United States Office of Water EPA 833-F-00-007 Environmental Protection (4203) January 2000 Agency Fact Sheet 2.5 Storm Water Phase II&EPA Final Rule Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 -Storm Water Phase II Finat Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 -Small MS4 Storm
Water Program Overview 2.1 -Who's Covered? Designation and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 -Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 -Pubtic Education
and Ouueach 2.4 -Public Partiapation/Involvement 2.5 -Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination 2.6 -Construction Site Runoff Control 2.7 -Post·Consuuction Runoff ConUol 2.8 -Pollution
Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9 -Penmitting and Reporting: The Process and RequiremenlS 2.10 -Federal and State·Operated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 -Consuuction
Program Overview 3.1 -Consuuction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 -Conditional No Exposure Exclusion for Industrial Activity This fact sheet profiles the IIlicit
Discharge Detection and Elimination minimum control measure, one of six measures the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) is required to
include in its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) penni!. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Final
Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly
how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements. What Is An "micit Discharge"? Federal regulations define an illicit discharge as " ...any discharge to an MS4 that is not composed
entirely of storm water ..." with some exceptions. These exceptions include discharges from NPDES-permitted industrial sources and discharges from fire-fighting activities. Illicit discharges
(see Table 1) are considered "illicit" because MS4s are not designed to accept, process, or discharge such non-storm water wastes. Why Are micit Discharge Detection and Elimination Efforts
Necessary? Discharges from MS4s often include wastes and wastewater from non-storm water sources. A study conducted in 1987 in Sacramento, California, found that almost one-half of the
water discharged from a local MS4 was not directly attributable to precipitation runoff. A significant portion of these dry weather flows were from illicit and/or inappropriate discharges
and connections to the MS4. Table 1 Sources of Illicit Discharges Sanitary wastewater Effluent from septic tanks Car wash wastewaters Improper oil disposal Radiator flushing disposal
Laundry wastewaters Spills from roadway accidents Improper disposal of auto and household toxies Illicit discharges enter the system through either direct connections (e.g., wastewater
piping either mistakenly or deliberately connected to the storm drains) or indirect connections (e.g., infiltration into the MS4 from cracked sanitary systems, spills collected by drain
outlets, or paint or used oil dumped directly into a drain). The result is untreated discharges that contribute high levels of pollutants, including heavy metals, toxics, oil and grease,
solvents, nutrients, viruses, and bacteria to receiving waterbodies. Pollutant levels from these illicit discharges have been shown in EPA studies to be high enough to significantly
degrade receiving water quality and threaten aquatic, wildlife, and human health. 
" 
Fact Sheet 2.S -lUicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 2 What Is Required? Recognizing the adverse effects illicit discharges can have on receIvmg watersl
the final rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4 to develop, implement and enforee an illicit discharge detection and elimination program, This program must include the following:
o A storm sewer system map, showing the location of all outfalls and the names and location ofall waters of the United States that receive discharges from those outfulls; o Through an
ordinance, or other regulatory mechanism, a prohibition (to the extent allowable under State, Tribal, or local law) on non-storm water discharges into the MS4, and appropriate enforcement
procedures and actions; o A plan to deteet and address non-storm water discharges, ineluding illegal dumping, into the MS4; o The education ofpublic employees, businesses, and the general
publie about the hazards assoeiated with illegal discharges and improper disposal ofwaste; and a The determination of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals
for this minimum eontrol measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i,e" the program actionstactivities)) and measurable goals are suggested below, Does This Measure Need
to Address All Illicit Discharges? No, The illieit diseharge deteetion and elimination program does not need to address the following categories of non-storm water discharges or flows
unless the operator of the regulated small MS4 identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to its MS4: • Water line flushing; Landscape irrigation; • Diverted stream flows;
• Rising ground waters; • Uncontaminated ground water infiltration; • Uncontaminated pumped ground water; • Discharges from potable water sourees; • Foundation drains; • Air conditioning
eondensation; Irrigation water; • Springs; Water from erawl space pumps; Footing drains; Lawn watering; • Individual residential Car washing; Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands;
Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges; and Street wash water, What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? The 􀁯􀁾􀁪􀁥􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀠of the illicit discharge
deteetion and ehmmatlon mlntmum control measure is to have regulated small MS4 operators gain a thorough awareness of their systems. This awareness allows them to determine the types
