BMP 8A:   Update target audience information (Have you reviewed your public education plan for accuracy and content and made any relevant changes regarding your target audiences and their communication channels?   If so, include/attach your revised plan.)

• Submit your revised public education worksheet/plan.

           This BMP addresses the educational information that was actually distributed to your target audiences during the reporting year.   In general, the annual reports should describe what information was distributed and what distribution methods were utilized.   For example, for municipal newsletters, your report should describe how often they were issued during the year and what MS4/storm water educational information they contained.   The entire newsletter can be submitted as documentation or simply the specific MS4 information from the newsletter can be submitted.   If none of the newsletters during the year contained any MS4 information, your report should indicate this and should provide an explanation.   Municipal newsletters are a common sense and effective method of distributing MS4 information to your target audiences and all MS4s with newsletters should be using them to their full potential.  

           There are numerous MS4/storm water related educational brochures/messages available on various MS4 websites or from other sources.   MS4s should review these options, choose items that appear worthwhile or relevant, and incorporate them into newsletters (and other distribution methods).   Our review of the year 3 reports showed improvement in this area, but there is still more than can be done.   Some MS4s issued quarterly newsletters that contained no MS4 information.   That is inexcusable, especially when it is observed that these same newsletters often contained the exact same recycling/hazardous waste messages over and over again.   These are not clear-cut MS4 related messages.   If you want them to reflect an MS4 message, then the message needs to accomplish that somehow.   For example, make a connection between improper recycling/hazardous waste disposal and your IDD&E program.   Do something to make the connection between the issues and your storm water collection system and your management program.   Your newsletters do not always need to include a full-page section with MS4 information.   A side section or window can be utilized.   It’s probably more important to consistently include MS4 information in your newsletters.   This could be accomplished by establishing a regular recurring storm water section in the newsletter, as is done for many other newsletter topics.  

            For developer/contractor education, the goal is to provide erosion and sediment control educational information to any entity proposing earthmoving activities within the MS4.   The fact sheet provided on the DEP storm water website, “Don’t Let Storm Water Run Off With Your Time and Money”, remains the required distribution information.   On this fact sheet, a contact name and phone number for a municipal representative (and also the County Conservation District) should be listed under the “for more information” section.   This has rarely been done and may limit the effectiveness of the fact sheet.   There are also other printed materials and methods that can be used to educate earthmovers.   EPA has useful information available; DEP has some other fact sheets that can be used (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/ccd/chapter102/factsheets.htm); and each pre-construction meeting represents an opportunity to discuss proper E&S control measures.   Whatever information you provide during the year should be reported/documented on your annual report.

             Many MS4s have reported increased storm drain stenciling activities and this is a good thing.   Storm drain stenciling/marking is not a strict requirement of the MS4 Protocol, but it is encouraged because it can be an effective component of your education program.   Placing an educational “do not dump” type message on storm drains can only help increase the awareness level of residents and others.   If volunteers are obtained to install the message, it will also help fulfill your MCM #2 requirements.   There are basically two types of methods being used.   The message can be stenciled onto the storm drain, whereas many MS4s are applying the smaller discs that are glued/fastened onto the inlets.   A few MS4s report requiring new developments to arrange to have a message built into their new inlets.   Each method has its pros and cons.  

             Factors to be considered include cost, ease of application, expected life expectancy and visibility.   Visibility should not be overlooked.   The message will not be effective if it is too small to be seen.   Some MS4s have reported that they do not have inlets with space for a stencil.   In these cases, the smaller discs may be possible.   An MS4 was recently inspected where a development had different types of storm inlets with different types of applications used, so it can be done.   Unfortunately, there were some incidents reported during year 3 where a marked storm drain inlet still was used to discharge a prohibited material.   This highlights the need for further education or for enforcement actions using the MS4 Ordinance provisions, but should not be used as justification for not implementing storm drain marking (there will always be some who do what ever they feel like).   For future annual reports, it would be helpful to identify the total number of storm drain inlets owned by the MS4 and how many have been stenciled/marked to date.

            Many MS4s have also improved their presentation of MS4/storm water information on their websites.   Unfortunately, of the 180 MS4 municipalities that have a website, 119 still did not provide a direct link to the DEP storm water website, 100 did not have any MS4/storm water information directly identified on their home page, and only 15 had a counter displayed on their home page.   Many MS4s provided a link to the general DEP website, but with no instructions to the viewer to enable them to locate the specific MS4/storm water related information.   It is unwise to assume that all viewers will know how to effectively navigate from the general DEP website.   Providing an MS4/storm water information navigational button on your home page will allow viewers to quickly locate this information.   There are two types of individuals who will visit your websites, those who are specifically looking for MS4/storm water information and those who are not.   For those who are, make it easy for them to locate it on your home page.   It will only minimize the effectiveness of your website if they have to search excessively for the information.   Some may not locate it and may give up.   For those visiting your website to look for something other than MS4 information, an easy to see storm water navigational button on your home page may trigger their interest and may get them to visit the button.   A web counter can let you know how many people are viewing your website within a given MS4 year.   This can be useful information.   An even better idea (which only one MS4 has) is to provide a separate counter for the MS4/storm water navigational button so that you will know how many people are viewing this information.

