Pollutant Load Reductions for Total Maximum Daily Loads for Highways (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

55 Virginia Department of Transportation April 16, 2012 Tracey Harmon, Environmental Division; Roy Mills, Location and Design; Morris Walton, Maintenance The Virginia Department of Transportation has, like most DOT’s, a very complex organizational structure, with each division operating within its own silo in terms of budgets, communica- tion, roles and responsibilities, etc. In fact, one of the greatest accomplishments to date noted by the interviewees has been the increased awareness of the DOT’s responsibility with regard to compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements including compliance with the growing number of TMDLs being devel- oped across the Commonwealth. Further, the agency dedicated general operating budget to the MS4 program requirements for the first time in 2010. The interviewees were quick to note that this dedicated budget of $3M is barely adequate to address the growing list of current requirements, without consideration for what is on the horizon (overall estimates of the cost of TMDL compliance for Virginia DOT is $1B, although there was no specific breakdown of the estimate). The general response to the question of the most pressing needs was additional staff and financing. The Virginia DOT program is implemented through a partnership of multiple divisions; however, the Environmental, Location and Design, and Maintenance Divisions take on the bulk of the respon- sibilities. The Environmental Division is responsible for the initial participation in any TMDL development process with the other watershed stakeholders, manages the Characterization Studies through a consultant, and then manages the develop- ment of the implementation strategies to be carried out by other divisions. VDOT is currently addressing 8 TMDLs, with another 20 plus expected to be approved by the next MS4 Permit cycle beginning 2013 (including the Chesapeake Bay TMDL). It is important to note that VDOT is only addressing the TMDLs in watersheds where they (and the local jurisdic- tion) have been designated as having responsibility for the dis- charge from an MS4. (There are currently 13 Urban Areas in the Commonwealth of VA). Once a TMDL has been approved, the Characterization Study includes an analysis of the watershed and the VDOT right-of-way or property (in some cases VDOT may own a nonlinear facility such as a rest area, or maintenance area or district headquarters). The analysis verifies the assumptions of the VDOT owned acre- age, and overall drainage area assessment and hydrologic analysis, estimates of baseline pollutant loads (using the Simple Method, Watershed Treatment Model, and other off-the-shelf methods) in order to estimate the baseline pollutant loads and evaluate potential load reduction strategies. The strategies (still in develop- ment) include a cost-based hierarchy that starts with on-site non- structural BMPs utilizing the existing infrastructure of vegetated right-of-way to manage sheet flow from the road surface where possible, grass swales (if they meet the various design criteria), and any other available opportunities. Next is the use of off-site non- structural practices such as community outreach, carcass removal programs, nutrient management plans for facilities, etc. (although there are still questions about how these practices will be credited toward compliance). And finally, on-site structural controls for new location and widening projects, and the retrofit of existing APPENDIX B Department of Transportation Interview Summaries BMPs on existing right-of-way if located in a TMDL watershed. It is important to note that the agency has more confidence in the long-term compliance of on-site structural and nonstructural controls as they are able to maintain these practices and ensure continued performance. Historically, the use of structural BMPs on VDOT right-of- way has been limited to detention and extended detention basins, primarily because the State stormwater program has required quality and quantity controls, making it relatively simple to address both requirements in a single facility. While this typically requires the purchase of right-of-way, the long- term O&M is contained with a single accessible location. As TMDLs are developed, the trend is expected to shift to linear treatment practices. While VDOT is not aggressively pursuing research of new or innovative practices, they do work with the Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research to conduct research as funding is available. The VCTIR is sched- uled to evaluate an LID/GI roadway project currently proposed in Northern Virginia. Finally, VDOT does not have a formal policy for partnering with other watershed dischargers; however, they have in the past entered into agreements with localities and adjacent land owners to share responsibilities for managing stormwater: in some cases VDOT will build a facility and turn it over to the locality or pri- vate land owner for long-term O&M; in other cases VDOT will pay into a regional stormwater BMP program developed by the local jurisdiction. VDOT expects this opportunistic approach to continue on a case by case basis. Ohio Department of Transportation April 19, 2012 Jeffrey E. Syar, Becky Humphreys, Hans Gucker TMDLs in Ohio are currently implemented through the State’s NPDES construction stormwater permit program through the development of watershed specific Construction General Permits (CGPs) for the release of construction stormwater into targeted watersheds – rather than the statewide Construction General Permit. A statewide Construction General Permit addresses stormwater releases to nonspecific watersheds. Compliance on ODOT land disturbing activities within the designated TMDL watershed is triggered with the adoption of the watershed specific general permit as developed by Ohio EPA. There are currently only 2 watersheds covered by these watershed-specific CGPs, both happen to be developed for designated High Qual- ity Watersheds, and both address sediment (TSS), with one also addressing temperature. ODOT estimates that approximately 40 new TMDLs are on the horizon; however, there is no set schedule for the development of the watershed specific Con- struction General Permits for these watersheds. ODOT complies with the conditions of these watershed specific CGPs on any new location or expansion project that disturbs greater than 1 acre of land. Compliance generally includes devel- oping and implementing an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (or SWPP) in accordance with the Permit. There are no WLAs assigned to ODOT within the MS4 areas of these 2 watersheds, nor are there LAs outside the MS4 areas.