and sources of illicit discharges entering their system; and establish the legal, technical, and educational means needed to eliminate these discharges, Permittees eould meet these objectives
in a variety of ways depending on their individual needs and abilities, but some general guidanee fur each requirement is provided below, The Map The storm sewer system map is meant
to demonstrate a basic awareness of the intake and diseharge areas of the system, It is needed to help determine the extent of discharged dry weather flows, the possible sources of the
dry weather flows, and the particular waterbodies these flows may be affecting, An existing map, such as a topographical map, on which the localion of major pipes and outfalls can be
clearly presented demonstrates sueh awareness. EPA recommends collecting all exisling information on outfal11oeations {e.g., review city records, drainage maps, storm drain maps}, and
then conducting field surveys to verify loeations. It probably will be neeessary to walk (i.e., wade through small receiving waters or use a boat for larger waters) the streambanks and
shorelines for visual observation. More than one trip may be needed to locate all outfulls. Legal Prohibition andEnforcement EPA recognizes that some permittees may have limited authority
under State, Tribal or local law to establish and enforee an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism prohibiting illicit discharges, In such a case, the permittee is encouraged to obtain
the necessary authority, if possible, The Plan The plan to detect and address illicit discharges is the eentral component of this minimum control measure. The plan is dependant upon
several several factors, including the permittee's available resourees, size of staff, and degree and character of its illicit diseharges. EPA envisions a plan similar to the one Michigan
reeommends for use in meeting their NPDES storm 
Pa water general permit for small MS4s. As guidance only, the four steps ofa recommended plan are outlined below: o Locate Problem Areas EPA recommends that priority areas be identified
for detailed screening of the system hased on the likelihood of illicit connections (e.g., areas with older sanila!y sewer lines). Methods that can locate problem areas include: public
complaints; visual screening; water sampling from manholes and outfalls during dry weather; and use of infmred and thermal photography. @Find the Source Once a problem area or discharge
is found, additional efforts usually are necessary to determine the souree of the problem. Methods that can find the souree of the illicit discharge inelude: dye-testing buildings in
problem areas; dye-or smoke-testing buildings at the time of sale; tracing the discharge upstream in the storm sewer; employing a certification program that shows that buildings have
been cheeked for illicit connections; implementing an inspection program ofexisting septie systems; systems; and using video to inspect the storm sewers. @) Remove/Correct Illicit Connections
Once the source is identified, the offending discharger should be notified and directed to correct the problem. Education efforts and working with the discharger can be effective in
resolving the problem before taking legal action. o Document Actions Taken As a final step, all aetions taken under the plan should be documented. This iIIustmtes that progress is being
made to eliminate illicit connections and discharges. Documented actions should be included in annual reports and include information sueh as: the number of outfalls screened; any complaints
received and corrected; the number of discharges and quantities of flow eliminated; and the number of dye or smoke tests conducted. Educational Outreach Outreach to public employees,
businesses, property owners, the general community, and elected officials regarding ways to deteet and eliminate illicit discharges is an integral part of this minimum mcasure that will
help gain support for the 􀁰􀁥􀁮􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁴􀁥􀁥􀁾􀁳􀀠stonn water program. Suggested educational outreach efforts include: Developing informative 􀁢􀁲􀁯􀁣􀁨􀁵􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠and guidances for
specific audiences (e.g., calpet cleaning businesses) and school curricula; Designing a progmm to publicize andlacililote public reporting of illicit discharges; Coordinating volunteers
for locating, and visually inspecting, outfalls or to stencil stonn drains; and • Initiating recycling pro?,rams for commonly dumped wastes, such as motor oIl, antifreeze, and pesticides.
What Are Appropriate Measurable Goals? M easurable goals, which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The
measurable goals, as well as the BMPs, should reflect the needs and characteristics of the opemtor and the arca served by its small MS4. Furthermore, they should be chosen using an integmted
approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integmted approach for this minimum measure eculd include thc following measurable goals:
Target Date Activitv I year ........... . Sewer system map completcd; recyeling program for household hazardous waste in place. 2 years ......... . Ordinance in place; training for public
employees completed; a certain percentage of sources of illicit discharges determined. 3 years ......... . A certain pereentage of illicit discharges detected; illicit discharges eliminated;
and households participating in quarterly housebold hazardous waste special collection days. 4 years ...•..•... Most illicit discharge sources detectcd and eliminated. The educational
outreach measurabJe goals for this minimum control measure could be combined with the measurable goals for the Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure (sce Fact Sheet 2.3).

