Stormwater | Phase I

Experience is a hard teacher because she gives us the test first, the lesson afterwards. - Vernon Law

It's déjà vu all over again. Sitting in a conference room with a number of city and county representatives (and even a permit writer) talking about principles and direction for Phase II stormwater-quality programs reminded me of a time more than a decade ago when we were just beginning the Phase I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. After a particularly long afternoon of discussion concerning best management practices (BMPs), pollution removal efficiencies, the definition of "maximum extent practicable" (MEP), monitoring approaches, and financing alternatives, one particular city rep stated, "If only there were some easy way to understand how to think about where to go with this program - you know, like the Ten Commandments or something. If the Almighty can boil all of human morality down to 10 simple statements, surely we can do it for this stuff." That conversation (and several nights of beer and pizza with old stormwater folks) led to considering the best (and worst) examples and experiences from leading cities across the country and to the development of the 10 "commandments" for the growth of NPDES Phase I stormwater-quality management programs.

A lot has changed since that time. We've all gotten older, and a few have even gotten smarter. So I decided to poll a few friends (the ones who have gotten smarter) about what they considered some of the most important things to think about when considering Phase II stormwater programs. What key commandments should guide us when we think about what it might take to establish an effective Phase II stormwater-quality program in a smaller city or county (or borough, township, district, or big prison)?

This article is about what they had to say - the "Phase II Ten Commandments." Some of the truths contained in these commandments have withstood the test of a number of cities of different sizes and in different environments. Some simply point a Phase II municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) generally in the right direction to be in step with future changes in stormwater management. They can be convenient guidance for even the most nontechnical program administrator or city council to help ensure that the Phase II program starts and stays on course.

Now don't get too uptight about the commandments. If this is anything like trying to figure out if "stormwater" is one word or two, there will be a lot of quibbling about this list. Heck, where I live, the commandment about coveting your neighbor's wife would probably be well replaced with proscriptions against leering at his John Deere 6300L. So change away. It's still a good starter list. And for the old experienced hands, it will give you a chance to say, "All these I have kept from my youth up."

Phase 1 Failures

During NPDES Phase I, many cities and counties failed to recognize that the good old days - of focusing on failing detention systems and on those slick new master plans featuring regional ponds - were over forever and that a new day had come. As a result, many attempted to simply append a bit of poorly conceived stormwater quality to an often-not-so-great stormwater-quantity program. The responsibility was shunted off to some junior lackey with a new master's degree who knew what "NPDES" stood for, and the rest of the staff conveniently ignored it. Even a few permit writers ignored it.

The result, in many cases, was less than stellar. Stormwater design manuals added a chapter on BMPs with pages copied from "The Green Book," with little or no consideration of how the BMPs might be coupled with quantity ponds and drainage systems. There was little training or folding of the new concepts into the way things were done among the development, plans review, and inspection crowd. Many BMPs were built, and many failed - some spectacularly: the proper design, care, and feeding of a BMP being more complex than that of a detention pond. Isolated department staff with no real influence attempted to write and field ordinances on erosion control, industrial practices, fertilizer use, oil disposal, and even gardening practices. Enforcement often was spotty at the local level, and often nearly nonexistent at the underfunded state level.

Phase II Paradigm Shifts

Now on to Phase II. By the time you read this, it is time to (1) stop pretending it will go away and (2) plan to do something active about it ("active" being halfway between proactive and reactive). Stormwater management will change forever for Phase II entities. And it will be a paradigm shift - not just a slight change or appendix onto our old stormwater program (or nonprogram). See my previous article on paradigm shifts (July/August 2001 issue) to get suitably scared.

Not just another pretty garden.

While the drivers for change in the way we do stormwater management in past decades were grassroots and physical - failing systems, clogged pipes, flooded neighborhoods - the drivers today are often regulatory or legal. Total maximum daily load (TMDL), the Endangered Species Act, drinking-water and wellhead protection, effluent limits, and more will come along in due time to nearly every community. They cannot be avoided.

Every department, not just the public works folks, will be affected in some way. A health department will consider septic tanks differently. Floodplain management inevitably will shift from a single-focus flood protection and development permitting strategy to stream protection, riparian corridors, buffers, and floodplain recovery. Site designs will move from efficient drainage systems to environmentally effective systems - retaining and infiltrating as much rainfall as possible while protecting property, often called "low(er) impact development." Schools increasingly will be asked to focus on water conservation and habitat protection issues as part of the public education responsibility. Citizens will seem to be involved in everything. Zoning ordinances will include, at the least, an environmental overlay district planned unit development option. Our field personnel will need to learn how to pleasantly and articulately introduce and educate homeowners about that "rain garden" in their front yard as part of their daily job.

Hopefully, this time around a more organic and integrated approach will happen. But it is much harder to bring that about in a small town lacking resources. It is incumbent on these entities to recognize that from this point forward they will be transforming themselves, willingly or not, into integrated quantity and quality programs with coordinated multidisciplinary teams. Pull the team together early and begin planning the transition.

First: A Word About MEP

Before we whine too much about this program, let's look at the fix permit writers are in. The scenario works something like this: The real-world congressionally mandated goal is to achieve swimmable and drinkable waters by mitigating pollution problems, including sometimes ill-defined or hard-to-measure stormwater problems.

