cost. R. S. Means (2000) suggests the cost to remove the eroded sediment collected in a small basin
during construction is approximately $4 per cubic yard (this value includes a 100 percent surcharge
for wet excavation). Disposal of material on-site will result in an additional cost that can only be
computed from site-specific conditions. The cheapest management of dredged material is
application to land areas adjacent to the basin followed with application of a vegetative cover.
5.1.5.4 Other Control Practices
5.1.5.4.1 Stone Outlet Structure
Description
A stone outlet structure is a temporary stone dike installed in conjunction with and as a part of an
earth dike. The purpose of the stone outlet structure is to impound sediment-laden runoff, provide a
protected outlet for an earth dike, provide for diffusion of concentrated flow, and allow the area
behind the dike to dewater slowly. The stone outlet structure can extend across the end of the
channel behind the dike or be placed in the dike itself. In some cases, more than one stone outlet
structure can be placed in a dike.
Applicability
Stone outlet structures apply to any point of discharge where there is a need to discharge runoff at a
protected outlet or to diffuse concentrated flow for the duration of the period of construction. The
drainage area to this practice is typically limited to one-half acre or less to prevent excessive flow
rates. The stone outlet structure should be located so as to discharge onto an already stabilized area
or into a stable watercourse. Stabilization should consist of complete vegetative cover and paving
that are sufficiently established to be erosion resistant.
Design and Installation Criteria
Design criteria are of two types, hydrologic design for a required trapping of sediment and/or flow
rate to pass the design storm; and selection of appropriate installation criteria such that the stone
outlet will perform as designed.
March, 2004
5-86
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Hydrologic Design
The hydrologic design should be based on the design storm and standard hydraulic calculations. It
should include the following considerations:
Design rainfall and design storm. The design storm should be specified by the regulatory
authority. Typically a return period of 2 to 5 years is used. Runoff rates should be calculated
with standard hydrologic procedures as allowed by the regulatory authority.
Drainage area. The drainage area to this structure is typically limited to less than half an acre to
ensure that the flow rates are not excessive.
Length of crest and height of stone fill. The crest length and height of stone fill should be of
sufficient size to transmit the design storm without overtopping. The volume of water stored
behind the dike can be estimated, but would require routing the storm flow in the design storm.
Flow through the stone outlet can be calculated using the relationships of Herrera and Felton
(1991) as modified by Haan et al. (1994). The height of the fill should be small enough to
prevent excessive flow velocities through the stone fill and prevent undercutting.
Outlet stabilization. The discharge from the stone outlet should be stabilized with vegetated
waterways or riprap until the flow reaches a stable channel. Design of the stabilized outlet
should follow procedures presented earlier.
Installation Criteria Specifications
A stone outlet structure should conform to the following specifications:
The outlet should be composed of 2- to 3-inch stone or recycled concrete, but clean gravel may
be used if stone is not available.
The crest of the stone dike should be at least 6 inches lower than the lowest elevation of the top
of the earth dike and should be level.
The stone outlet structure should be embedded into the soil a minimum of 4 inches.
The minimum length of the crest of the stone outlet structure should be 6 feet.
The baffle board should extend 1 foot into the dike and 4 inches into the ground and be staked
in place.
The drainage area to this structure should be less than half an acre.
March, 2004
5-87
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5.1.5.4.2 Rock Outlet Protection
Description
Rock outlet structures are rocks that are placed at the outfall of channels or culverts to reduce the
velocity of flow in the receiving channel to nonerosive rates.
Applicability
This practice applies where discharge velocities and energies at the outlets of culverts are sufficient
to erode the next downstream reach and is applicable to outlets of all types such as sediment basins,
storm water management ponds, and road culverts.
Design and Installation Criteria
Hydrologic Design
Hydrologic design consists primarily of selecting the design runoff rate and sizing outlet protection.
Standard hydrologic calculations should be used with an appropriate return period storm for the
outlet being protected (typical return periods range from 2 to 10 years).
The process for sizing outlet protection involves selecting the type and geometry of the outlet
protection and the size of the rock lining. The outlet protection may consist of a plunge pool (scour
hole), an apron-type arrangement, or an energy dissipation basin (Haan et al., 1994). The design of
each differs. Plunge pools are typically used for outlet pipes that are elevated above the water
surface. Aprons are used for other types of outlets. Plunge pool geometry is based on the flow rate,
pipe size and slope, tailwater depth, and size of the riprap lining (Haan et al., 1994). Apron
dimensions are determined by the ratio of the tailwater depth to pipe diameter (Haan et al., 1994).
Energy dissipation basins are used as an alternative to the plunge pool. Dimensions are a function
of the brink depth in the pipe at the design flow, pipe diameter, and size of riprap (Haan et al.,
1994). The size of the rock lining is a function of the discharge, pipe size, tailwater depth, and
geometry selected. Details on sizing the rock are given in Haan et al. (1994).
The design method presented here applies to the sizing of rock riprap and gabions to protect a
downstream area. It does not apply to rock lining of channels or streams. The design of rock outlet
protection depends entirely on the location. Pipe outlets at the top of cuts or on slopes steeper than
10 percent cannot be protected by rock aprons or riprap sections due to reconcentration of flows and
high velocities encountered after the flow leaves the apron.
March, 2004
5-88
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Installation Criteria
The following criteria should be considered:
Bottom grade: The outlet protection apron should be constructed with zero slope along its
length. There should be no obstruction at the end of the apron. The elevation of the
downstream end of the apron should be equal to the elevation of the receiving channel or
adjacent ground.
Alignment: The outer protection apron should be located so that there are no beds in the
horizontal alignment.
Materials: The outlet protection may be accomplished using rock riprap or gabions. Riprap
should be composed of a well-graded mixture of stone sized so that 50 percent of the pieces, by
weight, should be larger than the size determined using charts. The minimum d50 size to be used
should be 9 inches. A well-graded mixture is defined as a mixture composed primarily of larger
stone sizes but with a sufficient mixture of other sizes to fill the smaller voids between the
stones. The diameter of the largest stone in such a mixture should be 2 times the size selected in
Table 5-22 (MDE, 1994).
Thickness: The SHA riprap specification values are summarized in Table 5-22.
Table 5-22. Riprap Sizes and Thicknesses (SHA Specifications)
(inches)
D,nn (inches)
Thickness (inches)
Class I
9.5
15
19
Class II
16
24
32
Class in
23
34
46
Stone Quality: Stone for riprap should consist of field stone or rough-hewn quarry stone. The
stone should be hard and angular and of a quality that will not disintegrate on exposure to water
or weathering. The specific gravity of the individual stones should be at least 2.5. Recycled
concrete equivalent may be used provided it has a density of at least 150 pounds per cubic foot
and does not have any exposed steel or reinforcing bars.
Filters: A layer of material placed between the riprap and the underlying soil surface can
prevent soil movement into and through the riprap to prevent piping, reduce uplift pressure, and
collect water. Riprap should have a filter placed under it in all cases. A filter can be of two
general forms: a gravel layer or a geotextile.
Gabions: Gabion baskets may be used as rock outlet protection, provided they are made of
hexagonal triple twist mesh with heavily galvanized steel wire. The maximum lined dimension
of the mesh opening should not exceed 4.5 inches. The area of the mesh opening should not
exceed 10 square inches. Gabions should be fabricated in such a manner that the sides, ends,
and lid can be assembled at the construction site into a rectangular basket of the specified sizes.
March, 2004
5-89
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Gabions should be of a single unit construction and should be installed according to the
manufacturer's specifications. Foundation conditions should be the same as for placing rock
riprap. Geotextiles should be placed under all gabions, and gabions must be keyed in to prevent
undermining of the main gabion structure.
The subgrade for the filter, riprap, or gabion should be prepared to the required lines and grades.
Any fill required in the subgrade shall be compacted to a density of approximately that of the
surrounding undisturbed material.
The rock or gravel should conform to the specified grading limits when installed in the riprap or
filter, respectively.
Geotextiles should be protected from punching, cutting, or tearing. Any damage other than
occasional small holes should be repaired by placing another piece of geotextile fabric over the
damaged part or by completely replacing the geotextile fabric. All overlaps, whether for repairs
or for joining two pieces of geotextile fabric, should be a minimum of 1 foot in length.
Stone for the riprap or gabion outlets may be placed by equipment. They should be constructed
to the full course thickness in one operation and in such a manner as to avoid displacement of
underlying materials. Care should be taken to ensure that the stone is not placed so that rolling
will cause segregation of stone by size, i.e., the stone for riprap or gabion outlets should be
delivered and placed in a manner that will ensure that it is reasonably homogeneous, with
smaller stones filling the voids between larger stones. Riprap must be placed in a manner to
prevent damage to the filter blanket or geotextile fabric. Hand placement will be required to the
extent necessary to prevent damage to the permanent works.
Stone should be placed so that it blends in with the existing ground and the depth to the stone
surface is sufficient to transmit the flow without spilling over onto the unprotected surface.
Effectiveness
There is currently no information on the effectiveness of rock outlet structures.
Limitations
Common problems with rock outlet structures include the following:
If the foundation is not excavated deeply or wide enough, the flow cross-section might be
restricted, resulting in erosion around the apron and scour holes at the outlet. Also, the riprap
apron should be placed on a suitable foundation to prevent downstream erosion.
If the riprap that is installed is smaller than specified, rock displacement might result;
selectively grouting over the rock materials may stabilize the installation.
March, 2004
5-90
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
If the riprap is not extended enough to reach a stable section of the channel, downstream erosion
could result.
If a filter is not installed under the riprap, stone displacement and erosion of the foundation
might result.
Maintenance
Once a riprap outlet has been installed, the maintenance needs are very low. It should be inspected
after high flows to see if scour has occurred beneath the riprap, if flows have occurred outside the
boundaries of the riprap and caused scour, or if any stones have been dislodged. Repairs should be
made immediately.
Cost
R. S. Means (2000) indicates machine-placed riprap costs of approximately $40 per cubic yard. For
a riprap maximum size between 15 and 24 inches, a cubic yard of riprap will cover between 13.5
and 17 square feet at channel bed (assuming depth of riprap as given in Table 5-22). This suggests
that riprap lining will be between $21 and $27 per square foot of outlet (includes materials, labor,
and equipment, with overhead and profit). R. S. Means (2000) provides a cost range for gabions
($2.80 to $9 per square foot of coverage) for stone fill depths of 6 to 36 inches, respectively. These
costs include all costs of materials, labor, and installation.
5.1.5.4.3 Sump Pit
Description
A sump pit is a temporary pit from which pumping is conducted to remove excess water while
minimizing sedimentation. The purpose of the sump pit is to filter water being pumped to reduce
sedimentation to receiving streams.
Applicability
Sump pits are constructed when water collects and must be pumped away during excavating,
cofferdam dewatering, maintenance or removal of sediment traps and basins, or other uses as
applicable, such as for concrete wash out.
Design and Installation Criteria
Hydrologic Design
The only hydrologic calculation is determining the expected flow rate and volume to be handled.
This should follow standard hydrologic computational procedures based on design rainfall, surface
and soil conditions, and the size of the pump.
March, 2004
5-91
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Installation Criteria and Specifications
The number of sump pits and their locations should be determined by the designer and included on
the plans. Contractors may relocate sump pits to optimize use, but discharge location changes
should be coordinated with inspectors.
A perforated vertical standpipe should be wrapped with '/2-inch hardware cloth and geotextiles and
then placed in the center of an excavated pit, which is then backfilled with filter material ranging
from clean gravel to stone. Water is then pumped from the center of the standpipe to a suitable
discharge area such as into a sediment trap, sediment basin, or stabilized area.
A sump pit should conform to the following specifications:
Pit dimensions are variable, with the minimum diameter being twice the diameter of the
standpipe.
The standpipe should be constructed by perforating a 12- to 36-inch diameter pipe, then
wrapping it with '/2-inch hardware cloth and geotextiles. The perforations should be '/>-inch slits
or 1-inch diameter holes placed 6 inches on center.
The standpipe should extend 12 to 18 inches above the lip of the pit or riser crest elevation
(basin dewatering), and filter material should extend 3 inches minimum above the anticipated
standing water level.
Effectiveness
There is currently no information on the effectiveness of the sump pit.
Limitations
The sump pit must be properly maintained and pumped regularly to avoid clogging.
Maintenance
To maintain, sump pits must be removed and reconstructed when water can no longer be pumped
out of the standpipe.
Cost
R. S. Means (2000) provides information appropriate for assessment of a wide range of dewatering
scenarios (i.e., different sump sizes, dewatering durations, and discharge conditions). In general,
installation of earthen sump pits are listed as costing approximately $1.50 per cubic foot of sump
volume. Piping to and away from the sump ranges from $30 to $60 per linear foot. Pump rentals
March, 2004
5-92
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
and operation range between $150 and $500 per day of pumping, depending on the rate of
dewatering. All costs include materials, labor, and equipment, with overhead and profit.
5.1.5.4.4 Sediment Tank
Description
A sediment tank is a compartmented container through which sediment-laden water is pumped to
trap and retain sediment prior to pumping the water to drainageways, adjoining properties, and
rights-of-way below the sediment tank site.
Applicability
A sediment tank should be used on sites where excavations are deep and space is limited, such as
urban construction, where direct discharge of sediment-laden water to streams and storm drainage
systems should be avoided.
Design and Installation Criteria
The location of sediment tanks should facilitate easy cleanout and disposal of the trapped sediment
to minimize interference with construction activities and pedestrian traffic. The tank size should be
determined according to the storage volume of the sediment tank, with 1 cubic foot of storage for
each gallon per minute of pump discharge capacity.
Effectiveness
There is currently no information on the effectiveness of sediment tanks.
Limitations
The sediment tank does not provide any natural infiltration; thus, the trapped sediment and storm
water must be disposed of properly.
Maintenance
To facilitate maintenance of sediment tanks, they need to be located with easy access for regular
pump out. The rate at which a tank is pumped depends on site specific considerations such as
rainfall and sediment loads to the system. Regular inspections will help to determine pump out
frequency and prevent overloading and failure of the system.
Cost
There is currently no information on the cost of sediment tanks.
March, 2004
5-93
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5.1.5.4.5 Stabilized Construction Entrance
Description
The purpose of stabilizing entrances to a construction site is to minimize the amount of sediment
leaving the area as mud attached to tires. Installing a pad of gravel over filter cloth where
construction traffic leaves a site can help stabilize a construction entrance. As a vehicle drives over
the gravel pad, mud and other sediments are removed from the vehicle's wheels (sometimes by
washing) and offsite transport of sediment is reduced. The gravel pad also reduces erosion and
rutting on the soil beneath the stabilization structure. The fabric reduces the amount of rutting
caused by vehicle tires by spreading the vehicle's weight over a larger soil area than just the tire
width. The filter fabric also separates the gravel from the soil below, preventing the gravel from
being ground into the soil.
Applicability
Stabilized construction entrances typically are installed at locations where construction traffic
leaves or enters an existing paved road. However, the applicability of site entrance stabilization
should be extended to any roadway or entrance where vehicles will access or leave the site.
From a public relations point of view, stabilizing construction site entrances can be a worthwhile
exercise. If the site entrance is the most publicly noticeable part of a construction site, stabilized
entrances can improve the appearance to passersby and improve public perception of the
construction project by reducing the amount of mud tracked onto adjacent streets.
Design and Installation Considerations
Hydrologic Design
Not applicable.
Installation Criteria and Specifications
All entrances to a site should be stabilized before construction begins and further disturbance of the
site area occurs. The stabilized site entrances should be long enough and wide enough so that the
largest construction vehicle that will enter the site will fit in the entrance with room to spare. If
many vehicles are expected to use an entrance in any one day, the site entrance should be wide
enough for the passage of two vehicles at the same time with room on either side of each vehicle.
For optimum effectiveness, a rock construction entrance should be at least 50 feet long and at least
10 to 12 feet wide (USEPA, 1992).
If a site entrance leads to a paved road, the end of entrance should be "flared" (made wider as in the
shape of a funnel) so that long vehicles do not go off the stabilized area when turning onto or off of
the paved roadway.
March, 2004
5-94
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
If a construction site entrance crosses a stream, swale, roadside channel, or other depression, a
bridge or culvert should be provided to prevent erosion from unprotected banks.
Stone and gravel used to stabilize the construction site entrance should be large enough so that
nothing is carried off-site with vehicle traffic. In addition, sharp-edged stone should be avoided to
reduce the possibility of puncturing vehicle tires. Stone or gravel should be installed at a depth of
at least 6 inches for the entire length and width of the stabilized construction entrance.
Effectiveness
Stabilizing construction entrances to prevent sediment transport off-site is effective only if all
entrances to the site are stabilized and maintained. Also, stabilization of construction site entrances
may not be very effective unless a wash rack is installed and routinely used (Corish, 1995),
although this can be problematic for sites with multiple entrances that have high vehicle traffic.
Limitations
Although stabilizing a construction entrance is a good way to help reduce the amount of sediment
leaving a site, some sediment may still be deposited from vehicle tires onto paved surfaces. To
further reduce the chance that these sediments will pollute storm water runoff, sweeping of the
paved area adjacent to the stabilized entrance is recommended.
For sites using wash stations, a reliable water source to wash vehicles before leaving the site might
not be initially available. In this case, water may have to be trucked to the site at an additional cost.
Discharge from the wash station should be directed to an appropriate sediment control structure.
Maintenance
Stabilization of site entrances should be maintained until the remainder of the construction site has
been fully stabilized. Stone and gravel might need to be periodically added to each stabilized
construction site entrance to maintain its effectiveness. Soil that is tracked offsite should be swept
up immediately and disposed of properly.
For sites with wash racks at each site entrance, sediment traps will have to be constructed and
maintained for the life of the project. Maintenance will entail the periodic removal of sediment
from the traps to ensure their continued effectiveness.
Cost
Without a wash rack, construction site entrance stabilization costs range from $1,000 to $4,000. On
average, the initial construction cost is approximately $2,000 per entrance. When maintenance
costs are included, the average total annual cost for a 2-year period is approximately $1,500. If a
wash rack is included in the construction site entrance stabilization, the initial construction costs
range from $1,000 to $5,000, with an average initial cost of $3,000 per entrance. Total annual cost,
March, 2004
5-95
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
including maintenance for an estimated 2-year life span, is approximately $2,200 per year (USEPA,
1993).
5.1.5.4.6 Land Grading
Description
Land grading involves reshaping the ground surface to planned grades as determined by an
engineering survey, evaluation, and layout. Land grading provides more suitable topography for
buildings, facilities, and other land uses and helps to control surface runoff, soil erosion, and
sedimentation both during and after construction.
Applicability
Land grading is applicable to sites with steep topography or easily erodible soils because it
stabilizes slopes and decreases runoff velocity. Grading activities should maintain existing
drainage patterns as much as possible.
Design and Installation Criteria
Before grading activities begin, decisions should be made regarding the steepness of cut-and-fill
slopes and how the slopes will be protected from runoff, stabilized, and maintained. A grading plan
that establishes which areas of the site will be graded, how drainage patterns will be directed, and
how runoff velocities will affect receiving waters should be prepared. The grading plan also
includes information regarding when earthwork will start and stop, establishes the degree and
length of finished slopes, and dictates where and how excess material will be disposed of (or where
borrow materials will be obtained if needed). Berms, diversions, and other storm water practices
that require excavation and filling should also be incorporated into the grading plan.
One low-impact development technique that can be incorporated into a grading plan is site
fingerprinting. This involves clearing and grading only those areas necessary for building activities
and equipment traffic. Adhering to strict limits of clearing and grading helps to maintain
undisturbed temporary or permanent buffer zones in the grading operation and provides a low-cost
sediment control measure that will help reduce runoff and off-site sedimentation. The lowest
elevation of the site should remain undisturbed to provide a protected storm water outlet before
storm drains or other construction outlets are installed.
Effectiveness
Land grading is an effective means of reducing steep slopes and stabilizing highly erodible soils
when implemented with storm water management and erosion and sediment control practices in
mind. Land grading is not effective when drainage patterns are altered or when vegetated areas on
the perimeter of the site are destroyed.
March, 2004
5-96
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Limitations
Construction sites are routinely graded to prepare a site for buildings and other structures. Improper
grading practices that disrupt natural storm water patterns might lead to poor drainage, high runoff
velocities, and increased peak flows during storm events. Clearing and grading of the entire site
without vegetated buffers promotes off-site transport of sediments and other pollutants. Grading
plans should be designed with erosion and sediment control and storm water management goals in
mind; grading crews should be carefully supervised to ensure that the plan is implemented as
intended.
Maintenance
All graded areas and supporting erosion and sediment control practices should be periodically
checked, especially after heavy rainfalls. All sediment should be promptly removed from
diversions or other storm water conveyances. If washouts or breaks occur, they should be repaired
immediately. Prompt maintenance of small-scale eroded areas is essential to prevent these areas
from becoming significant gullies.
Cost
Land grading is practiced at virtually all construction sites—additional site planning to incorporate
storm water and erosion and sediment controls in grading plans can require several hours of
planning by a certified engineer or landscape architect. Extra time might be required to excavate
diversions and construct berms, and fill materials might be needed to build up low-lying areas or fill
depressions.
Where grading is performed to manage on-site storm water, R. S. Means (2000) suggests the cost of
fine grading, soil treatment, and grassing to be approximately $2 per square yard of earth surface
area. Shallow excavation/trenching (1 to 4 feet deep) with a backhoe in areas not requiring
dewatering can be performed for $4 to $5 per cubic yard of removed material. Larger scale grading
requires a site-specific assessment of an alternative grading apparatus and a detailed fill/excavation
material balance to retain as much soil on site as possible.
5.1.5.4.7 Temporary Access Waterway Crossing
Description
A temporary stream crossing is a structure erected to provide a safe and stable way for construction
vehicle traffic to cross a running watercourse. The primary purpose of such a structure is to provide
streambank stabilization, to reduce the risk of damaging the streambed or channel, and to reduce the
risk of sediment loading from construction traffic. A temporary stream crossing may be a bridge,
culvert, or ford.
March, 2004
5-97
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Applicability
Temporary stream crossings are applicable wherever heavy construction equipment must be moved
from one side of a stream channel to the other or where lighter construction vehicles will cross the
stream a number of times during the construction period. In either case, an appropriate method for
ensuring the stability of the streambanks and preventing large-scale erosion is necessary.
A bridge or culvert is the best choice for most temporary stream crossings. If properly designed,
each can support heavy loads, and materials used to construct most bridges and culverts can be
salvaged after they are removed. Fords are appropriate in steep areas subject to flash flooding,
where normal flow is shallow or intermittent across a wide channel. Fords should be used only
where stream crossings are expected to be infrequent.
Design and Installation Criteria
Because of the potential for stream degradation, flooding, and safety hazards, stream crossings
should be avoided on a construction site whenever possible. Consideration should be given to
alternative site access routes before arrangements are made to erect a temporary stream crossing. If
it is determined that a stream crossing is necessary, an area where the potential for erosion is low
should be selected. The stream crossing structure should be installed during a dry period if possible
to reduce sediment transport into the stream.
If needed, over-stream bridges are generally the preferred temporary stream crossing structure. The
expected load and frequency of the stream crossing, however, will govern the selection of a bridge
as the correct choice for a temporary stream crossing. These types of temporary bridges usually
cause minimal disturbance to a stream's banks and cause the least obstruction to stream flow and
fish migration. They should be constructed only under the supervision and approval of a qualified
engineer.
As general guidelines for constructing temporary bridges, clearing and excavation of the stream
shores and bed should be kept to a minimum. Sufficient clearance should be provided for floating
objects to pass under the bridge. Abutments should be parallel to the stream and be placed on
stable banks. If the stream is less than 8 feet wide at the point where a crossing is needed, no
additional in-stream supports should be used. If the crossing is to extend across a channel wider
than 8 feet (as measured from the top of one bank to the other), the bridge should be designed with
one in-water support for each 8 feet of stream width.
A temporary bridge should be anchored by steel cable or chain on one side only to a stable structure
on shore. Examples of anchoring structures include trees with a large diameter, large boulders, and
steel anchors. By anchoring the bridge on one side only, there is a decreased risk of causing a
downstream blockage or flow diversion if a bridge is washed out.
When constructing a culvert, filter cloth should be used to cover the streambed and streambanks to
reduce settlement and improve the stability of the culvert structure. The filter cloth should extend a
March, 2004
5-98
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
minimum of 6 inches and a maximum of 1 foot beyond the end of the culvert and bedding material.
The culvert piping should not exceed 40 feet in length and should be of sufficient diameter to allow
for complete passage of flow during peak flow periods. The culvert pipes should be covered with a
minimum of 1 foot of aggregate. If multiple culverts are used, at least 1 foot of aggregate should
separate the pipes.
Fords should be constructed of stabilizing material such as large rocks.
Effectiveness
Both temporary bridges and culverts provide an adequate path for construction traffic crossing a
stream or watercourse.
Limitations
Bridges can be considered the greatest safety hazard of all temporary stream crossing structures if
not properly designed and constructed. Bridges might also prove to be more costly in terms of
repair costs and lost construction time if they wash out or collapse (Smolen et al., 1988).
The construction and removal of culverts are usually very disturbing to the surrounding area, and
erosion and downstream movement of sediments are often great. Culverts can also create
obstructions to flow in a stream and inhibit fish migration. Depending on their size, culverts can be
blocked by large debris and are therefore vulnerable to frequent blockage and washout.
If given a choice between building a bridge or a culvert as a temporary stream crossing, a bridge is
preferred because of the relative minimal disturbance to streambanks and the opportunity for
unimpeded flow through the channel. The approaches to fords often have high erosion potential. In
addition, excavation of the streambed and approach to lay riprap or other stabilization material
causes major stream disturbance. Mud and other debris are transported directly into the stream
unless the crossing is used only during periods of low flow.
Maintenance
Temporary stream crossings should be inspected at least once a week and after all significant
rainfall events. If any structural damage is reported to a bridge or culvert, construction traffic
should be excluded until appropriate repairs are made. Streambank erosion should be repaired
immediately.
Fords should be inspected closely after major storm events to ensure that stabilization materials
remain in place. If the material has moved downstream during periods of peak flow, the lost
material should be replaced immediately.
March, 2004
5-99
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Cost
In general, temporary bridges are more expensive to design and construct than culverts. Bridges are
also associated with higher maintenance and repair costs should they fail. Temporary bridging costs
vary as a function of the width of the bridge span and the amount of time the bridge is installed. If
the bridging is permanent, a mean cost of $50 per square foot for an 8-foot wide steel arch bridge
(no foundation costs included) can be used for conceptual cost estimation (R. S. Means, 2000). If
rental bridging is employed, then rates are probably on the order of 20 to 50 percent of the bridge
(permanent) cost, but will vary based on the rental duration and mobilization distance.
5.1.5.4.8 Dust Control
General Description
Dust control measures are practices that help reduce ground surface and air movement of dust from
disturbed soil surfaces. Construction sites are good candidates for dust control measures because
land disturbance from clearing and excavation generates a large amount of soil disturbance and
open space for wind to pick up dust particles. To illustrate this point, research at construction sites
has established an average dust emission rate of 1.2 tons/acre/month for active construction (WA
Dept. of Ecology, 1992). These airborne particles pose a dual threat to the environment and human
health. First, dust can be carried off-site, thereby increasing soil loss from the construction area and
increasing the likelihood of sedimentation and water pollution. Second, blowing dust particles can
contribute to respiratory health problems and create an inhospitable work environment.
Applicability
Dust control measures are applicable to any construction site where dust is created and there is the
potential for air and water pollution from dust traveling across the landscape or through the air.
Dust control measures are particularly important in arid or semiarid regions where soil can become
extremely dry and vulnerable to transport by high winds.
Also, dust control measures should be implemented on all construction sites where there will be
major soil disturbances or heavy construction activity, such as clearing, excavation, demolition, or
excessive vehicle traffic. Earthmoving activities are the major source of dust from construction
sites, but traffic and general disturbances can also be major contributors (WA Dept. of Ecology,
1992).
The specific dust control measures implemented at a site will depend on the topography, land cover,
soil characteristics and amount of rainfall at the site.
March, 2004
5-100
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Design and Installation Criteria
When designing a dust control plan for a site, the amount of soil exposed will dictate the quantity of
dust generation and transport. Therefore, construction sequencing and disturbing small areas at one
time can greatly reduce problematic dust from a site. If land must be disturbed, additional
temporary stabilization measures should be considered prior to disturbance.
A number of methods can be used to control dust from a site. The following is a brief list of control
measures and their design criteria. Not all control measures will be applicable to a given site. The
owner, operator, and contractors responsible for dust control should determine which practices
accommodate their needs based on specific site and weather conditions.
Sprinkling/Irrigation-. Sprinkling the ground surface with water until it is moist is an effective dust
control method for haul roads and other traffic routes (Smolen et al., 1988). This practice can be
applied to almost any site.
Vegetative Cover. In areas not expected to handle vehicle traffic, vegetative stabilization of
disturbed soil is often desirable. Vegetative cover provides protection to surface soils and slows
wind velocity at the ground surface, thus reducing the potential for dust to become airborne.
Mulch. Mulching can be a quick and effective means of dust control for a recently disturbed area
(Smolen et al., 1988).
Wind Breaks: Wind breaks are barriers (either natural or constructed) that reduce wind velocity and
therefore reduce the possibility of carrying suspended particles. Wind breaks can be trees or shrubs
left in place during site clearing or constructed barriers such as a wind fence, snow fence, tarp
curtain, hay bale, crate wall, or sediment wall (USEPA, 1992).
Tillage: Deep tillage in large open areas brings soil clods to the surface where they rest on top of
dust, preventing it from becoming airborne.
Stone: Stone can be an effective dust deterrent for construction roads and entrances.
Spray-on Chemical Soil Treatments (palliatives): Examples of chemical adhesives include anionic
asphalt emulsion, latex emulsion, resin-water emulsions, and calcium chloride. Chemical
palliatives should be used only on mineral soils. When considering chemical application to
suppress dust, consideration should be taken as to whether the chemical is biodegradable or
water-soluble and what effect its application could have on the surrounding environment, including
waterbodies and wildlife.
Table 5-23 shows application rates for some common spray-on adhesives as recommended by
Smolen et al. (1988).
March, 2004
5-101
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-23. Application Rates for Spray-On Adhesives
Spray on Adhesive
Water Dilution
Type of Nozzle
Application
Anionic Asphalt Emulsion
7:1
Coarse spray
1,200
Latex Emulsion
12.5:1
Fine spray
235
Resin in Water
4:1
Fine sorav
300
Source: Smolen et al., 1988.
Effectiveness
Sprinkling/irrigation: Not available.
Vegetative cover: Not available.
Mulch. Can reduce wind erosion by 80 percent.
Wind breaks/barriers: For each foot of vertical height, an 8- to 10-foot deposition zone develops on
the leeward side of the barrier. The barrier density and spacing will change its effectiveness at
capturing windborne sediment.
Tillage'. Roughening the soil can reduce soil losses by approximately 80 percent.
Stone: The sizes of the stone can affect the amount of erosion that will take place. In areas of high
wind, small stones are not as effective as 20-cm stones.
Spray-on chemical soil treatments (palliatives): Effectiveness of polymer stabilization methods
ranges from 70 to 90 percent.
Limitations
In areas where evaporation rates are high, water application to exposed soils may require near
constant attention. If water is applied in excess, runoff may result from the site and possibly create
conditions where vehicles could track mud onto public roads.
Chemical applications should be used sparingly and only on mineral soils (not high organic content
soils) because their misuse can create additional surface water pollution from runoff or could
contaminate ground water if infiltrated. Chemical applications might also present a health risk if
excessive amounts are used.
Maintenance
Because dust controls are dependent on specific site conditions, including the weather, inspection
and maintenance are unique for each site. Generally, however, dust control measures involving
application of either water or chemicals require more monitoring than structural or vegetative
March, 2004
5-102
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
controls to remain effective. If structural controls are used, they should be inspected for
deterioration on a regular basis to ensure they are still achieving their intended purpose.
Cost
Chemical dust control measures can vary widely in cost depending on specific needs of the site and
level of dust control desired. One manufacturer of a chloride product estimated a cost of $1,089
per acre for application to road surfaces, but cautioned that cost estimates without a specific site
evaluation can be inaccurate.
5.1.5.4.9 Storm Drain Inlet Protection
Description
Storm drain inlet protection measures are controls that help prevent soil and debris from on-site
erosion from entering storm drain inlets. Typically, these measures are temporary controls that are
implemented prior to large-scale disturbance of the surrounding site. These controls are
advantageous because their implementation allows storm drains to be used during even the early
stages of construction activities. The early use of storm drains during project development
significantly reduces the occurrence of future erosion problems (Smolen et al., 1988).
Three temporary control measures to protect storm drain drop inlets are:
Excavation around the perimeter of the drop inlet
Fabric barriers around inlet entrances
Block and gravel protection
Excavation around a storm drain inlet creates a settling pool to remove sediments. Weep holes
protected by gravel are used to drain the shallow pool of water that accumulates around the inlet. A
filter fabric barrier erected around an inlet can create an effective shield to sediment while allowing
water to flow into the storm drain. This type of barrier can slow runoff velocity while catching soil
and other debris at the drain inlet. Block and gravel inlet protection uses standard concrete blocks
and gravel to form a barrier to sediments while permitting water runoff through select blocks that
are laid sideways. In addition to these materials, limited temporary storm water drop inlet protection
can also be achieved with the use of straw bales or sandbags to create barriers to sediment.
For permanent storm drain drop inlet protection after the surrounding area has been stabilized, sod
can be installed as a barrier to slow storm water entry to storm drain inlets and capture sediments
from erosion. This final inlet protection measure can be used as an aesthetically pleasing way to
slow storm water velocity near drop inlet entrances and remove sediments and other pollutants from
runoff.
March, 2004
5-103
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
A new technology that uses an insert trap into the inlet itself has been developed (Adams et al.,
2000). This technique showed good results on initial tests, trapping more than 50 percent of the
incoming sediment in flows typical of those into urban storm drains. This technique is being
further developed with a pending patent application.
Applicability
All temporary controls should have a drainage area no greater than 1 acre of drainage area per inlet.
It is also important for temporary controls to be constructed prior to disturbance of the surrounding
landscape. Excavated drop inlet protection and block and gravel inlet protection are applicable to
areas of high flow where overflow is anticipated into the storm drain. Fabric barriers are
recommended for smaller, relatively flat drainage areas (slopes less than 5 percent leading to the
storm drain).
Temporary drop inlet control measures are often used in combination with each other and with
other storm water control techniques.
Design and Installation Considerations
Hydrologic Design
Hydrologic computations are not necessary with present technologies. A specified limitation of
1 drainage acre per inlet limits flow rates, dependent on local rainfall and runoff considerations.
Installation Criteria and Specifications
The following criteria should be followed until future research establishes better techniques:
With the exception of sod drop inlet protection, these controls should be installed before any
soil disturbance in the drainage area.
Excavation around drop inlets should be dug a minimum of 1 foot deep (2 feet maximum) with
a minimum excavated volume of 35 cubic yards per acre disturbed. Side slopes leading to the
inlet should be no steeper than 2:1. The shape of the excavated area should be designed such
that the dimensions fit the area from which storm water is anticipated to drain. For example, the
longest side of an excavated area should be along the side of the inlet expected to drain the
largest area.
Fabric inlet protection is essentially a filter fence placed around the inlet. The fabric should not
be used as a stand-alone sediment control measures. To increase inlet protection effectiveness,
these practices should be used in combination with other measures, such as small
impoundments or sediment traps (USEPA, 1992). Temporary storm drain inlet protection is not
intended for use in drainage areas larger than 1 acre. Generally, storm water inlet protection
measures are practical for relatively low sediment and low volume flows.
March, 2004
5-104
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Frequent maintenance of storm drain controls is necessary to prevent clogging. If sediment and
other debris clog the water intake, drop intake control measures can actually cause erosion in
unprotected areas.
Maintenance
All temporary control measures must be checked after each storm event. To maintain the sediment
capacity of the shallow settling pools created from these techniques, accumulated sediment should
be removed from the area around the drop inlet (i.e., from the excavated area, around the fabric
barrier, or around the block structure) when the sediment storage is reduced by approximately 50
percent. Additional debris should be removed from the shallow pools on a periodic basis.
Weep holes in excavated areas around inlets can become clogged and prevent water from draining
from the shallow pools that form. Should this happen, unclogging the water intake may be difficult
and costly.
Cost
The cost of implementing storm drain drop inlet protection measures will vary depending on the
control measure chosen. Generally, initial installation costs range from $50 to $150 per inlet, with
an average cost of $100 (USEPA, 1993). Maintenance costs can be high (annually, up to 100
percent of the initial construction cost) because of frequent inspection and repair needs. The
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission has estimated that the cost of installation
of inlet protection devices ranges from $106 to $154 per inlet (SWRPC, 1991).
5.1.5.4.10 Polyacrylamide (PAM)
General Description
The term polyacrylamide (PAM) is a generic term that refers to a broad class of compounds. There
are hundreds of specific PAM formulations, and all have unique properties that depend on polymer
chain length and number and kinds of functional group substitutions along the chain. PAMs are
classified according to their molecular weight and ionic charge and are available in solid, granular,
liquid, or emulsion forms.
PAM's effectiveness to prevent or reduce erosion is due to its affinity for soil particles, largely via
coulombic and Van der Waals attraction. These surface attractions enhance particle cohesion,
stabilizing soil structure against shear-induced detachment and transport in runoff. In a soil
application, PAM aggregates soil particles, increasing pore space and infiltration capacity and
resulting in reduced runoff. These larger particle aggregates are less susceptible to raindrop and
scour erosion, thus reducing the potential to mobilize sediments.
March, 2004
5-105
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Applicability
Because of ease in application, PAM is well suited as a short-term erosion prevention BMP,
especially for areas with limited access or steep slopes that hinder personnel from applying other
cover materials. PAM can be used to augment other cover practice BMPs, though it can be
effective when applied alone. Thus, the ease of application, low maintenance, and relatively low
cost associated with PAM make it a practical solution to soil stabilization during construction.
Application Criteria
PAM can be applied to soil through either a dry granular powder or a liquid spray form. Optimal
application rates to prevent erosion on construction sites are generally less than 1 kg/ha
(approximately 1 lb/ac) (Tobiason et al., 2000). However, the concentration required can vary for
specific soil properties and construction phases. WDOT (2002) suggests a dosage of 60 mg/L for
roadway erosion and sediment control. This is higher than the rate recommended by the University
of Nebraska for an agricultural application (10 parts per million). To put this into context, one half
pound of PAM inl,000 gallons of water results in a PAM concentration of 60 mg/L, which treats 1
acre of exposed soil according to WDOT recommendations.
Effectiveness
A study performed in Dane County, Wisconsin, analyzed 15 meter square plots for runoff and
sediment yield on a construction site. The study concluded that when a solution of PAM-mix with
mulch/seeding was applied to dry soil and compared with the control (no PAM-mix application to
dry soil), an average reduction of 93 percent in sediment yield was found. The lowest performance
(average reduction in sediment yield of 77 percent) occurred when PAM-mix in solution was
applied to moist soil. The application of dry PAM-mix to dry soil reduced sediment by 83 percent
and decreased runoff by 16 percent when compared to the control. The results show that regardless
of the application method, PAM-mix was effective in reducing sediment yield in the test plots (Roa-
Espinosa et al., 2000).
A second study performed in Washington analyzed the runoff from three different construction
sites: an erosion control test facility, a highway construction site, and an airport runway. Table 5-
24 summarizes the 225 samples analyzed by Tobiason et al. (2000).
Table 5-24. Turbidity Reduction Values from PAM
Volume, m'
Turbidity Reduction (%)
Maximum
350
99.97
Median
285
97.6
Minimum
133
46
March, 2004
5-106
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Limitations
Currently PAMs are most commonly produced as dry granules. They completely dissolve and
remain dissolved if mixed properly. If added too quickly or if not stirred vigorously, the granules
rapidly form nondissolvable gels on contact with water or collect in low turbulence areas as syrupy
concentrations that dissolve slowly in an uncontrolled pattern over a period of hours or days
(USDA, 1994). In addition, when spilled on hard surfaces, PAM solutions are extremely slippery
and hazardous to foot and vehicle traffic. PAM dust is highly hygroscopic and, if inhaled, could
impair breathing. Certain neutral and cationic PAMs at very high exposure levels produce irritation
in humans and are somewhat toxic to certain aquatic organisms; therefore, PAM should be used in
strict compliance with state and federal label requirements. Finally, although PAM is relatively
inexpensive, there are considerable infrastructure needs and operating costs; thus, sophisticated
onsite polymer treatment systems may not be appropriate for certain projects.
Cost
The cost of PAM ranges from $1.25 per pound to $5.00 per pound (Entry et al., 1999). The cost of
PAM application depends on the system employed. PAM can be used in a centralized treatment
system (e.g., at a sedimentation basin) to treat larger areas, or dispersed in granular or liquid form.
In Tobiason et al. (2000), the startup costs for the batch treatment system amounted to $90,000.
Monthly expenses averaged $18,000 for operations and maintenance and $13,000 for materials and
equipment. The total costs for this phase totaled about $245,000, less than 1 percent of total
construction costs. If dispersed through irrigation systems (for agriculture), the seasonal cost of
PAM treatment is $9 to $15 per acre (Kay-Shoemake, et al., 2000), where a season probably
requires between 5 and 10 applications.
For construction sites, it is more likely that PAM would be applied as an additive to the hydroseed
mix and applied when final grade is established and cover vegetation is installed. There are
numerous suppliers who provide PAM as a low-cost additive for hydroseeding, suggesting PAM
application costs can be incorporated into that of hydroseeding ($540 to $700 per acre depending on
which seed is applied). An additional cost would be incurred to sample site soils to customize the
dosage and delivery mechanisms for individual sites. In addition, re-application of PAM in granular
or liquid form to areas with rill development (poor vegetation cover) would require additional
funds. Where re-application of granular PAM is used, R. S. Means (2000) suggests a cost of
approximately $5 per 1,000 square feet for spreading soil admixtures by hand.
5.1.6 SUMMARY
The BMP information presented in sub-section 5.1 is summarized in Tables 5-25 through 5-28.
March, 2004
5-107
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-25. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.1)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Planning/
Staging/
Scheduling
Could be low cost.
One data set shows 42%
reduction in sediment yield due to
planning/staging/scheduling.
Requires additional advance
planning and management.
Impact could be evaluated with
models as well as experimentally
since several computer models
are available.
Could be low cost.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Vegetative
Stabilization
Could be low cost
Can be very effective in some
cases with advance planning.
Can be important on
streambanks.
Limited applicability in the active
construction area.
Complements other practices.
Practice is seasonally dependent
in most of nation.
Impact could be evaluated with
models as well as experimentally
since several computer models
are available.
Could be low cost.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Grass-Lined
Channels
Long history of use in channels
draining disturbed areas.
Well established procedures for
design and extensive database on
stable designs under widely
varied conditions.
Some procedures are available,
with limited validation, to obtain
a first estimate of sediment
trapping by grass-lined channels.
Limited database on trapping of
sediment.
Maintenance is critical for
pollution prevention.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Database shows wide
variations in
effectiveness in
trapping chemicals.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
March, 2004
5-108
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-25. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.1)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Seeding
Low-cost method for establishing
vegetation.
Occurs near the end of active
construction.
Requires significant time for
establishment.
Needs a prepared seedbed.
Good database with impacts on
soil erosion.
Should be supported by other
BMPs.
Should not be evaluated as stand-
alone practice, but as part of a
system.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Sodding
High-cost method of establishing
vegetation.
Immediate stabilization.
Requires significant management
attention during establishment.
Good database with impacts on
soil erosion.
Very effective way of controlling
erosion.
Works well for grass waterways
and other significant problem
areas.
Should be supported by other
BMPs.
Should not be evaluated as stand-
alone practice, but as part of a
system.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Mulching
Relatively low-cost method of
providing cover.
Can be highly effective in
reducing soil loss when properly
anchored.
Good database with impacts on
soil erosion.
Variety of materials can be used.
Installation is rapid.
Not a stand-alone practice.
Due to interference with
construction operations, the times
that it can be used during active
construction are limited.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
March, 2004
5-109
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-25. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.1)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Erosion
Control
Matting
/Geotextiles
Cost is highly variable.
Effectiveness in controlling
sediment is variable depending
on types of materials.
Can provide immediate
protection to exposed soils.
Not a stand-alone practice.
Due to interference with
construction operations, the times
that it can be used during active
construction are limited.
Disposal is a significant problem
and may require landfilling.
Can be used for channel linings
as astand-alone practice or under
riprap.
Fair database on effectiveness in
preventing erosion.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Vegetative
Buffer Strips
Can be highly effective in
trapping sediment.
Effectiveness is well established
and considerable data have been
collected.
Well-validated models are
available to predict the impacts of
constructed filter strips on
sediment trapping.
Models are included in watershed
storm water and sediment
models.
Modifications needed for natural
riparian zones.
Require routine maintenance.
May be most appropriate where
sediment loads are relatively low.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Topsoiling
Important in vegetative
establishment.
No protection until cover is
established.
Not a stand-alone practice; must
be supported by other BMPs.
No known information to
describe effectiveness
Cost not currently available.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
March, 2004
5-110
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-26. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.2)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Earth Dike
Used to protect down slope
areas.
Should be stabilized prior to use.
Requires maintenance after
every major storm.
Can be significant source of
sediment if not properly
constructed.
Little data available on its
effectiveness as a BMP.
Can be relatively inexpensive,
depending on design.
Not a stand-alone procedure.
No known information available.
No known
information available.
Temporary
Swale
Effectively a grass-lined
drainage ditch with shallow side
slopes.
Can be applied in many areas,
but use limited in arid areas.
Contaminants that will harm
vegetation, such as oils and
greases, cannot be discharged to
the system.
Continuous water flow cannot be
tolerated by the grass lining.
Effectiveness depends on
infiltration. Ground water
pollution might occur in areas
with a high water table.
Export of bacteria might occur.
Some studies show high removal
efficiency for TSS, fair removal
for nutrients, are variable
removal for metals.
No general relationships
available to predict impacts
under widely varied climates and
conditions, hence the
effectiveness cannot be predicted
for a given situation beyond the
limited database.
No known information
available.
No known
information available.
March, 2004
5-111
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-26. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.2)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Temporary
Storm Drain
Diversion
(Pipe)
Reroutes existing drainage
systems. Primary benefit is to
separate drainage water
originating from undisturbed and
construction and reduce the
volume of water to be treated.
Can be combined with other
structures, such as sediment
traps, and used for sediment
trapping.
Require little maintenance.
Requires outlet stabilization.
Can be a significant source of
sediment without outlet
stabilization.
Can be costly, depending on
size, installation, and removal.
No known information
available.
No known
information available.
Pipe Slope
Drain
Routes runoff from concentrated
flow to stabilized areas.
Can be very effective in
eliminating gully erosion
problems, if properly installed
and maintained.
Can be constructed from low-
cost corrugated PVC, but must
be anchored or buried along
slope.
Needs to be checked frequently
for sedimentation and other
maintenance problems.
No known information
available.
No known
information available.
March, 2004
5-112
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-26. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.2)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Stone Check
Dams
Reduces velocity of flow and
prevents erosion.
Stabilizes channel slope on steep
sections by stairstepping.
Can trap small percentages of
sediment behind dam.
Used for short periods of time
where channel lining is
impractical.
Limited lab studies show high
effectiveness, but very limited
field studies show low trapping
efficiency. Must be installed
such that overtopping occurs
over the rock fill and not around
the perimeter.
Should not be used in
continuously flowing streams.
Relatively expensive, if properly
installed.
Procedures for predicting impact
of properly installed stone check
dams are available and
incorporated into watershed
computer models.
No known information available.
No known
information available.
Lined
Waterways
Designed for stability and
capacity.
Local rainfall-runoff conditions
and linings will influence
channel dimensions.
Require some maintenance
during vegetative establishment.
Not designed as sediment
removal device, but to prevent
channel erosion.
No known information
available.
No known
information available.
March, 2004
5-113
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-27. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.3)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Silt Fence
Most widely recognized sediment
control BMP.
Frequently poorly installed with
few design considerations.
Maintenance is frequently poor,
resulting in frequent failure.
Frequent maintenance is required
for proper operation.
Laboratory studies show fair to
good sediment trapping by filter
fence, but limited field studies do
not show the same results.
Evaluations of installations show
that failure is frequent and results
from undercutting of the fabric and
subsequent gully erosion.
Should not be installed where
rocks and other hard surfaces
prevent anchoring.
No validated procedures are
available to predict the
effectiveness of the filter fence in
trapping sediment, primarily
because of the lack of validated
relationships for predicting flow
through the filter fence.
Procedures for evaluating the
anchoring requirements and
support post requirements have not
adequately accounted for variable
soil strength conditions, resulting
in frequent failure of the fence
under loading.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis of
downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Super Silt
fence
Modification of standard silt-fence
to improve it structurally.
No validation information is
available.
Recommended to be used where
destruction of the silt fence will
destroy critical areas.
More expensive than standard silt
fence.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis of
downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
March, 2004
5-114
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-27. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.3)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Straw Bale
Dike
Works by impounding water.
Primary trapping mechanism is by
settling behind straw bale dike.
Information on performance is
very limited with much variation
in the limited data.
Should not be used in waterways
or as a perimeter control due to
biodegradation.
Idealized models of performance
are available for systems that are
properly installed.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis of
downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No good cause-effect
relationships
available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Sediment
Traps
Formed by excavation and/or
embankment.
Can simplify storm water control
by trapping sediment at specific
spots.
Can be installed quickly and serve
as a short-term solution to
sediment trapping in small areas.
May require cleanout.
Detailed models as well as
simplified design aids are available
to predict performance in trapping
sediment.
Data on performance are available
from both laboratory studies and
field studies.
Will likely control only the
settleable solids unless enhanced
settling with chemical flocculation
is performed.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis of
downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
Data for trapping
nutrients are
available, but show
wide variation.
General models of
nutrient trapping are
not available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
March, 2004
5-115
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-27. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.3)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Sediment
Basins
Normally formed by construction
of a dam.
Storm water detention basin may
serve as sediment basin during
construction.
Can be used for any size
watershed.
May require cleanout.
Data on performance are available
both from laboratory studies and
field studies.
Will likely control only the
settleable solids unless enhanced
settling is developed with chemical
flocculation.
Most reliable and stable structure
for obtaining high sediment
trapping efficiency under widely
varying conditions.
Must consider dam safety issues
since dam failure is a reasonable
possibility.
Structures are relatively large and
can be expensive.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis of
downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
Data for trapping
nutrients are
available, but show
wide variation.
General models of
nutrient trapping are
not available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
March, 2004
5-116
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-28. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.4)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Stone Outlet
Structures
Porous outlet structure
constructed of dumped rock, used
as the outlet for earth dikes.
Requires a stabilized outlet
channel until the flow reaches a
stable channel.
Effectiveness data are limited to
visual observations of field
installations where failure
occurred due to poor installation.
Models are available to predict
the performance of stone outlets,
but field data have not been
collected to evaluate the accuracy
of the model.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
General models of
nutrient trapping are
not available.
Other impacts not
evaluated.
Rock Outlet
Protection
Used to reduce velocity of flow in
receiving channel and prevent
scouring.
Very effective when properly
installed.
Design procedures are well
established.
Maintenance is low, if properly
installed.
Should be inspected after high
flows.
No data on impact.
No data available.
No data available.
Sump Pit
Used to dewater during
excavation.
Effectiveness not evaluated.
Potential exists to theoretically
evaluate the BMP's effectiveness
in trapping sediment.
Could be used at times other than
storm flow, such as for removal
of ground water flow.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No data available.
March, 2004
5-117
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-28. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.4)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Storm Drain
Inlet
Protection
Used to trap sediment that would
otherwise flow into storm drain
inlet.
Should be installed prior to land
disturbance.
Effectiveness in removing
sediment has not been evaluated,
but is thought to be low during
construction.
Potential exists to use computer
models to evaluate effectiveness.
Cost can be high for maintenance
requirements.
Should not be used as stand-alone
sediment control.
Database is poor.
No validated urban runoff models
available for theoretical analysis
of downstream impacts.
Some potential exists to modify
existing models to analyze
downstream impacts on
geomorphology.
No data available.
Sediment
Tank
Portable sediment trap.
Flows are pumped in and out of
the tank.
Used where spaced is limited.
No effectiveness data are
available.
Expected to be relatively
expensive.
No data available.
No data available.
Stabilized
Construction
Entrance
Used to minimize mud and
sediment attached to tires.
Consists of an area that is covered
with rocks over which all
vehicles must drive.
Can be combined with a wash
station.
Effective only if all entrances are
maintained.
Relatively expensive.
Will not remove highly cohesive
clays.
No data available.
No data available.
Land Grading
Stabilizes slopes and decreases
runoff velocity.
Can be incorporated into low-
impact development plans.
Not effective when drainage
patterns are altered.
Not effective when vegetative
areas on perimeter are destroyed.
Practiced at virtually all
construction sites.
No data available on BMP
effectiveness.
No data available.
No data available.
March, 2004
5-118
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 5-28. Summary of Information on Erosion Control and Prevention BMPs
(Sub-section 5.1.5.4)
BMP Type
Physical Impact Mitigation
Other Impacts
Receiving Water Quality
Downstream Impacts
Temp Access
Waterways
Crossing
Reduces risk to damaging
streambed from construction
equipment.
Can be a bridge, culvert, or ford.
Bridges and culverts preferred,
but more expensive.
Data on effectiveness in reducing
sediment are not available.
No data available.
No data available.
Dust Control
Important in arid and semi-arid
regions.
Applicable to any construction
site.
Construction sequencing and
limiting exposure area can reduce
problems.
Spray-on adhesives are
recommended.
Water application may require
near-constant attention.
Excess water may cause runoff or
tracking of mud.
Very limited effectiveness
information available.
Costs can vary widely, depending
on local conditions.
No data available.
No data available.
5.2 REFERENCES
Adams, J, J. Janatzen, D. Loudenslager. 2000. A device to alleviate pollution from urban
stormwater. Design Report, Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK.
ASCE. 1999, National Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) Database, prepared by the
Urban Water Resources Research Council of the American Society of Civil Engineers, prepared for
the US EPA, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C,
Barfield, B. J. 2000. Presentation on nonpoint source sediment and stormwater. University of
Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR.
Barfield, B. J., Barnhisel, R. I., Powell, J. C., Hirschi, M. C., and Moore, I. D. 1983. Erodibilities
and eroded size distribution of we stern Kentucky mine spoil and reconstructed topsoil. Final Report
for Title HI. Institute for Mining and Minerals Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
March, 2004
5-119
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Barfield, B. J., and Clar, M. 1985. Development of new design criteria for sediment traps and
basins. Prepared for the Maryland Resource Administration. Annapolis, MD, pp. 33.
Barfield, B. J., Haan, C. T., Stevens, E., and Hayes, J. C., K. F. Holbrook. 2001. Engineering
Design Aids for Sediment Control Practices. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Soil
Erosion Research for the 21st Century. January 3-5, 2001. Honolulu, Hawaii. Symposium Sponsored
and Published by American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan.
Barfield, B. J. and Hayes, J. C. 1992. Unpublished results offield evaluation of sediment controls
in South Carolina construction operations. Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma
State University, Stillwater, OK.
Barfield, B. J. and Hayes, J. C. 1999. Unpublished results offield evaluation of sediment controls
in Louisville, KY construction operations. Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma
State University, Stillwater, OK
Barfield, B. J., Hayes, J. C., Fogle, A. W., and Kranzler, K. A. 1996. "The SEDIMOT HI - Model
of Watershed Hydrology and Sedimentology," Proceedings of Fifth Federal Interagency
Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, NV. 1996.
Barfield, B. J., Moore, I. D., and Williams, R. G. 1979. "Sediment yield in surface mined
watersheds." In Proceedings symposium on surface mine hydrology, sedimentology, and
reclamation. College of Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Barrett, M. E., Kearney, J. E., McCoy, T. G., Malina, J. F.,Charbeneau, R. J. and Ward, G. H.
1995. An evaluation of the use and effectiveness of temporary sediment controls. Technical Report
CRWR 261, Center for Research in Water Resources, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
TX 78712.
Benik, S. R., B. N. Wilson, D. D. Biesboer, B. Hanse, and D. Stenlund. 1998. The efficacy of
erosion control products at aMN/DOT construction site. Paper No. 982156, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI
Blench, T. 1970. Regime theory design of canals with sand beds. Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers. 96(IR2): 205-213.
Britton, S. L., Robinson, K. M., and Barfield, B. J. 2001. Modeling the effectiveness of silt fence.
Proceedings 7th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, NV.
Brown, W. and D. Caraco. 1997. "Muddy water in - muddy water out?". Watershed protection
techniques. 2(3): 1997.
March, 2004
5-120
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Brown, W. and T. Schueler. 1997. The economics of stormwater BMPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
Prepared for: Chesapeake Research Consortium. Edgewater, MD. Center for Watershed
Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
CWP. 1996. Design of stormwater filtering systems. Prepared for Chesapeake Research
Consortium, Solomons, MD, and U.S. EPA Region 5, Chicago, IL, by Center for Watershed
Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Chang, H. H. 1988. Fluvial processes in river engineering. Wiley Interscience, New York,
432 p.
Claytor, R. 1997. "Practical tips for construction site phasing." Watershed Protection Techniques.
2(3): 1997.
Corish, K. 1995. Clearing and grading strategies for urban watersheds. Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
Dorman, M.E., J. Hartigan, R.F. Steg and T. Quasebarth. 1989. Retention, detention and overland
flow for pollutant removal from highway stormwater runoff. Vol. 1. Research report. Federal
Highway Administration. FHWA/RD 89/202. Also in: "Performance of grassed swales along East
Coast highways." Watershed protection techniques 1994 1(3): 122-123.
ECTC, 2002a. Flexible Channel Lining System: The Benefits of Geosynthetically Reinforced
Vegetation Over Rock Riprap. Tim Lancaster, North American Green, Inc.; Don Lutyens, American
Excelsior Company; Deron Austin, Synthetic Industries. Erosion Control Technology Council.
ECTC, 2002b. ECTC Offers a Website Tool to Help Landscape Architects with Erosion Problems.
Laurie L. Honnigford. Erosion Control Technology Council.
Ellis, B. 1998. A further guide to swales: costs of operation and maintenance. PERMEATE.
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Stirling, Scotland.
Ettinger, C. E. and J. E. Lichty. 1979. Evaluation of performance capability of surface mine
sediment ponds. Final Report on Contract Number 68-03-2677, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, US EPA.
Faircloth, W. 1999. "Searching for a practical, efficient, economical sediment basin." Proceedings
of Conference 30, Nashville, TN, pp. 272-282.
Fifield, J. 1999. Designing effective sediment and erosion control for construction sites.
Fisher, L. S. and Jarrett, A. R. 1984. "Sediment retention efficiency of synthetic filter fabric".
Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 30(l):82-89.
March, 2004
5-121
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Foster, G. R., Young, R. A., and Neibling, W. H. 1985. "Sediment composition for nonpoint
source pollution analyses." Transaction of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
28(1): 133-146.
Gillman, J.W. 1994. "Riparian Wetlands and Water Quality". Journal of Environmental Quality.
23:896-900.
Goldberg. 1993. Dayton Avenue swale biofiltration study. Seattle Engineering Department,
Seattle, WA.
Griffin, M. L., Barfield, B. J., and Warner, R. C. 1985. "Laboratory studies of dead storage in
sediment ponds". Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 28(3):799-804.
Haan, C. T., Barfield, B. J., and Hayes, J. C. 1994. Design hydrology andsedimentology for small
catchments. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Harding, M.V. 1990. Erosion control effectiveness: comparative studies of alternative mulching
techniques. Environmental Restoration, pp. 149-156, as cited inUSEPA. 1993. Guidance
specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. EPA 840-B-
92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Harper, H. 1988. Effects of stormwater management systems on groundwater quality. Final report.
Environmental Research and Design, Inc. Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. Also in: "Runoff and groundwater dynamics of two swales in Florida. Watershed
Protection Techniques. Fall 1994 1(3): 120-121.
Hayes, J. C., B. J. Barfield and R. I. Barnhisel. 1984. Performance of grass filters under laboratory
and field conditions. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 27(5):
1321-1331.
Hayes, J. C. and Barfield, B. J. 1995. Engineering aids and design guidelines for control of
sediment in South Carolina. In South Carolina stormwater and sediment control handbook for land
disturbance activities. S. C. D. H. E. C.
Hayes, J. C., Akridge, A. L., Barfield, B. J. and Holbrook, K. F. 2001. Simplifying Design of
sediment controls in Jefferson County, Kentucky. In Proceedings soil erosion research for the 21st
Century: An international symposium and exhibition, Honolulu, HA, January 2001. Sponsored by
ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph MI 49085-9659
Herrera, N. M. and G. K. Felton. 1991. "Hydraulics of flow through a rockfill dam using
sediment-free water." Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 34(3): 871-
875.
March, 2004
5-122
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Heyer, T. No Date. Vegetative measures for streambank stabilization. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, St, Paul, Minnesota.
Hirschi, M. C. 1981. "Efficiency of small sediment controls." Unpublished Agricultural
Engineering File Report, Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
(Details of the report are given in Chapter 9 of Haan et al, 1994).
Holbrook, K. F., Hayes, J. C. and Barfield, B. J., and A.W. Fogle. 1998. "Engineering aids and
design guidelines for control of sediment in South Carolina," Conference Proceedings. February
1998.
IDNR. 1992. Indiana handbook for erosion controls in developing areas, guidelines for protecting
water quality through the control of soil and erosion and sedimentation on construction sites.
Division of Soil Conservation, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Jarrett, A. 1999. "Designing sedimentation basins for better sediment capture". In Proceeding of
Conference 30, Nashville, TN, pp. 218-233.
Kay-Shoemake, J, M. Watwood, R. Sojka, and R. Lentz. 2000. "Soil amidase activity in
polyacrylamide (PAM) treated soils and potential activity toward common amide containing
agrochemicals". Biology and Fertility of Soils 31(2): 183-186.
Kercher, W.C., J.C. Landon and R. Massarelli. 1983. "Grassy swales prove cost-effective for water
pollution control. Public Works 16: 53-55.
Knisel, W. G., ed. 1980. CREAMS: A field-scale model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from
agricultural management systems. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report
No. 26, 640 pp.
Koon, J. 1995. Evaluation of water quality ponds and swales in the Issaquah/East Lake
Sammamish Basins. King County Surface Water Management and Washington Department of
Ecology, Seattle, WA.
Kouwen, N. 1990. Silt fences to control sediment on construction sites. Technical Publication
MAT-90-03, Research and Development Branch, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 1201 Wilson
Avenue, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3M 1J8.
Lane, E. W. 1955. The importance of fluvial geomorphology in hydraulic engineering.
Proceedings American Society of Civil Engineering, 81: 1-17.
Leopold, Luna B., M. Gordon Wolman, and John P. Miller, 1964. Fluvial processes in
geomorphology. Dover Publications, Inc. Mineola, NY.
March, 2004
5-123
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Lindley, M., B. J. Barfield, J. Ascough, B. N. Wilson, and E. Stevens. 1998. "The surface
impoundment element for WEPP". Transactions ASAE. 41(3):555-564.
Masters, A., K. A. Flahive, S. Mostaghimi, D. Vaughan, A. Mendez, M. Peterie, S. Radke. 2000. A
comparative investigation of the effectiveness of polyacrylamide (PAM) for erosion control in
urban areas. Paper No. 002176, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp.
21.
McBurnie, J. C., Barfield, B. J., Clar, M. L. and Shaver, E. 1990. "Maryland sediment detention
pond design criteria and performance". Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 6(2): 167-173.
MDE, 1994. Maryland standards and specifications for soil erosion and sediment control. Water
Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment, Soil Conservation Service,
and State Soil Conservation Committee, Baltimore, MD.
NAHB. No Date. NAHB Research Center storm water runoff & nonpoint source pollution control
guide for builders and developers. National Association of Home Builders, Washington. DC.
NCDNR. 1988. North Carolina erosion and sediment control planning and design manual. North
Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, and the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Oakland, P.H. 1983. "An evaluation of stormwater pollutant removal through grassed swale
treatment." In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and
Sediment Control, H. J. Sterling, Lexington, KY.
Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory. 1983. Final report: Metropolitan Washington
Urban Runoff Project. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Manassas, VA.
Pitt, R. and J. McLean. 1986. Toronto area watershed management strategy study: Humber River
Pilot Watershed Project. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto, Ontario.
Roa-Espinosa, A., G.D. Bubenzer, and E.S.Miyashita. 2000. Sediment and runoff control on
construction sites using four application methods of polyacrylamide mix. National Conference on
ools for Urban Water Resource Management and Protection, Chicago, February 7-10, 2000, pp.
278-.
Renard, K. G., Foster G. R., Weesies, G. A., McCool, KD. K. and Yoder D. C. 1994. Predicting
soil erosion by water—A guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE). ARS Publication, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
March, 2004
5-124
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
R.S. Means. 2000. Building Construction Cost Data 58th Annual Edition. R.S. Means Co.,
Kingston, Massachusetts.
Seattle Metro and Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Biofiltration swale performance:
recommendations and design considerations. Publication No. 657. Water Pollution Control
Department, Seattle, Washington. Also in: Watershed Protection Techniques. Fall 1994 1(3): 117-
119.
SCDHEC. 1995. South Carolina stormwater management and sediment reductions regulations. In
South Carolina Stormwater Management and Sediment Control Sedimentology Resource,
SCDHEC.
Schumm, S. A. 1977. The fluvial system. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 338 pp
Simons, D.B., and M.L. Albertson, 1960. "Uniform water conveyance channels in alluvial
material." Proc. Am. Soc. CivilEngr. 86(HY5):33-71
Smiley, J., and C. T. Haan. 1976. The dam problem of urban hydrology. Proceedings National
Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment Control, College of Engineering,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Smolen, M.D., D.W. Miller, L.C. Wyall, J. Lichthardt, and A.L. Lanier. 1988. Erosion and
sediment control planning and design manual. North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission
and North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Raleigh, NC.
Snodgrass, W.J., B.W. Kilgour, L. Leon, N. Eyles, J. Parish, and D.R. Barton. 1998. Applying
ecological criteria for stream biota and an impact flow model for evaluation of sustainable urban
water resources in southern Ontario. In: Sustaining Urban Water Resources in the 21st Century.
Proceedings for an Engineering Foundation Conference. Edited by A.C. Rowney, P. Stahre, and
L.A. Roesner. Malmo, Sweden. September 7 - 12, 1997.
Sprague, J. 1999. Assuring the Effectiveness of Silt Fences and Other Sediment Barriers.
TRI/Environmental, Inc., Greenville, South Carolina. Also in Proceedings of Conference 30.
International Erosion Control Association. Nashville, Tennessee, February 22-26, 1999.
Stahre, P., and B. Urbonas. 1990. Stormwater Detention For Drainage, Water Quality, and CSO
Management. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Stevens, L.E., et al. 2001. "Planned Flooding and Colorado River Riparian Trade-offs Downstream
from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona." Ecological Applications. 11(3): 701-710.
SWRPC. 1991. Costs of urban nonpoint source water pollution control measures. Technical report
no. 31. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, Wisconsin.
March, 2004
5-125
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Tobiason, S., D. Jenkins, E. Molash, and S. Rush. 2000. "Polymer use and testing for erosion and
sediment control on construction sites: Recent experience in the Pacific Northwest". In:
Proceedings of Conference 31. International Erosion Control Association. Palm Spring, CA,
February 21-25, 2000, pp. 41-52.
Tapp, J. S., and Barfield, B. J. 1986. "Modeling the flocculation process in sediment ponds".
Transactions ASAE. 29(3):741-747.
Tapp, J. S., Barfield, B. J., and Griffin, M. L. 1981. Predicting suspended solids removal in pilot
scale sediment ponds utilizing chemical flocculation. Research Report IMMR 81/063, Institute for
Mining and Minerals Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
UNEP. 1994. Guidelines for sediment control practices in the insular Caribbean. CEP Technical
Report No. 32 UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme, Kingston, Jamaica.
.
USAF. 1998. USAF landscape design: Erosion control measures. U.S. Air Force, St. Paul,
Minnesota. .
USDA. 1979. Engineering Field Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, DC.
USD A-Agricultural Research Service. 1994. Polyacrylamide (PAM): A New Weapon in the Fight
Against Irrigation-induced Erosion. Note #01-94. ByR.E. Sojka and R.D. Lentz. USDA-ARS
Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Lab Station. Kimberly, ID.
USDOT. 1995. Best management practices for erosion and sediment control. Report No. FHWA-
FLP-94-005. Eastern Federal Lands Highway Design, U.S Department of Transportation, Sterling,
Virginia.
USEPA, 2003. Memo to Record on Erosion and Sediment Control Unit Costs.
USEPA. 1971. Control of sediment resulting from construction of highways and land development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Storm water management for construction activities: developing pollution
prevention plans and best management practices. EPA 832-R-92-005. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. Storm water management for industrial activities: developing pollution prevention
plans and best management practices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
March, 2004
5-126
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
U SEPA. 1993. Guidance specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in
coastal waters. EPA 840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000. Urban nonpoint source management measure guidance - draft. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Vanderwel, D. and S. Abday. 1998. An introduction to water erosion control. Alberta, Agriculture,
Food and Rural Development, Alberta, Canada.
VDCR. 1995. Virginia erosion & sediment control field manual. Second Edition. Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Richmond,
Virginia.
VDCR. 2001. Virginia erosion and sediment control law, regulations, and certification
regulations. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, Richmond, Virginia.
Wang, T., D. Spyridakis, B. Mar and R. Horner. 1981. Transport, deposition and control of heavy
metals in highway runoff. FHWA-WA-RD-39-10. Department of Civil Engineering. University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ward, A. D., Haan, C. T., and Barfield, B. J. 1977. Simulation of the sedimentology of sediment
detention basins. Research Report No. 103, Water Resources Research Institute, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Ward, A. D., Haan, C. T., and Tapp, J. S. 1979. The DEPOSITS sedimentation pond design
manual. OISTL, Institute for Mining and Minerals Research, University of Kentucky, Lexington,
KY.
Warner, R.C. and P.J. Schwab. 1998. SEDCAD 4 for Windows 95 & NT-Design Manual and
User's Guide. Civil Software Design, Ames, IA.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDEC). 1992. Stormwater management manual for
the Puget Sound Basin. Technical Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia,
WA.
Welborn, C., and J. Veenhuis. 1987. Effects of runoff controls on the quantity and quality of urban
runoff in two locations in Austin, TX. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report. 87-4004, pp.
88.
Williams, J. R. No Date. "Sediment yield prediction with Universal Equation using runoff energy
factor". Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yields and Sources.
March, 2004
5-127
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Publication ARS-S-40, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC. pp.
Wilson, B. N., and Barfield, B. J. 1984. "A sediment detention pond model using CSTRS mixing
theory." Transactions American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 27(5): 1339-1344.
Wilson, B. N., Barfield, B. J., and Moore, I. D. 1982. A hydrology andsedimentology watershed
model. Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Wischmeier, W. H. and D. D. Smith. 1965. Predicting rainfall-erosion losses from cropland east
of the Rocky Mountains-guide for selection ofpractices for soil and water conservation. U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 282. 47 pp.
Wishowski, J. M., Mamo, M., and Bubenzer, G. D. 1998. Trap efficiencies offilter fabric fence.
Paper No 982158, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Wyant, D. C. 1980. Evaluation offilter fabric for use as silt fences. VA Highway and
Transportation Research Council, Richmond, VA.
WYDEQ. 1999. Urban best management practices for nonpoint source pollution. Point and
Nonpoint Source Programs, Water Quality Division, Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality, Cheyenne, Wyoming,
Yousef, Y., M. Wanielista, H. Harper, D. Pearce and R. Tolbert. 1985. Best management
practices: Removal of highway contaminants by roadside swales. Final report. University of
Central Florida. Florida Department of Transportation. Orlando, FL. Also in: Pollutant Removal
Pathways in Florida Swales. Watershed Protection Techniques. Fall 1995. 2(1): 299-301.
Yu, S., S. Barnes and V. Gerde. 1993. Testing of best management practices for controlling
highway runoff. Virginia Transportation Research Council. FHWA/VA-93-R16, pp. 60. Also in:
Performance of Grassed Swales Along East Coast Highways. Watershed Protection Techniques.
Fall 1994. 1(3): 122-123.
March, 2004
5-128
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SECTION 6: REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT AND RATIONALE
In this section, the methodology used by EPA to develop regulatory options for the construction and
land development industry is described. Following the June 2002 proposal, EPA held a public
comment period that ended on December 23, 2002. A number of issues were raised through
comments that prompted several changes in EPA's analyses as well as development of a revised
regulatory option (Option 4). The complete comment response document can be found in the public
docket. EPA also refined its costing, environmental assessment and economic analyses.
Consideration of all of these references, as well as other information, led to EPA deciding not to
promulgate final effluent limitations guidelines. The following section discusses the regulatory
options evaluated for the final action. Costs of regulatory options are discussed in Section 7 of this
document and a description of the environmental benefits estimation is presented in Section 8.
Industry financial analyses can be found in the document "Economic Analysis for Final Action for
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category," EPA-821-B-
04-002.
6.1 REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR FINAL ACTION
EPA considered a series of regulatory options. These options were designed to control the
discharge of sediment, storm water and other pollutants from sites when construction is taking
place. EPA considered a range of options that incorporate varying levels of management and
various control strategies.
The following discussion presents various options that EPA considered.
6.1.1 OPTION 1 - INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
Option 1 would establish a series of site inspection and certification provisions as minimum
requirements for all construction sites subject to the NPDES storm water regulations. The
permittee is required to conduct periodic inspections and provide certifications as to certain
activities (such as SWPPP preparation, BMP installation, periodic maintenance, etc.). These
inspections and certifications are to be performed by a qualified professional, such as a registered
professional engineer or person trained in erosion and sediment control. The permittee may provide
self-certifications if qualified.
A summary of the inspection and certification provisions considered under this option are:
Inspections
A. Inspections must be conducted in accordance with one of the two schedules listed below. You
must specify in your SWPPP which schedule you will be following.
1. At least once every 7 calendar days, OR
March, 2004
6-1
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
2. At least once every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a storm event of 0.5
inches or greater.
B. Inspection frequency may be reduced to at least once every month if:
1. The entire site is temporarily stabilized,
2. Runoff is unlikely due to winter conditions (e.g., site is covered with snow, ice, or the
ground is frozen), or
3. Construction is occurring during seasonal arid periods in arid areas and semi-arid areas.
C. A waiver of the inspection requirements is available until one month before thawing conditions
are expected to result in a discharge if all of the following requirements are met:
1. The project is located in an area where frozen conditions are anticipated to continue for
extended periods of time (i.e., more than one month);
2. Land disturbance activities have been suspended; and
3. The beginning and ending dates of the waiver period are documented in the SWPPP.
D. Inspections must be conducted by qualified personnel (provided by the operator or
cooperatively by multiple operators). "Qualified personnel" means a person knowledgeable in
the principles and practice of erosion and sediment controls who possesses the skills to assess
conditions at the construction site that could impact storm water quality and to assess the
effectiveness of any sediment and erosion control measures selected to control the quality of
storm water discharges from the construction activity.
E. Inspections must include all areas of the site disturbed by construction activity and areas used
for storage of materials that are exposed to precipitation. Inspectors must look for evidence of,
or the potential for, pollutants entering the storm water conveyance system. Sedimentation and
erosion control measures identified in the SWPPP must be observed to ensure proper operation.
Discharge locations must be inspected to ascertain whether erosion control measures are
effective in preventing significant impacts to waters of the United States, where accessible.
Where discharge locations are inaccessible, nearby downstream locations must be inspected to
the extent that such inspections are practicable. Locations where vehicles enter or exit the site
must be inspected for evidence of off-site sediment tracking.
F. Utility line installation, pipeline construction, and other examples of long, narrow, linear
construction activities may limit the access of inspection personnel to the areas described in
Subpart 3.10.E above. Inspection of these areas could require that vehicles compromise
temporarily or even permanently stabilized areas, cause additional disturbance of soils, and
increase the potential for erosion. In these circumstances, controls must be inspected on the
March, 2004
6-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
same frequencies as other construction projects, but representative inspections may be
performed. For representative inspections, personnel must inspect controls along the
construction site for 0.25 mile above and below each access point where a roadway, undisturbed
right-of-way, or other similar feature intersects the construction site and allows access to the
areas described above. The conditions of the controls along each inspected 0.25 mile segment
may be considered as representative of the condition of controls along that reach extending from
the end of the 0.25 mile segment to either the end of the next 0.25 mile inspected segment, or to
the end of the project, whichever occurs first.
G. For each inspection required above, you must complete an inspection report. At a minimum, the
inspection report must include:
1. The inspection date;
2. Names, titles, and qualifications of personnel making the inspection;
3. Weather information for the period since the last inspection (or since commencement of
construction activity if the first inspection) including a best estimate of the beginning of
each storm event, duration of each storm event, approximate amount of rainfall for each
storm event (in inches), and whether any discharges occurred;
4. Weather information and a description of any discharges occurring at the time of the
inspection;
5. Location(s) of discharges of sediment or other pollutants from the site;
6. Location(s) of BMPs that need to be maintained;
7. Location(s) of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or proved inadequate for a particular
location;
8. Location(s) where additional BMPs are needed that did not exist at the time of inspection;
and
9. Corrective action required including any changes to the SWPPP necessary and
implementation dates.
10. On a site map, indicate the extent of all disturbed site areas and drainage pathways. Indicate
site areas that are expected to undergo initial disturbance or significant site work within the
next 14-day period;
11. Indicate on a site map all areas of the site that have undergone temporary or permanent
stabilization;
March, 2004
6-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
12. Indicate all disturbed site areas that have not undergone active site work during the previous
14-day period;
13. Inspect all sediment control practices and note the approximate degree of sediment
accumulation as a percentage of the sediment storage volume (for example 10 percent, 20
percent, 50 percent, etc.). Record all sediment control practices in the site log book that
have sediment accumulation of 50 percent or more; and
14. Inspect all erosion and sediment control BMPs and record all maintenance requirements
such as verifying the integrity of barrier or diversion systems (earthen berms or silt fencing)
and containment systems (sediment basins and sediment traps). Identify any evidence of rill
or gully erosion occurring on slopes and any loss of stabilizing vegetation or
seeding/mulching. Document in the site log book any excessive deposition of sediment or
ponding water along barrier or diversion systems. Record the depth of sediment within
containment structures, any erosion near outlet and overflow structures, and verify the
ability of rock filters around perforated riser pipes to pass water.
H. Prior to filing of the Notice of Termination or the end of permit term, a final site erosion and
sediment control inspection shall be conducted by the operator or designated agent. The
inspector shall certify that the site has undergone final stabilization using either vegetative or
structural stabilization methods and that all temporary erosion and sediment controls (such as
silt fencing) not needed for long-term erosion control have been removed.
A record of each inspection and of any actions taken in accordance with this Part must be retained
as part of the SWPPP for at least three years from the date that permit coverage expires or is
terminated. The inspection reports must identify any incidents of non-compliance with the permit
conditions. Where a report does not identify any incidents of non-compliance, the report must
contain a certification that the construction project or site is in compliance with the SWPPP and all
applicable permit conditions.
Site Log Book/Certification
The operator shall maintain a record of site activities in a site log book, as part of the SWPPP. The
site log book shall be maintained as follows:
A. A copy of the site log book shall be maintained on site and be made available to the permitting
authority upon request. The operator shall make a copy of the site log book available to the
public upon request within a reasonable period;
B. In the site log book, the operator shall certify, prior to the commencement of construction
activities, that the SWPPP meets all Federal, State and local erosion and sediment control
requirements and is available to the permitting authority;
March, 2004
6-4
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
C. The operator shall have a qualified professional conduct an assessment of the site prior to
groundbreaking and certify that the appropriate BMPs and erosion and sediment controls
described in the SWPPP have been adequately designed, sized and installed to ensure overall
preparedness of the site for initiation of groundbreaking activities. The operator shall record the
date of initial groundbreaking in the site log book. The operator shall also certify that the site
inspections, soil stabilization activities, and maintenance activities required have been satisfied
within 48 hours of actually meeting such requirements;
D. The operator shall post at the site, in a publicly-accessible location, a summary of the site
inspection activities on a monthly basis, as well as contact information for obtaining a copy of
the SWPPP and a copy of the site inspection log book;
6.1.2 OPTION 2 - CODIFY PROVISIONS OF THE EPA CONSTRUCTION GENERAL
PERMIT WITH INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION
Option 2 would require the permittee to prepare a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)
and implement the erosion and sediment controls contained in the EPA Construction General
Permit (CGP). In addition, the permittee would be required to conduct periodic site inspections and
provide certifications in a site log book. This option would only apply to sites with 5 or more acres
of disturbed land. The specific requirements considered under this option are:
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
A. A SWPPP or equivalent document such as an erosion and sediment control plan or construction
site storm water management plan must be prepared prior to submission of your Notice of Intent
and prior to commencement of construction activities. At least one SWPPP must be developed
for each construction project covered by your permit and each SWPPP must be prepared in
accordance with good engineering practices.
B. The SWPPP must:
A. Identify all potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the
quality of stormwater discharges from the construction site;
B. Describe practices to be used to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the
construction site; and
C. Once a definable area has been finally stabilized, you may mark this on your SWPPP and no
further SWPPP or inspection requirements apply to that portion of the site (e.g., earth-disturbing
activities around one of three buildings in a complex are done and the area is finally stabilized,
one mile of a roadway or pipeline project is done and finally stabilized, etc).
D. You must implement the SWPPP as written from commencement of construction activity until
final stabilization is complete.
March, 2004
6-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Pollution Prevention Plan Contents: Site and Activity Description
A. The SWPPP must identify all operators for the project site, and the areas of the site over which
each operator has control.
B. The SWPPP must describe the nature of the construction activity, including:
1. The function of the project (e.g., low density residential, shopping mall, highway, etc.);
2. The intended sequence and timing of activities that disturb soils at the site;
3. Estimates of the total area expected to be disturbed by excavation, grading, or other
construction activities, including dedicated off-site borrow and fill areas; and
4. A general location map (e.g., USGS quadrangle map, a portion of a city or county map, or
other map) with enough detail to identify the location of the construction site and waters of
the United States within one mile of the site.
C. The SWPPP must contain a legible site map, showing the entire site, identifying:
1. Direction(s) of storm water flow and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading
activities;
2. Areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed;
3. Locations of major structural and nonstructural BMPs identified in the SWPPP;
4. Locations where stabilization practices are expected to occur;
5. Locations of off-site material, waste, borrow or equipment storage areas;
6. Locations of all waters of the United States (including wetlands);
7. Locations where storm water discharges to a surface water; and
8. Areas where final stabilization has been accomplished and no further construction-phase
permit requirements apply.
D. The SWPPP must describe and identify the location and description of any storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity other than construction at the site. This includes
storm water discharges from dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated concrete plants, that are
covered by this permit.
March, 2004
6-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Pollution Prevention Plan Contents: Controls to Reduce Pollutants
A. The SWPPP must include a description of all pollution control measures (i.e., BMPs) that will
be implemented as part of the construction activity to control pollutants in storm water
discharges. For each major activity identified in the project description the SWPPP must clearly
describe appropriate control measures, the general sequence during the construction process in
which the measures will be implemented, and which operator is responsible for the control
measure's implementation.
B. The SWPPP must include a description of interim and permanent stabilization practices for the
site, including a schedule of when the practices will be implemented. Site plans should ensure
that existing vegetation is preserved where possible and that disturbed portions of the site are
stabilized. Use of impervious surfaces for stabilization should be avoided.
C. The following records must be maintained as part of the SWPPP:
1. Dates when maj or grading activities occur;
2. Dates when construction activities temporarily or permanently cease on a portion of the site;
and
3. Dates when stabilization measures are initiated.
D. The SWPPP must include a description of structural practices to divert flows from exposed
soils, retain/detain flows or otherwise limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed
areas of the site. Placement of structural practices in floodplains must be avoided to the degree
practicable.
E. The SWPPP must include a description of all post-construction storm water management
measures that will be installed during the construction process to control pollutants in storm
water discharges after construction operations have been completed. Structural measures should
be placed on upland soils to the degree practicable. Such measures must be designed and
installed in compliance with applicable federal, local, state or tribal requirements.
F. The SWPPP must describe measures to prevent the discharge of solid materials, including
building materials, to waters of the United States, except as authorized by a permit issued under
section 404 of the CWA.
G. The SWPPP must describe measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, off-site vehicle
tracking of sediments onto paved surfaces and the generation of dust.
H. The SWPPP must include a description of construction and waste materials expected to be
stored on-site with updates as appropriate. The SWPPP must also include a description of
March, 2004
6-7
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
controls, including storage practices, to minimize exposure of the materials to storm water, and
spill prevention and response practices.
I. The SWPPP must include a description of pollutant sources from areas other than construction
(including storm water discharges from dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated concrete plants),
and a description of controls and measures that will be implemented at those sites to minimize
pollutant discharges.
Non-Storm Water Discharge Management
The SWPPP must identify all sources of non-storm water discharges allowable under your permit,
except for flows from fire fighting activities, that are combined with storm water discharges
associated with construction activity at the site. Non-storm water discharges should be eliminated or
reduced to the extent feasible. The SWPPP must identify and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention measures for the non-storm water component(s) of the discharge.
Examples of non-storm water discharges that may be allowable under your permit include:
A. Fire hydrant flushings;
B. Waters used to wash vehicles where detergents are not used;
C. Water used to control dust;
D. Potable water including uncontaminated water line flushings;
E. Routine external building wash down that does not use detergents;
F. Pavement wash waters where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been removed) and where detergents are not used;
G. Uncontaminated air conditioning or compressor condensate;
H. Uncontaminated ground water or spring water;
I. Foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such as
solvents;
J. Uncontaminated excavation dewatering;
K. Landscape irrigation.
Maintenance of Controls
A. All erosion and sediment control measures and other protective measures identified in the
SWPPP must be maintained in effective operating condition. If site inspections identify BMPs
that are not operating effectively, maintenance must be performed as soon as possible and
before the next storm event whenever practicable to maintain the continued effectiveness of
storm water controls.
B. If existing BMPs need to be modified or if additional BMPs are necessary for any reason,
implementation must be completed before the next storm event whenever practicable. If
implementation before the next storm event is impracticable, the situation must be documented
in the SWPPP and alternative BMPs must be implemented as soon as possible.
March, 2004
6-8
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
C. Sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation ponds must be removed when design capacity
has been reduced by 50 percent.
Applicable State. Tribal, or Local Programs
The SWPPP must be consistent with all applicable federal, state, tribal, or local requirements for
soil and erosion control and storm water management, including updates to the SWPPP as
necessary to reflect any revisions to applicable federal, state, tribal, or local requirements for soil
and erosion control.
Inspections
A. Inspections must be conducted in accordance with one of the two schedules listed below. You
must specify in your SWPPP which schedule you will be following.
1. At least once every 7 calendar days, OR
2. At least once every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a storm event of 0.5
inches or greater.
B. Inspection frequency may be reduced to at least once every month if:
1. The entire site is temporarily stabilized,
2. Runoff is unlikely due to winter conditions (e.g., site is covered with snow, ice, or the
ground is frozen), or
3. Construction is occurring during seasonal arid periods in arid areas and semi-arid areas.
C. A waiver of the inspection requirements is available until one month before thawing conditions
are expected to result in a discharge if all of the following requirements are met:
1. The project is located in an area where frozen conditions are anticipated to continue for
extended periods of time (i.e., more than one month);
2. Land disturbance activities have been suspended; and
3. The beginning and ending dates of the waiver period are documented in the SWPPP.
D. Inspections must be conducted by qualified personnel (provided by the operator or
cooperatively by multiple operators). "Qualified personnel" means a person knowledgeable in
the principles and practice of erosion and sediment controls who possesses the skills to assess
conditions at the construction site that could impact storm water quality and to assess the
March, 2004 6-9
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
effectiveness of any sediment and erosion control measures selected to control the quality of
storm water discharges from the construction activity.
E. Inspections must include all areas of the site disturbed by construction activity and areas used
for storage of materials that are exposed to precipitation. Inspectors must look for evidence of,
or the potential for, pollutants entering the storm water conveyance system. Sedimentation and
erosion control measures identified in the SWPPP must be observed to ensure proper operation.
Discharge locations must be inspected to ascertain whether erosion control measures are
effective in preventing significant impacts to waters of the United States, where accessible.
Where discharge locations are inaccessible, nearby downstream locations must be inspected to
the extent that such inspections are practicable. Locations where vehicles enter or exit the site
must be inspected for evidence of off-site sediment tracking.
F. Utility line installation, pipeline construction, and other examples of long, narrow, linear
construction activities may limit the access of inspection personnel to the areas described in
Subpart 3.10.E above. Inspection of these areas could require that vehicles compromise
temporarily or even permanently stabilized areas, cause additional disturbance of soils, and
increase the potential for erosion. In these circumstances, controls must be inspected on the
same frequencies as other construction projects, but representative inspections may be
performed. For representative inspections, personnel must inspect controls along the
construction site for 0.25 mile above and below each access point where a roadway, undisturbed
right-of-way, or other similar feature intersects the construction site and allows access to the
areas described above. The conditions of the controls along each inspected 0.25 mile segment
may be considered as representative of the condition of controls along that reach extending from
the end of the 0.25 mile segment to either the end of the next 0.25 mile inspected segment, or to
the end of the project, whichever occurs first.
G. For each inspection required above, you must complete an inspection report. At a minimum, the
inspection report must include:
1. The inspection date;
2. Names, titles, and qualifications of personnel making the inspection;
3. Weather information for the period since the last inspection (or since commencement of
construction activity if the first inspection) including a best estimate of the beginning of
each storm event, duration of each storm event, approximate amount of rainfall for each
storm event (in inches), and whether any discharges occurred;
4. Weather information and a description of any discharges occurring at the time of the
inspection;
5. Location(s) of discharges of sediment or other pollutants from the site;
March, 2004
6-10
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
6. Location(s) of BMPs that need to be maintained;
7. Location(s) of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or proved inadequate for a particular
location;
8. Location(s) where additional BMPs are needed that did not exist at the time of inspection;
and
9. Corrective action required including any changes to the SWPPP necessary and
implementation dates.
10. On a site map, indicate the extent of all disturbed site areas and drainage pathways. Indicate
site areas that are expected to undergo initial disturbance or significant site work within the
next 14-day period;
11. Indicate on a site map all areas of the site that have undergone temporary or permanent
stabilization;
12. Indicate all disturbed site areas that have not undergone active site work during the previous
14-day period;
13. Inspect all sediment control practices and note the approximate degree of sediment
accumulation as a percentage of the sediment storage volume (for example 10 percent, 20
percent, 50 percent, etc.). Record all sediment control practices in the site log book that
have sediment accumulation of 50 percent or more; and
14. Inspect all erosion and sediment control BMPs and record all maintenance requirements
such as verifying the integrity of barrier or diversion systems (earthen berms or silt fencing)
and containment systems (sediment basins and sediment traps). Identify any evidence of rill
or gully erosion occurring on slopes and any loss of stabilizing vegetation or
seeding/mulching. Document in the site log book any excessive deposition of sediment or
ponding water along barrier or diversion systems. Record the depth of sediment within
containment structures, any erosion near outlet and overflow structures, and verify the
ability of rock filters around perforated riser pipes to pass water.
H. Prior to filing of the Notice of Termination or the end of permit term, a final site erosion and
sediment control inspection shall be conducted by the operator or designated agent. The
inspector shall certify that the site has undergone final stabilization using either vegetative or
structural stabilization methods and that all temporary erosion and sediment controls (such as
silt fencing) not needed for long-term erosion control have been removed.
A record of each inspection and of any actions taken in accordance with this Part must be retained
as part of the SWPPP for at least three years from the date that permit coverage expires or is
terminated. The inspection reports must identify any incidents of non-compliance with the permit
March, 2004
6-11
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
conditions. Where a report does not identify any incidents of non-compliance, the report must
contain a certification that the construction project or site is in compliance with the SWPPP and all
applicable permit conditions.
Maintaining an Updated Plan
A. The SWPPP, including the site map, must be amended whenever there is a change in design,
construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has or could have a
significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the United States that has not
been previously addressed in the SWPPP.
B. The SWPPP must be amended if during inspections or investigations by site staff, or by local,
state, tribal or federal officials, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or
significantly minimizing pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site.
C. Based on the results of an inspection, the SWPPP must be modified as necessary to include
additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the SWPPP
must be completed within seven (7) calendar days following the inspection. If existing BMPs
need to be modified or if additional BMPs are necessary for any reason, implementation must
be completed before the next storm event whenever practicable. If implementation before the
next storm event is impracticable, the situation must be documented in the SWPPP and
alternative BMPs must be implemented as soon as possible.
Management Practices
A. All control measures must be properly selected, installed, and maintained in accordance with
any relevant manufacturer specifications and good engineering practices. If periodic inspections
or other information indicates a control has been used inappropriately, or incorrectly, the
operator must replace or modify the control for site situations as soon as practicable.
B. If sediment escapes the construction site, off-site accumulations of sediment must be removed at
a frequency sufficient to minimize off-site impacts.
C. Litter, construction debris, and construction chemicals that could be exposed to storm water
must be prevented from becoming a pollutant source in storm water discharges.
D. Except as provided below, stabilization measures must be initiated as soon as practicable in
portions of the site where construction activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, but in
no case more than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has
temporarily or permanently ceased.
1. Where stabilization by the 14th day is precluded by snow cover or frozen ground conditions,
stabilization measures must be initiated as soon as practicable.
March, 2004
6-12
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
2. Where construction activity on a portion of the site is temporarily ceased, and earth
disturbing activities will be resumed within 14 days, temporary stabilization measures do
not have to be initiated on that portion of the site.
3. In arid, semiarid, and drought-stricken areas where initiating perennial vegetative
stabilization measures is not possible within 14 days after construction activity has
temporarily or permanently ceased, final vegetative stabilization measures must be initiated
as soon as practicable.
E. A combination of sediment and erosion control measures are required to achieve maximum
pollutant removal.
1. Sediment Basins: For common drainage locations that serve an area with 10 or more acres
disturbed at one time, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin that provides storage for a
calculated volume of runoff from the drainage area from a 2-year, 24-hour storm, or
equivalent control measures, must be provided where attainable until final stabilization of
the site. Where no such calculation has been performed, a temporary (or permanent)
sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained, or equivalent control
measures, must be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. When
computing the number of acres draining into a common location, it is not necessary to
include flows from offsite areas and flows from on-site areas that are either undisturbed or
have undergone final stabilization where such flows are diverted around both the disturbed
area and the sediment basin. In determining whether installing a sediment basin is
attainable, the operator may consider factors such as site soils, slope, available area on-site,
etc. In any event, the operator must consider public safety, especially as it relates to
children, as a design factor for the sediment basin, and alternative sediment controls must be
used where site limitations would preclude a safe design.
2. For drainage locations which serve 10 or more disturbed acres at one time and where a
temporary sediment basin or equivalent controls is not attainable, smaller sediment basins
and/or sediment traps should be used. At a minimum, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or
equivalent sediment controls are required for all down slope boundaries (and for those side
slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions).
3. For drainage locations serving less than 10 acres, smaller sediment basins and/or sediment
traps should be used. At a minimum, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or equivalent
sediment controls are required for all down slope boundaries (and for those side slope
boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions) of the construction
area unless a sediment basin providing storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-
year, 24-hour storm or 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained is provided.
F. Velocity dissipation devices must be placed at discharge locations and along the length of any
outfall channel to provide a non-erosive flow velocity from the structure to a water course so
March, 2004
6-13
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
that the natural physical and biological characteristics and functions are maintained and
protected (e.g., no significant changes in the hydrological regime of the receiving water).
Site Log Book/Certification
The operator shall maintain a record of site activities in a site log book, as part of the SWPPP. The
site log book shall be maintained as follows:
A. A copy of the site log book shall be maintained on site and be made available to the permitting
authority upon request. The operator shall make a copy of the site log book available to the
public upon request within a reasonable period;
B. In the site log book, the operator shall certify, prior to the commencement of construction
activities, that the SWPPP meets all Federal, State and local erosion and sediment control
requirements and is available to the permitting authority;
C. The operator shall have a qualified professional conduct an assessment of the site prior to
groundbreaking and certify that the appropriate BMPs and erosion and sediment controls
described in the SWPPP have been adequately designed, sized and installed to ensure overall
preparedness of the site for initiation of groundbreaking activities. The operator shall record the
date of initial groundbreaking in the site log book. The operator shall also certify that the site
inspections, soil stabilization activities, and maintenance activities required have been satisfied
within 48 hours of actually meeting such requirements;
D. The operator shall post at the site, in a publicly-accessible location, a summary of the site
inspection activities on a monthly basis, as well as contact information for obtaining a copy of
the SWPPP and a copy of the site inspection log book;
6.1.3 OPTION 3 - NO REGULATION
EPA also considered an option that would not establish effluent guidelines or any additional
requirements for this industry. This was the option selected for this final action.
6.1.4 OPTION 4 - CODIFY PROVISIONS OF THE EPA CONSTRUCTION GENERAL
PERMIT
EPA developed a revised regulatory option for consideration for the final action that consists solely
of codifying certain provisions of the EPA construction general permit. This option would not
contain the inspection and certification provisions of Option 2, but would rather incorporate the
inspection provisions contained in the July 2003 EPA construction general permit. This option
would only apply to sites with 5 or more acres of disturbed land. The specific requirements
considered for this option are:
March, 2004
6-14
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
A. A SWPPP or equivalent document such as an erosion and sediment control plan or construction
site storm water management plan must be prepared prior to submission of your Notice of Intent
and prior to commencement of construction activities. At least one SWPPP must be developed
for each construction project covered by your permit and each SWPPP must be prepared in
accordance with good engineering practices.
B. The SWPPP must:
A. Identify all potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the
quality of stormwater discharges from the construction site;
B. Describe practices to be used to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the
construction site.
C. Once a definable area has been finally stabilized, you may mark this on your SWPPP and no
further SWPPP or inspection requirements apply to that portion of the site (e.g., earth-disturbing
activities around one of three buildings in a complex are done and the area is finally stabilized,
one mile of a roadway or pipeline project is done and finally stabilized, etc).
D. You must implement the SWPPP as written from commencement of construction activity until
final stabilization is complete.
Pollution Prevention Plan Contents: Site and Activity Description
A. The SWPPP must identify all operators for the project site, and the areas of the site over which
each operator has control.
B. The SWPPP must describe the nature of the construction activity, including:
1. The function of the project (e.g., low density residential, shopping mall, highway, etc.);
2. The intended sequence and timing of activities that disturb soils at the site;
3. Estimates of the total area expected to be disturbed by excavation, grading, or other
construction activities, including dedicated off-site borrow and fill areas; and
4. A general location map (e.g., USGS quadrangle map, a portion of a city or county map, or
other map) with enough detail to identify the location of the construction site and waters of
the United States within one mile of the site.
C. The SWPPP must contain a legible site map, showing the entire site, identifying:
March, 2004
6-15
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
1. Direction(s) of storm water flow and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading
activities;
2. Areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed;
3. Locations of major structural and nonstructural BMPs identified in the SWPPP;
4. Locations where stabilization practices are expected to occur;
5. Locations of off-site material, waste, borrow or equipment storage areas;
6. Locations of all waters of the United States (including wetlands);
7. Locations where storm water discharges to a surface water; and
8. Areas where final stabilization has been accomplished and no further construction-phase
permit requirements apply.
D. The SWPPP must describe and identify the location and description of any storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity other than construction at the site. This includes
storm water discharges from dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated concrete plants, that are
covered by this permit.
Pollution Prevention Plan Contents: Controls to Reduce Pollutants
A. The SWPPP must include a description of all pollution control measures (i.e., BMPs) that will
be implemented as part of the construction activity to control pollutants in storm water
discharges. For each major activity identified in the project description the SWPPP must clearly
describe appropriate control measures, the general sequence during the construction process in
which the measures will be implemented, and which operator is responsible for the control
measure's implementation.
B. The SWPPP must include a description of interim and permanent stabilization practices for the
site, including a schedule of when the practices will be implemented. Site plans should ensure
that existing vegetation is preserved where possible and that disturbed portions of the site are
stabilized. Use of impervious surfaces for stabilization should be avoided.
C. The following records must be maintained as part of the SWPPP:
1. Dates when maj or grading activities occur;
2. Dates when construction activities temporarily or permanently cease on a portion of the site;
and
March, 2004
6-16
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
3. Dates when stabilization measures are initiated.
D. The SWPPP must include a description of structural practices to divert flows from exposed
soils, retain/detain flows or otherwise limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed
areas of the site. Placement of structural practices in floodplains must be avoided to the degree
practicable.
E. The SWPPP must include a description of all post-construction storm water management
measures that will be installed during the construction process to control pollutants in storm
water discharges after construction operations have been completed. Structural measures should
be placed on upland soils to the degree practicable. Such measures must be designed and
installed in compliance with applicable federal, local, state or tribal requirements.
F. The SWPPP must describe measures to prevent the discharge of solid materials, including
building materials, to waters of the United States, except as authorized by a permit issued under
section 404 of the CWA.
G. The SWPPP must describe measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, off-site vehicle
tracking of sediments onto paved surfaces and the generation of dust.
H. The SWPPP must include a description of construction and waste materials expected to be
stored on-site with updates as appropriate. The SWPPP must also include a description of
controls, including storage practices, to minimize exposure of the materials to storm water, and
spill prevention and response practices.
I. The SWPPP must include a description of pollutant sources from areas other than construction
(including storm water discharges from dedicated asphalt plants and dedicated concrete plants),
and a description of controls and measures that will be implemented at those sites to minimize
pollutant discharges.
Non-Storm Water Discharge Management
The SWPPP must identify all sources of non-storm water discharges allowable under your permit,
except for flows from fire fighting activities, that are combined with storm water discharges
associated with construction activity at the site. Non-storm water discharges should be eliminated or
reduced to the extent feasible. The SWPPP must identify and ensure the implementation of
appropriate pollution prevention measures for the non-storm water component(s) of the discharge.
Examples of non-storm water discharges that may be allowable under your permit include:
A. Fire hydrant flushings;
B. Waters used to wash vehicles where detergents are not used;
C. Water used to control dust;
D. Potable water including uncontaminated water line flushings;
E. Routine external building wash down that does not use detergents;
March, 2004
6-17
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
F. Pavement wash waters where spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous materials have not occurred
(unless all spilled material has been removed) and where detergents are not used;
G. Uncontaminated air conditioning or compressor condensate;
H. Uncontaminated ground water or spring water;
I. Foundation or footing drains where flows are not contaminated with process materials such as
solvents;
J. Uncontaminated excavation dewatering;
K. Landscape irrigation.
Maintenance of Controls
A. All erosion and sediment control measures and other protective measures identified in the
SWPPP must be maintained in effective operating condition. If site inspections identify BMPs
that are not operating effectively, maintenance must be performed as soon as possible and
before the next storm event whenever practicable to maintain the continued effectiveness of
storm water controls.
B. If existing BMPs need to be modified or if additional BMPs are necessary for any reason,
implementation must be completed before the next storm event whenever practicable. If
implementation before the next storm event is impracticable, the situation must be documented
in the SWPPP and alternative BMPs must be implemented as soon as possible.
C. Sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation ponds must be removed when design capacity
has been reduced by 50 percent.
Applicable State. Tribal, or Local Programs
The SWPPP must be consistent with all applicable federal, state, tribal, or local requirements for
soil and erosion control and storm water management, including updates to the SWPPP as
necessary to reflect any revisions to applicable federal, state, tribal, or local requirements for soil
and erosion control.
Inspections
A. Inspections must be conducted in accordance with one of the two schedules listed below. You
must specify in your SWPPP which schedule you will be following.
1. At least once every 7 calendar days, OR
2. At least once every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a storm event of 0.5
inches or greater.
B. Inspection frequency may be reduced to at least once every month if:
March, 2004
6-18
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
1. The entire site is temporarily stabilized,
2. Runoff is unlikely due to winter conditions (e.g., site is covered with snow, ice, or the
ground is frozen), or
3. Construction is occurring during seasonal arid periods in arid areas and semi-arid areas.
C. A waiver of the inspection requirements is available until one month before thawing conditions
are expected to result in a discharge if all of the following requirements are met:
1. The project is located in an area where frozen conditions are anticipated to continue for
extended periods of time (i.e., more than one month);
2. Land disturbance activities have been suspended; and
3. The beginning and ending dates of the waiver period are documented in the SWPPP.
D. Inspections must be conducted by qualified personnel (provided by the operator or
cooperatively by multiple operators). "Qualified personnel" means a person knowledgeable in
the principles and practice of erosion and sediment controls who possesses the skills to assess
conditions at the construction site that could impact storm water quality and to assess the
effectiveness of any sediment and erosion control measures selected to control the quality of
storm water discharges from the construction activity.
E. Inspections must include all areas of the site disturbed by construction activity and areas used
for storage of materials that are exposed to precipitation. Inspectors must look for evidence of,
or the potential for, pollutants entering the storm water conveyance system. Sedimentation and
erosion control measures identified in the SWPPP must be observed to ensure proper operation.
Discharge locations must be inspected to ascertain whether erosion control measures are
effective in preventing significant impacts to waters of the United States, where accessible.
Where discharge locations are inaccessible, nearby downstream locations must be inspected to
the extent that such inspections are practicable. Locations where vehicles enter or exit the site
must be inspected for evidence of off-site sediment tracking.
F. Utility line installation, pipeline construction, and other examples of long, narrow, linear
construction activities may limit the access of inspection personnel to the areas described in
Subpart 3.10.E above. Inspection of these areas could require that vehicles compromise
temporarily or even permanently stabilized areas, cause additional disturbance of soils, and
increase the potential for erosion. In these circumstances, controls must be inspected on the
same frequencies as other construction projects, but representative inspections may be
performed. For representative inspections, personnel must inspect controls along the
construction site for 0.25 mile above and below each access point where a roadway, undisturbed
right-of-way, or other similar feature intersects the construction site and allows access to the
areas described above. The conditions of the controls along each inspected 0.25 mile segment
March, 2004
6-19
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
may be considered as representative of the condition of controls along that reach extending from
the end of the 0.25 mile segment to either the end of the next 0.25 mile inspected segment, or to
the end of the project, whichever occurs first.
G. For each inspection required above, you must complete an inspection report. At a minimum, the
inspection report must include:
1. The inspection date;
2. Names, titles, and qualifications of personnel making the inspection;
3. Weather information for the period since the last inspection (or since commencement of
construction activity if the first inspection) including a best estimate of the beginning of
each storm event, duration of each storm event, approximate amount of rainfall for each
storm event (in inches), and whether any discharges occurred;
4. Weather information and a description of any discharges occurring at the time of the
inspection;
5. Location(s) of discharges of sediment or other pollutants from the site;
6. Location(s) of BMPs that need to be maintained;
7. Location(s) of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or proved inadequate for a particular
location;
8. Location(s) where additional BMPs are needed that did not exist at the time of inspection;
and
9. Corrective action required including any changes to the SWPPP necessary and
implementation dates.
A record of each inspection and of any actions taken in accordance with this Part must be retained
as part of the SWPPP for at least three years from the date that permit coverage expires or is
terminated. The inspection reports must identify any incidents of non-compliance with the permit
conditions. Where a report does not identify any incidents of non-compliance, the report must
contain a certification that the construction project or site is in compliance with the SWPPP and all
applicable permit conditions.
Maintaining an Updated Plan
A. The SWPPP, including the site map, must be amended whenever there is a change in design,
construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has or could have a
March, 2004
6-20
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the United States that has not
been previously addressed in the SWPPP.
B. The SWPPP must be amended if during inspections or investigations by site staff, or by local,
state, tribal or federal officials, it is determined that the SWPPP is ineffective in eliminating or
significantly minimizing pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site.
C. Based on the results of an inspection, the SWPPP must be modified as necessary to include
additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the SWPPP
must be completed within seven (7) calendar days following the inspection. If existing BMPs
need to be modified or if additional BMPs are necessary for any reason, implementation must
be completed before the next storm event whenever practicable. If implementation before the
next storm event is impracticable, the situation must be documented in the SWPPP and
alternative BMPs must be implemented as soon as possible.
Management Practices
A. All control measures must be properly selected, installed, and maintained in accordance with
any relevant manufacturer specifications and good engineering practices. If periodic inspections
or other information indicates a control has been used inappropriately, or incorrectly, the
operator must replace or modify the control for site situations as soon as practicable.
B. If sediment escapes the construction site, off-site accumulations of sediment must be removed at
a frequency sufficient to minimize off-site impacts.
C. Litter, construction debris, and construction chemicals that could be exposed to storm water
must be prevented from becoming a pollutant source in storm water discharges.
D. Except as provided below, stabilization measures must be initiated as soon as practicable in
portions of the site where construction activities have temporarily or permanently ceased, but in
no case more than 14 days after the construction activity in that portion of the site has
temporarily or permanently ceased.
1. Where stabilization by the 14th day is precluded by snow cover or frozen ground conditions,
stabilization measures must be initiated as soon as practicable.
2. Where construction activity on a portion of the site is temporarily ceased, and earth
disturbing activities will be resumed within 14 days, temporary stabilization measures do
not have to be initiated on that portion of the site.
3. In arid, semiarid, and drought-stricken areas where initiating perennial vegetative
stabilization measures is not possible within 14 days after construction activity has
temporarily or permanently ceased, final vegetative stabilization measures must be initiated
as soon as practicable.
March, 2004
6-21
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
E. A combination of sediment and erosion control measures are required to achieve maximum
pollutant removal.
1. Sediment Basins: For common drainage locations that serve an area with 10 or more acres
disturbed at one time, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin that provides storage for a
calculated volume of runoff from the drainage area from a 2-year, 24-hour storm, or
equivalent control measures, must be provided where attainable until final stabilization of
the site. Where no such calculation has been performed, a temporary (or permanent)
sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained, or equivalent control
measures, must be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. When
computing the number of acres draining into a common location, it is not necessary to
include flows from offsite areas and flows from on-site areas that are either undisturbed or
have undergone final stabilization where such flows are diverted around both the disturbed
area and the sediment basin. In determining whether installing a sediment basin is
attainable, the operator may consider factors such as site soils, slope, available area on-site,
etc. In any event, the operator must consider public safety, especially as it relates to
children, as a design factor for the sediment basin, and alternative sediment controls must be
used where site limitations would preclude a safe design.
2. For drainage locations which serve 10 or more disturbed acres at one time and where a
temporary sediment basin or equivalent controls is not attainable, smaller sediment basins
and/or sediment traps should be used. At a minimum, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or
equivalent sediment controls are required for all down slope boundaries (and for those side
slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions).
3. For drainage locations serving less than 10 acres, smaller sediment basins and/or sediment
traps should be used. At a minimum, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or equivalent
sediment controls are required for all down slope boundaries (and for those side slope
boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions) of the construction
area unless a sediment basin providing storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-
year, 24-hour storm or 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained is provided.
F. Velocity dissipation devices must be placed at discharge locations and along the length of any
outfall channel to provide a non-erosive flow velocity from the structure to a water course so
that the natural physical and biological characteristics and functions are maintained and
protected (e.g., no significant changes in the hydrological regime of the receiving water).
March, 2004
6-22
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SECTION 7: APPROACH TO ESTIMATING COSTS
7.1 OVERVIEW
This section describes EPA's methodology for estimating costs associated with implementing the
regulatory options considered for the final action on construction and development effluent
guidelines. EPA estimated three distinct cost categories:
1. Erosion and sediment control (ESC) costs, including design, installation, operation, and
maintenance;
2. Administrative costs to permittees for activities such as conducting site inspections and
providing certifications;
3. Opportunity and interest costs to permittees.
The methodology for determining costs for categories 1 and 2 are described in this document. Costs
for category 3 are described in the document "Economic Analysis for Final Action for Effluent
Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category," EPA-821-B-04-002.
For each state, per site costs were evaluated individually for 24 combinations of site-size and land
use types. EPA developed per-site costs based on model construction sites that reasonably
represent common construction site features, and factors related to state regulations, topography,
and hydrology. Using estimates of the population of new construction acreage developed annually
in the U.S. obtained from the USDA's National Resources Inventory (NRI) and the U.S. Census
Bureau (described in Section 4 of this document), EPA computed State total costs by multiplying
modeled per-site costs by the population of construction sites in each land use/site-size combination
for 48 states. Costs for Alaska and Hawaii, as well as the U.S. territories were not estimated because
EPA lacked data on the annual amount of construction in these areas. However, due to the small
amount of construction that occurs in these areas, EPA expects that these values would be low in
comparison to the national costs. National level costs were calculated by summing the State costs.
The total costs of the options considered are presented in Table 7-1.
March, 2004
7-1
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 7-1. Total Costs o
' Options
Option
Annual Cost (millions 2002 dollars)
1 - Inspection and Certification for sites > 1 acre
$280
2 - Codify EPA Construction General Permit (CGP)
with Inspection and Certification for sites >5 acres
$585
3 - No Regulation
$0
4 - Codify EPA Construction General Permit (CGP)
for sites >5 acres
$380
As detailed below, EPA employed a three-step process to compute the total national compliance
cost:
1. Model site costs were estimated using national average unit costs;
2. Model site costs were computed using state-specific cost adjustment factors;
3. State totals were summed to produce the national compliance cost estimates; and
7.2 ANALYSIS OF STATE EQUIVALENCY
State construction general permits, erosion and sediment control regulations, and storm water
management regulations were collected and compiled to determine if existing state programs were
equivalent to requirements contained in the July 2003 EPA Construction General Permit (CGP).
The data were collected by reviewing state web sites for general permits, erosion and sediment
control regulations, storm water management regulations, and erosion and sediment control and
storm water BMP design and guidance manuals. States without web-accessible information were
contacted to obtain the appropriate information
For the analysis of equivalency with the construction general permit, EPA focused on six main
areas:
1. Requirements for preparing a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) or equivalent
document and for installing general erosion and sediment controls, such as silt fencing, inlet
protection and soil stabilization;
2. The amount of time allowed for providing stabilization of exposed soil when construction
activities have temporarily or permanently ceased;
3. Requirements for installing sediment traps for drainage areas of less than 10 acres;
4. Requirements for installing sediment basins for drainage areas of 10 or more acres;
March, 2004
7-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
5. Requirements for removing accumulated sediment from sediment controls when sediment
storage capacity has been reduced by at least 50%; and
6. Requirements to conduct inspections at least every 7 days OR every 14 days and following
rainfall of 0.5" or more.
This analysis indicates that many States have requirements similar to those contained in the EPA
construction general permit, which is the basis for the requirements contained in Options 2 and 4.
No states currently have requirements equivalent to the inspection and certification provisions of
Option 1 and 2. For each State, EPA's review determined if certain key BMPs are required, and for
what construction site size a particular BMP is required. This information was used to determine the
baseline BMP sizes and quantities for each of the 24 model construction sites in each state across
the U.S. By comparing these sizes and quantities with those required under each regulatory option,
the incremental BMP quantities and size increases can be calculated. For sediment basins and
sediment traps, the size of the BMP required by the state program was also noted. Where a state
program did not note a sediment basin size, EPA assumed based on BPJ that the baseline size was
1,800 cubic feet per acre. A summary of the state equivalency analysis as of September 2003 is
presented in Table 7-2 and detailed data sheets for each state are presented in Appendix D.
March, 2004
7-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 7-2. State Equivalency with EPA CGP Requirements
State
Seeding
Required 14
Days After
Construction
Activity Ends
Basic
Sediment
Controls
Required
Sediment
Trap for
Drainage
Areas <10
acres
Sediment
Basin for
Drainage
Areas >10
acres
Sediment
Removal when
Storage Capacity
Reduced 50% or
More
Inspections every
7 days OR Every
14 Days and
Following Storms
>0.5 inches
Sediment
Trap Storage
Volume (ft3/
acre drained)
Sediment Basin
Storage Volume
(ft3/ acre drained)
Alabama
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
Alaska
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Arizona
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Arkansas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
California
Yes
Yes
3,600
Colorado
Yes
Yes
1,800
Connecticut
Yes
Yes
1,800
DC
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Delaware
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
Florida
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Georgia
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
Hawaii
Yes
Yes
1,800
Idaho
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Illinois
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
Indiana
Yes
Yes
1,800
Iowa
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Kansas
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
Kentucky
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
Louisiana
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Maine
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Maryland
Yes
1,800
Massachusetts
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Michigan
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
Minnesota
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
Mississippi
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
March, 2004
7-4
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Missouri
Yes
1,800
Montana
Yes
Yes
1,800
Nebraska
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
1,800
Nevada
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
New
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
New Jersey
Yes
1,800
New Mexico
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
New York
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
North Carolina
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
North Dakota
Yes
Yes
1,800
Ohio
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
Oklahoma
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Oregon
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
Pennsylvania
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Rhode Island
Yes
Yes
1,800
South Carolina
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
South Dakota
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3,600
Tennessee
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Texas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Utah
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Virginia
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Vermont
Yes
Yes
1,800
Washington
Yes
Yes
1,800
West Virginia
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
3,600
Wisconsin
Yes
Yes
1,800
Wyoming
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,800
Note: "Yes" indicates that the requirement for the particular element is equivalent to that contained in the EPA CGP.
March, 2004
7-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
7.3 DEVELOPMENT OF MODEL CONSTRUCTION SITES AND ESTIMATES OF BMP
QUANTITIES
In order to determine BMP quantities for baseline conditions as well as for the regulatory options
considered, EPA developed a series of model construction sites that contained representative BMPs
for each of the 24 site size and land use combinations developed in Section 4 (see Table 4-9). This
analysis used four land use types to account for variations in amounts of ESC BMPs expected to be
used across the range of land uses resulting from construction, and six site-size classes to account
for economies of scale that might occur with the design and installation costs for certain BMPs (i.e.,
some BMPs are employed only if the site size is greater than a threshold value).
As documented in detail within Appendix A, six-site geometries (one per construction site size
category) were developed on which to base this analysis. Each model construction site was placed
within a model watershed system where first order watersheds occupy 25 acres, in order to define
topography and preexisting drainage pathways. The assessment of 19 ecoregions found first order
streams can occupy between 22 and 57 acres, and a 25 acre watershed represents a reasonable lower
end value. Next, for each site-size category, the area within each model construction site was
apportioned to three surface flow pathways:
1. Disturbed areas that drain to a centralized point;
2. Undisturbed areas that drain to a centralized point; and
3. Perimeter drainage that discharges in diffuse fashion through the site perimeter.
This was necessary in order to account for the fact that construction sites typically contain multiple
drainage pathways due to the topography of the site. Proper BMPs selection and sizing should
account for these drainage patterns, and a single site will typically employ different BMPs to serve
various portions of the site. A 25-foot width of perimeter drainage was assumed for portions of site
border that would likely drain radially outward and away from the site through perimeter BMPs
such as silt fencing. For the central drainage portion of each model site, a pattern of internal
drainage features (pipes and swales) that are commonly employed were assumed, with these areas
ultimately draining to a sediment control practice such as a sediment trap or basin. The division
between disturbed and undisturbed acreage within this central drainage area was based on land use
specific pervious/imperviousness ratios provided by CWP (2001) and shown in Table 7-3. This
distinction was necessary in order to account for two factors. First, portions of each site will be
maintained in a relatively undisturbed state as open space, and will contribute little or no sediment.
EPA assumed that one half of the pervious footprint on each site would remain undisturbed.
Table 7-4 shows the resulting percentage of site area for each of the three pathways introduced
above, for each of the four land uses evaluated to categorize the industry.
March, 2004
7-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 7-3. Land Use-Specific Impervious Cover Factors
Land Use Category
Percentage Impervious
Cover
Percent Used in EPA Modeled Land Use
Agriculture
2
Not modeled
Low Density Residential
11-14
Not modeled
Medium Density Residential
21-28
24.3 for Single Family Residential
High Density Residential
33-44
43.4 for Multi-Family Residential
Industrial
53
52.8 for Industrial
Commercial
72
72 for Commercial
Source: Adapted from Capiella and Brown, 2001
March, 2004
7-7
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 7-4. Percentage of Construction Site in Each of Three Flow Pathways
Site Size (acres)
Centralized Drainage (Disturbed
Acreage)
Centralized Drainage (Undisturbed
Acreage) *
Perimeter Drainage **
SF
MF
Comm
Ind
SF
MF
Comm
Ind
SF
MF
Comm
Ind
0.5***
0%
0%
0%
0%
38%
28%
24%
14%
34%
34%
34%
34%
3
42%
51%
56%
66%
38%
28%
24%
14%
20%
20%
20%
20%
7.5
42%
51%
56%
66%
38%
28%
24%
14%
20%
20%
20%
20%
25
55%
64%
69%
78%
38%
28%
24%
14%
8%
8%
8%
8%
70
54%
64%
68%
78%
38%
28%
24%
14%
8%
8%
8%
8%
200
55%
64%
69%
79%
38%
28%
24%
14%
7%
7%
7%
7%
* Assumed to retain original topography and vegetative cover.
** The portion of the site that drains radially outward toward the site boundary.
*** Note, the half-acre site group percentages do not add up to 100 percent because they do not include the site fraction that is disturbed but unmanaged
because the site falls below the CGP minium site size of 1 acre. These sites do not experience any incremental changes as a result of the options, but are carried
through the analysis in order to have a complete accounting of baseline sediment loads for the loadings and benefits analysis presented in Section 8.
SF = single family
MF = multi-family
Comm = commercial
Ind = industrial
March, 2004
7-8
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
After defining the site geometries and drainage pathways for each of the six site size categories, the
BMP quantities and sizes required by the EPA CGP (the technical basis for Options 2 and 4) were
determined based on BPJ. Appendices A and B contain detailed descriptions of each of the model
sites developed. The specific BMPs contained in the model site analyses include:
Silt Fencing
• Runoff Diversions/Inlet Protection
Seeding and Mulching
Stabilized Construction Entrances
Stone Check Dams
Sediment Traps
Sediment Basins
In addition, EPA estimated the number of certifications required to meet the provisions of Options 1
and 2, and the number of site inspections required to meet the inspection provisions of the CGP.
The BMP quantities for each of the model site sized required by the EPA CGP are shown in Table
7-5. Next, the baseline BMP quantities and sizes were determined for each of the six site size
categories for each state based on the equivalency analysis contained in Table 7-2. Tables B-10 and
B-l 1 contain detailed BMP quantities for the six site size categories for all 48 states (excluding
Alaska and Hawaii). One important assumption was made that the amount of acreage requiring
seeding and mulching for erosion control does not change from baseline conditions. The
assumption is that the EPA CGP requirement to provide stabilization of exposed soil areas within
14 days after construction activities have temporarily or permanently ceased does not actually
change the quantity of acreage requiring stabilization, but that it merely changes the timing by
which the stabilization must occur. As a result, there are no additional costs attributable to this
requirement.
This data on BMP quantities, in combination with the state-level estimates of the number of
construction sites contained in Appendix E, allowed for estimation of the total number and size of
BMPs implemented for all construction sites nationally under baseline conditions as well as under
the EPA CGP (see Tables B-10 and B-l 1 in Appendix B, and note than Baseline conditions are
listed as Option 3 in these tables). For the inspection and certification provisions of Options 1 and
2, EPA estimated the total number of professional hours required to conduct these activities for
each of the site sizes. Multiplying by the state-level estimates of the number of construction sites
allowed for estimation of the total number of hours required to conduct these activities.