Control For Additional Information COlltact .". u.s. EPA Offiee of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202260-5816 E-mail: SW2@epa.gov Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 Referellce Documellts
.,.. Stonn Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Internel: www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 .". Stonn Water Phase II Final Rule (64 FR 68722) Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 • Contact
the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center -Phone: 202260-7786 -E-mail: eenter. water-resource@epa.gov Sources Maryland Department ofthe Environment, Water Management Administration. 1997. Dry
Weather Flow and Illicit Discharges in Maryland Storm Drain Systems. Baltimore, Maryland. u.s. EPA Office of Water. 1993. Investigation of inappropriate Pollutant Entries infO Storm
Drainage Systems: A User's Guide. EPAl600/R-921238. Washington, D.C. Wayne County Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. 1997. Guidaneefor Preparing a Program for the
Elimination ofIllicit Discharges. Wayne County, Miehigan. 
Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination -8tonn Water Phase IT Menu ofBMPs & Model.. Page 1 of 6 \ ) Storm Water 􀁾􀁈􀁯􀁭􀁥􀀠I> What·s New I> FAQs 􀁾􀀠PubficaliOl'lS 􀁾􀀠RegulaliOl'lS
I> Outreach I>Unks 􀁾􀀠Contacts e. EA.A U_ SIal.. OFFICE OF WASTEWATER 1i:rI 􀁾􀁅􀁮􀁲􀁨􀀨􀁬􀁍􀁬􀁬􀁮􀁴􀁡􀁬􀀠PtWctl(X1 Agmr;y MANAGEMENTOffice of Wmer ..A\ NPDIl!S ,... Ab••• nf.i1 Se.arch
I.a1 Home 􀁾􀀠.NPOES"" WPD . Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Identifying Illicit Connections II BMP Topics RMP Menu 1,.PubJi.c 􀁥􀁤􀁵􀀮􀁣􀁡􀁴􀁬􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠oul;reaQ.i:L2D.Jitorm.y.raterlml"'
..m§ 􀀲􀁾􀁵􀁢􀁬􀁩􀁣􀁪􀁮􀁶􀁯􀁬􀀧􀁦􀀡􀁪􀁭􀁥􀁬􀀱􀁴􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁮􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠lIli9Jt 􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁣􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁧􀁾􀁾􀁊􀁌􀀹􀀱􀀱􀀡􀁕􀁬􀀡􀀡􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁍􀁮􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁑􀁑􀁮􀀮􀁴􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁵􀁣􀁬􀁪􀁯􀁮􀀠􀁳􀁩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁭watgr
rllool1 􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁲􀁲􀀾􀀮􀁴􀀠􀁾􀁣􀀠􀁐􀁏􀂧􀁾􀁾􀁯􀁬􀀱􀂧􀁪􀁲􀁵􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁑􀁮􀀠􀂧􀁴􀁑􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁊􀁾􀁲􀀠􀁾􀁲􀁌􀁾􀁥􀁭􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁬􀁾􀁬􀁊􀁬􀁾􀀠gevelojllTlen1.£ r...edeve!opment Description 6 Pollution prevention
& gQ<Jd 􀁬􀁊􀁯􀁵􀁳􀀮􀁫􀁾􀁮􀁧􀀠for Illicit connections are defined as "illegal andfor improper municipal operations connections to stonn drainage systems and receiving waters" (CWP. 1998).
A discharge of industrial i M§..surable Goal§ wastewater to a stonn sewer is "illicit" because it would ordinarily require a penni! under the Clean Water Act. 􀁉􀁬􀁬􀀡􀀲􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁲􀁭􀁾􀀡􀁬􀁬􀀡􀀺􀁦􀀧􀁾􀀠
Many building owners or operators are not aware that improper connections exist in their facilities. Identifying and removing illicit connections is a measure for reducing stonn water
pollution. In extreme cases of illicit II===F=act=S=h",e=e=ts===l1 dumping. legal action is necessary. From 1987 to 1998. Wayne County. Michigan. Industriallbusiness Q.QxlnectIrul§investigated
3.851 businesses and industrtes for illicit connections to the county's stonn sewer system. Of those investigated. about 8 percent had illicit connections, and where one illicit connection
was found. there was an average of 2.4 improper connects at that 􀁾􀁮􀀡􀁴􀁡􀁲􀁹􀁳􀁥􀁷􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁾􀀠business. To prioritize the investigation. the county relied on Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) codes of the 􀁾􀁴􀁪􀁦􀁹􀁪􀁮􀁧􀀠illlcil businesses. The prioritization system was found to be 􀁣􀁏􀁍􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁋􀀧􀀡􀀡􀁬􀁾􀀠successful in locating illicit discharges (Johnson and Tuoman.