56 ODOT does not currently participate directly in TMDL devel- opment; however, they do provide comments through the public comment period of adopting a new CGP. It is anticipated that participation in the development of future TMDLs will be nec- essary if ODOT is assigned a specific WLA or if specific pol- lutants for post construction discharges are identified. Further, ODOT does not currently develop or provide data to support the development of LAs or WLAs, or for tracking or reporting reductions. ODOT’s Stormwater Program (within the Office of Hydraulic Engineering) is responsible for compliance with the TMDLs, and is responsible for informing and directing policies to other ODOT Divisions and offices as needed, including the Office of Construction Administration, Office of Maintenance Adminis- tration, Office of Facilities, Office of Training, Local Techni- cal Assistance Program (LTAP), and Office of Environmental Services; all of which have stormwater quality activities and policies they manage under the MS4 permit (within the MS4 Urban Areas). ODOT’s Location and Design Manual, Volume 2, Drainage Design includes the typical menu of post-construction structural BMPs (Infiltration trench/Basin, Exfiltration Trench, Extended Detention, Retention Basin, Bioretention Cell, Constructed Wetlands, Manufactured Systems, and Vegetated Biofilters). Grass Swales, Exfiltration Trenches, and Manufactured BMPs were indicated as the most common structural practices in use, and Street Sweeping as the only nonstructural BMP in use (however, street sweeping is not implemented as a water quality BMP). ODOT is currently developing a BMP inventory program (BMPs are currently tracked to some degree at lower divisions of opera- tion, e.g., residencies and district maintenance; the new inven- tory program will likely consolidate the current processes being implemented individually). Also, ODOT has developed a Main- tenance Administration Manual; however, there is no systematic process of tracking BMP O&M or life-cycle costs, nor is BMP performance tracked. Although exfiltration trenches were noted as being utilized to address post-construction stormwater, they were also noted as requiring very high maintenance efforts due to clogging. Research is being conducted at Ohio University on exfiltration trenches and vegetated biofilters (however, the interview indicated that exfiltration may be dropped from the preferred list of practices due to maintenance issues). ODOT conducts an IDDE program within the MS4 area, and tracks any new connections to the drainage system statewide. However, it was specifically noted that there is very little legal authority to prevent pollutants from entering the right-of-way. There is no formal policy for partnering with local stormwater groups or other adjacent land owners; however, ODOT is open to the opportunity on a case by case basis. In fact, utilizing a watershed approach in partnership with other watershed stake- holders was identified as one of the systematic changes needed to ensure permanent reductions of pollutants originating from the right-of-way. Education and training of ODOT designers and contractors was also noted as an important need for TMDL compliance. The most significant challenge to TMDL implementation and compliance noted by ODOT was the lack of a method to credit pollutant load reduction strategies for pollutants other than sedi- ment. ODOT did, however, indicate a desire to develop a work- ing relationship with State regulators in order to develop credits for these other pollutants. The lack of the system of crediting BMPs removes the incentive to spend resources on proactive TMDL compliance, relying solely on addressing specific permit requirements as those permits are developed. The lack of finan- cial resources and institutional capacity were also noted as sig- nificant challenges (ODOT does not have any operating budget dedicated to TMDL compliance.) New Hampshire Department of Transportation April 19, 2012 Mark Hemmerlein, Water Quality/NPDES Specialist The New Hampshire DOT is currently addressing 4 chloride TMDLs. There are no nutrient or other parameter TMDLs that identify the DOT as a source at this time; however, there is an expectation that nutrients will eventually be targeted. Recent efforts to address total nitrogen were deferred over the cost for wastewater treatment plant upgrades. The chloride TMDL WLA is divided among three categories of dischargers identified as applicators of road salts: the NHDOT, municipalities, and private property owners. Allocation of the waste load is 10%, 35%, and 55%, respectively, and is determined based upon salt application data provided by NHDOT, towns, and estimates of private applicators. The NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) develops TMDLs, and the initial chloride TMDL was the result of a 401 certification of a wetland permit for a specific project (I-93) – the USEPA utilized the need for a permit in the impaired watershed to press for the development of the chloride TMDL. A TMDL Implementation Plan or compliance strategy for the chloride TMDLs was developed through a pilot study paid for by the NHDOT. The study included the collection of load data. The strategy utilizes the latest road sensing salt applica- tion technology on the fleet of NHDOT plows and applicators. Through these nonstructural BMPs, NHDOT was able to reduce the application of road salts by 20%. The application of salt rep- resents a significant expense so the result of the effort allows NHDOT to continue to provide for highway safety as well as recognize cost savings, while also protecting adjacent surface and ground water. Compliance is reported back to NHDES through ‘salt’ reports. The initiative has been received well by the public because the amount of salt application has been reduced without compromising road safety. The overall development of other TMDLs in New Hampshire has been hampered by a lack of funding. Approximately 70% of the rivers and water bodies in the state are on the 303(d) list; however, there is limited funding to develop the corresponding TMDLs. As such, the NHDOT does not anticipate a need to ramp up compliance efforts other than to continue to implement the salt reduction strategies developed for the chloride TMDL. Therefore, there has been limited effort in terms of policies and/ or BMP implementation although structural BMPs are required under state law. However, it is important to note that the NHDOT salt application technology development and implementation work may serve as a resource for all DOTs. Post-construction water quality practices for new location and widening projects are implemented on projects in accordance with Section 401 Water Quality Certifications and State Law. NHDES has developed a stormwater manual that includes accepted struc- tural and nonstructural BMPs and corresponding pollutant removal efficiencies (TP, TN, and TSS). NHDES recommends the Simple Method for nutrient load and load reduction estimates; however, NHDOT does not perform baseline nutrient (or other pollutant) loads or expected reduction computations unless required by a 401 Water Quality Certification.

