Stormwater

Brian Smith FHWA—Resource Center

20152015 MIDMID--ATLANTIC WATERATLANTIC WATER QUALITYQUALITY

PEERPEER EXCHANGEEXCHANGE

FINALFINAL REPORTREPORT

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

WQPE14 AGENDA 6

PRESENTATION SUMMARIES 7

Program initiative/innovations 7

Vince Davis, DelDOT Delegation of Authority

Dana Havlik, MDSHA SWM Assets Program/Delegation of Authority

IDDE Screening 11

LaTonya Gilliam, DelDOT

John Olenik, VDOT

EPA Audits 12

Winne Okello, PennDOT

Ed Wallingford, VDOT

Permit Requirements and Issues 15

Winnie Okello, PennDOT

Meredith Upchurch, dDOT

Ryan Reali, NJDOT

Chesapeake Bay Regulator Perspectives 18

Crediting/Banking 20

John Olenik, VDOT

Vince Davis, DelDOT

Ryan Reali, NJDOT

TMDL Strategies and Impact on DOT 23

Karen Coffman, MDSHA

Karen Coffman, MDSHA, EMS for TMDL Implementation

Winnie Okello, PennDOT, TMDL and EMS

3

Environmental Management System 27

Dana Havlik, MDSHA

Program Funding 29

Meredith Upchurch, dDOT

DelDOT Database, EM process and work management……………… ……….30

LaTonya Gilliam, DelDOT

BMP Design coordination 32

Vince Davis, DelDOT

Meredith Upchurch, DDOT

Inspections 34

Dana Havlik, MDSHA

Vince Davis, DelDOT

Sharing resources 38

Online resources 38

Contact information 39

Presentations 40

DelDOT Street Sweeping Science 71

DelDOT IDDE Screening 78

4

Executive Summary

The Mid-Atlantic Water Quality Peer Exchange occurred September 21-23, 2015 in Dover,

DE. Participants collaborated to create an agenda that focused on issues and concerns

specific to Mid-Atlantic States. Six DOTs were represented.

Participants shared their recent innovations in work practices and tools, and approaches to

implementing their programs. Stormwater issues are highly visible in the Mid-Atlantic and

regulations are very rigorous requiring substantial DOT investment in project design, engi-

neering, maintenance, technology and technical guidance. Issues of concern to the prac-

titioners are reflected in the agenda. Communication with regulators and between the

various DOT disciplines is very important. For example, although new regulations emphasize

a preference for smaller low-impact BMPs they do not address the feasibility of these prac-

tices.

Peer Exchange participants and contributors:

Vince Davis, DelDOT Ed Wallingford, VDOT

LaTonya Gilliam, DelDOT Meredith Upchurch, DDOT

Winnie Okello, PennDOT Etayanesh (Ty) Asfaw, DDOT

Dana Havlik, MDSHA Ryan Reali, NJDOT

Karen Coffman, MDSHA Meeti Trivedi, NJDOT

John Olenik, VDOT

FHWA representatives included:

Brian Smith, FHWA Resource Center

Marcel Tchaou, FHWA Headquarters

5

New regulations are pushing DOTs to install and maintain more BMPs per project and in-

vest in detailed site-specific evaluations to ensure proper conditions exist at sites. Poor sit-

ing will result in retrofit, corrective engineering, or higher long-term maintenance costs for

the DOT. Most DOTs are being required to add BMPs within the ROW to treat existing im-

pervious surfaces and anticipate that this trend will continue over a long-term. Improving

work flow and data management will be essential to continuous improvement and risk

management.

To manage increasing workload DOTs are employing the use of environmental manage-

ment systems (EMS), GIS technology and real-time data. Development of EMS for storm-

water management is still relatively new but benefits of EMS are clearly evident as storm-

water assets continue to increase. States have shared that an EMS approach is useful for

work flow management and documenting MS4 program requirements including asset

monitoring, tracking, inventory and reporting.

Stormwater touches multiple disciplines including planning, environmental, engineering,

design, construction, maintenance and administration and is linked to multiple strategic

areas such as project delivery, environmental stewardship, asset management, fiscal re-

sponsibility, communication, coordination, collaboration, and cooperation, workforce de-

velopment, mobility and safety. Executing the innovations and practices described here

involves breaking down borders and working across disciplines.

The Peer Exchange allowed participants to share their other successes and challenges as

well as new strategies and tools developed to support their programs and address man-

agement concerns.

The Peer Exchange consisted of two days of discussion including perspectives of local reg-

ulatory staff from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Con-

trol (DNREC). The presentations are included in the Appendix. Each presentation was in-

tended to spur discussion among participants. Topic discussions are summarized in the

body of this report.

6

MID-Atlantic WATER QUALITY PEER EXCHANGE

September 21-23

Dover, DE

TENTATIVE AGENDA (updated 8-113-15)

Monday, September 21 2-5:30pm

Introductions

Program initiatives/innovations

EPA Audits

Permit Requirements/issues

Tuesday, September 22 8am-5:15pm

Chesapeake Bay Regulator perspectives 8-9:30 am

Crediting/Banking 10-11:45 am

TMDL Strategies and Impact on DOT 12:30 – 2:15 pm

TMDL clarity/ Planning for TMDL

Environmental Management Systems 2:30 – 4 pm

Programming funds 4 – 5:15 pm

Wednesday, September 23 8am-12:30pm

BMP Design coordination 8 – 9 am

Inspection 9:20 – 11 am

Products and resources 11:15 – 12:15 pm

Closing and Adjourn 12:15 – 12:30 pm

7

Delegation of Authority

Vince Davis , Delaware Department of Transportation

The U.S. EPA has delegated its authority to administer the federal NPDES permit program in

Delaware to the State of Delaware, with the exception of pre-treatment and federal facil-

ities. Within the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control

(DNREC) Division of Water Resources, the Surface Water Discharges Section (SWDS) is re-

sponsible for administering the NPDES program and the Division of Watershed Stewardship

oversees construction activities.

DelDOT houses responsibilities for stormwater program areas in different sections of the

Maintenance and Operations Division (M & O) and the Division of Transportation Solutions

(DOTS). Roadside Environmental and NPDES Section are in the M & O Division and Envi-

ronmental and Stormwater Sections are in the DOTS.

DelDOT Roadside Environmental Section handles pesticide permits

DelDOT Environment Section handles

NEPA, 401, 404 permits, Section 10 Re-

ports

DelDOT NPDES Section handles MS4 pro-

gram (Phase I and Phase II), Stormwater

general permits under 7 Del C chapter

60 – Part I for Industrial stormwater per-

mits.

DelDOT Stormwater Section handles

Stormwater general permits under 7 Del

C chapter 60 – Part II for Construction

activities, Sediment and Stormwater law

7 Del C chapter 40 and stormwater

management and construction E&S.

The following agencies have delegation

of Sediment and Stormwater Program

elements consisting of plan review, con-

struction inspection, and maintenance inspection for their geographic boundaries:

DelDOT, Kent Conservation District (CD), Sussex CD, Town of Middlesex, City of Newark,

City of Wilmington, New Castle CD, New Castle County Department of Land use. Re-

delegation occurs every 3 years.

In most DOT’s, stormwater responsibilities are di-

vided between Design, Environment and Mainte-

nance. DOT organization that is based on storm-

water program areas (construction, industrial and

MS4 activities) may provide more consistent deliv-

ery of stormwater management responsibilities

than an organization structure based on jurisdic-

tional issues (e.g., state projects vs. local projects)

or project types (small projects vs. larger projects).

Success requires that good comprehension of

stormwater duties and responsibilities, well de-

fined staff roles and responsibilities, shared re-

sponsibility within the agency, informed and well

equipped staff, and good communication between

disciplines and program areas.

8

Figure 1 illustrates the duties of the DelDOT Stormwater Section.

Figure 1. Duties of the DelDOT Stormwater Section.

DelDOT does not have a Hydraulics section. DelDOT designers have cradle-to-grave re-

sponsibility for projects. DelDOT manages 90% of all roads in DE and uses consultants under

DelDOT supervision to review subdivision entrances and street designs/plans. DelDOT has a

joint permit and an agreement with six other municipalities for sharing data, training, and

NDPES responsibilities (monitoring, outfall inventories). Municipalities collect data within their

geographic areas.

The process and requirements for DelDOT state delegation is spelled out in DE state laws

and state regulations. EPA NPDES delegation requires that DelDOT is audited by DNREC

and USEPA audits DNREC’s delegation.

MDOT SHA Office of Highway Development- SWM Assets Program/ Delegated Authority -

Dana Havlik

MDOT SHA restructured as a result of their recent delegation of authority.

TMDL, Quality Assurance, Stormwater Assets

Stormwater duties are housed in the Office of Environmental Design (OED) and Office of

Highway Development (OHD), MDOT SHA has assigned managers/coordinators to oversee

the following stormwater program areas.

IDDE – OED - Water Programs Division (WPD) and Environmental Compliance Division (ECD)

MS4 - OED - WPD

TMDL - OED - WPD

Construction activities – Office of Construction (OOC) and OED- Quality Assurance

9

Stormwater Assets (post-construction) (OHD – Highway Hydraulics Division (HHD)

SWM Preventive Maintenance - District Maintenance shops

SWM/ ESC Approval- OHD Plan Review Division (PRD)

Highway Hydraulics Division (HHD) provides design, technical support and review for a

range of projects and functions including:

Major highway projects

HH modeling/drainage

Stormwater Management (SWM)

Stream restoration/stabilization

Erosion and Sediment Control (ECSC)

Projects Review

Environmental permits coordination – ESC/ SWM/NPDES

Drainage and SWM Assets Program ( inventory inspections and rating)

Figure 2. MDSHA Organizational Chart

10

With the delegation of authority, plan review duties are housed in the MDOT SHA Plan Re-

view Division. The Plan Review Division is separate and distinct from other OHD design divi-

sions. The SHA Plan Review Division provides sediment control and stormwater plan review

and approval for all SHA projects.

The Environmental Programs Division (EPD) - Quality Assurance (QA) Team within the Office

of Environmental Design (OED) which handles E&S inspections to ensure compliance with

the approved E&S plans now handles SWM Compliance inspections as a new responsibility.

MDOT SHA has a very large inventory of stormwater assets. They try to foster a programmat-

ic approach to asset management and water quality improvements that fosters greater in-

ternal and external communication and coordination. They track and monitor of infrastruc-

ture issues using spatial data tools such as ArcGIS (Oracle database), Google Earth© (KML

files), and eGIS.

Per state law, delegated authority requires 3 separate approvals for SWM/ESC that coincide

with Major Milestone Reviews

Concept Preliminary Investigation

Site Development Semi-Final Review

Final Approval Final Review/PSE

Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) maintains enforcement authority and pro-

grammatic oversight and conduct reviews and construction audits. SHA submits quarterly

reports for the first year and annual reports thereafter.

EPA or MDE may audit SHA processes.

This is MDTOD SHA’s first year of delegated authority. Going forward MDDOT SHA is partner-

ing with MDE in the following areas:

Finalizing Technical Procedures

Finalizing reconciliation of Water Quality Bank

Developing Standard Details and Design Guidelines

Design worksheets and computational methods

General Approvals

Standard Plans

Policies, Administrative Procedures, Guidelines, SOP’s and Review Checklists

Standard Form letters

Water quality Bank agreement

Water Quality bank computational methods and worksheet

The WQ bank would cover projects that cannot meet fully SWM treatment requirements for

water quality. Only ESD (Environmental Site Design) can be credited. ESD’s are micro-scale

11

features intended to mimic “forest in good conditions” water quality functions and runoff

characteristics. Because ESDs are very small, many ESDs are required on a single project.

This greatly increases the number of stormwater assets that MDOT SHA must track, inspect,

rate, report and maintain statewide. For example, a project requiring removal of 10lb of

pollutant may require 140 ESDs. Several states mentioned approaches to ESDs (Low Impact

Design) are being encouraged by regulatory agencies.

Structural BMP cannot be used to meet project SWM regulatory requirements for new de-

velopment unless demonstrated ESD to Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) is fully imple-

mented. Water quality credit from structural BMPs cannot be credited to the WQ Bank.

Structural BMPs can be used as a last resort and for redevelopment projects.

Peak flow management (typically 2yr , 10 yr storm, in few cases 100 yr storm depending on

the local jurisdiction /county requirements) requires structural BMP (Dry , wet or extended

detention ponds)

Water quality requirements are met by use of ESD to MEP.

IDDE screening – LaTonya Gilliam DelDOT and John Olenik VDOT

DelDOT is a joint permittee with six other municipalities in New Castle County and has

worked out an agreement for the municipalities to turn in their own data. DelDOT does pro-

vide assistance when needed such as

providing copies of the DelDOT BMP

inspection manual and invites to

DelDOT training. DelDOT owns 90% of

outfalls and have a large outfall moni-

toring program and municipalities will

piggyback on those contracts. Con-

tractors/consultants are familiar with

the work so this is a win for the munici-

palities. Municipalities obtain GIS work

from the University of Delaware and

student interns.

For IDDE where DelDOT and New Cas-

tle County overlap, DelDOT covers

closed drainage inspections and New

Castle County covers over open drain-

age inspection.

For IDDE inventory, DelDOT is required

to inventory 20% of their system every

IDDE monitoring is a lot of effort with little re-

turn. Many states such as VDOT rarely find

anything. DelDOT has proposed a desk top

screening approach based on industrial ar-

eas, septic areas and watershed size in its

new permit. Outfalls draining more than 50

acres and if no industrial uses are present -

no field screening is done. Where industrial

uses, auto shops, gas station, septic area

are present then field screening is done.

This approach has resulted in substantial

cost savings.

12

year and now the entire system is invento-

ried. DelDOT uses GIS overlay to identify

blue line streams, buffer distance from out-

fall, etc. in its inventory. However, now they

are putting more f

focus on information identified in EPA elec-

tronic data requirements (e.g., proximity to

blue line stream, buffer distance, etc.).

VDOT IDDE inventory includes headwater areas. Looking forward to EPA electronic data

re-

porting requirements will help DOTs plan for future IDDE inventories.

VDOT has expressed concerned that its DEQ has requested that VDOT monitor permitted

discharges. New Castle County fought a similar permit requirement from DNREC and loss.

This added condition will add to VDOTs MS4 permit compliance cost.

EPA Audit

Winnie Okello, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PennDOT received a statewide request for information including:

Information from District Offices:

· Maintenance Stockpile Evaluation docs (external audits/evaluations)

· Internal Evaluations reports

· County Salt management plans ( Pub 23 Ch.4)

· Foreman's Quarterly Stockpile Checklist

· SEMP Checklist and record form

· Oil -water separator cleanout docs

· Corrective Action Reports (CARPARS)

DelDOT and VDOT refer IDDEs to the state regulatory agency and are re-

quired to follow-up. MDSHA reports IDDEs to the county that has en-

forcement authority. Responsibility to report violations to enforcement

agency is subject to interpretation. EPA interprets the regulations as re-

quiring permittees to report a track IDDEs. Reporting of IDDEs should be

documented for compliance purposes.

On October 22, 2015, EPA published

the final National Pollutant Dis-

charge Elimination System (NPDES)

Electronic Reporting Rule in the

Federal Register.

13

· Latest CFRP-Combined facility response Plan

· SEMP Manual (Strategic Environmental Management Program)

· Schematic plans/ Drainage Patterns of facility drainage system

· Invoices of disposal of vac-truck and sweeper waste

Statewide information request for:

· Copies of recent MS4 permits (2010-Present)

· Construction activities Docs:

o NOI, Lat/Long, Statewide map of all permitted activities, Urbanized areas/rural,

projects NPDES permits, documentation of commencement of construction ac-

tivities, violations during construction, NOT

· All PENNDOT owned PCSM BMPs

o Type of structure, date of completion, maintenance agreements with CCD/

municipalities, lat/long, statewide map showing locations, documentation of

PCSMs, estimated pollution reduction or TMDL requirements (N/A)

· All PENNDOT Maintenance Facilities :

o Lat/long, salt pile inventories, UA/rural, Inspection Reports

· ISO 14001 Certification Compliance docs:

o All audits/reviews, Notices of nonconformance, SEMP manual (guidance on

SEMP/ISO standard operations)

· Annual cost for MS4 compliance:

o All aping efforts, training received/given, and inspection costs

PennDOT’s MS4 is under their Strategic Environmental Management Program (SEMP). This is

the 2nd statewide information request for information. The first statewide information request

was in 2013. In response Central Office SEMP Chief went out and did internal audits on

some districts (5 and 6). The SEMP Office found that SEMP inspection checklists were rou-

tinely being pencil-whipped (i.e., copied over from previous years) and important issues

were not being addressed. As a result, PennDOT is moving from ISO 14001 toward a compli-

ance based environmental management system (EMS).

PennDOT updated their maintenance manual and policies to be more proactive. For ex-

ample, updates will address:

14

· Winter maintenance: Salt storage and applications - Transfer salt and other environ-

mentally sensitive materials to permanent storage buildings to will eliminate potential

pollution problems, keep the materials in a usable condition, and help in the general

cleanup and appearance of stocking areas.

· Storage facilities - Proper management of wastes associated with highway mainte-

nance operations, and basic waste management requirement to comply with feder-

al and state regulations.

· Vegetation & various roadside maintenance activities – herbicide and pesticide stor-

age and documentation

PennDOT also added an MS4 section to their records retention policy update to address

management of required MS4 documentation.

PennDOT is looking to get approval for more positions for inspectors.

EPA Audit

Ed Wallingford, Virginia Department of Transportation

VDOT, the 3rd largest DOT in the US, went through its first EPA audit in 2012. Although VDOT

was aware of the impending audit, VDOT officially received a 2 week notice of the audit

date in October 2012. VDOT prepared for the audit by doing housework in their mainte-

nance facilities. This was a good investment of time as some deficiencies were found prior

to EPA inspection. One of VDOT’s privately leased facilities required as much if not more

good housekeeping improvements as state-operated facilities. This last hour housekeeping

and preparing was not enough as VDOT was not familiar with the high level of expectation

that EPA brought with audit inspections.

The audit was conducted by two EPA teams that visited 13 construction sites and 9 mainte-

nance sites across the site. A debrief was conducted on the next day. VDOT staff and con-

sultants accompanied EPA inspectors with the intention of producing similar notes and pho-

tos generated by EPA inspectors. VDOT’s documentation was helpful and allowed VDOT to

take proactive steps while EPA generated its audit report. EPA completed their 5000 page

audit report in March 2014. Principally, EPA inquiries could only be satisfied with presenta-

tion of appropriate documentation. VDOT provided additional documentation at the re-

quest of EPA but that only seemed to generate more questions that required some level of

documented evidence.

EPA requested and VDOT agreed to prepared detailed response to the 5000 page audit by

July 2014. Following VDOT’s response to the audit report the agencies held an Enforce-

ment Partnership conference call in October

2014. In May 2015, VDOT agreed to terms of a

Consent Order and partnering activities.

Despite the timing, VDOT found that proactive

steps were very helpful. Taking notes and pho-

tos of the audit allowed VDOT to take proac-

tive steps during the 18 months that EPA pre-

There is concern that TMDLs for salt/

chloride could increase EPAs con-

cern, oversight and review of DOT

programs and increase fines and

penalties.

15

pared its audit report. Top VDOT Administration sent notice about audit findings to VDOT

staff and increased visibility of the issue. At the time that EPA presented its audit report

VDOT was able to show that proactive steps had been taken in response to the audit in-

spections. Proactive measures taken by VDOT include increasing compliance reviews to

annually, revising several guides, and improving documentation. Infrequent inspections

and lack of documentation were key factors of non-compliance. As a result meetings and

negotiations with EPA were productive. VDOT was able to highlight the value of its research

program and negotiate a lower civil penalty by conducting environmental projects such as

nutrient credit purchases, a permeable pavement parking lot, installing two 25000 runoff

tanks to replace ponds, and conducting research on drop inlets. The experience has result-

ed in VDOT reorganizing and re-allocating staff to work in stormwater management pro-

gram areas. VDOT is increasing visibility and encouraging stormwater stewardship by man-

ning a stormwater awareness booth at the statewide rodeo.

Permit requirements and Issues

Winnie Okello, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PennDOT Office of Chief Counsel’s (OCC) guidance has been extremely helpful during the

permit renewal and negotiation process. This includes evaluation of a revised anti-

degradation policy within the Pollutant Reduction Plan. The revised anti-degradation policy

requires treatment of up to 10% of existing untreated impervious areas (UIA) in sediment im-

paired watersheds, where practicable. PennDOT wants cost to be a practicability factor

and clear definition of practicability for compliance documentation. With PennDOT OCC

assistance, cost aspects of practicability was defined as not exceeding more than 15% of

stormwater management cost including ROW cost but not annual maintenance cost. It is

essential to define practicability in order to document practicability at the completion of

the design phase. PennDOT OCC preferred to list practicable stormwater control measures

to avoid or minimize invention of “new” measures during the permit cycle. PennDOT is not

named in a TMDL and not a significant source of nutrient loading. So consideration of

“new” measures should not be the focus of the renewed permit. However, PennDOT has

developed a proactive plan that it will initiate if and when named in a TMDL.

For Chesapeake Bay TMDL, PENNDOT will address new discharge sources separately from

existing discharges in Urbanized Areas. New discharges (UA) will be addressed through

DEP’s NPDES Permitting program and for existing discharges (UA) PennDOT will develop and

implement an MS4 TMDL plan to demonstrate consistency with any applicable WLA.

PennDOT successfully negotiated through DEPs persistence to be proactively involved in

stewardship of TMDL waters including the Chesapeake Bay area. PennDOT is concerned

that they may be named in a future TMDL and has proactively developed a plan that is

reasonable and practicable for them (PennDOT) to implement if and when PennDOT in-

volvement is required. PennDOT’s new permit will provide clearer language to distinguish

between DOT-owned and municipal-owned MS4 Systems and applicable responsibilities.

16

OCC has made a significant difference in developing workable permit conditions and re-

quirement.

PennDOT is concerned that DEP’s demand for system mapping will require a massive under-

taking and developing a new data management system. It is PennDOT OCC position that

only outfalls require mapping not the entire drainage system. PENNDOT currently has inlets

and outlets/outfalls mapped but the data is housed in different systems (BMS, RMS, mainte-

nance IQ/GIS). The issue of mapping the entire drainage system is still in negotiation.

PennDOT is also anticipating issues in non-urbanized areas related to illicit discharges and

stream erosion concerns.

Permit requirements and Issues

Meredith Upchurch, District Department of Transportation (dDOT)

DDOT does not have its own permit. They are a part of the MS4 permit issued to the city.

DDOT does not have the opportunity to participate in permit negotiations. DEC is the ad-

ministrator of the MS4 permit for DC. DC is in its 3rd permit cycle (issued 2011).

Two new requirements

1. Retrofit 1.5 million sf of row (18 million for DC)

2. New regs put in place to retain 1.2” of runoff to the MEP

Disturbance of 50sf triggers soil erosion and sediment control requirements and disturbance

of 5000sf triggers stormwater retention requirements. Pretty much every project has to re-

tain 1.2” except for resurfacing and utility trenching.

For existing ROW there is MEP language in permit and an evaluation process that acknowl-

edges conflicts in ROW due to space limitation. MEP evaluation process does not require

ROW purchase but requires looking at entire ROW to determine if stormwater measures can

be employed. MEP is considered at every phase of design (e.g., infiltration testing, 30% and

65% design) and any conflicts are noted. Agencies have agreed on certain practices and

BMPs such as bioretention, permeable pave, LID, green infrastructure approaches. Con-

flicts affecting travel lanes are not practicable. DDOT is not using underground storage or

proprietary devices.

This change that requires review for MEP is difficult to get adjusted to. It may require looking

at smaller sized BMPs and results in a larger number of BMPs. DDOT uses a spreadsheet to

calculate MEP (see attached or download at http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/

sites/ddot/publication/attachments/DDOT%20MEP%20Worksheet%20042114.xlsx ). At the

end of the process, DDOT does not pay or mitigate if they cannot make 1.2” retention re-

quirement work. DDOT anticipates their retrofit requirement increasing in the future. DC just

completed a TMDL planning process that modeled the entire city and found that even with

city-wide retrofitting the TMDL is not likely to be met. So the trend of retrofitting and MEP

17

evaluation will continue for DDOT over a long-term. DDOT achieves retrofits by treating un-

treated areas within their roadway projects.

Permit requirements and Issues

Ryan Reali, New Jersey Department of Transportation

In NJDOT, maintenance handles MS4 issues. NJDOT handles design and requirements for

New Jersey stormwater water management rules (NJAC 7:8). Stormwater management is

required when there is ¼ acre of new net impervious (quality, quantity, and recharge re-

quirements). Curbing roadway that was umbrella drainage counts as new impervious

(because the water is “collected”). One acre of ground disturbance triggers quantity and

recharge requirements. Roadway reconstruction only counts as disturbance if the entire

pavement box is removed down to the ground surface. If permits are needed from NJDEP

Land Use Regulation Program, NJDEP reviews stormwater plans. By agreement with NJDEP,

if no permits are needed from NJDEP LURP then NJDOT can self-certify stormwater manage-

ment. If Pinelands permit is needed, Pinelands Commission (PC) reviews stormwater man-

agement. Trigger for Pineland Commission review is 5,000 sf of disturbance outside limits of

existing infrastructure. Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission (DRCC) also can review

stormwater management and in some situations Counties or Municipalities can review

stormwater management.

The primary purpose and focus of the NJ stormwater law is municipal land use not linear

projects. Many approved BMPs cannot be applied to a linear project.

One of the goals of NJAC 7:8 is to maintain groundwater recharge. NJAC 7:8 contains the

following groundwater recharge requirements:

· Recharge same amount as pre development condition

· Recharge difference between pre and post development run off quantity for the 2

year storm

NJDEP developed the New Jersey Groundwater Recharge Spreadsheet (NJGRS) to calcu-

late the BMP size to provide treatment.

The NJGRS is available at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/stormwater/bmp_manual2.htm . Pro-

ject is exempt from the groundwater recharge requirement if:

o In PA-1 Area (i.e., Urban areas), provided there is no vegetation disturbance

o Contaminated Soils

o Clay Soils, numerous borings required to approve exemption may be cost pro-

hibitive

o High water table, depends on type of basin

Compliance with water quantity requirements must show that one of the following is true:

18

· Post construction hydrographs for water leaving the site doesn’t exceed pre con-

struction hydrograph (2, 10, 100 year storms)

· No increase in peak runoff rates of stormwater leaving site between pre and post

construction hydrologic & hydraulic analysis (2,10,100 year storms)

· Post construction runoff rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm events are 50%, 75%,

and 80%, respectively of pre-construction runoff rates

· Projects in tidal areas are exempt.

NJAC 7:8 is focused on private development projects and not linear development projects

and there are several potential reviewers (NJDEP, PC, DRCC, counties and municipalities)

that do not have knowledge/experience with evaluating linear road projects. When there

is limited ROW cost of BMPs/Land can be an issue. The cost to repair infiltration basins can

be an issue as well. Adequate soil testing and appropriately located soil test borings are

necessary to ensure the appropriate BMP design and to identify subsurface conditions such

as unknown clay/restrictive layers. Utility conflicts occur within the ROW.

Common construction issues include:

· Swales built wrong depth/width

· Not using lightweight equipment in basins

· Compaction due to heavy equipment

· Inverts at wrong elevation

· Incorrect grading

The number of BMPs that DOTs are maintaining continues to grow. In the long term,

maintenance burden should be considered with MEP.

Perspectives from Delaware Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)

DNREC is working toward volume reduction credit for stream restoration projects. Since

most DelDOT projects are bridge projects this could provide an incentive for DelDOT to ex-

pand the scope of bridge project to include stream restoration to offset deficits that occur

in highly urbanized areas.

Several DOTs indicated that a more collaborative relationship has been es-

tablished with their state regulatory agency through dialogue. DDOT discuss-

es their challenges with DEC, and DEC has grown to appreciate DDOTs posi-

tion. DelDOT frequently discusses project plans and issues related to dele-

gated authority with DNREC. DelDOT and DNREC work together to maintain

compliance with USEPA.

19

Some sites within the Chesapeake Bay watershed have limited capacity for meeting new

runoff reduction requirements. There is a fee in lieu offset option. Applicants must show run-

off reduction to the maximum extent practicable before taking the fee in lieu option.

DelDOT developed a banking agreement to compensate for its credit-deficit projects. An

advantage of the banking approach is generation of stormwater credits currently with im-

pacts.

So far, infiltration success and geotechnical evaluations have been inconsistent. Qualified

geotechs should be involved in evaluation of infiltration BMP sites. DelDOT found DNREC’s

desktop evaluation tool useful. Contractors need training to avoid compaction and con-

struction sedimentation of infiltration basin sites.

For their Chesapeake Bay Action Plan, VDOT provided a suite of BMPs and examples in the

action plan. Reviewers wanted more specific numbers and locations. VDOT, DelDOT, and

MDSHA indicated that it is not feasible for DOTs to develop specific numbers and locations

and to name specific projects in their action plans because missing specific targets would

require frequent modifications and adjustments to the plan. Running three different equa-

tions to evaluate nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction, reporting and tracking of

those numbers for permit compliance adds another level of complexity for DOT/Designers

to get accustomed to.

Farming issues in Chesapeake Bay watershed

DelDOT cooperates and communicates well with DNREC. DNREC met with us to share their

perspectives.

Agriculture is the largest land use in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Agriculture (crops,

poultry farms, horses) is a source of nutrients and sediment. Farmer might give up marginal

land for conservation purposes. Farmers are not held to any water quality standards and

any cooperative efforts with DOTs would have to be highly incentivized. Taking land out of

production for a water quality benefit would cost money. DelDOT tries to berm their ROW

and divert farm runoff to cross road pipes rather than accept run on stormwater from farms.

DOT has to monitor their outfalls and accepting farm stormwater would require DOT to

meet water quality standards at those outfalls. It would be costly for DOT to treat farm

stormwater and there is no incentive for the farmer to cooperate in any way.

Share treatment could be burdensome by requiring DOTs to enter into agreements, MOUs,

monitoring the agreement/MOU conditions, misperceptions of fairness to individual farmers,

lawsuits, and demands from other interested parties (developers). These potential issues

would be compounded as the number of agreements/MOUs increased.

20

Crediting and Banking

John Olenik , Virginia Department of Transportation

In 2012, VA general assembly changed regulations to allow post-construction stormwater to

be addressed off-site. For VDOT, potential cost savings to tax payers, on engineering and

design, storm management design, impacts to projects (schedule), ROW, BMP mainte-

nance, MS4 requirement s for reporting and inventory was their impetus for considering

credit banking. VRTC developed a white paper on the issue. Nine projects were analyzed

and found cost of $33,000 excluding ROW and $44,000 including ROW. With nutrient credit

banking, VDOT pays $15,000 per credit for 1 pound phosphorous. For your project to quali-

fy for a 100% offsite nutrient credit compliance purchase, the project cannot exceed 5

acres of disturbance OR 10lbs. of total phosphorous. If your project exceeds these thresh-

olds, 75% on-site treatment is required, 25% can be offsite nutrient credit purchases. More

than 25% off site can be purchased with the approval of the VA DEQ. The program and

VDOTs participation are working well. Most of the banks are agricultural land conversions.

Agriculture land is typically converted to forest or wetlands.

VDOT policy and procedures are attached and illustrated in

slides. DEQ has approved 42 private nutrient credit banks in Vir-

ginia. The banks service HUC 8 watersheds. VDOT procures

credits from private banker owners. For projects under the quali-

fication thresholds, the District Drainage Engineer or Project Manager submits form LD-453 to

the Central Office, Location and Design MS4 program coordinator to procure credit. VDOT

tracks all purchases they make in the state. Procuring credits is a one-time cost and 1-to-1

credit ratio. VDOT now has approved Nutrient Credit Banks throughout the entire Common-

wealth. VDOT has made Approximately $4 million dollars in purchase.

In the state of Maryland, DEP and Department of Ag have been working on a banking-

crediting-trading program and will be announcing their credit program in the near future.

Crediting and Banking

Vince Davis, Delaware Department of Transportation

DelDOT has had a banking agreement in place from 1996 to

2014. This is an agreement with DNREC for DelDOT projects. The

agreement was initially based on impervious area. Tracking was

based on 45 watersheds (within the 4 major basins). A new agreement is being drafted that

will use the DURMM (Delaware Urban Runoff Management Model) to give a cubic foot

number to based runoff volume and credits on. DURMM Model recognizes the affect that

the infiltration/interception has on multiple pollutants (TSS, N, Zn, P, etc.) including TMDL con-

stituents. For credit/debit, projects must prove that treatment cannot be done on-site. They

are still looking to quantify stream restoration credits. DelDOT can add credits within their

projects (by over-treating runoff). This only applies to water quality. There is no variance or

waiver to water quantity. However, many DelDOT projects can be approved with

“Standard plans”. Standard plan projects are small projects that do not change the runoff

The program and

VDOTs participation

are working well.

DelDOT can add

credits within their

projects (by over-

treating runoff).

21

CN or drainage pattern and have minimal quality and quantity impact. For projects under

standard plan review DelDOT does not have to do water quality. DNREC reviews DelDOT

banking activities every quarter.

Crediting and Banking

Ryan Reali, New Jersey Department of Transportation

Stormwater banking would solve a lot of issues for NJDOT regarding ROW cost. NJDOT did

research into banking programs for quality, and quantity, and groundwater recharge

based on HUC-11 watershed service area. NJDEP was concerned with flooding and lack of

control at stream being affected. NJDOT had prepared a full banking program (see http://

www.nj.gov/transportation/refdata/research/reports/FHWA-NJ-2009-022.pdf) but NJDEP

rejected the program. New Jersey doesn’t have a program for stormwater credits.

NJDOT developed stormwater credit approach on one project, the Route 72 Manahawkin

Bridge Project over Barnegat Bay. The project added over ¼ acre impervious and 1 acre

disturbance. The stormwater quality requirement could not be met on site due to limited

land availability and the area around bridge was a developed beach community or envi-

ronmentally sensitive.

NJDOT made an agreement from NJDEP to improve the quality of runoff going to Barnegat

Bay, a C-1 waterway (high quality). Numerous DOT owned drainage systems were empty-

ing into Barnegat Bay. To meet quality NJDOT retro fitted several existing basins. The exist-

ing extended detention basins were retrofitted to gravel wetland basins. NJDOT enhanced

performance of the basins to increase TSS removal from 45% or 126,770 lbs/year to 90% or

246,587 lbs/year and increase total nitrogen removal from 11% or 390 lbs/year to 73% or

2,411 lbs/year.