no date; Tuoman. no date). The City of 􀁾􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁾􀁲OOfJnectiQn§ tQJmtggrrp drainHialeah. Florida, uses its stonn water management plan 1/31102bttp:!lwww.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmpS/illi_2.htm

Dlicit Discharge Detection & Elimination -Storm Water Phase II Menu ofBMPs & Model" Page 2 of6 to emphasize illicit discharge detection and removal as part of its overall monitoring
activities. There are at least 252 outfalls in the city, 72 of which drain into city rightsof-way. After considering the costs associated with removing illicit discharges, the city chose
a proactive field screening program approach to remove these discharges (City of Hialeah, 1999). Applicability Identifying illicit and improper connections are necessary for all sewer
systems, especially in areas where pollutants with unknown sources have been detected in receiving waters. The level and types of industrial activities and the surrounding land uses
and ordinances will affect the methods used to identify illiCit connections. Implementation Some practices used to discover and prevent illicit connections are • Instituting building
and plumbing codes to prevent connections of potentially hazardous pollutants to storm drains. • Organizing structures to be inspected by building age, with older buildings identified
as priorities. Buildings whose processes have the potential to affect water quality also should be given priority. • Mapping each area to be surveyed and indicating the route of the
sewer system and the locations of storm drains on the map. This enables planners to estimate the likely locations of illicit connections. A Geographic Information System (GIS) is an
appropriate tool for identifying illicit discharges. The location of illicit discharges can be maintained by a geo-coded address. The attributes for illicit discharges are SIC code,
ownerloccupant information, inspection schedule, inspection dates, and comments (Huey, 2000). To help municipalities detect illicit connections to storm sewers, the North Central Texas
Council of Govemments (NCTCOG) used GIS to develop a 114mile grid cell overlay forthe entire 16-county NCTCOG region. The initial report suggested that illicit connections were not as
prevalent in the North Central Texas area, and sewage material was observed in about 10 percent of the sites (NCTCOG, 2000). The City of Greensboro, North Carolina, is using GIS technology
as part of its storm water management program. This GIS system is used to in conjunction with the program's monitoring aspect to identify illicit connections. More information on this
program can be found on their 􀁐􀁾􀁭􀁩􀁣jlyatershe.<! Management Project Wej) site (Bryant at al., 1999 and City of Greensboro, 2000). • Survey individual buildings to discover where
connections to storm drains exist. • Inspect sewer lines with television equipment to visually identify all physical connections. • Compare the resuHs of the field tests and the video
inspection with the known connections on the map. Suspicious areas should be further investigated. • Institute mandatory inspections for new developments or remodeling to http://www.epa.gov/npdes/men
uofbmpsli1li-..2.htm1l31/02 
lllicit Discharge Detection &; Elimination -Stonn Water Phase n Menu ofBMPs &; Model.. Page 3 of6 tUQlnn)" lin,.,,, '-'VIJlfOV1.IVU"" t.v UI"" "'lVBII "U,"'I:O'I ",,"'"CIIl. • Remove
and test sediment from the catch basins or equivalent structures. • Inspect connections in question to determine whether they should be connected to the storm drain system or to the
sanitary sewer. Use methods of identification such as dye testing, visual inspection, smoke testing, or flow monitoring, as described below. o Dye Testing. Flushing f1uorometrlc dye
Into suspicious downspouts can be useful to identify illicit connections. Once the dye has been introduced into the storm system via the connection in question, the water in the collection
system is monitored to determine whether an illicit connection is present. o Visua/lnspection. Remotely guiding television cameras through sewer lines is another way to identify physical
connections. o Smoke Testing. Smoke testing Is another method used to discover illicit connections. connections. Zinc chloride smoke is injected into the sewer line and emerges via vents
on connected buildings or through cracks or leaks in the sewer line. Monitoring and reCOrding where the smoke emerges, crews can identify all connections, legal and illegal, to the sewer
system. Mechanisms on drains should prevent the smoke from entering buildings; however, in some instances, this will occur. It is important to notify the public that the smoke is non-toxic,
though it should be avoided as it can cause irritation of the nose and throat for some people. o Flow Monitoring. Monitoring increases in storm sewer flows during dry periods can also