March, 2004
7-9
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 7-5. BMP Quantities Required by EPA CGP for Model Construction Sites
Site Size
(acres)
Silt Fencing
(linear miles
Inlet
Protection
(Installations)
Seeding
and
Mulching
(acres)3
Number of
Stabilized
Construction
Entrances
Number of
Stone
Check
Dams
Sediment Traps2
Sediment Basins1
Number
Size Each
(cubic feet)
Number
Size Each (cubic
feet)
0.5
0.09
2
0.31/0.43
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0.20
3
1.9/2.6
1
3
0
0
0
0
7.5
0.50
6
4.7/6.5
1
6
2
4,725/5,400
0
0
25
0.63
10
13/21.5
1
11
0
0
2
31,500/36,000
70
1.36
20
36.4/60.2
2
20
0
0
3
58,800/67,200
200
7.73
60
124/172
4
62
0
0
10
50,400/57,600
1 Range demonstrates variation with land use. Sediment basins designed to 3,600 cubic feet per acre in volume (1,800 cubic feet of which is for sediment storage)
applicable to States equivalent to National Construction General Permit. Divide values in half to obtain values for non-equivalent States.
2Range demonstrates variation with land use. Sediment or silt traps are designed based on 1,800 cubic feet per acre served.
3 Ranges between 62 and 86 percent of the site acreage depending on land use
March, 2004
7-10
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
7.4 ESTIMATION OF BMP COSTS
Estimated unit cost data for each BMP element was derived from literature sources including R.S.
Means (2000), data from the article "The Economics of Stormwater Treatment: An Update"
(Schueler, 2000), from the EPA Nonpoint Source Management Measures Guidance (EPA, 1993),
and from evaluation of a variety of references that contain BMP unit cost data, primarily bids on
highway construction projects and municipal bonding requirements (EPA, 2003). National average
unit costs for the BMPs contained in the cost model are given in Table 7-6.
A single unit cost factor was used for sediment basins and silt traps. While basin costs are expected
to be non-linear (i.e., the unit cost for large basins is less than for small basins), no single costing
relationship was identified that satisfied the range of basin sizes encountered in the model site sizes.
Hence a constant value of $13,068 per acre-foot (or $0.30 per cubic foot) was used to estimate costs
for all site sizes and all options. This value was taken from the EPA Nonpoint Source Management
Measures Guidance (EPA, 1993). Since this reference was somewhat dated, EPA evaluated a
number of additional data sources (EPA, 2003) to determine if the cost factor of $0.30 per cubic
foot was still valid. Based on a review of 32 recent references, it was determined that the value of
$0.30 per cubic foot was still valid. As a result, this value was used to determine the unit costs of all
sediment basins and sediment traps.
For site inspection costs, EPA estimated that the average construction site would require 16 hours to
conduct an inspection, with an average labor costs of $28 per hour. For certification costs, EPA
estimated that the average construction site would require $455 per certification, with an average
labor costs of $57 per hour.
In order to account for state-level variation in supply, material and labor costs, EPA used the state-
level cost adjustment factors shown in Table 7-7. All unit costs in Table 7-6 were multiplied by
these cost adjustment factors to arrive at state-specific unit costs. In addition, EPA added costs to
account for BMP design, operation and maintenance. Design costs only apply to certain BMPs that
in general require customization for each construction site. In addition, only certain BMPs will
incur O & M costs over the duration of the assumed construction period (estimated to be 1 year).
The estimated design costs as a percentage of installation costs are presented in Table 7-8.
Using the state estimates of BMP quantities contained in Tables B-10 and B-l 1 in Appendix B
along with the unit costs and cost adjustment factors contained in Tables 7-6 and 7-7, the total
national installation costs were calculated for each option as well as under the baseline condition.
Adding design and O&M costs contained in Table 7-8, the total national compliance costs (without
opportunity and interest costs) were determined. Tables B-12 and B-13 in Appendix B contain
national and state-level total costs by regulatory option (note than Baseline conditions are listed as
Option 3 in these tables). Contingency costs were added according to the methodology contained in
the Economic Analysis document. Please see the EA for an explanation of this methodology, as
well as for information on calculating the total costs of the regulatory options.
March, 2004
7-11
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 7-6. Unit Cost Factors For BMPs
BMP
National Unit Cost Value
(no profit or overhead)
Unit Cost Units
Data Source
Silt Fence
$4,857.60
Per Mile
R.S. Means
Runoff Diversion
$2,904.00
Per Mile
R.S. Means
Mulching for Erosion
Control
$1,113.20
Per Acre
R.S. Means
Construction Entrances
$692.00
Per installation
R.S. Means
Rock Check Dam
$45.53
Per installation
R.S. Means
Silt Trap
$13,068.00
Per acre foot of
storage
EPA, 1993
Sediment Basins
$13,068.00
Per acre foot of
storage
EPA, 1993
Inlet Protection
$100.00
Per installation
R.S. Means
Installation
Certification
$455.00
Per Certification
BPJ
E&S Site Inspection
$113.48
Per inspection
BPJ
March, 2004
7-12
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 7-7. State Cost Adjustment Factors
State
Unit Cost Adjustment
Factor
State
Unit Cost Adjustment
Factor
AL
0.80
NC
0.77
AR
0.80
ND
0.81
AZ
0.92
NE
0.84
CA
1.13
NH
0.90
CO
0.92
NJ
1.10
CT
1.07
NM
0.89
DC
0.95
NV
1.00
DE
0.99
NY
1.15
FL
0.86
OH
0.95
GA
0.78
OK
0.83
IA
0.87
OR
1.07
ID
0.92
PA
1.00
IL
1.00
RI
1.06
IN
0.92
SC
0.75
KS
0.88
SD
0.86
KY
0.88
TN
0.82
LA
0.86
TX
0.85
MA
1.10
UT
0.87
MD
0.90
VA
0.86
ME
0.84
VI
0.84
MI
0.98
WA
1.04
MN
1.00
WI
0.97
MO
0.92
WV
0.95
MS
0.78
WY
0.83
MT
0.95
Reference: R.S. Means, 2000
March, 2004
7-13
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 7-8. Design and O & M Costs as a Percentage of Installation Costs
Costed Items
Design as a Percent of
Installation Cost*
Operation and Maintenance Costs as
a Percent of Installation Cost**
Silt Fence
16
100
Runoff Diversion
16
10
Mulching for Erosion
Control
16
2
Construction Entrances
16
5
Rock Check Dam
16
5
Silt Trap
16
20
Sediment Basin
16
25
* Source: focus groups conducted with NAHB
** Source: Best Professional Judgement
7.5 REFERENCES
Cappiella, Karen, and K. Brown. 2001. Impervious Cover and Land Use in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. Prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection for the USEPA Chesapeake Bay
Program, Land Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee. January, 2001.
Omernik, James M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers. 77(1): 118-125.
R.S. Means. 2000. Site work & landscape cost data, 19th Edition. R.S. Means Co., Kingston, MA.
Schueler, Thomas R. 2000. "The economics of stormwater treatment: An update." Article No. 68
in The practice of watershed protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
USEPA, 2003. Memo to Record on Erosion and Sediment Control Unit Costs.
USEPA. 1999. Economic analysis of the final Phase II storm water rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
March, 2004
7-14
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SECTION 8: APPROACH TO ESTIMATING POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
8.1 OVERVIEW
This section describes EPA's methodology for assessing the pollutant load reductions and
environmental benefits of the regulatory options developed. EPA only estimated loading reductions
for Option 2 and 4. We were not able to develop a methodology for estimating loading reductions
attributable to the inspection and certification provisions of Options 1 and 2. As a result, no loading
reductions or benefits estimates were made for Option 1, and the loading reductions and benefits
estimates of Option 2 are the same as those for Option 4.
Adverse environmental impacts attributable to construction activities have been well documented
and include (but are not limited to) alteration of stream flow patterns, change in river channels, and
reduction in the water quality of receiving waters as a result of increased generation and transport of
sediment and other pollutants. Aquatic habitats also can be damaged as a result of reduced water
quality and altered hydrology. These environmental impacts can in turn cause additional
environmental and economic damage by increasing the frequency and magnitude of flooding events
in vulnerable areas.
Sediment from eroded soil was used as an indicator of the total pollutant load discharged from
construction sites because the models available to simulate soil and sediment generation, transport
and removal are widely available and recognized. Although EPA expects that there are significant
loadings of other pollutants (such as phosphorus and certain metals) generated at construction sites,
and therefore significant reductions attributable to the regulatory options, there was no nationally-
applicable data source available to estimate these values. As a result, the benefits analysis estimates
loading reductions and benefits only for sediment.
EPA used the suite of model construction sites discussed in Section 7 and documented in detail in
Appendix A as the basis for calculating loads and removals. Per-state pollutant loadings were
computed from a minimum of 24 construction site models (6 site size groups and 4 land uses). In
most states, the variability of soils, slope, and climate resulted in 432 construction model sites that
were individually defined for the state and evaluated to estimate per-site loadings and loading
reductions. The computation of pollutant loadings and loading reductions accounted for the
following:
• Current state erosion and sediment control and BMP requirements;
• Soil nature and the geographic distribution of soil types;
• Land slopes and flow paths on construction sites; and
• Climate and hydrology
The geographic basis for the analysis are areas created by overlapping state boundaries with the
boundaries of 19 ecoregions (Omernik, 1987). Figure 8-la and 8-lb illustrates these geographic
areas for the western and eastern states, referred to as state-ecoregion areas. There are 146 state-
March, 2004
8-1
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
ecoregion areas in the assessment of the 48-contiguous states. (Hawaii and Alaska are not included
in the analysis because the methodology relies on data on development and soil types that were not
readily available for these two states.) For each state-ecoregion area, estimates were made of the
amount of annual construction acreage and the number of associated model construction sites based
on NRI data (USDA, 2000). NRI data estimates developed acreage by Hydrologic Unit Code (or
"HUC"). By summing the acres of developed land for all of the HUCs within a given state-
ecoregion area, the total annual developed acreage within that area could be estimated. (Ecoregion
boundaries used in this assessment are based on large watersheds, which are roughly equivalent to
the boundaries formed by the combinations of various HUCs.)
For each model construction site within each state-ecoregion area, the sediment generation and
removal was calculated under baseline conditions and under each regulatory option using the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) (USDA, 1997) and SEDCAD (Warner, 1998),
reflecting existing state programs. By summing to the national level, the total sediment reduction of
the regulatory options could be estimated.
Following estimation of sediment loads for each HUC under baseline and each regulatory option,
sites were randomly placed within each HUC and linked to the nearest stream reach using GIS.
Loads were routed to stream reaches and in-stream water quality changes from baseline were
modeled using the National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model (NWPCAM). Monetized
benefits were estimated using both the continuous Water Quality Index (McClelland, 1974) and
water quality ladder and willingness to pay based on Carson/Mitchell (1993). The total load
reductions and benefits of the regulatory options are presented in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1. Loading Reductions and Benefits o
? Regulatory Options
Option 1
Option 2
Option 4
Sediment Reduction (tons/year)
0
979,896
979,896
Net Benefit Using Water Quality Ladder
0
$28,357,000
$28,357,000
Net Benefit Using Water Quality Index
0
$15,203,000
$15,203,000
March, 2004
8-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure 8-la. State-Ecoregions in the Western United States
>-16
WA-1
WA-15
WA-IX
ND-IO
MT-13
ND-13
SD-13
SD-10
NV-14
WY-14
NE-H
ni: o?. -
\ NE-12
NH-0!
CO-Ol
LIT-02
NV-02
KS-01
KS-12
X 1 OK-01 O
AZ-01
CA-03
AZ-03
OK-12
AZ-02
N
NM-02
TO-12
i -
O
TX-02
100 200 300 400 500 Miles
100
March, 2004
8-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure 8-lb. State-Ecoregions in the Eastern United States
ME-08
NY-08
PA-09
¦ MD-05
MD-04
WV-09
VA-05
VA-04
KY-09
NC-04
,GA-09
SC-04
AL-09
GA-05
-AK04
MS-06
FL-06
LA-06
March, 2004
8-4
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
8.2. CATEGORIES OF REPORTED IMPACTS AND POLLUTANTS
8.2.1 INTRODUCTION
Construction and land development activities can generate a broad range of environmental impacts
by introducing new sources of contamination and by altering the physical characteristics of the
affected land area. In particular, these activities can result in both short- and long-term adverse
impacts on surface water quality in streams, rivers, and lakes in the affected watershed by
increasing the loads of various pollutants in receiving water bodies, including sediments, metals,
organic compounds, pathogens, and nutrients. Ground water also can be adversely affected through
diminished recharge capacity. Other potential impacts include the physical alteration of existing
streams and rivers due to the excessive flow and velocity of storm water runoff.
Construction activities typically involve excavating and clearing existing vegetation. During the
construction period, the affected land is usually denuded and the soil compacted, leading to
increased storm water runoff and high rates of erosion. If the denuded and exposed areas contain
hazardous contaminants or pollutants (either naturally occurring or due to previous land uses), they
can be carried at increased rates to surrounding water bodies by storm water runoff. Although the
denuded construction site is only a temporary state (usually lasting less than 6 months), the
landscape is permanently altered even after the land has been restored by replanting vegetation. For
example, a completed construction site typically has a greater proportion of impervious surface than
the predevelopment site, leading to changes in the volume and velocity of storm water runoff.
Changes in land use might also lead to new sources of pollution, such as oils and metals from motor
vehicles, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance, and pathogens from improperly
installed or failing septic tanks. Increased pollutant loads are particularly evident when land
development takes place in previously undeveloped environments. Together the short-term impacts
from construction activities and the long-term impacts of development can profoundly change the
environment.
Pollutants associated with construction activities and land development storm water discharges can
adversely affect the environment in a number of ways. Potential effects include impairment of
water quality, destruction of aquatic life habitats, and enlargement of floodplains. To the extent
possible, this discussion distinguishes between environmental impacts generated during active
construction and environmental impacts attributable to the more broad change in land use from
undeveloped land areas such as agriculture, forest or rural area to urban conditions (termed
"postdevelopment" throughout the remainder of this section). Although in most cases the
differences are in magnitude and duration (e.g., sediment runoff), environmental impairment from
such contaminants as pathogens are more likely to be associated with the overall urbanization of a
watershed than with the types of activities that take place during construction. The discussion of
environmental impacts first evaluates the impacts of contaminated runoff and then focuses on the
physical impacts of construction and land development.
March, 2004
8-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
8.2.2 POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT STORM WATER RUNOFF
There are a number of pollutants associated with construction and land development storm water
runoff. This description does not represent the complete suite of contaminants that can be found in
the runoff, but focuses instead on those that are currently known to be the most prevalent and of
greatest concern to the environment. These pollutants include sediment, metals, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), oil, grease, and pathogens.5
8.2.2.1 Sediment
Sediment is an important and ubiquitous constituent in urban storm water runoff. Surface runoff
and raindrops detach soil from the land surface, resulting in sediment transport into streams.
Sediment level measurement can be divided into three distinct subgroups:
• Total suspended solids (TSS) are a measure of the suspended material in water. The
measurement of TSS in urban storm water allows for estimation of sediment transport, which
can have significant effects locally and in downstream receiving waters.
• Turbidity is a function of the suspended solids and is a measure of the ability of light to
penetrate the water. Turbidity can exhibit control over biological functions, such as the ability
of submerged aquatic vegetation to receive light
• Total dissolved solids are a measure of the dissolved constituents in water and are a primary
indication of the purity of drinking water.
Sources of Sediment
Construction Sites
Erosion from construction sites can be a significant source of sediment pollution to nearby streams.
A number of studies have shown high concentrations of TSS in uncontrolled runoff from
construction sites, and results from these studies are summarized in Table 8-2. One study,
5Much of the data cited in this document was collected before the NPDES Phase I and II
storm water regulations generally required permits for all construction sites of one or more acres.
As a result, much of this data may not accurately reflect current sediment discharge rates from
construction sites. However, the data is important to reinforce the need for continued erosion and
sediment control nationwide and to provide perspective on the sediment discharge rates that can
occur from uncontrolled construction sites. Since even well managed construction sites continue
to discharge sediment, much of the receiving water data and discussion is still likely applicable,
however. This is especially true for sediment mobilized as a result of receiving channel
instability following urban development, which is well documented and still largely unaddressed
in many areas of the country.
March, 2004
8-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
conducted in 1986, calculated that construction sites are responsible for an estimated export of 80
million tons of sediment into receiving waters each year (Goldman, 1986, cited in CWP, 2000). On
a unit area basis, construction sites can export sediment at 20 to 1,000 times the rate of other land
uses (CWP, 2000).
Table 8-2. Studies of Uncontrolled Soil Erosion as TSS From Construction Sites
Site
Mean Inflow TSS
Concentration (mg/L)
Source
Seattle, Washington
17,500
Horner, Guerdy, and Kortenhoff, 1990
SR 204
3,502
Horner, Guerdy, and Kortenhoff, 1990
Mercer Island
1,087
Horner, Guerdy, and Kortenhoff, 1990
RT1
359
Schueler and Lugbill, 1990
RT2
4,623
Schueler and Lugbill, 1990
SB1
625
Schueler and Lugbill, 1990
SB2
415
Schueler and Lugbill, 1990
SB4
2,670
Schueler and Lugbill, 1990
Pennsylvania Test Basin
9,700
Jarrett, 1996
Georgia Model
1,500 -4,500
Sturm and Kirby, 1991
Maryland Model
1,000- 5,000
Barfield and Clar, 1985
Uncontrolled Construction
Site Runoff (MD)
4,200
York and Herb, 1978
Austin, Texas
600
Dartiguenave, ECLille, and Maidment,
1997
Hamilton County, Ohio
2,950
Islam, Taphorn, and Utrata-Halcomb,
1998
Mean TSS (mg/L)
3,681
NA
Postdevelopment Conditions
Sediment sources in urban environments include bank erosion, overland flow, runoff from exposed
soils, atmospheric deposition, and dust (Table 8-3). Streets and parking lots accumulate dirt and
grime from the wearing of the street surface, exhaust particulates, "blown-on" soil and organic
matter, and atmospheric deposition. Lawn runoff primarily contains soil and organic matter.
Source area monitoring data from Bannerman (1993), Waschbusch (2000), and Steuer (1997) are
shown in Table 8-4. Hot spots (areas that are particularly high pollutant sources) were identified
for the transport of sediment from the urban (developed) land surface, and they include streets,
parking lots, and lawns.
March, 2004
8-7
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-3. Sources of Sediment in Urban Areas
Source Area
Loading
Bank erosion
Up to 75 percent in California and Texas studies
Overland flow
Lawns - average value of geometric means from 4 studies:
201 mg/L
Runoff from areas with exposed
soils
Average value: 3,640 mg/L
Blown-on material and organic
matter
May account for as much as 35 to 50 percent in urban areas
Bannerman et al, 1993; Dartinguenave et al, 1997; Schueler, 1987; Steuer et al, 1997; Trimble,
1997; Waschbusch et al, 2000
Table 8-4. Source Area Concentrations for TSS in Urban Areas
Source Area
TSS (mg/L)a
TSS (mg/L)b
TSS (mg/L)°
Monroe
Basin
Harper
Basin
Commercial parking lot
110
58
51
High-traffic street
226
232
65
Medium-traffic street
305
326
51
Low-traffic street
175
662
68
69
Commercial rooftop
24
15
18
Residential rooftop
36
27
15
17
Residential driveway
157
173
34
Residential lawn
262
397
59
122
a Steuer et al, 1997.
b Bannerman et al, 1993.
c Waschbusch et al, 2000.
Parking lots and streets are responsible not only for high concentrations of sediment but also for
high runoff volumes. Normally about 90 percent of the water that falls on pavement is converted to
surface runoff, whereas roughly 5 to 15 percent of the water that falls on lawns is converted to
surface runoff (Schueler, 1987) . The source load and management model (SLAMM; Pitt and
Voorhes, 1989) evaluates runoff volume and concentrations of pollutants from different urban land
uses and predicts loads to the stream. When used in the Wisconsin and Michigan subwatersheds,
the model estimated that parking lots and streets were responsible for more than 70 percent of the
TSS delivered to the stream (Steuer, 1997; Waschbusch et al, 2000). Because basin water quality
measurements were taken at pipe outfalls, bank erosion was not accounted for in the studies.
Sediment load is due to erosion caused by an increased magnitude and frequency of flows brought
on by urbanization (Allen and Narramore, 1985; Booth, 1990; Hammer, 1972; Leopold, 1968).
Streambank studies by Dartinguenave et al (1997) and Trimble (1997) determined that streambanks
March, 2004
8-8
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
are large contributors of sediment in urban streams. Trimble (1997) used direct measurements of
stream cross sections, sediment aggradation, and suspended sediment to determine that roughly
66.7 percent of the sediment load in San Diego Creek was a result of bank erosion. Dartiguenave et
al (1997) used a GIS- based model developed in Austin, Texas, to determine the effects of stream
channel erosion on sediment loads. By effectively modeling the pollutant loads on the land surface
and by monitoring the actual in-stream loads at U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations,
they were able to determine that over 75 percent of the sediment load came from the streambanks.
Receiving Water Impacts
Sediment transport and turbidity can affect habitat, water quality, temperature, and pollutant
transport, and can cause sedimentation in downstream receiving waters (Table 8-5). A large body
of scientific literature addresses the question of how the health of aquatic resources is impacted by
excess sediment loading in waterbodies. At least partly on the basis of the findings of this research,
some states across the country have already set sediment targets for receiving waters to protect
aquatic resources, and are developing and refining targets for geographically specific watersheds.
Demarcation by waterbody type provides context and is an important theme in the literature for
purposes of setting sediment targets. Differences among receiving waters are evident not only in
the aquatic species that inhabit them, but also in terms of behavior of sediment within the
waterbody and threshold levels of impacts. The biota or aquatic species that are the focus of the
literature include aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrates, eggs, fry, juvenile, and adult fish, shellfish
and corals. Identified waterbody types in the literature include:
• lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and impoundments
• rivers and streams
• wetlands
• oceans, estuaries, and other coastal water ecosystems, including coral reefs
The impacts of excess sediment in the water include direct physical effects such as reducing
visibility and light in the water column, physical abrasion of plant surfaces, clogging gill openings,
and entombing of eggs and fry in redds. Impacts may also be indirect, as in changes to the
chemical composition of the water, light penetration or turbidity, and/or temperature profile, which
in turn affect primary productivity with repercussions in terms of fish behavior, and overall
community profiles and trophic structure. Thus the aquatic resources may be directly affected in
terms of aesthetics, physiology, and mortality, or affected indirectly via changes in the habitat
structure of the waterbody. Bedded sediments, though they directly affect the survival of fish eggs
and fry and other organisms, do so because they alter the habitat structure and are dealt with in
Section 8.2.3 under Physical Impacts of Construction and Land Development Activities.
March, 2004
8-9
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-5. Sediment Impacts on Receiving Waters
Resource
Affected
Impacts of Sediment
References
Streams
• Loss of sensitive species and a decrease in fish and
macroinvertebrate communities
• Clogging of gills and loss of habitat
• Decreased flow capacity in streams
• Interference with water quality processes
• Affects transport of contaminants
Kundell and Rasmussen, 1995
Leopold, 1973
Barrett and Molina, 1998
MacRae and Marsalek, 1992
Wetlands
• Deposition of sediment
• Loss of sensitive species-amphibians, plants
Horner et al, 1997
Hilgartner, 1986
Pasternack, 1998
Reservoirs
• Turbidity results in increased costs of treatment for
drinking water
• Sedimentation results in decreased storage
Holmes, 1998
Beaches
• Turbidity reduces aesthetic value
• Sedimentation can result in increased accretion rates
in wetlands and change plant community structure
Kundell and Rasmussen, 1995
Estuaries
• Sedimentation
• Turbidity accentuates eutrophication
• Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
• Reduced light attenuation
Pasternack, 1998
Livingston, 1996
Schiff, 1996
Mackiernan et al, 1996
Short and Wyllie-Echeverria, 1996
Orth and Moore, 1983
Stevenson et al, 1993
Hilgartner, 1986
Storm water discharges generated during construction activities cause a wide variety of physical,
chemical, and biological water quality impacts. The interconnected process of erosion, sediment
transport, and delivery is the primary pathway for introducing pollutants such as excess
sedimentation, total suspended solids, nutrients, metals, and organic compounds to aquatic systems
(Novotny and Chesters 1989) in USEPA (1999). USDA (1989) estimated that 80 percent of the
phosphorus and 73 percent of the Kjeldahl nitrogen are directly associated with eroded sediment
(cited in Fennessey and Jarrett (1994), in USEPA 1999). The 2000 National Water Quality
Inventory (USEPA) states that siltation is one of the top causes of impairment of waters across the
United States. The report also states that pollution from urban and agricultural land transported by
precipitation and runoff, and which includes pollutants from construction and land development
activities, is the leading sources of impairment.
Large amounts of fine sediment, or the introduction of coarse sediment is a also concern because of
the of filling lakes and reservoirs and clogging of stream channels (Paterson et al, 1993, in USEPA,
1999).
March, 2004
8 10
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
The literature reviewed for this document focuses on study methodologies that describe quantitative
effects of sediment imbalance in aquatic systems in a basic dose-response relationship and where
aquatic organisms are exposed to suspended and/or bedded sediments. The review considered
literature on each type of aquatic resource: aquatic vegetation and primary production,
invertebrates, juvenile fish, fry, and eggs, and adult fish. These aquatic biota are considered within
their geographical setting and waterbody type: rivers/streams, ponds/lakes, estuaries/coastal
environments. Areas that are covered more extensively in the literature than other topics are the
impacts of suspended sediment on adult fish and impacts of deposited or substrate sediment on
juvenile fish, fry, and eggs. Cold-water salmonid fish, predominantly in a stream setting, dominates
the literature on this sediment dose-response relationship. The literature is not as extensive or as
rich, on estuaries, lakes, and coastal areas nor on macroinvertebrates and aquatic plants, in
comparison to fish. Additional summary of biological impacts of sediment on aquatic ecosystems
is available as part of the materials created as part of EPA's work on developing water quality
criteria for sediments (USEPA, 2003).
Measures of suspended sediment include turbidity and total suspended solids, already covered in
Section 8.2.2.1. With respect to reviewing these dose-response studies authors typically consider
how either turbidity or TSS affects biota. However, the relationship between the two measures is
often unclear and not explicitly defined. Turbidity is a measure of light dispersion whereas TSS
measures the mass of particles in the water column. Larger particles contribute mass to a TSS
measurement, but do not scatter light as much as a similar weight of smaller particles. Usually
when the sediment particles are smaller, turbidity levels are higher. Suspended sediment and its
resulting turbidity can reduce light for submerged aquatic vegetation. In addition, deposited
sediment can cover and suffocate benthic organisms like clams and mussels, cover habitat for
substrate-oriented species in urban streams, and reduce storage in reservoirs. Pollutants such as
hydrocarbons and metals tend to bind to sediment and are transported with storm flow (Crunkilton
et al, 1996; Novotny and Chesters, 1989). Increased turbidity also can cause stream warming by
reflecting radiant energy (Kundell and Rasmussen, 1995).
Studies involving an analysis of the relationship between the two measures of suspended sediment
include Packman et al (1999) who showed that TSS and turbidity have a strong positive relationship
in nine urban/suburban Puget lowland streams. New Mexico TMDLs (NMED, 2002) converted a
turbidity standard to TSS by calibrating with local data, so that the TSS values in units of mg/L
could be converted to sediment loads in lbs/day. Keyes and Radcliff (2002) calibrated turbidity
units (NTU) to approximate TSS measures using 40 mg/L kaolin clay set to a standard of 40 NTU.
However, in natural streams the composition of suspended particles is not uniformly like that of
kaolin clay.
The impact of suspended sediment depends on the type of particle sizes to some extent, and
therefore TSS and turbidity measures should be considered together where the information is
available. For example, Servizi and Martens (1992) reported that salmonids were relatively tolerant
of elevated TSS levels when the particle sizes were larger. When the particles are smaller, turbidity
is higher, which appears to make conditions more difficult for salmonids.
March, 2004
8-11
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
The effects of sediment deposition from construction activities are known to affect streams far
downstream of construction sites. For example, Fox (1974), in USEPA (1999), found that streams
between 4.8 and 5.6 miles downstream of construction sites in the Patuxent River watershed were
impacted by sediment inputs. Erosion from construction sites can also generate the transport of
pollutants associated with onsite wastes. The Storm Water Quality Task Force (1993), in USEPA
(1999), states that rain splash, rills, and sheetwash encourage the detachment and transport of
pollutants (including both sediments and pollutants associated with sediments) to waterbodies.
Erosion from construction sites and runoff in developed areas can elevate pollutant loads well
above those in undisturbed watersheds. Novotny and Olem (1994), in USEPA (1999), state that
erosion rates from construction sites are much greater than from any other land use. The results
from field studies and erosion models conducted by USDA (1970), in USEPA (1999), found that
erosion rates from construction sites are usually an order or magnitude higher than row crops and
several orders of magnitude higher than rates from well-vegetated areas such as forests or pastures.
A review of the efficiency of sediment basins conducted by Brown (1997), in USEPA (1999), found
that inflows from 12 construction sites had a mean TSS concentration of about 4,500 mg/L. Kuo
(1976), in USEPA (1999), found that suspended sediment concentrations from housing construction
sites in Virginia were measured at 500-3,000 mg/L, or about 40 times larger than the concentrations
in runoff from already-developed urban areas. In Wisconsin, Daniel et al (1979) (in USEPA 1999)
monitored storm water runoff from three residential construction sites and found that annual
sediment yields were more than 19 times the yields from agricultural areas. Daniel et al identified
total storm water runoff followed by peak storm water runoff as the most influential factors
controlling the sediment loadings from residential construction sites, and also found that suspended
sediment concentrations were 15,000-20,000 mg/L in moderate storm events and up to 60,000 mg/L
in larger events. Lastly, Wolman and Schick (1967), in USEPA (1999), studied impacts of
development on fluvial systems in Maryland, and found that sediment yields in areas undergoing
construction were 1.5 to as much as 75 times greater than detected in natural or agricultural
catchments.
The effects of road construction on erosion rates and sediment yields were also examined. In West
Virginia, a road construction project studied by Downs and Appel (1986) disturbed only 4.2 percent
of a 4.72 square mile basin, but it resulted in a three fold increase in suspended sediment yields.
During the largest storm event, it was estimated that 80 percent of the sediment in the stream was
attributed to the construction site. Hainly (1980) evaluated the effect of 290 acres of highway
construction on watersheds which ranged in size from 5 to 38 square miles. He found that even in
the smallest watershed, the estimated sediment yield from the construction area was 37 tons per
acre during a two-year period. In Hawaii, Hill (1996) found that highway construction increased
suspended sediment loads by 56 to 76 percent in basins of 1 to 4 square miles. Yorke and Herb
(1978), in a long term study of subbasins in Maryland portions of the Anacostia River, found that
average annual suspended sediment yields for construction sites ranged from 7 to 100 tons per acre.
Studies have indicated that the water quality impact from small construction sites may be the same
or greater than large construction sites on a per acre basis. The concentration of pollutants in runoff
from small sites is similar to those in large sites. In urban areas the proportion of sediment that
makes it to surface waters may be the same because the runoff is delivered directly to storm drain
March, 2004
8 12
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
networks, with no opportunity for pollutants to be filtered out (USEPA, 1999). MacDonald (1997),
in USEPA (1999), states that storm water regulations are more likely to require controls for large
sites than smaller sites. The smaller sites that lack sediment and erosion controls would contribute
a disproportionate amount of total sediment from construction activities.
To test the theory that small sites have sediment loads on a per acre basis similar to large sites, the
EPA gave a grant to Dane County, Wisconsin Land Conservation Department, in cooperation with
USGS, to evaluate sediment runoff. In this study by Owens et al (1999), in USEPA (1999), a 0.34
acre residential development and a 1.72 acre commercial office development were evaluated. At
the residential site, total solids concentrations were 642 mg/L, 2,788 mg/L, and 132mg/L for
preconstruction, active construction, and post-construction, respectively. This equaled 7.4 lbs
preconstruction, 35 lbs during construction, and 0.6 lbs post-construction on a pollutant load basis.
At the commercial site, Owens et al found that total solids during preconstruction were 138 mg/L
and 200 mg/L during post-construction, but was 15,000 mg/1 during the active construction period.
This equaled 0.3 lbs preconstruction, 490 lbs during construction, and 13.4 lbs after construction on
a pollutant load basis. The total solids from the commercial site were similar to those in a study by
Downs and Appel (1986), who evaluated the effects of highway construction in West Virginia.
They found that a small storm event yielded a sediment concentration of 7,520 mg/L.
Several studies have also evaluated the total amount of disturbed land for small and large
construction sites. Brown and Caraco surveyed 219 jurisdictions to assess sediment and erosion
control programs. They found that of the 70 respondents, in 27 cases more than three-fourths of the
permits were for sites less than 5 acres, and in another 18 cases, more than half of the permits were
for sites less than 5 acres. MacDonald (1997), in USEPA (1999), evaluated data on the 3,831
construction site permits for North Carolina from 1994 through 1996. He found that nearly 61
percent of the sites 1.0 acre or larger were between 1.0 and 4.9 acres in size. Given the high erosion
rates, small construction sites can produce significant water quality impairment, particularly in
small watersheds. Paterson (1994), in USEPA (1999), summarized that, given the critical
importance of field implementation of erosion and sediment control programs, much more focus
should be given to plan implementation.
8.2.2.2 Metals
Many toxic metals can be found in urban storm water, although only metals such as zinc, copper,
lead, cadmium, and chromium have been indicated as being of primary concern because of their
prevalence and potential for environmental harm. These metals are generated by motor vehicle
exhaust, the weathering of buildings, the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric deposition, and other
common urban activities.
Metals can bioaccumulate in stream environments, resulting in plant growth inhibition and adverse
health effects on bottom-dwelling organisms (Masterson and Bannerman, 1995). Generally the
concentrations found in urban storm water are not high enough for acute toxicity (Field and Pitt,
1990). Rather, it is the cumulative effect of the concentration of these metals over time and the
buildup in the sediment and animal tissue that are of greater concern.
March, 2004
8 13
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Sources of Metal Runoff
Construction Sites
Construction sites are not thought to be important sources of metals contamination. Runoff from
such sites could have high metals contents if the soil is already contaminated. Construction
activities alone do not usually result in metals contamination, although there is little data available
on this subject.
Postdevelopment Conditions
Postdevelopment conditions create significant sources of metal runoff in the urban environment,
including streets, parking lots, and rooftops. Table 8-6 summarizes the major sources of metal
runoff by metal type. Copper can be found in high concentrations on urban streets as a result of the
wear of brake pads that contain copper. A study in Santa Clara, California, estimated that 50
percent of the copper released is from brake pads (Woodward-Clyde, 1992). Sources of lead
include atmospheric deposition and diesel fuel, which are found consistently on streets and
rooftops. Zinc in urban environments is a result of the wear of automobile tires (an estimated 60
percent of the total zinc in the Santa Clara study), paints, and the weathering of galvanized gutters
and downspouts. Source area concentrations estimated by researchers in Wisconsin and Michigan
are presented in Table 8-7. Actual concentrations vary considerably, and high-concentration source
areas vary from study to study. A study using SLAMM for an urban watershed in Michigan
estimated that most of the zinc, copper, and cadmium was a result of runoff from urban parking
lots, driveways, and residential streets (Steuer, 1997).
Receiving Water Impacts of Metals
Downstream effects of metals transported to receiving waters, such as lakes and estuaries, have
been studied extensively. Selected studies on metal impacts on receiving waters are summarized in
Table 8-8. Although evidence exists for the buildup of metals in deposited sediments in receiving
waters and for bioaccumulation in aquatic species (Bay et al, 2000; Livingston, 1996), specific
effects of these concentrations on submerged aquatic vegetation and other biota are not well
understood.
March, 2004
8 14
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-6. Metal Sources and Hot Spots in Urban Areas
Metal
Sources
Hot Spots
Zinc
Tires, fuel combustion, galvanized pipes
and gutters, road salts
Estimate of 60% from tires'
Parking lots, rooftops, and
streets
Copper
Auto brake linings, pipes and fittings,
algacides, and electroplating
Estimate of 50% from brake pads'
Parking lots, commercial roofs,
and streets
Lead
Diesel fuel, paints, and stains
Parking lots, rooftops, and
streets
Cadmium
Component of motor oil; corrodes from
alloys and plated surfaces
Parking lots, rooftops, and
streets
Chromium
Found in exterior paints; corrodes from
alloys and plated surfaces
More frequently found in
industrial and commercial
runoff
a Woodward-Clyde, 1992 (Santa Clara, CA, study)
Sources: Barr, 1997; Bannerman, et al, 1993; Steuer, 1997
March, 2004
8 15
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-7. Metal Source Area Concentrations in Urban Areas (in ug/L)
Source Area
Diss.
Zinc
Total
Zinc
Diss.
Copper
Diss.
Copper
Total
Copper
Diss.
Lead
Diss.
Lead
Total
Lead
Total
Lead
Total
Lead
Citation
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(a)
(c)
(a)
(c)
(b)
Commercial
parking lot
64
178
10.7
9
15
40
22
High-traffic
street
73
508
11.2
18
46
2.1
1.7
37
25
50
Medium-
traffic street
44
339
7.3
24
56
1.5
1.9
29
46
55
Low-traffic
street
24
220
7.5
9
24
1.5
0.5
21
10
33
Commercial
rooftop
263
330
17.8
6
9
20
48
9
Residential
rooftop
188
149
6.6
10
15
4.4
25
21
Residential
driveway
27
107
11.8
9
17
2.3
52
17
Residential
lawn
na
59
na
13
13
na
na
na
Basin outlet
23
203
7.0
5
16
2.4
49
32
na : not available
Sources: (a) Steuer 1997; (b) Bannerman 1993; (c) Waschbusch, 1996, cited inSteuer, 1997
March, 2004
8 16
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-8. Metals Impacts on Receiving Waters
Resource
Affected
Impacts of Metals
Evidence and References
Streams
• Chronic toxicity due to in-stream concentrations
and accumulation in sediment
• Bioaccumulation in aquatic species
• Acute toxicity at certain concentrations
• Chronic toxicity increased during longer-
duration studies, i.e. 7/14/21-day studies
(Crunkilton, 1996)
• Delayed toxicity (Ellis, 1986/1987)
• Baseflow toxicity (Mederios, 1983)
• Resuspension of metals during storms
accounting for some toxicological effects
(Heaney and Huber, 1978)
• Bioaccumulation in crayfish (Masterson &
Bannerman, 1994)
Reservoirs/
Lakes
• Accumulation of metals in sediment
• Bioaccumulation levels in bottom-feeding
fish were found to be influenced by the
metal levels of the bottom sediments of
storm water ponds (Campbell, 1995-CWP).
Estuaries
• Accumulation of metals in sediment
• Loss of SAV
• Tampa Bay (Livingston, 1996)
• San Diego (Schiff 1996)
• SAV losses in northeast San Francisco Bay
(Orth and Moore, 1983
8.2.2.3 PAHs, and Oil and Grease
Petroleum-based substances such as oil and grease and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
are found frequently in urban storm water. Many constituents of PAHs and oil and grease, such as
pyrene and benzo[b]fluoranthene, are carcinogens and toxic to downstream biota (Menzie-Cura and
Assoc., 1995). Oil and grease and PAHs normally travel attached to sediment and organic carbon.
Downstream accumulation of these pollutants in the sediments of receiving waters such as streams,
lakes, and estuaries is of concern.
Sources of PAHs, and Oil and Grease
Construction sites
Construction activities during site development are not believed to be major contributors of these
contaminants to storm water runoff. Improper operation and maintenance of construction
equipment at construction sites, as well as poor housekeeping practices (e.g., improper storage of
oil and gasoline products), could lead to leakage or spillage of products that contain hydrocarbons,
but these incidents would likely be small in magnitude and managed before off-site contamination
could occur.
Postdevelopment Conditions
In most storm water runoff, concentrations of PAHs and oil and grease are typically below 5 mg/L,
but concentrations tend to increase in commercial and industrial areas. Hot spots for these
March, 2004
8 17
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
pollutants in the urban environment include gas stations, commuter parking lots, convenience
stores, residential parking areas, and streets (Schueler, 1994). Schueler and Shepp (1993) found
concentrations of pollutants in oil/grit separators in the Washington Metropolitan area and
determined that gas stations had significantly higher concentrations of hydrocarbons and a greater
presence of toxic compounds than streets and residential parking lots. A study of source areas in an
urban watershed in Michigan (which excluded gas stations) showed that high concentrations from
commercial parking lots contributed 64 percent of the estimated hydrocarbon loads (Steuer et al,
1997).
Receiving Waters Impacts
Toxicological effects from PAHs and oil and grease are assumed to be reduced by their attachment
to sediment (lessened availability) and by photodegradation (Schueler, 1994). Evidence of possible
impacts on the metabolic health of organisms exposed to PAHs and of bioaccumulation in streams
and other receiving waters does not exist (Masterson and Bannerman, 1994; MacCoy and Black,
1998); however, crayfish from Lincoln Creek, analyzed in the Masterson and Bannerman study, had
a PAH concentration of 360 micrograms per kilogram-much higher than the concentration known
to be carcinogenic. The crayfish in the control stream did not have detectable levels of PAHs.
Known effects of PAHs on receiving waters are summarized in Table 8-9. Long-term effects of
PAHs in sediments of receiving waters require additional study.
Table 8-9. Effects of PAHs and Oil and Grease on Receiving Waters
Resource
Affected
Impacts of PAHs and Oil and Grease
Citations
Streams
• Possible chronic toxicity due to in-stream
concentrations and accumulation in sediment
• Bioaccumulation in aquatic species
• Acute toxicity at certain concentrations
• Bioaccumulation in crayfish tissue studies
(Masterson and Bannerman, 1994)
• Potential metabolic costs to organisms
(Crunkilton et al, 1996)
• Delayed toxicity (Ellis, 1986/1987)
• Baseflow toxicity (Mederios, 1983)
Reservoirs
• Accumulation of PAHs in sediment
• Sediment contamination may result in a
decrease in benthic diversity and transfer
of PAHs to fish tissue (Schueler, 2000)
• Elevated levels of PAHs found in pond
muck layer (Gavens et al, 1982-CWP)
Estuaries
• Accumulation of PAHs in sediment
• Potential loss of SAV
• Accumulation of PAHs in fish and shellfish
tissue
• Tampa Bay (Livingston, 1996)
• San Francisco Bay (Schiff, 1996)
8.2.2.4 Pathogens
Microbes are commonly found in urban storm water. Although not all microbes are harmful, several
species such as the pathogens Cryptosporidium and Giardia can directly cause diseases in humans.
The presence of bacteria such as fecal coliform bacteria, fecal streptococci, and Escherichia coli
March, 2004
8 18
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
indicates a potential health risk. High levels of these bacteria may result in beach closings,
restrictions on shellfish harvest, and increased treatment for drinking water to decrease the risk of
human health problems.
Sources of Pathogens
Construction sites
Construction site activities are not believed to be major contributors to pathogen contamination of
surface waters. The only potential known source of pathogens from construction sites are portable
septic tanks used by construction workers. These systems, however, are typically self-contained
and are not connected to the land surface. Any leaks from them would likely be identified and
addressed quickly.
Postdevelopment Conditions
Coliform sources include pets, humans, and wild animals. Source areas in the urban environment
for direct runoff include lawns, driveways, and streets. Dogs have high concentrations of coliform
bacteria in their feces and have a tendency to defecate in close proximity to impervious surfaces
(Schueler, 1999). Many wildlife species also have been found to contribute to high fecal
concentrations. Essentially, any species that is present in significant numbers in a watershed is a
potential pathogen source. Source identification studies, using methods such as DNA fingerprinting,
have attributed high coliform levels to such species as rats in urban areas, ducks and geese in storm
water ponds, dogs, and even raccoons (Blankenship, 1996; Lim and Oliveri, 1982; Pitt et al, 1988;
Samadapour and Checkowitz, 1998).
Indirect surface storm water runoff sources include leaking septic systems, illicit discharges,
sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). These sources have the
potential to deliver high concentrations of coliforms to receiving waters. Illicit connections from
businesses and homes to the storm drainage system can discharge sewage or washwater into
receiving waters. Leaking septic systems are estimated to constitute 10 to 40 percent of all systems.
Inspection is the best way to determine whether a system is failing (Schueler, 1999).
There is also evidence that these bacteria can survive and reproduce in stream sediments and in
storm sewers. During a storm event, they are resuspended and add to the in-stream bacteria load.
Source area studies reported that end-of-pipe concentrations were an order of magnitude higher
than any source area on the land surface; therefore, it is likely that the storm sewer system itself acts
as a source (Bannerman, 1993; Steuer et al, 1997). Resuspension of fecal coliform bacteria from
fine stream sediments during storm events has been reported in New Mexico (NMSWQB, 1999).
The sediments in the storm sewer system and in streams may be significant contributors to the fecal
coliform load. This area of research certainly warrants more attention to determine whether these
sources can be quantified and remediated.
March, 2004
8 19
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Giardia and Cryptosporidium in urban storm water are also a concern. There is evidence that urban
watersheds and storm runoff might have higher concentrations of Giardia and Cryptosporidium
than other surface waters (Stern, 1996). (See Table 8-10.) The primary sources of these pathogens
are humans and wildlife. Although Cryptosporidium is found in less than 50 percent of storm water
samples, data suggest that high Cryptosporidium values may be a concern for drinking water
supplies. Both pathogens can cause serious gastrointestinal problems in humans (Bagley et al,
1998).
Table 8-10. Percentage Detection of Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts in
Subwatersheds and Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent in the New York City Water
Supply Watersheds
Source Water Sampled
(No. of sources/ No. of
samples)
Percent Detection
Total
Giardia
Confirmed
Giardia
Total
Cryptosporidium
Confirmed
Cryptosporidium
Wastewater effluent
(8/147)
41.5
12.9
15.7
5.4
Urban subwatershed (5/78)
41.0
6.4
37.2
3.9
Agricultural subwatershed
(5/56)
30.4
3.6
32.1
3.6
Undisturbed subwatershed
(5/73)
26.0
0.0
9.6
1.4
Source: Stern et al, 1996.
Receiving Water Impacts
Fecal coliform bacteria, fecal streptococci, and E. coli are consistently found in urban storm water
runoff. Their presence indicates that human or other animal waste is also present in the water and
that other harmful bacteria, viruses, or protozoans might be present as well. Concentrations of these
indicator organisms in urban storm water are highly variable even within a given monitoring site.
Data for fecal coliform bacteria illustrate this variability: site concentrations range from 10 to
500,000 most probable number per 100 milliliters (MPN/lOOmL) (Schueler, 1999).
Concentrations in urban storm water typically far exceed the 200 MPN/100 mL threshold set for
human contact recreation. The mean concentration of fecal coliform bacteria in urban storm water
for 34 studies across the United States was 15,038 MPN/lOOmL (Schueler, 1999). Another national
database of 1,600 samples (mostly Nationwide Urban Runoff Program data collected in the 1980s),
estimates the mean concentration at 20,000 MPN/100 mL (Pitt, 1998). Fecal streptococci
concentrations for 17 urban sites had a mean of 35,351 MPN/100 mL (Schueler, 1999). Transport
occurs primarily as a result of direct surface runoff, failing septic systems, SSOs, CSOs, and illicit
discharges.
March, 2004
8-20
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Human health can be affected by bacterial impacts on receiving waters when bacteria standards for
water contact recreation, shellfish consumption, or drinking water are violated. Epidemiological
studies from Santa Monica Bay have documented frequent sickness in people who swim near
outfalls (SMBRP, 1996). Documented illnesses include fever, ear infections, gastroenteritis,
nausea, and flu-like symptoms. Table 8-11 describes the effects of bacteria and protozoan problems
on different receiving waters.
Table 8-11. Effects of Bacteria on Receiving Waters
Resource Affected
Impacts and Citations
Streams
More than 80,000 miles of streams and rivers in non-attainment because
of high fecal coliform levels (USEPA, 1998a)
Reservoirs
Increased treatment cost of drinking water due to bacteria contamination
(USEPA, 1996)
Beaches
More than 4,000 beach closings or advisories
(USEPA, 1998b)
Estuaries
Nearly 4% of all shellfish beds restricted or conditional harvest due to
high bacteria levels (NOAA, 1992) and more than 4,000 beach closings
or advisories (USEPA, 1998b)
8.2.3 PHYSICAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES
Construction and land development activities can have a number of impacts on stream systems,
including impacts to stream hydrology, geomorphology, habitat structure, thermal regime, and
direct channel impacts. These impacts are most visible on streams in urbanized areas. Construction
and land development impacts on stream systems are described for each of these impact categories
in Table 8-12. Because it is very difficult to differentiate between physical impacts that occur
during construction and impacts that result from postdevelopment conditions, the discussion
addresses physical impacts from a broader perspective. It does not differentiate between short-term
effects arising and site construction activities from long-term impacts of postdevelopment
conditions.
Physical changes are often precipitated by changes in hydrology that result when permeable rural
and forest land is converted to impervious surfaces like pavement and rooftops and relatively
impermeable urban soils. The conversion causes a fundamental change in the hydrologic cycle
because a greater fraction of rainfall is converted to surface runoff. This change in the basic
hydrologic cycle causes a series of other impacts (Table 8-12). The stream immediately begins to
adjust its size, through channel erosion, to accommodate larger flows. Streams normally increase
their cross-sectional area by incising, widening, or often both. This process of channel response to
increases in impervious surfaces accelerates sediment transport and destroys habitat. In addition,
urbanization frequently requires alteration of natural stream channels, such as straightening or
March, 2004
8 21
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
lining with concrete or rock to transport water away from developed areas more quickly. Finally,
impervious surfaces also absorb heat, thereby increasing stream temperatures during runoff events.
Table 8-12. Physical Impacts of Urbanization on Streams
Impact Class
Specific Impacts
Cause (s)
Hydrologic
• Increased runoff volume
• Increased peak flood flow
• Increased frequency of "bankfull"
event
• Decreased baseflow
• Paving over natural surfaces
• Compaction of urban soils
Geomorphic
• Sediment transport modified
• Channel area increase to
accommodate larger flows
• Modified flows
• Channel modification
• Construction
Habitat structure
• Stream embeddedness
• Loss of large woody debris
• Changes in pool/riffle structure
• Modified flows
• Stream channel erosion
• Loss of riparian area
Thermal
• Increased summer temperatures
• Heated pavement
• Storm water ponds
• Loss of riparian area
Channel
modification
• Channel hardening
• Fish blockages
• Loss of first and second order streams
through storm drain enclosure
• Direct modifications to the
stream system.
Figure 8-2 (Claytor and Brown, 2000; MacRae and De Andrea, 1999) depicts the impacts of land
development on the stream channel. At low levels of imperviousness, the stream has a stable
channel, contains large woody debris, and has a complex habitat structure. As urbanization
increases, the stream becomes increasingly unstable, increases its cross-sectional area to
accommodate increased flows, and loses habitat structure. In highly urbanized areas, stream
channels are often modified through channelization or channel hardening. These physical changes
are often accompanied by decreased water quality.
March, 2004
8-22
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure 8-2. Stream Channel Enlargement as a Function of Watershed Imperviousness
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Imperviousness (%)
8.2.3.1 Hydrologic Impacts of Construction and Land Development Activities
The increased runoff volume that results from land development alters the hydrograph from its
predeveloped condition. The resulting hydrograph accommodates larger flows with higher peak-
flow rates. Because storm drain conveyance systems (e.g., curbs, gutters) improve the efficiency
with which water is delivered to the stream, the hydrograph is also characterized by a more rapid
time of concentration and peak discharge. Finally, the flow in the stream between events can
actually decrease because less rainfall percolates into the soil surface to feed the stream as
baseflow. The resulting hydrologic impacts include increased runoff volume, increased flood
peaks, increased frequency and magnitude of bankfull storms, and decreased baseflow volumes.
Increased Runoff Volume
Impervious surfaces and urban land use changes alter infiltration rates and increase runoff volumes.
Table 8-13 shows the difference in runoff volume between a meadow and a parking lot. The
parking lot produces approximately 15 times more runoff than a meadow for the same storm event.
Schueler (1987) demonstrated that runoff values increase significantly with the impervious surfaces
March, 2004
8 23
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
in a watershed (Figure 8-3). The increased volume of water from urban areas is likely the greatest
single cause of the negative impacts of urban storm water on receiving waters. The volume causes
channel erosion and loss of habitat stability, as well as an increase in the total load of many
pollutants such as sediment and nutrients.
Table 8-13. Hydrologic Differences Between a Parking Lot and a Meadow
Hydrologic or Water Quality Parameter
Parking Lot
Meadow
Runoff coefficient
0.95
0.06
Time of concentration (minutes)
4.8
14.4
Peak discharge, 2-yr, 24-h storm (ft3/s)
4.3
0.4
Peak discharge rate, 100-yr storm (ft3/s)
12.6
3.1
Runoff volume from 1-in. storm (ft3)
3,450
218
Runoff velocity @ 2-yr storm (ft/sec)
8
1.8
Key Assumptions: 2-yr, 24-hr storm = 3.1 in.; 100-yr storm = 8.9 in.
Parking Lot: 100% imperviousness: 3% slope: 200 ft flow length; hydraulic radius = 0.03; concrete channel; suburban
Washington 'C' values
Meadow: 1% impervious; 3% slope; 200 ft flow length; good vegetative condition; B soils; earthen channel
Source: Schueler, 1987.
March, 2004
8 24
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure 8-3. Runoff Coefficient as a Function of Impervious Cover
80-
>
cc
M>. 70-
0. 00-
0
10
20
so
70
80
30
40
60
90
100
watershed imperviousness (%)
NOTE: 44 small urban catchments monitored during the national
NURP study.
Construction activities also cause fundamental modifications in native soils. The compaction of
urban soils and the removal of topsoil during construction decreases the infiltration capacity of the
soil, resulting in a corresponding increase in runoff (Schueler, 2000). The bulk density is a measure
of soil compaction, and Table 8-14 shows the values for different aspects of urbanization.
March, 2004
8 25
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-14. Comparison of Bulk Density for Undisturbed Soils and Common
Urban Conditions
Undisturbed Soil Type or Urban
Condition
Surface Bulk Density (grams/cubic centimeter)
Peat
0.2 to 0.3
Compost
1.0
Sandy Soils
1.1 to 1.3
Silty Sands
1.4
Silt
1.3 to 1.4
Silt Loams
1.2 to 1.5
Organic Silts/Clays
1.0 to 1.2
Glacial Till
1.6 to 2.0
I rhaii 1 aw ns
1.5 lo 1.9
Crushed l\ock Parking 1 oi
1.5 io 1.9
I rlian Nil Soils
1.8 lo 2.0
Allilelic l ields
1.8 io 2.0
l\ighis of Wa\ and Building I'ads (85"..)
1.5 lo 1.8
I\igliis of W'a\ and Building I'ads (95"..)
1.6 lo 2.1
(Oncreie l'a\emeni
2.2
Note: Shading indicates "urban" conditions.
Source: Schueler, 2000.
Increased Flood Peaks
Increased surface runoff following urbanization increases peak flows. Data from Sauer et al (1983)
suggest that peak flow from large flood events (10-year to 100-year storm events) increases
substantially with urbanization. The paper presents results of a survey of urban watersheds
throughout the United States and predicts flood peaks based on watershed impervious cover and a
"basin development factor" that reflects watershed characteristics such as the amount of curb and
gutter, and channel modification. These data suggest that at 50 percent impervious cover, the peak
flow for the 100-year event can be as much as twice that in an equivalent rural watershed. Data
from Seneca Creek in Montgomery County, Maryland, suggest a similar trend. The watershed
experienced significant growth during the 1950s and 1960s. Comparison of gauge records from
1961 to 1990 to those from 1931 to 1960 suggests that the peak 10-year flow event increased from
7,300 to 16,000 cfs, an increase of more than 100 percent (Leopold, 1994).
March, 2004
8 26
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Increased Frequency and Volume of Bankfull Flows
Stream channel morphology is more influenced by frequent (1- to 2-year) storm events, or
"bankfull" flows, than by large flood events. Hollis (1975) demonstrated that urbanization
increased the frequency and magnitude of these smaller-sized runoff events much more than the
larger events. Data from this study suggest that streams increase their 2-year bankfull discharge by
two to five times after development takes place. Many other studies have documented the increase
in flow associated with impervious cover. A study by Guay (1995) compared the 2-year flow
events before and after development in an urban watershed in Parris Valley, California, in the 1970s
and in the 1990s. The impervious level of 9 percent in the 1970s increased to 22.5 percent by the
1990s. The 2-year discharge more than doubled from 646 cfs to 1,348 cfs. A 13 percent change in
impervious cover resulted in a doubling of the 2-year peak flow.
A significant impact of land development is the frequency with which the bankfull event occurs.
Leopold (1994) observed a dramatic increase in the frequency of the bankfull event in Watts
Branch, an urban subwatershed in Rockville, Maryland. This watershed also experienced
significant development between the 1950s and 1960s. A comparison of gauge records indicated
that the bankfull storm event frequency increased from two to seven times per year from 1958 to
1987.
Changes in Baseflow
Land development results in a smaller recharge to groundwater and a corresponding decrease in
stream flow during dry periods (baseflow). Only a small amount of evidence, however, documents
this decrease in baseflow. Spinello and Simmons (1992) demonstrated that baseflow in two urban
Long Island streams went dry seasonally as a result of urbanization. Another study in North
Carolina could not conclusively determine that urbanization reduced baseflow in some streams in
that area (Evett et al, 1994). It is important to note, however, that groundwater flow paths are often
complex. Water supplying baseflow feeding the stream can be from deeper aquifers or can originate
in areas outside the surface watershed boundary. In arid and semiarid areas, watershed managers
have reported that baseflow actually increases in urban areas. Increased infiltration from people
watering their lawns and return flow from sewage treatment plants are two possible sources
(Caraco, 2000). Recharge of clean groundwater is important in these communities, and managers
would rather see clean water infiltrated than transported as surface water during storm events.
8.2.3.2 Impacts on Geomorphology/Sediment Transport
Changes in hydrology, combined with additional sediment sources from construction and
modifications to the stream channel, result in changes to the geomorphology of stream systems.
These impacts include increased, and sometimes decreased, sediment transport and channel
enlargement to accommodate larger flows.
March, 2004
8 27
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Increased Transport of Sediment
The increased frequency of bankfull (1- to 2-year) storms causes more "effective work" (as defined
by Leopold), causing greater sediment transport and bank erosion to take place within the channel.
For the same storm event, the increased volume results in a greater amount of total stress above the
critical shear stress required to move bank sediment (Schueler, 1987). This effect is compounded
by the fact that smaller, more frequent storm events also cause flows in excess of the stress required
to move sediment.
The result of this change in effective work on streambanks is increased channel erosion. Studies in
California (Trimble, 1997) and Austin, Texas (Dartinguenave et al, 1997) suggest that 60 to 75
percent of the sediment transport in urban watersheds is from channel erosion as compared to
estimates of between 5 percent and 20 percent for rural streams (Collins et al, 1997; Walling and
Woodward, 1995). If the sediment is not deposited in the channel at obstructions, it is transported
downstream to receiving waters such as lakes, estuaries, or rivers. The result can be reduced
storage and loss of habitat due to the filling of these water bodies. The clearing and grading of land
for new construction at the outset of urbanization is another source of sediment in urban streams.
Figure 8-4 (Leopold, 1968) illustrates the difference in sediment from uncontrolled and controlled
construction sites.
March, 2004
8-28
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure 8-4. Sediment Production from Construction Sites
200,000
100,000
10,000
1000
X
m
100
50
o
o
.
O
c
0
0
o
Little Fall»*Br»nch
Urbaruz
Mostly natur
EXPLANATION
0
ed fdata from Wolma
X
al (U. S. Geological
1, 1964)
Survey data)
Watts Branch
X
"" X
X
• X
X
>
X
I
DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES
10
100
Annual sediment production per square mile for urbanised and natural areas. Zones: A, agricul-
tural j C, under construction; UC, under construction and undiluted.
Decreased Sediment Transport
Decreased sediment transport off the land surface itself can result after urbanization as natural
drainage and first-order channels are replaced by storm drains and pipes (Dunne and Leopold,
1978). Channel erosion downstream might result when any export of sediment is not replaced by
diminished upstream sediment supply. Ultimately, after significant erosion has taken place, the
downstream channel will have adjusted to its postdevelopment flow regime and sediment transport
will be reduced. Hence, the stability of the land surface and the piping of drainage channels limit
storm water's exposure to sediment and reduce the sediment supply.
March, 2004
8 29
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Increase in Size of Channel
Channels increase their cross-sectional area to respond to higher and more frequent urban flows.
In postdevelopment urban watersheds, the increase in frequency of this channel-forming event
normally causes sediment transport to be greater than sediment supply. The channel widens (and/or
downcuts) in response to this change in sediment equilibrium (Allen and Narramore, 1985; Booth,
1990 Hammer, 1977; Morisawa and LaFlure, 1979;). Some research suggests that over time
channels will reach an "ultimate enlargement," relative to a predeveloped condition, and that
impervious cover can predict this enlargement ratio (MacRae and DeAndrea, 1999). This was
shown in Figure 8-2, which depicted the relationship between ultimate stream channel enlargement
and impervious cover for alluvial streams, based on data from Texas, Vermont, and Maryland.
Stream channels expand by incision, widening, or both. Incision occurs when the stream down-cuts
and the channel expands in the vertical direction. Widening occurs when the sides of the channel
erode and the channel expands horizontally. Either method results in increased transport of
sediment downstream and degradation of habitat. Channel incision is often limited by grade control
from bedrock, large substrate, bridges, or culverts. These structures impede the downward erosion
of the stream channel and limit incision. In substrates such as sand, gravel, and clay, however,
stream incision can be of greater concern (Booth, 1990).
Channel widening more frequently occurs when streams have grade control and the stream cuts into
its banks to expand its cross-sectional area. Urban channels frequently have artificial grade control
due to the frequent culverts and road crossings. These are often areas where sediment can
accumulate as a result of undersized culverts and bridge crossings.
8.2.3.3 Changes in Habitat Structure
Land development results in many changes in habitat structure, including embeddedness, decreased
riffle/pool quality, and loss of large woody debris (LWD). Increased sedimentation due to clearing
and grading during construction as well as bank erosion can significantly reduce the amount of
habitat for substrate-oriented species.
Increased sediment transport from construction and land development can fill the interstitial spaces
between rocks and riffles, which are important habitat for macroinvertebrates and fish species, such
as darters and sculpins. The stream bottom substratum is a critical habitat for trout and salmon egg
incubation and embryo development (May et al, 1997).
The presence and stability of LWD is a fundamental habitat parameter. LWD can form dams and
pools, trap sediment and detritus, provide stabilization to stream channels, dissipate flow energy,
and promote habitat complexity (Booth et al, 1996). For example, depending on the size of the
woody debris and the stream, the debris can create plunge, lateral, scour, and backwater pools, short
riffles, undercut banks, side channels, and backwaters, and create different water depths (Spence et
al, 1996). The runoff generated in urban watersheds from small storms can be enough to transport
LWD. Maxted et al (1994) found that woody debris were typically buried under sand and silt in
March, 2004
8-30
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
urban streams. In addition, the clearing of riparian vegetation limits an important source of large
woody debris. Horner et al (1997) present evidence from the Pacific Northwest that illustrates
LWD in urban streams decreases with increased imperviousness.
Habitat diversity is a key factor in maintaining a diverse and well-functioning aquatic community.
The complexity of the habitat results in increased niches for aquatic species. Sediment and
increases in flow can reduce the residual depths in pools and decrease the diversity of habitat
features such as pools, riffles, and runs. Richey (1982) and Scott et al (1986) reported an increase
in the prevalence of glides and a corresponding altered pool/riffle sequence due to urbanization.
8.2.3.4 Thermal Impacts
Summer in-stream temperatures have been shown to increase significantly (5 to 12 degrees) in
urban streams because of direct solar radiation, runoff from heat-absorbing pavement, and
discharges from storm water ponds (Galli, 1991). Increased water temperatures can prevent
temperature-sensitive species from surviving in urban streams.
Water temperature in headwater streams is strongly influenced by local air temperatures. Galli
(1991) reported that stream temperatures throughout the summer are higher in urban watersheds,
and the degree of warming appears to be directly related to the imperviousness of the contributing
watershed. Over a 6-month period, five headwater streams in the Maryland Piedmont that have
different levels of impervious cover were monitored. Each urban stream had mean temperatures
that were consistently warmer than that of a forested reference stream, and the size of the increase
appeared to be a direct function of watershed imperviousness. Other factors, such as a lack of
riparian cover and ponds, were also shown to amplify stream warming, but the primary contributing
factor appeared to be watershed impervious cover.
8.2.3.5 Direct Channel Impacts
Channel Straightening and Hardening/Reduction in First-Order Streams
Channel straightening and hardening includes the addition of riprap or concrete to the channel, the
straightening of natural channels, and the piping of first-order and ephemeral streams. Although this
conversion process is often done to control runoff from urbanized areas, adverse impacts often
occur downstream. In a national study of urban watersheds in 269 gauged basins, Sauer et al (1983)
determined that channel straightening and channel lining (hardening)-along with the percentage of
curbs and gutters, streets, and storm sewers-were the dominant land use variables affecting storm
flow. These variables all affect the efficiency with which water is transported to the stream
channel. Maintaining this efficiency increases the velocities needed for storm water to exceed
critical shear stress velocities, eroding the channel. These factors also considerably degrade any
natural habitat for stream biota.
March, 2004
8 31
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Embedded Sediment
Sediment embeddedness measures the degree to which cobbles and large gravels are buried and
their interstitial spaces filled because of fine sediment deposition. In a study of habitat restoration
in a highly sedimented Idaho stream, Hillman et al (1987) found that interstitial spaces among
cobbles may be essential winter habitat for juvenile chinook salmon. When large cobble was added
to an otherwise embedded stream, juvenile populations increased. When that same cobble became
embedded, the population decreased.
Embeddedness blocks passages and removes small cover spaces for eggs, fry and juvenile fish.
USEPA (2003) summarized that sediment deposition has caused a 94% reduction in numbers and
standing crop biomass in large game fish due to increased vulnerability of their eggs to predation in
gravel and small rubble, reductions in oxygen supply to eggs, and increased embryo mortality.
Weaver and Fraley (1993) (in USEPA 2003) reported that emergence success of cutthroat trout was
reduced from 76% to 4% when fine sediment was added to redds. NAHB (2000) reported that as
fry grow into juvenile fish they seek out the slow moving water at the channel edges for cover.
These areas also are favored for deposition of suspended sediment. When these areas are filled
with excess sediment, sheltered space is lost and the juveniles are forced out into the channel to
compete at a disadvantage with the adult fish. Waters (1995) also found that juveniles face habitat
degradation from the sedimentation of the pools. Information quantitatively relating embeddedness
levels to effects on aquatic fauna is limited.
NAHB (2000) found that invertebrate study results are often complicated by the fact that the
various invertebrate species in a community responds very differently to increased sediments.
Aquatic insect densities may decline at embeddedness levels of approximately two-thirds to three-
quarters.
Surface Sediment
Surface sediment describes the percentage of streambed area with exposed fine sediments. Targets
are developed to describe thresholds of suitability of stream substrates for invertebrate and
salmonid habitation. Using the Wolman pebble count method, percent surface fines may be
calculated. The same method is also used to determine the median substrates size (d50). This is
used as a sediment target. The percentage of area is one measure, but particle size distribution,
geometric mean particle size, median particle size, or other indices like fredle index may be used to
describe the streambed's exposed fine sediment area.
Salmonids prefer mid-sized substrates with interstitial cover to either fine sediment or boulders and
bedrock. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (important fish-food organisms) also respond
positively to gravel and cobble substrates (Waters 1995). However, the percent coverage of fine
sediments by area and the effects on salmonids and invertebrates have not been extensively
investigated.
March, 2004
8-32
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
NAHB (2000) found a notable absence of data regarding effects of suspended sediments on
warmwater fish. They also found evidence that some warmwater fish may be able to spawn on
muddy substrate. Studies on the effects of surface sediment from construction activities are limited.
However, one study by Reed (1977) in Wheeler et al (2003) did reveal that sediment from road
construction in Northern Virginia reduced aquatic insect and fish communities by up to 85 percent
and 40 percent, respectively.
Subsurface Sediment
Surface fines and embeddedness are apparent to the human observer, and are thus relatively easy to
measure, but subsurface or depth fines also have a major effect on the suitability of spawning
habitats. The amount of subsurface fine sediments as measured at the head of riffles in likely
spawning areas can be an indication of redd site suitability, conditions for egg survival and alevin
emergence in the constructed redd, as well as habitat quality for fry and prey.
Information on the biological effects of subsurface sediment varies according to the size of
sediment and geographic area of concern. Some of the variability is reduced by standardizing the
habitat and stream types (e.g., Rosgen [1996] level II) sampled. Subsurface sediment targets can
serve as a measure of suitability for fish spawning grounds, and they are most applicable in riffles
and spawning areas in streams with gravel/cobble/boulder streambeds. If there are excessive
subsurface fines they can have detrimental effects on salmonid and invertebrate habitat suitability
and redd conditions. In the western U.S. redd construction is often upstream from riffles or at the
tail end of pools where there is a net flow of stream water downward into the substrate. Where
upwelling groundwater rather than surface irrigates the substrate, the fines are no longer in the
position to block the flow of water into the redd, and therefore are a less important threat (Waters,
1995).
Riffle Stability
The Riffle Stability Index (RSI) indicates the relative percentage of the streambed that is mobile
during channel forming flows. Bed mobility is related to pool quality and abundance. With lower
RSI values, there is overall greater residual pool volume, because less of the streambed is
susceptible to moving. Pool habitat provides critical refuge for juvenile and adult salmonids. The
RSI has been used as an indicator of beneficial use, especially as related to cold water biota. The
RSI is measured as the percentage of the substrate particles (from a Wolman pebble count) that are
smaller than the largest particles that are moved in channel forming flows. Particles on point bars
are measured to determine the largest mobile particles.
Intergravel Dissolved Oxygen
One effect of the accumulation of fine sediment in the aquatic environment is reduced
permeability of the substrate resulting in less oxygen exchange to support fish embryos and
macroinvertebrates. Salmonids excavate streambed substrate to deposit eggs then backfill the "egg
pocket" to protect the eggs during the incubation period. The eggs are dependent on the flow of
March, 2004
8 33
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
oxygen-rich water through the substrate to survive. The accumulation of fines in the redd restricts
water flow and reduces oxygen to the eggs which results in decreasing survival (Shapovalov and
Berrian, 1939; Wickett, 1954; Shelton and Pollock, 1966).
Several studies have related intergravel dissolved oxygen to egg/fry survival. Survival of
embryos has been positively correlated with intergravel dissolved oxygen in the redds for
steelhead (Coble, 1961) and brown trout (Maret et al, 2003). Silver et al (1963) found that embryos
incubated at low and intermediate DO concentrations produced smaller and weaker alevins than
embryos incubated at higher concentrations. Weak sac fry cannot be expected to survive rigorous
natural conditions. In a review of embryo development studies, Chapman (1988) noted several
examples of developmental impairment at lower DO concentrations, but did not recommend a
single threshold. Bjornn and Reiser (1991) recommended that intergravel DO concentrations
should be at or near saturation, and that temporary reductions should drop to no lower that 5.0
mg/L.
Observations of the effects of intergravel flow on macroinvertebrates are much less extensive than
those for fish. Excessive sediment affects macroinvertebrates by accumulating on the body surfaces
and reducing the effective area of the respiratory structures (Lemly, 1982) or by covering pupae
cases and reducing the flow of oxygenated water to the metamorphosing insect (Rutherford and
Mackay, 1986).
Fish Blockages
Infrastructure associated with urbanization-such as bridges, dams, and culverts-can have a
considerable effect on the ability of fish to move freely upstream and downstream in the watershed.
This in turn can have localized effects on small streams, where nonmigratory fish species can be
inhibited by the blockage from recolonizing areas after acutely toxic events. Anadromous fish
species such as shad, herring, salmon, and steelhead also can be blocked from making the upstream
passage that is critical for their reproduction.
8.2.3.6 Site Differences in Physical Impacts
Site differences that can affect physical impacts include location of the impervious surfaces,
presence of vegetation, and soil type within the watershed. Location of the impervious
development can be instrumental in the timing of runoff in a watershed. If the development is at
the bottom of the watershed, peak flow from the urbanized area will likely have passed downstream
before the flow peaks from the upper watersheds reach the urbanized area (Sauer et al, 1983).
Vegetation can reduce channel erosion from storm flows. A study in British Columbia showed that
meander bends with vegetation were five times less likely to experience significant erosion from a
major flood than similar nonvegetated meander bends (Beeson and Doyle, 1995). The types and
porosity of soils are also important in determining runoff characteristics from the land surface and
erosion potential of the channels. Allen and Narramore (1985) showed that channel enlargement in
chalk channels was from 12 to 67 percent greater than in shale channels near Dallas, Texas. They
attributed the differences to greater velocities and shear stress in the chalk channels.
March, 2004
8 34
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
8.3 ANALYSIS OF SOIL TEXTURE BY REGION
EPA used surface soil texture as the primary indicator of soil nature for the 48 contiguous states.
The USDA GIS coverage of surface soil texture (the top six inches of soil) was developed primarily
to characterize agricultural areas. NRI (USDA, 2000) data indicates that agricultural land (crop
land, pasture land and range land) makes up a large fraction of the land area converted to urbanized
areas annually. The bulk of the remaining converted acreage is from areas characterized as
forested. EPA used the agriculture-based USDA soil characterization data as a reasonable
approximation of the soil texture that would be encountered on all new construction sites.
The USDA coverage also allowed for the identification of the three dominant soils for each
ecoregion, listed in Table 8-15. Where more than three soils were present, only the top three
textures were selected and the percentage of each prorated so that the total percentage equaled
100%. In each ecoregion the three dominant surface soil textures comprised at least 65 percent of
the total surface area in each ecoregion when considering all soils present. This was judged to
provide a reasonable approximation of the geographic distribution of construction site soils for each
ecoregion. The per-ecoregion soil texture information was then subdivided into the state-ecoregion
area basis for later use in computing erosion rates. In summary, the analysis identified seven
different soil textures that dominate the surface soil coverage within the 48 contiguous states.
8.4 ESTIMATION OF SOIL EROSION RATES
The evaluation of soil erosion rates was based on previous procedures used by EPA to assess the
environmental benefits of the Phase II Storm Water Rule (EPA, 1999), which utilized the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) (USDA, 1997). The pollutant of primary interest in storm
water discharges from construction sites is sediment that results from eroded soil. This sediment is
composed of both suspended solids (fine-grained material) and bedload (large-grained material).
The analysis entailed evaluation of up to three dominant soils in each ecoregion (see Table 8-15),
for three slopes (3, 7, and 12 percent). In this assessment, EPA assumed that construction sites were
evenly divided among these three slopes. For all slope and soil combinations, the RUSLE equation
was used to estimate the ambient annual erosion rate or yield (natural), and the erosion rate with
construction activity occurring without any BMPs. These two erosion rates provide the basis for
the estimate of loadings reductions related to implementation of construction site BMPs.
March, 2004
8 35
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-15. Ecoregion Surface Soil Texture Characterization
Ecoregion
Soil #1
Texture
Percent
Coverage
Soil #2
Texture
Percent
Coverage
Soil #3
Texture
Percent
Coverage
1
Sand
18.5%
Sandy Loam
34.2%
Loam
47.3%
2
Sand
11.3%
Sandy Loam
41.8%
Loam
46.9%
3
Sandy Loam
36.9%
Loam
63.1%
4
Loamy Sand
29.0%
Sandy Loam
71.0%
5
Sand
31.8%
Sandy Loam
51.2%
Loamy Sand
17.0%
6
Sand
78.2%
Loamy Sand
9.9%
Sandy Loam
11.8%
7
Sand
100.0%
8
Sandy Loam
46.5%
Silt Loam
53.5%
9
Silt Loam
62.6%
Sandy Loam
18.1%
Loam
19.4%
10
Silt Loam
54.0%
Sandy Loam
18.3%
Loam
27.7%
11
Silt Loam
59.7%
Sandy Loam
18.0%
Clay
22.3%
12
Silt Loam
54.0%
Sandy Loam
25.6%
Loam
20.4%
13
Silt Loam
31.5%
Loam
68.5%
14
Sandy Loam
39.5%
Loam
60.5%
15
Silt Loam
38.9%
Loam
61.1%
16
Sandy Loam
52.4%
Loam
47.6%
17
Silt Loam
37.5%
Loam
34.0%
Silty Clay
28.5%
18
Silt Loam
100.0%
19
Sandy Loam
37.4%
Loam
43.2%
Loamy sand
19.4%
Within each of the 19 ecoregions, specific urban areas were selected as the areas where new
construction is most likely to occur. Selecting specific urban areas was necessary in order to
determine the appropriate rainfall characteristics and to set RUSLE equation parameters related to
rainfall and soil cover. The erosion rates for these urban areas were assumed to be representative of
the ecoregion as a whole. The specific urban areas analyzed within each ecoregion are presented in
Table 8-16. This table also presents the range of sediment yields for the three slopes and dominant
soils in each ecoregion. When computing the values in Table 8-16, the role of construction site
BMPs were not considered-the estimates are solely ambient conditions and disturbed (denuded)
conditions. BMP removal rates are discussed in Section 8.5.
As shown in Table 7-4, it was assumed that some portion of each construction site will remain
undisturbed, depending on site size and ultimate land use. This is due to a certain percentage of
each site comprising features such as open space, natural area set-asides, stream buffers, and
forested buffers. For the estimated fraction of each construction site expected to be undisturbed,
EPA set the rate of eroded material to ambient levels. For example, disturbed sand soils in
March, 2004
8 36
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
ecoregion 1 produce a maximum construction site yield of 2.71 tons per acre, and undisturbed sand
soils on construction sites will produce 0.69 tons per acre.
The duration of construction site activities and timing of these activities are variables that affect
how much eroded soil is generated. Several factors are simplified in this assessment in order to
avoid complexity and the use of excessive analytical resources. First, the assumed length of the
construction period spans a calender year, regardless of construction site size, meaning there is no
"wintering over" of partially constructed areas. Since the estimates of construction acreage are
based on annual values obtained from NRI, this is a reasonable assumptions. Although large
construction projects will likely span several years, the basis of the analysis is the amount of
acreage actually being developed in any given year.
The timing of construction activities (e.g., clearing and grubbing) are assumed to occur in ways that
minimize soil erosion. Instead of denuding an entire large site at a single time, construction
operators are assumed to used a phased approach to land disturbance, where only portions of each
construction site are cleared and graded before moving on to other portions. EPA acknowledges this
assumption will likely result in underestimating the actual loadings, as it neglects the fact that large
portions of the site may be disturbed for a considerable period of time.
March, 2004
8 37
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-16. Range of Annual Erosion
Estimates by Dominant Soil Type in Each Ecoregion
'tons/acre/year)
Soil Type
Minimum
Ambient Yield
Maximum
Ambient
Yield
Minimum
Construction Site Yield
Maximum
Construction Site Yield
Ecoregion 1, Indicator City Denver, Co
Sand
0.19
0.69
0.73
2.71
Sandy Loam
1.01
3.73
3.96
14.63
Loam
1.42
5.25
5.58
20.59
Ecoregion 2, Indicator City Salt Lake, Ut
Sand
0.07
0.26
0.36
1.33
Sandy Loam
0.38
1.39
1.95
7.20
Loam
0.53
1.96
2.74
10.13
Ecoregion 3, Indicator City Austin, Tx
Sandy Loam
12.13
44.76
29.46
108.73
Loam
17.07
63.00
41.46
153.03
Ecoregion 4, Indicator City Atlanta, Ga
Loamy Sand
5.26
19.41
13.87
51.20
Sandy Loam
11.83
43.67
31.21
115.20
Ecoregion 5, Indicator City Charleston, SC
Sand
3.13
11.57
8.00
29.54
Sandy Loam
16.92
62.46
43.22
159.51
Loamy Sand
7.52
27.76
19.21
70.89
Ecoregion 6, Indicator City Jacksonville, F1
Sand
3.92
14.46
10.00
36.92
Loamy Sand
9.40
34.70
24.01
88.62
Sandy Loam
21.15
78.08
54.02
199.39
Ecoregion 7, Indicator City Miami, F1
Sand
5.22
19.28
13.34
49.23
Ecoregion 8, Indicator City Albany, NY
Sandy Loam
3.33
12.30
10.35
38.21
Silt Loam
5.93
21.87
18.40
67.92
Ecoregion 9, Indicator City Pittsburgh, Pa
Silt Loam
9.18
33.90
28.53
105.28
Sandy Loam
5.17
19.07
16.05
59.22
Loam
7.27
26.83
22.58
83.35
March, 2004
8-38
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Soil Type
Minimum
Ambient Yield
Maximum
Ambient
Yield
Minimum
Construction Site Yield
Maximum
Construction Site Yield
Ecoregion 10, Indicator City St. Paul/Minneapolis
Silt Loam
5.4
20.01
21.03
77.62
Sandy Loam
3.05
11.25
11.83
43.66
Loam
4.29
15.84
16.65
61.45
Ecoregion 11, Indicator City Houston, Tx
Silt Loam
35.94
132.63
87.29
322.17
Sandy Loam
20.21
74.61
49.10
181.22
Clay
9.73
35.92
23.64
87.25
Ecoregion 12, Indicator City Kansas City, Mo
Silt Loam
12.61
46.55
36.15
133.40
Sandy Loam
7.09
26.18
20.33
75.04
Loam
9.98
36.85
28.62
105.61
Ecoregion 13, Indicator City Rapid City, SD
Silt Loam
2.02
7.46
7.93
29.26
Loam
1.60
5.91
6.28
23.16
Ecoregion 14, Indicator City Boise, Id
Sandy Loam
0.20
0.75
1.16
4.27
Loam
0.29
1.05
1.63
6.01
Ecoregion 15, Indicator City Eureka, Ca
Silt Loam
4.55
16.78
17.20
63.49
Loam
3.60
13.28
13.62
50.27
Ecoregion 16, Indicator City San Francisco, Ca
Sandy Loam
1.21
4.47
4.58
16.92
Loam
1.70
6.29
6.45
23.81
Ecoregion 17, Indicator City: Olympia/Seattle, Wa
Silt Loam
3.35
12.36
12.68
46.78
Loam
2.65
9.79
10.04
37.04
Silty Clay Loam
2.58
9.53
9.77
36.06
Ecoregion 18, Indicator City: Spokane/Highland, Wa
Silt Loam
0.30
1.11
1.71
6.32
March, 2004
8 39
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Soil Type
Minimum
Ambient Yield
Maximum
Ambient
Yield
Minimum
Construction Site Yield
Maximum
Construction Site Yield
Ecoregion 19, Indicator City: Stampede Pass/Mount Hood, Wa
Sandy Loam
1.35
4.97
5.09
18.80
Loam
1.89
6.99
7.17
26.46
Loamy sand
0.60
2.21
2.26
8.35
Another assumption made in the analysis is that the size distribution of eroded material matches the
native (dominant) soils. Table 8-17 indicates the grain size distribution of seven common soil
textures believed to be present at a majority of construction sites.
Table 8-17. Estimated Soil Grain Size Distribution
Gross Soil Texture
Classification
Clay Fraction,
%
Fine Silt
Fraction, %
Silt Fraction, %
Fine Sand
Fraction, %
Sand Fraction,
%
Clay
45
20
10
10
15
Loam
15
15
20
20
30
Loamy Sand
5.25
4.25
5
23.25
62.25
Sand
3.75
2.5
2.5
23.75
67.5
Sandy Loam
7.5
7.5
10
22.5
52.5
Silt Loam
11.25
18.75
30
21.25
18.75
Silty Clay Loam
18.75
22.5
32.5
18.75
7.5
Adapted from Foth, 1978
8.5 ESTIMATION OF BMP REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
8.5.1 APPLICATION OF SEDCAD
BMP performance is dependent on many factors related to soil nature, hydrology, and engineering
practice (see Section 5). A commercially available software package (SEDCAD) was used to model
BMP removal efficiencies for a series of site conditions. These reference values were then used to
estimate performance for each combination of soil, slope, location, and model construction site size,
and reflecting the influence of the regulatory options considered on sediment discharges. Surface
soil texture was the key feature used to adjust for the varying effects of soil nature on BMP removal
efficiency.
BMPs were selected and sized for a subset of the model sites developed in Sections 4 and 7
reflecting the area draining to each BMP through the appropriate drainage pathway and following
industry standard design practices. Table 8-18 provides an overview of the analysis performed, and
detailed documentation of the specific design criteria and assumptions made can be found in the
public record.
March, 2004
8-40
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-18. Description of EPA Construction Site Analysis for BMP Removal Estimation
Item
BMP
Analysis Performed
Comments
Erosion Control
Seed and
Mulch
No SEDCAD simulation
Estimation of removals was
conducted in two phases. The
first phase assumed that soils
were exposed and unmanaged
for varying periods of time to
account for the active
construction phase. In the
second phase, soils were
assumed to be stabilized with
seed and mulch (see Table F-4).
The total duration of each
project was assumed to be 1
year.
Sediment Controls
Silt Fence
SEDCAD analysis generic to all model
sites
Rock Check
Dam
SEDCAD analysis generic to all model
site sizes
Inlet
Protection
SEDCAD analysis generic to all model
site sizes
Sediment
Trap
SEDCAD analysis of 3 acres of
centralized drainage on a 7.5 acre model
site
Sediment
Basin
SEDCAD analysis of 10 acres of
centralized drainage on a 25 acre model
site
For each BMP, performance was evaluated individually for 10 soil grain size groups under five
different rainfall events ranging from 0.5 to 3.6 inches in depth. All NRCS or Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) Type rainfall distributions (Type I, II, and III) were individually evaluated so that
BMP performance would be customized to the climate on an ecoregion basis. For example, the
estimated BMP performance within the relatively dry Ecoregion 1 is based on a range of rainfall
events that are shaped according to the NRCS Type II distribution, or the rainfall distribution
expected in the region.
The wide range in grain size groups was intended to improve the representativeness of the
SEDCAD simulation of BMP performance to all of the likely conditions present across the country.
This acknowledges that construction site BMPs have higher removal efficiencies for larger grained
particles (such as sand) than for smaller grained particles (clays). By analyzing soil grain size
groups individually, a reasonable basis for compositing an estimated removal rate was established
for any of the common surface soil textures discussed in Section 8.3. BMPs are assumed to provide
consistent performance for all sites that employ them in a single state-ecoregion area. For example,
two sedimentation basins employed on a single 25 acre construction site were assumed to provide
March, 2004
8 41
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
the same performance as four sedimentation basins employed on a 70 acre construction site. This
simplification was necessary in order to limit the total analytical time and resources required to
conduct the analysis.
8.5.2 CUSTOMIZING BMP REMOVALS FOR STATE-ECOREGIONS
The results of the basic SEDCAD analysis were used to develop BMP removal rates customized to
each state-ecoregion area that reflect the role of:
• Dominant soils;
• Climate;
• Regulatory conditions (e.g,. baseline state regulations); and
• BMP combinations.
The suite of potential regulatory requirements includes stabilization of exposed soil areas within 14
days following the end of land disturbance. Because seeding (e.g., hydroseeding) and seeding with
mulching for soil stabilization are common practices within the industry, it was assumed that this
requirement would not increase the application rates of stabilization measures, but would rather
only change the timing of stabilization. This was judged to be a reasonable assumption because
existing state requirements include stabilization of exposed soils (although the time allotted may be
28 or 30 days instead or 14 days) or developers elect to stabilize exposed soils to prevent the need
for subsequent re-grading.
EPA acknowledges there are difficulties involved in analyzing the effect of the shortened time
period allowed for stabilization. Inherent to any analysis is uncertainty associated with the timing
of land disturbing activities on various portions of a construction site, and further uncertainty
related to seasonal variation in rainfall conditions across the country. So when developing its
standardized approach within limits of its resources, EPA elected to focus on site physical features
for a suite of model sites (e.g., site size, local soils texture) and the "typical" performance of
seed/mulch as reported in the literature (derived from a range of soils and rainfall events).
To calculate the effects of seeding and mulching, EPA's model assumed that well applied mulch
provides the same sediment control effectiveness as grass. So, denuded construction surfaces are
immediately stabilized as soon as the seed/mulch combination is applied. The idea behind this
assumption is that as the mulch degrades, the grass germinates and grows, which then compensates
for the loss of mulch. To estimate the sediments generated and released to the environment, the
first step was to assign to each model site size category the period in the construction year that the
site has bare soils or is covered by either mulch or grass (both for the baseline and regulatory
conditions) (See Appendix F). For larger site sizes (larger than 1 acre), eroded site sediment
generally goes through additional sediment control devices (e.g., sedimentation basins), whether
site soils are bare or are stabilized with seed/mulch. So, for part of the construction year,
seeding/mulching provides additional in-series control with downstream sediment controls within
EPA's suite of site models. The overall capture of eroded material for a construction year was set
equal to the sum of the sediment captured in sediment control for the period without seed/mulch,
March, 2004
8-42
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
plus the sediment captured by combined seed/mulch/sediment controls for the period following
seed/mulch application. In this calculation, EPA's suite of site models estimates the generation of
sediments on a per particle size basis (e.g., clay, silt, sand), based on local rainfall information and
local (common) soils derived from national databases.
EPA acknowledges that this approach to estimating the influence of seeding and mulching on
sediment discharges from construction sites likely underestimates the actual sediment discharges
that will occur over the life of construction projects. Similarly, it also likely underestimates the
reductions that will result from implementing soil stabilization within 14 days instead of 28 days
since it ignores a number of important real-world factors. In addition, on residential projects
individual lots are often sold off to a number of builders, and exposed soil areas are likely to persist
for long periods of time in these areas. In addition, the analysis uses average or typical rainfall
conditions. It ignores the influence of short-duration, high intensity storm events that could
potentially occur throughout the construction project. However, despite its drawbacks, the analysis
is reasonable given the analytical resources available in this case.
As shown in Table 8-17, each of the seven dominant surface soil textures can be characterized by
the percent found in various grain size groups. The 10 soil grain size groups analyzed individually
with SEDCAD provide key data for creating composited BMP removal rates for each dominant soil
texture. Computing the amount of soil removed for a particular BMP is done by combining size-
specific removals in proportion to the grain-size distribution of each soil. Step 1 in Table 8-19
presents the scale and purpose of the assessment of dominant soil grain size distributions.
The method for estimating construction site BMP removal rates in this analysis is probability-based,
where the rainfall probability (i.e., the total rainfall depth occurring during an event) in each
ecoregion is used to composite a probable annual performance for the model construction sites.
Single-event BMP removal rates from SEDCAD were combined for each ecoregion to compute an
"expected annual" removal rate. SEDCAD simulation of six individual rainfall events ranging from
0.5 to 5 inches in rainfall demonstrate how individual BMPs perform for various storm events. For
each ecoregion, EPA analyzed ten years of precipitation records to categorize local rainfall patterns
and estimate the probability that a storm of a given size will occur within a 1-year period (the
assumed duration of construction projects). The expected annual removal value was then calculated
for each BMP within each ecoregion from the cross-product of the BMP removal rate array with the
ecoregion distribution of rainfall.
The expected value approach accounts for the fact that large but relatively infrequent events will
have low removal rates (due to flows exceeding BMP design capacities and leading to bypasses,
shorter detention times, or overtopping), while more frequent but smaller rainfall events will have
higher removal rates. Step 2 in Table 8-19 indicates the scale and purpose of the probability-based
assessment of ecoregion hydrologic characteristics. Table 8-20 indicates the range in soil-specific
BMP removal rates for eroded construction site soils in the nineteen ecoregions.
The assessment of current state regulations (see Table 3-1) provides the basis for characterizing
which of the seven model construction site sizes will employ a particular mix of BMPs under
March, 2004
8 43
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
baseline conditions. The best example of this is a sediment trap for sites with between 5 and 10
acres of drainage area. Many states do not have this requirement as part of their existing program,
but it is a requirement under Options 2 and 4. When calculating removal rates under baseline
conditions for states without this requirement, removal rates were calculated for the 7.5 acre site
group using BMP removal rates for rock check dams. For the analysis of BMP removals under
Option 2 and 4, the removal rates were calculated using the more effective sediment trap.
Options 2 and 4 also affect construction site BMPs by way of setting minimum design
requirements. The design basis for sediment basins under these options would increase from 1,800
to 3,600 cubic feet per acre of drainage for the 25 acre site size group in states that do not have this
requirement under baseline conditions. The change in basin sizing would be reflected in the
associated removal rate for those sites. Although many states do not specifically indicate minimum
sediment basin requirements, EPA assumed that all construction sites of greater than 10 acres
would implement sediment basins with at least 1,800 cubic feet per acre of storage, as basins are
common practice in the industry. Step 3 in Table 8-19 indicates the scale and purpose of these
considerations of current state regulations.
The combined performance of BMPs in series was assessed individually for each grain size group.
An assumption was made that total BMP removal was equal to the removal from an erosion control
BMP (i.e., seed and mulch), followed by the removal from a sediment control BMP (e.g, sediment
trap). So, for 7.5 acre construction sites under Options 2 and 4, the total removal of clay-sized
particles would be equal to the load of eroded clay-sized particles from the site, less the reduction of
seed and mulch, and then less the estimated reduction of clay-sized particles provided by a silt trap.
Step 4 in Table 8-19 indicates the scale and purpose of the BMP groupings used in this analysis.
BMP Removal Rates
SEDCAD Analysis
Other EPA Analysis
Examples
Step 1 - Soils Processing
10 grain size groups covering
from large sand to clay are
individually analyzed, then
combined to estimate
individual removals for 3
major size groups; sand, silt,
and clay
7 soil textures containing
different amounts of sand, silt and
clay were found to be common in
the nation. SEDCAD output is
used to estimate soil texture-
specific removals, based on sand,
silt, and clay fractions.
Loam texture soil contains 40, 40, and 20
percent sand, silt, and clay particles,
respectively. SEDCAD lumped removals for
these grain sizes in a sediment basin are 90, 40
and 10 percent, respectively, for a single
rainfall event. The composited removal rate
for the silt texture soils is calculated as 54
percent for the event.
March, 2004
8-44
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
SEDCAD Analysis
Other EPA Analysis
Examples
Step 2 - Precipitation Processing
No direct role
For each size fraction, BMP
removals are estimated for 6
rainfall events of increasing depth
(0.5, 0.7, 1.2, 2.4, 3.6, and 5.0
inches of total precipitation) and
then composited into a single
expected removal rate.*
For the NRCS Type II rainfall distribution,
SEDCAD sediment basin removal rates for the
silt size fraction range from 100 (a 0.7-inch
event) to 21 percent (a 5-inch event). The
probability of the six rainfall events for
Ecoregion 1 are used to composite an expected
annual silt fraction removal rate of 98 percent
for sediment basins. (Note, most rainfall
events in the semi-arid Ecoregion I are small
and fully retained within the wet storage
portion of sediment basins with 3,600 cubic
feet per acre of storage)
Step 3 - State Regulation Processing
No direct role
For each area defined by the
intersection of state and
ecoregion boundaries, a decision
is made on the presence or
absence of BMPs under each
option evaluated
A state found in Ecoregion 1 does not have a
sediment basin requirement under baseline
conditions. In this case, baseline reductions
are based on removal rates of sediment basins
with 1,800 cubic feet per acre of storage.
Under Option 4, all sites would be required to
install sediment basins with 3,600 cf/ac for
large sites, so removal rates will range from
39% to 94% depending on the soils present.
Step 4 - BMP Combination
No direct role
For centralized drainage and
perimeter drainage (each), one
erosion prevention BMP (e.g.,
seed/mulch) is followed by a
single sediment control BMP
(e.g,. sediment basin). The
combined efficiency of the two
BMPs is calculated individually
for each land use and site size
combination, which indicates the
total removal.
For a loam soil, seed/mulch is 95 percent
effective on all grain sizes. The remaining 5
percent enters a sediment basin where sand,
silt, and clay size particles are individually
assessed to determine the additional removal
of each fraction. As a result, the combined
removal of seed/mulch and sediment basins in
a state in Ecoregion 1 is 98.5 percent
(accounts for the probability of various rainfall
events and the full capture with no discharge
condition that occurs for frequent small
events)
* Expected performance was based on all rainfall events encountered in 10 years of records for indicator cities selected
for each ecoregion
March, 2004
8-45
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-20. Range of BMP Percent Removals (Weighted by Grain Size Distribution)
Soil Texture
Silt Fence
Inlet
Protection
Rock Check Dam
Silt Trap
Sediment Basin
Clay
34.5 /40.4
17.3/20.8
17.3/20.8
30.9 / 39.8
38.8/62.2
Loam
67.4 / 73.3
34.2 / 39.4
34.2 / 39.4
59.9 / 70.8
64.2 / 79.7
Loamy Sand
89.9/91.5
67.1 / 72.2
67.1 / 72.2
88.0/90.9
89.3 /93.8
Sand
93.5 /94.3
72.4 / 77.5
72.4 / 77.5
92.5 /94.1
93.4 /96.1
Sandy Loam
83.7/86.6
57.2 /62.4
57.2 /62.4
80.0/85.4
82.1 /89.8
Silt Loam
65.8 / 73.9
23.3 / 28.9
23.3 / 28.9
54.6 /69.9
59.2 / 78.1
Silty Clay Loam
54.4 /63.3
11.5/16.9
11.5/16.9
42.3 / 59.4
48.2/71.1
Range shows values across nineteen ecoregions
8.6 CALCULATION OF NATIONAL LOADINGS AND REMOVALS BY REGULATORY
OPTION
This assessment of model construction sites is intended to acknowledge major influences on
national loadings, including site size, current state BMP requirements, soil nature, slopes and flow
lengths of construction sites, and climate. Ultimately, the assessment resulted in 276 individual
loadings estimates, which were combined with 9,000 individual estimates of BMP removal rates for
various settings. For each state-ecoregion area, the analysis:
• Generated "whole site" estimates of the population of construction sites reflecting up to three
dominant soils and three slopes (i.e, at no time were fractions of model construction sites
analyzed);
• Estimated the amount of eroded soil produced due to construction activities on the basis of site
size and land use type;
• Estimated BMP removal rates for the regulatory options;
Using the population of construction sites by land use and size (see Section 4.2.2), state-ecoregion
area load totals based on the estimated load discharged from each model site were computed for
baseline conditions and for each regulatory option. State-ecoregion area load totals were then
summed to produce state and national total loads for each regulatory option (see Table 8-21).
Tables F-l, F-2 and F-3 in Appendix F provide detailed information on loadings, including loadings
to individual HUCs. Table 8-22 indicates estimated per-state loadings for each alternative. Note
that the state-level loads in Table 8-22 do not sum to the national loads in Table 8-21 or 8-1 due to
rounding.
March, 2004
8-46
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-21. N
ational Annual Construction Load Estimates
Site Size,
acres
Single Family
(tons)
Multi-family
(tons)
Commercial
(tons)
Industrial
(tons)
Total (tons)
Baseline
0.5
96,735
31,105
888,510
38,268
1,054,618
3
89,368
66,771
929,412
46,473
1,131,964
7.5
129,814
97,290
540,091
18,237
785,432
25
392,563
268,202
1,319,539
34,323
2,014,627
70
220,234
112,214
859,721
30,127
122,296
200
291,595
2,742
0
0
294,337
Total Load (tons)
1,220,308
578,325
4,537,274
167,428
6,503,334
Options 2 and 4
0.5
96,735
31,105
888,510
38,268
1,054,618
3
89,368
66,771
929,412
46,473
1,132,024
7.5
73,781
55,356
306,504
10,608
446,249
25
315,661
215,635
1,061,546
28,068
1,620,910
70
183,283
94,895
716,892
26,102
1,021,172
200
246,314
2,151
0
0
248,465
Total Load (tons)
1,005,142
465,913
3,902,864
149,519
5,523,438
Option 2/4
Incremental
Loading
Reduction
Estimate (tons)
215,166
112,412
634,410
17,909
979,896
March, 2004
8-47
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-22. State Annual Construction Load Estimates (Tons)
State
Baseline
Options 2 and 4
AL
287,073
209,759
AR
170,647
170,647
AZ
31,901
31,901
CA
137,654
101,464
CO
10,713
6,882
CT
26,680
17,834
DE
13,992
12,789
FL
165,065
165,065
GA
402,299
346,641
IA
55,537
55,537
ID
4,988
4,988
IL
120,331
103,157
IN
109,407
93,942
KS
91,805
67,129
KY
164,311
152,279
LA
276,932
216,048
MA
58,414
58,414
MD
116,981
79,118
ME
34,821
34,821
MI
233,685
170,917
MN
157,401
115,099
MO
277,848
188,674
MS
295,241
216,221
MT
17,343
11,416
NC
358,486
263,116
ND
11,326
7,709
NE
38,323
28,211
NH
25,857
25,857
NJ
131,874
90,000
NM
32,418
32,418
NV
747
747
NY
118,749
118,749
OH
212,799
181,410
OK
134,039
134,039
OR
37,690
25,820
PA
346,182
273,585
RI
9,311
6,337
SC
146,239
146,239
SD
14,761
13,729
TN
323,505
323,505
TX
787,982
787,982
UT
4,258
4,258
VA
159,707
159,707
VT
8,113
5,561
WA
69,782
47,035
WI
158,684
106,885
WV
99,719
99,719
WY
3.251
2.338
March, 2004
8-48
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
8.7 INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL LOADINGS INTO NWPCAM
As described in Section 8.5, the analysis generated loadings for 146 state-ecoregion areas. State-
ecoregion areas were created by overlaying state boundaries with the boundaries of the 19 EPA
ecroegions. In order to determine HUC-level loadings, GIS processing was used to convert state-
ecoregion loadings into loadings for the approximately 2,000 HUCs that span the 48 contiguous
states. Individual HUCs were apportioned loads by overlaying state-ecoregion areas based on the
development rate in the HUC obtained from NRI. For example, when two HUCs collectively cover
a single state-ecoregion area the HUC with the highest rate of development is assumed to have a
proportionately greater fraction of the state-ecoregion loadings than the neighboring lower-rate
HUC.
Estimates of the number of construction sites within each HUC were based on the acreage
developed within each HUC along with the distribution of construction sites by site size in Table 4-
10. Numbers were rounded to whole numbers in order to prevent analytical problems associated
with analyzing fractional sites. The per-site load within each HUC was calculated by dividing the
total load for a site size group (i.e., 25 acres) by the number of sites in that site size category. The
per-HUC construction site population and loadings were converted from GIS into a spreadsheet for
subsequent analysis of benefits in NWPCAM. The HUC-level number of sites and associated loads
are contained in Table F-3 of Appendix F. Note that due to rounding, the total number of sites and
loads presented in Table F-3 do not match the national totals in Table F-l.
8.8 NWPCAM ASSESSMENT OF IN-STREAM SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS
8.8.1 NWPCAM SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model (NWPCAM) is a national surface water
quality model that simulates water quality improvements and economic benefits that result from
water pollution control policies. NWPCAM is designed to characterize water quality for the
nation's network of rivers, streams, and lakes. NWPCAM incorporates a water quality model into a
system designed for conducting national policy simulations and benefits assessments. NWPCAM
is able to translate spatially varying water quality changes into willingness-to-pay values that reflect
the value that individuals place on water quality improvements. In this way, NWPCAM is capable
of deriving economic benefits estimates for a wide variety of water pollution control policies.
NWPCAM's water quality modeling system is suitable for developing water quality estimates for
virtually the entire inland portion of the country. Its national-scale framework allows hydraulic
transport, routing, and connectivity of surface waters to be simulated in the 48 conterminous states.
The model can be used to characterize source loadings (e.g., point sources) under a number of
alternative policy scenarios (e.g., loadings with controls). These loadings are processed through the
NWPCAM water quality modeling system to estimate in-stream pollutant concentrations on a
detailed spatial scale and to provide estimates of policy-induced changes in water quality. The
model incorporates routines to translate estimated concentrations into a six-parameter water quality
index (WQI6) that provides a composite measure of overall water quality. The WQI6 allows for the
March, 2004
8-49
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
calculation of economic benefits associated with the estimated water quality improvements.
NWPCAM can be used to assess both the water quality impacts and the social welfare implications
of alternative policy scenarios.
NWPCAM is an evolving system developed for EPA's Office of Water (OW) by RTI and has been
used in several applications to estimate the benefits of pollution control policies. An adaptation of
version 1.0 was used by OW's Office of Waste Management (OWM) to evaluate the potential
benefits of the Stormwater Phase II rulemaking (Bondelid et al, 1999). Version 1.1 (RTI, 2000b),
developed in response to external peer review on version 1.0, was oriented toward evaluating the
effects of point source controls. NWPCAM version 1.1 was used in the proposed Meat Processing
Effluent Guidelines rulemaking (EPA, 2003a). Version 1.5 was used in the proposed Animal Feed
Operation/Confined Animal Feed Operation (AFO/CAFO) rulemaking (RTI, 2000a). Version 1.6
was used in developing the final AFO/CAFO rulemaking process (RTI, 2002). Version 2.1 with the
Eutro-WASP kinetics model was used for analysis of the options for the construction and
development final action. Complete documentation on NWPCAM and the modeling process used in
this analysis can be found in RTI, 2004.
8.8.2 CONSTRUCTION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT MODELING PROCESS
8.8.2.1 Construction and Development Loads
The loads developed (see Tables 8-21, 8-22 and Tables F-l and F-2 of Appendix F) for the options
evaluated were distributed to the 8-digit hydrologic unit (HUC) level and broken out by site size.
All loads were assumed to be TSS. These HUC-level loads are presented in Table F-3 in Appendix
F. Loadings were developed for 1,717 HUCs for baseline conditions and the four regulatory options
considered. Of the 1,717 HUCs, 57 (3%) were immediately excluded from the modeling analysis
because they did not have an associated stream network in NWPCAM.
8.8.2.2 Distribution of Construction Sites and Loads
The methodology developed for distributing loads called for:
(1) Randomly distributing construction sites onto agricultural and forest land cover cells;
(2) Assigning loads to land cover cells based on the number and size of sites assigned to each
land cover cell; and
(3) Removing background NPS TSS loads from land cover cells that were assigned construction
sites based on the fraction of the cell that was covered by sites.
A total of 6,894,140 land cover cells were in the NWPCAM 2.1 database. Each land cover cell was
assigned to one of eight general categories: agriculture, agriculture/herbaceous,
agriculture/woodland, herbaceous, forest, water bodies/barren, tundra, and urban. Of the total land
cover cells, 6,557,224 (95%) were assigned one of the first five land cover categories, and were
March, 2004
8-50
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
classified as forest or agriculture. All of the forest and agricultural cells used during the site
distribution process. Each agricultural and forest cell was assigned a random number.
An analysis was conducted to compare the construction site area against the available forest and
agricultural land within each HUC. Of the 1,660 HUCs that had an associated stream network,
1,638 (95%) had at least as many agriculture/forested land cover cells as number of sites, indicating
that no land cover cell would be assigned multiple construction sites. Six (<1%) had fewer
agriculture/forest land cover cells than sites but had enough area to accommodate all sites. This
indicated that some land cover cells were assigned multiple sites. Sixteen HUCs (1%) were
excluded from the modeling analysis because they lacked land cover data.
Of the original 1,717 HUCs supplied in the loadings file, 1,644 HUCs were included in the final
modeling analysis. Table 8-23 shows the total TSS loadings by loading option (i.e. mode run) for
the 1,644 HUCs included in the modeling analysis. Of the 979,896 tons/year of loadings reductions
estimated for Option 2/4, 941,108 tons/year, or 96%, were incorporated into the NWPCAM
modeling.
Table 8-23. Summary of Construction and Development Loadings
Option
TSS Loading (ton/yr)
Baseline
6,288,751
Options 2 and 4
5,347,643
A computer module was used to distribute construction sites onto land cover cells. For each HUC,
the module selected its associated land cover cells, ordered by the random identification numbers.
Sites were distributed by assigning each land cover cell one site before moving on to the next land
cover cell. When there were more sites than land cover cells, the code went back to the first land
cover cell on the list and continued looping until all sites were distributed. The sites were
distributed in order of decreasing size: 200 acres, 70 acres, 25 acres, 7.5 acres, 3 acres, and 0.5
acres. Since the land cover cells were randomly ordered, this did not introduce bias but had the
advantage that each successive land cover cell had greater than or equal area available for sites.
Each agriculture and forest cell started with its total area available for construction sites. Each time
a site was assigned to a land cover cell, the cells's available area was reduced by the site are. In one
HUC (4090001), a point was reached where no land cover cell had enough area to contain the entire
construction site. In that case, the code distributed portions of the site onto two different land cover
cells. After distributing the sites to land cover cells, quality assurance measures were taken to
ensure that:
• The total number of sites distributed in each HUC was equal to the starting value.
• The number of sites in each size category that were distributed in each HUC was equal to the
starting values.
March, 2004
8 51
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
• The total site area distributed was equal to the starting site area.
• No land cover cell was assigned more construction site area than was available in the land cover
cell.
• The number of land cover cells with sites was close to (or equal, in most cases) to the number of
sites in the HUC.
Once construction sites were distributed to the land cover cells, TSS loads were distributed using
the HUC, site size, and fraction of site assigned to the land cover cells. The loading file contained
total TSS loadings by HUC and site size category, so loadings for each site were calculated by
dividing the total load in the size category by the number of sites in that size category. The TSS
load distribution process involved several quality assurance measures to ensure that:
• Total TSS loads distributed matched the total loads shown in Table 8-23.
• Total TSS loads within each HUC were the same as in the load file.
• TSS loads by HUC, site size category, and regulatory option were the same as in the load file.
The output of the computer module was a table with the format shown in Table 8-24.
Table 8-24. Example of Output from Site and Load Distribution Process
HUC8
Cell ID
RF3RCHID
Site Size
Fraction of
Baseline
Opt 2/4
Site
Load
Load
3010102
1
3010102 1 0.00
200
1
30.2
28.7
8.8.2.3 Removal of Background NPS TSS Loads
For each land cover cell that was assigned a construction site, a portion of its background NPS TSS
was removed to avoid double-counting. The NPS TSS load on each cell was reduced by the fraction
of the land cover cell occupied by construction sites. For example, if a land cover cell was
originally assigned 100 ton/yr of TSS, but was assigned a 200 acre (0.81 km2) construction site, the
new NPS TSS load for that cell was calculated as 100 ton/yr * (1-0.81) = 19 ton/yr. This removal
process had a negligible impact on NPS TSS loads. Originally, total NPS TSS loads were 5.226x10s
ton/yr. Approximately 7.126xl05 ton/yr were removed through this process, leaving a total NPS
TSS load of 5.218x10s ton/yr. The modified NPS loads underwent an overland transport module
that delivered the loads to the RF3 network, and an in-stream delivery module that routed the loads
down to the RF3Lite network. For both modeling components, TSS settling was modeled using a
net settling velocity approach, as shown in Equation 1.
March, 2004
8-52
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
U _ v sed
sed depth
C(x2) = C(x])e" /c""'/
where
k-sed —
First-order TSS settling rate (1/day)
^sed —
Net settling velocity (0.3 m/d; Chapra 1997)
depth =
Channel depth (m)
C(x2) =
TSS concentration at x2 (mg/L)
C(xj) =
TSS concentration at x1 (mg/L)
t
Time-of-travel from xl to x2 (d)
Table 8-25 presents a summary of these modified NPS TSS loads.
Table 8-25. NPS TSS Loads Modified for Construction and Development Analysis
Scale
TSS Load
(ton/yr)
Delivery Ratio
Land Cover Cell
5.22x10s
N/A
RF3 Network
3.24x10s
0.62
RF3Lite Network
1.99xl08
0.38
8.8.2.4 Routing Construction and Development Loads to the RF3Lite Network
The overland transport step was eliminated, which is the same as assuming that all loads from land
cover cells entered the RF3 network. This assumption was made because the load development
process accounted for the loss of large particles. Construction loads were routed from the RF3
network to the RF3Lite network using the first-order loss approach described in Equation 1. Table
8-26 summarizes the delivery of construction and development TSS loads to the RF3Lite network.
TSS loads from construction sites accounted for approximately 1% of the total TSS loads entering
the RF3Lite network.
March, 2004
8 53
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-26. Summary of Construction and Development TSS Loads
Option
LCC Load
(ton/yr)
RF3 Load
(ton/yr)
RF3
Delivery Ratio
RF3Lite
Load (ton/yr)
RF3Lite
Delivery Ratio
Baseline
6,288,751
6,288,751
100%
3,806,800
61%
2/4
5,347,643
5,347,643
100%
3,238,926
61%
8.8.2.5 Water Quality Modeling and Economic Benefits Analysis
After the construction and development and modified background NPS loads were routed to the
RF3Lite network, the next step in each model run consisted of water quality modeling in the
RF3Lite network using Eutro-WASP and the mean annual flow condition. After in-stream modeling
with Eutro-WASP, the WQI6 and WQL values were calculated in each RF3Lite reach. Economic
benefits associated with the regulatory options were calculated for RF3Lite reaches that showed a
change in WQI6 or WQL.
8.9 RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT MODELING ANALYSIS
Table 8-27 lists the number of improved reaches and the length of the improved reaches for Option
2/4 over baseline conditions. Option 2/4 loads also caused water quality degradation in a number of
reaches. This degradation was likely due to effects of algal growth on modeled TSS concentrations.
Tables 8-28 and 8-29 list the economic benefits estimates using both the WQL approach and the
WQI6 approach, respectively. The sum of local and nonlocal annual benefits for Option 2/4 ranged
from $15,203,000 to $28,357,000 (year $2002). EPA was not able to ascribe any benefits to Option
1.
Table 8-27. Summary of Waters Affected (Option 2/4)
Method
Number of
Improved
Reaches
Improved
Segment Length
(miles)
Number of
Degraded
Reaches
Degraded
Segment Length
(miles)
WQI6
7,446
9,303
38
78
WQL
583
803.3
26
55.8
March, 2004
8-54
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table 8-28. Economic Benefits Using the WQL Approach (Option 2/4)
Use Support Category
WQL Benefit (2002$)*
Boat
$8,461,000
Fish
$15,580,000
Swim
$4,316,000
Total
$28,357,000
* Note: numbers may not add due to rounding
Table 8-29. Economic Bene
its Using the WQI Approach (Option 2/4)
WQI Category
WQI6 Benefit (2002$)*
WQI<26
$27,000
26 < WQI < 70
$7,714,000
WQI > 70
$7,462,000
Total
$15,203,000
*Numbers may not add due to rounding
March, 2004
8 55
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
8.10 REFERENCES
Ambrose, R.B., T.A. Wool, and J.L. Martin. 1993. The Water Quality Analysis Simulation
Program, WASP5, Parts A and B, Version 5.10. Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Barfield, B.J., and Clar, M. 1985. Development of new design criteria for sediment traps and
basins. Prepared for the Maryland Resource Administration. Annapolis, MD, pp. 33.
Barrett, M. and J. Molina. 1998. Comparison of Filtration Systems and Vegetated Controls for
Stormwater Treatment. 3rd International Conference on Diffuse Pollution. August 31 - September
4, 1998. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Edinburg Scotland.
Beaulac, M.N. and K.H. Rechkow. 1982. An examination of land use-nutrient export
relationships. Water Res. Bulletin. 18: (6) 1013-1024
Bondelid, T.R., G. Ali, and G. Van Houtven. The National Water Pollution Control Assessment
Model Benefits Assessment of Stormwater Phase II Program. Draft. Prepared for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Research Triangle Institute.
Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1999.
Bondelid, T„ R. Dodd, C. Spoerri, and A. Stoddard. 1999. The Nutrients Version of the National
Water Pollution Control Assessment Model. Draft. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Research Triangle Institute. Research Triangle Park,
NC. December.
Brown, L., and T. Barnwell. 1987. The Enhanced Stream Water Quality Model Qual2E and
Qual2e-UNCAS: Documentation and User's Manual. Athens, GA: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA/600/3-87/007.
Carson, R.T., and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. The Value of Clean Water: The Public's Willingness to
Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water. Water Resources Research 29 (7):
2445-2454. July.
Chapra, S.C. 1997. Surface Water Quality Modeling. New York: McGraw Hill Publishing.
Covar, A.P. 1976. Selecting the proper reaeration coefficient for use in water quality models.
Presented at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Conference on Environmental Simulation and
Modeling, April 19-22, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/9-76-016.
Crunkilton, R. et al. 1996. Assessment of the response of aquatic organisms to long-term insitu
exposures of urban runoff. In: Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic
Ecosystems: Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference. Snowbird, UT.
March, 2004
8 56
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Dartiguenave, C.M., I. ECLille, and D.R. Maidment. 1997. Water Quality Master Planning for
Austin. CRWR Online Report. 97-6.
Di Toro, D.M., P.R. Paquin, K. Subburamu, and D.A. Gruber. 1990. Sediment Oxygen Demand
Model: Methane and Ammonia Oxidation. Jour BED, ASCE, 116 (5) :945-987.
Eidenshink, J.E. 1992. The 1990 conterminous United States AVHRR data set. In
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58(6): p. 809-813.
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2000a. Data & Maps Media Kit, CD 6: North
America Digital Elevation Model (grid).
ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). 2000b. Data Maps Media Kit, CD5: Zip Code
and Population Data.
Fennessey, L.A.J., A.R. Jarrett. 1994. The Dirt in a Hole: A Review of Sedimentation Basins for
Urban Areas and Construction Sites. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, July-August 1994, p
317-323.
Harding, M.V. 1990. Erosion control effectiveness: comparative studies of alternative mulching
techniques. Environmental Restoration, pp. 149-156.
Holmes, Thomas P. 1988. The Offsite Impacts of Soil Erosion on the Water Treatment Industry.
Land Economics 64 (4):3356-3366.
Horner, R.R., J. Guedry, and M.J. Kortenhoff. 1990. Improving the Cost Effectiveness of Highway
Construction Site Erosion and Pollution Control. Washington State Transportation Center and the
Federal Highway Administration. Seattle, WA, 79pp.
Horner, R.R., D.B. Booth, A. Azous, and C.W. May. 1997. Watershed Determinants of Ecosystem
Functioning. In Effects of Watershed Development and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems, L.A.
Roesner (ed.), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 251-274.
Islam, M.M., D. Taphorn, and H. Utrata-Halcomb. 1998. Current Performance of Sediment Basins
& Sediment Yield Measurement of Construction Sites in Unincorporated Hamilton County, Ohio.
Prepared for Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation District.
Jarrett, A. 1996. Sediment Basin Evaluation and Design Improvements. Pennsylvania State
University. Prepared for Orange County Board of Commissioners, 11pp.
Keup, L.E. 1985. Flowing Water Resources. Prepared for Water Resources Bulletin 21 (2),
American Water Resources Association. April.
March, 2004
8 57
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Kundell, J. and T. Rasmussen. 1995. Recommendations of the Georgia Board of Regent's scientific
panel on evaluating the erosion measurement standard defined by the Georgia erosion and
sedimentation act. In Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Conference. Athens,
Georgia.
Leopold, L.B., and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some
Physiographic Implications. USGS Geological Survey Professional Paper 252.
Leopold, L. 1973. River change with time: an example. Geological Society of America Bulletin. 84:
1845-1860.
Livingston, E. 1996. Florida's Evolving StormwaterAVatershed Management Program.
Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference, August 4-9, 1996, Snowbird, UT.
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Mackiernan, G., M. Leffler and T. Malone. 1996. Scientific consensus and public policy: dissolved
oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay. In Watershed '96 Proceedings. Baltimore, Maryland.
MacRae, C.R., J. Marsalek. 1992. The Roll of Stormwater in Sustainable Urban Development.
Proceedings of the Canadian Hydrology Sumposium, No. 19-1992, Hydrology: Its Contribution to
Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 15-17, 1992, pp. 372-389.
McClelland, Nina I. 1974. Water Quality Index Application in the Kansas River Basin. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 7. EPA-907/9-74-001.
Mederios, C., R. LeBlanc, and R. A. Coler. 1983. An In situ Assessment of the Acute toxicity of
Urban Runoff to Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry
(2): 119-126.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., G.T. Tchobanoglous, and F.L. Burton. 1991. Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse (Third Edition). Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill (Series in Water
Resources and Environmental Engineering).
Mitchell, R.C., and R.T. Carson. 1986. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/Cost
Analysis in Water Pollution Control. CR-810224-02. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Policy
Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC.
NAHB (National Assoc. of Home Builders). 2000. Small Businesses in the Construction Industry.
1997 Economic Census Data.
Novotny, V., and H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality Prevention, Identification and Management of
Diffuse Pollution. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
March, 2004
8 58
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Omernik, James M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers. 77(1): 118-125.
Orth, R. and K. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic
vegetation. Science 22:51-52.
Owens, etal. 1999.
Pasternack, G. 1998. Physical dynamics of tidal freshwater delta evolution. PhD Dissertation. Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac, and J.T. Simpson. 1980. Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake
Response Under Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and
Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-80-011.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 2000a. Estimation of National Surface Water Quality Benefits
of Regulating Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Using the National Water
Pollution Control Assessment Model (NWPCAM). Prepared for the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Research Triangle Institute. Research
Triangle Park, NC. August.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 2000b. National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
(NWPCAM) Version 1.1. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC. Research Triangle Institute. Research Triangle Park, NC. November.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 2001. The National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model
(NWPCAM v2): Quality Review Process Report for NWPCAM2 RF3 - Reach Routing, Hydrology,
and Hydraulics Datasets. Draft Report.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 2002. A Review of Changes and Advances Related to the
National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model Since the Proposed AFO/CAFO Rulemaking
Process. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Research Triangle Institute. April.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 2004. Estimation of National Economic Benefits Using the
National Water Pollution Control Assessment Model to Evaluate Regulatory Options for the
Construction and Land Development Industry. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute. March.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Sauer V. et al. 1983. Flood Characteristics of Urban Watersheds in the United States. US
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2207.
March, 2004
8 59
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Schiff, K. 1996. Review of existing stormwater monitoring programs for estimating bight-wide
mass emissions from urban runoff. SCCWRP Annual Report 1996.
Schueler, T., and J. Lugbill. 1990. Performance of Current Sediment Control Measures at
Maryland Construction Sites. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC.
90pp.
Short, F„ S. Wyllie-Escheverria. 1996. Natural and Human-Induced Disturbance of Seagrasses.
Environmental Conservation 23(1).
Smith, R.A, G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Alexander. 1997. Regional Interpretation of Water Quality
Monitoring Data. Water Resources Research 33(12):2781-2798. December.
Stevenson, J., L. Staver and K. Staver. 1993. Water quality associated with submersed aquatic
vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries 16(2): 346-361.
Sturm, T.W., and R.E. Kirby. 1991. Sediment Reduction in Urban Stormwater Runoff From
Construction Sites. Environmental Resources Center, Georgia Institute of Technology. Altanta.
104pp.
U.S. ACE (Army Corp of Engineers). 1998. Analysis of Best Management Practices for Small
Construction Sites. Work performed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wastewater Management. June.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations
in Surface Water Quality Modeling (Second Edition). Environmental Research Laboratory, Office
of Research and Development, Athens, GA.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and
Standards Division, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86/001.
USEPA. 1998. Reissuance of NPDES General Permits for Storm Water Discharges from
Construction Activities. ("Construction General Permit.") Federal Register, Vo. 63, No. 31,
p. 7858. February 17, 1998. Washington, DC.