57 The micro-pool wet extended detention basin was noted as the most common practice due to its cost-effective construc- tion and maintenance (currently used in non-TMDL regulated MS4 areas); gravel wetlands have been used on projects with no-net loading requirements resulting from the 404 certifica- tion; however, they are noted for their high cost of construc- tion. Nonstructural practices include street sweeping (however, it is not applied as a pollutant reduction practice), and a public education and outreach program through the MS4 permit (New Hampshire is a nondelegated NPDES state, so the permit is managed by EPA, and NHDOT is still operating under the 2003 permit). NHDOT has implemented an IDDE program and has mapped its urban area outfalls. The NHDOT has implemented a BMP Inventory program. The BMP O&M costs are not tracked other than as part of the overall right-of-way maintenance budget (basins are estimated for budgeting purposes at $400–$600/year), and this generally includes routine maintenance. The NHDOT is relatively small and as such is able to readily communicate BMP construction and maintenance issues from the respective work units back to the design section. Some innovative BMPs (permeable pave- ment at park & ride lots, and pervious median barrier) have been installed and are still being observed (there is no flow or water quality monitoring being conducted). NHDOT participates in the Technology Transfer (T2) at UNH which allows the sharing of the road salt application technology with private and municipal operators. Alternatively, there are no formal (or informal) partnerships with adjacent property own- ers as there are limitations on the ability to apply DOT funds to private properties. There have been cases of MOAs with com- munity associations to address specific project issues. The most significant challenge in implementing the TMDL pro- gram is related to the only TMDL currently in place: salt applica- tion. The application of salt leads to the degradation of aquatic resources; however, a reduction in salt application can lead to increased liability related to highway safety. The current road salt application technology being applied as a result of the TMDL, and the balance between NHDOT’s transportation mission and environmental protection, is considered a significant success of the TMDL program. Similarly, the use of the T2 program to leverage those results is likewise considered a success. Kansas Department of Transportation April 23, 2012 Scott Shields, Environmental Scientist; Anthony Menke The Kansas DOT is not currently named in any TMDLs. In gen- eral, KDOT does not foresee TMDLs being implemented in the near future by the local state agency, KDHE (Kansas Depart- ment of Health and the Environment). Kansas DOT does not have an official TMDL policy in place at this time; however, they are interested in learning about other TMDL programs across the country. Any upcoming Waste Load Allocations would be imposed on KDOT by the state, either aggregated or not (not known at this time). Currently, KDOT focuses on implementing temporary construc- tion BMPs to control sediment runoff which is strictly regulated through their NPDES permit renewed in 2012. These BMPs include silt fences, sediment basins, rock check dams, erosion control blankets, and bio-logs. There is no single preferred BMP; typically the most cost-effective option is selected during the contractor bidding process which includes the development of a SWPP plan. There are no nonstructural BMPs in place aside from a popular Adopt-a-Highway program for trash control. The cost for BMPs is tracked through the bidding process and usually includes capital cost and labor (no life-cycle tracking). There is a standard manual developed by the state with erosion control design specifications for construction BMPs which KDOT has modified for their purposes. Design standards are enforced through bid specifications; however, KDOT has had problems with correct installation of BMPs by contractors. BMPs are maintained and inspected weekly by contractors and monthly by KDOT (and after any > 0.5″ rain event). Baseline pollutant loads from the roadway and BMP pollutant reduc- tions are not quantified as there is no water quality monitoring requirement in the NPDES permit. KDOT does partner with the Texas DOT through the TTI program (Texas Tech Institute) which conducts research on erosion control blankets. The most effective blankets are then put on a list of approved products but there is no official list of approved BMPs, although all BMPs must meet ASTM standards. Along interstate highways, KDOT has a large heavily vegetated ROW and the assump- tion is that this buffers sediment runoff from the agricultural fields. Most BMPs are temporary (during construction only), and there is no retrofitting of post-construction BMPs. Only 1–2% of sediment basins and a slightly higher percentage of rock check dams are left in place as permanent structures. In the future, KDOT sees benefits to including the agricultural community in the regulatory process as there is a lot more land area dedicated to agriculture than to construction in commercial areas. However, this is not likely in the near future. Delaware Department of Transportation April 23, 2012 Randy Cole, Vince Davis, Rob McCleary, Marianne Walch The state agency of Delaware (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control or DNREC) has devel- oped TMDLs for most watersheds in the state amounting to 29 TMDLs overall. The TMDLs target a variety of parameters — mostly nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria but also zinc, PCBs, and TSS. DNREC is also developing dissolved oxygen and hab- itat TMDLs. DelDOT does not participate in the development of the TMDLs as they do not have the scientific expertise; however, they do comment on them during public comment stage and par- ticipate in the development of pollution control strategies and watershed implementation plans (WIPS). DelDOT also actively works with other state DOTs as part of a stormwater practitio- ners group under AASHTO where TMDL compliance issues are discussed. In general, TMDLs in Delaware are implemented in three ways: through the state regulations for sediment and storm- water control, through NPDES MS4 permits, and in the case of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, as a blanket regulation across the state. Although DelDOT does not have an official TMDL compliance policy, the assumption is that if they follow the state regulations, they are in compliance with all regulations. DelDOT is currently negotiating a new NPDES MS4 permit (old permit expired in 2006) in which they are a co-permittee with New Castle Counties (the primary permittees) and six other municipalities. An aggregated WLA has been assigned in the permit although it is not being enforced. DelDOT is not specifically named at this time, and it is unclear how the loads will be split among the permittees. For compliance purposes, the permittees operate independently such that the failure of any one entity does not affect the others. In general, Dela- ware has some unique geographic challenges when it comes