            Beyond these website issues, the question of what MS4/storm water information to include on your website is important.   The MS4 Protocol simply directs MS4s to maintain a link to the DEP storm water website.   While potentially useful, it is generally acknowledged that the DEP website maintained in Harrisburg is not easy to navigate, especially when dealing with the e-Library, and does not provide MS4 information in the most user-friendly format.   The overall goal of MCM #1 is to provide MS4/storm water educational information to your target audiences and your websites are unquestionably one method that can and should be used to help achieve this goal.   With that goal in mind, MS4s should utilize their websites to the maximum extent possible.   Many MS4s are doing this and their URLs have recently been provided as references for those willing to improve their own websites.   Some MS4s are providing numerous links to various MS4 related topics and/or websites and this appears to be very useful.   Others are providing equally useful information for specific target audiences (e.g., residents, businesses, children, developers, etc).   At this point in the MS4 program, it would be advisable to also direct your viewers to the website for the DEP Southeast Regional Office (http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/southeastro/site/default.asp).   This site already has some useful storm water information and we plan to install much more in the near future.   The general DEP website (www.depweb.state.pa.us) and storm water website (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/stormwatermanagement/default.htm) are still useful and should not be completely abandoned.   Detailed guidance concerning MS4/storm water related websites and links was recently provided to all MS4s within the Southeast Region.   Once reviewed, MS4s can decide which information they want to include on their websites (or in their newsletters).

            Local businesses can have an impact on the quantity and quality of storm water runoff entering the municipal storm sewer system.   To effectively educate this target audience, MS4s can inventory all of the businesses within the MS4 and determine which sites pose a higher risk for storm water pollution or illicit discharges/connections.   In other words, prioritize the businesses and then concentrate your education and outreach efforts accordingly.   Any site with a previous history of problems should be a high priority, as would sites that have outdoor storage of polluting materials or who conduct outdoor transfer, loading/unloading or washing operations.   Restaurants, auto repair/fueling centers and junkyards often fit into this category.   Any site with known or suspected indoor floor drains can be a priority due to the possibility of improper drain connections to the storm sewer system.   Sites with large areas of impervious cover (e.g., malls and shopping centers, schools, business/industrial parks) can be evaluated for their potential to contribute adversely to the local storm sewer system or nearby waterways.   Once your priority sites have been identified, provide them with storm water/pollution prevention educational information that is specific to their particular type of business.   This can be accomplished by utilizing educational materials that are available on various storm water websites or by partnering with watershed groups or other related organizations.   The most effective method of educating businesses might be to meet them face to face at their location where you can provide them with written information, gauge the overall storm water risks/conditions of the site, and discuss their role/responsibilities in your MS4 program.

            Education of school age children is an important aspect of the MS4 program.   Providing these educational opportunities is not necessarily an easy task and is certainly not something that municipalities have been required to do in the past.   Since school districts cross MS4 boundaries, it would certainly appear that some MS4s would benefit from working jointly with their neighboring MS4s.   Some MS4s have reported success in arranging to present information in school assemblies or in individual classrooms or by incorporation into the school curriculum.   Others have arranged to have school classes take field trips to environmental centers or watershed groups where they can receive targeted information and hands on training.

            BMP 10A:   Update your Public Involvement and Participation Plan (PIPP)   (Have you reviewed your PIPP for accuracy and content and made any relevant changes?   If so, include/attach your revised PIPP.)

• Submit your revised public participation worksheet/plan.

            The current MS4 Protocol clearly states that MS4s need to develop and implement a public involvement/participation plan (PIPP).   This is a written plan that describes how the MS4 will solicit public involvement and participation from the public concerning the implementation of the MS4s’ storm water management program.   The DEP MS4 information resource CD contains a simple one page worksheet that when completed would suffice as a written plan.   The bottom line is that MS4s need to have a plan for public involvement and participation and this plan will need to be periodically reviewed and updated as the need arises.   What this plan is and how it was reviewed/modified during the permit year is what needs to be described in the annual report under BMP 10A.

            In order to develop and implement a PIPP, each MS4 will need to evaluate their community and target audiences and determine what types of storm water program involvement and participation are desirable and feasible.   Examples of possible public involvement and participation activities include storm drain stenciling/marking, volunteer outfall/stream monitoring, stream or roadside trash clean-ups, dog waste control programs, and neighborhood pollution control programs where the public can recognize a pollution incident that is affecting or may affect the municipal storm sewer system and will know to report the information to the MS4.   Basically, any activity that the public can participate in to assist with your MS4 program would qualify as public involvement/participation.