lead investigators to sources of infiltration due to improper connections. o Infrared, Aerial, and Thermal Photography. Researchers are experimenting with the use of aerial, infrared,
and thermal photography to locate dischargers by studying the temperature of the stream water in areas where algae might be concentrated and in soils. It also examines land surface moisture
and vegetative growth. This technique assumes that a failing OSDS, for example, would have more moisture in the surface soil, the area would be warmer, and the vegetation would grow
faster than in the surrounding area (Johnson and Tuomari, no date). On November 17 and 30,1999, the Arkansas Department of Health used infrared technology to identify illicit discharges
from septic systems into Lake Conway, Arkansas. lake Conway, located in Faulkner County, Arkansas, is a man-made lake used mostly for recreational fishing. Approximately 90 percent of
the residents within 1 mile of the lakefront have onsite westewater treatment systems. Of the 2,500 to 3,500 residents who living within 300 feet of the shoreline, only 250 are connected
to the public sewer system. Most of these systems are more than 30 years old and were installed before state regulations. The inspector used a state policy helicopter that was equipped
with a Forward looking Infrared imaging system, video equipment, and a global positioning . system. system. The results of this two-<lay survey indicated that there are approximately
380 malfunctioning and improperly constructed septic systems within 300 feet of the lakefront (Eddie, 2000). Facility owners should be required to correct the problem by eliminating
the discharge and connecting to the sanitary sewer system Some agencies use a priority system for identifying illicit discharges. According to the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
(1987, cited in Tuomari, no date), a priority scheme for detecting illicit discharges from businesses should be as follows: 1. Automobile-related businesses/facilities and heavy manufacturing
2. Printers, dry cleanersJIaundries, photo processors, utilities, paint stores, http://www.epa.gov/npdesimenuofbmpsfilli_2.htrn 1131102 
lllidt Discharge Detection & Elimination -Storm Water Phase n Menu ofBMPs & Model.. Page 4 of6 water conamoners, cnemlcal laooralones, construction compames, ana medium light manufacturing
3. Institutional facilities, private service agencies, retail establishments, and schools Limitations There are several limitations to programs to detect illicit connections. First,
a local ordinance is necessary to provide investigators with access to private property in order to perform field tests (Ferguson et al. 1997). Second, rain faU can hamper efforts to
monitor flows and visual inspections. In addition, smoke testing and dye testing may become more difficult, depending on the severity of the storm event. Smoke testing has roughly the
same efficiency as door-to-door investigation, and both smoke and dye testing are more accurate than visual inspection. Despite the difficulty in identifying these connections due to
budget and staff restraints, it is important to understand that these connections are illegal and should be identified and reported regardless of cost. Jurisdictions can offset some
of these costs by encouraging the reporting of illicit discharges by employees, thereby saving expense on inspectors and directing resources more efficiently. Maintenance Considerations
Identifying illicit discharges requires teams of at least two people (volunteers can be used), plus administrative personnel, depending on the complexity of the storm sewer system. To
help identify illicit discharges, the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, has illicit discharge regulations and dry weather screening for illicit discharges and connections. By taking baseline
samples throughout the city, pollution control efforts can be better established for future identification of illicit discharges. This inventory, combined with the city's mapping effort,
will be added to the city's GIS to allow for improved tracking of illicit discharges and spills (City of Raleigh, 1998). Effectiveness An illicit discharge detection program can be an
effective method to reduce the quantity of industrial or commercial pollutants that enter the storm drain system. For example, the Department of Environmental Protection in Montgomery
County, Maryland, has an Illicit discharge detection and elimination program called "Pipe Detectives," which uses volunteer monitoring and community hotlines to identify suspicious discharges
(MCDEP, 1997). When discharges are reported, DEP consults maps of the surrounding areas and targets those areas for additional monitoring to narrow the search for the illicit connection.