58 to implementing a TMDL program such as a high water table (especially in Kent & Sussex Counties), poor drainage off the landscape, and slope restrictions due to the flat topography. Additional challenges for DelDOT include financial limita- tions, the lack of BMP technology to address certain pollutants (e.g., bacteria, nitrogen), a fragmented institutional structure (stormwater management programs located across multiple divisions), restricted space in ultra-urban areas, and general awareness issues within DelDOT. On the positive side, Delaware has a unique delegation of author- ity system where DelDOT is given relatively broad authority by the state (7 Del. Code, Ch. 40) to implement a permit program for its capital transportation improvement projects. This program includes implementation of erosion and sediment control during construction and permanent stormwater management BMPs for quantity and quality control based on the control of post-project conditions to pre-project levels. Delaware also implements its NPDES MS4 Permit Program in New Castle and Kent Coun- ties. This involves implementation of multiple pollution con- trol strategies within their ROW under the Phase I and Phase II permit programs stormwater retrofits, structural, and non- structural BMPs such as sand filters, grass swales, bioretention, street sweeping, public education, pet waste campaigns, Adopt- a-Highway programs, and many others. They are open to new technologies and have an active BMP research program through the University of Delaware which is exploring other options such as biochar (an additive to increase nutrient removal) and pesticide reduction strategies along guard rails. In some cases, DelDOT collaborates with other partners out- side their ROW through inter-jurisdictional agreements which are facilitated by the collective permitting system. The trend is toward increased collaboration on a watershed-wide basis where BMPs are dispersed across the landscape (not just within the ROW). An example of this collaboration is the Anchorage Canal Project in which (through cooperative agreements between Del- DOT, DNREC, municipalities, and advocacy organizations in the watershed) funds were pooled to build many BMPs. Some of them are in the DelDOT right-of-way for which routine main- tenance (e.g., mowing and litter collection) is provided by the municipalities and major maintenance is provided by DelDOT. Indeed, DelDOT sees this as the most effective approach in terms of water quality benefits. A Stormwater Quality Banking agree- ment fashioned after the Maryland 1980-90 banking agreement has been in effect since 1996. Revisions to that banking agree- ment are being drafted to accommodate new language pertinent to TMDL requirements. The agreement covers treatment of stormwater quality based on impervious area. Several BMP performance measures are used to gauge effec- tiveness including runoff volume reduction, pollutant mass and concentration reduction, and peak flow reduction; these are all based on values published by DNREC. In addition, DelDOT is conducting some field sampling studies of individual BMPs. However, in general, DelDOT does not estimate pollutant loads from their ROW or track reductions, although they expect to begin using the PLOAD model (based on the simple method) to accomplish this. The costs of BMP implementation are difficult to track. Capital costs for structural controls generally come out of the project budget while O&M costs are wrapped into the overall NPDES budget of $2.07 M a year. DelDOT does not track life-cycle costs but are interested in doing so. In general, DelDOT is in a unique situation in that they share a joint MS4 permit with other jurisdictions and have relatively broad authority to develop pollutant reduction strategies. There are few barriers to developing partnerships in such a small state and the general view is that collaboration will increase in the future particularly in the area of TMDL compliance. California Department of Transportation April 24, 2012 Keith Jones P.E., Environmental Engineering Liaison Caltrans is specifically named in 62 TMDLs across the state of California. However, they are actively implementing approxi- mately 40 high priority TMDLs at this time, typically in cases where they are discharging a pollutant of concern from the roadway with the potential to impact water quality. The entire department is responsible for compliance. California’s TMDLs are generally prepared by the local Regional Water Quality Con- trol Boards which lists Caltrans as one of several stakeholders and provides an estimation of the waste load allocation (WLA). Caltrans does not participate in the TMDL development process; however, with their wealth of water quality monitoring data, they do provide data to Regional Water Quality Control Boards which are responsible for developing the WLA and enforcing the TMDLs. In some cases, TMDLs are implemented in which the WLA may over-estimate the roadway contributions by applying the edge-of-pavement loadings to the entire ROW, including per- vious areas. Some TMDLs were developed in response to Con- sent Decrees brought about by third party litigation, for example in the Los Angeles Basin. Caltrans does not have an official writ- ten policy for participating in the TMDL development process. However, they do review and comment on new TMDLs during the regulatory development process. There are expected to be about 200 new TMDLs in the near future. Caltrans uses a number of strategies as part of their TMDL com- pliance program, including a combination of structural controls, nonstructural practices, and off-site regional controls. Specific BMPs include (for example) slope armoring, LID, swales, media filters, detention basins, infiltration devices, gross solids removal devices (GSRDs), street sweeping, and many others. Guidance for selecting and designing pollution prevention and structural treatment BMPs is provided in the Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG). Watershed (off-site) regional con- trols have the potential to be an effective strategy; for example, the Statewide Advance Mitigation Initiative (SAMI) addresses off-site mitigation solutions such as wetland restoration and conservation banks. For the Public Education permit require- ment, Caltrans successfully implemented a public awareness campaign known as “Don’t Trash California” which resulted in behavior change contributing to significant trash reduction to comply with the Los Angeles area TMDLs. Caltrans also has an active BMP development program with help from univer- sities such as the University of California and the University of Texas. Individual BMP effectiveness monitoring is not gen- erally measured in the field; however, Caltrans has conducted pilot studies across a broad spectrum of BMP types which have helped to determine treatment efficiencies. In addition, Caltrans participates in group monitoring efforts in a number of TMDL watersheds in cooperation with other stakeholders. They do have a Water Quality Planning Tool with the ability to determine receiving water objectives and impairments, Caltrans tributary area within the watershed, etc. Costs for BMP implementation are currently tracked only at the programmatic level. Caltrans does not currently track life-cycle costs but is in the process of quantifying the parameters involved. The budget for state-wide NPDES management is about $90 M which is divided between Capital Outlay Support ($45 million) and an overall operation and maintenance program ($45 million), which includes BMP maintenance and other practices such as street sweeping and waste management.