22

Figure 3. Gravel wetland schematic retrofitted from an extended detention basin

NJDEP approval of stormwater crediting for this one project was driven by site constraints on

the project site limited for constructing new BMPs and the NJ Governor’s initiate to clean-up

Barnegat Bay. To get an exemption for quantity the BMP must dump into tidal water.

DDOT requires retain 1.2” of runoff from disturbed area on a project. DEP requires 50% re-

tention on-site before going with off-site retention options and the applicant must prove the

requirement cannot be met. The off-site option gives more volume retained and more area

treated. DDOT also has an in-lieu fee payment option of $3.57/gallon per year. Stormwater

retention credit is defined as one gallon of storage per year. DEP did a cost analysis to

price the in-lieu fee option higher than off-site options. A voluntary site that is not regulated

can receive storage credit up to the 1.7” storm. A regulated site can receive storage credit

above the required 1.2” up to 1.7”. A voluntary site can apply to get credits after inspec-

tion, approval and certified. Every gallon gets tracked, and available credits are listed on

an open market database. Creditor and buyer negotiate and agree on a price. Pricing

the in-lieu option makes the off-site option more attractive and encourages the open mar-

ket exchange of credits. Certified credits are good for 3 years. Credits must be recertified

every 3 years. Creditor is not permanently tied to the project. Some condos have retrofit-

ted with green roofs to generate credits.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been evaluating the feasibility of develop-

ing a stormwater-based crediting framework that can be used by DOTs to develop, or par-

ticipate in the development of, crediting programs that can be utilized to provide flexibility

in meeting stormwater management requirements. A study commissioned by FHWA should

be completed in 2017. Later in 2017 FHWA will bring together stakeholders to discuss, com-

pare and recommend a framework for DOT stormwater quality/banking/trading strategies.

23

The concept of green infrastructure is larger than stormwater. It should include animal pas-

sage, green space, Eco-Logical concepts that contribute to water quality as well. Finding a

common language would improve understanding and development of solutions.

Impact of the Bay TMDL on DOTs

Karen Coffman, Maryland State Highway Administration

The Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) has been working for several years to

address load reduction targets for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment assigned to SHA by

the MD Department of the Environment (MDE) to meet Maryland’s waste load allocations

(WLAs) in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL; and to complete restoration projects to meet antici-

pated 20% impervious surface restoration condition in the draft Maryland NPDES MS4 Phase

I permit. Within the MDSHA organization, the NPDES program is well integrated, with many

offices performing work to comply with MS4 Phase I & II, industrial and construction activity

permits including recent delegated authority for SWM/ESC permitting by MDSHA. Of partic-

ular interest to this peer group are two divisions: the Office of Highway Development (OHD),

Highway Hydraulics Division under Dana Havlik, is responsible for stormwater and erosion

and sediment control design and review as well as the water quality bank; and the Office

of Environmental Design, Water Programs Division under Karen Coffman, is responsible for

MS4 compliance and reporting and restoration projects associated with TMDL and MS4 per-

mits. Under the NPDES delegation, the SHA Plan Review Division provides sediment control

and stormwater plan review and approval for all SHA projects.

Total Maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements for Chesapeake Bay restoration have been

given to SHA as part of the Maryland Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP I) in the

form of pollutant reduction targets and the SHA Phase I MS4 permit as a requirement to re-

store 20% of previously built impervious surfaces by providing stormwater runoff controls.

A cogent discussion occurred about the challenge of meeting regulatory water quality

targets. The rational of specific regulatory water quality targets is questioned due to

normal variation in stormwater runoff generating conditions. A combination of variables

including precipitation events, pre-storm flow, stormflow, water quality, runoff coeffi-

cients, highway site characteristics, receiving water basin characteristics, and mitiga-

tion measures (BMPs) causes variability in stormwater runoff quality. Water quality tar-

gets, models and compliance should account for this variability in stormwater runoff

quality.

24

Preliminary estimates of restoration requirements for SHA amount to over 5,000 acres of exist-

ing impervious surfaces without runoff treatment, which has been determined to be over

$600 Million expenditure between 2015 and 2021. Strategies being employed include

changing land uses to reduce runoff loading including tree planting and removing impervi-

ous surfaces; building new and retrofitting traditional and environmental site design (ESD)

stormwater controls; and reducing loads at the source through stream restoration, inlet

cleaning and outfall stabilization.

SHA is utilizing both state employees as team leaders (3) and facilitators and consultant pro-

ject managers (over 30 and increasing) and design teams as an implementation workforce.

The team leaders cover different aspects of the implementation plan (stormwater manage-

ment, stream restoration and outfall stabilization, and tree projects). The program is working

within the SHA organization structure to design, permit, advertise and construct the restora-

tion projects by utilizing a non-disclosure agreement between SHA and key consultant pro-

ject managers that allows them to perform certain tasks typically reserved for state person-

nel. Consultants assist with geotechnical investigations, permitting, etc. An extensive GIS

and database system has been developed to facilitate tracking, mapping, etc. (see MD

SHA – EMS for TMDL Implementation below). GIS identifies/tracks areas constructed, under

construction or under design and potential sites for BMP implementation, and treated/

untreated impervious surface calculation.

Impervious surface calculation

SHA has developed a protocol using GIS effort to analyze whether existing channels meet

criteria for water quality swale. Field crews verify that swales identified by the GIS protocol

meet criteria for water quality swale. Applicable swales are added to the database as

stormwater management facilities.

MDSHA will have to continuously maintain the BMPs and credits. Under the Bay Program,

stream restoration credits will have a 10 year renewal cycle and stormwater management

will have a 5 year renewal cycle. BMPS will have a 3 year inspection and remediation cy-

cle.

It was mentioned that the Stochastic Empirical Loading and Dilution Model

(SELDM) recognizes the stochastic nature of stormflow variables and its ap-

proach should be considered by the regulatory community. The science

of water quality management must recognize and accommodate uncer-

tainty.

25

MDSHA have developed a series of work flow charts to facilitate training, coordination and

management of consultant teamwork and products. The database facilitates task man-

agement, programming A&E contracts (and funding), summary reports (e.g., cost per acre

of credits).

Numerous modeling efforts going on for the Bay TMDL has impacted MDSHA reporting.

Modeling efforts are not coordinated and results do not always agree. The Maryland As-

sessment Scenario Tool (MAST) derived different loadings and resulted in changes in load-

ings requirements. As discussed earlier, it is difficult for DOTs to adjust projects, plans and

contracts on short notice in response to changing targets. Pollutant removal efficiencies

used in MAST are not equating to the pollutant removal efficiencies used in the NPDES ac-

counting guidance that MDE issued and not aligned with the Bay protocol efficiencies. So

for reporting, MDSHA developed a modeling tool that allows MDSHA to change the effi-

ciencies depending on who they are reporting to. TMDL targets remain a moving target.

Water quality monitoring data is typically wide ranging as data varies with site, storm and

traffic characteristics and pollutant removal efficiencies used.

MDSHA has encountered some lawsuits opposing Phase 1 MS4 permits. Tree planting re-

quirements present issues with roadway safety. MDSHA is working on a salt management

plan for watersheds that are chloride impaired. Other efforts include a trash program,

street sweep research study, bioretention monitoring. MDSHA is developing an outfall cred-

iting protocol for sediment retained at outfalls and investigating offset and trading opportu-

nities.

EMS for TMDL Implementation

Karen Coffman, Maryland State Highway Administration

MD SHA has integrated environmental stewardship and compliance into the organizational

thinking by implementing many environmental performance measures into our business

plan including pollutant reductions and impervious restoration for Chesapeake Bay TMDL

compliance (sediment, phosphorous, bacteria, PCBs, trash). Our MS4 restoration program

relies heavily on GIS, data development and management to develop watershed strate-

gies and take implementation projects from planning through construction. Also, develop-

ing the impervious surfaces and treatment requirements is a large GIS analysis of SHA road-

ways and stormwater management systems across 11 counties. The MS4 permit authority,

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) published an accounting guidance for de-

termining means for complying with impervious restoration and waste load allocations

(WLAs) and a standardized geodatabase design format for permit data development and

delivery. We have developed a geodatabase, side databases, Microsoft schedules and

field verification tools that support the program. A standardized modeling tool is under de-

velopment that will read many data sources as well as allow input of varying modeling pa-

rameters to assist SHA in developing the most effective BMP implementation strategy. eGIS

software is employed to share data throughout SHA at an enterprise level with a special

26

widget developed to allow data editing within the eGIS environment. Our Chesapeake

Bay restoration BMPs and other reports and information are loaded to an external website

that allows the public to key in their address to see restoration projects in proximity to their

neighborhoods.

TMDL and Environmental Management System

Winnie Okello, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

PENNDOT is NOT currently under any specific TMDL requirements

PennDOT is not named in a TMDL and not a significant source of nutrient loading. However,

PennDOT has developed a proactive plan that it will initiate if and when named in a TMDL.

It is PennDOT’s position that new discharges are addressed through DEP’s NPDES Permitting

program and PennDOT will develop and implement an MS4 TMDL plan, if and when named

in a TMDL that is consistent with any applicable WLA (based on proposed PRP plans). In

the future, PennDOT and DEP may establish a policy or agreement for credits and banking

of pollutant load reductions based on establishment of riparian forest buffers, stream resto-

ration/reclamation, and other identified best management practices.

Some changes are anticipated in maintenance practices, such as limiting application of

fertilizers to establish roadside vegetation and specifying application rates in PENNDOT' S

408 Specifications. Currently, roadside mowing has been reduced. PennDOT will include

in the MS4 permit reports the SCMs and stream restoration/enhancement activities con-

structed in areas tributary to locally impaired water bodies or watersheds with applicable

WLAs in approved TMDLs in designated urbanized areas.

DEP’s desire for PennDOT to address existing impervious areas in UA and include proactive

measures in the NPDES permit will increase operation and maintenance costs. Costs are

likely to increase for the design process, reporting requirements (e.g., system mapping, pol-

lution reduction). PennDOT has been holding roundtable talks to get perspective from the

design, construction and maintenance folks on the permit requirements so that PennDOT

can determine what is practicable and what is not and to identify areas where PennDOT is

meeting reduction goals. DEP has hinted to future regulatory requirements regarding salt.

Documentation has been a key focus area of PennDOT’s continuous process improvement.

PennDOT EMS

PennDOT has an ISO 14001 status and conducts 3rd Party compliance audits in addition to

the current ISO 14001 audits. These compliance audits have identified compliance defi-

ciencies in the system missed by ISO 14001 process audits. PennDOT is de-centralized with

Districts certified individually – each having its own EMS. ISO is a process-based system - not

compliance based and focuses on ensuring that processes are in place. ISO 14001 auditors

are not trained on PennDOT operations.

27

PennDOT proposes to replace its ISO 14001 registrations with a new EMS that is a Statewide

system that will create more uniformity throughout the Engineering Districts. The newly pro-

posed EMS is compliance based (determined by regulatory compliance). A Strategic Envi-

ronmental Management Committee (SEMC) formed that is comprised of cross-section of

employees from Districts and Central Office. The SEMC provides SEMP management over-

sight and serves as management review. The SEMC created a Corrective and Preventive

Actions (CAR PAR) database that will inform all districts and facilitate proactive measures

within the Districts. The new database will include defined O&M plans and training, aware-

ness, and competence requirements for all activities (not just for MS4). The database will

include GIS data, data from Google maps, on-site inspections, notifications and will eventu-

ally incorporate an app to allow download information from the field. A single statewide

database will result in better and more consistent documentation. The CAR PAR will rate

severity of findings and allow Districts to share best management practices/lessons learned.

PennDOT is proposing internal and external controls. Internal Controls will include annual

compliance audit, quarterly stockpile environmental checklists, and monthly site-specific

tank inspection forms. External Controls will include Annual 3rd-party compliance audit (20%

of facilities per year) and annual 3rd-party quality assurance reviews (20% of facilities per

year). Audit results will be tied to employee performance reviews (for District Executives).

PennDOT has an eCMS (electronic Contract Management System) that manages PennDOT

processes from design to construction and eDMS (electronic Data Management System)

that manages project documents.

Environmental Management System

Dana Havlik, Maryland State Highway Administration

The objectives of the MDSHA Stormwater Management Program are 1) Sustain and en-

hance SWM Facilities Performance ( pollutants removal efficiency, safety and aesthetic ap-

pearance and comply with SWM approval); 2) Comply with NPDES permit requirements

(inventory and inspect all SWM facilities, perform routine maintenance annually, identify

and perform required repair work, and re-inspect each facility every 3 years); and 3) To

meet SHA Business Goal of 90% functional adequacy by the end of FY year 2010.

MDSHA has developed a manual for Field Inspection and Data Collection Procedure.

MDSHA uses a two tier rating system to evaluate their SWM facilities. SWM facility perfor-

mance rating is based on structural integrity and functionality. Structural Integrity ratings

ranging from 1 (Operating as Designed, No Issues Observed) to 5 (Non-Functional, Hazard-

ous Conditions) and Functioning rating ranging from A (Functioning as designed, no prob-

lem conditions) to E (Facility failed, hazardous conditions) determine MDSHA response or re-

mediation action for the facility. MDSHA action ratings are:

28

I No Response Required – schedule for multi-year inspection

II Minor Maintenance – perform as necessary to sustain BMP performance. Upon reme-

dial action and re-inspection, can be candidate for multi-year inspection

III Major Maintenance or Repair – is needed to return the site to original functionality

within the existing footprint of the facility. Structural defects require repair and/or restoration

(requires heavy equipment mobilization; handled by contracts))

IV Retrofit Design – is required on-site or at another location, since BMP cannot be re-

turned to its original functionality within its existing footprint

V Immediate Response – is mandatory to address any public safety hazards regardless

of the functionality of the BMP

VI Abandonment – of the BMP when the facility is not maintainable and will not provide

sufficient benefits if retrofitted due to the lack of access for construction and maintenance,

limited space or minimum impervious area treated

Figure 4. MDSHA Stormwater management facilities Program and Process for BMP Mainte-

nance and Remediation

MDSHA has an extensive inventory of SWM BMPs to inspection and maintain to comply with

their NPDES permit.

29

Programmatic Efforts undertaken to meet the demands of this aspect of the NPDES permit

include: innovative contracting for BMP maintenance and remediation, performing preven-

tive maintenance through SHA District Maintenance Offices, and continually improving da-

ta management tools for effective data tracking. Currently, MDSHA is developing a manu-

al for maintenance staff and working with maintenance staff to identify effective data

management tools for their preventive maintenance duties. Preventive maintenance is es-

sential minimizing capital cost and future projections show the number of SWM BMPs to

maintain substantially increasing while the maintenance are tight. The maintenance budg-

et gets impacted when there is a hard winter maintenance season and maintenance ac-

tivities can also be burdened by the cost of invasive species management.

MDSHA is implementing restoration projects in their MS4 coverage (11 urban counties) in an-

ticipation of their future MS4 permit and for the Bay TMDL compliance. The Bay Cabinet de-

termined that impervious surface restoration activities meet the TMDL load requirement.

The Bay TMDL load requirement is evaluated and tracked for each county individually and

the MS4 impervious surface treatment requirement is evaluated and tracked collectively for

all 11 counties. The impervious surface treatment requirement has less geographic re-

striction allowing MDSHA to identify eligible projects/activities. Meeting the Bay TMDL load

requirement involves working collaboratively with local municipalities. Double counting

(Bay credits and NPDES credits) is not allowed.

Program Funding

Meredith Upchurch, District Department of Transportation

Through Federal-aid projects, stormwater facilities are eligible to be built and funded by

Federal-aid funds. In DC, private developments that disturb the public ROW are required to

manage runoff from the ROW in perpetuity including establishment of covenants. Other

funding sources include a stormwater fee. Fees are collected from all properties. The resi-

dential property fee is based on residential units per household and commercial fees are

based on impervious area. In Lieu Fee is used for regulated parcels. A 5 cent grocery bag

fee goes toward stormwater. Stormwater activities are also supported some special interest

projects and funding. DC uses Federal funding sources from transportation (enhancement

funds), EPA clean water state revolving funds grants, and National Fish and Wildlife Founda-

tion grants. For maintenance, DDOT is inventorying sites in GIS and using the Cityworks work

order management system. Due to low funding, maintenance, inspection, and manage-

ment schedules are inconsistent.

Stormwater facilities may be constructed using enhancement funds but this is a competitive

funding source that is allocated based on state DOT interests (e.g., historic, recreation and

aesthetic interests) rather stormwater program needs. Enhancement funded projects are

more similar capital projects than maintenance activities. SAFETEA-LU does support inven-

torying assets and information management systems which may include stormwater facili-

30

ties. These types of activities are more similar to transportation, community and system

preservation than maintenance.

Stormwater facilities are essential to overall surface transportation system and intersect long

-term with issues such as CWA permit requirements, Endangered Species Act requirements,

Invasive Species Executive Order, asset management, and safety. As long-term manage-

ment of stormwater facilities are more clearly tied to and become a prominent element of

highway project objectives such as green infrastructure, funding eligibilities may be revised

or become more flexible in support of stormwater management funding eligibility.

There are several programs that could be considered maintenance, but the language used

to describe the activity does not state that (e.g., Pavement Rehabilitation Program, Bridge

Painting Contracts, Line Striping Contracts). Let’s begin to champion and put forward cap-

ital improvement programs and projects titled as e.g., Drainage Improvement Program –

STP Program Funding, Flood Mitigation Program – NHPP Funding, Corridor Enhancement –

TAP Program Funding, Drainage Inspection and Evaluation – NHPP Funding (Asset Manage-

ment).

DelDOT Database, EM process and work management

LaTonya Gilliam, Delaware Department of Transportation

With each permit cycle, DelDOT has made improvements in the areas information and work

management. Initially starting with a modest access database with uploaded photos and

assets, the DelDOT database has been improved to incorporate GIS data and housing doc-

uments via Sharepoint. The most recent database version allows viewing and querying in-

formation. Map viewer and map viewer mobile app allows maintenance staff to locate

drainage system elements, stormwater BMPs, inspection reports and query and access work

orders (WOs). Tracking and inventory is done using Maximo Asset Management system.

Maintenance staff can query information off WOs. For example, a vac truck team can

query and retrieve WOs for inlets over 50% full and print a map or table of those WOs. Que-

rying may be done by type of maintenance. Work activities are coded by type of work/

maintenance. Inspectors enter customized WO codes into the system as they are creating

WOs. DelDOT customized Maximo codes to represent MS4/BMP inspection work and im-

Generally, stormwater maintenance activities are not eligible for Federal funding:

The Surface Transportation Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. 133) provides funds (as capital funding) for public

transportation capital improvements, ...

FAST Act provides a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) program fund-

ing for transportation alternatives (TA). These set-aside funds include all projects and ac-

tivities that were previously eligible under the MAP-21 Transportation Alternatives Pro-

gram (TAP) including environmental mitigation related to stormwater.

31

prove work flow. A “tree view” feature pulls up all files associated with an asset (e.g., WOs,

as-built plans, inspection reports, consent orders, etc.). Maintenance staff assembles a

notebook containing all inspection reports and maps of all facilities that is used for their an-

nual work plan. All assets are geotagged and cross-reference in Maximo.

This improved data and information tool allows DelDOT to effectively maintain a preventa-

tive maintenance schedule for all of its BMPs. Neglected maintenance could lead to costly

reconstruction of a SWM facility such as removal of accumulated sediment, reconstructing

fore bay areas, removing tree roots from pipes. So in essence, the database improvements

will result in cost savings. Custom coded WOs for querying and geotagging assets for loca-

tion is a notable innovation.

Drainage is one of the 6 assets that DelDOT has selected to actively manage under MAP-21.

Database information is used to develop quantities for capital drainage improvement pro-

jects.

DelDOT is now developing modules for specific work flow and data management needs. A

module is being developed for the E&S team that will contain active construction plans,

certified construction review forms, CCR inspection forms, and weekly inspection forms. This

will facilitate document request during the next audit. DelDOT has about 550 active BMPS

and about 400 in design or construction.

Map output is color keyed to show current WOs (pink), completed WOs (green), outfalls

(yellow), NPDES outfalls (orange) discharging off DelDOT-system. DelDOT's renewed Phase 1

permit has two new elements, a PCB pollutant minimization plan and water quality improve-

ment plans (WQIP). For the WQIP, DelDOT will select two WQIPs to implement within 4 years.

For the WQIP requirement, DelDOT is able locate opportunities to retrofit NPDES outfalls dis-

charging < 50 acre off the DelDOT system. WQIPs are based on watersheds. DelDOT is re-

quired to reduce effective impervious surface by 3% within their MS4 area (New Castle

County).

DelDOT will eventually integrate all database work modules into a single module (E&S,

maintenance, IDDE, water quality reports/monitoring, stream restoration, etc.). The tool will

eventually meet the requirements for electronic reporting and be flexible enough to

change/modify for reporting purposes.

DelDOT links its annual reports and Storm Water Pollution Prevention and Management Pro-

gram (SWMP) at http://deldot.gov/stormwater/permit.shtml

The SWMP lists goals, methods, and provides an overview of each Permit element and mon-

itoring requirement. Goals are listed for Principal Permittees and Co-permittees.

DelDOT proposes to monitor IDDE as follows:

Annually 20% will receive comprehensive inspection by a desktop exercise, and screening,

which will occur in the field. The evaluations will be comprehensive irrespective of municipal

32

boundaries and DelDOT will make information available to all Permittees. Approximately

20% of the system in New Castle County will be evaluated each year such that the entire

system is evaluated by the end of the Permit term. Outfalls to be targeted for subsequent

screening each year as well as criteria for selecting outfall sites to be monitored are de-

fined in the permit. Important criteria for outfall screening/monitoring include past reports/

complaints, outfalls with expected higher potential for illicit discharges or connections (e.g.,

age of development; density or aging septic systems; aging or failing sewer infrastructure;

and density and age of industrial activities), outfall draining at least 50acres, landscape

type, etc. See http://deldot.gov/stormwater/pdfs/SWPPMPFinal080114.pdf

Finally, DelDOT maintains an internal website for posting education, information and bulle-

tins for maintenance staff.

BMP Coordination

Vince Davis, Delaware Department of Transportation

DelDOT BMP design coordination is handled through E&S Section. DelDOT moved to a con-

currence approach as away from tradition terminology of preliminary design, semi-final de-

sign, draft final design and final design approach. Use of tradition terminology was confus-

ing (prelim, semi-final, pre-final, final, post-final, post-post final, approved plan). Concur-

rence meetings are agreement points that focus resolving on relevant design issues. For

example, the first concurrence meeting focuses on limits of disturbance, outfall locations,

and kinds of BMPs to consider. This allows designers to think about issues early. Unresolved

design issues can affect project costs, scheduling, change orders, and project manage-

ment. DelDOT utilizes Primavera Project Management software that allows their DEs to

monitor project progress. The water quality goal for stormwater management in Delaware

is to infiltrate 2.7” (1-year storm event). This is the resource protection volume (RPv). The

goal of stormwater quantity is to design for 10- and 100- year events (CE&FE , see DelDOT

chart for designers). Currently, there is no design standard to follow for TMDL compliance

but an approach is anticipated. Delaware state regulations all for the use of standardize

plans (“Standard plans”) for routine projects that result in minimal change to drainage, CN,

etc. The criteria and applicability of standard plan for projects is discussed during concur-

rence meeting one. Standard plans can be applied to most DelDOT projects. Most bridge

jobs meet standard plan criteria. Small bridge work usually includes removing old pipes,

scour protection which is a stream enhancement. DelDOT anticipates that they will be re-

quired to track TMDL compliance. Believing that “Standard Plan” projects are not substan-

tial contributors to TMDL issues, DelDOT will track standard plan projects to rebut claims of

DelDOT's contribution to TMDL issues.

The Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Regulations allow DNREC to develop criteria for

cases when a standardized Sediment and Stormwater Management Plan may satisfy the

33

requirement in the place of a detailed plan. When a project meets the Standard Plan ap-

plicability criteria for the project type, that project has the option to comply with the con-

ditions of the Standard Plan for the project type, in lieu of developing a detailed Sediment

and Stormwater Management Plan.

Minor Linear Disturbances Applicability: 1. Disturbance will be linear, as in utility construc-

tion, having a maximum width of disturbance of 20 feet, and a maximum length of 2.0

miles. 2. No greater than 1.0 acre will be disturbed at any one time throughout the course

of construction. 3. Within the disturbed area, the pre-development land use is not classified

as “wooded” based on the 2007 Delaware Land Use/Land Cover data. 4. Land cover will

be restored to the pre-construction hydrologic condition. Preconstruction grading and sur-

face cover will remain after construction. No new impervious surfaces will be created as

part of the construction. Conditions: 1. Stabilization with seed and mulch or seed and stabi-

lization matting will occur daily so that no greater than one acre will be disturbed at any

one time. 2. Construction site stormwater management best management practices will

be used. 3. Construction through sensitive areas, including stream and wetland crossings,

will be accomplished through directional drilling, with land disturbance happening outside

of the sensitive area. 4. Construction projects exceeding 1.0 acre of total disturbance re-

quire submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Con-

struction Activity. A plan fulfilling Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) require-

ments must be developed to obtain general permit coverage for Stormwater Discharges

Associated with Construction Activity.

http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/swc/Drainage/Documents/Sediment%20and%

20Stormwater%20Program/Technical%20Document/Latest%20Version%20of%20all%

20Articles/3.01%20Project%20Types.pdf

Using DURMM will calculate adjusted CN for a project based on combinations of land cover

and soil type and BMPs used. For example, DURMM calculate higher runoff reduction with

bioswale than with vegetative channel.

Some BMPs approved by DNREC are not applicable to DelDOT projects. DelDOT commonly

uses infiltration basin and trench, bioswale (requires 9 minute residence time), bioretention

and anticipates increasing use of underground infiltration trench. Filter strip was eliminated

because the design requires 3” drop off which is a traffic safety problem. Generally,

DelDOT avoids using any high maintenance proprietary BMPs.

Some states are moving away from infiltration because of groundwater contamination.

BMP Coordination

Meredith Upchurch, District Department of Transportation

DC has made a huge effort toward green infrastructure including a 2014 publication of

Green Infrastructure Standards (Green Book, see http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/

sites/ddot/publication/attachments/2014-Final%20DDOT%20Green%20Infrastructure%

34

20Standards.pdf ). DDOT earned an FHWA Environmental Excellence Award for its green

infrastructure efforts.

Inspections

Dana Havlik, MDSHA

Inspection is a requirement of the NPDES permit. Re-inspect is required every 3 years to en-

sure that 90% of BMPs are functional. MDSHA has developed 8 chapters of standard proce-

dures. Chapter 3 provides details for inspecting BMPs for performance and inventory in-

spection rating. Chapter 7 describes SHA actions in response to ratings. The manual will in-

clude sections on data management to support continuous improvement of their data-

base and new technologies. Most as-builts, design reports are scanned and retrievable

electronically. Design report provides important information describing the objective/

functions of the structure/facility. This is valuable and useful for inspection as inspectors

may be misinformed by a non-functioning BMP (e.g., a failed infiltration basin may appear

as a stormwater pond). The BMP rating is based on 45 factors.

Major maintenance is requires on about 20% of MDSHA facilities. Example s of major

maintenance include stabilization of eroded areas, structural repairs, vegetation manage-

ment, grading and dredging, outfall repairs, debris removal , infiltration trench media re-

placement and well installation. Major maintenance typically requires an E&S plan and if

the facility occurs on jurisdictional waters a permit is required for the work. With delegation,

MDSHA has general approval for E&S.

Retrofit design is challenging and requires converting a failed bmp to a different functional

bmp. If the BMP is retrofitted or changed then the stormwater plan and reports must be up-

dated. Retrofits are considered new projects and required a new permit to build.

MDSHA uses on-call contractors paid by time and material or by bid items. The standard

procedures will be an important guide for preventive maintenance, data management

and tracking. MDSHA recently began collecting information on pipe invert for climate

change and to determine flow capacity.

35

Figure 3. Failed infiltration basin

Figure 4. Failed infiltration basin retrofitted to a sand filter

36

Inspections

Vince Davis, DelDOT

DelDOT uses 3rd party E&S inspectors (2 Consultants) for construction sites. They are paid for

under construction engineering funding set up at the time of the project. For minor pro-

jects, E&S may be assigned to the construction inspector and they are required to maintain

a write E&S notes in their construction diary. DelDOT has a rating form (similar to Mary-

land’s) that is used for all contracts where E&S inspectors are used. DelDOT did a study to

evaluate its previous rating form (recommended by DNREC) and determined that the form

should be revised using more informative criteria. With the new form, inspections result is a

number grade and contractors seem to be motivates contractors to keep scores above

average. The previous form only had three subjective rankings. DelDOT weighted its in-

spection form more heavily toward stabilization and prior deficiencies which were com-

mon issues indicated from EPA inspections (deficiencies were not corrected in a timely

manner and plans were not red-lined). The inspection form also ties into contract specifi-

cation and project deductions. The form is color coded for ease of use. Inspectors are

strongly encouraged to take photos to document each deficiency and the corrective

measures.

New specifications identify a list of actions that construction must take if a contractor re-

ceives a low inspection score. The list of actions includes automatic re-inspection in two

days; withhold money; shut down project; prohibit other work until E&S is corrected.

DelDOT is moving to new performance seeding specifications based on species density

and growth that is more enforceable as well.

DelDOT just developed an incentive spec that allows the contractor to receive extra mon-

ey monthly if rating is above a certain level. This seems to reduce combativeness with the

contractor. DelDOT's first incentive project inspection received a score of 100. Incentive

computation is available on request. It’s based on project type (e.g., bridge, scale of con-

struction, number of days).

DelDOT uses a Facility Construction Checklist that ultimately becomes part of the as-built

and project documentation. The Facility Construction Checklist was mandated by DNREC

and modified for DelDOT. In addition to pre-construction meeting, DelDOT holds a sepa-

rate E&S pre-construction meeting. Contractor, DelDOT and DelDOT E&S must be present

for inspections when filling out the rating form. Contractor is usually willing to fix deficien-

37

cies immediately to get incentive dollars. Some are even hiring full-time crews to maintain

E&S.

DelDOT's BMP field inventory and inspection follows a manual similar MDSHA’s. DelDOT

found it very useful to provide informal training and guidance to all maintenance staff. The

training focused on following the manual, identifying BMP types and maintenance require-

ments for each/all BMPs. Some maintenance crews brought their equipment to the train-

ing sessions and worked on BMPs under the guidance of DelDOT MS4 staff. DelDOT MS4

staff met with all maintenance staff.

Generally, maintenance work follows a season cycle (snow/ice Dec- Apr; street sweeping/

mowing Apr-summer; drainage and MS4 inspection summer-Sept; BMP inspection/

maintenance Oct). WOs for MS4 inspection and BMP inspection/maintenance are incor-

porated into the maintenance work cycle. WOs tend to get loss or overlooked if sent out

too soon. So timing WOs assignments with the maintenance staff’s season work cycle is im-

portant. Maintenance staff now works comfortably with specification sheets and WO

codes. Completed WOs are uploaded into Maximo quarterly by IT staff.

DelDOT's MS4 goal is to get all BMPs up to 90% function. DelDOT can generate costs and

track the cost of planned and completed NPDES related work.

DelDOT Traffic Safety has developed cases of TTC (“temporary traffic control”) zones ac-

cording to duration, location, type of work, and highway type. DelDOT uses this infor-

mation to develop reasonable accurate contracts estimates where TTC is required. This is a

notable innovation as MS4 maintenance is a great concern for DOTs. Examples of DelDOT

TTC cases can be found at http://www.deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/manuals/

de_mutcd/pdf/Part_6_August_2009_Final.pdf .

38

Sharing Resources

What information can we share?

Training videos

IDDE evaluation process

Weblinks

MS4front.com

field guides

Where can we share it?

Drop Box

Google Drive

Online Resources

AASHTO Maintenance Stormwater Field Guide

http://www.environment.transportation.org/center/products_programs/reports/

field_guide_maintenance_stormwater.aspx

2014-Final DDOT Green Infrastructure Standards

http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/2014-Final%

20DDOT%20Green%20Infrastructure%20Standards.pdf

39

Winnie Okello PennDOT 717-214-8788 wokello@pa.gov

Dana Havlik MDSHA 410-545-8418 dhavlik@sha.state.md.us

Karen Coffman MDSHA (410) 545-8407 kcoffman@sha.state.md.us

John Olenik VDOT (804) 371-0366 John.Olenik@VDOT.Virginia.gov

Ed Wallingford VDOT 804.371.6824 E.Wallingford@VDOT.Virginia.go

v

Meredith Up-

church

DDOT 202-671-4663 meredith.upchurch@dc.gov

Etayanesh (Ty)

Asfaw

DDOT (202) etayenesh.asfaw@dc.gov

Meeti Trivedi NJDOT (609) 530-5652 Meeta.Trivedi@dot.nj.gov

Ryan Reali NJDOT 609-530-6500 Ryan.Reali@dot.nj.gov

Vince Davis DelDOT (302) 760-2180 Vince.Davis@state.de.us

LaTonya Gilliam DelDOT 302.760.2095 LaTonya.Gilliam@state.de.us

Brian Smith FHWA-

Resource

Center

708-283-3553 bsmith@dot.gov

Marcel Tchaou FHWA Pro-

ject Dev &

Envir Review

202-366-4196 Marcel.Tchaou@dot.gov

11/7/2016

40

DelDOT Delegation Authority

US EPANPDES

StormwaterProgram

DNRECDivision of WaterSurface Water

Discharges Section

DelDOTEnvironmental Section

Wetlands / Waters Permit

Section also does:NEPA, 401, 404 Permits

Section 10 Reports

Stormwater General Permits

(7 Del C. Chapter 60)

Construction Activities(Part 2)

DNRECDivision of Watershed

StewardshipSediment and Stormwater

(7 Del C. Chapter 40)

DelDOTStormwater Section

Stormwater ManagementConstruction E & S

Pesticides GeneralPermit

Individual Permits Industrial Stormwater Permits (Part 1)

MS4 Program

DelDOTRoadside Environmental

Section

DelDOTNPDES Section

Phase I and II Permits

DelDOTNPDES Section

Maintenance Facilities

DNREC – DelDOT Environmental Associations

The following agencies have delegation of Sediment and Stormwater Program elements consisting of plan review, construction inspection, and maintenance inspection for their geographic boundaries.  Re‐delegation occurs every 3 years.