With wastewater flow, we know that we can mitigate the measurable physical impact by taking one step back from reality and controlling the chemical quality of the effluent. In the beginning, we thought we could treat stormwater just like wastewater - only it would be far easier because it's "just runoff," after all. What a mistake. What milligrams of BOD and COD and TOC have to do with stormwater management only G-O-D knows for sure.

Rainfall, due to its episodic nature, tremendous variation in flow rates, and great variability in human pollution-causing activities even within the same watershed, was found by most sane people not to be amenable to numeric criteria of the type we understood. So what we did was to take another step back from reality and define "capture and treat criteria" for structural BMPs. These include such things as "first flush," "first inch of runoff," "the 90% storm," and so on. But these are too hard for most development engineers used to modified rational detention design, so we took yet another step back from reality and defined black-box BMP design criteria. The idea was that, by following a stipulated design standard, we could attain capture-and-treat criteria, which we hoped would achieve some ill-defined water-quality objective applicable to stormwater, which in turn we hoped would adequately address some equally ill-defined stormwater-caused need or issue. Under Phase I we saw that structural BMPs were not the best first line of defense and so stipulated a stronger focus on programmatic and educational things that, we hoped, were effective in keeping pollution out of drainage systems, to achieve - well, you get the picture. We are far from a specific problem with specific standard and targeted foolproof mitigation strategy. Sort of makes MEP seem reasonable, now doesn't it?

In any case, after 2013 all bets are off concerning numerical criteria for stormwater "effluent" (what ever happened to runoff?). Even before that, a sort of end run is being accomplished by many states. For example, in California, standard urban stormwater mitigation plans, an indirect numeric criteria akin to Florida's total suspended solids capture criteria, will spread from the large urban areas to smaller cities and counties. In Maryland, statewide mandated infiltration has recently come about. TMDLs might force the issue earlier. In Washington, DC, a numeric standard has been established for oil and grease in runoff. And EPA's recent effluent limitation efforts might nudge it closer yet.

Some think that the way out of this dilemma is through the use of ecological or biological limits (biocriteria). Ecological measures and "stressor" analysis will spread ever wider, with ecological stream standards and ecological risk assessments (heretofore mostly limited to hazardous waste compliance) applied to municipal stormwater systems. Burton and Pitt's Stormwater Effects Handbook (CRC Press) is a good resource to follow this course.

Until then, MEP is considered a flexible narrative and technology-based standard. If you do what you say you are going to do you are, by definition, in compliance - regardless of the actual water quality. But remember that the congressionally mandated goal is to meet water-quality standards (as they currently are defined or might change as newer wet-weather approaches are developed), and EPA plans to negotiate a change in the definition of MEP for you on the basis of existing or collected monitoring information in each successive permit period. Maybe half of us will be required to monitor receiving waters in the second round. The thumbscrews will be tightened until it is fishable, swimmable, and whatever else state criteria mandate.

A Program's Focus

Many environmental programs seem to share a common and maddening characteristic: ready, fire, aim! Maybe for stormwater it is a byproduct of that vague old MEP standard. Many Phase I cities seemed, at least at first, to wander aimlessly, going through the motions of compliance. A lot of money was spent on nearly useless master plans, failed BMPs, and inventories of pipes. If this is true of larger Phase I cities, how much more of smaller cities where the "stormwater administrator" also wears about 10 other hats. There is a tendency, when in doubt, to immediately pass some blanket ordinance or take actions that might theoretically meet some regulatory program requirement. Give me a cookbook, a menu, or a fill-in-the-blanks form.

I don't know if I ever understood that relativistic concept that if my wife travels around town at about the speed of light for 20 years she never will seem to age - though it seems to be true enough. But many of us have observed and clearly understand this other discovery of Einstein: "Premature responsibility breeds superficiality." When we go through the motions of compliance with no real intention of identifying and targeting real needs or issues, for whatever reason, our programs tend toward triviality.

Stormwater runoff is not very sexy. If we could not drink from our faucets because our stormwater system didn't operate effectively, you bet there would be a good program. If there were a stormwater traffic jam every afternoon at rush hour, our systems would work. Making people focus on stormwater is often difficult. But in almost every community, a compelling case can be made for effective stormwater management. There is a favorite stream that is degrading, a dream of a greenway park, a love of river trails, long-term nuisance flooding, deteriorating infrastructure, and so on. Sometimes it is hard to find at first. Often it has nothing to do with Phase II, so combine quantity and quality into an overall program upgrade. Don't just blame EPA - people hate to be forcibly regulated, and you will win few sympathizers.

If there were no Phase II program and you wanted to do something positive and meaningful for your surface water and community's aqueous-related quality of life, what would you do? Those are the things you should focus on. Seek reasonably to understand your unique local situation and characterize your problems first: reasonably sample, monitor, and test. Walk around your watersheds to get a feel for their character and values. Ask community leaders and followers what they think. Maybe even put together a citizen's group to help focus the program (and get some collateral credit for minimum control measure #2).

Concentrate on identifying pollution sources, levels, trends, and impacts. The goal is to identify and solve real problems whether they are measured in terms of designated use impairment, violations of chemical standards, biological measures or impairment, aesthetics, or actual impairment of organisms or human health and safety. Establish reasonable (dare I say "measurable"?) goals for pollution reduction based on educated estimates of real potential improvements. Fix the worst first. Do things people want and will notice to build public support for the rest. Getting people to pick up litter can get them thinking about more invisible stuff, such as COD.