US. EPA, 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final Phase II Storm Water Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. Washington D.C.
(Web site: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/pubs,cfm?program_id=0)
USDA, 1995. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database, Miscellaneous Publication 1492
Revised 1994. (Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/ussoils.html)
March, 2004
8-60
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
USDA (Department of Agriculture). 1997. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to
Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agricultural
Handbook No. 703.
USDA. 2000. 1997 National Resources Inventory. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Developing Water Quality Criteria for
Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABs); Potential Approaches (includes appendices). Draft. A
USEPA Science Advisory Board Consultation. August.
Vaughan, William J. 1986. The Water Quality Ladder Included as Appendix B in Mitchell, R.C.,
and R.T. Carson. 1986. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/Cost Analysis in Water
Pollution Control. CR-810224-02. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Washington, DC.
Warner, R.C. and P.J. Schwab. 1998. SEDCAD 4 for Windows 95 & NT-Design Manual and
User's Guide. Civil Software Design, Ames, IA.
Wheeler, A.P., A.E. Keiter Rosenberger,, and P.L. Angermeier. 2003. Potential Impacts of 1-73 on
Stream Habitat and Biota, with Emphasis on the Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch.
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Blacksburg, VA. (Web site: http://filebox.vt.edu/users/awheeler/var/final_I-73.pdf on 4/14/04.)
York, J.H., and W.J. Herb. 1978. Effects of Urbanization and Streamflow Sediment Transport in
Rock Creek and Anacostia River Basins, Montgomery County, MD, 1972-1974. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper No. 1003. 72pp.
March, 2004
8 61
-------
Appendix A
Model Construction Site Geometry
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Introduction
A suite of model construction site geometries were developed to represent the population of
construction sites in order to estimate costs and pollutant load reductions for the regulatory options
developed. A total of 24 model sites were developed consisting of a combination of six site sizes
(0.5, 3, 7.5, 25, 70, and 200 acres) and four land uses (single family residential, multifamily
residential, commercial, and industrial). These model sites were developed in order to take into
consideration the following factors:
Drainage Pathways and Watershed Size. The national average watershed size was determined for
different stream orders to delineate drainage pathways for different site sizes and to estimate the
associated BMP sizes. These factors were needed in order to calculate the costs of BMPs and to
model the pollutant removal efficiency of BMPs under the various regulatory options considered.
Site Imperviousness. Typical amounts of ultimate impervious and pervious areas for the land uses
were determined in order to estimate the likely extent of disturbed acreage for each site size and
land use.
Within each site model three flow paths were defined:
1. disturbed areas that drain to a centralized point;
2. undisturbed areas that drain to a centralized point; and
3. perimeter drainage (assumed to be disturbed).
Based on geometry, the model sites dictate the size, number, and type of BMPs employed, under
baseline and regulatory options. Each potential regulatory change was evaluated to assess how the
model site BMP configuration would change, so that pollutant loading reductions and costs could
then be assessed.
Small Model Construction Sites (Less than 10 acres)
Three construction site models were created to represent small construction sites within the
following size ranges:
1. 0 to 1 acre;
2. 1 to 5 acres; and
3. 5 to 10 acres.
These groups were each represented by single model site, which were 0.5, 3, and 7.5 acres,
respectively. A site model was created for sites smaller than 1 acre in size, although none of the
options affected sites of this size. These sites were included in the analyses in order to account for
their pollutant loadings.
March, 2004
A-l
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
The first step of the analysis was to assume the placement of site models relative to first order
watersheds. A low-end estimate of first order watershed size was based on EPA's review of
topography found in approximately 2 million acres dispersed in the contiguous states. Using a low-
end estimate tends to increase the number of erosion control BMPs installed (i.e., sediment traps
and sediment basins), but does not increase the storage volume of these BMPs which originate
solely from the acreage served (e.g., 3,600 cubic per acre). Note that the size of the first-order
watershed has no influence on the number of other BMPs (e.g., inlet protection, rock check dams,
seeding/mulch) within EPA's model sites.
Figure A-l illustrates the assumed location of three small site models within first-order watersheds.
Fitting the model site within a first order watershed is important because it helps set the presence of
drainage features, such as first order streams. Table A-l lists the assumed quantities of BMPs for
the small construction site models. Figures A-2 through A-4 illustrate the geometry of these BMPs
in relation to the small construction site models.
For the 0.5- and 3-acre models, sites were placed wholly within one first-order watershed. For the
7.5 acre model, sites were placed across two watersheds, reflecting that larger sites may cross major
drainage divides. This means that approximately half the construction site runoff is assumed to flow
to the left (on Figure A-4), and the other half flows to the right. As a result, this site size category
would require two sediment controls (i.e., sediment traps) to serve the total central drainage
acreage.
Figure A-3 illustrates EPA's approach to perimeter drainage, i.e., the area of the construction site
that drains away from the site as sheet flow. For this site size model, EPA assumed that perimeter
drainage controls would be required on three of the four sides of the rectangular site. The fourth
side is on the uphill side of the site, and would drain centrally into natural and man-made
swales/pipe systems.
Table A-2 indicates changes in BMPs expected for the small construction site models in response to
the regulatory options.
March, 2004
A-2
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure A-l. Placement of Small Construction Sites Within First-Order Watersheds
Small site size model sites, overview
Second Order Stream
1 acre site
3 acre
site
7 acre site
First order watersheds
Average 25 acres in size
Area contributing directly to
second order stream
March, 2004
A-3
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table A-l. Small Construction Site Model BMP Parameters
BMP
0.5 Acre Model
3 Acre Model
7.5 Acre Model
Sites
Sites
Sites
Silt Fence (miles)
0.09
0.20
0.50
Seeding and Mulching (acres)
Varies based on land use
Rock Check Dams (number)
0
0
2
Sediment Traps (number)
0
0
2
Sediment Basins (number)
0
0
0
Inlet Protection (number)
2
3
6
Installation Certification (number)
0
1
2
E&S Site Inspection (number)
1
1
1
Figure A-2. 0.5 Acre Model Construction Site Geometry
Less than 1 acre size model site, construction detail
(Assumed to be represented by 0.5 acre site)
Legend
75—
Width 200 feet
\
o
Inlet Protection
Check Dam
Pipe
Swale or Pipe
Watershed
Boundary
Sediment
Trap or Basin
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
EO
k
D
CD
"O
CD
CD
Perimeter area, tendency for roadway and sidewalk right-of-
way requirements limits development activities. Area
protected with silt-fence, and mulching/seeding.
March, 2004
A-4
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure A-3. 3 Acre Model Construction Site Geometry
Three acre size model site, construction detail
(Assumed to represent sites between 1 and 5 acres)
Legend
"0—
o
Width 350 feet
Inlet Protection
Check Dam
Pipe
Swale or Pipe
Watershed
Boundary
Sediment
Trap or Basin
X—N3
Developed
Zone Feeding Sewer/Swale
X_,
Developed
Zone Feeding Sewer/Swale
t*
X—
D
CD
"O
CO
o
C?
0
Perimeter area, tendency for roadway and sidewalk right-of
way requirements limits development activities. Area
protected with silt-fence, and mulching/seeding.
March, 2004
A-5
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure A-4. 7.5 Acre Model Construction Site Geometry
7.5 acre size model site, construction detail
(Assumed to represent sites between 5 and 10 acres)
Legend
Width 1000 feet
O
X
Inlet Protection
Check Dam
Pipe
Swale or Pipe
Watershed
Boundary
Sediment ^
Trap or Basin
Of—X 1 x - ~
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Cfr— x-
^ Develoned \ Develooed ^
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
0+-.X-
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
y X—VC)
c
CD
¦C
3
CO
CO
cn
—h
CD
CD
Perimeter area, tendency for roadway and sidewalk right-
of-way requirements limits development activities. Area
protected with silt-fence, and mulching/seeding
March, 2004
A-6
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table A-2. Small Model Construction Site Changes Due to Regulatory Options
Regulatory Option
BMP Changes over Baseline
0.5 Acre Model Sites
Option 1
No change
Option 2
No change
Option 4
No change
3 Acre Model Sites
Option 1
Certification of installation of BMPs required for all sites
Option 2
No change
Option 4
No change
7.5 Acre Model Sites
Option 1
Certification of installation of BMPs required for all sites
Option 2
Sediment traps and installation certification would be required
for all sites
Option 4
Sediment traps would be required for all sites.
Construction Site Models for 10 to 40 acres Sites
Sites within the range of 10 to 40 acres were represented by a model construction site of 25 acres.
Figure A-5 illustrates placement of this model site within watersheds. The assumed rectangular site
was placed overlapping the border between two first order watersheds. As detailed in Figure A-6,
this means that site drainage goes in three possible directions, including a portion of the site that
flows directly into a second order stream. As a result, this site size category would require two
sediment basins to serve the two central drainage areas.
Table A-3 indicates the quantities and types of BMPs assumed for the 25 acre site model. Table A-4
indicates the changes in BMPs expected for this model site as a result of the regulatory options.
March, 2004
A-7
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure A-5. Placement of 25 Acre Model Sites Within Watersheds
Twenty-five acre size model site, overview
First order watersheds
Average 25 acres in size
25 acre construction
site
Seoond Order Stream
Area contributing directly to
second order stream
Assumed position of 25 acre construction sites
March, 2004
A-8
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure A-6. 25 Acre Model Construction Site Geometry
Twenty-five acre size model site, construction detail
(Assumed to represent sites between 10 and 40 acres')
Perimeter area,
tendency for roadway
and sidewalk right-of-
way requirements limits
development activities.
Area protected with silt-
fence, inlet controls,
and mulching/seeding
Legend
O Inlet Protection
X Check Dam
Pipe
^ Swale or Pipe
Boundary
Sediment
Trap or Basin
Width 900 feet
CM—-X" r
ISfiwpr/Swalp / loewer/QWdie
oif- -'"X -
Developed
Zone Feeding
Spwpr/Swalp
Developed
Zone Feeding
Spwpr/Swalp
Developed /
Zone Feeding
. Ifipwpr/Swalpj
oi£*vr£ 1
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewpr/Swale
Developed
Zone Feeding\
x..
\
Sewer/Swale
& :-x
\
Jh-=!-L
Developed X,
A
0«F
Zone Feeding
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
— ; :—. " A"
evelopea
Zone deeding
Sewer/Swale
/
—L
Discharge from sedimentation
basin (maybe converted into
storm water detention pond)
Developed
Zone Feeding
^Pwpr/R \A/alp
\ A
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Sv^aje
\
s
«d)
•6
Headwater area,
tendency for
steeper slopes
discourage
construction.
Assume left
undisturbed.
Area adjacent to second order streams have
tendency for wetlands and higher
construction costs. Left undisturbed.
Table A-3. 25 Acre Construction Site Model BMP Parameters
BMP
Quantity
Silt Fence (miles)
0.63
Seed and Mulch (acres)
Varies between 62% to 84% of site area
Rock Check Dams (number)
11
Sediment Traps (number)
0
Sediment Basins (number)
2
Inlet Protection (number)
10
Installation Certification (number)
5
Site Inspection (number)
2
March, 2004
A-9
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table A-4. 25 Acre Model Construction Site Changes Due to Regulatory Options
Regulatory Option
BMP Changes over Baseline
Option 1
Certification of installation of BMPs required for all sites
Option 2
Larger sediment basins and installation certification would be
required for all sites
Option 4
Larger sediment basins would be required
Construction Site Models for 40 to 100 acres Sites
Sites within the range of 40 to 100 acres were represented by a model construction site of 70 acres.
Figure A-7 illustrates placement of this model site within watersheds. The assumed rectangular site
overlaps three first order watersheds, dividing the site into areas with different discharge points. As
detailed in Figure A-8, this means that site drainage goes in five possible directions, including two
portions of the site that flow directly into a second order stream. As a result, this site size category
would require three sediment basins to serve the three areas that drain centrally but independently.
In addition, there are border areas that drain through perimeter controls and open (undisturbed)
areas where development would likely be limited by floodplain issues.
Table A-5 indicates the quantities and types of BMPs assumed for the 70 acre site model. Table A-6
indicates the changes in BMPs expected for this model site as a result of the regulatory options.
March, 2004
A-10
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure A-7. Placement of 70 Acre Model Sites Within Watersheds
Seventy-acre size model site, overview
Watersheds Averaae 25 acres in Size
Assumed 75 acre ponstruction site boundary
SacorxJ Order Stream
Area contributing directly to
second order stream
Assumed position of 70 acre construction sites
March, 2004
A-ll
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure A-8. 70 Acre Model Construction Site Geometry
Seventy acre size model site, construction detail
(Assumed to represent sites between 40 and 100 acres)
Width 2500 feet
Headwater area, tendency for steeper
slopes discourage construction. Assume
left undisturbed.
Legend
"75—
O
Inlet Protection
Check Dam
Pipe
Swale or Pipe
Watershed
Boundary
Sediment
Trap or Basin
Internal drainage area with room
for roadway/sidewalk right-of-way
requirements. Area protected with
silt-fence, inlet controls, and
mulching/seeding.
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
-X
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Qfr—X
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
X-frojc ^-X- - ^
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
a
Developed
Zone
-X
Developed
Zone
Developed
Zone
Feeding
Sewer/ Swale
Developed
Zone
—
Developed
Zone
-X-
Developed
Zone
•Qr,
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/ Swale
*Q4-X-
Developed
Zone Feeding
Sewer/Swale
CH'-X-
\ Zone Fe
Sewer/S
\ \ ) —
Developed
Feeding
Sewer/Swale
Sedimentation basin (converted
into storm water detention pond
at closure of construction)
Second Order Stream
Area adjacent to second order streams have
tendency for wetlands and higher construction
costs. Assume left undisturbed.
D
(D
K)
O
O
March, 2004
A-12
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table A-5. 70 Acre Construction Site Model BMP Parameters
BMP
Quantity
Silt Fence (miles)
1.36
Seeding and Mulching (acres)
Varies between 62% to 84% of site area
Rock Check Dams (number)
20
Sediment Traps (number)
0
Sediment Basins (number)
3
Inlet Protection (number)
20
Installation Certification (number)
10
E&S Site Inspection (number)
7
Table A-6. 70 Acre Model Construction Site Changes Due to Regulatory Options
Regulatory Option
BMP Changes over Baseline
Option 1
Certification of installation of BMPs required for all sites
Option 2
Larger sediment basins and installation certification would be
required for all sites
Option 4
Larger sediment basins would be required
Construction Site Models for Sites Larger than 100 Acres
Sites larger than 100 acres were represented by a model construction site of 200 acres. The 200 acre
site is assumed to be a composite of two 70-acre model sites, and two 25 acre model sites. While
these components do not add up to the full 200 acres (equaling only 190 acres), this small
discrepancy is not expected to greatly affect the cost analysis. BMP quantities were estimated by
doubling the amounts reported in Tables A-3 and A-5, and then adding.
Table A-7 indicates the changes in BMPs expected for this model site as a result of the regulatory
options.
March, 2004
A-13
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table A-7. 200 Acre Model Construction Site Changes Due to Regulatory Options
Regulatory Option
BMP Changes over Baseline
Option 1
Certification of installation of BMPs required for all sites
Option 2
Larger sediment basins and installation certification would be
required for all sites
Option 4
Larger sediment basins would be required
March, 2004
A-14
-------
Appendix B
Supporting Cost Data
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
APPENDIX B: SUPPORTING COST DATA
OVERVIEW
EPA used a series of model construction sites (detailed in Appendix A) to estimate BMP sizes and
quantities representative of construction sites of varying sizes and land uses. Based on the
requirements of the EPA CGP as well as the requirements in place in each state (excluding Alaska
and Hawaii), EPA estimated a suite of standard BMPs for each of the model construction sites.
Based on standard industry sizing requirements, the associated BMP quantities were estimated.
These calculations were conducted for four different scenarios in order to evaluate the current
national baseline reflecting existing regulations in place around the country, as well as three
regulatory scenarios (Options 1, 2 and 4).
For the baseline as well as each of the three regulatory options, the quantities and sizes of the
standard suite of BMPs were estimated. Using unit cost information for a variety of references, the
BMP costs for each of the model construction sites were calculated under baseline conditions and
each of the three regulatory scenarios. Scaling up to the national level based on the distribution of
construction sites in the country, the total costs at the state and national level were calculated for
baseline conditions as well as for each of the regulatory options.
A matrix was constructed (see Table B-l) indicating applicability of the various BMP under the
scenarios evaluated. These "Level of Management", or "LM" factors, indicate whether or not a
specific BMP would be required under a particular scenario. A "1" indicates that a specific BMP
would be required under that particular scenario, while a "0" indicates that it would not. After
evaluating existing state programs as well as the EPA CGP, a number of BMPs were found to be
required consistently by existing requirements, and as a result were applied to all model
construction sites under baseline as well as each of the regulatory options evaluated. These BMPs
include:
silt fencing
seeding and mulching
stabilized construction entrances
stone check dams
Two BMPs, sediment traps and sediment basins, were found to either not be required by all states,
or were required but had smaller sizing requirements.
For sediment basins, the evaluation of existing state requirements found that basins were generally
required for larger sites, however the size of the basins did vary by state. Many states had
equivalent requirements to the EPA CGP which requires sediment basins that provide storage of
3,600 cubic feet per acre (or the 2-year, 24-hour storm) for drainage areas of 10 or more acres.
However, a number of states only require sediment basins that provide 1,800 cubic feet per acre, or
did not specify a specific sizing requirement. Based on BPJ, we estimated that in states that did not
March, 2004
B-l
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
specify a specific sizing requirement the standard basin size would also be 1,800 cubic feet per acre
for drainage areas of 10 or more acres. So, under Option 4 which requires sediment basins of 3,600
cubic feet per acre, a construction site in a non-equivalent state would be required to install larger
sediment basins and would have incremental costs due to installing these basins. In a state that has
an equivalent requirement to the EPA CGP, there would be no incremental costs for installing
sediment basins.
For sediment traps, the evaluation of existing state requirements found that many states have an
equivalent requirement to the EPA CGP that requires traps (or equivalent control measures) for
smaller drainage areas, generally of between 3 and 10 acres. However, many states do not have this
requirement. We assumed that under the EPA CGP and in equivalent states, sediment traps
providing storage of 1,800 cubic feet per acre would be installed. In states without this requirement,
we assumed that sediment traps would not be installed. So, under Option 4, a construction site in a
state without an existing requirement to install sediment traps would have incremental costs to
provide sediment traps that provide storage of 1,800 cubic feet per acre on all smaller sites. A site in
a state that already has this requirement would not have any incremental costs for installing
sediment traps.
The costing analysis also considered costs for conducting site inspections as well as conducting the
certification requirements under Options 1 and 2. While site inspections were found to be required
by all states, the frequency of these inspections varied. The EPA CGP requires inspections every 7
days, or every 14 days and following rainfall of 0.5" or more, and many states have a similar
requirement. A number of states had inspection frequencies that were less frequent, and specified
that inspections be conducted, for example, every 28 days or once a month. For calculating
incremental inspection costs, we estimated that the inspection frequency for states without an
equivalent requirement was once every 28 days. No states currently have a requirement for
conducting the certification activities of Options 1 and 2, so all states would have costs for
implementing these provisions.
In the final costing analysis, we only calculated incremental costs for the four items described
above-sediment basins, sediment traps, inspections and certifications. Since the quantities and/or
sizes of the other BMPs in the cost model under the regulatory options did not vary from baseline,
we did not include the costs of these BMPs in this documentation (although their costs are included
in the baseline). As a result, the following tables only present costs for these four elements.
Reference quantities of various ESCs are listed in Tables B-2 through B-8, along with unit costing
and the assumptions used in EPA's compliance cost assessment. Note that for some controls,
reference quantities are given in terms of the number of units that will be constructed (i.e., the
number of construction entrances anticipated for a certain size site), while others are given based on
the number and size of the units (i.e., sediment basins).
National BMP costs were determined using the following three equations that relate site size
class/land use type models to ESC capital, design, and operation and maintenance costs. Note that
March, 2004
B-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-9 contains the State adjustment factors (SAF) that customize cost estimates for each of the
contiguous states analyzed by EPA. Table B-10 presents the national total BMP quantities by site
size and land use. Table B-l 1 presents the state total BMP quantities by site size and land use.
Table B-12 presents the national total BMP costs by site size and land use. Table B-13 presents the
state total BMP costs by site size and land use. In tables B-10 through B-13, the baseline BMP
quantities and costs can be found under the "Option 3" heading. In addition, in Tables B-12 and B-
13, the national and state total costs include costs for several BMPs described above that did not
vary from baseline. As a result, the sum of the costs for sediment traps, sediment basins, inspections
and certifications do not match the total costs presented in Tables B-12 and B-13. The additional
costs not shown, but contained in the total, are the baseline BMP costs for the remaining BMPs,
which do not vary by option.
Figure B-l presents a flowchart summarizing the overall costing methodology.
BMP Installation Computation
TSCC = Total State Capital (Installation) Cost for a site size class/land use model
Qi = Quantity of elements required per installation
N, = Number of elements required for a single site size class/land use
S = Estimated number of sites in the site size class/land use
a = Multiplier for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars
b = Exponent for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars
SAF = State adjustment factor for converting national average costs to State-specific costs
LM = Level of State management; value is either 0 or 1 to indicate if State will require BMP.
BMP Design Computation
TSDC = Total State Design Costs
DF, = Design factor, a multiplier which represents the design cost as a percent of capital costs
Qi = Quantity of elements required per installation
N, = Number of elements required for a single site size class/land use
S = Estimated number of sites in the site size class/land use
a = Multiplier for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars
b = Exponent for converting quantity to national average cost in 2000 dollars
SAF = State adjustment factor for converting national average costs to State-specific costs
LM = Level of State management; value is either 0 or 1 to indicate if State will require BMP.
TSDC = SAF*Y< DFi * LM*S*N,*a
March, 2004
B-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
BMP Operation and Maintenance Computation
17
(
TSOMC=SAF*'£lOMi
LM*S*N, *a
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-l. LM BMP Q
uantity Adjustment Factors
Costed Items
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 4
BMPs Common to All States
Silt Fence
1
1
1
1
Runoff Diversion
1
1
1
1
Seed and Mulch
1
1
1
1
Construction Entrance
1
1
1
1
Stone Check Dam
1
1
1
1
States with E&S Requirements Not Equal to EPA CGP
Sediment Trap
0
0
1
1
Sediment Basin (1,800
cf/acre)
1
1
1
1
E&S Certification
0
1
1
0
E&S Inspection
0
1
1
0
States with E&S Requirements Equal to EPA CGP
Sediment Trap (1,800
cf/acre)
1
1
1
1
Sediment Basin (3,600
cf/ac)
1
1
1
1
E&S Installation
Certification
0
1
1
0
E&S Inspection
1
1
1
0
March, 2004
B-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-2. Quantities of Silt Fence
Site Size
(acres)
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
1
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
3
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
7.5
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
25
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
70
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
200
7.73
7.73
7.73
7.73
Silt fencing lengths are based on model site assumptions detailed in Appendix A.
Costs for new installation of silt fence are based on $0.92/ft length, excluding profit and overhead (R.S. Means, 2000).
Table B-3. Quantities of Seeding and Mulching
Site Size
(acres)
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
1
62
72
76
86
3
62
72
76
86
7.5
62
72
76
86
25
62
72
76
86
70
62
72
76
86
200
62
72
76
86
For sites larger than lacre, mulching is limited to the site acreage times half the percentage of ultimate impervious area
as a temporary means to stabilize denuded surfaces. The maximum coverage is set to 25% of the total site acreage. Cost
to mulch is set to $0.20 per square yard for materials/installation without overhead and profit (R.S. Means, 2000).
March, 2004
B-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-4. Quantities Check Dams and Sediment Traps
Site Size
Number of Stone Check Dams
Number of Sediment Traps
Acres
Single-
family
Multi-
family
Comm.
Ind.
Single-
family
Multi-
family
Comm.
Ind.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
7.5
6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
25
11
11
11
11
0
0
0
0
70
20
20
20
20
0
0
0
0
200
62
62
62
62
0
0
0
0
For stone check dams, one unit per 5 acres for sites larger than 5 acres at a cost of $45.36 per installation, excluding
overhead and profit (Phase II Economic Analysis for Phase II Storm Water Regulations).
Sediment trap of 1,800 cubic feet per acre served at a cost of $0.22 per cubic foot (excludes profit and overhead.
For 7.5 acre sites, each sediment trap serves 3.75 acres.
Table E
-5. Quantities of Sediment Basins
Site Size
(acres)
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
7.5
0
0
0
0
25
2
2
2
2
70
3
3
3
3
200
10
10
10
10
For CGP equivalent States (under baseline), 3,600 cubic feet per acre served. For non-equivalent States, 1,800 cubic feet
per acre served.
March, 2004
B-7
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-6. Quantities of Construction Entrances
Site Size
(acres)
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
7.5
1
1
1
1
25
1
1
1
1
70
2
2
2
2
200
4
4
4
4
Costs for construction entrance based on $6.92 per square yard (gravel installed) for a footprint covering 100 square
yard, excluding profit and overhead (R.S. Means, 2000).
Table E
>-7. Quantities of Sit
te Inspections
Site Size
(acres)
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
1
7.5
1
1
1
1
25
2
2
2
2
70
7
7
7
7
200
20
20
20
20
Values above are the number of half-day site inspections. Costs are based on 16 hours of inspection/documentation time
per 10-acre unit of a site, at a rate of $28.44 per hour.
March, 2004
B-8
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-8. Quantities of Certifications
Site Size
(acres)
Single-family
Multi-family
Commercial
Industrial
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
7.5
2
2
2
2
25
5
5
5
5
70
10
10
10
10
200
30
30
30
30
Certification includes multiple site visits by a certified inspector to verify the proper installation of key E&S controls.
Costs based on 2 hours of inspection/documentation by a licensed engineer per 10-acre unit of a site, at a rate of $56.74
per hour.
March, 2004
B-9
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-9. Regional Compliance Cost Adjustment Factors
State
National Unit Cost
Adjustment Factor
State
National Unit Cost
Adjustment Factor
AL
0.8
NC
0.77
AR
0.8
ND
0.81
AZ
0.92
NE
0.84
CA
1.13
NH
0.9
CO
0.92
NJ
1.1
CT
1.07
NM
0.89
DC
0.95
NV
1
DE
0.99
NY
1.15
FL
0.86
OH
0.95
GA
0.78
OK
0.83
IA
0.87
OR
1.07
ID
0.92
PA
1
IL
1
RI
1.06
IN
0.92
SC
0.75
KS
0.88
SD
0.86
KY
0.88
TN
0.82
LA
0.86
TX
0.85
MA
1.1
UT
0.87
MD
0.9
VA
0.86
ME
0.84
VI
0.84
MI
0.98
WA
1.04
MN
1
WI
0.97
MO
0.92
WV
0.95
MS
0.78
WY
0.83
MT
0.95
Multiplying national average unit costs by value in this table produce State-specific average unit costs
Reference: RSMeans, 2000
March, 2004
B-10
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guideliness and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Figure B-l. Costing Methodology Flowchart
Table 2. Standards Material Quantity For Construction BMPs
Table 1. Number of Sites By Type and Size for Each Geographic Zone
Site Size
Site Land Use Classification
Ecoregion 1
SF MF Comm. Indust.
Site Land Use Classification
Ecoregion X
SF MF Comm. Indust.
1 acre
200 acre
23 4 ... 0
44 8 ... 1
24 4 ... 0
12 2
22 6
13 2
A distributions of new construction starts annually developed in 19 ecoregions covering the contiguous states
Table 3. Number of Applications of Construction BMPs Per Site Size
Construction
Elements
Site Size Group in Acres
1 5 ... 200
Check Dams
Sediment Traps
Sediment Ponds
0 1 ... 10
1 ... 20
0 0 ... 20
A value indicates number of applications per site size class, 0 indicates not applicab
Useful for estimating the per facility size (e.g., the size of the 20 sediment ponds on a single 200 acres site)
Table 5. Lifecycle Installation Cost of Standard
Size Construction BMPs for National Average
Cost
Table 6. Adjustment
Factors From
Site Size
Cost Basis Per BMP Installed
Check Dams
Sediment Traps
Sediment Ponds
x dollars per installation
x dollars per installation
y dollars per cubic foot
* National average cost based on Year 2000
National Means Data, Data in EPA, 1999, best
professional judgement, and other sources
Table 10. Construction BMPs Design
Costs as Fraction of Installation
Costs
State
Factor
Alabama
1.03
Wyoming
1.23
Per-State Cost Factors
Stormwater
Elements
Percent Addition
for Design Costs
Check Dams
Sediment Traps
Sediment Ponds
2 Percent
30 Percent
30 Percent
Table 8. Construction BMPs
Operation and Maintenace Costs as
Fraction of Installation Costs
Stormwater
Elements
Percent Addition
for Annual O&M Costs
Check Dams
Sediment Traps
Sediment Ponds
2 Percent
5 Percent
6 Percent
Construction Element
Material Needs (provided for example)
Silt Fence
Stone Check Dam
Sediment Trap
Sediment Pond
1070 feet per 3 acre site
1 number per 5 acre area
1 sized for 0.5 inch per disturbed acre
1 sized for 1 inch per disturbed acre |
Quantities of materials were based on providing good management for
typical site conditions, and vary based on site size and State regulations
Table 4. Per-State Application of BMPs Per Option
Construction
Elements
Regulatory Options
1 2 Baseline 4 x
Check Dams
Sediment Traps
Sediment Ponds
1111 1
1 ... 1
1110 0
This array accounts for BMP requirements under current State regulation
and under proposed effluent guidelines
Table 7. Total Estimated Lifecycle Installation Cost for Each Level
of Management for Each State
State
Options for Environmental Management
1 2 Baseline 4 x
Alabama
Wyoming
55 $$ $$ $$
55 $$ $$ $$ $$
55 $$ $$ $$ $$
Table 9. Total Estimated Lifecycle Operation and Management Cost
for Each State
State
Options for Environmental Management
1 2 Baseline 4 x
Alabama
Wyoming
55 $$ $$ $$ $$
55 $$ $$ $$ $$
55 $$ $$ $$ $$
Table 11. Total Estimated Lifecycle Design Cost for Each
Management Level for Each State
State
Options for Environmental Management
1 2 Baseline 4 x
Alabama
Wyoming
55 $$ $$ $$ $$
55 $$ $$ $$ $$
55 $$ $$ $$ $$
March 2004
B-ll
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-10. National BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk
Ylliiill.ll
<>|-| l<>\ 1
ImI.iI
( ¦I'illlll 1 ail.ll
<>ri i<>\:
iiii.ii
< ¦ ¦"•mil i «ii;ii
1 nl;il
(¦I'illlll 1 "l.ll
<>|'|l<>\4
lol.ll
( ¦I'.lllll 1 ail.ll
Si'illliii'lll.ilhMl 1 l'.i|i\
Srillllirlll.llinii |i;i\|||\
llM;ill.ilH>ll < irlilir;iliiiii
1- Silc 1 iis|ii'i'li*>n
March, 2004
B-12
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk
AL
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
230
109
488
18
229
146
1139
55
229
146
1139
55
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
268
127
568
21
266
170
1326
65
266
170
1326
65
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
306
145
648
24
304
195
1513
74
304
195
1513
74
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
311
211
2570
140
311
211
2570
140
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188
128
621
25
188
128
621
25
8 25
0
0
0
0
477
299
1314
41
238
149
657
20
238
149
657
20
% 70
0
0
0
0
122
63
389
23
41
21
130
8
41
21
130
8
m 200
0
0
0
0
204
20
0
0
20
2
0
0
20
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
803
382
1703
63
798
511
3978
194
798
511
3978
194
Grand Total
0
2952
5481
5481
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
108
73
355
15
230
109
488
18
140
86
403
15
140
86
403
15
Moderate Erosive Risk
125
86
414
17
268
127
568
21
163
100
469
18
163
100
469
18
High Erosive Risk
143
98
472
19
306
145
648
24
186
114
535
20
186
114
535
20
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦S 7.5
376
257
1242
51
0
0
0
0
188
128
621
25
188
128
621
25
8 25
0
0
0
0
477
299
1314
41
238
149
657
20
238
149
657
20
« 70
0
0
0
0
122
63
389
23
41
21
130
8
41
21
130
8
w 200
0
0
0
0
204
20
0
0
20
2
0
0
20
2
0
0
Total
376
257
1242
51
803
382
1703
63
488
301
1408
53
488
301
1408
53
Grand Total
1925
2952
2249
2249
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
230
109
488
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
268
127
568
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
306
145
648
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
477
299
1314
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
122
63
389
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
204
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
803
382
1703
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
0
2952
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
108
73
355
15
230
109
488
18
0
0
0
0
140
86
403
15
Moderate Erosive Risk
125
86
414
17
268
127
568
21
0
0
0
0
163
100
469
18
High Erosive Risk
143
98
472
19
306
145
648
24
0
0
0
0
186
114
535
20
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
376
257
1242
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188
128
621
25
8 25
0
0
0
0
477
299
1314
41
0
0
0
0
238
149
657
20
*2 70
0
0
0
0
122
63
389
23
0
0
0
0
41
21
130
8
w 200
0
0
0
0
204
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
2
0
0
Total
376
257
1242
51
803
382
1703
63
0
0
0
0
488
301
1408
53
Grand Total
1925
2952
0
2249
March, 2004
B-13
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
AR
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
22
15
73
3
47
22
100
4
47
30
233
11
47
30
233
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
67
46
222
9
143
68
304
11
143
91
710
34
143
91
710
34
High Erosive Risk
112
77
371
15
240
114
508
19
238
153
1188
58
238
153
1188
58
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
166
113
1377
75
166
113
1377
75
¦5 7.5
201
138
665
27
0
0
0
0
101
69
333
14
101
69
333
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
256
160
704
22
128
80
352
11
128
80
352
11
% 70
0
0
0
0
65
34
208
12
22
11
69
4
22
11
69
4
m 200
0
0
0
0
109
11
0
0
11
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
201
138
665
27
430
205
912
33
428
274
2131
103
428
274
2131
103
Grand Total
1031
1580
2936
2936
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
22
15
73
3
47
22
100
4
29
18
82
3
47
30
233
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
67
46
222
9
143
68
304
11
87
54
251
9
143
91
710
34
High Erosive Risk
112
77
371
15
240
114
508
19
146
90
420
16
238
153
1188
58
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
166
113
1377
75
¦S 7.5
201
138
665
27
0
0
0
0
101
69
333
14
101
69
333
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
256
160
704
22
128
80
352
11
128
80
352
11
*2 70
0
0
0
0
65
34
208
12
22
11
69
4
22
11
69
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
109
11
0
0
11
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
201
138
665
27
430
205
912
33
261
161
754
28
428
274
2131
103
Grand Total
1031
1580
1204
2936
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
22
15
73
3
47
22
100
4
0
0
0
0
47
30
233
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
67
46
222
9
143
68
304
11
0
0
0
0
143
91
710
34
High Erosive Risk
112
77
371
15
240
114
508
19
0
0
0
0
238
153
1188
58
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
166
113
1377
75
•S 7.5
201
138
665
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
69
333
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
256
160
704
22
0
0
0
0
128
80
352
11
<2 70
0
0
0
0
65
34
208
12
0
0
0
0
22
11
69
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
109
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
201
138
665
27
430
205
912
33
0
0
0
0
428
274
2131
103
Grand Total
1031
1580
0
2936
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
22
15
73
3
47
22
100
4
0
0
0
0
47
30
233
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
67
46
222
9
143
68
304
11
0
0
0
0
143
91
710
34
High Erosive Risk
112
77
371
15
240
114
508
19
0
0
0
0
238
153
1188
58
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
166
113
1377
75
•S 7.5
201
138
665
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
101
69
333
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
256
160
704
22
0
0
0
0
128
80
352
11
*2 70
0
0
0
0
65
34
208
12
0
0
0
0
22
11
69
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
109
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
201
138
665
27
430
205
912
33
0
0
0
0
428
274
2131
103
Grand Total
1031
1580
0
2936
March, 2004
B-14
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
AZ
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
48
33
159
6
103
47
218
8
102
65
510
25
102
65
510
25
Moderate Erosive Risk
76
52
252
10
162
77
345
12
161
104
807
39
161
104
807
39
High Erosive Risk
11
8
37
1
23
11
50
2
24
15
118
6
24
15
118
6
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
76
927
50
112
76
927
50
¦5 7.5
135
92
448
18
0
0
0
0
68
46
224
9
68
46
224
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
172
108
474
14
86
54
237
7
86
54
237
7
% 70
0
0
0
0
44
22
140
8
15
7
47
3
15
7
47
3
m 200
0
0
0
0
72
6
0
0
7
1
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
135
92
448
18
288
136
614
22
287
184
1435
69
287
184
1435
69
Grand Total
693
1060
1975
1975
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
48
33
159
6
103
47
218
8
62
38
180
7
102
65
510
25
Moderate Erosive Risk
76
52
252
10
162
77
345
12
99
61
285
11
161
104
807
39
High Erosive Risk
11
8
37
1
23
11
50
2
14
9
42
2
24
15
118
6
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
76
927
50
•S 7.5
135
92
448
18
0
0
0
0
68
46
224
9
68
46
224
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
172
108
474
14
86
54
237
7
86
54
237
7
*2 70
0
0
0
0
44
22
140
8
15
7
47
3
15
7
47
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
72
6
0
0
7
1
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
135
92
448
18
288
136
614
22
175
108
508
19
287
184
1435
69
Grand Total
693
1060
810
1975
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
48
33
159
6
103
47
218
8
0
0
0
0
102
65
510
25
Moderate Erosive Risk
76
52
252
10
162
77
345
12
0
0
0
0
161
104
807
39
High Erosive Risk
11
8
37
1
23
11
50
2
0
0
0
0
24
15
118
6
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
76
927
50
•S 7.5
135
92
448
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
46
224
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
172
108
474
14
0
0
0
0
86
54
237
7
<2 70
0
0
0
0
44
22
140
8
0
0
0
0
15
7
47
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
72
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
135
92
448
18
288
136
614
22
0
0
0
0
287
184
1435
69
Grand Total
693
1060
0
1975
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
48
33
159
6
103
47
218
8
0
0
0
0
102
65
510
25
Moderate Erosive Risk
76
52
252
10
162
77
345
12
0
0
0
0
161
104
807
39
High Erosive Risk
11
8
37
1
23
11
50
2
0
0
0
0
24
15
118
6
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
76
927
50
•S 7.5
135
92
448
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
46
224
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
172
108
474
14
0
0
0
0
86
54
237
7
*2 70
0
0
0
0
44
22
140
8
0
0
0
0
15
7
47
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
72
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
135
92
448
18
288
136
614
22
0
0
0
0
287
184
1435
69
Grand Total
693
1060
0
1975
March, 2004
B-15
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
CA
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
472
221
1005
37
471
301
2350
113
471
301
2350
113
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
577
273
1230
44
576
369
2875
139
576
369
2875
139
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
352
164
750
26
351
224
1752
85
351
224
1752
85
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
545
369
4510
245
545
369
4510
245
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
329
225
1089
44
329
225
1089
44
8 25
0
0
0
0
836
525
2304
70
418
262
1152
35
418
262
1152
35
% 70
0
0
0
0
213
106
680
38
71
35
227
13
71
35
227
13
m 200
0
0
0
0
351
27
0
0
35
3
0
0
35
3
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
1401
658
2984
108
1398
895
6978
337
1398
895
6978
337
Grand Total
0
5152
9608
9608
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
222
152
734
29
472
221
1005
37
288
177
831
31
288
177
831
31
Moderate Erosive Risk
271
185
898
36
577
273
1230
44
352
217
1017
38
352
217
1017
38
High Erosive Risk
166
113
547
22
352
164
750
26
215
132
620
23
215
132
620
23
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
659
450
2179
88
0
0
0
0
329
225
1089
44
329
225
1089
44
8 25
0
0
0
0
836
525
2304
70
418
262
1152
35
418
262
1152
35
*2 70
0
0
0
0
213
106
680
38
71
35
227
13
71
35
227
13
w 200
0
0
0
0
351
27
0
0
35
3
0
0
35
3
0
0
Total
659
450
2179
88
1401
658
2984
108
854
526
2468
92
854
526
2468
92
Grand Total
3375
5152
3939
3939
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
472
221
1005
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
577
273
1230
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
352
164
750
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
836
525
2304
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
213
106
680
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
351
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
1401
658
2984
108
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
0
5152
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
222
152
734
29
472
221
1005
37
0
0
0
0
288
177
831
31
Moderate Erosive Risk
271
185
898
36
577
273
1230
44
0
0
0
0
352
217
1017
38
High Erosive Risk
166
113
547
22
352
164
750
26
0
0
0
0
215
132
620
23
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
659
450
2179
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
329
225
1089
44
8 25
0
0
0
0
836
525
2304
70
0
0
0
0
418
262
1152
35
*2 70
0
0
0
0
213
106
680
38
0
0
0
0
71
35
227
13
w 200
0
0
0
0
351
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
3
0
0
Total
659
450
2179
88
1401
658
2984
108
0
0
0
0
854
526
2468
92
Grand Total
3375
5152
0
3939
March, 2004
B-16
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
CO
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
96
44
207
8
97
62
483
23
97
62
483
23
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
144
70
312
10
145
94
728
35
145
94
728
35
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
41
20
89
3
41
27
207
10
41
27
207
10
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
75
917
50
111
75
917
50
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
46
221
9
67
46
221
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
170
106
469
14
85
53
234
7
85
53
234
7
% 70
0
0
0
0
43
22
139
7
14
7
46
2
14
7
46
2
m 200
0
0
0
0
69
6
0
0
7
1
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
281
134
607
21
283
182
1419
68
283
182
1419
68
Grand Total
0
1044
1952
1952
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
45
31
151
6
96
44
207
8
59
36
171
6
97
62
483
23
Moderate Erosive Risk
68
47
227
9
144
70
312
10
88
55
258
9
145
94
728
35
High Erosive Risk
20
13
65
3
41
20
89
3
25
16
73
3
41
27
207
10
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
75
917
50
¦S 7.5
134
92
443
18
0
0
0
0
67
46
221
9
67
46
221
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
170
106
469
14
85
53
234
7
85
53
234
7
*2 70
0
0
0
0
43
22
139
7
14
7
46
2
14
7
46
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
69
6
0
0
7
1
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
134
92
443
18
281
134
607
21
173
107
502
18
283
182
1419
68
Grand Total
686
1044
800
1952
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
96
44
207
8
0
0
0
0
97
62
483
23
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
144
70
312
10
0
0
0
0
145
94
728
35
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
41
20
89
3
0
0
0
0
41
27
207
10
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
75
917
50
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
46
221
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
170
106
469
14
0
0
0
0
85
53
234
7
<2 70
0
0
0
0
43
22
139
7
0
0
0
0
14
7
46
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
69
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
281
134
607
21
0
0
0
0
283
182
1419
68
Grand Total
0
1044
0
1952
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
45
31
151
6
96
44
207
8
0
0
0
0
97
62
483
23
Moderate Erosive Risk
68
47
227
9
144
70
312
10
0
0
0
0
145
94
728
35
High Erosive Risk
20
13
65
3
41
20
89
3
0
0
0
0
41
27
207
10
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
75
917
50
•S 7.5
134
92
443
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
46
221
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
170
106
469
14
0
0
0
0
85
53
234
7
*2 70
0
0
0
0
43
22
139
7
0
0
0
0
14
7
46
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
69
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
134
92
443
18
281
134
607
21
0
0
0
0
283
182
1419
68
Grand Total
686
1044
0
1952
March, 2004
B-17
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
CT
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
16
7
33
1
15
10
77
4
15
10
77
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
33
16
71
3
33
21
166
8
33
21
166
8
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
51
24
109
4
51
33
254
12
51
33
254
12
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
26
321
18
39
26
321
18
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
16
78
3
23
16
78
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
60
37
164
5
30
19
82
3
30
19
82
3
*£ 70
0
0
0
0
15
8
49
3
5
3
16
1
5
3
16
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
26
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
100
48
213
8
100
64
497
24
100
64
497
24
Grand Total
0
369
685
685
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
7
5
24
1
16
7
33
1
9
6
27
1
15
10
77
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
16
11
52
2
33
16
71
3
20
13
59
2
33
21
166
8
High Erosive Risk
24
16
79
3
51
24
109
4
31
19
90
3
51
33
254
12
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
26
321
18
•S 7.5
47
32
155
6
0
0
0
0
23
16
78
3
23
16
78
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
60
37
164
5
30
19
82
3
30
19
82
3
*2 70
0
0
0
0
15
8
49
3
5
3
16
1
5
3
16
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
26
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Total
47
32
155
6
100
48
213
8
61
38
176
7
100
64
497
24
Grand Total
240
369
281
685
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
16
7
33
1
0
0
0
0
15
10
77
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
33
16
71
3
0
0
0
0
33
21
166
8
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
51
24
109
4
0
0
0
0
51
33
254
12
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
26
321
18
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
16
78
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
60
37
164
5
0
0
0
0
30
19
82
3
<2 70
0
0
0
0
15
8
49
3
0
0
0
0
5
3
16
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
26
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
100
48
213
8
0
0
0
0
100
64
497
24
Grand Total
0
369
0
685
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
7
5
24
1
16
7
33
1
0
0
0
0
15
10
77
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
16
11
52
2
33
16
71
3
0
0
0
0
33
21
166
8
High Erosive Risk
24
16
79
3
51
24
109
4
0
0
0
0
51
33
254
12
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39
26
321
18
•S 7.5
47
32
155
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
16
78
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
60
37
164
5
0
0
0
0
30
19
82
3
*2 70
0
0
0
0
15
8
49
3
0
0
0
0
5
3
16
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
26
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Total
47
32
155
6
100
48
213
8
0
0
0
0
100
64
497
24
Grand Total
240
369
0
685
March, 2004
B-18
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
DE
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
27
13
57
2
27
17
132
6
27
17
132
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
20
9
42
2
19
12
97
5
19
12
97
5
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
12
6
27
1
12
8
62
3
12
8
62
3
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
15
188
10
23
15
188
10
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
9
45
2
14
9
45
2
8 25
0
0
0
0
35
22
96
3
17
11
48
1
17
11
48
1
% 70
0
0
0
0
9
5
29
2
3
2
10
1
3
2
10
1
m 200
0
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
59
28
125
5
58
37
291
14
58
37
291
14
Grand Total
0
216
401
401
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
12
9
41
2
27
13
57
2
16
10
47
2
16
10
47
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
9
6
30
1
20
9
42
2
12
7
34
1
12
7
34
1
High Erosive Risk
6
4
19
1
12
6
27
1
8
5
22
1
8
5
22
1
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦S 7.5
28
19
91
4
0
0
0
0
14
9
45
2
14
9
45
2
8 25
0
0
0
0
35
22
96
3
17
11
48
1
17
11
48
1
« 70
0
0
0
0
9
5
29
2
3
2
10
1
3
2
10
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Total
28
19
91
4
59
28
125
5
36
22
103
4
36
22
103
4
Grand Total
141
216
165
165
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
27
13
57
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
20
9
42
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
12
6
27
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
35
22
96
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
9
5
29
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
59
28
125
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
0
216
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
12
9
41
2
27
13
57
2
0
0
0
0
16
10
47
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
9
6
30
1
20
9
42
2
0
0
0
0
12
7
34
1
High Erosive Risk
6
4
19
1
12
6
27
1
0
0
0
0
8
5
22
1
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
28
19
91
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
9
45
2
8 25
0
0
0
0
35
22
96
3
0
0
0
0
17
11
48
1
*2 70
0
0
0
0
9
5
29
2
0
0
0
0
3
2
10
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Total
28
19
91
4
59
28
125
5
0
0
0
0
36
22
103
4
Grand Total
141
216
0
165
March, 2004
B-19
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
FL
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
610
417
2017
83
1298
616
2767
100
1296
830
6463
314
1296
830
6463
314
Moderate Erosive Risk
328
224
1082
44
696
330
1485
54
696
445
3469
168
696
445
3469
168
High Erosive Risk
45
31
148
6
95
45
203
7
95
61
476
23
95
61
476
23
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
813
551
6726
367
813
551
6726
367
¦5 7.5
983
671
3247
133
0
0
0
0
491
336
1624
67
491
336
1624
67
8 25
0
0
0
0
1248
781
3438
105
624
391
1719
52
624
391
1719
52
% 70
0
0
0
0
319
165
1018
57
106
55
339
19
106
55
339
19
m 200
0
0
0
0
523
45
0
0
52
5
0
0
52
5
0
0
Total
983
671
3247
133
2089
991
4456
161
2087
1336
10408
505
2087
1336
10408
505
Grand Total
5035
7697
14336
14336
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
610
417
2017
83
1298
616
2767
100
791
488
2286
86
1296
830
6463
314
Moderate Erosive Risk
328
224
1082
44
696
330
1485
54
425
262
1227
46
696
445
3469
168
High Erosive Risk
45
31
148
6
95
45
203
7
58
36
168
6
95
61
476
23
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
813
551
6726
367
•S 7.5
983
671
3247
133
0
0
0
0
491
336
1624
67
491
336
1624
67
8 25
0
0
0
0
1248
781
3438
105
624
391
1719
52
624
391
1719
52
*2 70
0
0
0
0
319
165
1018
57
106
55
339
19
106
55
339
19
w 200
0
0
0
0
523
45
0
0
52
5
0
0
52
5
0
0
Total
983
671
3247
133
2089
991
4456
161
1274
786
3682
138
2087
1336
10408
505
Grand Total
5035
7697
5879
14336
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
610
417
2017
83
1298
616
2767
100
0
0
0
0
1296
830
6463
314
Moderate Erosive Risk
328
224
1082
44
696
330
1485
54
0
0
0
0
696
445
3469
168
High Erosive Risk
45
31
148
6
95
45
203
7
0
0
0
0
95
61
476
23
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
813
551
6726
367
•S 7.5
983
671
3247
133
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
491
336
1624
67
8 25
0
0
0
0
1248
781
3438
105
0
0
0
0
624
391
1719
52
<2 70
0
0
0
0
319
165
1018
57
0
0
0
0
106
55
339
19
w 200
0
0
0
0
523
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
5
0
0
Total
983
671
3247
133
2089
991
4456
161
0
0
0
0
2087
1336
10408
505
Grand Total
5035
7697
0
14336
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
610
417
2017
83
1298
616
2767
100
0
0
0
0
1296
830
6463
314
Moderate Erosive Risk
328
224
1082
44
696
330
1485
54
0
0
0
0
696
445
3469
168
High Erosive Risk
45
31
148
6
95
45
203
7
0
0
0
0
95
61
476
23
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
813
551
6726
367
•S 7.5
983
671
3247
133
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
491
336
1624
67
8 25
0
0
0
0
1248
781
3438
105
0
0
0
0
624
391
1719
52
*2 70
0
0
0
0
319
165
1018
57
0
0
0
0
106
55
339
19
w 200
0
0
0
0
523
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
5
0
0
Total
983
671
3247
133
2089
991
4456
161
0
0
0
0
2087
1336
10408
505
Grand Total
5035
7697
0
14336
March, 2004
B-20
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
GA
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
931
443
1978
73
927
594
4619
225
927
594
4619
225
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
723
344
1534
57
719
461
3582
174
719
461
3582
174
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
514
244
1090
41
511
327
2545
124
511
327
2545
124
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
840
569
6944
379
840
569
6944
379
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
508
347
1677
69
508
347
1677
69
8 25
0
0
0
0
1288
808
3549
110
644
404
1775
55
644
404
1775
55
% 70
0
0
0
0
330
170
1052
61
110
57
351
20
110
57
351
20
m 200
0
0
0
0
549
54
0
0
55
5
0
0
55
5
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
2168
1031
4602
171
2157
1382
10747
523
2157
1382
10747
523
Grand Total
0
7972
14808
14808
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
436
298
1442
59
931
443
1978
73
566
349
1635
62
927
594
4619
225
Moderate Erosive Risk
338
231
1118
46
723
344
1534
57
439
271
1268
48
719
461
3582
174
High Erosive Risk
241
164
795
33
514
244
1090
41
312
193
901
34
511
327
2545
124
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
840
569
6944
379
¦S 7.5
1015
694
3354
137
0
0
0
0
508
347
1677
69
508
347
1677
69
8 25
0
0
0
0
1288
808
3549
110
644
404
1775
55
644
404
1775
55
« 70
0
0
0
0
330
170
1052
61
110
57
351
20
110
57
351
20
w 200
0
0
0
0
549
54
0
0
55
5
0
0
55
5
0
0
Total
1015
694
3354
137
2168
1031
4602
171
1317
813
3803
144
2157
1382
10747
523
Grand Total
5201
7972
6076
14808
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
931
443
1978
73
0
0
0
0
927
594
4619
225
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
723
344
1534
57
0
0
0
0
719
461
3582
174
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
514
244
1090
41
0
0
0
0
511
327
2545
124
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
840
569
6944
379
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
508
347
1677
69
8 25
0
0
0
0
1288
808
3549
110
0
0
0
0
644
404
1775
55
<2 70
0
0
0
0
330
170
1052
61
0
0
0
0
110
57
351
20
w 200
0
0
0
0
549
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
5
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
2168
1031
4602
171
0
0
0
0
2157
1382
10747
523
Grand Total
0
7972
0
14808
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
436
298
1442
59
931
443
1978
73
0
0
0
0
927
594
4619
225
Moderate Erosive Risk
338
231
1118
46
723
344
1534
57
0
0
0
0
719
461
3582
174
High Erosive Risk
241
164
795
33
514
244
1090
41
0
0
0
0
511
327
2545
124
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
840
569
6944
379
•S 7.5
1015
694
3354
137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
508
347
1677
69
8 25
0
0
0
0
1288
808
3549
110
0
0
0
0
644
404
1775
55
*2 70
0
0
0
0
330
170
1052
61
0
0
0
0
110
57
351
20
w 200
0
0
0
0
549
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
5
0
0
Total
1015
694
3354
137
2168
1031
4602
171
0
0
0
0
2157
1382
10747
523
Grand Total
5201
7972
0
14808
March, 2004
B-21
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
IA
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
7
5
24
1
15
7
33
1
15
10
76
4
15
10
76
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
27
19
91
4
59
28
124
5
58
37
291
14
58
37
291
14
High Erosive Risk
48
33
158
6
102
48
216
8
101
65
505
25
101
65
505
25
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
46
563
31
68
46
563
31
¦5 7.5
82
56
272
11
0
0
0
0
41
28
136
6
41
28
136
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
105
66
288
9
52
33
144
4
52
33
144
4
% 70
0
0
0
0
27
14
85
5
9
5
28
2
9
5
28
2
m 200
0
0
0
0
45
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
82
56
272
11
176
84
373
14
175
112
872
42
175
112
872
42
Grand Total
422
646
1201
1201
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
7
5
24
1
15
7
33
1
9
6
27
1
15
10
76
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
27
19
91
4
59
28
124
5
36
22
103
4
58
37
291
14
High Erosive Risk
48
33
158
6
102
48
216
8
62
38
179
7
101
65
505
25
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
46
563
31
•S 7.5
82
56
272
11
0
0
0
0
41
28
136
6
41
28
136
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
105
66
288
9
52
33
144
4
52
33
144
4
*2 70
0
0
0
0
27
14
85
5
9
5
28
2
9
5
28
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
45
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
82
56
272
11
176
84
373
14
107
66
308
12
175
112
872
42
Grand Total
422
646
493
1201
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
7
5
24
1
15
7
33
1
0
0
0
0
15
10
76
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
27
19
91
4
59
28
124
5
0
0
0
0
58
37
291
14
High Erosive Risk
48
33
158
6
102
48
216
8
0
0
0
0
101
65
505
25
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
46
563
31
•S 7.5
82
56
272
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
28
136
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
105
66
288
9
0
0
0
0
52
33
144
4
<2 70
0
0
0
0
27
14
85
5
0
0
0
0
9
5
28
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
45
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
82
56
272
11
176
84
373
14
0
0
0
0
175
112
872
42
Grand Total
422
646
0
1201
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
7
5
24
1
15
7
33
1
0
0
0
0
15
10
76
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
27
19
91
4
59
28
124
5
0
0
0
0
58
37
291
14
High Erosive Risk
48
33
158
6
102
48
216
8
0
0
0
0
101
65
505
25
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
46
563
31
•S 7.5
82
56
272
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
28
136
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
105
66
288
9
0
0
0
0
52
33
144
4
*2 70
0
0
0
0
27
14
85
5
0
0
0
0
9
5
28
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
45
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
82
56
272
11
176
84
373
14
0
0
0
0
175
112
872
42
Grand Total
422
646
0
1201
March, 2004
B-22
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
ID
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
18
12
60
2
39
18
83
3
39
25
194
9
39
25
194
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
90
62
300
12
190
89
411
14
192
123
962
46
192
123
962
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
3
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
61
749
41
90
61
749
41
¦5 7.5
109
74
361
14
0
0
0
0
54
37
181
7
54
37
181
7
8 25
0
0
0
0
139
87
383
11
69
43
191
6
69
43
191
6
% 70
0
0
0
0
35
17
113
6
12
6
38
2
12
6
38
2
m 200
0
0
0
0
56
3
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Total
109
74
361
14
229
107
496
17
231
148
1158
55
231
148
1158
55
Grand Total
559
849
1593
1593
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
18
12
60
2
39
18
83
3
24
14
68
3
39
25
194
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
90
62
300
12
190
89
411
14
117
72
340
12
192
123
962
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
61
749
41
¦S 7.5
109
74
361
14
0
0
0
0
54
37
181
7
54
37
181
7
8 25
0
0
0
0
139
87
383
11
69
43
191
6
69
43
191
6
« 70
0
0
0
0
35
17
113
6
12
6
38
2
12
6
38
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
56
3
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Total
109
74
361
14
229
107
496
17
141
87
410
15
231
148
1158
55
Grand Total
559
849
652
1593
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
18
12
60
2
39
18
83
3
0
0
0
0
39
25
194
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
90
62
300
12
190
89
411
14
0
0
0
0
192
123
962
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
61
749
41
•S 7.5
109
74
361
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
37
181
7
8 25
0
0
0
0
139
87
383
11
0
0
0
0
69
43
191
6
<2 70
0
0
0
0
35
17
113
6
0
0
0
0
12
6
38
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
56
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Total
109
74
361
14
229
107
496
17
0
0
0
0
231
148
1158
55
Grand Total
559
849
0
1593
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
18
12
60
2
39
18
83
3
0
0
0
0
39
25
194
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
90
62
300
12
190
89
411
14
0
0
0
0
192
123
962
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
61
749
41
•S 7.5
109
74
361
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
37
181
7
8 25
0
0
0
0
139
87
383
11
0
0
0
0
69
43
191
6
*2 70
0
0
0
0
35
17
113
6
0
0
0
0
12
6
38
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
56
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Total
109
74
361
14
229
107
496
17
0
0
0
0
231
148
1158
55
Grand Total
559
849
0
1593
March, 2004
B-23
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
IL
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
76
36
163
6
76
49
381
18
76
49
381
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
209
99
444
16
208
133
1037
50
208
133
1037
50
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
342
163
725
27
340
218
1692
82
340
218
1692
82
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
243
165
2009
110
243
165
2009
110
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147
100
485
20
147
100
485
20
8 25
0
0
0
0
373
234
1027
32
186
117
513
16
186
117
513
16
% 70
0
0
0
0
96
49
305
18
32
16
102
6
32
16
102
6
m 200
0
0
0
0
158
15
0
0
16
2
0
0
16
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
627
298
1332
49
624
400
3110
151
624
400
3110
151
Grand Total
0
2306
4285
4285
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
36
25
119
5
76
36
163
6
47
29
135
5
76
49
381
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
98
67
324
13
209
99
444
16
127
78
367
14
208
133
1037
50
High Erosive Risk
160
109
528
22
342
163
725
27
207
128
599
23
340
218
1692
82
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
243
165
2009
110
•S 7.5
294
201
971
40
0
0
0
0
147
100
485
20
147
100
485
20
8 25
0
0
0
0
373
234
1027
32
186
117
513
16
186
117
513
16
*2 70
0
0
0
0
96
49
305
18
32
16
102
6
32
16
102
6
w 200
0
0
0
0
158
15
0
0
16
2
0
0
16
2
0
0
Total
294
201
971
40
627
298
1332
49
381
235
1100
42
624
400
3110
151
Grand Total
1505
2306
1758
4285
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
76
36
163
6
0
0
0
0
76
49
381
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
209
99
444
16
0
0
0
0
208
133
1037
50
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
342
163
725
27
0
0
0
0
340
218
1692
82
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
243
165
2009
110
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147
100
485
20
8 25
0
0
0
0
373
234
1027
32
0
0
0
0
186
117
513
16
<2 70
0
0
0
0
96
49
305
18
0
0
0
0
32
16
102
6
w 200
0
0
0
0
158
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
627
298
1332
49
0
0
0
0
624
400
3110
151
Grand Total
0
2306
0
4285
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
36
25
119
5
76
36
163
6
0
0
0
0
76
49
381
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
98
67
324
13
209
99
444
16
0
0
0
0
208
133
1037
50
High Erosive Risk
160
109
528
22
342
163
725
27
0
0
0
0
340
218
1692
82
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
243
165
2009
110
•S 7.5
294
201
971
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147
100
485
20
8 25
0
0
0
0
373
234
1027
32
0
0
0
0
186
117
513
16
*2 70
0
0
0
0
96
49
305
18
0
0
0
0
32
16
102
6
w 200
0
0
0
0
158
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
2
0
0
Total
294
201
971
40
627
298
1332
49
0
0
0
0
624
400
3110
151
Grand Total
1505
2306
0
4285
March, 2004
B-24
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
IN
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
52
24
111
4
52
33
258
13
52
33
258
13
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
166
79
352
13
165
106
821
40
165
106
821
40
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
279
133
593
22
278
178
1384
67
278
178
1384
67
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
192
130
1592
87
192
130
1592
87
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
116
80
385
16
116
80
385
16
8 25
0
0
0
0
295
185
814
25
148
93
407
13
148
93
407
13
% 70
0
0
0
0
76
39
241
14
25
13
80
5
25
13
80
5
m 200
0
0
0
0
126
12
0
0
13
1
0
0
13
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
497
236
1055
39
494
317
2464
120
494
317
2464
120
Grand Total
0
1827
3395
3395
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
24
17
81
3
52
24
111
4
32
19
91
3
32
19
91
3
Moderate Erosive Risk
78
53
256
10
166
79
352
13
101
62
291
11
101
62
291
11
High Erosive Risk
131
89
432
18
279
133
593
22
170
105
490
19
170
105
490
19
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦S 7.5
233
159
769
31
0
0
0
0
116
80
385
16
116
80
385
16
8 25
0
0
0
0
295
185
814
25
148
93
407
13
148
93
407
13
*2 70
0
0
0
0
76
39
241
14
25
13
80
5
25
13
80
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
126
12
0
0
13
1
0
0
13
1
0
0
Total
233
159
769
31
497
236
1055
39
302
186
872
33
302
186
872
33
Grand Total
1192
1827
1393
1393
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
52
24
111
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
166
79
352
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
279
133
593
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
295
185
814
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
76
39
241
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
126
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
497
236
1055
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
0
1827
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
24
17
81
3
52
24
111
4
0
0
0
0
32
19
91
3
Moderate Erosive Risk
78
53
256
10
166
79
352
13
0
0
0
0
101
62
291
11
High Erosive Risk
131
89
432
18
279
133
593
22
0
0
0
0
170
105
490
19
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
233
159
769
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
116
80
385
16
8 25
0
0
0
0
295
185
814
25
0
0
0
0
148
93
407
13
*2 70
0
0
0
0
76
39
241
14
0
0
0
0
25
13
80
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
126
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
1
0
0
Total
233
159
769
31
497
236
1055
39
0
0
0
0
302
186
872
33
Grand Total
1192
1827
0
1393
March, 2004
B-25
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
KS
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
30
14
64
2
30
19
150
7
30
19
150
7
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
81
39
172
6
81
52
402
20
81
52
402
20
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
134
64
285
11
133
85
665
32
133
85
665
32
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
64
787
43
95
64
787
43
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
39
190
8
58
39
190
8
8 25
0
0
0
0
146
91
402
12
73
46
201
6
73
46
201
6
% 70
0
0
0
0
37
19
119
7
12
6
40
2
12
6
40
2
m 200
0
0
0
0
62
6
0
0
6
1
0
0
6
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
245
117
521
19
244
156
1217
59
244
156
1217
59
Grand Total
0
902
1677
1677
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
14
10
47
2
30
14
64
2
18
11
53
2
30
19
150
7
Moderate Erosive Risk
38
26
125
5
81
39
172
6
49
30
142
5
81
52
402
20
High Erosive Risk
63
43
207
8
134
64
285
11
81
50
235
9
133
85
665
32
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
64
787
43
¦S 7.5
115
79
380
15
0
0
0
0
58
39
190
8
58
39
190
8
8 25
0
0
0
0
146
91
402
12
73
46
201
6
73
46
201
6
*2 70
0
0
0
0
37
19
119
7
12
6
40
2
12
6
40
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
62
6
0
0
6
1
0
0
6
1
0
0
Total
115
79
380
15
245
117
521
19
149
92
431
16
244
156
1217
59
Grand Total
589
902
688
1677
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
30
14
64
2
0
0
0
0
30
19
150
7
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
81
39
172
6
0
0
0
0
81
52
402
20
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
134
64
285
11
0
0
0
0
133
85
665
32
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
64
787
43
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
39
190
8
8 25
0
0
0
0
146
91
402
12
0
0
0
0
73
46
201
6
<2 70
0
0
0
0
37
19
119
7
0
0
0
0
12
6
40
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
62
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
245
117
521
19
0
0
0
0
244
156
1217
59
Grand Total
0
902
0
1677
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
14
10
47
2
30
14
64
2
0
0
0
0
30
19
150
7
Moderate Erosive Risk
38
26
125
5
81
39
172
6
0
0
0
0
81
52
402
20
High Erosive Risk
63
43
207
8
134
64
285
11
0
0
0
0
133
85
665
32
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95
64
787
43
•S 7.5
115
79
380
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
39
190
8
8 25
0
0
0
0
146
91
402
12
0
0
0
0
73
46
201
6
*2 70
0
0
0
0
37
19
119
7
0
0
0
0
12
6
40
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
62
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
Total
115
79
380
15
245
117
521
19
0
0
0
0
244
156
1217
59
Grand Total
589
902
0
1677
March, 2004
B-26
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
KY
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
39
19
83
3
39
25
195
9
39
25
195
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
201
96
427
16
200
128
997
48
200
128
997
48
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
363
173
770
29
361
231
1799
87
361
231
1799
87
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
234
158
1933
105
234
158
1933
105
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
141
97
467
19
141
97
467
19
8 25
0
0
0
0
359
225
988
31
179
112
494
15
179
112
494
15
% 70
0
0
0
0
92
47
293
17
31
16
98
6
31
16
98
6
m 200
0
0
0
0
153
15
0
0
15
2
0
0
15
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
604
287
1281
48
600
385
2991
145
600
385
2991
145
Grand Total
0
2219
4122
4122
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
18
13
61
2
39
19
83
3
24
15
69
3
39
25
195
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
94
64
311
13
201
96
427
16
122
75
353
13
200
128
997
48
High Erosive Risk
170
116
562
23
363
173
770
29
221
136
637
24
361
231
1799
87
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
234
158
1933
105
¦S 7.5
283
193
934
38
0
0
0
0
141
97
467
19
141
97
467
19
8 25
0
0
0
0
359
225
988
31
179
112
494
15
179
112
494
15
« 70
0
0
0
0
92
47
293
17
31
16
98
6
31
16
98
6
w 200
0
0
0
0
153
15
0
0
15
2
0
0
15
2
0
0
Total
283
193
934
38
604
287
1281
48
367
226
1058
40
600
385
2991
145
Grand Total
1448
2219
1691
4122
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
39
19
83
3
0
0
0
0
39
25
195
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
201
96
427
16
0
0
0
0
200
128
997
48
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
363
173
770
29
0
0
0
0
361
231
1799
87
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
234
158
1933
105
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
141
97
467
19
8 25
0
0
0
0
359
225
988
31
0
0
0
0
179
112
494
15
<2 70
0
0
0
0
92
47
293
17
0
0
0
0
31
16
98
6
w 200
0
0
0
0
153
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
604
287
1281
48
0
0
0
0
600
385
2991
145
Grand Total
0
2219
0
4122
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
18
13
61
2
39
19
83
3
0
0
0
0
39
25
195
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
94
64
311
13
201
96
427
16
0
0
0
0
200
128
997
48
High Erosive Risk
170
116
562
23
363
173
770
29
0
0
0
0
361
231
1799
87
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
234
158
1933
105
•S 7.5
283
193
934
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
141
97
467
19
8 25
0
0
0
0
359
225
988
31
0
0
0
0
179
112
494
15
*2 70
0
0
0
0
92
47
293
17
0
0
0
0
31
16
98
6
w 200
0
0
0
0
153
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
2
0
0
Total
283
193
934
38
604
287
1281
48
0
0
0
0
600
385
2991
145
Grand Total
1448
2219
0
4122
March, 2004
B-27
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
LA
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
24
17
81
3
52
25
110
4
52
33
258
12
52
33
258
12
Moderate Erosive Risk
53
36
175
7
113
54
240
9
113
72
562
27
113
72
562
27
High Erosive Risk
82
56
270
11
175
83
371
14
174
111
866
42
174
111
866
42
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
89
1089
59
132
89
1089
59
¦5 7.5
159
109
526
21
0
0
0
0
80
54
263
11
80
54
263
11
8 25
0
0
0
0
202
127
556
17
101
63
278
9
101
63
278
9
% 70
0
0
0
0
52
27
165
9
17
9
55
3
17
9
55
3
m 200
0
0
0
0
86
9
0
0
9
1
0
0
9
1
0
0
Total
159
109
526
21
340
162
721
26
338
217
1685
82
338
217
1685
82
Grand Total
816
1250
2322
2322
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
24
17
81
3
52
25
110
4
32
20
91
3
52
33
258
12
Moderate Erosive Risk
53
36
175
7
113
54
240
9
69
42
199
7
113
72
562
27
High Erosive Risk
82
56
270
11
175
83
371
14
106
65
306
12
174
111
866
42
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
89
1089
59
•S 7.5
159
109
526
21
0
0
0
0
80
54
263
11
80
54
263
11
8 25
0
0
0
0
202
127
556
17
101
63
278
9
101
63
278
9
*2 70
0
0
0
0
52
27
165
9
17
9
55
3
17
9
55
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
86
9
0
0
9
1
0
0
9
1
0
0
Total
159
109
526
21
340
162
721
26
207
127
596
22
338
217
1685
82
Grand Total
816
1250
953
2322
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
24
17
81
3
52
25
110
4
0
0
0
0
52
33
258
12
Moderate Erosive Risk
53
36
175
7
113
54
240
9
0
0
0
0
113
72
562
27
High Erosive Risk
82
56
270
11
175
83
371
14
0
0
0
0
174
111
866
42
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
89
1089
59
•S 7.5
159
109
526
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
54
263
11
8 25
0
0
0
0
202
127
556
17
0
0
0
0
101
63
278
9
<2 70
0
0
0
0
52
27
165
9
0
0
0
0
17
9
55
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
86
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
0
0
Total
159
109
526
21
340
162
721
26
0
0
0
0
338
217
1685
82
Grand Total
816
1250
0
2322
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
24
17
81
3
52
25
110
4
0
0
0
0
52
33
258
12
Moderate Erosive Risk
53
36
175
7
113
54
240
9
0
0
0
0
113
72
562
27
High Erosive Risk
82
56
270
11
175
83
371
14
0
0
0
0
174
111
866
42
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
89
1089
59
•S 7.5
159
109
526
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
54
263
11
8 25
0
0
0
0
202
127
556
17
0
0
0
0
101
63
278
9
*2 70
0
0
0
0
52
27
165
9
0
0
0
0
17
9
55
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
86
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
0
0
Total
159
109
526
21
340
162
721
26
0
0
0
0
338
217
1685
82
Grand Total
816
1250
0
2322
March, 2004
B-28
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MA
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
39
27
129
5
84
40
178
7
83
53
415
20
83
53
415
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
84
57
278
11
180
86
381
14
179
115
891
43
179
115
891
43
High Erosive Risk
129
88
427
17
276
131
585
22
274
176
1366
66
274
176
1366
66
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
209
141
1726
94
209
141
1726
94
¦5 7.5
252
172
834
34
0
0
0
0
126
86
417
17
126
86
417
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
320
201
883
27
160
100
441
14
160
100
441
14
% 70
0
0
0
0
82
42
262
15
27
14
87
5
27
14
87
5
m 200
0
0
0
0
137
14
0
0
14
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
252
172
834
34
540
257
1144
42
536
344
2672
130
536
344
2672
130
Grand Total
1293
1983
3682
3682
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
39
27
129
5
84
40
178
7
51
31
147
6
83
53
415
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
84
57
278
11
180
86
381
14
109
67
315
12
179
115
891
43
High Erosive Risk
129
88
427
17
276
131
585
22
167
103
484
18
274
176
1366
66
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
209
141
1726
94
¦S 7.5
252
172
834
34
0
0
0
0
126
86
417
17
126
86
417
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
320
201
883
27
160
100
441
14
160
100
441
14
*2 70
0
0
0
0
82
42
262
15
27
14
87
5
27
14
87
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
137
14
0
0
14
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
252
172
834
34
540
257
1144
42
327
202
945
36
536
344
2672
130
Grand Total
1293
1983
1511
3682
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
39
27
129
5
84
40
178
7
0
0
0
0
83
53
415
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
84
57
278
11
180
86
381
14
0
0
0
0
179
115
891
43
High Erosive Risk
129
88
427
17
276
131
585
22
0
0
0
0
274
176
1366
66
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
209
141
1726
94
•S 7.5
252
172
834
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
126
86
417
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
320
201
883
27
0
0
0
0
160
100
441
14
<2 70
0
0
0
0
82
42
262
15
0
0
0
0
27
14
87
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
137
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
252
172
834
34
540
257
1144
42
0
0
0
0
536
344
2672
130
Grand Total
1293
1983
0
3682
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
39
27
129
5
84
40
178
7
0
0
0
0
83
53
415
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
84
57
278
11
180
86
381
14
0
0
0
0
179
115
891
43
High Erosive Risk
129
88
427
17
276
131
585
22
0
0
0
0
274
176
1366
66
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
209
141
1726
94
•S 7.5
252
172
834
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
126
86
417
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
320
201
883
27
0
0
0
0
160
100
441
14
*2 70
0
0
0
0
82
42
262
15
0
0
0
0
27
14
87
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
137
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
252
172
834
34
540
257
1144
42
0
0
0
0
536
344
2672
130
Grand Total
1293
1983
0
3682
March, 2004
B-29
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MI)
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
127
61
269
10
126
81
629
30
126
81
629
30
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
151
72
320
12
150
96
747
36
150
96
747
36
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
175
83
370
14
174
111
865
42
174
111
865
42
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
175
119
1448
79
175
119
1448
79
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
106
72
350
14
106
72
350
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
268
168
740
23
134
84
370
11
134
84
370
11
% 70
0
0
0
0
69
35
219
13
23
12
73
4
23
12
73
4
m 200
0
0
0
0
114
12
0
0
11
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
452
215
959
35
449
288
2240
109
449
288
2240
109
Grand Total
0
1662
3087
3087
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
59
41
196
8
127
61
269
10
77
48
222
8
77
48
222
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
71
48
233
9
151
72
320
12
91
56
264
10
91
56
264
10
High Erosive Risk
82
56
270
11
175
83
370
14
106
65
306
12
106
65
306
12
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
212
145
699
28
0
0
0
0
106
72
350
14
106
72
350
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
268
168
740
23
134
84
370
11
134
84
370
11
*2 70
0
0
0
0
69
35
219
13
23
12
73
4
23
12
73
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
12
0
0
11
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
212
145
699
28
452
215
959
35
274
169
793
30
274
169
793
30
Grand Total
1084
1662
1266
1266
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
127
61
269
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
151
72
320
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
175
83
370
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
268
168
740
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
69
35
219
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
452
215
959
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
0
1662
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
59
41
196
8
127
61
269
10
0
0
0
0
77
48
222
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
71
48
233
9
151
72
320
12
0
0
0
0
91
56
264
10
High Erosive Risk
82
56
270
11
175
83
370
14
0
0
0
0
106
65
306
12
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
212
145
699
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
106
72
350
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
268
168
740
23
0
0
0
0
134
84
370
11
*2 70
0
0
0
0
69
35
219
13
0
0
0
0
23
12
73
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
212
145
699
28
452
215
959
35
0
0
0
0
274
169
793
30
Grand Total
1084
1662
0
1266
March, 2004
B-30
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
ME
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
21
14
68
3
44
21
93
3
44
28
218
11
44
28
218
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
44
30
146
6
94
45
200
7
94
60
467
23
94
60
467
23
High Erosive Risk
68
46
224
9
145
69
307
11
144
92
717
35
144
92
717
35
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
74
906
49
109
74
906
49
¦5 7.5
132
90
437
18
0
0
0
0
66
45
219
9
66
45
219
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
168
105
463
14
84
53
231
7
84
53
231
7
% 70
0
0
0
0
43
22
137
8
14
7
46
3
14
7
46
3
m 200
0
0
0
0
72
7
0
0
7
1
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
132
90
437
18
283
135
600
22
281
180
1402
68
281
180
1402
68
Grand Total
678
1040
1931
1931
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
21
14
68
3
44
21
93
3
27
16
77
3
44
28
218
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
44
30
146
6
94
45
200
7
57
35
165
6
94
60
467
23
High Erosive Risk
68
46
224
9
145
69
307
11
88
54
254
10
144
92
717
35
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
74
906
49
¦S 7.5
132
90
437
18
0
0
0
0
66
45
219
9
66
45
219
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
168
105
463
14
84
53
231
7
84
53
231
7
« 70
0
0
0
0
43
22
137
8
14
7
46
3
14
7
46
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
72
7
0
0
7
1
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
132
90
437
18
283
135
600
22
172
106
496
19
281
180
1402
68
Grand Total
678
1040
792
1931
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
21
14
68
3
44
21
93
3
0
0
0
0
44
28
218
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
44
30
146
6
94
45
200
7
0
0
0
0
94
60
467
23
High Erosive Risk
68
46
224
9
145
69
307
11
0
0
0
0
144
92
717
35
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
74
906
49
•S 7.5
132
90
437
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
45
219
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
168
105
463
14
0
0
0
0
84
53
231
7
<2 70
0
0
0
0
43
22
137
8
0
0
0
0
14
7
46
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
72
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
132
90
437
18
283
135
600
22
0
0
0
0
281
180
1402
68
Grand Total
678
1040
0
1931
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
21
14
68
3
44
21
93
3
0
0
0
0
44
28
218
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
44
30
146
6
94
45
200
7
0
0
0
0
94
60
467
23
High Erosive Risk
68
46
224
9
145
69
307
11
0
0
0
0
144
92
717
35
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109
74
906
49
•S 7.5
132
90
437
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
45
219
9
8 25
0
0
0
0
168
105
463
14
0
0
0
0
84
53
231
7
*2 70
0
0
0
0
43
22
137
8
0
0
0
0
14
7
46
3
w 200
0
0
0
0
72
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
Total
132
90
437
18
283
135
600
22
0
0
0
0
281
180
1402
68
Grand Total
678
1040
0
1931
March, 2004
B-31
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MI
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
113
53
241
9
113
72
563
27
113
72
563
27
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
309
147
656
24
307
197
1531
74
307
197
1531
74
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
504
240
1070
40
501
321
2499
122
501
321
2499
122
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
243
2968
162
359
243
2968
162
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
217
148
717
29
217
148
717
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
551
345
1517
47
275
173
758
23
275
173
758
23
% 70
0
0
0
0
141
72
450
26
47
24
150
9
47
24
150
9
m 200
0
0
0
0
234
22
0
0
23
2
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
926
440
1967
73
922
590
4593
223
922
590
4593
223
Grand Total
0
3406
6329
6329
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
53
36
176
7
113
53
241
9
69
43
199
7
113
72
563
27
Moderate Erosive Risk
145
99
478
20
309
147
656
24
188
116
542
20
307
197
1531
74
High Erosive Risk
236
161
780
32
504
240
1070
40
306
189
884
34
501
321
2499
122
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
243
2968
162
¦S 7.5
434
297
1434
59
0
0
0
0
217
148
717
29
217
148
717
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
551
345
1517
47
275
173
758
23
275
173
758
23
« 70
0
0
0
0
141
72
450
26
47
24
150
9
47
24
150
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
234
22
0
0
23
2
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
434
297
1434
59
926
440
1967
73
563
347
1625
61
922
590
4593
223
Grand Total
2223
3406
2597
6329
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
113
53
241
9
0
0
0
0
113
72
563
27
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
309
147
656
24
0
0
0
0
307
197
1531
74
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
504
240
1070
40
0
0
0
0
501
321
2499
122
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
243
2968
162
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
217
148
717
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
551
345
1517
47
0
0
0
0
275
173
758
23
<2 70
0
0
0
0
141
72
450
26
0
0
0
0
47
24
150
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
234
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
926
440
1967
73
0
0
0
0
922
590
4593
223
Grand Total
0
3406
0
6329
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
53
36
176
7
113
53
241
9
0
0
0
0
113
72
563
27
Moderate Erosive Risk
145
99
478
20
309
147
656
24
0
0
0
0
307
197
1531
74
High Erosive Risk
236
161
780
32
504
240
1070
40
0
0
0
0
501
321
2499
122
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
243
2968
162
•S 7.5
434
297
1434
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
217
148
717
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
551
345
1517
47
0
0
0
0
275
173
758
23
*2 70
0
0
0
0
141
72
450
26
0
0
0
0
47
24
150
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
234
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
434
297
1434
59
926
440
1967
73
0
0
0
0
922
590
4593
223
Grand Total
2223
3406
0
6329
March, 2004
B-32
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MN
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
69
32
147
5
69
44
343
17
69
44
343
17
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
197
93
417
15
196
125
975
47
196
125
975
47
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
324
154
688
26
322
207
1606
78
322
207
1606
78
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228
155
1890
103
228
155
1890
103
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
94
456
19
138
94
456
19
8 25
0
0
0
0
351
220
966
30
175
110
483
15
175
110
483
15
% 70
0
0
0
0
90
46
286
16
30
15
95
5
30
15
95
5
m 200
0
0
0
0
149
14
0
0
15
1
0
0
15
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
590
280
1252
46
587
376
2924
142
587
376
2924
142
Grand Total
0
2168
4029
4029
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
32
22
107
4
69
32
147
5
42
26
121
5
69
44
343
17
Moderate Erosive Risk
92
63
304
12
197
93
417
15
119
74
345
13
196
125
975
47
High Erosive Risk
152
104
501
20
324
154
688
26
197
122
568
22
322
207
1606
78
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228
155
1890
103
•S 7.5
276
189
913
37
0
0
0
0
138
94
456
19
138
94
456
19
8 25
0
0
0
0
351
220
966
30
175
110
483
15
175
110
483
15
*2 70
0
0
0
0
90
46
286
16
30
15
95
5
30
15
95
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
149
14
0
0
15
1
0
0
15
1
0
0
Total
276
189
913
37
590
280
1252
46
358
221
1035
39
587
376
2924
142
Grand Total
1415
2168
1653
4029
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
69
32
147
5
0
0
0
0
69
44
343
17
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
197
93
417
15
0
0
0
0
196
125
975
47
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
324
154
688
26
0
0
0
0
322
207
1606
78
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228
155
1890
103
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
94
456
19
8 25
0
0
0
0
351
220
966
30
0
0
0
0
175
110
483
15
<2 70
0
0
0
0
90
46
286
16
0
0
0
0
30
15
95
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
149
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
590
280
1252
46
0
0
0
0
587
376
2924
142
Grand Total
0
2168
0
4029
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
32
22
107
4
69
32
147
5
0
0
0
0
69
44
343
17
Moderate Erosive Risk
92
63
304
12
197
93
417
15
0
0
0
0
196
125
975
47
High Erosive Risk
152
104
501
20
324
154
688
26
0
0
0
0
322
207
1606
78
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228
155
1890
103
•S 7.5
276
189
913
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
94
456
19
8 25
0
0
0
0
351
220
966
30
0
0
0
0
175
110
483
15
*2 70
0
0
0
0
90
46
286
16
0
0
0
0
30
15
95
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
149
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
Total
276
189
913
37
590
280
1252
46
0
0
0
0
587
376
2924
142
Grand Total
1415
2168
0
4029
March, 2004
B-33
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MO
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
55
26
116
4
55
35
272
13
55
35
272
13
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
190
90
404
15
189
121
943
46
189
121
943
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
326
155
691
26
324
207
1614
78
324
207
1614
78
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
221
150
1828
100
221
150
1828
100
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
134
91
441
18
134
91
441
18
8 25
0
0
0
0
339
213
934
29
170
106
467
14
170
106
467
14
% 70
0
0
0
0
87
45
277
16
29
15
92
5
29
15
92
5
m 200
0
0
0
0
145
14
0
0
14
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
571
271
1211
45
568
364
2828
137
568
364
2828
137
Grand Total
0
2097
3897
3897
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
26
18
85
3
55
26
116
4
33
21
96
4
33
21
96
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
89
61
294
12
190
90
404
15
116
71
334
13
116
71
334
13
High Erosive Risk
153
104
504
21
326
155
691
26
198
122
571
22
198
122
571
22
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦S 7.5
267
183
883
36
0
0
0
0
134
91
441
18
134
91
441
18
8 25
0
0
0
0
339
213
934
29
170
106
467
14
170
106
467
14
*2 70
0
0
0
0
87
45
277
16
29
15
92
5
29
15
92
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
145
14
0
0
14
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
267
183
883
36
571
271
1211
45
347
214
1001
38
347
214
1001
38
Grand Total
1369
2097
1599
1599
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
55
26
116
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
190
90
404
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
326
155
691
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
339
213
934
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
87
45
277
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
145
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
571
271
1211
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
0
2097
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
26
18
85
3
55
26
116
4
0
0
0
0
33
21
96
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
89
61
294
12
190
90
404
15
0
0
0
0
116
71
334
13
High Erosive Risk
153
104
504
21
326
155
691
26
0
0
0
0
198
122
571
22
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
267
183
883
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
134
91
441
18
8 25
0
0
0
0
339
213
934
29
0
0
0
0
170
106
467
14
*2 70
0
0
0
0
87
45
277
16
0
0
0
0
29
15
92
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
145
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
267
183
883
36
571
271
1211
45
0
0
0
0
347
214
1001
38
Grand Total
1369
2097
0
1599
March, 2004
B-34
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MS
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
188
89
399
15
187
120
931
45
187
120
931
45
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
175
83
372
14
174
112
868
42
174
112
868
42
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
163
78
345
13
162
104
805
39
162
104
805
39
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
203
138
1682
92
203
138
1682
92
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
84
406
17
123
84
406
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
312
196
860
27
156
98
430
13
156
98
430
13
% 70
0
0
0
0
80
41
255
15
27
14
85
5
27
14
85
5
m 200
0
0
0
0
133
13
0
0
13
1
0
0
13
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
526
250
1115
41
523
335
2604
127
523
335
2604
127
Grand Total
0
1932
3588
3588
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
88
60
291
12
188
89
399
15
114
70
329
12
187
120
931
45
Moderate Erosive Risk
82
56
271
11
175
83
372
14
106
66
307
12
174
112
868
42
High Erosive Risk
76
52
251
10
163
78
345
13
99
61
285
11
162
104
805
39
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
203
138
1682
92
•S 7.5
246
168
813
33
0
0
0
0
123
84
406
17
123
84
406
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
312
196
860
27
156
98
430
13
156
98
430
13
*2 70
0
0
0
0
80
41
255
15
27
14
85
5
27
14
85
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
133
13
0
0
13
1
0
0
13
1
0
0
Total
246
168
813
33
526
250
1115
41
319
197
921
35
523
335
2604
127
Grand Total
1260
1932
1472
3588
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
188
89
399
15
0
0
0
0
187
120
931
45
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
175
83
372
14
0
0
0
0
174
112
868
42
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
163
78
345
13
0
0
0
0
162
104
805
39
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
203
138
1682
92
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
84
406
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
312
196
860
27
0
0
0
0
156
98
430
13
<2 70
0
0
0
0
80
41
255
15
0
0
0
0
27
14
85
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
133
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
526
250
1115
41
0
0
0
0
523
335
2604
127
Grand Total
0
1932
0
3588
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
88
60
291
12
188
89
399
15
0
0
0
0
187
120
931
45
Moderate Erosive Risk
82
56
271
11
175
83
372
14
0
0
0
0
174
112
868
42
High Erosive Risk
76
52
251
10
163
78
345
13
0
0
0
0
162
104
805
39
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
203
138
1682
92
•S 7.5
246
168
813
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
84
406
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
312
196
860
27
0
0
0
0
156
98
430
13
*2 70
0
0
0
0
80
41
255
15
0
0
0
0
27
14
85
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
133
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
1
0
0
Total
246
168
813
33
526
250
1115
41
0
0
0
0
523
335
2604
127
Grand Total
1260
1932
0
3588
March, 2004
B-35
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MT
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
191
86
411
14
192
122
960
46
192
122
960
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
51
622
34
75
51
622
34
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
31
150
6
45
31
150
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
115
72
318
10
58
36
159
5
58
36
159
5
% 70
0
0
0
0
29
14
94
5
10
5
31
2
10
5
31
2
m 200
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
192
86
411
14
192
122
961
46
192
122
961
46
Grand Total
0
704
1322
1322
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
90
61
299
12
191
86
411
14
117
71
340
12
192
122
960
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
51
622
34
¦S 7.5
90
61
300
12
0
0
0
0
45
31
150
6
45
31
150
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
115
72
318
10
58
36
159
5
58
36
159
5
« 70
0
0
0
0
29
14
94
5
10
5
31
2
10
5
31
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Total
90
61
300
12
192
86
411
14
117
71
340
12
192
122
961
46
Grand Total
463
704
541
1322
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
191
86
411
14
0
0
0
0
192
122
960
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
51
622
34
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
31
150
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
115
72
318
10
0
0
0
0
58
36
159
5
<2 70
0
0
0
0
29
14
94
5
0
0
0
0
10
5
31
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
192
86
411
14
0
0
0
0
192
122
961
46
Grand Total
0
704
0
1322
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
90
61
299
12
191
86
411
14
0
0
0
0
192
122
960
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
51
622
34
•S 7.5
90
61
300
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
31
150
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
115
72
318
10
0
0
0
0
58
36
159
5
*2 70
0
0
0
0
29
14
94
5
0
0
0
0
10
5
31
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Total
90
61
300
12
192
86
411
14
0
0
0
0
192
122
961
46
Grand Total
463
704
0
1322
March, 2004
B-36
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
NC
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
495
236
1051
39
492
316
2454
119
492
316
2454
119
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
430
205
912
34
427
274
2130
104
427
274
2130
104
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
365
173
773
29
363
232
1806
88
363
232
1806
88
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
499
338
4130
225
499
338
4130
225
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
302
206
997
41
302
206
997
41
8 25
0
0
0
0
766
480
2111
65
383
240
1055
33
383
240
1055
33
% 70
0
0
0
0
196
101
626
36
65
34
209
12
65
34
209
12
m 200
0
0
0
0
327
33
0
0
33
3
0
0
33
3
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
1289
614
2736
102
1282
822
6391
311
1282
822
6391
311
Grand Total
0
4741
8805
8805
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
232
158
766
31
495
236
1051
39
301
186
868
33
492
316
2454
119
Moderate Erosive Risk
201
138
665
27
430
205
912
34
261
161
754
28
427
274
2130
104
High Erosive Risk
171
117
564
23
365
173
773
29
221
136
639
24
363
232
1806
88
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
499
338
4130
225
¦S 7.5
604
413
1995
81
0
0
0
0
302
206
997
41
302
206
997
41
8 25
0
0
0
0
766
480
2111
65
383
240
1055
33
383
240
1055
33
*2 70
0
0
0
0
196
101
626
36
65
34
209
12
65
34
209
12
w 200
0
0
0
0
327
33
0
0
33
3
0
0
33
3
0
0
Total
604
413
1995
81
1289
614
2736
102
783
483
2261
85
1282
822
6391
311
Grand Total
3092
4741
3613
8805
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
495
236
1051
39
0
0
0
0
492
316
2454
119
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
430
205
912
34
0
0
0
0
427
274
2130
104
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
365
173
773
29
0
0
0
0
363
232
1806
88
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
499
338
4130
225
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
302
206
997
41
8 25
0
0
0
0
766
480
2111
65
0
0
0
0
383
240
1055
33
<2 70
0
0
0
0
196
101
626
36
0
0
0
0
65
34
209
12
w 200
0
0
0
0
327
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
3
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
1289
614
2736
102
0
0
0
0
1282
822
6391
311
Grand Total
0
4741
0
8805
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
232
158
766
31
495
236
1051
39
0
0
0
0
492
316
2454
119
Moderate Erosive Risk
201
138
665
27
430
205
912
34
0
0
0
0
427
274
2130
104
High Erosive Risk
171
117
564
23
365
173
773
29
0
0
0
0
363
232
1806
88
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
499
338
4130
225
•S 7.5
604
413
1995
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
302
206
997
41
8 25
0
0
0
0
766
480
2111
65
0
0
0
0
383
240
1055
33
*2 70
0
0
0
0
196
101
626
36
0
0
0
0
65
34
209
12
w 200
0
0
0
0
327
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
3
0
0
Total
604
413
1995
81
1289
614
2736
102
0
0
0
0
1282
822
6391
311
Grand Total
3092
4741
0
8805
March, 2004
B-37
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
M)
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
9
4
19
1
9
6
45
2
9
6
45
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
34
16
72
3
34
22
169
8
34
22
169
8
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
40
19
86
3
40
26
200
10
40
26
200
10
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
22
267
15
32
22
267
15
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
13
65
3
20
13
65
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
50
31
137
4
25
16
68
2
25
16
68
2
% 70
0
0
0
0
13
6
41
2
4
2
14
1
4
2
14
1
m 200
0
0
0
0
21
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
83
39
177
7
83
53
414
20
83
53
414
20
Grand Total
0
306
570
570
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
4
3
14
1
9
4
19
1
6
3
16
1
9
6
45
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
16
11
53
2
34
16
72
3
21
13
60
2
34
22
169
8
High Erosive Risk
19
13
62
3
40
19
86
3
25
15
71
3
40
26
200
10
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
22
267
15
¦S 7.5
39
27
129
5
0
0
0
0
20
13
65
3
20
13
65
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
50
31
137
4
25
16
68
2
25
16
68
2
*2 70
0
0
0
0
13
6
41
2
4
2
14
1
4
2
14
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
21
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
39
27
129
5
83
39
177
7
51
31
146
5
83
53
414
20
Grand Total
200
306
234
570
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
9
4
19
1
0
0
0
0
9
6
45
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
34
16
72
3
0
0
0
0
34
22
169
8
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
40
19
86
3
0
0
0
0
40
26
200
10
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
22
267
15
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
13
65
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
50
31
137
4
0
0
0
0
25
16
68
2
<2 70
0
0
0
0
13
6
41
2
0
0
0
0
4
2
14
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
21
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
83
39
177
7
0
0
0
0
83
53
414
20
Grand Total
0
306
0
570
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
4
3
14
1
9
4
19
1
0
0
0
0
9
6
45
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
16
11
53
2
34
16
72
3
0
0
0
0
34
22
169
8
High Erosive Risk
19
13
62
3
40
19
86
3
0
0
0
0
40
26
200
10
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
22
267
15
•S 7.5
39
27
129
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
13
65
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
50
31
137
4
0
0
0
0
25
16
68
2
*2 70
0
0
0
0
13
6
41
2
0
0
0
0
4
2
14
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
21
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
39
27
129
5
83
39
177
7
0
0
0
0
83
53
414
20
Grand Total
200
306
0
570
March, 2004
B-38
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
NE
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
12
8
40
2
26
12
55
2
26
16
128
6
26
16
128
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
25
17
81
3
52
25
111
4
52
33
260
13
52
33
260
13
High Erosive Risk
29
20
96
4
62
29
132
5
62
40
308
15
62
40
308
15
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
37
449
24
54
37
449
24
¦5 7.5
66
45
217
9
0
0
0
0
33
22
108
4
33
22
108
4
8 25
0
0
0
0
83
52
230
7
42
26
115
4
42
26
115
4
% 70
0
0
0
0
21
11
68
4
7
4
23
1
7
4
23
1
m 200
0
0
0
0
35
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
66
45
217
9
140
66
298
11
139
89
695
34
139
89
695
34
Grand Total
336
515
957
957
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
12
8
40
2
26
12
55
2
16
10
45
2
26
16
128
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
25
17
81
3
52
25
111
4
32
20
92
3
52
33
260
13
High Erosive Risk
29
20
96
4
62
29
132
5
38
23
109
4
62
40
308
15
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
37
449
24
¦S 7.5
66
45
217
9
0
0
0
0
33
22
108
4
33
22
108
4
8 25
0
0
0
0
83
52
230
7
42
26
115
4
42
26
115
4
*2 70
0
0
0
0
21
11
68
4
7
4
23
1
7
4
23
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
35
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
66
45
217
9
140
66
298
11
85
53
246
9
139
89
695
34
Grand Total
336
515
393
957
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
12
8
40
2
26
12
55
2
0
0
0
0
26
16
128
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
25
17
81
3
52
25
111
4
0
0
0
0
52
33
260
13
High Erosive Risk
29
20
96
4
62
29
132
5
0
0
0
0
62
40
308
15
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
37
449
24
•S 7.5
66
45
217
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
22
108
4
8 25
0
0
0
0
83
52
230
7
0
0
0
0
42
26
115
4
<2 70
0
0
0
0
21
11
68
4
0
0
0
0
7
4
23
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
35
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
66
45
217
9
140
66
298
11
0
0
0
0
139
89
695
34
Grand Total
336
515
0
957
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
12
8
40
2
26
12
55
2
0
0
0
0
26
16
128
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
25
17
81
3
52
25
111
4
0
0
0
0
52
33
260
13
High Erosive Risk
29
20
96
4
62
29
132
5
0
0
0
0
62
40
308
15
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
37
449
24
•S 7.5
66
45
217
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
22
108
4
8 25
0
0
0
0
83
52
230
7
0
0
0
0
42
26
115
4
*2 70
0
0
0
0
21
11
68
4
0
0
0
0
7
4
23
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
35
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
66
45
217
9
140
66
298
11
0
0
0
0
139
89
695
34
Grand Total
336
515
0
957
March, 2004
B-39
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MI
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
12
8
38
2
25
12
53
2
25
16
123
6
25
16
123
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
25
17
82
3
53
25
113
4
53
34
263
13
53
34
263
13
High Erosive Risk
38
26
126
5
82
39
173
6
81
52
404
20
81
52
404
20
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
42
510
28
62
42
510
28
¦5 7.5
75
51
246
10
0
0
0
0
37
25
123
5
37
25
123
5
8 25
0
0
0
0
95
59
261
8
47
30
130
4
47
30
130
4
% 70
0
0
0
0
24
12
77
4
8
4
26
1
8
4
26
1
m 200
0
0
0
0
41
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
75
51
246
10
160
76
338
12
158
102
790
38
158
102
790
38
Grand Total
382
586
1088
1088
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
12
8
38
2
25
12
53
2
15
9
43
2
25
16
123
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
25
17
82
3
53
25
113
4
32
20
93
4
53
34
263
13
High Erosive Risk
38
26
126
5
82
39
173
6
49
31
143
5
81
52
404
20
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
42
510
28
¦S 7.5
75
51
246
10
0
0
0
0
37
25
123
5
37
25
123
5
8 25
0
0
0
0
95
59
261
8
47
30
130
4
47
30
130
4
*2 70
0
0
0
0
24
12
77
4
8
4
26
1
8
4
26
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
41
4
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
75
51
246
10
160
76
338
12
97
60
279
11
158
102
790
38
Grand Total
382
586
447
1088
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
12
8
38
2
25
12
53
2
0
0
0
0
25
16
123
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
25
17
82
3
53
25
113
4
0
0
0
0
53
34
263
13
High Erosive Risk
38
26
126
5
82
39
173
6
0
0
0
0
81
52
404
20
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
42
510
28
•S 7.5
75
51
246
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
25
123
5
8 25
0
0
0
0
95
59
261
8
0
0
0
0
47
30
130
4
<2 70
0
0
0
0
24
12
77
4
0
0
0
0
8
4
26
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
41
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
75
51
246
10
160
76
338
12
0
0
0
0
158
102
790
38
Grand Total
382
586
0
1088
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
12
8
38
2
25
12
53
2
0
0
0
0
25
16
123
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
25
17
82
3
53
25
113
4
0
0
0
0
53
34
263
13
High Erosive Risk
38
26
126
5
82
39
173
6
0
0
0
0
81
52
404
20
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
42
510
28
•S 7.5
75
51
246
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
25
123
5
8 25
0
0
0
0
95
59
261
8
0
0
0
0
47
30
130
4
*2 70
0
0
0
0
24
12
77
4
0
0
0
0
8
4
26
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
41
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
75
51
246
10
160
76
338
12
0
0
0
0
158
102
790
38
Grand Total
382
586
0
1088
March, 2004
B-40
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
NJ
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
173
83
367
13
172
110
858
42
172
110
858
42
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
181
86
385
14
180
115
898
44
180
115
898
44
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
189
90
402
15
188
120
938
46
188
120
938
46
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
211
143
1741
95
211
143
1741
95
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127
87
421
17
127
87
421
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
323
202
890
27
161
101
445
14
161
101
445
14
% 70
0
0
0
0
83
42
264
15
28
14
88
5
28
14
88
5
m 200
0
0
0
0
138
14
0
0
14
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
543
259
1154
42
540
346
2695
131
540
346
2695
131
Grand Total
0
1998
3712
3712
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
81
55
268
11
173
83
367
13
105
65
304
11
105
65
304
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
85
58
280
11
181
86
385
14
110
68
318
12
110
68
318
12
High Erosive Risk
89
61
293
12
189
90
402
15
115
71
332
12
115
71
332
12
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦S 7.5
254
174
841
34
0
0
0
0
127
87
421
17
127
87
421
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
323
202
890
27
161
101
445
14
161
101
445
14
*2 70
0
0
0
0
83
42
264
15
28
14
88
5
28
14
88
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
138
14
0
0
14
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
254
174
841
34
543
259
1154
42
330
204
953
36
330
204
953
36
Grand Total
1304
1998
1523
1523
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
173
83
367
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
181
86
385
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
189
90
402
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
323
202
890
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
83
42
264
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
138
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
543
259
1154
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
0
1998
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
81
55
268
11
173
83
367
13
0
0
0
0
105
65
304
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
85
58
280
11
181
86
385
14
0
0
0
0
110
68
318
12
High Erosive Risk
89
61
293
12
189
90
402
15
0
0
0
0
115
71
332
12
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
254
174
841
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127
87
421
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
323
202
890
27
0
0
0
0
161
101
445
14
*2 70
0
0
0
0
83
42
264
15
0
0
0
0
28
14
88
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
138
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
254
174
841
34
543
259
1154
42
0
0
0
0
330
204
953
36
Grand Total
1304
1998
0
1523
March, 2004
B-41
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
NM
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
92
63
306
12
197
91
419
15
196
125
980
47
196
125
980
47
Moderate Erosive Risk
132
90
439
18
281
135
601
21
281
180
1405
68
281
180
1405
68
High Erosive Risk
33
23
111
4
70
34
152
6
71
45
354
17
71
45
354
17
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
145
1770
96
214
145
1770
96
¦5 7.5
258
176
855
34
0
0
0
0
129
88
427
17
129
88
427
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
328
205
905
27
164
103
452
14
164
103
452
14
% 70
0
0
0
0
83
42
267
14
28
14
89
5
28
14
89
5
m 200
0
0
0
0
137
12
0
0
14
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
258
176
855
34
548
260
1172
42
548
351
2739
132
548
351
2739
132
Grand Total
1324
2021
3770
3770
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
92
63
306
12
197
91
419
15
120
74
347
13
196
125
980
47
Moderate Erosive Risk
132
90
439
18
281
135
601
21
171
106
497
18
281
180
1405
68
High Erosive Risk
33
23
111
4
70
34
152
6
43
27
125
5
71
45
354
17
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
145
1770
96
•S 7.5
258
176
855
34
0
0
0
0
129
88
427
17
129
88
427
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
328
205
905
27
164
103
452
14
164
103
452
14
*2 70
0
0
0
0
83
42
267
14
28
14
89
5
28
14
89
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
137
12
0
0
14
1
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
258
176
855
34
548
260
1172
42
334
206
969
36
548
351
2739
132
Grand Total
1324
2021
1545
3770
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
92
63
306
12
197
91
419
15
0
0
0
0
196
125
980
47
Moderate Erosive Risk
132
90
439
18
281
135
601
21
0
0
0
0
281
180
1405
68
High Erosive Risk
33
23
111
4
70
34
152
6
0
0
0
0
71
45
354
17
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
145
1770
96
•S 7.5
258
176
855
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
129
88
427
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
328
205
905
27
0
0
0
0
164
103
452
14
<2 70
0
0
0
0
83
42
267
14
0
0
0
0
28
14
89
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
137
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
258
176
855
34
548
260
1172
42
0
0
0
0
548
351
2739
132
Grand Total
1324
2021
0
3770
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
92
63
306
12
197
91
419
15
0
0
0
0
196
125
980
47
Moderate Erosive Risk
132
90
439
18
281
135
601
21
0
0
0
0
281
180
1405
68
High Erosive Risk
33
23
111
4
70
34
152
6
0
0
0
0
71
45
354
17
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
214
145
1770
96
•S 7.5
258
176
855
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
129
88
427
17
8 25
0
0
0
0
328
205
905
27
0
0
0
0
164
103
452
14
*2 70
0
0
0
0
83
42
267
14
0
0
0
0
28
14
89
5
w 200
0
0
0
0
137
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
Total
258
176
855
34
548
260
1172
42
0
0
0
0
548
351
2739
132
Grand Total
1324
2021
0
3770
March, 2004
B-42
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
NV
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
13
8
41
2
27
12
57
2
27
17
133
6
27
17
133
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
19
13
63
3
41
19
87
3
41
26
203
10
41
26
203
10
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
18
218
12
26
18
218
12
¦5 7.5
32
22
105
4
0
0
0
0
16
11
53
2
16
11
53
2
8 25
0
0
0
0
40
25
111
3
20
13
56
2
20
13
56
2
% 70
0
0
0
0
10
5
33
2
3
2
11
1
3
2
11
1
m 200
0
0
0
0
17
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
32
22
105
4
68
32
144
5
67
43
337
16
67
43
337
16
Grand Total
163
249
464
464
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
13
8
41
2
27
12
57
2
16
10
47
2
27
17
133
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
19
13
63
3
41
19
87
3
25
15
72
3
41
26
203
10
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
18
218
12
¦S 7.5
32
22
105
4
0
0
0
0
16
11
53
2
16
11
53
2
8 25
0
0
0
0
40
25
111
3
20
13
56
2
20
13
56
2
*2 70
0
0
0
0
10
5
33
2
3
2
11
1
3
2
11
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
17
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
32
22
105
4
68
32
144
5
41
25
119
4
67
43
337
16
Grand Total
163
249
190
464
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
13
8
41
2
27
12
57
2
0
0
0
0
27
17
133
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
19
13
63
3
41
19
87
3
0
0
0
0
41
26
203
10
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
18
218
12
•S 7.5
32
22
105
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
11
53
2
8 25
0
0
0
0
40
25
111
3
0
0
0
0
20
13
56
2
<2 70
0
0
0
0
10
5
33
2
0
0
0
0
3
2
11
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
32
22
105
4
68
32
144
5
0
0
0
0
67
43
337
16
Grand Total
163
249
0
464
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
13
8
41
2
27
12
57
2
0
0
0
0
27
17
133
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
19
13
63
3
41
19
87
3
0
0
0
0
41
26
203
10
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
18
218
12
•S 7.5
32
22
105
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
11
53
2
8 25
0
0
0
0
40
25
111
3
0
0
0
0
20
13
56
2
*2 70
0
0
0
0
10
5
33
2
0
0
0
0
3
2
11
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
32
22
105
4
68
32
144
5
0
0
0
0
67
43
337
16
Grand Total
163
249
0
464
March, 2004
B-43
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
NY
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
57
39
188
8
122
58
258
10
121
77
602
29
121
77
602
29
Moderate Erosive Risk
126
86
417
17
270
128
572
21
268
172
1336
65
268
172
1336
65
High Erosive Risk
195
133
646
26
418
199
886
33
415
266
2069
101
415
266
2069
101
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
313
212
2589
141
313
212
2589
141
¦5 7.5
378
259
1250
51
0
0
0
0
189
129
625
26
189
129
625
26
8 25
0
0
0
0
480
301
1323
41
240
151
662
20
240
151
662
20
% 70
0
0
0
0
123
63
393
23
41
21
131
8
41
21
131
8
m 200
0
0
0
0
206
21
0
0
21
2
0
0
21
2
0
0
Total
378
259
1250
51
809
385
1716
63
804
515
4007
195
804
515
4007
195
Grand Total
1939
2974
5521
5521
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
57
39
188
8
122
58
258
10
74
46
213
8
121
77
602
29
Moderate Erosive Risk
126
86
417
17
270
128
572
21
164
101
473
18
268
172
1336
65
High Erosive Risk
195
133
646
26
418
199
886
33
253
156
732
28
415
266
2069
101
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
313
212
2589
141
¦S 7.5
378
259
1250
51
0
0
0
0
189
129
625
26
189
129
625
26
8 25
0
0
0
0
480
301
1323
41
240
151
662
20
240
151
662
20
« 70
0
0
0
0
123
63
393
23
41
21
131
8
41
21
131
8
w 200
0
0
0
0
206
21
0
0
21
2
0
0
21
2
0
0
Total
378
259
1250
51
809
385
1716
63
491
303
1418
53
804
515
4007
195
Grand Total
1939
2974
2265
5521
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
57
39
188
8
122
58
258
10
0
0
0
0
121
77
602
29
Moderate Erosive Risk
126
86
417
17
270
128
572
21
0
0
0
0
268
172
1336
65
High Erosive Risk
195
133
646
26
418
199
886
33
0
0
0
0
415
266
2069
101
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
313
212
2589
141
•S 7.5
378
259
1250
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
189
129
625
26
8 25
0
0
0
0
480
301
1323
41
0
0
0
0
240
151
662
20
<2 70
0
0
0
0
123
63
393
23
0
0
0
0
41
21
131
8
w 200
0
0
0
0
206
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
2
0
0
Total
378
259
1250
51
809
385
1716
63
0
0
0
0
804
515
4007
195
Grand Total
1939
2974
0
5521
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
57
39
188
8
122
58
258
10
0
0
0
0
121
77
602
29
Moderate Erosive Risk
126
86
417
17
270
128
572
21
0
0
0
0
268
172
1336
65
High Erosive Risk
195
133
646
26
418
199
886
33
0
0
0
0
415
266
2069
101
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
313
212
2589
141
•S 7.5
378
259
1250
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
189
129
625
26
8 25
0
0
0
0
480
301
1323
41
0
0
0
0
240
151
662
20
*2 70
0
0
0
0
123
63
393
23
0
0
0
0
41
21
131
8
w 200
0
0
0
0
206
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
2
0
0
Total
378
259
1250
51
809
385
1716
63
0
0
0
0
804
515
4007
195
Grand Total
1939
2974
0
5521
March, 2004
B-44
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
OH
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
84
39
178
6
83
53
416
20
83
53
416
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
309
147
657
24
308
197
1534
75
308
197
1534
75
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
535
255
1136
42
532
341
2652
129
532
341
2652
129
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
244
2974
162
359
244
2974
162
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218
149
718
29
218
149
718
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
552
346
1520
47
276
173
760
23
276
173
760
23
% 70
0
0
0
0
142
73
451
26
47
24
150
9
47
24
150
9
m 200
0
0
0
0
235
23
0
0
23
2
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
928
441
1971
73
924
592
4602
224
924
592
4602
224
Grand Total
0
3414
6341
6341
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
39
27
130
5
84
39
178
6
51
31
147
6
83
53
416
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
145
99
479
20
309
147
657
24
188
116
543
21
308
197
1534
75
High Erosive Risk
251
171
828
34
535
255
1136
42
325
201
939
36
532
341
2652
129
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
244
2974
162
¦S 7.5
435
297
1437
59
0
0
0
0
218
149
718
29
218
149
718
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
552
346
1520
47
276
173
760
23
276
173
760
23
*2 70
0
0
0
0
142
73
451
26
47
24
150
9
47
24
150
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
235
23
0
0
23
2
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
435
297
1437
59
928
441
1971
73
564
348
1629
62
924
592
4602
224
Grand Total
2227
3414
2602
6341
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
84
39
178
6
0
0
0
0
83
53
416
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
309
147
657
24
0
0
0
0
308
197
1534
75
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
535
255
1136
42
0
0
0
0
532
341
2652
129
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
244
2974
162
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218
149
718
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
552
346
1520
47
0
0
0
0
276
173
760
23
<2 70
0
0
0
0
142
73
451
26
0
0
0
0
47
24
150
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
235
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
928
441
1971
73
0
0
0
0
924
592
4602
224
Grand Total
0
3414
0
6341
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
39
27
130
5
84
39
178
6
0
0
0
0
83
53
416
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
145
99
479
20
309
147
657
24
0
0
0
0
308
197
1534
75
High Erosive Risk
251
171
828
34
535
255
1136
42
0
0
0
0
532
341
2652
129
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
359
244
2974
162
•S 7.5
435
297
1437
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218
149
718
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
552
346
1520
47
0
0
0
0
276
173
760
23
*2 70
0
0
0
0
142
73
451
26
0
0
0
0
47
24
150
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
235
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
435
297
1437
59
928
441
1971
73
0
0
0
0
924
592
4602
224
Grand Total
2227
3414
0
6341
March, 2004
B-45
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
OK
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
21
15
70
3
45
21
96
4
45
29
224
11
45
29
224
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
71
49
236
10
152
72
323
12
152
97
755
37
152
97
755
37
High Erosive Risk
118
81
390
16
252
120
535
20
251
161
1249
61
251
161
1249
61
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
118
1440
79
174
118
1440
79
•S 7.5
211
144
696
28
0
0
0
0
105
72
348
14
105
72
348
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
267
168
736
23
134
84
368
11
134
84
368
11
*£ 70
0
0
0
0
68
35
218
12
23
12
73
4
23
12
73
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
11
0
0
11
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
211
144
696
28
450
213
954
35
447
287
2229
108
447
287
2229
108
Grand Total
1079
1653
3071
3071
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
21
15
70
3
45
21
96
4
28
17
79
3
45
29
224
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
71
49
236
10
152
72
323
12
93
57
267
10
152
97
755
37
High Erosive Risk
118
81
390
16
252
120
535
20
153
94
442
17
251
161
1249
61
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
118
1440
79
•S 7.5
211
144
696
28
0
0
0
0
105
72
348
14
105
72
348
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
267
168
736
23
134
84
368
11
134
84
368
11
*2 70
0
0
0
0
68
35
218
12
23
12
73
4
23
12
73
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
11
0
0
11
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
211
144
696
28
450
213
954
35
273
168
789
30
447
287
2229
108
Grand Total
1079
1653
1260
3071
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
21
15
70
3
45
21
96
4
0
0
0
0
45
29
224
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
71
49
236
10
152
72
323
12
0
0
0
0
152
97
755
37
High Erosive Risk
118
81
390
16
252
120
535
20
0
0
0
0
251
161
1249
61
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
118
1440
79
•S 7.5
211
144
696
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
72
348
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
267
168
736
23
0
0
0
0
134
84
368
11
<2 70
0
0
0
0
68
35
218
12
0
0
0
0
23
12
73
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
211
144
696
28
450
213
954
35
0
0
0
0