            Once the specific activities are identified, then the MS4 needs to utilize their various outreach methods to advertise their desire for public involvement/participation.   This can include using municipal newsletters, websites, brochures, handouts, displays, local cable TV, public meetings, community events, and general word of mouth.   The requirement is simply to make an effort to solicit public involvement and participation.   No one can or will be penalized if the public does not offer any assistance.   If this happens, then you simply keep trying to solicit their help.   Our review of municipal newsletters and websites frequently revealed a call for volunteers, but this call was almost always to fill a vacancy on a municipal board or committee and was not a specific call for volunteers to assist with the municipal storm water management program.   To be effective, your newsletters and websites (or other methods) will need to list some specific MS4 activities that you are seeking volunteers for, as demonstrated by the following municipal websites: www.londongrove.org; www.newgarden.org

            BMP 12A:   Map all outfalls and receiving water-bodies.   (Is your map up-to-date and accurate?   Have you mapped additional features that can assist your outfall screening program, such as inlets, piping and outfall drainage areas?   If updated, please submit.)  

• Submit your current map (if unchanged from the map from your year 3 report, there’s no need to re-submit).

            The requirement is to develop and maintain a map showing the location of municipal separate storm sewer system outfalls and receiving water-bodies.   While there have been improvements noted for the quality of outfall maps, some maps still appear to inaccurately depict the number and location of outfalls.   Some MS4s have still expressed uncertainty over the issue of what constitutes an outfall that they are responsible for mapping and screening.

            As a review, the federal MS4 regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.34(b)(3)(ii)(A) state that all MS4s must “develop, if not already completed, a storm sewer system map, showing the location of all outfalls and the names and location of all waters of the United States that receive discharges from those outfalls.”   Let’s examine this language further.   First, a storm sewer system map is required.   The use of a comma after the word ‘map’ indicates that the requirement is to develop a map of the storm sewer system, and that outfalls and receiving waters should be part of this system map.   The language does not state that a map must be developed showing only the outfalls and receiving waters.   The use of the word “system” immediately infers that the intent of this requirement is to develop a map of the entire separate storm sewer system, including features such as piping and inlets.   Logically, a map of just outfalls would not represent the true and full extent of the municipal storm sewer system.   It also would conflict with the clear goal of this MCM, as stated in the regulations (i.e., develop, implement and enforce a program to detect and eliminate illicit discharges into your small MS4).   Our year 3 review letters included further reasoning explaining the purpose and benefits of a complete storm sewer system map.   The MS4 Protocol requires the map to include all outfalls that are physically connected to your storm sewer system, including those that are outside of the Urbanized Area boundary.

            Also note that the regulation language does not concern itself with the issue of private property as it relates to outfalls.   It simply requires a storm sewer system map, including the location of any outfalls that receive flow from your storm sewer system.   Municipalities have broad police powers that can be utilized to gain access to private property for legitimate reasons, such as the need to check for a public nuisance such as an illicit discharge manifesting itself as pollution from a storm sewer outfall.   If polluted water is discharging from an outfall on or behind residential property where children and pets might have access, the residents (i.e., parents) will most likely not object to a municipal inspector checking the outfall.   Inspecting outfalls will serve to protect the public welfare.  

            In determining whether an outfall needs to be mapped and screened, MS4s should constantly refer back to the definition of outfall that is in the MS4 permit.   When in doubt, determine if the suspected outfall meets the three requirements of the definition.   Is it a pointsource?   Does it receive the discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer?  Does it discharge to surface waters of the Commonwealth?   These three terms are defined in the MS4 permit.   If the answer to all three questions is yes, then it is an outfall.

            There are other recommended features that would make your maps more useful.   Watershed boundaries would be beneficial and outfall identifiers/labels should be universally used.   Some have used color to good effect.   A map scale, north arrow and key should be used.   Some have used different terms to describe or label an outfall, but for consistency and to avoid misunderstandings, it would be easier to simply call an outfall an outfall.   While not always easy, try to avoid cluttering the map with too many symbols or other features that will make the map too “busy”.   Overall size of the map(s) is important also.   While a difficult task for extensive collection systems in populated areas, if the map is too large and unwieldy, it will not be easy to use.   Maps that are not easy to use often are not used at all.   One solution might be to develop separate maps based on watersheds or to simply develop multiple maps of a useable size.

            During the past year the Department has been involved in several situations where an MS4 experienced an illicit discharge or outfall pollution incident and either the MS4’s map lacked detail (e.g., no piping) and was not helpful, or the MS4 staff were not knowledgeable about their own storm sewer collection system, or both.   In either case, tracking the pollution to a source became much more difficult.   If MS4 maps do not allow for effective tracking of pollution, then the maps need to be improved.          