DelDOT

Delegated Agencies Under DNREC DelDOT ES2M Basic Job Duties

MD SHA Program Initiatives

Maryland State Highway Administration Dana Havlik. PE, Division Chief

Office of Highway Development

Highway Hydraulics Division

Maryland SHA Programs

2

Office of Highway Development

Highway Hydraulics Division (HHD) Design, Technical Support and Review

Drainage and Stormwater Assets Management Program

Plan Review Division (PRD) Permitting and Delegated Authority

3

Where Do We All Fit? MDOT

State Highway Administration

Administration OperationsPlanning, Engineering,Real Estate, and

Environment

Office of Maintenance

OMT

OOTS

District Offices(D1-D7)

Office of Real Estate

Office of Structures

Office of Environmental Design

EnvironmentalPrograms

QualityAssurance

LandscapeArchitecture

NPDES/TMDL

LandscapeOperations

EnvironmentalCompliance

Office of HighwayDevelopment

Highway Design

Community Design

Highway Hydraulics

InnovativeContracting

Plan Review

Design TechnicalServices

EngineeringResources

AccessManagement

Plats and Surveys

4

Highway Hydraulics Division

Design, Technical Support and Review Major highway projects support

HH modeling/drainage design

Stormwater Management Design (SWM)

Stream restoration/stabilization design

Erosion and Sediment Control (ECSC)

Projects Review

Environmental permits coordination – ESC/ SWM/NPDES

5

Maryland Regulations

SWM /ESC Regulations (COMAR 26.17.01 _& 26.17.02)

ESC approval required for disturbance over 5000 Sq. Ft

SWM required for all new impervious areas ( new development and redevelopment projects are treated differently

Impervious Area Requiring Treatment (IART) – Water Quality treatment: 100% new and 50% reconstructed

ESD to MEP, Structural BMPs only when necessary

Water Quantity Management :

– Channel Protection

– Peak Flow Management 2 yr, 10 yr and 100yr in somewatersheds

– Downstream channel stability

NPDES Permit for CA ( LOD >1 Acre) 6

Water Quality (WQ) Bank

To streamline project permitting and assure timely delivery

Tracks amount of impervious areas managed or treated for WQ in acres.

Balances managed on a watershed basis using the 6-digit basin identification.

Projects with impervious area treatment in excess of requirements are added as credits.

Projects that cannot meet treatment requirements may be debited.

7

Water Quality (WQ) Bank

Strategy and Tracking Tool

8

Drainage and Stormwater Assets Management Program

Using a Programmatic Approach to Asset Management and Water Quality improvements

– Fosters greater internal and external communication and coordination

– Allows for the tracking and monitoring of infrastructure issues

– Promotes information sharing of spatial data

ArcGIS (Oracle database)

Google Earth© (KML files)

eGIS

9 999999999

Delegated Authority February 24, 2015

ESC/SWM Plan Reviews/Approvals PRD reviews all new projects (PR#)MDE to continue reviews for existing projects (SF#)

Statewide Compliance – QA Program OED providing ESC compliance for all SHA projectsSWM Compliance Phased In

10

House Bill 97

April 9, 2013 signed into law 11

Allowing the Department of the Environment to designate authority for specified sediment and stormwater management plan review and approval

Memorandum of Understanding

Pursuant to Maryland Code Ann., Environment Article, Title 4, Subtitle I, Sediment Control and Title 4, Subtitle 2, Stormwater Management, the Department has the authority to delegate its plan review and approval responsibility for State and federal projects to a designated entity. Under

this MOU, MDE has designated SHA as the approving authority for erosion and sediment control and stormwater management plans for all SHA projects.

MOU between SHA and MDE signed July 8, 2014

12

Changes in Plan Review and Processing

Delegated Authority applies to all new projects that have not been submitted to MDE as of February 2015.

Highway Hydraulics Division continues its design expertise function

All submissions go through HHD

3 Separate Approvals for SWM/ESC: Approval stages coincide with Major Milestone Reviews

Concept Preliminary Investigation Site Development Semi-Final Review Final Approval Final Review/PSE

Each approval stage may require multiple submissions

13

Compliance SHA QA Program will continue to provide ESC Compliance inspections

SWM Compliance inspections is a new responsibility for SHA QA program

Attention to Stormwater Construction as-built certification

Modification Approvals – Two Levels – Level 1

Minor in scope Review/Approval by QA Program

– Level 2Major in scope Review/Approval by HHD/PRD (new projects) HHD/MDE (existing projects)

14

MDE Partnership

MDE to maintain enforcement authority and continue to provide programmatic oversight

SHA to submit quarterly reports for the first year and annual reports thereafter

MDE shall conduct review and construction audits

EPA may audit SHA processes

15

Going Forward

MD SHA partnering with MDE: Finalizing Technical Procedures

Finalizing reconciliation of Water Quality Bank

Developing Standard Details

Worksheets and computational methods

General Approvals

Policies, Administrative Procedures, Guidelines, SOP’s andReview Checklists-COMPLETE!!!!

16

Karuna Pujara, P.E. Dana HavlikDivision Chief Division ChiefPlan Review Division Highway Hydraulics Division410-545-8946 410-545-8418kpujara@sha.state.md.us dhavlik@sha.state.md.us

Questions?

17

11/7/2016

46

MS4 Mid-Atlantic States Peer Exchange

Topic: EPA AuditsBy: Winnie Okello

Sept 21, 2015

2015 EPA inspections

Berks

Bucks

Delaware

Montgomery

Philadelphia

Requested Documents from district offices

Maintenance Stockpile Evaluation docs (external audits/evaluations)

Internal Evaluations reports

County Salt management plans ( Pub 23 Ch.4)

Foreman's Quarterly Stockpile Checklist

SEMP Checklist and record form

Oil -water separator cleanout docs

Corrective Action Reports (CARPARS)

Latest CFRP-Combined facility response Plan

SEMP Manual

Schematic plans/ Drainage Patterns of facility drainage system

Invoices of disposal of vac-truck and sweeper waste

Statewide EPA Information Request Copies of recent MS4 permits (2010-Present)

Construction activities Docs:

NOI, Lat/Long, Statewide map of all permitted activities, Urbanized areas/rural, projects NPDES permits, documentation of commencement of construction activities, violations during construction, NOT

All PENNDOT owned PCSM BMPs

Type of structure, date of completion, maintenance agreements with CCD/municipalities, lat/long, statewide map showing locations, documentation of PCSMs, estimated pollution reduction or TMDL requirements (N/A)

All PENNDOT Maintenance Facilities :

Lat/long, salt pile inventories, UA/rural, Inspection Reports

ISO 14001 Certification Compliance docs:

All audits/reviews, Notices of nonconformance, SEMP manual (guidance on SEMP/ISOstandard operations)

Annual cost for MS4 compliance:

All aping efforts, training received/given, and inspection costs

11/7/2016

47

Internal audit/reviews During Post EPA inspections: Distr. 5 and 6-01 offices SEMP inspection checklists were routinely being pencil-whipped

Brine mixer units were full throughout the year, but lacked secondary containment

In permanent storage locations, oxygen cylinders were stored alongside acetylene or propane tanks

Improper herbicides storage, e.g. without proper signage, security, or containment

Tack oil (E3 Oil) and other flammable ASTs were not electrically grounded

Salt sheds were filled beyond capacity, resulting in walls being pushed outward and saltspilling onto unpaved surfaces

Waste drums were being stored beyond one year, due to problems with BOMO’s waste disposal ITQ

Missing drum labelling and storage on secondary containment

MS4 permit-covered stormwater basin was overgrown and was not being maintained

MS4 permit-covered stockpile had stormwater from floor drains and yard drains piped directly to surface water

In a stockpile, oil staining was found from an AST whose seepage had underflowed its containment wall into the yard and a neighboring office. Worse, ISO 14001 internal audits, SEMP Checklist inspections, and a BOMO QA inspection the month before had failed to notethis serious regulatory noncompliance.

Response Actions ISO14001 EMS based compliance approach

PRP policy Updates: PENNDOT Pub 23-Maintenace manual

Storage facilities

Winter maintenance: Salt storage and applications

Vegetation & various roadside maintenance activities

Records retention requirements reminder to all District Executives

Documentation Documentation Documentation!

E-permitting tool-synchronous permitting between agencies

Maintenance IQ –Inspection requirements updates

GIS Database geotagging of facilities

Regional positions

MS4 specific Billing codes

Discussions

Winnie Okello Sr. Civil Engineer TransportationSEMP Section-SRP/MS4 ManagerMaintenance Technical Leadership DivisionPA Department of TransportationBureau of Maintenance & Operations400 North Street - 6th Floor | Harrisburg PA 17120Phone: 717.214.8788 | Fax: 717.783.8012wokello@pa.gov| www.dot.state.pa.usWinter| Emergency & Incident Management|Roadside, Environmental & Storm Water Management

11/7/2016

48

MS4 Mid-Atlantic States Peer Exchange

Permit requirements and IssuesBy: Winnie Okello

Sept 21, 2015

Permit Requirements MCMs: See PDOT SW management Plan-clean draft

Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impacts

Public Involvement/Participation

Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDD&E)

Construction Site Stormwater Runoff control

PCSM in New and redevelopment Activities

Pollution Prevention/good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations

PRP: Pollutant Reduction Plan

Revise the anti-degradation policy; treatment of up to 10% of Existing Untreated impervious areas (UIA) in sediment impairedwatersheds, where practicable

Reduce UIA where practicable through new highway projects

Practicability will be documented via forms to be completed during design phase

Increased municipal coordination

TMDL: Chesapeake bay

New requirement for permit renewal

PENNDOT will address new discharge sources separately form existing discharges in Urbanized Areas

New Discharges (UA):addressed through DEP’s NPDES Permitting program

Existing Discharges (UA): DOT will develop and implement an MS4 TMDL plan to demonstrate consistency with any applicable WLA

Issues/Concerns TMDL requirement:

DOT is not a significant source of nutrient loading to watershed!

‘System’ Mapping requirements:

PENNDOT currently has inlets and outlets/outfalls mapped, no connections specified due to data management system setup

inlets/outlets and pipe sys are housed in diff systems. BMS, RMS, maintenance IQ/GIS.

OCC petitioned against this requirement only because of the massive undertaking that would be required if DOT was to map ALL inlet, outlets, pipe connection and all downstream outfalls to waters of the commonwealth.

Emergency incident management is not a justification for extensive mapping request

DOT owned vs. municipality owned MS4 Systems: curb-to-curb policy

permitted facilities; BMPS/PCSMs, contributing areas...

Future Concerns:

Anticipating addressing non-urbanized areas with illicit discharges and stream erosion concerns

Salt contamination regulations in the horizon?!

Permitting terms Negotiations: Good Chief Counsel representation helps a lot!

Discussions

Winnie Okello Sr. Civil Engineer TransportationSEMP Section-SRP/MS4 ManagerMaintenance Technical Leadership DivisionPA Department of TransportationBureau of Maintenance & Operations400 North Street - 6th Floor | Harrisburg PA 17120Phone: 717.214.8788 | Fax: 717.783.8012wokello@pa.gov| www.dot.state.pa.usWinter| Emergency & Incident Management|Roadside, Environmental & Storm Water Management

11/7/2016

49

Stormwater Management Triggers

• ¼ acre of new net impervious• Triggers Quality, Quantity, Recharge

• Curbing roadway that was umbrella drainage counts as new impervious

• 1 acre of ground disturbance• Triggers Quantity and Recharge

• Roadway reconstruction only counts as disturbance if the entire pavement box is removed

Who Reviews Stormwater Management

• If permits are needed from NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program, NJDEP reviews stormwater

• If no permits are needed from NJDEP LURP then NJDOT can self certify SWM

• If Pinelands permit is needed, Pinelands Commission reviews SWM• Different triggers than NJDEP (5,000 sf disturbance outside limits of existing 

infrastructure)

• Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission also can review SWM

• In some situations Counties or Municipalities can review SWM

Water Quality

• 80% Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal for new impervious surface• 50% TSS removal for reconstructed impervious surface• 95% TSS removal for discharge to C‐1 water

• C‐1 specifies waterways of high environmentalquality/importance• Usually associated with trout production/maintenance

• Can  be averaged over entire site• X(0.8) + y(0.5) = Required Treatment• X= area of new impervious • Y = area of reconstructed impervious• A(%removal) + B(%removal) = Provided Treatment• A = area going to BMP 1• B= area going to BMP 2

BMP TSS Removal Rates

11/7/2016

50

Groundwater Recharge

• Recharge same amount as pre development condition

• Recharge difference between pre and post development run off quantity for the 2 year storm

• Calculate using  NJGRS Spread Sheet

• Project is exempt if:• In PA‐1 Area (Urban)

• Contaminated Soils

• Clay Soils

• High water table

Calculating Required Recharge

• NJGRS Spread Sheet Page 1• Select municipality

• Enter area in acres

• Enter Land Cover

• Enter soil type

• Repeat for post development

Calc. Recharge Continued

• NGJRS page 2 calculates BMP size to provide treatment calculated on page 1

Water Quantity• Must show that one of the following is true

• Post construction hydrographs for water leaving the site doesn’t exceed pre construction hydrograph (2, 10, 100 year storms)

• No increase in peak runoff rates of stormwater leaving site between pre and post construction hydrologic & hydraulic analysis (2,10,100 year storms)

• Post construction runoff rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year storm events are 50%, 75%, and 80%, respectively of pre construction runoff rates

• Project exempt if• In tidal area

11/7/2016

51

Issues• SWM Regulations originally designed to address private development

projects, not linear development projects

• Cost of BMPs/Land

• Design Issues• Unknown clay/restrictive layers

• Lack of soil testing• Poorly located soil testing

• Right of way/Available land• Utility conflicts

• Construction Issues• Swales built wrong depth/width• Not using lightweight equipment in basins• Compaction• Inverts at wrong elevation• Incorrect grading

VIR

GIN

IA D

EPAR

TMEN

T O

F TR

ANSP

OR

TATI

ON

LOC

ATI

ON

AN

D D

ESIG

N D

IVIS

ION

IN

STR

UC

TIO

NA

L A

ND

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

AL

MEM

OR

AN

DU

M

GEN

ERAL

SU

BJEC

T:

Virg

inia

Sto

rmw

ater

Man

agem

ent P

rogr

am

NU

MBE

R:

IIM-L

D-2

51.3

SPEC

IFIC

SU

BJEC

T:

App

licat

ion

of th

e V

SM

P R

egul

atio

ns a

s it

rela

tes

to

utiliz

atio

n of

Nut

rient

Cre

dits

as

an o

ff-si

te c

ompl

ianc

e op

tion

DAT

E: Au

gust

26,

201

6

SUPE

RSE

DES

: IIM

-LD

-251

.2

AP

PR

OV

AL:

B

. A. T

hras

her,

P.E

.

Stat

e Lo

catio

n an

d D

esig

n E

ngin

eer

App

rove

d A

ugus

t 26,

201

6

Cha

nges

are

sha

ded.

CU

RR

EN

T R

EV

ISIO

N

C

hang

es w

ere

mad

e to

the

follo

ws

sect

ions

: o

DE

FIN

ITIO

NS

,o

DE

TER

MIN

ATIO

N O

F A

PP

LIC

AB

ILIT

Y, a

ndo

PR

E-E

VA

LUAT

ION

PR

OC

ES

S T

O U

TILI

ZE N

UTR

IEN

T C

RE

DIT

S

EFF

EC

TIV

E D

ATE

Th

ese

inst

ruct

ions

are

effe

ctiv

e up

on re

ceip

t.

AC

RO

NYM

S

A

SD

–

Adm

inis

trativ

e S

ervi

ces

Div

isio

n

BM

P –

B

est M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

e

DC

R –

D

epar

tmen

t of C

onse

rvat

ion

and

Rec

reat

ion

D

EQ

–

Dep

artm

ent o

f Env

ironm

enta

l Qua

lity

E

PA

–

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

H

UC

–

Hyd

rolo

gic

Uni

t Cod

e

IFB

–

Invi

tatio

n fo

r Bid

IIM –

In

stru

ctio

nal a

nd In

form

atio

nal M

emor

andu

m

Inst

ruct

iona

l and

Info

rmat

iona

l Mem

oran

dum

IIM

-LD

-251

.3

She

et 2

of 6

M

S4

– M

unic

ipal

Sep

arat

e S

torm

Sew

er S

yste

m

SW

M –

S

torm

wat

er M

anag

emen

t

SWC

B –

S

tate

Wat

er C

ontro

l Boa

rd

TM

DL

– To

tal M

axim

um D

aily

Loa

d

VD

OT

– V

irgin

ia D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion

V

SM

P –

V

irgin

ia S

torm

wat

er M

anag

emen

t Pro

gram

DE

FIN

ITIO

NS

B

asin

– S

ee tr

ibut

ary.

Hyd

rolo

gic

Uni

t C

ode

– A

wat

ersh

ed u

nit

esta

blis

hed

in t

he m

ost

rece

nt v

ersi

on o

f V

irgin

ia's

Nat

iona

l W

ater

shed

Bou

ndar

y D

atas

et.

For

addi

tiona

l in

form

atio

n, g

o to

: ht

tp://

ww

w.d

cr.v

irgin

ia.g

ov/s

oil_

and_

wat

er/in

dex.

shtm

l

“Lan

d D

istu

rbin

g A

ctiv

ity”

or “

Land

Dis

turb

ance

” –

A m

anm

ade

chan

ge t

o th

e la

nd

surfa

ce t

hat

pote

ntia

lly c

hang

es i

ts r

unof

f ch

arac

teris

tics

incl

udin

g an

y cl

earin

g,

grad

ing

or e

xcav

atio

n as

soci

ated

with

the

land

dis

turb

ing

activ

ity.

Tr

ibut

ary

– Th

ose

river

bas

ins

for

whi

ch s

epar

ate

tribu

tary

stra

tegi

es w

ere

prep

ared

pu

rsua

nt t

o §

2.2-

218

and

incl

udes

the

Pot

omac

, R

appa

hann

ock,

Yor

k, a

nd J

ames

R

iver

Bas

ins,

and

the

Eas

tern

Coa

stal

Bas

in,

whi

ch e

ncom

pass

es t

he c

reek

s an

d riv

ers

of t

he E

aste

rn S

hore

of

Virg

inia

tha

t ar

e w

est

of R

oute

13

and

drai

n in

to t

he

Che

sape

ake

Bay.

Fo

r ar

eas

outs

ide

of t

he C

hesa

peak

e B

ay W

ater

shed

, "tr

ibut

ary"

in

clud

es th

e fo

llow

ing

wat

ersh

eds:

Alb

emar

le S

ound

, Coa

stal

; Atla

ntic

Oce

an, C

oast

al;

Big

San

dy;

Cho

wan

; C

linch

-Pow

ell;

New

Hol

ston

(U

pper

Ten

ness

ee);

New

Riv

er;

Roa

noke

; and

Yad

kin.

Tota

l Max

imum

Dai

ly L

oad

– A

regu

lato

ry te

rm in

the

U.S

. Cle

an W

ater

Act

, des

crib

ing

the

max

imum

am

ount

of

a po

lluta

nt t

hat

a bo

dy o

f w

ater

can

rec

eive

and

stil

l mee

t w

ater

qua

lity

stan

dard

s.

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

The

VS

MP

reg

ulat

ions

req

uire

wat

er q

uant

ity c

ontro

ls t

o pr

even

t do

wns

tream

flo

odin

g an

d er

osio

n an

d qu

ality

con

trols

tha

t lim

it th

e di

scha

rge

of t

he n

utrie

nt p

hosp

horu

s, a

key

ston

e po

lluta

nt.

BM

Ps

are

inst

alle

d in

con

junc

tion

with

dev

elop

men

t pro

ject

s to

mee

t wat

er q

uant

ity

and

qual

ity c

riter

ia.

With

the

mor

e st

ringe

nt P

art I

IB te

chni

cal c

riter

ia a

nd s

patia

l res

trict

ions

of

line

ar p

roje

cts,

the

sitin

g of

BM

Ps

can

ofte

n be

cha

lleng

ing.

The

use

of o

ffsite

com

plia

nce

optio

ns, i

nclu

ding

the

purc

hase

of c

ertif

ied

nutri

ent c

redi

ts, m

ay b

e a

tool

that

can

be

used

in

addi

tion

to, o

r in

lieu

of, t

radi

tiona

l ons

ite B

MP

s fo

r ach

ievi

ng p

ost-d

evel

opm

ent w

ater

qua

lity

requ

irem

ents

The

pur

chas

e of

nut

rient

cre

dits

may

elim

inat

e th

e ne

ed f

or t

he p

urch

ase

of

addi

tiona

l rig

ht o

f w

ay o

r pe

rman

ent

ease

men

t an

d re

lieve

the

Dep

artm

ent

of f

utur

e m

aint

enan

ce c

osts

.

List

ed b

elow

are

oth

er o

ffsite

opt

ions

tha

t ca

n be

use

d to

add

ress

pos

t-con

stru

ctio

n w

ater

qu

ality

redu

ctio

n re

quire

men

ts fo

r con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es:

Inst

ruct

iona

l and

Info

rmat

iona

l Mem

oran

dum

IIM

-LD

-251

.3

She

et 3

of 6

P

artic

ipat

ion

in a

loca

l wat

ersh

ed c

ompr

ehen

sive

sto

rmw

ater

man

agem

ent p

lan,

or

P

artic

ipat

ion

in a

loca

lity

pro

rata

sha

re p

rogr

am, o

r

Use

of o

ther

VD

OT

prop

ertie

s w

ithin

the

sam

e or

ups

tream

6th

Ord

er (1

2 di

git)

HU

C a

s th

e pr

ojec

t, or

(with

DE

Q a

ppro

val)

with

in th

e sa

me

basi

n / t

ribut

ary

as th

e pr

ojec

t, or

Oth

er o

ffsite

opt

ions

, as

appr

oved

by

the

DEQ

.

The

use

of th

ese

othe

r off-

site

com

plia

nce

optio

ns is

out

side

the

scop

e of

this

IIM

.

The

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Wat

ersh

ed N

utrie

nt C

redi

t E

xcha

nge

Pro

gram

(C

ode§

62.

1-44

.19:

14

et s

eq.)

and

the

Sto

rmw

ater

Non

poin

t Nut

rient

Offs

et le

gisl

atio

n (C

ode§

10.

1-60

3.8:

1) a

llow

re

gula

ted

land

dis

turb

ance

act

iviti

es t

o ut

ilize

offs

ite o

ptio

ns t

o ac

hiev

e po

st d

evel

opm

ent

wat

er q

ualit

y cr

iteria

. T

he p

urch

ase

of n

utrie

nt c

redi

ts c

anno

t be

use

d to

add

ress

wat

er

quan

tity

cont

rol

requ

irem

ents

. N

utrie

nt c

redi

ts a

re g

ener

ated

by

Nut

rient

Cre

dit

Ban

ks

thro

ugh

the

cons

truct

ion

of B

MP

s, o

r m

ore

typi

cally

, th

roug

h la

nd u

se c

onve

rsio

n (e

.g.

conv

ertin

g cr

op l

and

to f

ores

t). N

utrie

nt C

redi

t B

anks

are

cer

tifie

d by

the

SW

CB

and

re

gula

ted

by th

e D

EQ

. For

a m

ap o

f cur

rent

Ban

k lo

catio

ns, g

o to

: ht

tp://

ww

w.v

irgin

iado

t.org

/bus

ines

s/lo

cdes

/nut

rient

_cre

dits

.asp

In o

rder

to u

tiliz

e th

ese

certi

fied

nutri

ent c

redi

ts,

seve

ral s

teps

mus

t be

perfo

rmed

. Th

is II

M

sum

mar

izes

tho

se s

teps

and

ide

ntifi

es o

ther

ite

ms

to c

onsi

der

whe

n de

term

inin

g th

e fe

asib

ility

of u

sing

nut

rient

cre

dits

to s

atis

fy w

ater

qua

lity

requ

irem

ents

.

DE

TER

MIN

ATIO

N O

F A

PP

LIC

AB

ILIT

Y

In o

rder

for

the

proj

ect t

o qu

alify

for

the

use

of n

utrie

nt c

redi

ts, t

he p

roje

ct m

ust m

eet o

ne o

f th

e fo

llow

ing

crite

ria:

1.Th

e pr

ojec

t are

a co

ntai

ns le

ss th

an 5

-acr

es o

f lan

d di

stur

banc

e, o

r2.

The

post

-con

stru

ctio

n ph

osph

orus

wat

er q

ualit

y re

duct

ion

requ

irem

ent i

s le

ss th

an 1

0po

unds

per

yea

r, or

3.W

here

the

proj

ect d

oes

not m

eet t

he c

ondi

tions

not

ed in

item

s 1

and

2, a

nd a

t lea

st75

% o

f the

requ

ired

phos

phor

us lo

ad re

duct

ion

is to

be

met

ons

ite, t

he re

mai

ning

load

redu

ctio

n (u

p to

25%

) m

ay b

e m

et t

hrou

gh t

he p

urch

ase

of n

utrie

nt c

redi

ts.

On

aca

se b

y ca

se b

asis

, m

ore

load

red

uctio

n (i.

e. g

reat

er t

han

25%

) m

ay b

e ac

hiev

edth

roug

h th

e pu

rcha

se o

f nut

rient

cre

dits

by

obta

inin

g w

ritte

n ap

prov

al fr

om th

e D

EQ

.

It is

dem

onst

rate

d to

the

satis

fact

ion

of th

e D

EQ

that

(i)

alte

rnat

ive

site

des

igns

hav

e be

en c

onsi

dere

d th

at m

ay a

ccom

mod

ate

onsi

te b

est

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

, (ii

) on

site

bes

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

hav

e be

en c

onsi

dere

d in

alte

rnat

ive

site

des

igns

to

the

max

imum

ext

ent

prac

ticab

le,

(iii)

appr

opria

te o

nsite

bes

t m

anag

emen

t pr

actic

es

will

be

impl

emen

ted

and

(iiii)

com

plia

nce

with

wat

er q

ualit

y te

chni

cal c

riter

ia c

anno

t pr

actic

ably

be

met

ons

ite.

To

appr

ove

addi

tiona

l nu

trien

t cr

edit

use

DE

Q r

equi

res

writ

ten

docu

men

tatio

n of

thi

s ef

fort.

W

here

app

rova

l fro

m t

he D

EQ

is r

equi

red,

the

D

istri

ct H

ydra

ulic

s E

ngin

eer

shal

l pro

vide

all

of t

he n

eces

sary

doc

umen

tatio

n to

the

P

roje

ct M

anag

er a

nd h

e or

she

sha

ll fo

rwar

d th

e do

cum

enta

tion

to t

he S

tate

MS

4 E

ngin

eer.

The

Sta

te M

S4

Eng

inee

r w

ill th

en c

oord

inat

e w

ith th

e D

EQ

Cen

tral O

ffice

to

sec

ure

the

nece

ssar

y ap

prov

als.

Inst

ruct

iona

l and

Info

rmat

iona

l Mem

oran

dum

IIM

-LD

-251

.3

She

et 4

of 6

The

Nut

rient

Cre

dit

Use

Flo

w D

iagr

am in

clud

ed a

t th

e en

d of

thi

s IIM

pro

vide

s a

sim

plifi

ed

mea

ns o

f det

erm

inin

g a

proj

ect’s

elig

ibili

ty fo

r ut

ilizi

ng th

e pu

rcha

se o

f nut

rient

cre

dits

. Th

e pu

rcha

se o

f nut

rient

cre

dits

to a

ddre

ss p

ost-c

onst

ruct

ion

wat

er q

ualit

y re

duct

ion

requ

irem

ents

fo

r co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es s

hall

be c

onsi

dere

d th

e pr

efer

red

alte

rnat

ive

whe

n av

aila

ble

and

econ

omic

ally

feas

ible

.

PR

E-E

VA

LUAT

ION

PR

OC

ES

S T

O U

TILI

ZE N

UTR

IEN

T C

RE

DIT

S

In d

eter

min

ing

the

feas

ibili

ty o

f the

use

of n

utrie

nt c

redi

ts to

sat

isfy

a p

roje

ct’s

wat

er q

ualit

y re

quire

men

ts,

a pr

e-ev

alua

tion

mus

t be

com

plet

ed b

y D

istri

ct D

rain

age

Eng

inee

r or

Pro

ject

M

anag

er.

This

pre

-eva

luat

ion

mus

t occ

ur p

rior t

o th

e Pu

blic

Hea

ring

mile

ston

e to

iden

tify

any

limita

tions

tha

t co

uld

exis

t th

at w

ould

pre

vent

or

rest

rict

the

use

of n

utrie

nt c

redi

ts.

The

fo

llow

ing

item

s sh

ould

be

take

n in

to e

valu

atio

n:

1.

Rev

iew

and

ver

ifica

tion

that

the

sele

cted

Nut

rient

Cre

dit b

ank

is n

ot lo

cate

d in

an

area

that

wou

ld b

e in

con

trave

ntio

n of

any

loca

l wat

er q

ualit

y-ba

sed

limita

tions

for t

hepa

rticu

lar p

roje

ct.

Lim

itatio

ns in

clud

e an

y su

rface

wat

ers

that

hav

e an

app

rove

d TM

DL

repo

rt ad

dres

sing

Pho

spho

rus

and

Nitr

ogen

ass

ocia

ted

with

a c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ity.

2.

Rev

iew

and

ver

ifica

tion

ther

e ar

e ce

rtifie

d N

utrie

nt C

redi

ts b

anks

that

can

ser

vice

the

proj

ect.

Nut

rient

cre

dit u

se is

allo

wed

for a

ll ba

sins

sta

tew

ide.

How

ever

, not

all

basi

nsha

ve c

ertif

ied

nutri

ent c

redi

t ban

ks.

The

follo

win

g cr

iteria

sha

ll be

follo

wed

:a.

If th

ere

is a

loca

l TM

DL

rest

rictio

n w

ithin

the

proj

ect w

ater

shed

are

a, n

utrie

nt c

redi

tssh

all b

e pu

rcha

sed

from

a b

ank

loca

ted

upst

ream

of t

he p

roje

ct.

b.

If th

ere

are

no lo

cal T

MD

L re

stric

tions

with

in th

e pr

ojec

t wat

ersh

ed a

rea,

nut

rient

cred

its c

an b

e pu

rcha

sed

in th

e sa

me

or a

djac

ent 4

th O

rder

(8 d

igit)

HU

C a

s th

at o

fth

e pr

ojec

t. If

an a

djac

ent 4

th O

rder

(8 d

igit)

HU

C is

to b

e us

ed, i

t mus

t be

in th

esa

me

basi

n/tri

buta

ry a

s th

e pr

ojec

t.c.

If th

ere

are

no lo

cal T

MD

L re

stric

tions

, and

whe

re n

o B

anks

are

loca

ted

with

in th

epr

ojec

t’s 4

th O

rder

(8 d

igit)

HU

C o

r adj

acen

t 4th O

rder

(8 d

igit)

HU

C, n

utrie

nt c

redi

tsm

ay b

e pu

rcha

sed

from

any

Ban

k lo

cate

d w

ithin

the

sam

e ba

sin/

tribu

tary

as

the

proj

ect.

PR

OC

UR

EM

EN

T O

F N

UTR

IEN

T C

RE

DIT

S F

OR

PR

OJE

CTS

Whe

re th

e pu

rcha

se o

f nut

rient

cre

dits

is p

ropo

sed

to s

atis

fy w

ater

qua

lity

com

plia

nce

for

a V

DO

T pr

ojec

t, th

ey m

ust b

e se

cure

d th

roug

h pu

rcha

se fr

om a

n ap

prov

ed B

ank

prio

r to

the

begi

nnin

g of

land

dis

turb

ance

. Ty

pica

lly, t

he n

utrie

nt c

redi

ts s

houl

d be

sec

ured

prio

r to

the

publ

ic h

earin

g st

age

of t

he p

lan

deve

lopm

ent

proc

ess

in o

rder

to

ensu

re t

heir

avai

labi

lity

/ co

mpl

ianc

e w

hen

proj

ect c

onst

ruct

ion

begi

ns.

The

cred

its w

ill be

sec

ured

usi

ng th

e A

SD

’ s IF

B p

rocu

rem

ent p

roce

ss (w

here

mor

e th

an o

ne

Ban

k is

ava

ilabl

e fro

m w

hich

to

purc

hase

) N

utrie

nt c

redi

ts m

ay b

e pu

rcha

sed

base

d on

a

proj

ect’s

sp

ecifi

c ne

ed.

In

eith

er

case

, th

e S

tate

M

S4

Eng

inee

r w

ill co

ordi

nate

th

e pr

ocur

emen

t pro

cess

with

AS

D.

For

proj

ect s

peci

fic p

urch

ases

, the

pro

ject

’s b

udge

t will

be

debi

ted

at th

e tim

e of

pur

chas

e.

Inst

ruct

iona

l and

Info

rmat

iona

l Mem

oran

dum

IIM

-LD

-251

.3

She

et 5

of 6

The

cost

of a

pou

nd o

f nut

rient

cre

dit f

or p

hosp

horu

s w

ill va

ry.

It is

rec

omm

ende

d th

at th

e P

roje

ct M

anag

er c

onta

ct t

he C

.O.

prog

ram

coo

rdin

ator

to

verif

y th

e co

st p

er p

ound

, (a

on

etim

e ch

arge

) be

use

d w

hen

mak

ing

a co

mpa

rison

of t

he c

ost o

f the

pur

chas

e of

nut

rient

cr

edits

to th

e co

st o

f ons

ite B

MP

s or

oth

er o

ffsite

opt

ions

. Th

e D

istri

ct H

ydra

ulic

s E

ngin

eer

shal

l pr

ovid

e w

ritte

n no

tific

atio

n of

suc

h to

the

Pro

ject

M

anag

er a

nd h

e or

she

sha

ll fo

rwar

d th

e no

tific

atio

n to

the

Sta

te M

S4

Engi

neer

. Th

e fo

llow

ing

info

rmat

ion

is to

be

prov

ided

on

the

late

st v

ersi

on o

f the

LD

-453

form

:

P

roje

ct N

umbe

r

UP

C N

umbe

r

Pro

ject

Loc

atio

n (C

ount

y/C

ity)

P

roje

ct L

atitu

de a

nd L

ongi

tude

(in

deci

mal

deg

ree)

Pro

ject

4th

Ord

er 8

dig

it H

UC

La

nd D

istu

rban

ce (r

ound

ed to

the

near

est o

ne h

undr

edth

of a

n ac

re)

A

mou

nt O

f Nut

rient

Loa

d R

educ

tions

Ach

ieve

d O

nsite

, (po

unds

/acr

e/ye

ar)

A

mou

nt o

f Nut

rient

Cre

dits

Nee

ded

To B

e P

urch

ased

(po

unds

/acr

e/ye

ar)

D

ocum

enta

tion

of th

e P

re-e

valu

atio

n pr

oces

s

The

Sta

te M

S4 E

ngin

eer w

ill d

eter

min

e th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

nut

rient

cre

dits

for u

se in

sat

isfy

ing

the

wat

er q

ualit

y re

quire

men

ts f

or t

he p

roje

ct a

nd w

ill no

tify

the

Pro

ject

Man

ager

of

thei

r de

term

inat

ion.