447
287
2229
108
Grand Total
1079
1653
0
3071
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
21
15
70
3
45
21
96
4
0
0
0
0
45
29
224
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
71
49
236
10
152
72
323
12
0
0
0
0
152
97
755
37
High Erosive Risk
118
81
390
16
252
120
535
20
0
0
0
0
251
161
1249
61
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
118
1440
79
•S 7.5
211
144
696
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
72
348
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
267
168
736
23
0
0
0
0
134
84
368
11
*2 70
0
0
0
0
68
35
218
12
0
0
0
0
23
12
73
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
211
144
696
28
450
213
954
35
0
0
0
0
447
287
2229
108
Grand Total
1079
1653
0
3071
March, 2004
B-46
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
OR
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
32
15
70
2
32
21
163
8
32
21
163
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
126
58
272
9
127
81
637
30
127
81
637
30
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
101
46
217
7
102
65
509
24
102
65
509
24
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
69
847
46
102
69
847
46
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
42
204
8
62
42
204
8
8 25
0
0
0
0
156
98
432
13
78
49
216
6
78
49
216
6
% 70
0
0
0
0
39
19
127
6
13
6
42
2
13
6
42
2
m 200
0
0
0
0
63
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
259
118
559
19
261
166
1309
62
261
166
1309
62
Grand Total
0
955
1799
1799
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
15
11
51
2
32
15
70
2
20
12
58
2
32
21
163
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
60
41
199
8
126
58
272
9
77
47
225
8
127
81
637
30
High Erosive Risk
48
32
159
6
101
46
217
7
62
38
180
6
102
65
509
24
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
69
847
46
¦S 7.5
124
84
408
16
0
0
0
0
62
42
204
8
62
42
204
8
8 25
0
0
0
0
156
98
432
13
78
49
216
6
78
49
216
6
« 70
0
0
0
0
39
19
127
6
13
6
42
2
13
6
42
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
63
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Total
124
84
408
16
259
118
559
19
159
97
462
16
261
166
1309
62
Grand Total
631
955
735
1799
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
32
15
70
2
0
0
0
0
32
21
163
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
126
58
272
9
0
0
0
0
127
81
637
30
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
101
46
217
7
0
0
0
0
102
65
509
24
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
69
847
46
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
42
204
8
8 25
0
0
0
0
156
98
432
13
0
0
0
0
78
49
216
6
<2 70
0
0
0
0
39
19
127
6
0
0
0
0
13
6
42
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
63
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
259
118
559
19
0
0
0
0
261
166
1309
62
Grand Total
0
955
0
1799
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
15
11
51
2
32
15
70
2
0
0
0
0
32
21
163
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
60
41
199
8
126
58
272
9
0
0
0
0
127
81
637
30
High Erosive Risk
48
32
159
6
101
46
217
7
0
0
0
0
102
65
509
24
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
102
69
847
46
•S 7.5
124
84
408
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
42
204
8
8 25
0
0
0
0
156
98
432
13
0
0
0
0
78
49
216
6
*2 70
0
0
0
0
39
19
127
6
0
0
0
0
13
6
42
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
63
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
Total
124
84
408
16
259
118
559
19
0
0
0
0
261
166
1309
62
Grand Total
631
955
0
1799
March, 2004
B-47
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
PA
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
73
50
240
10
156
74
329
12
154
99
769
37
154
99
769
37
Moderate Erosive Risk
217
148
715
29
463
220
982
36
460
295
2292
111
460
295
2292
111
High Erosive Risk
361
246
1191
49
770
366
1634
60
766
491
3815
185
766
491
3815
185
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
537
364
4443
242
537
364
4443
242
¦5 7.5
650
444
2146
88
0
0
0
0
325
222
1073
44
325
222
1073
44
8 25
0
0
0
0
824
517
2271
70
412
258
1136
35
412
258
1136
35
% 70
0
0
0
0
212
109
674
39
71
36
225
13
71
36
225
13
m 200
0
0
0
0
353
35
0
0
35
4
0
0
35
4
0
0
Total
650
444
2146
88
1389
661
2945
109
1380
884
6877
334
1380
884
6877
334
Grand Total
3328
5104
9475
9475
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
73
50
240
10
156
74
329
12
94
58
272
10
94
58
272
10
Moderate Erosive Risk
217
148
715
29
463
220
982
36
281
173
811
31
281
173
811
31
High Erosive Risk
361
246
1191
49
770
366
1634
60
468
289
1350
51
468
289
1350
51
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦S 7.5
650
444
2146
88
0
0
0
0
325
222
1073
44
325
222
1073
44
8 25
0
0
0
0
824
517
2271
70
412
258
1136
35
412
258
1136
35
*2 70
0
0
0
0
212
109
674
39
71
36
225
13
71
36
225
13
w 200
0
0
0
0
353
35
0
0
35
4
0
0
35
4
0
0
Total
650
444
2146
88
1389
661
2945
109
843
520
2433
92
843
520
2433
92
Grand Total
3328
5104
3888
3888
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
73
50
240
10
156
74
329
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
217
148
715
29
463
220
982
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
361
246
1191
49
770
366
1634
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
650
444
2146
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
824
517
2271
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
212
109
674
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
353
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
650
444
2146
88
1389
661
2945
109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
3328
5104
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
73
50
240
10
156
74
329
12
0
0
0
0
94
58
272
10
Moderate Erosive Risk
217
148
715
29
463
220
982
36
0
0
0
0
281
173
811
31
High Erosive Risk
361
246
1191
49
770
366
1634
60
0
0
0
0
468
289
1350
51
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
650
444
2146
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
325
222
1073
44
8 25
0
0
0
0
824
517
2271
70
0
0
0
0
412
258
1136
35
*2 70
0
0
0
0
212
109
674
39
0
0
0
0
71
36
225
13
w 200
0
0
0
0
353
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
4
0
0
Total
650
444
2146
88
1389
661
2945
109
0
0
0
0
843
520
2433
92
Grand Total
3328
5104
0
3888
March, 2004
B-48
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
RI
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
3
1
6
0
3
2
13
1
3
2
13
1
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
6
3
12
0
6
4
28
1
6
4
28
1
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
9
4
18
1
9
5
43
2
9
5
43
2
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
54
3
7
4
54
3
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
13
1
4
3
13
1
8 25
0
0
0
0
10
6
28
1
5
3
14
0
5
3
14
0
% 70
0
0
0
0
3
1
8
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
3
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
17
8
36
1
17
11
83
4
17
11
83
4
Grand Total
0
62
115
115
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
1
1
4
0
3
1
6
0
2
1
5
0
3
2
13
1
Moderate Erosive Risk
3
2
9
0
6
3
12
0
3
2
10
0
6
4
28
1
High Erosive Risk
4
3
13
1
9
4
18
1
5
3
15
1
9
5
43
2
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
54
3
¦S 7.5
8
5
26
1
0
0
0
0
4
3
13
1
4
3
13
1
8 25
0
0
0
0
10
6
28
1
5
3
14
0
5
3
14
0
*2 70
0
0
0
0
3
1
8
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
3
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
8
5
26
1
17
8
36
1
10
6
29
1
17
11
83
4
Grand Total
40
62
47
115
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
3
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
13
1
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
6
3
12
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
28
1
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
9
4
18
1
0
0
0
0
9
5
43
2
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
54
3
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
13
1
8 25
0
0
0
0
10
6
28
1
0
0
0
0
5
3
14
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
3
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
17
8
36
1
0
0
0
0
17
11
83
4
Grand Total
0
62
0
115
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
1
1
4
0
3
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
13
1
Moderate Erosive Risk
3
2
9
0
6
3
12
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
28
1
High Erosive Risk
4
3
13
1
9
4
18
1
0
0
0
0
9
5
43
2
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
54
3
•S 7.5
8
5
26
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
13
1
8 25
0
0
0
0
10
6
28
1
0
0
0
0
5
3
14
0
*2 70
0
0
0
0
3
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
8
5
26
1
17
8
36
1
0
0
0
0
17
11
83
4
Grand Total
40
62
0
115
March, 2004
B-49
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
sc
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
192
131
634
26
409
196
870
32
408
261
2032
99
408
261
2032
99
Moderate Erosive Risk
144
98
475
19
307
146
652
24
305
196
1522
74
305
196
1522
74
High Erosive Risk
96
65
316
13
205
97
433
16
203
130
1012
49
203
130
1012
49
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
357
242
2951
161
357
242
2951
161
¦5 7.5
431
295
1426
58
0
0
0
0
216
147
713
29
216
147
713
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
547
343
1508
47
274
172
754
23
274
172
754
23
% 70
0
0
0
0
140
72
447
26
47
24
149
9
47
24
149
9
m 200
0
0
0
0
234
23
0
0
23
2
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
431
295
1426
58
921
438
1955
73
916
587
4567
222
916
587
4567
222
Grand Total
2210
3387
6292
6292
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
192
131
634
26
409
196
870
32
249
154
719
27
408
261
2032
99
Moderate Erosive Risk
144
98
475
19
307
146
652
24
186
115
539
20
305
196
1522
74
High Erosive Risk
96
65
316
13
205
97
433
16
124
76
358
14
203
130
1012
49
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
357
242
2951
161
•S 7.5
431
295
1426
58
0
0
0
0
216
147
713
29
216
147
713
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
547
343
1508
47
274
172
754
23
274
172
754
23
*2 70
0
0
0
0
140
72
447
26
47
24
149
9
47
24
149
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
234
23
0
0
23
2
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
431
295
1426
58
921
438
1955
73
559
345
1616
61
916
587
4567
222
Grand Total
2210
3387
2581
6292
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
192
131
634
26
409
196
870
32
0
0
0
0
408
261
2032
99
Moderate Erosive Risk
144
98
475
19
307
146
652
24
0
0
0
0
305
196
1522
74
High Erosive Risk
96
65
316
13
205
97
433
16
0
0
0
0
203
130
1012
49
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
357
242
2951
161
•S 7.5
431
295
1426
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
216
147
713
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
547
343
1508
47
0
0
0
0
274
172
754
23
<2 70
0
0
0
0
140
72
447
26
0
0
0
0
47
24
149
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
234
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
431
295
1426
58
921
438
1955
73
0
0
0
0
916
587
4567
222
Grand Total
2210
3387
0
6292
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
192
131
634
26
409
196
870
32
0
0
0
0
408
261
2032
99
Moderate Erosive Risk
144
98
475
19
307
146
652
24
0
0
0
0
305
196
1522
74
High Erosive Risk
96
65
316
13
205
97
433
16
0
0
0
0
203
130
1012
49
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
357
242
2951
161
•S 7.5
431
295
1426
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
216
147
713
29
8 25
0
0
0
0
547
343
1508
47
0
0
0
0
274
172
754
23
*2 70
0
0
0
0
140
72
447
26
0
0
0
0
47
24
149
9
w 200
0
0
0
0
234
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
2
0
0
Total
431
295
1426
58
921
438
1955
73
0
0
0
0
916
587
4567
222
Grand Total
2210
3387
0
6292
March, 2004
B-50
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
SD
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
16
8
35
1
16
11
82
4
16
11
82
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
59
27
125
5
58
37
292
14
58
37
292
14
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
72
34
152
6
71
46
355
17
71
46
355
17
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
39
471
26
57
39
471
26
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
24
114
5
34
24
114
5
8 25
0
0
0
0
87
55
241
7
44
27
120
4
44
27
120
4
% 70
0
0
0
0
22
11
71
4
7
4
24
1
7
4
24
1
m 200
0
0
0
0
37
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
147
69
312
11
146
94
729
35
146
94
729
35
Grand Total
0
540
1004
1004
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
8
5
26
1
16
8
35
1
10
6
29
1
16
11
82
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
27
19
91
4
59
27
125
5
36
22
103
4
58
37
292
14
High Erosive Risk
34
23
111
5
72
34
152
6
44
27
126
5
71
46
355
17
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
39
471
26
¦S 7.5
69
47
228
9
0
0
0
0
34
24
114
5
34
24
114
5
8 25
0
0
0
0
87
55
241
7
44
27
120
4
44
27
120
4
*2 70
0
0
0
0
22
11
71
4
7
4
24
1
7
4
24
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
37
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
69
47
228
9
147
69
312
11
89
55
258
10
146
94
729
35
Grand Total
353
540
412
1004
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
16
8
35
1
0
0
0
0
16
11
82
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
59
27
125
5
0
0
0
0
58
37
292
14
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
72
34
152
6
0
0
0
0
71
46
355
17
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
39
471
26
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
24
114
5
8 25
0
0
0
0
87
55
241
7
0
0
0
0
44
27
120
4
<2 70
0
0
0
0
22
11
71
4
0
0
0
0
7
4
24
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
37
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
147
69
312
11
0
0
0
0
146
94
729
35
Grand Total
0
540
0
1004
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
8
5
26
1
16
8
35
1
0
0
0
0
16
11
82
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
27
19
91
4
59
27
125
5
0
0
0
0
58
37
292
14
High Erosive Risk
34
23
111
5
72
34
152
6
0
0
0
0
71
46
355
17
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
39
471
26
•S 7.5
69
47
228
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
24
114
5
8 25
0
0
0
0
87
55
241
7
0
0
0
0
44
27
120
4
*2 70
0
0
0
0
22
11
71
4
0
0
0
0
7
4
24
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
37
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
Total
69
47
228
9
147
69
312
11
0
0
0
0
146
94
729
35
Grand Total
353
540
0
1004
March, 2004
B-51
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
TN
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
35
24
115
5
74
35
158
6
74
47
369
18
74
47
369
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
160
109
528
22
341
162
724
27
339
217
1690
82
339
217
1690
82
High Erosive Risk
285
194
940
38
608
289
1290
48
604
387
3011
146
604
387
3011
146
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
396
268
3276
179
396
268
3276
179
¦5 7.5
479
327
1583
65
0
0
0
0
240
164
791
32
240
164
791
32
8 25
0
0
0
0
608
381
1675
52
304
190
837
26
304
190
837
26
% 70
0
0
0
0
156
80
496
29
52
27
165
10
52
27
165
10
m 200
0
0
0
0
259
26
0
0
26
3
0
0
26
3
0
0
Total
479
327
1583
65
1023
487
2171
81
1018
652
5070
247
1018
652
5070
247
Grand Total
2454
3762
6986
6986
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
35
24
115
5
74
35
158
6
45
28
131
5
74
47
369
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
160
109
528
22
341
162
724
27
207
128
598
23
339
217
1690
82
High Erosive Risk
285
194
940
38
608
289
1290
48
369
228
1066
40
604
387
3011
146
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
396
268
3276
179
¦S 7.5
479
327
1583
65
0
0
0
0
240
164
791
32
240
164
791
32
8 25
0
0
0
0
608
381
1675
52
304
190
837
26
304
190
837
26
« 70
0
0
0
0
156
80
496
29
52
27
165
10
52
27
165
10
w 200
0
0
0
0
259
26
0
0
26
3
0
0
26
3
0
0
Total
479
327
1583
65
1023
487
2171
81
622
383
1794
68
1018
652
5070
247
Grand Total
2454
3762
2867
6986
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
35
24
115
5
74
35
158
6
0
0
0
0
74
47
369
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
160
109
528
22
341
162
724
27
0
0
0
0
339
217
1690
82
High Erosive Risk
285
194
940
38
608
289
1290
48
0
0
0
0
604
387
3011
146
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
396
268
3276
179
•S 7.5
479
327
1583
65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
240
164
791
32
8 25
0
0
0
0
608
381
1675
52
0
0
0
0
304
190
837
26
<2 70
0
0
0
0
156
80
496
29
0
0
0
0
52
27
165
10
w 200
0
0
0
0
259
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
3
0
0
Total
479
327
1583
65
1023
487
2171
81
0
0
0
0
1018
652
5070
247
Grand Total
2454
3762
0
6986
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
35
24
115
5
74
35
158
6
0
0
0
0
74
47
369
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
160
109
528
22
341
162
724
27
0
0
0
0
339
217
1690
82
High Erosive Risk
285
194
940
38
608
289
1290
48
0
0
0
0
604
387
3011
146
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
396
268
3276
179
•S 7.5
479
327
1583
65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
240
164
791
32
8 25
0
0
0
0
608
381
1675
52
0
0
0
0
304
190
837
26
*2 70
0
0
0
0
156
80
496
29
0
0
0
0
52
27
165
10
w 200
0
0
0
0
259
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
3
0
0
Total
479
327
1583
65
1023
487
2171
81
0
0
0
0
1018
652
5070
247
Grand Total
2454
3762
0
6986
March, 2004
B-52
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
TX
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
201
137
664
27
427
200
909
32
426
272
2126
103
426
272
2126
103
Moderate Erosive Risk
418
285
1382
56
890
424
1895
69
887
568
4427
214
887
568
4427
214
High Erosive Risk
446
304
1472
60
951
452
2019
74
946
606
4716
229
946
606
4716
229
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
880
596
7283
397
880
596
7283
397
¦5 7.5
1064
727
3518
143
0
0
0
0
532
363
1759
71
532
363
1759
71
8 25
0
0
0
0
1351
847
3722
114
675
423
1861
57
675
423
1861
57
% 70
0
0
0
0
345
177
1102
61
115
59
367
20
115
59
367
20
m 200
0
0
0
0
572
53
0
0
57
5
0
0
57
5
0
0
Total
1064
727
3518
143
2268
1077
4823
176
2260
1447
11270
546
2260
1447
11270
546
Grand Total
5452
8344
15523
15523
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
201
137
664
27
427
200
909
32
260
160
752
28
426
272
2126
103
Moderate Erosive Risk
418
285
1382
56
890
424
1895
69
542
334
1566
58
887
568
4427
214
High Erosive Risk
446
304
1472
60
951
452
2019
74
578
356
1669
63
946
606
4716
229
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
880
596
7283
397
¦S 7.5
1064
727
3518
143
0
0
0
0
532
363
1759
71
532
363
1759
71
8 25
0
0
0
0
1351
847
3722
114
675
423
1861
57
675
423
1861
57
*2 70
0
0
0
0
345
177
1102
61
115
59
367
20
115
59
367
20
w 200
0
0
0
0
572
53
0
0
57
5
0
0
57
5
0
0
Total
1064
727
3518
143
2268
1077
4823
176
1380
851
3987
149
2260
1447
11270
546
Grand Total
5452
8344
6367
15523
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
201
137
664
27
427
200
909
32
0
0
0
0
426
272
2126
103
Moderate Erosive Risk
418
285
1382
56
890
424
1895
69
0
0
0
0
887
568
4427
214
High Erosive Risk
446
304
1472
60
951
452
2019
74
0
0
0
0
946
606
4716
229
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
880
596
7283
397
•S 7.5
1064
727
3518
143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
532
363
1759
71
8 25
0
0
0
0
1351
847
3722
114
0
0
0
0
675
423
1861
57
<2 70
0
0
0
0
345
177
1102
61
0
0
0
0
115
59
367
20
w 200
0
0
0
0
572
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
5
0
0
Total
1064
727
3518
143
2268
1077
4823
176
0
0
0
0
2260
1447
11270
546
Grand Total
5452
8344
0
15523
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
201
137
664
27
427
200
909
32
0
0
0
0
426
272
2126
103
Moderate Erosive Risk
418
285
1382
56
890
424
1895
69
0
0
0
0
887
568
4427
214
High Erosive Risk
446
304
1472
60
951
452
2019
74
0
0
0
0
946
606
4716
229
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
880
596
7283
397
•S 7.5
1064
727
3518
143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
532
363
1759
71
8 25
0
0
0
0
1351
847
3722
114
0
0
0
0
675
423
1861
57
*2 70
0
0
0
0
345
177
1102
61
0
0
0
0
115
59
367
20
w 200
0
0
0
0
572
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
5
0
0
Total
1064
727
3518
143
2268
1077
4823
176
0
0
0
0
2260
1447
11270
546
Grand Total
5452
8344
0
15523
March, 2004
B-53
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
UT
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
36
24
118
5
76
35
162
6
76
48
378
18
76
48
378
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
53
37
177
7
113
54
243
8
113
73
567
27
113
73
567
27
High Erosive Risk
8
5
25
1
16
8
35
1
16
10
81
4
16
10
81
4
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
54
663
36
80
54
663
36
¦5 7.5
97
66
320
13
0
0
0
0
48
33
160
6
48
33
160
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
123
77
339
10
61
38
169
5
61
38
169
5
% 70
0
0
0
0
31
16
100
5
10
5
33
2
10
5
33
2
m 200
0
0
0
0
51
4
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Total
97
66
320
13
204
97
439
16
205
131
1025
49
205
131
1025
49
Grand Total
496
756
1411
1411
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
36
24
118
5
76
35
162
6
46
28
134
5
76
48
378
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
53
37
177
7
113
54
243
8
69
43
201
7
113
73
567
27
High Erosive Risk
8
5
25
1
16
8
35
1
10
6
29
1
16
10
81
4
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
54
663
36
¦S 7.5
97
66
320
13
0
0
0
0
48
33
160
6
48
33
160
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
123
77
339
10
61
38
169
5
61
38
169
5
*2 70
0
0
0
0
31
16
100
5
10
5
33
2
10
5
33
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
51
4
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Total
97
66
320
13
204
97
439
16
125
77
363
13
205
131
1025
49
Grand Total
496
756
578
1411
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
36
24
118
5
76
35
162
6
0
0
0
0
76
48
378
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
53
37
177
7
113
54
243
8
0
0
0
0
113
73
567
27
High Erosive Risk
8
5
25
1
16
8
35
1
0
0
0
0
16
10
81
4
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
54
663
36
•S 7.5
97
66
320
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
33
160
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
123
77
339
10
0
0
0
0
61
38
169
5
<2 70
0
0
0
0
31
16
100
5
0
0
0
0
10
5
33
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
51
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Total
97
66
320
13
204
97
439
16
0
0
0
0
205
131
1025
49
Grand Total
496
756
0
1411
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
36
24
118
5
76
35
162
6
0
0
0
0
76
48
378
18
Moderate Erosive Risk
53
37
177
7
113
54
243
8
0
0
0
0
113
73
567
27
High Erosive Risk
8
5
25
1
16
8
35
1
0
0
0
0
16
10
81
4
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
54
663
36
•S 7.5
97
66
320
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
33
160
6
8 25
0
0
0
0
123
77
339
10
0
0
0
0
61
38
169
5
*2 70
0
0
0
0
31
16
100
5
0
0
0
0
10
5
33
2
w 200
0
0
0
0
51
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
Total
97
66
320
13
204
97
439
16
0
0
0
0
205
131
1025
49
Grand Total
496
756
0
1411
March, 2004
B-54
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
VA
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
111
76
366
15
237
113
502
19
235
151
1173
57
235
151
1173
57
Moderate Erosive Risk
137
93
451
18
292
139
619
23
290
186
1444
70
290
186
1444
70
High Erosive Risk
162
111
536
22
347
165
735
27
344
221
1716
84
344
221
1716
84
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
339
229
2800
153
339
229
2800
153
¦5 7.5
410
280
1353
55
0
0
0
0
205
140
676
28
205
140
676
28
8 25
0
0
0
0
519
326
1431
44
260
163
716
22
260
163
716
22
% 70
0
0
0
0
133
68
424
25
44
23
141
8
44
23
141
8
m 200
0
0
0
0
222
22
0
0
22
2
0
0
22
2
0
0
Total
410
280
1353
55
875
416
1856
69
870
557
4333
211
870
557
4333
211
Grand Total
2097
3216
5971
5971
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
111
76
366
15
237
113
502
19
144
89
415
16
235
151
1173
57
Moderate Erosive Risk
137
93
451
18
292
139
619
23
177
109
511
19
290
186
1444
70
High Erosive Risk
162
111
536
22
347
165
735
27
210
130
607
23
344
221
1716
84
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
339
229
2800
153
¦S 7.5
410
280
1353
55
0
0
0
0
205
140
676
28
205
140
676
28
8 25
0
0
0
0
519
326
1431
44
260
163
716
22
260
163
716
22
*2 70
0
0
0
0
133
68
424
25
44
23
141
8
44
23
141
8
w 200
0
0
0
0
222
22
0
0
22
2
0
0
22
2
0
0
Total
410
280
1353
55
875
416
1856
69
531
328
1533
58
870
557
4333
211
Grand Total
2097
3216
2450
5971
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
111
76
366
15
237
113
502
19
0
0
0
0
235
151
1173
57
Moderate Erosive Risk
137
93
451
18
292
139
619
23
0
0
0
0
290
186
1444
70
High Erosive Risk
162
111
536
22
347
165
735
27
0
0
0
0
344
221
1716
84
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
339
229
2800
153
•S 7.5
410
280
1353
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
205
140
676
28
8 25
0
0
0
0
519
326
1431
44
0
0
0
0
260
163
716
22
<2 70
0
0
0
0
133
68
424
25
0
0
0
0
44
23
141
8
w 200
0
0
0
0
222
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
2
0
0
Total
410
280
1353
55
875
416
1856
69
0
0
0
0
870
557
4333
211
Grand Total
2097
3216
0
5971
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
111
76
366
15
237
113
502
19
0
0
0
0
235
151
1173
57
Moderate Erosive Risk
137
93
451
18
292
139
619
23
0
0
0
0
290
186
1444
70
High Erosive Risk
162
111
536
22
347
165
735
27
0
0
0
0
344
221
1716
84
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
339
229
2800
153
•S 7.5
410
280
1353
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
205
140
676
28
8 25
0
0
0
0
519
326
1431
44
0
0
0
0
260
163
716
22
*2 70
0
0
0
0
133
68
424
25
0
0
0
0
44
23
141
8
w 200
0
0
0
0
222
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
2
0
0
Total
410
280
1353
55
875
416
1856
69
0
0
0
0
870
557
4333
211
Grand Total
2097
3216
0
5971
March, 2004
B-55
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
VT
OPTION 1
Low Erosive Risk
Moderate Erosive Risk
High Erosive Risk
g 0.5
< 3
¦S 7.5
J 25
% 70
m 200
Total
Grand Total
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
Moderate Erosive Risk
High Erosive Risk
£ 0.5
< 3
¦S 7.5
1 25
% 70
w 200
Total
Grand Total
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
Moderate Erosive Risk
High Erosive Risk
g 0.5
< 3
•S 7.5
1 25
'% io
m 200
Total
Grand Total
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
Moderate Erosive Risk
High Erosive Risk
!3 0.5
< 3
•S 7.5
1 25
% 70
w 200
Total
Grand Total
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
Single Multi ^ . , T ,
„ Commercial Industrial
r amily r amily
Single Multi _ . , _ , . ,
„ Commercial industrial
r amily r amily
Single Multi . , _ , . ,
„ Commercial industrial
r amily r amily
Single Multi _ . , _ , . ,
_ Commercial industrial
r amily r amily
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
5 2 10 0
10 5 21 1
15 7 32 1
5 3 23 1
10 6 48 2
15 10 74 4
5 3 23 1
10 6 48 2
15 10 74 4
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
17 11 48 1
4 2 14 1
7 10 0
0 0 0 0
11 8 94 5
7 5 23 1
9 5 24 1
115 0
10 0 0
0 0 0 0
11 8 94 5
7 5 23 1
9 5 24 1
115 0
10 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
29 14 62 2
108
29 19 145 7
200
29 19 145 7
200
2 17 0
5 3 15 1
7 5 23 1
5 2 10 0
10 5 21 1
15 7 32 1
3 2 8 0
6 4 17 1
9 6 26 1
5 3 23 1
10 6 48 2
15 10 74 4
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
14 9 45 2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
17 11 48 1
4 2 14 1
7 10 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7 5 23 1
9 5 24 1
115 0
10 0 0
0 0 0 0
11 8 94 5
7 5 23 1
9 5 24 1
115 0
10 0 0
14 9 45 2
70
29 14 62 2
108
18 11 51 2
82
29 19 145 7
200
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
5 2 10 0
10 5 21 1
15 7 32 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
5 3 23 1
10 6 48 2
15 10 74 4
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
17 11 48 1
4 2 14 1
7 10 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
11 8 94 5
7 5 23 1
9 5 24 1
115 0
10 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
29 14 62 2
108
0 0 0 0
0
29 19 145 7
200
2 17 0
5 3 15 1
7 5 23 1
5 2 10 0
10 5 21 1
15 7 32 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
5 3 23 1
10 6 48 2
15 10 74 4
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
14 9 45 2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
17 11 48 1
4 2 14 1
7 10 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
11 8 94 5
7 5 23 1
9 5 24 1
115 0
10 0 0
14 9 45 2
70
29 14 62 2
108
0 0 0 0
0
29 19 145 7
200
March, 2004
B-56
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
WA
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
33
15
74
2
34
22
173
8
34
22
173
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
303
138
662
21
309
196
1551
73
309
196
1551
73
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
260
117
558
19
262
166
1309
62
262
166
1309
62
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
236
160
1962
106
236
160
1962
106
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
143
97
473
18
143
97
473
18
8 25
0
0
0
0
361
226
1002
29
180
113
501
15
180
113
501
15
% 70
0
0
0
0
90
44
292
13
30
15
97
4
30
15
97
4
m 200
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
597
270
1294
42
604
384
3033
143
604
384
3033
143
Grand Total
0
2203
4164
4164
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
17
11
54
2
33
15
74
2
21
13
61
2
34
22
173
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
146
99
483
18
303
138
662
21
188
114
547
18
309
196
1551
73
High Erosive Risk
123
83
408
16
260
117
558
19
160
97
462
16
262
166
1309
62
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
236
160
1962
106
•S 7.5
286
193
945
36
0
0
0
0
143
97
473
18
143
97
473
18
8 25
0
0
0
0
361
226
1002
29
180
113
501
15
180
113
501
15
*2 70
0
0
0
0
90
44
292
13
30
15
97
4
30
15
97
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
Total
286
193
945
36
597
270
1294
42
368
224
1071
37
604
384
3033
143
Grand Total
1461
2203
1700
4164
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
33
15
74
2
0
0
0
0
34
22
173
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
303
138
662
21
0
0
0
0
309
196
1551
73
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
260
117
558
19
0
0
0
0
262
166
1309
62
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
236
160
1962
106
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
143
97
473
18
8 25
0
0
0
0
361
226
1002
29
0
0
0
0
180
113
501
15
<2 70
0
0
0
0
90
44
292
13
0
0
0
0
30
15
97
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
597
270
1294
42
0
0
0
0
604
384
3033
143
Grand Total
0
2203
0
4164
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
17
11
54
2
33
15
74
2
0
0
0
0
34
22
173
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
146
99
483
18
303
138
662
21
0
0
0
0
309
196
1551
73
High Erosive Risk
123
83
408
16
260
117
558
19
0
0
0
0
262
166
1309
62
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
236
160
1962
106
•S 7.5
286
193
945
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
143
97
473
18
8 25
0
0
0
0
361
226
1002
29
0
0
0
0
180
113
501
15
*2 70
0
0
0
0
90
44
292
13
0
0
0
0
30
15
97
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
Total
286
193
945
36
597
270
1294
42
0
0
0
0
604
384
3033
143
Grand Total
1461
2203
0
4164
March, 2004
B-57
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
WI
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
56
26
120
4
56
36
280
14
56
36
280
14
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
160
76
339
13
159
102
791
38
159
102
791
38
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
263
125
558
21
261
168
1303
63
261
168
1303
63
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
185
126
1534
84
185
126
1534
84
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
77
371
15
112
77
371
15
8 25
0
0
0
0
285
179
784
24
142
89
392
12
142
89
392
12
% 70
0
0
0
0
73
37
233
13
24
12
78
4
24
12
78
4
m 200
0
0
0
0
121
11
0
0
12
1
0
0
12
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
479
227
1017
38
476
305
2374
115
476
305
2374
115
Grand Total
0
1760
3271
3271
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
26
18
87
4
56
26
120
4
34
21
99
4
56
36
280
14
Moderate Erosive Risk
75
51
247
10
160
76
339
13
97
60
280
11
159
102
791
38
High Erosive Risk
123
84
407
17
263
125
558
21
160
99
461
17
261
168
1303
63
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
185
126
1534
84
•S 7.5
224
153
741
30
0
0
0
0
112
77
371
15
112
77
371
15
8 25
0
0
0
0
285
179
784
24
142
89
392
12
142
89
392
12
*2 70
0
0
0
0
73
37
233
13
24
12
78
4
24
12
78
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
121
11
0
0
12
1
0
0
12
1
0
0
Total
224
153
741
30
479
227
1017
38
291
180
840
32
476
305
2374
115
Grand Total
1149
1760
1342
3271
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
56
26
120
4
0
0
0
0
56
36
280
14
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
160
76
339
13
0
0
0
0
159
102
791
38
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
263
125
558
21
0
0
0
0
261
168
1303
63
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
185
126
1534
84
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
77
371
15
8 25
0
0
0
0
285
179
784
24
0
0
0
0
142
89
392
12
<2 70
0
0
0
0
73
37
233
13
0
0
0
0
24
12
78
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
121
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
1
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
479
227
1017
38
0
0
0
0
476
305
2374
115
Grand Total
0
1760
0
3271
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
26
18
87
4
56
26
120
4
0
0
0
0
56
36
280
14
Moderate Erosive Risk
75
51
247
10
160
76
339
13
0
0
0
0
159
102
791
38
High Erosive Risk
123
84
407
17
263
125
558
21
0
0
0
0
261
168
1303
63
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
185
126
1534
84
•S 7.5
224
153
741
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
77
371
15
8 25
0
0
0
0
285
179
784
24
0
0
0
0
142
89
392
12
*2 70
0
0
0
0
73
37
233
13
0
0
0
0
24
12
78
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
121
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
1
0
0
Total
224
153
741
30
479
227
1017
38
0
0
0
0
476
305
2374
115
Grand Total
1149
1760
0
3271
March, 2004
B-58
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
wv
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
13
9
42
2
27
13
58
2
27
17
135
7
27
17
135
7
Moderate Erosive Risk
70
48
232
9
150
71
318
12
149
96
744
36
149
96
744
36
High Erosive Risk
128
87
422
17
273
130
579
22
271
174
1352
66
271
174
1352
66
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
118
1441
79
174
118
1441
79
¦5 7.5
211
144
696
28
0
0
0
0
105
72
348
14
105
72
348
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
267
168
737
23
134
84
368
11
134
84
368
11
% 70
0
0
0
0
69
35
218
13
23
12
73
4
23
12
73
4
m 200
0
0
0
0
114
11
0
0
11
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
211
144
696
28
450
214
955
36
448
287
2231
108
448
287
2231
108
Grand Total
1080
1655
3073
3073
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
13
9
42
2
27
13
58
2
17
10
48
2
17
10
48
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
70
48
232
9
150
71
318
12
91
56
263
10
91
56
263
10
High Erosive Risk
128
87
422
17
273
130
579
22
166
102
479
18
166
102
479
18
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦S 7.5
211
144
696
28
0
0
0
0
105
72
348
14
105
72
348
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
267
168
737
23
134
84
368
11
134
84
368
11
*2 70
0
0
0
0
69
35
218
13
23
12
73
4
23
12
73
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
11
0
0
11
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
211
144
696
28
450
214
955
36
273
169
789
30
273
169
789
30
Grand Total
1080
1655
1261
1261
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
13
9
42
2
27
13
58
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
70
48
232
9
150
71
318
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High Erosive Risk
128
87
422
17
273
130
579
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
211
144
696
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8 25
0
0
0
0
267
168
737
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<2 70
0
0
0
0
69
35
218
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
211
144
696
28
450
214
955
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total
1080
1655
0
0
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
13
9
42
2
27
13
58
2
0
0
0
0
17
10
48
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
70
48
232
9
150
71
318
12
0
0
0
0
91
56
263
10
High Erosive Risk
128
87
422
17
273
130
579
22
0
0
0
0
166
102
479
18
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•S 7.5
211
144
696
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
72
348
14
8 25
0
0
0
0
267
168
737
23
0
0
0
0
134
84
368
11
*2 70
0
0
0
0
69
35
218
13
0
0
0
0
23
12
73
4
w 200
0
0
0
0
114
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
1
0
0
Total
211
144
696
28
450
214
955
36
0
0
0
0
273
169
789
30
Grand Total
1080
1655
0
1261
March, 2004
B-59
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table B-ll. State BMP Quantities Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
WY
Sedimentation Traps
Sedimentation Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Number
Number
Number
Number
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
Family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
16
7
35
1
16
10
82
4
16
10
82
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
66
31
143
5
67
43
335
16
67
43
335
16
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
3
2
7
0
3
2
17
1
3
2
17
1
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
23
280
15
34
23
280
15
¦5 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
14
68
3
20
14
68
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
52
32
143
4
26
16
72
2
26
16
72
2
% 70
0
0
0
0
13
7
42
2
4
2
14
1
4
2
14
1
m 200
0
0
0
0
21
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
86
40
186
6
87
55
434
21
87
55
434
21
Grand Total
0
318
596
596
OPTION 2
Low Erosive Risk
8
5
26
1
16
7
35
1
10
6
29
1
16
10
82
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
31
22
104
4
66
31
143
5
41
25
118
4
67
43
335
16
High Erosive Risk
2
1
5
0
3
2
7
0
2
1
6
0
3
2
17
1
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
23
280
15
•S 7.5
41
28
135
5
0
0
0
0
20
14
68
3
20
14
68
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
52
32
143
4
26
16
72
2
26
16
72
2
*2 70
0
0
0
0
13
7
42
2
4
2
14
1
4
2
14
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
21
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
41
28
135
5
86
40
186
6
53
32
153
6
87
55
434
21
Grand Total
209
318
244
596
OPTION 3
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
16
7
35
1
0
0
0
0
16
10
82
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
66
31
143
5
0
0
0
0
67
43
335
16
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
3
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
17
1
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
23
280
15
•S 7.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
14
68
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
52
32
143
4
0
0
0
0
26
16
72
2
<2 70
0
0
0
0
13
7
42
2
0
0
0
0
4
2
14
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
86
40
186
6
0
0
0
0
87
55
434
21
Grand Total
0
318
0
596
OPTION 4
Low Erosive Risk
8
5
26
1
16
7
35
1
0
0
0
0
16
10
82
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
31
22
104
4
66
31
143
5
0
0
0
0
67
43
335
16
High Erosive Risk
2
1
5
0
3
2
7
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
17
1
8 0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
23
280
15
•S 7.5
41
28
135
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
14
68
3
8 25
0
0
0
0
52
32
143
4
0
0
0
0
26
16
72
2
*2 70
0
0
0
0
13
7
42
2
0
0
0
0
4
2
14
1
w 200
0
0
0
0
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
41
28
135
5
86
40
186
6
0
0
0
0
87
55
434
21
Grand Total
209
318
0
596
March, 2004
B-60
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-12. National BMP Costs
Niilioiinl
OPTION 1
loliil
(Iniml l oliil
OPTION 2
Tolal
Cnmil loinl
OPTION 3
Tolal
Crsind Tolnl
OPTION 4
loinl
Cmnd Toliil
Sediment Trap
Sediment B;isins
Installation Certification
K&S Silo Inspection
l oliil Cost
March, 2004
B-61
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs
AL
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
342
$
85
$
1,812
$
94
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
113
S
77
S
936
S
51
S
28
S
19
S
233
S
13
s
592
S
401
S
4,896
S
267
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
137
S
93
S
452
S
18
S
17
s
12
S
56
S
2
s
603
S
412
S
1,991
S
81
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,962
s
2,919
s
13,768
s
486
s
434
s
272
s
1,196
s
37
s
43
s
27
s
119
s
4
s
5,048
s
3,600
s
16,759
s
579
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,887
s
1,138
s
7,577
s
502
s
149
s
76
s
473
s
27
s
26
s
13
s
83
s
5
s
2,271
s
1,335
s
8,799
s
573
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,713
s
316
s
s
s
222
s
22
s
s
s
37
s
4
s
s
s
3,303
s
374
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
8,561
s
4,373
s
21,345
s
988
$
1,055
s
540
s
3,056
s
134
s
151
$
75
$
491
$
24
s
12,159
s
6,208
s
34,257
$
1,594
Grand Total
s
s
35,268
s
4,785
s
741
$
54,218
OPTION 2
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
342
$
85
$
1,812
$
94
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
451
s
305
s
3,727
$
203
•S 7.5
s
347
$
291
s
1,535
s
73
s
s
s
$
s
137
s
93
s
452
$
18
s
17
s
12
s
56
s
2
$
950
$
703
$
3,526
$
155
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
3,962
s
2,919
s
13,768
s
486
$
434
s
272
s
1,196
s
37
$
43
s
27
$
119
s
4
s
5,048
s
3,600
s
16,759
s
579
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,887
s
1,138
$
7,577
$
502
s
149
s
76
s
473
$
27
s
26
s
13
s
83
s
5
$
2,271
$
1,335
$
8,799
$
573
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,713
s
316
s
s
s
222
s
22
s
$
$
37
s
4
s
s
s
3,303
s
374
s
s
Total
s
347
$
291
s
1,535
s
73
s
8,561
s
4,373
$
21,345
$
988
s
942
$
464
s
2,120
$
83
s
123
s
56
s
258
s
11
$
12,364
$
6,403
$
34,624
$
1,604
Grand Total
s
2,246
s
35,268
s
3,609
$
448
s
54,994
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
342
s
85
s
1,812
s
94
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
451
s
305
s
3,727
s
203
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
449
s
307
s
1,483
s
61
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,962
s
2,919
s
13,768
s
486
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4,571
s
3,301
s
15,444
s
538
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,887
s
1,138
s
7,577
s
502
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2,096
s
1,246
s
8,244
s
541
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,713
s
316
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3,044
s
349
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
8,561
s
4,373
s
21,345
s
988
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
10,952
s
5,592
s
30,710
s
1,437
Grand Total
s
s
35,268
s
s
s
48,692
OPTION 4
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
342
s
85
s
1,812
s
94
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
451
s
305
s
3,727
s
203
•S 7.5
s
347
s
291
s
1,535
s
73
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
12
s
56
s
2
s
813
s
609
s
3,074
s
136
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,962
s
2,919
s
13,768
s
486
s
s
s
s
s
43
s
27
s
119
s
4
s
4,614
s
3,328
s
15,564
s
542
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,887
s
1,138
s
7,577
s
502
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
13
s
83
s
5
s
2,122
s
1,259
s
8,326
s
545
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,713
s
316
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
37
s
4
s
s
s
3,081
s
352
s
s
Total
s
347
s
291
s
1,535
s
73
s
8,561
s
4,373
s
21,345
s
988
s
s
s
s
s
123
s
56
s
258
s
11
s
11,422
s
5,939
s
32,504
s
1,521
Grand Total
s
2,246
s
35,268
$
s
448
$
51,386
March, 2004
B-62
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
AR
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
183
$
46
$
971
$
50
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
61
S
41
S
501
S
27
S
15
S
10
S
125
S
7
s
317
S
215
S
2,623
S
143
•S 7.5
S
186
S
156
S
822
S
39
s
S
S
S
S
73
S
50
S
242
S
10
S
9
S
6
S
30
S
1
s
509
S
376
S
1,889
S
83
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,123
s
1,564
s
7,373
s
260
s
233
s
146
s
640
s
20
s
23
s
15
s
64
s
2
s
2,705
s
1,929
s
8,975
s
310
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,008
s
611
s
4,056
s
259
s
79
s
41
s
253
s
14
s
14
s
7
s
44
s
2
s
1,213
s
717
s
4,710
s
295
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,453
s
168
s
s
s
119
s
12
s
s
s
20
s
2
s
s
s
1,769
s
199
s
s
Total
s
186
s
156
s
822
s
39
s
4,584
s
2,343
s
11,429
s
519
$
565
s
289
s
1,636
s
71
$
81
s
40
$
263
s
13
s
6,696
s
3,481
s
19,167
$
881
Grand Total
s
1,203
s
18,875
s
2,562
s
397
$
30,225
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
183
$
46
$
971
$
50
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
15
s
10
$
125
s
7
s
256
s
174
s
2,122
$
116
•S 7.5
s
186
$
156
s
822
s
39
s
s
s
s
s
73
$
50
s
242
$
10
s
9
s
6
s
30
s
1
$
509
$
376
$
1,889
$
83
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
2,123
s
1,564
s
7,373
s
260
s
233
s
146
s
640
s
20
$
23
s
15
$
64
s
2
s
2,705
s
1,929
s
8,975
s
310
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,008
s
611
$
4,056
$
259
s
79
$
41
s
253
$
14
s
14
s
7
s
44
s
2
$
1,213
$
717
$
4,710
$
295
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,453
s
168
s
s
s
119
s
12
s
$
$
20
s
2
s
s
s
1,769
s
199
s
s
Total
s
186
$
156
s
822
s
39
s
4,584
s
2,343
$
11,429
$
519
s
504
$
248
s
1,135
$
44
s
81
s
40
s
263
s
13
$
6,635
$
3,440
$
18,666
$
854
Grand Total
s
1,203
s
18,875
s
1,932
$
397
s
29,595
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
183
s
46
s
971
s
50
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
10
s
125
s
7
s
256
s
174
s
2,122
s
116
•S 7.5
s
186
s
156
s
822
s
39
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
6
s
30
s
1
s
436
s
326
s
1,647
s
73
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,123
s
1,564
s
7,373
s
260
s
s
s
s
s
23
s
15
s
64
s
2
s
2,472
s
1,783
s
8,335
s
290
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,008
s
611
s
4,056
s
259
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
7
s
44
s
2
s
1,134
s
676
s
4,457
s
281
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,453
s
168
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
2
s
s
s
1,650
s
187
s
s
Total
s
186
s
156
s
822
s
39
s
4,584
s
2,343
s
11,429
s
519
s
s
s
s
s
81
s
40
s
263
s
13
s
6,131
s
3,192
s
17,530
s
810
Grand Total
s
1,203
s
18,875
s
s
397
s
27,663
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
183
s
46
s
971
s
50
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
10
s
125
s
7
s
256
s
174
s
2,122
s
116
•S 7.5
s
186
s
156
s
822
s
39
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
6
s
30
s
1
s
436
s
326
s
1,647
s
73
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,123
s
1,564
s
7,373
s
260
s
s
s
s
s
23
s
15
s
64
s
2
s
2,472
s
1,783
s
8,335
s
290
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,008
s
611
s
4,056
s
259
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
7
s
44
s
2
s
1,134
s
676
s
4,457
s
281
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,453
s
168
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
2
s
s
s
1,650
s
187
s
s
Total
s
186
s
156
s
822
s
39
s
4,584
s
2,343
s
11,429
s
519
s
s
s
s
s
81
s
40
s
263
s
13
s
6,131
s
3,192
s
17,530
s
810
Grand Total
s
1,203
s
18,875
$
s
397
$
27,663
March, 2004
B-63
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
AZ
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
142
$
35
$
752
$
39
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
47
S
32
S
388
S
21
S
12
S
8
S
97
S
5
s
245
S
166
S
2,032
S
111
•S 7.5
S
143
S
120
S
637
S
30
s
S
s
S
S
57
S
39
S
187
S
8
S
7
S
5
S
23
S
1
s
393
S
291
S
1,463
S
63
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,642
s
1,210 $
5,712
s
198
s
180
s
113
s
496
s
15
s
18
s
11
s
49
s
2
s
2,092
s
1,492
s
6,953
s
236
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
777
s
464 $
3,132
s
192
s
61
s
31
s
195
s
11
s
11
s
5
s
34
s
2
s
935
s
544
s
3,637
s
220
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,104
s
108 $
s
s
90
s
8
s
s
s
15
s
1
s
s
s
1,344
s
128
s
s
Total
s
143
s
120
s
637
s
30
s
3,522
s
1,782 $
8,845
s
390
$
435
s
222
s
1,267
s
54
$
62
s
31
$
204
s
10
s
5,150
s
2,656
s
14,837
$
668
Grand Total
s
930
s
14,539
s
1,978
s
306
$
23,311
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
142
$
35
$
752
$
39
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
12
s
8
$
97
s
5
s
198
s
134
s
1,644
$
89
•S 7.5
s
143
$
120
s
637
s
30
s
s
s
s
s
57
$
39
s
187
$
8
s
7
s
5
s
23
s
1
$
393
$
291
$
1,463
$
63
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,642
s
1,210 $
5,712
s
198
s
180
s
113
s
496
s
15
$
18
s
11
$
49
s
2
s
2,092
s
1,492
s
6,953
s
236
70
s
s
s
s
s
777
s
464 $
3,132
$
192
s
61
$
31
s
195
$
11
s
11
s
5
s
34
s
2
$
935
$
544
$
3,637
$
220
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,104
s
108 $
s
s
90
s
8
s
$
$
15
s
1
s
s
s
1,344
s
128
s
s
Total
s
143
$
120
s
637
s
30
s
3,522
s
1,782 $
8,845
$
390
s
388
$
190
s
879
$
33
s
62
s
31
s
204
s
10
$
5,103
$
2,624
$
14,449
$
647
Grand Total
s
930
s
14,539
s
1,490
$
306
s
22,823
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
142
s
35
s
752
s
39
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
97
s
5
s
198
s
134
s
1,644
s
89
•S 7.5
s
143
s
120
s
637
s
30
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
23
s
1
s
336
s
252
s
1,275
s
56
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,642
s
1,210 $
5,712
s
198
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
11
s
49
s
2
s
1,912
s
1,379
s
6,457
s
220
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
777
s
464 $
3,132
s
192
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
5
s
34
s
2
s
874
s
513
s
3,442
s
209
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,104
s
108 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
1
s
s
s
1,253
s
120
s
s
Total
s
143
s
120
s
637
s
30
s
3,522
s
1,782 $
8,845
s
390
s
s
s
s
s
62
s
31
s
204
s
10
s
4,715
s
2,434
s
13,570
s
613
Grand Total
s
930
s
14,539
s
s
306
s
21,333
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
142
s
35
s
752
s
39
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
97
s
5
s
198
s
134
s
1,644
s
89
•S 7.5
s
143
s
120
s
637
s
30
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
23
s
1
s
336
s
252
s
1,275
s
56
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,642
s
1,210 $
5,712
s
198
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
11
s
49
s
2
s
1,912
s
1,379
s
6,457
s
220
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
777
s
464 $
3,132
s
192
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
5
s
34
s
2
s
874
s
513
s
3,442
s
209
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,104
s
108 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
1
s
s
s
1,253
s
120
s
s
Total
s
143
s
120
s
637
s
30
s
3,522
s
1,782 $
8,845
s
390
s
s
s
s
s
62
s
31
s
204
s
10
s
4,715
s
2,434
s
13,570
s
613
Grand Total
s
930
s
14,539
$
s
306
$
21,333
March, 2004
B-64
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
CA
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
847
$
211
$
4,492
$
231
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
280
S
190
S
2,319
S
126
S
70
s
47
S
578
S
31
s
1,466
S
993
S
12,135
S
660
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
339
S
231
S
1,120
S
45
S
42
s
29
S
140
S
6
s
1,492
S
1,019
S
4,935
S
198
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
9,809
s
7,238
s
34,110
s
1,185
s
1,074
s
674
s
2,962
s
90
s
107
s
67
s
295
s
9
s
12,497
s
8,926
s
41,520
s
1,411
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
4,642
s
2,724
s
18,691
s
1,187
s
366
s
182
s
1,166
s
65
s
64
s
32
s
204
s
11
s
5,587
s
3,196
s
21,703
s
1,354
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
6,613
s
599
s
s
s
542
s
42
s
s
s
90
s
7
s
s
s
8,051
s
710
s
s
Total
s
s
$
$
s
21,064
s
10,561
s
52,800
s
2,372
$
2,601
s
1,320
s
7,566
s
326
s
373
$
182
$
1,217
$
57
s
29,941
s
15,055
s
84,785
$
3,855
Grand Total
s
s
86,797
$ 11,813
s
1,830
$
133,636
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
847
$
211
$
4,492
$
231
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
1,116
s
756
s
9,238
$
502
•S 7.5
s
858
$
720
s
3,805
s
179
s
s
s
$
s
339
s
231
s
1,120
$
45
s
42
s
29
s
140
s
6
$
2,350
$
1,739
$
8,740
$
378
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
9,809
s
7,238
s
34,110
s
1,185
s
1,074
s
674
s
2,962
s
90
$
107
s
67
$
295
s
9
s
12,497
s
8,926
s
41,520
s
1,411
70
s
s
s
s
s
4,642
s
2,724
$
18,691
$
1,187
s
366
s
182
s
1,166
$
65
s
64
s
32
s
204
s
11
$
5,587
$
3,196
$
21,703
$
1,354
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
6,613
s
599
s
s
s
542
s
42
s
$
$
90
s
7
s
s
s
8,051
s
710
s
s
Total
s
858
$
720
s
3,805
s
179
s
21,064
s
10,561
$
52,800
$
2,372
s
2,321
s
1,130
s
5,248
$
200
s
303
s
135
s
639
s
26
$
30,449
$
15,538
$
85,693
$
3,876
Grand Total
s
5,562
s
86,797
s
8,899
$
1,103
s
135,557
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
847
s
211
s
4,492
s
231
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,116
s
756
s
9,238
s
502
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,111
s
759
s
3,675
s
148
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
9,809
s
7,238
s
34,110
s
1,185
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
11,316
s
8,184
s
38,263
s
1,312
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
4,642
s
2,724
s
18,691
s
1,187
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5,158
s
2,981
s
20,334
s
1,278
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
6,613
s
599
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7,419
s
661
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
21,064
s
10,561
s
52,800
s
2,372
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
26,967
s
13,553
s
76,002
s
3,471
Grand Total
s
s
86,797
s
s
s
119,993
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
847
s
211
s
4,492
s
231
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,116
s
756
s
9,238
s
502
•S 7.5
s
858
s
720
s
3,805
s
179
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
42
s
29
s
140
s
6
s
2,012
s
1,508
s
7,620
s
333
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
9,809
s
7,238
s
34,110
s
1,185
s
s
s
s
s
107
s
67
s
295
s
9
s
11,423
s
8,251
s
38,558
s
1,321
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
4,642
s
2,724
s
18,691
s
1,187
s
s
s
s
s
64
s
32
s
204
s
11
s
5,221
s
3,013
s
20,538
s
1,289
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
6,613
s
599
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
90
s
7
s
s
s
7,509
s
668
s
s
Total
s
858
s
720
s
3,805
s
179
s
21,064
s
10,561
s
52,800
s
2,372
s
s
s
s
s
303
s
135
s
639
s
26
s
28,129
s
14,408
s
80,445
s
3,676
Grand Total
s
5,562
s
86,797
$
s
1,103
$
126,658
March, 2004
B-65
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
CO
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
140
$
35
$
743
$
38
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
46
S
31
S
384
S
21
S
12
S
8
S
96
S
5
s
243
S
164
S
2,009
S
109
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
56
S
38
S
185
S
8
S
7
S
5
S
23
S
1
s
246
S
169
S
817
S
33
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
810
s
596
s
2,824
s
95
s
177
s
111
s
490
s
14
s
18
s
11
s
49
s
1
s
1,254
s
874
s
4,051
s
131
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
379
s
230
s
1,551
s
92
s
60
s
31
s
193
s
10
s
10
s
5
s
34
s
2
s
533
s
309
s
2,050
s
118
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
529
s
54
s
s
s
87
s
8
s
s
s
14
s
1
s
s
s
759
s
74
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
1,717
s
880
s
4,374
s
187
s
426
s
219
s
1,253
s
53
$
61
s
30
$
202
s
9
s
3,174
s
1,626
s
9,670
$
429
Grand Total
s
s
7,158
s
1,951
s
302
$
14,899
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
140
$
35
$
743
$
38
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
12
s
8
$
96
s
5
s
196
s
133
s
1,625
$
88
•S 7.5
s
142
$
119
s
630
s
30
s
s
s
s
s
56
$
38
s
185
$
8
s
7
s
5
s
23
s
1
$
388
$
288
$
1,446
$
63
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,620
s
1,193
s
5,648
s
189
s
177
s
111
s
490
s
14
$
18
s
11
$
49
s
1
s
2,063
s
1,471
s
6,875
s
226
70
s
s
s
s
s
757
s
460
$
3,101
$
184
s
60
$
31
s
193
$
10
s
10
s
5
s
34
s
2
$
911
$
539
$
3,601
$
210
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,057
s
108
s
s
s
87
s
8
s
$
$
14
s
1
s
s
s
1,287
s
128
s
s
Total
s
142
$
119
s
630
s
30
s
3,434
s
1,760
$
8,749
$
373
s
380
$
188
s
869
$
32
s
61
s
30
s
202
s
9
$
4,986
$
2,594
$
14,290
$
625
Grand Total
s
920
s
14,316
s
1,469
$
302
s
22,495
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
140
s
35
s
743
s
38
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
96
s
5
s
196
s
133
s
1,625
s
88
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
23
s
1
s
190
s
130
s
631
s
26
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
810
s
596
s
2,824
s
95
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
11
s
49
s
1
s
1,076
s
763
s
3,560
s
116
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
379
s
230
s
1,551
s
92
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
5
s
34
s
2
s
473
s
279
s
1,857
s
108
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
529
s
54
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
1
s
s
s
672
s
67
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
1,717
s
880
s
4,374
s
187
s
s
s
s
s
61
s
30
s
202
s
9
s
2,748
s
1,407
s
8,417
s
376
Grand Total
s
s
7,158
s
s
302
s
12,948
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
140
s
35
s
743
s
38
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
96
s
5
s
196
s
133
s
1,625
s
88
•S 7.5
s
142
s
119
s
630
s
30
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
23
s
1
s
332
s
250
s
1,261
s
56
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,620
s
1,193
s
5,648
s
189
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
11
s
49
s
1
s
1,886
s
1,360
s
6,384
s
211
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
757
s
460
s
3,101
s
184
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
5
s
34
s
2
s
852
s
508
s
3,407
s
200
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,057
s
108
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
1
s
s
s
1,201
s
121
s
s
Total
s
142
s
119
s
630
s
30
s
3,434
s
1,760
s
8,749
s
373
s
s
s
s
s
61
s
30
s
202
s
9
s
4,607
s
2,406
s
13,421
s
593
Grand Total
s
920
s
14,316
$
s
302
$
21,026
March, 2004
B-66
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
CT
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
57
$
14
$
303
$
16
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
19
S
13
S
156
S
9
S
5
S
3
S
39
S
2
s
99
S
67
S
818
S
45
•S 7.5
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
23
S
16
S
76
S
3
S
3
S
2
S
9
S
0
s
101
S
69
S
333
S
14
n 25
s
S
s
s
s
331
s
244 $
1,151
s
40
s
72
s
45
s
200
s
6
s
7
s
5
s
20
s
1
s
512
s
358
s
1,651
s
56
3 70
s
S
s
s
s
158
s
95 $
634
s
42
s
25
s
13
s
79
s
5
s
4
s
2
s
14
s
1
s
222
s
128
s
838
s
54
M 200
s
S
s
s
s
228
s
27 $
s
s
37
s
4
s
s
s
6
s
1
s
s
s
327
s
37
s
s
Total
s
S
s
$
s
716
s
366 $
1,784
s
82
s
176
s
90
s
511
s
22
$
25
s
13
$
82
s
4
s
1,318
s
673
s
3,942
$
183
Grand Total
s
s
2,949
s
800
s
124
$
6,116
OPTION 2
3 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
57
$
14
$
303
$
16
< 3
s
S
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
5
s
3
$
39
s
2
s
80
s
54
s
662
$
36
•S 7.5
s
58
$
49
s
257
s
12
s
s
s
s
s
23
$
16
s
76
$
3
s
3
s
2
s
9
s
0
$
159
$
117
$
589
$
26
n 25
s
S
s
$
s
662
s
488 $
2,301
s
81
s
72
s
45
s
200
s
6
$
7
s
5
$
20
s
1
s
843
s
602
s
2,801
s
96
70
s
S
s
s
s
316
s
190 $
1,267
$
83
s
25
$
13
s
79
$
5
s
4
s
2
s
14
s
1
$
380
$
223
$
1,471
$
95
w 200
s
S
s
$
s
455
s
54 $
s
s
37
s
4
s
$
$
6
s
1
s
s
s
554
s
64
s
s
Total
s
58
$
49
s
257
s
12
s
1,433
s
733 $
3,568
$
164
s
158
$
78
s
354
$
14
s
25
s
13
s
82
s
4
$
2,073
$
1,075
$
5,827
$
269
Grand Total
s
375
s
5,898
s
603
$
124
s
9,244
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
57
s
14
s
303
s
16
< 3
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
39
s
2
s
80
s
54
s
662
s
36
•S 7.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
9
s
0
s
78
s
53
s
257
s
11
1 25
s
S
s
s
s
331
s
244 $
1,151
s
40
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
20
s
1
s
440
s
312
s
1,451
s
49
O 70
s
S
s
s
s
158
s
95 $
634
s
42
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
2
s
14
s
1
s
197
s
115
s
759
s
49
M 200
s
S
s
s
s
228
s
27 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
1
s
s
s
289
s
33
s
s
Total
s
S
s
s
s
716
s
366 $
1,784
s
82
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
13
s
82
s
4
s
1,141
s
583
s
3,432
s
161
Grand Total
s
s
2,949
s
s
124
s
5,316
OPTION 4
3 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
57
s
14
s
303
s
16
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
39
s
2
s
80
s
54
s
662
s
36
•S 7.5
s
58
s
49
s
257
s
12
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
9
s
0
s
136
s
102
s
514
s
23
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
662
s
488 $
2,301
s
81
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
20
s
1
s
771
s
557
s
2,601
s
90
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
316
s
190 $
1,267
s
83
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
2
s
14
s
1
s
355
s
211
s
1,392
s
91
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
455
s
54 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
1
s
s
s
517
s
60
s
s
Total
s
58
s
49
s
257
s
12
s
1,433
s
733 $
3,568
s
164
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
13
s
82
s
4
s
1,916
s
998
s
5,472
s
255
Grand Total
s
375
s
5,898
$
s
124
$
8,641
March, 2004
B-67
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
DE
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
s
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
31
$
8
$
164
$
8
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
10
S
7
S
85
S
5
S
3
S
2
S
21
S
1
s
54
S
36
S
444
S
24
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
12
S
8
S
41
S
2
S
2
s
1
S
5
S
0
s
55
S
37
S
181
S
7
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
359
s
264
s
1,248
s
44
s
39
s
25
s
108
s
3
s
4
s
2
s
11
s
0
s
457
s
326
s
1,519
s
52
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
169
s
103
s
687
s
45
s
13
s
7
s
43
s
2
s
2
s
1
s
7
s
0
s
204
s
121
s
798
s
51
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
244
s
29
s
s
s
20
s
2
s
s
s
3
s
0
s
s
s
297
s
34
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
772
s
396
s
1,935
s
88
s
95
s
49
s
277
s
12
$
14
s
7
$
45
s
2
s
1,097
s
562
s
3,105
$
143
Grand Total
s
s
3,191
s
433
s
67
$
4,908
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
31
$
8
$
164
$
8
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
41
s
28
s
338
$
18
•S 7.5
s
31
$
26
s
139
s
7
s
s
s
s
s
12
$
8
s
41
$
2
s
2
s
1
s
5
s
0
$
86
$
64
$
320
$
14
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
359
s
264
s
1,248
s
44
s
39
s
25
s
108
s
3
$
4
s
2
$
11
s
0
s
457
s
326
s
1,519
s
52
70
s
s
s
s
s
169
s
103
$
687
$
45
s
13
$
7
s
43
$
2
s
2
s
1
s
7
s
0
$
204
$
121
$
798
$
51
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
244
s
29
s
s
s
20
s
2
s
$
$
3
s
0
s
s
s
297
s
34
s
s
Total
s
31
$
26
s
139
s
7
s
772
s
396
$
1,935
$
88
s
85
$
42
s
192
$
7
s
11
s
5
s
23
s
1
$
1,116
$
580
$
3,138
$
144
Grand Total
s
204
s
3,191
s
327
$
41
s
4,978
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
31
s
8
s
164
s
8
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
41
s
28
s
338
s
18
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
41
s
28
s
134
s
5
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
359
s
264
s
1,248
s
44
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
414
s
299
s
1,400
s
48
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
169
s
103
s
687
s
45
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
188
s
113
s
747
s
48
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
244
s
29
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
274
s
32
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
772
s
396
s
1,935
s
88
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
988
s
507
s
2,784
s
129
Grand Total
s
s
3,191
s
s
s
4,407
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
31
s
8
s
164
s
8
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
41
s
28
s
338
s
18
•S 7.5
s
31
s
26
s
139
s
7
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
5
s
0
s
74
s
55
s
279
s
12
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
359
s
264
s
1,248
s
44
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
2
s
11
s
0
s
418
s
301
s
1,410
s
49
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
169
s
103
s
687
s
45
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
7
s
0
s
190
s
114
s
755
s
49
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
244
s
29
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
0
s
s
s
277
s
32
s
s
Total
s
31
s
26
s
139
s
7
s
772
s
396
s
1,935
s
88
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
5
s
23
s
1
s
1,031
s
538
s
2,946
s
136
Grand Total
s
204
s
3,191
$
s
41
$
4,651
March, 2004
B-68
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
FL
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
961
$
239
$
5,098
$
263
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
$ 318
S
216
S
2,632
S
144
S
79
S
54
S
656
S
36
s
1,664
S
1,128
S
13,775
S
752
•S 7.5
S
974
$ 818
S
4,316
S
207
s
S
S
S
$ 385
s
263
S
1,271
S
52
S
48
S
33
S
158
S
6
s
2,669
S
1,975
S
9,915
S
437
n 25
s
S
s
s
s
11,143
s
8,201
s
38,733
s
1,341
$ 1,220
s
764
s
3,363
s
102
s
122
s
76
s
336
s
10
s
14,196
s
10,113
s
47,148
s
1,597
3 70
s
S
s
s
s
5,279
s
3,209
s
21,286
s
1,354
$ 416
s
215
s
1,328
s
74
s
73
s
38
s
232
s
13
s
6,353
s
3,764
s
24,717
s
1,546
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
7,482
s
759
s
s
$ 613
s
53
s
s
s
102
s
9
s
s
s
9,111
s
900
s
s
Total
s
974
$ 818
s
4,316
s
207
s
23,904
s
12,169
s
60,019
s
2,695
$ 2,952
s
1,510
s
8,594
s
372
$
424
s
209
$
1,382
s
65
s
34,955
s
18,119
s
100,652
$
4,594
Grand Total
s
6,315
s
98,787
$ 13,428
s
2,080
$
158,321
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
961
$
239
$
5,098
$
263
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
79
s
54
$
656
s
36
s
1,346
s
913
s
11,143
$
608
•S 7.5
s
974
$ 818
s
4,316
s
207
s
s
s
s
$ 385
$
263
s
1,271
$
52
s
48
s
33
s
158
s
6
$
2,669
$
1,975
$
9,915
$
437
n 25
s
S
s
$
s
11,143
s
8,201
s
38,733
s
1,341
$ 1,220
s
764
s
3,363
s
102
$
122
s
76
$
336
s
10
s
14,196
s
10,113
s
47,148
s
1,597
70
s
s
s
s
s
5,279
s
3,209
$
21,286
$
1,354
$ 416
$
215
s
1,328
$
74
s
73
s
38
s
232
s
13
$
6,353
$
3,764
$
24,717
$
1,546
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
7,482
s
759
s
s
$ 613
s
53
s
$
$
102
s
9
s
s
s
9,111
s
900
s
s
Total
s
974
$ 818
s
4,316
s
207
s
23,904
s
12,169
$
60,019
$
2,695
$ 2,634
$
1,295
s
5,962
$
228
s
424
s
209
s
1,382
s
65
$
34,637
$
17,904
$
98,020
$
4,450
Grand Total
s
6,315
s
98,787
$ 10,119
$
2,080
s
155,012
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
961
s
239
s
5,098
s
263
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
79
s
54
s
656
s
36
s
1,346
s
913
s
11,143
s
608
•S 7.5
s
974
$ 818
s
4,316
s
207
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
48
s
33
s
158
s
6
s
2,284
s
1,712
s
8,644
s
385
1 25
s
S
s
s
s
11,143
s
8,201
s
38,733
s
1,341
s
s
s
s
s
122
s
76
s
336
s
10
s
12,976
s
9,349
s
43,785
s
1,495
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
5,279
s
3,209
s
21,286
s
1,354
s
s
s
s
s
73
s
38
s
232
s
13
s
5,937
s
3,550
s
23,389
s
1,472
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
7,482
s
759
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
102
s
9
s
s
s
8,497
s
847
s
s
Total
s
974
$ 818
s
4,316
s
207
s
23,904
s
12,169
s
60,019
s
2,695
s
s
s
s
s
424
s
209
s
1,382
s
65
s
32,003
s
16,609
s
92,059
s
4,222
Grand Total
s
6,315
s
98,787
s
s
2,080
s
144,893
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
961
s
239
s
5,098
s
263
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
79
s
54
s
656
s
36
s
1,346
s
913
s
11,143
s
608
•S 7.5
s
974
$ 818
s
4,316
s
207
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
48
s
33
s
158
s
6
s
2,284
s
1,712
s
8,644
s
385
n 25
s
S
s
s
s
11,143
s
8,201
s
38,733
s
1,341
s
s
s
s
s
122
s
76
s
336
s
10
s
12,976
s
9,349
s
43,785
s
1,495
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
5,279
s
3,209
s
21,286
s
1,354
s
s
s
s
s
73
s
38
s
232
s
13
s
5,937
s
3,550
s
23,389
s
1,472
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
7,482
s
759
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
102
s
9
s
s
s
8,497
s
847
s
s
Total
s
974
$ 818
s
4,316
s
207
s
23,904
s
12,169
s
60,019
s
2,695
s
s
s
s
s
424
s
209
s
1,382
s
65
s
32,003
s
16,609
s
92,059
s
4,222
Grand Total
s
6,315
s
98,787
$
s
2,080
$
144,893
March, 2004
B
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
GA
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
901
$
225
$
4,774
$
247
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
298
S
202
S
2,464
S
135
S
74
S
50
S
615
S
34
s
1,560
S
1,057
S
12,898
S
704
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
360
S
246
S
1,190
S
49
S
45
S
31
S
148
S
6
s
1,588
S
1,085
S
5,245
S
214
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
5,219
s
3,845
s
18,134
s
640
s
1,143
s
717
s
3,149
s
98
s
114
s
71
s
314
s
10
s
8,079
s
5,638
s
26,013
s
884
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,481
s
1,500
s
9,981
s
657
s
391
s
201
s
1,245
s
72
s
68
s
35
s
217
s
13
s
3,491
s
2,019
s
13,198
s
843
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,568
s
411
s
s
s
585
s
57
s
s
s
97
s
10
s
s
s
5,121
s
563
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
11,267
s
5,756
s
28,114
s
1,297
$
2,777
s
1,423
s
8,049
s
353
$
399
s
197
$
1,295
s
62
s
20,739
s
10,587
s
62,128
$
2,892
Grand Total
s
s
46,435
$ 12,602
s
1,952
$
96,345
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
901
$
225
$
4,774
$
247
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
74
s
50
$
615
s
34
s
1,262
s
855
s
10,434
$
569
•S 7.5
s
913
$
766
s
4,044
s
193
s
s
s
s
S
360
$
246
s
1,190
$
49
s
45
s
31
s
148
s
6
$
2,501
$
1,851
$
9,289
$
408
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
10,437
s
7,691
s
36,267
s
1,279
s
1,143
s
717
s
3,149
s
98
$
114
s
71
$
314
s
10
s
13,297
s
9,484
s
44,147
s
1,523
70
s
s
s
s
s
4,961
s
3,000
$
19,961
$
1,314
s
391
$
201
s
1,245
$
72
s
68
s
35
s
217
s
13
$
5,971
$
3,520
$
23,178
$
1,500
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
7,137
s
822
s
s
s
585
s
57
s
$
$
97
s
10
s
s
s
8,690
s
974
s
s
Total
s
913
$
766
s
4,044
s
193
s
22,535
s
11,513
$
56,228
$
2,593
s
2,479
$
1,221
s
5,585
$
218
s
399
s
197
s
1,295
s
62
$
32,621
$
16,908
$
91,821
$
4,247
Grand Total
s
5,916
s
92,869
s
9,503
$
1,952
s
145,597
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
901
s
225
s
4,774
s
247
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
74
s
50
s
615
s
34
s
1,262
s
855
s
10,434
s
569
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
45
s
31
s
148
s
6
s
1,227
s
838
s
4,054
s
166
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
5,219
s
3,845
s
18,134
s
640
s
s
s
s
s
114
s
71
s
314
s
10
s
6,936
s
4,922
s
22,864
s
786
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,481
s
1,500
s
9,981
s
657
s
s
s
s
s
68
s
35
s
217
s
13
s
3,100
s
1,818
s
11,953
s
771
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,568
s
411
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
97
s
10
s
s
s
4,536
s
506
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
11,267
s
5,756
s
28,114
s
1,297
s
s
s
s
s
399
s
197
s
1,295
s
62
s
17,961
s
9,164
s
54,079
s
2,539
Grand Total
s
s
46,435
s
s
1,952
s
83,743
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
901
s
225
s
4,774
s
247
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
74
s
50
s
615
s
34
s
1,262
s
855
s
10,434
s
569
•S 7.5
s
913
s
766
s
4,044
s
193
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
45
s
31
s
148
s
6
s
2,140
s
1,605
s
8,098
s
359
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
10,437
s
7,691
s
36,267
s
1,279
s
s
s
s
s
114
s
71
s
314
s
10
s
12,154
s
8,767
s
40,998
s
1,426
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
4,961
s
3,000
s
19,961
s
1,314
s
s
s
s
s
68
s
35
s
217
s
13
s
5,581
s
3,319
s
21,934
s
1,428
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
7,137
s
822
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
97
s
10
s
s
s
8,104
s
916
s
s
Total
s
913
s
766
s
4,044
s
193
s
22,535
s
11,513
s
56,228
s
2,593
s
s
s
s
s
399
s
197
s
1,295
s
62
s
30,142
s
15,687
s
86,237
s
4,029
Grand Total
s
5,916
s
92,869
$
s
1,952
$
136,094
March, 2004
B-70
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
IA
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
81
$
20
$
432
$
22
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
27
S
18
S
223
S
12
S
7
S
5
S
56
S
3
s
141
S
96
S
1,167
S
64
•S 7.5
S
83
S
69
S
366
S
17
s
S
s
S
S
33
S
22
S
108
S
4
S
4
S
3
S
13
S
1
s
226
S
167
S
840
S
37
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
944
s
696 $
3,281
s
116
s
103
s
65
s
285
s
9
s
10
s
6
s
28
s
1
s
1,203
s
858
s
3,994
s
138
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
449
s
271 $
1,804
s
118
s
35
s
18
s
113
s
6
s
6
s
3
s
20
s
1
s
540
s
318
s
2,095
s
135
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
647
s
72 $
s
s
53
s
5
s
s
s
9
s
1
s
s
s
788
s
85
s
s
Total
s
83
s
69
s
366
s
17
s
2,040
s
1,039 $
5,085
s
234
s
251
s
129
s
728
s
32
$
36
s
18
$
117
s
6
s
2,980
s
1,545
s
8,528
$
395
Grand Total
s
535
s
8,398
s
1,140
s
177
$
13,448
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
81
$
20
$
432
$
22
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
7
s
5
$
56
s
3
s
114
s
77
s
944
$
51
•S 7.5
s
83
$
69
s
366
s
17
s
s
s
s
s
33
$
22
s
108
$
4
s
4
s
3
s
13
s
1
$
226
$
167
$
840
$
37
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
944
s
696 $
3,281
s
116
s
103
s
65
s
285
s
9
$
10
s
6
$
28
s
1
s
1,203
s
858
s
3,994
s
138
70
s
s
s
s
s
449
s
271 $
1,804
$
118
s
35
$
18
s
113
$
6
s
6
s
3
s
20
s
1
$
540
$
318
$
2,095
$
135
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
647
s
72 $
s
s
53
s
5
s
$
$
9
s
1
s
s
s
788
s
85
s
s
Total
s
83
$
69
s
366
s
17
s
2,040
s
1,039 $
5,085
$
234
s
224
$
110
s
505
$
20
s
36
s
18
s
117
s
6
$
2,953
$
1,527
$
8,305
$
383
Grand Total
s
535
s
8,398
s
860
$
177
s
13,168
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
81
s
20
s
432
s
22
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
56
s
3
s
114
s
77
s
944
s
51
•S 7.5
s
83
s
69
s
366
s
17
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
3
s
13
s
1
s
194
s
145
s
733
s
32
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
944
s
696 $
3,281
s
116
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
6
s
28
s
1
s
1,100
s
793
s
3,709
s
129
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
449
s
271 $
1,804
s
118
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
3
s
20
s
1
s
505
s
300
s
1,983
s
128
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
647
s
72 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
1
s
s
s
735
s
80
s
s
Total
s
83
s
69
s
366
s
17
s
2,040
s
1,039 $
5,085
s
234
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
18
s
117
s
6
s
2,729
s
1,416
s
7,800
s
364
Grand Total
s
535
s
8,398
s
s
177
s
12,309
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
81
s
20
s
432
s
22
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
56
s
3
s
114
s
77
s
944
s
51
•S 7.5
s
83
s
69
s
366
s
17
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
3
s
13
s
1
s
194
s
145
s
733
s
32
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
944
s
696 $
3,281
s
116
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
6
s
28
s
1
s
1,100
s
793
s
3,709
s
129
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
449
s
271 $
1,804
s
118
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
3
s
20
s
1
s
505
s
300
s
1,983
s
128
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
647
s
72 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
1
s
s
s
735
s
80
s
s
Total
s
83
s
69
s
366
s
17
s
2,040
s
1,039 $
5,085
s
234
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
18
s
117
s
6
s
2,729
s
1,416
s
7,800
s
364
Grand Total
s
535
s
8,398
$
s
177
$
12,309
March, 2004
B-71
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
ID
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
114
$
28
$
607
$
31
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
38
S
26
S
313
S
17
S
9
S
6
S
78
S
4
s
198
S
134
S
1,640
S
89
•S 7.5
S
115
S
97
S
514
S
24
s
S
S
S
S
46
S
31
S
151
S
6
S
6
S
4
S
19
S
1
s
316
S
234
S
1,180
S
50
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,324
s
974
s
4,612
s
154
s
145
s
91
s
400
s
12
s
14
s
9
s
40
s
1
s
1,686
s
1,201
s
5,614
s
183
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
614
s
364
s
2,526
s
143
s
48
s
24
s
158
s
8
s
8
s
4
s
28
s
1
s
739
s
427
s
2,933
s
163
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
860
s
46
s
s
s
70
s
3
s
s
s
12
s
1
s
s
s
1,047
s
55
s
s
Total
s
115
s
97
s
514
s
24
s
2,797
s
1,384
s
7,138
s
297
s
347
s
175
s
1,023
s
43
$
50
s
24
$
164
s
8
s
4,100
s
2,079
s
11,975
$
517
Grand Total
s
749
s
11,617
s
1,588
s
246
$
18,671
OPTION 2
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
114
$
28
$
607
$
31
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
9
s
6
$
78
s
4
s
160
s
109
s
1,327
$
72
•S 7.5
s
115
$
97
s
514
s
24
s
s
s
s
s
46
$
31
s
151
$
6
s
6
s
4
s
19
s
1
$
316
$
234
$
1,180
$
50
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,324
s
974
s
4,612
s
154
s
145
s
91
s
400
s
12
$
14
s
9
$
40
s
1
s
1,686
s
1,201
s
5,614
s
183
70
s
s
s
s
s
614
s
364
$
2,526
$
143
s
48
$
24
s
158
$
8
s
8
s
4
s
28
s
1
$
739
$
427
$
2,933
$
163
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
860
s
46
s
s
s
70
s
3
s
$
$
12
s
1
s
s
s
1,047
s
55
s
s
Total
s
115
$
97
s
514
s
24
s
2,797
s
1,384
$
7,138
$
297
s
309
$
149
s
709
$
26
s
50
s
24
s
164
s
8
$
4,062
$
2,054
$
11,661
$
500
Grand Total
s
749
s
11,617
s
1,194
$
246
s
18,278
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
114
s
28
s
607
s
31
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
6
s
78
s
4
s
160
s
109
s
1,327
s
72
•S 7.5
s
115
s
97
s
514
s
24
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
19
s
1
s
270
s
203
s
1,028
s
44
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,324
s
974
s
4,612
s
154
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
9
s
40
s
1
s
1,541
s
1,110
s
5,214
s
172
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
614
s
364
s
2,526
s
143
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
4
s
28
s
1
s
690
s
403
s
2,776
s
156
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
860
s
46
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
1
s
s
s
976
s
51
s
s
Total
s
115
s
97
s
514
s
24
s
2,797
s
1,384
s
7,138
s
297
s
s
s
s
s
50
s
24
s
164
s
8
s
3,753
s
1,904
s
10,952
s
475
Grand Total
s
749
s
11,617
s
s
246
s
17,084
OPTION 4
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
114
s
28
s
607
s
31
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
6
s
78
s
4
s
160
s
109
s
1,327
s
72
•S 7.5
s
115
s
97
s
514
s
24
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
19
s
1
s
270
s
203
s
1,028
s
44
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,324
s
974
s
4,612
s
154
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
9
s
40
s
1
s
1,541
s
1,110
s
5,214
s
172
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
614
s
364
s
2,526
s
143
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
4
s
28
s
1
s
690
s
403
s
2,776
s
156
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
860
s
46
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
1
s
s
s
976
s
51
s
s
Total
s
115
s
97
s
514
s
24
s
2,797
s
1,384
s
7,138
s
297
s
s
s
s
s
50
s
24
s
164
s
8
s
3,753
s
1,904
s
10,952
s
475
Grand Total
s
749
s
11,617
$
s
246
$
17,084
March, 2004
B-72
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
IL
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
334
$
83
$
1,771
$
92
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
110
S
75
S
914
S
50
S
28
S
19
S
228
S
12
s
578
S
392
S
4,785
S
261
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
134
S
91
S
442
S
18
S
17
S
11
S
55
S
2
s
589
S
403
S
1,946
S
80
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,936
s
1,427 $
6,727
s
236
s
424
s
266
s
1,168
s
36
s
42
s
27
s
117
s
4
s
2,998
s
2,093
s
9,649
s
327
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
920
s
555 $
3,705
s
243
s
145
s
74
s
462
s
27
s
25
s
13
s
81
s
5
s
1,294
s
748
s
4,899
s
311
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,319
s
147 $
s
s
216
s
20
s
s
s
36
s
3
s
s
s
1,893
s
201
s
s
Total
s
s
$
$
s
4,175
s
2,129 $
10,431
s
479
$
1,030
s
527
s
2,986
s
131
s
148
$
73
$
480
$
23
s
7,687
s
3,919
s
23,050
$
1,070
Grand Total
s
s
17,215
s
4,673
s
724
$
35,726
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
$
s
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
334
$
83
$
1,771
$
92
< 3
s
s
$
$
$
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
28
$
19
$
228
$
12
s
468
s
317
s
3,871
$
211
•S 7.5
s
339
$
284
$
1,500
s
72
s
s
s
$
s
134
s
91
s
442
s
18
s
17
s
11
s
55
s
2
$
928
$
687
$
3,446
$
151
n 25
s
s
$
$
s
3,873
s
2,854 $
13,453
s
473
$
424
s
266
s
1,168
s
36
s
42
$
27
$
117
$
4
s
4,934
s
3,520
s
16,376
s
563
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,840
$
1,111 $
7,410
s
485
s
145
s
74
s
462
$
27
s
25
s
13
s
81
s
5
$
2,214
$
1,303
$
8,604
$
554
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,638
s
294 $
s
s
216
s
20
s
$
$
36
s
3
s
s
s
3,212
s
348
s
s
Total
s
339
$
284
s
1,500
s
72
s
8,351
s
4,259 $
20,863
$
958
s
919
s
452
s
2,072
$
81
s
148
s
73
s
480
s
23
$
12,090
$
6,258
$
34,067
$
1,571
Grand Total
s
2,195
s
34,430
s
3,524
$
724
s
53,986
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
334
s
83
s
1,771
s
92
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
19
s
228
s
12
s
468
s
317
s
3,871
s
211
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
11
s
55
s
2
s
455
s
311
s
1,504
s
62
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,936
s
1,427 $
6,727
s
236
s
s
s
s
s
42
s
27
s
117
s
4
s
2,573
s
1,827
s
8,481
s
291
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
920
s
555 $
3,705
s
243
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
13
s
81
s
5
s
1,149
s
673
s
4,437
s
285
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,319
s
147 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
3
s
s
s
1,677
s
181
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
4,175
s
2,129 $
10,431
s
479
s
s
s
s
s
148
s
73
s
480
s
23
s
6,657
s
3,392
s
20,064
s
940
Grand Total
s
s
17,215
s
s
724
s
31,053
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
334
s
83
s
1,771
s
92
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
19
s
228
s
12
s
468
s
317
s
3,871
s
211
•S 7.5
s
339
s
284
s
1,500
s
72
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
11
s
55
s
2
s
794
s
596
s
3,004
s
133
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,873
s
2,854 $
13,453
s
473
s
s
s
s
s
42
s
27
s
117
s
4
s
4,510
s
3,254
s
15,208
s
527
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,840
s
1,111 S
7,410
s
485
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
13
s
81
s
5
s
2,069
s
1,229
s
8,142
s
527
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,638
s
294 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
3
s
s
s
2,996
s
328
s
s
Total
s
339
s
284
s
1,500
s
72
s
8,351
s
4,259 $
20,863
s
958
s
s
s
s
s
148
s
73
s
480
s
23
s
11,171
s
5,806
s
31,995
s
1,490
Grand Total
s
2,195
s
34,430
$
s
724
$
50,463
March, 2004
B-73
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
IN
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
244
$
61
$
1,291
$
67
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
81
S
55
S
666
S
36
S
20
S
14
S
166
S
9
s
422
S
286
S
3,488
S
190
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
97
S
67
S
322
S
13
S
12
s
8
S
40
S
2
s
429
S
293
S
1,418
S
58
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,411
s
1,040
s
4,903
s
173
s
309
s
194
s
852
s
26
s
31
s
19
s
85
s
3
s
2,185
s
1,525
s
7,034
s
238
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
671
s
405
s
2,700
s
178
s
106
s
54
s
337
s
19
s
18
s
9
s
59
s
3
s
944
s
545
s
3,570
s
228
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
963
s
109
s
s
s
158
s
15
s
s
s
26
s
3
s
s
s
1,381
s
149
s
s
Total
s
s
$
$
s
3,045
s
1,554
s
7,603
s
350
$
751
s
384
s
2,177
s
95
s
108
$
53
$
350
$
17
s
5,605
s
2,859
s
16,801
$
781
Grand Total
s
s
12,552
s
3,407
s
528
$
26,047
OPTION 2
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
244
$
61
$
1,291
$
67
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
321
s
218
s
2,655
$
145
•S 7.5
s
247
$
207
s
1,093
s
52
s
s
s
$
s
97
s
67
s
322
$
13
s
12
s
8
s
40
s
2
$
676
$
501
$
2,512
$
110
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
2,823
s
2,080
s
9,807
s
345
$
309
s
194
s
852
s
26
$
31
s
19
$
85
s
3
s
3,596
s
2,565
s
11,937
s
411
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,342
s
810
$
5,400
$
355
s
106
s
54
s
337
$
19
s
18
s
9
s
59
s
3
$
1,615
$
950
$
6,270
$
406
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,925
s
218
s
s
s
158
s
15
s
$
$
26
s
3
s
s
s
2,344
s
258
s
s
Total
s
247
$
207
s
1,093
s
52
s
6,090
s
3,107
$
15,207
$
700
s
670
s
330
s
1,510
$
59
s
88
s
40
s
184
s
8
$
8,796
$
4,552
$
24,665
$
1,138
Grand Total
s
1,600
s
25,104
s
2,569
$
319
s
39,152
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
244
s
61
s
1,291
s
67
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
321
s
218
s
2,655
s
145
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
320
s
218
s
1,056
s
43
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,411
s
1,040
s
4,903
s
173
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,845
s
1,312
s
6,097
s
209
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
671
s
405
s
2,700
s
178
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
820
s
481
s
3,175
s
205
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
963
s
109
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,197
s
131
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
3,045
s
1,554
s
7,603
s
350
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4,747
s
2,421
s
14,274
s
669
Grand Total
s
s
12,552
s
s
s
22,112
OPTION 4
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
244
s
61
s
1,291
s
67
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
321
s
218
s
2,655
s
145
•S 7.5
s
247
s
207
s
1,093
s
52
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
40
s
2
s
579
s
434
s
2,190
s
97
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,823
s
2,080
s
9,807
s
345
s
s
s
s
s
31
s
19
s
85
s
3
s
3,287
s
2,371
s
11,086
s
385
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,342
s
810
s
5,400
s
355
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
9
s
59
s
3
s
1,510
s
895
s
5,934
s
386
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,925
s
218
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
3
s
s
s
2,186
s
243
s
s
Total
s
247
s
207
s
1,093
s
52
s
6,090
s
3,107
s
15,207
s
700
s
s
s
s
s
88
s
40
s
184
s
8
s
8,126
s
4,222
s
23,155
s
1,080
Grand Total
s
1,600
s
25,104
$
s
319
$
36,583
March, 2004
B-74
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
KS
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
115
$
29
$
610
$
32
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
38
S
26
S
315
S
17
S
9
S
6
S
79
S
4
s
199
S
135
S
1,648
S
90
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
46
S
31
S
152
S
6
S
6
S
4
S
19
S
1
s
203
S
139
S
670
S
27
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,334
s
983 $
4,634
s
163
s
146
s
92
s
402
s
12
s
15
s
9
s
40
s
1
s
1,699
s
1,212
s
5,641
s
194
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
633
s
382 $
2,548
s
166
s
50
s
26
s
159
s
9
s
9
s
4
s
28
s
2
s
762
s
449
s
2,958
s
189
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
910
s
101 $
s
s
75
s
7
s
s
s
12
s
1
s
s
s
1,108
s
119
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
2,877
s
1,466 $
7,182
s
329
s
355
s
181
s
1,028
s
45
$
51
s
25
$
165
s
8
s
4,087
s
2,082
s
11,528
$
532
Grand Total
s
s
11,854
s
1,609
s
249
$
18,229
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
115
$
29
$
610
$
32
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
9
s
6
$
79
s
4
s
161
s
109
s
1,333
$
73
•S 7.5
s
117
$ 98
s
517
s
25
s
s
s
s
s
46
$
31
s
152
$
6
s
6
s
4
s
19
s
1
$
320
$
236
$
1,187
$
52
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,334
s
983 $
4,634
s
163
s
146
s
92
s
402
s
12
$
15
s
9
$
40
s
1
s
1,699
s
1,212
s
5,641
s
194
70
s
s
s
s
s
633
s
382 $
2,548
$
166
s
50
$
26
s
159
$
9
s
9
s
4
s
28
s
2
$
762
$
449
$
2,958
$
189
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
910
s
101 $
s
s
75
s
7
s
$
$
12
s
1
s
s
s
1,108
s
119
s
s
Total
s
117
$ 98
s
517
s
25
s
2,877
s
1,466 $
7,182
$
329
s
317
$
156
s
713
$
28
s
51
s
25
s
165
s
8
$
4,166
$
2,154
$
11,730
$
540
Grand Total
s
756
s
11,854
s
1,213
$
249
s
18,589
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
115
s
29
s
610
s
32
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
6
s
79
s
4
s
161
s
109
s
1,333
s
73
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
19
s
1
s
157
s
107
s
518
s
21
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,334
s
983 $
4,634
s
163
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
9
s
40
s
1
s
1,553
s
1,120
s
5,239
s
182
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
633
s
382 $
2,548
s
166
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
4
s
28
s
2
s
712
s
423
s
2,799
s
180
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
910
s
101 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
1
s
s
s
1,034
s
112
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
2,877
s
1,466 $
7,182
s
329
s
s
s
s
s
51
s
25
s
165
s
8
s
3,732
s
1,901
s
10,500
s
487
Grand Total
s
s
11,854
s
s
249
s
16,620
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
115
s
29
s
610
s
32
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
6
s
79
s
4
s
161
s
109
s
1,333
s
73
•S 7.5
s
117
$ 98
s
517
s
25
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
19
s
1
s
274
s
205
s
1,035
s
46
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,334
s
983 $
4,634
s
163
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
9
s
40
s
1
s
1,553
s
1,120
s
5,239
s
182
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
633
s
382 $
2,548
s
166
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
4
s
28
s
2
s
712
s
423
s
2,799
s
180
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
910
s
101 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
1
s
s
s
1,034
s
112
s
s
Total
s
117
$ 98
s
517
s
25
s
2,877
s
1,466 $
7,182
s
329
s
s
s
s
s
51
s
25
s
165
s
8
s
3,849
s
1,999
s
11,017
s
512
Grand Total
s
756
s
11,854
$
s
249
$
17,376
March, 2004
B-75
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
KY
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
283
$
71
$
1,499
$
78
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
94
S
63
S
774
S
42
S
23
S
16
S
193
S
11
s
490
S
332
S
4,050
S
221
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
113
S
77
S
374
S
15
S
14
S
10
S
47
S
2
s
499
S
341
S
1,647
S
67
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,277
s
2,414
s
11,389
s
402
s
359
s
225
s
989
s
31
s
36
s
22
s
99
s
3
s
4,175
s
2,977
s
13,864
s
478
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,562
s
940
s
6,268
s
416
s
123
s
63
s
391
s
23
s
21
s
11
s
68
s
4
s
1,880
s
1,103
s
7,278
s
475
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,241
s
263
s
s
s
184
s
18
s
s
s
31
s
3
s
s
s
2,729
s
312
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
7,080
s
3,617
s
17,657
s
818
$
872
s
447
s
2,528
s
111
$
125
s
62
$
407
s
19
s
10,055
s
5,135
s
28,338
$
1,319
Grand Total
s
s
29,173
s
3,958
s
613
$
44,848
OPTION 2
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
283
$
71
$
1,499
$
78
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
23
s
16
$
193
s
11
s
396
s
269
s
3,276
$
179
•S 7.5
s
287
$
241
s
1,270
s
61
s
s
s
s
s
113
$
77
s
374
$
15
s
14
s
10
s
47
s
2
$
786
$
581
$
2,917
$
128
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
3,277
s
2,414
s
11,389
s
402
s
359
s
225
s
989
s
31
$
36
s
22
$
99
s
3
s
4,175
s
2,977
s
13,864
s
478
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,562
s
940
$
6,268
$
416
s
123
$
63
s
391
$
23
s
21
s
11
s
68
s
4
$
1,880
$
1,103
$
7,278
$
475
M 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,241
s
263
s
s
s
184
s
18
s
$
$
31
s
3
s
s
s
2,729
s
312
s
s
Total
s
287
$
241
s
1,270
s
61
s
7,080
s
3,617
$
17,657
$
818
s
779
$
384
s
1,754
$
69
s
125
s
62
s
407
s
19
$
10,249
$
5,312
$
28,834
$
1,338
Grand Total
s
1,858
s
29,173
s
2,985
$
613
s
45,733
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
283
s
71
s
1,499
s
78
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
23
s
16
s
193
s
11
s
396
s
269
s
3,276
s
179
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
10
s
47
s
2
s
386
s
263
s
1,273
s
52
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,277
s
2,414
s
11,389
s
402
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
22
s
99
s
3
s
3,816
s
2,752
s
12,875
s
448
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,562
s
940
s
6,268
s
416
s
s
s
s
s
21
s
11
s
68
s
4
s
1,757
s
1,040
s
6,888
s
452
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,241
s
263
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
31
s
3
s
s
s
2,545
s
293
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
7,080
s
3,617
s
17,657
s
818
s
s
s
s
s
125
s
62
s
407
s
19
s
9,183
s
4,688
s
25,811
s
1,208
Grand Total
s
s
29,173
s
s
613
s
40,890
OPTION 4
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
283
s
71
s
1,499
s
78
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
23
s
16
s
193
s
11
s
396
s
269
s
3,276
s
179
•S 7.5
s
287
s
241
s
1,270
s
61
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
10
s
47
s
2
s
673
s
504
s
2,543
s
113
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,277
s
2,414
s
11,389
s
402
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
22
s
99
s
3
s
3,816
s
2,752
s
12,875
s
448
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,562
s
940
s
6,268
s
416
s
s
s
s
s
21
s
11
s
68
s
4
s
1,757
s
1,040
s
6,888
s
452
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,241
s
263
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
31
s
3
s
s
s
2,545
s
293
s
s
Total
s
287
s
241
s
1,270
s
61
s
7,080
s
3,617
s
17,657
s
818
s
s
s
s
s
125
s
62
s
407
s
19
s
9,470
s
4,928
s
27,081
s
1,269
Grand Total
s
1,858
s
29,173
$
s
613
$
42,748
March, 2004
B-76
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
LA
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
156
$
39
$
825
$
43
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
52
S
35
S
426
S
23
S
13
S
9
S
106
S
6
s
270
S
183
S
2,230
S
122
•S 7.5
S
158
S
132
S
699
S
33
s
S
s
S
S
62
S
43
S
206
S
8
S
8
S
5
S
26
S
1
s
433
S
320
S
1,606
S
70
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,805
s
1,330 $
6,269
s
221
s
198
s
124
s
544
s
17
s
20
s
12
s
54
s
2
s
2,300
s
1,639
s
7,631
s
264
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
857
s
520 $
3,450
s
217
s
67
s
35
s
215
s
12
s
12
s
6
s
38
s
2
s
1,031
s
610
s
4,006
s
247
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,235
s
147 $
s
s
101
s
10
s
s
s
17
s
2
s
s
s
1,504
s
174
s
s
Total
s
158
s
132
s
699
s
33
s
3,897
s
1,997 $
9,719
s
438
$
480
s
246
s
1,391
s
60
$
69
s
34
$
224
s
11
s
5,692
s
2,965
s
16,298
$
745
Grand Total
s
1,023
s
16,050
s
2,179
s
338
$
25,701
OPTION 2
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
156
$
39
$
825
$
43
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
13
s
9
$
106
s
6
s
218
s
148
s
1,804
$
98
•S 7.5
s
158
$
132
s
699
s
33
s
s
s
s
s
62
$
43
s
206
$
8
s
8
s
5
s
26
s
1
$
433
$
320
$
1,606
$
70
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,805
s
1,330 $
6,269
s
221
s
198
s
124
s
544
s
17
$
20
s
12
$
54
s
2
s
2,300
s
1,639
s
7,631
s
264
70
s
s
s
s
s
857
s
520 $
3,450
$
217
s
67
$
35
s
215
$
12
s
12
s
6
s
38
s
2
$
1,031
$
610
$
4,006
$
247
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,235
s
147 $
s
s
101
s
10
s
$
$
17
s
2
s
s
s
1,504
s
174
s
s
Total
s
158
$
132
s
699
s
33
s
3,897
s
1,997 $
9,719
$
438
s
429
$
212
s
965
$
37
s
69
s
34
s
224
s
11
$
5,641
$
2,930
$
15,872
$
722
Grand Total
s
1,023
s
16,050
s
1,643
$
338
s
25,165
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
156
s
39
s
825
s
43
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
13
s
9
s
106
s
6
s
218
s
148
s
1,804
s
98
•S 7.5
s
158
s
132
s
699
s
33
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
5
s
26
s
1
s
370
s
277
s
1,400
s
62
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,805
s
1,330 $
6,269
s
221
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
12
s
54
s
2
s
2,102
s
1,516
s
7,087
s
247
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
857
s
520 $
3,450
s
217
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
6
s
38
s
2
s
964
s
576
s
3,791
s
235
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,235
s
147 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
2
s
s
s
1,402
s
164
s
s
Total
s
158
s
132
s
699
s
33
s
3,897
s
1,997 $
9,719
s
438
s
s
s
s
s
69
s
34
s
224
s
11
s
5,212
s
2,719
s
14,907
s
685
Grand Total
s
1,023
s
16,050
s
s
338
s
23,522
OPTION 4
3 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
156
s
39
s
825
s
43
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
13
s
9
s
106
s
6
s
218
s
148
s
1,804
s
98
•S 7.5
s
158
s
132
s
699
s
33
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
5
s
26
s
1
s
370
s
277
s
1,400
s
62
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,805
s
1,330 $
6,269
s
221
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
12
s
54
s
2
s
2,102
s
1,516
s
7,087
s
247
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
857
s
520 $
3,450
s
217
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
6
s
38
s
2
s
964
s
576
s
3,791
s
235
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,235
s
147 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
2
s
s
s
1,402
s
164
s
s
Total
s
158
s
132
s
699
s
33
s
3,897
s
1,997 $
9,719
s
438
s
s
s
s
s
69
s
34
s
224
s
11
s
5,212
s
2,719
s
14,907
s
685
Grand Total
s
1,023
s
16,050
$
s
338
$
23,522
March, 2004
B-77
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
VIA
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
S
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
316
$
79
$
1,674
$
87
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
104
S
71
S
864
S
47
S
26
S
18
S
216
S
12
s
547
S
371
S
4,522
S
247
•S 7.5
S
320
S
269
S
1,418
$ 68
s
S
s
S
S
126
S
86
S
417
S
17
S
16
S
11
S
52
S
2
s
876
S
649
S
3,257
S
143
n 25
s
s
s
S
s
3,657
s
2,698 $
12,718
s
445
s
401
s
251
s
1,104
s
34
s
40
s
25
s
110
s
3
s
4,660
s
3,327
s
15,481
s
530
3 70
s
s
s
S
s
1,745
s
1,052 $
7,002
s
461
s
137
s
70
s
437
s
25
s
24
s
12
s
76
s
4
s
2,100
s
1,234
s
8,131
s
526
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,515
s
299 $
s
s
206
s
21
s
s
s
34
s
3
s
s
s
3,062
s
355
s
s
Total
s
320
s
269
s
1,418
$ 68
s
7,917
s
4,050 $
19,720
s
906
s
975
s
500
s
2,822
s
123
$
140
s
69
$
454
s
22
s
11,561
s
6,014
s
33,064
$
1,532
Grand Total
s
2,074
s
32,592
s
4,421
s
685
$
52,172
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
S
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
316
$
79
$
1,674
$
87
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
26
s
18
$
216
s
12
s
442
s
300
s
3,658
$
200
•S 7.5
s
320
$
269
s
1,418
$ 68
s
s
s
s
s
126
$
86
s
417
$
17
s
16
s
11
s
52
s
2
$
876
$
649
$
3,257
$
143
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
3,657
s
2,698 $
12,718
s
445
s
401
s
251
s
1,104
s
34
$
40
s
25
$
110
s
3
s
4,660
s
3,327
s
15,481
s
530
70
s
s
s
S
s
1,745
s
1,052 $
7,002
$
461
s
137
$
70
s
437
$
25
s
24
s
12
s
76
s
4
$
2,100
$
1,234
$
8,131
$
526
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,515
s
299 $
s
s
206
s
21
s
$
$
34
s
3
s
s
s
3,062
s
355
s
s
Total
s
320
$
269
s
1,418
$ 68
s
7,917
s
4,050 $
19,720
$
906
s
871
$
429
s
1,958
$
76
s
140
s
69
s
454
s
22
$
11,456
$
5,944
$
32,200
$
1,485
Grand Total
s
2,074
s
32,592
s
3,334
$
685
s
51,085
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
S
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
316
s
79
s
1,674
s
87
< 3
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
18
s
216
s
12
s
442
s
300
s
3,658
s
200
•S 7.5
s
320
s
269
s
1,418
$ 68
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
11
s
52
s
2
s
750
s
563
s
2,839
s
126
1 25
s
s
s
S
s
3,657
s
2,698 $
12,718
s
445
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
25
s
110
s
3
s
4,259
s
3,075
s
14,376
s
496
O 70
s
s
s
S
s
1,745
s
1,052 $
7,002
s
461
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
12
s
76
s
4
s
1,962
s
1,164
s
7,694
s
501
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,515
s
299 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
3
s
s
s
2,856
s
334
s
s
Total
s
320
s
269
s
1,418
$ 68
s
7,917
s
4,050 $
19,720
s
906
s
s
s
s
s
140
s
69
s
454
s
22
s
10,586
s
5,515
s
30,241
s
1,409
Grand Total
s
2,074
s
32,592
s
s
685
s
47,751
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
S
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
316
s
79
s
1,674
s
87
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
18
s
216
s
12
s
442
s
300
s
3,658
s
200
•S 7.5
s
320
s
269
s
1,418
$ 68
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
11
s
52
s
2
s
750
s
563
s
2,839
s
126
n 25
s
s
s
S
s
3,657
s
2,698 $
12,718
s
445
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
25
s
110
s
3
s
4,259
s
3,075
s
14,376
s
496
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,745
s
1,052 $
7,002
s
461
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
12
s
76
s
4
s
1,962
s
1,164
s
7,694
s
501
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,515
s
299 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
3
s
s
s
2,856
s
334
s
s
Total
s
320
s
269
s
1,418
$ 68
s
7,917
s
4,050 $
19,720
s
906
s
s
s
s
s
140
s
69
s
454
s
22
s
10,586
s
5,515
s
30,241
s
1,409
Grand Total
s
2,074
s
32,592
$
s
685
$
47,751
March, 2004
B-78
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
VID
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
217
$
54
$
1,148
$
59
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
72
S
49
S
593
S
32
S
18
S
12
S
148
S
8
s
375
S
254
S
3,103
S
169
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
87
S
59
S
286
S
12
S
11
s
7
S
36
S
1
s
382
S
261
S
1,262
S
51
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,254
s
925
S
4,361
s
153
s
275
s
172
s
757
s
23
s
27
s
17
s
76
s
2
s
1,942
s
1,356
s
6,257
s
211
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
596
s
360
S
2,401
s
158
s
94
s
48
s
300
s
17
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
3
s
838
s
485
s
3,175
s
202
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
858
s
101
S
s
s
141
s
14
s
s
s
23
s
2
s
s
s
1,231
s
139
s
s
Total
s
s
$
$
s
2,708
s
1,386
S
6,763
s
311
$
668
s
343
s
1,936
s
84
s
96
$
47
$
311
$
15
s
4,985
s
2,549
s
14,945
$
693
Grand Total
s
s
11,167
s
3,031
s
470
$
23,171
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
217
$
54
$
1,148
$
59
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
286
s
194
s
2,362
$
129
•S 7.5
s
220
$
184
s
973
s
46
s
s
S
$
s
87
s
59
s
286
$
12
s
11
s
7
s
36
s
1
$
601
$
445
$
2,234
$
97
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
2,509
s
1,850
S
8,723
s
306
$
275
s
172
s
757
s
23
$
27
s
17
$
76
s
2
s
3,196
s
2,281
s
10,618
s
364
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,191
s
720
$
4,803
$
315
s
94
s
48
s
300
$
17
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
3
$
1,434
$
845
$
5,577
$
360
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,716
s
203
S
s
s
141
s
14
s
$
$
23
s
2
s
s
s
2,089
s
240
s
s
Total
s
220
$
184
s
973
s
46
s
5,416
$
2,773
$
13,526
s
621
s
596
s
294
s
1,343
$
52
s
78
s
35
s
164
s
7
$
7,822
$
4,059
$
21,939
$
1,009
Grand Total
s
1,423
s
22,335
s
2,285
$
284
s
34,830
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
217
s
54
s
1,148
s
59
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
286
s
194
s
2,362
s
129
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
284
s
194
s
940
s
38
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,254
s
925
S
4,361
s
153
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,640
s
1,167
s
5,424
s
186
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
596
s
360
S
2,401
s
158
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
728
s
428
s
2,823
s
182
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
858
s
101
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,067
s
122
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
2,708
s
1,386
S
6,763
s
311
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4,221
s
2,159
s
12,697
s
594
Grand Total
s
s
11,167
s
s
s
19,671
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
217
s
54
s
1,148
s
59
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
286
s
194
s
2,362
s
129
•S 7.5
s
220
s
184
s
973
s
46
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
7
s
36
s
1
s
515
s
386
s
1,948
s
86
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,509
s
1,850
S
8,723
s
306
s
s
s
s
s
27
s
17
s
76
s
2
s
2,921
s
2,109
s
9,861
s
341
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,191
s
720
S
4,803
s
315
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
3
s
1,340
s
797
s
5,277
s
343
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,716
s
203
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
23
s
2
s
s
s
1,948
s
226
s
s
Total
s
220
s
184
s
973
s
46
s
5,416
s
2,773
s
13,526
s
621
s
s
s
s
s
78
s
35
s
164
s
7
s
7,227
s
3,765
s
20,596
s
957
Grand Total
s
1,423
s
22,335
$
s
284
$
32,545
March, 2004
B-79
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
VIE
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
127
$
32
$
670
$
35
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
42
S
28
S
346
S
19
S
10
S
7
S
86
S
5
s
219
S
148
S
1,811
S
99
•S 7.5
S
128
$ 108
S
568
S
27
s
S
S
S
S
51
S
35
S
167
S
7
S
6
S
4
S
21
S
1
s
351
S
260
S
1,304
S
57
n 25
s
S
s
s
s
1,465
s
1,081
s
5,094
s
178
s
160
s
101
s
442
s
14
s
16
s
10
s
44
s
1
s
1,866
s
1,333
s
6,201
s
212
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
699
s
422
s
2,805
s
185
s
55
s
28
s
175
s
10
s
10
s
5
s
31
s
2
s
841
s
494
s
3,257
s
211
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,007
s
120
s
s
s
83
s
8
s
s
s
14
s
1
s
s
s
1,227
s
142
s
s
Total
s
128
$ 108
s
568
s
27
s
3,171
s
1,622
s
7,899
s
363
$
391
s
200
s
1,131
s
49
$
56
s
28
$
182
s
9
s
4,631
s
2,409
s
13,244
$
614
Grand Total
s
831
s
13,055
s
1,771
s
274
$
20,898
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
127
$
32
$
670
$
35
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
10
s
7
$
86
s
5
s
177
s
120
s
1,465
$
80
•S 7.5
s
128
$ 108
s
568
s
27
s
s
s
s
s
51
$
35
s
167
$
7
s
6
s
4
s
21
s
1
$
351
$
260
$
1,304
$
57
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,465
s
1,081
s
5,094
s
178
s
160
s
101
s
442
s
14
$
16
s
10
$
44
s
1
s
1,866
s
1,333
s
6,201
s
212
70
s
s
s
s
s
699
s
422
$
2,805
$
185
s
55
$
28
s
175
$
10
s
10
s
5
s
31
s
2
$
841
$
494
$
3,257
$
211
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,007
s
120
s
s
s
83
s
8
s
$
$
14
s
1
s
s
s
1,227
s
142
s
s
Total
s
128
$ 108
s
568
s
27
s
3,171
s
1,622
$
7,899
$
363
s
349
$
172
s
784
$
31
s
56
s
28
s
182
s
9
$
4,589
$
2,381
$
12,898
$
595
Grand Total
s
831
s
13,055
s
1,336
$
274
s
20,463
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
127
s
32
s
670
s
35
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
7
s
86
s
5
s
177
s
120
s
1,465
s
80
•S 7.5
s
128
$ 108
s
568
s
27
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
21
s
1
s
300
s
225
s
1,137
s
50
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,465
s
1,081
s
5,094
s
178
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
10
s
44
s
1
s
1,706
s
1,232
s
5,759
s
199
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
699
s
422
s
2,805
s
185
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
5
s
31
s
2
s
786
s
466
s
3,082
s
201
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,007
s
120
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
1
s
s
s
1,144
s
134
s
s
Total
s
128
$ 108
s
568
s
27
s
3,171
s
1,622
s
7,899
s
363
s
s
s
s
s
56
s
28
s
182
s
9
s
4,240
s
2,209
s
12,114
s
564
Grand Total
s
831
s
13,055
s
s
274
s
19,127
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
127
s
32
s
670
s
35
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
7
s
86
s
5
s
177
s
120
s
1,465
s
80
•S 7.5
s
128
$ 108
s
568
s
27
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
21
s
1
s
300
s
225
s
1,137
s
50
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,465
s
1,081
s
5,094
s
178
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
10
s
44
s
1
s
1,706
s
1,232
s
5,759
s
199
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
699
s
422
s
2,805
s
185
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
5
s
31
s
2
s
786
s
466
s
3,082
s
201
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,007
s
120
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
1
s
s
s
1,144
s
134
s
s
Total
s
128
$ 108
s
568
s
27
s
3,171
s
1,622
s
7,899
s
363
s
s
s
s
s
56
s
28
s
182
s
9
s
4,240
s
2,209
s
12,114
s
564
Grand Total
s
831
s
13,055
$
s
274
$
19,127
March, 2004
B-80
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
MI
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
S
484
$
121
$
2,563
$
133
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
160
S
108
S
1,323
$ 72
S
40
S
27
S
330
S
18
s
837
S
567
S
6,927
S
378
•S 7.5
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
194
S
132
S
639
$ 26
S
24
S
16
S
80
S
3
s
853
S
583
S
2,816
S
115
n 25
s
S
s
s
s
2,803
s
2,066 $
9,737
s
342
s
614
s
385
s
1,691
$ 52
s
61
s
38
s
169
s
5
s
4,339
s
3,029
s
13,968
s
473
3 70
s
S
s
s
s
1,332
s
804 $
5,363
s
351
s
210
s
108
s
669
$ 38
s
37
s
19
s
117
s
7
s
1,874
s
1,082
s
7,092
s
451
M 200
s
S
s
s
s
1,909
s
213 $
s
s
313
s
30
s
S
s
52
s
5
s
s
s
2,740
s
291
s
s
Total
s
S
s
$
s
6,044
s
3,082 $
15,100
s
694
$
1,490
s
763
s
4,323
$ 189
s
214
$
106
$
695
$
33
s
11,127
s
5,673
s
33,366
$
1,549
Grand Total
s
s
24,919
s
6,765
s
1,048
$
51,715
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
$
s
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
484
$
121
$
2,563
$
133
< 3
s
S
s
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
$
40
s
27
$
330
s
18
s
677
s
459
s
5,603
$
306
•S 7.5
s
490
$
412
s
2,171
s
104
s
s
s
$
s
194
s
132
s
639
$ 26
s
24
s
16
s
80
s
3
$
1,343
$
994
$
4,988
$
219
n 25
s
S
s
$
s
5,606
s
4,131 $
19,474
s
684
$
614
s
385
s
1,691
$ 52
$
61
s
38
$
169
s
5
s
7,142
s
5,095
s
23,705
s
815
70
s
S
s
s
s
2,663
s
1,608 $
10,726
$
703
s
210
s
108
s
669
$ 38
s
37
s
19
s
117
s
7
$
3,205
$
1,886
$
12,455
$
802
w 200
s
S
s
$
s
3,819
s
425 $
s
s
313
s
30
s
$
$
52
s
5
s
s
s
4,650
s
504
s
s
Total
s
490
$
412
s
2,171
s
104
s
12,088
s
6,164 $
30,200
$
1,387
s
1,330
$
655
s
2,999
$ 117
s
214
s
106
s
695
s
33
$
17,501
$
9,058
$
49,314
$
2,274
Grand Total
s
3,177
s
49,839
s
5,101
$
1,048
s
78,147
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
484
s
121
s
2,563
s
133
< 3
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
40
s
27
s
330
s
18
s
677
s
459
s
5,603
s
306
•S 7.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
16
s
80
s
3
s
659
s
450
s
2,177
s
89
1 25
s
S
s
s
s
2,803
s
2,066 $
9,737
s
342
s
s
s
s
s
61
s
38
s
169
s
5
s
3,725
s
2,644
s
12,277
s
421
O 70
s
S
s
s
s
1,332
s
804 $
5,363
s
351
s
s
s
s
s
37
s
19
s
117
s
7
s
1,664
s
974
s
6,423
s
412
M 200
s
S
s
s
s
1,909
s
213 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
52
s
5
s
s
s
2,427
s
262
s
s
Total
s
S
s
s
s
6,044
s
3,082 $
15,100
s
694
s
s
s
s
s
214
s
106
s
695
s
33
s
9,636
s
4,910
s
29,043
s
1,360
Grand Total
s
s
24,919
s
s
1,048
s
44,950
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
484
s
121
s
2,563
s
133
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
27
s
330
s
18
s
677
s
459
s
5,603
s
306
•S 7.5
s
490
s
412
s
2,171
s
104
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
16
s
80
s
3
s
1,149
s
862
s
4,349
s
193
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
5,606
s
4,131 $
19,474
s
684
s
s
s
s
s
61
s
38
s
169
s
5
s
6,528
s
4,710
s
22,014
s
763
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,663
s
1,608 $
10,726
s
703
s
s
s
s
s
37
s
19
s
117
s
7
s
2,995
s
1,778
s
11,786
s
764
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,819
s
425 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
52
s
5
s
s
s
4,337
s
474
s
s
Total
s
490
s
412
s
2,171
s
104
s
12,088
s
6,164 $
30,200
s
1,387
s
s
s
s
s
214
s
106
s
695
s
33
s
16,171
s
8,404
s
46,314
s
2,158
Grand Total
s
3,177
s
49,839
$
s
1,048
$
73,047
March, 2004
B-81
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
VIN
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
S
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
314
$
78
$
1,665
$
86
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
104
S
70
S
860
S
47
S
26
S
18
S
214
S
12
s
544
S
369
S
4,500
S
245
•S 7.5
S
s
S
s
s
S
s
S
S
126
S
86
S
415
S
17
S
16
S
11
S
52
S
2
s
554
S
378
S
1,830
S
75
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,642
s
2,684 $
12,651
s
445
s
399
s
250
s
1,099
s
34
s
40
s
25
s
110
s
3
s
4,640
s
3,310
s
15,399
s
530
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,730
s
1,045 $
6,966
s
456
s
136
s
70
s
434
s
25
s
24
s
12
s
76
s
4
s
2,082
s
1,225
s
8,089
s
521
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,483
s
276 $
s
s
204
s
19
s
s
s
34
s
3
s
s
s
3,023
s
327
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
7,855
s
4,005 $
19,617
s
901
$
968
s
496
s
2,808
s
123
$
139
s
69
$
452
s
22
s
11,157
s
5,688
s
31,483
$
1,457
Grand Total
s
s
32,378
s
4,395
s
681
$
49,785
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
314
$
78
$
1,665
$
86
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
26
s
18
$
214
s
12
s
440
s
298
s
3,640
$
198
•S 7.5
s
319
$
267
s
1,411
$ 68
s
s
s
s
s
126
$
86
s
415
$
17
s
16
s
11
s
52
s
2
$
873
$
646
$
3,240
$
142
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
3,642
s
2,684 $
12,651
s
445
s
399
s
250
s
1,099
s
34
$
40
s
25
$
110
s
3
s
4,640
s
3,310
s
15,399
s
530
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,730
s
1,045 $
6,966
$
456
s
136
$
70
s
434
$
25
s
24
s
12
s
76
s
4
$
2,082
$
1,225
$
8,089
$
521
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,483
s
276 $
s
s
204
s
19
s
$
$
34
s
3
s
s
s
3,023
s
327
s
s
Total
s
319
$
267
s
1,411
$ 68
s
7,855
s
4,005 $
19,617
$
901
s
864
$
425
s
1,948
$
76
s
139
s
69
s
452
s
22
$
11,372
$
5,885
$
32,034
$
1,478
Grand Total
s
2,064
s
32,378
s
3,314
$
681
s
50,768
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
S
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
314
s
78
s
1,665
s
86
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
18
s
214
s
12
s
440
s
298
s
3,640
s
198
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
11
s
52
s
2
s
428
s
293
s
1,414
s
58
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,642
s
2,684 $
12,651
s
445
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
25
s
110
s
3
s
4,241
s
3,060
s
14,301
s
496
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,730
s
1,045 $
6,966
s
456
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
12
s
76
s
4
s
1,946
s
1,155
s
7,655
s
496
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,483
s
276 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
3
s
s
s
2,820
s
308
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
7,855
s
4,005 $
19,617
s
901
s
s
s
s
s
139
s
69
s
452
s
22
s
10,189
s
5,192
s
28,675
s
1,334
Grand Total
s
s
32,378
s
s
681
s
45,390
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
314
s
78
s
1,665
s
86
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
18
s
214
s
12
s
440
s
298
s
3,640
s
198
•S 7.5
s
319
s
267
s
1,411
$ 68
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
11
s
52
s
2
s
747
s
560
s
2,825
s
125
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,642
s
2,684 $
12,651
s
445
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
25
s
110
s
3
s
4,241
s
3,060
s
14,301
s
496
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,730
s
1,045 $
6,966
s
456
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
12
s
76
s
4
s
1,946
s
1,155
s
7,655
s
496
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,483
s
276 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
3
s
s
s
2,820
s
308
s
s
Total
s
319
s
267
s
1,411
$ 68
s
7,855
s
4,005 $
19,617
s
901
s
s
s
s
s
139
s
69
s
452
s
22
s
10,507
s
5,460
s
30,085
s
1,402
Grand Total
s
2,064
s
32,378
$
s
681
$
47,454
March, 2004
B-82
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
VIO
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
280
$
70
$
1,482
$
77
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
92
S
63
S
765
S
42
S
23
S
16
S
191
S
10
s
484
S
328
S
4,004
S
218
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
112
S
76
S
370
S
15
S
14
s
10
S
46
S
2
s
493
S
337
S
1,628
S
66
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,620
s
1,194
s
5,628
s
199
s
355
s
223
s
977
s
30
s
35
s
22
s
98
s
3
s
2,508
s
1,751
s
8,074
s
275
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
770
s
465
s
3,096
s
201
s
121
s
62
s
386
s
22
s
21
s
11
s
67
s
4
s
1,083
s
626
s
4,094
s
258
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,109
s
124
s
s
s
182
s
17
s
s
s
30
s
3
s
s
s
1,592
s
171
s
s
Total
s
s
$
$
s
3,499
s
1,784
s
8,724
s
400
$
862
s
441
s
2,498
s
109
s
124
$
61
$
402
$
19
s
6,440
s
3,282
s
19,281
$
894
Grand Total
s
s
14,407
s
3,911
s
606
$
29,897
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
280
$
70
$
1,482
$
77
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
368
s
250
s
3,048
$
166
•S 7.5
s
284
$
238
s
1,255
s
60
s
s
s
$
s
112
s
76
s
370
$
15
s
14
s
10
s
46
s
2
$
777
$
574
$
2,883
$
126
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
3,240
s
2,388
s
11,256
s
398
$
355
s
223
s
977
s
30
$
35
s
22
$
98
s
3
s
4,128
s
2,945
s
13,702
s
473
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,540
s
931
$
6,192
$
402
s
121
s
62
s
386
$
22
s
21
s
11
s
67
s
4
$
1,853
$
1,092
$
7,190
$
459
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,218
s
249
s
s
s
182
s
17
s
$
$
30
s
3
s
s
s
2,701
s
295
s
s
Total
s
284
$
238
s
1,255
s
60
s
6,998
s
3,568
$
17,448
$
800
s
770
$
379
s
1,733
$
67
s
101
s
45
s
211
s
9
$
10,107
$
5,226
$
28,305
$
1,302
Grand Total
s
1,837
s
28,814
s
2,949
$
366
s
44,939
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
280
s
70
s
1,482
s
77
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
368
s
250
s
3,048
s
166
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
367
s
251
s
1,212
s
49
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,620
s
1,194
s
5,628
s
199
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2,118
s
1,506
s
6,999
s
241
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
770
s
465
s
3,096
s
201
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
941
s
553
s
3,640
s
232
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,109
s
124
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,380
s
150
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
3,499
s
1,784
s
8,724
s
400
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5,454
s
2,780
s
16,381
s
766
Grand Total
s
s
14,407
s
s
s
25,380
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
280
s
70
s
1,482
s
77
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
368
s
250
s
3,048
s
166
•S 7.5
s
284
s
238
s
1,255
s
60
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
14
s
10
s
46
s
2
s
665
s
498
s
2,514
s
111
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,240
s
2,388
s
11,256
s
398
s
s
s
s
s
35
s
22
s
98
s
3
s
3,774
s
2,722
s
12,725
s
443
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,540
s
931
s
6,192
s
402
s
s
s
s
s
21
s
11
s
67
s
4
s
1,732
s
1,030
s
6,804
s
437
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,218
s
249
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
30
s
3
s
s
s
2,519
s
278
s
s
Total
s
284
s
238
s
1,255
s
60
s
6,998
s
3,568
s
17,448
s
800
s
s
s
s
s
101
s
45
s
211
s
9
s
9,337
s
4,847
s
26,572
s
1,235
Grand Total
s
1,837
s
28,814
$
s
366
$
41,990
March, 2004
B-83
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
MS
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
S
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
218
$
54
$
1,156
$
60
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
72
S
49
S
597
S
33
S
18
S
12
S
149
S
8
s
378
S
256
S
3,125
S
171
•S 7.5
S
s
s
S
s
S
s
S
S
87
S
60
S
288
S
12
S
11
S
7
S
36
S
1
s
385
S
263
S
1,271
S
52
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,529
s
1,863 $
8,786
s
311
s
277
s
174
s
763
s
24
s
28
s
17
s
76
s
2
s
3,222
s
2,298
s
10,695
s
370
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,202
s
728 $
4,836
s
314
s
95
s
49
s
302
s
17
s
17
s
9
s
53
s
3
s
1,447
s
854
s
5,615
s
358
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,732
s
203 $
s
s
142
s
14
s
s
s
24
s
2
s
s
s
2,109
s
241
s
s
Total
s
s
$
$
s
5,464
s
2,795 $
13,621
s
624
$
673
s
345
s
1,950
s
85
s
97
$
48
$
314
$
15
s
7,760
s
3,966
s
21,862
$
1,010
Grand Total
s
s
22,505
s
3,054
s
473
$
34,598
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
218
$
54
$
1,156
$
60
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
s
s
s
$
$
18
s
12
$
149
s
8
s
306
s
207
s
2,528
$
138
•S 7.5
s
221
$
186
$ 980
s
47
s
s
S
$
s
87
s
60
s
288
$
12
s
11
s
7
s
36
s
1
$
606
$
448
$
2,251
$
99
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
2,529
s
1,863 $
8,786
s
311
$
277
s
174
s
763
s
24
$
28
s
17
$
76
s
2
s
3,222
s
2,298
s
10,695
s
370
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,202
s
728 $
4,836
$
314
s
95
s
49
s
302
$
17
s
17
s
9
s
53
s
3
$
1,447
$
854
$
5,615
$
358
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,732
s
203 $
s
s
142
s
14
s
$
$
24
s
2
s
s
s
2,109
s
241
s
s
Total
s
221
$
186
$ 980
s
47
s
5,464
$
2,795 $
13,621
s
624
s
601
s
296
s
1,353
$
53
s
97
s
48
s
314
s
15
$
7,909
$
4,103
$
22,244
$
1,024
Grand Total
s
1,433
s
22,505
s
2,303
$
473
s
35,280
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
218
s
54
s
1,156
s
60
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
12
s
149
s
8
s
306
s
207
s
2,528
s
138
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
7
s
36
s
1
s
297
s
203
s
982
s
40
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,529
s
1,863 $
8,786
s
311
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
17
s
76
s
2
s
2,945
s
2,124
s
9,932
s
346
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,202
s
728 $
4,836
s
314
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
9
s
53
s
3
s
1,352
s
805
s
5,313
s
341
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,732
s
203 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
2
s
s
s
1,967
s
227
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
5,464
s
2,795 $
13,621
s
624
s
s
s
s
s
97
s
48
s
314
s
15
s
7,087
s
3,621
s
19,912
s
925
Grand Total
s
s
22,505
s
s
473
s
31,544
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
218
s
54
s
1,156
s
60
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
12
s
149
s
8
s
306
s
207
s
2,528
s
138
•S 7.5
s
221
s
186
$ 980
s
47
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
7
s
36
s
1
s
519
s
389
s
1,962
s
87
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,529
s
1,863 $
8,786
s
311
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
17
s
76
s
2
s
2,945
s
2,124
s
9,932
s
346
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,202
s
728 $
4,836
s
314
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
9
s
53
s
3
s
1,352
s
805
s
5,313
s
341
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,732
s
203 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
2
s
s
s
1,967
s
227
s
s
Total
s
221
s
186
$ 980
s
47
s
5,464
s
2,795 $
13,621
s
624
s
s
s
s
s
97
s
48
s
314
s
15
s
7,308
s
3,807
s
20,892
s
972
Grand Total
s
1,433
s
22,505
$
s
473
$
32,978
March, 2004
B-84
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
VIT
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
98
$
24
$
520
$
27
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
32
S
22
S
269
S
15
S
8
S
5
S
67
S
4
s
170
S
115
S
1,406
S
77
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
39
S
27
S
130
S
5
S
5
S
3
S
16
S
1
s
171
S
117
S
571
S
22
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
569
s
417
s
1,976
s
68
s
125
s
78
s
343
s
10
s
12
s
8
s
34
s
1
s
881
s
612
s
2,835
s
93
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
261
s
154
s
1,082
s
63
s
41
s
21
s
135
s
7
s
7
s
4
s
24
s
1
s
368
s
207
s
1,431
s
80
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
377
s
0
s
s
s
62
s
0
s
s
s
10
s
0
s
s
s
541
s
0
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
1,208
s
571
s
3,059
s
130
s
299
s
147
s
876
s
37
$
43
s
20
$
141
s
7
s
2,229
s
1,076
s
6,763
$
299
Grand Total
s
s
4,968
s
1,359
s
210
$
10,368
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
98
$
24
$
520
$
27
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
8
s
5
$
67
s
4
s
138
s
93
s
1,137
$
62
•S 7.5
s
99
$
83
s
440
s
20
s
s
s
s
s
39
$
27
s
130
$
5
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
$
270
$
200
$
1,011
$
42
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,139
s
835
s
3,953
s
135
s
125
s
78
s
343
s
10
$
12
s
8
$
34
s
1
s
1,451
s
1,030
s
4,812
s
161
70
s
s
s
s
s
523
s
308
$
2,165
$
125
s
41
$
21
s
135
$
7
s
7
s
4
s
24
s
1
$
629
$
361
$
2,514
$
143
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
754
s
0
s
s
s
62
s
0
s
$
$
10
s
0
s
s
s
918
s
0
s
s
Total
s
99
$
83
s
440
s
20
s
2,415
s
1,143
$
6,118
$
261
s
267
$
125
s
608
$
22
s
43
s
20
s
141
s
7
$
3,503
$
1,708
$
9,994
$
435
Grand Total
s
641
s
9,936
s
1,022
$
210
s
15,639
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
98
s
24
s
520
s
27
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
5
s
67
s
4
s
138
s
93
s
1,137
s
62
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
s
132
s
90
s
441
s
17
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
569
s
417
s
1,976
s
68
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
34
s
1
s
757
s
534
s
2,492
s
83
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
261
s
154
s
1,082
s
63
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
4
s
24
s
1
s
327
s
186
s
1,296
s
74
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
377
s
0
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
0
s
s
s
479
s
0
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
1,208
s
571
s
3,059
s
130
s
s
s
s
s
43
s
20
s
141
s
7
s
1,930
s
929
s
5,887
s
262
Grand Total
s
s
4,968
s
s
210
s
9,008
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
98
s
24
s
520
s
27
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
5
s
67
s
4
s
138
s
93
s
1,137
s
62
•S 7.5
s
99
s
83
s
440
s
20
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
s
231
s
173
s
881
s
37
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,139
s
835
s
3,953
s
135
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
34
s
1
s
1,326
s
952
s
4,468
s
151
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
523
s
308
s
2,165
s
125
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
4
s
24
s
1
s
588
s
340
s
2,379
s
136
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
754
s
0
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
0
s
s
s
856
s
0
s
s
Total
s
99
s
83
s
440
s
20
s
2,415
s
1,143
s
6,118
s
261
s
s
s
s
s
43
s
20
s
141
s
7
s
3,236
s
1,583
s
9,386
s
413
Grand Total
s
641
s
9,936
$
s
210
$
14,618
March, 2004
B-85
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
NC
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
S
529
$
132
$
2,802
$
145
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
175
S
119
S
1,447
$ 79
S
44
S
30
S
361
S
20
s
916
S
620
S
7,572
S
413
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
212
S
145
S
699
00
S
26
S
18
S
87
S
4
s
932
S
637
S
3,079
S
125
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
6,126
s
4,514
s
21,288
s
751
s
671
s
421
s
1,849
$ 57
s
67
s
42
s
184
s
6
s
7,805
s
5,567
s
25,913
s
895
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,911
s
1,760
s
11,718
s
773
s
229
s
118
s
731
$ 42
s
40
s
21
s
128
s
7
s
3,503
s
2,064
s
13,606
s
883
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
4,192
s
490
s
s
s
344
s
34
s
S
s
57
s
6
s
s
s
5,105
s
581
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
13,229
s
6,764
s
33,006
s
1,525
$
1,630
s
836
s
4,725
$ 207
s
234
$
116
$
760
$
36
s
18,789
s
9,600
s
52,974
$
2,461
Grand Total
s
s
54,524
s
7,398
s
1,146
$
83,824
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
529
$
132
$
2,802
$
145
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
$
44
s
30
$
361
s
20
s
741
s
502
s
6,125
$
334
•S 7.5
s
536
$
450
s
2,374
s
113
s
s
s
$
s
212
s
145
s
699
$ 28
s
26
s
18
s
87
s
4
$
1,468
$
1,087
$
5,453
$
238
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
6,126
s
4,514
s
21,288
s
751
s
671
s
421
s
1,849
$ 57
$
67
s
42
$
184
s
6
s
7,805
s
5,567
s
25,913
s
895
70
s
s
s
s
s
2,911
s
1,760
$
11,718
$
773
s
229
$
118
s
731
$ 42
s
40
s
21
s
128
s
7
$
3,503
$
2,064
$
13,606
$
883
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
4,192
s
490
s
s
s
344
s
34
s
$
$
57
s
6
s
s
s
5,105
s
581
s
s
Total
s
536
$
450
s
2,374
s
113
s
13,229
s
6,764
$
33,006
$
1,525
s
1,456
$
717
s
3,278
$ 128
s
234
s
116
s
760
s
36
$
19,150
$
9,932
$