            BMP 12B:   Implement and enforce ordinance to satisfy this MCM.   (How was ordinance implemented and enforced during the past permit year in order to meet the goals of this MCM?)

• If not already done, submit your ordinance that complies with this MCM.
• Identify the ordinance by name and enactment date.
• Identify the section(s) and page number(s) of the ordinance that comply with this MCM.

This BMP requires an ordinance to prohibit illicit discharges into the municipal separate storm sewer system.   More specifically, the federal regulations require that MS4s “prohibit, through ordinance or other regulatory mechanism, non-storm water discharges into the storm sewer system, and implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions”.   This means Raw Sewage, failing septic systems, septic system bypass of gray water or any other discharge that is not entirely stormwater.

            An important aspect of this ordinance requirement that not all MS4s have understood is that this prohibition applies to any part of the municipal storm sewer system.   This means that a typical municipal subdivision and land development ordinance that only applies to areas of new or re-development cannot be used to comply with this BMP.   Also problematic is ordinance applicability language that restricts the ordinance only to discharges of storm water into the municipal storm sewer system.   The subject of the applicability and the prohibition needs to include the discharge of non-storm water into the municipal storm sewer system.   Also remember that an illicit discharge can occur during dry or wet weather.   In other words, the ordinance must be worded such that an incident of oil (or another pollutant) entering a storm drain (regardless if it’s intentional or accidental) during dry or wet weather would both represent a violation of the ordinance.   In both cases, non-storm water entered the municipal storm sewer system.   Another way to describe this is to say that the only thing that should be entering the municipal storm sewer system should be clean storm water (with some allowable exceptions described in the federal regulations/PA Model SWM Ordinance).   Anything else represents an illicit discharge that needs to be prohibited by municipal ordinance or other regulatory mechanism.

            To adequately answer BMP 12B on the annual report, simply provide the full name, section(s) and page number(s) of the municipal ordinance that contains the required language, the date it was enacted, and how it was implemented and enforced during the reporting year.   If the enforcement provisions of the ordinance did not need to be utilized during the year, then that should be stated in the annual report.

            A common response observed in year 3 reports were statements that no illicit discharges were detected at construction sites during year 3.   First, this statement would be better suited under BMP 14B.   Second, while illicit discharges from construction sites are possible, the majority of illicit discharges occur from different sources.   A statement that there were no illicit discharges from construction activities, by itself, gives the impression that the MS4 is only concentrating on construction activities and is not considering all of the potential sources of illicit discharges.   The logical question in reply would be: were there illicit discharges in any other part of the municipality or from any other type of activity?   The MS4 should provide a response that addresses these questions.  

            BMP 12C:   Distribute IDD&E specific educational material.   (What educational material was distributed to public employees, businesses and the general public concerning the hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste?   Who received it?   When?)

• Describe and document what IDD&E information was distributed during year 4.

This BMP requires the distribution of educational material to public employees, businesses and the general public concerning the hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste.   An adequate annual report response will describe what material was provided to the target audiences (public employees, businesses, general public) and when it was provided.   If information was not provided to a particular audience group, your report should explain why it wasn’t .   As was the case for BMP 8B, documentation or examples of what information was provided is important.

            BMP 12D:   Establish priority areas, conduct screening/sampling and take appropriate actions as needed.   (Describe how the priority area was established and which outfalls were selected for screening during the past permit year.   Summarize the results of your outfall screening/sampling.   Include properly completed illicit discharge field screening form for any problem outfall.   Include the illicit discharge quarterly summary report form.   Describe the corrective actions taken to eliminate any illicit discharges or connections.)

• Describe the priority area for year 4.
• Summarize the results of outfall screening and sampling.  
• Describe and document how any problematic discharges were addressed.  

            The requirement is to establish priority areas, conduct outfall screening/sampling, and take corrective actions as needed.   Priority areas for screening should have been developed at the beginning of the MS4 program.   The annual report should indicate which outfalls were screened during the year and why they were selected.   All outfalls need to be properly screened two times each by the end of year 5 (3-9-08).   The instructions for screening and sampling have not changed and are described in the MS4 Protocol (with further guidance provided in previous DEP correspondences).   If it is not clear that the Protocol requirements were followed, our review letter will typically ask why.   It should be noted that not adhering to the Protocol represents a violation of the MS4 permit.

            The IDDE guidance manual developed by the Center for Watershed Protection is a valuable reference document that can be utilized to assist MS4s in various outfall mapping, screening and tracking functions.   It does not currently represent the required approach and should not be used in a manner that contradicts the requirements of the MS4 Protocol (i.e., for outfall testing).   MS4s should nevertheless become familiar with the manual.