59 Caltrans has a number of unique challenges in implementing their TMDL program. The number one problem identified is a lack of financial resources; in particular, there is a perception that the DOT should share a commensurate level of funding with other stakeholders, yet they are typically only a minor part of a watershed (<5%). Second, due to the size of the state, the regula- tory community consists of 10 water quality control boards (nine regional and one state level), each having a unique approach to enforcing and interpreting permit and TMDL requirements. The large number of TMDLs and diversity in regulatory standards make it difficult to develop comprehensive strategies. In some cases, TMDLs are adopted sequentially for multiple pollutants in the same basin (e.g., first trash, then metals), which forces the DOT to change strategies mid-course, or daisy-chain treat- ment controls. California also has some unique ecological chal- lenges due to the large variety of ecosystems. Vegetative BMPs are not feasible in drier areas because of the lack of water to grow the vegetation. In addition, any standing water (such as in a stormwater wetland or in a structural treatment device) is considered a potential vector breeding concern, which must be abated. To ensure permanent reductions of pollutants, the major systemic changes identified were 1) the need for a watershed based approach, 2) a recognition that highways were built long before stormwater controls and cannot be fixed overnight, and 3) regulatory reform. North Carolina Department of Transportation April 25, 2012 Matthew Lauffer, Andrew McDaniel, NCDOT Hydraulics Section NCDOT has been named in numerous TMDLs, and in some cases they have been assigned a specific WLA. The Hydraulics Unit is responsible for managing the DOT’s compliance with TMDLs and implements a very proactive strategy. This strategy has evolved in part due to NCDOT’s status as a statewide NPDES MS4 Phase I permittee which potentially involves them in every TMDL devel- oped in North Carolina. A key part of this proactive strategy is the DOT’s statewide MS4 permit, now in its 3rd 5-year cycle, which has evolved into a DOT specific Transportation Separate Storm Sewer System (TS4) permit, the first of its kind in the country. The governing elements of the CWA NPDES Permit have not changed, as much as the language and implementation approach reflects the very unique characteristics of the linear highway (as opposed to a municipal network) and an understanding of the transportation corridor within the urban setting. Specifically, the section of the Permit that identifies Total Maxi- mum Daily Load Assessment (Part III Section C) spells out a step by step process for the DOT’s compliance in cases where they are assigned a specific WLA and identified as a significant contributor of the pollutant of concern. This process includes an Assessment and Monitoring Plan, infrastructure and outfall data collection, and ultimately a Report of Findings that includes a strategy and implementation schedule for meeting the DOT’s WLA. This somewhat prescriptive approach defines the DOT’s role and serves to limit the potentially unrealistic expectations that the other stakeholders may have in terms of what NCDOT will do to address the TMDL. Further, NCDOT reports that the proactive approach has helped to support the TMDL implemen- tation process with data, expertise, and in some cases funding, in order to ensure that the process is based on accurate and sci- entific assessments, and in some cases, help define the DOT’s contribution to the WLA and form the compliance strategy. This TMDL compliance approach has not yet been adopted as a formal written policy; however, the process has become institutionalized and kept the level of effort manageable with current staff and resources (approximate budget of $3 million for NPDES program management overall). NCDOT acknowl- edged, however, that the pace of TMDL development could eas- ily exceed the resources in time. The DOT does provide data to NC’s TMDL development pro- cess; however, the State resource agency implements its own modeling tools (HSPF, LSPC, load duration curves, or surface area in cases of impervious cover TMDLs). NCDOT provides input data in some form on most TMDL development. Most TMDL compliance is in the form of on-site structural and non- structural practices. There is a nutrient trading program between point sources in North Carolina; i.e., bubble trading among WWTPs; however, there is currently no program framework to facilitate trading which is allowable by various state rules among the different source sectors and between regulated NPDES per- mittees (WLAs) and unregulated permittees (LAs). While there have been some instances of partnering with offsite stakeholders, and NCDOT recognizes the increased value of implementing load reductions on lands outside the right-of-way in select situations, there is no standard state-level framework for TMDL compliance partnerships at this time. Additional (non-TMDL) requirements associated with select coastal estuaries and drinking water supply reservoirs require nutrient management strategies, so there are numerous BMPs being implemented in both TMDL watersheds and (similarly regulated) nutrient limited non-TMDL watersheds. NCDOT developed a Stormwater BMP Toolbox (2008) that includes design specifications as well as a Stormwater Control Inspec- tion and Maintenance Manual (2010). BMP selection is typi- cally based first on right-of-way limitations (available space, topography, geotechnical, and safety considerations, etc.) and then on the specific pollutant being targeted. BMP selection for rest areas and park-and-rides (green roofs, permeable pavement, bioretention, cisterns) is typically very different than that for the transportation right-of-way (grass swales, basins) due to differ- ing requirements, available space, safety, and aesthetic consid- erations. NCDOT is preparing a guidance document, available later this year, to aid in the evaluation of retrofit BMP sites potentially suitable for WLA compliance. Common nonstruc- tural practices include road salt application controls, fertilizer management (soil testing, nutrient applicator training, incor- porating the fertilizer into the soil rather than broadcasting for ground cover establishment), an Adopt-a-Highway program for trash, etc. NCDOT does not routinely conduct analytical moni- toring of BMP pollutant removal performance using NCDOT staff; however they do have a Research and Analysis Program which utilizes UNC system university staff to examine specific topics identified by the Hydraulics Unit. Major research topics include BMP pollutant removal performance and pollutant load- ing characterization from roadways, rest areas, and NCDOT industrial facilities. The tracking of specific BMP costs (aside from costs tracked as pay items on construction projects) has been on retrofit projects. NCDOT has a very aggressive retrofit requirement in their TS4 Permit – construct a minimum of 5 retrofits per year, with a total of 70 required over the 5-year permit cycle. The experience of retrofitting will likely be very valuable for TMDL compliance. Individual BMP life-cycle costs are not tracked, though NCDOT does have a BMP inventory and an aggressive inspection and maintenance program that includes an independent audit and an internal inspector training program. As noted above, analyti- cal monitoring is not routinely performed on every BMP; how- ever, visual monitoring for operation and maintenance helps to feed an adaptive management process which is communicated