53,901
$
2,495
Grand Total
s
3,473
s
54,524
s
5,579
$
1,146
s
85,478
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
529
s
132
s
2,802
s
145
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
44
s
30
s
361
s
20
s
741
s
502
s
6,125
s
334
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
18
s
87
s
4
s
720
s
492
s
2,380
s
97
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
6,126
s
4,514
s
21,288
s
751
s
s
s
s
s
67
s
42
s
184
s
6
s
7,134
s
5,146
s
24,065
s
837
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,911
s
1,760
s
11,718
s
773
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
21
s
128
s
7
s
3,274
s
1,946
s
12,876
s
840
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
4,192
s
490
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
57
s
6
s
s
s
4,761
s
546
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
13,229
s
6,764
s
33,006
s
1,525
s
s
s
s
s
234
s
116
s
760
s
36
s
17,159
s
8,764
s
48,249
s
2,254
Grand Total
s
s
54,524
s
s
1,146
s
76,426
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
529
s
132
s
2,802
s
145
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
44
s
30
s
361
s
20
s
741
s
502
s
6,125
s
334
•S 7.5
s
536
s
450
s
2,374
s
113
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
18
s
87
s
4
s
1,256
s
942
s
4,754
s
210
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
6,126
s
4,514
s
21,288
s
751
s
s
s
s
s
67
s
42
s
184
s
6
s
7,134
s
5,146
s
24,065
s
837
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,911
s
1,760
s
11,718
s
773
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
21
s
128
s
7
s
3,274
s
1,946
s
12,876
s
840
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
4,192
s
490
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
57
s
6
s
s
s
4,761
s
546
s
s
Total
s
536
s
450
s
2,374
s
113
s
13,229
s
6,764
s
33,006
s
1,525
s
s
s
s
s
234
s
116
s
760
s
36
s
17,695
s
9,214
s
50,623
s
2,367
Grand Total
s
3,473
s
54,524
$
s
1,146
$
79,899
March, 2004
B-86
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
ND
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
S
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
36
$
9
$
191
$
10
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
12
S
8
S
99
S
5
S
3
S
2
S
25
S
1
s
62
S
42
S
516
S
28
•S 7.5
S
s
S
s
s
S
s
S
S
14
S
10
S
48
S
2
S
2
S
1
S
6
S
0
s
63
S
43
S
210
S
9
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
209
s
154 $
725
s
25
s
46
s
29
s
126
s
4
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
323
s
225
s
1,040
s
35
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
99
s
59 $
399
s
26
s
16
s
8
s
50
s
3
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
139
s
80
s
528
s
33
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
142
s
14 $
s
s
23
s
2
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
203
s
19
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
449
s
227 $
1,124
s
51
s
111
s
56
s
322
s
14
$
16
s
8
$
52
s
2
s
827
s
419
s
2,484
$
115
Grand Total
s
s
1,852
s
503
s
78
$
3,845
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
36
$
9
$
191
$
10
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
3
s
2
$
25
s
1
s
50
s
34
s
417
$
23
•S 7.5
s
36
$
31
s
162
CO
s
s
S
s
s
14
$
10
s
48
$
2
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
$
100
$
74
$
371
$
16
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
417
s
307 $
1,450
s
51
s
46
s
29
s
126
s
4
$
5
s
3
$
13
s
0
s
532
s
379
s
1,765
s
60
70
s
s
s
s
s
198
s
119 $
798
$
52
s
16
$
8
s
50
$
3
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
$
238
$
140
$
927
$
59
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
283
s
28 $
s
s
23
s
2
s
$
$
4
s
0
s
s
s
345
s
33
s
s
Total
s
36
$
31
s
162
CO
s
898
s
454 $
2,248
$
102
s
99
$
48
s
223
$
9
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
2
$
1,301
$
669
$
3,671
$
168
Grand Total
s
236
s
3,703
s
379
$
78
s
5,809
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
9
s
191
s
10
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
25
s
1
s
50
s
34
s
417
s
23
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
s
49
s
33
s
162
s
7
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
209
s
154 $
725
s
25
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
277
s
197
s
914
s
31
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
99
s
59 $
399
s
26
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
123
s
72
s
478
s
30
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
142
s
14 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
180
s
17
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
449
s
227 $
1,124
s
51
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
2
s
716
s
363
s
2,162
s
101
Grand Total
s
s
1,852
s
s
78
s
3,342
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
9
s
191
s
10
% 3
s
s
s
$
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
25
s
1
s
50
s
34
s
417
s
23
•S 7.5
s
36
s
31
s
162
CO
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
s
85
s
64
s
324
s
14
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
417
s
307 $
1,450
s
51
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
486
s
350
s
1,639
s
57
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
198
s
119 $
798
s
52
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
222
s
132
s
877
s
56
M 200
s
s
s
$
s
283
s
00
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
322
s
31
s
s
Total
s
36
s
31
s
162
CO
s
898
s
454 $
2,248
s
102
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
2
s
1,202
s
621
s
3,448
s
160
Grand Total
s
236
s
3,703
$
s
78
$
5,430
March, 2004
B-87
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
NE
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
63
$
16
$
332
$
17
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
21
S
14
S
172
S
9
S
5
S
4
S
43
S
2
s
109
S
74
S
898
S
49
•S 7.5
S
64
S
53
S
282
S
13
s
S
S
S
S
25
S
17
S
83
S
3
S
3
S
2
S
10
S
0
s
174
S
129
S
647
S
28
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
363
s
268
S
1,263
s
44
s
80
s
50
s
219
s
7
s
8
s
5
s
22
s
1
s
563
s
393
s
1,812
s
61
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
173
s
104
S
694
s
45
s
27
s
14
s
87
s
5
s
5
s
2
s
15
s
1
s
243
s
140
s
918
s
58
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
247
s
27
S
s
s
40
s
4
s
s
s
7
s
1
s
s
s
354
s
37
s
s
Total
s
64
s
53
s
282
s
13
s
783
s
399
S
1,957
s
90
s
193
s
99
s
561
s
24
$
28
s
14
$
90
s
4
s
1,505
s
787
s
4,608
$
214
Grand Total
s
412
s
3,228
s
877
s
136
$
7,114
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
63
$
16
$
332
$
17
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
5
s
4
$
43
s
2
s
88
s
60
s
727
$
40
•S 7.5
s
64
$
53
s
282
s
13
s
s
S
s
s
25
$
17
s
83
$
3
s
3
s
2
s
10
s
0
$
174
$
129
$
647
$
28
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
727
s
536
S
2,526
s
89
s
80
s
50
s
219
s
7
$
8
s
5
$
22
s
1
s
926
s
661
s
3,075
s
105
70
s
s
s
s
s
345
s
208
$
1,389
$
91
s
27
$
14
s
87
$
5
s
5
s
2
s
15
s
1
$
415
$
244
$
1,612
$
103
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
494
s
53
S
s
s
40
s
4
s
$
$
7
s
1
s
s
s
601
s
63
s
s
Total
s
64
$
53
s
282
s
13
s
1,566
s
797
$
3,915
$
179
s
172
$
85
s
389
$
15
s
28
s
14
s
90
s
4
$
2,267
$
1,172
$
6,393
$
294
Grand Total
s
412
s
6,456
s
661
$
136
s
10,126
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
63
s
16
s
332
s
17
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
4
s
43
s
2
s
88
s
60
s
727
s
40
•S 7.5
s
64
s
53
s
282
s
13
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
10
s
0
s
149
s
112
s
564
s
25
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
363
s
268
S
1,263
s
44
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
5
s
22
s
1
s
483
s
343
s
1,592
s
54
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
173
s
104
S
694
s
45
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
2
s
15
s
1
s
216
s
126
s
832
s
53
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
247
s
27
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
1
s
s
s
314
s
33
s
s
Total
s
64
s
53
s
282
s
13
s
783
s
399
S
1,957
s
90
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
14
s
90
s
4
s
1,312
s
689
s
4,047
s
189
Grand Total
s
412
s
3,228
s
s
136
s
6,237
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
63
s
16
s
332
s
17
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
4
s
43
s
2
s
88
s
60
s
727
s
40
•S 7.5
s
64
s
53
s
282
s
13
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
10
s
0
s
149
s
112
s
564
s
25
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
727
s
536
s
2,526
s
89
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
5
s
22
s
1
s
846
s
611
s
2,855
s
99
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
345
s
208
s
1,389
s
91
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
2
s
15
s
1
s
388
s
230
s
1,526
s
98
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
494
s
53
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
1
s
s
s
561
s
59
s
s
Total
s
64
s
53
s
282
s
13
s
1,566
s
797
s
3,915
s
179
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
14
s
90
s
4
s
2,095
s
1,087
s
6,005
s
279
Grand Total
s
412
s
6,456
$
s
136
$
9,465
March, 2004
B-88
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
NH
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
76
$
19
$
405
$
21
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
25
S
17
S
209
S
11
S
6
S
4
S
52
S
3
s
132
S
90
S
1,094
S
60
•S 7.5
S
77
S
65
S
343
S
16
s
S
s
S
S
31
S
21
S
101
S
4
S
4
S
3
S
13
S
1
s
212
S
157
S
787
S
35
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
884
s
652 $
3,075
s
108
s
97
s
61
s
267
s
8
s
10
s
6
s
27
s
1
s
1,127
s
805
s
3,744
s
128
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
422
s
254 $
1,693
s
112
s
33
s
17
s
106
s
6
s
6
s
3
s
18
s
1
s
508
s
299
s
1,966
s
127
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
608
s
72 $
s
s
50
s
5
s
s
s
8
s
1
s
s
s
741
s
86
s
s
Total
s
77
s
65
s
343
s
16
s
1,915
s
979 $
4,769
s
219
s
236
s
121
s
683
s
30
$
34
s
17
$
110
s
5
s
2,796
s
1,454
s
7,996
$
371
Grand Total
s
502
s
7,882
s
1,069
s
166
$
12,616
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
76
$
19
$
405
$
21
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
6
s
4
$
52
s
3
s
107
s
72
s
885
$
48
•S 7.5
s
77
$
65
s
343
s
16
s
s
s
s
s
31
$
21
s
101
$
4
s
4
s
3
s
13
s
1
$
212
$
157
$
787
$
35
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
884
s
652 $
3,075
s
108
s
97
s
61
s
267
s
8
$
10
s
6
$
27
s
1
s
1,127
s
805
s
3,744
s
128
70
s
s
s
s
s
422
s
254 $
1,693
$
112
s
33
$
17
s
106
$
6
s
6
s
3
s
18
s
1
$
508
$
299
$
1,966
$
127
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
608
s
72 $
s
s
50
s
5
s
$
$
8
s
1
s
s
s
741
s
86
s
s
Total
s
77
$
65
s
343
s
16
s
1,915
s
979 $
4,769
$
219
s
211
$
104
s
474
$
18
s
34
s
17
s
110
s
5
$
2,770
$
1,437
$
7,787
$
359
Grand Total
s
502
s
7,882
s
806
$
166
s
12,354
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
76
s
19
s
405
s
21
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
52
s
3
s
107
s
72
s
885
s
48
•S 7.5
s
77
s
65
s
343
s
16
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
3
s
13
s
1
s
181
s
136
s
687
s
30
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
884
s
652 $
3,075
s
108
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
6
s
27
s
1
s
1,030
s
744
s
3,477
s
120
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
422
s
254 $
1,693
s
112
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
3
s
18
s
1
s
475
s
281
s
1,861
s
121
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
608
s
72 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
1
s
s
s
691
s
81
s
s
Total
s
77
s
65
s
343
s
16
s
1,915
s
979 $
4,769
s
219
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
17
s
110
s
5
s
2,560
s
1,334
s
7,313
s
341
Grand Total
s
502
s
7,882
s
s
166
s
11,547
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
76
s
19
s
405
s
21
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
52
s
3
s
107
s
72
s
885
s
48
•S 7.5
s
77
s
65
s
343
s
16
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
3
s
13
s
1
s
181
s
136
s
687
s
30
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
884
s
652 $
3,075
s
108
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
6
s
27
s
1
s
1,030
s
744
s
3,477
s
120
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
422
s
254 $
1,693
s
112
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
3
s
18
s
1
s
475
s
281
s
1,861
s
121
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
608
s
72 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
1
s
s
s
691
s
81
s
s
Total
s
77
s
65
s
343
s
16
s
1,915
s
979 $
4,769
s
219
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
17
s
110
s
5
s
2,560
s
1,334
s
7,313
s
341
Grand Total
s
502
s
7,882
$
s
166
$
11,547
March, 2004
B-89
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
NJ
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
S
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
319
$
79
$
1,688
$
87
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
105
S
71
S
871
S
47
S
26
S
18
S
217
S
12
s
551
S
374
S
4,561
S
249
•S 7.5
S
s
S
s
s
S
S
S
S
127
S
87
S
421
S
17
S
16
s
11
S
52
S
2
s
561
S
384
S
1,855
S
75
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,844
s
1,359
s
6,411
s
224
s
404
s
253
s
1,113
s
34
s
40
s
25
s
111
s
3
s
2,854
s
1,993
s
9,197
s
310
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
874
s
529
s
3,530
s
231
s
138
s
71
s
440
s
25
s
24
s
12
s
77
s
4
s
1,230
s
713
s
4,668
s
296
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,261
s
149
s
s
s
207
s
21
s
s
s
34
s
3
s
s
s
1,809
s
204
s
s
Total
s
s
$
$
s
3,978
s
2,038
s
9,941
s
455
$
981
s
504
s
2,846
s
124
s
141
$
70
$
458
$
22
s
7,325
s
3,747
s
21,968
$
1,017
Grand Total
s
s
16,413
s
4,455
s
690
$
34,056
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
319
$
79
$
1,688
$
87
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
420
s
284
s
3,472
$
189
•S 7.5
s
323
$
271
s
1,430
$ 68
s
s
s
$
s
127
s
87
s
421
$
17
s
16
s
11
s
52
s
2
$
884
$
655
$
3,285
$
143
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
3,687
s
2,719
s
12,822
s
449
$
404
s
253
s
1,113
s
34
$
40
s
25
$
111
s
3
s
4,698
s
3,353
s
15,607
s
534
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,749
s
1,059
$
7,060
$
462
s
138
s
71
s
440
$
25
s
24
s
12
s
77
s
4
$
2,105
$
1,242
$
8,198
$
527
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,521
s
298
s
s
s
207
s
21
s
$
$
34
s
3
s
s
s
3,070
s
353
s
s
Total
s
323
$
271
s
1,430
$ 68
s
7,957
s
4,076
$
19,882
$
911
s
876
$
432
s
1,975
$
77
s
115
s
52
s
240
s
10
$
11,494
$
5,967
$
32,250
$
1,481
Grand Total
s
2,091
s
32,825
s
3,359
$
417
s
51,191
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
319
s
79
s
1,688
s
87
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
420
s
284
s
3,472
s
189
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
418
s
286
s
1,381
s
56
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,844
s
1,359
s
6,411
s
224
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2,410
s
1,715
s
7,972
s
272
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
874
s
529
s
3,530
s
231
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,069
s
629
s
4,151
s
267
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,261
s
149
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,568
s
180
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
3,978
s
2,038
s
9,941
s
455
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
6,203
s
3,174
s
18,664
s
871
Grand Total
s
s
16,413
s
s
s
28,912
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
319
s
79
s
1,688
s
87
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
420
s
284
s
3,472
s
189
•S 7.5
s
323
s
271
s
1,430
$ 68
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
11
s
52
s
2
s
756
s
568
s
2,864
s
126
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,687
s
2,719
s
12,822
s
449
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
25
s
111
s
3
s
4,294
s
3,099
s
14,494
s
500
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,749
s
1,059
s
7,060
s
462
s
s
s
s
s
24
s
12
s
77
s
4
s
1,967
s
1,171
s
7,757
s
502
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,521
s
298
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
3
s
s
s
2,863
s
333
s
s
Total
s
323
s
271
s
1,430
$ 68
s
7,957
s
4,076
s
19,882
s
911
s
s
s
s
s
115
s
52
s
240
s
10
s
10,618
s
5,535
s
30,275
s
1,404
Grand Total
s
2,091
s
32,825
$
s
417
$
47,832
March, 2004
B-90
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
SM
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
262
$
65
$
1,388
$
71
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
87
S
59
S
717
S
39
S
22
S
15
S
179
S
10
s
453
S
307
S
3,752
S
204
•S 7.5
S
265
S
222
S
1,176
S
56
s
S
S
S
S
104
S
71
S
346
S
14
S
13
S
9
S
43
S
2
s
725
S
537
S
2,701
S
117
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,029
s
2,232
s
10,547
s
363
s
332
s
208
s
916
s
28
s
33
s
21
s
91
s
3
s
3,859
s
2,752
s
12,839
s
432
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,430
s
856
s
5,783
s
352
s
113
s
57
s
361
s
19
s
20
s
10
s
63
s
3
s
1,721
s
1,004
s
6,716
s
402
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,024
s
202
s
s
s
166
s
14
s
s
s
28
s
2
s
s
s
2,464
s
239
s
s
Total
s
265
s
222
s
1,176
s
56
s
6,483
s
3,290
s
16,331
s
715
s
801
s
409
s
2,340
s
100
$
115
s
57
$
376
s
18
s
9,484
s
4,905
s
27,396
$
1,227
Grand Total
s
1,718
s
26,819
s
3,650
s
565
$
43,011
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
262
$
65
$
1,388
$
71
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
22
s
15
$
179
s
10
s
366
s
248
s
3,035
$
165
•S 7.5
s
265
$
222
s
1,176
s
56
s
s
s
s
s
104
$
71
s
346
$
14
s
13
s
9
s
43
s
2
$
725
$
537
$
2,701
$
117
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
3,029
s
2,232
s
10,547
s
363
s
332
s
208
s
916
s
28
$
33
s
21
$
91
s
3
s
3,859
s
2,752
s
12,839
s
432
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,430
s
856
$
5,783
$
352
s
113
$
57
s
361
$
19
s
20
s
10
s
63
s
3
$
1,721
$
1,004
$
6,716
$
402
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,024
s
202
s
s
s
166
s
14
s
$
$
28
s
2
s
s
s
2,464
s
239
s
s
Total
s
265
$
222
s
1,176
s
56
s
6,483
s
3,290
$
16,331
$
715
s
715
$
351
s
1,623
$
61
s
115
s
57
s
376
s
18
$
9,397
$
4,846
$
26,679
$
1,188
Grand Total
s
1,718
s
26,819
s
2,749
$
565
s
42,110
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
262
s
65
s
1,388
s
71
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
22
s
15
s
179
s
10
s
366
s
248
s
3,035
s
165
•S 7.5
s
265
s
222
s
1,176
s
56
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
13
s
9
s
43
s
2
s
620
s
465
s
2,355
s
103
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,029
s
2,232
s
10,547
s
363
s
s
s
s
s
33
s
21
s
91
s
3
s
3,528
s
2,544
s
11,923
s
404
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,430
s
856
s
5,783
s
352
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
10
s
63
s
3
s
1,608
s
947
s
6,355
s
383
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,024
s
202
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
2
s
s
s
2,298
s
225
s
s
Total
s
265
s
222
s
1,176
s
56
s
6,483
s
3,290
s
16,331
s
715
s
s
s
s
s
115
s
57
s
376
s
18
s
8,683
s
4,495
s
25,056
s
1,127
Grand Total
s
1,718
s
26,819
s
s
565
s
39,361
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
262
s
65
s
1,388
s
71
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
22
s
15
s
179
s
10
s
366
s
248
s
3,035
s
165
•S 7.5
s
265
s
222
s
1,176
s
56
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
13
s
9
s
43
s
2
s
620
s
465
s
2,355
s
103
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
3,029
s
2,232
s
10,547
s
363
s
s
s
s
s
33
s
21
s
91
s
3
s
3,528
s
2,544
s
11,923
s
404
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,430
s
856
s
5,783
s
352
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
10
s
63
s
3
s
1,608
s
947
s
6,355
s
383
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,024
s
202
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
2
s
s
s
2,298
s
225
s
s
Total
s
265
s
222
s
1,176
s
56
s
6,483
s
3,290
s
16,331
s
715
s
s
s
s
s
115
s
57
s
376
s
18
s
8,683
s
4,495
s
25,056
s
1,127
Grand Total
s
1,718
s
26,819
$
s
565
$
39,361
March, 2004
B-91
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
NV
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
S
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
36
$
9
$
192
$
10
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
12
S
8
S
99
S
5
S
3
S
2
S
25
S
1
s
63
S
42
S
518
S
28
•S 7.5
S
37
S
31
S
162
$ 8
s
S
S
S
S
14
S
10
S
48
S
2
S
2
S
1
S
6
S
0
s
100
S
74
S
373
S
16
n 25
s
s
s
S
s
419
s
309
s
1,457
s
50
s
46
s
29
s
127
s
4
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
534
s
381
s
1,774
s
60
3 70
s
s
s
S
s
199
s
119
s
800
s
52
s
16
s
8
s
50
s
3
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
239
s
140
s
929
s
60
M 200
s
s
s
$
s
281
s
27
s
s
s
23
s
2
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
342
s
33
s
s
Total
s
37
s
31
s
162
CO
s
898
s
456
s
2,258
s
103
s
111
s
57
s
323
s
14
$
16
s
8
$
52
s
2
s
1,314
s
679
s
3,786
$
174
Grand Total
s
237
s
3,715
s
505
s
78
$
5,953
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
36
$
9
$
192
$
10
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
3
s
2
$
25
s
1
s
51
s
34
s
419
$
23
•S 7.5
s
37
$
31
s
162
CO
s
s
s
s
s
14
$
10
s
48
$
2
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
$
100
$
74
$
373
$
16
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
419
s
309
s
1,457
s
50
s
46
s
29
s
127
s
4
$
5
s
3
$
13
s
0
s
534
s
381
s
1,774
s
60
70
s
s
s
s
s
199
s
119
$
800
$
52
s
16
$
8
s
50
$
3
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
$
239
$
140
$
929
$
60
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
281
s
27
s
s
s
23
s
2
s
$
$
4
s
0
s
s
s
342
s
33
s
s
Total
s
37
$
31
s
162
CO
s
898
s
456
$
2,258
$
103
s
99
$
49
s
224
$
9
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
2
$
1,302
$
671
$
3,687
$
168
Grand Total
s
237
s
3,715
s
380
$
78
s
5,829
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
9
s
192
s
10
< 3
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
25
s
1
s
51
s
34
s
419
s
23
•S 7.5
s
37
s
31
s
162
CO
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
s
86
s
64
s
325
s
14
1 25
s
s
s
$
s
419
s
309
s
1,457
s
50
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
488
s
352
s
1,647
s
56
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
199
s
119
s
800
s
52
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
224
s
132
s
880
s
57
M 200
s
s
s
$
s
281
s
27
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
319
s
31
s
s
Total
s
37
s
31
s
162
CO
s
898
s
456
s
2,258
s
103
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
2
s
1,203
s
622
s
3,463
s
160
Grand Total
s
237
s
3,715
s
s
78
s
5,448
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
9
s
192
s
10
% 3
s
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
25
s
1
s
51
s
34
s
419
s
23
•S 7.5
s
37
s
31
s
162
CO
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
s
86
s
64
s
325
s
14
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
419
s
309
s
1,457
s
50
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
488
s
352
s
1,647
s
56
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
199
s
119
s
800
s
52
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
224
s
132
s
880
s
57
M 200
s
s
s
$
s
281
s
27
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
319
s
31
s
s
Total
s
37
s
31
s
162
CO
s
898
s
456
s
2,258
s
103
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
8
s
52
s
2
s
1,203
s
622
s
3,463
s
160
Grand Total
s
237
s
3,715
$
s
78
$
5,448
March, 2004
B-92
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
NY
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
495
$
124
$
2,624
$
136
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
164
S
111
S
1,355
S
74
S
41
S
28
S
338
S
18
s
857
S
581
S
7,090
S
387
•S 7.5
S
502
S
421
S
2,222
S
106
s
S
S
S
S
198
S
135
S
654
S
27
S
25
S
17
S
82
S
3
s
1,374
S
1,017
S
5,105
S
224
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
5,734
s
4,229
s
19,937
s
698
s
628
s
394
s
1,731
s
53
s
63
s
39
s
173
s
5
s
7,306
s
5,215
s
24,268
s
831
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,734
s
1,649
s
10,977
s
722
s
215
s
110
s
685
s
40
s
38
s
19
s
120
s
7
s
3,290
s
1,935
s
12,747
s
824
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,938
s
464
s
s
s
323
s
32
s
s
s
54
s
5
s
s
s
4,794
s
550
s
s
Total
s
502
s
421
s
2,222
s
106
s
12,406
s
6,343
s
30,914
s
1,420
s
1,528
s
783
s
4,425
s
193
$
219
s
109
$
712
s
34
s
18,117
s
9,422
s
51,833
$
2,402
Grand Total
s
3,252
s
51,083
s
6,929
s
1,074
$
81,775
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
495
$
124
$
2,624
$
136
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
41
s
28
$
338
s
18
s
693
s
470
s
5,735
$
313
•S 7.5
s
502
$
421
s
2,222
s
106
s
s
s
s
s
198
$
135
s
654
$
27
s
25
s
17
s
82
s
3
$
1,374
$
1,017
$
5,105
$
224
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
5,734
s
4,229
s
19,937
s
698
s
628
s
394
s
1,731
s
53
$
63
s
39
$
173
s
5
s
7,306
s
5,215
s
24,268
s
831
70
s
s
s
s
s
2,734
s
1,649
$
10,977
$
722
s
215
$
110
s
685
$
40
s
38
s
19
s
120
s
7
$
3,290
$
1,935
$
12,747
$
824
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
3,938
s
464
s
s
s
323
s
32
s
$
$
54
s
5
s
s
s
4,794
s
550
s
s
Total
s
502
$
421
s
2,222
s
106
s
12,406
s
6,343
$
30,914
$
1,420
s
1,364
$
672
s
3,070
$
119
s
219
s
109
s
712
s
34
$
17,953
$
9,311
$
50,479
$
2,328
Grand Total
s
3,252
s
51,083
s
5,226
$
1,074
s
80,071
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
495
s
124
s
2,624
s
136
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
41
s
28
s
338
s
18
s
693
s
470
s
5,735
s
313
•S 7.5
s
502
s
421
s
2,222
s
106
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
17
s
82
s
3
s
1,176
s
882
s
4,451
s
197
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
5,734
s
4,229
s
19,937
s
698
s
s
s
s
s
63
s
39
s
173
s
5
s
6,678
s
4,821
s
22,537
s
778
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,734
s
1,649
s
10,977
s
722
s
s
s
s
s
38
s
19
s
120
s
7
s
3,075
s
1,824
s
12,062
s
785
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,938
s
464
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
54
s
5
s
s
s
4,472
s
518
s
s
Total
s
502
s
421
s
2,222
s
106
s
12,406
s
6,343
s
30,914
s
1,420
s
s
s
s
s
219
s
109
s
712
s
34
s
16,589
s
8,639
s
47,409
s
2,209
Grand Total
s
3,252
s
51,083
s
s
1,074
s
74,845
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
495
s
124
s
2,624
s
136
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
41
s
28
s
338
s
18
s
693
s
470
s
5,735
s
313
•S 7.5
s
502
s
421
s
2,222
s
106
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
17
s
82
s
3
s
1,176
s
882
s
4,451
s
197
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
5,734
s
4,229
s
19,937
s
698
s
s
s
s
s
63
s
39
s
173
s
5
s
6,678
s
4,821
s
22,537
s
778
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,734
s
1,649
s
10,977
s
722
s
s
s
s
s
38
s
19
s
120
s
7
s
3,075
s
1,824
s
12,062
s
785
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,938
s
464
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
54
s
5
s
s
s
4,472
s
518
s
s
Total
s
502
s
421
s
2,222
s
106
s
12,406
s
6,343
s
30,914
s
1,420
s
s
s
s
s
219
s
109
s
712
s
34
s
16,589
s
8,639
s
47,409
s
2,209
Grand Total
s
3,252
s
51,083
$
s
1,074
$
74,845
March, 2004
B
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
OH
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
470
$
117
$
2,490
$
129
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
155
S
105
S
1,285
S
70
S
39
S
26
S
321
S
17
s
813
S
551
S
6,727
S
367
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
188
S
128
S
621
S
25
S
23
S
16
S
77
S
3
s
829
S
566
S
2,736
S
112
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,722
s
2,006 $
9,458
s
333
s
596
s
374
s
1,643
s
51
s
59
s
37
s
164
s
5
s
4,214
s
2,941
s
13,568
s
460
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,295
s
781 $
5,207
s
344
s
204
s
105
s
649
s
38
s
36
s
18
s
113
s
7
s
1,823
s
1,051
s
6,886
s
441
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,858
s
213 $
s
s
305
s
30
s
s
s
51
s
5
s
s
s
2,667
s
292
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
5,875
s
2,999 $
14,665
s
677
$
1,448
s
742
s
4,198
s
184
s
208
$
103
$
675
$
32
s
10,815
s
5,518
s
32,406
$
1,509
Grand Total
s
s
24,217
s
6,572
s
1,018
$
50,248
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
470
$
117
$
2,490
$
129
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
s
$
$
39
s
26
$
321
s
17
s
658
s
446
s
5,442
$
297
•S 7.5
s
476
$
400
s
2,109
s
101
s
s
s
$
s
188
s
128
s
621
$
25
s
23
s
16
s
77
s
3
$
1,305
$
965
$
4,845
$
213
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
5,444
s
4,011 $
18,916
s
666
$
596
s
374
s
1,643
s
51
$
59
s
37
$
164
s
5
s
6,935
s
4,947
s
23,026
s
793
70
s
s
s
s
s
2,591
s
1,561 $
10,414
$
688
s
204
s
105
s
649
$
38
s
36
s
18
s
113
s
7
$
3,118
$
1,831
$
12,093
$
785
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
3,717
s
426 $
s
s
305
s
30
s
$
$
51
s
5
s
s
s
4,525
s
505
s
s
Total
s
476
$
400
s
2,109
s
101
s
11,751
s
5,998 $
29,330
$
1,354
s
1,293
$
636
s
2,913
$
114
s
208
s
103
s
675
s
32
$
17,011
$
8,811
$
47,895
$
2,217
Grand Total
s
3,086
s
48,433
s
4,956
$
1,018
s
75,934
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
470
s
117
s
2,490
s
129
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
39
s
26
s
321
s
17
s
658
s
446
s
5,442
s
297
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
23
s
16
s
77
s
3
s
640
s
437
s
2,115
s
86
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,722
s
2,006 $
9,458
s
333
s
s
s
s
s
59
s
37
s
164
s
5
s
3,617
s
2,567
s
11,925
s
409
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,295
s
781 $
5,207
s
344
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
18
s
113
s
7
s
1,619
s
946
s
6,236
s
404
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,858
s
213 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
51
s
5
s
s
s
2,362
s
262
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
5,875
s
2,999 $
14,665
s
677
s
s
s
s
s
208
s
103
s
675
s
32
s
9,367
s
4,776
s
28,208
s
1,325
Grand Total
s
s
24,217
s
s
1,018
s
43,675
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
470
s
117
s
2,490
s
129
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
39
s
26
s
321
s
17
s
658
s
446
s
5,442
s
297
•S 7.5
s
476
s
400
s
2,109
s
101
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
23
s
16
s
77
s
3
s
1,117
s
837
s
4,224
s
187
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
5,444
s
4,011 $
18,916
s
666
s
s
s
s
s
59
s
37
s
164
s
5
s
6,339
s
4,573
s
21,383
s
742
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,591
s
1,561 $
10,414
s
688
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
18
s
113
s
7
s
2,914
s
1,727
s
11,443
s
748
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,717
s
426 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
51
s
5
s
s
s
4,221
s
475
s
s
Total
s
476
s
400
s
2,109
s
101
s
11,751
s
5,998 $
29,330
s
1,354
s
s
s
s
s
208
s
103
s
675
s
32
s
15,718
s
8,175
s
44,982
s
2,103
Grand Total
s
3,086
s
48,433
$
s
1,018
$
70,978
March, 2004
B-94
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
DK
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
199
$
50
$
1,053
$
55
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
66
S
45
S
544
S
30
S
16
S
11
S
136
S
7
s
344
S
233
S
2,847
S
155
•S 7.5
S
202
S
169
S
892
S
43
s
S
s
S
S
80
S
54
S
263
S
11
S
10
S
7
S
33
S
1
s
552
S
408
S
2,050
S
90
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,304
s
1,698 $
8,004
s
282
s
252
s
158
s
695
s
22
s
25
s
16
s
69
s
2
s
2,935
s
2,094
s
9,743
s
336
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,094
s
661 $
4,401
s
286
s
86
s
44
s
274
s
16
s
15
s
8
s
48
s
3
s
1,317
s
775
s
5,110
s
327
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,575
s
174 $
s
s
129
s
12
s
s
s
21
s
2
s
s
s
1,917
s
207
s
s
Total
s
202
s
169
s
892
s
43
s
4,972
s
2,533 $
12,405
s
569
$
613
s
314
s
1,776
s
78
s
88
$
43
$
286
$
14
s
7,264
s
3,767
s
20,804
$
963
Grand Total
s
1,306
s
20,479
s
2,780
s
431
$
32,797
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
199
$
50
$
1,053
$
55
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
16
s
11
$
136
s
7
s
278
s
189
s
2,303
$
126
•S 7.5
s
202
$
169
s
892
s
43
s
s
s
s
s
80
$
54
s
263
$
11
s
10
s
7
s
33
s
1
$
552
$
408
$
2,050
$
90
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
2,304
s
1,698 $
8,004
s
282
s
252
s
158
s
695
s
22
$
25
s
16
$
69
s
2
s
2,935
s
2,094
s
9,743
s
336
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,094
s
661 $
4,401
$
286
s
86
$
44
s
274
$
16
s
15
s
8
s
48
s
3
$
1,317
$
775
$
5,110
$
327
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,575
s
174 $
s
s
129
s
12
s
$
$
21
s
2
s
s
s
1,917
s
207
s
s
Total
s
202
$
169
s
892
s
43
s
4,972
s
2,533 $
12,405
$
569
s
547
s
269
s
1,232
$
48
s
88
s
43
s
286
s
14
$
7,198
$
3,722
$
20,260
$
933
Grand Total
s
1,306
s
20,479
s
2,096
$
431
s
32,113
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
199
s
50
s
1,053
s
55
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
11
s
136
s
7
s
278
s
189
s
2,303
s
126
•S 7.5
s
202
s
169
s
892
s
43
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
7
s
33
s
1
s
473
s
354
s
1,787
s
79
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,304
s
1,698 $
8,004
s
282
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
16
s
69
s
2
s
2,683
s
1,935
s
9,048
s
315
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,094
s
661 $
4,401
s
286
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
8
s
48
s
3
s
1,231
s
731
s
4,836
s
311
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,575
s
174 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
21
s
2
s
s
s
1,788
s
195
s
s
Total
s
202
s
169
s
892
s
43
s
4,972
s
2,533 $
12,405
s
569
s
s
s
s
s
88
s
43
s
286
s
14
s
6,651
s
3,453
s
19,027
s
885
Grand Total
s
1,306
s
20,479
s
s
431
s
30,017
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
199
s
50
s
1,053
s
55
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
16
s
11
s
136
s
7
s
278
s
189
s
2,303
s
126
•S 7.5
s
202
s
169
s
892
s
43
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
7
s
33
s
1
s
473
s
354
s
1,787
s
79
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,304
s
1,698 $
8,004
s
282
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
16
s
69
s
2
s
2,683
s
1,935
s
9,048
s
315
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,094
s
661 $
4,401
s
286
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
8
s
48
s
3
s
1,231
s
731
s
4,836
s
311
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,575
s
174 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
21
s
2
s
s
s
1,788
s
195
s
s
Total
s
202
s
169
s
892
s
43
s
4,972
s
2,533 $
12,405
s
569
s
s
s
s
s
88
s
43
s
286
s
14
s
6,651
s
3,453
s
19,027
s
885
Grand Total
s
1,306
s
20,479
$
s
431
$
30,017
March, 2004
B-95
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
OR
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
150
$
37
$
798
$
40
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
50
S
34
S
412
S
22
S
12
S
8
S
103
S
6
s
260
S
176
S
2,157
S
117
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
60
S
41
S
199
S
8
S
7
S
5
S
25
S
1
s
265
S
180
S
876
S
34
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
868
s
639
S
3,028
s
101
s
190
s
119
s
526
s
15
s
19
s
12
s
52
s
2
s
1,343
s
937
s
4,344
s
139
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
404
s
232
S
1,650
s
90
s
64
s
31
s
206
s
10
s
11
s
5
s
36
s
2
s
568
s
313
s
2,181
s
116
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
563
s
15
S
s
s
92
s
2
s
s
s
15
s
0
s
s
s
808
s
20
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
1,834
s
886
S
4,678
s
191
s
456
s
227
s
1,343
s
55
$
65
s
31
$
216
s
10
s
3,394
s
1,663
s
10,356
$
446
Grand Total
s
s
7,590
s
2,080
s
322
$
15,860
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
150
$
37
$
798
$
40
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
12
s
8
$
103
s
6
s
210
s
142
s
1,745
$
94
•S 7.5
s
152
$
127
s
675
s
31
s
s
S
s
s
60
$
41
s
199
$
8
s
7
s
5
s
25
s
1
$
417
$
307
$
1,551
$
65
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,735
s
1,278
S
6,056
s
202
s
190
s
119
s
526
s
15
$
19
s
12
$
52
s
2
s
2,211
s
1,576
s
7,372
s
240
70
s
s
s
s
s
807
s
465
$
3,299
$
180
s
64
$
31
s
206
$
10
s
11
s
5
s
36
s
2
$
971
$
545
$
3,831
$
206
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,126
s
29
S
s
s
92
s
2
s
$
$
15
s
0
s
s
s
1,371
s
35
s
s
Total
s
152
$
127
s
675
s
31
s
3,668
s
1,772
$
9,356
$
382
s
406
$
193
s
930
$
33
s
65
s
31
s
216
s
10
$
5,331
$
2,642
$
15,297
$
646
Grand Total
s
985
s
15,179
s
1,563
$
322
s
23,917
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
150
s
37
s
798
s
40
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
103
s
6
s
210
s
142
s
1,745
s
94
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
25
s
1
s
205
s
139
s
677
s
26
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
868
s
639
S
3,028
s
101
s
s
s
s
s
19
s
12
s
52
s
2
s
1,153
s
818
s
3,818
s
124
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
404
s
232
S
1,650
s
90
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
5
s
36
s
2
s
504
s
282
s
1,976
s
106
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
563
s
15
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
0
s
s
s
716
s
18
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
1,834
s
886
S
4,678
s
191
s
s
s
s
s
65
s
31
s
216
s
10
s
2,939
s
1,436
s
9,014
s
391
Grand Total
s
s
7,590
s
s
322
s
13,780
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
150
s
37
s
798
s
40
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
103
s
6
s
210
s
142
s
1,745
s
94
•S 7.5
s
152
s
127
s
675
s
31
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
5
s
25
s
1
s
357
s
266
s
1,352
s
57
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,735
s
1,278
s
6,056
s
202
s
s
s
s
s
19
s
12
s
52
s
2
s
2,021
s
1,457
s
6,846
s
225
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
807
s
465
s
3,299
s
180
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
5
s
36
s
2
s
908
s
514
s
3,625
s
196
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,126
s
29
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
15
s
0
s
s
s
1,279
s
33
s
s
Total
s
152
s
127
s
675
s
31
s
3,668
s
1,772
s
9,356
s
382
s
s
s
s
s
65
s
31
s
216
s
10
s
4,925
s
2,449
s
14,367
s
613
Grand Total
s
985
s
15,179
$
s
322
$
22,354
March, 2004
B-96
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
PA
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
739
$
185
$
3,916
$
203
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
244
S
166
S
2,022
S
110
S
61
S
41
S
504
S
28
s
1,279
S
867
S
10,581
S
577
•S 7.5
S
749
S
629
S
3,317
S
159
s
S
S
S
S
296
S
202
S
977
S
40
S
37
s
25
S
122
S
5
s
2,052
S
1,518
S
7,620
S
334
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
8,559
s
6,310
s
29,755
s
1,045
s
937
s
588
s
2,584
s
80
s
94
s
59
s
258
s
8
s
10,904
s
7,781
s
36,220
s
1,245
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
4,081
s
2,459
s
16,380
s
1,084
s
322
s
165
s
1,022
s
59
s
56
s
29
s
178
s
10
s
4,912
s
2,884
s
19,020
s
1,237
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
5,870
s
693
s
s
s
481
s
48
s
s
s
80
s
8
s
s
s
7,148
s
822
s
s
Total
s
749
s
629
s
3,317
s
159
s
18,510
s
9,462
s
46,135
s
2,129
$
2,280
s
1,169
s
6,604
s
289
$
328
s
162
$
1,062
s
51
s
27,035
s
14,057
s
77,356
$
3,596
Grand Total
s
4,853
s
76,236
$ 10,342
s
1,602
$
122,044
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
739
$
185
$
3,916
$
203
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
974
s
660
s
8,055
$
439
•S 7.5
s
749
$
629
s
3,317
s
159
s
s
s
s
S
296
$
202
s
977
$
40
s
37
s
25
s
122
s
5
$
2,052
$
1,518
$
7,620
$
334
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
8,559
s
6,310
s
29,755
s
1,045
s
937
s
588
s
2,584
s
80
$
94
s
59
$
258
s
8
s
10,904
s
7,781
s
36,220
s
1,245
70
s
s
s
s
s
4,081
s
2,459
$
16,380
$
1,084
s
322
$
165
s
1,022
$
59
s
56
s
29
s
178
s
10
$
4,912
$
2,884
$
19,020
$
1,237
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
5,870
s
693
s
s
s
481
s
48
s
$
$
80
s
8
s
s
s
7,148
s
822
s
s
Total
s
749
$
629
s
3,317
s
159
s
18,510
s
9,462
$
46,135
$
2,129
s
2,036
$
1,003
s
4,582
$
179
s
267
s
121
s
558
s
23
$
26,729
$
13,850
$
74,830
$
3,458
Grand Total
s
4,853
s
76,236
s
7,800
$
968
s
118,868
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
739
s
185
s
3,916
s
203
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
974
s
660
s
8,055
s
439
•S 7.5
s
749
s
629
s
3,317
s
159
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,719
s
1,291
s
6,522
s
289
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
8,559
s
6,310
s
29,755
s
1,045
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9,873
s
7,135
s
33,378
s
1,157
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
4,081
s
2,459
s
16,380
s
1,084
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
4,534
s
2,691
s
17,820
s
1,167
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
5,870
s
693
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
6,587
s
765
s
s
Total
s
749
s
629
s
3,317
s
159
s
18,510
s
9,462
s
46,135
s
2,129
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
24,427
s
12,727
s
69,691
s
3,256
Grand Total
s
4,853
s
76,236
s
s
s
110,100
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
739
s
185
s
3,916
s
203
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
974
s
660
s
8,055
s
439
•S 7.5
s
749
s
629
s
3,317
s
159
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
37
s
25
s
122
s
5
s
1,756
s
1,316
s
6,643
s
294
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
8,559
s
6,310
s
29,755
s
1,045
s
s
s
s
s
94
s
59
s
258
s
8
s
9,967
s
7,193
s
33,636
s
1,165
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
4,081
s
2,459
s
16,380
s
1,084
s
s
s
s
s
56
s
29
s
178
s
10
s
4,591
s
2,720
s
17,998
s
1,178
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
5,870
s
693
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
80
s
8
s
s
s
6,667
s
773
s
s
Total
s
749
s
629
s
3,317
s
159
s
18,510
s
9,462
s
46,135
s
2,129
s
s
s
s
s
267
s
121
s
558
s
23
s
24,693
s
12,847
s
70,249
s
3,279
Grand Total
s
4,853
s
76,236
$
s
968
$
111,068
March, 2004
B
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
RI
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
9
$
2
$
50
$
3
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
3
S
2
S
26
S
1
S
1
S
1
S
6
S
0
s
16
S
11
S
136
S
7
•S 7.5
S
s
s
S
s
S
s
S
S
4
S
3
S
13
S
1
S
0
S
0
S
2
S
0
s
17
S
11
S
55
S
2
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
55
s
41 $
191
s
7
s
12
s
8
s
33
s
1
s
1
s
1
s
3
s
0
s
85
s
59
s
274
s
9
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
16 $
105
s
7
s
4
s
2
s
13
s
1
s
1
s
0
s
2
s
0
s
37
s
21
s
139
s
9
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
38
s
4 S
s
s
6
s
1
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
s
s
54
s
6
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
119
s
61 $
296
s
14
s
29
s
15
s
85
s
4
$
4
s
2
$
14
s
1
s
219
s
112
s
654
$
30
Grand Total
s
s
489
s
133
s
21
$
1,015
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
9
$
2
$
50
$
3
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
1
s
1
$
6
s
0
s
13
s
9
s
110
$
6
•S 7.5
s
10
$ 8
s
43
s
2
s
s
s
s
s
4
$
3
s
13
$
1
s
0
s
0
s
2
s
0
$
26
$
19
$
98
$
4
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
110
s
81 $
382
s
13
s
12
s
8
s
33
s
1
$
1
s
1
$
3
s
0
s
140
s
100
s
465
s
16
70
s
s
s
s
s
52
s
32 $
210
$
14
s
4
$
2
s
13
$
1
s
1
s
0
s
2
s
0
$
63
$
37
$
244
$
16
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
76
s
9 $
s
s
6
s
1
s
$
$
1
s
0
s
s
s
92
s
11
s
s
Total
s
10
$ 8
s
43
s
2
s
238
s
122 $
592
$
27
s
26
$
13
s
59
$
2
s
4
s
2
s
14
s
1
$
344
$
178
$
967
$
45
Grand Total
s
62
s
979
s
100
$
21
s
1,534
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
2
s
50
s
3
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
1
s
6
s
0
s
13
s
9
s
110
s
6
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
0
s
0
s
2
s
0
s
13
s
9
s
43
s
2
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
55
s
41 $
191
s
7
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
1
s
3
s
0
s
73
s
52
s
241
s
8
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
26
s
16 $
105
s
7
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
2
s
0
s
33
s
19
s
126
s
8
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
38
s
4 S
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
s
s
48
s
6
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
119
s
61 $
296
s
14
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
2
s
14
s
1
s
189
s
97
s
569
s
27
Grand Total
s
s
489
s
s
21
s
882
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
2
s
50
s
3
% 3
s
$
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
1
s
6
s
0
s
13
s
9
s
110
s
6
•S 7.5
s
10
CO
s
43
s
2
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
0
s
0
s
2
s
0
s
23
s
17
s
85
s
4
n 25
s
$
s
s
s
110
s
81 $
382
s
13
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
1
s
3
s
0
s
128
s
92
s
432
s
15
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
52
s
32 $
210
s
14
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
2
s
0
s
59
s
35
s
231
s
15
M 200
s
$
s
s
s
76
s
9 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
s
s
86
s
10
s
s
Total
s
10
CO
s
43
s
2
s
238
s
122 $
592
s
27
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
2
s
14
s
1
s
318
s
166
s
908
s
42
Grand Total
$
62
s
979
$
s
21
s
1,434
March, 2004
B-98
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
sc
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
368
$
92
$
1,950
$
101
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
122
S
82
S
1,007
S
55
S
30
S
21
S
251
S
14
s
637
S
432
S
5,270
S
287
•S 7.5
S
373
S
313
S
1,652
S
79
s
S
S
S
S
147
S
101
S
486
S
20
S
18
S
13
S
61
S
2
s
1,021
S
756
S
3,796
S
166
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
4,263
s
3,142
s
14,816
s
523
s
467
s
293
s
1,287
s
40
s
47
s
29
s
128
s
4
s
5,432
s
3,874
s
18,035
s
622
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,023
s
1,225
s
8,156
s
537
s
159
s
82
s
509
s
29
s
28
s
14
s
89
s
5
s
2,435
s
1,436
s
9,470
s
613
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,916
s
341
s
s
s
239
s
24
s
s
s
40
s
4
s
s
s
3,551
s
404
s
s
Total
s
373
s
313
s
1,652
s
79
s
9,203
s
4,707
s
22,971
s
1,060
s
1,134
s
582
s
3,289
s
144
$
163
s
81
$
529
s
25
s
13,444
s
6,994
s
38,521
$
1,789
Grand Total
s
2,417
s
37,941
s
5,148
s
798
$
60,749
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
368
$
92
$
1,950
$
101
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
30
s
21
$
251
s
14
s
515
s
349
s
4,263
$
233
•S 7.5
s
373
$
313
s
1,652
s
79
s
s
s
s
s
147
$
101
s
486
$
20
s
18
s
13
s
61
s
2
$
1,021
$
756
$
3,796
$
166
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
4,263
s
3,142
s
14,816
s
523
s
467
s
293
s
1,287
s
40
$
47
s
29
$
128
s
4
s
5,432
s
3,874
s
18,035
s
622
70
s
s
s
s
s
2,023
s
1,225
$
8,156
$
537
s
159
$
82
s
509
$
29
s
28
s
14
s
89
s
5
$
2,435
$
1,436
$
9,470
$
613
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
2,916
s
341
s
s
s
239
s
24
s
$
$
40
s
4
s
s
s
3,551
s
404
s
s
Total
s
373
$
313
s
1,652
s
79
s
9,203
s
4,707
$
22,971
$
1,060
s
1,013
$
499
s
2,282
$
89
s
163
s
81
s
529
s
25
$
13,323
$
6,912
$
37,514
$
1,734
Grand Total
s
2,417
s
37,941
s
3,882
$
798
s
59,482
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
368
s
92
s
1,950
s
101
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
30
s
21
s
251
s
14
s
515
s
349
s
4,263
s
233
•S 7.5
s
373
s
313
s
1,652
s
79
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
13
s
61
s
2
s
874
s
656
s
3,309
s
146
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
4,263
s
3,142
s
14,816
s
523
s
s
s
s
s
47
s
29
s
128
s
4
s
4,965
s
3,581
s
16,748
s
583
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,023
s
1,225
s
8,156
s
537
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
14
s
89
s
5
s
2,276
s
1,355
s
8,961
s
583
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,916
s
341
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
4
s
s
s
3,312
s
380
s
s
Total
s
373
s
313
s
1,652
s
79
s
9,203
s
4,707
s
22,971
s
1,060
s
s
s
s
s
163
s
81
s
529
s
25
s
12,310
s
6,413
s
35,232
s
1,645
Grand Total
s
2,417
s
37,941
s
s
798
s
55,600
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
368
s
92
s
1,950
s
101
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
30
s
21
s
251
s
14
s
515
s
349
s
4,263
s
233
•S 7.5
s
373
s
313
s
1,652
s
79
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
18
s
13
s
61
s
2
s
874
s
656
s
3,309
s
146
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
4,263
s
3,142
s
14,816
s
523
s
s
s
s
s
47
s
29
s
128
s
4
s
4,965
s
3,581
s
16,748
s
583
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,023
s
1,225
s
8,156
s
537
s
s
s
s
s
28
s
14
s
89
s
5
s
2,276
s
1,355
s
8,961
s
583
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
2,916
s
341
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
40
s
4
s
s
s
3,312
s
380
s
s
Total
s
373
s
313
s
1,652
s
79
s
9,203
s
4,707
s
22,971
s
1,060
s
s
s
s
s
163
s
81
s
529
s
25
s
12,310
s
6,413
s
35,232
s
1,645
Grand Total
s
2,417
s
37,941
$
s
798
$
55,600
March, 2004
B-99
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
SD
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
67
$
17
$
357
$
18
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
22
S
15
S
184
S
10
S
6
S
4
S
46
S
3
s
117
S
79
S
965
S
53
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
27
S
18
S
89
S
4
S
3
S
2
S
11
S
0
s
119
S
81
S
392
S
16
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
781
s
575 $
2,713
s
95
s
86
s
54
s
236
s
7
s
9
s
5
s
23
s
1
s
995
s
709
s
3,302
s
113
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
370
s
223 $
1,493
s
97
s
29
s
15
s
93
s
5
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
s
445
s
261
s
1,734
s
110
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
530
s
53 $
s
s
43
s
4
s
s
s
7
s
1
s
s
s
646
s
63
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
1,681
s
851 $
4,206
s
192
s
207
s
106
s
602
s
26
$
30
s
15
$
97
s
5
s
2,388
s
1,211
s
6,750
$
311
Grand Total
s
s
6,930
s
941
s
146
$
10,660
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
67
$
17
$
357
$
18
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
$
6
s
4
$
46
s
3
s
94
s
64
s
781
$
43
•S 7.5
s
68
$
57
s
302
s
14
s
s
s
s
s
27
$
18
s
89
$
4
s
3
s
2
s
11
s
0
$
187
$
138
$
695
$
30
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
781
s
575 $
2,713
s
95
s
86
s
54
s
236
s
7
$
9
s
5
$
23
s
1
s
995
s
709
s
3,302
s
113
70
s
s
s
s
s
370
s
223 $
1,493
$
97
s
29
$
15
s
93
$
5
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
$
445
$
261
$
1,734
$
110
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
530
s
53 $
s
s
43
s
4
s
$
$
7
s
1
s
s
s
646
s
63
s
s
Total
s
68
$
57
s
302
s
14
s
1,681
s
851 $
4,206
$
192
s
185
$
91
s
418
$
16
s
30
s
15
s
97
s
5
$
2,434
$
1,253
$
6,868
$
315
Grand Total
s
442
s
6,930
s
710
$
146
s
10,870
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
67
s
17
s
357
s
18
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
46
s
3
s
94
s
64
s
781
s
43
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
11
s
0
s
92
s
63
s
303
s
12
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
781
s
575 $
2,713
s
95
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
5
s
23
s
1
s
909
s
656
s
3,066
s
106
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
370
s
223 $
1,493
s
97
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
s
416
s
246
s
1,641
s
105
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
530
s
53 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
1
s
s
s
602
s
59
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
1,681
s
851 $
4,206
s
192
s
s
s
s
s
30
s
15
s
97
s
5
s
2,181
s
1,105
s
6,148
s
284
Grand Total
s
s
6,930
s
s
146
s
9,718
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
67
s
17
s
357
s
18
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
4
s
46
s
3
s
94
s
64
s
781
s
43
•S 7.5
s
68
s
57
s
302
s
14
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
11
s
0
s
160
s
120
s
606
s
27
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
781
s
575 $
2,713
s
95
s
s
s
s
s
9
s
5
s
23
s
1
s
909
s
656
s
3,066
s
106
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
370
s
223 $
1,493
s
97
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
s
416
s
246
s
1,641
s
105
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
530
s
53 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
1
s
s
s
602
s
59
s
s
Total
s
68
s
57
s
302
s
14
s
1,681
s
851 $
4,206
s
192
s
s
s
s
s
30
s
15
s
97
s
5
s
2,249
s
1,162
s
6,450
s
299
Grand Total
s
442
s
6,930
$
s
146
$
10,161
March, 2004
B-100
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
TN
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
447
$
112
$
2,368
$
123
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
148
S
100
S
1,222
S
67
S
37
S
25
S
305
S
17
s
773
S
524
S
6,397
S
349
•S 7.5
S
453
$ 380
S
2,006
S
96
s
S
s
S
S
179
S
122
S
591
S
24
S
22
S
15
S
74
S
3
s
1,241
S
918
S
4,608
S
202
n 25
s
S
s
s
s
5,176
s
3,813 $
17,988
s
635
s
567
s
355
s
1,562
s
48
s
57
s
35
s
156
s
5
s
6,594
s
4,702
s
21,897
s
756
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,466
s
1,486 $
9,900
s
654
s
194
s
99
s
617
s
36
s
34
s
17
s
108
s
6
s
2,968
s
1,743
s
11,496
s
746
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,541
s
418 $
s
s
290
s
29
s
s
s
48
s
5
s
s
s
4,311
s
495
s
s
Total
s
453
$ 380
s
2,006
s
96
s
11,183
s
5,716 $
27,888
s
1,288
s
1,378
s
706
s
3,992
s
175
$
198
s
98
$
642
s
31
s
16,335
s
8,494
s
46,764
$
2,175
Grand Total
s
2,935
s
46,076
s
6,251
s
969
$
73,769
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
S
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
447
$
112
$
2,368
$
123
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
37
s
25
$
305
s
17
s
626
s
424
s
5,175
$
282
•S 7.5
s
453
$ 380
s
2,006
s
96
s
s
s
s
s
179
$
122
s
591
$
24
s
22
s
15
s
74
s
3
$
1,241
$
918
$
4,608
$
202
n 25
s
S
s
$
s
5,176
s
3,813 $
17,988
s
635
s
567
s
355
s
1,562
s
48
$
57
s
35
$
156
s
5
s
6,594
s
4,702
s
21,897
s
756
70
s
s
s
s
s
2,466
s
1,486 $
9,900
$
654
s
194
$
99
s
617
$
36
s
34
s
17
s
108
s
6
$
2,968
$
1,743
$
11,496
$
746
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
3,541
s
418 $
s
s
290
s
29
s
$
$
48
s
5
s
s
s
4,311
s
495
s
s
Total
s
453
$ 380
s
2,006
s
96
s
11,183
s
5,716 $
27,888
$
1,288
s
1,230
$
606
s
2,770
$
108
s
198
s
98
s
642
s
31
$
16,188
$
8,393
$
45,542
$
2,109
Grand Total
s
2,935
s
46,076
s
4,715
$
969
s
72,232
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
447
s
112
s
2,368
s
123
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
37
s
25
s
305
s
17
s
626
s
424
s
5,175
s
282
•S 7.5
s
453
$ 380
s
2,006
s
96
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
22
s
15
s
74
s
3
s
1,062
s
796
s
4,017
s
178
1 25
s
S
s
s
s
5,176
s
3,813 $
17,988
s
635
s
s
s
s
s
57
s
35
s
156
s
5
s
6,027
s
4,347
s
20,335
s
707
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,466
s
1,486 $
9,900
s
654
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
17
s
108
s
6
s
2,774
s
1,643
s
10,878
s
711
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,541
s
418 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
48
s
5
s
s
s
4,021
s
466
s
s
Total
s
453
$ 380
s
2,006
s
96
s
11,183
s
5,716 $
27,888
s
1,288
s
s
s
s
s
198
s
98
s
642
s
31
s
14,957
s
7,787
s
42,772
s
2,001
Grand Total
s
2,935
s
46,076
s
s
969
s
67,517
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
447
s
112
s
2,368
s
123
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
37
s
25
s
305
s
17
s
626
s
424
s
5,175
s
282
•S 7.5
s
453
$ 380
s
2,006
s
96
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
22
s
15
s
74
s
3
s
1,062
s
796
s
4,017
s
178
n 25
s
S
s
s
s
5,176
s
3,813 $
17,988
s
635
s
s
s
s
s
57
s
35
s
156
s
5
s
6,027
s
4,347
s
20,335
s
707
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,466
s
1,486 $
9,900
s
654
s
s
s
s
s
34
s
17
s
108
s
6
s
2,774
s
1,643
s
10,878
s
711
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,541
s
418 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
48
s
5
s
s
s
4,021
s
466
s
s
Total
s
453
$ 380
s
2,006
s
96
s
11,183
s
5,716 $
27,888
s
1,288
s
s
s
s
s
198
s
98
s
642
s
31
s
14,957
s
7,787
s
42,772
s
2,001
Grand Total
s
2,935
s
46,076
$
s
969
$
67,517
March, 2004
B-101
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
rx
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
1,029
$
256
$
5,455
$
282
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
$ 340
S
231
S
2,817
S
154
S
85
S
58
S
702
S
38
s
1,781
S
1,207
S
14,742
S
803
•S 7.5
S
1,043
S
875
S
4,621
S
220
s
S
S
S
$ 412
s
281
S
1,361
S
55
S
51
S
35
S
170
S
7
s
2,856
S
2,113
S
10,615
S
463
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
11,922
s
8,785
s
41,442
s
1,452
$ 1,306
s
819
s
3,599
s
111
s
130
s
82
s
359
s
11
s
15,189
s
10,833
s
50,446
s
1,729
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
5,652
s
3,408
s
22,770
s
1,440
$ 445
s
228
s
1,420
s
79
s
78
s
40
s
248
s
14
s
6,803
s
3,997
s
26,440
s
1,644
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
8,102
s
884
s
s
$ 664
s
62
s
s
s
110
s
10
s
s
s
9,865
s
1,048
s
s
Total
s
1,043
s
875
s
4,621
s
220
s
25,676
s
13,076
s
64,212
s
2,892
$ 3,167
s
1,620
s
9,196
s
398
$
455
s
224
$
1,479
s
70
s
37,524
s
19,454
s
107,697
$
4,921
Grand Total
s
6,758
s
105,857
$ 14,381
s
2,228
$
169,596
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
1,029
$
256
$
5,455
$
282
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
85
s
58
$
702
s
38
s
1,441
s
976
s
11,925
$
650
•S 7.5
s
1,043
$
875
s
4,621
s
220
s
s
s
s
$ 412
$
281
s
1,361
$
55
s
51
s
35
s
170
s
7
$
2,856
$
2,113
$
10,615
$
463
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
11,922
s
8,785
s
41,442
s
1,452
$ 1,306
s
819
s
3,599
s
111
$
130
s
82
$
359
s
11
s
15,189
s
10,833
s
50,446
s
1,729
70
s
s
s
s
s
5,652
s
3,408
$
22,770
$
1,440
$ 445
$
228
s
1,420
$
79
s
78
s
40
s
248
s
14
$
6,803
$
3,997
$
26,440
$
1,644
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
8,102
s
884
s
s
$ 664
s
62
s
$
$
110
s
10
s
s
s
9,865
s
1,048
s
s
Total
s
1,043
$
875
s
4,621
s
220
s
25,676
s
13,076
$
64,212
$
2,892
$ 2,827
$
1,389
s
6,379
$
245
s
455
s
224
s
1,479
s
70
$
37,183
$
19,223
$
104,880
$
4,768
Grand Total
s
6,758
s
105,857
$ 10,840
$
2,228
s
166,055
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,029
s
256
s
5,455
s
282
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
85
s
58
s
702
s
38
s
1,441
s
976
s
11,925
s
650
•S 7.5
s
1,043
s
875
s
4,621
s
220
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
51
s
35
s
170
s
7
s
2,445
s
1,832
s
9,255
s
408
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
11,922
s
8,785
s
41,442
s
1,452
s
s
s
s
s
130
s
82
s
359
s
11
s
13,883
s
10,014
s
46,847
s
1,618
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
5,652
s
3,408
s
22,770
s
1,440
s
s
s
s
s
78
s
40
s
248
s
14
s
6,358
s
3,769
s
25,019
s
1,565
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
8,102
s
884
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
110
s
10
s
s
s
9,201
s
986
s
s
Total
s
1,043
s
875
s
4,621
s
220
s
25,676
s
13,076
s
64,212
s
2,892
s
s
s
s
s
455
s
224
s
1,479
s
70
s
34,357
s
17,834
s
98,501
s
4,523
Grand Total
s
6,758
s
105,857
s
s
2,228
s
155,215
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,029
s
256
s
5,455
s
282
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
85
s
58
s
702
s
38
s
1,441
s
976
s
11,925
s
650
•S 7.5
s
1,043
s
875
s
4,621
s
220
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
51
s
35
s
170
s
7
s
2,445
s
1,832
s
9,255
s
408
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
11,922
s
8,785
s
41,442
s
1,452
s
s
s
s
s
130
s
82
s
359
s
11
s
13,883
s
10,014
s
46,847
s
1,618
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
5,652
s
3,408
s
22,770
s
1,440
s
s
s
s
s
78
s
40
s
248
s
14
s
6,358
s
3,769
s
25,019
s
1,565
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
8,102
s
884
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
110
s
10
s
s
s
9,201
s
986
s
s
Total
s
1,043
s
875
s
4,621
s
220
s
25,676
s
13,076
s
64,212
s
2,892
s
s
s
s
s
455
s
224
s
1,479
s
70
s
34,357
s
17,834
s
98,501
s
4,523
Grand Total
s
6,758
s
105,857
$
s
2,228
$
155,215
March, 2004
B-102
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
UT
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
96
$
24
$
508
$
26
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
32
S
21
S
262
S
14
S
8
S
5
S
65
S
4
s
166
S
112
S
1,373
S
75
•S 7.5
S
97
S
81
S
430
S
20
s
S
s
S
S
38
S
26
S
127
S
5
S
5
S
3
S
16
S
1
s
265
S
197
S
988
S
43
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,109
s
817 $
3,860
s
131
s
121
s
76
s
335
s
10
s
12
s
8
s
33
s
1
s
1,412
s
1,007
s
4,699
s
156
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
522
s
315 $
2,120
s
132
s
41
s
21
s
132
s
7
s
7
s
4
s
23
s
1
s
628
s
370
s
2,461
s
151
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
733
s
73 $
s
s
60
s
5
s
s
s
10
s
1
s
s
s
892
s
87
s
s
Total
s
97
s
81
s
430
s
20
s
2,363
s
1,205 $
5,980
s
263
s
293
s
150
s
856
s
37
$
42
s
21
$
138
s
6
s
3,460
s
1,797
s
10,029
$
451
Grand Total
s
629
s
9,812
s
1,335
s
207
$
15,736
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
96
$
24
$
508
$
26
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
8
s
5
$
65
s
4
s
134
s
91
s
1,110
$
60
•S 7.5
s
97
$
81
s
430
s
20
s
s
s
s
s
38
$
26
s
127
$
5
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
$
265
$
197
$
988
$
43
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
1,109
s
817 $
3,860
s
131
s
121
s
76
s
335
s
10
$
12
s
8
$
33
s
1
s
1,412
s
1,007
s
4,699
s
156
70
s
s
s
s
s
522
s
315 $
2,120
$
132
s
41
$
21
s
132
$
7
s
7
s
4
s
23
s
1
$
628
$
370
$
2,461
$
151
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
733
s
73 $
s
s
60
s
5
s
$
$
10
s
1
s
s
s
892
s
87
s
s
Total
s
97
$
81
s
430
s
20
s
2,363
s
1,205 $
5,980
$
263
s
261
$
128
s
594
$
22
s
42
s
21
s
138
s
6
$
3,428
$
1,775
$
9,767
$
436
Grand Total
s
629
s
9,812
s
1,006
$
207
s
15,407
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
96
s
24
s
508
s
26
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
5
s
65
s
4
s
134
s
91
s
1,110
s
60
•S 7.5
s
97
s
81
s
430
s
20
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
s
227
s
170
s
862
s
38
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,109
s
817 $
3,860
s
131
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
33
s
1
s
1,291
s
931
s
4,364
s
146
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
522
s
315 $
2,120
s
132
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
4
s
23
s
1
s
587
s
349
s
2,329
s
143
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
733
s
73 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
1
s
s
s
832
s
82
s
s
Total
s
97
s
81
s
430
s
20
s
2,363
s
1,205 $
5,980
s
263
s
s
s
s
s
42
s
21
s
138
s
6
s
3,167
s
1,647
s
9,173
s
414
Grand Total
s
629
s
9,812
s
s
207
s
14,401
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
96
s
24
s
508
s
26
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
8
s
5
s
65
s
4
s
134
s
91
s
1,110
s
60
•S 7.5
s
97
s
81
s
430
s
20
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
16
s
1
s
227
s
170
s
862
s
38
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,109
s
817 $
3,860
s
131
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
33
s
1
s
1,291
s
931
s
4,364
s
146
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
522
s
315 $
2,120
s
132
s
s
s
s
s
7
s
4
s
23
s
1
s
587
s
349
s
2,329
s
143
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
733
s
73 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
10
s
1
s
s
s
832
s
82
s
s
Total
s
97
s
81
s
430
s
20
s
2,363
s
1,205 $
5,980
s
263
s
s
s
s
s
42
s
21
s
138
s
6
s
3,167
s
1,647
s
9,173
s
414
Grand Total
s
629
s
9,812
$
s
207
$
14,401
March, 2004
B-103
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
VA
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
S
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
401
$
100
$
2,122
$
110
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
132
S
90
S
1,096
S
60
S
33
S
22
S
273
S
15
s
693
S
470
S
5,734
S
313
•S 7.5
S
406
S
341
S
1,798
$ 86
s
S
S
S
S
160
S
109
S
529
S
22
S
20
S
14
S
66
S
3
s
1,112
S
823
S
4,130
S
181
n 25
s
s
s
S
s
4,640
s
3,419
s
16,124
s
569
s
508
s
319
s
1,400
s
43
s
51
s
32
s
140
s
4
s
5,911
s
4,216
s
19,627
s
678
3 70
s
s
s
S
s
2,209
s
1,333
s
8,875
s
588
s
174
s
89
s
553
s
32
s
30
s
16
s
97
s
6
s
2,659
s
1,563
s
10,305
s
671
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,179
s
372
s
s
s
261
s
26
s
s
s
43
s
4
s
s
s
3,871
s
441
s
s
Total
s
406
s
341
s
1,798
$ 86
s
10,028
s
5,124
s
24,998
s
1,157
s
1,236
s
633
s
3,579
s
157
$
177
s
88
$
576
s
28
s
14,646
s
7,613
s
41,918
$
1,952
Grand Total
s
2,630
s
41,307
s
5,604
s
868
$
66,130
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
401
$
100
$
2,122
$
110
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
33
s
22
$
273
s
15
s
561
s
380
s
4,639
$
253
•S 7.5
s
406
$
341
s
1,798
$ 86
s
s
s
s
s
160
$
109
s
529
$
22
s
20
s
14
s
66
s
3
$
1,112
$
823
$
4,130
$
181
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
4,640
s
3,419
s
16,124
s
569
s
508
s
319
s
1,400
s
43
$
51
s
32
$
140
s
4
s
5,911
s
4,216
s
19,627
s
678
70
s
s
s
S
s
2,209
s
1,333
$
8,875
$
588
s
174
$
89
s
553
$
32
s
30
s
16
s
97
s
6
$
2,659
$
1,563
$
10,305
$
671
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
3,179
s
372
s
s
s
261
s
26
s
$
$
43
s
4
s
s
s
3,871
s
441
s
s
Total
s
406
$
341
s
1,798
$ 86
s
10,028
s
5,124
$
24,998
$
1,157
s
1,103
$
543
s
2,483
$
97
s
177
s
88
s
576
s
28
$
14,514
$
7,524
$
40,822
$
1,893
Grand Total
s
2,630
s
41,307
s
4,226
$
868
s
64,753
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
401
s
100
s
2,122
s
110
< 3
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
33
s
22
s
273
s
15
s
561
s
380
s
4,639
s
253
•S 7.5
s
406
s
341
s
1,798
$ 86
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
14
s
66
s
3
s
952
s
713
s
3,601
s
159
1 25
s
s
s
S
s
4,640
s
3,419
s
16,124
s
569
s
s
s
s
s
51
s
32
s
140
s
4
s
5,403
s
3,897
s
18,227
s
634
O 70
s
s
s
S
s
2,209
s
1,333
s
8,875
s
588
s
s
s
s
s
30
s
16
s
97
s
6
s
2,485
s
1,474
s
9,751
s
639
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,179
s
372
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
43
s
4
s
s
s
3,610
s
415
s
s
Total
s
406
s
341
s
1,798
$ 86
s
10,028
s
5,124
s
24,998
s
1,157
s
s
s
s
s
177
s
88
s
576
s
28
s
13,411
s
6,980
s
38,340
s
1,796
Grand Total
s
2,630
s
41,307
s
s
868
s
60,526
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
401
s
100
s
2,122
s
110
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
33
s
22
s
273
s
15
s
561
s
380
s
4,639
s
253
•S 7.5
s
406
s
341
s
1,798
$ 86
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
14
s
66
s
3
s
952
s
713
s
3,601
s
159
n 25
s
s
s
S
s
4,640
s
3,419
s
16,124
s
569
s
s
s
s
s
51
s
32
s
140
s
4
s
5,403
s
3,897
s
18,227
s
634
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
2,209
s
1,333
s
8,875
s
588
s
s
s
s
s
30
s
16
s
97
s
6
s
2,485
s
1,474
s
9,751
s
639
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
3,179
s
372
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
43
s
4
s
s
s
3,610
s
415
s
s
Total
s
406
s
341
s
1,798
$ 86
s
10,028
s
5,124
s
24,998
s
1,157
s
s
s
s
s
177
s
88
s
576
s
28
s
13,411
s
6,980
s
38,340
s
1,796
Grand Total
s
2,630
s
41,307
$
s
868
$
60,526
March, 2004
B-104
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
VT
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
13
$
3
$
69
$
4
% 3
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
4
S
3
S
36
S
2
S
1
S
1
S
9
S
0
s
23
S
15
S
188
S
10
•S 7.5
S
s
S
S
s
S
S
S
S
5
S
4
S
17
S
1
S
1
S
0
S
2
S
0
s
23
S
16
S
76
S
3
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
76
s
56
s
264
s
9
s
17
s
10
s
46
s
1
s
2
s
1
s
5
s
0
s
117
s
82
s
378
s
13
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
22
s
145
s
10
s
6
s
3
s
18
s
1
s
1
s
1
s
3
s
0
s
51
s
29
s
192
s
12
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
52
s
6
s
s
s
9
s
1
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
s
s
75
s
9
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
164
s
84
s
409
s
19
s
40
s
21
s
117
s
5
$
6
s
3
$
19
s
1
s
302
s
154
s
903
$
42
Grand Total
s
s
676
s
183
s
28
$
1,401
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
13
$
3
$
69
$
4
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
1
s
1
$
9
s
0
s
18
s
12
s
152
$
8
•S 7.5
s
13
$
11
s
59
s
3
s
s
s
s
s
5
$
4
s
17
$
1
s
1
s
0
s
2
s
0
$
36
$
27
$
135
$
6
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
152
s
112
s
527
s
18
s
17
s
10
s
46
s
1
$
2
s
1
$
5
s
0
s
193
s
138
s
642
s
22
70
s
s
s
s
s
72
s
44
$
290
$
19
s
6
$
3
s
18
$
1
s
1
s
1
s
3
s
0
$
87
$
51
$
337
$
22
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
104
s
12
s
s
s
9
s
1
s
$
$
1
s
0
s
s
s
127
s
15
s
s
Total
s
13
$
11
s
59
s
3
s
328
s
168
$
818
$
38
s
36
$
18
s
81
$
3
s
6
s
3
s
19
s
1
$
475
$
246
$
1,335
$
62
Grand Total
s
86
s
1,351
s
138
$
28
s
2,118
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
13
s
3
s
69
s
4
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
18
s
12
s
152
s
8
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
2
s
0
s
18
s
12
s
59
s
2
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
76
s
56
s
264
s
9
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
5
s
0
s
101
s
72
s
332
s
11
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
36
s
22
s
145
s
10
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
1
s
3
s
0
s
45
s
26
s
174
s
11
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
52
s
6
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
s
s
66
s
8
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
164
s
84
s
409
s
19
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
3
s
19
s
1
s
262
s
134
s
786
s
37
Grand Total
s
s
676
s
s
28
s
1,218
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
13
s
3
s
69
s
4
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
18
s
12
s
152
s
8
•S 7.5
s
13
s
11
s
59
s
3
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
2
s
0
s
31
s
23
s
118
s
5
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
152
s
112
s
527
s
18
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
5
s
0
s
177
s
128
s
596
s
21
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
72
s
44
s
290
s
19
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
1
s
3
s
0
s
81
s
48
s
319
s
21
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
104
s
12
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
s
0
s
s
s
118
s
14
s
s
Total
s
13
s
11
s
59
s
3
s
328
s
168
s
818
s
38
s
s
s
s
s
6
s
3
s
19
s
1
s
439
s
229
s
1,254
s
58
Grand Total
$
86
s
1,351
$
s
28
s
1,980
March, 2004
B-105
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
WI
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
247
$
62
$
1,311
$
68
% 3
S
s
S
s
s
S
s
S
S
82
S
55
S
677
S
37
S
20
S
14
S
169
S
9
s
428
S
290
S
3,544
S
193
•S 7.5
S
s
S
s
s
S
s
S
S
99
S
68
S
327
S
13
S
12
S
8
S
41
S
2
s
436
S
298
S
1,441
S
59
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,434
s
1,057 $
4,982
s
175
s
314
s
197
s
865
s
27
s
31
s
20
s
86
s
3
s
2,220
s
1,550
s
7,146
s
242
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
681
s
411 $
2,743
s
180
s
107
s
55
s
342
s
20
s
19
s
10
s
60
s
3
s
959
s
554
s
3,627
s
230
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
978
s
109 $
s
s
160
s
15
s
s
s
27
s
3
s
s
s
1,403
s
149
s
s
Total
s
s
$
$
s
3,093
s
1,577 $
7,725
s
355
$
763
s
390
s
2,211
s
97
s
109
$
54
$
356
$
17
s
5,694
s
2,903
s
17,070
$
793
Grand Total
s
s
12,749
s
3,461
s
536
$
26,459
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
$
s
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
247
$
62
$
1,311
$
68
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
s
s
s
$
$
20
s
14
$
169
s
9
s
346
s
235
s
2,867
$
156
•S 7.5
s
251
$
211
s
1,111
s
53
s
s
S
$
s
99
s
68
s
327
$
13
s
12
s
8
s
41
s
2
$
687
$
509
$
2,552
$
112
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
2,868
s
2,114 $
9,963
s
350
$
314
s
197
s
865
s
27
$
31
s
20
$
86
s
3
s
3,654
s
2,607
s
12,128
s
417
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,363
s
823 $
5,486
$
359
s
107
s
55
s
342
$
20
s
19
s
10
s
60
s
3
$
1,640
$
965
$
6,371
$
410
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,955
s
218 $
s
s
160
s
15
s
$
$
27
s
3
s
s
s
2,381
s
258
s
s
Total
s
251
$
211
s
1,111
s
53
s
6,186
s
3,154 $
15,449
$
710
s
681
s
335
s
1,534
$
60
s
109
s
54
s
356
s
17
$
8,956
$
4,635
$
25,228
$
1,164
Grand Total
s
1,626
s
25,499
s
2,610
$
536
s
39,982
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
247
s
62
s
1,311
s
68
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
14
s
169
s
9
s
346
s
235
s
2,867
s
156
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
41
s
2
s
337
s
230
s
1,114
s
46
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
1,434
s
1,057 $
4,982
s
175
s
s
s
s
s
31
s
20
s
86
s
3
s
1,906
s
1,353
s
6,281
s
215
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
681
s
411 $
2,743
s
180
s
s
s
s
s
19
s
10
s
60
s
3
s
851
s
499
s
3,285
s
211
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
978
s
109 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
27
s
3
s
s
s
1,243
s
134
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
3,093
s
1,577 $
7,725
s
355
s
s
s
s
s
109
s
54
s
356
s
17
s
4,931
s
2,512
s
14,858
s
696
Grand Total
s
s
12,749
s
s
536
s
22,997
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
247
s
62
s
1,311
s
68
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
20
s
14
s
169
s
9
s
346
s
235
s
2,867
s
156
•S 7.5
s
251
s
211
s
1,111
s
53
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
12
s
8
s
41
s
2
s
588
s
441
s
2,225
s
99
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,868
s
2,114 $
9,963
s
350
s
s
s
s
s
31
s
20
s
86
s
3
s
3,340
s
2,410
s
11,263
s
391
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,363
s
823 $
5,486
s
359
s
s
s
s
s
19
s
10
s
60
s
3
s
1,533
s
910
s
6,028
s
390
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,955
s
218 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
27
s
3
s
s
s
2,220
s
243
s
s
Total
s
251
s
211
s
1,111
s
53
s
6,186
s
3,154 $
15,449
s
710
s
s
s
s
s
109
s
54
s
356
s
17
s
8,275
s
4,300
s
23,694
s
1,104
Grand Total
s
1,626
s
25,499
$
s
536
$
37,372
March, 2004
B-107
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
kVV
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
?amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
228
$
57
$
1,207
$
63
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
75
S
51
S
623
S
34
S
19
S
13
S
155
S
8
s
394
S
267
S
3,260
S
178
•S 7.5
S
231
S
194
S
1,022
S
49
s
S
s
S
S
91
S
62
S
301
S
12
S
11
s
8
S
38
S
2
s
633
S
468
S
2,348
S
103
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,638
s
1,943 $
9,168
s
323
s
289
s
181
s
796
s
25
s
29
s
18
s
79
s
2
s
3,361
s
2,397
s
11,160
s
385
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,258
s
757 $
5,046
s
336
s
99
s
51
s
315
s
18
s
17
s
9
s
55
s
3
s
1,514
s
887
s
5,859
s
383
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,805
s
212 $
s
s
148
s
15
s
s
s
25
s
2
s
s
s
2,197
s
251
s
s
Total
s
231
s
194
s
1,022
s
49
s
5,700
s
2,912 $
14,214
s
659
$
702
s
360
s
2,035
s
89
$
101
s
50
$
327
s
16
s
8,326
s
4,327
s
23,835
$
1,112
Grand Total
s
1,496
s
23,486
s
3,186
s
494
$
37,600
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
228
$
57
$
1,207
$
63
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
S
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
s
s
s
300
s
203
s
2,482
$
135
•S 7.5
s
231
$
194
s
1,022
s
49
s
s
s
s
s
91
$
62
s
301
$
12
s
11
s
8
s
38
s
2
$
633
$
468
$
2,348
$
103
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
2,638
s
1,943 $
9,168
s
323
s
289
s
181
s
796
s
25
$
29
s
18
$
79
s
2
s
3,361
s
2,397
s
11,160
s
385
70
s
s
s
s
s
1,258
s
757 $
5,046
$
336
s
99
$
51
s
315
$
18
s
17
s
9
s
55
s
3
$
1,514
$
887
$
5,859
$
383
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
1,805
s
212 $
s
s
148
s
15
s
$
$
25
s
2
s
s
s
2,197
s
251
s
s
Total
s
231
$
194
s
1,022
s
49
s
5,700
s
2,912 $
14,214
$
659
s
627
$
309
s
1,412
$
55
s
82
s
37
s
172
s
7
$
8,232
$
4,263
$
23,056
$
1,069
Grand Total
s
1,496
s
23,486
s
2,403
$
298
s
36,621
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
228
s
57
s
1,207
s
63
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
300
s
203
s
2,482
s
135
•S 7.5
s
231
s
194
s
1,022
s
49
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
530
s
398
s
2,010
s
89
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,638
s
1,943 $
9,168
s
323
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
3,043
s
2,197
s
10,285
s
358
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,258
s
757 $
5,046
s
336
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1,397
s
828
s
5,489
s
362
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,805
s
212 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2,025
s
234
s
s
Total
s
231
s
194
s
1,022
s
49
s
5,700
s
2,912 $
14,214
s
659
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
7,523
s
3,918
s
21,473
s
1,007
Grand Total
s
1,496
s
23,486
s
s
s
33,920
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
228
s
57
s
1,207
s
63
% 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
300
s
203
s
2,482
s
135
•S 7.5
s
231
s
194
s
1,022
s
49
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
11
s
8
s
38
s
2
s
542
s
406
s
2,047
s
91
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
2,638
s
1,943 $
9,168
s
323
s
s
s
s
s
29
s
18
s
79
s
2
s
3,072
s
2,215
s
10,364
s
360
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
1,258
s
757 $
5,046
s
336
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
9
s
55
s
3
s
1,414
s
837
s
5,544
s
365
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
1,805
s
212 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
25
s
2
s
s
s
2,049
s
237
s
s
Total
s
231
s
194
s
1,022
s
49
s
5,700
s
2,912 $
14,214
s
659
s
s
s
s
s
82
s
37
s
172
s
7
s
7,605
s
3,955
s
21,645
s
1,014
Grand Total
s
1,496
s
23,486
$
s
298
$
34,218
March, 2004
B-108
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
B-13. State BMP Costs (continued)
kVY
Sediment Trap
Sediment Basins
Installation Certification
E&S Site Inspection
Total Cost
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
Total Cost ($ 1,000)
OPTION 1
Single
Family
Multi
'amily
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi
family
Commercial
Industrial
Single
Family
Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
8 0.5
$
S
$
S
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
39
$
10
$
205
$
10
% 3
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
13
S
9
S
106
S
6
S
3
S
2
S
26
S
1
s
67
S
45
S
554
S
30
•S 7.5
S
s
S
s
s
S
s
S
S
15
S
11
S
51
S
2
S
2
S
1
S
6
S
0
s
68
S
46
S
225
S
9
n 25
s
s
s
s
s
224
s
164 $
779
s
26
s
49
s
31
s
135
s
4
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
346
s
241
s
1,117
s
36
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
104
s
62 $
428
s
25
s
16
s
8
s
53
s
3
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
146
s
84
s
565
s
31
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
146
s
9 $
s
s
24
s
1
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
209
s
13
s
s
Total
s
s
s
$
s
473
s
236 $
1,206
s
51
s
117
s
59
s
346
s
14
$
17
s
8
$
56
s
3
s
874
s
439
s
2,667
$
117
Grand Total
s
s
1,966
s
537
s
83
$
4,097
OPTION 2
8 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
$
s
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
39
$
10
$
205
$
10
< 3
s
s
s
$
$
$
s
s
$
s
s
$
$
3
s
2
$
26
s
1
s
54
s
37
s
448
$
24
•S 7.5
s
39
$
33
s
174
CO
s
s
s
s
s
15
$
11
s
51
$
2
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
$
107
$
79
$
399
$
17
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
447
s
329 $
1,558
s
52
s
49
s
31
s
135
s
4
$
5
s
3
$
13
s
0
s
570
s
406
s
1,896
s
62
70
s
s
s
s
s
207
s
125 $
855
$
49
s
16
$
8
s
53
$
3
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
$
249
$
146
$
993
$
56
w 200
s
s
s
$
s
292
s
18 $
s
s
24
s
1
s
$
$
4
s
0
s
s
s
355
s
22
s
s
Total
s
39
$
33
s
174
CO
s
946
s
472 $
2,413
$
101
s
105
$
51
s
240
$
9
s
17
s
8
s
56
s
3
$
1,373
$
699
$
3,941
$
170
Grand Total
s
253
s
3,932
s
404
$
83
s
6,183
OPTION 3
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
39
s
10
s
205
s
10
< 3
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
26
s
1
s
54
s
37
s
448
s
24
•S 7.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
s
52
s
36
s
174
s
7
1 25
s
s
s
s
s
224
s
164 $
779
s
26
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
297
s
210
s
982
s
32
O 70
s
s
s
s
s
104
s
62 $
428
s
25
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
129
s
76
s
512
s
29
M 200
s
s
s
s
s
146
s
9 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
185
s
11
s
s
Total
s
s
s
s
s
473
s
236 $
1,206
s
51
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
8
s
56
s
3
s
757
s
379
s
2,321
s
103
Grand Total
s
s
1,966
s
s
83
s
3,560
OPTION 4
S 0.5
s
s
s
s
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
39
s
10
s
205
s
10
% 3
s
s
s
$
s
s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
2
s
26
s
1
s
54
s
37
s
448
s
24
•S 7.5
s
39
s
33
s
174
CO
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
2
s
1
s
6
s
0
s
91
s
69
s
347
s
15
n 25
s
s
s
$
s
447
s
329 $
1,558
s
52
s
s
s
s
s
5
s
3
s
13
s
0
s
521
s
375
s
1,761
s
58
3 70
s
s
s
s
s
207
s
125 $
855
s
49
s
s
s
s
s
3
s
1
s
9
s
0
s
233
s
138
s
940
s
53
M 200
s
s
s
$
s
292
s
18 $
s
s
s
s
s
s
4
s
0
s
s
s
331
s
21
s
s
Total
s
39
s
33
s
174
CO
s
946
s
472 $
2,413
s
101
s
s
s
s
s
17
s
8
s
56
s
3
s
1,269
s
648
s
3,701
s
162
Grand Total
s
253
s
3,932
$
s
83
$
5,780
March, 2004
B-109
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
March, 2004 B-110
-------
Appendix C
RUSLE Evaluation Information
-------
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
R
JSLE Parameters and Calculations
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 1, Indicator City Denver Co
3% slope, 200' length
Sand
0.05
36
0.485
0.2144
1
0.19
0.8408
0.73
0.55
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
36
0.485
0.2144
1
1.01
0.8408
3.96
2.95
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
36
0.485
0.2144
1
1.42
0.8408
5.58
4.16
7% slope, 140' length
Sand
0.05
36
1.06
0.2144
1
0.41
0.8408
1.60
1.20
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
36
1.06
0.2144
1
2.21
0.8408
8.66
6.45
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
36
1.06
0.2144
1
3.11
0.8408
12.19
9.08
12% slope, 100' length
Sand
0.05
36
1.79
0.2144
1
0.69
0.8408
2.71
2.02
12% slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
36
1.79
0.2144
1
3.73
0.8408
14.63
10.90
12% slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
36
1.79
0.2144
1
5.25
0.8408
20.59
15.34
EcoRegion 2, Indicator City Salt Lake City Ut
3% slope, 200' length
Sand
0.05
18
0.485
0.16
1
0.07
0.8271
0.36
0.29
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
18
0.485
0.16
1
0.38
0.8271
1.95
1.57
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
18
0.485
0.16
1
0.53
0.8271
2.74
2.21
7% slope, 140' length
Sand
0.05
18
1.06
0.16
1
0.15
0.8271
0.79
0.64
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
18
1.06
0.16
1
0.82
0.8271
4.26
3.44
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
18
1.06
0.16
1
1.16
0.8271
6.00
4.84
12%) slope, 100' length
Sand
0.05
18
1.79
0.16
1
0.26
0.8271
1.33
1.07
12%o slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
18
1.79
0.16
1
1.39
0.8271
7.20
5.80
12%o slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
18
1.79
0.16
1
1.96
0.8271
10.13
8.17
March, 2004
C-l
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 3, Indicator City Austin, Tx
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
256.5
0.485
0.3611
1
12.13
0.8771
29.46
17.33
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
256.5
0.485
0.3611
1
17.07
0.8771
41.46
24.39
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
256.5
1.06
0.3611
1
26.51
0.8771
64.39
37.88
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
256.5
1.06
0.3611
1
37.31
0.8771
90.62
53.31
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12% slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
256.5
1.79
0.3611
1
44.76
0.8771
108.73
63.97
12% slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
256.5
1.79
0.3611
1
63.00
0.8771
153.03
90.03
12% slope, 100' length
N/A
EcoRegion 4, Indicator City Atlanta, Ga
3% slope, 200' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
265.5
0.485
0.3403
1
5.26
0.8978
13.87
8.61
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
265.5
0.485
0.3403
1
11.83
0.8978
31.21
19.38
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
265.5
1.06
0.3403
1
11.49
0.8978
30.32
18.83
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
265.5
1.06
0.3403
1
25.86
0.8978
68.22
42.36
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12%) slope, 100' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
265.5
1.79
0.3403
1
19.41
0.8978
51.20
31.79
12%o slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
265.5
1.79
0.3403
1
43.67
0.8978
115.20
71.54
12%o slope, 100' length
N/A
March, 2004
C-2
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 5, Indicator City Charleston, SC
3% slope, 200' length
Sand
0.05
360
0.485
0.359
1
3.13
0.9168
8.00
4.87
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
360
0.485
0.359
1
16.92
0.9168
43.22
26.30
3% slope, 200' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
360
0.485
0.359
1
7.52
0.9168
19.21
11.69
7% slope, 140' length
Sand
0.05
360
1.06
0.359
1
6.85
0.9168
17.49
10.64
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
360
1.06
0.359
1
36.99
0.9168
94.46
57.47
7% slope, 140' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
360
1.06
0.359
1
16.44
0.9168
41.98
25.54
12% slope, 100' length
Sand
0.05
360
1.79
0.359
1
11.57
0.9168
29.54
17.97
12% slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
360
1.79
0.359
1
62.46
0.9168
159.51
97.05
12% slope, 100' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
360
1.79
0.359
1
27.76
0.9168
70.89
43.13
EcoRegion 6, Indicator City Jacksonville, F1
3% slope, 200' length
Sand
0.05
450
0.485
0.359
1
3.92
0.9168
10.00
6.09
3% slope, 200' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
450
0.485
0.359
1
9.40
0.9168
24.01
14.61
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
450
0.485
0.359
1
21.16
0.9168
54.02
32.87
7% slope, 140' length
Sand
0.05
450
1.06
0.359
1
8.56
0.9168
21.87
13.30
7% slope, 140' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
450
1.06
0.359
1
20.55
0.9168
52.48
31.93
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
450
1.06
0.359
1
46.24
0.9168
118.07
71.84
12%) slope, 100' length
Sand
0.05
450
1.79
0.359
1
14.46
0.9168
36.92
22.47
12%o slope, 100' length
Loamy Sand
0.12
450
1.79
0.359
1
34.70
0.9168
88.62
53.92
12%o slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
450
1.79
0.359
1
78.08
0.9168
199.39
121.31
March, 2004
C-3
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 7, Indicator Ci Miami, Flty
3% slope, 200' length
Sand
0.05
600
0.485
0.359
1
5.22
0.9168
13.34
8.12
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Sand
0.05
600
1.06
0.359
1
11.42
0.9168
29.15
17.74
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12% slope, 100' length
Sand
0.05
600
1.79
0.359
1
19.28
0.9168
49.23
29.95
12% slope, 100' length
N/A
12% slope, 100' length
N/A
EcoRegion 8, Indicator Ci Albany, NY
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
90
0.485
0.2828
1
3.33
0.8784
10.35
7.02
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
90
0.485
0.2828
1
5.93
0.8784
18.40
12.48
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
90
1.06
0.2828
1
7.28
0.8784
22.63
15.34
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
90
1.06
0.2828
1
12.95
0.8784
40.22
27.27
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12%) slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
90
1.79
0.2828
1
12.30
0.8784
38.21
25.91
12%o slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
90
1.79
0.2828
1
21.87
0.8784
67.92
46.06
12%o slope, 100' length
N/A
March, 2004
C-4
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 9, Indicator City Pittsburgh, Pa
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
139.5
0.485
0.2828
1
9.18
0.8784
28.53
19.34
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
139.5
0.485
0.2828
1
5.17
0.8784
16.05
10.88
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
139.5
0.485
0.2828
1
7.27
0.8784
22.58
15.31
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
139.5
1.06
0.2828
1
20.07
0.8784
62.35
42.27
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
139.5
1.06
0.2828
1
11.29
0.8784
35.07
23.78
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
139.5
1.06
0.2828
1
15.89
0.8784
49.36
33.47
12% slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
139.5
1.79
0.2828
1
33.90
0.8784
105.28
71.39
12% slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
139.5
1.79
0.2828
1
19.07
0.8784
59.22
40.16
12% slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
139.5
1.79
0.2828
1
26.83
0.8784
83.35
56.52
EcoRegion 10, Indicator City St. Paul, Mn
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
103.5
0.485
0.225
1
5.42
0.8729
21.03
15.61
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
103.5
0.485
0.225
1
3.05
0.8729
11.83
8.78
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
103.5
0.485
0.225
1
4.29
0.8729
16.65
12.36
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
103.5
1.06
0.225
1
11.85
0.8729
45.97
34.12
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
103.5
1.06
0.225
1
6.66
0.8729
25.86
19.19
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
103.5
1.06
0.225
1
9.38
0.8729
36.39
27.01
12%) slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
103.5
1.79
0.225
1
20.01
0.8729
77.62
57.62
12%o slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
103.5
1.79
0.225
1
11.25
0.8729
43.66
32.41
12%o slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
103.5
1.79
0.225
1
15.84
0.8729
61.45
45.61
March, 2004
C-5
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 11, Indicator City Houston, Tx
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
427.5
0.485
0.3611
1
35.94
0.8771
87.29
51.35
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
427.5
0.485
0.3611
1
20.21
0.8771
49.10
28.89
3% slope, 200' length
Clay
0.17
427.5
0.485
0.3611
1
12.73
0.8771
30.92
18.19
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
427.5
1.06
0.3611
1
78.54
0.8771
190.78
112.24
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
427.5
1.06
0.3611
1
44.18
0.8771
107.31
63.13
7% slope, 140' length
Clay
0.17
427.5
1.06
0.3611
1
27.82
0.8771
67.57
39.75
12% slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
427.5
1.79
0.3611
1
132.63
0.8771
322.17
189.53
12% slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
427.5
1.79
0.3611
1
74.61
0.8771
181.22
106.61
12% slope, 100' length
Clay
0.17
427.5
1.79
0.3611
1
46.97
0.8771
114.10
67.13
EcoRegion 12 Kansas City,
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
175.5
0.485
0.3087
1
12.61
0.8847
36.15
23.53
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
175.5
0.485
0.3087
1
7.09
0.8847
20.33
13.24
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
175.5
0.485
0.3087
1
9.98
0.8847
28.62
18.63
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
175.5
1.06
0.3087
1
27.57
0.8847
79.00
51.43
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
175.5
1.06
0.3087
1
15.51
0.8847
44.44
28.93
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
175.5
1.06
0.3087
1
21.82
0.8847
62.54
40.72
12%) slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
175.5
1.79
0.3087
1
46.55
0.8847
133.40
86.85
12%o slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
175.5
1.79
0.3087
1
26.18
0.8847
75.04
48.86
12%o slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
175.5
1.79
0.3087
1
36.85
0.8847
105.61
68.76
March, 2004
C-6
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 13, Indicator City Rapid City, SD
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
40.5
0.485
0.2144
1
2.02
0.8408
7.93
5.91
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
40.5
0.485
0.2144
1
1.60
0.8408
6.28
4.68
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
40.5
1.06
0.2144
1
4.42
0.8408
17.33
12.91
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
40.5
1.06
0.2144
1
3.50
0.8408
13.72
10.22
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12% slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
40.5
1.79
0.2144
1
7.46
0.8408
29.26
21.80
12% slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
40.5
1.79
0.2144
1
5.91
0.8408
23.16
17.26
12% slope, 100' length
N/A
EcoRegion 14, Indicator City Boise, Id
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
10.8
0.485
0.1434
1
0.20
0.8177
1.16
0.95
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
10.8
0.485
0.1434
1
0.29
0.8177
1.63
1.34
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
10.8
1.06
0.1434
1
0.44
0.8177
2.53
2.08
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
10.8
1.06
0.1434
1
0.62
0.8177
3.56
2.93
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12%) slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
10.8
1.79
0.1434
1
0.75
0.8177
4.27
3.52
12%o slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
10.8
1.79
0.1434
1
1.05
0.8177
6.01
4.95
12%o slope, 100' length
N/A
March, 2004
C-7
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 15, Indicator City Eureka, Ca
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
85.5
0.485
0.2284
1
4.55
0.8643
17.20
12.66
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
85.5
0.485
0.2284
1
3.60
0.8643
13.62
10.02
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
85.5
1.06
0.2284
1
9.94
0.8643
37.60
27.66
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
85.5
1.06
0.2284
1
7.87
0.8643
29.77
21.90
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12% slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
85.5
1.79
0.2284
1
16.78
0.8643
63.49
46.71
12% slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
85.5
1.79
0.2284
1
13.28
0.8643
50.27
36.98
12% slope, 100' length
N/A
EcoRegion 16, Indicator City San Francisco, Ca
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
40.5
0.485
0.2284
1
1.21
0.8643
4.58
3.37
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
40.5
0.485
0.2284
1
1.70
0.8643
6.45
4.75
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
40.5
1.06
0.2284
1
2.65
0.8643
10.02
7.37
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
40.5
1.06
0.2284
1
3.73
0.8643
14.10
10.37
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12%) slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
40.5
1.79
0.2284
1
4.47
0.8643
16.92
12.45
12%o slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
40.5
1.79
0.2284
1
6.29
0.8643
23.81
17.52
12%o slope, 100' length
N/A
March, 2004
C-8
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 17, Indicator City Seattle, Wa
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
63
0.485
0.2284
1
3.35
0.8643
12.68
9.33
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
63
0.485
0.2284
1
2.65
0.8643
10.04
7.38
3% slope, 200' length
Silty Clay Loam
0.37
63
0.485
0.2284
1
2.58
0.8643
9.77
7.19
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
63
1.06
0.2284
1
7.32
0.8643
27.70
20.38
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
63
1.06
0.2284
1
5.80
0.8643
21.93
16.14
7% slope, 140' length
Silty Clay Loam
0.37
63
1.06
0.2284
1
5.64
0.8643
21.36
15.71
12% slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
63
1.79
0.2284
1
12.36
0.8643
46.78
34.42
12% slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
63
1.79
0.2284
1
9.79
0.8643
37.04
27.25
12% slope, 100' length
Silty Clay Loam
0.37
63
1.79
0.2284
1
9.53
0.8643
36.06
26.53
EcoRegion 18, Indicator City Highland, Wa
3% slope, 200' length
Silt Loam
0.48
9
0.485
0.1434
1
0.30
0.8177
1.71
1.41
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
3% slope, 200' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
Silt Loam
0.48
9
1.06
0.1434
1
0.66
0.8177
3.74
3.09
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
7% slope, 140' length
N/A
12%) slope, 100' length
Silt Loam
0.48
9
1.79
0.1434
1
1.11
0.8177
6.32
5.21
12%o slope, 100' length
N/A
12%o slope, 100' length
N/A
March, 2004
C-9
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Location
Soil
Texture Group
Ambient
Construction
Construction
Site Loadings
Without BMPs
(tons/ac/yr)
Increased Load
Over Ambient
(tons/ac/yr)
K
R
LS
C
P
Discharge
Load
(tons/ac/yr)
C
EcoRegion 19, Indicator City Mount Hood, Wa
3% slope, 200' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
45
0.485
0.2284
1
1.35
0.8643
5.09
3.75
3% slope, 200' length
Loam
0.38
45
0.485
0.2284
1
1.89
0.8643
7.17
5.27
3% slope, 200' length
Loamy sand
0.12
45
0.485
0.2284
1
0.60
0.8643
2.26
1.67
7% slope, 140' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
45
1.06
0.2284
1
2.94
0.8643
11.13
8.19
7% slope, 140' length
Loam
0.38
45
1.06
0.2284
1
4.14
0.8643
15.67
11.53
7% slope, 140' length
Loamy sand
0.12
45
1.06
0.2284
1
1.31
0.8643
4.95
3.64
12% slope, 100' length
Sandy Loam
0.27
45
1.79
0.2284
1
4.97
0.8643
18.80
13.83
12% slope, 100' length
Loam
0.38
45
1.79
0.2284
1
6.99
0.8643
26.46
19.46
12% slope, 100' length
Loamy sand
0.12
45
1.79
0.2284
1
2.21
0.8643
8.35
6.15
March, 2004
C-10
-------
Appendix D
State Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements
-------
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
State
Document
Date
Permit Expiration
Date
ADEM Instructions for Completion of NOI for Coverage under NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Not Authorized by an
Alabama Existing NPDES permit
Alaska Region 10 Storm Water Construction General Permit
American Samoa NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
Arizona NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control
Arkansas Act
NPDES General Permit CAG616002 for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity involing Land
California Lahonton Disturbance in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, El Dorado, Placer and Alpine Comities
SWRCB Order No. 99-08 - DWQ NPDES General Permit CAS000002 Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water
California State Runoff Associated with Construction Activity
Colorado CDPS General Permit Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, COR-030000
Connecticut General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction Activities
DC NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
Delaware DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Regulations (DE Doc 1)
Delaware NOI for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity Under a NPDES General Permit (DE Doc 2)
Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Plan Review Checklist (DE Doc 3)
10/1/1997
2/17/1998
2/17/1998
2/17/1998
7/1/1998
1/12/2000
8/19/1999
nd
12/20/2000
2/17/1998
2/14/2002
nd
nd
2/17/2003
6/30/2003
1/1/2005
8/1/2001
6/30/2007
10/1/2002
10/1/2002
10/1/2002
10/1/2002
10/1/2002
Delaware
Delaware
Florida Region 4
NOI Instructions for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity Under a NPDES Permit (DE Doc 4)
Application for Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan Approval (DE Doc 5)
Final Modification of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities, Region 4
nd
nd
4/28/2000
10/1/2002
10/1/2002
Florida State
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinios
Indiana
Iowa
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
State of Florida DEP Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activities That Disturb Five or More Acres of Land
State of Georgia DNR Environmental Protection Division, Authorization to Discharge Under the NPDES Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
NPDES General Permit Authorizing Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity
Region 10 Storm Water Construction General Permit
NPDES Permit ILR10, Construction Site Activities NPDES Storm Water Permit
Storm Water General Permit Rule 5
Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, General Permit No. 2, A Brief Guide to Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and
Best Management Practices
Iowa DNR NPDES General Permit No. 2 - Storm Water Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity for Construction Activities
Kansas Water Pollution Control General Permit and Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activities Under
the NPDES System
General KPDES Permit for Storm Water Point Source Discharge Construction Activities, KYR10
Storm Water General Permit For Construction Activities, Permit No. LAR100000 Authorization to Discharge Under The Louisiana
NPDES System
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
Maryland Department of the Environment General Permit for Construction Activity General NPDES 97-GP-0004
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
Michigan's Permit By Rule for Construction Activities
Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds (DEQ)
Minnesota General Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated with a Construction Activity Under the NPDES I State
Disposal System Permit Program, MNR110000
10/22/2000
8/1/2000
2/17/1998
9/1/2002
2/17/1998
5/14/1998
nd
10/1/2002
10/1/2002
1/18/2002
10/1/2002
10/1/1999
2/17/1998
10/1/1997
2/17/1998
11/13/1992
Reprinted October, 1998
10/4/1998
7/31/2003
3/9/2003
2/17/2003
5/21/2003
10/1/2007
10/1/2007
12/31/2006
10/30/2007
10/1/2004
9/30/2002
10/3/2003
March 2004
D-l
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
State
Document
Date
Permit Expiration
Date
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Is.
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisonsin
Wyoming
State of Mississippi MDEQ Office of Pollution Control Water Pollution Control Storm Water Construction General Permit
Missouri DNR Storm Water Permit Requirements for Land Disturbance Activities
Montana Department of Environmental Quality Authorization to Discharge Under the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
Authorization to Discharge Under the State of Nebraska NPDES, NER100000 A General NPDES permit for storm water discharges from
construction sites to waters in the State of Nebraska
State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection General Permit for Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
NJ Stormwater Discharge Master General Permit for Construction and Mining Activity
NPDEs General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities in Region 6
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity From Construction Activities, GP-93-06
State of North Carolina Department of Environment And Natural Resources Division of Water Quality General Permit to Discharge
Stormwater Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NC DENR Erosion and Sediment Control Checklist
Authorization to Discharge Under the North Dakota Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sytem
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Authorization for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction Activity Under NPDES
General Permit OKRIO For Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities Within the State of Oklahoma
General Permit NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit for Construction Activities
Instructions for a General OR Individual NPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activities (Doc #1)
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Content (363-2134-008)
Fact Sheet: Stormwater Permits for Construction Activities (Doc #3)
PA General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities (Doc #4)
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
General Permit Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Ellimination System Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges From Construction
Activities
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity
Tennesse General Permit No TNRIO-OOOO Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities
NPDEs General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities in Region 6
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality Authorization to Discharge Under the Utah NPDES Storm
Water General Permit for Construction Activities
State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation, General Permit 3-9001(2002) For
Stormwater Runoff From Construction Sites, NPDES VTR100000
General Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation for Discharges of Storm Water From Construction Activities
NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit For Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities
West Virginia NPDES General Water Pollution Control Permit, Storm Water Associated With Construction Activities
Chapter NR 216 Storm Water Discharge Permits Subchapter in Construction Site Storm Water Discharge Permits
Authorization To Discharge Storm Water Associated With Construction Activity Under The NPDES
3/28/2000
12/1/1998
6/8/2002
8/1/2002
9/16/2002
2/17/1998
3/1/2002
7/6/1998
8/1/1993
10/1/2001
11/23/1998
10/1/1999
2/17/1998
10/26/1992
10/13/2002
12/1/2002
8/1/2001
4/15/2000
2/1/2001
12/1/2002
2/17/1998
3/1/1998
1/15/1998
7/1/2001
nd
7/6/1998
10/1/1997
nd
12/4/2002
11/18/2000
12/5/2002
10/1/2002
nd
3/27/2005
1/2/2002
12/31/2006
7/31/2002
9/15/2007
2/18/2007
7/7/2003
8/1/1998
10/30/2006
10/30/2006
9/30/2004
4/26/1994
10/12/2007
12/31/2005
12/1/2007
12/1/2007
12/1/2007
12/1/2007
3/19/2003
1/31/2003
7/30/2007
7/7/2003
9/30/2002
6/30/2004
11/18/2005
12/4/2007
8/31/2002
March 2004
D-2
-------
I s 11,| 111 !i!|ii!i(,i! il
II 111 Si !l II II II U lilt oi I ill s if i i
55
5* S
5S
m m
5 1
Si
a °
S 8
O
OS &8.
~
5 8 S
S
at
a
al
Table Letter
A
B
B1
B2
B3
B4
C
C1
C2
D
D1
D2
D2A
D2B
D2C
Alabama
315,300
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alaska
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
American Samoa
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Arizona
113,800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Arkansas
168,900
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
California State
553,400
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
California Lahonton
553,400
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Colorado
112,500
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Connecticut
39,400
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
DC
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Delaware
23,100
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Florida State
825,200
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Florida Region 4
825,200
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Georgia
851,900
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Guam
851,900
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Hawaii
6,800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Idaho
91,900
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
lllinios
246,500
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Indiana
195,300
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Iowa
69,100
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Kansas
96,500
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Kentucky
237,100
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Louisiana
133,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Maine
111,100
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Maryland
177,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Massachusetts
211,800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Michigan
364,100
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Minnesota
231,800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Mississippi
206,400
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Missouri
224,200
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Montana
76,300
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nebraska
55,100
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nevada
26,700
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
New Hampshire
62,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
New Jersey
213,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
New Mexico
217,200
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
New York
317,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
North Carolina
506,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
North Dakota
32,800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Northern Marianas
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Ohio
364,800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Oklahoma
176,700
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Oregon
103,900
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Pennsylvania
545,100
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Puerto Rico
112,400
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Rhode Island
6,600
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
South Carolina
362,000
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
South Dakota
57,800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Tennessee
401,900
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Texas
893,500
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Utah
81,300
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Virginia
343,500
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Vermont
11,500
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Washington
240,800
Y
Y
Y
West Virginia
176,800
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Wsonsin
188,200
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Wyoming
34,400
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
March 2004
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guiddines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
II , II
§!
ii
D2D
D2E
D2F
D2G
D2H
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
E
E1
E2
F
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
D-3
-------
F2 Operator certify SWPPP
prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified
ti professional conduct
assessment
F4 Operator post inspection
on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS
-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<0 BASIC
_ G1 Inspections every 14
-<-< -< -<-<-<-< -<-<-< -< -<-<-<-<-<-<-< -<-<-< -<-<-<-< 2 days
G1 Inspectionsw ithin 24
_<_<_<_<_< _<_<_<_< _< _< -<-< -<-<-<-< 2hours of storm 9reater than
0.5 inches
(7) G1 a Record extent of initial
^ disturbance
G1 b Record sites undergone
_< 5 temp/perm stabilization
CD
(7) G1c Record sites not
q undergone work
(7) G1 d Inspect sediment
q control practices
^ G1e Ispect BMPs
m
_ G2 Final inspection prior to
8 NOT
-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Alabama
ADEM Instructions for Completion of NOI for Coverage
under NPDES General Permit for Storm water Discharges Not
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Authorized by an Existing NPDES permit 10/01/97
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
Instructions
4
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
Instructions
4
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
*
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
Instructions
4
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant
in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
Instructions
4
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
Instructions
4
D2 General location map
Instructions
4
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
D2b Total area of site
Instructions
4
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
Instructions
4
D3 Description of available soils data
Instructions
4
D4 Description of BMPs used
Instructions
4
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
D6 Runoff coefficients
Instructions
4
D7 Names of receiving waters
VIII
3
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
XII
13
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
Instructions
4
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
Instructions
4
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
Instructions
4
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
EQ
* Drainage from areas of ten (10) disturbed acres or larger depending on the soil type(s), slope, stability, etc., may be required to be controlled by
construction of a designed sedimentation basin.
March 2004
D-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Alabama
Alabama Handbook for Erosion Control, Sediment Control and Stormwater
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Management on Construction Sites and Urban Areas
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES
SECTION
PAGE
Where site conditions preclude use of sufficient erosion controls - no acreage
BMP-B1
specified.
Chapter 3
III-SB-1
BMP-B1
Volume: 67 cubic yards (1,809 cubic feet) of storage per acre
Chapter 3
III-SB-2
Where site conditions preclude use of sufficient erosion controls - no acreage
BMP-B3
specified.
BMP-B4
Sediment basin may be used in combination with other practices
Chapter 3
III-SB-1
BMP-B4
Dikes, swales, water control devices to direct runoff into basir
Chapter 3
III-SB-1
No specific requirement for equivalent controls, but BMP manual describes
additional ESC practices, assumed to be applied where sediment basin not
BMP-B4
appropriate
Chapter 3
III-SB-6
BMP-G1
No instructions on general inspection schedule; some discussion of inspectior
for specific BMPs are equivalent or more stringent (below):
BMP-G1
Inspect mulches periodically, and after rainstorms
Chapter 4
IV-MU-6
BMP-G1
Inspect waterways periodically, and after rainstorms
Chapter 4
IV-WW-7
BMP-G1
Inspect stream crossings once a week and after every rainfal
Chapter 3
III-SX-6
BMP-G1
SW retention structure (permanent basin) - repairs daily and inspections
regularly, after storms
Chapter 4
III-RS-6
BMP-G1
Repair sediment basins daily when damaged from soil erosion or constructior
operations
Chapter 3
III-SB-6
No instructions on general stabilization requirements, but some BMP-specific
BMP-HI
discussion (below):
Stabilization immediately following construction of sediment basin,
BMP-HI
vegetative treatment applied within 7 days of basin completion
Chapter 3
III-SB-8
Temporary seeding for bare areas not brought to final grade w/in 30 working
BMP-HI
days
Chapter 4
IV-TV-1
Sodding for disturbed areas requiring immediate cover and steep critical
BMP-HI
areas
Chapter 4
IV-SD-1
Sediment basins - clean out at 50% design capacity, restore to original design
BMP-I1
volume, sediment never higher than 1 foot below top of riser
Chapter 3
III-SB-2
BMP-I1
Sediment from silt fences removed at 1/2 heighi
Chapter 3
III-SF-3
March 2004
D-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Alaska
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT: Region 10 Storm Water Construction General Permi 02/17/98
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 02/17/03
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVD2
20
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVD2
20
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IVD2
22
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IVD2
22
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IVD2
23
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVD2
23
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD2
21
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming
pollutant in storm water
IVD2
21
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IVD2
24
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD1
19
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVD1
19
D2 General location map
IVD1
19
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD1
19
D2b Total area of site
IVD1
19
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IVD1
19
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD1
19
D2e Locations of stabilization practices
IVD1
19
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IVD1
19
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD1
19
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD1
19
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD1
19
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD2
20
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
IVD2
20
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD1
19
D7 Names of receiving waters
IVD1
19
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVD2
20
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVD1
19
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVC
18
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVC
18
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVC
18
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
VIG
30
F1 Copy of site log book on site
VIG
30
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVD4
25
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5
inches
IVD4
25
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD2
21
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD2
21
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD2
21
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IVD2
21
March 2004
D-7
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Arizona
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Construction Activities 2/17/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IV D
7868
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IV D
7869
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IV D
7869
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IV D
7869
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming
pollutant in storm water
IV D
7868
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IV D
7870
D SWPPP BASIC
IV D
7868
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IV D
7867
D2 General location map
IV D
7868
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IV D
7868
D2b Total area of site
IV D
7868
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IV D
7868
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IV D
7868
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IV D
7868
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IV D
7868
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IV D
7868
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IV D
7868
D3 Description of available soils data
IV D
7868
D4 Description of BMPs used
IV D
7868
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
IV D
7868
D6 Runoff coefficients
IV D
7868
D7 Names of receiving waters
IV D
7868
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HIE
7867
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IV D
7868
E UPDATE SWPPP
IV C
7867
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IV C
7867
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IV C
7867
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
II
7866
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IV D
7870
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5
inches
IV D
7870
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IV D
7868
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IV D
7868
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IV D
7868
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50
percent
IV D
7868
March 2004
D-8
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Arkansas
Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant
SECTION REFERENCED
Discharge Elimination System and the Arkansas Water and Air
DOCUMENT:
Pollution Control Act 7/1/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
6/30/2003
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
3 D 4
11
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
3 D 4
11
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
3 D 4
13
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
3 D 4
13
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
3 D 4
13
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
3 D 4
14
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
storm water
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
3 D 4
10
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
3 D 4
10
D2 General location map
3 D 4
11
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
3 D 4
11
D2b Total area of site
3 D 4
10
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
3 D 4
11
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
3 D 4
11
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
3 D 4
11
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
3 D 4
11
D3 Description of available soils data
3 D 4
11
D4 Description of BMPs used
3 D 4
11
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
3 D 4
11
D6 Runoff coefficients
3 D 4
10
D7 Names of receiving waters
3 D 4
11
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
3 E 1
16
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
3 D 3
10
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
3 D 3
10
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
3 D 3
10
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
3 E 2
16
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
3 D 4
15
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
3 D 4
15
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
3 D 4
12
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
3 D 4
12
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
3 D 4
15
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-9
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: California Lahonton
SECTION REFERENCED
NPDES General Permit CAG616002 for Discharges of
Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction
Activity involing Land Disturbance in the Lake Tahoe
Hydrologic Unit, El Dorado, Placer and Alpine
DOCUMENT: Counties 01/12/00
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 01/01/05
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
D 7
4
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
D 7
4
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required acc. 20 year, lhr storm
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
D 6
3
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant
in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D 6
3
D SWPPP BASIC
D 6
2
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
D2 General location map
D 6
2
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
D 6
3
D2b Total area of site
D 6
3
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
D 6
2
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D 6
2
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D 6
2
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D 6
2
D3 Description of available soils data
D 6
3
D4 Description of BMPs used
D 7
4
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
NOI, VII
2
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D 13
6
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
D 5
2
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
D 5
2
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
D 5
2
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
F10
3
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
D 11
5
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
D 7
4
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
D 11
5
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-10
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
California State Permit
DOCUMENT:
SWRCB Order No. 99-08 - DWQ NPDES General Permit
CAS000002 Waste Discharge Requirements for
Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with
Construction Activity 08/19/99
SECTION REFERENCED
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
08/01/01
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
A 5
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
A 5
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
A 8
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
A 5 b
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming
pollutant in stormwater
A 5 b
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
A 5 b
D SWPPP BASIC
A
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
A 5 c
D2 General location map
A 5
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
A 5 b
D2b Total area of site
A 5 a
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
A 5
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
A 5
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
A 5 b
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
A 5 a
D3 Description of available soils data
D4 Description of BMPs used
A 5 b
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
A 6
D6 Runoff coefficients
A 5 c
D7 Names of receiving waters
A 5 b
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
A 5 b
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
A 4
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
A 4
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
A 4
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
B 4
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
All
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5
inches
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
A 6
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
All
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50
percent
* Inspect before and after storm events and once each 24 hour period during extended storm events.
March 2004
D-ll
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Colorado
CDPS General Permit Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Activity, COR-030000 nd
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
6/30/2007
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
B3
7
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
B3
7
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
B5
8
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
B1
7
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
B1
7
D2 General location map
B2
7
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
D2b Total area of site
B1
7
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
B2
7
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
B1
7
D3 Description of available soils data
B1
7
D4 Description of BMPs used
B3
7
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
B3
7
D6 Runoff coefficients
B1
7
D7 Names of receiving waters
B1
7
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
B1
7
E UPDATE SWPPP
C4
9
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
C4
9
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
C4
9
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
El
12
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
B6
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
C5
9
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
B4
8
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
B6
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
* For sites where construction has not been completed, the permittee shall make a thorough inspection of their stormwater management system at least every 14
days and after any precipitation or snowmelt event that causes surface erosion.
March 2004
D-12
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Connecticut
DOCUMENT:
General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and
Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with
Construction Activities 12/20/2000
SECTION REFERENCED
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
10/1/2002
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
6b
11
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
6b
11
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
6b
12
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
6b
13
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming
pollutant in stormwater
6b
13
C2 Description ofwate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
6b
10
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
6b
10
D2 General location map
6b
10
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
6b
10
D2b Total area of site
6b
10
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
6b
10
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
6b
10
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
6b
10
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
6b
10
D3 Description of available soils data
6b
10
D4 Description of BMPs used
6b
11
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation
to construction schedule
6b
11
D6 Runoff coefficients
6b
10
D7 Names of receiving waters
6b
11
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
6b
14
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
6b
10
E UPDATE SWPPP
6b
10
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or
maintenance
6b
10
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
4c
6
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
6b
14
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than
0.5 inches
6b
14
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
6b
11
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
6b
11
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ *
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
6b
12
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50
percent
* Where construction activities have permanently ceased or have been temporarily suspended for more than seven days, or when final grades
are reached in any portion of the site, stabilization practices should be implemented within three days.