The other characteristic often exhibited by environmental programs can be expressed as "ready, aim, aim, aim…." There are certain things it makes sense to correct without resorting to prolonged study and monitoring programs. For example, one northwestern city cleaned up pollution problems on a small island for less than half the cost of a proposed comprehensive monitoring program to assess the problem. Another city, to great effect, abandoned the tactic of spending large sums trying to pin down and quantify an industry's pollution discharge and simply began to work with the industries without allocation of specific pollution load - or guilt.

The Other Things We Have to Do

Of course there are six minimum controls - and we have to do the rest too. Based on years of data and information, EPA believes (and most practitioners would agree) that there is a tendency for the same stormwater runoff pollution problems to exist in almost any municipality. For example, it is expected that sediment from eroding banks, nutrients from fertilizer use and pet excrement, natural and manmade litter, chemical runoff from pesticides and herbicides, oil and grease, trace metals and other toxics, bacteria, thermal increases, and other pollutants find their sources in activities occurring in urbanized areas and reduce the general water quality of the receiving streams.

So EPA has focused its six minimum controls and agreed not to require monitoring of receiving waters for at least the first permit period in favor of taking action to reduce those pollution sources common to all urbanized, and urbanizing, areas. We have an EPA-mandated requirement for a general stormwater-quality program, aimed at certain categories of polluters, even in areas where specific pollution problems are not known or suspected to exist but are generally suspected to be present in any urban area.

This leads to thinking about cost and how to allocate scarce resources among competing alternative BMPs - and to one of the most controversial aspects of Phase II: cost-effectiveness.

Phase II Cost Estimates

Stormwater is getting more expensive. One way to think about stormwater cost is on a per-developed-acre per-year basis. Figure 1 shows typical stormwater program costs for a range of stormwater program maturities on that basis. This is based on my, and a few others', experience in more than 100 cities and counties. If you were to wring the local government budget like a sponge and everything stormwater-like fell out, that would be the cost: engineering and planning, operations and maintenance, regulation and enforcement, administration and finance, capital construction, technology support, education and outreach, and all Phase II activities. If you are paying off a massive lawsuit, don't include that or other unusually large things.

So how expensive will Phase II be? There have been several attempts to estimate the probable costs of the NPDES Phase II stormwater program. EPA's overall annual estimate for all permittees is nearly $1 billion. Most individual MS4 estimates are expressed in terms of cost per person per year, though the actual costs do not always lend themselves very well to this yardstick. EPA itself, based on data and surveys, established its cost estimate as $1,525 + $3.50 per person, though the numbers are laughably vague in terms of actual data.

Another way to arrive at the potential cost is to recognize that most MS4s that have already implemented a fairly advanced stormwater-quality program spend about 15-25% of their total stormwater dollars on stormwater-quality aspects - a subset of which is Phase II compliance.

Assuming typical numbers of about three persons per acre, and that stormwater-quality compliance aspects make up roughly 15% of the program, then for a moderate program, the cost of the stormwater-quality program is in the range of $3.75 - $6.00 per person per year.

The fact that cost should and can be considered when developing an MEP program is incontrovertible - to what extent is a source of controversy and must be balanced with other considerations. I recall a certain meeting where an EPA representative and I shared a podium. He stated, in answer to a question about cost, that when it comes to clean water, cost "is not a consideration." I tried to keep my bland consultant face on as the tension mounted. That is not the right answer. Consider:

In California the State Water Quality Board provided the following explanation of MEP (California State Water Quality Board Order WQ 2000-11, page 19):

There must be a serious attempt to comply, and practical solutions may not be lightly rejected. If, from the list of BMPs, a permittee chooses only a few of the least expensive methods, it is likely that MEP has not been met. On the other hand, if a permittee employs all applicable BMPs except those where it can show that they are not technically feasible in the locality, or whose cost would exceed any benefit to be derived, it would have met the standard. MEP requires permittees to choose effective BMPs, and to reject applicable BMPs only where other effective BMPs will serve the same purpose, the BMPs would not be technically feasible, or the cost would be prohibitive. Thus while cost is a factor, the Regional Water Board is not required to perform a cost-benefit analysis.

Language throughout the preamble to the permit and in the congressional record describing MEP definitions also contains the term "cost-effective" when it describes BMP programs. This term has not been defined but can serve as a critical basis when selecting among BMP options, the level of the stormwater-quality program, and funding needs.

Environmental cost-effectiveness is a term that has evolved over the years principally through the federal government's attempt to quantify habitat or ecological benefits of potential projects. Traditional benefit-cost analysis is, of course, not possible because costs and benefits are expressed in different units. Costs are expressed in terms of dollars, volunteer man-hours, level of effort ("hassle factor"), resources consumed, and so on. Benefits are expressed in a wide variety of metrics in stormwater management, including such "measurable goals" as contact hours, pounds of pollutant removed, stream-miles removed from the 303(d) list, increase in some biotic integrity or bioassessment measure, bank-miles restored, "habitat units" restored or protected, delivered information pieces, constructed BMPs, and specific actions taken.