Whe

re n

utrie

nt c

redi

ts a

re a

vaila

ble,

the

Sta

te M

S4

Eng

inee

r w

ill s

ecur

e fro

m

the

Pro

ject

Man

ager

a p

roje

ct c

harg

e co

de fo

r th

e pu

rcha

se.

The

Sta

te M

S4 E

ngin

eer

will

th

en b

egin

the

pro

cess

of

secu

ring

the

nece

ssar

y nu

trien

t cr

edits

. O

nce

the

proc

urem

ent

proc

ess

is c

ompl

eted

, th

e P

roje

ct M

anag

er a

nd t

he D

istri

ct H

ydra

ulic

s E

ngin

eer

will

be

notif

ied

of th

e na

me

of th

e B

ank

from

whi

ch th

e nu

trien

t cre

dits

wer

e pu

rcha

sed

so th

at it

can

be

inc

lude

d w

ith o

ther

req

uire

d in

form

atio

n in

the

app

ropr

iate

sec

tions

of

the

SWPP

P G

ener

al In

form

atio

n Sh

eets

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

land

dis

turb

ing

activ

ity.

RE

CO

RD

KE

EP

ING

AN

D R

EP

OR

TIN

G

VD

OT

is r

equi

red

to s

ubm

it an

ann

ual r

epor

t to

the

DE

Q t

hat

iden

tifie

s th

e nu

trien

t cr

edits

pu

rcha

sed

durin

g th

e re

porti

ng y

ear.

The

repo

rting

per

iod

is fr

om J

uly

1st t

o Ju

ne 3

0th.

Whe

n th

e pu

rcha

se o

f nut

rient

cre

dits

is b

eing

use

d to

sat

isfy

the

wat

er q

ualit

y re

quire

men

ts

for a

pro

ject

, the

Pro

ject

Man

ager

with

the

assi

stan

ce o

f the

Dis

trict

Hyd

raul

ics

Eng

inee

r sha

ll id

entif

y su

ch

on

the

LD-4

45

form

w

hen

regi

ster

ing

for

cove

rage

un

der

the

VSM

P

Con

stru

ctio

n P

erm

it.

The

use

of n

utrie

nt c

redi

ts i

s to

be

docu

men

ted

in t

he a

ppro

pria

te

sect

ion

of t

he S

WPP

P G

ener

al I

nfor

mat

ion

Shee

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith t

he l

and

dist

urbi

ng

activ

ity. U

pon

com

plet

ion

of th

e pr

ojec

t, th

e ap

prop

riate

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g th

e pu

rcha

se o

f nu

trien

t cre

dits

sha

ll be

repo

rted

on th

e LD

-445

D fo

rm fo

r ter

min

atio

n of

VS

MP

Con

stru

ctio

n P

erm

it co

vera

ge.

Inst

ruct

iona

l and

Info

rmat

iona

l Mem

oran

dum

IIM

-LD

-251

.3

She

et 6

of 6

NU

TRIE

NT

CR

ED

IT U

SE

FLO

W D

IAG

RA

M

Pro

ject

Are

a co

ntai

ns le

ss

than

5 a

cres

of

land

di

stur

banc

e

25%

of l

oad

redu

ctio

n ca

n be

pu

rcha

sed

from

N

utrie

nt C

redi

t Ba

nk

Post

C

onst

ruct

ion

Phos

phor

us

redu

ctio

n re

quire

men

t is

less

than

10

lbs.

/ yr

.

Can

75%

of

Phos

phor

us

load

redu

ctio

n be

met

on

site

?

YES

NO

N

O

NO

YE

S YE

S

Mus

t req

uest

app

rova

l fro

m D

EQ fo

r a h

ighe

r us

e of

Nut

rient

Cre

dit

Bank

*

100%

of l

oad

redu

ctio

ns c

an b

e pu

rcha

sed

from

N

utrie

nt C

redi

t Ba

nk

* Se

e Ite

m #

3 un

der “

Det

erm

inat

ion

of A

pplic

abilit

y”

11/7/2016

55

Stormwater Management Banking

• NJDOT did research into banking programs for quality, quantity, groundwater recharge

• Banks were limited to HUC‐11

• NJDOT had prepared a full banking program

• NJDEP rejected the program• Concerns about flooding

• Treatment not at stream being affected

Identifying Potential Bank Site

• NJDOT projects reviewed

• Mapped projects which may create impervious impacts statewide on GIS with HUC ‐11 boundary overlays.

• Selected top six impacted watersheds.

• Obtained estimates of impervious surfaces in selected six watershedsand mapped results.

• Selected watershed with most future projects and high impact.

• Hackensack Watershed selected for evaluation of future banking –Approx. 23 acres; at least 5 future projects.

11/7/2016

56

NJDOT Stormwater Banking Management System

• A database based system with capabilities of:

• Access through Internet

• Administrator, Manager and Visitor levels of accessibility

• Automatically tracking banking credit based on HUC‐11 Watershed boundaries

• Managing all approved documents / approvals by NJDEP on projectbasis

Stormwater Credits

• New Jersey doesn’t have a program for stormwater credits

• Has been done once for Rt. 72 Manahawkin Bridge Project• Rt. 72 is main route on and off Long Beach Island

• Project is over ¼ acre impervious and 1 acre disturbance thus needsstormwater management

• Quality requirement can’t be met on site due to limited land availability

• Area around bridge is developed beach community or environmentallysensitive

• Project consists of:• Rehabbing existing Rt. 72 Bridge over Barnegat Bay• Adding new Rt. 72 Bridge over Barnegat Bay• Various roadway, drainage, utility work

Rt. 72 Bridge SWM

• Couldn’t meet quality on site

• Got agreement from NJDEP to improve quality of runoff going to Barnegat Bay

• Barnegat Bay is considered a C‐1 waterway

• Numerous DOT owned drainage systems empty into Barnegat Bay

• To meet quality NJDOT retro fitted several existing basins

11/7/2016

57

Retro fitted Basins• Existing extended detention basins retrofitted to become gravel wetland 

basins• This increased TSS removal• Also provides removal of nitrogen 

Enhancing Performance

• TSS• Load to all the basins – 281,820 lbs/year

• Basins currently remove – 45% or 126,770 lbs/year

• Retrofitted basins could remove – 90% or 246,587 lbs/year

• TN• Load to all the basins – 3,520 lbs/year

• Basins currently remove – 11% or 390 lbs/year

• Retrofitted basins could remove – 73% or 2,411 lbs/year

Gravel Wetlands

EMS = Drainage and Stromwater Assets Management Program

2

A systematic process of deploying, tracking, operating, maintaining, upgrading, and disposing of assets cost-effectively.

Storm drain systems, SWM facilities, outfalls, culverts, and other stormwater infrastructure is managed similarly like any other roadway or assets.

2

and

M s,

d

Program Components

3

Inventory Inspections

Functionality rating

Assessment and prioritization for remediation

Maintenance and Remedial activities tracking

Reporting on functionality and performance

Expenditures tracking/ funding programming

Drainage and Stromwater Assets Management Program

• Systematic approach to assessment & tracking• Reporting on functionality and performance• Flooding investigations and drainage complaints• Addressing emergency failures/ repairs• Communication tool within the organization• Preventive maintenance planning• Remediation prioritization• Planning tool for new projects• Climate change resiliency assessment• Funding/ budgets projections

DesignWork Order Generation

Remedial PlansSWM Retrofit

Enhancement Projects Drainage Improvement

Projects

ConstructionArea Wide Contracts

Bid BuildDesign- Build

OperationsRoutine MaintenanceMinor Maintenance

PlanningInspections

Condition RatingAsset Location (inlet,

pipes & SWM)

Inventory Inspections

Spatial location of :

Drainage systemsDrainage outfallsSWM facilities/ ESDsDrainage areasCondition Ratings

Field Data collection ToolsOffice tools for data management

Cost for full Inventory update & Inspection = avg. $400K per County

3-year Cycle Three Phases: Existing Data updates Sampling (IDDE)

Update with new data

ns

n of :

emslls

/ ESDss

e:

ng Data updatesing (IDDE)

te with new data

t

ArcGis•Very flexible•Oracle basis

Google Earth©

•KMLs have been distributed to RMEs andDistrict Operation Engineers – IPADcompatible• Google Earth provide an alternative to

eGIS for spatial informationeGIS•eGIS has location information for hydraulicstructures and SWM facilities•Planned enhancements include inspectiondata and structure images

•Strategic Planning Effort is Ongoing•Growing Inventory•Growing needs

Electronic Data

Design

Work Order GenerationRemedial PlansRetrofit / Enhancement Plans Drainage Improvement Projects

Construction MethodsArea Wide ContractsBid-BuildDesign-BuildMemorandum of Understanding

EMS - Statewide Communication Tool

Coordination with District Shops

SWM asset Operational Manual Delivery and Format of Information Funding Permitting

st ct S ops

SWM t O ti l M

Systematic Preventive Maintenance

SWM Assets Operational Manual:- to provide our internal road crews with support

Supported by Electronic Information (Goal is real-time)Location Info – incorporate IPADOperational needs based on asset typeSuggested Seasonal Activities

Flooding /drainage investigations

FundingEligibility – Operational vs. Capital

State vs. FederalWho does Preliminary Engineering?Who is the contact?What is leading the effort?What are the needs, what is the urgency?

Business PlanObjective: 5.3 Environmental Compliance and Stewardship in SHA Highways and Facilities Integrate sustainable strategies to maintain SHA highways, buildings and maintenance facilities in an environmentally sensitive manner and ensure 100% compliance with applicable environmental regulations and standards

PM: Percentage of SWM facilities rated as functionally adequate each fiscal year – GOAL 90%.

SWM Facility Assets WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWRoutine Maintenance

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWMinor MaintenanceMajor RemediationRetrofit Required

Stormwater Asset Program

County Code County No Action Routine Maintenance Major Maintenance Retrofit/ Enhancement

Design % Funct. Total Funct. Total Invent. Comment

1 Allegany 23 23 9 1 82.1% 46 56 Processing MES MOU - October 2014

2 Anne Arundel 195 281 91 23 80.7% 476 590 ICD is actively working AA County. Inspections starting by 8/2015

3 Baltimore 118 92 44 3 81.7% 210 257 ICD is actively working in county.

4 Calvert 20 37 6 2 87.7% 57 65 Work Orders assigned

5 Caroline 5 3 0 0 100.0% 8 8 No actions are planned

6 Carroll 84 18 3 0 97.1% 102 105 Recently updated inspections and ratings

7 Cecil 3 12 6 0 71.4% 15 21 Need work orders generated

8 Charles 179 10 0 0 100.0% 189 189 Inspections completed. Inventory increase

9 Dorchester 0 26 2 0 92.9% 26 28 Need work orders generated

10 Frederick 174 19 0 0 100.0% 193 193 waiting NTP

11 Garrett 5 5 1 4 66.7% 10 15 Processing MES MOU - October 2014

12 Harford 100 61 0 6 96.4% 161 167 Retrofit project has been initiated

13 Howard 459 84 32 3 93.9% 543 578 Actively working in county. Some WOs given to Dayton Shop

14 Kent 4 2 0 0 100.0% 6 6 No actions are planned

15 Montgomery 111 214 23 4 92.3% 325 352 inspections ongoing

16 Prince Georges 209 167 75 1 83.2% 376 452 ICD is actively working in county. New data for this county posted 7/14/15

17 Queen Anne 38 71 0 0 100.0% 109 109 No actions are planned

18 Saint Mary's 5 81 3 0 96.6% 86 89 Rating recently completed. Need to generate work orders

19 Somerset 6 3 2 0 81.8% 9 11 Need work orders generated

20 Talbot 5 1 1 0 85.7% 6 7 Need work orders generated

21 Washington 181 15 5 2 96.6% 196 203 Processing MES MOU - October 2014

22 Wicomico 21 26 0 0 100.0% 47 47 Work completed -2013. Corrected Inventory ratings

23 Worcester 82 8 0 0 100.0% 90 90 Work completed -2013

Totals 2027 1259 303 49 90.3% 3286 3638 Comprehensive review of needed retrofits and remediation completed in December 2013

3286 352 3274 Business Plan Goal (90%)

As of Tuesday, September 22, 2015 -12 need to complete

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

68

8

73

9

85

7

88

0

10

21

12

43

14

16

15

24

17

53

19

83

22

46

26

72

39

85

49

75

57

13

63

52

65

43

67

39

264 251 224 370 272

174 101

118 137

148

191

303

310

387

444

494 509

524

101 63 135

162 216 220

225 153 119

107

95

113

133

166

190

212 218

225 Retrofit Design / FunctionalEnhancement

Major Maintenance Repair

Functioning as Designed

# of

Fac

ilitie

s#

of F

acilit

ies

MD Fiscal Year

# of

Fac

ilitie

s

MD Fiscal Year

# of

Fac

ilitie

s

MD Fiscal Year

# of

Fac

ilitie

s

Projection of Statewide SWM Inventory

11/7/2016

63

MS4 Mid-Atlantic States Peer Exchange

Topic: Environmental Management Systems (EMS)By: Winnie Okello, E.I.T

Sept 22, 2015

Current System PennDOT conducts 3rd Party compliance audits in addition to the current ISO

14001 Audits.

These compliance audits have identified compliance deficiencies in the system missed by ISO 14001 process audits.

Penn DOT has 11 separate ISO 14001 certifications

Districts are certified individually – each has its own EMS

ISO is a process-based system - not compliance based

ISO 14001 audits focus on ensuring that processes are in place

ISO 14001 auditors are not trained on PennDOT operations

ISO Certified & Still experiencing regulatory non-compliance status on numerous requirements (Broken System)

Proposed EMS Systems

PennDOT proposes to replace its ISO 14001 registrations with a new EMS that is:

A Statewide system creating more uniformity throughout the Engineering Districts

Compliance based

Strategic Environmental Management Committee (SEMC) formed

Comprised of cross-section of employees from Districts and Central Office

Provides SEMP Management oversight

Serves as Management Review

Corrective and Preventive Actions (CAR PAR) database enhanced

1 statewide database versus 11 individual systems (better documentation)

Severity rating for findings developed with root cause analysis

Share best management practices/lessons learned

Training, Awareness, and Competence requirements are defined

Proposed EMS Systems Will include defined Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M)

Internal Controls will include:

• Annual Compliance Audit

• Quarterly Stockpile Environmental Checklists

• Monthly site‐specific tank inspection forms

External Controls will include:

• Annual 3rd‐Party Compliance Audit (20% of facilities per year)

• Annual 3rd‐Party Quality Assurance Reviews (20% of facilities per year)

Audit Results tied to employee performance reviews (District Executives)

11/7/2016

64

Discussions

Winnie Okello Sr. Civil Engineer TransportationSEMP Section-SRP/MS4 ManagerMaintenance Technical Leadership DivisionPA Department of TransportationBureau of Maintenance & Operations400 North Street - 6th Floor | Harrisburg PA 17120Phone: 717.214.8788 | Fax: 717.783.8012wokello@pa.gov| www.dot.state.pa.usWinter| Emergency & Incident Management|Roadside, Environmental & Storm Water Management

65

SWM Facilities Inspections and Rating

April 2008

.

Dana Havlik, PE MD SHA - HHD

1.Sustain and enhance SWM Facilities Performancepollutants removal efficiencysafety and aesthetic appearance comply with the initial SWM approval

SWM Program Objectives

2. Comply with NPDES permit requirements:Inventory and Inspect all SWM FacilitiesPerform routine maintenance annuallyIdentify and perform required repair workRe-inspect each facility every 3 years

3. To meet SHA Business Goal90% functional adequacyby the end of FY year 2010

Maintenance and Remediation- > Two Tier Rating system:

Performance rating• structural integrity• functionality

Action / SHA Response rating• priority for maintenance and remediation• compliance with NPDES permit

requirements for remediation

__________________________-

Chapter ..…?

BMP Assessment Guidelines For Maintenance and Remediation

______________________________

Performance / Inventory Inspection Rating(Chapter 3)

Each of the inspection parameters is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 1 – Operating as Designed, No Issues Observed2 – Functional, Minor Problems Exist3 – Functional, Moderate Problems Exist4 – Performance is Compromised, Major Problems 5 – Non-Functional, Hazardous Conditions

Overall inspection rating assigned for each facility A – Functioning as designed, no problem conditionsB – Functioning as designed, minor problems existC – Exhibits serious problems performance problemsD – Major Problems, not functioning as designedE – Facility failed, hazardous conditions

66

Maintenance and Remediation- >Two Tier Rating System:

Performance based rating• structural integrity• functionality

Action / SHA Response rating• priority for maintenance and

remediation• compliance with NPDES

permit requirements forremediation

__________________________-

Chapter ..…?

BMP Assessment Guidelines For Maintenance and Remediation

______________________________

SHA Action Rating(Chapter 7)

I No Response Required – schedule for multi-year inspection

II Minor Maintenance – perform as necessary to sustain BMP performance.Upon remedial action and re-inspection, can be candidate for multi-year inspection

III Major Maintenance or Repair – is needed to return the site to original functionality within the existing footprint of the facility. Structural defects require repair and/or restoration

IV Retrofit Design – is required on-site or at another location, since BMP cannot be returned to its original functionality within its existing footprint

V Immediate Response – is mandatory to address any public safety hazards regardless of the functionality of the BMP

VI Abandonment – of the BMP when the facility is not maintainable and will not provide sufficient benefits if retrofitted due to the lack of access for construction and maintenance, limited space or minimum impervious area treated Current BMP Remediation Process

67

I – No action required II – Routine maintenanceII – Routine maintenance

Trash & debris Vegetation

III – Major maintenanceIII – Major maintenance

Vegetation Issues Erosion

Ponding

SWM Facilities MaintenanceMinor Maintenance

Trash & debris removal MowingVegetation Management

Major Maintenance

• Stabilization of eroded areas• Structural repairs• Vegetation management• Grading and dredging• Outfall repairs• Debris removal • Infiltration trench media

replacement and well installation

• E&S may be required

68

IV – Retrofit DesignIV – Retrofit Design

Failed Infiltration

Embankment Failure

IV – Retrofit Design ( cont.)

= Converting an existing failed SWM facility into a different type of BMP

• Clearing, grubbing

• Dredging

• Grading / re-grading

• Flow diversion

• Dewatering/ pumping

• Stabilization

• Landscaping

• Drainage systems installation

• Structural repairs

• Access road constriction

• Erosion & Sediment Control

• Permits required

Continuous Programmatic Efforts - to sustain and improve functionality of BMPs trough SWM Program:

- Implement innovative contracting for BMP maintenance and remediation- Perform preventive maintenance through SHA District Maintenance Offices- Continue to improve data management tools for effective data tracking

11/7/2016

69

DelDOT E&S Inspection

Construction Site Inspection for E&S*3rd Party E&S Inspectors (Consultants)

Paid for under Construction Engineering funding set up at the time of the project

*Rating Form (handout)Similar to Maryland’sDifferent sections carry a weighted percentage

*New SpecificationsPerformance SeedingList of actions that Construction must take if Contractor receives a low scoreIncentive Spec

*Facility Construction Checklist (handout)

11/7/2016

70

DelDOT BMP Design Coordination

Plan Review Process

*QualityInfiltrate the runoff from the 2.7” rainfall (RPv – 1yr)

*QuantityDelDOT Cv (10yr) & Fv (100 yr) Process (handout)

*DrainageCompleted by designers

*TMDL ComplianceCurrently do not have a design standard

*Standard Plans (handout)If following certain criteria,than individual water qualityfacilities not required

Design Standards DelDOT Permanent SWM Facilities• Permanent BMP List

• Most Common BMP’s Used

– Infiltration Basin and Trench

– Bioswales and Vegetated Channels

• Lesser BMP’s Used

– Bioretention

– Underground Infiltration

APP

EN

DIX

G

DEL

DO

T ID

D&

E PR

OG

RA

M

1

DE

LA

WA

RE

DE

PAR

TM

EN

T O

F T

RA

NSP

OR

TA

TIO

N

OU

TFA

LL

SC

RE

EN

ING

AN

D

ILL

ICIT

DIS

CH

AR

GE

DE

TE

CT

ION

AN

D E

LIM

INA

TIO

N P

LA

N

On

May

7, 2

013,

DN

REC

issu

ed a

new

Pha

se I

MS4

Per

mit

to N

ew C

astle

Cou

nty,

Del

DO

T an

d si

x m

unic

ipal

co-

perm

ittee

sfor

the

disc

harg

e of

stor

m w

ater

from

/thro

ugh

the

mun

icip

al se

para

te st

orm

se

wer

sys

tem

(MS4

) to

all s

urfa

ce w

ater

s of t

he S

tate

that

are

loca

ted

in N

ew C

astle

Cou

nty.

As p

art

of th

e pe

rmit-

requ

ired

Stor

mw

ater

Pol

lutio

n Pr

even

tion

and

Man

agem

ent P

lan

(SW

PP&

MP)

,D

elD

OT

is re

quire

d to

dev

elop

an

Illic

it D

isch

arge

Det

ectio

n an

dEl

imin

atio

n (ID

DE)

pro

gram

.

SUM

MA

RY

The

IDD

E Pr

ogra

m m

usti

nclu

de a

sche

dule

and

met

hodo

logy

to e

valu

ate

at le

ast 2

0% o

f the

D

elD

OT

stor

m se

wer

sys

tem

per

yea

r, us

ing

exis

ting

map

ping

and

wat

er q

ualit

y da

ta, i

n or

der t

o de

term

ine

area

swith

hig

h po

tent

ial f

or il

licit

disc

harg

es a

nd im

prop

er d

ispo

sal.

Dry

wea

ther

sc

reen

ing

and

field

insp

ectio

n ac

tiviti

es a

re re

quire

d to

be

cond

ucte

d in

thes

e ta

rget

ed a

reas

.

Del

DO

T’sI

DD

E Pr

ogra

m c

onsi

sts o

f thr

ee m

ajor

com

pone

nts:

1.ID

DE

Out

fall

Eval

uatio

n:Th

e ID

DE

Eval

uatio

n pr

oces

s has

bee

n de

velo

ped

to sp

ecifi

cally

m

eet t

he re

quire

men

ts o

f Del

DO

T’s P

hase

I N

PDES

Per

mit,

whi

chst

ates

that

20%

of

Del

DO

T’s M

S4 b

e ev

alua

ted

annu

ally

for p

oten

tial i

llici

t dis

char

ges.

This

is a

ccom

plis

hed

by p

erfo

rmin

g th

roug

h:

a)D

eskt

opev

alua

tion

to lo

cate

por

tions

of t

he M

S4 w

ith h

ighe

st p

oten

tial f

or il

licit

disc

harg

esb)

Rep

orts

and

dat

a fr

om M

S4 in

vent

ory

and

insp

ectio

n ac

tiviti

esc)

Rep

orts

from

mai

nten

ance

cre

ws a

nd th

e pu

blic

d)C

oord

inat

ion

with

oth

er p

erm

ittee

s

2.D

ry W

eath

er F

ield

Scr

eeni

ng:

The

IDD

E O

utfa

ll Ev

alua

tion

targ

ets p

ortio

ns o

f Del

DO

T’s

MS4

that

will

be fi

eld

scre

ened

for p

oten

tial i

llici

t dis

char

ges.

The

fiel

d sc

reen

ing

cons

ists

of

the

follo

win

g:

a)D

ry w

eath

er o

utfa

ll sc

reen

ing

b)Sc

reen

ing/

insp

ectio

n of

stru

ctur

es d

rain

ing

to th

e ou

tfalls

3.Tr

acki

ngan

d El

imin

atio

n of

Illi

cit D

isch

arge

s:V

erifi

catio

n of

the

sour

ce a

nd n

atur

e of

the

illic

it di

scha

rge

and

actio

ns o

r pro

cedu

res t

o el

imin

ate

the

sour

ce.

Each

of t

hese

thre

e co

mpo

nent

s of t

he ID

DE

plan

is d

escr

ibed

in d

etai

l bel

ow.

2 1.

IDD

E O

UT

FAL

L E

VA

LU

AT

ION

a)D

eskt

op e

valu

atio

n to

loca

te p

ortio

ns o

f the

MS4

with

hig

hest

pot

entia

l for

illic

it di

scha

rges

:

The

proc

ess f

or d

eskt

op e

valu

atio

n of

the

MS4

gen

eral

ly fo

llow

s the

Cen

ter f

or W

ater

shed

Pr

otec

tion’

s 200

4 gu

idan

ce m

anua

l, Ill

icit

Dis

char

ge D

etec

tion

and

Elim

inat

ion,

Cha

pter

5:

Des

ktop

Ass

essm

ent o

f Illi

cit D

isch

arge

Pot

entia

l. T

he p

urpo

se o

f the

des

ktop

eva

luat

ion

is

to u

se a

vaila

ble

map

ping

and

oth

er d

ata

to lo

cate

MS4

out

falls

with

the

high

est p

oten

tial f

or

illic

it di

scha

rges

with

in a

wat

ersh

ed.

Usi

ng D

elD

OT’

s MS4

dat

abas

e an

d ot

her a

vaila

ble

data

, GIS

softw

are

is u

sed

to ta

rget

out

falls

for f

ield

scre

enin

g ba

sed

on fa

ctor

ssuc

h as

:

Kno

wn

past

illic

it di

scha

rges

His

tory

of d

ry w

eath

er fl

owan

d/or

det

ecte

d am

mon

ia o

r det

erge

nts

Prox

imity

to st

ruct

ures

with

env

ironm

enta

l or p

ipe

wor

k or

ders

Stru

ctur

es fo

und

durin

g in

spec

tions

to h

ave

conn

ectio

ns fr

om u

nkno

wn

sour

ces

Prox

imity

to a

ging

or a

band

oned

sani

tary

sew

ersy

stem

sC

omm

uniti

es w

ith n

o sa

nita

ry se

wer

sys

tem

sPr

oxim

ity to

pot

entia

l dis

char

ge so

urce

s(e.

g. in

dust

rial o

r com

mer

cial

faci

litie

s)Pr

oxim

ity o

f out

falls

to st

ream

sPr

oxim

ity to

pre

viou

s kno

wn

MS4

def

icie

ncie

s A

ge o

f MS4

(pre

-196

2)

Past

dry

wea

ther

fiel

d sc

reen

ing

expe

rienc

e ha

s det

erm

ined

that

illic

it di

scha

rges

ofte

n ar

e fo

und

in n

on-o

utfa

ll st

ruct

ures

, suc

h as

cat

ch b

asin

s or p

ipes

, and

that

the

disc

harg

e is

not

al

way

s evi

dent

at t

he o

utfa

llits

elf.

As a

resu

lt, o

ther

dra

inag

e st

ruct

ures

(e.g

., in

lets

) als

o ar

e ev

alua

ted

usin

g th

e sa

me

crite

ria a

nd re

ferr

ed to

as “

cont

ribut

ing

stru

ctur

es.”

This

eva

luat

ion

proc

ess r

esul

ts in

a li

st o

f out

falls

and

stru

ctur

es in

the

wat

ersh

ed th

at h

ave

the

grea

test

pot

entia

l for

illic

it di

scha

rges

or c

onne

ctio

ns.E

ach

of th

ese

is th

en sc

reen

ed in

the

field

dur

ing

dry

wea

ther

.

The

desk

top

eval

uatio

n w

ill b

e co

nduc

ted

on a

wat

ersh

ed b

y w

ater

shed

bas

is.

The

21

wat

ersh

eds i

n N

ew C

astle

Cou

nty

wer

e di

vide

d in

to 5

eva

luat

ion

year

s, w

ith g

oal o

f eve

nly

spre

adin

g ou

t the

num

ber o

f out

falls

ove

r the

5-y

ear p

erm

it te

rm a

nd m

eetin

g th

e pe

rmit

requ

irem

ent o

f eva

luat

ing

20%

of t

he o

utfa

lls a

nnua

lly.

Tab

le 1

desc

ribes

the

appr

oxim

ate

sche

dule

for e

valu

atio

n of

eac

h w

ater

shed

.

b)R

epor

ts fr

om M

S4 In

vent

ory/

Insp

ectio

n Fi

eld

Act

iviti

es:

Del

DO

T’s M

S4pr

ogra

min

clud

es a

com

preh

ensi

ve fi

eld

leve

l inv

ento

ry a

nd in

spec

tion

of th

e en

tire

stor

m se

wer

sys

tem

.Fi

eld

crew

s rec

ord

inve

ntor

yan

d in

spec

tion

data

in a

cus

tom

-de

sign

ed D

elD

OT

field

app

licat

ion

and

data

base

. If

a m

embe

r of t

hefie

ld c

rew

obs

erve

s flo

w

from

an

outfa

ll du

ring

rout

ine

MS4

inve

ntor

y/in

spec

tion

wor

k, th

e in

form

atio

n is

not

ed in

the

field

app

licat

ion.

The

se o

utfa

lls a

re th

en sc

reen

ed d

urin

g dr

y w

eath

er fo

r pot

entia

l illi

cit

disc

harg

esby

an

IDD

E cr

ew.

3 T

able

1.

App

roxi

mat

e sc

hedu

le fo

r eva

luat

ion

and

scre

enin

g of

out

falls

in e

ach

New

Cas

tle C

ount

y w

ater

shed

.

Yea

rW

ater

shed

1

Shel

lpot

C&

D C

anal

Eas

t

App

oqui

nim

ink

Riv

er

2

Bra

ndyw

ine

Cre

ek

Bla

ckbi

rd C

reek

Del

awar

e B

aySm

yrna

Riv

er

Del

awar

e R

iver

Arm

y C

reek

Red

Lio

n Cr

eek

Dra

gon

Run

Cre

ek

3C

hris

tina

Riv

er

4W

hite

Cla

y C

reek

5

Naa

man

s Cre

ek

Red

Cla

y C

reek

C &

D C

anal

Wes

tB

ohem

ia C

reek

Sass

afra

s Riv

er

Che

ster

Riv

erEl

k C

reek

Perc

h Cr

eek

4

MS4

insp

ecto

rs a

re a

lso

train

ed to

reco

gniz

e ot

her s

igns

of p

oten

tial i

llici

t dis

char

ges (

such

as

oil s

heen

s, un

usua

l odo

rs o

r toi

let p

aper

, for

exa

mpl

e).

Thes

e ar

e im

med

iate

ly re

porte

d to

the

IDD

E m

anag

er fo

r fol

low

-up

dry

wea

ther

scre

enin

g an

d in

vest

igat

ion.

c)R

epor

ts/c

ompl

aint

sfro

m m

aint

enan

ce c

rew

s and

the

publ

ic:

Del

DO

T m

aint

enan

ce st

aff a

re tr

aine

d to

reco

gniz

e an

d re

port

sign

s of p

oten

tial i

llici

t di

scha

rges

or c

onne

ctio

ns in

to th

e M

S4.

In a

dditi

on, t

he M

S4 p

erm

ittee

s are

requ

ired

to

mai

ntai

n a

publ

ic h

otlin

e th

at a

llow

s Del

awar

e ci

tizen

s to

repo

rt ev

iden

ce o

f ille

gal s

pills

or

dum

ping

to th

e M

S4, s

uch

as:

Any

one

impr

oper

ly d

ispo

sing

laun

dry

was

tew

ater

, sep

tic sy

stem

eff

luen

t, oi

l, or

any

ho

useh

old

chem

ical

s int

o th

e st

orm

dra

in sy

stem

;A

ny st

rang

e od

ors o

r sta

ins n

ear a

stor

m d

rain

;A

ny d

ead

fish

in st

ream

s or p

onds

.

Rep

orts

may

als

o be

rece

ived

from

co-

perm

ittee

s or o

ther

mun

icip

aliti

es o

r age

ncie

s.

IDD

E st

aff r

espo

nd w

ithin

48

hour

s to

thes

e re

ports

afte

r not

ifica

tion

by D

elD

OT,

incl

udin

g co

nduc

ting

field

scre

enin

g to

iden

tify

pote

ntia

l illi

cit d

isch

arge

s.

d)C

oord

inat

ion

with

New

Cas

tle C

ount

y an

d m

unic

ipal

ities

:

If a

n ill

icit

disc

harg

e is

susp

ecte

d or

repo

rted

in a

por

tion

of th

e M

S4 th

at is

not

ow

ned

or

mai

ntai

ned

by th

e St

ate,

then

Del

DO

T w

ill n

otify

New

Cas

tle C

ount

y Sp

ecia

l Ser

vice

s or t

he

mun

icip

ality

that

ow

ns th

e sy

stem

, as a

ppro

pria

te. T

he M

S4 o

wne

r is t

hen

resp

onsi

ble

for

verif

icat

ion

and/

or e

limin

atio

n of

the

illic

it di

scha

rge.

2.D

RY

WE

AT

HE

R F

IEL

D S

CR

EE

NIN

G

Dry

wea

ther

fiel

dsc

reen

ing

is c

ondu

cted

ate

ach

outfa

ll ta

rget

ed e

ither

by

the

desk

top

eval

uatio

n de

scrib

ed in

Sec

tion

1, o

r thr

ough

repo

rts o

f pot

entia

l iss

ues.

The

dry

wea

ther

scre

enin

g as

sist

s D

elD

OT

in id

entif

ying

pote

ntia

l illi

cit d

isch

arge

s. If

a d

isch

arge

is d

eter

min

ed to

be

illic

it, th

e ID

DE

cons

ulta

nt st

aff w

ill fo

llow

up

to h

elp

track

the

sour

ce o

f the

dis

char

ge.

a)D

ry w

eath

er fi

eld

scre

enin

g:

Dry

wea

ther

scre

enin

g is

con

duct

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

pro

vide

d in

40

CFR

122

.26

(d)(

1)(iv

)(D

) and

in Il

licit

Dis

char

ge D

etec

tion

and

Elim

inat

ion:

A G

uida

nce

Man

ual f

or P

rogr

am D

evel

opm

ent a

nd T

echn

ical

Ass

ista

nce

(CW

P, 2

004)

. A

ll fie

ld

scre

enin

g is

per

form

ed b

y a

team

of t

wo

peop

le, a

llow

ing

for t

he sa

fe a

nd e

ffic

ient

co

mpl

etio

n of

the

wor

k.

AFi

eld

Dat

a Sh

eett

hat d

ocum

ents

the

pres

ence

or a

bsen

ce o

f dry

wea

ther

flow

is fi

lled

out

for e

ach

MS4

out

fall

or st

ruct

ure

visi

ted

in th

e fie

ld (F

igur

e 1)

.