In one instance, a "milky white" discharge was reported in an area with many small businesses and large apartment buildings. Businesses were sent informational letters advising them
of the illegal discharge and requesting their aSSistance in identifying it by allowing DEP to survey the properties. Through this cooperative effort, three illicit connections were detected
and removed, including a sink that was used to wash paintbrushes (the source of the milky white discharge). The City of Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) in an
independent agency whose functions include master planning, design and construction, maintenance, floodplain management, and management of the South Pialle River. The master planning
aspect includes major drainageway master planning, outfall systems planning, preparation of drainage criteria manuals for local governments and the district, support of special projects,
and 1131102http://www.epa.gov/npdesfmenuofbmpsfIlli_2.htm 
'. 
D1icit Discharge Detection & Elimination -Stonn Water Phase n Menu ofBMPs & Model.. Page 5 of6 .. 􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭..-,..--1----· -..--_OJ _. -_ •• __•••-----_ •••• -'-"'-Q-_•• _-.-.••_ .., .•.•.
_ •• identified $100 million in necessary drainage improvements. The district uses pollutants and education materials to limit illicit discharges to storm drains (City of Indianapolis
and Marion County, 2Q00). As part of the Rogue River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, Wayne County, Michigan, offers training for illicit discharge elimination. Four training
courses are offered: Overview, BasiC Investigations, Advanced Investigations, and Prevention of Construction-Related Illicit Discharges. More information on these training opportunities
can be found at http://www.wcdoe.org/rouger;verltechfop/index.html. EPA's Surf Your Watershed (http://www.epa.QOv/sYff) can help citizens and business/industry owners identify into which
watershed their storm drains flow. The Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), a non-profit data and technology information transfer center, has created Know Your Watershed
(www.cfic.Durdue.edulKYJII{).This web site allows individuals to leam their watershed address by entenng their city, county, or river name, or their ZIP code. Cost ConSiderations The
cost of smoke testing, dye testing, visual inspection, and flow monitoring can be significant and time-consuming. Site-specifiC factors, such as the level of impervious area, the denSity
and ages of buildings, and type of land use will determine the level of investigation necessary. Case studies in Michigan have estimated the cost of two field staff and required support
at $182,000 to $187,000 annually (Ferguson et at, 1997). Wayne County's budget for illicit detection investigations was $735,151 from 1996 to 1997 and $599,041 for 1997 through 1998
(Johnson and Tuomari, no date). Many programs offset some of their cost by encouraging the reporting of illicit discharges by employees, thereby saving expense on inspectors and direcling
resources more efficiently. Programs have also saved money by using student intems to locate and map dry weather flows from outfalls, or by contracting with academic institutions to
perform outfall monitoring. Some programs have used funds available from "environmental fees' or special assessment districts to fund their illicit connection elimination programs. The
Huron River Pollution Abatement Project used annual assessments of the city of Ann Arbor and a per parcel basis for the rest of the distlict to fund the costs of illicit connection removal
efforts. The project provided Washtenaw County with a total of $1.7 million over the life of the program to finance their efforts. Fort Worth, Texas, charges an "environmental fee" to
local residents and businesses to fund storm water-related efforts, including illicit connection detection. Approximately $2.5 million dollars a year is raised through these fees. References
Bryant, S.D., V.S. Shastli Annambhotla,and KA Carper. 1999. Development ofa Dynamic; Urban Stormwater and Watershed Management System to Meet the Challenges ofthe 21st Century. In 1999 American Water Works Association Water
Resources Conference. City of Greensboro. 2000. Dynamic Watershed Management Project. 􀁛􀁨􀁴􀁴􀁰􀀺􀀯􀀯􀁷􀁷􀁷􀀮􀁣􀁩􀁊􀁉􀁄􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁳􀁢􀀱􀀾􀀱􀁑􀀮􀁮􀁣􀀮􀁵􀁳􀀯􀁾􀀮􀁯􀁲􀁭􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀀯􀁤􀁹􀁮􀁡􀁬􀀩􀀱􀁩􀁣􀀥􀀵􀁆�
�􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁨􀁾􀀥􀀠1131/02http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmpS/illi_2.htm 
illicit Discharge Detection & E1imination -Storm Water Phase II Menu ofBMPs & Model.. Page 6 of6 City of Raleigh. 1998. NBuse River Brochure. City of Raleigh Public Affairs, Raleigh,
North Carolina. l'!llli.>:lIwww.raleigh-nc.org/pubaffalrs/neusebrQc.htrn]. Accessed July 14, 2000. Cox, J. 2000. Personal communication on EPA's NPS Listserver, July 14, 2000. CWP. 1998.
Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Drain Patrol. No date. Services. 􀁛􀀡􀀩􀁊􀀻􀀯􀁰􀀺􀀯􀀯􀁷􀁷􀁗􀀮􀁤􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁰􀁡􀁴􀁲􀁯􀁲􀀮􀁣􀁯􀁭􀀯􀁰􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁳􀀯􀁳􀁾􀁲�
�􀁪􀁣􀁥􀁳􀀮􀁨􀁴􀁭􀁕􀀮􀀠Accessed January 2001. Eddie, N. 2000. ArKansas Sanitarian Uses Infrared Technology to Track Down Sewage. Small Flows Quarterly 1(2): 22-24. National Small Flows
Clearinghouse, Morgantown, West Virginia. Ferguson, T., R. Gignac, M. Stoffan, A. Ibrahim, and H. Aldrich. 1997. Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. Wayne County,
MI. Johnson, B., and D. Tuomari. No date. DkJ You Know ... The Impact ofOnSite Sewage Sewage Systems and Illicit Discharges on the Rouge River. Camp Dresser & McKee and Wayne County
Department of Environment, Wayne, Michigan. Louisville/Jefferson County Municipal Sewer District. 1999. Countywide Inllow and Infiltration Elimination Program. Louisville, KY. [!lJ1Q;!1www.msdlouky.o
rg/programs/ii.hWl]. MCDEP. 1997. Montgomery County NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Annual Report. MS-MO-95-006. Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection,
Water Quality Advisory Group, Rockville, MD. North Central Texas Council of Govemments. 2000. Ovetview ofthe Regional Storm Water Management strategy fOr the Dal/aslFort IM'oth Metropiex.
North Central Texas Council of Govemments, Arlington, Texas. [!Jnp:/Iwww.nctcQ.gJi!lt.tx.us/envirlwg/inetstwJl1m1]. Accessed July 14, 2000. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992.
Stormwater Management Manua/fOr the Puget Sound Basin. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. WEF and ASAE. 1998. Ulban Runoff Quality Management. WEF Manual of Practice
No. 23 and ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 87. Water Environment Federation, Technical Practice Committee, Water Quality and Ecology Subcommittee, Alexandria, VA;
and American SoCiety of Civil Engineers, Urban Water Resources Research CounCil, Reston, VA. URL: http://www.epa.gov/npdesfmenuofhmpslim_2.htm last modified: 0112412002 13:51:39 1/31/02http://www.epa
.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/ilJi_2.htm 
• .''c' .': -', .' "t'.... 
&EPA Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 -Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: An Overview Small MS4 Program 2.0 -Small MS4 Storm Water Program Overview 2.1 -Who's
Covered? DesignaUOI1 and Waivers of Regulated Small MS4s 2.2 -Urbanized Areas: Delinition and Description Minimum Control Measures 2.3 -Public Educalion and Outreach 2.4 -Public Participalionl
Involvement 2.5 -Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimlnalfon 2.6 -Construction Site RunoH Control 2.7 -Post·ConstrucliOil RunoH Control 2.8 Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping 2.9
-Permitting and Reporting: The Process and Requirements 2.10 -Federal and Slate.()perated MS4s: Program Implementation Construction Program 3.0 -Construction Program OvelView 3.1 -Construction
Rainfall Erosivity Waiver Industrial "No Exposure" 4.0 -Conditional No Exposure Exclusion lor Industrial AotMty United C::tates Office of Water EPA 833·F·OO·007 Envir( :::ntal Protection
(4203) January 2000 Agenc,. Fact Sheet 2.5 Storm Water Phase II Final Rule Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Minin1um Control Measure This fact sheet profiles the Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination minimum control measure, one of six measures the operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate stonn sewer system (MS4) is required to include in
its stonn water management program to meet the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This fact sheet outlines the Phase IT Final Rule requirements
and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is important to keep in mind that the small MS4 operator has a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy
the minimum control measure requirements. What Is An "Illicit Discharge"? Pederal regulations define an illicit discharge as ..... any discharge to an MS4 that is not composed entirely
of stann water..." with some exceptions. These exceptions include discharges from NPDES·petmitled industrial sources and discharges from fire-fighting activities. TIlicit discharges
(see Table 1) are considered "illicit" because MS4s are not designed to accept, process, or discharge such non-storm water wastes. Why Are Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Efforts Necessary? Discharges from MS4s often include wastes and wastewater from non-stonn water sources. A study conducted in 1987 in Sacramento, California, found that almost one-half
of the water discharged from a local MS4 was not directly attributable to precipitation runoff. A significant portion of these dry weather flows were from illicit andlor inappropriate
discharges and connections to the MS4. Table 1 Sources of lIIicit Discharges Sanitary wastewater Effluent from septic tanks Car wash wastewaters Improper oil disposal Radiator flushing
disposal Laundry wastewaters Spills from roadway accidents Improper disposal of aula and household toxics illicit discharges enter the system through either direct connections (e.g.,
wastewater piping either mistakenly or deliberately connected to the storm drains) or indirect connections (e.g., infiltration into the MS4 from cracked sanitary systems, spills collected
by drain outlets, or paint or used oil dumped directly into a drain). The result is untreated discharges that contribute high levels of pollutants, including heavy metals, toxics, oil
and grease, solvents, nutrients, viruses, and bacteria to receiving waterbodies. Pollutant levels from these illicit discharges have been shown in EPA studies to be high enough to siguificantly
degrade receiving water quality and threaten aquatic, wildlife, and human health. 