            Many MS4s are encountering dry weather flows that appear to be ground water or springs that have entered the storm sewer collection system.   While these occurrences may be anticipated and common, it does not necessarily mean that the flow can be considered automatically free of an illicit discharge that might be occurring somewhere within the collection system.   For this reason, the flow should be sampled and tested according to the Protocol directions.   At the very least, for outfalls suspected of containing groundwater, the testing should be performed to establish a baseline that can be used as a reference for future observations of the outfall.   More importantly, the source of the dry weather flow should be traced as best as possible back to its source.

            From this point forward, all MS4s should utilize the outfall reconnaissance inventory form that is included in the CWP IDDE manual.   The form is included in Appendix D of the manual (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/idde_appendix-d.pdf).   When using this form, please remember to complete all relevant sections of the form.   To save paper, you can duplex the form onto one piece of paper.   While submitting this form for any problematic outfalls is essential, submitting forms for all outfall-screening events does have certain advantages.   Digital pictures of outfalls that are screened are very helpful.   Compiling outfall screening/sampling results onto a table or spreadsheet is a very helpful feature to include in annual reports.   Since fecal coliform analysis is the only required lab test, a copy of the results from the contract lab should be included.   Also, since quality control is vital for proper fecal coliform sampling, a copy of a properly completed chain of custody form for any such sample should be submitted.

            On the annual report form are a series of questions asking for various numbers of outfalls, screenings, samples, etc.   The numbers reported should be logical and should agree with any supporting paperwork.   For example, avoid reporting 0 outfalls with dry weather flow and 5 outfalls that were sampled.   That makes no sense.   Here is an example of proper reporting:

# outfalls in system = 60

# outfalls screened during year 4 = 15

# screenings during year 4 = 30 (each outfall was screened twice)

# outfalls/screenings with dry weather flow during year 4 = 5/5 or 5/8 (5 different outfalls had flow at least once, but some had flow at both screenings)

# of dry weather flows sampled during year 4 = 5 or 8 (should always equal the denominator from previous question)

# outfalls determined to have illicit discharge/connection = 2

            Some year 3 reports indicated that illicit discharges at certain outfalls had been encountered.   MS4s usually had clear evidence and documentation for stating this, but reported that they would re-visit the problematic outfall(s) later in the year (or the following year) to determine the source of the pollution.   There are problems with such an approach.   First, if the MS4 does re-visit the outfall many months later and finds the same conditions, then that basically means that many months have passed without any attempt to find the source and the polluting discharge was allowed to continue for that time period.   This would defeat the purpose of the MS4’s IDDE program.   Second, if they re-visit the outfall many months later and find no problem, then that means they have lost the opportunity to determine the source of the illicit discharge they observed at the first screening.   This would definitely defeat the purpose of the IDDE program.   In either case, the time, effort and expense involved with the first screening would represent wasted time, effort and expense.   MS4s are generally not in a position to be wasting their resources in such a manner.   It’s one thing if an MS4 does trace a problem to its source and the required remedy will take some time/money to be implemented.   That’s understandable.   But finding an outfall problem and not taking prompt action to determine the source is not understandable or acceptable.   As should be evident by now, a quick response is always the preferable approach.   Delaying action will only makes things harder.

            If an MS4 does identify an illicit discharge, their annual report needs to clearly describe all the actions that were taken to trace and address the problem.   This was not consistently done in the year 3 reports.   Since one of the main goals of the entire MS4 program is to reduce the discharge of pollutants from municipal outfalls to the maximum extent practicable, finding, investigating and addressing an illicit discharge is a major component of the program and cannot be taken lightly.   Failure to adequately comply with BMP 12D (or any MCM/BMP) can be considered a violation of the MS4 permit.

            Finally, while the emphasis for BMP 12D is on outfall screening, sampling and tracking, it should not be overlooked that illicit discharges can often occur and be discovered in other manners and in any part of the municipal storm water collection system.   Screening outfalls during dry weather is just one way that illicit discharges can be detected.   The point is that illicit discharges can occur in other ways and these should be reported in the annual report.   For example, they can occur when traffic accidents lead to spills of polluting materials such as gas, oil or cargo.   If the MS4 is aware and involved with such incidents, they need to recognize these events as illicit discharges and they need to take the appropriate response.   Illicit discharges can also be discovered via complaints or tips from the public where the MS4 subsequently responds and documents a problem.   This type of scenario did occur for several MS4s during year 4 and those MS4s should be summarizing those cases in their year 4 reports.   Another scenario that can develop is when the Department is notified of a pollution incident that appears to be MS4 related.   In such cases, it is very likely that we will notify the MS4 of the situation and request that they investigate.   We may also send a responder or we may not be immediately able to do so, but we will expect the MS4 to comply with their MS4 permit obligations to investigate and address any suspected illicit discharges into their storm sewer system

BMP 14A:   Implement and enforce ordinance to satisfy this MCM.   (How was ordinance implemented and enforced during the past permit year in order to meet the goals of this MCM?)