If a

n ou

tfall

has f

low

durin

g dr

y w

eath

er, a

sam

ple

is c

olle

cted

and

ana

lyze

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

pro

vide

d in

40

CFR

122

.26

(d)(

1)(iv

)(D

) and

Illic

it D

isch

arge

5

Det

ectio

n an

d El

imin

atio

n: A

Gui

danc

e M

anua

l for

Pro

gram

Dev

elop

men

t and

Tec

hnic

al

Assi

stan

ce (C

WP,

200

4).

Sam

ples

are

test

ed in

the

field

for a

mm

onia

and

dete

rgen

ts.

Labo

rato

ry te

sts f

or O

il an

d G

reas

e, T

otal

Pet

role

um H

ydro

carb

ons,

feca

l bac

teria

and

/or

pota

ssiu

m a

re a

dded

if e

vide

nce

exis

ts o

f con

tam

inat

ion

from

oils

, sew

age

or in

dust

rial

disc

harg

es.

Like

wis

e, te

sts f

or fe

cal b

acte

ria a

re a

dded

if p

rese

nce

of se

wag

e is

susp

ecte

d.

Add

ition

alsa

mpl

es a

reta

ken

to a

cer

tifie

d la

bora

tory

to c

onfir

m fi

eld

test

resu

lts, a

s ap

prop

riate

.

Whe

n th

e fie

ld te

stin

g an

d/or

labo

rato

ryre

sults

are

retu

rned

, aFl

ow C

hart

Met

hod

is u

sed

to

iden

tify

cont

amin

atin

g so

urce

s bas

ed o

n pa

ram

eter

leve

ls a

nd la

nd u

se.

The

resu

lts fr

om th

e R

esid

entia

l or

Lig

ht C

omm

erci

al F

low

char

t(Fi

gure

2)a

id in

cat

egor

izin

g di

scha

rge

as:

No

Evid

ence

of I

llici

t Dis

char

geLi

kely

Gra

ywat

er/W

ashw

ater

Sou

rce

Like

ly S

anita

ry W

aste

wat

er o

r Gra

ywat

er/W

ashw

ater

Sou

rce

Like

ly S

anita

ry W

aste

wat

er S

ourc

ePr

obab

le S

ewag

e So

urce

Afte

r fie

ld sc

reen

ing,

any

out

fall

or st

ruct

ure

dete

rmin

ed to

hav

e dr

y w

eath

er fl

ow m

ust a

lso

have

an

IDD

E In

vest

igat

ion

Tra

ckin

g Sh

eetc

reat

ed(F

igur

e 3)

.Tr

acki

ng sh

eets

are

orga

nize

d by

inci

dent

ID n

umbe

r and

serv

e as

a su

mm

ary

of th

e ID

DE

eval

uatio

n an

d fie

ld

scre

enin

g, in

clud

ing

phot

ogra

phs,

dete

rmin

atio

ns, f

ollo

w u

p ac

tions

, and

add

ition

al

docu

men

tatio

n th

at o

ccur

red

thro

ugho

ut th

e ID

DE

proc

ess.

b)Sc

reen

ing/

insp

ectio

n of

stru

ctur

es d

rain

ing

to th

e ou

tfal

ls:

Ofte

n an

out

fall

is lo

cate

d re

lativ

ely

far f

rom

the

sour

ce o

f an

illic

it di

scha

rge

or c

onne

ctio

n.Fo

r exa

mpl

e, a

pip

e fr

om a

resi

dent

ial w

ashi

ng m

achi

ne m

ay b

e co

nnec

ted

into

a c

atch

bas

in

hund

reds

of f

eet f

rom

an

outfa

ll. W

hen

this

occ

urs,

dry

wea

ther

flow

may

not

be

dete

cted

ea

sily

at t

he o

utfa

ll.

Ther

efor

e, in

add

ition

to d

ry w

eath

er sc

reen

ing

at th

e ou

tfall

itsel

f, th

e ID

DE

field

cre

w d

oes

a vi

sual

insp

ectio

n of

all

MS4

stru

ctur

es in

an

outfa

ll’s d

rain

age

area

to lo

ok fo

r evi

denc

e of

ill

icit

disc

harg

es, c

onne

ctio

ns o

r dum

ping

. If

such

evi

denc

e is

foun

d th

en a

dditi

onal

che

mic

al

test

ing

of fl

ow o

r sta

ndin

g w

ater

in c

atch

bas

ins m

ay b

e pe

rfor

med

.

3.T

RA

CK

ING

AN

D E

LIM

INA

TIO

N O

F IL

LIC

IT D

ISC

HA

RG

ES

Bas

ed o

n th

e re

sults

of d

ry w

eath

er sc

reen

ing

and

field

insp

ectio

ns, i

t can

be

dete

rmin

ed if

step

s fo

r illi

cit d

isch

arge

elim

inat

ion

are

nece

ssar

y or

pos

sibl

e. T

he c

ateg

ory

of il

licit

disc

harg

e de

term

ines

add

ition

al st

eps t

aken

to v

erify

the

sour

ce a

nd id

entif

y th

e re

spon

sibl

e pa

rty.

Whe

n ill

icit

disc

harg

es a

re d

etec

ted,

IDD

E fie

ld c

rew

s cre

ate

aM

emor

andu

m to

Del

DO

T th

at

incl

udes

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g ho

w th

e di

scha

rge

was

repo

rted

(fie

ld e

valu

atio

n, d

eskt

op ta

rget

ed

or m

isce

llane

ousr

epor

t), fi

eld

scre

enin

g ob

serv

atio

ns a

nd la

b re

sults

. The

mem

o is

upd

ated

with

th

e da

tes,

times

, and

det

ails

of e

very

act

ivity

rela

ted

to th

e ill

icit

disc

harg

e un

til it

is e

limin

ated

or

rem

oved

.A re

cord

is k

epto

f all

corr

espo

nden

ce a

nd fi

eld

visi

ts fo

r eac

h po

tent

ial i

llici

t di

scha

rge,

and

trac

king

form

s are

upd

ated

whe

n an

y ne

w in

form

atio

n is

rece

ived

.

6

a)E

limin

atio

n an

d en

forc

emen

t act

ions

:

Del

DO

Tha

s no

enfo

rcem

ent a

utho

rity

of it

s ow

n, so

adm

inis

trativ

e ac

tion

is th

e fir

st st

ep

used

to e

limin

ate

an il

licit

disc

harg

e.

The

party

or p

artie

sres

pons

ible

for a

n ill

icit

disc

harg

ear

eno

tifie

d in

per

son,

if p

ossi

ble,

and

in w

ritin

g (c

ertif

ied

mai

l) of

the

susp

ecte

d or

iden

tifie

d ill

icit

disc

harg

e by

way

of a

Not

ice

of P

oten

tial I

llega

l Dis

char

ge(F

igur

e 4)

.Pe

rmis

sion

is

soug

ht fr

om th

e pr

oper

ty o

wne

r to

cond

uct f

urth

er in

spec

tions

, inc

ludi

ng d

ye te

stin

g or

vid

eo

pipe

insp

ectio

n, if

app

ropr

iate

in o

rder

to c

onfir

m th

e so

urce

.

Onc

e a

disc

harg

ean

d its

sour

ce a

reco

nfirm

ed, t

he re

spon

sibl

e pa

rty is

requ

este

dvo

lunt

arily

to

elim

inat

e th

e ill

icit

disc

harg

e or

to d

evel

op a

nd su

bmit

to D

elD

OT

a w

ritte

n tim

e-ap

prop

riate

pla

n to

do

so.

If th

e vo

lunt

ary

com

plia

nce

is in

suff

icie

nt, o

r if t

he a

ppro

ved

plan

is

not

bei

ng e

xecu

ted

as a

gree

d up

on, a

cea

se a

nd d

esis

t ord

eris

issu

ed.

If th

ere

is n

o re

spon

se o

r app

ropr

iate

act

ion

take

n by

the

resp

onsi

ble

party

(s),

afte

r not

ice

and

with

in a

sp

ecifi

ed p

erio

d, D

elD

OT

may

und

erta

ke th

e re

quire

d ac

tions

to e

limin

ate

the

illic

it co

nnec

tion

and

subs

eque

ntly

reco

ver t

he c

ost f

rom

the

owne

r.

Del

DO

T al

so h

as a

Mem

oran

dum

of A

gree

men

t with

DN

REC

to p

rovi

de e

nfor

cem

ent

assi

stan

ce w

hen

need

ed.

In a

dditi

on, t

he fo

llow

ing

type

s of r

epor

ts/d

isch

arge

s are

im

med

iate

ly re

ferr

ed to

DN

REC

for f

ollo

w-u

p: o

nsite

was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t sys

tem

s (O

WTS

), m

ajor

spill

s, fis

h ki

lls, i

mm

edia

te e

nviro

nmen

tal h

azar

ds.

Afte

r illi

cit d

isch

arge

elim

inat

ion,

con

sulta

nt fi

eld

crew

s ret

urn

to th

e st

ruct

ure/

outfa

ll an

d co

mpl

ete

follo

w-u

pfie

ld sc

reen

ing

to c

onfir

m th

at th

e di

scha

rge

has b

een

elim

inat

ed.

b)D

oor

hang

er d

istr

ibut

ion:

In re

side

ntia

l nei

ghbo

rhoo

ds w

here

dum

ping

of m

ater

ials

into

the

MS4

issu

spec

ted

or

repo

rted,

Del

DO

T di

strib

utes

Stor

mw

ater

Pol

lutio

n A

war

enes

s Doo

r H

ange

rs(F

igur

e 5)

.D

oor h

ange

rs a

re a

pub

lic e

duca

tion

tool

to ra

ise

awar

enes

s tha

t mat

eria

ls su

ch a

s gra

ss

clip

ping

s, le

aves

, mot

or o

il, p

et w

aste

, etc

., ar

e to

be

kept

out

of s

torm

dra

ins.

Doo

r han

gers

ar

e di

strib

uted

to a

sele

cted

num

ber o

f hou

ses s

urro

undi

ng th

e af

fect

ed o

utfa

ll. T

he fo

llow

ing

info

rmat

ion

is p

rese

nted

on

the

door

han

gers

:

The

type

of i

llici

t dis

char

ge th

at w

as fo

und

in th

e st

orm

sew

er s

yste

mTh

e lo

catio

n of

aff

ecte

d st

ruct

ure

The

pote

ntia

lly a

ffec

ted

wat

er b

ody

The

impo

rtanc

e of

stor

mw

ater

man

agem

ent

Gui

delin

es fo

r red

ucin

g st

orm

wat

er ru

noff

pol

lutio

nD

elD

OT

cont

act i

nfor

mat

ion

for i

llega

l dis

char

ge in

form

atio

n

7

Figu

re 1

.D

elD

OT

IDD

E Fi

eld

Shee

t for

scre

ened

out

falls

.

8

Figu

re 2

. Fl

owch

art f

or d

eter

min

ing

prob

able

sour

ce o

f illi

cit d

isch

arge

s

FLO

W S

OU

RC

E D

ET

ER

MIN

AT

ION

:R

ESI

DE

NT

IAL

or

LIG

HT

CO

MM

ER

CIA

L

No

RESI

DEN

TIAL

OR

LIG

HT C

OM

MER

CIAL

STAR

T

Chec

k fo

r Flo

w

Flow

Dete

rgen

t >0

.25

mg/

L

Like

ly S

anita

ry W

aste

wat

er o

r G

rayw

ater

/Was

hwat

er S

ourc

e

Inte

rmitt

ent

Flow

No

Yes

Yes

No

Evid

ence

of I

llici

t Dis

char

ge

Rech

eck

Late

r

No

Yes

Amm

onia

/ Po

tass

ium

Ra

tio

> 1.

0 m

g/L

Like

ly G

rayw

ater

/Was

hwat

er S

ourc

e

Like

ly S

anita

ry

Was

tew

ater

Sou

rce

Yes

No

E. c

oli

> 13

,000

cf

u/m

L

Yes

Prob

able

Se

wag

e So

urce

No

Robe

rt P

itt, e

t al.,

Sou

rce

Verif

icatio

n of

Inap

prop

riate

Disc

harg

es to

Sto

rm D

rain

age

Syst

ems,

Wat

er E

nviro

nmen

tal

Fede

ratio

n Te

chni

cal E

xhib

ition

and

Con

fere

nce,

Sep

tem

ber 2

004.

9

Figu

re 3

.Ill

icit

Dis

char

ge T

rack

ing

Form

(two

page

s).

10

10

11

11

12

Figu

re 4

.N

otic

e of

Pot

entia

l Ille

gal D

isch

arge

.

13

Figu

re 5

.St

orm

wat

er P

ollu

tion

Aw

aren

ess D

oor H

ange

r.

APP

EN

DIX

K

DEL

DO

T ST

REE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PR

OG

RA

M

i

DE

LD

OT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T 1

613

E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L A

ND

WA

TE

R Q

UA

LIT

Y M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

DE

LD

OT

STR

EE

T SW

EE

PIN

G P

LA

N F

OR

NE

W C

AST

LE

CO

UN

TY:

A

SC

IEN

CE

-BA

SED

ME

TH

OD

OL

OG

Y

TA

BL

E O

F C

ON

TE

NT

S

P

age

A.

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

. 1

B.

LIT

ER

AT

UR

E R

EV

IEW

.....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

. 2

1.R

oads

to b

e Sw

ept ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

. 2

2.Eq

uipm

ent C

apab

ility

.....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....

4 3.

Swee

ping

Pro

cedu

re...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

... 5

C.

CO

ST A

NA

LY

SIS

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

7

1.To

p-D

own

App

roac

h: D

elD

OT

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

7

2.B

otto

m-U

p A

ppro

ach.

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

... 8

3.

Cos

t Ana

lysi

s Con

clus

ion .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. 9

D.

MO

DE

LIN

G A

PPR

OA

CH

.....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....1

0 1.

SWM

M, W

inSL

AM

M a

nd S

IMPT

M M

odel

s ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....1

0 2.

WTM

Mod

el ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...11

E.

LO

AD

ING

RA

TE

S ...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..11

1.R

oadw

ay C

lass

ifica

tions

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....1

1 2.

Run

off V

olum

e ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...12

3.

Even

t Mea

n C

once

ntra

tion

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.13

4.Lo

adin

g R

ates

Sum

mar

y ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.15

F.

POL

LU

TA

NT

LO

AD

S ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.15

G.

STR

EE

T S

WE

EPI

NG

RE

MO

VA

L R

AT

ES

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

161.

Intro

duct

ion .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

16

2.Pi

ckup

Eff

icie

ncy .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...16

3.

Nut

rient

Rem

oval

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....1

7 4.

Freq

uenc

y D

isco

unt .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....1

8 5.

Oth

er D

isco

unt F

acto

rs ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....2

1

H.

RE

SUL

TS

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..23

1.Sc

enar

io D

efin

ition

s.....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.23

I. C

ON

CL

USI

ON

S &

RE

CO

MM

EN

DA

TIO

NS

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...24

1.Ef

fect

iven

ess .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....2

4 2.

Prop

osal

Coa

sts C

ompa

red

to E

xist

ing

Plan

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....2

7 3.

Feas

ibili

ty o

f the

Pro

pose

d Pl

ans .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...27

4.

Abi

lity

to M

eet t

he N

ew P

hase

I M

S4 P

erm

it ...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....2

7 5.

Rec

omm

enda

tion

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....2

7

J.

RE

FER

EN

CE

S ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..28

ii

DE

LD

OT

ST

RE

ET

SW

EE

PIN

G P

LA

N F

OR

NE

W C

AST

LE

CO

UN

TY

: A

SC

IEN

CE

-BA

SED

ME

TH

OD

OL

OG

Y

TA

BL

E O

F C

ON

TE

NT

S (C

ontin

ued)

Page

LIS

T O

F FI

GU

RE

S

Figu

re 1

Pic

kup

Effic

ienc

y V

arie

d by

Equ

ipm

ent a

nd F

requ

ency

.....

......

......

......

......

.18

Fi

gure

2 P

ollu

tant

Rem

oval

for a

ll Sc

enar

ios .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.24

LIS

T O

F T

AB

LE

S

Tab

le

1D

elD

OT

Swee

ping

Crit

eria

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

. 7

T

able

2

Est

imat

ed A

nnua

l Cur

b M

iles .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. 8

T

able

3

Ram

sey-

Was

hing

ton

Met

ro D

istri

ct C

ost .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.. 8

T

able

4

EPA

Fac

t She

et C

ost .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....

9

Tab

le

5 R

oadw

ay C

lass

ifica

tions

for S

wee

ping

Sce

nario

s ....

......

......

......

......

......

....1

1

Tab

le

6 R

unof

f Coe

ffic

ient

s ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...12

T

able

7

Run

off V

olum

e by

Roa

dway

Cla

ssifi

catio

n ...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..12

T

able

8

EM

Cs f

or H

igh

Traf

fic R

oads

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..13

T

able

9

EM

Cs f

or L

ow T

raff

ic R

oads

.....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....1

3

Tab

le 1

0 L

oadi

ng R

ates

by

Roa

dway

Cla

ssifi

catio

n ...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

....1

4

Tab

le 1

1 Sc

enar

ios 1

-4 A

nnua

l Pol

luta

nt L

oadi

ng b

y R

oadw

ay C

lass

ifica

tion

.....

...14

T

able

12

Scen

ario

s 5 A

nnua

l Pol

luta

nt L

oadi

ng b

y R

oadw

ay C

lass

ifica

tion .

......

......

15

Tab

le 1

3 Pi

ckup

Eff

icie

ncy

for V

ario

us S

wee

per T

ypes

, Wee

kly

Freq

uenc

y ....

......

..16

T

able

14

Sum

mar

y of

Pic

kup

Effic

ienc

y, W

eekl

y Fr

eque

ncy .

......

......

......

......

......

.....1

6

Tab

le 1

5 M

echa

nica

l Sw

eepe

r Pic

kup

Effic

ienc

y Pi

ckup

by

Freq

uenc

y ....

......

......

....1

7

Tab

le 1

6 R

egen

erat

ive

Air/

Vac

uum

Sw

eepe

r Pic

kup

Effic

ienc

y by

Fre

quen

cy ..

.....1

7

Tab

le 1

7 R

emov

al R

ates

for S

olid

s ....

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.17

T

able

18

Red

uced

Pic

kup

Effic

ienc

y B

ased

on

Swee

ping

Fre

quen

cy ...

......

......

......

...19

T

able

19

Dis

coun

t Rat

es fo

r Sw

eepi

ng F

requ

ency

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....1

9

Tab

le 2

0 D

isco

unt R

ates

for O

ther

Fac

tors

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....2

0

Tab

le 2

1 R

oadw

ay C

lass

ifica

tions

Agg

rega

ted

for S

wee

ping

Sce

nario

s ....

......

......

...21

T

able

22

Scen

ario

Def

initi

on ..

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

23

Tab

le 2

3 Po

lluta

nt R

emov

al a

nd C

ost f

or A

ll Sc

enar

ios .

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.24

1

DE

LD

OT

AG

RE

EM

EN

T 1

613

E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L A

ND

WA

TE

R Q

UA

LIT

Y M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

DE

LD

OT

STR

EE

T SW

EE

PIN

G P

LA

N F

OR

NE

W C

AST

LE

CO

UN

TY:

A

SC

IEN

CE

-BA

SED

ME

TH

OD

OL

OG

Y

As

part

of th

e D

elaw

are

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n’s

(Del

DO

T) N

atio

nal P

ollu

tion

Dis

char

ge

Elim

inat

ion

Syst

em (N

PDES

) per

mit,

KC

I Tec

hnol

ogie

s, In

c. (K

CI)

was

con

tract

ed to

ass

ist t

he

Dep

artm

ent i

n re

visi

ng it

s Stre

et S

wee

ping

Pla

n fo

r New

Cas

tle C

ount

y.

A.

INT

RO

DU

CT

ION

Del

DO

T is

a c

o-pe

rmitt

ee w

ith N

ew C

astle

Cou

nty

on a

Pha

se I

NPD

ES M

unic

ipal

Sep

arat

e St

orm

Sew

er S

yste

m (M

S4) p

erm

it, is

sued

on

May

7, 2

014.

As

part

of th

e pe

rmit

cond

ition

s, th

e St

orm

Wat

er P

ollu

tion

Prev

entio

n an

d M

anag

emen

t Pl

an (

SWPP

&M

P) m

ust

incl

ude

a st

reet

sw

eepi

ng p

lan

to re

duce

pol

luta

nt lo

ads f

rom

road

way

s to

impr

ove

runo

ff q

ualit

y.

The

curr

ent r

equi

rem

ent i

s to

sw

eep

all s

tate

-ow

ned

road

way

s in

per

mitt

ed a

reas

on

a fr

eque

ncy

base

d on

Ave

rage

Dai

ly T

raff

ic (A

DT)

, as f

ollo

ws:

Inte

rsta

tes a

nd m

ajor

hig

hway

s a m

inim

um o

f fou

r tim

es p

er y

ear

Maj

or/m

inor

col

lect

or ro

ads t

wo

times

per

yea

r Lo

cal/s

ubdi

visi

on ro

ads a

t lea

st o

nce

per y

ear

This

stra

tegy

has

bee

n re

ferr

ed to

as

a 4:

2:1

freq

uenc

y. It

sho

uld

be n

oted

that

som

e of

the

stat

e ro

adw

ays

get

swep

t m

ore

freq

uent

ly t

han

this

– u

sual

ly b

ecau

se o

f ex

cess

ive

build

-up

of

trash

/sed

imen

t (on

hig

h-tra

ffic

roa

ds s

uch

as I

-95

and

I-49

5), o

r fo

r ae

sthe

tic r

easo

ns (

e.g.

SR

1 ne

ar th

e be

ache

s du

ring

the

sum

mer

). Th

e m

ost r

ecen

t cos

t of

swee

ping

at t

his

freq

uenc

y w

as

estim

ated

to b

e ap

prox

imat

ely

$538

,000

ann

ually

.

Del

DO

T su

spec

ted

that

thi

s w

as p

roba

bly

not

the

optim

um s

wee

ping

stra

tegy

for

max

imum

po

lluta

nt re

mov

al a

nd h

ad b

een

cons

ider

ing

revi

sing

the

stra

tegy

bas

ed o

n a

com

bina

tion

of d

ata

colle

ctio

n an

d m

odel

ing.

Fu

rther

mor

e, t

he n

ew P

hase

I M

S4 p

erm

it w

as e

xpec

ted

to r

equi

re

Del

DO

T to

dev

ise

(and

def

end)

a n

ew s

wee

ping

pro

gram

for

the

SW

PP&

MP.

Dur

ing

disc

ussi

ons

of p

erm

it co

nditi

ons,

two

prop

osal

s w

ere

mad

e by

Del

awar

e D

epar

tmen

t of N

atur

al

Res

ourc

es a

nd E

nviro

nmen

tal

Con

trol

(DN

REC

). Th

e fir

st w

as t

o sw

eep

all

road

s m

onth

ly

(12:

12:1

2) a

t a m

inim

um. D

elD

OT

estim

ated

this

pro

gram

wou

ld r

equi

re a

sub

stan

tial i

ncre

ase

in c

ost,

estim

ated

at

$3,2

00,0

00 a

nnua

lly. D

NR

EC p

ropo

sed

an a

ltern

ativ

e pl

an o

f es

sent

ially

do

ublin

g th

e cu

rren

t ef

fort,

and

pre

sum

ably

dou

blin

g th

e po

lluta

nt r

emov

al,

so t

hat

the

thre

e cl

assi

ficat

ions

of r

oads

wou

ld b

e sw

ept a

t a 7

:4:2

freq

uenc

y. T

he c

ost o

f thi

s pl

an w

as e

stim

ated

to

be

$1,0

33,7

00 a

nnua

lly, c

lose

to tw

ice

the

curr

ent c

ost.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

2

Del

DO

T pr

opos

ed to

con

duct

a s

tudy

to d

eter

min

e if

ther

e w

as a

mor

e ef

fect

ive

com

bina

tion

of

swee

ping

fre

quen

cy,

exis

ting

equi

pmen

t, an

d m

anpo

wer

tha

t w

ould

inc

reas

e th

e ex

istin

g po

lluta

nt re

mov

al w

ithou

t gre

atly

incr

easi

ng th

e co

st. T

he p

ropo

sed

met

hodo

logy

wou

ld n

eed

to

mee

t fou

r crit

eria

:

Mus

t not

“ba

cksl

ide”

on

exis

ting

estim

ated

pol

luta

nt re

mov

al

Mus

t pr

escr

ibe

a nu

mer

ic,

mea

sura

ble,

sw

eepi

ng p

rogr

am t

hat

dem

onst

rate

s po

lluta

nt

rem

oval

C

an b

e do

cum

ente

d to

sho

w th

at D

elD

OT

is m

eetin

g th

e pl

an, i

nclu

ding

wei

ghin

g sw

ept

mat

eria

l and

trac

king

swee

per r

oute

s M

ust

be r

obus

t en

ough

to

be a

ccep

ted

by b

oth

DN

REC

and

the

US

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pr

otec

tion

Age

ncy

(EPA

)

The

stud

y w

as b

roke

n do

wn

into

thr

ee t

asks

. Kno

win

g th

at t

here

was

a c

onsi

dera

ble

body

of

liter

atur

e de

scrib

ing

stre

et s

wee

ping

eff

ectiv

enes

s, th

e fir

st t

ask

was

to

rese

arch

var

iabl

es

affe

ctin

g po

lluta

nt r

emov

al. S

peci

fic to

pics

incl

uded

iden

tifyi

ng th

e hi

ghes

t prio

rity

road

s to

be

swep

t, ca

pabi

lity

of d

iffer

ent t

ypes

and

com

bina

tions

of

equi

pmen

t, an

d sw

eepi

ng p

roce

dure

s. Th

e se

cond

task

was

to e

stim

ate

the

cost

s of

sw

eepi

ng p

er c

urb

mile

bas

ed o

n da

ta p

rovi

ded

by

Del

DO

T an

d fr

om a

lite

ratu

re r

evie

w. T

he th

ird ta

sk w

as to

dev

elop

a p

roce

dure

for

mod

elin

g po

lluta

nt r

emov

al f

or d

iffer

ent r

oad

type

s, eq

uipm

ent a

nd s

wee

ping

fre

quen

cies

, and

app

ly th

e m

odel

to a

set o

f sce

nario

s var

ying

thes

e th

ree

para

met

ers i

n or

der t

o fo

reca

st re

sults

.

B.

LIT

ER

AT

UR

E R

EV

IEW

1.R

oads

to b

e Sw

ept

The

purp

ose

of th

is re

view

was

to d

eter

min

e if

ther

e w

ere

parti

cula

r typ

es o

f roa

ds o

r geo

grap

hic

loca

tions

whi

ch w

ould

pro

vide

bet

ter w

ater

qua

lity

bene

fits

for t

he s

ame

freq

uenc

y an

d ty

pe o

f sw

eepi

ng. T

he re

view

look

ed a

t the

follo

win

g:

AD

T to

det

erm

ine

if ro

ads

with

hea

vy tr

affic

gen

erat

e m

ore

build

up o

f po

lluta

nts

than

in

freq

uent

ly tr

avel

ed ro

ads

Loca

tions

of h

ot sp

ots o

r are

as w

here

acc

umul

atio

n ra

tes w

ere

high

er th

an a

vera

ge

Dis

pers

al o

f stre

et d

irt o

utsi

de o

f the

swep

t are

a du

e to

stre

et c

ondi

tion

or tr

affic

Ef

fect

iven

ess o

f sw

eepi

ng fo

r ope

n se

ctio

n an

d cl

osed

sect

ion

drai

nage

Ther

e w

ere

a nu

mbe

r of

ref

eren

ces

that

dis

cuss

ed t

he e

ffec

t of

AD

T on

pol

luta

nt b

uild

up.

Sam

plin

g an

d re

sear

ch re

sults

wer

e us

eful

for e

stim

atin

g di

ffer

ence

s in

load

s ba

sed

on A

DT,

but

no

t on

whe

ther

the

sou

rce

of s

treet

dirt

was

veh

icle

s, ad

jace

nt l

and,

or

road

sur

face

bre

akup

.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

3

Info

rmat

ion

on A

DT

and

pollu

tant

load

ings

in g

ener

al c

orro

bora

ted

the

earli

est s

tudi

es (D

risco

ll,

1990

) of h

ighe

r (or

mor

e ra

pid)

bui

ldup

on

road

s with

hig

her A

DT.

Bar

rett

et a

l. (1

998)

sam

pled

run

off

in A

ustin

, TX

, an

d fo

und

the

med

ian

Even

t M

ean

Con

cent

ratio

n (E

MC

) co

mpa

red

wel

l with

the

data

fro

m D

risco

ll (1

990)

for

site

s w

ith m

ore

or

less

than

30,

000

AD

T, w

ith e

xcep

tions

that

cou

ld b

e ex

plai

ned

by s

ite c

ondi

tions

. Wat

er q

ualit

y of

the

high

-traf

fic s

ite w

as s

imila

r to

indu

stria

l/com

mer

cial

runo

ff, w

hich

the

auth

ors

cons

ider

ed

unsu

rpris

ing

beca

use

of th

e hi

gh p

erce

ntag

e of

stre

ets a

nd p

arki

ng lo

ts in

thes

e la

nd u

ses,

and

the

amou

nt o

f pol

luta

nt lo

ads d

eriv

ed fr

om v

ehic

les.

Wal

ch (2

006)

foun

d no

cle

ar p

atte

rn in

the

dist

ribut

ion

of p

artic

le s

izes

col

lect

ed fr

om p

rimar

y,

seco

ndar

y,

and

subd

ivis

ion

road

ty

pes.

The

diff

eren

ces

wer

e sm

all

but

not

stat

istic

ally

si

gnifi

cant

. How

ever

, in

gene

ral,

met

als

and

Tota

l Pet

role

um H

ydro

carb

ons

(TPH

) w

ere

high

er

on p

rimar

y an

d se

cond

ary

road

s. W

u et

al.

(199

8) t

este

d fo

r To

tal

Susp

ende

d So

lids

(TSS

), C

hem

ical

Oxy

gen

Dem

and

(CO

D),

oil a

nd g

reas

e (O

&G

), nu

trien

ts, a

nd m

etal

s, an

d fo

und

that

on

ly T

SS sh

owed

a p

ositi

ve li

near

tren

d w

ith tr

affic

vol

ume.

Kay

hani

an e

t al

. (2

003)

exa

min

ed t

he c

orre

latio

n be

twee

n A

DT

and

pollu

tant

con

cent

ratio

ns

base

d on

sam

plin

g da

ta o

ver

a fo

ur-y

ear

perio

d. T

hey

divi

ded

traff

ic le

vels

into

fou

r ca

tego

ries

of u

rban

hig

hway

s an

d on

e ca

tego

ry o

f no

n-ur

ban

high

way

s. N

o di

rect

lin

ear

corr

elat

ion

was

fo

und;

with

the

conc

lusi

on th

at A

DT

shou

ld o

nly

be a

gen

eral

indi

cato

r of c

once

ntra

tions

if u

sed

as th

e so

le p

redi

ctor

. How

ever

, it a

ppea

red

that

AD

T ha

d a

stro

nger

influ

ence

on

pollu

tant

load

le

vels

, par

ticul

arly

for t

hose

pol

luta

nts r

esul

ting

from

tran

spor

tatio

n ac

tiviti

es (m

etal

s and

O&

G).

Rec

omm

enda

tions

inc

lude

d pr

iorit

izin

g hi

gh t

raff

ic s

ites

for

stru

ctur

al B

MPs

and

con

duct

ing

mor

e re

gula

r stre

et sw

eepi

ng o

r inl

et c

lean

ing.

Iris

h et

al

(199

8) c

olle

cted

sto

rm s

ampl

es f

rom

an

expr

essw

ay i

n A

ustin

, TX

to

deve

lop

regr

essi

on m

odel

s for

pre

dict

ing

load

s. Fo

r sed

imen

t, co

nditi

ons d

urin

g th

e an

tece

dent

dry

per

iod

(dus

tfall,

mai

nten

ance

, sw

eepi

ng)

wer

e m

ore

sign

ifica

nt t

han

AD

T, s

o sw

eepi

ng w

ould

be

an

effe

ctiv

e m

easu

re fo

r any

leve

l of t

raff

ic. M

etal

s, C

OD

, Bio

logi

cal O

xyge

n D

eman

d (B

OD

) and

O

&G

wer

e co

rrel

ated

with

AD

T. R

ainf

all w

as th

e m

ost i

mpo

rtant

sou

rce

of n

utrie

nts

in ru

noff

, w

ith h

igh

conc

entra

tions

of n

itrat

e an

d ph

osph

orus

rela

tive

to th

e co

ncen

tratio

ns in

runo

ff.

Seve

ral r

esea

rche

rs in

vest

igat

ed w

heth

er p

artic

ular

land

use

s ha

d a

sign

ifica

nt e

ffec

t on

pollu

tant

bu

ildup

. C

WP

(200

6) r

epor

ted

that

acc

umul

atio

n ra

tes

for

stre

et d

irt f

or a

hea

vily

tra

vele

d co

mm

erci

al s

treet

wer

e 2

or 3

tim

es h

ighe

r th

an f

or h

igh

dens

ity r

esid

entia

l stre

ets.

Indu

stria

l ar

eas

tend

ed to

acc

umul

ate

pollu

tant

s fa

ster

than

eith

er c

omm

erci

al o

r re

side

ntia

l are

as. L

aw e

t al

. (20

08) f

ound

com

mer

cial

/ in

dust

rial l

and

uses

had

hig

her a

ccum

ulat

ion

rate

s th

an re

side

ntia

l ar

eas,

by a

fact

or o

f 4 o

n av

erag

e.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

4

Zarr

iello

et a

l. (2

002)

sum

mar

ized

man

y of

the

stud

ies

of p

ollu

tant

s in

stre

et d

irt. S

treet

s w

ere

the

mai

n so

urce

of s

edim

ent a

nd T

SS. L

awns

con

tribu

ted

phos

phor

us lo

ads

out o

f pro

porti

on to

th

eir a

rea.

Mos

t of t

he p

hosp

horu

s and

met

als w

ere

boun

d to

the

fine-

grai

ned

parti

cles

. Bre

ault

et

al.

(200

5)

sam

pled

st

reet

di

rt an

d an

alyz

ed

for

32

elem

ents

(in

clud

ing

trace

m

etal

s),

hydr

ocar

bons

, an

d po

lycy

clic

aro

mat

ic h

ydro

carb

ons

(PA

H)

for

parti

cles

in

five

size

cla

sses

. M

ost

met

als

wer

e de

tect

ed i

n ev

ery

size

ran

ge a

nd g

ener

ally

inc

reas

ed i

n co

ncen

tratio

n w

ith

decr

easi

ng s

ize.