60 through an annual conference that brings together the design, construction, and maintenance personnel. NCDOT utilizes an Encroachment Permitting process which requires that any adjacent property applying for a NCDOT per- mit to connect to the transportation stormwater system be certi- fied as properly permitted (e.g., NPDES stormwater permit or state stormwater permit) under applicable laws and rules. This Encroachment Permitting process is a requirement of NCDOT’s NPDES permit. This permit does not require NCDOT to enforce the provisions of the applicant’s stormwater permit issued by the resource agency. There are instances of partnerships that trans- fer maintenance of BMPs to adjacent land owners when the site specific conditions make it advantageous to the property owner to utilize the BMP. The most significant challenge to NCDOT is the potential for escalating costs. The proactive program has kept those costs man- ageable to date; however, there is some concern as the TMDL list continues to grow. NCDOT wants to stay involved in this process since they recognize their obligation to protect the environment, and they have considerable expertise in addressing compli- ance issues. Another challenge is the sheer size of the NCDOT roadway and facility system spread across 3 physiographic regions, each with their own specific challenges. Long-term issues include the evolution of BMP strategies (groundwater influences, stream impacts, today’s preferred BMP may be- come tomorrow’s problem BMP, etc.). An important signifi- cant success was described as the proactive approach that has allowed NCDOT to develop the only TS4 permit to date (it is expected that other DOTs will duplicate the NCDOT model). Another success of the proactive approach is the abil- ity to avoid group compliance, allowing NCDOT to implement a compliance strategy developed specifically for the DOT’s capabilities and resources (while supporting other watershed stakeholders as needed or able). Georgia Department of Transportation April 26, 2012 Brad McManus, Design Group Manager; Eugene Hopkins, Manager, Env. Compliance Bureau The Georgia state agency, the Environmental Protection Divi- sion, has several hundred TMDLs listed on their website, mostly for fecal coliform and sediment. However, the Georgia DOT has not been named a stakeholder in any TMDLs, nor have they been assigned a specific WLA or been aggregated into a watershed-wide total WLA at this time. GDOT is not involved in the TMDL development process but they are required to mon- itor outfalls within their MS4 permit area when the roadway is named a significant contributor to the impairment. It is expected that this monitoring will likely identify the DOT as a significant contributor. The monitoring constituents are driven by the pol- lutants of concern specified in the TMDLs, including fecal coli- form, oils and grease, and metals. However, the main concern is sediment. The monitoring language written into their new state- wide NPDES permit (issued January 2012) was developed by GDOT in conjunction with EPD and provides flexibility for the DOT. GDOT does not have an official policy for participating in the development of future TMDLs but they do monitor forth- coming TMDLs closely. GDOT uses both structural and nonstructural BMPs for storm- water treatment and pollutant reduction. The number one structural BMP is enhanced grass swales (dry and wet). Sand filters and stormwater wetlands are also used. On construction projects, PAM is typically mixed into the soil for control of sediment runoff. For nonstructural BMPs, GDOT maintains vegetated buffers along streams and utilizes sheet flow to veg- etated filter strips. In general, BMPs with the lowest main- tenance requirements and longest service life are preferable as they are easier to budget for. The DOT also participates in public education as required by the EPD. BMP design criteria and treatment efficiencies are based on the Georgia stormwater manual (“Blue Book”). GDOT currently only uses “applicable parts” of the Blue Book, which is not designed specifically for highway environments. GDOT also has an active BMP research program through Georgia Tech which examines the effectiveness of some BMP types (though not all). Additional monitoring is ramping up with the new NPDES permit, includ- ing IDDE inspections and monitoring downstream of BMPs located near 303d listed streams. GDOT does not currently estimate pollutant loads from their right-of-way. BMP imple- mentation costs are also not tracked, although there has been some interest in tracking life-cycle costs. The overall MS4 compliance budget is generally about $4 M a year which cov- ers some maintenance, design, and the IDDE program. Capital costs for construction of BMPs are rolled into project budgets, and there is also a separate maintenance budget handled by the maintenance office. GDOT has a number of unique challenges to implementing their TMDL program. Currently, there appears to be relatively little collaboration with other stakeholders to specifically address water quality issues due to the lack of financial resources. Georgia also has a diversity of physiographic provinces which can present challenges to successful BMP implementation, especially in remote mountainous areas with severe terrain limitations. The number one challenge to implementing their TMDL program was a lack of financial resources. Several sys- temic changes were identified to ensure permanent reduction of pollutants from the roadway, including the need for more educa- tion and training of DOT designers and contractors (and the gen- eral public), additional research and development of alternative BMPs with fewer maintenance requirements, and the need for a BMP maintenance standard. On the positive side, GDOT has flexibility in their new NPDES permit to develop a water qual- ity management plan in cooperation with EPD. In addition, they have already demonstrated successful BMP implementation in mountainous terrain, for example with the Canton Creek project where sand filter beds were utilized to capture roadway