• If not already done, submit your ordinance that complies with this MCM.
• Identify the ordinance by name and enactment date.

• Identify the section(s) and page number(s) of the ordinance that comply with this MCM.

            This BMP requires the implementation and enforcement of an ordinance.   The required MS4 related provisions that need to be incorporated into an ordinance are clearly described on pages 20-22 of the MS4 Protocol.   To adequately answer BMP 14B on the annual report, simply provide the full name, section(s) and page number(s) of the municipal ordinance that contains the required language, the date it was enacted, and how it was implemented and enforced during the reporting year.   If the enforcement provisions of the ordinance did not need to be utilized during the year, then that should be stated in the report.   There is no need to be discussing any thing else in this section other than ordinance related issues.

BMP14B:   Implement procedures for the review and enforcement of Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Control Plans.   (Who reviewed E&S Control Plans during the past permit year?   Did the MS4 permittee conduct any E&S site inspections?   Briefly describe any enforcement activities undertaken by the MS4 permittee.)

• Describe what actions were taken by the MS4 permittee during year 4 concerning E&S Control Plans/inspections/enforcement.

            This BMP addresses three areas of concern.   Who reviewed E&S Control Plans during the reporting year?   Who conducted inspections of construction sites?   Did the MS4 initiate any enforcement actions?   Most MS4s responded adequately to this BMP in the year 3 reports and it is a fairly straightforward BMP.   While it is obvious that County Conservation Districts will be heavily involved with review, inspection and enforcement of construction sites, the intent of this BMP is to report what actions the MS4 took during the year regarding these areas.   So for the review of E&S plans, an adequate response would be to indicate if the MS4 did or did not conduct such reviews during year 4.   If not conducted, an explanation should be provided.   A similar approach can be taken for inspections and enforcement.   Did the MS4 conduct construction site inspections?   If so, what were the results, in general terms (e.g., no problems detected, some detected, a lot detected, etc).   A brief summary of problems encountered and the operator response would be appropriate (e.g., silt fence or other controls not implemented/maintained, mud on roadways, working out of sequence or without proper approvals, etc.; problems were or were not corrected quickly/eventually).   If the MS4 did not conduct site inspections, what were the reasons for this?   For enforcement, indicate whether the MS4 initiated any enforcement actions during the year.   Examples include withholding of building permits/CO’s, monetary penalties/fines, and site shut downs.

BMP 14C:   Provide education and outreach for developers and builders.   (What educational/outreach materials were distributed to developers/builders during the past permit year?)

• Describe what educational materials or information was distributed/presented to developers/builders/earthmovers.  

            This BMP addresses education and outreach to developers and builders (or anyone proposing earthmoving activities).   At the least, indicate if the DEP fact sheet, “Don’t Let Storm Water Run Off With Your Time and Money”, was provided to this audience during the reporting year.   Any other education and outreach (e.g., other printed materials, pre-con meetings, training events, etc.) provided by the MS4, or on behalf of the MS4, should be reported also.

BMP 14D:   Require construction site operators to control waste at the construction site.   (What was done in the past permit year to require construction site operators to control wastes such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary wastes?)

• Describe how the MS4 permittee ensured that construction operators controlled wastes.

            This BMP places a requirement on MS4s to ensure that construction site operators properly control wastes at their sites.   The goal is to ensure that construction wastes are not allowed to enter the municipal storm sewer system or nearby surface waters.   An adequate annual report response will describe how the MS4 accomplished this during the reporting year.   Did the MS4 conduct site inspections where waste control conditions were evaluated?   If so, what were the results?   How did the site operators address any problems?   Many year 3 reports only described the procedures and did not describe the results.   This will lead to review letter comments/questions.

BMP 14E:   Implement procedures for the receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public.   (Summarize any information or complaints received from the public during the past permit year concerning construction site storm water runoff.   Briefly describe how you responded to any such information/complaints.)

• Summarize any information/complaints received from the public during year 4 and how they were addressed.

            This BMP addresses any information the public may submit to the MS4 concerning a construction site (e.g., complaints or information about E&S problems, improper waste control, etc.).   An adequate response will describe what procedures are in place to receive, document and investigate any such information, what types of information was received during the year (if any), and how the MS4 responded and addressed the information.   Many year 3 reports only described the procedures and not whether any public information was received or how it was addressed.   If no complaints were received during the year, then that should be stated in the annual report.