Because it is difficult to evaluate cost-effectiveness in absolute terms, most cost-effectiveness analyses seek to determine effective programs relative to other potential options. The goal is not to lead to perfect environmental or economic solutions but to elevate the decision process above the often emotional cost-oblivious arguments. Thus we see several things about cost and the MEP program we are developing:

Figure 2 shows steps in a typical cost-effectiveness analysis modified to fit a Phase II program.

1. Establish Key Focus and a Complete Program. Define the goals and objectives of the overall program, focusing on solving apparent water-quality problems or protecting key assets or resources, while keeping in mind the need to have a program under each of the six minimums. Identify key streams or other water bodies, ecological systems, habitat areas, and key pollutants of concern. Discuss MS4 values and the environmental characteristic of the community. Seek to define, in some way, what the community wants to achieve besides compliance at minimum cost. Then ensure that you have defined a complete set of goals for all of the minimum controls - even those where you would not normally chose to focus. Your eventual cost-effectiveness consideration will be a bit different for those goals and objectives that are "essential" and those that are more "fillers" to round out the program.

2. Define the Universe of Possible Solutions. Brainstorm and screen individual and combinations of BMP programs (both structural and nonstructural), including cost or resource estimates, potential type and availability of funding sources, fit with local program, ability to impact the goals and objectives, level of expected impact and benefit, and mutual exclusivity. Focus first on the "real" goals and objectives and secondly on meeting each of the six minimum controls. The end product is a set of feasible BMPs or combinations.

3. Perform Basic Cost-Effective Analysis. Seek to eliminate inefficient and ineffective (economically irrational) solutions. Often a certain level of environmental benefit, or program level, can be obtained in several different ways. Figure 3 illustrates the concept.

Some options are too costly to make sense. Some don't have sufficient return to be environmentally effective. Remember "engineering judgment"? Remember the look in the city manager's eyes when you proposed something you heard that city on the East Coast was doing?

Let's do an example. Suppose there are some potentially viable options for stream cleanup: hiring students during the summer, using nonprofit watershed groups, hiring full-time staff, working through scouting agencies, working through neighborhood groups, and using local businesses in a way similar to Adopt-a-Highway. Student hires for stream trash removal might be more cost-effective than full-time staff. With a higher initial cost and effort, however, it might be possible to set up self-funded and largely self-managed adopt-a-stream groups as 501(c)(3) nonprofits that will be self-sustaining, increase public involvement and education, and provide other ancillary benefits. This option might be the most cost-effective when considering the long-term program and the character of the community. You might plot them as in Figure 3.

Efficiency is determined by selecting the BMP programs that can produce a given level of environmental benefit or output at the lowest resource expenditure combination. This analysis would be most appropriate for minimum control areas that are not seen as key to the overall thrust of the local program. That might correspond to number 2 in Figure 3 if this program is not a key focus but more as filler to round out the MEP program.

Effectiveness is determined by determining the highest level of environmental benefit or output at the lowest cost. This analysis would be most appropriate for those areas of the program identified in step one that are key to the overall surface water health of the community - the "compelling case." That might correspond to number 4 in Figure 3 if this area is seen as a key program focus.

4. Perform Incremental Cost Analysis. The next goal is to answer the question, "Is the increment in environmental benefit worth the increment in cost?" For each cost-effective BMP, a range of effort and cost may be defined, as well as - if possible - a range of environmental outputs in response to that effort input range. That is, if we increase the level of effort for a particular BMP program, will the range of environmental benefit also increase - and how? For example, there will be diminishing returns in public education programs as saturation is reached. Each incremental brochure, billboard, or other measure will not yield as high a return, though sometimes only intuition and experience will define those points or that curve.

Or using the example from step 3, it might be the case that student summer hires are the most cost-effective way to achieve stream cleanup, and this is a key program focus. Step 4 looks at this option and seeks to find ways to maximize the effectiveness of that particular solution. Providing a certain level of resources, finding private grant money, or forming a student organization might provide maximized returns for this option. The goal is to find ways to nudge number 4 in Figure 3 upward without going to far to the right. If this program were seen as more of a filler, then the goal would be to nudge number 2 left without going too far down.

5. Configure the Program. Blend the various BMPs into a cohesive program, seeking synergy and practicality. Ensure that the program is at a level that is both acceptable to the permit writer and doable within the legal, social, financial, political, technical, and physical constraints of the community. Lay out a program and funding strategy, leaving "outs" if anticipated funding sources do not emerge. Develop processes to manage the program and attain measurable goals.

It's a bit theoretical, but the basic thought process can be made as practical, detailed, and "spreadsheeted" as you have the courage to make it.

The now-old stormwater joke goes that while nature follows the hydrologic cycle, cities follow a "hydro-illogical" cycle. They cycle repeatedly from flooding or environmental disaster to panic to planning to procrastination and back to disaster. The only way out of that cycle is through laying firm foundations. No Phase II program can flourish and grow without the key underpinnings of a sound organizational structure with sufficient legal authority and adequate, stable, and equitable financing. Actual physical urban pollution or flooding problems, when fully investigated, are usually found to be the ultimate result of misguided or missing institutional policies. There are four key foundations to build: legal, financial, technical, and organizational. We'll talk about the technical approach later.

Financing is a key. Many municipalities (about 500 or so depending on if you count all those pseudo-utilities) have gone to a stormwater "utility" form of financing where the users of the drainage system pay in accordance with their use. "Use" of the system is defined according to how much water or pollution a property puts into the system. More on this later.