March 2004
D-13
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
DC
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
from Construction Activities 2/17/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IV D
7868
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IV D
7869
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IV D
7869
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IV D
7869
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from
becoming pollutant in storm water
IV D
7868
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IV D
7870
D SWPPP BASIC
IV D
7868
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IV D
7867
D2 General location map
IV D
7868
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IV D
7868
D2b Total area of site
IV D
7868
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IV D
7868
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IV D
7868
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IV D
7868
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IV D
7868
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IV D
7868
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IV D
7868
D3 Description of available soils data
IV D
7868
D4 Description of BMPs used
IV D
7868
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in
relation to construction schedule
IV D
7868
D6 Runoff coefficients
IV D
7868
D7 Names of receiving waters
IV D
7868
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HIE
7867
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IV D
7868
E UPDATE SWPPP
IV C
7867
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or
maintenance
IV C
7867
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IV C
7867
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
II
7866
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IV D
7870
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater
than 0.5 inches
IV D
7870
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IV D
7868
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IV D
7868
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IV D
7868
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50
percent
IV D
7868
March 2004
D-14
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Delaware
DNREC Sediment and Storm water Regulations (DE Doc 1) 2/14/2002
NOI for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity Under a NPDES
General Permit (DE Doc 2)
Sediment and Stormwater Plan Review Checklist (DE Doc 3)
NOI Instructions for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
Under a NPDES Permit (DE Doc 4)
nd
nd
nd
SECTION
REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Application for Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan Approval (DE Doc 5)
nd
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
Doc 3 - E
2
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
Doc 3 - E
2
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
Doc 3 - E 8
2
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
Doc 3 - G
1
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
Doc 3 - N 6
2
D2 General location map
Doc 3 -G 5
1
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
Doc 3 -G 10
1
D2b Total area of site
Doc 2 - NOI
1
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
Doc 3 - G 16
1
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
Doc 3 - G 16
1
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
Doc 3 -G 15
1
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
Doc 3 - S 3
2
D3 Description of available soils data
Doc 3 - G 14
1
D4 Description of BMPs used
Doc 3 - E 1
2
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
Doc 3 - N 6
2
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
Doc 2 - NOI
1
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
Doc 3 - N 7
2
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
Doc 3 - N 4
2
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
Doc 3 - N 2
1
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
Doc 1 - Reg i
1
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
Doc 3 - N 5
2
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Doc 3 - N 5
2
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
Doc 3 - N 8
2
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-15
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Florida - State Permit
State of Florida DEP Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge
from Construction Activities That Disturb Five or More Acres of
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Land 10/22/2000
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
VD
8
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
VD
8
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
VD
8
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
VD
9
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
VD
10
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
VD
11
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
VD
7
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
VD
7
D2 General location map
VD
7
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
VD
7
D2b Total area of site
VD
7
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
VD
7
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
VD
7
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
VD
7
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
VD
7
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
VD
7
D3 Description of available soils data
VD
7
D4 Description of BMPs used
VD
8
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
VD
8
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
VD
8
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
VE
11
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
VC
7
E UPDATE SWPPP
VC
7
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
VC
7
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
VC
7
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
VE
11
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
VD
10
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
VD
10
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ, 7 DAYS
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
VD
8
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
VD
8
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
VD
10
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-16
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Florida - State Permit
The Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management; Chapter
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
6.
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES
SECTION
PAGE
BMP-B1
For sites > 5 acres
ESC
Practices
6-360
BMP-B1
Volume: 67 cubic yards (1,809 cubic feet) of storage per acre.
ESC
Practices
6-361
BMP-B3
For sites > 5 acres
ESC
Practices
6-360
Sediment traps for sites < 5 acres must have 67 cubic yards (1,809 cubic feet) of storage per
BMP-B3
acre
ESC
Practices
6-352
No specific requirement for equivalent controls, but BMP manual describes additional ESC
BMP-B4
practices applicable to sites < 5 acres
BMP-G1
Inspections after each rainfall and daily during prolonged rainfall
ESC
Practices
6-321
BMP-G1
Temporary diversion dike- inspect weekly
ESC
Practices
6-338
BMP-G1
Temporary fill diversion - inspect weekly
ESC
Practices
6-345
BMP-G1
Temp, slope drain - inspect weekly
ESC
Practices
6-345
No instructions on general stabilization requirements, but some BMP-specific discussion
BMP-HI
(below):
BMP-HI
Stabilize sediment basin embankment within 15 days after completion
ESC
Practices
6-367
BMP-HI
Seeding for soils exposed for at least 30 days
ESC
Practices
6-473
BMP-I1
Remove when sediment trap design volume reduced by 50%
ESC
Practices
6-352, 6-359
BMP-I1
Remove when at 1/2 height of silt fence, barriers, check dams
ESC
Practices
6-321, 6-438
Sediment removed from basin when reaches 60% design capacity (design capacity reduced by
BMP-I1
40%)
ESC
Practices
6-362
March 2004
D-17
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Florida - Region 4 CGP
Final Modification of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Discharges From Construction Activities, Region 4 4/28/2000
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
VD
25138
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
VD
25138
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
VD
25139
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
VD
25139
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
VD
25139
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
VD
25139
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
VD
25138
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
VD
25138
D2 General location map
VD
25138
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
VD
25138
D2b Total area of site
VD
25138
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
VD
25138
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
VD
25138
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
VD
25138
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
VD
25138
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
VD
25138
D3 Description of available soils data
IV
25123
D4 Description of BMPs used
VD
25138
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
VD
25138
D6 Runoff coefficients
VD
25138
D7 Names of receiving waters
VC
25138
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
VE
25140
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
VD
25138
E UPDATE SWPPP
VC
25138
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
VC
25138
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
VC
25138
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
VD
15139
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
VD
25140
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
VD
25140
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ, 7 DAYS
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
VD
25138
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
VD
25138
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
VD
25140
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-18
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Georgia
State of Georgia DNR Environmental Protection Division,
Authorization to Discharge Under the NPDES Storm Water Discharges
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Associated with Construction Activity 8/1/2000
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
7/31/2003
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVD
18
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVD
18
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required 1800 ft3
IVD
19
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVD
19
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD
19
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD
17
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IIB
8
D2 General location map
IVD
18
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD
18
D2b Total area of site
IVD
17
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IVD
18
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD
18
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVD
18
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD
18
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD
18
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD
17
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD
18
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IVD
18
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD
17
D7 Names of receiving waters
IIB
8
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
ID
7
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVD
17
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVC
17
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVC
17
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVC
17
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IV
13
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVD
20
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
VA
26
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD
18
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD
18
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD
20
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-19
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Georgia
DOCUMENT:
Manual for Erosion and Sediment control in Georgia
SECTION REFERENCED
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES
SECTION
PAGE
BMP-B1
Where site conditions preclude use of sufficient erosion controls - no
acreage specified
Chapter 6
6-147
BMP-B1
Volume: 67 cubic yards (1,809 cubic feet) of storage per acre.
Chapter 6
6-147
BMP-B3
Where site conditions preclude use of sufficient erosion controls - no
acreage specified.
Chapter 6
6-147
BMP-B3
No specific requirement for equivalent controls, but BMP manual
describes additional ESC practices, assumed to be applied where
sediment basin not appropriate - outlines principles for design,
including importance of installing structures to retain sediment
Chapter 2
2-4
BMP-B3
"Appropriate sediment storage must be available on the site prior to
any land-disturbing activities"
Chapter 6
6-1
BMP-B3
"Sediment basins, sediment barriers and related structures should be
installed"
Chapter 6
6-9
BMP-B3
67 cubic yards (1809 cubic feet) of sediment storage per acre.
Chapter 6
6-13
BMP-B3
Sediment basin may be used in combination with other practices
Chapter 6
6-147
BMP-G1
No instructions on general inspection schedule; most BMPs have
vague instructions, "periodically" and "after rainstorms" (below);
BMP-G1
ESC structures inspected daily? (from fictional example]
Chapter 3
3-14
BMP-G1
Sediment trap should be inspected daily and after each rainfall
Chapter 6
6-140
BMP-HI
No instructions on general stabilization requirements, but some BMf
specific discussion (below):
BMP-HI
All steep slopes/concentrated flow areas must be stabilized with
erosion control matting
Chapter 6
6-63
BMP-HI
Stabilization immediately after rough grading completed;
stabilization should be employed immediately after land disturbance
Chapter 2
2-4
BMP-HI
Mulching, temporary vegatation of permanent vegetation for all
exposed areas w/in 14 days after disturbance
Chapter 6
6-17,6-34,6-35
BMP-HI
Embankment for Sediment Basin must be stabilized within 7 days
Chapter 6
6-150
BMP-I1
Remove sediment from trap at 1/2 height of trap
Chapter 6
6-140
BMP-I1
Remove sediment from basin when 1/3 of storage volume lost
(design capacity reduced by 1/3).
Chapter 6
6-147
BMP-I1
Repair damages caused by soil erosion or construction equipment
daily
Chapter 6
6-151
March 2004
D-20
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Hawaii
SECTION REFERENCED
NPDES General Permit Authorizing Discharges of
DOCUMENT: Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity 9/1/2002
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 3/9/2003
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
C 4
55-C-6
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
C 4
55-C-6
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
*
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming
pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
C 4
55-C-5
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
C 4
55-C-5
D2 General location map
C 4
55-C-5
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
C 4
55-C-5
D2b Total area of site
C 4
55-C-5
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
C 4
55-C-5
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
C 4
55-C-5
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
C 4
55-C-5
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
C 4
55-C-6
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
NOI 5
2
D3 Description of available soils data
C 4
55-C-5
D4 Description of BMPs used
C 4
55-C-6
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
C 4
55-C-5
D6 Runoff coefficients
C 4
55-C-5
D7 Names of receiving waters
NOI 5
2
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
C 4
55-C-5
E UPDATE SWPPP
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
C 10
55-C-10
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
CI
55-C-9
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5
inches
C 11
55-C-ll
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
C 11
55-C-ll
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
**
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
* Erosion and sediment control measures shall be designed according to the size of disturbed or drainage areas to detain runoff and trap sediment.
** Stabilization must occur before another phase is initiated.
March 2004
D-21
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Idaho
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Region 10 Storm Water Construction General Permit 2/17/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
2/17/2003
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVD2
20
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVD2
20
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
IVD2
22
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IVD2
22
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IVD2
23
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVD2
23
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD2
21
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant
in stormwater
IVD2
21
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IVD2
24
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD1
19
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVD1
19
D2 General location map
IVD1
19
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD1
19
D2b Total area of site
IVD1
19
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IVD1
19
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD1
19
D2e Locations of stabilization practices
IVD1
19
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IVD1
19
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD1
19
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD1
19
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD1
19
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD2
20
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
IVD2
20
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD1
19
D7 Names of receiving waters
IVD1
19
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVD2
20
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVD1
19
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVC
18
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVC
18
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVC
18
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
VIG
30
F1 Copy of site log book on site
VIG
30
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVD4
25
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5
inches
IVD4
25
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD2
21
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD2
21
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD2
21
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IVD2
21
March 2004
D-22
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Illinois
NPDES Permit ILR10, Construction Site Activities NPDES
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Storm Water Permit 5/14/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
5/21/2003
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IV
4
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IV
4
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD
5
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD
4
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVD
4
D2 General location map
IVD
4
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD
4
D2b Total area of site
IVD
4
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD
4
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVD
4
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD
4
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD
4
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD
4
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD
4
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IVD
4
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD
4
D7 Names of receiving waters
IIC
2
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVD
6
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVD
4
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVC
4
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVC
4
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVC
4
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IVD
6
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVD
6
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVD
6
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
DAYS
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD
5
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD
5
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD
5
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-23
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Indiana
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT: Storm Water General Permit Rule 5 nd
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
SEC 7
12
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
SEC 7
12
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
SEC 7
13
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
SEC 5
11
D2 General location map
SEC 7
13
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
SEC 7
13
D2b Total area of site
SEC 5
11
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
SEC 7
13
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
SEC 7
13
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
SEC 7
13
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
SEC 7
13
D3 Description of available soils data
D4 Description of BMPs used
SEC 7
13
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
SEC 5
13
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
SEC 7
13
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
SEC 5
11
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
SEC 8
14
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
SEC 7
12
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
SEC 7
12
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ, 7 DAYS
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
SEC 7
13
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-24
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Iowa
Iowa DNR NPDES General Permit No. 2 - Storm Water
Discharge Associated with Industrial Activity for Construction
Activities (Doc 1) 10/1/2002
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, General
Permit No. 2, A Brief Guide to Developing Pollution Prevention
Plans and Best Management Practices (Doc 2) 10/1/2002
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
10/1/2007
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
13
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
13
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
14
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
14
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
14
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
Doc 2 - Phase 3C
14
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
13
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
Doc 2 - Phase 1C
9
D2 General location map
Doc 2 - Phase ID
9
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
Doc 2 - Phase ID
9
D2b Total area of site
Doc 2 - Phase 2A
10
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
Doc 2 - Phase ID
9
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
13
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
13
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
Doc 2 - Phase 1A
8
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D3 Description of available soils data
Doc 2 - Phase 1A
8
D4 Description of BMPs used
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
13
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
Doc 2 - Phase 3H
16
D6 Runoff coefficients
Doc 2 - Phase 2C
10
D7 Names of receiving waters
Doc 2 - Phase 1A
8
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
Doc 2 - Phase 1A
8
E UPDATE SWPPP
Doc 2 - Phase 5D
20
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
Doc 2 - Phase 5D
20
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
Doc 2 - Phase 5D
20
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
Doc 2 - Phase 4A
17
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
Doc 2 - Phase 3F
15
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Doc 2 - Phase 3F
15
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
13
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Doc 2 - Phase 3B
13
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
Doc 2 - Phase 3F
15
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-25
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Kansas
Kansas Water Pollution Control General Permit and Authorization to
SECTION REFERENCED
Discharge Stormwater Runoff from Construction Activities Under the
DOCUMENT:
NPDES System
1/18/2002
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
12/31/2006
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
P-VII
8
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
P-VII
8
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
P-VII
8
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
P-VII
8
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
P-VII
8
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from
becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
P-VII
6
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
NOI-ID
2
D2 General location map
NOI INST HE
2
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
NOI INST HE
2
D2b Total area of site
NOI INST HE
2
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
NOI INST HE
2
D2e Locations of stabilization practices
NOI INST HE
2
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
NOI INST HE
2
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
NOI INST IIB
1
D3 Description of available soils data
NOI IB
1
D4 Description of BMPs used
P-VII
7
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
NOI IB
1
D6 Runoff coefficients
NOI INST IIB
1
D7 Names of receiving waters
NOI INST IIB
1
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
P-VII
6
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
P-VII
7
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
P-VII
7
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
P-VII
10
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
P-VII
9
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
P-VII
9
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
P-VII
6
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
P-VII
7
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
*Permittee shall ensure that the construction site is inspected on a regular schedule and within 24 hours of the end of a
storm which construction activity.
March 2004
D-26
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Kentucky
SECTION
REFERENCED
General KPDES Permit for Storm Water Point Source
DOCUMENT: Discharge Construction Activities, KYR10 10/1/2002
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 10/30/2007
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IV
IV-2
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IV
rv-2
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IV
IV-2
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IV
rv-3
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IV
IV-2
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IV
IV-2
D2 General location map
IV
IV-2
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IV
IV-2
D2b Total area of site
IV
IV-2
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IV
IV-2
D2e Locations of stabilization practices
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IV
IV-2
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IV
IV-2
D3 Description of available soils data
IV
IV-2
D4 Description of BMPs used
IV
IV-2
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
IV
IV-2
D6 Runoff coefficients
IV
IV-2
D7 Names of receiving waters
IV
IV-2
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IV
IV-2
E UPDATE SWPPP
IV
IV-1
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IV
IV-1
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IV
IV-1
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IV
rv-4
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IV
rv-3
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IV
rv-3
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle IspectBMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IV
IV-2
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IV
IV-2
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IV
IV-2
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-27
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Kentucky
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Kentucky Best Management Practices for Construction Activities (Doc #T
Field Handbook; Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites (Doc #2]
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES
SECTION
PAGE
BMP-B1
Where site conditions preclude use of sufficient erosion controls - no acreage
specified.
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
150
BMP-B1
Volume: 1,800 cubic feet of storage per acre
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
152
BMP-B3
Where site conditions preclude use of sufficient erosion controls - no acreage
specified.
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
150
BMP-B3
No specific requirement for equivalent controls, but BMP manual describes additional
ESC practices, assumed to be applied where sediment basin not appropriate (ie, small
sites)
Doc #1 -
BMP-B4
Should be used in conjunction with other BMPs to increase effectiveness
Doc #2 - Field
151/15
BMP-B4
Manual describes BMPs for small sites (ex: silf fence for less than 2 acres)
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
165
BMP-G1
No instructions on general inspection schedule; some discussion of inspection for
specific BMPs are equivalent or more stringent (below):
Doc #1 -
BMP-G1
Inspect sed traps immediately after rainfall and daily during prolonged rainfal
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
172
BMP-G1
Inspect check dams for accumulation after each "significant" rainfal]
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
102
BMP-H
26
BMP-HI
No instructions on general stabilization requirements, but some BMP-specific
discussion (below):
Doc #1 -
BMP-HI
Temporary seeding for exposed soil not scheduled for grading for 3 wks - 1 yea]
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
BMP-HI
Establish vegetation "upon completion of construction" of sediment basir
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
157
BMP-HI
Permanent seeding when exposed for several months
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
30
BMP-HI
Use riprap where erosion potential is high
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
56
BMP-HI
Vegetative filters should be planned and established prior to land disturbing activities
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
183
BMP-I1
Sediment removed from trap at 50% capacity
Handbook
17
BMP-I1
Sediment removed from basin when reaches 60% design capacity (design capacity
reduced by 40%)
Doc #1 - Chapter 4
152, 156
March 2004
D-28
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Louisiana
Storm Water General Permit For Construction Activities, Permit
SECTION
No. LAR100000 Authorization to Discharge Under The
REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Louisiana NPDES System 10/1/1999
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE
10/1/2004
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVD
22
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVD
22
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IVD
24
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IVD
25
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IVD
25
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVD
25
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD
23
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
storm water
IVD
23
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IVD
23
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD
22
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVD
21
D2 General location map
IVD
22
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD
22
D2b Total area of site
IVD
21
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IVD
22
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD
22
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVD
22
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IVD
22
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD
22
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD
22
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD
22
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD
22
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IVD
22
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD
22
D7 Names of receiving waters
IVD
22
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVE
28
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVD
22
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVD
21
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVD
21
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVD
21
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IVE
28
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVD
27
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVD
27
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD
23
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD
24
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD
22
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IVD
22
March 2004
D-29
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Maine
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Discharges from Construction Activities 2/17/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IV D
7868
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IV D
7869
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IV D
7869
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IV D
7869
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
IV D
7868
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IV D
7870
D SWPPP BASIC
IV D
7868
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IV D
7867
D2 General location map
IV D
7868
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IV D
7868
D2b Total area of site
IV D
7868
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IV D
7868
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IV D
7868
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IV D
7868
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IV D
7868
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IV D
7868
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IV D
7868
D3 Description of available soils data
IV D
7868
D4 Description of BMPs used
IV D
7868
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IV D
7868
D6 Runoff coefficients
IV D
7868
D7 Names of receiving waters
IV D
7868
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HIE
7867
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IV D
7868
E UPDATE SWPPP
IV C
7867
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IV C
7867
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IV C
7867
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
II
7866
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IV D
7870
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IV D
7870
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IV D
7868
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IV D
7868
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IV D
7868
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IV D
7868
March 2004
D-30
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Maryland
Maryland Department of the Environment General Permit for
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Construction Activity General NPDES 97-GP-0004 10/1/1997
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
9/30/2002
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
R7B
1
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
R7B
1
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
P III B
4
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
P II A
2
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
RTB
2
D2 General location map
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
D2b Total area of site
PIIC
3
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D3 Description of available soils data
RTB
2
D4 Description of BMPs used
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
RTB
2
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
PIIC
3
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
PUB
4
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
PV J
6
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
P IV B
5
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
R 7 B
1
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
PVF
6
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
* Inspections weekly and the next business day after a rainfall event resulting in runoff
March 2004
D-31
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Massachusetts
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Construction Activities 2/17/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IV D
7868
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IV D
7869
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IV D
7869
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IV D
7869
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
IV D
7868
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IV D
7870
D SWPPP BASIC
IV D
7868
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IV D
7867
D2 General location map
IV D
7868
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IV D
7868
D2b Total area of site
IV D
7868
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IV D
7868
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IV D
7868
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IV D
7868
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IV D
7868
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IV D
7868
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IV D
7868
D3 Description of available soils data
IV D
7868
D4 Description of BMPs used
IV D
7868
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
IV D
7868
D6 Runoff coefficients
IV D
7868
D7 Names of receiving waters
IV D
7868
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HIE
7867
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IV D
7868
E UPDATE SWPPP
IV C
7867
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IV C
7867
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IV C
7867
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
II
7866
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IV D
7870
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IV D
7870
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IV D
7868
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IV D
7868
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IV D
7868
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IV D
7868
March 2004
D-32
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Michigan
SECTION
REFERENCED
Michigan's Permit By Rule for Construction
DOCUMENT:
Activities 11/13/1992
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
NOC
2
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
NOC
2
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
PBR
1
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant
in stormwater
C2 Description ofwate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
PBR
1
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
NOC
2
D2 General location map
PBR
1
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
D2b Total area of site
NOC
1
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
D2e Locations of stabilization practices
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
PBR
1
D3 Description of available soils data
NOC
1
D4 Description of BMPs used
NOC
2
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
NOC
2
D6 Runoff coefficients
NOC
2
D7 Names of receiving waters
NOC
1
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
NOC
1
E UPDATE SWPPP
PBR
1
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
NOC
2
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
PBR
1
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
PBR
1
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
NOC
2
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
PBR
1
III Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percenl
* Inspection once per week and within 24 hours after every precipitation event that results in a discharge from the site.
March 2004
D-33
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Michigan
DOCUMENT:
Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds (DEQ)
Reprinted October, 1998
SECTION REFERENCED
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES
SECTION
PAGE
BMPs-Bl
Applicable to all land uses. No acreage specified. Capacity should be 1 inch of runoff from the
entire drainage area to the sediment pond pluss expected soil volume from USLE.
SB
1
BMPs-B2
Applicable to all land uses. No acreage specified. Capacity should be 1 inch of runoff from the
entire drainage area to the sediment pond pluss expected soil volume from USLE.
SB
1
March 2004
D-34
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Minnesota
SECTION
REFERENCED
Minnesota General Permit Authorization to Discharge
Storm Water Associated with a Construction Activity
Under the NPDES / State Disposal System Permit
DOCUMENT: Program, MNR110000 10/4/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 10/3/2003
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
ID
6
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
ID
6
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required 11800 ft3
ID
6
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
APPB
11
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
D2 General location map
APP A (D)
10
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
D2b Total area of site
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
APP A (D)
10
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
APP A (D)
10
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
APP A (D)
10
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
APP A (D)
10
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
APP A (D)
10
D3 Description of available soils data
D4 Description of BMPs used
APP A (D)
10
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
APP A (D)
10
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
APP A (D)
10
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
APP A (D)
9
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
APP A(F)
10
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
ID
7
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
ID
7
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
ID
5
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
ID
7
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
* Inspections once every 7 days and within 24 hours after every rain event, which results in runoff leaving the construction site or entering waters of the state.
March 2004
D-35
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Mississippi
SECTION
REFERENCED
State of Mississippi MDEQ Office of Pollution Control Water Pollution
DOCUMENT: Control Storm Water Construction General Permit 3/28/2000
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 3/27/2005
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IIIC
5
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IIIC
5
B1 Sediment Basin 10 ormore acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required 11800 FT3
IIIC
5
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IIIC
5
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in storm water
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IIIC
5
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
lie
6
D2 General location map
lie
6
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
lie
6
D2b Total area of site
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
lie
6
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
lie
6
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D3 Description of available soils data
D4 Description of BMPs used
lie
5
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
lie
6
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
IIIA
4
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IIIA
4
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IIIA
4
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IIIA
8
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVD
7
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVD
7
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IIIC
6
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IIIC
6
* Once every 7 days, within 24 hours after commencement of a rainfall event greater than or equal to a two year 24 hour storm event, 6 inches on the Gulf coast to 4
inches at the Tennesee state border.
March 2004
D-36
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Mississippi
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Planning and Design Manual for the Control of Erosion, Sediment and Storm water
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES
SECTION
PAGE
BMPs-Bl
Recommended for >5 acres along with check dam, diversion, grade stabilization, slope drains
Chapter 3
Table 3-1
BMPs-Bl
Volume: 67 cubic yards (1,809 cubic feet) of storage per acre
Chapter 4
(4-21)
BMPs-Bl
Recommended for 2-5 acres along with check dam and diversior
Chapter 3
Table 3-1
BMPs-B4
No specific requirement for equivalent controls, but BMP manual describes additional ESC
practices, assumed to be applied where sediment basin not appropriate
BMPs-Gl
No instructions on general inspection schedule; some discussion of inspection for specific BMPs are
equivalent or more stringent (below):
BMPs-Gl
Major inspections can be performed once or twice a year, but brief inspections should be conducted
after major storms (SW Ret. Basin)
Chapter 4
Retention Basins
(4-107)
BMPs-Gl
Inspect silt fences immediately after rainfall and daily during prolonged rainfal
Chapter 4
35)
BMPs-Gl
Inspections weekly and after every rainfall (sample ESC plan
Chapter 7
Plan
BMPs-Hl
Protective cover required for all disturbed areas within 30 days of grading
Chapter 3
Seeding (5-44)
BMPs-Hl
Embankment of Sediment Basin stabilized within 15 days of completior
Chapter 4
(4-23)
BMPs-Il
Remove when sed basin volume reduced to 27 cubic yards per acre (design capacity reduced by
about 60%), sediment never higher than one foot below riser
Chapter 4
Sediment Basin
(4-21)
BMPs-Il
Remove sediment at 50% capacity (sample ESC plan
Chapter 7
Plan
March 2004
D-37
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Missouri
SECTION
REFERENCED
Missouri DNR Storm Water Permit Requirements for Land Disturbance
DOCUMENT: Activities 12/1/1998
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 1/2/2002
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
TB
4
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
TB
4
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
TB
4
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
E 7.5
1
D SWPPP BASIC
TB
4
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
G
1
D2 General location map
E 7.6
1
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
D2b Total area of site
G6
1
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
TB
4
D2e Locations of stabilization practices
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
E 7
1
D3 Description of available soils data
G 13
1
D4 Description of BMPs used
TB
4
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
D6 Runoff coefficients
G 14
2
D7 Names of receiving waters
E 7
1
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
G 13
1
E UPDATE SWPPP
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
E 8
1
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
TB
4
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-38
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Montana
Montana Department of Environmental Quality Authorization to Discharge
SECTION
Under the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit
REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity 6/8/2002
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/2006
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVG
16
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVG
16
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IVG
15
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVG
15
D2 General location map
IVG
15
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVG
15
D2b Total area of site
IVG
15
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVG
15
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVG
15
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVG
15
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IC
6
D3 Description of available soils data
IVG
16
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVG
16
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
IVG
15
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVG
16
D7 Names of receiving waters
IC
6
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IC
6
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVD
14
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVD
14
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVD
14
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IVH
21
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IIIA
10
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IIIA
10
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVG
16
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
VN
22
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-39
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Nebraska
SECTION REFERENCED
Authorization to Discharge Under the State of Nebraska NPDES,
NER100000 A General NPDES permit for storm water discharges from
DOCUMENT: construction sites to waters in the State of Nebraska 8/1/02
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 7/31/02
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
Permit - D4
12
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
Permit - D4
12
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
Permit - D3
12
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
Permit - D2
9
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
Permit - D3
10
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
Permit - D3
10
D2 General location map
Permit - D2
9
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
Permit - D2
9
D2b Total area of site
NOI 3
2
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
Permit - D2
9
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
Permit - D2
9
D3 Description of available soils data
D4 Description of BMPs used
Permit - D3
10
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
Permit - D2
9
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
NOI 4
2
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
H
33
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
Permit - D3
10
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
Permit - D3
10
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
Permit - APP C
H
34
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
Permit - D4
12
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Permit - D4
12
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
Permit - D3
12
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
Permit - D5
12
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
* Inspect once per month and within 24 hours after precipitation of 0.5 inches or more.
March 2004
D-40
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Nevada
General Permit for Stormwater Associated with
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Construction Activity 9/16/02
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE
9/15/07
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IB
10
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IB
10
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IB
10
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IB
10
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IB
10
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IB
10
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IB
8
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming
pollutant in stormwater
IB
8
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IB
11
D SWPPP BASIC
IB
6
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IB
7
D2 General location map
IB
7
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IB
7
D2b Total area of site
IB
7
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IB
7
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IB
7
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IB
7
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IB
7
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IB
7
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IB
7
D3 Description of available soils data
IB
7
D4 Description of BMPs used
IB
8
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
IB
8
D6 Runoff coefficients
IB
7
D7 Names of receiving waters
IB
7
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IB
7
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IB
7
E UPDATE SWPPP
IB
13
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IB
13
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IIB
16
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IB
12
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5
IB
12
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IB
9
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IB
9
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IB
8
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IB
8
March 2004
D-41
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
New Hampshire
NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Activities 2/17/98
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IV D
7868
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IV D
7869
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IV D
7869
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IV D
7869
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
IV D
7868
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IV D
7870
D SWPPP BASIC
IV D
7868
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IV D
7867
D2 General location map
IV D
7868
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IV D
7868
D2b Total area of site
IV D
7868
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IV D
7868
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IV D
7868
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IV D
7868
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IV D
7868
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IV D
7868
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IV D
7868
D3 Description of available soils data
IV D
7868
D4 Description of BMPs used
IV D
7868
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IV D
7868
D6 Runoff coefficients
IV D
7868
D7 Names of receiving waters
IV D
7868
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HIE
7867
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IV D
7868
E UPDATE SWPPP
IV C
7867
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IV C
7867
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IV C
7867
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
II
7866
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IV D
7870
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IV D
7870
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IV D
7868
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IV D
7868
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IV D
7868
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IV D
7868
March 2004
D-42
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
New Jersey
NJ DOA Application for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Certification 4/1/99
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
NJ DEP General Permit for Construction and Mining Activity 3/1/02
RFA - NPDES NJ0088323 Request for Authorization Form 5/1/97
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 2/18/07
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
DOA
2
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
DOA
2
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
storm water
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
DOA
1
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
DOA
2
D2 General location map
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
DOA
2
D2b Total area of site
DOA
1
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
DOA
2
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
DOA
2
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
DOA
2
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
RFA
2
D3 Description of available soils data
DOA
4
D4 Description of BMPs used
DOA
2
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
D6 Runoff coefficients
DOA
5
D7 Names of receiving waters
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
DOA
8
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
DOA
7
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
DEP-E
6
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
DEP-E
6
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
ANNUAL
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
DOA
2
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
DOA
7
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-43
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
New Mexico
NPDEs General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Activities in Region 6 7/6/98
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 7/7/03
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVD
36503
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVD
36503
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IVD
36504
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IVD
36504
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IVD
36504
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVD
36504
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD
36503
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
IVD
36503
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IVD
36504
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD
36502
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVD
36502
D2 General location map
IVD
36503
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD
36503
D2b Total area of site
IVD
36503
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IVD
36503
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD
36503
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVD
36503
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IVD
36503
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD
36503
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD
36503
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD
36503
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD
36503
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IVD
36503
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD
36503
D7 Names of receiving waters
IVD
36503
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVD
36503
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVD
36503
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVE
36502
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVE
36502
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVE
36502
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IVG
36507
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVC
36505
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVC
36505
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD
36503
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD
36503
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD
36503
|ll Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IVD
36503
March 2004
D-44
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: New York
SECTION REFERENCED
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial
DOCUMENT: Activity From Construction Activities, GP-93-06 8/1/93
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 8/1/98
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
HID
11
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
HID
11
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
HID
12
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
HID
12
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
HID
12
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
HID
13
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
HID
13
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
III
8
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
HID
10
D2 General location map
HID
10
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
HID
10
D2b Total area of site
HID
10
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
HID
10
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
HID
10
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
HID
10
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
HID
10
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
HID
10
D3 Description of available soils data
HID
10
D4 Description of BMPs used
HID
10
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
HID
10
D6 Runoff coefficients
HID
10
D7 Names of receiving waters
HID
10
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HIE
16
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
HID
10
E UPDATE SWPPP
IIIC
9
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IIIC
9
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IIIC
9
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
HID
13
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
HID
14
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
HID
14
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
G1 a Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
HID
11
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
HID
1
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
HID
14
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-45
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: North Carolina
SECTION REFERENCED
State of North Carolina Department of Environment And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality General Permit to Discharge Stormwater Under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (Doc #1) 10/1/01
NC DENR Erosion and Sediment Control Checklist (Doc #2) 11/23/98
DOCUMENT: NCGA General Statutes - Approval of erosion control plans (Doc #3)
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 10/30/06
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D2 General location map
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D2b Total area of site
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D3 Description of available soils data
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D4 Description of BMPs used
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D6 Runoff coefficients
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D7 Names of receiving waters
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
Doc #3 - REG
1
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
Doc #1 - IIB
11
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
Doc #1 - IB
5
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Doc #1 - IB
5
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
Doc #2 - Chklist
1
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
*prohibits off-site sedimentation but permits owner/developer to determing most economical, effective means of ESC.
March 2004
D-46
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE
DOCUMENT:
North Carolina
SECTION REFERENCED
Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual (Doc #4)
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual (Doc #5)
Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector's Guide (Doc #6)
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES*
SECTION
PAGE
BMP-B1
Volume: 1,800 cubic feet of storage
Doc #4 - Practice
Installation
6.61.1
BMP-B1
Sediment basins applicable for >2 acres
Doc #5 - Section 5
5.2
BMP-B1
Applicable where erosion control measures not adequate
Doc #5 - Section 6
6.61.1
BMP-B3
Sediment traps applicable for <5 acres; Basins for >2 acres
BMP-B4
No specific requirement for equivalent controls, but BMP manual describes
additional ESC practices and requirements, assumed to be applied where
sediment basin not appropriate (below):
BMP-B4
"sediment must be contained onsite" by law
Doc #4 - Practice
Installation
1.1
BMP-B4
Sediment fence applicable to sites <2 acres
Doc #5 - Section 5
5.2
BMP-G1
No instructions on general inspection schedule; some discussion of inspection
for specific BMPs are equivalent or more stringent (below):
BMP-G1
Inspect after each rainfall
Doc #4 - Practice
Installation
6.60.5
BMP-G1
Inspect after each rainfall
Doc #5 - Section 6
6.60.5,6.61.7
BMP-HI
Stabilization within 30 working days or 120 calendar days, unless in High
Quality Waters Zone (15 working or 60 calendar)
Doc #6 - Section 3
3.3
BMP-HI
Stablilize within 30 working days
Doc #5 - Section 6
6.10.1
BMP-I1
Sediment basins and traps - clean out at 50% design capacity
Doc #4 - Practice
Installation
6.60.5,6.61.8
BMP-I1
Sediment basins and traps - clean out at 50% design capacity
Doc #5 - Section 6
6.60.2
March 2004
D-47
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
North Dakota
Authorization to Discharge Under the North Dakota Pollutant
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Discharge Elimination Sytem 10/1/99
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 9/30/04
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IIC
7
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
lie
7
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming
pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IIC
6
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IIC
6
D2 General location map
IIC
6
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IIC
6
D2b Total area of site
IIC
6
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IIC
6
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IIC
6
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IIC
6
D3 Description of available soils data
IIC
6
D4 Description of BMPs used
IIC
7
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to
construction schedule
IIC
7
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
IIC
6
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
IIC
6
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IIC
6
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IIC
6
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IIC
8
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IIC
8
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5
IIB
9
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IG
4
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IIC
8
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-48
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Ohio
SECTION REFERENCED
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Authorization for Storm Water
DOCUMENT: Discharges Associated With Construction Activity Under NPDES 10/26/92
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 4/26/94
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IIIC
6
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IIIC
6
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IIIC
6
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
storm water
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IIIC
4
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IIIC
5
D2 General location map
IIIC
5
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IIIC
5
D2b Total area of site
IIIC
5
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IIIC
5
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IIIC
5
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IIIC
5
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D3 Description of available soils data
IIIC
5
D4 Description of BMPs used
IIIC
5
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IIIC
5
D6 Runoff coefficients
IIIC
5
D7 Names of receiving waters
IIIC
5
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IIIC
5
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IIIC
5
E UPDATE SWPPP
IIIC
5
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IIIC
5
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IIIC
5
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
VH
11
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IIIC
8
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IIIC
8
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IIIC
6
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IIIC
6
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IIIC
6
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-49
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Oklahoma
General Permit OKR10 For Storm Water Discharges from Construction
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Activities Within the State of Oklahoma 10/13/02
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 10/12/07
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVE
14
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVE
15
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IVE
15
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IVE
15
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IVE
15
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVE
15
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVE
14
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
IVE
16
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IVE
12
D SWPPP BASIC
IVE
12
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVE
12
D2 General location map
IVE
12
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVE
12
D2b Total area of site
IVE
12
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IVE
12
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVE
12
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVE
12
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IVE
12
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVE
13
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVE
13
D3 Description of available soils data
IVE
12
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVE
13
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IVE
13
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVE
12
D7 Names of receiving waters
IVE
13
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVF
18
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVE
12
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVD
12
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVD
12
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVD
12
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
VIG
21
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVE
17
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVE
17
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVE
14
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVE
14
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVE
14
|ll Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IVE
14
March 2004
D-50
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Oregon
General Permit NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit for Construction
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Activities 12/1/02
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 12/31/05
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
A3
3
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
A3
3
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
A3
5
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
A3
3
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
A3
3
D2 General location map
A3
3
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
A3
3
D2b Total area of site
A3
3
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
A3
3
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
A3
3
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
A3
3
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
A3
3
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
A3
3
D3 Description of available soils data
A3
3
D4 Description of BMPs used
A3
4
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
A3
4
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
A3
3
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
B7
9
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
B1
8
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
B1
8
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
B1
8
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
A6
7
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
A4
5
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
A4
5
March 2004
D-51
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Pennsylvania
Instructions for a General OR Individual NPDES Permit for Discharges of
Stormwater Associated with Construction Activities (Doc #1) 8/1/01
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Content (363-2134-008) (Doc #2) 4/15/00
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Fact Sheet: Stormwater Permits for Construction Activities (Doc #3) 2/1/01
PA General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction Activities (Doc #4) 12/1/02
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 12/1/07
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
Doc #1 - A
2
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
Doc #1 - A
2
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
Doc #3 - 10
1
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
Doc #1
1
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
Doc #1 - A
2
D2 General location map
Doc #2 - 1
1
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
Doc #2 - 1
1
D2b Total area of site
Doc #1 - A
2
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
Doc #2
1
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
Doc #2
1
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
Doc #2 - C
1
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
Doc #1 - A
3
D3 Description of available soils data
Doc #1 - A
2
D4 Description of BMPs used
Doc #1 - A
2
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
Doc #3 - 10
1
D6 Runoff coefficients
Doc #1 - A
2
D7 Names of receiving waters
Doc #1 - A
3
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
Doc #1 - A
2
E UPDATE SWPPP
Doc #4
1
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
Doc #4
1
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
Doc #1 - G
4
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
Doc #2
3
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
Doc #2
3
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
Doc #3 - 10
1
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
* A maintenance program which provides for inspection of BMPs on a weekly basis and alter each measureable rainfall event, including the repair of BMPs to ensurt
effective and efficient operation.
March 2004
D-52
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE
Pennsylvania
SECTION
DOCUMENT:
PA DEP Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Manual (Doc #5) 4/15/00
REFERENCED
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES
SECTION
PAGE
BMP-B1
Minimum required dewatering zone is at least 3,600 cubic feet per acre
Doc #5
42
BMP-B3
Sediment traps used when <5 acres
Doc #5
64
BMP-B4
Vegetative filter strip, etc.
Doc #5
82
Sediment must be removed from the trap when the storage volume has been
BMP-I1
reduced to 1,300 cubic feet per acre of contributing drainage area.
Doc #5
69
March 2004
D-53
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: Puerto Rico
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT: NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities 2/17/98
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IV D
7868
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IV D
7869
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IV D
7869
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IV D
7869
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IV D
7868
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
IV D
7868
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IV D
7870
D SWPPP BASIC
IV D
7868
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IV D
7867
D2 General location map
IV D
7868
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IV D
7868
D2b Total area of site
IV D
7868
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IV D
7868
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IV D
7868
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IV D
7868
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IV D
7868
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IV D
7868
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IV D
7868
D3 Description of available soils data
IV D
7868
D4 Description of BMPs used
IV D
7868
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
IV D
7868
D6 Runoff coefficients
IV D
7868
D7 Names of receiving waters
IV D
7868
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HIE
7867
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IV D
7868
E UPDATE SWPPP
IV C
7867
E1 SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IV C
7867
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IV C
7867
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
II
7866
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IV D
7870
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IV D
7870
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
G1 a Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IV D
7868
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IV D
7868
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IV D
7868
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IV D
7868
March 2004
D-54
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Rhode Island
SECTION
REFERENCED
General Permit Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge Ellimination System Storm Water
DOCUMENT:
Discharge Associated with Construction Activity 3/1/98
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 3/19/03
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVE
7
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVE
7
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVE
8
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in storm water
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IV
5
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVE
6
D2 General location map
IVE
6
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVE
6
D2b Total area of site
IIIA
4
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVE
6
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVE
6
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVE
6
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D3 Description of available soils data
IVE
7
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVE
7
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
D6 Runoff coefficients
IIIA
4
D7 Names of receiving waters
IIIA
4
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVE
7
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVD
6
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVD
6
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IID
4
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IIB
3
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IIB
3
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVE
7
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVE
7
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVE
7
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-55
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: South Carolina
SECTION REFERENCED
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control NPDES
DOCUMENT: General Permit for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities 1/15/98
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 1/31/03
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVD
14
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVD
14
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IVD
14
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IVD
14
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVD
14
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD
14
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD
12
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVD
12
D2 General location map
IVD
13
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD
13
D2b Total area of site
IVD
13
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD
13
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVD
13
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD
13
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD
13
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD
13
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD
13
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
IVD
13
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD
13
D7 Names of receiving waters
IVD
13
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVE
17
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IIB
9
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVC
12
E1 SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVC
12
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVC
12
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IVE
17
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVD
16
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVD
16
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
G1 a Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD
13
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD
13
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD
16
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
RULE EQ
* NOTE: BMP Manual - no state BMP manual exists; S.Carolina DEHC refers anyone requesting additional information to the EPA guidance document
on erosion and sediment control permitting; information here is from a handbook describing permit compliance request.
March 2004
D-56
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE: South Dakota
SECTION REFERENCED
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources General
DOCUMENT: Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity 7/1/01
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 7/30/07
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
4.2
9
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
4.2
9
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
4.2
9
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
4.2
10
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
4.2
9
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in storm water
4.2
10
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
4.2
10
D SWPPP BASIC
4.2
8
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
4.2
8
D2 General location map
4.2
8
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
4.2
8
D2b Total area of site
4.2
8
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
4.2
8
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
4.2
8
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
4.2
9
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
4.2
8
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
4.2
8
D3 Description of available soils data
4.2
8
D4 Description of BMPs used
4.2
8
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
4.2
8
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
4.2
8
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
4.2
12
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
4.2
12
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
4.2
12
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
6.7
15
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
4.2
11
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
4.2
11
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
4.2
9
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
4.2
9
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
4.2
9
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
4.2
9
March 2004
D-57
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
T ennessee
Tennessee General Permit No TNR10-0000 Storm Water Discharges from
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Construction Activities nd
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVD
14
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVD
14
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IVD
16
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVD
16
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD
14
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
IVD
14
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD
13
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVD
13
D2 General location map
IVD
14
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD
14
D2b Total area of site
IVD
13
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IVD
14
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD
14
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVD
14
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IVD
15
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD
14
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD
14
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD
14
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD
14
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
IVD
14
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD
14
D7 Names of receiving waters
IVD
14
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVD
14
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVD
14
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVC
13
E1 SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVC
1
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVC
13
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IVD
22
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVD
18
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVD
18
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
G1 a Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD
14
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD
14
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD
14
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IVD
14
March 2004
D-58
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE
Tennessee
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook
BMP MANUAL GUIDELINES
SECTION
PAGE
BMP-B1
Required at sites > 10 acres
Structural Practices
SB-1
BMP-B1
Volume: 1809 cubic feet of storage
Structural Practices
SB-2
BMP-B3
Sediment traps used below 10 acres
Structural Practices
ST-1
BMP-B3
Sediment controls must total 134 cubic yards (3618 cubic feet) of storage per acre
Structural Practices
ST-1
BMP-B4
For sites 10 acres or more where sed basin not feasible, at least 3618 cubic feet of
storage required per acre for alternate controls
Structural Practices
SB-4
BMP-G1
Inspect ESC measures before anticipated storm events and after events > 0.5
inches and every 14 days
Structural Practices
CRS-3, MA-3,
etc.
BMP-G1
When sites stabilized, can inspect monthly
Structural Practices
etc.
BMP-HI
No instructions on general stabilization requirements, but some BMP-specific
discussion (below):
BMP-HI
Stabilization of concentrated flow areas and steep slopes w/ ESC matting
Structural Practices
MA-1
BMP-HI
BMP-I1
Stabilization of basin "immediately after construction"
Structural Practices
SB-23
Remove from basin within 1 foot from dewatering orifice or at 50% design
capacity, whichever comes first
Structural Practices
SB-20
BMP-I1
Remove sediment from traps at 1/2 design volume
Structural Practices
ST-3
March 2004
D-59
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Texas
NPDEs General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Activities in Region 6
7/6/98
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
7/7/03
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IVD
36503
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IVD
36503
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IVD
36504
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IVD
36504
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IVD
36504
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IVD
36504
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IVD
36503
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in storm water
IVD
36503
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IVD
36504
D SWPPP BASIC
IVD
36502
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IVD
36502
D2 General location map
IVD
36503
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IVD
36503
D2b Total area of site
IVD
36503
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IVD
36503
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IVD
36503
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IVD
36503
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IVD
36503
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IVD
36503
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IVD
36503
D3 Description of available soils data
IVD
36503
D4 Description of BMPs used
IVD
36503
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
IVD
36503
D6 Runoff coefficients
IVD
36503
D7 Names of receiving waters
IVD
36503
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
IVD
36503
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IVD
36503
E UPDATE SWPPP
IVE
36502
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IVE
36502
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IVE
36502
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IVG
36507
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVC
36505
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVC
36505
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IVD
36503
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IVD
36503
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IVD
36503
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IVD
36503
March 2004
D-60
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Utah
State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality
SECTION
Authorization to Discharge Under the Utah NPDES Storm Water General Permit for
REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Construction Activities
10/1/97
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
9/30/02
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
HID
10
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
HID
10
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
HID
10
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
HID
11
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
HID
10
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
HID
9
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
HID
9
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
HID
12
D SWPPP BASIC
HID
6
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
HID
7
D2 General location map
HID
8
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
HID
8
D2b Total area of site
HID
7
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
HID
8
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
HID
8
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
HID
8
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
HID
9
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
HID
8
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
HID
8
D3 Description of available soils data
HID
7
D4 Description of BMPs used
HID
8
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
HID
8
D6 Runoff coefficients
HID
7
D7 Names of receiving waters
HID
8
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HIE
5
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
HID
7
E UPDATE SWPPP
IIIC
7
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IIIC
7
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IIIC
7
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
IIIG
17
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
HID
13
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
HID
13
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
G1 a Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
G1 c Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
HID
9
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
HID
9
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
RULE EQ
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
HID
9
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
HID
9
March 2004
D-61
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Vermont
State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental
SECTION
Conservation, General Permit 3-9001(2002) For Stormwater Runoff From
REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Construction Sites, NPDES VTR100000 nd
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IIIB
6
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IIIB
6
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
*
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
III
5
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IIIC
7
D2 General location map
IIIC
7
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IIIC
7
D2b Total area of site
IIIC
7
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IIIC
7
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IIIC
7
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IIIC
7
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D3 Description of available soils data
IIIC
7
D4 Description of BMPs used
IIIC
7
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
IIIF
8
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IIIF
8
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IIIF
8
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IIIC
7
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
VC
9
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
**
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IIIC
6
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
VA
9
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
* See Vermont Handbook for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites, Chapters 4 and 5, and Appendix B
** Inspect every 7 days and 24 hours after "any storm event which generates a discharge of stormwater runoff from the construction site."
March 2004
D-62
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Virginia
General Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Regulation for Discharges of Storm Water From Construction Activities 12/4/02
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 6/30/04
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
IID
12
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
IID
12
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
IID
13
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
IID
13
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
IID
13
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
IID
13
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
IID
12
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
IID
12
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
IID
14
D SWPPP BASIC
II
9
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
IID
11
D2 General location map
IID
11
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
IID
11
D2b Total area of site
IID
11
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
IID
11
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
IID
11
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
IID
11
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
IID
12
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
IID
11
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
IID
11
D3 Description of available soils data
IID
11
D4 Description of BMPs used
IID
12
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
IID
12
D6 Runoff coefficients
IID
11
D7 Names of receiving waters
IID
11
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
HE
16
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
IID
11
E UPDATE SWPPP
IIC
10
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IIC
10
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
IIC
10
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
HE
16
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IID
15
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IID
15
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
*
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
IID
12
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
IID
12
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
IID
12
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
IID
12
* Inspect every 14 days and within 48 hours of storm event.
March 2004
D-63
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Washington
NPDES and State Waste Discharge General Permit For Stormwater
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Discharges Associated with Construction Activities 11/18/00
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 11/18/05
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
S9C
12
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
S9C
12
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
S9
10
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
D2 General location map
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
D2b Total area of site
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D3 Description of available soils data
D4 Description of BMPs used
S9C
11
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
schedule
S9C
12
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
S9B
11
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
S9B
11
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
S9B
11
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
SIC
6
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
S9C
13
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
S9C
13
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
Gla Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
S913
12
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
S9C
13
111 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-64
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
West Virginia
SECTION
REFERENCED
West Virginia NPDES General Water Pollution Control Permit, Storm Water
DOCUMENT:
Associated With Construction Activities
12/5/02
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
12/4/07
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
G4
18
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
G4
18
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
G4
18
Size of Sediment Basin Required
RULE EQ
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
G4
18
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
G4
18
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
G4
21
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
G4
14
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
G4
16
D2 General location map
G4
17
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
G4
17
D2b Total area of site
G4
16
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
G4
17
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
G4
17
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
G4
17
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
G4
17
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
D3 Description of available soils data
G4
17
D4 Description of BMPs used
G4
17
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
G4
17
D6 Runoff coefficients
D7 Names of receiving waters
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
G4
17
E UPDATE SWPPP
G4
17
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
G4
22
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
G4
22
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
G1 a Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
G4
17
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
G4
17
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
G4
22
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
March 2004
D-65
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Wisconsin
SECTION
Chapter NR 216 Storm Water Discharge Permits Subchapter III
REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Construction Site Storm Water Discharge Permits
10/1/02
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
216.46
149
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
216.46
149
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
216.46
149
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
216.46
149
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
216.46
149
D2 General location map
216.46
149
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
216.46
149
D2b Total area of site
216.46
149
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
216.46
149
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
216.46
149
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
216.46
149
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
216.46
149
D3 Description of available soils data
216.46
149
D4 Description of BMPs used
216.46
149
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction schedule
216.46
149
D6 Runoff coefficients
216.46
149
D7 Names of receiving waters
216.46
149
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
216.5
150
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
216.5
150
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
216.5
150
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
216.43
148
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
216.48
150
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
216.48
150