            This is an important MCM because if implemented effectively, it will allow MS4s to have a positive preventative impact on issues that historically have not been handled well.   In the past, the control of the volume, rate and quality of storm water runoff from new development, if implemented at all, was usually limited to flood control concerns only.   It is now generally recognized that that approach failed to protect our surface waterways and hasn’t even always offered adequate flood protection.   Our landscape is littered with examples of storm water BMPs that were designed and built for flood control purposes only and which often don’t work properly or are not maintained properly.   A detention basin with a concrete low flow channel is an example of a BMP that is generally recognized today as being inappropriate and ineffective for volume, rate and quality control.   The results over the years have lead to the current situation where many of our surface waterways are seriously impaired from storm water impacts.   The remedy will be driven by regulatory TMDL and anti-degradation requirements, will likely involve BMP retrofits, and will be costly.   It is the penalty for our collective “sins of the past”.   Minimum Control Measure #5, however, is the MS4s’ mandate to take a pro-active approach and make sure that such sins of the past are not repeated in areas of new or re-development.   Remember, it is always more efficient and cost effective to prevent problems than to react to them.

            The requirements for this MCM are described in the federal regulations and the MS4 Permit and Protocol and include the enactment and enforcement of an ordinance, the use of structural and non-structural BMPs, and the adequate long-term operation and maintenance of these BMPs.   This MCM is not concerned with erosion and sediment control BMPs (which was covered under MCM #4) and annual reports should not be discussing E&S issues here.   Also, County Conservation Districts may not be as involved with this MCM as they are with MCM #4 and therefore MS4s need to be fully aware of their own responsibilities under MCM #5.

            BMP 16A:   Implement and enforce ordinance to satisfy this MCM.   (How was ordinance implemented and enforced during the past permit year in order to meet the goals of this MCM?)

• If not already done, submit your ordinance that complies with this MCM.
• Identify the ordinance by name and enactment date.

• Identify the section(s) and page number(s) of the ordinance that comply with this MCM.

           This BMP requires the implementation and enforcement of an ordinance.   The required MS4 related provisions that need to be incorporated into an ordinance are clearly described on pages 23-26 of the MS4 Protocol.   To adequately answer BMP 16A on the annual report, simply provide the full name and section(s) of the municipal ordinance that contains the required language, the date it was enacted, and how it was implemented and enforced during the reporting year.   Implementation of the ordinance could simply mean that all qualifying land development proposals went through the normal municipal application and review process and were held to the ordinance requirements without deviation or exception.   Your ordinance should conta enforcement/penalty provisions for any non-compliance with PCSWM BMP design, construction, operation or maintenance requirements.    If the enforcement provisions of the ordinance did not need to be utilized during the year, then that should be stated in the report.

           This is an ordinance and topic where it is important to report if any variances from the post-construction storm water management requirements were granted during the year (and why).  

            BMP 16B:   Ensure that all Post-Construction Storm Water Management (PSCWM) BMPs in new or re-development areas are built as designed, and operated and maintained properly.   (Summarize how the MS4 permittee accomplished this during the past permit year.   Include a list of all applicable PCSWM BMPs.)

• Provide specific information describing how this BMP was met during the year.
• Include a list of the types of PCSWM BMPs that have been installed during the MS4 year and in previous MS4 years that discharge into your municipal separate storm sewer system.

The requirements for this BMP are really quite simple (in theory).   The MS4 is required to ensure that all PSCWM BMPs in new or re-development areas are properly designed, installed, operated and maintained.   Ensuring the appropriate implementation of these BMPs could include pre-construction review of BMP design, inspections during construction to verify that BMPs are built as designed, and post-construction inspection and maintenance of BMPs.   Examples of PCSWM BMPs can be found in the PA Storm Water BMP Manual (http://164.156.71.80/WXOD.aspx?fs=2087d8407c0e00008000071900000719&ft=1).

            Many year 3 reports failed to adequately respond to this BMP, which is why our review letters repeatedly asked the same three questions:   What types of PCSWM BMPs were installed in the MS4 during the year?   Were these BMPs properly installed, operated and maintained during the year?   How does the MS4 know if they were (or were not) properly installed, operated and maintained?   All MS4s need to provide answers to these questions in their year 4 annual reports.    

            Since this MCM involves an on-going and potentially ever increasing inventory of PCSWM BMPs, the use of BMP databases or spreadsheets would seem to be an effective manner of recording and reporting data.   As suggested in our year 3 review letters, a table showing basic BMP information can be developed and utilized over time.   Basic information could include the name/type of BMP, its age, location and complete owner information, typical O&M practices needed for the BMP, an assessment of whether proper O&M occurred during the year, and how the O&M was verified (e.g., owner inspected, MS4 inspected, third party inspected, etc.).

            MS4s should be aware that the requirement for ensuring proper installation, operation and maintenance of PCSWM BMPs is a continually on-going requirement.   The year 4 annual report should discuss any BMPs that were installed or in use during year 4, but should also describe how BMPs installed during years 1, 2 and 3 were properly operated and maintained during year 4.   Likewise, in 2008, the year 5 annual report should discuss any BMPs that were installed or in use during year 5, but should also describe how BMPs installed during years 1, 2, 3 and 4 were properly operated and maintained during year 5.   Also of note is the fact that the

regulations and MS4 permit/protocol require MS4s to ensure proper BMP installation, operation and maintenance from the beginning of the MS4 program (year 1) and more importantly, this requirement is not directly related to the ordinance requirement of this MCM.   This means that the requirement to ensure long-term PCSWM BMP O&M is a “stand alone” requirement that MS4s need to implement regardless of the status and content of their ordinance(s).   This may be troubling for some, but it is clearly the intent of the MCM.   If this presents problems, then MS4s will need to consider how to oversee the O&M requirements for any BMPs where the MS4’s authority to regulate is in question.    

            Many year 3 reports did a good job of describing the procedures in place within an MS4 to ensure proper BMP installation, operation and maintenance, but failed to describe the actual results of these procedures.   It’s not enough to simply describe the procedures; the results or effectiveness of the procedures needs to be reported also.  

BMP 18A:   Implement an operation, maintenance, inspection and repair program for all municipally owned storm water facilities.   (Describe how your program was implemented during the past permit year.   Include your written Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan, if not previously submitted.)

• Provide specific information describing how this BMP was met during the year.
• Include your O&M program, if revised or not previously submitted.

BMP 18B:   Implement a pollution prevention/operation and maintenance program for all municipal vehicle/equipment operation, maintenance, fueling and washing activities. (Describe how your program was implemented during the past permit year.   Include your written pollution prevention/O&M plan, if not previously submitted.)

• Provide specific information describing how this BMP was met during the year.
• Include your O&M program, if revised or not previously submitted.  

            MCM #6 requires MS4s to develop and implement an operation and maintenance program that includes a training component and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations.   The O&M program must address municipally owned storm water facilities and municipal vehicles and should be based on pollution prevention and good housekeeping principles and practices.   Storm water facilities include any municipal features that could have an impact on storm water runoff.   Examples include paved areas such as streets, roads and parking areas; storm sewer system components such as inlets, catch basins, piping, swales, culverts and outfalls; detention/retention basins; and storage and maintenance facilities.   The O&M program needs to address operation, inspection and maintenance activities for municipal storm water facilities.   The municipal vehicle program needs to address operation, maintenance, fueling and washing activities.

           The O&M programs developed for BMPs 18A and 18B need to contain detailed and site specific information concerning the procedures and practices that the MS4 is committed to implementing in order to properly operate and maintain their storm water facilities and vehicles.   These should be stand-alone documents that clearly describe your facilities, vehicles and procedures such that anyone reading the documents will be able to understand their intent and content.   Your programs represent your stated goals for proper municipal operations and are documents that you will be judged by.   If the programs are followed, compliance will be achieved .

            Many MS4s have struggled with the development of their O&M programs.   DEP guidance offered in March of 2006 did not have the full-intended effect.   More specific and detailed examples of O&M programs from actual MS4s will be distributed as further guidance to all MS4s in April of 2007.   MS4s should examine these examples carefully, adjust their own programs accordingly, and submit the revised programs with your annual report.  

            When completing the annual report for BMPs 18A and 18B, your responses should not simply repeat the procedures and practices outlined in your O&M programs.   They should describe how you implemented the procedures and practices during the reporting year.   For example, if your plan is to clean all storm sewer inlets during the year, then indicate if this was accomplished.   Report on your street sweeping activities during the year, if applicable.   Were you able to perform all of your scheduled inspections?   Indicate what types of maintenance and repairs occurred on the storm sewer system.   Describe how you disposed of any collected/recovered materials.   Describe how vehicles were maintained, fueled and washed.   Were there any pollution incidents involving your facilities or vehicles?   Basically, wherever your programs state what will be done, report on how it was done (i.e., what were the results?).

BMP 18C:   Conduct BMP 18A and 18B training for appropriate municipal employees. ( Who was trained?   When was the training conducted?   What was the subject matter?)

• Provide specific information describing how this BMP was met during the year (by answering the questions listed above).

            MS4s must arrange for pollution prevention and good housekeeping training opportunities for municipal staff.   MS4s need to determine what staff will potentially be involved with their MS4 program requirements and will need training.   This will normally include public works staff but could also include police and fire responders, inspectors, and administrative staff.   Municipal supervisors also need to be fully aware of the requirements of their MS4 permit.   The training topics need to be determined and should include the proper operation and maintenance of storm water facilities and municipal vehicles.   The method of providing training needs to be determined.   This can include utilizing educational materials obtained via MCM #1, attending training conferences or seminars, or holding in-house training meetings and discussions.   The written O&M programs developed for this MCM can be used as training materials for new employees or as refresher training for existing staff.   All training needs to be documented (a sign in sheet can be used).   Your annual report needs to describe what specific training occurred, when it occurred, and who attended.   MS4s can benefit by conducting joint training events with neighboring MS4s, something that has been occurring in certain areas.