Another firm foundation is to get the organizational aspects of the program correct. There are three basic forms of stormwater organization within an entity: a stand-alone stormwater program, a program with some individual identity nestled under another department, and a program scattered among various departments. Each type has certain advantages and disadvantages. It's fine to be scattered if the program often gets shot at - then you can point to another department and keep a low profile (the stealth program). If all effort is focused on a stand-alone program, then other departments will tend to forget they also might have stormwater responsibilities. In any case, an ad hoc stormwater team is a good way to go about it - headed up or at least supported by someone with sufficient authority to help others play nice.

Rounding out the foundations is development of a sound legal basis to take action - to require compliance. Many local governments have authority inherent in their charters or state authorizing legislation that they have never tapped into. Many others have written ordinances that are hard to implement, do not fit well with the actual permitting process, are overly prescriptive, or are overly vague. Others have written fine ordinances but failed to recognize that they did not have the staff or political willpower to enforce them. There will be a need for several types of ordinances under Phase II, including erosion control, illicit connections, dumping, BMP use, and others, depending on program specifics. They are all available on the Web for almost free. A couple of good ones are www.northgeorgiawater.com and www.stormwatercenter.net.

MEP and Foundations
MS4s are to control stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable. How is that defined - for you? MEP consists of the mix of BMPs and measurable goals that will attain reduction of pollution to the maximum extent practicable to attain water-quality standards. EPA has intentionally not provided a precise definition of MEP to allow maximum flexibility in MS4 permitting. That can be good or bad. The rationale is that MS4s need the flexibility to optimize reductions in stormwater pollutants on a location-by-location basis. Some guidance on what MEP means is provided by those states that issue a general permit. But as EPA states in its preamble to the final regulations (40 CFR 68754, December 8, 1999):

The pollutant reductions that represent MEP may be different for each small MS4, given the unique local hydrologic and geologic concerns that might exist and the differing possible pollutant control strategies. Therefore, each permittee will determine appropriate BMPs to satisfy each of the six minimum control measures through an evaluative process. EPA envisions application of the MEP standard as an iterative process. MEP should continually adapt to current conditions and BMP effectiveness and should strive to attain water-quality standards. Successive iterations of the mix of BMPs and measurable goals will be driven by the objective of assuring maintenance of water-quality standards. If, after implementing the six minimum control measures there is still water-quality impairment associated with discharges from the MS4, after successive permit terms the permittee will need to expand or better tailor its BMPs within the scope of the six minimum control measures for each subsequent permit. EPA envisions that this process might take two to three permit terms.

I traveled around the United States with the original EPA regulation writers many years ago, watching the near riots that ensued with the introduction of the Phase I regulations. This was before MEP was acronym-ized. One night, hiding in a bar, we got to discuss what MEP really means, and sketched it out on a napkin. MEP depends on the consideration of the foundationalthings as illustrated in Figure 4:

This figure, then, can serve as a useful organizing tool for an MS4 or regulator to look at the various BMPs in a program to see if they have a good chance for success. Each of the six minimum controls is expanded for each BMP subprogram, and each one is subjected to the foundations analysis framed by the four questions.

Consider two opposite theories of program development. You might want to do more than the minimum acceptable but might not want this "more" to be a regulatory concern (in case it does not happen), so you would attempt to negotiate the minimal acceptable (we call it mEP) program, and plan to do more because you want to. On the other hand, to make sure it actually happens, you might want the whole program to carry the weight of regulatory oversight and define and negotiate a more comprehensive package. If you work in local government, you know why.

It has been said that a lawyer can send his mistakes to jail, a doctor buries his, and a preacher's failures are sent to Sheol (or someplace hotter). But an engineer's mistakes stand as a monument to his ignorance forever. There is great potential in the planning and implementation of stormwater-quality programs to build, or be required to build, many structural treatments for water quality that, in the end, will prove to have little worth or are unworkable over the long run. There is a great temptation to put something visible on the ground. Resist - reasonably. This is especially true in cities that have no history or experience with structural BMPs.

The stormwater landscape is littered with scum-covered ponds in dense residential neighborhoods (recent disease vector studies making this even less attractive), catch basin retrofits clogged with coarse sediments, short-circuited vegetative buffer strips, and "linear stream corridor nature preserves" full of trash and crime. One study in a major city showed 24 out of 25 detention ponds failed - and only five of those were for maintenance reasons.

When my water line breaks, I call the plumber. When my sewer line clogs, I call Roto-Rooter. And when my rain garden fails, I call ... hmm ... you, I guess. Who will maintain all those rain gardens? There will be a need for some new businesses where landscape firms cross-train to maintain and service small BMPs on private property. That assumes someone notices it is not working.

On the other hand, there have been lessons learned. One eastern state had required infiltration practices for a number of years only to find that it experienced a high failure rate due primarily to poor construction and poor or nonexistent maintenance practices. Unlike when Phase I began, there are many examples of successful BMP implementations over long periods of time. We now know enough about many structural BMPs to specify design criteria with some confidence - just as long as you don't ask me to tell you what the ecological impacts of structural BMPs are. But if your community is new to BMPs, then everything is untested!

The most effective way to keep surface waters clean is to keep pollutants from those waters in the first place. That is, address the pollution at the source - the minds and hearts of the common man, and the way development occurs in the first place; thus, the Phase II focus, missing in Phase I, on public and other nonstructural programs, though we still have no more than an intuitive sense about most of these nonstructural programs that they result in pollution reduction. Figure 5 shows the logic train involved in establishing a good, focused, nonstructural program.