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
G1 a Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
216.46
149
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
*
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
216.47
150
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
* Stabilize as soon as possible.
March 2004
D-66
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
STATE:
Wyoming
Authorization To Discharge Storm Water Associated With Construction
SECTION REFERENCED
DOCUMENT:
Activity Under The NPDES nd
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 8/31/02
SECTION
PAGE
A GENERAL EROSION AND SED CONTROL BASIC
BB
22
B SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIC
BB
22
B1 Sediment Basin 10 or more acres
Size of Sediment Basin Required
NA
B2 Operator consider public safety
B3 Sediment Basin less than 10 acres
B4 Equivalent Sediment controls
C POLLUTION CONTROL BASIC
BB
23
CI Litter, construction chemicals, and debris prevented from becoming pollutant in
stormwater
C2 Description of wate stored on-site
D SWPPP BASIC
III
6
D1 Description of construction activity and sequence
BA
21
D2 General location map
BA
22
D2a Drainage patterns and slopes
BA
2
D2b Total area of site
BA
21
D2c Areas that will not be disturbed
D2d Locations of structural and nonstructural controls
BA
22
D2e Locations of stabilization practies
BA
22
D2f Locations of off-site material, waste, equipment storage areas
D2g Surface waters / wetlands
BA
22
D2h Locations of storm water discharges
BA
22
D3 Description of available soils data
D4 Description of BMPs used
BA
22
D5 Description of general timing when BMPs implemented in relation to construction
BA
22
D6 Runoff coefficients
BA
22
D7 Names of receiving waters
BA
22
D8 SWPPP implementation responsibilities
D9 Storm water runoff characteristics
E UPDATE SWPPP
IIIH
8
El SWPPP amended when change in design, construction or maintenance
IIIH
8
E2 SWPPP amended when inspection
F SITE LOG BOOK / CERTIFICATION BASIC
VIIJ
11
F1 Copy of site log book on site
F2 Operator certify SWPPP prepared correctly
F3 Operator have qualified professional conduct assessment
F4 Operator post inspection on site
G SITE INSPECTIONS BASIC
IVA
8
G1 Inspections every 14 days and within 24 hours of storm greater than 0.5 inches
IVA
8
Inspection Frequency (if specified as other than CGP)
7 DAYS
G1 a Record extent of initial disturbance
Gib Record sites undergone temp/perm stabilization
Glc Record sites not undergone work
Gld Inspect sediment control practices
Gle Ispect BMPs
G2 Final inspection prior to NOT
H STABILIZATION BASIC
BB
22
HI Stabilization initiated by day 14 where applicable
Stabilization time (if specified as other than CGP)
NA
I MAINTENANCE BASIC
VIIQ
12
11 Sediment removed from traps when design capacity reduced by 50 percent
VIIQ
12
March 2004
D-67
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
March 2004 D-68
-------
Appendix E
State Distribution of Construction Sites by Site Size,
Land Use and Erosive Risk
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table E-l. State Distribution of Construction Sites by Size, Land Use and Erosive Risk
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
AL
Low Erosive Risk
332
172
1688
84
Moderate Erosive Risk
387
201
1966
98
High Erosive Risk
442
229
2244
111
0.5
362
90
1920
99
3
311
211
2570
140
7.5
188
128
621
25
25
238
149
657
20
70
41
21
130
8
200
20
2
0
0
AR
Low Erosive Risk
68
35
345
17
Moderate Erosive Risk
207
107
1,053
52
High Erosive Risk
347
180
1,761
87
0.5
194
48
1,029
53
3
166
113
1,377
75
7.5
101
69
333
14
25
128
80
352
11
70
22
11
69
4
200
11
1
-
-
AZ
Low Erosive Risk
149
77
756
37
Moderate Erosive Risk
235
122
1,197
59
High Erosive Risk
34
18
175
9
0.5
131
33
693
36
3
112
76
927
50
7.5
68
46
224
9
25
86
54
237
7
70
15
7
47
3
200
7
1
-
-
CA
Low Erosive Risk
685
354
3,486
172
Moderate Erosive Risk
838
434
4,264
210
High Erosive Risk
511
264
2,598
128
0.5
636
158
3,370
173
3
545
369
4,510
245
7.5
329
225
1,089
44
25
418
262
1,152
35
70
71
35
227
13
200
35
3
-
-
March, 2004
E-l
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
CO
Low Erosive Risk
141
73
716
35
Moderate Erosive Risk
212
110
1,080
53
High Erosive Risk
60
31
308
15
0.5
129
32
685
35
3
111
75
917
50
7.5
67
46
221
9
25
85
53
234
7
70
14
7
46
2
200
7
1
-
-
CT
Low Erosive Risk
23
12
114
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
48
25
246
12
High Erosive Risk
74
38
377
19
0.5
45
11
240
12
3
39
26
321
18
7.5
23
16
78
3
25
30
19
82
3
70
5
3
16
1
200
3
-
-
-
DE
Low Erosive Risk
39
20
196
10
Moderate Erosive Risk
28
15
144
7
High Erosive Risk
18
9
92
5
0.5
27
7
141
7
3
23
15
188
10
7.5
14
9
45
2
25
17
11
48
1
70
3
2
10
1
200
1
-
-
-
FL
Low Erosive Risk
1,884
976
9,584
475
Moderate Erosive Risk
1,011
524
5,145
255
High Erosive Risk
139
72
705
35
0.5
948
236
5,026
259
3
813
551
6,726
367
7.5
491
336
1,624
67
25
624
391
1,719
52
70
106
55
339
19
200
52
5
-
-
March, 2004
E-2
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
GA
Low Erosive Risk
1,348
699
6,850
340
Moderate Erosive Risk
1,045
542
5,312
264
High Erosive Risk
743
385
3,774
188
0.5
979
244
5,189
269
3
840
569
6,944
379
7.5
508
347
1,677
69
25
644
404
1,775
55
70
110
57
351
20
200
55
5
-
-
IA
Low Erosive Risk
22
12
113
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
85
44
431
21
High Erosive Risk
147
76
749
37
0.5
79
20
421
22
3
68
46
563
31
7.5
41
28
136
6
25
52
33
144
4
70
9
5
28
2
200
4
-
-
-
ID
Low Erosive Risk
56
29
287
14
Moderate Erosive Risk
279
144
1,426
70
High Erosive Risk
1
-
5
-
0.5
105
26
559
29
3
90
61
749
41
7.5
54
37
181
7
25
69
43
191
6
70
12
6
38
2
200
6
-
-
-
IL
Low Erosive Risk
111
58
565
28
Moderate Erosive Risk
302
157
1,537
76
High Erosive Risk
494
256
2,509
125
0.5
283
71
1,501
78
3
243
165
2,009
110
7.5
147
100
485
20
25
186
117
513
16
70
32
16
102
6
200
16
2
-
-
March, 2004
E-3
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
IN
Low Erosive Risk
75
39
383
19
Moderate Erosive Risk
240
124
1,218
60
High Erosive Risk
404
209
2,053
102
0.5
225
56
1,190
62
3
192
130
1,592
87
7.5
116
80
385
16
25
148
93
407
13
70
25
13
80
5
200
13
1
-
-
KS
Low Erosive Risk
44
23
223
11
Moderate Erosive Risk
117
61
596
30
High Erosive Risk
194
101
986
49
0.5
111
28
588
30
3
95
64
787
43
7.5
58
39
190
8
25
73
46
201
6
70
12
6
40
2
200
6
1
-
-
KY
Low Erosive Risk
57
29
289
14
Moderate Erosive Risk
291
151
1,478
73
High Erosive Risk
525
272
2,668
132
0.5
273
68
1,444
75
3
234
158
1,933
105
7.5
141
97
467
19
25
179
112
494
15
70
31
16
98
6
200
15
2
-
-
LA
Low Erosive Risk
75
39
382
19
Moderate Erosive Risk
164
85
833
41
High Erosive Risk
253
131
1,284
64
0.5
153
38
814
42
3
132
89
1,089
59
7.5
80
54
263
11
25
101
63
278
9
70
17
9
55
3
200
9
1
-
-
March, 2004
E-4
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
MA
Low Erosive Risk
121
63
615
31
Moderate Erosive Risk
260
135
1,321
66
High Erosive Risk
399
207
2,026
101
0.5
244
61
1,290
67
3
209
141
1,726
94
7.5
126
86
417
17
25
160
100
441
14
70
27
14
87
5
200
14
1
-
-
MD
Low Erosive Risk
183
95
933
46
Moderate Erosive Risk
218
113
1,107
55
High Erosive Risk
252
131
1,282
64
0.5
204
51
1,082
56
3
175
119
1,448
79
7.5
106
72
350
14
25
134
84
370
11
70
23
12
73
4
200
11
1
-
-
ME
Low Erosive Risk
64
33
323
16
Moderate Erosive Risk
136
71
693
34
High Erosive Risk
209
108
1,063
53
0.5
128
32
677
35
3
109
74
906
49
7.5
66
45
219
9
25
84
53
231
7
70
14
7
46
3
200
7
1
-
-
MI
Low Erosive Risk
164
85
836
41
Moderate Erosive Risk
447
232
2,270
113
High Erosive Risk
729
378
3,705
184
0.5
419
104
2,218
115
3
359
243
2,968
162
7.5
217
148
717
29
25
275
173
758
23
70
47
24
150
9
200
23
2
-
-
March, 2004
E-5
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
MN
Low Erosive Risk
100
52
509
25
Moderate Erosive Risk
284
147
1,445
72
High Erosive Risk
469
243
2,382
118
0.5
266
66
1,412
73
3
228
155
1,890
103
7.5
138
94
456
19
25
175
110
483
15
70
30
15
95
5
200
15
1
-
-
MO
Low Erosive Risk
79
41
403
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
275
143
1,398
69
High Erosive Risk
471
244
2,393
119
0.5
258
64
1,365
71
3
221
150
1,828
100
7.5
134
91
441
18
25
170
106
467
14
70
29
15
92
5
200
14
1
-
-
MS
Low Erosive Risk
272
141
1,380
68
Moderate Erosive Risk
253
131
1,287
64
High Erosive Risk
235
122
1,193
59
0.5
237
59
1,257
65
3
203
138
1,682
92
7.5
123
84
406
17
25
156
98
430
13
70
27
14
85
5
200
13
1
-
-
MT
Low Erosive Risk
-
-
1
-
Moderate Erosive Risk
279
144
1,424
70
High Erosive Risk
-
-
-
-
0.5
87
22
464
24
3
75
51
622
34
7.5
45
31
150
6
25
58
36
159
5
70
10
5
31
2
200
5
-
-
-
March, 2004
E-6
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
NC
Low Erosive Risk
716
371
3,639
180
Moderate Erosive Risk
622
322
3,159
157
High Erosive Risk
527
273
2,678
133
0.5
582
145
3,086
160
3
499
338
4,130
225
7.5
302
206
997
41
25
383
240
1,055
33
70
65
34
209
12
200
33
3
-
-
ND
Low Erosive Risk
13
7
67
3
Moderate Erosive Risk
49
25
250
12
High Erosive Risk
58
30
296
15
0.5
38
9
200
10
3
32
22
267
15
7.5
20
13
65
3
25
25
16
68
2
70
4
2
14
1
200
2
-
-
-
NE
Low Erosive Risk
37
19
189
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
76
39
385
19
High Erosive Risk
90
47
456
23
0.5
63
16
336
17
3
54
37
449
24
7.5
33
22
108
4
25
42
26
115
4
70
7
4
23
1
200
4
-
-
-
NH
Low Erosive Risk
36
19
182
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
77
40
390
19
High Erosive Risk
118
61
599
30
0.5
72
18
381
20
3
62
42
510
28
7.5
37
25
123
5
25
47
30
130
4
70
8
4
26
1
200
4
-
-
-
March, 2004
E-7
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
NJ
Low Erosive Risk
250
130
1,273
63
Moderate Erosive Risk
262
136
1,332
66
High Erosive Risk
274
142
1,391
69
0.5
246
61
1,301
67
3
211
143
1,741
95
7.5
127
87
421
17
25
161
101
445
14
70
28
14
88
5
200
14
1
-
-
NM
Low Erosive Risk
286
148
1,453
72
Moderate Erosive Risk
409
212
2,084
102
High Erosive Risk
103
53
525
26
0.5
250
62
1,323
68
3
214
145
1,770
96
7.5
129
88
427
17
25
164
103
452
14
70
28
14
89
5
200
14
1
-
-
NV
Low Erosive Risk
39
20
197
10
Moderate Erosive Risk
59
31
300
15
High Erosive Risk
-
-
2
-
0.5
31
8
163
8
3
26
18
218
12
7.5
16
11
53
2
25
20
13
56
2
70
3
2
11
1
200
2
-
-
-
NY
Low Erosive Risk
176
91
893
44
Moderate Erosive Risk
390
202
1,980
98
High Erosive Risk
604
313
3,067
152
0.5
365
91
1,934
100
3
313
212
2,589
141
7.5
189
129
625
26
25
240
151
662
20
70
41
21
131
8
200
21
2
-
-
March, 2004
E-8
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
OH
Low Erosive Risk
121
63
616
31
Moderate Erosive Risk
448
232
2,275
113
High Erosive Risk
774
401
3,933
195
0.5
419
105
2,222
115
3
359
244
2,974
162
7.5
218
149
718
29
25
276
173
760
23
70
47
24
150
9
200
23
2
-
-
OK
Low Erosive Risk
66
34
333
16
Moderate Erosive Risk
220
114
1,120
56
High Erosive Risk
364
189
1,852
92
0.5
203
51
1,076
56
3
174
118
1,440
79
7.5
105
72
348
14
25
134
84
368
11
70
23
12
73
4
200
11
1
-
-
OR
Low Erosive Risk
47
24
241
12
Moderate Erosive Risk
185
95
945
46
High Erosive Risk
148
76
755
36
0.5
119
29
633
32
3
102
69
847
46
7.5
62
42
204
8
25
78
49
216
6
70
13
6
42
2
200
6
-
-
-
PA
Low Erosive Risk
224
116
1,140
57
Moderate Erosive Risk
669
347
3,399
169
High Erosive Risk
1,113
577
5,658
281
0.5
627
156
3,320
172
3
537
364
4,443
242
7.5
325
222
1,073
44
25
412
258
1,136
35
70
71
36
225
13
200
35
4
-
-
March, 2004
E-9
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
RI
Low Erosive Risk
4
2
19
1
Moderate Erosive Risk
8
4
41
2
High Erosive Risk
12
6
63
3
0.5
8
2
40
2
3
7
4
54
3
7.5
4
3
13
1
25
5
3
14
-
70
1
-
3
-
200
-
-
-
-
SC
Low Erosive Risk
593
308
3,013
149
Moderate Erosive Risk
444
230
2,257
112
High Erosive Risk
295
153
1,501
75
0.5
416
104
2,205
114
3
357
242
2,951
161
7.5
216
147
713
29
25
274
172
754
23
70
47
24
149
9
200
23
2
-
-
SD
Low Erosive Risk
24
12
122
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
85
44
432
21
High Erosive Risk
104
54
527
26
0.5
66
17
352
18
3
57
39
471
26
7.5
34
24
114
5
25
44
27
120
4
70
7
4
24
1
200
4
-
-
-
TN
Low Erosive Risk
108
56
547
27
Moderate Erosive Risk
493
256
2,506
124
High Erosive Risk
879
456
4,465
222
0.5
462
115
2,448
127
3
396
268
3,276
179
7.5
240
164
791
32
25
304
190
837
26
70
52
27
165
10
200
26
3
-
-
March, 2004
E-10
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
TX
Low Erosive Risk
620
321
3,153
156
Moderate Erosive Risk
1,291
669
6,565
324
High Erosive Risk
1,376
713
6,994
347
0.5
1,027
256
5,441
281
3
880
596
7,283
397
7.5
532
363
1,759
71
25
675
423
1,861
57
70
115
59
367
20
200
57
5
-
-
UT
Low Erosive Risk
110
57
560
28
Moderate Erosive Risk
165
86
840
41
High Erosive Risk
23
12
120
6
0.5
93
23
495
25
3
80
54
663
36
7.5
48
33
160
6
25
61
38
169
5
70
10
5
33
2
200
5
-
-
-
VA
Low Erosive Risk
342
177
1,739
86
Moderate Erosive Risk
422
219
2,142
106
High Erosive Risk
501
260
2,545
126
0.5
395
99
2,092
108
3
339
229
2,800
153
7.5
205
140
676
28
25
260
163
716
22
70
44
23
141
8
200
22
2
-
-
VT
Low Erosive Risk
7
3
33
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
14
7
72
4
High Erosive Risk
22
11
110
5
0.5
13
3
70
4
3
11
8
94
5
7.5
7
5
23
1
25
9
5
24
1
70
1
1
5
-
200
1
-
-
-
March, 2004
E-ll
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
WA
Low Erosive Risk
50
26
257
13
Moderate Erosive Risk
450
230
2,301
110
High Erosive Risk
381
195
1,941
94
0.5
276
67
1,466
74
3
236
160
1,962
106
7.5
143
97
473
18
25
180
113
501
15
70
30
15
97
4
200
15
-
-
-
WI
Low Erosive Risk
82
42
415
21
Moderate Erosive Risk
231
120
1,174
58
High Erosive Risk
380
197
1,932
96
0.5
216
54
1,146
59
3
185
126
1,534
84
7.5
112
77
371
15
25
142
89
392
12
70
24
12
78
4
200
12
1
-
-
WV
Low Erosive Risk
39
20
200
10
Moderate Erosive Risk
217
112
1,102
55
High Erosive Risk
395
205
2,005
100
0.5
203
51
1,077
56
3
174
118
1,441
79
7.5
105
72
348
14
25
134
84
368
11
70
23
12
73
4
200
11
1
-
-
WY
Low Erosive Risk
24
12
122
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
97
50
497
24
High Erosive Risk
5
2
25
1
0.5
39
10
209
11
3
34
23
280
15
7.5
20
14
68
3
25
26
16
72
2
70
4
2
14
1
200
2
-
-
-
March, 2004
E-12
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Single Family
Multi Family
Commercial
Industrial
Total
Low Erosive Risk
10,106
5,235
51,380
2,545
Moderate Erosive Risk
15,024
7,784
76,419
3,777
High Erosive Risk
15,696
8,130
79,772
3,957
0.5
12,752
3,177
67,591
3,491
3
10,932
7,408
90,459
4,932
7.5
6,610
4,513
21,846
891
25
8,386
5,257
23,114
708
70
1,428
732
4,565
260
200
709
61
-
-
TOTAL
40,817
21,148
207,575
10,282
March, 2004
E-13
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
March, 2004 E-14
-------
Appendix F
Supporting Loads Data
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-l. National Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk
Yiinui.il
I ons Generated
I ons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Sinale family
Multi l'amilv
Commercial
Industrial
Sinale l'amilv
Multi l'amilv
Commercial
Industrial
Sinale l'amilv
Multi l'amilv
Commercial
Industrial
I.ow ]Tosive Risk
1.977.030
970.228
6.144.178
214.737
65.393
31.059
278.642
10.327
53,931
24.734
242.113
9.278
Moderate Krosive Risk
-..x
2.62? .263
16.716.476
575,785
280.220
132.522
1.074.499
38.707
231.865
106.984
930.087
34,618
Iliuli 1 j'osive Risk
12.706.046
6.173.868
39,113.205
1.416.726
874.695
414.744
3.184,133
118.393
719.346
334.194
2.730.665
105.621
•1 '."x.,
64.936
1.532.761
74,381
96.735
31.105
888.510
38.268
96.735
31.105
888.510
38.268
1,242.252
907.793
12.307.877
625.658
89,368
66.771
929.412
46.473
89,368
66.771
929.412
46.473
1.876.616
1.376.620
7.428,306
261.142
129.814
97.290
540.091
18.237
73.781
55.356
306.504
10,608
7.943.241
5.385.688
26.246.617
701.035
392.563
268.202
1.319.539
34.323
315,661
215.635
1.061.546
28.068
-."-".Nil
1.949,621
14.458.299
545.031
220,234
112.214
859.721
30.127
183.283
94.895
716.892
26.102
'7
5.023.891
82.701
0
0
291.595
2.742
0
0
246,314
2.151
0
0
1 ill.ll
20.066.596
9.767.360
61.973.860
2.207.247
1.220.308
578.325
4.537.274
167.428
1.005.141
465.913
3.902.864
149.518
(¦ raiiiil 1 iii.il
94.015.064
6.503.334
5.523.437
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk
AL
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
59,646
29,221
178,004
7,236
2,549
1,248
10,085
424
1,730
792
7,556
328
Moderate Erosive Risk
172,465
82,697
514,525
20,914
10,602
5,154
39,781
1,624
7,251
3,346
29,827
1,259
High Erosive Risk
516,060
244,371
1,549,203
61,202
40,756
19,791
149,128
5,930
28,016
13,009
112,039
4,608
S3 0.5
8,834
2,328
55,676
2,561
3,641
1,139
32,608
1,341
3,641
1,139
32,608
1,341
3 3
45,294
32,198
447,107
22,840
4,377
3,195
45,339
2,292
4,377
3,195
45,339
2,292
¦ S 7.5
66,704
50,423
268,708
10,056
7,624
5,844
31,979
1,186
2,562
1,954
10,677
397
.§ 25
286,798
191,971
948,123
29,361
16,435
11,008
54,690
1,624
10,881
7,295
36,276
1,075
" 70
130,339
79,369
522,117
24,534
8,594
5,007
34,378
1,536
6,116
3,564
24,522
1,090
m 200
210,202
0
0
0
13,237
0
0
0
9,420
0
0
0
Total
748,171
356,289
2,241,732
89,352
53,907
26,193
198,994
7,978
36,996
17,147
149,422
6,194
Grand Total
3,435,543
287,073
209,759
AR
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
13,330
6,938
47,693
1,119
558
309
2,678
69
558
309
2,678
69
Moderate Erosive Risk
91,261
45,671
290,725
8,196
5,484
2,657
20,335
626
5,484
2,657
20,335
626
High Erosive Risk
414,274
204,875
1,271,881
37,919
27,119
12,780
94,984
3,046
27,119
12,780
94,984
3,046
S3 0.5
6,232
1,584
39,095
2,003
2,424
747
22,504
1,017
2,424
747
22,504
1,017
3 3
31,564
23,753
314,832
16,271
2,180
1,679
22,839
1,177
2,180
1,679
22,839
1,177
¦ S 7.5
48,444
38,027
192,149
7,653
2,523
2,014
10,410
404
2,523
2,014
10,410
404
.§ 25
200,865
136,356
673,352
21,307
10,816
7,514
36,380
1,144
10,816
7,514
36,380
1,144
" 70
77,769
57,765
390,871
0
5,104
3,792
25,864
0
5,104
3,792
25,864
0
m 200
153,992
0
0
0
10,114
0
0
0
10,114
0
0
0
Total
518,866
257,484
1,610,299
47,234
33,161
15,746
117,998
3,742
33,161
15,746
117,998
3,742
Grand Total
2,433,883
170,647
170,647
March, 2004
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
AZ
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
16,145
7,317
56,750
799
463
186
2,225
48
463
186
2,225
48
Moderate Erosive Risk
87,587
39,023
321,969
5,976
4,769
1,984
21,102
477
4,769
1,984
21,102
477
High Erosive Risk
1,548
944
7,603
96
80
50
503
13
80
50
503
13
§3 0.5
1,577
374
9,581
392
609
176
5,499
198
609
176
5,499
198
3 3
7,529
5,733
76,564
3,766
428
331
4,522
216
428
331
4,522
216
¦ S 7.5
11,687
9,035
47,585
2,054
479
384
2,092
107
479
384
2,092
107
.§ 25
51,468
30,376
159,811
660
2,256
1,276
6,874
16
2,256
1,276
6,874
16
" 70
28,452
1,765
92,781
0
1,401
54
4,843
0
1,401
54
4,843
0
m 200
4,566
0
0
0
139
0
0
0
139
0
0
0
Total
105,279
47,283
386,321
6,871
5,313
2,220
23,830
538
5,313
2,220
23,830
538
Grand Total
545,755
31,901
31,901
CA
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
54,874
24,936
176,619
6,027
2,346
1,079
10,045
371
1,549
659
7,419
297
Moderate Erosive Risk
209,118
96,685
573,876
22,795
15,989
7,418
50,775
2,125
11,159
5,019
38,408
1,670
High Erosive Risk
102,478
49,160
326,879
10,321
8,864
4,280
33,247
1,115
6,152
2,878
25,359
896
S3 0.5
4,275
1,049
27,134
1,372
1,778
518
15,957
722
1,778
518
15,957
722
3 3
21,836
15,966
217,496
11,189
1,959
1,472
20,413
1,044
1,959
1,472
20,413
1,044
¦ S 7.5
32,874
23,146
130,844
4,639
3,452
2,460
14,363
525
1,275
903
5,262
199
.§ 25
140,211
93,278
458,717
13,833
8,202
5,558
27,121
899
5,429
3,685
17,992
598
" 70
68,682
37,342
243,182
8,110
4,481
2,769
16,213
422
3,187
1,978
11,561
299
m 200
98,593
0
0
0
7,327
0
0
0
5,234
0
0
0
Total
366,471
170,780
1,077,374
39,143
27,199
12,777
94,067
3,611
18,861
8,556
71,185
2,862
Grand Total
1,653,768
137,654
101,464
CO
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
3,986
1,918
13,997
269
176
83
798
22
94
43
531
17
Moderate Erosive Risk
11,869
5,673
36,763
973
861
417
3,160
98
462
221
2,058
72
High Erosive Risk
11,674
5,545
30,117
1,256
1,122
527
3,310
141
673
314
2,293
103
S3 0.5
311
81
2,019
101
132
40
1,195
54
132
40
1,195
54
3 3
1,555
1,209
16,332
854
137
111
1,525
78
137
111
1,525
78
¦ S 7.5
2,424
1,622
9,946
356
248
174
1,092
43
84
59
367
15
.§ 25
10,098
7,035
35,417
1,188
614
437
2,217
87
311
222
1,125
45
" 70
4,842
3,188
17,163
0
340
264
1,238
0
185
147
670
0
m 200
8,299
0
0
0
688
0
0
0
381
0
0
0
Total
27,529
13,135
80,877
2,499
2,158
1,027
7,267
261
1,229
579
4,883
191
Grand Total
124,040
10,713
6,882
March, 2004
F-2
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
CT
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
1,944
957
8,355
153
99
50
523
15
57
27
358
10
Moderate Erosive Risk
11,012
5,274
34,683
1,052
947
452
3,173
122
575
268
2,199
86
High Erosive Risk
46,916
22,235
127,341
4,783
4,658
2,197
13,862
585
2,856
1,331
9,652
417
§3 0.5
644
161
4,300
221
267
79
2,526
116
267
79
2,526
116
3 3
3,419
2,732
34,577
1,829
358
294
3,784
201
358
294
3,784
201
¦ S 7.5
5,192
3,632
20,599
1,256
643
447
2,648
156
221
152
904
53
.§ 25
21,037
14,695
73,158
2,683
1,563
1,116
5,449
248
884
632
3,083
142
" 70
10,441
7,244
37,745
0
860
763
3,150
0
521
468
1,912
0
m 200
19,137
0
0
0
2,012
0
0
0
1,235
0
0
0
Total
59,872
28,465
170,379
5,989
5,704
2,698
17,557
721
3,487
1,625
12,209
512
Grand Total
264,705
26,680
17,834
DE
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
9,806
5,631
43,434
535
311
157
1,685
47
272
126
1,552
47
Moderate Erosive Risk
18,501
10,128
78,993
954
621
318
3,329
83
548
259
3,075
83
High Erosive Risk
26,914
14,189
112,745
1,326
1,026
574
5,720
121
917
482
5,306
121
S3 0.5
894
198
5,569
292
343
93
3,185
148
343
93
3,185
148
3 3
4,671
3,320
44,933
2,522
184
130
1,862
104
184
130
1,862
104
¦ S 7.5
7,730
6,099
25,891
0
395
331
1,446
0
174
148
645
0
.§ 25
25,767
20,331
95,995
0
592
496
2,321
0
592
496
2,321
0
" 70
16,159
0
62,785
0
444
0
1,919
0
444
0
1,919
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
55,221
29,948
235,172
2,815
1,958
1,049
10,734
252
1,738
866
9,933
252
Grand Total
323,156
13,992
12,789
FL
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
438,086
216,566
1,325,069
56,239
7,851
3,561
38,878
1,704
7,851
3,561
38,878
1,704
Moderate Erosive Risk
570,665
284,762
1,734,883
73,540
11,043
5,093
53,270
2,335
11,043
5,093
53,270
2,335
High Erosive Risk
226,797
121,662
717,631
30,124
6,995
3,474
29,563
1,297
6,995
3,474
29,563
1,297
S3 0.5
14,909
3,898
93,260
4,547
5,679
1,811
53,176
2,281
5,679
1,811
53,176
2,281
3 3
77,039
56,107
748,649
37,918
2,213
1,648
22,537
1,120
2,213
1,648
22,537
1,120
¦5 7.5
115,661
84,098
452,158
16,576
1,625
1,201
6,623
234
1,625
1,201
6,623
234
.§ 25
492,243
331,055
1,598,571
40,844
7,101
4,825
23,330
548
7,101
4,825
23,330
548
o 70
240,847
136,369
884,946
60,018
4,341
2,531
16,046
1,154
4,341
2,531
16,046
1,154
M 200
294,848
11,464
0
0
4,929
112
0
0
4,929
112
0
0
Total
1,235,548
622,991
3,777,584
159,903
25,889
12,128
121,711
5,337
25,889
12,128
121,711
5,337
Grand Total
5,796,025
165,065
165,065
March, 2004
F-3
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
GA
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
319,558
159,545
963,505
35,141
10,309
5,040
41,846
1,660
8,712
4,087
36,743
1,482
Moderate Erosive Risk
606,397
304,252
1,815,169
68,394
21,798
10,626
85,110
3,435
18,379
8,634
74,496
3,051
High Erosive Risk
941,003
472,499
2,776,432
111,341
42,079
20,283
153,700
6,413
35,298
16,497
133,616
5,646
§3 0.5
21,853
5,914
137,446
6,721
8,413
2,769
78,709
3,393
8,413
2,769
78,709
3,393
3 3
112,464
80,802
1,102,933
55,788
4,558
3,342
46,926
2,336
4,558
3,342
46,926
2,336
¦ S 7.5
169,972
125,099
664,949
24,821
9,147
6,902
37,628
1,376
4,238
3,191
17,309
635
.§ 25
716,052
482,921
2,346,760
71,474
20,872
14,164
69,357
2,149
18,133
12,303
60,219
1,862
" 70
332,614
205,941
1,303,019
56,072
12,101
7,607
48,036
2,254
10,503
6,594
41,691
1,953
m 200
514,003
35,619
0
0
19,096
1,164
0
0
16,545
1,019
0
0
Total
1,866,957
936,296
5,555,107
214,876
74,186
35,949
280,656
11,508
62,389
29,218
244,855
10,179
Grand Total
8,573,237
402,299
346,641
IA
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
3,815
1,720
13,454
173
110
47
534
14
110
47
534
14
Moderate Erosive Risk
31,233
13,973
95,421
2,170
1,763
750
6,211
186
1,763
750
6,211
186
High Erosive Risk
148,620
66,362
437,826
11,167
9,360
3,981
31,618
962
9,360
3,981
31,618
962
S3 0.5
2,157
606
13,705
712
846
287
7,911
363
846
287
7,911
363
3 3
11,028
7,760
110,523
5,900
732
526
7,706
404
732
526
7,706
404
¦ S 7.5
16,575
11,847
66,157
1,592
797
600
3,368
91
797
600
3,368
91
.§ 25
71,196
47,488
233,876
5,306
3,485
2,359
11,704
305
3,485
2,359
11,704
305
" 70
44,644
14,353
122,440
0
2,708
1,006
7,675
0
2,708
1,006
7,675
0
m 200
38,068
0
0
0
2,665
0
0
0
2,665
0
0
0
Total
183,667
82,055
546,701
13,510
11,233
4,778
38,364
1,163
11,233
4,778
38,364
1,163
Grand Total
825,933
55,537
55,537
ID
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
735
395
3,312
52
15
7
107
3
15
7
107
3
Moderate Erosive Risk
15,280
7,524
59,500
956
745
349
3,671
91
745
349
3,671
91
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3 0.5
246
63
1,586
88
100
31
928
46
100
31
928
46
3 3
1,179
901
12,422
576
73
58
811
37
73
58
811
37
¦ S 7.5
1,693
1,379
7,799
117
70
60
343
4
70
60
343
4
.§ 25
8,171
4,967
26,424
228
313
185
1,007
7
313
185
1,007
7
" 70
3,151
610
14,582
0
144
23
688
0
144
23
688
0
m 200
1,574
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
Total
16,015
7,919
62,813
1,009
760
356
3,778
94
760
356
3,778
94
Grand Total
87,755
4,988
4,988
March, 2004
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
IL
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
19,114
8,825
57,558
1,643
644
293
2,576
83
526
228
2,213
73
Moderate Erosive Risk
65,151
30,848
197,844
7,850
3,961
1,841
14,134
602
3,320
1,503
12,221
528
High Erosive Risk
252,711
121,190
770,597
34,948
18,891
8,823
65,509
2,975
15,925
7,277
56,738
2,605
§3 0.5
3,919
1,041
25,352
1,253
1,584
505
14,788
652
1,584
505
14,788
652
3 3
19,747
14,629
203,693
10,302
1,327
1,006
14,433
718
1,327
1,006
14,433
718
¦ S 7.5
30,187
22,307
122,771
4,651
2,629
1,982
11,298
419
1,460
1,094
6,217
232
.§ 25
127,877
87,623
432,512
13,116
7,229
5,006
24,813
749
6,202
4,294
21,271
642
" 70
63,015
35,263
241,670
15,119
4,307
2,459
16,886
1,122
3,691
2,110
14,463
961
m 200
92,230
0
0
0
6,419
0
0
0
5,507
0
0
0
Total
336,976
160,863
1,025,998
44,441
23,496
10,958
82,219
3,659
19,771
9,008
71,172
3,205
Grand Total
1,568,278
120,331
103,157
IN
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
15,112
7,059
44,218
1,487
507
236
1,964
73
413
185
1,685
63
Moderate Erosive Risk
56,455
28,732
176,148
6,074
3,448
1,742
12,672
475
2,879
1,420
10,928
416
High Erosive Risk
227,021
119,673
724,294
25,459
16,744
8,593
60,666
2,287
14,054
7,060
52,383
2,005
S3 0.5
3,661
1,012
23,407
1,161
1,471
489
13,628
602
1,471
489
13,628
602
3 3
18,471
13,605
188,288
9,040
1,250
944
13,389
630
1,250
944
13,389
630
¦ S 7.5
28,114
20,854
113,242
4,278
2,459
1,859
10,457
392
1,347
1,015
5,683
212
.§ 25
121,356
81,604
401,198
10,102
6,770
4,624
22,701
558
5,786
3,951
19,386
478
" 70
55,958
38,387
218,524
8,439
3,961
2,654
15,127
653
3,390
2,266
12,910
562
m 200
71,028
0
0
0
4,789
0
0
0
4,103
0
0
0
Total
298,589
155,464
944,660
33,020
20,699
10,570
75,302
2,835
17,346
8,665
64,996
2,485
Grand Total
1,431,732
109,407
93,492
KS
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
4,078
1,876
16,681
303
189
93
982
29
122
54
715
20
Moderate Erosive Risk
32,679
14,496
107,886
2,453
2,813
1,262
10,473
298
1,932
833
7,815
237
High Erosive Risk
155,340
68,084
485,482
11,646
14,828
6,574
52,776
1,487
10,258
4,402
39,531
1,208
S3 0.5
2,278
606
14,812
712
944
298
8,702
374
944
298
8,702
374
3 3
11,742
8,533
119,235
5,900
1,313
975
13,874
676
1,313
975
13,874
676
¦ S 7.5
18,214
12,708
72,785
2,484
2,372
1,664
9,913
309
887
619
3,692
111
.§ 25
77,151
48,255
255,968
5,306
5,700
3,591
19,126
455
3,796
2,393
12,758
305
" 70
44,644
14,353
147,249
0
3,787
1,402
12,616
0
2,708
1,006
9,036
0
m 200
38,068
0
0
0
3,715
0
0
0
2,665
0
0
0
Total
192,097
84,456
610,049
14,402
17,831
7,929
64,231
1,814
12,312
5,289
48,062
1,465
Grand Total
901,003
91,805
67,129
March, 2004
F-5
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
KY
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
8,510
3,743
29,468
712
253
106
1,315
34
234
93
1,213
31
Moderate Erosive Risk
83,266
40,195
263,132
8,843
4,711
2,266
18,250
660
4,397
2,044
16,921
614
High Erosive Risk
411,636
201,946
1,280,471
45,450
25,387
12,344
95,414
3,571
23,720
11,163
88,524
3,326
§3 0.5
6,089
1,476
38,969
1,740
2,407
705
22,551
894
2,407
705
22,551
894
3 3
30,671
23,291
315,119
16,847
2,105
1,640
22,663
1,204
2,105
1,640
22,663
1,204
¦ S 7.5
47,906
32,809
189,159
6,677
4,279
2,994
17,652
617
2,278
1,578
9,331
324
.§ 25
199,363
139,447
681,991
18,097
9,332
6,645
32,335
828
9,332
6,645
32,335
828
" 70
90,334
48,862
347,831
11,643
5,018
2,732
19,778
722
5,018
2,732
19,778
722
m 200
129,048
0
0
0
7,209
0
0
0
7,209
0
0
0
Total
503,412
245,884
1,573,070
55,005
30,351
14,717
114,979
4,265
28,350
13,300
106,657
3,971
Grand Total
2,377,371
164,311
152,279
LA
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
17,299
8,812
71,011
921
1,412
678
6,433
138
1,021
485
5,116
122
Moderate Erosive Risk
99,032
49,375
346,994
6,651
9,241
4,411
35,912
897
6,747
3,207
28,599
795
High Erosive Risk
425,910
209,752
1,399,411
30,653
41,459
19,733
152,614
4,004
30,368
14,417
121,619
3,552
S3 0.5
7,215
2,158
44,631
2,227
2,967
1,053
26,154
1,163
2,967
1,053
26,154
1,163
3 3
36,710
26,631
358,074
17,680
4,365
3,189
44,082
2,171
4,365
3,189
44,082
2,171
¦ S 7.5
54,728
41,294
218,699
5,292
4,550
3,501
18,484
547
2,979
2,298
12,161
360
.§ 25
239,108
162,484
773,296
13,026
20,039
13,494
65,025
1,159
13,358
8,996
43,403
776
" 70
109,838
35,372
422,716
0
10,601
3,585
41,213
0
7,583
2,573
29,534
0
m 200
94,643
0
0
0
9,591
0
0
0
6,884
0
0
0
Total
542,242
267,939
1,817,416
38,225
52,113
24,821
194,958
5,040
38,136
18,108
155,334
4,470
Grand Total
2,665,822
276,932
216,048
MA
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
10,293
5,103
31,014
1,531
279
129
1,183
56
279
129
1,183
56
Moderate Erosive Risk
43,334
20,853
131,398
6,186
1,929
871
7,309
337
1,929
871
7,309
337
High Erosive Risk
160,439
75,832
488,287
22,340
8,784
3,939
32,124
1,474
8,784
3,939
32,124
1,474
S3 0.5
2,503
697
15,973
777
987
332
9,234
398
987
332
9,234
398
3 3
12,783
9,339
128,062
6,672
793
589
8,336
428
793
589
8,336
428
¦ S 7.5
19,335
14,095
77,490
2,512
810
599
3,393
106
810
599
3,393
106
.§ 25
81,757
55,055
274,659
8,373
3,411
2,283
11,591
343
3,411
2,283
11,591
343
" 70
38,022
22,601
154,516
11,722
1,994
1,136
8,063
591
1,994
1,136
8,063
591
m 200
59,665
0
0
0
2,997
0
0
0
2,997
0
0
0
Total
214,065
101,787
650,699
30,056
10,992
4,939
40,616
1,866
10,992
4,939
40,616
1,866
Grand Total
996,607
58,414
58,414
March, 2004
F-6
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
Ml)
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
25,006
12,996
101,203
1,620
1,173
611
5,896
145
701
343
4,164
116
Moderate Erosive Risk
64,927
33,513
247,205
4,534
4,255
2,142
18,684
476
2,583
1,239
13,094
381
High Erosive Risk
171,180
86,391
608,546
12,579
14,933
7,314
59,807
1,547
9,167
4,321
41,761
1,249
§3 0.5
3,784
861
23,502
1,071
1,551
420
13,733
560
1,551
420
13,733
560
3 3
18,787
13,852
189,294
9,496
1,690
1,264
17,721
876
1,690
1,264
17,721
876
¦ S 7.5
30,276
21,709
114,934
3,979
3,128
2,314
12,634
428
1,011
750
4,088
138
.§ 25
121,319
85,177
404,639
4,186
7,281
5,132
24,667
304
4,117
2,901
13,963
172
" 70
57,114
11,301
224,586
0
4,241
936
15,631
0
2,582
568
9,514
0
m 200
29,832
0
0
0
2,470
0
0
0
1,498
0
0
0
Total
261,113
132,900
956,954
18,733
20,361
10,066
84,387
2,167
12,450
5,903
59,019
1,746
Grand Total
1,369,700
116,981
79,118
ME
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
6,008
3,017
19,069
490
164
76
727
23
164
76
727
23
Moderate Erosive Risk
24,784
12,561
80,657
1,999
1,096
526
4,485
131
1,096
526
4,485
131
High Erosive Risk
90,655
46,201
299,443
7,264
4,943
2,390
19,701
557
4,943
2,390
19,701
557
S3 0.5
1,561
404
9,793
472
615
192
5,661
242
615
192
5,661
242
3 3
7,734
5,948
78,623
3,839
478
379
5,119
245
478
379
5,119
245
¦ S 7.5
11,905
9,252
47,454
1,256
497
396
2,086
53
497
396
2,086
53
.§ 25
49,533
34,875
167,168
4,186
2,071
1,457
7,059
172
2,071
1,457
7,059
172
" 70
20,883
11,301
96,131
0
1,043
568
4,988
0
1,043
568
4,988
0
m 200
29,832
0
0
0
1,498
0
0
0
1,498
0
0
0
Total
121,447
61,779
399,169
9,753
6,203
2,993
24,913
712
6,203
2,993
24,913
712
Grand Total
592,149
34,821
34,821
MI
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
25,957
12,758
84,542
2,190
1,137
570
4,956
163
748
351
3,620
116
Moderate Erosive Risk
93,957
45,537
293,398
10,235
7,409
3,640
27,631
1,069
5,092
2,399
20,629
821
High Erosive Risk
375,401
180,735
1,148,519
45,235
35,800
17,512
128,626
5,173
24,827
11,707
96,576
4,031
S3 0.5
5,796
1,591
37,872
1,825
2,456
796
22,447
973
2,456
796
22,447
973
3 3
29,803
22,388
303,640
15,235
3,346
2,573
35,939
1,769
3,346
2,573
35,939
1,769
¦5 7.5
44,485
33,662
183,495
6,965
5,839
4,533
25,423
941
2,147
1,665
9,301
343
.§ 25
189,717
131,607
647,679
18,516
13,811
9,590
47,617
1,383
9,202
6,395
31,791
923
o 70
95,296
49,782
353,775
15,119
7,845
4,231
29,787
1,340
5,608
3,029
21,347
961
M 200
130,217
0
0
0
11,048
0
0
0
7,909
0
0
0
Total
495,314
239,030
1,526,459
57,660
44,345
21,722
161,212
6,406
30,667
14,457
120,825
4,969
Grand Total
2,318,464
233,685
170,917
March, 2004
F-7
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MN
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
16,287
8,498
48,725
1,500
710
370
2,867
99
472
235
2,090
73
Moderate Erosive Risk
60,412
30,294
195,507
6,332
4,797
2,386
18,640
669
3,292
1,570
13,911
521
High Erosive Risk
241,358
117,651
800,730
26,857
23,205
11,387
89,030
3,239
16,035
7,557
66,797
2,546
§3 0.5
4,113
1,087
25,724
1,238
1,731
541
15,210
657
1,731
541
15,210
657
3 3
20,634
15,180
207,449
10,288
2,321
1,739
24,448
1,205
2,321
1,739
24,448
1,205
¦ S 7.5
31,412
23,180
125,475
4,623
4,107
3,137
17,326
643
1,519
1,159
6,372
238
.§ 25
131,969
89,837
443,872
10,102
9,674
6,529
32,827
718
6,445
4,351
21,912
478
" 70
58,900
27,159
242,441
8,439
5,142
2,197
20,727
783
3,680
1,572
14,856
562
m 200
71,028
0
0
0
5,738
0
0
0
4,103
0
0
0
Total
318,056
156,444
1,044,961
34,689
28,712
14,143
110,538
4,007
19,799
9,362
82,798
3,140
Grand Total
1,554,151
157,401
115,099
MO
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
13,302
6,459
46,162
1,079
764
329
3,121
87
461
185
2,142
65
Moderate Erosive Risk
91,767
44,864
294,502
9,509
8,668
4,185
31,318
1,111
5,411
2,529
21,895
840
High Erosive Risk
420,043
207,055
1,327,987
46,263
44,093
21,721
156,681
5,770
27,656
13,247
109,874
4,368
S3 0.5
6,578
1,843
41,202
2,157
2,728
906
24,217
1,134
2,728
906
24,217
1,134
3 3
34,751
23,909
331,311
16,710
3,909
2,758
38,987
1,940
3,909
2,758
38,987
1,940
¦ S 7.5
49,854
37,948
197,346
5,337
6,593
5,140
27,112
714
2,468
1,921
10,124
267
.§ 25
209,667
146,569
706,518
17,789
18,405
12,737
61,584
1,523
10,740
7,440
35,973
888
" 70
96,709
48,110
392,274
14,858
9,453
4,694
39,220
1,657
5,904
2,936
24,610
1,044
m 200
127,554
0
0
0
12,437
0
0
0
7,779
0
0
0
Total
525,113
258,378
1,668,650
56,851
53,525
26,235
191,120
6,968
33,528
15,961
133,912
5,273
Grand Total
2,508,992
277,848
188,674
MS
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
70,457
32,648
217,806
7,227
3,666
1,720
14,641
487
2,498
1,109
11,006
398
Moderate Erosive Risk
181,093
83,498
545,230
17,775
12,507
5,869
45,684
1,469
8,589
3,857
34,320
1,190
High Erosive Risk
472,612
218,145
1,381,368
42,956
41,909
19,705
143,113
4,471
28,969
13,128
107,555
3,601
S3 0.5
8,795
2,192
53,635
2,656
3,587
1,064
31,290
1,381
3,587
1,064
31,290
1,381
3 3
44,086
31,728
428,170
20,834
4,330
3,223
43,750
2,116
4,330
3,223
43,750
2,116
¦ S 7.5
66,260
47,780
256,339
7,287
7,707
5,633
30,677
860
2,812
2,049
11,162
301
.§ 25
281,104
186,712
916,625
24,290
18,353
12,600
60,592
1,541
12,152
8,354
40,185
1,023
" 70
148,121
65,879
489,635
12,891
11,353
4,774
37,128
529
8,081
3,405
26,493
368
m 200
175,796
0
0
0
12,752
0
0
0
9,095
0
0
0
Total
724,162
334,291
2,144,404
67,957
58,082
27,294
203,437
6,428
40,057
18,095
152,881
5,189
Grand Total
3,270,813
295,241
216,221
March, 2004
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
MT
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
32,088
15,957
108,767
2,682
3,160
1,580
12,259
343
1,890
917
8,354
255
High Erosive Risk
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
§3 0.5
412
113
2,683
117
175
56
1,592
63
175
56
1,592
63
3 3
2,165
1,586
21,425
1,056
243
183
2,537
123
243
183
2,537
123
¦ S 7.5
3,092
2,534
12,658
610
406
341
1,750
85
147
123
633
30
.§ 25
12,885
9,309
45,365
899
1,070
776
3,819
73
585
424
2,089
40
" 70
7,216
2,416
26,636
0
683
223
2,562
0
400
130
1,503
0
m 200
6,318
0
0
0
582
0
0
0
338
0
0
0
Total
32,088
15,957
108,767
2,682
3,160
1,580
12,259
343
1,890
917
8,354
255
Grand Total
159,494
17,343
11,416
NC
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
217,112
108,139
654,312
24,093
9,367
4,729
37,708
1,501
6,372
3,046
28,689
1,219
Moderate Erosive Risk
413,223
206,828
1,242,209
44,900
19,471
9,860
76,965
2,964
13,223
6,366
58,296
2,393
High Erosive Risk
630,592
317,929
1,902,453
64,769
35,571
18,070
137,387
4,893
24,169
11,752
103,667
3,924
S3 0.5
15,107
4,046
94,582
4,712
6,115
1,953
54,924
2,437
6,115
1,953
54,924
2,437
3 3
77,397
56,522
759,740
38,998
5,415
4,032
55,574
2,812
5,415
4,032
55,574
2,812
¦ S 7.5
115,958
84,232
458,325
15,040
9,575
7,066
39,669
1,235
2,854
2,099
11,792
361
.§ 25
496,922
334,758
1,618,523
43,473
19,162
13,044
63,194
1,642
12,439
8,483
41,125
1,063
" 70
242,560
117,719
867,804
31,538
10,601
5,100
38,699
1,232
7,445
3,577
27,238
862
m 200
312,983
35,619
0
0
13,541
1,465
0
0
9,495
1,019
0
0
Total
1,260,927
632,895
3,798,974
133,762
64,409
32,660
252,059
9,358
43,764
21,163
190,652
7,536
Grand Total
5,826,559
358,486
263,116
ND
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
782
90
2,999
0
36
6
199
0
23
4
133
0
Moderate Erosive Risk
5,837
3,701
28,812
365
546
361
3,167
55
329
224
2,178
55
High Erosive Risk
8,470
6,051
43,908
605
905
636
5,321
94
559
399
3,712
94
S3 0.5
298
75
1,944
78
126
38
1,152
42
126
38
1,152
42
3 3
1,375
1,502
15,981
892
152
170
1,885
107
152
170
1,885
107
¦ S 7.5
1,961
1,127
9,726
0
266
162
1,338
0
99
60
486
0
.§ 25
11,456
7,138
36,225
0
943
634
3,071
0
534
359
1,740
0
" 70
0
0
11,843
0
0
0
1,241
0
0
0
759
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
15,089
9,842
75,719
970
1,487
1,003
8,687
149
911
627
6,023
149
Grand Total
101,620
11,326
7,709
March, 2004
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
NE
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
1,184
651
8,442
61
57
31
490
8
39
21
367
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
10,420
5,395
49,321
527
953
471
4,790
84
645
320
3,589
84
High Erosive Risk
50,157
25,744
213,942
2,540
5,039
2,483
23,494
422
3,409
1,691
17,618
422
§3 0.5
1,130
344
6,923
356
469
169
4,071
187
469
169
4,071
187
3 3
5,759
3,984
55,773
2,771
644
458
6,484
327
644
458
6,484
327
¦ S 7.5
7,009
5,155
32,831
0
505
391
2,528
0
330
256
1,663
0
.§ 25
34,539
22,308
122,903
0
2,958
1,967
10,458
0
1,722
1,149
6,079
0
" 70
13,324
0
53,276
0
1,474
0
5,235
0
928
0
3,276
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
61,760
31,791
271,705
3,127
6,050
2,985
28,775
513
4,093
2,032
21,573
513
Grand Total
368,383
38,323
28,211
NH
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
5,109
2,385
13,561
433
136
59
517
19
136
59
517
19
Moderate Erosive Risk
20,859
9,525
57,806
1,766
910
392
3,218
107
910
392
3,218
107
High Erosive Risk
75,810
34,140
215,567
6,412
4,107
1,765
14,174
452
4,107
1,765
14,174
452
S3 0.5
1,065
294
6,956
335
420
140
4,021
172
420
140
4,021
172
3 3
5,496
4,185
56,061
2,834
342
264
3,649
182
342
264
3,649
182
¦ S 7.5
8,549
6,054
33,595
1,256
359
253
1,471
53
359
253
1,471
53
.§ 25
35,954
24,216
119,355
4,186
1,491
991
5,055
172
1,491
991
5,055
172
" 70
20,883
11,301
70,967
0
1,043
568
3,713
0
1,043
568
3,713
0
m 200
29,832
0
0
0
1,498
0
0
0
1,498
0
0
0
Total
101,779
46,049
286,935
8,611
5,153
2,216
17,909
579
5,153
2,216
17,909
579
Grand Total
443,374
25,857
25,857
NJ
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
58,217
28,454
192,040
4,747
2,541
1,256
10,912
348
1,561
728
7,821
273
Moderate Erosive Risk
116,517
56,979
379,773
9,408
6,218
3,038
25,242
779
3,820
1,785
17,928
614
High Erosive Risk
207,212
100,893
664,038
16,556
15,115
7,281
57,441
1,702
9,315
4,357
40,452
1,346
S3 0.5
4,825
1,254
30,150
1,533
1,960
607
17,540
795
1,960
607
17,540
795
3 3
24,678
18,108
242,116
12,220
1,877
1,412
19,424
961
1,877
1,412
19,424
961
¦ S 7.5
37,417
26,462
146,625
5,192
3,348
2,419
13,880
503
1,017
734
4,218
156
.§ 25
160,339
108,659
516,929
11,767
7,848
5,368
25,632
571
4,444
3,040
14,533
322
" 70
70,134
31,844
300,030
0
4,155
1,769
17,121
0
2,544
1,077
10,486
0
m 200
84,552
0
0
0
4,686
0
0
0
2,853
0
0
0
Total
381,946
186,326
1,235,852
30,711
23,874
11,575
93,596
2,829
14,696
6,870
66,201
2,233
Grand Total
1,834,834
131,874
90,000
March, 2004
F-10
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
NM
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
15,021
9,813
60,822
1,127
400
233
2,300
65
400
233
2,300
65
Moderate Erosive Risk
74,474
40,640
276,838
3,975
3,961
1,985
17,541
365
3,961
1,985
17,541
365
High Erosive Risk
18,537
9,385
60,322
1,529
1,011
488
3,957
114
1,011
488
3,957
114
§3 0.5
1,555
479
10,025
513
608
227
5,779
261
608
227
5,779
261
3 3
7,687
6,042
80,209
3,456
425
347
4,652
199
425
347
4,652
199
¦ S 7.5
11,880
8,258
48,152
639
475
344
2,043
21
475
344
2,043
21
.§ 25
48,473
39,347
174,044
2,024
1,965
1,581
7,062
62
1,965
1,581
7,062
62
" 70
24,293
5,712
85,553
0
1,364
207
4,262
0
1,364
207
4,262
0
m 200
14,143
0
0
0
534
0
0
0
534
0
0
0
Total
108,032
59,839
397,982
6,631
5,372
2,706
23,797
544
5,372
2,706
23,797
544
Grand Total
572,484
32,418
32,418
NV
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
393
194
2,594
18
8
4
88
2
8
4
88
2
Moderate Erosive Risk
1,400
795
8,911
75
58
31
453
9
58
31
453
9
High Erosive Risk
0
0
1,453
0
0
0
93
0
0
0
93
0
S3 0.5
42
13
344
13
17
6
201
7
17
6
201
7
3 3
211
157
2,713
79
10
8
142
4
10
8
142
4
¦ S 7.5
356
189
1,751
0
10
6
59
0
10
6
59
0
.§ 25
1,185
630
6,136
0
28
16
171
0
28
16
171
0
" 70
0
0
2,014
0
0
0
62
0
0
0
62
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
1,793
989
12,958
92
66
35
634
11
66
35
634
11
Grand Total
15,833
747
747
NY
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
19,056
9,387
63,310
1,933
522
240
2,429
90
522
240
2,429
90
Moderate Erosive Risk
81,948
39,599
251,955
9,179
3,892
1,787
14,527
570
3,892
1,787
14,527
570
High Erosive Risk
320,681
154,026
952,683
36,757
18,477
8,491
65,148
2,575
18,477
8,491
65,148
2,575
S3 0.5
4,896
1,357
31,322
1,540
1,946
650
18,160
793
1,946
650
18,160
793
3 3
25,088
18,803
251,544
12,764
1,598
1,222
16,843
840
1,598
1,222
16,843
840
¦5 7.5
37,281
27,523
151,710
5,388
1,640
1,242
6,980
245
1,640
1,242
6,980
245
.§ 25
160,564
110,965
532,769
16,455
7,038
4,880
23,669
766
7,038
4,880
23,669
766
" 70
77,067
44,365
300,603
11,722
4,035
2,524
16,452
591
4,035
2,524
16,452
591
m 200
116,789
0
0
0
6,633
0
0
0
6,633
0
0
0
Total
421,684
203,012
1,267,948
47,869
22,891
10,518
82,104
3,235
22,891
10,518
82,104
3,235
Grand Total
1,940,514
118,749
118,749
March, 2004
F-ll
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
OH
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
23,115
11,148
73,060
1,989
781
364
3,276
110
635
284
2,810
98
Moderate Erosive Risk
106,022
51,382
333,185
13,001
6,633
3,138
24,225
1,023
5,529
2,545
20,854
890
High Erosive Risk
458,583
222,558
1,431,331
62,297
33,417
15,843
118,766
5,223
27,978
12,935
102,319
4,534
§3 0.5
7,054
1,877
45,205
2,094
2,826
905
26,288
1,083
2,826
905
26,288
1,083
3 3
35,823
26,744
363,245
18,167
2,421
1,845
25,866
1,266
2,421
1,845
25,866
1,266
¦ S 7.5
53,637
40,772
220,020
8,832
4,693
3,656
20,324
787
2,551
1,978
10,961
425
.§ 25
231,469
157,975
773,592
21,432
12,868
8,841
43,664
1,246
10,973
7,536
37,209
1,064
" 70
108,182
57,720
435,514
26,762
7,280
4,098
30,125
1,974
6,200
3,498
25,658
1,683
m 200
151,556
0
0
0
10,743
0
0
0
9,172
0
0
0
Total
587,720
285,088
1,837,576
77,288
40,830
19,345
146,268
6,356
34,142
15,763
125,983
5,521
Grand Total
2,787,673
212,799
181,410
OK
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
11,335
5,378
33,104
917
321
142
1,302
45
321
142
1,302
45
Moderate Erosive Risk
78,300
37,064
230,531
8,724
4,241
1,911
14,881
621
4,241
1,911
14,881
621
High Erosive Risk
356,368
168,576
1,049,818
42,871
21,984
9,924
75,433
3,235
21,984
9,924
75,433
3,235
S3 0.5
5,066
1,396
32,350
1,589
1,987
662
18,672
811
1,987
662
18,672
811
3 3
26,001
19,644
260,292
12,941
1,732
1,331
18,139
891
1,732
1,331
18,139
891
¦ S 7.5
40,789
29,710
157,235
5,337
1,988
1,475
8,013
267
1,988
1,475
8,013
267
.§ 25
167,853
112,158
556,498
17,789
8,301
5,573
27,926
888
8,301
5,573
27,926
888
" 70
78,740
48,110
307,077
14,858
4,760
2,936
18,866
1,044
4,760
2,936
18,866
1,044
m 200
127,554
0
0
0
7,779
0
0
0
7,779
0
0
0
Total
446,003
211,018
1,313,453
52,513
26,546
11,978
91,615
3,901
26,546
11,978
91,615
3,901
Grand Total
2,022,988
134,039
134,039
OR
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
1,018
799
6,714
75
51
38
383
8
30
22
267
8
Moderate Erosive Risk
10,617
5,438
50,810
520
995
492
5,311
75
616
297
3,684
75
High Erosive Risk
44,763
24,377
201,013
2,338
4,557
2,472
22,944
363
2,866
1,500
16,092
363
S3 0.5
971
256
6,367
285
411
128
3,775
152
411
128
3,775
152
3 3
5,057
3,584
51,604
2,648
538
391
5,808
295
538
391
5,808
295
¦ S 7.5
7,767
5,578
31,671
0
963
710
4,176
0
363
268
1,562
0
.§ 25
29,745
21,196
110,327
0
2,466
1,774
9,246
0
1,429
1,032
5,371
0
" 70
12,859
0
58,568
0
1,224
0
5,632
0
770
0
3,527
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
56,399
30,614
258,537
2,933
5,603
3,003
28,638
446
3,512
1,819
20,043
446
Grand Total
348,482
37,690
25,820
March, 2004
F-12
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
PA
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
25,452
12,829
80,958
2,816
993
485
4,225
165
720
348
3,404
138
Moderate Erosive Risk
152,402
73,664
471,166
17,054
10,692
5,043
39,838
1,543
7,858
3,700
32,251
1,297
High Erosive Risk
665,150
317,992
2,047,649
74,705
53,860
25,299
196,449
7,588
39,669
18,630
159,180
6,389
§3 0.5
10,009
2,771
64,123
3,161
4,168
1,367
37,737
1,666
4,168
1,367
37,737
1,666
3 3
51,999
38,086
514,481
26,143
5,738
4,306
59,514
2,975
5,738
4,306
59,514
2,975
¦ S 7.5
77,852
57,660
310,562
11,249
5,372
4,012
22,193
802
3,510
2,628
14,585
526
.§ 25
327,939
223,204
1,098,816
30,657
21,922
14,934
74,092
2,018
14,583
9,941
49,380
1,343
" 70
156,659
82,764
611,792
23,365
11,963
6,209
46,977
1,835
8,545
4,436
33,620
1,313
m 200
218,545
0
0
0
16,381
0
0
0
11,703
0
0
0
Total
843,003
404,485
2,599,774
94,575
65,545
30,828
240,512
9,297
48,247
22,679
194,835
7,824
Grand Total
3,941,837
346,182
273,585
RI
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
587
329
3,280
31
32
18
209
4
18
10
143
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
2,689
1,682
13,731
168
224
141
1,277
25
134
84
887
25
High Erosive Risk
10,426
6,873
50,668
709
1,021
663
5,588
110
620
400
3,902
110
S3 0.5
272
81
1,790
84
113
40
1,052
44
113
40
1,052
44
3 3
1,342
969
14,517
824
138
102
1,586
95
138
102
1,586
95
¦ S 7.5
2,237
1,211
8,952
0
269
149
1,154
0
92
51
394
0
.§ 25
9,850
6,623
29,839
0
757
531
2,233
0
429
302
1,264
0
" 70
0
0
12,582
0
0
0
1,050
0
0
0
637
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
13,702
8,883
67,679
908
1,277
821
7,074
139
771
494
4,933
139
Grand Total
91,172
9,311
6,337
sc
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
169,820
81,454
516,586
20,894
4,627
2,068
19,764
828
4,627
2,068
19,764
828
Moderate Erosive Risk
302,904
144,705
923,277
36,846
8,593
3,826
36,336
1,502
8,593
3,826
36,336
1,502
High Erosive Risk
385,779
182,801
1,185,034
45,614
11,860
5,253
49,607
1,978
11,860
5,253
49,607
1,978
S3 0.5
10,344
2,800
65,303
3,079
3,962
1,306
37,320
1,550
3,962
1,306
37,320
1,550
3 3
53,528
38,218
524,605
27,360
1,934
1,396
19,871
1,015
1,934
1,396
19,871
1,015
¦5 7.5
79,604
59,367
315,768
11,270
1,682
1,289
7,013
237
1,682
1,289
7,013
237
.§ 25
347,033
227,018
1,108,410
30,107
7,689
4,982
24,562
643
7,689
4,982
24,562
643
" 70
150,968
81,557
610,811
31,538
4,035
2,173
16,941
862
4,035
2,173
16,941
862
m 200
217,026
0
0
0
5,778
0
0
0
5,778
0
0
0
Total
858,503
408,960
2,624,896
103,354
25,079
11,146
105,706
4,307
25,079
11,146
105,706
4,307
Grand Total
3,995,714
146,239
146,239
March, 2004
F-13
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
SD
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
1,001
1,066
7,048
94
37
29
282
3
31
23
260
3
Moderate Erosive Risk
13,986
7,240
60,199
664
831
414
4,163
69
768
358
3,880
69
High Erosive Risk
21,150
10,190
85,686
955
1,442
687
6,692
112
1,336
601
6,288
112
§3 0.5
589
143
3,653
149
238
69
2,131
77
238
69
2,131
77
3 3
2,667
2,083
29,234
1,564
181
145
2,075
107
181
145
2,075
107
¦ S 7.5
4,469
3,755
17,025
0
389
329
1,565
0
215
180
856
0
.§ 25
18,781
12,515
63,558
0
895
587
3,079
0
895
587
3,079
0
" 70
9,632
0
39,465
0
607
0
2,287
0
607
0
2,287
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
36,137
18,496
152,933
1,713
2,310
1,130
11,137
184
2,136
981
10,428
184
Grand Total
209,279
14,761
13,729
TN
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
19,895
10,224
72,278
2,355
880
396
3,901
111
880
396
3,901
111
Moderate Erosive Risk
175,509
85,718
544,580
21,708
10,231
4,685
36,931
1,464
10,231
4,685
36,931
1,464
High Erosive Risk
849,258
410,127
2,538,935
106,004
52,072
23,900
181,351
7,583
52,072
23,900
181,351
7,583
S3 0.5
12,390
3,387
78,346
3,720
4,863
1,608
45,239
1,901
4,863
1,608
45,239
1,901
3 3
63,152
46,507
628,800
33,111
4,401
3,315
45,750
2,368
4,401
3,315
45,750
2,368
¦ S 7.5
95,399
69,491
379,677
14,766
4,701
3,526
19,450
744
4,701
3,526
19,450
744
.§ 25
410,347
279,994
1,338,110
39,440
20,186
13,837
66,677
2,026
20,186
13,837
66,677
2,026
" 70
180,357
106,691
730,859
39,030
11,274
6,694
45,067
2,119
11,274
6,694
45,067
2,119
m 200
283,016
0
0
0
17,757
0
0
0
17,757
0
0
0
Total
1,044,662
506,069
3,155,792
130,068
63,182
28,981
222,183
9,158
63,182
28,981
222,183
9,158
Grand Total
4,836,590
323,505
323,505
TX
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
122,051
56,812
352,425
11,822
4,882
2,115
17,416
607
4,882
2,115
17,416
607
Moderate Erosive Risk
676,097
317,929
2,050,278
70,558
39,815
17,736
140,596
5,096
39,815
17,736
140,596
5,096
High Erosive Risk
1,698,942
810,824
5,119,569
215,540
110,486
50,111
382,654
16,469
110,486
50,111
382,654
16,469
S3 0.5
29,702
8,050
185,497
9,076
11,541
3,792
106,731
4,608
11,541
3,792
106,731
4,608
3 3
152,052
110,985
1,488,746
76,256
10,293
7,674
105,062
5,296
10,293
7,674
105,062
5,296
¦5 7.5
229,917
168,629
900,900
35,517
11,697
8,798
47,552
1,847
11,697
8,798
47,552
1,847
.§ 25
966,616
651,592
3,173,877
90,789
50,330
34,067
166,799
4,713
50,330
34,067
166,799
4,713
o 70
463,570
246,309
1,773,252
86,282
29,703
15,631
114,522
5,708
29,703
15,631
114,522
5,708
M 200
655,233
0
0
0
41,620
0
0
0
41,620
0
0
0
Total
2,497,090
1,185,565
7,522,272
297,919
155,182
69,963
540,666
22,171
155,182
69,963
540,666
22,171
Grand Total
11,502,846
787,982
787,982
March, 2004
F-14
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
UT
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
2,891
1,435
12,005
131
67
29
393
9
67
29
393
9
Moderate Erosive Risk
6,710
3,309
27,532
341
247
114
1,327
30
247
114
1,327
30
High Erosive Risk
5,915
2,897
23,532
478
319
149
1,534
40
319
149
1,534
40
§3 0.5
217
60
1,505
63
88
29
878
33
88
29
878
33
3 3
1,179
865
12,046
647
60
45
660
35
60
45
660
35
¦ S 7.5
1,900
1,550
7,240
240
66
55
262
12
66
55
262
12
.§ 25
7,270
5,167
25,901
0
233
163
816
0
233
163
816
0
" 70
4,950
0
16,377
0
186
0
638
0
186
0
638
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
15,516
7,642
63,069
950
633
292
3,255
79
633
292
3,255
79
Grand Total
87,177
4,258
4,258
VA
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
105,183
50,503
316,271
10,448
2,921
1,316
12,162
464
2,921
1,316
12,162
464
Moderate Erosive Risk
225,480
108,315
669,475
23,043
7,446
3,361
29,440
1,096
7,446
3,361
29,440
1,096
High Erosive Risk
444,917
213,632
1,314,974
45,574
19,008
8,605
71,379
2,510
19,008
8,605
71,379
2,510
S3 0.5
8,966
2,453
57,099
2,708
3,471
1,153
32,772
1,372
3,471
1,153
32,772
1,372
3 3
46,778
33,434
458,162
22,945
2,166
1,579
22,316
1,107
2,166
1,579
22,316
1,107
¦ S 7.5
71,526
50,879
276,297
11,417
2,093
1,550
8,530
378
2,093
1,550
8,530
378
.§ 25
295,872
202,849
970,164
29,104
8,777
6,072
29,171
846
8,777
6,072
29,171
846
" 70
143,169
82,836
538,999
12,891
5,369
2,929
20,191
368
5,369
2,929
20,191
368
m 200
209,270
0
0
0
7,498
0
0
0
7,498
0
0
0
Total
775,580
372,450
2,300,721
79,065
29,374
13,283
112,981
4,070
29,374
13,283
112,981
4,070
Grand Total
3,527,816
159,707
159,707
VT
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
587
329
3,120
31
32
18
195
4
18
10
135
4
Moderate Erosive Risk
2,341
1,305
12,670
122
192
106
1,159
19
116
64
809
19
High Erosive Risk
8,382
4,662
45,898
434
834
459
5,022
74
511
283
3,517
75
S3 0.5
272
81
1,643
84
113
40
965
44
113
40
965
44
3 3
1,342
969
12,899
502
138
102
1,412
53
138
102
1,412
53
¦ S 7.5
2,237
1,211
7,604
0
269
149
983
0
92
51
336
0
.§ 25
7,458
4,036
26,961
0
537
292
1,966
0
303
165
1,111
0
" 70
0
0
12,582
0
0
0
1,050
0
0
0
637
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
11,310
6,296
61,688
586
1,057
583
6,376
97
646
357
4,461
97
Grand Total
79,880
8,113
5,561
March, 2004
F-15
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
WA
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
1,293
544
5,378
51
61
26
312
6
38
15
223
6
Moderate Erosive Risk
31,403
16,241
110,944
2,433
3,017
1,573
12,099
309
1,794
913
8,223
241
High Erosive Risk
101,157
50,864
306,353
8,815
10,495
5,214
35,572
1,098
6,560
3,196
24,979
848
§3 0.5
1,612
408
10,599
468
684
204
6,289
250
684
204
6,289
250
3 3
8,394
6,292
84,967
4,464
925
709
9,856
511
925
709
9,856
511
¦ S 7.5
13,340
9,113
51,586
1,469
1,720
1,202
7,008
206
641
448
2,595
77
.§ 25
54,045
38,669
179,728
4,897
4,557
3,330
15,397
446
2,620
1,917
8,853
256
" 70
22,026
13,166
95,794
0
2,116
1,368
9,433
0
1,312
846
5,833
0
m 200
34,435
0
0
0
3,571
0
0
0
2,209
0
0
0
Total
133,853
67,649
422,675
11,298
13,574
6,813
47,983
1,412
8,391
4,124
33,425
1,094
Grand Total
635,475
69,782
47,035
WI
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
16,116
8,031
47,138
1,594
787
394
2,974
110
465
223
2,023
78
Moderate Erosive Risk
57,633
28,116
182,615
6,101
5,063
2,447
18,654
660
3,111
1,456
12,935
493
High Erosive Risk
226,587
109,132
739,774
24,862
24,264
11,615
88,602
3,114
15,043
6,996
61,711
2,353
S3 0.5
3,699
904
23,904
1,132
1,560
450
14,143
601
1,560
450
14,143
601
3 3
19,173
13,733
191,443
9,853
2,157
1,584
22,587
1,135
2,157
1,584
22,587
1,135
¦ S 7.5
28,851
21,642
114,059
3,031
3,809
2,907
15,773
403
1,408
1,072
5,792
146
.§ 25
118,685
81,840
413,568
10,102
9,948
6,954
35,486
837
5,711
3,997
20,414
478
" 70
58,900
27,159
226,552
8,439
5,952
2,562
22,241
908
3,680
1,572
13,733
562
m 200
71,028
0
0
0
6,688
0
0
0
4,103
0
0
0
Total
300,336
145,278
969,527
32,557
30,114
14,456
110,230
3,884
18,618
8,674
76,669
2,923
Grand Total
1,447,698
158,684
106,885
WV
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
6,298
3,194
17,276
624
164
78
648
25
164
78
648
25
Moderate Erosive Risk
57,037
28,067
169,590
6,958
2,946
1,374
10,807
458
2,946
1,374
10,807
458
High Erosive Risk
277,520
135,698
838,439
35,178
15,817
7,364
57,575
2,464
15,817
7,364
57,575
2,464
S3 0.5
3,978
1,047
25,318
1,169
1,574
500
14,656
600
1,574
500
14,656
600
3 3
19,998
14,870
202,917
10,579
1,368
1,042
14,545
749
1,368
1,042
14,545
749
¦ S 7.5
31,261
22,144
123,506
5,429
1,457
1,050
6,015
258
1,457
1,050
6,015
258
.§ 25
130,684
91,264
431,105
13,939
6,005
4,186
19,998
617
6,005
4,186
19,998
617
" 70
55,549
37,634
242,459
11,643
3,147
2,038
13,816
722
3,147
2,038
13,816
722
m 200
99,386
0
0
0
5,376
0
0
0
5,376
0
0
0
Total
340,855
166,958
1,025,305
42,759
18,927
8,815
69,030
2,946
18,927
8,815
69,030
2,946
Grand Total
1,575,878
99,719
99,719
March, 2004
F-16
-------
Development Document for Final Action for Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-2. State Loads by Site Size, Land Use and Erosivity Risk (continued)
WY
Tons Generated
Tons Released - Baseline
Tons Released -
Options 2 and 4
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Single Family Multi family
Commercial
Industrial
Low Erosive Risk
167
103
1,400
10
8
5
81
1
4
2
52
1
Moderate Erosive Risk
4,478
3,243
23,414
306
427
297
2,510
46
249
177
1,706
46
High Erosive Risk
0
0
1,270
0
0
0
146
0
0
0
101
0
§3 0.5
91
25
691
26
39
12
410
14
39
12
410
14
3 3
413
409
5,465
291
44
45
605
33
44
45
605
33
¦ S 7.5
696
370
3,372
0
89
44
430
0
31
16
151
0
.§ 25
3,445
2,542
12,643
0
263
201
965
0
139
106
511
0
" 70
0
0
3,912
0
0
0
327
0
0
0
182
0
m 200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
4,645
3,346
26,083
317
435
302
2,737
47
253
180
1,859
47
Grand Total
34,391
3,521
2,338
March, 2004
F-17
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-3. HUC-Level
,oads
jy Site Size (Baseline and Option 2/4)
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
1010001
13
17
5
6
1
0
104.6
96.9
47.2
167.7
102.8
0
104.6
96.9
47.2
167.7
102.8
0
1010002
1
1
0
0
0
0
6.2
5.7
0
0
0
0
6.2
5.7
0
0
0
0
1010004
3
4
1
1
0
0
24.6
22.8
11.1
39.5
0
0
24.6
22.8
11.1
39.5
0
0
1010005
4
5
1
2
0
0
30.8
28.5
13.9
49.3
0
0
30.8
28.5
13.9
49.3
0
0
1020001
3
4
1
1
0
0
24.6
22.8
11.1
39.5
0
0
24.6
22.8
11.1
39.5
0
0
1020002
2
2
1
1
0
0
12.3
11.4
5.6
19.7
0
0
12.3
11.4
5.6
19.7
0
0
1020003
15
20
6
6
1
0
123
114.1
55.6
197.3
121
0
123
114.1
55.6
197.3
121
0
1020004
7
9
3
3
1
0
55.4
51.3
25
88.8
54.4
0
55.4
51.3
25
88.8
54.4
0
1020005
77
100
30
33
6
1
621.3
576
280.7
996.2
610.9
138.7
621.3
576
280.7
996.2
610.9
138.7
1030001
11
15
4
5
1
0
92.3
85.5
41.7
147.9
90.7
0
92.3
85.5
41.7
147.9
90.7
0
1030002
2
2
1
1
0
0
12.3
11.4
5.6
19.7
0
0
12.3
11.4
5.6
19.7
0
0
1030003
115
150
45
49
9
1
935
866.8
422.4
1499.2
919.4
208.8
935
866.8
422.4
1499.2
919.4
208.8
1040001
10
13
4
4
1
0
79.7
74.1
35.9
128.4
83.1
0
79.7
74.1
35.9
128.4
83.1
0
1040002
84
110
33
36
6
1
682.6
633
308.3
1095
674.7
154.8
682.6
633
308.3
1095
674.7
154.8
1050002
87
113
34
37
7
1
701.3
650.1
316.8
1124.4
689.5
156.6
701.3
650.1
316.8
1124.4
689.5
156.6
1050003
71
93
28
31
5
1
578.2
536.1
261.2
927.1
568.6
129.1
578.2
536.1
261.2
927.1
568.6
129.1
1060001
230
299
89
98
17
2
1863.9
1727.9
842.1
2988.5
1832.7
416.1
1863.9
1727.9
842.1
2988.5
1832.7
416.1
1060002
47
61
18
20
4
0
379.9
353.5
171.2
612.7
400.1
0
379.9
353.5
171.2
612.7
400.1
0
1060003
189
248
74
82
16
2
1537.4
1431.1
692.4
2481.3
1634.3
425.6
1537.4
1431.1
692.4
2481.3
1634.3
425.6
1070001
29
38
11
13
3
0
238.1
222.3
107
386.2
266.7
0
238.1
222.3
107
386.2
266.7
0
1070002
321
421
125
140
28
3
2609.8
2433.8
1172.4
4227.4
2905.5
806.1
2609.8
2433.8
1172.4
4227.4
2905.5
806.1
1070003
32
41
12
14
3
0
256.4
239.4
115.3
415.9
287.2
0
256.4
239.4
115.3
415.9
287.2
0
1070004
70
92
27
30
6
1
571
529.6
256
920.2
618.5
160.1
571
529.6
256
920.2
618.5
160.1
1070005
136
178
53
59
11
1
1106.3
1024.9
495.9
1780.8
1190.4
302.7
1106.3
1024.9
495.9
1780.8
1190.4
302.7
1080101
24
31
9
10
2
0
191.7
206.5
125.2
351.4
203.6
0
191.7
206.5
84.2
297.4
185.3
0
1080102
4
5
1
1
0
0
32.1
47
38.7
77.2
0
0
32.1
47
13.2
43.6
0
0
1080103
4
5
1
1
0
0
32.1
47
38.7
77.2
0
0
32.1
47
13.2
43.6
0
0
1080104
60
78
23
25
4
0
488.9
529.2
323
899.9
518
0
488.9
529.2
214.6
757
469.6
0
1080105
5
6
2
2
0
0
38.5
56.4
46.4
92.6
0
0
38.5
56.4
15.9
52.3
0
0
1080106
2
2
1
1
0
0
12.8
18.8
15.5
30.9
0
0
12.8
18.8
5.3
17.4
0
0
1080107
3
1
1
0
0
25.6
37.6
30.9
61.7
0
0
25.6
37.6
10.6
34.9
0
0
1080201
73
95
28
31
6
1
589
555.1
275
962.3
642.3
167.7
589
555.1
263.8
947.5
637.3
167.7
1080202
39
50
15
17
3
0
313
290.5
140.4
504.6
339.7
0
313
290.5
140.4
504.6
339.7
0
March 2004
F-18
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
1080203
7
9
3
3
0
0
56.5
67.3
46.3
112.9
0
0
56.5
67.3
24.3
84
0
0
1080204
102
133
40
44
8
1
829.7
768.7
371.9
1335.6
892.8
227
829.7
768.7
371.9
1335.6
892.8
227
1080205
125
166
49
53
10
1
1038.3
1537.6
1253
2770.6
1597.1
652.4
1038.3
1537.6
462.3
1649.5
1020.3
412.8
1080206
52
67
20
22
4
0
418
387.9
188.3
674.1
450.3
0
418
387.9
187.3
672.7
449.6
0
1080207
31
41
12
13
2
0
254.4
353.2
274.7
633.8
371.7
0
254.4
353.2
113.4
405.1
254
0
1090001
361
470
139
155
30
3
2925.6
2710.2
1311.3
4709.1
3148.1
800.5
2925.6
2710.2
1311.3
4709.1
3148.1
800.5
1090002
239
311
92
103
19
2
1936.6
1822.5
905.8
3173.7
2072.9
517.1
1936.6
1822.5
867.1
3116.7
2057.5
517.1
1090003
121
158
46
52
9
1
986.6
1084.2
667.9
1925.2
996.2
193.8
986.6
1084.2
437.1
1584.8
904.2
193.8
1090004
217
284
83
92
14
1
1778.9
2115.4
1417.1
3789.1
1734.6
277.6
1778.9
2115.4
783.2
2854.3
1482.1
277.6
1090005
18
24
7
8
1
0
149.3
229.8
188.8
420.6
140.8
0
149.3
229.8
64.4
238.2
85.5
0
1100001
50
66
20
22
4
0
415.3
556.1
419.8
997
567.4
0
415.3
556.1
184.8
662.3
404.2
0
1100002
19
26
8
8
1
0
161.9
249.7
209.1
451.1
257.3
0
161.9
249.7
72
256.8
157.4
0
1100003
24
32
9
10
2
0
199.2
309
259.5
558.3
318.1
0
199.2
309
88.6
316
193.4
0
1100004
56
75
22
24
4
0
467
724.3
608.3
1308.6
745.6
0
467
724.3
207.8
740.7
453.4
0
1100005
79
104
31
34
6
1
650.8
860.3
644.2
1539.1
913.7
344
650.8
860.3
290.7
1037.9
655.9
236.9
1100006
44
58
17
19
3
0
360.7
534.7
436.2
963.5
554.7
0
360.7
534.7
160.8
573.1
353.8
0
1110000
5
6
2
2
0
0
38.5
56.4
46.4
92.6
0
0
38.5
56.4
15.9
52.3
0
0
2010001
44
56
17
18
3
0
356
399.7
258.7
676.3
357.7
0
356
399.7
156.2
541.2
311.8
0
2010002
14
18
5
5
1
0
115.4
169.3
139.2
277.7
104.3
0
115.4
169.3
47.6
156.9
63.4
0
2010003
16
20
6
6
1
0
128.2
187.9
154.4
308.3
115.9
0
128.2
187.9
52.9
174.4
70.5
0
2010004
19
25
7
8
2
0
153.9
142.8
70.1
248.2
163.4
0
153.9
142.8
69.8
247.9
163.3
0
2010005
14
18
5
5
1
0
115.4
169.1
139
277.5
104.4
0
115.4
169.1
47.6
156.9
63.5
0
2010006
22
29
9
9
2
0
178.5
165.7
81.4
288
189.5
0
178.5
165.7
81
287.6
189.3
0
2010007
8
10
3
3
0
0
64.1
94.1
77.4
154.3
0
0
64.1
94.1
26.4
87.2
0
0
2020001
43
56
17
19
4
0
350.8
325.2
159.2
565.4
372.6
0
350.8
325.2
159.2
565.4
372.6
0
2020002
19
25
7
8
2
0
153.9
142.6
69.8
248
163.4
0
153.9
142.6
69.8
248
163.4
0
2020003
100
129
38
42
7
1
814.2
862.9
519.9
1471.2
834
177.8
814.2
862.9
360.8
1261.5
762.9
177.8
2020004
115
151
44
49
9
1
1070.8
1045.5
518.8
1889.3
1209.4
347.5
1070.8
1045.5
518.8
1889.3
1209.4
347.5
2020005
24
31
9
10
2
0
204.1
193
95
340.8
222
0
204.1
193
95
340.8
222
0
2020006
131
171
51
57
11
1
1065.3
987.8
483.6
1717.6
1131.9
310.5
1065.3
987.8
483.6
1717.6
1131.9
310.5
2020007
98
128
38
42
8
1
796.8
821.1
476.1
1444.3
924.2
236.8
796.8
821.1
359.9
1278.8
836.7
219.4
2020008
60
78
23
26
5
1
486.2
450.8
220.7
783.6
516.4
141.8
486.2
450.8
220.7
783.6
516.4
141.8
2030101
186
242
72
80
15
2
1510.2
1481.7
797.9
2591.3
1678.2
463.4
1510.2
1481.7
684
2429.4
1593.4
439.2
2030102
21
28
8
9
2
0
172.3
159.9
78.5
278.1
183.2
0
172.3
159.9
78.2
277.7
183
0
2030103
236
308
91
102
18
2
1947
2762
2212.1
4997.5
2973.6
620.1
1947
2762
862.6
3076.5
1957.7
417.2
March 2004
F-19
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
2030104
85
111
33
37
7
1
945
1085.8
901.4
1829.5
1077.8
223.6
945
1085.8
298.2
1082.3
686.3
143.6
2030105
275
359
106
119
21
2
2290.2
3486.9
2940.9
6336.4
3717.4
739.5
2290.2
3486.9
1003.5
3583.6
2261.7
448.7
2030201
73
95
28
31
6
1
590.9
547.8
268.2
952.2
627.5
172.3
590.9
547.8
268.2
952.2
627.5
172.3
2030202
333
434
130
144
27
3
2701.9
2504.8
1226.5
4354.4
2869.5
787.8
2701.9
2504.8
1226.5
4354.4
2869.5
787.8
2040101
36
47
14
16
3
0
296.9
320.4
151.8
535.4
341.8
0
296.9
320.4
134.1
475.7
311.4
0
2040102
12
16
5
5
1
0
98.5
91.3
44.7
158.7
104.6
0
98.5
91.3
44.7
158.7
104.6
0
2040103
45
59
18
20
4
0
376.5
576.3
256.5
893.1
533.1
0
376.5
576.3
167.7
593.1
380.5
0
2040104
161
210
63
69
13
1
1319.5
1682.2
835.7
2748
1693.3
439.7
1319.5
1682.2
592.1
2098.7
1360.5
356.6
2040105
331
432
128
143
25
2
2745
4198.8
2998.5
7271
4287.5
931.5
2745
4198.8
1213.9
4320
2741.2
600.1
2040106
246
320
96
106
20
2
2032.9
3112.2
1385
4822.8
2878.8
752.4
2032.9
3112.2
905.8
3202.6
2054.9
536.4
2040201
113
147
44
49
9
1
1038.2
1450
930.5
2376.9
1404.9
324
1038.2
1450
408.3
1458.2
928.5
215.8
2040202
296
387
115
128
23
2
3325.9
3925.1
2875.5
6317.2
3713
819.7
3325.9
3925.1
1036.6
3755.8
2384
528.5
2040203
278
362
108
119
22
2
2330.2
3577.8
1592.5
5544.7
3310.4
864.4
2330.2
3577.8
1041.7
3682.6
2363.2
616.2
2040204
12
16
5
5
1
0
163.6
132.2
118
202.8
124.8
0
163.6
132.2
42.1
150.6
97.7
0
2040205
233
306
90
99
18
1
2139.3
2396.8
1507.7
3739
2285.5
371
2139.3
2396.8
843.9
2931
1874.6
263.8
2040206
256
335
100
110
20
2
3831.1
3572.2
3063.8
5492.4
3199.6
664.5
3831.1
3572.2
837.2
3119.8
1971.2
406
2040207
67
89
26
28
5
0
1016.6
541.6
518.5
782.3
573.9
0
1016.6
541.6
216.3
782.3
573.9
0
2040301
250
327
97
108
19
2
3887.1
3522.7
3025
5342.9
3110.4
648.7
3887.1
3522.7
811.3
3035.2
1918
396.6
2040302
195
256
76
84
15
1
3039.1
2752.6
2363.7
4173.6
2429.7
506.7
3039.1
2752.6
633.7
2371
1498.3
309.8
2050101
76
99
30
33
6
1
632.1
636.8
307.3
1091.6
704.9
193.5
632.1
636.8
289.3
1030.9
674
185.4
2050102
44
57
17
19
4
0
359.4
334.5
164
583.3
383.5
0
359.4
334.5
164
583.3
383.5
0
2050103
45
58
17
19
4
0
364.1
369.3
177.2
626.8
405.3
0
364.1
369.3
164.8
584.9
384
0
2050104
26
34
10
11
2
0
211.2
258.7
119.6
419.7
261.2
0
211.2
258.7
95
336.7
219
0
2050105
55
71
21
24
4
0
444.5
454.2
217.6
769.5
496.8
0
444.5
454.2
201.2
713.8
468.5
0
2050106
80
104
31
34
6
1
658.8
1008.6
448.8
1562.9
933
243.8
658.8
1008.6
293.5
1037.9
665.9
173.8
2050107
213
279
83
92
17
2
2236.8
3581.5
1598.3
5556.1
3325.9
856.2
2236.8
3581.5
1048.3
3698.9
2378.1
611.5
2050201
60
78
23
26
5
1
752.6
1238.8
553.8
1923.1
1153.1
294.2
752.6
1238.8
363.8
1282.2
825.3
210.3
2050202
23
31
9
10
2
0
194.5
297.8
132.5
461.4
275.4
0
194.5
297.8
86.7
306.4
196.6
0
2050203
15
19
6
6
1
0
133.5
208.8
93
323.7
193.5
0
133.5
208.8
60.9
215.2
138.2
0
2050204
56
73
22
24
4
0
699.9
1151.6
514.8
1787.7
1071.8
0
699.9
1151.6
338.2
1191.9
767.2
0
2050205
46
60
18
20
4
0
395.9
610.1
271.6
945.6
564.7
0
395.9
610.1
177.7
628.2
403.2
0
2050206
122
159
47
52
10
1
1419.1
2309.6
1031.8
3584.4
2147.7
549.9
1419.1
2309.6
677.4
2388.4
1536.6
393
2050301
115
150
45
49
9
1
1619.1
2702.3
1209
4196.3
2518.1
639.5
1619.1
2702.3
794.9
2799.8
1803.3
457.5
2050302
59
77
23
25
5
0
839.6
1402.6
627.5
2178.1
1307.1
0
839.6
1402.6
412.6
1453.3
936.1
0
2050303
27
35
10
11
2
0
379.6
634.1
283.7
984.6
590.9
0
379.6
634.1
186.5
657
423.1
0
March 2004
F-20
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
2050304
44
57
17
19
4
0
621.1
1037.5
464.2
1611.2
966.9
0
621.1
1037.5
305.2
1075
692.4
0
2050305
252
329
98
108
20
2
3056.1
5002.6
2235.5
7764.8
4654.1
1189.5
3056.1
5002.6
1468.2
5175.4
3330.6
850.3
2050306
424
553
165
182
34
4
3561.3
5472.6
2678.4
8632.1
5117.5
1306.8
3561.3
5472.6
1592.2
5626.1
3588.3
917.7
2060001
8
10
3
3
1
0
106.1
107.4
94.6
170.8
87.7
0
106.1
107.4
27
96.9
53.7
0
2060002
99
131
39
43
7
0
1370.6
1323.9
1147.4
2075.5
1083.2
0
1370.6
1323.9
343.4
1230.8
697.9
0
2060003
325
426
126
138
24
2
2689.8
4139.7
3483.3
7435.8
4193
897.4
2689.8
4139.7
1196
4212.3
2553.1
545.5
2060004
76
101
30
33
5
0
844.2
1018.1
879.7
1719
925.5
0
844.2
1018.1
274.1
973.8
564.9
0
2060005
88
116
35
38
6
0
1368.4
1173.1
1053.3
1779.1
914
0
1368.4
1173.1
297.6
1074.6
604.3
0
2060006
249
327
97
106
18
1
2381.2
3239
2766.9
5655.9
3122.1
567.7
2381.2
3239
905.3
3201.6
1901.5
344.4
2060007
43
57
17
19
3
0
677.2
615.9
549.5
938.2
463.6
0
677.2
615.9
147.8
533.6
285.7
0
2060008
58
77
23
25
4
0
888.6
601.3
555.5
892.9
542.4
0
888.6
601.3
190.9
690
453.2
0
2060009
23
30
9
10
2
0
355
308.8
272.1
469.5
237.5
0
355
308.8
77.3
279.4
153.9
0
2060010
72
95
28
31
5
0
1105.5
719.7
638.9
1068.6
659.2
0
1105.5
719.7
237.2
859.7
567.3
0
2070001
55
72
22
24
4
1
765
781.5
387.9
1358.5
867
229.2
765
781.5
387.9
1358.5
867
229.2
2070002
74
96
29
32
6
0
1039
1437.3
921
2492.7
1512.5
0
1039
1437.3
513.9
1805.1
1149.8
0
2070003
32
42
13
14
3
0
453.5
551.9
308.1
948.4
588.8
0
453.5
551.9
227
797
509.4
0
2070004
387
506
152
166
31
2
5467.4
7694.4
4256
12827.5
7773.7
1440.7
5467.4
7694.4
2714.6
9506.8
6044.7
1191.8
2070005
145
189
57
61
11
1
2014.6
2056.7
1031.1
3531.7
2166.9
346.7
2014.6
2056.7
1031.1
3531.7
2166.9
346.7
2070006
28
37
11
12
2
0
393.9
402.1
201.6
690.8
424.3
0
393.9
402.1
201.6
690.8
424.3
0
2070007
46
60
18
20
3
0
641.5
655.4
327.9
1129.8
701.8
0
641.5
655.4
327.3
1129
701.4
0
2070008
198
260
79
86
16
1
1911
2369.8
1631.4
4281.1
2555.8
516.4
1911
2369.8
939.9
3296.2
2043.4
460.8
2070009
176
230
68
75
13
1
1673.7
2635.2
1944.6
4577.3
2638.7
483.3
1673.7
2635.2
766
2697.7
1672.8
311.4
2070010
253
333
100
110
21
2
2685.4
3851.3
2909.2
8837
2570
707.7
2685.4
3851.3
2364.5
8104
2191.4
637.7
2070011
149
199
59
64
11
1
2062.4
1651.5
1227
2670.4
1619.7
234.1
2062.4
1651.5
529.2
1897.1
1219.2
211.4
2080101
2
3
1
1
0
0
33.4
17.5
7.1
26.5
0
0
33.4
17.5
7.1
26.5
0
0
2080102
53
69
21
23
4
0
782.8
416.6
174.6
650
422.2
0
782.8
416.6
174.6
650
422.2
0
2080103
95
124
38
41
8
1
928.3
883
437.8
1534.4
1012.8
283.3
928.3
883
437.8
1534.4
1012.8
283.3
2080104
81
105
31
35
6
1
1167.2
628.4
268.1
998.8
665.1
191.2
1167.2
628.4
268.1
998.8
665.1
191.2
2080105
47
61
18
20
4
0
673.3
364.8
156.1
581.1
387.6
0
673.3
364.8
156.1
581.1
387.6
0
2080106
166
217
65
72
14
1
2145
1288.1
571.2
2101.3
1414.1
427.3
2145
1288.1
571.2
2101.3
1414.1
427.3
2080107
30
39
12
13
2
0
436.4
234.5
99.8
371.7
246.6
0
436.4
234.5
99.8
371.7
246.6
0
2080108
79
102
31
33
6
1
1201
629
256.9
955.3
597.2
272.6
1201
629
256.9
955.3
597.2
272.6
2080109
47
61
18
20
3
0
717.3
375.7
153.4
570.5
356.7
0
717.3
375.7
153.4
570.5
356.7
0
2080110
12
16
5
5
1
0
183.5
96.1
39.2
145.9
91.2
0
183.5
96.1
39.2
145.9
91.2
0
2080201
30
39
12
13
2
0
416.4
425.1
213
730.4
448.9
0
416.4
425.1
213
730.4
448.9
0
March 2004
F-21
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
2080202
19
25
8
8
1
0
270.1
275.8
138.2
473.5
290.5
0
270.1
275.8
138.2
473.5
290.5
0
2080203
118
154
46
51
9
1
1592.5
1169.1
548.3
1948.6
1251.9
290.3
1592.5
1169.1
548.3
1948.6
1251.9
290.3
2080204
64
84
26
28
5
0
687.6
651.7
322.8
1126.7
731.4
0
687.6
651.7
322.8
1126.7
731.4
0
2080205
64
84
25
28
5
1
913.8
499.9
214.7
798.3
533
153.2
913.8
499.9
214.7
798.3
533
153.2
2080206
305
397
118
131
24
3
4425
2422.2
1036.2
3844.4
2535.2
756.7
4425
2422.2
1036.2
3844.4
2535.2
756.7
2080207
120
157
46
52
10
1
1735.1
934.5
399
1486.6
991.1
282.1
1735.1
934.5
399
1486.6
991.1
282.1
2080208
145
189
57
62
11
1
2184.4
1152.9
476.8
1773.8
1130
457.6
2184.4
1152.9
476.8
1773.8
1130
457.6
3010101
127
166
50
55
10
1
1812.2
1317.2
616.1
2186.7
1391.9
301.4
1812.2
1317.2
616.1
2186.7
1391.9
301.4
3010102
60
79
23
26
5
1
875.7
532
289
819.8
533.2
153.8
875.7
532
201.1
748.3
496.9
142.8
3010103
132
173
51
57
10
1
1916.7
1488.2
1009.8
2243.7
1396.6
379.5
1916.7
1488.2
500.9
1828.3
1186.3
316.3
3010104
84
109
32
36
7
1
1217.7
938.1
689.9
1368.4
850.1
251.4
1217.7
938.1
278.7
1034.1
680.4
200
3010105
14
19
6
6
1
0
206.8
111.4
47.6
177.2
118.1
0
206.8
111.4
47.6
177.2
118.1
0
3010106
32
42
12
14
3
0
462.9
332.9
227.8
492.9
310.2
0
462.9
332.9
106.1
393.9
259.9
0
3010107
38
50
15
16
3
0
559.3
520.2
446.4
728.6
435.8
0
559.3
520.2
126.7
469.5
304.8
0
3010201
49
64
19
21
4
0
713.1
385.1
165.5
612.1
407.7
0
713.1
385.1
164
610.9
407.1
0
3010202
35
46
14
15
3
0
512.2
275.8
117.7
437.8
291.1
0
512.2
275.8
117.5
437.6
291
0
3010203
14
18
5
6
1
0
208.5
184.1
152
258.7
155
0
208.5
184.1
46.8
173.9
112.4
0
3010204
23
30
9
10
2
0
339
226.7
142
340.2
216.5
0
339
226.7
77.4
288
190.1
0
3010205
245
320
94
105
18
2
3752.1
3128
2458.2
4270.3
2462.3
730.5
3752.1
3128
788.9
2967.4
1836.3
559.8
3020101
122
160
48
53
10
1
1797.6
1674.7
1439.4
2354
1413.8
425.9
1797.6
1674.7
410.1
1517.1
988.7
297.2
3020102
17
23
7
8
1
0
256.8
239.2
205.6
336.3
202
0
256.8
239.2
58.6
216.7
141.2
0
3020103
100
131
39
43
8
1
1475.7
1371.6
1176.2
1918.3
1145.5
341.4
1475.7
1371.6
333.5
1236.2
801
238.2
3020104
10
13
4
4
1
0
154.6
142
120.2
193.2
111.7
0
154.6
142
33.2
124.4
78
0
3020105
19
24
7
8
1
0
289.8
262.7
219.4
347.1
193.2
0
289.8
262.7
58.8
223.4
135
0
3020106
48
63
18
21
4
0
751.2
681.1
568.8
899.6
500.7
0
751.2
681.1
152.4
579.1
349.7
0
3020201
542
708
211
233
43
5
7960.6
7416.4
6374.6
10425
6261
1886
7960.6
7416.4
1816
6718.5
4378.7
1316.2
3020202
76
99
29
33
6
1
1138.3
1050.8
894.6
1447.2
848.7
244.6
1138.3
1050.8
249.9
932.3
593.3
170.5
3020203
84
110
33
36
7
1
1237.3
1152.7
990.8
1620.3
973.1
293.1
1237.3
1152.7
282.3
1044.2
680.6
204.6
3020204
33
43
12
14
2
0
506.1
459.2
383.8
607.6
338.9
0
506.1
459.2
103
391.1
236.7
0
3030001
34
44
13
15
3
0
529.3
479.8
400.8
633.8
352.7
0
529.3
479.8
107.4
408
246.4
0
3030002
292
381
113
126
23
3
4283.8
3991
3430.3
5609.9
3369.2
1014.9
4283.8
3991
977.2
3615.4
2356.3
708.3
3030003
149
194
58
64
12
1
2182.7
2033.5
1747.9
2858.5
1716.7
517.1
2182.7
2033.5
497.9
1842.2
1200.6
360.9
3030004
189
247
74
81
15
2
2778
2588.1
2224.6
3638
2184.9
658.2
2778
2588.1
633.7
2344.6
1528.1
459.3
3030005
105
136
40
45
8
1
1598
1460.3
1230
1965
1120
304.8
1598
1460.3
335.8
1265.3
782.6
212.1
3030006
94
123
36
40
7
1
1418.9
1304.8
1106.4
1781.5
1033.8
291.8
1418.9
1304.8
306.4
1147.4
722.6
203.3
March 2004
F-22
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
3030007
154
201
59
66
12
1
2358.7
2151.2
1808.3
2881.9
1633.3
439.2
2358.7
2151.2
491.5
1855.5
1141.2
305.6
3040101
184
240
71
79
14
1
2659.9
3210.6
2662
4811.4
2685.8
645.9
2659.9
3210.6
891
3238.2
1941.7
462.2
3040102
68
89
26
29
5
1
991
1026.7
875.1
1480.2
859.3
238.2
991
1026.7
261.7
962.4
604.2
166.9
3040103
114
148
44
49
9
1
1669.2
1555.1
1336.6
2185.9
1312.8
395.4
1669.2
1555.1
380.8
1408.7
918.1
276
3040104
52
67
20
22
4
0
758.6
704.1
603.7
990.4
595.1
0
758.6
704.1
173.1
640.3
417.3
0
3040105
227
296
88
98
18
2
3326.6
3097.9
2661.9
4354.9
2615.6
787.8
3326.6
3097.9
758.9
2807.6
1829.8
549.9
3040201
190
249
74
82
15
2
2786.4
1668.2
884.5
2544.3
1615.1
420.2
2786.4
1668.2
632.8
2339.6
1511.1
388.7
3040202
126
164
49
54
10
1
1827.9
997
439
1567.1
1013.7
257.6
1827.9
997
419.5
1551.2
1005.6
255.2
3040203
143
186
55
61
11
1
2135.7
1894.3
1566.8
2622.9
1545.1
439.7
2135.7
1894.3
468.3
1745.6
1110
313.5
3040204
62
82
24
27
5
1
928.3
587.3
340.3
869.9
541.4
140.1
928.3
587.3
205.8
760.7
486.1
123.4
3040205
160
209
62
69
12
1
2364.8
1262.7
528.5
1953.4
1250.6
304.8
2364.8
1262.7
528.5
1953.4
1250.6
304.8
3040206
119
155
46
51
9
1
1830.7
1410.2
1029
1925.7
1109.5
277.4
1830.7
1410.2
379.1
1424.6
873
215.2
3040207
130
171
50
56
10
1
2005.9
1374.7
882.8
1922.7
1133.6
274.4
2005.9
1374.7
419.1
1565.7
965.5
230.5
3050101
318
414
121
136
24
2
4587.7
5708.7
4735.8
8601.2
4736.4
1113.1
4587.7
5708.7
1577.2
5748.9
3404.7
798.7
3050102
105
137
40
45
8
1
1525.7
1712
1450.8
2510.5
1424.5
371.1
1525.7
1712
448.1
1641.5
1005.2
260.9
3050103
340
444
132
146
27
3
4930.5
3249.1
1996.7
4907.7
3097
847.1
4930.5
3249.1
1138.1
4209.6
2742.5
739.7
3050104
133
173
52
57
11
1
1912.9
1032.6
443.8
1641.4
1069.2
274.2
1912.9
1032.6
443.8
1641.4
1069.2
274.2
3050105
264
344
101
113
20
2
3816
3629.8
2728.9
5478.1
3163.5
784.7
3816
3629.8
1100.2
4036
2479.6
614.4
3050106
98
129
38
42
8
1
1420.3
766.7
329.5
1218.8
793.9
203.6
1420.3
766.7
329.5
1218.8
793.9
203.6
3050107
211
275
80
90
16
2
3030
1745.5
745.2
2773.1
1723.2
401.7
3030
1745.5
745.2
2773.1
1723.2
401.7
3050108
149
194
58
64
12
1
2141.7
1161.4
498.9
1846
1198.5
305.5
2141.7
1161.4
498.9
1846
1198.5
305.5
3050109
284
371
108
121
22
2
4080.3
2396.6
1027.6
3806.7
2337.4
531.4
4080.3
2396.6
1019.5
3798.9
2333.9
530.7
3050110
147
192
57
63
12
1
2119.1
1143.9
491.7
1818.3
1184.4
303.8
2119.1
1143.9
491.7
1818.3
1184.4
303.8
3050111
30
39
12
13
2
0
439.8
235.8
99.7
368.7
237.6
0
439.8
235.8
99.7
368.7
237.6
0
3050112
7
9
3
3
0
0
99.8
52.6
21.3
78.7
0
0
99.8
52.6
21.3
78.7
0
0
3050201
42
55
16
18
3
0
634.8
334.5
135.3
499.9
312.7
0
634.8
334.5
135.3
499.9
312.7
0
3050202
133
175
52
57
10
1
2038
1073.9
434.5
1604.9
1003.9
227.2
2038
1073.9
434.5
1604.9
1003.9
227.2
3050203
56
74
22
24
5
0
813.3
439
188.7
697.8
454.6
0
813.3
439
188.7
697.8
454.6
0
3050204
41
53
16
17
3
0
584.2
315.4
135.5
501.3
326.5
0
584.2
315.4
135.5
501.3
326.5
0
3050205
44
58
17
19
3
0
662
351.8
145.5
537.7
341.5
0
662
351.8
145.5
537.7
341.5
0
3050206
25
32
10
11
2
0
364.1
194.3
81.2
300.1
191.9
0
364.1
194.3
81.2
300.1
191.9
0
3050207
42
55
16
18
3
0
623.8
333.3
139.6
516.1
330.6
0
623.8
333.3
139.6
516.1
330.6
0
3050208
229
301
90
99
17
2
3490.3
1841.5
747.6
2761.6
1731.6
395
3490.3
1841.5
747.6
2761.6
1731.6
395
3060101
107
139
39
45
8
1
1529.7
1136.2
584
1797.5
1014.1
196.5
1529.7
1136.2
445.9
1664.4
955.1
185.2
3060102
77
100
29
32
6
1
1089.2
964.2
734.3
1737.8
1044.4
252.3
1089.2
964.2
415.6
1512.6
910.2
215.6
March 2004
F-23
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
3060103
107
140
42
46
9
1
1546.7
834.8
520.3
1391.8
911.7
242.1
1546.7
834.8
359
1326.4
868.4
230
3060104
99
129
38
42
8
1
1421.2
766.7
746
1386.1
916.1
256.3
1421.2
766.7
330.1
1217.6
804.3
225.1
3060105
37
48
14
16
3
0
527.2
284.4
276.7
514.2
339.8
0
527.2
284.4
122.5
451.7
298.4
0
3060106
200
262
78
86
16
2
2895
1560.5
1043.5
2624.3
1718.2
461.2
2895
1560.5
669.5
2473.2
1618.1
432.9
3060107
23
30
9
10
2
0
332.2
179.3
77.1
285
185.7
0
332.2
179.3
77.1
285
185.7
0
3060108
60
78
23
26
5
1
864.7
466.2
453.7
842.2
556.1
157.2
864.7
466.2
200.6
739.8
488.2
138
3060109
100
131
39
43
7
1
1530.6
804.4
610.8
1318
826.7
305
1530.6
804.4
328
1216.1
762.1
276.3
3060201
38
50
15
16
3
0
550.2
296.8
288.8
536.6
354.6
0
550.2
296.8
127.8
471.3
311.4
0
3060202
102
133
40
43
8
1
1529.3
808
789.8
1413
900
358.7
1529.3
808
335.4
1244.2
791.6
315.5
3060203
72
94
28
31
6
1
1063.3
565.2
551.4
999.8
645
227.3
1063.3
565.2
237.5
879.6
567
199.8
3060204
248
321
96
105
18
2
3255.5
1623.4
1577.9
2759.4
1670.4
643.5
3255.5
1623.4
642.5
2430.8
1469.5
565.7
3070101
397
519
155
171
32
4
5730.8
3091.7
3008.2
5589.2
3693.9
1033.6
5730.8
3091.7
1331.2
4909.8
3243.2
907.5
3070102
132
172
51
57
11
1
1902.6
1026.4
998.7
1855.6
1226.4
343.2
1902.6
1026.4
442
1630.1
1076.8
301.3
3070103
977
1277
381
420
79
9
14097.7
7605.5
7400.2
13749.5
9087.1
2542.7
14097.7
7605.5
3274.8
12078.1
7978.3
2232.6
3070104
151
197
59
65
12
1
2177.7
1174.8
1143.1
2123.9
1403.7
392.8
2177.7
1174.8
505.9
1865.7
1232.4
344.9
3070105
23
30
9
10
2
0
332.4
179.3
174.5
324.2
214.2
0
332.4
179.3
77.2
284.8
188.1
0
3070106
111
144
43
48
9
1
1249.6
597.6
573.9
1022.9
612.2
127.6
1249.6
597.6
233.8
898.9
537.4
111.6
3070107
52
67
20
22
4
0
744.3
401.4
390.5
725.5
479.3
0
744.3
401.4
172.8
637.3
420.8
0
3070201
173
224
67
75
13
1
1991
964.6
927.7
1662.7
1008.1
216.6
1991
964.6
381.9
1461
884.9
189.6
3070202
36
46
14
15
3
0
368.3
167.3
159.6
279.7
159.2
0
368.3
167.3
62.6
245.8
139.7
0
3070203
90
116
35
38
7
1
1084.6
523.5
506.2
881.5
520.7
172.8
1084.6
523.5
202.6
776.2
457.9
151.7
3070204
114
148
44
49
9
1
1071.8
473.1
285.5
693.8
420.5
61.5
1071.8
473.1
170.8
655.8
400.1
59.6
3070205
38
49
15
16
3
0
350.4
157.9
57.9
214.6
143.4
0
350.4
157.9
57.9
214.6
143.4
0
3080101
527
689
204
227
43
4
4718.5
2054.2
720.4
2665.1
1782
346.9
4718.5
2054.2
720.4
2665.1
1782
346.9
3080102
415
542
161
179
34
3
3862.3
1740.5
638
2366
1581.2
299.1
3862.3
1740.5
638
2366
1581.2
299.1
3080103
523
684
203
225
43
4
4873.7
2196.3
805.1
2985.5
1995.3
377.4
4873.7
2196.3
805.1
2985.5
1995.3
377.4
3080201
303
396
118
130
25
2
2819.1
1270.4
465.7
1726.9
1154.1
218.3
2819.1
1270.4
465.7
1726.9
1154.1
218.3
3080202
107
140
42
46
9
1
947.3
407.5
140.6
519.8
347.6
68.4
947.3
407.5
140.6
519.8
347.6
68.4
3080203
170
222
66
73
14
1
1247.5
432.8
100.2
359.8
242
63.5
1247.5
432.8
100.2
359.8
242
63.5
3090101
353
462
137
152
29
3
3284
1477.9
540.9
2005.5
1340.3
253.8
3284
1477.9
540.9
2005.5
1340.3
253.8
3090102
48
63
19
21
4
0
386
149.9
44
161.1
107.9
0
386
149.9
44
161.1
107.9
0
3090103
52
68
20
23
4
0
447.5
186.2
61.3
225.9
151.2
0
447.5
186.2
61.3
225.9
151.2
0
3090202
623
816
241
268
51
5
4578.7
1588.9
367.8
1321.3
888.7
233.1
4578.7
1588.9
367.8
1321.3
888.7
233.1
3090203
47
62
18
20
4
0
348.3
120.8
28
100.4
67.6
0
348.3
120.8
28
100.4
67.6
0
3090204
503
658
195
216
41
4
3691.7
1280.9
296.4
1064.7
716.1
187.9
3691.7
1280.9
296.4
1064.7
716.1
187.9
March 2004
F-24
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
3090205
215
281
83
92
18
2
1576.7
547.1
126.6
454.7
305.8
80.2
1576.7
547.1
126.6
454.7
305.8
80.2
3100101
245
320
95
105
20
2
2228.3
984.3
351.9
1303
871.1
167.5
2228.3
984.3
351.9
1303
871.1
167.5
3100102
50
65
19
21
4
0
461.9
208.1
76.3
282.9
189.1
0
461.9
208.1
76.3
282.9
189.1
0
3100201
182
238
71
78
15
1
1696.2
764.4
280.2
1039.1
694.4
131.3
1696.2
764.4
280.2
1039.1
694.4
131.3
3100202
57
75
22
25
5
0
533.6
240.4
88.1
326.8
218.4
0
533.6
240.4
88.1
326.8
218.4
0
3100203
35
46
14
15
3
0
326.5
147.1
53.9
200
133.7
0
326.5
147.1
53.9
200
133.7
0
3100204
224
293
87
96
18
2
2086.4
940.2
344.7
1278.1
854.2
161.6
2086.4
940.2
344.7
1278.1
854.2
161.6
3100205
185
241
72
80
15
2
1720.1
775.1
284.1
1053.7
704.2
133.2
1720.1
775.1
284.1
1053.7
704.2
133.2
3100206
124
162
48
53
10
1
1154.7
520.4
190.7
707.3
472.7
89.4
1154.7
520.4
190.7
707.3
472.7
89.4
3100207
294
385
114
127
24
2
2739.5
1234.5
452.5
1678.1
1121.5
212.1
2739.5
1234.5
452.5
1678.1
1121.5
212.1
3100208
387
505
150
166
32
3
3599.5
1622.1
594.6
2205
1473.6
278.7
3599.5
1622.1
594.6
2205
1473.6
278.7
3110101
45
59
18
20
4
0
422.1
190.2
69.7
258.5
172.8
0
422.1
190.2
69.7
258.5
172.8
0
3110102
57
75
22
25
5
0
533.9
240.7
88.3
327.4
218.8
0
533.9
240.7
88.3
327.4
218.8
0
3110103
40
52
16
17
3
0
487.8
248.1
138.8
394.2
267
0
487.8
248.1
102.3
379.4
257.2
0
3110201
54
69
21
23
4
0
545.4
248.3
180.6
391.4
231.8
0
545.4
248.3
93.1
362.3
216.1
0
3110202
110
143
43
47
9
1
1571.9
845.2
794
1515.9
1002.5
278.8
1571.9
845.2
363.3
1341.9
887.3
246.7
3110203
137
178
53
59
11
1
1968.2
1060.9
933
1881.5
1253.4
350.5
1968.2
1060.9
457.2
1688.8
1125.5
314.7
3110204
60
78
23
26
5
1
859.6
463.8
451.2
838.4
554.1
155
859.6
463.8
199.7
736.5
486.5
136.1
3110205
92
120
36
40
8
1
987.7
477.3
188.2
699.1
475.6
110
987.7
477.3
188.2
699.1
475.6
110
3110206
165
215
64
71
14
1
1678.5
792.6
305.4
1133.9
767.2
167.7
1678.5
792.6
305.4
1133.9
767.2
167.7
3120001
141
185
55
61
12
1
1587
782.6
367.3
1187.6
805.7
194.9
1587
782.6
314.2
1166.1
791.4
190.9
3120002
62
81
24
27
5
1
894
482.3
469.3
871.9
576.3
161.2
894
482.3
207.7
765.9
505.9
141.6
3120003
94
122
36
40
8
1
1073.2
533.7
274
824.3
557.9
137.4
1073.2
533.7
215.9
800.7
542.2
133
3130001
701
916
273
302
57
7
10017.3
6656
6384.9
12673.8
8398.6
2420.1
10017.3
6656
3029.2
10948.3
7251.2
2086.7
3130002
613
801
239
264
50
6
8864.9
5452.1
5135.3
9217.9
6049.6
1757.7
8864.9
5452.1
2058.6
7581.6
5058.4
1461.1
3130003
112
147
44
48
9
1
1630
1208.9
1092.5
1868.7
1213.9
371.7
1630
1208.9
377.4
1386.6
940.8
285.7
3130004
21
27
8
9
2
0
300.3
218.3
184.6
335.6
219.6
0
300.3
218.3
69.6
256.2
174.8
0
3130005
516
675
201
222
42
5
7450
4019.2
3910.6
7266
4802.1
1343.7
7450
4019.2
1730.6
6382.7
4216.2
1179.8
3130006
78
102
30
33
6
1
1123.2
606
589.6
1095.5
724
202.6
1123.2
606
260.9
962.3
635.7
177.9
3130007
62
81
24
27
5
1
894
482.3
469.3
871.9
576.3
161.2
894
482.3
207.7
765.9
505.9
141.6
3130008
63
82
24
27
5
1
905.5
488.5
475.3
883.1
583.6
163.3
905.5
488.5
210.3
775.7
512.4
143.4
3130009
25
33
10
11
2
0
366.8
197.9
192.5
357.7
236.4
0
366.8
197.9
85.2
314.2
207.6
0
3130010
26
34
10
11
2
0
378.2
204.1
198.5
368.9
243.8
0
378.2
204.1
87.9
324
214.1
0
3130011
40
53
16
17
3
0
421.3
201.1
83.9
292.9
198.1
0
421.3
201.1
78.3
290.7
196.6
0
3130012
69
90
27
30
6
1
857.8
518.4
296.8
769.2
516.6
143
857.8
518.4
183
677.6
466.9
126.8
March 2004
F-25
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
3130013
3
4
1
1
0
0
31.9
14.4
5.3
19.5
0
0
31.9
14.4
5.3
19.5
0
0
3140101
109
143
42
47
9
1
1039.6
474.3
176.3
653.8
438.5
86.6
1039.6
474.3
176.3
653.8
438.5
86.6
3140102
35
45
13
15
3
0
355.2
168.4
65.1
241.8
163.8
0
355.2
168.4
65.1
241.8
163.8
0
3140103
52
68
20
22
4
0
684.2
468.7
312.3
686.5
455.5
0
684.2
468.7
150.6
556.4
384.9
0
3140104
103
134
40
44
9
1
1415.8
845.7
458.7
1303.1
886.7
252.6
1415.8
845.7
321.5
1192.7
826.8
233.1
3140105
29
38
11
13
2
0
270.8
122
44.7
165.9
110.8
0
270.8
122
44.7
165.9
110.8
0
3140106
19
25
7
8
2
0
270.1
221.1
172.3
309.1
196.1
0
270.1
221.1
60
220.4
149.5
0
3140107
14
19
5
6
1
0
149.5
95.4
57.3
105.3
49.9
0
149.5
95.4
23
83.9
44
0
3140201
48
63
19
21
4
1
699.4
654.7
566.5
916.9
588.2
191.5
699.4
654.7
161.4
590.9
411.2
134
3140202
19
25
7
8
2
0
279.4
253.8
215.1
357.7
230.4
0
279.4
253.8
64.5
236.5
164.6
0
3140203
56
72
22
24
5
0
691.3
380
184.5
577.2
393.2
0
691.3
380
147.4
547.4
377
0
3140301
14
19
6
6
1
0
209.8
196.4
169.9
275.1
176.5
0
209.8
196.4
48.4
177.3
123.4
0
3140302
7
9
3
3
1
0
104.9
98.2
85
137.5
88.2
0
104.9
98.2
24.2
88.6
61.7
0
3140303
26
34
10
11
2
0
384.7
360.1
311.6
504.3
323.5
0
384.7
360.1
88.8
325
226.2
0
3140304
7
9
3
3
1
0
104.9
97.8
84.4
137.1
88
0
104.9
97.8
24.2
88.6
61.7
0
3140305
78
102
31
34
7
1
1107.4
805.8
565.7
1186.3
785.6
238.5
1107.4
805.8
253.3
935
649.2
194.2
3150101
172
225
67
74
14
2
2399.2
2449.7
2114.7
4889.2
3242.6
946.6
2399.2
2449.7
1205.9
4240.3
2810
816
3150102
74
97
29
32
6
1
1036.1
1058
993
2168.3
1442
431.4
1036.1
1058
520.6
1831
1217.1
363.5
3150103
42
55
16
18
3
0
585.6
598
561.3
1225.5
815
0
585.6
598
294.3
1034.9
687.9
0
3150104
570
744
222
245
46
6
8015.7
7023.2
6636.5
14078.5
9353
2768.1
8015.7
7023.2
3376
11968.6
7947.2
2348.1
3150105
138
181
54
60
11
1
1945.8
2668.7
2337.3
4609.5
2843.6
778.5
1945.8
2668.7
965.5
3408.2
2196.1
604.5
3150106
240
315
93
104
19
2
3421
5717.8
4820.1
8913.3
5203.8
1321.3
3421
5717.8
1679.2
5947.1
3726.7
945.3
3150107
88
115
34
38
7
1
1252.3
2046
1726.1
3179.9
1861.4
476.5
1252.3
2046
598
2119.8
1332.1
340.6
3150108
179
234
70
77
14
2
2559
2786.5
2449.1
4555.3
2810.4
773.7
2559
2786.5
927.4
3321.4
2152.7
593.7
3150109
28
37
11
12
2
0
403.8
578.4
490.4
882.2
525
0
403.8
578.4
164.1
584.7
374.1
0
3150110
75
98
29
32
6
1
1094.9
1067.1
921.2
1509.7
959.9
306.3
1094.9
1067.1
267.6
976.4
672.6
214.6
3150201
93
122
37
40
8
1
1358.7
1517
1300.2
2212.9
1369.5
409.6
1358.7
1517
400.3
1445.9
966.1
288.6
3150202
87
114
34
38
7
1
1242.3
1956.8
1653
3026.3
1779.2
461.5
1242.3
1956.8
567.5
2014.3
1271.8
329.5
3150203
29
38
11
12
2
0
419.7
392.8
339.9
550.1
352.9
0
419.7
392.8
96.8
354.5
246.7
0
3150204
3
4
1
1
0
0
45
41.2
35
55.9
0
0
45
41.2
9.9
36.1
0
0
3160101
67
87
26
29
5
1
981.6
953.7
809.6
1357.4
819.6
234.7
981.6
953.7
235.8
878.3
574.4
164.5
3160102
79
102
31
34
6
1
1156.8
1072.9
917
1522.9
935.5
270.5
1156.8
1072.9
261.1
981.5
654.2
189.2
3160103
37
46
13
14
2
0
526.2
818.3
657.6
1196.3
626.3
0
526.2
818.3
227.2
797.3
448
0
3160104
53
69
21
23
4
1
782.9
726.1
620.6
1030.7
633.1
183.1
782.9
726.1
176.7
664.3
442.7
128.1
3160105
26
34
10
11
2
0
369.4
548.8
461.8
838.4
489.3
0
369.4
548.8
156.3
556.7
349.2
0
March 2004
F-26
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
3160106
8
10
3
3
1
0
116.2
130
111.1
190.2
116.7
0
116.2
130
34.3
124.3
82.4
0
3160107
31
40
12
13
2
0
437.4
677
572.3
1044.5
615.4
0
437.4
677
195.6
694.8
439.7
0
3160108
14
19
6
6
1
0
210.3
195.2
167.1
276.7
170.7
0
210.3
195.2
47.6
178.3
119.4
0
3160109
112
147
43
49
9
1
1595.7
2667
2248.3
4157.5
2427.3
616.3
1595.7
2667
783.2
2774
1738.3
440.9
3160110
50
65
19
22
4
0
711.8
1189.6
1002.8
1854.4
1082.7
0
711.8
1189.6
349.4
1237.3
775.4
0
3160111
227
298
88
99
18
2
3237.4
5410.8
4561.3
8434.7
4924.4
1250.4
3237.4
5410.8
1589
5627.8
3526.6
894.5
3160112
101
132
39
44
8
1
1436.2
2342.3
1976.3
3639.7
2131
545.8
1436.2
2342.3
684.4
2426.1
1525
390.2
3160113
29
38
11
12
2
0
417.8
478.7
409.8
702
432.5
0
417.8
478.7
127.4
459.5
305.4
0
3160201
25
32
10
11
2
0
361.4
338.2
292.6
473.8
303.8
0
361.4
338.2
83.4
305.3
212.4
0
3160202
24
31
9
10
2
0
350.2
326
280
460.3
287.7
0
350.2
326
79.7
296.7
201.1
0
3160203
35
46
14
15
3
0
503.2
465.8
399.4
642.1
405.2
0
503.2
465.8
113.1
413.8
283.3
0
3160204
22
28
8
9
1
0
246.6
200.6
152.2
220.8
102.8
0
246.6
200.6
39.5
142.5
71.8
0
3160205
80
101
28
32
4
0
816.7
620.9
436.4
585.1
191.2
0
816.7
620.9
106.1
377.9
133.4
0
3170001
41
54
16
18
3
0
607.6
563.6
481.7
799.9
491.4
0
607.6
563.6
137.2
515.6
343.6
0
3170002
33
42
13
14
3
0
479
444.5
380.1
630.5
388.1
0
479
444.5
108.2
406.4
271.4
0
3170003
13
17
5
6
1
0
187
173.4
148.2
246.1
151.2
0
187
173.4
42.2
158.6
105.7
0
3170004
52
67
20
22
4
1
759.5
704.4
602.1
999.9
614.2
177.6
759.5
704.4
171.4
644.4
429.5
124.2
3170005
68
88
26
29
6
1
993.2
921.2
787.3
1307.6
803.2
232.2
993.2
921.2
224.2
842.7
561.7
162.5
3170006
25
31
9
10
1
0
304.9
261.4
214.6
335
171.2
0
304.9
261.4
58.3
216.1
119.7
0
3170007
51
66
20
22
4
0
744.1
688.4
587.6
974.1
595.6
0
744.1
688.4
167.1
627.8
416.5
0
3170008
59
76
23
25
4
1
804.5
727.1
613.2
978.6
585.8
181.6
804.5
727.1
171.6
630.8
409.5
127
3170009
197
247
72
82
11
1
2395.6
2065.2
1681.7
2636.8
1320.9
359.8
2395.6
2065.2
459.9
1703.2
924.6
252
3180001
40
52
15
17
3
0
584.3
541.9
463.1
769.2
472.5
0
584.3
541.9
131.9
495.7
330.4
0
3180002
119
155
46
51
10
1
2403.9
3117.1
2635.8
5258.2
3095.8
764.5
2403.9
3117.1
917.7
3469.2
2199.4
543
3180003
23
30
9
10
2
0
453.7
569.3
481.9
947.7
559.7
0
453.7
569.3
165.2
624.2
397.1
0
3180004
52
69
20
23
4
0
884.9
995.9
726.7
1575.7
902.3
0
884.9
995.9
275.8
1032.1
637.7
0
3180005
43
56
16
18
3
0
1435.3
2417.6
1843.2
4459.1
2547.8
0
1435.3
2417.6
789.2
2972.7
1823.9
0
4010101
5
6
2
2
0
0
50.8
83.2
70
138.8
0
0
50.8
83.2
25.6
92.6
0
0
4010102
16
20
6
7
1
0
159.7
261.6
220
436.3
260.7
0
159.7
261.6
80.5
291.1
186.8
0
4010201
33
44
13
15
3
0
341.1
558.8
469.9
934.8
558.6
0
341.1
558.8
172
621.8
398.9
0
4010202
16
21
6
7
1
0
166.9
273.5
230
456.1
272.6
0
166.9
273.5
84.2
304.3
195.3
0
4010301
15
19
6
6
1
0
152.2
249.6
208.6
472
280.3
0
152.2
249.6
76.4
276.2
176.1
0
4010302
3
4
1
1
0
0
29
47.5
39.7
90.9
0
0
29
47.5
14.5
52.6
0
0
4020101
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
4020102
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
March 2004
F-27
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
4020103
13
18
5
6
1
0
137.9
225.6
190
374.4
223.4
0
137.9
225.6
69.6
249.8
160
0
4020105
4
6
2
2
0
0
43.6
71.2
60
118.2
0
0
43.6
71.2
22
78.9
0
0
4020201
7
9
3
3
1
0
72.6
118.7
100
197.1
117.6
0
72.6
118.7
36.6
131.5
84.2
0
4020203
7
9
3
3
1
0
72.6
118.7
100
197.1
117.6
0
72.6
118.7
36.6
131.5
84.2
0
4020300
2
3
1
1
0
0
21.8
35.6
30
60.6
0
0
21.8
35.6
11
39.5
0
0
4030101
60
79
23
26
5
1
615.8
1010.2
843.2
1949.7
1156.8
310
615.8
1010.2
308.7
1116.8
711.3
190.2
4030102
12
16
5
5
1
0
123.2
202
168.6
389.9
231.4
0
123.2
202
61.7
223.4
142.3
0
4030103
41
54
16
18
3
0
420.2
689.3
575.3
1330.4
789.4
0
420.2
689.3
210.7
762.1
485.3
0
4030104
5
6
2
2
0
0
50.7
83.2
69.4
160.6
0
0
50.7
83.2
25.4
92
0
0
4030105
24
32
9
10
2
0
246.3
404.1
337.3
779.9
462.7
0
246.3
404.1
123.5
446.7
284.5
0
4030106
4
6
2
2
0
0
43.5
71.3
59.9
121.9
0
0
43.5
71.3
21.9
78.9
0
0
4030107
4
5
1
2
0
0
36.3
59.4
50
98.5
0
0
36.3
59.4
18.3
65.7
0
0
4030108
24
32
9
10
2
0
246.5
403.9
338.4
735.1
437.1
0
246.5
403.9
123.9
446.9
285.3
0
4030109
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
4030110
6
7
2
2
0
0
58.1
95
80
157.6
0
0
58.1
95
29.3
105.2
0
0
4030111
6
8
2
3
1
0
65.3
106.9
90
177.4
105.8
0
65.3
106.9
33
118.3
75.8
0
4030201
24
32
9
10
2
0
246.3
404.1
337.3
779.9
462.7
0
246.3
404.1
123.5
446.7
284.5
0
4030202
62
81
24
27
5
1
630.3
1034
863
1995.6
1184
317.3
630.3
1034
316
1143.1
728
194.7
4030203
30
40
12
13
2
0
311.5
511
426.5
986.3
585.2
0
311.5
511
156.2
565
359.8
0
4030204
108
141
42
47
8
1
1101.2
1806.5
1507.8
3486.5
2068.7
554.4
1101.2
1806.5
552
1997.2
1271.9
340.1
4040001
114
148
44
49
9
1
1145
1296.8
1175.2
2611.6
1675.6
457.3
1145
1296.8
586.4
2115
1381.1
377.7
4040002
82
108
32
35
7
1
838.2
1288.4
1089.2
2518.9
1512.6
403.7
838.2
1288.4
422.1
1525.7
976.2
259.7
4040003
67
88
26
29
5
1
688.3
1129.1
942.4
2179.1
1292.9
346.5
688.3
1129.1
345
1248.2
794.9
212.6
4050001
258
336
100
111
21
2
2617.8
3679.2
3185.2
6586.7
4053.1
1067.3
2617.8
3679.2
1329.8
4784.8
3092.6
816.8
4050002
81
106
31
35
6
1
827.6
1353.7
1139.9
2246.4
1340.5
342.8
827.6
1353.7
417.5
1499
960.2
245.4
4050003
150
196
58
65
12
1
1539
2517.4
2119.8
4177.6
2492.8
637.5
1539
2517.4
776.4
2787.6
1785.6
456.3
4050004
153
200
59
66
12
1
1568
2564.9
2159.8
4256.4
2539.9
649.5
1568
2564.9
791
2840.2
1819.3
464.9
4050005
8
10
3
3
1
0
79.9
130.6
110
216.8
129.3
0
79.9
130.6
40.3
144.6
92.6
0
4050006
195
255
76
84
15
2
1996.3
3265.5
2749.7
5419
3233.6
827
1996.3
3265.5
1007.1
3616
2316.2
591.9
4050007
97
127
38
42
8
1
994.5
1626.8
1369.9
2699.7
1610.9
412
994.5
1626.8
501.7
1801.4
1153.9
294.9
4060101
58
76
23
25
5
0
595.3
973.7
819.9
1615.9
964.2
0
595.3
973.7
300.3
1078.2
690.7
0
4060102
84
109
32
36
7
1
856.6
1401.2
1179.9
2325.3
1387.5
354.8
856.6
1401.2
432.1
1551.6
993.9
254
4060103
24
32
9
10
2
0
246.8
403.7
340
670
399.8
0
246.8
403.7
124.5
447.1
286.4
0
4060104
52
68
20
22
4
0
529.9
866.8
729.9
1438.5
858.4
0
529.9
866.8
267.3
959.9
614.9
0
4060105
51
67
20
22
4
0
522.7
855
719.9
1418.8
846.6
0
522.7
855
263.7
946.7
606.4
0
March 2004
F-28
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
4060106
6
7
2
2
0
0
58.1
95
80
157.6
0
0
58.1
95
29.3
105.2
0
0
4060107
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
4060200
1
2
1
1
0
0
14.5
23.1
19.5
40.3
0
0
14.5
23.1
7.3
26.3
0
0
4070001
6
7
2
2
0
0
58.1
95
80
157.6
0
0
58.1
95
29.3
105.2
0
0
4070003
15
19
6
6
1
0
152.4
249.4
210
413.8
246.9
0
152.4
249.4
76.9
276.1
176.9
0
4070004
53
70
21
23
4
0
544.4
890.6
749.9
1477.9
881.9
0
544.4
890.6
274.7
986.2
631.7
0
4070005
4
6
2
2
0
0
43.6
71.2
60
118.2
0
0
43.6
71.2
22
78.9
0
0
4070006
18
24
7
8
1
0
188.7
308.7
260
512.3
305.7
0
188.7
308.7
95.2
341.9
219
0
4070007
33
43
13
14
3
0
333.9
546.2
460
906.5
540.9
0
333.9
546.2
168.5
604.9
387.4
0
4080101
27
35
10
12
2
0
275.9
451.2
380
748.8
446.8
0
275.9
451.2
139.2
499.7
320.1
0
4080102
24
32
9
10
2
0
246.8
403.7
340
670
399.8
0
246.8
403.7
124.5
447.1
286.4
0
4080103
11
15
4
5
1
0
116.1
190
160
315.3
188.1
0
116.1
190
58.6
210.4
134.8
0
4080104
4
6
2
2
0
0
43.6
71.2
60
118.2
0
0
43.6
71.2
22
78.9
0
0
4080201
53
69
20
23
4
0
537.2
878.7
739.9
1458.2
870.1
0
537.2
878.7
271
973
623.3
0
4080202
56
73
22
24
4
0
573.5
938.1
789.9
1556.7
928.9
0
573.5
938.1
289.3
1038.8
665.4
0
4080203
104
135
40
45
8
1
1059.8
1733.7
1459.8
2877
1716.8
439
1059.8
1733.7
534.7
1919.7
1229.7
314.3
4080204
141
184
55
61
11
1
1444.6
2363
1989.8
3921.4
2340
598.4
1444.6
2363
728.8
2616.6
1676.1
428.4
4080205
33
44
13
14
3
0
341.2
558.1
470
926.2
552.7
0
341.2
558.1
172.1
618
395.9
0
4080206
4
5
1
2
0
0
36.3
59.4
50
98.5
0
0
36.3
59.4
18.3
65.7
0
0
4090001
116
152
45
50
9
1
1190.5
1947.4
1639.8
3231.7
1928.4
493.2
1190.5
1947.4
600.6
2156.4
1381.3
353
4090002
26
34
10
11
2
0
268.6
439.4
370
729.1
435.1
0
268.6
439.4
135.5
486.5
311.6
0
4090003
228
298
89
98
18
2
2337.5
3823.6
3219.7
6345.2
3786.3
968.3
2337.5
3823.6
1179.2
4234
2712.1
693.1
4090004
129
169
50
56
10
1
1321.2
2161.1
1819.8
3586.4
2140.1
547.3
1321.2
2161.1
666.5
2393.1
1532.9
391.8
4090005
176
230
68
76
14
1
1800.3
2944.9
2479.7
4887
2916.1
745.8
1800.3
2944.9
908.2
3260.9
2088.8
533.8
4100001
87
114
34
38
7
1
889
1344
1147.6
2317
1401.9
355.9
889
1344
450.4
1617.5
1038.4
263.3
4100002
48
63
19
21
4
0
493.4
799.9
674.6
1333
796.7
0
493.4
799.9
249
894.1
572.9
0
4100003
50
66
20
22
4
0
507.8
580.3
524.7
1161.9
742.5
0
507.8
580.3
260.1
937.3
610.2
0
4100004
39
51
15
17
3
0
391.3
391.4
365.4
846.4
551.9
0
391.3
391.4
201.4
725.7
473
0
4100005
11
14
4
5
1
0
106.7
106.8
99.7
230.9
150.7
0
106.7
106.8
54.9
198
129.2
0
4100006
12
16
5
5
1
0
121.5
143.5
128.8
281.5
177.7
0
121.5
143.5
62.2
223.6
144.4
0
4100007
28
36
11
12
2
0
277
277.5
258.9
598.7
388.4
0
277
277.5
142.7
513.3
332.8
0
4100008
28
37
11
12
2
0
284
284.6
265.5
613.8
397.8
0
284
284.6
146.4
526.3
340.9
0
4100009
53
70
21
23
4
0
532.6
533.5
497.8
1150.8
746
0
532.6
533.5
274.5
986.8
639.2
0
4100010
77
101
30
33
6
1
774
775.4
723.4
1672.5
1084.1
265.7
774
775.4
398.9
1434.1
929
227.9
4100011
47
61
18
20
4
0
468.7
469.5
438
1012.7
656.4
0
468.7
469.5
241.5
868.3
562.5
0
March 2004
F-29
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
4100012
39
51
15
17
3
0
390.6
391.3
365
843.9
547
0
390.6
391.3
201.3
723.6
468.8
0
4110001
142
186
55
61
11
1
1427.3
1429.9
1334
3084.2
1999.2
489.9
1427.3
1429.9
735.6
2644.5
1713.2
420.3
4110002
158
207
61
68
13
1
1583.5
1586.4
1480
3421.8
2218
543.5
1583.5
1586.4
816.1
2934
1900.7
466.3
4110003
48
63
19
21
4
0
483.2
488.5
449.9
1047.8
676.1
0
483.2
488.5
248.7
894.6
578
0
4110004
57
75
22
25
5
0
575.2
576.2
537.6
1242.9
805.6
0
575.2
576.2
296.4
1065.7
690.4
0
4120101
101
130
37
43
7
0
1018.9
1384
666.9
2393
1293.8
0
1018.9
1384
491.6
1838.5
1055.2
0
4120102
3
4
1
1
0
0
25.7
24.4
12
43.3
0
0
25.7
24.4
12
43.3
0
0
4120103
26
34
10
11
2
0
251.9
249.9
124.5
456.6
289.9
0
251.9
249.9
124.5
456.6
289.9
0
4120104
72
95
27
31
6
1
713.4
710.7
354.4
1302.4
825
241
713.4
710.7
354.4
1302.4
825
241
4120200
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.2
8.4
0
0
0
0
7.2
8.4
0
0
0
0
4130001
26
34
10
11
2
0
264.4
264.8
132.2
487
307.7
0
264.4
264.8
132.2
487
307.7
0
4130002
8
11
3
4
1
0
68.8
67.1
32.6
116
75.4
0
68.8
67.1
31.5
112.4
73.6
0
4130003
55
72
21
24
4
0
539.8
535.8
267
979.5
621.6
0
539.8
535.8
267
979.5
621.6
0
4140101
40
52
15
17
3
0
400.1
400.8
200.1
737.1
465.6
0
400.1
400.8
200.1
737.1
465.6
0
4140102
38
50
15
16
3
0
364.8
359
178.5
652.2
415.8
0
364.8
359
178.5
652.2
415.8
0
4140201
248
325
95
106
20
2
2321.8
2272.4
1128.3
4113.1
2629.5
757.1
2321.8
2272.4
1128.3
4113.1
2629.5
757.1
4140202
137
179
52
59
11
1
1327.1
1315.2
655.1
2401.4
1525.3
443.6
1327.1
1315.2
655.1
2401.4
1525.3
443.6
4140203
16
21
6
7
1
0
157.2
157.4
78.6
289.6
182.9
0
157.2
157.4
78.6
289.6
182.9
0
4150101
45
59
17
19
4
0
380.4
358.7
176.4
631.7
412.2
0
380.4
358.7
176.4
631.7
412.2
0
4150102
16
21
6
7
1
0
164.3
164.6
82.2
302.7
191.2
0
164.3
164.6
82.2
302.7
191.2
0
4150301
2
3
1
1
0
0
21.4
21.5
10.7
39.5
0
0
21.4
21.5
10.7
39.5
0
0
4150302
28
36
11
12
2
0
239.8
228.8
112.9
406.5
263.5
0
239.8
228.8
112.9
406.5
263.5
0
4150303
7
9
3
3
1
0
69.1
68.1
33.9
123.9
78.9
0
69.1
68.1
33.9
123.9
78.9
0
4150304
10
13
4
4
1
0
83
78.6
38.7
138.9
90.4
0
83
78.6
38.7
138.9
90.4
0
4150305
17
23
7
7
1
0
145.3
136.7
67.2
240.3
157
0
145.3
136.7
67.2
240.3
157
0
4150306
14
19
6
6
1
0
119.9
112.7
55.4
198.2
129.5
0
119.9
112.7
55.4
198.2
129.5
0
4150307
17
23
7
7
1
0
145.3
136.7
67.2
240.4
157.1
0
145.3
136.7
67.2
240.4
157.1
0
5010001
55
71
21
23
4
0
449.4
581.4
266.1
933.1
573.7
0
449.4
581.4
202
716
463.5
0
5010002
16
20
6
7
1
0
136.3
142.5
68.8
246.6
157
0
136.3
142.5
63.9
230
148.6
0
5010003
90
117
35
38
7
1
945
1515.4
675.9
2376.2
1382.4
306.7
945
1515.4
443.5
1582.6
988.7
219
5010004
67
85
25
28
4
0
675.8
1047.8
469
1748.1
882.1
0
675.8
1047.8
318.4
1203.1
651.5
0
5010005
45
59
17
19
4
0
460
733.7
327.4
1138.2
681.1
0
460
733.7
214.7
757.5
487
0
5010006
114
149
44
49
9
1
1565.9
2604.5
1165
4044.1
2426.3
616.9
1565.9
2604.5
765.8
2697.8
1737.3
441.3
5010007
124
163
48
54
10
1
1771.3
2958.9
1323.9
4594.9
2757.4
700.1
1771.3
2958.9
870.5
3065.9
1974.7
500.9
5010008
57
75
22
25
5
0
816.6
1364.2
610.4
2118.4
1271.3
0
816.6
1364.2
401.3
1413.5
910.4
0
March 2004
F-30
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
5010009
107
140
41
46
9
1
1518.2
2536.2
1134.7
3938.4
2363.5
600.1
1518.2
2536.2
746.1
2627.9
1692.6
429.3
5020001
104
136
41
45
8
1
1451.2
1482.5
735.3
2579.9
1651.7
450.2
1451.2
1482.5
735.3
2579.9
1651.7
450.2
5020002
96
125
38
42
8
1
1338.7
1367.6
678.3
2379.9
1523.7
415.3
1338.7
1367.6
678.3
2379.9
1523.7
415.3
5020003
86
113
34
38
7
1
1204.1
1241.3
614.2
2154.7
1377.7
375
1204.1
1241.3
609.8
2139.8
1370.1
373.1
5020004
57
74
22
25
5
1
788.7
840.9
413
1446.6
920.5
249.1
788.7
840.9
398.8
1399.5
896.3
243
5020005
160
210
62
69
13
1
2273.6
3690.8
1659.5
5763
3470.2
884.6
2273.6
3690.8
1119.9
3943.2
2538.6
647.5
5020006
160
209
62
69
13
1
2278.8
3741.3
2032.9
6068.9
3626.6
678.1
2278.8
3741.3
1116.3
3928.4
2516.1
492.3
5030101
253
331
99
109
20
2
3476.9
4712.1
2857.9
8148.8
5079.2
1278.9
3476.9
4712.1
1735
6121.7
3973.2
1002.2
5030102
119
153
44
50
8
0
1214.7
1765.9
935.2
3079.4
1631.7
0
1214.7
1765.9
584.2
2181
1229.1
0
5030103
79
104
31
34
6
1
797.3
823.4
736.1
1743.3
1113.4
259.8
797.3
823.4
409
1474
946.5
222.8
5030104
18
23
7
8
1
0
250.8
418.7
187.3
650.8
389.4
0
250.8
418.7
123.2
434.3
278.9
0
5030105
93
122
36
40
7
1
1289.4
2147.3
960.3
3351.8
1983.1
469.8
1289.4
2147.3
631.4
2236.5
1420.2
336.1
5030106
55
72
22
24
4
0
768.9
894.1
577.7
1611.7
1027.5
0
768.9
894.1
386.9
1361.3
883.6
0
5030201
47
61
18
20
4
0
652.7
666.7
472
1263.5
821.5
0
652.7
666.7
330.6
1162.5
754.8
0
5030202
131
171
52
57
11
1
1823.2
1862.1
1342.7
3547.1
2308
600.7
1823.2
1862.1
923.3
3247.4
2110.2
552.2
5030203
48
63
19
21
4
0
675
689.5
342
1199.9
768.2
0
675
689.5
342
1199.9
768.2
0
5030204
62
81
24
27
5
0
808.1
822.4
776.3
1714.3
1127.2
0
808.1
822.4
410.3
1451.6
954.2
0
5040001
233
304
91
100
19
2
2927.1
2973.2
2802.5
6224.1
4085
1016.2
2927.1
2973.2
1489.1
5278.9
3463.4
864.1
5040002
51
67
20
22
4
0
526.6
528.8
494.1
1135.1
737.2
0
526.6
528.8
270.9
971.6
630.7
0
5040003
46
60
18
20
4
0
531.5
537.3
504.6
1136.8
742.8
0
531.5
537.3
271.7
968
632.2
0
5040004
66
86
26
28
5
0
901.7
920
870
1907.2
1256.9
0
901.7
920
456.7
1611.7
1061.9
0
5040005
37
49
15
16
3
0
517.9
528.8
500.4
1094.4
721.8
0
517.9
528.8
262.1
924.3
609.4
0
5040006
71
93
28
31
6
1
776.1
782
732.8
1665.7
1085.3
267.7
776.1
782
397.8
1421.8
925.9
228.8
5050001
106
138
41
45
8
0
1485.1
1766.1
1097.1
2933
1704.9
0
1485.1
1766.1
747.7
2596.3
1555.5
0
5050002
56
73
22
24
4
0
776.4
792.9
395.5
1370.2
858.2
0
776.4
792.9
395.5
1370.2
858.2
0
5050003
9
12
3
4
1
0
123.7
126.4
62.7
220
140.8
0
123.7
126.4
62.7
220
140.8
0
5050004
60
78
23
26
5
1
832.5
850.4
421.8
1479.9
947.5
258.3
832.5
850.4
421.8
1479.9
947.5
258.3
5050005
48
63
19
21
4
0
675
689.5
342
1199.9
768.2
0
675
689.5
342
1199.9
768.2
0
5050006
43
56
17
19
3
0
596.2
609.1
302.1
1059.9
678.6
0
596.2
609.1
302.1
1059.9
678.6
0
5050007
50
65
20
22
4
0
697.5
712.5
353.4
1239.9
793.9
0
697.5
712.5
353.4
1239.9
793.9
0
5050008
82
107
32
36
7
1
1147.5
1172.2
581.4
2039.9
1306
356
1147.5
1172.2
581.4
2039.9
1306
356
5050009
70
92
28
30
6
1
978.7
999.8
495.9
1739.9
1114
303.6
978.7
999.8
495.9
1739.9
1114
303.6
5060001
390
510
152
168
31
3
3905.6
3912.6
3650.2
8439.4
5470.3
1340.6
3905.6
3912.6
2012.8
7236.2
4687.8
1150.1
5060002
82
107
32
35
7
1
1050.9
1068.8
1008.3
2231.6
1466.2
365.2
1050.9
1068.8
534
1890.9
1242
310.3
5060003
57
75
22
25
5
0
621.5
625.8