runoff and protect a local endangered species. Washington Department of Transportation May 4, 2012 Jana Ratcliff, TMDL Lead, Environmental Services Office The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is currently named as a stakeholder in 26 TMDLs, which are listed in the WSDOT MS4 Permit. The MS4 permit can be modified at least once every 18 months to add any newly approved TMDLs that name WSDOT as a stakeholder (the current permit was effective March 2009, and was modified in 2010 and 2012). Approximately 17 TMDLs are currently being developed and could potentially be added in the next modification cycle. The TMDLs currently listed in WSDOT’s NPDES MS4 Permit gen- erally include a WLA specifically assigned to WSDOT although some assign an aggregate WLA to all NPDES municipal permit- tees. WSDOT is finding many TMDL studies do not include any reference to stormwater runoff sampling data from WSDOT facilities. To be consistent with regulations and guidelines used to establish TMDLs, WSDOT feels numeric waste load alloca- tions (WLAs) should only be assigned when there is credible, site-specific data/information indicating that WSDOT facilities

61 are a meaningful source or contributor of the pollutant of con- cern. WSDOT feels, in the absence of site-specific stormwater outfall data, a numeric WLA assigned to WSDOT is presumptu- ous and without just cause. TMDLs often calculate WLAs based on: national averages, data collected elsewhere in Washington State, in stream data inappropriately used to represent storm- water discharge contributions, or reference general water qual- ity standards as the basis for the WLA. WSDOT’s TMDL-related requirements are described in Section S6 of the WSDOT NPDES MS4 Permit. Required actions spe- cific to the TMDLs are found in Appendix 3 of the Permit. Com- pliance with these actions constitutes presumptive compliance with TMDL WLAs assigned to WSDOT. Appendix 3 is split into two general categories (or parts): Part 1 consists of specific action items assigned to WSDOT that go above and beyond Per- mit implementation; Part 2 is for those TMDLs located partially or wholly within the Phase I/II MS4 permit urban area. For this category, compliance with WSDOT’s NPDES MS4 Permit obli- gations that address the TMDL-listed pollutants constitutes pre- sumptive compliance with TMDL WLAs assigned to WSDOT. This can include monitoring or other provisions as outlined in WSDOT’s MS4 permit. WSDOT’s policy for participating in TMDL development is an informal policy best described as a triage approach, where the participation is prioritized based on 1) compliance with NPDES MS4 permit requirements to the MEP; 2) prioritized partici- pation in the development of the TMDL based on Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), the local state agency, and WSDOT input; or for TMDLs considering a surrogate pollutant (e.g., flow); and 3) TMDLs where WSDOT is not considered the source of the pollutant (such as bacteria). This third tier TMDL is typically addressed with a Programmatic Approach spelled out in the MS4 permit (the current MS4 Permit includes a Programmatic Approach for addressing fecal coliform). WSDOT’s participa- tion in TMDL development has gradually increased over time; however, it appears to be constrained by available manpower (currently there is only 1 FTE within WSDOT Environmental Services Office dedicated to the tracking and participatory development process). WSDOT does not currently provide any data to WDOE during the TMDL development process. WDOE may potentially use WSDOT data in the future as data become available from WSDOT’s monitoring program, which is described in Section S7 of WSDOT’s MS4 permit. Several compliance strategies are used by WSDOT to comply with their MS4 permit and Highway Runoff Manual require- ments relating to treatment, flow control, and stormwater ret- rofits. These include structural BMPs (infiltration ponds, vaults, trenches, media filter drain, compost amended biofiltration, compost amended filter strip, wet pond, constructed stormwater treatment wetland, combined wet/detention pond, and bioreten- tion) and nonstructural BMPs (natural and engineered disper- sion, DOT staff training and education). To date, only one TMDL has assigned a specific action to WSDOT to perform a stormwater retrofit. Two TMDLs have assigned WSDOT an action item to install pet waste stations. WSDOT has developed a BMP design and maintenance manual: the Highway Runoff Manual, which includes 303(d)/TMDL considerations relat- ing to the selection of specific BMPs for specific pollutants for TMDL compliance purposes. The BMP pollutant removal efficiency presumptions are those established by WDOE. The cost of implementation of BMPs is not directly tracked; how- ever, WSDOT does conduct an Environmental Mitigation Costs Study on a 3-year cycle that tracks capital costs, design, and land acquisition (this report tracks project-specific mitigation for all environmental mitigation, including erosion control, stormwater, wetlands, stream, noise, etc.). BMP operation and maintenance costs are not currently tracked; however, WSDOT is developing a tracking system: Highway Activity Tracking System (HATS) that will track BMP maintenance activities and some cost information. Annual maintenance is required for BMPs, and generally includes a process for visually verifying that the practices are functioning; it is expected that the HATS system will also identify long-term operation and maintenance trends and the adequacy of the currently prescribed maintenance frequency. There has been some limited BMP performance research on grass swales, permeable pavement, and a few other select practices; however, a more rigorous process of monitoring highway runoff and measuring BMP efficiency is ramping up. Section S7 of the latest WSDOT MS4 permit includes a much more robust monitoring program with prescriptive requirements for monitoring data quality objectives, QA/ QC, QAPPs, etc. Additional research on BMP performance is anticipated in collaboration with the WSU Puyallup Research & Extension Center. WSDOT also collaborates with the neighboring municipalities on various issues related to stormwater. Maintenance of BMPs on roads in urban areas is typically turned over to the municipality through a standard agreement (that is modified as needed based on the specific project or location). Overall, however, numerous obstacles are cited as barriers to engaging in more involved permit compliance related partnerships, the most significant being com- pliance liability issues. One of the biggest obstacles to the TMDL program implementation in general was identified as the limited data and technology for developing accurate WLAs (although the newer permit language referencing presumptive compliance has reduced this as an issue). Another implementation