Public education, awareness, and reporting and other nonstructural programs can be easily modified or abandoned if they prove to be ineffective or to address a nonproblem. Employ measures that have high public, political, and "stakeholder" acceptance. Get private vendors to purchase advertising allowing their logos on environmental messages on stencils, signage, and billboards. While adults might not willingly change their lifestyles to reduce pollution, their children might - especially if it bugs dad. Many school programs eventually influence parents to recycle, become citizen stream monitors, and volunteer in cleanup programs. The scouts have an environmental badge.

In terms of pilot and phased programs, set up programs to be developed in well-defined phases and steps with checks of effectiveness at every major milestone. Proceed slowly and cautiously with in-course corrections. Look for methods with few environmental side effects and that do not introduce unacceptable risks to health or safety. The NPDES permit process allows for annual reporting. Use these reports to request and negotiate changes in the conditions of the permit based on information gleaned from the previous year(s). Define a permit application with several options based on results of pilot studies and phased programs. Specify the "out" if things do not seem to be working - do not commit to a five-year sentence in a nonviable programmatic prison.

Recent and past studies have concluded that the most effective approach to treating stormwater pollution is through multiple treatment methods and sites located throughout the watershed. This can give rise to the "Five-Way Treatment Train" (sounds like my favorite chili in Cincinnati).

Figure 6 illustrates the concept. The problem is Bubba's brain ... or Kip or Buffy's brain. Dispersed individual human activity, or inactivity, is the cause of much urban stormwater pollution. The first line of defense, then, is a strong education and prevention program. Make it easy to do the right thing and hard to do the wrong thing.

Smoking is now so politically incorrect in California that you have to go to Nevada to light up. Begin to change public opinion about local streams and other receiving waters in much the same way the public has changed its overall opinion on smoking and a host of other issues. For example, the goal would be that through a combination of education and recycling-availability programs, oil recycling would become common, dumping rare.

Cars in the Train
At the top end of the physical watershed, other BMPs combine to remove pollution at its physical source. Land-use design modifications and microscale structural BMPs are integrated into zoning and subdivision ordinances, environmental overlay districts, "zero discharge" ordinances, better site design, low-impact development, and so on. Other nonstructural BMPs also would be used, such as street sweeping, construction-site controls, and an effective illicit-connection program. Sometimes the top of the watershed is outside your control.

Stormwater then moves to conveyance, where system conveyance structures incorporate pollution-reducing features such as filtration and infiltration. Some commercial devices also may be employed here at the entrance to the conveyance system or at junctions. At end points within the system, larger, often multipurpose, stormwater-quality/-quantity controls are put in place to handle larger volumes of flow or to provide "polishing" of the discharge. Finally, in-stream habitat conservation and preservation practices are integrated with natural (or "nice" urban) channel designs targeting key benthic and fish communities as appropriate.

Obviously this sort of thing works best when we begin with a clean slate in an affluent, environmentally conscious community. For the 99% of us who do not have that luxury, we begin to work on various components of the treatment-train approach and, over time, evolve into a working concept that fits our community. We look for retrofit opportunities and, at a minimum, integrate nonstructural, nonphysical BMPs everywhere (e.g., education or illicit-connections removal).

We already do lots of things that look, feel, and smell like six minimum controls. The major functions of stormwater-quantity management - engineering and planning, regulation and enforcement, operations and maintenance, public education and involvement, and capital construction - all fit into a comprehensive stormwater-quality program. In fact, the plan is that they are merged into one.

In several cases we have estimated that the average quantity-only program can, through suitable modification and extension, accomplish 25-40% of the Phase II program. To maximize staff acceptance, employ measures that are consistent with or extensions of other programs and regulations. Maximize what you have to get what you need. This is not to say it is free - just available and already in your budget.

It's important that the program be seen as a "city" or "county" program and not just some requirement of public works or environmental compliance. This will take some work on the part of someone who is low enough in the structure to care and high enough to make a difference. Money talks. Form a stormwater utility and pay for help. One western town pays for a full-time fire department person out of stormwater revenues. Another eastern town's street department finally got the vactor it wanted by agreeing to use it for stormwater-quality activities (that just happened to look a lot like what they needed to do anyway). Good old EPA.

This will make "strange bedfellows" of departments that normally do not interface. Fire departments may perform stormwater inspections along with industrial and commercial hazardous materials inspections. All field personnel could undergo basic environmental sensitivity training and could serve as the "eyes and ears" of the program reporting system. Building inspectors could even (gasp!) inspect for erosion problems on those pesky home construction sites as part of electrical, plumbing, and structural inspections. Complaint lines can be turned into environmental hotlines. The utility bill insert can become a public education vehicle. Bumper stickers on city vehicles can serve as reminders to recycle used motor oil - and where to do it.

But if high technology can be costly, continuing to use low technology will be costly. For example, you can collect dry-weather flow information on 3 x 5 cards and keep them in a file for a much lower cost than some computer database management methods. But do you really want to manage the program that way ... forever? You can continue to use mylar overlays to base maps to keep track of your stormwater system (if you keep track of it at all). But can you stand all the erasures, changes, man-hours, and lost or misfiled maps? A prudent investment in automation and technological advancements will pay big dividends in the future. Computers should do the grunt work while men do the thinking.

Technology Uses
Phase II has spawned a number of software products more or less fit to the management of some, or purportedly all, of a Phase II stormwater program. What types of things lend themselves to automation? All sorts of Web-based information server applications, remote training and testing, database servers, and so on serve citizen involvement and education needs. GPS- and GIS-based infrastructure management, inspection scheduling, maintenance management programs, system inventories, databases of various information, and complaint reception and response systems serve the field and client operations parts of the program. GIS-based modeling assists the planning aspects and what-if analysis.

One word of caution. While the decision to use technology should be an easy one, the decision of which technology to use is not. There is always a balance between getting something that is flexible to meet every potential need by any department and something that just does one or two things very well. There is a balance between getting something that is flexible enough to interface with every other department, and something that is stand-alone but very efficient and focused on Phase II needs. Many cities spend large amounts on hardware and software, larger amounts on database development, and a pittance on training, implementation, and real-world system applications. The result is great disillusionment with GIS and a few red faces. Be application focused.

While figuring out how to fix existing problems, take the necessary steps to avoid building new problems - control and guide new development. We only have one chance to protect and conserve environmental treasures. We can restore them, but that is harder. While doing other things, do not neglect to move quickly to stop building future problems - without stopping building, obviously.

A shift to environmentally sound private development doesn't just happen because there is a zoning ordinance change or a set of new design criteria. But there might be a need for legal ordinance and regulation changes early in the program development process. To be effective, it involves a tremendous number of things and a guided community partnership process. Educate and enable developers to make the changes. Work cooperatively and regionally. Amazingly enough, many developers welcome the ideas of better site design - and not for altruistic reasons. Take a watershedwide approach to planning. The Center for Watershed Protection (www.cwp.org) has developed a good approach in the Site Development Roundtable.

Tools and Approaches
There are a number of tools and approaches that have been tried successfully - and a ton of literature on such topics as sustainable development, smart growth (as opposed to "dumb growth," I guess), better site design (ditto), low(er) impact development, zero discharge, and green infrastructure. In summary, these things involve a suitable combination of elements sure to make friends in high places:

Admit early on that there will be some trial and error no matter how successful that East Coast county seems to be.

Misery loves company, and regulatory misery is no different. Partnering and communicating make a lot of sense. Remember the first rule of public involvement survival: "Bring me in early, I'm your partner. Bring me in late, I'm your judge." I'll forgo the normal conversation about citizen committees and developer holdouts and touch on a few lesser-considered items.

Nonprofit Friends
There must be 10,000 "Friends of the ___________" and "__________ keeper" groups. Many are highly motivated, some are well funded, and a certain segment of the population trusts them more than they will ever trust a city staffer. We have actually considered founding a new group called "Friends of the Public Works Director" with most of the members resembling guys out of The Sopranos.

To fund these 10,000 groups, there are a thousand grants and a million donations for which cities are not eligible. Does that suggest something to you? These nonprofit groups can be a source of manpower, funding, ideas, and support. They can also sue. But in my experience many can be won over and are very interested in working in partnership with local governments. Local governments need their reputations, funds, manpower, expertise, and energy. They might need your assistance with grant writing, organization help, facilitation, and advertising. So learn a few verses of "Kum Ba Yah," read The Compleat Angler, learn the caddis fly larva dance, and get sensitivity training.

We often think in terms of "bulks," "models," and "joints" (no flashbacks now). That is:

It might be that funds are pooled for certain aspects of the program, such as criteria development, public education tools, training, and model ordinances. The goals are consistency and cost savings. Perhaps communities could pool funds to cooperate on a baseline program, with each entity free to add to the program individually as it sees fit. In other cases, an umbrella agency, district, or quasi-governmental unit could provide service to all of them together. Remember, though, if you are counting on another community to perform some part of your permit requirement (as opposed to simply working on the application submittal together), you must execute a legally binding interlocal agreement for your city to be off the hook should the other party fail to perform. It might be that you find the large Phase I city next to you a benevolent giant willing to bear some of your burden in exchange for better regional cooperation, and you can simply sign on to its permit.

Permit-Writer Friends
Finally, it must be remembered that, under Phase II, the permit writer has a lot of leeway in his or her interpretation of the requirements. March 11, 2003, at 4:30 p.m. is not the time to find out that your program ideas will not fly. Some state programs will be more cut-and-dried, others simply will parrot the federal draft general permit. Many are wide open to suggestions. In my experience, several permit writers even have been invited to sit in on program brainstorming sessions and have given stamps of approval well ahead of permit due dates. Unlike most permits, it pays to get involved in state initiatives, to understand the drivers for the permit writers and their special proclivities. For example, many permit writers are focused on streams not meeting designated use criteria on the 303(d) list. Working with them on a suitably focused strategy for your errant streams might result in great cost savings over a more shotgun approach.

The NPDES program can be costly. Estimates range from a few dollars per person per year to numbers in the twenties, though most of the costs are not appropriately counted on a per-capita basis. Other estimates put the cost of a well-done stormwater-quality program at about one-quarter of a well-done total stormwater program, or in the range of about $20-$35 per developed acre per year. But in any case, that cost does not have to be counted in terms of newly budgeted hard cash, just in terms of somebody expending the equivalent effort. There are many ways to help resource the NPDES program that cost little - but it will take some imagination. For example, a local community should look systematically to the following resource sources prior to looking to the general fund and the other usual culprits:

Modify Local Programs. Perhaps 25% of a typical Phase II program is being done already to some extent by current staff, or similar things are being carried out. With suitable adjustment and refocus, some responsibilities can be covered by current staff as part of, or a redefinition of, their current duties.

Share Costs With Neighbors or Region/Statewide. Much of what can be done can be done more cheaply than sharing the cost. Phase I saw large numbers of group permits issued, causing regional approaches to spring up. Some of these worked better than others, but most saved all participants money in the long run.

Get Free Information on the Web. The Internet has hundreds of sites giving examples of BMPs, manuals, ordinances, documents, guidance, pamphlets, and so on. Literally almost every written document that might be necessary has been developed somewhere and is available free of charge. The experience of other Phase I cities is especially helpful for Phase II cities. Fort Worth (http://ci.fort-worth.tx.us/dem/sitemap.htm) in particular has a helpful Web site with multiple links to other sites. The Center for Watershed Protection (www.cwp.org) offers a multitude of helpful documents and links, and its stormwater center (www.stormwatercenter.net) has hundreds of references and assistance tools. Another useful site is www.mtas.utk.edu/bmptoolkit.htm, which has links sorted by each of the six minimum controls. EPA's Web site (best found from a search, as it changes quite often) offers significant Phase II guidance as well as information on many related programs.

Partner With Nonprofits. There are hundreds of nonprofit organizations created to accomplish various environmentally related functions. Often these groups will adopt a watershed, provide workers, perform monitoring, do public education and involvement campaigns (they are a public involvement campaign), and find sources of money not available to local governments (501[c][3] grants to nonprofits). Some local communities actually assist them in finding and applying for grants. They also are less willing to file a lawsuit against a local government when they are partners with it.

Federal Programs and Consulting. Various federal programs provide funding on a cost-share basis and also provide consulting either gratis or cost share. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority supplies Stream Teams to any local community willing to pursue a watershed protection program. The National Park Service provides a Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program that provides meeting facilitators and planning assistance for river corridor development. Several Phase II communities received significant assistance from the US Army Corps of Engineers in its Phase II permit application and parts of their implementation. The US Geological Survey cooperative program will provide monitoring and data analysis.

State and Regional Grants. States and EPA regions administer or provide grant monies for local governments to pursue environmental projects. State-administered programs, such as Section 319, 604(b), 104(b)(3), coastal zone, wellhead protection, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Commission, and HUD block grants provide funds for various programs. Much of this information can be gleaned from federal Web sites, including www.epa.gov/efinpage/fundings.htm (the environmental finance program), www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy/fund.html (Watershed Academy funding site), and EPA regional sites. While many of these programs are not, per se, to be used for compliance activities, many Phase I cities and regulators have been cagey about how to bend rules and waive requirements in order to secure funding for key projects and programs. Congress just authorized use of 319 funds for Phase II for one more year - again.

Special Fees for Service. Another source of funding is to charge special fees for added services, including inspection fees for BMPs, additional construction program-related fees, and plans review fees. These fees can be scaled to cover part of or an entire program area. Some communities have instituted a simple "environmental" surcharge on a water bill as a special assessment. There are really four basic ways local governments get money: taxes, service charges, exactions, and assessments. Each of these basic ways has rules that vary somewhat state to state, so it is important to know what you are getting into.

Private Resources. Having your corporate name associated with a clean environment is still considered a good thing, and this naturally leads to looking to private resources to fund public environmental projects. This can take the form of corporate grants, corporate involvement in adopt-a-stream programs, and other visible volunteer-based activities. They also can provide bags, gloves, vests, hats, key chains, pens, trinkets, coffee cups, and so on.

Stormwater Utility. Finally, the surest and best way to fund stormwater is through a user-fee system based on demand on the stormwater infrastructure. If it looks like water and wastewater, it should be funded like those other two public utilities. There is a great deal of information on how to set up a stormwater utility; some of it even has been developed by people who have set up a large number of them. Here are a few good sources: www.florida-stormwater.org/manual.html, www.forester.net/sw_0011_utility.html, http://stormwaterfinance.urbancenter.iupui.edu. edre are a few good sources:HWith the demands of Phase II coming, there might just be sufficient planetary alignment to attempt it for even the most reluctant public works director. I would not blame EPA for the utility, but it certainly can be the straw that breaks the camel's back, amidst the other pressing stormwater program needs. It is an unfunded federal mandate after all. Again a word of caution: Do it right. Your opportunity cost of failure due to cutting corners on public education and consensus building is five to seven years of stormwater revenue - maybe millions. The cost to do it right versus cutting corners is less than two months' revenue. Do the math.

Well, that's it. Go out and conquer the promised land. Will following these commandments keep you out of trouble and ensure a carefree stormwater future? Right. History is the art of learning from our mistakes so well that we can perform them flawlessly the next time. But hopefully these basic thoughts can serve to keep you between the white lines in your stormwater program for years to come. One word of caution though: As with the Ten Commandments of old, the commands are rather easier to state than to keep.

Andy Reese is vice president of AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. in Nashville, TN. He was the keynote speaker at StormCon '02 and is co-author of Municipal Stormwater Management.