586.1
1335.3
869.4
0
621.5
625.8
318.8
1140.4
742.2
0
March 2004
F-31
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
5070101
19
24
7
8
1
0
258.7
264.3
131.1
460
294.5
0
258.7
264.3
131.1
460
294.5
0
5070102
36
47
14
16
3
0
506.2
517.2
256.5
900
576.2
0
506.2
517.2
256.5
900
576.2
0
5070201
35
45
14
15
3
0
483.7
494.5
312.4
858.9
547.8
0
483.7
494.5
245
858.9
547.8
0
5070202
30
39
12
13
2
0
416.3
425.4
270.6
733.2
455.9
0
416.3
425.4
212.2
733.2
455.9
0
5070203
32
41
12
14
3
0
438.4
449.1
422.2
780.3
499.6
0
438.4
449.1
221.4
780.3
499.6
0
5070204
6
7
2
2
0
0
78.7
80.6
69.3
140
0
0
78.7
80.6
39.8
140
0
0
5080001
87
114
34
38
7
1
873.5
875
816.3
1887.5
1223.7
300.5
873.5
875
450.1
1618.4
1048.6
257.8
5080002
125
164
49
54
10
1
1295.7
1300.4
1215
2792.3
1812.3
441
1295.7
1300.4
666.2
2390.3
1550.6
377.9
5080003
45
58
18
19
4
0
452.1
451.7
422
978.3
641.4
0
452.1
451.7
232.4
838.5
549.6
0
5090101
80
105
32
35
6
1
1114.5
1138
999.5
2298.6
1510.2
382.1
1114.5
1138
564.2
1987.8
1304.9
331.8
5090102
16
21
6
7
1
0
225
229.8
114
400
256.1
0
225
229.8
114
400
256.1
0
5090103
60
78
23
26
5
0
832.6
851.3
803.3
1642.6
1071.3
0
832.6
851.3
421
1484.2
966.7
0
5090104
19
25
8
8
2
0
269.8
276.4
259.8
480.2
307.5
0
269.8
276.4
136.2
480.2
307.5
0
5090201
111
145
43
48
9
1
1539.5
1573.7
1485.6
3072.4
2007.6
508.8
1539.5
1573.7
778.7
2745.1
1791.5
455.9
5090202
175
229
68
75
14
1
2043.7
2067.3
1942.7
4366.8
2855.2
707.1
2043.7
2067.3
1043.7
3716
2428.6
602.9
5090203
154
199
59
66
12
1
2051.8
2081.7
1956.8
4104.3
2597.6
367.2
2051.8
2081.7
1031.4
3636.2
2302.9
338.9
5100101
123
161
48
53
10
1
1708.8
1750.4
1645.5
3041.1
1947.3
507.9
1708.8
1750.4
862.9
3041.1
1947.3
507.9
5100102
44
58
17
19
4
0
618.3
633.4
595.4
1100.4
704.6
0
618.3
633.4
312.2
1100.4
704.6
0
5100201
36
47
14
15
3
0
494.7
506.7
476.3
880.3
563.7
0
494.7
506.7
249.8
880.3
563.7
0
5100202
6
7
2
2
0
0
78.7
80.6
75.8
140.1
0
0
78.7
80.6
39.7
140.1
0
0
5100203
20
26
8
9
2
0
281.1
287.9
270.6
500.2
320.3
0
281.1
287.9
141.9
500.2
320.3
0
5100204
22
29
8
9
2
0
303.5
310.9
292.3
540.2
345.9
0
303.5
310.9
153.3
540.2
345.9
0
5100205
284
371
110
123
23
2
3946
4042.1
3799.9
7022.5
4496.8
1172.8
3946
4042.1
1992.6
7022.5
4496.8
1172.8
5110001
104
137
41
45
8
1
1450.3
1485.6
1396.5
2580.9
1652.7
431
1450.3
1485.6
732.3
2580.9
1652.7
431
5110002
159
208
62
69
13
1
2215.8
2268.2
1942.2
3938.7
2531.2
654.4
2215.8
2268.2
1118.2
3938.7
2531.2
654.4
5110003
34
44
13
15
3
0
465.3
477
447.9
829.9
527.2
0
465.3
477
235.2
829.9
527.2
0
5110004
14
19
6
6
1
0
200.2
205.2
192.7
356.8
227.1
0
200.2
205.2
101.1
356.8
227.1
0
5110005
16
22
6
7
1
0
174.5
183.1
165.4
333
161.7
0
174.5
183.1
90.5
333
161.7
0
5110006
18
24
7
8
1
0
221.1
229
211.3
406.4
230.4
0
221.1
229
113
406.4
230.4
0
5120101
45
59
18
20
4
0
456
455.6
425.5
987.1
646.8
0
456
455.6
234.6
846.4
554.3
0
5120102
5
6
2
2
0
0
49.9
49.8
46.6
108.1
0
0
49.9
49.8
25.7
92.7
0
0
5120103
13
17
5
6
1
0
128.3
128.2
119.7
277.8
182.3
0
128.3
128.2
66
238.2
156.2
0
5120104
26
34
10
11
2
0
263.8
263.4
246.1
571.2
375.1
0
263.8
263.4
135.6
489.8
321.4
0
5120105
6
8
2
3
1
0
64.2
64.1
59.9
139
91.2
0
64.2
64.1
33
119.1
78.2
0
5120106
49
64
19
21
4
0
491.9
491.3
458.9
1065.3
699.4
0
491.9
491.3
252.9
913.4
599.4
0
March 2004
F-32
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
5120107
31
40
12
13
3
0
306.6
306.2
286
663.9
435.9
0
306.6
306.2
157.6
569.2
373.6
0
5120108
59
77
23
26
5
1
591.7
590.8
552.1
1281.3
841.1
232.9
591.7
590.8
304.3
1098.6
720.8
199.5
5120109
18
24
7
8
2
0
185.3
184.8
173.2
401
262.9
0
185.3
184.8
95.5
343.8
225.2
0
5120110
18
24
7
8
2
0
185.4
185.1
172.9
401.4
263.6
0
185.4
185.1
95.3
344.2
225.9
0
5120111
31
40
12
13
3
0
306.5
305.9
286.2
663.5
435.4
0
306.5
305.9
157.8
568.9
373
0
5120112
19
25
7
8
2
0
192.4
191.9
179.9
416.4
272.9
0
192.4
191.9
99.2
357
233.8
0
5120113
15
19
6
6
1
0
149.7
149.4
139.8
324
212.6
0
149.7
149.4
77.1
277.8
182.1
0
5120114
21
27
8
9
2
0
206.6
206.1
193.2
447.2
293.1
0
206.6
206.1
106.5
383.5
251.1
0
5120115
4
6
2
2
0
0
42.7
42.6
40
92.5
0
0
42.7
42.6
22
79.3
0
0
5120201
325
424
127
141
27
3
3307.4
3305
3088.2
7145.7
4676.8
1242.8
3307.4
3305
1697.9
6122.1
4005.4
1064.6
5120202
33
42
13
14
3
0
366.3
367.4
343.9
779.3
499.4
0
366.3
367.4
186
664.4
425.8
0
5120203
5
6
2
2
0
0
49.9
49.8
46.6
108.1
0
0
49.9
49.8
25.7
92.7
0
0
5120204
83
109
33
36
7
1
841.8
841
785.7
1821.1
1193.9
325.3
841.8
841
432.5
1560.8
1022.8
278.7
5120205
15
19
6
6
1
0
149.7
149.5
139.7
324.2
212.9
0
149.7
149.5
77
278
182.4
0
5120206
24
31
9
10
2
0
240.4
240.2
224.5
519.2
339.7
0
240.4
240.2
123.4
444.8
290.9
0
5120207
19
25
7
8
2
0
221.2
221.9
207.8
469.4
299.9
0
221.2
221.9
112.1
399.9
255.5
0
5120208
71
91
27
30
5
0
955.3
963.7
904.7
1981.7
1224.6
0
955.3
963.7
476.6
1675.6
1035.8
0
5120209
14
18
5
6
1
0
159.2
159.9
149.8
336.5
213.8
0
159.2
159.9
80.5
286.3
181.9
0
5130101
112
146
43
48
9
1
1552
1588.9
1387.6
2759.4
1771.7
458.4
1552
1588.9
783.3
2759.4
1771.7
458.4
5130102
13
17
5
6
1
0
179.9
184.3
173.2
320.1
205
0
179.9
184.3
90.8
320.1
205
0
5130103
69
90
27
30
6
1
955.6
978.8
911.1
1700.5
1089.3
283.8
955.6
978.8
482.5
1700.5
1089.3
283.8
5130104
53
69
20
23
4
0
732.1
748
464.2
1297.1
842
0
732.1
748
368.8
1297.1
842
0
5130105
23
31
9
10
2
0
326.7
333.7
190.3
578.5
376.3
0
326.7
333.7
164.5
578.5
376.3
0
5130106
24
32
9
10
2
0
338.1
345.1
170.2
598
390.3
0
338.1
345.1
170.2
598
390.3
0
5130107
32
41
12
14
3
0
439.5
448.6
221.2
777.4
507.4
0
439.5
448.6
221.2
777.4
507.4
0
5130108
71
93
28
31
6
1
991.8
1012.3
499.1
1754.2
1144.9
285
991.8
1012.3
499.1
1754.2
1144.9
285
5130201
140
183
55
60
11
1
1949.8
1990.1
981.3
3448.6
2250.8
560.2
1949.8
1990.1
981.3
3448.6
2250.8
560.2
5130202
142
186
56
61
12
1
1983.6
2024.6
998.3
3508.4
2289.8
569.9
1983.6
2024.6
998.3
3508.4
2289.8
569.9
5130203
281
367
109
121
23
2
3910.8
3991.7
1968.2
6917.1
4514.6
1123.6
3910.8
3991.7
1968.2
6917.1
4514.6
1123.6
5130204
132
172
51
57
11
1
1837.1
1875.1
924.5
3249.2
2120.7
527.8
1837.1
1875.1
924.5
3249.2
2120.7
527.8
5130205
109
143
43
47
9
1
1510.7
1546.1
1155.4
2686.7
1722.4
433.5
1510.7
1546.1
762.3
2686.7
1722.4
433.5
5130206
98
128
38
42
8
1
1362.2
1392.6
970.3
2416
1563.3
397.5
1362.2
1392.6
686.6
2416
1563.3
397.5
5140101
118
152
45
50
9
1
1622.8
1649.6
1549.8
3131.8
1963.1
244.5
1622.8
1649.6
813.7
2862
1797.2
242.8
5140102
265
347
103
114
21
2
3687.5
3777.3
3550.9
6562.4
4202.1
1095.9
3687.5
3777.3
1862
6562.4
4202.1
1095.9
5140103
47
61
18
20
4
0
652.1
667.9
627.9
1160.4
743.1
0
652.1
667.9
329.3
1160.4
743.1
0
March 2004
F-33
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
5140104
83
106
31
35
6
0
1144.9
1161.7
1091.4
2253.3
1402.5
0
1144.9
1161.7
572.5
2011.3
1254.1
0
5140201
45
58
17
19
3
0
527.8
534.7
499.1
1069.8
664.2
0
527.8
534.7
267.8
955.4
591.4
0
5140202
36
47
14
15
2
0
355.5
364.8
333.1
734.9
411.1
0
355.5
364.8
184.3
676
372.4
0
5140203
6
8
2
3
0
0
64.7
66.1
60.8
133.3
0
0
64.7
66.1
33.5
122
0
0
5140204
7
9
3
3
1
0
71.2
71.1
66.6
154.2
101.1
0
71.2
71.1
36.7
132.2
86.6
0
5140205
14
19
6
6
1
0
180.9
186.9
173.1
330.6
191.6
0
180.9
186.9
92.2
330.6
191.6
0
5140206
30
40
12
13
2
0
343.9
363.5
323.2
767
359.5
0
343.9
363.5
180.4
704.5
318.3
0
6010101
8
11
3
3
1
0
112.6
114.9
57.6
197.4
121.3
0
112.6
114.9
57.6
197.4
121.3
0
6010102
96
126
38
41
8
1
1340.2
1368.1
680.5
2359.5
1491.8
304.1
1340.2
1368.1
680.5
2359.4
1491.8
304.1
6010103
110
144
43
47
9
1
1542.3
1807.7
1094
3029.9
1852.1
433.6
1542.3
1807.7
767.7
2715.5
1712.6
406.7
6010104
116
151
45
50
9
1
1611.7
1645
811.1
2850.6
1860.5
463.1
1611.7
1645
811.1
2850.6
1860.5
463.1
6010105
171
223
64
73
12
1
2422.8
3845.9
3087.2
6060.1
3216.5
639.1
2422.8
3845.9
1169.1
4211.9
2396.6
481.1
6010106
21
28
8
9
2
0
299.2
455.9
355.4
723.8
391.6
0
299.2
455.9
145.1
521.2
301.7
0
6010107
91
118
35
39
7
1
1262.3
1288.7
635.7
2233.1
1457.3
362.7
1262.3
1288.7
635.3
2232.6
1457.1
362.6
6010108
93
122
36
40
7
1
1308.3
1634.6
1065.6
2701
1602.2
363.7
1308.3
1634.6
647.6
2298.1
1423.4
329.3
6010201
236
309
92
102
19
2
3291
3360.2
1657.9
5822.3
3799.5
945.5
3291
3360.2
1656.2
5820.7
3798.8
945.4
6010202
24
32
9
10
2
0
346.6
562
467.2
889
468.9
0
346.6
562
166.8
602
340.1
0
6010203
26
34
10
11
2
0
370.3
614.5
508.3
960.9
500.1
0
370.3
614.5
177.8
642.4
358.8
0
6010204
23
30
9
10
2
0
317.7
377.3
232
630.5
383.1
0
317.7
377.3
158
559.2
351.4
0
6010205
74
96
29
31
6
0
1024.7
1046
521.3
1802.1
1131.2
0
1024.7
1046
521.3
1802.1
1131.2
0
6010206
34
44
13
14
3
0
473
482.8
241.9
832.4
524.7
0
473
482.8
240.3
832.4
524.7
0
6010207
180
235
70
77
15
1
2502
2553.8
1259.2
4425.3
2888.3
718.9
2502
2553.8
1259.2
4425.3
2888.3
718.9
6010208
49
64
19
21
4
0
687.5
701.7
346
1216
793.6
0
687.5
701.7
346
1216
793.6
0
6020001
257
336
100
111
21
2
3585.2
3731.7
2439
6814.1
4458
1192.6
3585.2
3731.7
1802
6335.9
4155.3
1103.5
6020002
153
200
59
66
12
1
2146.9
2609.9
1851.6
4481.9
2712
657
2146.9
2609.9
1064.9
3774.3
2365.9
579.8
6020003
27
35
10
11
2
0
372
387
308.3
746.5
489.7
0
372
387
186.8
657.3
432.4
0
6020004
8
11
3
3
1
0
112.7
115
56.7
199.3
130.1
0
112.7
115
56.7
199.3
130.1
0
6030001
100
131
39
43
8
1
1419.1
2219
1790.5
3503.6
2074.5
525.9
1419.1
2219
699.5
2474.1
1561.4
395.2
6030002
485
635
188
210
38
4
6890.7
11208.2
9279.3
17556.4
10307.7
2614.5
6890.7
11208.2
3388.1
11993
7537.2
1909.2
6030003
25
33
10
11
2
0
349.4
356.6
175.8
618
403.3
0
349.4
356.6
175.8
618
403.3
0
6030004
43
56
17
18
3
0
600.4
722.2
454.4
1202.6
754.7
0
600.4
722.2
300.1
1056.8
682.2
0
6030005
156
203
60
67
12
1
2211
3148.5
2442
4963.4
2954
752.8
2211
3148.5
1029.2
3644.8
2300.9
584.7
6030006
28
35
10
11
2
0
395.3
630.5
514.5
941.4
511.5
0
395.3
630.5
178.4
627.7
366.1
0
6040001
59
74
22
25
4
0
832.8
766.8
391.3
1341.1
805.3
0
832.8
766.8
380.4
1332.1
800.7
0
6040002
64
83
25
28
5
0
890.4
908.8
448.1
1574.8
1027.8
0
890.4
908.8
448.1
1574.8
1027.8
0
March 2004
F-34
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
6040003
64
83
25
28
5
0
890.4
908.8
448.1
1574.8
1027.8
0
890.4
908.8
448.1
1574.8
1027.8
0
6040004
23
31
9
10
2
0
326.8
333.6
164.5
578.1
377.3
0
326.8
333.6
164.5
578.1
377.3
0
6040005
83
108
32
36
7
1
1268.7
1317.2
767.1
2368.6
1447.5
377.9
1268.7
1317.2
655.3
2368.6
1447.5
377.9
6040006
39
55
14
18
1
0
1100.1
1350.7
1032.6
2987.5
216.8
0
1100.1
1350.7
610.6
2987.5
216.8
0
7010101
29
38
11
13
2
0
297.5
487.5
410
813
485.9
0
297.5
487.5
150.1
542.5
348.1
0
7010102
18
24
7
8
1
0
188.7
309.1
260
515.6
308.1
0
188.7
309.1
95.2
344
220.7
0
7010103
4
5
1
2
0
0
36.3
59.5
50
99.2
0
0
36.3
59.5
18.3
66.2
0
0
7010104
32
42
12
14
3
0
326.6
535.1
450
892.4
533.3
0
326.6
535.1
164.7
595.4
382
0
7010105
4
5
1
2
0
0
36.3
59.5
50
99.2
0
0
36.3
59.5
18.3
66.2
0
0
7010106
31
41
12
14
2
0
319.3
523.2
440
872.5
521.5
0
319.3
523.2
161.1
582.2
373.5
0
7010107
5
6
2
2
0
0
50.8
83.2
70
138.8
0
0
50.8
83.2
25.6
92.6
0
0
7010108
16
21
6
7
1
0
166.9
273.5
230
456.1
272.6
0
166.9
273.5
84.2
304.3
195.3
0
7010201
15
19
6
6
1
0
152.4
249.7
210
416.4
248.9
0
152.4
249.7
76.9
277.9
178.3
0
7010202
22
29
9
10
2
0
225
368.6
310
614.7
367.4
0
225
368.6
113.5
410.2
263.2
0
7010203
131
171
51
57
10
1
1335.3
2187.8
1840
3648.7
2180.7
584.2
1335.3
2187.8
673.6
2434.6
1562
417.7
7010204
41
53
16
18
3
0
432.9
709.2
598.5
1184.5
699.8
0
432.9
709.2
219.6
790.3
501.3
0
7010205
15
20
6
6
1
0
234.6
384.2
331.9
648.3
352.7
0
234.6
384.2
123.8
432.3
252.8
0
7010206
472
616
183
205
37
4
5001.5
8194
6910.8
13682.6
8100.1
1995.3
5001.5
8194
2535.2
9128.8
5802.4
1426.6
7010207
94
122
36
41
7
1
957.9
1569.5
1320
2617.6
1564.4
419.1
957.9
1569.5
483.3
1746.5
1120.6
299.6
7020001
12
16
5
5
1
0
122.1
149.9
131.5
264.1
166.1
0
122.1
149.9
61
223.4
145.4
0
7020002
4
5
1
2
0
0
36.3
59.5
50
99.2
0
0
36.3
59.5
18.3
66.2
0
0
7020003
3
4
1
1
0
0
28.9
41.8
35.8
71.3
0
0
28.9
41.8
14.5
52.8
0
0
7020004
3
4
1
1
0
0
40.3
66
56.7
111.1
0
0
40.3
66
21.1
74.1
0
0
7020005
4
5
1
2
0
0
38.9
63.7
53.9
106.5
0
0
38.9
63.7
19.8
71
0
0
7020006
4
6
2
2
0
0
55.5
90.9
77.7
152.7
0
0
55.5
90.9
28.8
101.9
0
0
7020007
9
12
4
4
1
0
156.1
255.5
221.5
431.8
232
0
156.1
255.5
82.8
287.9
166.3
0
7020008
4
5
1
2
0
0
58.9
96.5
83.6
163
0
0
58.9
96.5
31.2
108.7
0
0
7020009
5
7
2
2
0
0
86.4
129.6
106.3
223.5
0
0
86.4
129.6
45.7
160.7
0
0
7020010
2
3
1
1
0
0
37.2
60.9
52.9
103
0
0
37.2
60.9
19.8
68.7
0
0
7020011
3
4
1
1
0
0
48.9
80
69.4
135.3
0
0
48.9
80
26
90.2
0
0
7020012
145
189
56
62
10
1
1888
3091.9
2645
5195.1
2929.4
388.7
1888
3091.9
979.8
3465
2099.1
277.9
7030001
18
23
7
8
1
0
181.2
297.2
248.5
552.4
328.3
0
181.2
297.2
91
329.1
210
0
7030002
12
16
5
5
1
0
123.2
202
168.6
389.9
231.4
0
123.2
202
61.7
223.4
142.3
0
7030003
4
6
2
2
0
0
43.5
71.3
60
119
0
0
43.5
71.3
22
79.4
0
0
7030004
6
8
2
3
1
0
65.3
107
90
178.5
106.7
0
65.3
107
32.9
119.1
76.4
0
March 2004
F-35
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
7030005
150
196
58
65
12
1
1623.5
2661
2227.4
4907.7
2914.5
669.5
1623.5
2661
817.9
2962
1888.4
433.6
7040001
142
185
54
61
10
0
2377.6
3890.3
3302.3
7083.3
4039.5
0
2377.6
3890.3
1233.9
4419.8
2699.9
0
7040002
33
43
13
14
2
0
495.7
811.6
700
1368.6
749.5
0
495.7
811.6
260.7
912.6
537.2
0
7040003
14
19
5
6
1
0
247.9
405.6
343.8
744.8
425.7
0
247.9
405.6
128.6
461.5
282.5
0
7040004
44
57
17
19
3
0
756.7
1238.8
1075.6
2095.1
1119.3
0
756.7
1238.8
402.4
1396.9
802.4
0
7040005
8
10
3
3
1
0
136.2
222.8
184.7
438.5
263.4
0
136.2
222.8
69.1
255.6
165.1
0
7040006
24
32
9
11
2
0
417.4
682.6
569.8
1316.7
780.1
0
417.4
682.6
213
780.9
496.6
0
7040007
9
12
4
4
1
0
112.6
184.4
153.5
358.8
213.9
0
112.6
184.4
56.7
206.9
132.5
0
7040008
7
9
3
3
0
0
124
202.8
176
343.1
0
0
124
202.8
66
229
0
0
7050001
4
6
2
2
0
0
43.5
71.3
59.5
137.6
0
0
43.5
71.3
21.8
78.8
0
0
7050002
9
12
4
4
1
0
94.2
154.5
129
298.2
176.9
0
94.2
154.5
47.2
170.8
108.8
0
7050003
9
12
4
4
1
0
94.2
154.5
129
298.2
176.9
0
94.2
154.5
47.2
170.8
108.8
0
7050004
1
2
1
1
0
0
14.5
23.8
19.8
45.9
0
0
14.5
23.8
7.3
26.3
0
0
7050005
36
46
14
15
3
0
460.6
754.3
627.5
1470.7
878.3
0
460.6
754.3
232.2
850.2
545.4
0
7050006
12
16
5
5
1
0
136.3
223.4
186.2
433.2
257.8
0
136.3
223.4
68.5
249.2
159.2
0
7050007
47
61
18
20
4
0
511.9
839.3
699.8
1624.9
966.1
0
511.9
839.3
257.1
933.4
595.8
0
7060001
10
13
4
4
1
0
171.9
237.4
177.7
453.9
273.2
0
171.9
237.4
88.6
324.3
205.4
0
7060002
2
3
1
1
0
0
36.5
41.3
26
76.5
0
0
36.5
41.3
19.1
69.3
0
0
7060003
11
14
4
5
1
0
184.6
267.1
205.1
523.5
318.3
0
184.6
267.1
94.3
348.2
224.1
0
7060004
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.1
12
0
0
0
0
12.1
12
0
0
0
0
7060005
8
12
2
3
0
0
135.9
155.2
78.9
218.1
0
0
135.9
155.2
47.6
174.8
0
0
7060006
19
24
7
8
1
0
315.1
313
163.8
602.2
384.2
0
315.1
313
163.8
602.2
384.2
0
7070001
31
41
12
13
2
0
318.8
522.9
436.5
1006.6
597.3
0
318.8
522.9
159.8
578.1
368.2
0
7070002
57
74
22
24
4
1
579.6
950.8
793.6
1835
1088.8
291.8
579.6
950.8
290.6
1051.1
669.4
179
7070003
33
43
13
14
3
0
342.8
562.2
469.1
1086.6
645.2
0
342.8
562.2
172
623.2
397.2
0
7070004
4
6
2
2
0
0
73
119.4
99
235
0
0
73
119.4
37
136.9
0
0
7070005
44
57
16
19
3
0
710.1
1161.5
963.7
2282.3
1369.6
0
710.1
1161.5
359.6
1328.3
856.9
0
7070006
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.4
20.3
0
0
0
0
12.4
20.3
0
0
0
0
7080101
39
53
15
16
3
0
531
532.1
343
1005.7
649.2
0
531
532.1
258.9
943.9
608.5
0
7080102
5
7
2
2
0
0
84.8
84.7
44.8
162.8
0
0
84.8
84.7
44.1
162.1
0
0
7080103
9
11
3
4
1
0
145.4
144.4
75.6
277.9
177.3
0
145.4
144.4
75.6
277.9
177.3
0
7080104
16
22
6
7
1
0
182.3
186
140.1
355.4
231.5
0
182.3
186
87.5
316.7
206
0
7080105
24
32
9
10
2
0
412
409.3
214.3
787.5
502.4
0
412
409.3
214.3
787.5
502.4
0
7080106
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.1
12
0
0
0
0
12.1
12
0
0
0
0
7080107
6
8
2
3
0
0
107.8
107.4
55.7
204.6
0
0
107.8
107.4
55.7
204.6
0
0
March 2004
F-36
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
7080201
13
17
5
6
1
0
220.3
279.5
199.5
501.9
293.1
0
220.3
279.5
115.7
414.9
253.7
0
7080202
9
11
3
4
1
0
146.2
166.6
105.9
307.9
186.9
0
146.2
166.6
76.4
277.3
173
0
7080204
4
5
1
2
0
0
60.6
60.2
31.5
115.8
0
0
60.6
60.2
31.5
115.8
0
0
7080205
26
33
10
11
2
0
436.2
433.3
226.9
833.9
532
0
436.2
433.3
226.9
833.9
532
0
7080206
36
47
14
15
3
0
605.9
601.9
315.1
1158.2
738.8
0
605.9
601.9
315.1
1158.2
738.8
0
7080207
3
4
1
1
0
0
48.5
48.1
25.2
92.7
0
0
48.5
48.1
25.2
92.7
0
0
7080208
19
24
7
8
1
0
315.1
313
163.8
602.2
384.2
0
315.1
313
163.8
602.2
384.2
0
7080209
44
58
17
19
3
0
751.3
746.3
390.7
1436.1
916.2
0
751.3
746.3
390.7
1436.1
916.2
0
7090001
222
291
86
96
17
2
2274.7
3723.9
3109.3
7190
4267.6
1143.6
2274.7
3723.9
1140.5
4125.9
2628
702.6
7090002
4
6
2
2
0
0
43.5
71.3
59.5
137.6
0
0
43.5
71.3
21.8
78.8
0
0
7090003
21
28
8
9
2
0
287.5
417.4
355.4
836.3
511.5
0
287.5
417.4
146.3
535.8
346.9
0
7090004
11
14
4
5
1
0
112
177.1
148.8
344.8
206.2
0
112
177.1
56.3
204
130.4
0
7090005
102
132
40
44
8
1
1018.9
1021.5
956.3
2213.6
1449.3
375.7
1018.9
1021.5
525.2
1890.7
1238
321.3
7090006
75
97
29
32
6
1
748.4
759.5
708.6
1640.3
1071.1
277.9
748.4
759.5
385.6
1388.1
908.4
235.9
7090007
6
7
2
2
0
0
57
56.8
53.3
123.4
0
0
57
56.8
29.4
105.8
0
0
7100001
5
7
2
2
0
0
80.4
131.7
113.9
222.4
0
0
80.4
131.7
42.5
148.3
0
0
7100003
4
5
1
2
0
0
60.8
66.8
40.5
124.7
0
0
60.8
66.8
31.7
115.6
0
0
7100004
40
52
15
17
3
0
678.6
674.1
352.9
1297.1
827.5
0
678.6
674.1
352.9
1297.1
827.5
0
7100005
5
7
2
2
0
0
84.8
84.3
44.1
162.1
0
0
84.8
84.3
44.1
162.1
0
0
7100006
51
66
19
22
4
0
860.3
854.6
447.4
1644.6
1049.1
0
860.3
854.6
447.4
1644.6
1049.1
0
7100007
11
15
4
5
1
0
193.9
192.6
100.8
370.6
236.4
0
193.9
192.6
100.8
370.6
236.4
0
7100008
44
57
17
19
3
0
739.2
734.3
384.4
1413
901.4
0
739.2
734.3
384.4
1413
901.4
0
7100009
9
12
3
4
1
0
147.2
149.6
75.8
273.7
173.6
0
147.2
149.6
73.7
270.6
172.1
0
7110001
14
18
5
6
1
0
173.5
224.8
180.2
446.5
267.2
0
173.5
224.8
89.1
322.9
202.5
0
7110002
1
2
1
1
0
0
23.6
37
30.4
73.1
0
0
23.6
37
12.2
44.6
0
0
7110004
31
41
12
13
2
0
374
513.9
447
1034.3
617.2
0
374
513.9
191.7
692.3
435.6
0
7110005
1
2
1
1
0
0
23.3
38.2
32.2
75.5
0
0
23.3
38.2
12
44
0
0
7110006
2
3
1
1
0
0
35.8
58.6
49.5
116.3
0
0
35.8
58.6
18.4
67.8
0
0
7110007
1
2
1
1
0
0
19.2
31.5
26.5
61.2
0
0
19.2
31.5
9.8
35.4
0
0
7110008
31
41
12
13
2
0
490.2
803.7
677.4
1583.7
936.9
0
490.2
803.7
252
921.2
585.3
0
7110009
109
142
42
46
8
0
1106
1473
1283.6
2909.1
1621.9
0
1106
1473
561.1
1990.9
1177.9
0
7120001
124
162
49
54
10
1
1247.4
1247.3
1165.9
2702.7
1773.2
484
1247.4
1247.3
641.9
2315.8
1518.8
414.6
7120002
9
12
4
4
1
0
92.6
92.4
86.5
200.6
131.6
0
92.6
92.4
47.7
172
112.7
0
7120003
119
155
46
51
10
1
1189.9
1187
1112.3
2575.6
1688.6
441.5
1189.9
1187
613.3
2208.5
1446.7
378.7
7120004
431
561
167
185
35
4
4324.2
4572.5
4218.6
9763.9
6320.5
1644.4
4324.2
4572.5
2223.6
8008.3
5231.3
1361.1
March 2004
F-37
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
7120005
55
71
21
24
5
0
548.6
547.2
513
1187.4
778.3
0
548.6
547.2
282.8
1018.1
666.8
0
7120006
234
306
91
101
19
2
2375.1
3298
2848.1
6587.9
4033.9
1069.3
2375.1
3298
1203.9
4346.9
2799.4
739.6
7120007
117
153
46
50
10
1
1175.6
1172.5
1099.2
2544.4
1667.8
432.1
1175.6
1172.5
606.1
2181.7
1428.8
370.7
7130001
50
66
20
22
4
0
505.8
504.5
473
1094.9
717.6
0
505.8
504.5
260.8
938.8
614.8
0
7130002
6
8
2
3
1
0
64.1
64
60
138.8
91
0
64.1
64
33.1
119
77.9
0
7130003
11
15
4
5
1
0
114
113.7
106.6
246.7
161.7
0
114
113.7
58.8
211.6
138.5
0
7130004
21
27
8
9
2
0
206.6
206.1
193.2
447.2
293.1
0
206.6
206.1
106.5
383.5
251.1
0
7130005
12
16
5
5
1
0
121.1
120.8
113.2
262.2
171.8
0
121.1
120.8
62.4
224.8
147.2
0
7130006
50
65
19
21
4
0
498.7
497.4
466.3
1079.4
707.5
0
498.7
497.4
257.1
925.6
606.2
0
7130007
32
42
12
14
3
0
320.6
319.8
299.8
693.9
454.8
0
320.6
319.8
165.3
595
389.7
0
7130008
16
20
6
7
1
0
156.7
156.3
146.6
339.3
222.4
0
156.7
156.3
80.8
290.9
190.5
0
7130009
57
74
22
24
5
0
570
568.5
532.9
1233.6
808.6
0
570
568.5
293.8
1057.8
692.7
0
7130010
9
12
4
4
1
0
92.6
92.4
86.6
200.5
131.4
0
92.6
92.4
47.8
171.9
112.6
0
7130011
6
8
2
3
1
0
64.1
64
60
138.8
91
0
64.1
64
33.1
119
77.9
0
7130012
7
9
3
3
1
0
71.2
71.1
66.6
154.2
101.1
0
71.2
71.1
36.7
132.2
86.6
0
7140101
113
147
44
48
9
1
1238.5
1642.1
1436.3
3295.2
1926.6
344.6
1238.5
1642.1
632.4
2266.8
1396.5
267
7140102
143
187
56
61
11
1
2298.7
3769.4
3178.7
7449.8
4446.2
1076.3
2298.7
3769.4
1183.6
4336.9
2779.4
673.2
7140103
30
39
12
13
2
0
470.9
772
650.8
1522.3
902.2
0
470.9
772
242.1
885.6
563.7
0
7140104
44
57
17
19
3
0
707.5
1160.2
978.6
2295
1373.1
0
707.5
1160.2
364.5
1336.3
858.5
0
7140105
15
20
6
6
1
0
198.7
289.2
242.6
573.7
318.4
0
198.7
289.2
100
368.5
218.1
0
7140106
50
66
20
22
4
0
505.8
504.5
473
1094.9
717.6
0
505.8
504.5
260.8
938.8
614.8
0
7140107
29
38
11
12
2
0
500.1
822.3
667.4
1614.9
879.7
0
500.1
822.3
249.8
944.7
552.5
0
7140108
3
4
1
1
0
0
33.1
33
30.9
71.5
0
0
33.1
33
17
61.4
0
0
7140201
26
34
10
11
2
0
263.6
262.9
246.5
570.6
374
0
263.6
262.9
135.9
489.2
320.4
0
7140202
33
43
13
14
3
0
334.9
334
313.1
724.8
475.1
0
334.9
334
172.6
621.5
407
0
7140203
11
14
4
5
1
0
106.9
106.6
99.9
231.3
151.6
0
106.9
106.6
55.1
198.3
129.9
0
7140204
43
56
17
19
4
0
434.6
433.5
406.4
940.7
616.6
0
434.6
433.5
224.1
806.6
528.2
0
8010100
10
13
4
4
1
0
365.4
442.8
273.7
922.1
451.9
0
365.4
442.8
209.7
841.1
419.2
0
8010201
13
19
5
7
0
0
491.6
622.6
467.7
1417.7
0
0
491.6
622.6
275.4
1417.7
0
0
8010202
16
21
6
7
1
0
584.3
651.4
370.6
1370.1
720
0
584.3
651.4
346.9
1370.1
720
0
8010203
51
67
20
22
4
0
1623.8
1769
954.4
3619.1
2192.9
0
1623.8
1769
954.4
3619.1
2192.9
0
8010204
37
49
14
16
3
0
1299.4
1421.8
771.4
2937.8
1772.6
0
1299.4
1421.8
771.4
2937.8
1772.6
0
8010205
20
27
8
9
2
0
556.9
601.8
321.2
1208.1
738
0
556.9
601.8
321.2
1208.1
738
0
8010206
1
2
1
1
0
0
54
59.2
32.2
123.2
0
0
54
59.2
32.2
123.2
0
0
8010207
43
55
16
18
3
0
613.4
597.3
423.8
900.1
544.2
0
613.4
597.3
197.8
713.2
453
0
March 2004
F-38
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
8010208
46
61
18
20
3
0
1536
1679.4
909.3
3440.9
2073.2
0
1536
1679.4
904.7
3437
2073.2
0
8010209
66
87
25
29
5
0
2481.9
2723.8
1483.3
5665.4
3408.7
0
2481.9
2723.8
1483.3
5665.4
3408.7
0
8010210
164
214
62
71
12
1
5843.8
7376.2
4840.6
14624.6
8652.4
2499.3
5843.8
7376.2
3388
12908
7813.7
2309.2
8010211
142
186
54
62
10
1
5349.6
7125.1
4858.5
14107
8327.8
2326.6
5349.6
7125.1
3163
12050
7317.9
2101.2
8020100
3
4
1
1
0
0
109.7
158.8
117.8
308.4
0
0
109.7
158.8
65.8
245.3
0
0
8020201
13
16
4
5
1
0
500.6
831.7
601.1
1659.8
753.5
0
500.6
831.7
231.8
994
486.5
0
8020202
10
13
4
4
1
0
173.7
284.9
240.5
566.9
345.1
0
173.7
284.9
89.7
330.6
216.1
0
8020203
110
143
42
46
7
1
4110.6
4849.6
2917.9
10007
5917.3
1862.9
4110.6
4849.6
2457.9
9183.3
5581.4
1857.3
8020204
44
55
13
16
2
0
1708.5
2672
1881.5
5360.1
2549.1
0
1708.5
2672
837.7
3478
1794.1
0
8020205
8
10
3
3
1
0
296.2
324.2
184.1
675
421.8
0
296.2
324.2
184.1
675
421.8
0
8020301
32
42
13
14
2
0
1002.1
1080.1
607.2
2221.3
1386.2
0
1002.1
1080.1
607.2
2221.3
1386.2
0
8020302
31
41
12
13
2
0
1160.8
1289.7
740.8
2680.1
1655.6
0
1160.8
1289.7
715.9
2635.2
1637.6
0
8020303
9
11
3
4
1
0
323.1
353.8
200.9
736.4
460.2
0
323.1
353.8
200.8
736.3
460.1
0
8020304
9
11
3
4
1
0
323.1
353.7
200.8
736.3
460.1
0
323.1
353.7
200.8
736.3
460.1
0
8020401
4
5
1
2
0
0
134.6
147.4
83.7
306.8
0
0
134.6
147.4
83.7
306.8
0
0
8020402
73
95
29
31
5
1
2493.9
2711.8
1533
5615.8
3507.2
1265.6
2493.9
2711.8
1533
5615.8
3507.2
1265.6
8030100
1
1
0
0
0
0
27.6
42.9
0
0
0
0
27.6
42.9
0
0
0
0
8030201
63
82
24
27
5
0
1555.5
2303.1
1940.9
4077.3
2374.5
0
1555.5
2303.1
714.7
2705.6
1694
0
8030202
21
27
8
9
2
0
809
1427.7
1198.6
2662.7
1533.2
0
809
1427.7
468.8
1777.3
1098.5
0
8030203
20
27
8
9
2
0
570.6
896.6
754.6
1617.7
938.2
0
570.6
896.6
284
1075.9
670.4
0
8030204
118
154
45
51
9
1
4547.4
8024.4
6736.7
14966
8617.5
1931.7
4547.4
8024.4
2635.1
9989.9
6174.5
1386.4
8030205
26
34
10
11
2
0
651.1
969.6
817
1719.7
1001.1
0
651.1
969.6
301.5
1141.4
714.3
0
8030206
23
30
9
10
2
0
892.7
1575.3
1322.5
2938.1
1691.8
0
892.7
1575.3
517.3
1961.2
1212.2
0
8030207
46
60
17
20
4
0
1757.6
3101.4
2603.7
5784.3
3330.7
0
1757.6
3101.4
1018.5
3861.1
2386.5
0
8030208
13
17
5
6
1
0
502.2
886.1
740.9
1652.8
951.6
0
502.2
886.1
291.1
1103.3
681.8
0
8030209
15
20
6
7
1
0
585.8
1033.5
864.5
1927.7
1109.9
0
585.8
1033.5
339.6
1287.1
795.5
0
8040101
56
74
22
24
4
0
957.6
954.3
508.6
1834.3
1136.4
0
957.6
954.3
508.6
1834.3
1136.4
0
8040102
18
23
7
8
1
0
303
302
160.9
580.5
359.6
0
303
302
160.9
580.5
359.6
0
8040103
11
14
4
5
1
0
181.8
181.2
96.6
348.3
215.8
0
181.8
181.2
96.6
348.3
215.8
0
8040201
18
23
7
8
1
0
303
302
160.9
580.5
359.6
0
303
302
160.9
580.5
359.6
0
8040202
14
19
5
6
1
0
246.4
321.1
153
575.3
308.4
0
246.4
321.1
123.3
463.7
263.1
0
8040203
23
30
9
10
2
0
387.9
386.6
206
743
460.3
0
387.9
386.6
206
743
460.3
0
8040204
25
33
10
11
2
0
424.2
422.8
225.3
812.7
503.5
0
424.2
422.8
225.3
812.7
503.5
0
8040205
9
11
3
4
1
0
190
207.3
111.5
407.4
248
0
190
207.3
107.3
392
241.4
0
8040206
41
53
15
17
3
0
709
1054.2
478.4
1833.9
915.1
0
709
1054.2
342
1320.4
707
0
March 2004
F-39
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
8040207
14
18
5
6
1
0
313.8
528.3
250.9
945.6
492.3
0
313.8
528.3
164.9
630.9
352.8
0
8040301
9
12
4
4
1
0
333.1
583.9
298
1093.9
615.4
0
333.1
583.9
196
730.2
441
0
8040302
4
5
1
2
0
0
62.6
101.6
44.7
173.6
0
0
62.6
101.6
29.4
115.7
0
0
8040303
12
15
4
5
1
0
200.5
325
143.2
555.4
264.4
0
200.5
325
94
370.4
189.5
0
8040304
12
15
4
5
1
0
223.5
368.2
167.7
642.2
318.5
0
223.5
368.2
110.2
428.4
228.2
0
8040306
1
2
1
1
0
0
55.7
98.1
50.6
184.9
0
0
55.7
98.1
33.2
123.4
0
0
8050001
35
45
14
15
3
0
1262
1985.5
1036.7
3802.6
2191.9
0
1262
1985.5
755.6
2801.3
1710.9
0
8050002
16
21
6
7
1
0
602
856.5
458.9
1680.4
994.2
0
602
856.5
366.9
1353.8
836
0
8050003
4
5
1
2
0
0
139.1
245.3
126.4
462.3
0
0
139.1
245.3
83.1
308.6
0
0
8060100
8
10
3
3
1
0
306.6
540.7
382
1012.9
580
0
306.6
540.7
179.9
676.1
415.6
0
8060201
10
13
4
4
1
0
170.4
184.6
156.9
287.1
172.3
0
170.4
184.6
49.7
187.4
121.5
0
8060202
79
102
30
34
6
0
2997.4
5279.8
4432.7
9842.5
5668
0
2997.4
5279.8
1732.9
6569.6
4061
0
8060203
9
12
4
4
1
0
362.7
640
537.3
1193.6
687.3
0
362.7
640
210.2
796.7
492.4
0
8060204
13
17
5
6
1
0
502.1
886.1
739.3
1652.9
951.5
0
502.1
886.1
291.1
1103.3
681.8
0
8060205
5
7
2
2
0
0
195.3
344.6
289.3
642.7
0
0
195.3
344.6
113.2
429
0
0
8060206
2
3
1
1
0
0
83.7
147.7
123.9
275.5
0
0
83.7
147.7
48.5
183.9
0
0
8070100
4
5
1
2
0
0
139.1
245.3
126.4
462.3
0
0
139.1
245.3
83.1
308.6
0
0
8070201
9
12
4
4
1
0
362
638.2
377.3
1200
683.8
0
362
638.2
214.7
801.1
490
0
8070202
57
74
22
25
4
0
2200.1
3879.5
2385.9
7288.6
4157.4
0
2200.1
3879.5
1302
4865.5
2979.3
0
8070203
28
37
11
12
2
0
1085.5
1913.7
1041.9
3603.6
2049.4
0
1085.5
1913.7
646.6
2405.6
1468.7
0
8070204
66
86
26
28
5
0
2532.3
4463.9
2299.9
8413.7
4779.2
0
2532.3
4463.9
1512.5
5616.6
3425.1
0
8070205
41
53
16
18
3
0
1196.2
1914.5
1249.4
3487.1
1969.1
0
1196.2
1914.5
622
2321.3
1408.1
0
8070300
36
47
14
16
3
0
1391.4
2452.7
1263.7
4622.9
2625.9
0
1391.4
2452.7
831.1
3086.1
1881.9
0
8080101
8
10
3
3
1
0
306.1
539.6
278
1017
577.7
0
306.1
539.6
182.8
678.9
414
0
8080102
59
76
23
25
4
0
1961
3422.8
1734.4
6382.9
3564.5
0
1961
3422.8
1140.5
4260.5
2554.5
0
8080103
55
71
22
24
4
0
2114.9
3728.1
1920.8
7026.8
3991.4
0
2114.9
3728.1
1263.2
4690.8
2860.5
0
8080201
12
15
5
5
1
0
443.1
780.9
402.1
1471.4
835.4
0
443.1
780.9
264.5
982.2
598.7
0
8080202
38
49
15
16
3
0
1447
2550.8
1314.2
4807.8
2730.9
0
1447
2550.8
864.3
3209.5
1957.2
0
8080203
12
16
5
5
1
0
361.9
625.1
311
1152.1
631.2
0
361.9
625.1
204.5
768.9
452.4
0
8080204
12
16
4
5
1
0
229.6
376.5
169.8
652.7
320
0
229.6
376.5
111.5
435.3
229.3
0
8080205
18
23
7
8
1
0
683.5
1203.4
618.8
2265.4
1284.2
0
683.5
1203.4
407
1512.2
920.4
0
8080206
22
28
8
9
2
0
834.8
1471.6
758.2
2773.7
1575.5
0
834.8
1471.6
498.6
1851.6
1129.2
0
8090100
15
19
6
6
1
0
556.6
981.1
505.5
1849.2
1050.4
0
556.6
981.1
332.4
1234.4
752.8
0
8090201
34
45
12
15
2
0
569.7
646.4
286.7
1026.6
532.8
0
569.7
646.4
184.6
673.5
376.7
0
8090203
29
38
11
12
2
0
1113.1
1962.2
1010.9
3698.3
2100.7
0
1113.1
1962.2
664.8
2468.8
1505.5
0
March 2004
F-40
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
8090301
84
108
33
36
6
0
3200.2
5641.2
2906.4
10632.7
6039.6
0
3200.2
5641.2
1911.4
7097.9
4328.4
0
8090302
63
82
25
27
5
0
2421
4267.7
2198.8
8043.9
4569.1
0
2421
4267.7
1446
5369.7
3274.5
0
9010001
2
3
1
1
0
0
16.7
28.5
22
57.6
0
0
16.7
28.5
8
32.8
0
0
9010002
3
5
1
2
0
0
33.2
56.7
44
114.9
0
0
33.2
56.7
16.1
65.7
0
0
9010004
9
13
3
5
0
0
98
167.6
130.4
340
0
0
98
167.6
47.7
194.6
0
0
9010005
5
7
2
2
0
0
49
83.8
65.2
170
0
0
49
83.8
23.9
97.3
0
0
9020101
1
2
1
1
0
0
14.3
20.8
17.5
37.1
0
0
14.3
20.8
7.2
26.6
0
0
9020102
4
5
1
2
0
0
36.3
59.5
50
99.2
0
0
36.3
59.5
18.3
66.2
0
0
9020103
36
47
14
16
3
0
370.1
606.4
510
1011.3
604.4
0
370.1
606.4
186.7
674.8
432.9
0
9020104
25
34
10
11
2
0
259
428.7
354
752.8
382.2
0
259
428.7
129.6
482.2
268
0
9020105
7
9
2
3
0
0
70.2
113.8
89.7
229.3
0
0
70.2
113.8
34.2
138
0
0
9020106
16
20
6
7
1
0
159.7
261.6
220
436.3
260.7
0
159.7
261.6
80.5
291.1
186.8
0
9020107
2
3
1
1
0
0
21.3
35.8
28.7
68.1
0
0
21.3
35.8
10.5
41
0
0
9020108
3
4
1
1
0
0
29
47.6
40
79.3
0
0
29
47.6
14.6
52.9
0
0
9020109
2
3
1
1
0
0
21
35.9
27.9
72.8
0
0
21
35.9
10.2
41.7
0
0
9020201
13
18
5
6
0
0
133
227.4
177
461.4
0
0
133
227.4
64.7
264.1
0
0
9020202
7
10
3
4
0
0
69.4
118.6
91.9
240
0
0
69.4
118.6
33.6
137.1
0
0
9020204
12
16
4
6
0
0
119
203.5
158.3
412.8
0
0
119
203.5
57.9
236.3
0
0
9020205
5
7
2
2
0
0
49
83.8
65.2
170
0
0
49
83.8
23.9
97.3
0
0
9020301
6
8
2
3
0
0
64.2
107.4
87
197.9
0
0
64.2
107.4
31.8
122
0
0
9020302
4
6
2
2
0
0
43.5
71.3
60
119
0
0
43.5
71.3
22
79.4
0
0
9020303
6
8
2
3
1
0
65.3
107
90
178.5
106.7
0
65.3
107
32.9
119.1
76.4
0
9020304
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
9020305
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
9020307
4
6
1
2
0
0
42
71.8
55.9
145.7
0
0
42
71.8
20.4
83.4
0
0
9020310
1
2
0
1
0
0
14
23.9
0
48.6
0
0
14
23.9
0
27.8
0
0
9020311
1
2
1
1
0
0
14.4
23.8
19.6
42.2
0
0
14.4
23.8
7.2
26.8
0
0
9020312
2
3
1
1
0
0
21.8
35.7
30
59.5
0
0
21.8
35.7
11
39.7
0
0
9020313
3
5
1
2
0
0
35
59.8
46.6
121.4
0
0
35
59.8
17
69.5
0
0
9020314
2
3
1
1
0
0
21.8
35.7
30
59.5
0
0
21.8
35.7
11
39.7
0
0
9030001
4
5
1
2
0
0
36.3
59.5
50
99.2
0
0
36.3
59.5
18.3
66.2
0
0
9030002
9
11
3
4
1
0
87.1
142.7
120
238
142.2
0
87.1
142.7
43.9
158.8
101.9
0
9030003
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
7.3
11.9
0
0
0
0
9030006
1
2
1
1
0
0
14.5
23.8
20
39.7
0
0
14.5
23.8
7.3
26.5
0
0
9030008
1
2
1
1
0
0
14.5
23.8
20
39.7
0
0
14.5
23.8
7.3
26.5
0
0
March 2004
F-41
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
9030009
3
4
1
1
0
0
29
47.6
40
79.3
0
0
29
47.6
14.6
52.9
0
0
10020002
11
14
4
5
1
0
41.5
67.9
56.8
126.2
76.3
0
41.5
67.9
20.5
69
44.7
0
10020003
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.4
4
0
0
0
0
2.4
4
0
0
0
0
10020004
9
12
4
4
1
0
36.6
59.9
50.1
111.3
67.3
0
36.6
59.9
18.1
60.9
39.5
0
10020005
23
30
9
10
2
0
87.8
143.8
120.3
267.3
161.6
0
87.8
143.8
43.5
146.2
94.7
0
10020007
6
7
2
2
0
0
21.3
35.3
28.7
66.6
0
0
21.3
35.3
10.4
36.5
0
0
10020008
13
17
5
6
1
0
51
83.7
69.7
155.9
92.3
0
51
83.7
25.2
85.3
54.1
0
10030101
31
41
12
13
2
0
119.6
195.7
163.7
363.8
219.9
0
119.6
195.7
59.2
199
128.9
0
10030102
2
2
1
1
0
0
7.3
12
10
22.3
0
0
7.3
12
3.6
12.2
0
0
10030104
16
21
6
7
1
0
61
99.9
83.5
185.6
112.2
0
61
99.9
30.2
101.5
65.8
0
10030202
6
8
2
3
1
0
24.4
39.9
33.4
74.3
44.9
0
24.4
39.9
12.1
40.6
26.3
0
10030203
2
2
1
1
0
0
7.3
12
10
22.3
0
0
7.3
12
3.6
12.2
0
0
10030205
1
2
0
1
0
0
4.9
8
0
14.9
0
0
4.9
8
0
8.1
0
0
10040101
2
2
1
1
0
0
7.3
12
10
22.3
0
0
7.3
12
3.6
12.2
0
0
10040102
13
17
5
5
1
0
48.8
79.9
66.8
148.5
89.8
0
48.8
79.9
24.2
81.2
52.6
0
10040103
9
12
4
4
1
0
36.6
59.9
50.1
111.4
67.3
0
36.6
59.9
18.1
60.9
39.5
0
10040201
3
3
1
1
0
0
9.8
16
13.4
29.7
0
0
9.8
16
4.8
16.2
0
0
10040202
5
7
2
2
0
0
19.5
32
26.7
59.4
0
0
19.5
32
9.7
32.5
0
0
10050004
5
7
2
2
0
0
19.5
32
26.7
59.4
0
0
19.5
32
9.7
32.5
0
0
10050008
19
25
7
8
2
0
73.2
119.8
100.2
222.8
134.7
0
73.2
119.8
36.3
121.8
78.9
0
10060001
2
2
1
1
0
0
7.3
12
10
22.3
0
0
7.3
12
3.6
12.2
0
0
10060002
4
6
2
2
0
0
17.1
28
23.4
52
0
0
17.1
28
8.5
28.4
0
0
10060005
6
7
2
2
0
0
22
36
29.8
67.2
0
0
22
36
10.8
36.7
0
0
10060007
3
3
1
1
0
0
9.7
16.2
12.4
30.9
0
0
9.7
16.2
4.5
16.9
0
0
10070004
14
18
5
6
1
0
53.7
87.9
73.5
163.4
98.7
0
53.7
87.9
26.6
89.3
57.9
0
10070006
5
6
2
2
0
0
15.3
25.1
20.1
47.6
0
0
15.3
25.1
7.2
25.9
0
0
10070007
6
8
2
3
1
0
24.4
39.9
33.4
74.3
44.9
0
24.4
39.9
12.1
40.6
26.3
0
10070008
11
15
4
5
1
0
43.9
71.9
60.1
133.7
80.8
0
43.9
71.9
21.8
73.1
47.4
0
10080001
9
11
3
4
0
0
20.5
33.7
25.1
66.3
0
0
20.5
33.7
9
35.6
0
0
10080005
3
4
1
1
0
0
3.1
4
3.3
7.4
0
0
3.1
4
1.1
3.5
0
0
10080006
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.9
0
0
0
0
10080007
6
7
2
2
0
0
5.8
7.9
6.3
14.8
0
0
5.8
7.9
2.1
7.1
0
0
10080010
6
8
2
3
0
0
11.1
17.2
13.8
32.4
0
0
11.1
17.2
4.9
17
0
0
10080014
12
14
4
5
1
0
13.3
18.3
15.1
33.9
13.2
0
13.3
18.3
5.1
16.6
7.1
0
10080016
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.4
3.9
0
0
0
0
2.4
3.9
0
0
0
0
March 2004
F-42
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
10090101
14
19
5
6
1
0
54
91.2
70.5
177
64.7
0
54
91.2
25.5
96.9
37.8
0
10090102
5
7
2
2
0
0
19.5
32
26.7
59.4
0
0
19.5
32
9.7
32.5
0
0
10090202
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.1
3.7
0
0
0
0
2.1
3.7
0
0
0
0
10090206
2
3
1
1
0
0
8.6
14.8
10.8
29.4
0
0
8.6
14.8
3.9
16.1
0
0
10090209
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.4
4
0
0
0
0
2.4
4
0
0
0
0
10100001
6
8
2
3
1
0
24.4
39.9
33.4
74.3
44.9
0
24.4
39.9
12.1
40.6
26.3
0
10100004
16
21
6
7
1
0
61
100.2
82.1
187.5
102.8
0
61
100.2
29.7
102.6
60.2
0
10100005
4
5
1
2
0
0
14.6
24
20
44.6
0
0
14.6
24
7.3
24.4
0
0
10110101
11
14
4
5
0
0
41.5
70
50.2
136.1
0
0
41.5
70
18.2
74.6
0
0
10110201
4
6
2
2
0
0
16.6
25.8
20.8
48.6
0
0
16.6
25.8
8
28.8
0
0
10110203
3
4
1
1
0
0
12.1
20.4
14.7
39.7
0
0
12.1
20.4
5.3
21.7
0
0
10110204
5
7
2
2
0
0
19.5
32.3
25.2
61.4
0
0
19.5
32.3
9.1
33.6
0
0
10120101
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.1
3.7
0
0
0
0
2.1
3.7
0
0
0
0
10120102
4
5
1
2
0
0
15
25.8
19
51.4
0
0
15
25.8
6.9
28.2
0
0
10120104
4
5
1
2
0
0
15
25.8
19
51.4
0
0
15
25.8
6.9
28.2
0
0
10120106
5
6
2
2
0
0
18.3
21.8
18.4
39.6
0
0
18.3
21.8
9
32.6
0
0
10120107
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.2
3.3
0
0
0
0
2.2
3.3
0
0
0
0
10120109
6
8
2
3
0
0
24.1
24.4
22.2
42.1
0
0
24.1
24.4
12
42.1
0
0
10120110
64
85
24
28
5
0
243.1
246.8
223.7
424.8
240.3
0
243.1
246.8
121.5
424.8
240.3
0
10120111
28
37
11
12
2
0
105.9
107.5
97.5
185.1
104.7
0
105.9
107.5
52.9
185.1
104.7
0
10120113
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.4
2.4
0
0
0
0
2.4
2.4
0
0
0
0
10120201
3
5
1
2
0
0
12.9
22.1
16.3
44.1
0
0
12.9
22.1
5.9
24.1
0
0
10120202
28
37
11
12
2
0
106.8
119.1
103.9
211.4
105.5
0
106.8
119.1
52.8
188.1
99.2
0
10120203
11
15
4
5
1
0
43.3
58
46.7
109
38.8
0
43.3
58
20.8
78.2
32.3
0
10130101
1
2
0
1
0
0
4.9
8.2
0
15.9
0
0
4.9
8.2
0
8.7
0
0
10130102
17
22
6
7
1
0
72.8
95.8
76.5
179.4
67.4
0
72.8
95.8
34.4
130.2
56.8
0
10130103
31
42
11
14
1
0
129.1
217.8
157.4
425.1
99.8
0
129.1
217.8
57.2
233.9
58.4
0
10130104
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.4
4.1
0
0
0
0
2.4
4.1
0
0
0
0
10130105
5
6
2
2
0
0
29.7
29.7
27
53.6
0
0
29.7
29.7
14.8
53.6
0
0
10130106
3
5
1
2
0
0
31.7
35.8
31.1
67.9
0
0
31.7
35.8
15.6
58.7
0
0
10130201
4
5
1
2
0
0
14.6
24.5
17.6
47.7
0
0
14.6
24.5
6.4
26.1
0
0
10130202
8
10
3
3
0
0
29.1
49.1
35.2
95.5
0
0
29.1
49.1
12.8
52.3
0
0
10130203
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.4
4.1
0
0
0
0
2.4
4.1
0
0
0
0
10130204
4
6
2
2
0
0
17
28.6
20.5
55.7
0
0
17
28.6
7.5
30.5
0
0
10130205
4
6
2
2
0
0
17
28
20.3
54.3
0
0
17
28
7.5
30.4
0
0
March 2004
F-43
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
10130301
2
3
1
1
0
0
7.3
10.3
7.9
19.4
0
0
7.3
10.3
3.4
12.9
0
0
10130302
2
3
1
1
0
0
7.2
7.3
6.6
12.6
0
0
7.2
7.3
3.6
12.6
0
0
10130303
12
16
5
5
1
0
45.8
48.7
43.1
85
44.5
0
45.8
48.7
22.7
80.1
43.4
0
10130304
3
3
1
1
0
0
9.6
9.8
8.9
16.8
0
0
9.6
9.8
4.8
16.8
0
0
10140101
17
22
6
7
1
0
166.4
164.9
150.4
305
199.8
0
166.4
164.9
82.7
305
199.8
0
10140102
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.9
2.9
0
0
0
0
2.9
2.9
0
0
0
0
10140103
1
1
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
10140105
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.1
7.1
0
0
0
0
7.1
7.1
0
0
0
0
10140201
4
5
1
2
0
0
13.2
14.5
10.5
22.5
0
0
13.2
14.5
5.9
20.1
0
0
10140203
1
1
0
0
0
0
3.2
3.2
0
0
0
0
3.2
3.2
0
0
0
0
10140204
5
6
2
2
0
0
46.6
46.2
42.1
85.3
0
0
46.6
46.2
23.1
85.3
0
0
10150001
1
2
1
1
0
0
14.1
18.2
11.4
35.5
0
0
14.1
18.2
6.8
26.3
0
0
10150002
3
4
1
1
0
0
9.4
13.5
7.5
21.4
0
0
9.4
13.5
3.3
11.6
0
0
10150003
1
2
0
0
0
0
2.4
3.1
0
0
0
0
2.4
3.1
0
0
0
0
10150004
2
3
1
1
0
0
5.6
7.8
3
12.4
0
0
5.6
7.8
1.9
7.2
0
0
10150007
2
3
1
1
0
0
21
34.4
14.7
69.2
0
0
21
34.4
9.6
39.7
0
0
10160001
8
11
3
4
0
0
78.7
134.5
104.4
272.5
0
0
78.7
134.5
38.2
155.8
0
0
10160002
1
1
0
0
0
0
6.6
11.3
0
0
0
0
6.6
11.3
0
0
0
0
10160003
11
15
4
5
1
0
111.3
162.7
131.6
323.2
116.6
0
111.3
162.7
54.5
215.2
89.8
0
10160004
1
1
0
0
0
0
6.8
10
0
0
0
0
6.8
10
0
0
0
0
10160005
14
18
5
6
1
0
142.7
141.4
128.9
261.8
171.8
0
142.7
141.4
70.9
261.8
171.8
0
10160006
11
15
4
5
1
0
114.2
113.1
103.1
209.4
137.4
0
114.2
113.1
56.7
209.4
137.4
0
10160008
2
3
1
1
0
0
21.4
21.2
19.3
39.3
0
0
21.4
21.2
10.6
39.3
0
0
10160009
2
3
1
1
0
0
21.4
21.2
19.3
39.3
0
0
21.4
21.2
10.6
39.3
0
0
10160010
3
4
1
1
0
0
28.5
28.3
25.8
52.4
0
0
28.5
28.3
14.2
52.4
0
0
10160011
11
14
4
5
1
0
107
106
96.7
196.4
128.9
0
107
106
53.2
196.4
128.9
0
10170101
17
22
6
8
1
0
186.8
253.9
147.1
496.4
121.7
0
186.8
253.9
88.9
348
112.4
0
10170102
16
21
6
7
1
0
164.1
162.6
148.3
301.1
197.6
0
164.1
162.6
81.5
301.1
197.6
0
10170103
1
2
1
1
0
0
14.3
14.1
12.9
26.2
0
0
14.3
14.1
7.1
26.2
0
0
10170201
4
6
2
2
0
0
42.8
42.4
38.7
78.5
0
0
42.8
42.4
21.3
78.5
0
0
10170202
19
24
7
8
1
0
185.6
186.5
169.6
344.1
225.2
0
185.6
186.5
92.2
340.4
223.3
0
10170203
79
105
29
33
6
0
864.9
955.1
749.2
1645.1
1053.2
0
864.9
955.1
415
1526
992.5
0
10170204
1
1
0
0
0
0
8.7
12
0
0
0
0
8.7
12
0
0
0
0
10180001
2
2
1
1
0
0
1.3
1.6
1.4
2.7
0
0
1.3
1.6
0.4
1.2
0
0
10180007
9
11
3
4
0
0
15.4
24.1
18.3
47
0
0
15.4
24.1
6.4
24.6
0
0
March 2004
F-44
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
10180008
14
19
5
6
1
0
42.8
72.2
53.4
143.1
33.4
0
42.8
72.2
19.2
77.7
19.2
0
10180009
8
9
2
3
0
0
17.8
22.7
11.4
32.1
0
0
17.8
22.7
5.4
17.1
0
0
10180010
7
8
2
3
0
0
5.2
6.4
5.4
11.4
0
0
5.2
6.4
1.7
5
0
0
10180011
14
17
5
6
0
0
24.2
31
26.8
61.1
0
0
24.2
31
9.2
31.6
0
0
10180012
6
6
2
2
0
0
14.4
14.4
14.3
28.7
0
0
14.4
14.4
5
15.3
0
0
10180013
6
7
1
2
0
0
12.6
17
5.5
19.9
0
0
12.6
17
3.4
10.6
0
0
10180014
2
2
0
0
0
0
2.6
3.2
0
0
0
0
2.6
3.2
0
0
0
0
10190001
15
20
6
7
1
0
12.1
15.4
13
26
15.5
0
12.1
15.4
4.1
11.4
7.3
0
10190002
125
164
49
55
10
1
122.1
156.9
132.2
272.4
156.8
50.3
122.1
156.9
42.6
127.3
78.3
25.5
10190003
243
322
93
108
16
2
539.7
710.4
596.5
1325.4
705
288.9
539.7
710.4
207.3
707.1
404.8
167.6
10190004
33
43
13
14
3
0
37.4
48.3
40.7
85.5
48.2
0
37.4
48.3
13.4
41.5
25
0
10190005
65
86
25
29
5
1
96.5
125.8
105.8
228.5
125.2
47
96.5
125.8
35.7
116.3
68.3
26.1
10190006
34
45
13
15
3
0
44.8
58.2
49
104.7
58
0
44.8
58.2
16.4
52.3
31
0
10190007
11
15
4
5
1
0
17.7
22.9
19.3
41.8
22.1
0
17.7
22.9
6.5
21.4
12.2
0
10190009
5
6
2
2
0
0
11
13.2
11.9
25.4
0
0
11
13.2
4.1
13.5
0
0
10190010
20
27
8
9
1
0
44.9
59
49.6
110.2
58.6
0
44.9
59
17.2
58.8
33.6
0
10190011
6
8
2
3
0
0
9.3
12.2
10.2
22.3
0
0
9.3
12.2
3.5
11.5
0
0
10190012
15
20
6
7
1
0
34.5
45.5
37.4
83.9
43.6
0
34.5
45.5
13.1
44.8
25.1
0
10190013
27
35
10
12
2
0
51.9
68.2
57.3
126.3
67.7
0
51.9
68.2
19.8
66.6
38.4
0
10190015
1
2
0
1
0
0
3.6
3.7
0
7.2
0
0
3.6
3.7
0
3.8
0
0
10190016
6
7
1
2
0
0
12.7
16.6
6.6
21.1
0
0
12.7
16.6
3.6
11.2
0
0
10190017
2
2
0
1
0
0
3.7
4.9
0
6.5
0
0
3.7
4.9
0
3.5
0
0
10190018
7
8
2
2
0
0
13.5
17.9
6.2
21.3
0
0
13.5
17.9
3.6
11.2
0
0
10200101
12
15
4
4
0
0
142.8
229.3
98.8
441.8
0
0
142.8
229.3
64.9
257
0
0
10200103
26
34
9
11
2
0
455.1
737.9
321.6
1441.8
686.3
0
455.1
737.9
211.3
840.9
430.1
0
10200201
9
11
3
4
0
0
148.2
240.3
104.7
470
0
0
148.2
240.3
68.8
273.9
0
0
10200202
21
26
7
9
1
0
354
573.9
250.1
1121.4
533.8
0
354
573.9
164.4
654
334.5
0
10200203
27
35
9
11
2
0
467.7
758.4
330.5
1481.9
705.4
0
467.7
758.4
217.2
864.2
442.1
0
10210002
2
2
0
0
0
0
2.2
2.5
0
0
0
0
2.2
2.5
0
0
0
0
10210003
2
3
1
1
0
0
30.3
48.9
21.2
94.9
0
0
30.3
48.9
13.9
55.3
0
0
10210004
1
1
0
0
0
0
8.9
14.3
0
0
0
0
8.9
14.3
0
0
0
0
10210007
1
2
0
0
0
0
17.1
27.6
0
0
0
0
17.1
27.6
0
0
0
0
10210008
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
0
0
0
10210009
6
8
2
2
0
0
89.3
144.1
62.5
279.8
0
0
89.3
144.1
41
163
0
0
10210010
4
5
1
1
0
0
28
44.1
18.6
82.6
0
0
28
44.1
12.2
47.8
0
0
March 2004
F-45
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
10220001
22
27
6
7
0
0
122.5
194.3
79.8
372.9
0
0
122.5
194.3
52.5
212.1
0
0
10220002
5
7
2
2
0
0
56
91.8
39.1
184.6
0
0
56
91.8
25.7
105.8
0
0
10220003
21
27
7
9
1
0
329.5
535.1
232.4
1049.9
427.5
0
329.5
535.1
152.7
610.7
267.9
0
10220004
2
3
1
1
0
0
25.7
41.9
18
83.4
0
0
25.7
41.9
11.8
48.1
0
0
10230001
25
33
9
11
2
0
433
564.4
265.1
1096.4
589.7
0
433
564.4
213.2
814
469.3
0
10230002
6
7
2
2
0
0
96.9
96.3
50.4
185.3
0
0
96.9
96.3
50.4
185.3
0
0
10230003
9
12
4
4
1
0
157.9
168.4
98.3
317.3
197.3
0
157.9
168.4
82.4
300.7
189.8
0
10230004
4
5
1
2
0
0
60.6
60.2
31.5
115.8
0
0
60.6
60.2
31.5
115.8
0
0
10230005
2
3
1
1
0
0
36.4
36.1
18.9
69.5
0
0
36.4
36.1
18.9
69.5
0
0
10230006
118
153
43
50
8
0
2012.7
2568.2
1215.8
4985.7
2715.9
0
2012.7
2568.2
996.2
3789.5
2205.9
0
10230007
6
8
2
3
0
0
109.1
108.3
56.7
208.5
0
0
109.1
108.3
56.7
208.5
0
0
10240001
9
11
3
4
1
0
148.6
196.8
93.8
382.6
205.2
0
148.6
196.8
73.1
279.2
160.6
0
10240002
2
3
1
1
0
0
36.4
36.1
18.9
69.5
0
0
36.4
36.1
18.9
69.5
0
0
10240003
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.1
12
0
0
0
0
12.1
12
0
0
0
0
10240005
4
6
2
2
0
0
74
112.1
85.6
214.5
0
0
74
112.1
37.9
139.9
0
0
10240006
10
13
4
4
1
0
177
287
125.1
560.7
266.9
0
177
287
82.2
327
167.3
0
10240008
9
11
3
4
1
0
150.7
244.7
125.5
467.2
233.9
0
150.7
244.7
71.4
279
150.9
0
10240009
2
3
1
1
0
0
36.4
36.1
18.9
69.5
0
0
36.4
36.1
18.9
69.5
0
0
10240010
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.3
16.8
0
0
0
0
12.3
16.8
0
0
0
0
10240011
35
46
14
15
3
0
615.1
1007.1
851.9
1871.1
1150.4
0
615.1
1007.1
317.6
1160.8
766.8
0
10240012
43
56
17
19
3
0
740.2
1103.4
877.2
2184.7
1339.5
0
740.2
1103.4
383.1
1410.5
916.7
0
10240013
2
3
1
1
0
0
36.8
48.6
35.3
95.6
0
0
36.8
48.6
19.1
70.2
0
0
10250002
2
2
1
1
0
0
4.5
6.2
4.4
11.3
0
0
4.5
6.2
1.8
6.2
0
0
10250003
7
10
3
3
0
0
20.2
28.3
23.2
50.8
0
0
20.2
28.3
8.3
29.6
0
0
10250004
3
4
1
1
0
0
40
64.4
30.8
122.4
0
0
40
64.4
18.5
72.3
0
0
10250009
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.3
20
0
0
0
0
12.3
20
0
0
0
0
10250015
4
6
2
2
0
0
69.5
113.4
93.9
195.6
0
0
69.5
113.4
35.6
129.6
0
0
10250016
2
3
1
1
0
0
37.5
61
34
114.9
0
0
37.5
61
18
69.6
0
0
10250017
5
6
2
2
0
0
85.4
139.5
118.2
239.3
0
0
85.4
139.5
44
159.6
0
0
10260001
4
5
1
2
0
0
13.7
20.5
16.7
35.1
0
0
13.7
20.5
6
22.4
0
0
10260003
2
3
1
1
0
0
31.2
50.9
43
87.1
0
0
31.2
50.9
16
58.1
0
0
10260004
3
4
1
1
0
0
13.7
21.1
17.3
36
0
0
13.7
21.1
6.3
23.5
0
0
10260005
4
6
2
2
0
0
49.4
79.9
67.2
136.6
0
0
49.4
79.9
24.9
91
0
0
10260006
4
5
1
2
0
0
61
99.6
84.4
170.9
0
0
61
99.6
31.5
114
0
0
10260007
8
11
3
4
1
0
146.1
238.7
202.3
409.5
254.8
0
146.1
238.7
75.4
273.1
182.5
0
March 2004
F-46
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
10260008
14
18
6
6
1
0
243.9
398.5
337.8
683.7
425.5
0
243.9
398.5
125.8
455.9
304.7
0
10260012
8
11
3
4
1
0
146.4
239.1
202.6
410.3
255.3
0
146.4
239.1
75.5
273.6
182.8
0
10260014
2
3
1
1
0
0
36.6
59.8
50.7
102.6
0
0
36.6
59.8
18.9
68.4
0
0
10260015
4
6
2
2
0
0
73.2
119.6
101.3
205.1
0
0
73.2
119.6
37.7
136.8
0
0
10270101
5
6
2
2
0
0
85.4
139.5
118.2
239.3
0
0
85.4
139.5
44
159.6
0
0
10270102
51
66
20
22
4
0
878.1
1434.7
1216.1
2461.5
1531.9
0
878.1
1434.7
453
1641.3
1097
0
10270104
110
143
43
47
9
1
1902.7
3108.9
2635
5337.4
3321.3
693.9
1902.7
3108.9
981.5
3556.8
2376.9
497.4
10270201
4
5
1
2
0
0
63.2
102.5
44.7
200.3
0
0
63.2
102.5
29.3
116.8
0
0
10270202
18
24
6
8
1
0
316
512.4
223.3
1001.3
476.6
0
316
512.4
146.7
583.9
298.7
0
10270203
10
12
3
4
1
0
164.3
266.5
116.1
520.7
247.8
0
164.3
266.5
76.3
303.6
155.3
0
10270204
1
2
1
1
0
0
25.3
41
17.9
80.1
0
0
25.3
41
11.7
46.7
0
0
10270205
7
9
3
3
1
0
122.4
199.8
161.5
347.4
210.7
0
122.4
199.8
62.5
228.5
149.3
0
10270206
14
18
5
6
1
0
240.2
389.4
170.3
760.6
362.4
0
240.2
389.4
111.6
443.8
227.2
0
10270207
2
3
1
1
0
0
37.1
60.4
42.3
108.7
0
0
37.1
60.4
18.4
69
0
0
10280101
23
30
9
10
2
0
395.5
610.4
496.5
1210.9
740.5
0
395.5
610.4
204.6
753.5
490.6
0
10280102
7
9
3
3
1
0
122.6
162.2
117.8
318.9
197.5
0
122.6
162.2
63.6
233.9
151.1
0
10280103
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.4
19.9
0
0
0
0
12.4
19.9
0
0
0
0
10280201
3
4
1
1
0
0
48.9
59.2
39.7
115.7
0
0
48.9
59.2
25.4
93.3
0
0
10280202
8
10
3
3
1
0
136.4
223.8
189
445.4
271.1
0
136.4
223.8
70.5
259.8
169.8
0
10280203
5
7
2
2
0
0
86.8
142.4
120.3
283.4
0
0
86.8
142.4
44.9
165.3
0
0
10290101
17
22
7
7
1
0
292.7
478.2
405.4
820.5
510.6
0
292.7
478.2
151
547.1
365.7
0
10290102
15
19
6
6
1
0
257.4
421.1
356.5
758.1
468.3
0
257.4
421.1
132.9
483.9
321.2
0
10290103
3
4
1
1
0
0
49.1
80.3
67.9
145
0
0
49.1
80.3
25.3
92.3
0
0
10290104
7
9
3
3
1
0
122.9
201.3
170.3
371.7
228.7
0
122.9
201.3
63.5
231.8
153.3
0
10290105
14
18
5
6
1
0
235.7
386.6
326.4
769.3
468.3
0
235.7
386.6
121.8
448.7
293.2
0
10290106
39
51
15
17
3
0
669.8
1098.7
927.7
2186.5
1331
0
669.8
1098.7
346.1
1275.2
833.4
0
10290107
11
15
4
5
1
0
198.5
325.5
274.9
647.8
394.4
0
198.5
325.5
102.6
377.8
246.9
0
10290108
81
106
32
35
7
1
1401.3
2298.5
1940.9
4565.6
2780.1
734.9
1401.3
2298.5
724.2
2667.2
1743.6
460.3
10290109
57
75
22
25
5
1
992.3
1627.7
1374.4
3239.2
1971.9
522.6
992.3
1627.7
512.8
1889.2
1234.6
326.8
10290110
10
13
4
4
1
0
173.7
284.9
240.5
566.9
345.1
0
173.7
284.9
89.7
330.6
216.1
0
10290111
13
17
5
6
1
0
223.3
366.2
309.2
728.8
443.7
0
223.3
366.2
115.4
425.1
277.8
0
10290201
26
35
10
11
2
0
458.9
752.8
635.7
1498.1
912
0
458.9
752.8
237.2
873.8
571
0
10290202
10
13
4
4
1
0
173.7
284.9
240.5
566.9
345.1
0
173.7
284.9
89.7
330.6
216.1
0
10290203
17
23
7
7
1
0
297.7
488.3
412.3
971.8
591.6
0
297.7
488.3
153.8
566.8
370.4
0
10300101
193
253
75
84
16
2
3345.4
5486.2
4633.5
10821.6
6595.9
1726.9
3345.4
5486.2
1728.6
6361.6
4163.3
1087.3
March 2004
F-47
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
10300102
119
157
47
52
10
1
2071.5
3397.9
2869
6761.9
4116.4
1090.9
2071.5
3397.9
1070.5
3943.7
2577.2
682.3
10300103
10
13
4
4
1
0
173.7
284.9
240.5
566.9
345.1
0
173.7
284.9
89.7
330.6
216.1
0
10300104
52
68
20
22
4
0
893.1
1464.9
1237
2915.3
1774.7
0
893.1
1464.9
461.5
1700.3
1111.1
0
10300200
101
132
39
42
7
0
1267
2075
1741.2
3989.9
2187.5
0
1267
2075
643
2305.3
1357.9
0
11010001
74
97
29
32
6
1
1265.3
1393
847.2
2700.5
1665.8
358.3
1265.3
1393
669.1
2421.4
1513.4
317.8
11010002
68
89
26
29
6
1
1178.4
1932.9
1632.1
3846.6
2341.6
620.6
1178.4
1932.9
609
2243.4
1466.1
388.1
11010003
64
84
25
28
5
1
1105.9
1524.4
1147.5
3003.1
1837.5
451.6
1105.9
1524.4
577.9
2110.7
1350.1
322.3
11010004
39
51
15
17
3
0
687
688.2
368.2
1329.4
824
0
687
688.2
368.2
1329.4
824
0
11010005
5
7
2
2
0
0
84.8
84.6
45.1
162.5
0
0
84.8
84.6
45.1
162.5
0
0
11010006
26
34
10
11
2
0
444.2
663.9
529.4
1314.4
802.2
0
444.2
663.9
231
846.9
546.9
0
11010007
21
27
8
9
2
0
474.1
741.9
578.4
1484.8
838.9
0
474.1
741.9
245.3
939.9
566.8
0
11010008
29
38
11
12
2
0
532.4
854.6
704.2
1703.9
1021.2
0
532.4
854.6
276.6
1028.1
658.6
0
11010009
5
7
2
2
0
0
132
148.4
89.1
301.6
0
0
132
148.4
77.6
283.5
0
0
11010010
16
22
6
7
1
0
282.5
356.4
249.3
698.2
428.5
0
282.5
356.4
148.5
540.4
342.3
0
11010011
39
52
15
17
3
0
680.2
1054.6
860.9
2092.3
1275.7
0
680.2
1054.6
352.9
1296.4
841
0
11010012
8
10
3
3
1
0
137.9
138.2
74
267.1
165.6
0
137.9
138.2
74
267.1
165.6
0
11010013
24
31
9
10
2
0
792.9
860.2
485.6
1778.3
1110.4
0
792.9
860.2
485.6
1778.3
1110.4
0
11010014
23
30
9
10
2
0
406.7
408.7
219.1
791.6
490.8
0
406.7
408.7
219.1
791.6
490.8
0
11020001
9
11
3
4
1
0
7
8.9
7.5
15.1
9
0
7
8.9
2.4
6.6
4.2
0
11020002
37
49
15
16
3
0
30
38.2
32.2
64.3
38.2
0
30
38.2
10.1
28.2
18
0
11020003
28
36
11
12
2
0
22.3
28.4
24
47.9
28.5
0
22.3
28.4
7.5
21
13.4
0
11020004
53
70
21
23
4
1
68.3
88.6
74.5
158.8
88.3
31.7
68.3
88.6
24.8
78.9
46.9
17.2
11020006
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
11020009
19
25
8
9
1
0
23
29.8
25
52.9
29.4
0
23
29.8
8.3
26
15.4
0
11020010
4
5
2
2
0
0
3.2
4
3.3
6.7
0
0
3.2
4
1.1
3
0
0
11020011
2
3
1
1
0
0
3.2
4.1
3.5
7.4
0
0
3.2
4.1
1.2
3.7
0
0
11020013
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.5
0
0
0
0
1.1
1.5
0
0
0
0
11030001
11
15
4
5
0
0
24.5
35.3
27.1
57.7
0
0
24.5
35.3
9.4
38.1
0
0
11030002
2
3
1
1
0
0
5.4
7.6
6
12.8
0
0
5.4
7.6
2.1
8
0
0
11030003
22
29
8
10
0
0
134.5
213.1
176.4
361.2
0
0
134.5
213.1
64.8
240.5
0
0
11030005
9
12
3
4
0
0
102
165.2
139.2
282.6
0
0
102
165.2
51.6
188.3
0
0
11030006
9
12
4
4
1
0
157.5
257.3
218.1
441.4
274.5
0
157.5
257.3
81.2
294.3
196.5
0
11030007
1
1
0
0
0
0
7.2
11.7
0
0
0
0
7.2
11.7
0
0
0
0
11030008
3
4
1
1
0
0
48.8
79.7
67.6
136.7
0
0
48.8
79.7
25.2
91.2
0
0
11030009
1
2
1
1
0
0
24.4
39.9
33.8
68.4
0
0
24.4
39.9
12.6
45.6
0
0
March 2004
F-48
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
11030010
6
7
2
2
0
0
97.6
159.4
135.1
273.5
0
0
97.6
159.4
50.3
182.4
0
0
11030011
8
11
3
4
1
0
146.4
239.1
202.7
410.2
255.3
0
146.4
239.1
75.5
273.6
182.8
0
11030012
19
25
7
8
2
0
329.3
538
456
923.1
574.5
0
329.3
538
169.9
615.5
411.4
0
11030013
56
73
22
24
5
0
975.7
1594.2
1351.2
2735
1702.1
0
975.7
1594.2
503.3
1823.7
1218.9
0
11030014
11
14
4
5
1
0
182.9
298.9
253.3
512.8
319.1
0
182.9
298.9
94.4
341.9
228.5
0
11030015
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.2
19.9
0
0
0
0
12.2
19.9
0
0
0
0
11030016
1
2
1
1
0
0
24.4
39.9
33.8
68.4
0
0
24.4
39.9
12.6
45.6
0
0
11030017
12
16
5
5
1
0
207.3
338.8
287.1
581.2
361.7
0
207.3
338.8
106.9
387.5
259
0
11030018
83
108
33
36
7
0
1439.1
2351.4
1993
4034.1
2510.6
0
1439.1
2351.4
742.3
2690
1797.8
0
11040002
2
3
1
1
0
0
4.4
4.9
3.8
8.7
0
0
4.4
4.9
1.8
6
0
0
11040003
3
4
1
1
0
0
7.3
10.1
8
17.4
0
0
7.3
10.1
2.8
10.6
0
0
11040006
6
8
2
3
0
0
12.6
16.9
12.8
27.8
0
0
12.6
16.9
4.9
19.1
0
0
11040007
4
5
1
2
0
0
29.7
47.5
39.7
80.9
0
0
29.7
47.5
14.6
53.9
0
0
11050001
4
5
2
2
0
0
67.1
67.1
35.7
129.4
0
0
67.1
67.1
35.6
129.3
0
0
11050002
68
89
26
29
5
1
1147.8
1146.4
609.2
2215.2
1434.2
404.1
1147.8
1146.4
609.2
2215.2
1434.2
404.1
11050003
33
44
13
14
3
0
567.9
567.2
301.4
1095.9
709.5
0
567.9
567.2
301.4
1095.9
709.5
0
11060001
11
14
4
5
1
0
182.1
242.6
178.3
435
274.9
0
182.1
242.6
95.2
345.7
227.5
0
11060002
1
2
1
1
0
0
17.1
18.5
11
34.8
0
0
17.1
18.5
9
32.6
0
0
11060005
6
7
2
2
0
0
96.8
146.8
118.8
255.7
0
0
96.8
146.8
50.2
182
0
0
11060006
13
17
5
6
1
0
217.5
217.2
115.4
419.7
271.7
0
217.5
217.2
115.4
419.7
271.7
0
11070101
3
4
1
1
0
0
48.8
79.7
67.6
136.7
0
0
48.8
79.7
25.2
91.2
0
0
11070102
8
10
3
3
1
0
134.2
219.2
185.8
376.1
234
0
134.2
219.2
69.2
250.8
167.6
0
11070103
21
28
8
9
2
0
364
470.6
337.1
849.7
538.3
0
364
470.6
190.7
692.3
454.8
0
11070104
2
3
1
1
0
0
36.6
59.8
50.7
102.6
0
0
36.6
59.8
18.9
68.4
0
0
11070105
48
62
19
21
4
0
809.5
808.5
429.7
1562.3
1011.5
0
809.5
808.5
429.7
1562.3
1011.5
0
11070106
16
21
6
7
1
0
279
356.9
253.3
646.1
409.6
0
279
356.9
146.3
531
348.6
0
11070107
67
88
26
29
5
1
1135.7
1134.3
602.8
2191.9
1419.1
399.9
1135.7
1134.3
602.8
2191.9
1419.1
399.9
11070201
6
7
2
2
0
0
97.6
159.4
135.1
273.5
0
0
97.6
159.4
50.3
182.4
0
0
11070203
1
2
1
1
0
0
24.4
39.9
33.8
68.4
0
0
24.4
39.9
12.6
45.6
0
0
11070204
10
13
4
4
1
0
170.7
279
236.5
478.6
297.9
0
170.7
279
88.1
319.1
213.3
0
11070205
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.2
19.9
0
0
0
0
12.2
19.9
0
0
0
0
11070206
15
20
6
6
1
0
254.7
282.1
172.2
544
347.2
0
254.7
282.1
134.6
489.9
317.8
0
11070207
79
104
31
34
6
1
1371.6
2215.9
1856.5
4304.4
2632.8
676.3
1371.6
2215.9
709.3
2604.7
1707.9
437.3
11070208
56
73
22
24
5
0
961.9
1427.5
1132.7
2825.4
1727.3
0
961.9
1427.5
500.4
1834.7
1186.3
0
11070209
25
33
10
11
2
0
423
422.4
224.5
815.9
526.8
0
423
422.4
224.5
815.9
526.8
0
March 2004
F-49
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
11080002
6
8
2
2
0
0
4.5
3.5
1.5
4.1
0
0
4.5
3.5
1.5
4.1
0
0
11080003
10
13
4
4
1
0
7.7
6
2.6
7
3.9
0
7.7
6
2.6
7
3.9
0
11080004
2
2
1
1
0
0
1.3
1
0.4
1.2
0
0
1.3
1
0.4
1.2
0
0
11080006
9
12
3
4
1
0
7.1
5.5
2.4
6.4
3.6
0
7.1
5.5
2.4
6.4
3.6
0
11080008
2
2
1
1
0
0
1.6
1.2
0.6
1.6
0
0
1.6
1.2
0.6
1.6
0
0
11090101
2
3
1
1
0
0
2.4
1.9
0.8
2.5
0
0
2.4
1.9
0.8
2.5
0
0
11090103
23
30
9
10
2
0
35.6
27.8
13.5
43.3
25.5
0
35.6
27.8
13.5
43.3
25.5
0
11090104
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.1
0.9
0
0
0
0
1.1
0.9
0
0
0
0
11090105
37
49
15
16
2
0
49.5
38.4
18.2
57.9
32.5
0
49.5
38.4
18.2
57.9
32.5
0
11090106
33
43
13
14
2
0
46
37.5
18
58.3
33.2
0
46
37.5
18
58.3
33.2
0
11090202
69
90
27
30
6
1
1172
1170.5
622
2261.8
1464.4
412.6
1172
1170.5
622
2261.8
1464.4
412.6
11090203
46
60
18
20
4
0
773.3
772.3
410.4
1492.4
966.2
0
773.3
772.3
410.4
1492.4
966.2
0
11090204
26
34
10
11
2
0
447
446.5
237.3
862.8
558.6
0
447
446.5
237.3
862.8
558.6
0
11100101
3
4
1
1
0
0
5.9
4.2
2.5
7.7
0
0
5.9
4.2
2.5
7.7
0
0
11100102
4
5
1
1
0
0
8
5.6
3.6
10.5
0
0
8
5.6
3.5
10.5
0
0
11100103
3
4
1
1
0
0
7
5.4
2.8
9.2
0
0
7
5.4
2.8
9.2
0
0
11100104
23
30
9
10
2
0
50.4
39.2
19.8
66.2
37.8
0
50.4
39.2
19.8
66.2
37.8
0
11100201
15
20
6
6
0
0
30
23.3
13.1
41.4
0
0
30
23.3
13.1
41.4
0
0
11100202
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.3
1.1
0
0
0
0
1.3
1.1
0
0
0
0
11100203
2
3
1
1
0
0
9.1
8.7
4.6
16.2
0
0
9.1
8.7
4.6
16.2
0
0
11100301
40
52
16
17
3
0
669.4
668.5
355.2
1291.5
836
0
669.4
668.5
355.2
1291.5
836
0
11100302
144
188
56
62
12
1
2440.6
2437.6
1295.4
4710.2
3049.5
859.3
2440.6
2437.6
1295.4
4710.2
3049.5
859.3
11100303
135
177
53
59
11
1
2295.6
2292.8
1218.4
4430.4
2868.4
808.3
2295.6
2292.8
1218.4
4430.4
2868.4
808.3
11110101
203
266
79
88
16
2
3443.5
3439.2
1827.6
6645.6
4302.6
1212.4
3443.5
3439.2
1827.6
6645.6
4302.6
1212.4
11110102
30
39
12
13
2
0
507.5
506.8
269.3
979.4
634.1
0
507.5
506.8
269.3
979.4
634.1
0
11110103
72
94
28
31
6
1
1222.1
1219.4
648.8
2350.7
1492.8
367.1
1222.1
1219.4
648.8
2350.7
1492.8
367.1
11110104
51
66
20
22
4
0
858.4
857
455.7
1654.2
1062
0
858.4
857
455.7
1654.2
1062
0
11110105
35
46
14
15
3
0
592.6
591.5
314.6
1141.2
729.9
0
592.6
591.5
314.6
1141.2
729.9
0
11110201
64
83
25
27
5
0
1078.8
1075.1
573
2066.5
1280.3
0
1078.8
1075.1
573
2066.5
1280.3
0
11110202
36
47
14
15
3
0
606.1
604
321.9
1161
719.3
0
606.1
604
321.9
1161
719.3
0
11110203
56
74
22
24
4
0
957.6
954.3
508.6
1834.3
1136.4
0
957.6
954.3
508.6
1834.3
1136.4
0
11110204
11
14
4
5
1
0
181.8
181.2
96.6
348.3
215.8
0
181.8
181.2
96.6
348.3
215.8
0
11110205
30
39
12
13
2
0
509.1
507.3
270.4
975.2
604.2
0
509.1
507.3
270.4
975.2
604.2
0
11110206
11
15
5
5
1
0
193.9
193.3
103
371.5
230.2
0
193.9
193.3
103
371.5
230.2
0
11110207
168
220
66
73
13
1
3975.9
4163.3
2296.8
8360.7
5204.6
1539.5
3975.9
4163.3
2296.8
8360.7
5204.6
1539.5
March 2004
F-50
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
11120101
11
14
4
5
1
0
24.6
19.3
9.6
32.2
20
0
24.6
19.3
9.6
32.2
20
0
11120102
8
10
3
3
1
0
16.8
13.2
6.6
22.2
13.6
0
16.8
13.2
6.6
22.2
13.6
0
11120103
65
85
25
28
5
0
113.8
88.8
43.4
143.1
84.7
0
113.8
88.8
43.4
143.1
84.7
0
11120104
3
3
1
1
0
0
5.6
4.4
2.2
7.4
0
0
5.6
4.4
2.2
7.4
0
0
11120105
6
8
2
3
0
0
36.9
36
18.8
67.6
0
0
36.9
36
18.8
67.6
0
0
11120201
3
4
1
1
0
0
3.6
2.8
1.3
4
0
0
3.6
2.8
1.3
4
0
0
11120301
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.1
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.1
0
0
0
0
11120302
20
26
8
9
2
0
311.2
310.4
164.5
599
387.1
0
311.2
310.4
164.5
599
387.1
0
11120303
9
11
3
4
1
0
145
144.8
77
279.8
181.2
0
145
144.8
77
279.8
181.2
0
11130101
4
5
1
2
0
0
58.2
58
30.7
112.1
0
0
58.2
58
30.7
112.1
0
0
11130102
1
1
0
0
0
0
12.1
12.1
0
0
0
0
12.1
12.1
0
0
0
0
11130103
4
5
2
2
0
0
9.6
8.4
4.2
14.5
0
0
9.6
8.4
4.2
14.5
0
0
11130104
3
4
1
1
0
0
3.7
2.8
1.3
4
0
0
3.7
2.8
1.3
4
0
0
11130201
11
14
4
5
1
0
181.4
181.2
96.1
350.1
226.5
0
181.4
181.2
96.1
350.1
226.5
0
11130202
11
14
4
5
1
0
181.2
181
96.2
349.8
226.5
0
181.2
181
96.2
349.8
226.5
0
11130203
36
48
14
16
3
0
616.2
615.4
327.1
1189.2
769.9
0
616.2
615.4
327.1
1189.2
769.9
0
11130206
60
78
23
26
5
0
1018
1016.4
537.1
1963.9
1268.5
0
1018
1016.4
537.1
1963.9
1268.5
0
11130208
19
25
8
8
2
0
326.2
325.8
173.1
629.6
407.6
0
326.2
325.8
173.1
629.6
407.6
0
11130209
10
13
4
4
1
0
169.7
169.4
89.5
327.3
211.4
0
169.7
169.4
89.5
327.3
211.4
0
11130210
50
65
19
22
4
0
846.9
845.7
448.3
1634.2
1056.9
0
846.9
845.7
448.3
1634.2
1056.9
0
11130301
2
3
1
1
0
0
17.9
17.6
9.4
33.7
0
0
17.9
17.6
9.4
33.7
0
0
11130302
17
22
7
7
1
0
287.9
287.5
152.8
555.6
359.6
0
287.9
287.5
152.8
555.6
359.6
0
11130303
9
11
3
4
1
0
145
144.8
77
279.8
181.2
0
145
144.8
77
279.8
181.2
0
11130304
14
18
5
6
1
0
229.6
229.3
121.8
443
286.8
0
229.6
229.3
121.8
443
286.8
0
11140101
67
88
26
29
5
1
1138.3
1136.6
601.5
2196.1
1419.4
374.9
1138.3
1136.6
601.5
2196.1
1419.4
374.9
11140103
9
12
4
4
1
0
157.1
156.9
83.4
303.1
196.3
0
157.1
156.9
83.4
303.1
196.3
0
11140105
3
4
1
1
0
0
48.3
48.3
25.7
93.3
0
0
48.3
48.3
25.7
93.3
0
0
11140106
15
20
6
6
1
0
254.3
253.8
134.5
490.1
314.8
0
254.3
253.8
134.5
490.1
314.8
0
11140108
9
11
3
4
1
0
145.1
144.8
77
279.5
178.8
0
145.1
144.8
77
279.5
178.8
0
11140109
5
7
2
2
0
0
84.8
84.5
45
162.6
0
0
84.8
84.5
45
162.6
0
0
11140201
7
9
3
3
1
0
121.5
126.1
66
239.6
145.4
0
121.5
126.1
64
232.2
142.4
0
11140203
31
40
12
13
2
0
531.4
726.2
339.9
1287
672.3
0
531.4
726.2
262.7
996.7
554.7
0
11140204
9
12
3
4
1
0
162.9
264.1
116.3
451.2
214.8
0
162.9
264.1
76.4
300.9
153.9
0
11140205
2
3
1
1
0
0
36.8
45.8
22.2
82.9
0
0
36.8
45.8
18.7
69.6
0
0
11140206
9
12
3
4
1
0
162.9
263.9
116.3
451
214.8
0
162.9
263.9
76.4
300.9
154
0
March 2004
F-51
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
11140207
23
29
8
9
1
0
388.4
629.7
277.4
1076
512.3
0
388.4
629.7
182.2
717.6
367.1
0
11140208
6
8
2
2
0
0
100.2
162.5
71.6
277.7
0
0
100.2
162.5
47
185.2
0
0
11140209
4
5
1
2
0
0
62.6
101.6
44.7
173.6
0
0
62.6
101.6
29.4
115.7
0
0
11140301
10
13
4
4
1
0
169.7
169.4
89.5
327.3
211.4
0
169.7
169.4
89.5
327.3
211.4
0
11140302
59
77
23
25
5
0
993.8
992
524.7
1915.9
1232.9
0
993.8
992
524.7
1915.9
1232.9
0
11140303
24
31
9
10
2
0
399.9
399.3
211
771.5
498.3
0
399.9
399.3
211
771.5
498.3
0
11140304
16
21
6
7
1
0
272
374.2
174.4
663
349.4
0
272
374.2
134
511
287.8
0
11140305
25
33
10
11
2
0
424.2
423.5
223.8
818.3
528.6
0
424.2
423.5
223.8
818.3
528.6
0
11140306
15
20
6
6
1
0
255.3
269
138.9
511.6
319.7
0
255.3
269
133.3
490.6
311.2
0
11140307
24
31
9
10
2
0
399.9
399.3
211
771.5
498.3
0
399.9
399.3
211
771.5
498.3
0
12010001
49
64
19
21
4
0
836.2
834.9
441.2
1613.2
1042
0
836.2
834.9
441.2
1613.2
1042
0
12010002
195
255
76
84
16
2
3310.3
3338.1
1756.5
6430.7
4128.7
1046.1
3310.3
3338.1
1743.5
6381.6
4108.9
1046.1
12010003
19
24
7
8
1
0
315.1
314.6
166.3
607.9
392.6
0
315.1
314.6
166.3
607.9
392.6
0
12010004
58
75
22
25
4
0
984.5
1267.6
604.7
2283.7
1260.1
0
984.5
1267.6
492.6
1861.9
1089.2
0
12010005
108
141
41
46
8
1
2918
3839
1979.3
7348.5
4335.1
840.2
2918
3839
1658.7
6177.9
3812.8
782.8
12020001
61
80
24
27
5
0
1042.3
1040.6
549.9
2010.6
1298.7
0
1042.3
1040.6
549.9
2010.6
1298.7
0
12020002
56
74
22
24
5
0
957.4
955.9
505.2
1847
1193
0
957.4
955.9
505.2
1847
1193
0
12020003
49
65
19
21
4
0
1194.4
1250.7
684.4
2508.7
1628.8
0
1194.4
1250.7
684.4
2508.7
1628.8
0
12020004
53
69
21
23
4
0
896.8
895.4
473.2
1730.1
1117.5
0
896.8
895.4
473.2
1730.1
1117.5
0
12020005
74
96
29
32
6
1
1248.3
1246.3
658.6
2408.1
1555.4
400.9
1248.3
1246.3
658.6
2408.1
1555.4
400.9
12020006
19
24
7
8
2
0
362.7
369.9
198.6
726.9
470.6
0
362.7
369.9
198.6
726.9
470.6
0
12020007
61
80
24
26
5
1
1987.6
2140.1
1193.7
4381.2
2852.2
728.4
1987.6
2140.1
1193.7
4381.2
2852.2
728.4
12030101
50
65
19
22
4
0
848.4
847
447.6
1636.6
1057.1
0
848.4
847
447.6
1636.6
1057.1
0
12030102
259
339
101
112
21
2
4399.3
4392.2
2321.1
8486.8
5481.8
1413
4399.3
4392.2
2321.1
8486.8
5481.8
1413
12030103
151
198
59
65
12
1
2569.3
2565.1
1355.6
4956.5
3201.5
825.2
2569.3
2565.1
1355.6
4956.5
3201.5
825.2
12030104
123
161
48
53
10
1
2084.5
2081.1
1099.8
4021.3
2597.4
669.5
2084.5
2081.1
1099.8
4021.3
2597.4
669.5
12030105
171
224
67
74
14
1
2908.7
2903.9
1534.6
5611.1
3624.3
934.2
2908.7
2903.9
1534.6
5611.1
3624.3
934.2
12030106
154
201
60
66
12
1
2605.7
2601.4
1374.8
5026.6
3246.8
836.9
2605.7
2601.4
1374.8
5026.6
3246.8
836.9
12030107
51
67
20
22
4
0
872.6
871.2
460.4
1683.3
1087.3
0
872.6
871.2
460.4
1683.3
1087.3
0
12030108
14
19
6
6
1
0
242.4
242
127.9
467.6
302
0
242.4
242
127.9
467.6
302
0
12030109
59
77
23
25
5
0
993.8
992.2
524.3
1917.1
1238.3
0
993.8
992.2
524.3
1917.1
1238.3
0
12030201
27
36
11
12
2
0
460.5
459.8
243
888.4
573.9
0
460.5
459.8
243
888.4
573.9
0
12030202
73
95
28
31
6
1
1236.2
1234.2
652.2
2384.7
1540.3
397
1236.2
1234.2
652.2
2384.7
1540.3
397
12030203
26
34
10
11
2
0
827.3
889.6
495.7
1819.3
1184.2
0
827.3
889.6
495.7
1819.3
1184.2
0
12040101
44
58
17
19
4
0
830.8
842.4
450.4
1648
1066.4
0
830.8
842.4
450.4
1648
1066.4
0
March 2004
F-52
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
12040102
64
83
25
27
5
1
1547.8
1621.6
887.7
3253.9
2112.7
541.2
1547.8
1621.6
887.7
3253.9
2112.7
541.2
12040103
50
65
19
22
4
0
911.1
919.8
490.2
1793.4
1159.9
0
911.1
919.8
490.2
1793.4
1159.9
0
12040104
420
547
164
179
34
4
15703.8
17080.7
9592.2
35220.9
22950.8
5854.3
15703.8
17080.7
9592.2
35220.9
22950.8
5854.3
12040201
102
132
40
43
8
1
3807.6
4463.5
2467.6
9054.8
5767.8
1418
3807.6
4463.5
2319.3
8527.9
5512.7
1368.2
12040202
9
12
4
4
1
0
349.6
380.2
213.5
784
510.9
0
349.6
380.2
213.5
784
510.9
0
12040203
42
55
17
18
3
0
1586.5
1725.6
969.1
3558.3
2318.7
0
1586.5
1725.6
969.1
3558.3
2318.7
0
12040204
188
244
73
80
15
2
7018.3
7633.7
4286.9
15740.9
10257.1
2616.4
7018.3
7633.7
4286.9
15740.9
10257.1
2616.4
12040205
27
35
10
11
2
0
994.9
1082.2
607.7
2231.5
1454.1
0
994.9
1082.2
607.7
2231.5
1454.1
0
12050001
70
92
28
30
6
0
158.4
124.1
62.1
206.5
129.7
0
158.4
124.1
62.1
206.5
129.7
0
12050002
26
34
10
11
2
0
58.3
45.7
22.8
76.6
47.1
0
58.3
45.7
22.8
76.6
47.1
0
12050003
64
84
25
27
5
0
129.2
101.1
50
167.1
100.8
0
129.2
101.1
50
167.1
100.8
0
12050004
11
14
4
4
1
0
40.7
37.5
19.3
68.6
43.2
0
40.7
37.5
19.3
68.6
43.2
0
12050005
26
34
10
11
2
0
58.4
45.8
22.8
76.6
47.2
0
58.4
45.8
22.8
76.6
47.2
0
12050006
10
13
4
4
1
0
21.6
16.9
8.4
28.3
17.2
0
21.6
16.9
8.4
28.3
17.2
0
12050007
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.6
0
0
0
0
12060101
6
8
2
3
0
0
79.1
78.7
41.5
151.5
0
0
79.1
78.7
41.5
151.5
0
0
12060102
46
61
18
20
4
0
787.8
786.5
415.6
1519.7
981.6
0
787.8
786.5
415.6
1519.7
981.6
0
12060103
4
6
2
2
0
0
72.7
72.6
38.4
140.3
0
0
72.7
72.6
38.4
140.3
0
0
12060104
4
6
2
2
0
0
72.7
72.6
38.4
140.3
0
0
72.7
72.6
38.4
140.3
0
0
12060105
10
13
4
4
1
0
169.7
169.4
89.5
327.3
211.4
0
169.7
169.4
89.5
327.3
211.4
0
12060201
70
92
27
30
6
1
1187.7
1185.8
626.6
2291.2
1479.9
381.5
1187.7
1185.8
626.6
2291.2
1479.9
381.5
12060202
109
142
42
47
9
1
1842.2
1839.1
971.9
3553.7
2295.4
591.7
1842.2
1839.1
971.9
3553.7
2295.4
591.7
12060204
1
2
1
1
0
0
24.2
24.2
12.8
46.8
0
0
24.2
24.2
12.8
46.8
0
0
12070101
79
104
31
34
6
1
1345.3
1343.1
709.8
2595.1
1676.3
432.1
1345.3
1343.1
709.8
2595.1
1676.3
432.1
12070102
25
33
10
11
2
0
424.2
423.5
223.8
818.3
528.6
0
424.2
423.5
223.8
818.3
528.6
0
12070103
39
51
15
17
3
0
666.6
665.5
351.7
1285.9
830.6
0
666.6
665.5
351.7
1285.9
830.6
0
12070104
87
113
34
37
7
1
2384.9
2530.3
1397.4
5125.3
3331.9
852.3
2384.9
2530.3
1397.4
5125.3
3331.9
852.3
12070201
83
108
32
36
7
1
1459.7
1414
753
2756.5
1775.5
442.2
1459.7
1414
753
2756.5
1775.5
442.2
12070203
60
78
23
25
5
0
1216.7
1056.8
579.6
2130.9
1358.3
0
1216.7
1056.8
579.6
2130.9
1358.3
0
12070204
25
33
10
11
2
0
424.2
423.5
223.8
818.3
528.6
0
424.2
423.5
223.8
818.3
528.6
0
12070205
99
130
39
43
8
1
1876.4
1727.2
932.4
3419.7
2192.1
512.9
1876.4
1727.2
932.4
3419.7
2192.1
512.9
12080002
13
17
5
5
1
0
155.1
152.9
80.6
293.6
189.2
0
155.1
152.9
80.6
293.6
189.2
0
12080003
40
52
16
17
3
0
89.3
70
35
116.7
72.9
0
89.3
70
35
116.7
72.9
0
12080004
31
40
12
13
2
0
71.6
56.7
28.4
95.7
58.9
0
71.6
56.7
28.4
95.7
58.9
0
12080005
118
155
46
51
9
1
265.8
208.3
103.9
350
213.7
49.7
265.8
208.3
103.9
350
213.7
49.7
March 2004
F-53
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
12080006
13
16
5
5
1
0
28.2
22.1
11
37
22.8
0
28.2
22.1
11
37
22.8
0
12080008
5
7
2
2
0
0
84.8
84.7
44.8
163.7
0
0
84.8
84.7
44.8
163.7
0
0
12090102
22
29
9
10
2
0
327.3
312.9
166.7
609.2
391.7
0
327.3
312.9
166.7
609.2
391.7
0
12090103
5
6
2
2
0
0
34.4
32.9
17.2
62.1
0
0
34.4
32.9
17.2
62.1
0
0
12090104
7
9
3
3
1
0
113.7
113.2
59.8
218.5
141.1
0
113.7
113.2
59.8
218.5
141.1
0
12090105
7
9
3
3
1
0
122.7
117.3
62.7
229.6
147.7
0
122.7
117.3
62.7
229.6
147.7
0
12090106
9
11
3
4
1
0
146.1
145.6
77
281.6
181.8
0
146.1
145.6
77
281.6
181.8
0
12090107
11
14
4
5
1
0
184.8
183.4
97.1
355
229.1
0
184.8
183.4
97.1
355
229.1
0
12090110
10
13
4
4
1
0
198.7
178.2
96.9
355.6
227.4
0
198.7
178.2
96.9
355.6
227.4
0
12090201
24
31
9
10
2
0
490
422.9
232.4
854.5
544.3
0
490
422.9
232.4
854.5
544.3
0
12090203
2
2
1
1
0
0
37.7
32.5
17.9
65.8
0
0
37.7
32.5
17.9
65.8
0
0
12090204
8
11
3
4
1
0
169.7
146.5
80.5
295.9
188.5
0
169.7
146.5
80.5
295.9
188.5
0
12090205
208
271
80
89
17
2
4195.9
3673.9
2010.5
7388.6
4713.2
1031.3
4195.9
3673.9
2010.5
7388.6
4713.2
1031.3
12090206
70
92
27
30
6
1
1451.9
1253
688.5
2531.7
1612.7
345.7
1451.9
1253
688.5
2531.7
1612.7
345.7
12090301
131
172
51
57
11
1
2230
2226.3
1176.6
4301.8
2778.7
716.2
2230
2226.3
1176.6
4301.8
2778.7
716.2
12090302
7
9
3
3
1
0
227
243.9
135.8
498.4
324.4
0
227
243.9
135.8
498.4
324.4
0
12090401
38
50
15
16
3
0
1210.6
1301.1
724.8
2660
1731.4
0
1210.6
1301.1
724.8
2660
1731.4
0
12090402
35
45
14
15
3
0
1290.7
1403.9
788.4
2894.9
1886.4
0
1290.7
1403.9
788.4
2894.9
1886.4
0
12100101
19
24
7
8
2
0
385.2
396
213.9
783.2
507.5
0
385.2
396
213.9
783.2
507.5
0
12100102
5
7
2
2
0
0
134
141.7
78.1
286.5
0
0
134
141.7
78.1
286.5
0
0
12100201
80
104
31
34
6
1
1640.5
1415.8
777.9
2860.5
1822.1
390.6
1640.5
1415.8
777.9
2860.5
1822.1
390.6
12100202
26
34
10
11
2
0
449.7
443.9
235.3
860.6
555.3
0
449.7
443.9
235.3
860.6
555.3
0
12100203
47
62
18
20
4
0
878.3
819.6
440.8
1615.9
1037.2
0
878.3
819.6
440.8
1615.9
1037.2
0
12100204
27
35
10
11
2
0
662.3
695.9
381.8
1399.7
909.1
0
662.3
695.9
381.8
1399.7
909.1
0
12100301
111
144
43
48
9
1
1954.2
1890.2
1007.1
3686.6
2374.3
590.3
1954.2
1890.2
1007.1
3686.6
2374.3
590.3
12100302
223
291
86
96
18
2
4154.1
3667.7
2000.5
7344.8
4688.2
1039.7
4154.1
3667.7
2000.5
7344.8
4688.2
1039.7
12100303
9
11
3
4
1
0
163.5
166.2
89
325.8
210.8
0
163.5
166.2
89
325.8
210.8
0
12100304
101
132
39
44
8
1
1844.5
1744.2
934.8
3424.9
2201
532.7
1844.5
1744.2
934.8
3424.9
2201
532.7
12100401
12
15
5
5
1
0
430.2
468
262.8
965
628.8
0
430.2
468
262.8
965
628.8
0
12100402
26
34
10
11
2
0
950.4
1032.4
579.3
2126.9
1385.8
0
950.4
1032.4
579.3
2126.9
1385.8
0
12100403
12
16
5
5
1
0
457.1
497.2
279.2
1025.3
668.1
0
457.1
497.2
279.2
1025.3
668.1
0
12100405
26
34
10
11
2
0
968
1052.9
591.3
2171.2
1414.8
0
968
1052.9
591.3
2171.2
1414.8
0
12100406
6
8
3
3
1
0
188.3
200.9
111.4
408.6
265.8
0
188.3
200.9
111.4
408.6
265.8
0
12100407
29
38
12
13
2
0
971.5
1047.1
584.5
2145.2
1396.7
0
971.5
1047.1
584.5
2145.2
1396.7
0
12110103
6
8
2
3
0
0
23.1
19
10
35.2
0
0
23.1
19
10
35.2
0
0
March 2004
F-54
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
12110104
11
14
4
5
1
0
67.2
56.5
30.2
108.9
68.7
0
67.2
56.5
30.2
108.9
68.7
0
12110106
31
40
12
13
2
0
406.2
348.3
190.3
696.3
442.6
0
406.2
348.3
190.3
696.3
442.6
0
12110109
21
27
8
9
2
0
52
41.3
20.8
71.1
43.7
0
52
41.3
20.8
71.1
43.7
0
12110110
33
43
13
14
3
0
383.7
377.2
198.7
723.5
466.1
0
383.7
377.2
198.7
723.5
466.1
0
12110111
37
48
14
16
3
0
541.2
559.2
305.5
1115.8
722.8
0
541.2
559.2
305.5
1115.8
722.8
0
12110201
1
2
1
1
0
0
53.8
58.5
32.9
120.6
0
0
53.8
58.5
32.9
120.6
0
0
12110202
83
108
32
35
7
1
3092.4
3363.5
1888.9
6935.6
4519.4
1152.8
3092.4
3363.5
1888.9
6935.6
4519.4
1152.8
12110203
4
5
1
2
0
0
134.5
146.2
82.1
301.5
0
0
134.5
146.2
82.1
301.5
0
0
12110204
47
62
18
20
4
0
707.5
748.9
417.2
1524
989.4
0
707.5
748.9
417.2
1524
989.4
0
12110205
28
37
11
12
2
0
775.4
837.7
469.6
1721.9
1121.1
0
775.4
837.7
469.6
1721.9
1121.1
0
12110206
3
4
1
1
0
0
22.1
22.1
12.1
43.6
0
0
22.1
22.1
12.1
43.6
0
0
12110208
251
327
98
108
20
2
3332.6
3507.3
1950.5
7116.5
4616.4
1170.6
3332.6
3507.3
1950.5
7116.5
4616.4
1170.6
13010001
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.8
0
0
0
0
13010002
9
12
4
4
1
0
16
20.8
17.4
38.1
20.6
0
16
20.8
6
20.1
11.7
0
13010003
3
4
1
1
0
0
5.3
7
5.9
12.8
0
0
5.3
7
2
6.6
0
0
13010005
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1.2
0
0
0
0
1
1.2
0
0
0
0
13020101
128
169
50
54
9
1
209.1
169.8
88.3
267.9
165
38.6
209.1
169.8
80
254.5
158.5
36
13020102
16
21
6
6
1
0
17.9
14.1
6.8
20
12
0
17.9
14.1
6.6
19.6
11.8
0
13020201
104
137
41
44
8
1
427.3
349.9
180
662.9
365.5
33.8
427.3
349.9
180
662.9
365.5
33.8
13020202
2
2
1
1
0
0
2.4
1.9
0.9
2.8
0
0
2.4
1.9
0.9
2.8
0
0
13020203
572
744
223
244
45
4
2462.3
2011.2
1034.7
3816.8
2112.5
218.8
2462.3
2011.2
1034.7
3816.8
2112.5
218.8
13020204
5
7
2
2
0
0
22.7
18.6
9.6
35.3
0
0
22.7
18.6
9.6
35.3
0
0
13020207
41
54
16
18
3
0
349.3
291.2
152.1
585.8
308.6
0
349.3
291.2
152.1
585.8
308.6
0
13030101
4
5
1
2
0
0
48.1
40.4
21.2
83
0
0
48.1
40.4
21.2
83
0
0
13030102
202
261
79
86
15
2
471.3
373
183.6
648.5
359.6
53.7
471.3
373
183.6
648.5
359.6
53.7
13030202
51
65
20
22
4
1
224.6
184.2
94.1
355.1
187.7
12.4
224.6
184.2
94.1
355.1
187.7
12.4
13040100
41
52
14
17
2
0
48
34.6
15
44.9
21.4
0
48
34.6
15
44.9
21.4
0
13040208
4
5
1
2
0
0
4.7
3.4
1.5
4.4
0
0
4.7
3.4
1.5
4.4
0
0
13040210
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
1
0
0
0
0
13050001
39
51
15
17
3
0
215.6
177.7
92.1
345.7
188.2
0
215.6
177.7
92.1
345.7
188.2
0
13050003
86
111
33
37
6
1
354.8
289.9
148.1
552.2
297.3
24.8
354.8
289.9
148.1
552.2
297.3
24.8
13050004
2
2
1
1
0
0
8.6
7
3.6
13.6
0
0
8.6
7
3.6
13.6
0
0
13060001
43
56
17
18
3
0
68.4
53.5
26.1
82.8
51.8
0
68.4
53.5
26.1
82.8
51.8
0
13060003
13
17
5
5
1
0
22.8
17.7
8.7
27.9
17.7
0
22.8
17.7
8.7
27.9
17.7
0
13060004
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.2
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.2
0
0
0
0
March 2004
F-55
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
13060007
25
32
10
11
2
0
39.3
29.8
14.2
44.8
28.3
0
39.3
29.8
14.2
44.8
28.3
0
13060008
33
42
12
14
2
0
443.9
373.4
195.7
769.5
393.6
0
443.9
373.4
195.7
769.5
393.6
0
13060009
15
19
6
6
1
0
112.4
93.6
48.6
187.9
97.3
0
112.4
93.6
48.6
187.9
97.3
0
13060010
6
8
2
3
0
0
95.7
80.7
42.4
167.1
0
0
95.7
80.7
42.4
167.1
0
0
13060011
70
91
27
30
5
1
425.4
352.6
182.7
696.7
369.4
21.6
425.4
352.6
182.7
696.7
369.4
21.6
13070001
5
7
2
2
0
0
6.3
4.6
2
6
0
0
6.3
4.6
2
6
0
0
13070006
38
47
13
15
2
0
43.9
31.7
13.8
41.1
19.6
0
43.9
31.7
13.8
41.1
19.6
0
13070007
13
17
5
6
1
0
28.9
22.6
11.2
37.4
23.2
0
28.9
22.6
11.2
37.4
23.2
0
13070008
17
22
6
7
1
0
22.9
16.9
7.7
23.8
12.4
0
22.9
16.9
7.7
23.8
12.4
0
13070010
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
1
0
0
0
0
13080001
46
60
18
20
3
0
370.9
314.6
170
616.9
390.3
0
370.9
314.6
170
616.9
390.3
0
13080002
94
123
37
41
7
1
211.5
165.8
82.6
278.5
170.1
39.6
211.5
165.8
82.6
278.5
170.1
39.6
13080003
8
11
3
4
1
0
18.7
14.7
7.3
24.6
15.1
0
18.7
14.7
7.3
24.6
15.1
0
13090001
24
32
9
10
2
0
54.3
42.5
21.2
71.5
43.7
0
54.3
42.5
21.2
71.5
43.7
0
13090002
12
15
5
5
1
0
40.3
36.2
19.1
67.1
42.4
0
40.3
36.2
19.1
67.1
42.4
0
14010001
4
5
2
2
0
0
3.2
4.1
3.4
6.8
0
0
3.2
4.1
1.1
3
0
0
14010002
12
16
5
5
1
0
9.6
12.2
10.3
20.5
12.2
0
9.6
12.2
3.2
9
5.7
0
14010003
6
7
2
2
0
0
4.5
5.7
4.8
9.6
0
0
4.5
5.7
1.5
4.2
0
0
14010004
42
55
17
18
3
0
33.8
43
36.3
72.6
43.1
0
33.8
43
11.4
31.9
20.3
0
14010005
43
56
17
19
3
0
34.5
43.7
36.8
73.6
43.8
0
34.5
43.7
11.6
32.4
20.7
0
14020002
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
14020004
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
14020005
10
12
4
4
1
0
7.7
9.7
8.2
16.4
9.8
0
7.7
9.7
2.6
7.2
4.6
0
14020006
22
29
9
10
2
0
17.9
22.7
19.2
38.3
22.8
0
17.9
22.7
6
16.8
10.7
0
14030003
2
2
1
1
0
0
1.3
1.6
1.4
2.7
0
0
1.3
1.6
0.4
1.2
0
0
14030005
3
4
1
1
0
0
2.6
1.9
0.9
2.3
0
0
2.6
1.9
0.9
2.3
0
0
14040101
8
11
3
4
0
0
16.4
26.2
19.8
51.3
0
0
16.4
26.2
7
27.1
0
0
14040102
4
5
2
2
0
0
7.7
12
9.1
23.4
0
0
7.7
12
3.2
12.3
0
0
14040106
2
3
1
1
0
0
3.1
2.9
2
5
0
0
3.1
2.9
1.2
3.6
0
0
14040107
81
100
29
36
4
0
95.6
117
91.9
217.6
66
0
95.6
117
35
116.5
40.4
0
14050001
2
3
1
1
0
0
1.9
2.4
2.1
4.1
0
0
1.9
2.4
0.6
1.8
0
0
14050003
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0
14060002
5
6
2
2
0
0
5.3
4.1
2.1
5.8
0
0
5.3
4.1
1.9
5.6
0
0
14060003
7
9
3
3
1
0
10
7.7
3.9
11.9
7.8
0
10
7.7
3.9
11.9
7.8
0
14060007
6
8
2
3
0
0
7.9
6.1
3
9.2
0
0
7.9
6.1
3
9.2
0
0
March 2004
F-56
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
14060009
2
2
1
1
0
0
1.8
1.4
0.7
2
0
0
1.8
1.4
0.7
2
0
0
14070003
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
1.5
0.7
2.1
0
0
2
1.5
0.7
2.1
0
0
14070005
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.6
0
0
0
0
14080101
42
55
17
18
3
0
61.6
58.6
38.1
97.5
58.7
0
61.6
58.6
23.1
73.3
45.8
0
14080104
21
28
8
9
2
0
30.5
35.3
27.5
62.4
35.6
0
30.5
35.3
11.3
36.4
22.1
0
14080105
31
41
12
13
2
0
159.9
140.8
82.3
265.8
155.6
0
159.9
140.8
71.5
248.6
147.3
0
14080106
23
30
9
10
2
0
84.7
68.6
35.2
126.4
72.7
0
84.7
68.6
35.2
126.4
72.7
0
14080202
6
8
3
3
1
0
6.6
8.2
6.7
14.1
8.1
0
6.6
8.2
2.3
7
4.3
0
14080203
2
2
1
1
0
0
1.3
1.2
0.7
1.7
0
0
1.3
1.2
0.4
1.2
0
0
14080204
22
28
8
8
1
0
96.2
78.7
41.2
144.6
82.8
0
96.2
78.7
41.2
144.6
82.8
0
15010003
6
7
1
1
0
0
18
14.6
7.5
25.3
0
0
18
14.6
7.5
25.3
0
0
15010004
9
11
4
4
1
0
91.8
78.2
43.8
150.4
90.2
0
91.8
78.2
43.8
150.4
90.2
0
15010007
11
15
4
5
1
0
17.2
12.9
6
19.1
11.4
0
17.2
12.9
6
19.1
11.4
0
15010008
53
68
21
23
4
0
55
41.1
19.9
56.6
36.7
0
55
41.1
19.9
56.6
36.7
0
15010009
3
4
1
1
0
0
5.3
3.9
1.7
5.7
0
0
5.3
3.9
1.7
5.7
0
0
15010010
3
3
1
1
0
0
3.3
2.4
1.1
3.1
0
0
3.3
2.4
1.1
3.1
0
0
15010011
4
6
2
2
0
0
5.2
3.8
1.6
4.4
0
0
5.2
3.8
1.6
4.4
0
0
15010012
2
3
1
1
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
1.9
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
1.9
0
0
15010013
2
3
1
1
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
1.9
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
1.9
0
0
15010015
17
23
7
7
1
0
20.2
14.6
6.2
16.8
6.8
0
20.2
14.6
6.2
16.8
6.8
0
15020001
6
8
3
3
0
0
132.1
113.8
64.4
223.7
0
0
132.1
113.8
64.4
223.7
0
0
15020002
4
5
1
1
0
0
36.1
30.7
17.2
59.1
0
0
36.1
30.7
17.2
59.1
0
0
15020004
27
35
10
12
2
0
172.8
143
74.1
281.9
149.9
0
172.8
143
74.1
281.9
149.9
0
15020005
3
4
1
1
0
0
42
36.1
20.5
70.2
0
0
42
36.1
20.5
70.2
0
0
15020006
3
3
1
1
0
0
15.4
12.7
6.7
24.6
0
0
15.4
12.7
6.7
24.6
0
0
15020008
44
58
18
19
3
0
358.4
303.2
168.1
576.5
344.4
0
358.4
303.2
168.1
576.5
344.4
0
15020011
13
17
5
5
1
0
38.4
30.7
15.7
53.4
30.8
0
38.4
30.7
15.7
53.4
30.8
0
15020012
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
1.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
15020015
41
53
16
17
3
0
714.7
615.4
349.3
1199.5
723.1
0
714.7
615.4
349.3
1199.5
723.1
0
15020018
5
7
2
2
0
0
11.6
9
4.3
14.8
0
0
11.6
9
4.3
14.8
0
0
15030101
5
7
2
2
0
0
6
5.5
3.5
6.6
0
0
6
5.5
1.9
5.5
0
0
15030103
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.6
0
0
0
0
15030105
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
15030106
8
10
3
3
1
0
9
6.5
2.9
8.5
5.5
0
9
6.5
2.9
8.5
5.5
0
15030107
4
5
2
2
0
0
4.5
4.9
3.7
5.8
0
0
4.5
4.9
1.4
4.3
0
0
March 2004
F-57
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
15030108
25
33
10
11
2
0
29.2
21.3
9.4
27.7
17.8
0
29.2
21.3
9.4
27.7
17.8
0
15030201
7
9
3
3
0
0
35.2
29.3
15.9
54
0
0
35.2
29.3
15.9
54
0
0
15030203
2
3
1
1
0
0
15.9
13.5
7.5
25.7
0
0
15.9
13.5
7.5
25.7
0
0
15040002
19
24
7
8
1
0
253.4
213.4
112.5
437.6
226.7
0
253.4
213.4
112.5
437.6
226.7
0
15040004
4
5
1
2
0
0
75.2
64
34.6
130.5
0
0
75.2
64
34.6
130.5
0
0
15040005
18
24
7
8
1
0
120.3
101.7
56.5
191.6
116.2
0
120.3
101.7
56.5
191.6
116.2
0
15040006
6
8
3
3
0
0
7.5
5.5
2.4
7.1
0
0
7.5
5.5
2.4
7.1
0
0
15040007
2
3
1
1
0
0
22.7
19.4
10.9
37.3
0
0
22.7
19.4
10.9
37.3
0
0
15050100
80
104
31
35
6
1
260.2
213.4
113.8
377.9
231.1
20.8
260.2
213.4
113.8
377.9
231.1
20.8
15050201
10
13
4
4
1
0
11.2
8.2
3.6
10.7
6.9
0
11.2
8.2
3.6
10.7
6.9
0
15050203
3
3
1
1
0
0
3
2.2
1
2.8
0
0
3
2.2
1
2.8
0
0
15050301
122
158
48
53
9
2
141.5
103
45.6
134.4
86.4
35.6
141.5
103
45.6
134.4
86.4
35.6
15050302
19
24
7
8
1
0
21.7
15.8
7
20.6
13.3
0
21.7
15.8
7
20.6
13.3
0
15050303
15
19
6
6
1
0
17.2
12.5
5.6
16.4
10.5
0
17.2
12.5
5.6
16.4
10.5
0
15050304
10
13
4
4
1
0
11.2
8.2
3.6
10.7
6.9
0
11.2
8.2
3.6
10.7
6.9
0
15050306
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
15060103
7
10
3
3
1
0
150.9
130.3
74.1
254.7
153.7
0
150.9
130.3
74.1
254.7
153.7
0
15060104
1
1
0
0
0
0
18.9
16.3
0
0
0
0
18.9
16.3
0
0
0
0
15060105
22
29
9
9
2
0
452.9
390.8
222.4
764
461.1
0
452.9
390.8
222.4
764
461.1
0
15060106
95
124
38
41
7
1
904.4
771.9
433.5
1479.1
895
15.9
904.4
771.9
433.5
1479.1
895
15.9
15060201
12
16
5
5
1
0
135.4
115.6
64.8
222.5
133.5
0
135.4
115.6
64.8
222.5
133.5
0
15060202
33
43
13
14
2
0
662.3
571.3
325.1
1116.5
673.7
0
662.3
571.3
325.1
1116.5
673.7
0
15060203
1
1
0
0
0
0
17.3
14.9
0
0
0
0
17.3
14.9
0
0
0
0
15070101
1
2
1
1
0
0
1.5
1.1
0.5
1.4
0
0
1.5
1.1
0.5
1.4
0
0
15070102
138
180
55
58
10
1
1700
1457.8
823.4
2817.5
1702.9
17.2
1700
1457.8
823.4
2817.5
1702.9
17.2
15070104
2
3
1
1
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
2.1
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
2.1
0
0
15070201
28
37
11
12
2
0
33
24
10.6
31.3
20.1
0
33
24
10.6
31.3
20.1
0
15080101
6
8
3
3
0
0
7.5
5.5
2.4
7.1
0
0
7.5
5.5
2.4
7.1
0
0
15080301
2
3
1
1
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
2.1
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
2.1
0
0
15080302
1
2
1
1
0
0
1.5
1.1
0.5
1.4
0
0
1.5
1.1
0.5
1.4
0
0
16010101
15
19
6
6
1
0
17.6
15.9
10.8
26.6
11.8
0
17.6
15.9
6.4
19.2
10.1
0
16010201
5
6
2
2
0
0
5.9
4.8
2.3
7
0
0
5.9
4.8
2.3
7
0
0
16010202
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
1.4
0.6
1.6
0
0
2
1.4
0.6
1.6
0
0
16010203
30
39
12
13
2
0
57.6
45.1
22.6
71.1
48.1
0
57.6
45.1
22.6
71.1
48.1
0
16010204
3
4
1
1
0
0
3.6
2.6
1.1
3
0
0
3.6
2.6
1.1
3
0
0
March 2004
F-58
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
16020101
24
31
9
10
2
0
50.3
39.6
20.4
65
42.8
0
50.3
39.6
20.2
64.7
42.8
0
16020102
123
163
49
52
10
0
240.2
188.2
94.4
297.8
201.1
0
240.2
188.2
94.4
297.8
201.1
0
16020201
18
24
7
8
2
0
26.6
20.6
9.8
28.9
20.3
0
26.6
20.6
9.8
28.9
20.3
0
16020202
70
92
28
30
5
0
150.1
118
60.1
192.6
128.9
0
150.1
118
60.1
192.6
128.9
0
16020203
18
23
7
8
1
0
39.5
31.1
15.9
51.2
34.2
0
39.5
31.1
15.9
51.2
34.2
0
16020204
193
261
80
84
17
0
292.1
226
107.3
318.5
223.1
0
292.1
226
107.3
318.5
223.1
0
16020301
6
8
2
2
0
0
6.6
5
2.1
5.8
0
0
6.6
5
2.1
5.8
0
0
16020304
8
11
3
4
1
0
9.5
7.2
3.2
8.6
6.4
0
9.5
7.2
3.2
8.6
6.4
0
16020308
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.6
0
0
0
0
16020309
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
16030001
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.3
1
0
0
0
0
1.3
1
0
0
0
0
16030003
2
2
1
1
0
0
3
2.3
1.2
3.7
0
0
3
2.3
1.2
3.7
0
0
16030004
8
10
3
3
1
0
15.3
12
6
19
12.8
0
15.3
12
6
19
12.8
0
16030005
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.9
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.9
0.7
0
0
0
0
16030006
6
9
3
3
1
0
8.2
6.3
2.9
8
5.7
0
8.2
6.3
2.9
8
5.7
0
16030007
4
6
2
2
0
0
5.5
4.2
1.9
5.2
0
0
5.5
4.2
1.9
5.2
0
0
16040101
15
19
6
6
1
0
17.2
12.4
5.2
14.3
5.8
0
17.2
12.4
5.2
14.3
5.8
0
16040105
8
11
3
3
0
0
9.7
7
2.9
8.1
0
0
9.7
7
2.9
8.1
0
0
16050101
31
40
12
13
2
0
96
102.9
83.8
177.3
89.5
0
96
102.9
35.7
126.3
63.7
0
16050102
40
52
15
17
2
0
92.3
92.7
70.1
151.7
75.5
0
92.3
92.7
33
112.4
55.5
0
16050103
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
16050104
5
7
2
2
0
0
6
4.3
1.8
5
0
0
6
4.3
1.8
5
0
0
16050201
31
40
12
13
2
0
76.1
79.2
61.7
130.4
67.1
0
76.1
79.2
27.4
94.4
48.8
0
16050202
9
12
3
4
0
0
10.5
7.6
3.2
8.7
0
0
10.5
7.6
3.2
8.7
0
0
16050203
17
23
7
7
1
0
20.2
14.6
6.2
16.8
6.8
0
20.2
14.6
6.2
16.8
6.8
0
16050301
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0
16050302
9
12
4
4
1
0
14.6
14.8
10.7
21
11.7
0
14.6
14.8
4.8
15.5
8.9
0
16050303
12
16
5
5
0
0
14.2
10.3
4.3
11.8
0
0
14.2
10.3
4.3
11.8
0
0
16060004
2
3
1
1
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
1.9
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
1.9
0
0
16060008
2
3
1
1
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
1.9
0
0
2.2
1.6
0.7
1.9
0
0
16060010
3
3
1
1
0
0
3
2.3
1.1
2.7
0
0
3
2.3
0.9
2.5
0
0
16060011
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.5
0
0
0
0
16060015
18
23
7
7
1
0
21.1
18.6
11.2
21.4
10.7
0
21.1
18.6
6.5
18.2
9
0
17010101
15
19
6
6
1
0
56.2
90.8
75.5
168.6
101.8
0
56.2
90.8
27.8
93.4
60.3
0
17010104
1
2
0
1
0
0
5
5
0
8.7
0
0
5
5
0
8.2
0
0
March 2004
F-59
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
17010201
11
14
4
5
1
0
41.5
67.9
56.8
126.2
76.3
0
41.5
67.9
20.5
69
44.7
0
17010203
2
2
1
1
0
0
7.3
12
10
22.3
0
0
7.3
12
3.6
12.2
0
0
17010204
34
44
13
14
3
0
129.3
211.6
176.9
393.3
237.7
0
129.3
211.6
64.1
215.3
139.4
0
17010205
40
52
15
17
3
0
153.7
250.9
209.5
466.2
281.8
0
153.7
250.9
76.1
255.9
165.6
0
17010206
1
2
0
1
0
0
4.9
8
0
14.9
0
0
4.9
8
0
8.1
0
0
17010208
61
80
24
26
5
0
236.7
387.4
324.1
720.2
435.4
0
236.7
387.4
117.2
394
255.2
0
17010210
37
49
14
16
3
0
144
235.6
197.1
438.1
264.8
0
144
235.6
71.3
239.6
155.2
0
17010211
3
3
1
1
0
0
9.8
16
13.4
29.7
0
0
9.8
16
4.8
16.2
0
0
17010212
16
21
6
7
1
0
61
99.9
83.5
185.6
112.2
0
61
99.9
30.2
101.5
65.8
0
17010213
6
8
2
3
0
0
24.5
38.5
31.5
71.3
0
0
24.5
38.5
12.1
40.7
0
0
17010214
27
33
10
11
2
0
100.5
98.8
54
171.4
96.1
0
100.5
98.8
49.5
164.9
93.1
0
17010215
9
11
3
4
1
0
32.5
35.4
22.7
62.9
34.4
0
32.5
35.4
16.3
53.7
30.1
0
17010216
4
5
2
2
0
0
14.7
23.8
22
45.2
0
0
14.7
23.8
8
24.9
0
0
17010302
3
4
1
1
0
0
12.6
12
6.2
20.7
0
0
12.6
12
6.2
20.6
0
0
17010303
43
54
16
18
3
0
130.9
125.6
63.7
210.7
118.7
0
130.9
125.6
63
209.7
118.2
0
17010304
2
2
1
1
0
0
7.5
7.2
3.7
12.4
0
0
7.5
7.2
3.7
12.4
0
0
17010305
58
74
22
24
4
0
106.8
123
76.9
198
108.5
0
106.8
123
49.2
159.7
89.7
0
17010306
45
58
17
19
3
0
59.2
78.9
54.9
121.6
66.7
0
59.2
78.9
25.7
82.3
46.8
0
17010307
13
17
5
6
1
0
27.1
44.8
40.2
80
41.4
0
27.1
44.8
13.7
42.5
23.6
0
17010308
68
89
28
29
4
0
236.8
379.9
347.8
714.5
364.9
0
236.8
379.9
127.4
396.1
217.3
0
17020001
3
4
1
1
0
0
8.5
13.8
12.7
25.8
0
0
8.5
13.8
4.5
14
0
0
17020002
1
2
1
1
0
0
4.2
6.9
6.3
12.8
0
0
4.2
6.9
2.2
6.9
0
0
17020003
17
22
7
7
1
0
63.9
103.9
96.5
197.3
100.3
0
63.9
103.9
34.8
108
59.1
0
17020005
19
25
7
8
1
0
25.2
41.1
35
68.7
36.1
0
25.2
41.1
11.1
35.4
19.9
0
17020006
5
7
2
2
0
0
7.5
11.7
9.9
20.2
0
0
7.5
11.7
3.2
10.7
0
0
17020009
2
2
1
1
0
0
5.6
6.8
5.7
14
0
0
5.6
6.8
2.1
8.3
0
0
17020010
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.3
1.9
0
0
0
0
1.3
1.9
0
0
0
0
17020011
4
5
1
2
0
0
11
13.4
11.1
27.6
0
0
11
13.4
4.2
16.4
0
0
17020013
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
0.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
17020014
2
2
1
1
0
0
1.7
3
2.4
4.5
0
0
1.7
3
0.7
2.2
0
0
17020015
41
54
16
18
3
0
39.6
67.9
55.8
103.4
56.1
0
39.6
67.9
16.1
50
29
0
17020016
82
107
31
36
6
1
78.4
134.2
110.4
204.6
110.9
22.1
78.4
134.2
31.8
98.9
57.4
11.4
17030001
11
14
4
5
1
0
21.2
28.2
23.4
53.2
25.2
0
21.2
28.2
8.2
29.9
15.2
0
17030002
9
12
3
4
0
0
17.4
21.9
18.5
42.2
0
0
17.4
21.9
6.6
23.5
0
0
17030003
246
323
93
109
16
1
242.4
399.8
332.2
618
288.3
57.4
242.4
399.8
96.7
297.1
149.3
29.7
March 2004
F-60
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
17040101
2
2
1
1
0
0
6.4
11.1
8.1
22
0
0
6.4
11.1
2.9
12.1
0
0
17040103
7
9
2
3
0
0
25.7
44.3
32.5
88.1
0
0
25.7
44.3
11.8
48.3
0
0
17040104
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.4
2.5
0
0
0
0
2.4
2.5
0
0
0
0
17040105
9
11
3
4
0
0
31.1
42.1
27.8
79.9
0
0
31.1
42.1
14.6
54.5
0
0
17040201
23
30
9
10
2
0
19.8
15.5
7
19.7
11.7
0
19.8
15.5
7
19.7
11.7
0
17040202
3
3
1
1
0
0
9.6
9.4
5
16.2
0
0
9.6
9.4
4.7
15.7
0
0
17040203
1
2
1
1
0
0
2.7
3.5
2.3
6.3
0
0
2.7
3.5
1.2
4.2
0
0
17040204
6
8
2
3
0
0
10.4
12.3
7.7
21.8
0
0
10.4
12.3
4.5
15.8
0
0
17040205
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.1
0.9
0
0
0
0
1.1
0.9
0
0
0
0
17040206
11
15
4
5
1
0
9.7
7.3
3.2
8.7
4.3
0
9.7
7.3
3.2
8.7
4.3
0
17040207
2
2
1
1
0
0
2.9
2.2
1
3.1
0
0
2.9
2.2
1
3.1
0
0
17040208
12
14
3
4
0
0
13.9
9.4
3.8
10.1
0
0
13.9
9.4
3.8
10.1
0
0
17040209
15
19
6
6
1
0
12.3
9.3
4.1
11.3
6.2
0
12.3
9.3
4.1
11.3
6.2
0
17040210
1
2
0
0
0
0
1.4
1
0
0
0
0
1.4
1
0
0
0
0
17040211
2
2
1
1
0
0
2.1
1.5
0.6
1.7
0
0
2.1
1.5
0.6
1.7
0
0
17040212
37
49
15
16
3
0
30
22.9
10.1
27.9
16.4
0
30
22.9
10.1
27.9
16.4
0
17040214
2
2
1
1
0
0
2.7
2.4
1.2
3.9
0
0
2.7
2.4
1.2
3.8
0
0
17040218
2
3
1
1
0
0
5.1
4.7
2.4
7.8
0
0
5.1
4.7
2.4
7.8
0
0
17040219
10
12
4
4
1
0
20.5
18.8
9.4
30.8
17.5
0
20.5
18.8
9.4
30.8
17.5
0
17040221
8
10
3
3
1
0
10.8
9.4
4.6
14.3
8.2
0
10.8
9.4
4.6
14.3
8.2
0
17050101
22
29
9
10
2
0
17.8
13.6
6.1
16.7
10.1
0
17.8
13.6
6.1
16.7
10.1
0
17050103
33
43
13
14
2
0
26
21.5
10.6
26.3
13
0
26
21.5
8.7
23.6
13
0
17050104
1
2
1
1
0
0
1.2
0.9
0.4
1.1
0
0
1.2
0.9
0.4
1.1
0
0
17050108
6
8
2
2
0
0
4.6
4.7
2.8
5.7
0
0
4.6
4.7
1.4
3.7
0
0
17050112
21
27
8
9
1
0
56.8
52.9
26.9
88.6
50.3
0
56.8
52.9
26.9
88.6
50.3
0
17050114
265
348
104
114
19
2
210.5
161.2
71.8
197.7
119.2
34.6
210.5
161.2
71.8
197.7
119.2
34.6
17050115
6
7
2
2
0
0
4.6
4.7
2.8
5.7
0
0
4.6
4.7
1.4
3.7
0
0
17050117
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.7
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.7
0
0
0
0
17050119
1
2
0
0
0
0
1.9
2.8
0
0
0
0
1.9
2.8
0
0
0
0
17050120
13
16
5
5
1
0
47.8
45.5
23.4
78.3
44.3
0
47.8
45.5
23.4
78.3
44.3
0
17050121
13
16
5
5
1
0
47.8
45.5
23.4
78.3
44.3
0
47.8
45.5
23.4
78.3
44.3
0
17050122
25
32
10
11
2
0
32.3
27.7
13.4
41.5
24
0
32.3
27.7
13.4
41.5
24
0
17050123
8
10
3
3
1
0
30.2
28.7
14.8
49.4
28
0
30.2
28.7
14.8
49.4
28
0
17050124
1
2
1
1
0
0
3.6
3.3
1.7
5.5
0
0
3.6
3.3
1.7
5.5
0
0
17050201
2
2
1
1
0
0
5.4
6.6
3.9
13
0
0
5.4
6.6
2.3
9.1
0
0
March 2004
F-61
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
17050203
2
2
0
1
0
0
6.6
10.3
0
23.4
0
0
6.6
10.3
0
12.8
0
0
17060103
23
30
9
10
1
0
48.4
69.5
53.6
125.2
53.7
0
48.4
69.5
22.6
76.9
35.7
0
17060105
4
5
1
2
0
0
15.4
24
15.5
54.6
0
0
15.4
24
5.5
29.8
0
0
17060106
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.3
3.6
0
0
0
0
2.3
3.6
0
0
0
0
17060108
17
22
6
7
1
0
19.2
27.9
20.7
42.6
23.2
0
19.2
27.9
8.1
25.6
14.6
0
17060109
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
0.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
17060110
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
0.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
17060203
3
4
1
1
0
0
11.4
10.9
5.6
18.6
0
0
11.4
10.9
5.5
18.4
0
0
17060209
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.4
2.3
0
0
0
0
2.4
2.3
0
0
0
0
17060210
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.5
2.4
0
0
0
0
2.5
2.4
0
0
0
0
17060306
6
7
2
2
0
0
10.4
10.1
4.7
15.3
0
0
10.4
10.1
4.7
15.3
0
0
17060307
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.5
2.4
0
0
0
0
2.5
2.4
0
0
0
0
17060308
1
2
0
1
0
0
5
4.8
0
8.2
0
0
5
4.8
0
8.2
0
0
17070101
22
31
8
11
1
0
21.3
38.6
29.5
61.9
21.2
0
21.3
38.6
8.5
29.9
11
0
17070102
18
25
7
9
1
0
27.5
46.5
37
83.2
28.2
0
27.5
46.5
11.8
42.9
15.4
0
17070103
16
24
5
9
0
0
28.8
50.5
32.5
103
0
0
28.8
50.5
10.6
53.7
0
0
17070104
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.9
1.8
0
0
0
0
0.9
1.8
0
0
0
0
17070105
15
20
6
7
1
0
31.7
40.4
33.1
76.3
26.2
0
31.7
40.4
11.9
43
16.6
0
17070106
3
4
1
1
0
0
3.4
4.7
4
7.9
0
0
3.4
4.7
1.3
3.9
0
0
17070201
3
4
1
1
0
0
11
17.1
11
39
0
0
11
17.1
3.9
21.3
0
0
17070203
2
2
0
1
0
0
6.6
10.3
0
23.4
0
0
6.6
10.3
0
12.8
0
0
17070204
1
2
0
1
0
0
3
5
0
10.6
0
0
3
5
0
5.6
0
0
17070301
50
64
19
22
1
0
94.5
117.1
96.5
213.8
37.9
0
94.5
117.1
33.4
115.1
24.3
0
17070305
3
4
1
1
0
0
6.1
8.9
6
18.1
0
0
6.1
8.9
2.1
9.6
0
0
17080001
109
142
43
45
7
0
477.3
702.9
592.4
1385
732.2
0
477.3
702.9
224.3
810.5
460.2
0
17080002
71
91
27
30
5
0
276.4
387
325.1
793.5
419.3
0
276.4
387
123.5
466.7
264.7
0
17080003
9
13
4
4
1
0
68.9
116.7
95.2
223.5
102.9
0
68.9
116.7
35.9
130.7
64.5
0
17080004
4
5
1
2
0
0
11.3
13.6
11.2
28.1
0
0
11.3
13.6
4.3
16.8
0
0
17080005
20
26
8
9
1
0
105.2
167.3
141.3
339.1
189.2
0
105.2
167.3
53.5
197.5
118.5
0
17080006
5
7
2
2
0
0
40.2
68.1
55.4
127.4
0
0
40.2
68.1
20.9
74.8
0
0
17090002
15
19
6
6
1
0
59.4
84.3
70.2
160.6
80
0
59.4
84.3
26.6
94.2
50.4
0
17090003
48
64
19
20
3
0
319.9
529.5
443
1030.3
559
0
319.9
529.5
167.1
599.9
349.9
0
17090004
4
5
1
1
0
0
12.2
15.4
12.8
28.4
0
0
12.2
15.4
4.9
16.8
0
0
17090005
17
23
7
7
1
0
63.9
85.5
71.3
160.4
75.1
0
63.9
85.5
27
94.6
47.6
0
17090006
12
16
5
5
1
0
47.9
66.2
55.2
125.3
60.7
0
47.9
66.2
20.9
73.7
38.4
0
March 2004
F-62
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
17090007
130
174
51
56
10
0
825.8
1395
1162.2
2758.7
1565.3
0
825.8
1395
439.2
1600.6
978.2
0
17090008
19
25
7
8
1
0
140.2
231.6
194.6
445.5
234
0
140.2
231.6
73.3
260
146.6
0
17090009
31
41
12
13
2
0
154.4
242.3
201.7
472.8
256.4
0
154.4
242.3
76.3
275.5
160.7
0
17090010
94
126
37
40
7
0
660.8
1099.5
921.1
2134.2
1151.2
0
660.8
1099.5
347.3
1243.3
720.7
0
17090011
32
42
13
13
2
0
119.1
160.7
133.9
302.1
143
0
119.1
160.7
50.8
178
90.5
0
17090012
44
58
17
19
3
0
287.6
482.9
403.2
948
527.5
0
287.6
482.9
152.2
550.9
329.9
0
17100101
4
7
2
2
0
0
34.2
60.9
46.7
113.8
0
0
34.2
60.9
17.6
66.8
0
0
17100103
26
36
10
12
2
0
176.8
302.3
250
598.9
308.8
0
176.8
302.3
94.4
348.4
192.9
0
17100104
11
15
4
5
1
0
80.5
142.1
112.5
271.9
112.7
0
80.5
142.1
42.5
158.9
70.6
0
17100105
1
1
0
0
0
0
6.3
11.5
0
0
0
0
6.3
11.5
0
0
0
0
17100106
10
16
4
5
1
0
89.5
162.6
124.3
302.7
100.2
0
89.5
162.6
46.9
177.6
62.9
0
17100202
3
4
1
1
0
0
27.6
44.7
37.8
83.9
0
0
27.6
44.7
14.2
49.3
0
0
17100203
10
14
4
4
1
0
89.6
145.3
122.9
272.8
133.1
0
89.6
145.3
46.2
160.1
83.7
0
17100204
25
33
10
10
2
0
213.7
346.6
293.1
650.6
317.5
0
213.7
346.6
110.1
381.8
199.5
0
17100205
6
9
3
3
0
0
55.2
89.4
75.6
167.9
0
0
55.2
89.4
28.4
98.5
0
0
17100206
2
2
1
1
0
0
13.6
22
18.6
41.4
0
0
13.6
22
7
24.3
0
0
17100207
6
7
2
2
0
0
48.3
78.3
66.2
146.9
0
0
48.3
78.3
24.9
86.2
0
0
17100301
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.5
3.3
0
0
0
0
2.5
3.3
0
0
0
0
17100302
30
40
12
12
2
0
163.6
245.1
206
457.2
224.5
0
163.6
245.1
77.4
268.4
141.2
0
17100303
7
9
3
3
0
0
55.7
90.5
76.3
171.7
0
0
55.7
90.5
28.7
100.5
0
0
17100305
4
5
2
2
0
0
34.5
55.9
47.3
104.9
0
0
34.5
55.9
17.8
61.6
0
0
17100307
16
21
6
6
1
0
48.9
59.1
48.8
103.2
55.5
0
48.9
59.1
18
60.3
34.8
0
17100308
41
54
16
16
3
0
124.3
151.8
124.5
258
167.8
0
124.3
151.8
44.9
148
103.8
0
17100309
13
17
5
5
1
0
40.6
50.5
41.6
86.4
54.5
0
40.6
50.5
15.1
50.4
34.2
0
17100310
34
45
13
14
2
0
202.9
310.1
260.8
571.9
295.1
0
202.9
310.1
97.3
334.3
184.8
0
17100311
15
21
6
6
1
0
111.2
175.6
147.5
325
161.6
0
111.2
175.6
55.2
192
102.2
0
17100312
2
2
1
1
0
0
13.8
22.4
18.9
41.9
0
0
13.8
22.4
7.1
24.7
0
0
17110002
79
104
31
34
6
1
492.7
823.4
700.6
1669.1
970.4
336.7
492.7
823.4
264.7
968
605.8
209.6
17110003
7
9
3
3
1
0
43.9
73.4
62.4
148.7
86.5
0
43.9
73.4
23.6
86.3
54
0
17110004
17
21
6
7
1
0
72.2
106.6
89.9
217.7
118.7
0
72.2
106.6
34.1
127.5
74.7
0
17110005
1
2
1
1
0
0
4.5
5.5
4.5
11.3
0
0
4.5
5.5
1.7
6.7
0
0
17110006
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.3
2.7
0
0
0
0
2.3
2.7
0
0
0
0
17110007
25
33
10
11
2
0
150.4
249
211.7
505
292.3
0
150.4
249
80
293.1
182.6
0
17110008
8
10
3
3
1
0
38.2
59.5
50.4
121.2
68.1
0
38.2
59.5
19.1
70.6
42.7
0
17110009
6
8
2
3
0
0
22.6
31.3
26.3
64.2
0
0
22.6
31.3
10
37.8
0
0
March 2004
F-63
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
17110010
15
19
6
6
1
0
66.9
99.6
84
203.3
111.3
0
66.9
99.6
31.9
119
70
0
17110011
34
44
13
15
3
0
200.4
331.3
281.7
671.9
388.6
0
200.4
331.3
106.5
390
242.7
0
17110012
165
215
65
71
13
2
943.4
1538.2
1306.9
3122.8
1794.2
588.6
943.4
1538.2
494.1
1814.5
1121.5
366.4
17110013
25
32
10
11
2
0
120.3
184.7
156.2
376.3
209.6
0
120.3
184.7
59.2
219.7
131.5
0
17110014
163
210
63
70
11
1
657.8
934.8
786.3
1914.6
1020.9
208.8
657.8
934.8
298.5
1124.7
643.8
130
17110015
48
62
18
20
3
0
220.7
334
282.3
681.2
376.6
0
220.7
334
107
398.1
236.5
0
17110016
1
1
0
0
0
0
4.6
7.6
0
0
0
0
4.6
7.6
0
0
0
0
17110017
10
14
4
4
1
0
66
113.8
89
216.4
82.5
0
66
113.8
33.6
127
51.8
0
17110018
14
19
5
6
1
0
87.6
148.2
120
289.4
134.3
0
87.6
148.2
45.3
169
84.1
0
17110019
316
413
124
137
25
4
1960.9
3277.1
2788.7
6643.2
3862.5
1340
1960.9
3277.1
1053.7
3852.8
2411.1
834.1
17110020
26
36
10
12
2
0
155.4
258.7
203.1
495.4
192
0
155.4
258.7
76.8
291
120.8
0
17110021
4
7
2
2
0
0
37.9
68.8
52.6
128
0
0
37.9
68.8
19.8
75.1
0
0
17120005
3
3
1
1
0
0
2.4
2.9
2.3
4.1
0
0
2.4
2.9
0.7
1.8
0
0
17120009
1
1
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.6
0
0
0
0
18010101
46
61
17
20
3
0
393.5
638.3
507
1096.9
489.9
0
393.5
638.3
190.5
721.8
345.2
0
18010102
16
21
6
7
1
0
122.6
195.7
154.6
332
148.6
0
122.6
195.7
58
221.8
106.5
0
18010103
12
16
5
5
1
0
79.7
122.9
97.8
208.4
96.4
0
79.7
122.9
36.6
139.1
69
0
18010105
3
4
1
1
0
0
25.3
40.1
31.7
68.1
0
0
25.3
40.1
11.9
45.5
0
0
18010108
23
31
9
10
1
0
199.9
324.3
255.4
550.5
242.6
0
199.9
324.3
95.9
368
173.9
0
18010110
127
166
49
55
10
1
522.8
711.3
582.2
1202.3
627.8
96.9
522.8
711.3
214.7
798.8
448
68.9
18010111
13
17
5
6
1
0
49.7
65.4
53.9
110.4
59.6
0
49.7
65.4
19.8
73.3
42.5
0
18010201
4
6
2
2
0
0
6
7.1
6.3
12.1
0
0
6
7.1
2
5.9
0
0
18010204
12
16
5
5
0
0
12.2
15.6
13.4
20.7
0
0
12.2
15.6
4.2
11.5
0
0
18010205
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.3
1.5
0
0
0
0
1.3
1.5
0
0
0
0
18010206
1
1
0
0
0
0
2.7
3.4
0
0
0
0
2.7
3.4
0
0
0
0
18010208
1
1
0
0
0
0
3.5
4.3
0
0
0
0
3.5
4.3
0
0
0
0
18010209
1
1
0
0
0
0
6.9
11.1
0
0
0
0
6.9
11.1
0
0
0
0
18010212
2
3
1
1
0
0
8.8
12.3
10
20.9
0
0
8.8
12.3
3.7
13.9
0
0
18020001
4
5
2
2
0
0
4.2
5.3
4.6
7.8
0
0
4.2
5.3
1.4
4
0
0
18020002
16
22
6
7
1
0
15.2
20.3
17.1
22.1
7.3
0
15.2
20.3
5.4
14.6
5.2
0
18020005
50
66
20
22
4
0
154.6
183.8
155.5
309.4
184.4
0
154.6
183.8
56.4
204.4
131.1
0
18020101
46
60
18
20
4
0
140.7
167.3
141.5
281.4
167.7
0
140.7
167.3
51.4
185.9
119.3
0
18020103
25
32
10
11
2
0
55.5
66.5
56.2
103.6
62.2
0
55.5
66.5
19.6
68.4
44.2
0
18020104
6
8
2
3
0
0
10.3
12.4
10.5
17.8
0
0
10.3
12.4
3.5
11.7
0
0
18020105
8
10
3
3
1
0
12.9
15.6
13.1
21.6
13.1
0
12.9
15.6
4.3
14.3
9.3
0
March 2004
F-64
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
18020106
36
46
14
15
3
0
65
78.3
66.2
113.7
68.8
0
65
78.3
22.3
75.1
48.9
0
18020107
2
2
1
1
0
0
4
4.8
4.1
7.7
0
0
4
4.8
1.4
5.1
0
0
18020108
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.6
1.9
0
0
0
0
1.6
1.9
0
0
0
0
18020109
108
141
42
47
9
1
141.4
172.7
145.6
212.5
131.1
35.5
141.4
172.7
45.6
140.3
93.1
25.1
18020111
67
88
26
29
5
1
111
134.2
113.3
187.1
113.7
30.1
111
134.2
37.5
123.6
80.8
21.4
18020115
8
11
3
4
1
0
25.7
30.5
25.8
51.3
30.6
0
25.7
30.5
9.4
33.9
21.8
0
18020116
12
16
5
5
1
0
40.4
49.5
41.6
83.4
48.3
0
40.4
49.5
15.1
55.2
34.4
0
18020117
19
25
7
8
2
0
58
68.9
58.3
116
69.2
0
58
68.9
21.2
76.7
49.2
0
18020121
6
8
2
3
1
0
19.3
23
19.4
38.7
23.1
0
19.3
23
7.1
25.6
16.4
0
18020123
21
28
8
9
2
0
64.1
76.2
64.5
127.6
76.1
0
64.1
76.2
23.3
84.3
54.1
0
18020124
1
1
0
0
0
0
3.2
3.8
0
0
0
0
3.2
3.8
0
0
0
0
18020125
49
64
19
21
4
0
151.4
179.9
152.3
302.9
180.6
0
151.4
179.9
55.3
200.2
128.4
0
18020126
31
41
12
14
3
0
96.6
114.9
97.2
193.4
115.3
0
96.6
114.9
35.3
127.8
82
0
18020127
4
5
2
2
0
0
12.9
15.3
13
25.8
0
0
12.9
15.3
4.7
17
0
0
18020128
24
31
9
10
2
0
73.8
87.8
74.3
147.7
88.1
0
73.8
87.8
27
97.6
62.6
0
18020129
84
109
33
36
7
1
257.6
306.3
259.2
515.7
307.3
79.2
257.6
306.3
94.1
340.7
218.6
56.3
18030003
51
67
20
22
4
0
833.1
1174.8
982.8
2089.3
1203.9
0
833.1
1174.8
376
1388.3
859.6
0
18030012
563
735
219
244
46
5
956
1157.4
976.8
1629.7
989.3
264
956
1157.4
325.4
1076.5
702.9
187.4
18040001
81
106
32
35
7
1
100.6
123.2
103.8
146.8
91
24.7
100.6
123.2
32.1
96.9
64.6
17.5
18040002
107
139
42
46
9
1
166.7
202
170.5
274.1
167.1
44.5
166.7
202
55.8
181
118.7
31.5
18040003
74
96
29
32
6
1
116.4
141
118.9
192.4
117.2
31.2
116.4
141
39
127.1
83.3
22.1
18040004
15
20
6
7
1
0
31.6
37.9
32
57.7
34.8
0
31.6
37.9
11.1
38.1
24.7
0
18040005
83
108
32
36
7
1
144.2
174.1
147
247.9
150.3
39.7
144.2
174.1
49.2
163.7
106.8
28.2
18040006
106
138
41
46
8
1
325.3
386.7
327.2
651
388
99.9
325.3
386.7
118.8
430.1
275.9
71
18040007
10
13
4
4
1
0
30.9
36.8
31.1
61.7
36.8
0
30.9
36.8
11.3
40.8
26.2
0
18040009
12
15
4
5
1
0
35.4
42.1
35.6
70.9
42.2
0
35.4
42.1
12.9
46.8
30
0
18040010
9
12
4
4
1
0
29
34.5
29.2
58
34.6
0
29
34.5
10.6
38.3
24.6
0
18040011
32
42
13
14
3
0
99.8
118.7
100.4
199.8
119.1
0
99.8
118.7
36.5
132
84.7
0
18040012
59
77
23
25
5
0
180.3
214.4
181.4
361
215.1
0
180.3
214.4
65.9
238.5
153
0
18040013
59
77
23
25
5
0
179.1
213
180.2
357.7
213.2
0
179.1
213
65.3
236.3
151.6
0
18050001
117
153
46
51
9
1
332.7
396.2
335.2
655.6
391.4
101
332.7
396.2
120.6
433.1
278.3
71.8
18050002
115
150
45
50
9
1
354.3
421.1
356.4
709
422.6
108.8
354.3
421.1
129.4
468.5
300.5
77.4
18050003
195
255
75
84
15
1
678
859.8
715.7
1450.3
811.3
170.2
678
859.8
261.8
960.9
577.9
121
18050004
112
147
44
48
9
1
376
467.8
391.3
788.6
449.5
100.8
376
467.8
142.8
522.1
320
71.6
18050005
5
7
2
2
0
0
16.1
19.1
16.2
32.2
0
0
16.1
19.1
5.9
21.3
0
0
March 2004
F-65
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
18050006
4
5
2
2
0
0
33.3
53.6
42.3
91
0
0
33.3
53.6
15.9
60.8
0
0
18060001
62
83
23
27
4
0
470.7
748.3
591.8
1269.8
570.3
0
470.7
748.3
221.9
848.2
408.6
0
18060002
111
145
43
48
9
1
357.7
435.8
366.4
734.3
427.2
102.4
357.7
435.8
133.4
485.7
303.9
72.8
18060004
4
5
2
2
0
0
12.9
15.3
13
25.8
0
0
12.9
15.3
4.7
17
0
0
18060005
59
77
23
25
5
1
512.2
698.6
585.6
1230.7
713.4
280.9
512.2
698.6
222
816.9
509
201.3
18060006
85
111
33
36
7
1
809.6
1111.6
931.5
1962.3
1136.1
454.3
809.6
1111.6
353.8
1302.8
810.7
325.5
18060007
11
14
4
5
1
0
105.2
144.5
121.1
255.1
147.7
0
105.2
144.5
46
169.4
105.4
0
18060008
7
9
3
3
1
0
73.1
101
84.6
178.6
103.3
0
73.1
101
32.2
118.6
73.7
0
18060009
7
10
3
3
1
0
22.5
26.8
22.7
45.1
26.9
0
22.5
26.8
8.2
29.8
19.1
0
18060010
104
135
40
44
8
1
1037
1428.2
1196.6
2523.3
1460.1
587.9
1037
1428.2
454.9
1675.5
1042
421.3
18060011
22
29
9
9
2
0
67.6
80.4
68
135.4
80.7
0
67.6
80.4
24.7
89.4
57.4
0
18060012
14
18
5
6
1
0
280.1
397.5
332.4
708.4
407.7
0
280.1
397.5
127.4
470.8
291.2
0
18060013
10
13
4
4
1
0
113.8
158
132.3
279.8
161.7
0
113.8
158
50.4
185.8
115.4
0
18070101
6
8
2
3
0
0
71.4
99.4
83.2
176.2
0
0
71.4
99.4
31.7
117
0
0
18070102
64
83
25
27
5
1
1039.6
1465.5
1226.1
2606.8
1502.1
635.8
1039.6
1465.5
469.1
1732
1072.5
455.9
18070103
37
48
14
16
3
0
112.7
134
113.4
225.6
134.5
0
112.7
134
41.2
149.1
95.6
0
18070104
102
133
39
44
8
1
312.4
371.4
314.2
625.2
372.7
96
312.4
371.4
114.1
413.1
265
68.2
18070105
72
94
28
31
6
1
556
752.1
630.8
1321.6
767.2
296.4
556
752.1
238.5
877
547.3
212.2
18070106
31
41
12
13
2
0
279.8
382.8
320.8
674.9
391
0
279.8
382.8
121.7
448
279
0
18070202
49
63
19
21
4
0
253.3
329.5
277.1
572
334.6
0
253.3
329.5
103.6
379.1
238.4
0
18070203
154
201
59
66
12
1
1347.9
1840.4
1542.8
3243.2
1879.6
742.1
1347.9
1840.4
585
2152.9
1341.1
531.7
18070204
69
90
27
30
6
1
212.6
252.7
213.8
425.4
253.6
65.3
212.6
252.7
77.6
281.1
180.3
46.4
18070301
22
29
9
9
2
0
67.6
80.4
68
135.4
80.7
0
67.6
80.4
24.7
89.4
57.4
0
18070302
86
112
33
37
7
1
264.1
313.9
265.6
528.5
315
81.1
264.1
313.9
96.4
349.2
224
57.7
18070303
192
250
74
83
15
2
589.4
700.6
592.8
1179.6
703.1
181.1
589.4
700.6
215.2
779.4
500
128.7
18070304
176
230
68
76
14
1
541
643.2
544.3
1082.9
645.4
166.2
541
643.2
197.6
715.5
459
118.1
18070305
6
8
2
3
1
0
19.3
23
19.4
38.7
23.1
0
19.3
23
7.1
25.6
16.4
0
18080002
3
4
1
1
0
0
2.3
3.3
2.8
3.5
0
0
2.3
3.3
0.9
2.3
0
0
18080003
36
50
14
15
2
0
65.2
77.4
63.5
115.7
58.8
0
65.2
77.4
23.6
78.3
42.4
0
18090102
14
18
5
6
1
0
23.1
27.6
23.2
39
23.6
0
23.1
27.6
7.8
25.9
16.8
0
18090103
3
4
1
1
0
0
4.4
5.3
4.5
7.3
0
0
4.4
5.3
1.5
4.8
0
0
18090202
1
2
0
1
0
0
1.5
1.3
0
1.5
0
0
1.5
1.3
0
1.3
0
0
18090203
17
22
7
7
1
0
19.7
23.6
19.5
27.1
16.6
0
19.7
23.6
6.2
18.2
11.9
0
18090205
43
56
17
19
4
0
54.6
66.8
56.3
80.5
49.8
0
54.6
66.8
17.5
53.1
35.4
0
18090206
41
54
16
18
3
0
182.5
251.5
210.6
416.6
242.4
0
182.5
251.5
77.4
276.6
173
0
March 2004
F-66
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
HUC
# 0.5
Acre Sites
# 3
Acre Sites
# 7.5
Acre Sites
# 25
Acre Sites
# 70
Acre Sites
# 200
Acre Sites
Baseline (tons)
Options 2 and 4 (tons)
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
Total Load
0.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
3 Acre Sites
Total Load
7.5 Acre Sites
Total Load
25 Acre Sites
Total Load
70 Acre Sites
Total Load
200 Acre Sites
18090207
3
3
1
1
0
0
3
3.7
3.1
4.3
0
0
3
3.7
1
2.8
0
0
18090208
162
211
63
70
13
1
434.3
583.1
488.9
902.6
531.1
204.3
434.3
583.1
173.1
598.7
378.6
146.2
18100100
24
31
9
10
2
0
35.2
44.6
37.5
57.9
35.1
0
35.2
44.6
12.1
38.3
25
0
18100200
198
258
77
85
16
2
497.2
652.2
547.7
1005.1
594.2
214
497.2
652.2
192.9
666.2
423.3
152.9
TOTALS
86,896
113,494
33,650
37,336
6,725
546
1,054,619
1,132,025
784,955
2,013,562
1,205,137
203,650
1,054,619
1,132,025
446,011
1,620,143
1,007,885
172,235
March 2004
F-67
-------
Development Document for Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category
Table F-4. Assumed Seed/Mulch Application Period for Model Construction Sites
States with 28- or 30-Day Seeding Requirements
Site size (acres)
Months in Construction Year without
Surface Stabilization
Months in Construction Year with
Surface Stabilization
0.5
1.5
10.5
3
1.5
10.5
7.5
2
10
25
2
10
70
2.5
9.5
200
2.5
9.5
States with 14-Day Seeding Requirement
Site size (acres)
Months in Construction Year without
Surface Stabilization
Months in Construction Year with
Surface Stabilization
0.5
1
11
3
1
11
7.5
1.5
10.5
25
1.5
10.5
70
2
10
200
2
10
March, 2004
F-68
------- |