Cop

per

was

the

exce

ptio

n, b

eing

con

cent

rate

d in

gra

vels

. PA

H c

once

ntra

tions

al

so in

crea

sed

with

dec

reas

ing

parti

cle

size

, with

a f

ew e

xcep

tions

. The

y fo

und

zinc

, lea

d, a

nd

PAH

wer

e hi

ghly

cor

rela

ted

with

the

fines

t silt

/cla

y (<

0.06

3mm

) par

ticle

s.

Stre

et c

ondi

tion

had

an e

ffec

t on

the

loca

tion

and

amou

nt o

f stre

et d

irt b

uild

up.

Pitt

et a

l. (2

004)

fo

und

that

stud

ies o

n sm

ooth

er st

reet

s with

no

on-s

treet

par

king

cor

robo

rate

d th

e ea

rlies

t fin

ding

s th

at 9

0% o

f the

stre

et d

irt w

as in

the

gutte

r, w

ithin

30

cm o

f the

cur

b. H

owev

er, o

ther

stu

dies

on

roug

her s

treet

s, w

here

par

king

was

com

mon

, fou

nd th

at m

ost o

f the

stre

et d

irt w

as in

the

driv

ing

lane

s, tra

pped

by

the

roug

her

stre

et t

extu

re,

or b

lock

ed b

y pa

rked

car

s fr

om b

eing

blo

wn

by

traff

ic t

o th

e cu

rb.

Zarr

iello

et

al.

(200

2) r

epor

ted

on t

wo

stud

ies

that

inc

orpo

rate

d st

reet

co

nditi

on in

to th

e re

sults

. Stre

ets i

n po

or c

ondi

tion

(cra

cked

and

bro

ken

pave

men

t) de

crea

sed

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s be

caus

e di

rt pa

rticl

es c

ould

be

lodg

ed in

the

crac

ks b

ut s

till b

e w

ashe

d of

f du

ring

stor

ms.

Stre

et c

ondi

tion

likel

y af

fect

s m

echa

nica

l sw

eepe

rs th

e m

ost.

CW

P (2

006)

repo

rted

that

th

e am

ount

of l

oad

cont

ribut

ed b

y th

e de

terio

ratio

n of

the

stre

et s

urfa

ce d

epen

ded

on te

xtur

e an

d co

nditi

on o

f th

e ro

ad.

Load

s w

ere

high

er f

or r

ough

stre

ets

and

for

asph

alt

stre

ets

in p

oor

cond

ition

s.

In s

umm

ary,

the

high

est p

riorit

y ro

ads

appe

ared

to b

e th

ose

with

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant b

uild

up o

f po

lluta

nts

that

are

am

enab

le to

sw

eepi

ng. T

hese

are

road

s w

ith e

ither

AD

T >3

0,00

0 or

road

s in

co

mm

erci

al a

nd in

dust

rial a

reas

that

are

dra

ined

with

cur

b, g

utte

r, an

d st

orm

dra

in. T

here

wer

e no

stu

dies

iden

tifie

d th

at r

epor

ted

on th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

of s

wee

ping

ope

n se

ctio

n ro

ads

with

out

curb

and

gut

ter.

2.E

quip

men

t Cap

abili

ty

Ther

e ha

ve b

een

sign

ifica

nt c

hang

es in

sw

eepe

r tec

hnol

ogy

sinc

e th

e N

atio

nwid

e U

rban

Run

off

Prog

ram

(N

UR

P) s

tudy

in

the

early

198

0s w

as u

nabl

e to

doc

umen

t st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t im

prov

emen

ts f

rom

stre

et s

wee

ping

. The

impr

ovem

ents

incl

ude

vacu

um-a

ssis

ted

swee

pers

and

re

gene

rativ

e ai

r sw

eepe

rs th

at a

re c

apab

le o

f col

lect

ing

finer

par

ticle

s tha

n th

e m

echa

nica

l bro

om

swee

pers

tes

ted

durin

g th

e N

UR

P st

udy.

As

parti

cle

size

is

a si

gnifi

cant

var

iabl

e in

pol

luta

nt

load

ing,

the

abili

ty to

col

lect

a w

ider

rang

e co

rrel

ates

to im

prov

emen

ts in

pol

luta

nt re

mov

al.

Selb

ig a

nd B

anne

rman

(200

7) p

rovi

ded

the

resu

lts o

f sev

eral

wee

ks o

f stre

et sw

eepi

ng w

ith th

ree

type

s of

sw

eepe

rs o

pera

ted

unde

r ty

pica

l con

ditio

ns. S

treet

dirt

sam

ples

wer

e ta

ken

befo

re a

nd

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

5

afte

r th

e sw

eepe

rs c

lean

ed e

ach

area

. The

med

ian

stre

et d

irt r

emov

al w

as 2

9% f

or r

egen

erat

ive

air,

30%

for

vac

uum

ass

ist,

and

5% f

or m

echa

nica

l br

oom

sw

eepi

ng.

The

sam

e st

udy

also

re

porte

d re

sults

of

swee

per

effic

ienc

y by

par

ticle

siz

e, a

nd in

clud

ed in

form

atio

n fr

om p

revi

ous

stud

ies.

Con

sist

ent w

ith s

tudi

es d

atin

g ba

ck to

the

1980

s, th

eir r

esul

ts s

how

ed m

echa

nica

l bro

om

swee

pers

wer

e in

effe

ctiv

e at

col

lect

ing

parti

cles

<25

0 um

. The

reg

ener

ativ

e ai

r sw

eepe

r co

uld

not p

ick

up p

artic

les

<125

um

. The

vac

uum

ass

ist s

wee

per c

ould

redu

ce th

e st

reet

dirt

yie

ld fo

r al

l par

ticle

size

s, in

clud

ing

the

smal

lest

one

s, <6

3 um

.

Ove

r hal

f of t

he sa

mpl

es in

the

area

swep

t by

the

mec

hani

cal b

room

had

an

incr

ease

in st

reet

dirt

yi

eld

afte

r sw

eepi

ng. T

heir

expl

anat

ion

was

that

the

abra

sive

act

ion

of th

e w

ire b

ristle

bro

oms

may

hav

e to

rn u

p th

e pa

vem

ent o

r loo

sene

d pa

rticl

es e

mbe

dded

in c

rack

s. Th

ey a

lso

foun

d th

at

mec

hani

cal

swee

pers

can

inc

reas

e th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

fine

parti

cles

ava

ilabl

e to

be

was

hed

off.

This

occ

urs

thro

ugh

two

mec

hani

sms:

firs

t, gu

tter b

room

s ca

n di

slod

ge e

mbe

dded

par

ticle

s, bu

t no

t pi

ck t

hem

up.

Sec

ond,

by

rem

ovin

g la

rger

par

ticle

s, sm

alle

r on

es w

hich

oth

erw

ise

wou

ld

have

bee

n ar

mor

ed, m

ay b

e ex

pose

d to

rain

fall.

Bre

ault

et a

l. (2

005)

foun

d th

at in

thei

r ass

essm

ent,

vacu

um s

wee

pers

wer

e at

leas

t 1.6

and

up

to

10 ti

mes

as e

ffic

ient

as m

echa

nica

l sw

eepe

rs fo

r all

parti

cle

size

s.

Tand

em s

wee

ping

, co

mbi

ning

a m

echa

nica

l br

oom

sw

eepe

r fo

llow

ed b

y a

vacu

um-a

ssis

t sw

eepe

r w

as f

ound

to

be m

ore

effe

ctiv

e th

an e

ither

of

thes

e ty

pes

of s

wee

pers

ope

rate

d in

divi

dual

ly.

Pitt

et a

l. (2

004)

rev

iew

ed s

treet

cle

aner

per

form

ance

tes

ts.

In a

reas

with

hig

h lo

adin

gs o

f la

rge

parti

cles

tha

t ar

mor

ed s

mal

l pa

rticl

es (

desc

ribed

by

Selb

ig a

nd B

anne

rman

, 20

07),

it m

ay b

e be

st t

o us

e a

tand

em o

pera

tion

whe

re t

he s

treet

s ar

e fir

st c

lean

ed w

ith a

m

echa

nica

l br

oom

to

rem

ove

the

larg

e pa

rticl

es a

nd d

islo

dge

the

smal

l on

es,

follo

wed

by

a re

gene

rativ

e ai

r sw

eepe

r to

rem

ove

the

finer

par

ticle

s. Su

ther

land

and

Jel

en (1

997)

des

crib

ed th

e re

sults

of a

n ea

rlier

stud

y in

Por

tland

, whe

re ta

ndem

ope

ratio

n of

a b

room

swee

per a

nd a

vac

uum

sw

eepe

r pro

ved

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e ef

fect

ive

than

the

broo

m s

wee

pers

test

ed in

NU

RP

stud

ies

in

the

1980

s 3.Sw

eepi

ng P

roce

dure

The

mos

t si

gnifi

cant

pro

cedu

ral

varia

ble

affe

ctin

g po

lluta

nt r

emov

al i

s th

e fr

eque

ncy

of

swee

ping

. Ide

ally

, sw

eepi

ng w

ould

occ

ur a

fter a

per

iod

of d

ry w

eath

er w

hen

pollu

tant

s bu

ilt u

p on

the

road

sur

face

, and

just

prio

r to

pre

cipi

tatio

n w

hen

they

are

was

hed

off.

Seve

ral s

tudi

es,

goin

g ba

ck t

o th

e 19

70s,

corr

elat

ed s

treet

dirt

bui

ldup

with

the

len

gth

of t

he a

ntec

eden

t dr

y pe

riod.

How

ever

, Sut

herla

nd a

nd J

elen

(19

96)

iden

tifie

d th

e si

gnifi

canc

e of

stre

et d

irt b

uild

up d

urin

g w

et w

eath

er e

vent

s du

e to

“w

asho

n”. B

ased

on

a st

udy

in P

ortla

nd, O

R, t

hey

foun

d w

et s

easo

n

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

6

accu

mul

atio

n w

as h

ighe

r th

an t

hat

in t

he d

ry s

easo

n. T

hey

attri

bute

d th

e ob

serv

atio

ns t

o si

tuat

ions

whe

re w

hen

runo

ff f

rom

adj

oini

ng p

ervi

ous

and

impe

rvio

us a

reas

inc

reas

ed t

he

amou

nt o

f sed

imen

t on

stre

ets a

fter h

ighe

r int

ensi

ty e

vent

s. Pi

tt et

al.

(200

4) s

umm

ariz

ed e

arlie

r st

udie

s of

stre

et d

irt a

ccum

ulat

ion.

For

long

acc

umul

atio

n pe

riods

(in

freq

uent

rai

nfal

l) w

ind

loss

es c

an a

ppro

xim

ate

the

accu

mul

atio

n ra

te, l

eadi

ng to

low

in

crea

ses

in lo

adin

g. T

his

was

foun

d in

Bel

levu

e W

A w

hen

stea

dy lo

adin

gs w

ere

obse

rved

afte

r 1

wee

k of

dry

wea

ther

. B

utch

er (

2003

) de

scrib

ed e

arlie

r st

udie

s th

at s

ugge

sted

bui

ldup

and

st

orag

e of

stre

et d

irt a

ppro

ache

s its

max

imum

in a

bout

12

dry

days

for c

omm

erci

al a

nd in

dust

rial

land

use

s, an

d 20

dry

day

s for

resi

dent

ial l

and

uses

.

Zarr

iello

et

al.

(200

2) r

ecom

men

ded

that

an

optim

al f

requ

ency

wou

ld p

rovi

de a

t le

ast

one

clea

ning

bet

wee

n st

orm

s, an

d ca

lcul

ated

the

ave

rage

dry

per

iod

betw

een

mea

sura

ble

stor

ms

usin

g a

min

imum

int

er-e

vent

tim

e of

12

hour

s. R

esul

ts w

ere

an a

vera

ge o

f 85

hou

rs b

etw

een

stor

ms.

The

auth

ors

also

det

erm

ined

the

leng

th o

f tim

e be

twee

n st

orm

s w

ith v

olum

es o

f 0.

10”,

0.

25”,

and

0.5

0”,

and

reco

mm

ende

d w

eekl

y st

reet

sw

eepi

ng t

o pr

ovid

e co

ntam

inan

t re

mov

al

betw

een

mos

t st

orm

s. Se

attle

(20

09)

repo

rted

that

sw

eepi

ng a

ltern

ate

side

s of

the

stre

et e

very

ot

her w

eek

was

ver

y ef

fect

ive

at re

duci

ng se

dim

ent a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d po

lluta

nts.

Thre

e ot

her

varia

bles

in

swee

ping

pro

cedu

re w

ere

exam

ined

for

the

ir ef

fect

on

pollu

tant

re

mov

al:

oper

atin

g sp

eed,

cur

bsid

e pa

rkin

g, a

nd w

eath

er.

CW

P (2

006)

fou

nd t

hat

rem

oval

ef

ficie

ncy

was

impr

oved

by

stay

ing

at th

e op

timal

ope

ratin

g sp

eed

of a

bout

6 to

8 M

PH. T

he

sam

e re

port

also

dis

cuss

ed p

arki

ng. W

hile

the

maj

ority

of p

ollu

tant

s ar

e fo

und

clos

e to

the

curb

, re

sults

of p

arki

ng re

stric

tions

wer

e m

ixed

. Sea

ttle

(200

9) e

nfor

ced

park

ing

rest

rictio

ns, b

ut fo

und

ther

e w

as n

o re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n re

side

ntia

l sw

eepe

r pi

ckup

and

the

num

ber

of p

arke

d ca

rs,

sugg

estin

g th

at th

e sw

eepe

r con

tinue

d to

col

lect

stre

et d

irt fr

om th

e ce

nter

of t

he s

treet

, and

that

pa

rkin

g w

as n

ot a

s im

porta

nt a

s oth

er fa

ctor

s aff

ectin

g ef

ficie

ncy.

Non

e of

the

stud

ies

revi

ewed

test

ed s

treet

sw

eepi

ng d

urin

g or

afte

r a

snow

sto

rm. I

n th

e st

reet

di

rt sa

mpl

ing

cond

ucte

d by

Sel

big

and

Ban

nerm

an (2

007)

, col

lect

ion

was

don

e in

Apr

il th

roug

h Se

ptem

ber t

o av

oid

snow

and

ice

in th

e w

inte

r and

org

anic

det

ritus

in th

e fa

ll, w

hich

wou

ld h

ave

bias

ed t

he s

ampl

es. P

itt e

t al

. (20

04)

brie

fly d

iscu

ssed

eff

ects

of

wet

pav

emen

t in

rel

atio

n to

eq

uipm

ent,

writ

ing

that

mos

t va

cuum

sw

eepe

rs c

an’t

rem

ove

fine

parti

cles

eff

ectiv

ely

unde

r m

oist

con

ditio

ns; n

or w

here

ther

e w

ere

larg

er p

artic

les

that

cov

er th

e fin

er s

treet

dirt

. Zar

riello

et

al.

(200

2) q

uote

d an

US

Fede

ral

Hig

hway

Adm

inis

tratio

n (F

HW

A)

stud

y th

at i

ndic

ated

the

ef

fect

iven

ess o

f bot

h m

echa

nica

l and

vac

uum

swee

pers

dec

reas

ed in

wet

con

ditio

ns.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

7

C.

CO

ST A

NA

LY

SIS

The

stre

et sw

eepi

ng c

ost a

naly

sis p

rese

nted

bel

ow is

an

effo

rt to

det

erm

ine

the

estim

ated

cos

t per

cu

rb m

ile fo

r the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

a c

ompr

ehen

sive

sw

eepi

ng p

rogr

am u

sing

tand

em s

wee

pers

to

im

prov

e w

ater

qua

lity.

Stre

et s

wee

ping

cos

ts w

ere

dete

rmin

ed t

hrou

gh t

wo

diff

eren

t ap

proa

ches

, a to

p-do

wn

appr

oach

usi

ng h

isto

ric sw

eepi

ng c

ost d

ata

from

Del

DO

T, a

nd a

bot

tom

-up

app

roac

h w

here

the

estim

ate

was

der

ived

from

two

sour

ces

of li

tera

ture

val

ues

for l

abor

and

eq

uipm

ent

cost

. N

eith

er o

f th

ese

appr

oach

es a

ddre

ssed

the

cos

t of

dis

posa

l, w

hich

sho

uld

be

equi

vale

nt p

er c

urb-

mile

for e

ither

est

imat

e an

d va

ries a

mon

g lo

calit

ies.

The

top-

dow

n ap

proa

ch i

s a

cost

per

cur

b-m

ile e

stim

ate

whi

ch h

as b

een

deve

lope

d fr

om d

ata

prov

ided

by

Del

DO

T in

clud

ing

tota

l sw

eepi

ng c

osts

and

cur

b-m

iles

swep

t. Th

e bo

ttom

-up

appr

oach

est

imat

e w

as d

evel

oped

fro

m l

itera

ture

dat

a, i

nclu

ding

equ

ipm

ent

and

oper

atio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce c

osts

. Th

e tw

o so

urce

s w

ere

the

Ram

sey-

Was

hing

ton

Met

ro W

ater

shed

Stu

dy

(Sch

illin

g, 2

005)

and

the

EPA

/NPD

ES d

ata

sets

(EPA

, 200

6).

1.T

op-D

own

App

roac

h: D

elD

OT

In o

rder

to e

stim

ate

the

New

Cas

tle C

ount

y co

st p

er c

urb

mile

, Del

DO

T pr

ovid

ed c

ost d

ata

for

2009

-201

1 fo

r the

Nor

th a

nd C

anal

Dis

trict

s of

New

Cas

tle C

ount

y. T

he d

ata

incl

uded

all

cost

s as

soci

ated

with

the

sw

eepi

ng p

rogr

am e

xcep

t di

spos

al. T

able

1 s

umm

ariz

es t

he d

ata

and

the

anal

ysis

. All

annu

al c

osts

wer

e av

erag

ed, r

egar

dles

s of

dis

trict

or

swee

per

type

, res

ultin

g in

an

aver

age

cost

per

cur

b m

ile o

f $4

7.08

for

a s

ingl

e sw

eepe

r. To

det

erm

ine

cost

s of

tan

dem

sw

eepi

ng, t

his n

umbe

r was

sim

ply

doub

led,

resu

lting

in a

cos

t per

cur

b m

ile o

f $94

.15.

TA

BL

E 1

D

EL

DO

T S

WE

EPI

NG

CO

ST D

AT

A

Dis

tric

t Fi

scal

Yea

r T

otal

Cos

ts

Cur

b M

iles S

wep

t C

ost/c

urb

Mile

Nor

th20

11

$248

,360

.56

1,22

9.50

$2

02.0

0 20

10

$186

,815

.46

3,26

4.00

$5

7.24

20

09

$241

,596

.43

4,98

1.80

$4

8.50

Can

al

2011

$2

69,4

83.1

9 6,

172.

55

$43.

66

2010

$2

04,0

21.3

3 6,

512.

60

$31.

33

2009

$3

41,2

10.2

9 9,

521.

40

$35.

84

Ave

rage

(Sin

gle

Swee

per)

$2

48,5

81.2

1 5,

280.

31

$47.

08

Cos

t/Mile

(Tan

dem

) $9

4.15

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

8

2.B

otto

m-U

p A

ppro

ach

Dat

a fo

r th

e bo

ttom

-up

appr

oach

was

a m

ix o

f ca

pita

l cos

ts f

or e

quip

men

t and

ann

ual c

osts

for

op

erat

ions

and

mai

nten

ance

(O

&M

). C

ost d

ata

for

the

Ram

sey-

Was

hing

ton

Met

ro D

istri

ct w

as

publ

ishe

d in

Sch

illin

g (2

005)

. EPA

pub

lishe

d co

st d

ata

on th

eir N

PDES

web

site

(EPA

, 200

6).

Ann

ual

curb

mile

s w

ere

estim

ated

bas

ed o

n a

swee

ping

spe

ed o

f 6

mph

, an

d an

eff

ectiv

e sw

eepi

ng p

erio

d of

50%

of

the

day.

Thi

s es

timat

e w

as m

ade

to t

ake

into

acc

ount

tim

e sp

ent

trave

lling

to

and

from

the

sw

eepi

ng s

ite a

nd t

ime

spen

t di

spos

ing

of c

olle

cted

mat

eria

l. Th

e re

sult

of th

e es

timat

e w

as a

n av

erag

e sw

eepi

ng s

peed

of 3

mph

and

mile

age

of 6

,240

cur

b m

iles

per y

ear.

The

calc

ulat

ion

is sh

own

in th

e T

able

2.

TA

BL

E 2

E

STIM

AT

ED

AN

NU

AL

CU

RB

MIL

ES

Cur

b-M

iles /

Yr

(one

pai

r)

mph

6

hrs/

yr

2,08

0 Ef

fect

iven

ess

50%

Ef

fect

ive

hrs/

yr

1,04

0 Ef

fect

ive

mi/y

r 6,

240

To p

rovi

de a

n eq

uiva

lent

cos

t per

cur

b m

ile fo

r com

paris

on w

ith th

e D

elD

OT

anal

ysis

, all

cost

s ha

d to

be

conv

erte

d to

a s

ingl

e an

nual

cos

t. B

oth

sour

ces

publ

ishe

d ca

pita

l co

sts

for

the

equi

pmen

t, w

hich

wer

e an

nual

ized

usi

ng n

et p

rese

nt v

alue

cal

cula

tions

bas

ed o

n th

e es

timat

ed

life

of f

ive

year

s fo

r m

echa

nica

l sw

eepe

rs a

nd e

ight

yea

rs f

or v

acuu

m s

wee

pers

pro

vide

d by

Sc

hilli

ng (2

005)

. A d

isco

unt r

ate

of 3

% w

as u

sed

in th

e ca

lcul

atio

n.

O&

M c

osts

wer

e pr

ovid

ed i

n bo

th t

he S

chill

ing

(Tab

le 3

) an

d EP

A (

Tab

le 4

) re

ports

. Lab

or

cost

s wer

e es

timat

ed u

sing

wag

e ra

tes p

rovi

ded

by D

elD

OT.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

9

TA

BL

E 3

R

AM

SEY

-WA

SHIN

GT

ON

ME

TR

O D

IST

RIC

T C

OST

E

quip

men

t L

ife

Cap

ital

Ann

ualiz

ed @

3%

C

ost p

er c

urb

mile

M

echa

nica

l 5

$100

,000

$2

1,83

5.46

V

acuu

m

8 $2

00,0

00

$25,

000.

00

Pair

$46,

835.

46

$7.5

1O

&M

Mec

hani

cal

$40.

00V

acuu

m

$20.

00La

bor

$30.

15

Cre

w

2

Cos

t / h

r $6

0.30

H

rs/y

r 2,

080

Labo

r Cos

t/yr

$125

,424

$2

0.10

TO

TA

L

$87.

61

3.C

ost A

naly

sis C

oncl

usio

n

Bot

h ap

proa

ches

res

ulte

d in

ver

y si

mila

r es

timat

es o

f th

e co

st p

er c

urb

mile

for

tan

dem

sw

eepi

ng. T

he D

elD

OT

data

gav

e a

cost

of

$94.

15 a

nd th

e av

erag

e of

the

two

cost

s ba

sed

on

liter

atur

e va

lues

was

$94

.36.

For

the

purp

oses

of c

ompa

ring

cost

s fo

r sw

eepi

ng s

cena

rios

in th

e ne

xt ta

sk, a

cos

t of $

100.

00 p

er c

urb

mile

was

ass

umed

for t

ande

m sw

eepe

rs a

nd $

50.0

0 pe

r cur

b m

ile fo

r sin

gle

swee

pers

.

TA

BL

E 4

E

PA F

AC

T S

HE

ET

CO

ST

Equ

ipm

ent

Life

C

apita

l A

nnua

lized

@

3%

C

ost p

er

curb

mile

E

scal

ated

, 199

1-20

11 @

160

%

Mec

hani

cal

5 $7

5,00

0 $1

6,37

6.59

V

acuu

m

8 $1

50,0

00

$18,

750.

00

Pair

$35,

126.

59

$5.6

3 $9

.01

O&

MM

echa

nica

l $3

0.00

$4

8.00

Vac

uum

$1

5.00

$2

4.00

Labo

r $3

0.15

C

rew

2

Cos

t / h

r $6

0.30

H

rs/y

r 2,

080

Labo

r Cos

t/yr

$125

,424

$2

0.10

$2

0.10

TO

TA

L

$101

.11

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

10

D.

MO

DE

LIN

G A

PPR

OA

CH

Dur

ing

the

liter

atur

e re

view

, fo

ur m

odel

s th

at c

ould

be

used

to

estim

ate

load

s an

d po

lluta

nt

rem

oval

from

stre

et sw

eepi

ng w

ere

iden

tifie

d:

Wat

ersh

ed T

reat

men

t M

odel

(W

TM)

is a

spr

eads

heet

-bas

ed a

nnua

l lo

adin

g m

odel

for

w

ater

shed

ana

lysi

s St

orm

wat

er M

anag

emen

t Mod

el (S

WM

M) a

nd S

ourc

e Lo

adin

g an

d M

anag

emen

t Mod

el

(Win

SLA

MM

) ar

e ge

nera

l pu

rpos

e co

ntin

uous

si

mul

atio

n m

odel

s fo

r hy

drol

ogy,

hy

drau

lics a

nd w

ater

qua

lity

Sim

plifi

ed P

artic

ulat

e Tr

ansp

ort

Mod

el (

SIM

PTM

) is

a c

ontin

uous

sim

ulat

ion

mod

el

spec

ifica

lly t

arge

ted

to p

ollu

tant

loa

d ca

lcul

atio

ns f

or m

anag

emen

t pr

actic

es s

uch

incl

udin

g st

reet

swee

ping

and

cat

ch b

asin

cle

anin

g.

1.SW

MM

, Win

SLA

MM

, and

SIM

PTM

Mod

els

The

bene

fit o

f usi

ng a

con

tinuo

us m

odel

is th

e ab

ility

to c

ompa

re th

e re

sults

from

act

ual r

ainf

all

even

ts w

ith m

onito

ring

data

col

lect

ed d

urin

g th

e sa

me

even

ts.

This

allo

ws

the

mod

eler

to

calib

rate

the

inpu

t dat

a an

d re

plic

ate

real

-wor

ld c

ondi

tions

. How

ever

, in

a si

tuat

ion

such

as

this

, w

here

mon

itorin

g da

ta w

as n

ot c

olle

cted

, the

add

ition

al e

ffor

t fo

r m

odel

ing

does

not

giv

e an

eq

uiva

lent

ben

efit

in a

ccur

acy.

For

exa

mpl

e, f

or th

e m

ost a

ccur

ate

resu

lts, S

IMPT

M s

houl

d be

ca

libra

ted

by m

atch

ing

mod

el r

esul

ts to

fie

ld m

easu

rem

ents

of

runo

ff v

olum

e, to

tal s

olid

s, an

d co

ncen

tratio

ns o

f oth

er p

ollu

tant

s.

Inpu

t dat

a fo

r SW

MM

, Win

SLA

MM

, and

SIM

PTM

allo

w m

odel

s to

rep

licat

e co

nditi

ons

wel

l. SW

MM

, for

exa

mpl

e, h

as in

put p

aram

eter

s fo

r pe

rcen

t im

perv

ious

, sur

face

slo

pe, p

ervi

ous

and

impe

rvio

us d

epre

ssio

n st

orag

e, a

nd in

filtra

tion

that

can

be

fine-

tune

d w

ith lo

cal d

ata

to e

stim

ate

runo

ff fa

irly

clos

ely.

For t

his

proj

ect,

the

effo

rt to

dev

elop

con

tinuo

us s

imul

atio

n w

as ju

dged

by

proj

ect s

taff

not

to b

e ju

stifi

ed fo

r the

follo

win

g re

ason

s:

Ther

e w

as in

suff

icie

nt lo

cal w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g da

ta th

roug

hout

New

Cas

tle C

ount

y an

d fo

r th

e di

ffer

ent

road

way

typ

es t

o ta

ilor

the

inpu

t da

ta a

nd c

alib

rate

out

put.

Sinc

e de

faul

t val

ues

from

nat

ionw

ide

stud

ies

wer

e th

e on

ly in

put s

ourc

e av

aila

ble,

the

bene

fits

of m

ore

soph

istic

ated

mod

elin

g te

chni

ques

to d

evel

op a

ccur

ate

load

s wer

e lo

st.

The

purp

ose

of th

e m

odel

ing

was

to e

stim

ate

the

diff

eren

ces

in p

ollu

tant

rem

oval

am

ong

diff

eren

t stre

et s

wee

ping

sce

nario

s. Fo

r th

is p

urpo

se, r

elat

ive

accu

racy

am

ong

scen

ario

s w

as im

porta

nt, b

ut a

bsol

ute

accu

racy

com

parin

g re

sults

to m

onito

ring

data

was

not

a h

igh

prio

rity.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

11

2.W

TM

Mod

el

The

WTM

was

revi

ewed

for s

uita

bilit

y. T

he p

roce

dure

s fo

r est

imat

ing

load

s an

d re

duct

ions

are

ba

sed

on t

he S

impl

e M

etho

d de

velo

ped

over

25

year

s ag

o (S

chue

ler,

1987

) an

d ex

tend

ed

rece

ntly

(C

SN,

2009

) w

hich

hav

e be

en a

pplie

d to

oth

er l

oadi

ng m

odel

s us

ed f

or N

PDES

co

mpl

ianc

e. R

unof

f lo

ads

are

deve

lope

d fo

r di

stin

ct l

and

uses

, diff

eren

tiate

d by

whe

ther

the

y ha

ve s

imila

r or

diff

eren

t per

cent

ages

of

impe

rvio

us c

over

or

pollu

tant

con

cent

ratio

ns. F

or e

ach

land

use

, run

off v

olum

e is

bas

ed o

n an

nual

rain

fall,

per

cent

impe

rvio

us, p

erce

nt tu

rf, a

ssum

ed to

be

80%

of

perv

ious

cov

er, a

nd p

erce

nt f

ores

t, as

sum

ed to

be

20%

of

perv

ious

cov

er. P

ollu

tant

lo

ads

are

calc

ulat

ed fr

om th

e ru

noff

vol

ume

and

the

EMC

, with

adj

ustm

ents

bas

ed o

n la

wn

care

m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es, i

n pa

rticu

lar,

ferti

lizer

use

.

Load

redu

ctio

ns fr

om s

wee

ping

in th

e W

TM a

re b

ased

on

rem

oval

eff

icie

ncie

s fo

r nut

rient

s an

d se

dim

ent,

whi

ch v

ary

base

d on

type

of e

quip

men

t, fr

eque

ncy,

type

of r

oad

swep

t, an

d co

nditi

ons.

The

mod

el b

egin

s w

ith a

bas

e re

mov

al r

ate

for

wee

kly

swee

ping

, w

hich

is

appl

ied

to t

he

prop

ortio

n of

eith

er r

esid

entia

l or

othe

r lo

ads

repr

esen

ted

by th

e st

reet

are

a sw

ept v

s. th

e to

tal

area

of

the

land

use

. Th

e ba

se r

ate

is s

ubse

quen

tly r

evis

ed b

y di

scou

nt f

acto

rs f

or m

onth

ly

swee

ping

and

par

king

rest

rictio

ns.

Whi

le th

e W

TM m

odel

ing

appr

oach

see

med

rea

sona

ble

in li

ght o

f th

e pr

ojec

t goa

ls, t

he m

odel

its

elf w

as n

ot id

eal.

It is

inte

nded

for w

ater

shed

-wid

e an

alys

is o

f run

off l

oads

mul

tiple

type

s of

la

nd u

se,

alon

g w

ith s

econ

dary

loa

ds s

uch

as C

ombi

ned

Sew

er O

verf

low

s (C

SOs)

, Sa

nita

ry

Sew

er O

verf

low

s (S

SOs)

, se

ptic

sys

tem

s, ch

anne

l er

osio

n, a

nd l

ives

tock

. It

also

mod

els

stor

mw

ater

con

trols

inc

ludi

ng s

truct

ural

, no

n-st

ruct

ural

, an

d pr

ogra

mm

atic

typ

es.

In a

dditi

on,

man

y of

the

varia

bles

of

inte

rest

hav

e be

en h

ard-

code

d in

to th

e fo

rmul

as. F

or th

ese

reas

ons,

a si

mpl

er s

prea

dshe

et m

odel

was

dev

elop

ed.

The

spre

adsh

eet

grou

ped

mod

elin

g ca

lcul

atio

ns i

n th

ree

area

s: d

evel

opm

ent

of l

oadi

ng r

ates

for

diff

eren

t ro

ad t

ypes

, es

timat

es o

f an

nual

loa

ds

base

d on

rain

fall

and

road

type

, and

pol

luta

nt re

duct

ion

by st

reet

swee

ping

.

E.

LO

AD

ING

RA

TE

S

Load

ing

rate

s w

ere

estim

ated

bas

ed o

n pr

oced

ures

use

d in

the

WTM

, whi

ch u

ses

the

estim

ated

ru

noff

vol

ume

and

pollu

tant

con

cent

ratio

n fo

r ea

ch t

ype

of l

and

use

to c

alcu

late

the

pol

luta

nt

load

in lb

/yr.

For t

his s

tudy

, eac

h ro

adw

ay c

lass

ifica

tion

was

def

ined

sim

ilar t

o la

nd u

ses.

1.R

oadw

ay C

lass

ifica

tions

Five

typ

es o

f ro

ads

wer

e de

fined

for

com

parin

g sw

eepi

ng s

cena

rios.

They

beg

an w

ith t

he

exis

ting

swee

ping

pla

n w

ith d

iffer

ent f

requ

enci

es f

or in

ters

tate

s / m

ajor

hig

hway

s, m

ajor

/min

or

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

12

colle

ctor

road

s, an

d lo

cal/s

ubdi

visi

on ro

ads.

Bas

ed o

n th

e lit

erat

ure

revi

ew, d

elin

eatio

n of

road

s w

ith a

nd w

ithou

t cu

rbs

was

als

o co

nsid

ered

to

be i

mpo

rtant

, as

wel

l as

roa

ds a

djac

ent

to

indu

stria

l an

d co

mm

erci

al a

reas

. Th

e re

sult

was

the

cla

ssifi

catio

ns s

how

n in

Tab

le 5

. Th

ese

clas

sific

atio

ns w

ere

aggr

egat

ed in

two

diff

eren

t way

s, on

e fo

r Sce

nario

s 1

to 4

, the

n a

seco

nd fo

r Sc

enar

io 5

. T

AB

LE

5

RO

AD

WA

Y C

LA

SSIF

ICA

TIO

NS

FOR

SW

EE

PIN

G S

CE

NA

RIO

S

Roa

dway

Typ

e C

ente

rlin

e L

engt

h (m

i)A

vera

ge W

idth (ft)

Are

a(a

c)In

ters

tate

s and

Exp

ress

way

s 18

8.7

43.5

99

5.3

Targ

eted

Are

as >

30,

000

AD

T (C

urb)

64

.841

.2

323.

7Ta

rget

ed A

reas

CO

M/IN

D <

30K

AD

T 96

.738

.3

449.

3Ta

rget

ed A

reas

CO

M/IN

D >

30K

AD

T 26

.838

.3

124.

5Lo

cal R

oads

, mos

t cur

bed

937.

729

.2

3,32

1.7

Non

Tar

gete

d A

rteria

l <30

K (C

urb)

61

.438

.7

287.

6N

on T

arge

ted

Arte

rial >

30K

(Cur

b)

6.2

37.3

27

.9N

on T

arge

ted

Arte

rial <

30K

(No

Cur

b)

117.

640

.7

579.

5N

on T

arge

ted

Arte

rial >

30K

(No

Cur

b)

32.2

44.3

17

2.9

Low

Prio

rity

No

Cur

b 73

2.1

28.2

2,

503.

0A

ll R

oads

2,

264.

2

8,78

5.4

Inte

rsta

tes

wer

e de

fined

as

I-95

, I-2

95, I

-495

, SR

1, a

nd ra

mps

. Cur

bed

road

s w

ere

defin

ed a

s al

l ro

ads

with

cu

rb

on

one

or

both

si

des

of

the

road

way

.

Cur

bed

road

s ad

jace

nt

to

Indu

stria

l/Com

mer

cial

la

nd

use

wer

e de

fined

as

al

l cu

rbed

ro

ads

with

in

250

feet

of

in

dust

rial/c

omm

erci

al

area

s, an

alyz

ed

usin

g a

buff

er

of

indu

stria

l/com

mer

cial

la

nd

use.

D

elin

eatio

n of

road

s bas

ed o

n tra

ffic

leve

l was

per

form

ed u

sing

Del

DO

T’s A

DT

laye

r.

2.R

unof

f Vol

ume

The

proc

edur

e (C

SN,

2009

) bu

ilds

on t

he S

impl

e M

etho

d (S

chue

ler,

1987

) by

inc

orpo

ratin

g hy

drol

ogic

soi

l gro

ups.

A r

unof

f co

effic

ient

is g

iven

for

eac

h ty

pe o

f so

il an

d la

nd c

over

. Thi

s ca

lcul

atio

n w

as si

mpl

ified

by

usin

g a

wei

ghte

d av

erag

e fo

r the

ent

ire st

ate

of D

elaw

are,

bas

ed o

n tw

o as

sum

ptio

ns. F

irst,

that

the

sw

eepi

ng p

rogr

am w

ould

eve

ntua

lly b

e ca

rrie

d ou

t st

atew

ide,

an

d se

cond

, tha

t the

maj

ority

of t

he la

nd c

over

gen

erat

ing

runo

ff w

ould

be

impe

rvio

us p

avem

ent,

and

that

det

aile

d lo

cal k

now

ledg

e of

the

soils

wou

ld n

ot h

ave

a si

gnifi

cant

eff

ect o

n th

e re

sults

. W

eigh

ted

aver

age

runo

ff c

oeff

icie

nts

for t

he m

odel

ing

wer

e ca

lcul

ated

usi

ng d

efau

lt va

lues

from

th

e W

TM, a

s sho

wn

in T

able

6.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

13

TA

BL

E 6

R

UN

OFF

CO

EFF

ICIE

NT

S H

SG

Stat

ewid

e Pe

rcen

tage

IMPE

RV

FOR

EST

TU

RF

A S

oils

0.

3%0.

950.

020.

15B

Soi

ls

59.8

%0.

950.

030.

20C

Soi

ls

23.0

%0.

950.

040.

22D

Soi

ls

16.9

%0.

950.

050.

25A

VE

RA

GE

0.

950.

040.

22

Run

off c

oeff

icie

nts

for e

ach

type

of r

oadw

ay w

ere

base

d on

GIS

dat

a, w

hich

del

inea

ted

the

area

w

ithin

the

edg

e of

pav

emen

t, an

d di

d no

t in

clud

e th

e rig

ht-o

f-w

ay (

RO

W).

This

is

cons

iste

nt

with

an

assu

mpt

ion

that

run

off

and

pote

ntia

l pol

luta

nts

will

not

dra

in o

nto

the

road

sur

face

, so

calc

ulat

ions

of l

oadi

ng ra

tes s

houl

d no

t tak

e th

ese

area

s int

o ac

coun

t.

As

a re

sult

of th

e id

entic

al e

stim

ate

of im

perv

ious

ness

of

all t

ypes

of

road

s ru

noff

coe

ffic

ient

s (R

v) a

nd r

unof

f vo

lum

e fo

r ea

ch c

lass

ifica

tion

are

the

sam

e an

d ar

e sh

own

in T

able

7. R

oads

w

ere

assu

med

to b

e 95

per

cent

impe

rvio

us, c

orre

spon

ding

to th

e TR

-55

clas

sific

atio

n of

pav

ed,

with

cur

bs a

nd s

torm

sew

ers.

Run

off

volu

me

uses

the

run

off

coef

ficie

nt a

nd t

he a

nnua

l pr

ecip

itatio

n of

45

inch

es to

find

the

annu

al a

mou

nt o

f run

off w

ith u

nits

of i

n/ac

/yr.

TA

BL

E 7

R

UN

OFF

VO

LU

ME

BY

RO

AD

WA

Y C

LA

SSIF

ICA

TIO

N

Cov

er T

ype

%IM

PER

V%

FOR

%T

UR

F R

v R

unof

f(in

/ac/

yr)

Inte

rsta

tes a

nd E

xpre

ssw

ays

95

5 0.

82

37.0

0 A

rteria

l >30

,000

AD

T 95

5

0.82

37

.00

Arte

rials

or l

ocal

road

s <30

,000

AD

T 95

5

0.82

37

.00

Adj

acen

t to

Com

mer

cial

/Indu

stria

l A

reas

95

5 0.

82

37.0

0

3.E

vent

Mea

n C

once

ntra

tion

(EM

C)

In t

he m

etho

dolo

gy,

pollu

tant

loa

ds a

re c

alcu

late

d us

ing

the

EMC

der

ived

fro

m s

torm

wat

er

mon

itorin

g da

ta. S

ever

al r

esea

rche

rs h

ave

repo

rted

on o

r co

mpi

led

pollu

tant

dat

a fo

r hi

ghw

ay

runo

ff,

incl

udin

g Sh

elle

y /

Gab

oury

(19

86),

Dris

coll

(199

0),

Bar

rett

et a

l. (1

998)

, W

u et

al.,

19

98, a

nd K

ayha

nian

et a

l. (2

003)

. Pitt

(200

4) e

stab

lishe

d a

data

base

of s

torm

wat

er q

ualit

y ba

sed

on s

ampl

ing

for

NPD

ES M

S4 p

erm

its n

atio

nwid

e. T

hese

sou

rces

wer

e re

view

ed t

o de

velo

p EM

Cs

for

mod

el in

put.

The

mon

itore

d hi

ghw

ay s

ites

wer

e ca

tego

rized

into

two

clas

sific

atio

ns

base

d on

AD

T, w

ith a

bre

akdo

wn

of th

e da

ta s

how

n in

Tab

les

8 an

d 9.

Dat

a ar

e re

porte

d in

m

g/L

exce

pt a

s no

ted.

Not

e th

at th

e se

dim

ent s

how

n in

thes

e st

orm

wat

er m

onito

ring

resu

lts is

re

porte

d as

TSS

.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

14

TA

BL

E 8

E

MC

s FO

R H

IGH

TR

AFF

IC R

OA

DS

Roa

ds >

30K

AD

T

TN

T

P T

SS

FC

Zn

(ug/

L)

Sour

ce

Free

way

s 2.

28

0.25

9917

0020

0Pi

tt, 2

004

Mix

ed fr

eew

ays

2.20

0.

2681

730

90Pi

tt, 2

004

Free

way

land

, sho

ulde

r 2.

72

220

380

Shel

ly/G

abou

ry, 1

986,

urb

an, m

edia

nU

rban

(>30

K)

3.30

0.

3014

567

0022

8.8

Kay

hani

an e

t al,

2003

, Tab

le 5

, avg

W

alnu

t Cre

ek R

d

0.10

19

24B

arre

tt et

al,

1998

, Tab

le 2

W 3

5th

St

0.

3312

9 22

2B

arre

tt et

al,

1998

, Tab

le 2

>30K

2.

59

142

329

Dris

coll

(199

0)

AV

ER

AG

E

2.62

0.

2511

930

4321

1M

ED

IAN

2.

59

0.26

129

1700

222

TA

BL

E 9

E

MC

s FO

R L

OW

TR

AFF

IC R

OA

DS

Roa

ds <

30K

AD

T

TN

T

P T

SS

FC

Zn

(ug/

L)

Sour

ce

Non

-urb

an (<

30K

) 2.

60

0.20

168

3800

63.4

Kay

hani

an e

t al,

2003

, Tab

le 5

, avg

Con

vict

Hill

Rd

0.

1191

44

Bar

rett

et a

l, 19

98, T

able

2Fr

eew

ay la

nd, s

houl

der

1.40

26

90

Shel

ly /

Gab

oury

, 198

6, ru

ral,

med

Si

te I

1.38

0.

2021

5 W

u et

al,

1998

, Tab

le 3

Site

II

1.14

0.

3788

W

u et

al,

1998

, Tab

le 4

Site

III

1.10

0.

2614

W

u et

al,

1998

, Tab

le 5

<30K

1.

33

41

80D

risco

ll (1

990)

A

VE

RA

GE

1.

49

0.23

9238

0069

ME

DIA

N

1.36

0.

2088

3800

72

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

15

4.L

oadi

ng R

ates

Sum

mar

y

Load

ing

rate

s, so

met

imes

ref

erre

d to

as

expo

rt co

effic

ient

s, re

pres

ent t

he u

nit l

oad

for

one

acre

of

lan

d ar

e re

porte

d in

lb/

ac/y

r. Th

ey t

ake

into

acc

ount

the

vol

ume

of r

unof

f an

d th

e co

ncen

tratio

n of

eac

h po

lluta

nt. R

unof

f vol

ume

was

cal

cula

ted

as th

e ru

noff

coe

ffic

ient

tim

es th

e av

erag

e an

nual

rai

nfal

l fo

r D

elaw

are

of 4

5 in

ches

. To

der

ive

pollu

tant

con

cent

ratio

ns,

the

aver

age

EMC

was

use

d fo

r roa

ds w

ith >

30,

000

AD

T an

d <

30,0

00 A

DT.

Sin

ce th

e un

it ru

noff

is

the

sam

e fo

r all

the

road

way

s, th

e on

ly d

iffer

entia

tor f

or th

e lo

adin

g ra

tes

is th

e EM

C. T

able

10

show

s the

load

ing

rate

s for

TN

, TP,

and

TSS

in lb

/ac/

yr b

y ro

adw

ay c

lass

ifica

tion.

TA

BL

E 1

0 L

OA

DIN

G R

AT

ES

BY

RO

AD

WA

Y C

LA

SSIF

ICA

TIO

N

Cov

er T

ype

Rv

Run

off

(in/a

c/yr

)T

N

TP

TSS

Inte

rsta

tes a

nd E

xpre

ssw

ays

0.82

37

.00

21.8

9 2.

07

997

Arte

rial >

30,0

00 A

DT

0.82

37

.00

21.8

9 2.

07

997

Arte

rials

or l

ocal

road

s <30

,000

AD

T 0.

82

37.0

0 12

.47

1.91

76

8A

djac

ent t

o C

omm

erci

al/In

dust

rial A

reas

0.

82

37.0

0 21

.89

2.07

99

7

F.PO

LL

UT

AN

T L

OA

DS

The

annu

al p

ollu

tant

loa

d is

a f

unct

ion

of t

he l

oadi

ng r

ate

and

the

area

of

each

roa

dway

cl

assi

ficat

ion.

The

are

a w

as d

eriv

ed fr

om d

ata

prov

ided

by

Del

DO

T on

the

leng

th a

nd w

idth

of

each

type

. Len

gth

was

pro

vide

d as

mile

s of

cen

terli

ne, a

nd w

idth

was

a s

tate

wid

e av

erag

e of

the

dist

ance

bet

wee

n ed

ges

of p

avem

ent.

Cla

ssifi

catio

ns w

ere

base

d on

the

sw

eepi

ng s

cena

rios

desc

ribed

ear

lier.

The

arte

rial

road

s w

ere

brok

en i

nto

cate

gorie

s de

pend

ing

on w

heth

er o

r no

t th

ey w

ould

be

targ

eted

for s

wee

ping

in th

e sc

enar

io a

naly

sis.

Tab

les 1

1 an

d 12

list

the

resu

lts.

TA

BL

E 1

1 SC

EN

AR

IOS

1-4

AN

NU

AL

PO

LL

UT

AN

T L

OA

DIN

G IN

LB

/YR

BY

RO

AD

WA

Y C

LA

SSIF

ICA

TIO

N

Roa

dway

Typ

e C

ente

rlin

e M

iles

Acr

es

TN

T

P T

SS

Inte

rsta

te

188.

799

5.3

21,7

882,

060

992,

511

Cur

bed,

oth

er

1,03

2.1

3,76

1.6

48,3

437,

209

2,92

4,41

5Ta

rget

ed (C

urbe

d >

30K

AD

T)

64.8

323.

77,

085

670

322,

757

Targ

eted

(Cur

bed

IND

/CO

M)

<30K

AD

T 96

.744

9.3

9,83

693

0 44

8,05

9

No

Cur

bs

881.

93,

255.

442

,224

6,24

5 2,

540,

272

TO

TA

L U

NT

RE

AT

ED

LO

AD

S 2,

265.

08,

785.

412

9,27

517

,115

7,

228,

019

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

16

TA

BL

E 1

2 SC

EN

AR

IO 5

A

NN

UA

L P

OL

LU

TA

NT

LO

AD

ING

IN L

B/Y

R B

Y R

OA

DW

AY

CL

ASS

IFIC

AT

ION

Roa

dway

Typ

e C

ente

rlin

e M

iles

Acr

es

TN

T

P T

SS

Inte

rsta

tes a

nd E

xpre

ssw

ays

188.

799

5.3

21,7

882,

060

992,

511

Targ

eted

Are

as >

30K

AD

T or

IN

D/C

OM

, Cur

bed

188.

389

7.5

19,6

461,

858

894,

948

Loca

l Roa

ds, m

ost c

urbe

d 93

7.7

3,32

1.7

41,4

226,

344

2,55

1,60

5N

on-ta

rget

ed A

rteria

l 21

7.4

1,06

7.8

15,2

072,

072

866,

234

Low

Prio

rity

73

2.1

2,50

3.0

31,2

134,

781

1,92

2,71

6T

OT

AL

UN

TR

EA

TE

D L

OA

DS

2,26

4.2

8,78

5.4

129,

275

17,1

15

7,22

8,01

9

G.

STR

EE

T S

WE

EPI

NG

RE

MO

VA

L R

AT

ES

1.In

trod

uctio

n

Ther

e ar

e a

num

ber o

f var

iabl

es to

take

into

acc

ount

to e

stim

ate

an a

nnua

l rem

oval

rate

for s

treet

sw

eepi

ng. T

he f

irst i

s th

e ty

pe o

f pi

ckup

itse

lf. A

s th

e lit

erat

ure

show

ed, t

here

is a

sig

nific

ant

diff

eren

ce in

the

pick

up e

ffic

ienc

y of

diff

eren

t sw

eepe

r te

chno

logi

es. N

ext i

s th

e fr

eque

ncy

of

swee

ping

. The

mor

e of

ten

a ro

adw

ay is

sw

ept,

the

high

er th

e le

vel o

f pol

luta

nt re

mov

al w

ill b

e.

Fina

lly, t

here

are

a n

umbe

r of

oth

er f

acto

rs w

hich

aff

ect t

he a

mou

nt o

f ea

ch p

ollu

tant

that

is in

pa

rticu

late

for

m a

nd w

hich

can

be

colle

cted

by

a sw

eepe

r op

erat

ing

near

the

curb

. The

sta

rting

po

int f

or d

evel

opin

g re

mov

al r

ates

to b

e us

ed in

mod

elin

g is

the

rese

arch

iden

tifie

d du

ring

the

liter

atur

e re

view

. In

gene

ral,

sedi

men

t sho

wn

in s

tudi

es o

f stre

et s

wee

ping

has

bee

n re

porte

d as

To

tal S

olid

s (TS

), w

hich

incl

udes

bot

h TS

S an

d co

arse

r mat

eria

l.

2.Pi

ckup

Eff

icie

ncy

A n

umbe

r of

stu

dies

hav

e in

vest

igat

ed t

he e

ffec

tiven

ess

of s

wee

per

tech

nolo

gies

. M

ost

cond

ucte

d m

easu

rem

ents

of

stre

et d

irt a

t si

mila

r lo

catio

ns b

efor

e an

d af

ter

swee

ping

, us

ing

proc

edur

es fi

rst d

ocum

ente

d by

Pitt

(197

9), w

here

a s

wat

h of

stre

et s

urfa

ce is

vac

uum

ed b

efor

e sw

eepi

ng to

mea

sure

the

build

up a

nd a

sim

ilar s

wat

h is

vac

uum

ed a

fter s

wee

ping

to m

easu

re th

e re

mai

ning

mat

eria

l.

To n

orm

aliz

e th

e re

porti

ng o

f equ

ipm

ent c

apab

ility

, stu

dies

that

repo

rted

resu

lts fo

r red

uctio

n of

so

lids

for

wee

kly

swee

ping

are

sho

wn

in T

able

13.

Sev

eral

of

thes

e w

ere

docu

men

ted

in

Zarr

iello

(20

02)

and

CW

P (2

006)

. Law

et a

l. (2

008)

dev

elop

ed a

con

cept

ual m

odel

to d

evel

op

stre

et s

wee

ping

pol

luta

nt r

emov

al r

ates

for

the

Che

sape

ake

Bay

Pro

gram

, pa

rt of

whi

ch

sum

mar

ized

the

rese

arch

to c

ome

up w

ith th

e re

mov

al ra

tes f

or w

eekl

y sw

eepi

ng fo

r eac

h ty

pe o

f eq

uipm

ent,

show

n in

the

last

line

of t

he ta

ble.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

17

TA

BL

E 1

3 PI

CK

UP

EFF

ICIE

NC

Y F

OR

VA

RIO

US

SWE

EPE

R T

YPE

S, W

EE

KL

Y F

RE

QU

EN

CY

Pr

imar

y So

urce

Se

cond

ary

Sour

ce

Mec

hani

cal

Vac

uum

R

egen

erat

ive

Air

B

ende

r / T

erst

riep

(198

4)

Zarie

llo, 2

002

14%

- 55

%

Shoe

mak

er (2

000)

Za

riello

, 200

2 55

%

93%

Pitt

(198

5)

Zarie

llo, 2

002

< 30

%

Terr

ene

Inst

itute

(199

8)

Zarie

llo, 2

002

35

-80%

Ban

nerm

an (1

999)

Za

riello

, 200

2

98%

WI D

NR

(198

3)

CW

P, 2

006

24%

Su

ther

land

/ Je

len

(199

7)*

CW

P, 2

006

30%

65%

C

WP

for C

B P

rogr

am

Law

, 200

8 25

%

60%

60

%

* M

odel

ed re

sults

Ther

e w

ere

few

er s

tudi

es o

f the

eff

ectiv

enes

s of

tand

em s

wee

ping

. Sut

herla

nd a

nd J

elen

(199

7)

mod

eled

ta

ndem

op

erat

ion

in

com

paris

on

with

ol

der

and

new

er

mec

hani

cal

swee

ping

te

chno

logi

es, a

long

with

reg

ener

ativ

e ai

r sw

eepe

rs. T

he r

egen

erat

ive

air

swee

per

redu

ced

load

s by

app

roxi

mat

ely

65%

whi

le th

e ta

ndem

com

bina

tion

had

an e

ffec

tiven

ess o

f 48%

.

3.N

utri

ent R

emov

al

The

pick

up e

ffic

ienc

ies

repo

rted

are

for s

treet

dirt

or s

olid

s. N

utrie

nt re

mov

al is

a fu

nctio

n of

the

amou

nt o

f N

or

P bo

und

to t

he s

edim

ent

or e

xist

ing

in s

olid

for

m.

Equi

pmen

t ca

pabi

lity

is

sign

ifica

nt in

this

rega

rd, a

s th

e po

lluta

nt c

once

ntra

tion

in s

edim

ent v

arie

s w

ith p

artic

le s

ize.

As

desc

ribed

ear

lier,

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

rem

ovin

g di

ffer

ent

parti

cle

size

s va

ries

by t

ype

of

equi

pmen

t. Si

nce

smal

ler

parti

cles

car

ry m

ore

nutri

ents

tha

n la

rger

one

s, th

e va

cuum

and

re

gene

rativ

e ai

r sw

eepe

rs t

hat

pick

up

mor

e of

the

sm

alle

r pa

rticl

es a

re m

ore

effe

ctiv

e at

re

duci

ng n

utrie

nt lo

ads.

The

liter

atur

e se

arch

to

supp

ort

deve

lopi

ng r

ates

for

the

Bay

Pro

gram

(C

WP,

200

6) g

ave

rem

oval

rate

s fo

r TS,

TP,

and

TN

for t

hree

sw

eepi

ng fr

eque

ncie

s. O

n av

erag

e, th

e re

mov

al ra

te

for

TP w

as 4

1% o

f th

at f

or T

S, a

nd s

imila

rly,

the

rate

for

TN

was

80%

. B

ased

on

this

in

form

atio

n, th

e m

odel

dev

elop

ed in

this

pap

er m

ade

the

assu

mpt

ion

that

TP

and

TN w

ould

be

redu

ced

at 4

0% a

nd 8

0% t

he r

ate

of s

edim

ent,

resp

ectiv

ely.

Tab

le 1

4 sh

ows

the

pick

up

effic

ienc

ies u

sed

in th

e D

elD

OT

mod

el.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

18

TA

BL

E 1

4 SU

MM

AR

Y O

F PI

CK

UP

EFF

ICIE

NC

Y, W

EE

KL

Y S

WE

EPI

NG

Sour

ce

Swee

per

Perc

ent R

emov

al

TN

T

P T

SS

Law

, 200

8 M

echa

nica

l 20

10

25

La

w, 2

008

Reg

ener

ativ

e A

ir / V

acuu

m

48

24

60

Suth

erla

nd /

Jele

n 19

97

Tand

em

38

19

48

4.Fr

eque

ncy

Dis

coun

t

The

freq

uenc

y of

sw

eepi

ng i

s a

sign

ifica

nt e

lem

ent

in p

ollu

tant

rem

oval

and

one

of

the

key

fact

ors

whi

ch w

as v

arie

d in

dev

elop

ing

diff

eren

t sce

nario

s. Th

e sc

enar

ios

requ

ired

mod

elin

g of

po

lluta

nt r

emov

al f

or f

requ

enci

es v

aryi

ng f

rom

one

sw

eepi

ng p

er y

ear

to tw

o tim

es p

er m

onth

. R

ecom

men

datio

ns f

or m

ore

freq

uent

sw

eepi

ng w

ere

base

d on

asy

mpt

otic

bui

ldup

of

stre

et d

irt,

whi

ch a

ppro

ache

d a

max

imum

in 2

to 3

wee

ks.

Mon

itorin

g da

ta f

ocus

ed o

n es

timat

ing

rem

oval

for

fre

quen

t sw

eepi

ng, g

ener

ally

eith

er tw

ice

a w

eek

or w

eekl

y. A

sum

mar

y of

seve

ral o

f the

stud

ies i

s sho

wn

in T

able

s 15

and

16.

TA

BL

E 1

5 M

EC

HA

NIC

AL

SW

EE

PER

PIC

KU

P E

FFIC

IEN

CY

BY

FR

EQ

UE

NC

Y

Prim

ary

Sour

ce

Seco

ndar

y So

urce

T

wic

e pe

r W

eek

Wee

kly

Ben

der /

Ter

strie

p (1

984)

Za

riello

, 200

2 23

% -

62%

14

% -

55%

Sh

oem

aker

(200

0)

Zarie

llo, 2

002

55

%

Pitt

(198

5)

Zarie

llo, 2

002

<3

0%

WI D

NR

(198

3)

CW

P, 2

006

18.5

%

24%

L

aw, 2

008

Rec

omm

ende

d

25

%

TA

BL

E 1

6 R

EG

EN

ER

AT

IVE

AIR

/VA

CU

UM

SW

EE

PER

PIC

KU

P E

FFIC

IEN

CY

BY

FR

EQ

UE

NC

Y

Prim

ary

Sour

ce

Seco

ndar

y So

urce

T

wic

e pe

r W

eek

Wee

kly

Shoe

mak

er (2

000)

Za

riello

, 200

2

93%

Pi

tt (1

985)

C

WP,

200

6 49

%

<30%

Te

rren

e In

stitu

te (1

998)

Za

riello

, 200

2

35%

to 8

0%

Ban

nerm

an (1

999)

Za

riello

, 200

2

98%

W

I DN

R (1

983)

C

WP,

200

6 42

%

24%

L

aw, 2

008

Rec

omm

ende

d

60

%

No

mon

itorin

g re

sults

wer

e fo

und

for

rem

oval

rat

es f

or m

onth

ly,

quar

terly

, se

mi-a

nnua

l, or

an

nual

sw

eepi

ng. L

aw (

2008

) pr

ovid

ed s

olid

s re

mov

al r

ates

for

wee

kly

and

mon

thly

sw

eepi

ng

for t

wo

type

s of e

quip

men

t, w

hich

wer

e th

e ba

sis f

or th

e C

hesa

peak

e B

ay P

rogr

am re

mov

al ra

tes

as o

f 201

2, sh

own

in T

able

17.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

19

TA

BL

E 1

7 R

EM

OV

AL

RA

TE

S FO

R S

OL

IDS

(LA

W, 2

008)

Sw

eepe

r W

eekl

y M

onth

ly

Mec

hani

cal

25%

18

%

Reg

ener

ativ

e A

ir / V

acuu

m

60%

42

%

Two

alte

rnat

ives

wer

e in

vest

igat

ed fo

r est

imat

ing

less

freq

uent

sw

eeps

. The

firs

t was

to re

sear

ch

mon

itorin

g da

ta f

or p

ollu

tant

rem

oval

per

cur

b-m

ile s

wep

t. Th

e da

ta o

btai

ned

from

this

eff

ort

wer

e hi

ghly

var

iabl

e an

d di

d no

t sup

port

the

appr

oach

.

The

seco

nd a

ltern

ativ

e in

volv

ed s

imul

ated

sw

eepi

ng,

repo

rted

in t

wo

stud

ies,

Zarie

llo e

t al

. (2

002)

who

mod

eled

var

iatio

ns o

f sw

eepi

ng e

ffic

ienc

y an

d fr

eque

ncy

in S

WM

M fo

r fre

quen

cies

va

ryin

g fr

om d

aily

to m

onth

ly, a

nd S

uthe

rland

and

Jele

n (1

997)

who

per

form

ed th

e sa

me

type

of

anal

ysis

usi

ng S

IMPT

M f

or f

requ

enci

es f

rom

wee

kly

to a

nnua

lly. B

ecau

se th

e la

tter

mod

elin

g pr

ovid

ed re

sults

in th

e fr

eque

ncy

rang

e ne

eded

for t

his s

tudy

, it w

as u

sed

to d

evel

op re

mov

al ra

te

disc

ount

fact

ors

for s

wee

ping

at l

ess

than

wee

kly

freq

uenc

ies.

Figu

re 1

sho

ws

the

resu

lts o

f the

SI

MPT

M si

mul

atio

ns.

To e

stim

ate

the

redu

ced

effe

ctiv

enes

s as

the

sw

eepi

ng f

requ

ency

dec

reas

ed,

the

perc

ent

redu

ctio

n fr

om w

eekl

y sw

eepi

ng w

as c

alcu

late

d us

ing

rem

oval

rat

es r

ead

from

Fig

ure

1 to

su

pple

men

t the

dat

a fr

om L

aw (2

008)

in T

able

17.

For

eac

h of

thes

e ra

tes,

the

ratio

bet

wee

n th

e ra

te a

t the

low

er fr

eque

ncy

and

the

wee

kly

rate

was

cal

cula

ted

for N

ewer

Mec

hani

cal,

Tand

em,

and

Reg

ener

ativ

e A

ir sw

eepe

rs. T

he a

vera

ge o

f the

thre

e ra

tios

was

cal

cula

ted

and

was

use

d fo

r th

e fr

eque

ncy

disc

ount

. Tab

le 1

8 sh

ows t

he re

sults

.

Thes

e ra

tios

wer

e co

nver

ted

to d

isco

unts

fro

m w

eekl

y sw

eepi

ng (

Tab

le 1

9) b

y su

btra

ctin

g th

e ef

fect

iven

ess

in th

e la

st c

olum

n of

Tab

le 1

8. F

or f

requ

enci

es o

ther

than

thos

e sh

own

in E

rror

! N

ot a

val

id b

ookm

ark

self-

refe

renc

e.Er

ror!

Not

a v

alid

boo

kmar

k se

lf-re

fere

nce.

Figu

re 1

, val

ues

wer

e ca

lcul

ated

by

inte

rpol

atio

n.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

20

FIG

UR

E 1

PI

CK

UP

EFF

ICIE

NC

Y V

AR

IED

BY

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

AN

D F

RE

QU

EN

CY

(S

OU

RC

E: S

UT

HE

RL

AN

D A

ND

JE

LE

N, 1

997)

TA

BL

E 1

8 R

ED

UC

ED

PIC

KU

P E

FFIC

IEN

CY

BA

SED

ON

SW

EE

PIN

G F

RE

QU

EN

CY

Sw

eep

Rem

oval

Rat

e (%

) R

atio

aga

inst

Wee

kly

Avg

to

use

per

Yea

rN

ew

Mec

hT

ande

mR

egen

Air

New

M

ech

Tan

dem

Reg

enA

ir1

9 17

18

64

%

65%

70

%

66%

2

10

18

19

60%

63

%

68%

64

%

411

22

25

56

%

54%

58

%

56%

6

14

27

33

44%

44

%

45%

44

%

1218

3342

28%

31

%

30%

30

%

2621

4151

16%

15

%

15%

15

%

5225

4860

0%

0%

0%

0%

Sour

ce:

Bol

d:

Law

et a

l., 2

008

Italic

Su

ther

land

and

Jele

n, 1

997

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

21

TA

BL

E 1

9 D

ISC

OU

NT

RA

TE

S FO

R S

WE

EPI

NG

FR

EQ

UE

NC

Y

Sour

ce

Freq

uenc

y T

S R

emov

al R

ate

Gra

ph

1x

34%

G

raph

2x

36

%

Inte

rpol

ated

3x

40

%

Gra

ph

4x

44%

In

terp

olat

ed

7x

53%

G

raph

8x

56

%

Inte

rpol

ated

9x

60

%

Gra

ph

12x

70%

In

terp

olat

ed

18x

77%

In

terp

olat

ed

24x

83%

G

raph

26

x 85

%

Gra

ph

52x

100%

5.O

ther

Dis

coun

t Fac

tors

Oth

er fa

ctor

s whi

ch c

ome

into

pla

y in

clud

e es

timat

es o

f how

muc

h of

the

pollu

tant

load

in ru

noff

ca

n be

rem

oved

by

swee

ping

as

a pr

oced

ure.

Sw

eepi

ng w

ill n

ot r

emov

e di

ssol

ved

nutri

ents

, so

the

frac

tion

of t

he l

oad

repr

esen

ted

by p

artic

ulat

es i

s im

porta

nt. F

ugiti

ve d

ust

loss

is

anot

her

fact

or, r

epre

sent

ing

the

porti

on o

f st

reet

dirt

that

may

be

blow

n of

f of

the

stre

et d

urin

g w

indy

w

eath

er, r

emov

ing

it fr

om re

ach

of th

e sw

eepe

r. Si

mila

rly, r

esea

rch

has

foun

d th

at 9

0 pe

rcen

t of

stre

et d

irt is

with

in a

few

fee

t of

the

curb

. The

por

tion

near

the

cent

er o

f th

e st

reet

will

not

be

colle

cted

by

swee

ping

. Fin

ally

, obs

truct

ions

suc

h as

par

ked

cars

whi

ch p

reve

nt s

wee

ping

aga

inst

th

e cu

rb w

ill re

duce

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of s

wee

ping

.

Dis

coun

t fac

tors

use

d in

the

mod

el w

ere

take

n fr

om th

e co

ncep

tual

mod

el d

evel

oped

by

Law

et

al. (

2008

), as

sho

wn

in T

able

20.

All

five

wer

e ap

plie

d to

eve

ry r

oadw

ay c

lass

ifica

tion

exce

pt

inte

rsta

tes,

whi

ch w

ere

assu

med

not

to h

ave

obst

ruct

ions

at t

he ro

adsi

de si

mila

r to

park

ed c

ars o

n re

side

ntia

l or c

omm

erci

al st

reet

s.

TA

BL

E 2

0 D

ISC

OU

NT

RA

TE

S FO

R O

TH

ER

FA

CT

OR

S D

isco

unts

TN

TP

TSS

A

s par

ticul

ate

67%

46%

100%

Fugi

tive

dust

loss

90

%90

%90

%N

on-s

treet

con

tribu

tions

75

%75

%80

%90

% w

ithin

12"

of c

urb

90%

90%

90%

Obs

truct

ions

80%

80%

80%

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

22

The

parti

cula

te d

isco

unt r

efer

s to

the

amou

nt o

f pol

luta

nt th

at is

in p

artic

ulat

e fo

rm a

nd th

eref

ore

rem

ovab

le t

hrou

gh s

wee

ping

. Th

e fa

ctor

of

100%

for

TSS

ind

icat

es t

hat

all

sedi

men

t is

pa

rticu

late

and

can

be

rem

oved

. Th

e fa

ctor

of

67%

for

TN

ind

icat

es t

hat

two-

third

s of

thi

s po

lluta

nt is

bou

nd to

par

ticul

ates

and

the

rem

aind

er w

ill n

ot b

e re

mov

ed b

y sw

eepi

ng.

Fugi

tive

dust

los

s sh

ows

that

10%

of

the

stre

et d

irt i

s lo

st t

o sw

eepi

ng w

hen

dust

is

crea

ted

durin

g th

e sw

eepi

ng o

pera

tion.

Non

-stre

et c

ontri

butio

ns re

pres

ent t

he lo

ads c

ontri

bute

d fr

om o

ff-

site

pol

luta

nt s

ourc

es th

at a

re n

ot re

duci

ble

by s

wee

ping

, suc

h as

sid

ewal

ks, a

lleys

, or r

oads

ides

th

at c

ontri

bute

was

hon

load

s but

whi

ch a

re n

ot sw

ept.

The

fact

or re

pres

entin

g di

stan

ce fr

om th

e cu

rb d

escr

ibes

the

fact

that

abo

ut 1

0% o

f the

stre

et d

irt

will

be

foun

d aw

ay f

rom

the

cur

b, w

here

the

sw

eepe

r w

ill n

ot r

each

it.

Fina

lly, t

he d

isco

unt

fact

or fo

r obs

truct

ions

show

s tha

t on

aver

age

20%

of t

he c

urb

leng

th w

ould

not

be

swep

t bec

ause

of

par

ked

cars

or o

ther

obs

truct

ions

.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

23

H.

RE

SUL

TS

1.Sc

enar

io D

efin

ition

s

Five

scen

ario

s for

swee

ping

wer

e te

sted

as a

ltern

ativ

es to

the

exis

ting

swee

ping

pro

cedu

re a

nd

the

mod

ifica

tion

prop

osed

by

DN

REC

. All

of th

em v

arie

d th

e fr

eque

ncy

and

equi

pmen

t to

be

used

. The

firs

t fou

r use

d th

e sa

me

defin

ition

of r

oadw

ay se

gmen

ts, w

hile

the

fifth

cha

nged

the

mix

of r

oads

to b

e sw

ept b

ased

on

som

e of

the

prel

imin

ary

plan

ning

for i

mpl

emen

tatio

n. T

able

21 sh

ows a

sum

mar

y of

the

road

way

type

s and

how

they

wer

e co

mbi

ned

for s

cena

rio p

lann

ing.

TA

BL

E 2

1 R

OA

DW

AY

CL

ASS

IFIC

AT

ION

S A

GG

RE

GA

TE

D F

OR

SW

EE

PIN

G S

CE

NA

RIO

S

Roa

dway

Typ

e A

rea

(ac)

Scen

ario

s 1 to

4

Scen

ario

5

Len

gth

(mile

s)A

rea

(ac)

Len

gth

(mile

s)A

rea

(ac)

Inte

rsta

tes a

nd E

xpre

ssw

ays

995.

318

8.7

995.

318

8.7

995.

3Ta

rget

ed A

reas

> 3

0,00

0 A

DT

(Cur

b)

323.

764

.832

3.7

188.

3 89

7.5

Targ

eted

Are

as C

OM

/IND

<30

K

AD

T 44

9.3

96.7

449.

3Ta

rget

ed A

reas

CO

M/IN

D >

30K

A

DT

124.

5

1,03

2.1

3,76

1.6

Loca

l Roa

ds, m

ost c

urbe

d 3,

321.

793

7.7

3,32

1.7

Non

Tar

gete

d A

rteria

l <30

K

(Cur

b)

287.

6

217.

4 1,

067.

8

Non

Tar

gete

d A

rteria

l >30

K

(Cur

b)

27.9

Non

Tar

gete

d A

rteria

l <30

K (N

o C

urb)

57

9.5

881.

93,

255.

4N

on T

arge

ted

Arte

rial >

30K

(No

Cur

b)

172.

9

Lo

w P

riorit

y N

o C

urb

2,50

3.0

732.

1 2,

503.

0A

ll R

oads

8,

785.

42,

264.

28,

785.

42,

264.

2 8,

785.

4

Scen

ario

1: Y

ear-

Rou

nd S

wee

p Sc

enar

io 1

was

a y

ear-

roun

d sw

eep

of a

ll th

e ro

adw

ay s

egm

ents

, with

freq

uenc

ies

vary

ing

from

tw

ice

a m

onth

to o

ne a

nnua

l sw

eep,

and

a to

tal o

f 15,

606

curb

-mile

s sw

ept.

Scen

ario

2: S

easo

nal S

wee

p Fo

r the

seco

nd sc

enar

io, s

wee

ping

freq

uenc

ies w

ere

redu

ced

to e

limin

ate

swee

ping

dur

ing

win

ter

mon

ths,

whe

n be

low

-fre

ezin

g te

mpe

ratu

res

and

pote

ntia

l sn

owfa

ll w

ere

not

cond

uciv

e to

ef

fect

ive

swee

ping

. Int

erst

ates

wer

e re

duce

d to

mon

thly

sw

eeps

and

oth

er ta

rget

ed r

oads

wer

e

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

24

redu

ced

to t

wic

e m

onth

ly s

wee

ps f

or n

ine

mon

ths

out

of t

he y

ear.

This

sce

nario

red

uced

the

sw

ept m

iles f

rom

Sce

nario

1 b

y ab

out 2

,500

, to

13,1

48.

Scen

ario

3: S

easo

nal C

urb-

Onl

y Sw

eep

With

the

und

erst

andi

ng t

hat

swee

ping

cur

bed

road

way

s is

exp

ecte

d to

res

ult

in s

igni

fican

tly

bette

r pi

ckup

and

pol

luta

nt r

emov

al t

han

thos

e w

ithou

t cu

rbs,

this

alte

rnat

ive

elim

inat

ed t

he

sing

le a

nnua

l sw

eepi

ng o

f ope

n se

ctio

n ro

ads,

with

a to

tal o

f 11,

384

mile

s sw

ept.

Scen

ario

4: S

easo

nal,

Cur

b-O

nly,

Tar

gete

d M

onth

ly S

wee

pTh

is sc

enar

io w

as d

evel

oped

to re

duce

all

swee

ping

to a

max

imum

freq

uenc

y of

onc

e pe

r mon

th.

This

aff

ecte

d th

e ta

rget

ed h

igh-

trave

l roa

ds a

nd ro

ads

adja

cent

to c

omm

erci

al a

nd in

dust

rial l

and

use,

and

a re

sult

that

9,1

50 m

iles w

ould

be

swep

t.

Scen

ario

5: R

evis

ed P

lan

Scen

ario

5 w

as d

evel

oped

afte

r re

ceiv

ing

com

men

ts f

rom

Del

DO

T M

aint

enan

ce D

istri

ct

pers

onne

l. It

was

bas

ed o

n re

visi

ng th

e m

ix o

f tar

gete

d an

d no

n-ta

rget

ed ro

adw

ay se

gmen

ts to

be

swep

t in

Scen

ario

4 to

avo

id c

onst

rain

ts in

equ

ipm

ent /

staf

f al

loca

tion

and

fund

ing.

Sce

nario

5

incl

uded

sw

eepi

ng o

f no

n-ta

rget

ed a

rteria

ls (

curb

ed a

nd n

on-c

urbe

d) w

ith g

reat

er t

han

10,0

00

AD

T, a

nd r

educ

ing

the

swee

ping

fre

quen

cy b

y on

e le

ss m

onth

(8x

/yea

r fr

om 9

x/ye

ar)

for

inte

rsta

tes

and

targ

eted

roa

dway

s. A

s w

ith e

arlie

r sc

enar

ios,

inte

rsta

tes,

high

traf

fic r

oads

, and

th

ose

in c

omm

erci

al a

nd in

dust

rial a

reas

wou

ld b

e sw

ept m

ost o

ften.

In th

is sc

enar

io, t

he ta

rget

ed

road

s w

ere

swep

t mon

thly

for e

ight

mon

ths,

non-

targ

eted

arte

rials

wer

e sw

ept q

uarte

rly, e

xcep

t fo

r the

win

ter,

and

all o

ther

cur

bed

road

s w

ere

swep

t onc

e an

nual

ly. T

he to

tal m

inim

um m

ileag

e to

be

swep

t was

8,4

98. T

able

22

(nex

t pag

e) p

rovi

des

a su

mm

ary

of r

oadw

ay ty

pes,

swee

ping

fr

eque

ncie

s, to

tal m

iles s

wep

t, an

d to

tal c

ost f

or e

ach

scen

ario

.

I.C

ON

CL

USI

ON

S A

ND

RE

CO

MM

EN

DA

TIO

NS

1.E

ffec

tiven

ess

Tab

le 2

3 an

d Fi

gure

2 p

rovi

de a

sum

mar

y of

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s and

cos

t of e

ach

of th

e sc

enar

ios.

In t

erm

s of

per

cent

age

of p

ollu

tant

rem

oval

, the

goa

l w

as t

o ex

ceed

the

rem

oval

of

the

4:2:

1 cu

rren

t sce

nario

. All

five

scen

ario

s m

et th

is g

oal,

with

the

exce

ptio

n of

Sce

nario

s 3,

4, a

nd 5

, w

hich

equ

al th

e cu

rren

t rem

oval

for T

P. It

sho

uld

be n

oted

that

pol

luta

nt re

mov

al e

ffec

tiven

ess

incr

ease

s w

ith S

cena

rio 5

com

pare

d to

Sce

nario

4; S

cena

rio 5

add

ed q

uarte

rly s

wee

ping

of h

igh

traff

ic v

olum

e ro

adw

ays a

nd re

duce

d th

e sw

eepi

ng fr

eque

ncy

of in

ters

tate

and

targ

eted

road

way

s fr

om 9

x/ye

ar to

8x/

year

.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

25

TA

BL

E 2

2 SC

EN

AR

IO D

EFI

NIT

ION

Scen

ario

R

oadw

ay D

escr

iptio

n FR

Q

Equ

ipm

ent

Cos

t/Mile

C

urb-

Mile

sSw

ept

Cos

t

1

Yea

r-R

ound

Inte

rsta

tes

12x

Tand

em

$100

3,88

2$3

88,2

36R

oads

> 3

0K A

DT,

All

24x

Tand

em

$100

2,13

2$2

13,1

92R

oads

- C

omm

erci

al /

Indu

stria

l 24

x Ta

ndem

$1

003,

822

$382

,200

Roa

ds-

Ope

n Se

ctio

n 1x

M

echa

nica

l $5

01,

764

$88,

195

Tot

al15

,606

$1,2

72,1

35

2

Seas

onal

In

ters

tate

s 9x

Ta

ndem

$1

002,

912

$291

,177

Roa

ds <

30K

AD

T, C

urbs

2x

M

echa

nica

l $5

04,

006

$200

,312

Roa

ds >

30K

AD

T, A

ll 18

x Ta

ndem

$1

001,

599

$159

,894

Roa

ds -

Com

mer

cial

/ In

dust

rial

18x

Tand

em

$100

2,86

7$2

86,6

50R

oads

- O

pen

Sect

ion

1x

Mec

hani

cal

$50

1,76

4$8

8,19

5T

otal

13,1

48$1

,026

,228

3

Seas

onal

Cur

b-O

nly

Inte

rsta

tes

9x

Tand

em

$100

2,91

2$2

91,1

77R

oads

< 3

0K A

DT,

Cur

bs

2x

Mec

hani

cal

$50

4,00

6$2

00,3

12R

oads

> 3

0K A

DT,

All

18x

Tand

em

$100

1,59

9$1

59,8

94R

oads

- C

omm

erci

al /

Indu

stria

l 18

x Ta

ndem

$1

002,

867

$286

,650

Roa

ds-

Ope

n Se

ctio

n*

Non

e 0

Tot

al11

,384

$938

,033

4

Seas

onal

, Cur

b-O

nly,

Tar

gete

d M

onth

lyIn

ters

tate

s 9x

Ta

ndem

$1

002,

912

$291

,177

Roa

ds <

30K

AD

T, C

urbs

2x

M

echa

nica

l $5

04,

006

$200

,312

Roa

ds >

30K

AD

T, A

ll 9x

Ta

ndem

$1

0079

9$7

9,94

7R

oads

- C

omm

erci

al /

Indu

stria

l 9x

Ta

ndem

$1

001,

433

$143

,325

Roa

ds-

Ope

n Se

ctio

n*

Non

e $5

00

Tot

al9,

150

$714

,761

5

Rev

ised

Pla

nIn

ters

tate

s and

Ex

pres

sway

s 8x

Ta

ndem

$1

003,

019

$301

,904

Roa

ds >

30K

AD

T or

IN

D/C

OM

8x

Ta

ndem

$1

002,

318

$231

,800

Loca

l Roa

ds, m

ost c

urbe

d 1x

M

echa

nica

l $5

01,

857

$92,

837

Non

-targ

eted

Arte

rial

3x

Mec

hani

cal

$50

1,30

4$6

5,21

4Lo

w P

riorit

y *

0 M

echa

nica

l $5

00

Tot

al8,

498

$691

,755

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

26

TA

BL

E 2

3 PO

LL

UT

AN

T R

EM

OV

AL

AN

D C

OST

FO

R A

LL

SC

EN

AR

IOS

Scen

ario

T

N

TP

TS

Mile

s Sw

ept

Cos

tIn

crea

sed

Cos

t4:

2:1

3.0%

1.

0%

5.7%

9,

032

$538

,600

100%

7:4:

23.

4%

1.1%

6.

4%

17,6

29

$1,0

33,7

0019

2%1

4.8%

1.

4%

8.6%

15

,606

$1

,272

,135

236%

24.

4%

1.3%

8.

0%

13,1

48

$1,0

26,2

2819

1%3

3.7%

1.

0%

6.5%

11

,384

$9

38,0

3317

4%4

3.4%

1.

0%

6.0%

9,

150

$714

,761

133%

53.

5%

1.0%

6.

3%

8,49

8*

$691

,755

128%

*Thi

s fig

ure

does

not

incl

ude

addi

tiona

l roa

dway

s tha

t wou

ld b

e sw

ept,

as n

eede

d, b

y sp

ecia

l wor

k or

der.

The

y w

ere

excl

uded

from

this

mod

elin

g ex

erci

se. T

otal

act

ual m

iles

swep

t in

any

give

n ye

ar w

ould

be

grea

ter,

but v

aria

ble.

FIG

UR

E 2

PO

LL

UT

AN

T R

EM

OV

AL

FO

R A

LL

SC

EN

AR

IOS

(%)

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

27

2.Pr

opos

ed C

osts

Com

pare

d to

Exi

stin

g Pl

an

Scen

ario

5 is

the

leas

t cos

tly o

f th

e pr

opos

ed p

lans

with

an

estim

ated

incr

ease

of

28%

ove

r th

e ex

istin

g 4:

2:1

plan

. Con

vers

ely,

DN

REC

’s p

ropo

sed

7:4:

2 pl

an w

as e

stim

ated

to n

early

dou

ble

the

cost

of t

he e

xist

ing

plan

.

3.Fe

asib

ility

of t

he P

ropo

sed

Plan

s

Dur

ing

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f any

pro

pose

d pl

ans,

it w

as a

ssum

ed th

at D

elD

OT

is li

mite

d to

thei

r ex

istin

g m

anpo

wer

and

equ

ipm

ent f

or a

ny n

ew S

treet

Sw

eepi

ng P

lan.

Th

eref

ore,

fea

sibi

lity

of

the

prop

osed

pla

ns w

as b

ased

on

keep

ing

tota

l sw

eepi

ng m

iles

sim

ilar t

o th

e ex

istin

g 4:

2:1

plan

. O

f the

5 sc

enar

ios,

only

Sce

nario

s 4 a

nd 5

hav

e be

en d

eem

ed to

be

feas

ible

. Sc

enar

ios 1

, 2 a

nd 3

in

crea

se t

otal

sw

eepi

ng m

iles

by 2

6-72

%;

DN

REC

’s p

ropo

sed

7:2:

1 pl

an i

ncre

ases

sw

eepi

ng

mile

s by

95%

. Sc

enar

io 4

incr

ease

s to

tal s

wee

ping

mile

s sl

ight

ly, a

nd S

cena

rio 5

redu

ces

tota

l sw

eepi

ng m

iles

slig

htly

com

pare

d to

the

exis

ting

4:2:

1 pl

an.

How

ever

, roa

dway

s ex

clud

ed fr

om

the

mod

elin

g in

Sce

nario

5 w

ould

stil

l be

swep

t as

need

ed, b

y sp

ecia

l wor

k or

der,

Thu

s, in

a

give

n ye

ar, t

otal

mile

age

swep

t wou

ld b

e va

riabl

e,, b

ut s

till r

ough

ly e

quiv

alen

t to

the

exis

ting

4:2:

1 pl

an.

4.A

bilit

y to

Mee

t the

New

Pha

se I

MS4

Per

mit

Del

DO

T fe

els

that

eac

h of

Sce

nario

s 1-

5 m

eets

the

inte

nt o

f th

e ne

w P

hase

I M

S4 P

erm

it fo

r N

ew C

astle

Cou

nty.

Eac

h sc

enar

io in

crea

ses

pollu

tant

rem

oval

per

cent

ages

for T

N, T

P an

d TS

(w

ith th

e ex

cept

ion

of S

cena

rios 3

, 4 a

nd 5

, whi

ch e

qual

the

curr

ent r

emov

al fo

r TP)

com

pare

d to

th

e ex

istin

g 4:

2:1

plan

. Sc

enar

ios

1, 2

, and

3 e

xcee

d D

NR

EC’s

pro

pose

d 7:

4:2

plan

pol

luta

nt

rem

oval

; Sc

enar

io 4

has

low

er p

ollu

tant

rem

oval

tha

n D

NR

EC’s

pro

pose

d 7:

4:2

plan

; an

d Sc

enar

io 5

nea

rly m

atch

es th

e po

lluta

nt re

mov

al fo

r DN

REC

’s p

ropo

sed

7:4:

2 pl

an.

5.R

ecom

men

datio

n

Scen

ario

5 w

as j

udge

d to

be

the

reco

mm

ende

d sc

enar

io t

hat

met

all

of t

he o

bjec

tives

. Th

is

scen

ario

inc

reas

es p

ollu

tant

rem

oval

s ov

er t

he e

xist

ing

4:2:

1 pl

an a

nd n

early

mat

ches

the

po

lluta

nt r

emov

al o

f D

NR

EC’s

7:4

:2 p

lan.

Sce

nario

5 is

the

leas

t cos

tly o

f th

e pr

opos

ed p

lans

, w

ith a

n es

timat

ed in

crea

se o

f 28%

ove

r the

exi

stin

g 4:

2:1

plan

. Con

vers

ely,

DN

REC

’s 7

:4:2

pla

n w

as e

stim

ated

to

near

ly d

oubl

e th

e co

st o

f th

e ex

istin

g pl

an.

From

a f

easi

bilit

y st

andp

oint

, Sc

enar

ios

4 an

d 5

wer

e th

e on

ly p

lans

that

rea

listic

ally

cou

ld b

e im

plem

ente

d w

ith D

elD

OT’

s cu

rren

t m

anpo

wer

and

equ

ipm

ent.

This

is

base

d on

com

parin

g m

iles

swep

t w

ith t

he e

xist

ing

4:2:

1 pl

an.

Sce

nario

5 i

s th

e on

ly p

lan

that

red

uces

mile

s sw

ept

(by

8%)

com

pare

d to

the

ex

istin

g 4:

2:1

plan

.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

28

J.

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

Bar

rett,

M. E

., Ir

ish,

L. B

., M

alin

a, J

. F.,

Jr.,

and

Cha

rben

eau,

R. J

. (19

98).

“Cha

ract

eriz

atio

n of

hi

ghw

ay ru

noff

in A

ustin

, Tex

as a

rea.

” J.

Envi

ron.

Eng

., 12

4(2)

, 131

–137

.

Bre

ault,

R,F

., K

. P. S

mith

and

J.R

. Sor

enso

n. 2

005.

Res

iden

tial S

treet

-Dirt

Acc

umul

atio

n R

ates

an

d C

hem

ical

C

ompo

sitio

n,

and

Rem

oval

Ef

ficie

ncie

s by

M

echa

nica

l-and

V

acuu

m-T

ype

Swee

pers

, New

Bed

ford

, Mas

sach

uset

ts, 2

003-

04. S

cien

tific

Inv

estig

atio

ns R

epor

t 20

05-5

184.

U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of t

he In

terio

r, U

.S. G

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey.

But

cher

, Jo

nath

an B

. (2

003)

. “B

uild

up,

was

hoff

, an

d ev

ent

mea

n co

ncen

tratio

ns.”

JA

WR

A

39(6

)152

1-15

28

Cen

ter

for

Wat

ersh

ed P

rote

ctio

n (2

006)

. Te

chni

cal

Mem

oran

dum

1 –

Lite

ratu

re R

evie

w.

Res

earc

h in

sup

port

of a

n in

terim

pol

luta

nt r

emov

al r

ate

for

stre

et s

wee

ping

and

sto

rm d

rain

cl

eano

ut a

ctiv

ities

. CW

P, E

llico

tt C

ity, M

D, O

ctob

er 2

006.

Che

sape

ake

Stor

mw

ater

Net

wor

k (2

009)

. Te

chni

cal S

uppo

rt fo

r the

Bay

wid

e R

unof

f Red

uctio

n M

etho

d, V

ersi

on 2

.0.

Bal

timor

e, M

D w

ww

.che

sape

akes

torm

wat

er.n

et

Dris

coll,

E.D

. Sh

elle

y, P

.E.,

and

Stre

cker

, E.W

. (19

90).

“Pol

luta

nt lo

adin

gs a

nd im

pact

s fr

om

high

way

st

orm

wat

er

runo

ff.

Vol

. I:

Des

ign

proc

edur

e.”

FHW

A-R

D-8

8-00

7.

FHW

A,

Was

hing

ton,

DC

.

Iris

h, L

. B.,

Bar

rett,

M. E

., M

alin

a, M

. E.,

Jr.,

and

Cha

rben

eau,

R. J

. (19

98).

“Use

of r

egre

ssio

n m

odel

s for

ana

lyzi

ng h

ighw

ay st

orm

wat

er lo

ads.”

J. E

nviro

n. E

ng.,

124(

10),

987–

993.

Kay

hani

an, M

asou

d, A

mar

deep

Sin

gh, C

laus

Suv

erkr

opp,

and

Ste

ve B

orro

um (2

003)

. im

pact

of

annu

al a

vera

ge d

aily

tra

ffic

on

high

way

run

off

pollu

tant

con

cent

ratio

ns.”

J.

Envi

ron.

Eng

., 12

9(11

), 97

5-99

0.

Law

, Nee

ly, K

atie

DiB

lasi

, and

Upa

l Gho

sh (2

008)

. Der

ivin

g re

liabl

e po

lluta

nt re

mov

al ra

tes

for

mun

icip

al s

treet

sw

eepi

ng a

nd s

torm

dra

in c

lean

out

prog

ram

s in

the

Che

sape

ake

Bay

bas

in.

Cen

ter f

or W

ater

shed

Pro

tect

ion,

Elli

cott

City

, MD

, 200

8.

Pitt,

R.E

(19

79).

Dem

onst

ratio

n of

Non

poin

t Po

llutio

n A

bate

men

t Th

roug

h Im

prov

ed S

treet

C

lean

ing

Prac

tices

, EPA

600

/2-7

9-16

1, A

ugus

t 197

9.

Pitt,

Rob

ert,

Rog

er B

anne

rman

, Sh

irley

Cla

rk,

and

Der

ek W

illia

mso

n (2

004)

. “S

ourc

es o

f po

lluta

nts

in u

rban

are

as (

part

1) –

old

er m

onito

ring

proj

ects

.”

Effe

ctiv

e M

odel

ing

of U

rban

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

29

Wat

er S

yste

ms

Mon

ogra

ph 1

3, W

. Jam

es, K

.N. I

rvin

e, E

.A. M

cBea

n, a

nd R

.E. P

itt, E

ds.,

CH

I Pu

blic

atio

ns, 2

004

Pitt,

Rob

ert,

Ale

x M

aest

re,

and

Ren

ee M

orqu

echo

(20

04).

The

natio

nal

stor

mw

ater

qua

lity

data

base

(NSQ

D, v

ersi

on 1

.1).

ht

tp://

unix

.eng

.ua.

edu/

~rpi

tt/R

esea

rch/

ms4

/Pap

er/M

ainm

s4pa

per.h

tml

Schi

lling

, J.G

. (2

005)

. “S

treet

Sw

eepi

ng-R

epor

t N

o.1,

Sta

te o

f th

e Pr

actic

e.”

Prep

ared

for

R

amse

y-W

ashi

ngto

n M

etro

W

ater

shed

D

istri

ct

http

://w

ww

.rwm

wd.

org.

N

orth

St

. Pa

ul,

Min

neso

ta.

Sche

uler

, Tho

mas

R.,

1987

. C

ontro

lling

Urb

an R

unof

f: A

Pra

ctic

al M

anua

l for

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

esig

ning

Urb

an B

MPs

. M

etro

polit

an W

ashi

ngto

n C

ounc

il of

Gov

ernm

ents

, Was

hing

ton,

DC

.

Seat

tle P

ublic

Util

ities

(20

09).

Seat

tle s

treet

sw

eepi

ng p

ilot

stud

y. M

onito

ring

repo

rt. S

eattl

e Pu

blic

Util

ities

, Sea

ttle

WA

, Apr

il 22

, 200

9.

Selb

ig,

W.

R.

and

R.T

. B

anne

rman

. 20

07.

Eval

uatio

n of

Stre

et S

wee

ping

as

A S

torm

wat

er-

Qua

lity-

Man

agem

ent T

ool i

n Th

ree

Res

iden

tial B

asin

s in

Mad

ison

, WI.

U.S

. Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y Sc

ient

ific

Inve

stig

atio

ns R

epor

t 200

7-51

56, 1

15pp

.

Shel

ley,

P.E

., an

d G

abou

ry,

D.R

., 19

86,

Estim

atio

n of

pol

lutio

n fr

om h

ighw

ay r

unof

f-In

itial

re

sults

,in

Urb

onas

, B

., an

d R

oesn

er,

L.A

., ed

s., U

rban

Run

off

Qua

lity-

-Im

pact

and

Qua

lity

Enha

ncem

ent

Tech

nolo

gy:

Hen

nike

r, N

.H.,

Proc

eedi

ngs

of

an

Engi

neer

ing

Foun

datio

n C

onfe

renc

e, H

enni

ker,

NH

, Jun

e 23

-27,

198

6. A

SCE,

New

Yor

k, N

Y.

Suth

erla

nd, R

.C. a

nd S

.L. J

elen

(199

7), "

Con

trary

to c

onve

ntio

nal w

isdo

m: s

treet

sw

eepi

ng c

an

be a

n ef

fect

ive

BM

P", A

dvan

ces

in M

odel

ing

the

Man

agem

ent o

f Sto

rmw

ater

Impa

cts,

Vol

ume

5, e

dite

d by

Dr.

Will

iam

Jam

es, J

anua

ry 1

997.

Suth

erla

nd, R

. C.,

and

Jele

n, S

. L. (

1996

). “S

ophi

stic

ated

sto

rmw

ater

qua

lity

mod

elin

g is

wor

th

the

effo

rt.”

Adv

ance

s in

mod

elin

g th

e m

anag

emen

t of s

torm

wat

er im

pact

s, W

. Jam

es, e

d., C

HI,

Gue

lph,

Can

ada

1–14

.

US

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pr

otec

tion

Age

ncy

(200

6).

“Par

king

Lot

and

Stre

et C

lean

ing.

” N

PDES

. ht

tp://

cfpu

b.ep

a.go

v/np

des/

stor

mw

ater

/men

uofb

mps

/inde

x.cf

m?

actio

n=br

owse

&R

butto

n=

deta

il&bm

p=99

(acc

esse

d 21

/Feb

ruar

y/20

12).

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

30

Wal

ch, M

aria

nne

(200

6). M

onito

ring

of c

onta

min

ants

in D

elaw

are

stre

et s

wee

ping

resi

dual

s an

d ev

alua

tion

of r

ecyc

ling

/ dis

posa

l opt

ions

. Pre

sent

ed a

t 21s

t Int

erna

tiona

l Con

fere

nce

on S

olid

W

aste

Tec

hnol

ogy

and

Man

agem

ent,

Phila

delp

hia,

PA

Mar

ch 2

6-29

, 200

6.

Wu,

J. S

., A

llan,

D. J

., Sa

unde

rs, W

. L.,

and

Evet

t, J.

B. (

1998

). “C

hara

cter

izat

ion

and

pollu

tant

lo

adin

g es

timat

ion

for u

rban

and

rura

l hig

hway

runo

ff.”

J. E

nviro

n. E

ng.,

124(

7), 5

84–5

92.

Zarr

iello

, Phi

llip

J. R

ober

t F.B

reau

lt, a

nd P

eter

K. W

eisk

el (2

002)

. Pot

entia

l eff

ects

of s

truct

ural

co

ntro

ls a

nd s

treet

sw

eepi

ng o

n st

orm

wat

er lo

ads

to th

e lo

wer

Cha

rles

Riv

er, M

assa

chus

etts

. US

Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y W

ater

Res

ourc

es In

vest

igat

ions

Rep

ort 0

2-42

20, U

SGS,

Nor

thbo

roug

h, M

A,

2002

.

Revi

ewed

, Not

Use

d

Ban

nerm

an, R

., D

. Ow

ens a

nd N

. Hor

new

er. 1

993.

Sou

rces

of P

ollu

tant

s in

Wis

cons

in

Stor

mw

ater

. Wat

er S

cien

ce T

echn

olog

y, 2

8(3-

5): 2

41-2

59.

Ber

retta

, C

hris

tian,

Sau

rabh

Raj

e, a

nd J

ohn

J. Sa

nsal

one

(201

1).

Qua

ntify

ing

nutri

ent

load

s as

soci

ated

with

urb

an p

artic

ulat

e m

atte

r (PM

), an

d bi

ogen

ic/li

tter r

ecov

ery

thro

ugh

curr

ent M

S4

sour

ce c

ontro

l an

d m

aint

enan

ce p

ract

ices

. Fi

nal

repo

rt to

Flo

rida

Stor

mw

ater

Ass

ocia

tion

Educ

atio

nal F

ound

atio

n (F

SAEF

). U

nive

rsity

of F

lorid

a, G

aine

svill

e FL

.

Li,

Min

g-H

an,

Bar

rett,

M

.E.,

Ram

moh

an,

P.,

Oliv

era,

F.

an

d La

ndph

air,

H.C

. (2

008)

. “D

ocum

entin

g st

orm

wat

er q

ualit

y on

Tex

as h

ighw

ays

and

adja

cent

veg

etat

ed r

oads

ides

.”

J. En

viro

n. E

ng.,

134(

1)48

–59.

Pitt,

R.,

Ban

nerm

an,

R.,

and

Suth

erla

nd,

R.,

2004

, Th

e ro

le o

f st

reet

cle

anin

g in

sto

rmw

ater

m

anag

emen

t, in

ASC

E, W

orld

Wat

er a

nd E

nviro

nmen

t Con

gres

s, Sa

lt La

ke C

ity, J

une

28–J

uly

1, 2

004,

Pro

ceed

ings

: 9 p

.

Sans

alon

e, J.

J., J.

M. K

oran

, J.A

. Sm

ithso

n, a

nd S

.G. B

uchb

erge

r. 19

98. “

Phys

ical

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of U

rban

Roa

dway

Sol

ids

Tran

spor

ted

Dur

ing

Rai

n Ev

ents

,” i

n Jo

urna

l of

Env

ironm

enta

l En

gine

erin

g. A

SCE.

124

(5):

348-

365.

Schu

eler

, To

m (

2011

). N

utrie

nt a

ccou

ntin

g m

etho

ds t

o do

cum

ent

loca

l st

orm

wat

er l

oad

redu

ctio

ns i

n th

e C

hesa

peak

e B

ay w

ater

shed

. C

SN T

echn

ical

Bul

letin

No.

9.

Rev

iew

Dra

ft.

Ellic

ott C

ity, M

D, A

ugus

t 15,

201

1.

NEW

CA

STLE

CO

UN

TY S

TREE

T SW

EEPI

NG

PLA

N

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L &

WA

TER

QU

ALI

TY M

ON

ITO

RIN

G

KC

I TEC

HN

OLO

GIE

S, IN

C.

31

Suth

erla

nd, R

.C.,

S.L.

Jel

en, a

nd G

. Min

ton,

199

8. H

igh

Effic

ienc

y Sw

eepi

ng a

s an

Alte

rnat

ive

to t

he U

se o

f W

et V

aults

for

Sto

rmw

ater

Tre

atm

ent,

Publ

ishe

d in

Adv

ance

s in

Mod

elin

g th

e M

anag

emen

t of S

torm

wat

er Im

pact

s, V

olum

e 6,

Edi

ted

by W

illia

m Ja

mes

, CH

I Pub

licat

ions

.

Suth

erla

nd R

.C. a

nd S

.L. J

elen

(20

02),

"Dev

elop

men

t of

accu

rate

urb

an r

unof

f po

lluta

nt lo

ads

for

TMD

L an

alys

es",

Pro

ceed

ings

of

Stor

mC

on,

The

Nor

th A

mer

ican

Sur

face

Wat

er Q

ualit

y C

onfe

renc

e &

Exp

ositi

on, M

arco

Isla

nd, F

lorid

a, A

ugus

t 200

2.

Suth

erla

nd, R

.C. a

nd S

.L. J

elen

(200

3), "

Stor

mw

ater

qua

lity

mod

elin

g im

prov

emen

ts n

eede

d fo

r SW

MM

", P

ract

ical

Mod

elin

g of

Urb

an W

ater

Sys

tem

s M

onog

raph

11,

edi

ted

by W

illia

m J

ames

, C

HI P

ublic

atio

ns, 2

003,

pp.

253

-289

Suth

erla

nd,

R.

C.

2009

. “R

ecen

t st

reet

sw

eepi

ng p

ilot

stud

ies

are

flaw

ed.”

APW

A R

epor

ter

76(9

): 50

–53.

Suth

erla

nd,

R.C

. (2

011)

. Th

e ro

le s

treet

sw

eepi

ng m

ust

play

in

achi

evin

g nu

mer

ic p

ollu

tant

lim

its. S

torm

wat

er 1

2(8)

Was

chbu

sch,

R.

J., S

elbi

g, W

. R

. &

Ban

nerm

an,

R.

T. (

1999

) So

urce

s of

pho

spho

rus

in

stor

mw

ater

and

stre

et d

irt f

rom

tw

o ur

ban

resi

dent

ial

basi

ns i

n M

adis

on,

WI,

1994

–95.

US

Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y W

ater

-Res

ourc

es In

vest

igat

ions

Rep

ort 9

9-40

21, M

adis

on, W

I.

Not

Obt

aine

d

Shra

ke,

J., N

. Sc

haed

ler,

M.

Kay

hani

an a

nd K

. Ts

ay.

2003

. Im

pact

s of

con

gest

ion

on u

rban

hi

ghw

ay ru

noff

wat

er q

ualit

y w

ith s

imila

r ave

rage

dai

ly tr

affic

. Pro

ceed

ings

Sto

rmC

on ’0

3, S

an

Ant

onio

, Tex

as, J

uly

28-3

1, 2

003.