challenge in Washington is the wide range of climatic and physiographic characteristics (especially between eastern and western portions of the state), requiring a wide range of compliance strategies. The biggest implementation successes were identified as 1) the development of a collaborative relationship between WSDOT and WDOE during the development and on-going implementa- tion of the current NPDES permit, and 2) the development of the Programmatic Approach for complying with certain TMDLs. The biggest changes needed for moving forward were identified as 1) training of personnel, 2) increased research to expand the list of BMP options that are applicable to the right-of-way environment, 3) nonstructural practices for source control (brake pad materials, galvanized [zinc] coatings on downspouts, etc.), and 4) additional manpower and funding resources. Minnesota Department of Transportation May 7, 2012 Brett Troyer, Nick Tiedeken, Office of Environmental Stewardship Beth Neuendorf, Metro District Water Resources Engineering MnDOT has been named a stakeholder in approximately 40–50 approved and pending TMDLs. There are currently >3,000 impaired waters in Minnesota and >2,000 TMDLs; therefore, it is expected that hundreds of additional TMDLs will be coming down the pipeline in which MnDOT will likely be a stakeholder. MnDOT prioritizes TMDLs based on 1) those within urban MS4 areas, 2) those that have pollutants of con- cern associated with highway runoff, 3) those that potentially impact the NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP), and 4) those that are outside the MS4 but may potentially establish a precedent for addressing pollutants of concern, and 5) those that will potentially become urbanized. TMDLs usually have multiple WLAs, for example one for construction stormwater

62 and one for MS4s. For smaller TMDLs, MnDOT requests an individual WLA (as written in a Memorandum of Understand- ing with the local state agency, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [PCA]). For larger TMDLs that cover huge watersheds (e.g., South Mississippi River, Minnesota River), MnDOT tends to have a categorical (aggregated) WLA with other MS4 permit- tees. Several organizational units within MnDOT are responsible for TMDL compliance, including the Office of Environmental Stewardship at the headquarters level; and the Water Resources Engineering maintenance, construction, design, and planning units of the Metro district (one of 8 districts in Minnesota, and the one with the most TMDLs that MnDOT has participated in). MnDOT’s participation on TMDL development is governed (in part) by the MOU with the PCA which outlines the procedure for providing PCA with data (acres in right-of-way) and review- ing/commenting on TMDLs. Construction stormwater BMPs implemented by MnDOT are required by the CGP, TMDLs, and by requirements established by Watershed Management Organizations and Watershed Dis- tricts (there are 34 watersheds in the Metro area). Generally, the nutrient and turbidity TMDLs can be met by the CGPs. The assumption is that if MnDOT is in compliance with the construc- tion permit, they have met their construction stormwater WLA. Structural BMPs include (for example) infiltration practices, filtration practices, detention and extended detention basins, iron filings (which are mixed into filtration material to enhance phosphorus removal), proprietary controls, and grit chambers for sediment control known as structural pollution control devices. Nonstructural BMPs include street sweeping, public education, and enhanced maintenance and research activities. MnDOT is generally locked into structural practices (especially infiltration for volume control) due to the requirements implemented by the Watershed Districts and Management Organizations. Design standards are generally mandated by the watershed organiza- tions as well as the construction permit; it is presumed that if these design standards are met, and the practice is being main- tained, then the BMP is working effectively (i.e., in accordance with PCA published efficiencies). Per its MS4 General Permit, MnDOT also conducts periodic visual inspections of BMPs to identify maintenance needs. Monitoring of BMPs has generally been limited to date; however, MnDOT is starting to implement infiltrometers to measure the effectiveness of existing infiltra- tion practices (as well as verify the efficacy of placing new ones). The new NPDES permit expected in the fall is not likely to have additional monitoring requirements (beyond visual inspections). MnDOT also has an active BMP research program through the University of Minnesota which examines the effec- tiveness of (for example) grass swales and sump manholes. Pol- lutant loads from the ROW have not been estimated by MnDOT. They are done by consultants for PCA with mixed results. BMP costs are not generally tracked. The number one challenge identified by MnDOT in implement- ing their TMDL program was regulatory, specifically the lack of flexibility in BMP selection afforded by the watershed organiza- tions and the PCA. The primary focus is on volume control which essentially restricts MnDOT to a limited set of infiltration BMPs. MnDOT would like to see a more expanded set of options, spe- cifically nutrient credit trading and the use of iron filings; how- ever, there appears to be little impetus to develop these further at the current time. Another difficulty is meeting the TMDL WLAs which are not seen as meaningful numbers because of the lack of a framework to measure success, particularly in cases where the DOT’s impact is so insignificant within a much larger water- shed. Other challenges unique to Minnesota include the sheer volume of impaired water bodies and the magnitude of TMDLs being implemented, some of which (e.g., IBI TMDLs) the DOT has little experience with. There are also challenges in karst areas where infiltration may not be appropriate, and there is a general concern that infiltration of pollutants simply re-directs the prob- lem to groundwater which can be especially problematic in rural areas where wells are not tested. BMPs are also seen as being less effective during the harsh winters in Minnesota. The primary suc- cess identified by the DOT was the ability to meet the construc- tion permit requirements and hence meet the TMDL construction stormwater WLA for nutrient and turbidity TMDLs. Several sys- temic changes were identified to ensure permanent reductions of pollutants from the ROW. These include continued education and training of DOT designers and contractors, additional research on BMPs that are easier to implement and maintain (and less expensive in the long run), maintenance standards with funding to implement them, and greater control of off-site water running onto the ROW.

Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation