Governor s Environmental Advisory Council 2007 Non-point Source Pollution Initiative Management Practices Survey EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL COMPILED

Transcription

1 Governor s Environmental Advisory Council 2007 Non-point Source Pollution Initiative Management Practices Survey EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL COMPILED Best Practice(s) Observed Worst Practice(s) Observed If I could make just one change in this program, I would... (See note below.) Well planned sites that have good oversight and checks. County dirt roads, disturbing more of a site than can be managed with the resources Pass an Amendment that would require fees be spent within program areas. 1. Single family lots practicing E/S BMP s 2. Stream Buffers protected by BMP s on entire segment. 3. PAM starting to be used more. available. 1. Lack of enforcement by some local jurisdictions. 2. Stream Buffers not being protected 3. In consistent practices enforced: Examples are GADOT projects especially along stream segments and Utility companies not have to having to protect their site. What makes their sediment any different than local governments? Change how the program is being implemented from a State prospective. Exemptions do not meet the ultimate goal of keeping sediment out of water courses. Try explaining this to a developer. I just came back from Road show meeting and what GSWCC is teaching in the training class is not what was explained at Road Show. The Permit needs to be more in line with the HB285 or vice versa. Wood chip/mulch piles to prevent erosion from entering streams 3-D Communities LLC on subdivision in Hamilton. They reinforced their silt fences with hog wire. Used ground up trees as further buffer for silt control. Routine source control of bare areas thru temp and perm stabilization. Interruption of flow length and velocity at frequent intervals Improper installation and maintenance of control measures Kings Pasture Church in Hamilton. Made new parking lot and did not have any Sedimentation & Erosion control methods. Mud/silt flowed down streambed to City property. Reliance upon only perimeter controls More experienced compliance inspectors that work with contractors to resolve issues in the field Do something/anything to make it less complicated and more able to be enforced. Quantify subjective terminology in the GAR permits, e.g. significant, etc

2 The best practices observed are those implemented on construction sites as a result of an enforcement action by EPD involving stiff penalties, specific conditions for gaining compliance and a schedule for implementation. Penalties that exceed the economic benefit of noncompliance result in a more compliant permittee with a better understanding of the regulatory, economic and legal liabilities relating to permit violations. WECS training is a standard training offered to all Ecology employees. Our staff does not have direct input on erosion and sediment control on GDOT projects but we feel that an understanding is a valuable asset. Re-establishing vegetative cover. We estimate that >90% of the construction sites covered by the State General Permits statewide are significantly out of compliance with the conditions of the permit under which they are operating. GDOT designers continually place sediment basins in stream buffers and wetlands, which someone must notice and then ask to be removed from the final plans. When it isn t caught before a project is let to construction, we have 404 permit implications and EPD buffer violations Allowing permanent storm water retention/detention basins to be used as sedimentation basins, especially when the conveyance of drainage is by the permanent piped drainage system. The pipes and inlets become clogged, causing flooding. The training certification program administered by Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission must be completely overhauled to provide attendees with the information they need to obtain and maintain compliance with the State General Permits on their individual construction site. Currently, the certification program provides volumes of information on activities associated with erosion and sedimentation control, but very little information in the way of permit compliance. Changing the focus of the certification program would result in a higher compliance rate, a cleaner environment, and less liability to those entities involved in land disturbing activities requiring coverage under the permits. Add more staff in the coastal zone Our preference would be that this (sediment basins in wetlands and buffers) is a common understanding among design professionals rather than something that the environmental staff has to police and correct. Eliminate pre-determined sediment storage volume requirements based on drainage area. Provide better education and outreach. The current certification program is not working to improve the quality and use of effective

3 Circling the entire site with silt fence rather than designing adequate control measures. Trenching and installation of silt fence through tree protection areas. Using filter fabric to wrap storm inlets rather than proper inlet protection. County maintained dirt roads that are routinely scraped and ditched with the ditches pulled straight into streams causing serious siltation. control measures. More education should be given on proper installation and maintenance of BMPs. Consistent interpretation and enforcement by EPD Regions and local issuing authorities. LIA s are reluctant to go after county roads. Stream buffers Education/Certification Natural vegetative species Large volume sediment control structures (sediment basins) Using onsite timber resources by chipping and mulching Those outlined in the green book utilizing BMPs in a system to control erosion and contain sediment. Properly designed E&S plan with proper installation and maintenance of BMPs, timely temporary or permanent stabilization and oversight with teeth Poor installation and maintenance of silt fence at construction sites. Mass clearing and grading of construction sites Failure to retain/utilize existing vegetation when possible Developers disregarding the law and not installing or not properly installing and maintaining BMPs and ignoring buffer requirements. Largest culprits that lose sediment are construction sites that have large exposed areas, making it impossible to contain Expand State-wide undisturbed stream buffers Increase sediment storage volume requirements Hire and train additional E&SC inspectors Provide full funding/full appropriation of fees collected to EPD to hire the number of inspectors needed Modify the existing NPDES Permit to best handle sediment loss to state or federal waters while giving an incentive to contractors to minimize their daily exposed acreage. IDEA (the figures are offered only as examples to develop idea): If the NPDES Permit was set up in a Class I and Class II

4 Best practice is to NOT cause erosion in the first place: Limited grading and disturbance! Properly installed silt fence Improperly installed silt fence consequence is permanently altered aquatic habitat example of filled wetlands from sediment. Permit, this could be achieved. The Permit today has a flat $80/ total disturbed acre fee. A Class I would have only a $40/ total disturbed acres fee but would require the Permitee to limit their daily total disturbed acreage to 7 acres in Cold Water (Trout) Stream Drainages and 17 acres in Warm Water Stream Drainages. Routine inspections by the issuing Authority or EPD could be expected as usual, but not automatically initiated. With a Class II NPDES the Permitee could exceed the 7 or 17 acre limit as is currently the case, but it would initiate a minimum bi-monthly site inspection by the Issuing Authority, EPD or both. Stop Work Orders and Fines could be administered more frequently and effectively to non-compliant projects this way. The fee for the Class II NPDES would be increased from the $80/ total acres disturbed to $120. Class I Permitees who exceeded the maximum limits would also be in violation and could expect stop Work Orders and Fines. This would give an incentive for the contractor to reduce their daily exposed acreage while doing construction activities and ensure that EPD has a more direct oversight on large open projects. Fix the EPD/LIA enforcement model. Conflict between the concept of home rule and pushing regulations to the local level, and the more equitable, consistent nature of a statewide law. No room for innovation -- large difficult ordeal to get innovation and Above-andbeyond BMPs

5 Effective, detailed, and comprehensive Certification and education program: with teeth you don t pass, you don t dig. Lack of consistent, effective enforcement, including lack of application of the law due to political influence, Lack of coordination between EPD and LIAs LIAs not meeting basic responsibilities, AND EPD hesitant to step in/be involved. LIAs not prioritizing E&S enforcement, and not setting example Lack of personnel Mass Grading Clear-cutting Monitoring is needed - little compliance by development More cooperation and coordination between LIA and EPD. More incentive to become local issuing authority, AND maintain responsibilities. Possibly disincentives and punishments for not doing what they need to be doing. Linking E&S and Stormwater Management into one strategic approach: incorporate Green Book and Blue Book Designated fees for erosion and sedimentation control by constitutional amendment