--------Fact Sheet 2.5 -Illicit Discharge DetI!Ction and Elimination Minimum Control 􀁍􀁥􀁾􀁊􀁲􀁥􀀠 Page 2 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭 ---What Is Required? Recognizing the adverse effects
illicit discharges can have on receiving waters, the final rule requires an operator of a regulated small MS4to develop, implement and enforce an illicit discharge detection and elimination
program. This program must include the following: o 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; o Through an ordinance, or other regulatory mechanism, a prohibition (to the extent allowable under State, Tribal, or local law) on non-storm
water discharges into the MS4, and appropriate enforcement procedures and actions; o A plan to detect and address non-storm water discharges, including illegal dumping, into the MS4;
o The education of public employees, businesses, and the general public about the hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste; and o The determination of
appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program actions/activities),
and measurable goals are suggested below. Does This Measure Need to Address All Illicit Discharges? No. The illicit discharge detection and elimination program does not need to address
the following categories of non-storm water discharges or flows unless the operator of the regulated small MS4 identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to its MS4: •
Water line flushing; Landscape irrigation; • Diverted stream flows; • Rising ground waters; • Uncontaminated ground water infiltration; • Uncontaminated pumped ground water; • Discharges
from potable water sources; Foundation drains; • Air conditioning condensation; migation water; Springs; Water from crawl space pumps; • Footing drains; .. Lawn watering; • Individual
residential car washing; • Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands; • Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges; and • Street wash water. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing
This Measure? T􀁨􀁾objective of the illicit discharge detection and elImInation nummum control measure is to have regulated small MS4 operators gain a thorough awareness of their systems.
This awareness allows them to determine the types and sources of illicit discharges entering their system; and establish the legal, technical, and educational means needed to eliminate
these discharges. Permittees could meet these objectives in a variety of ways depending on their individual needs and abilities, but some general guidance for each requirement is provided
below. The Map The storm sewer system map is meant to demonstrate a basic awareness of the intake and discharge areas of the system. It is needed to help determine the extent of discharged
dry weather flows, the possible sources of the dry weather flows, and the particular waterbodies these flows may be affecting. An existing map, such as a topographical map, on which
the location of major pipes and outfalls can be clearly presented demonstrates such awareness. EPA recommends collecting all existing information on outfall locations (e.g., review city
records, drainage maps, storm drain maps), and then conducting field surveys to verify locations. It probably will be necessary to walk (i.e., wade through small receiving waters or
use a boat for larger waters) the strearnbanks and shorelines for visual observation. More than one trip may be needed to locate all outfalls. Legal Prohibition and Enforcement EPA recognizes
that some permittees may have limited authority under State, Tribal or local law to establish and enforce an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism prohibiting illicit discharges_ In
such a case, the permittee is encouraged to obtain the necessary authority, if possible. ThePfan The plan to detect and address illicit discharges is the central component of this minimum
control measure. The plan is dependant upon several factors, including the permittee's available resources, size of staff, and degree and character of its illicit discharges. EPA envisions
a plan similar to the one Michigan recommends for use in meeting their NPDES storm 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
water general pennit for small MS4s. As guidance only, the four steps of a recommended plan are outlined below: o Locate Problem Areas EPA recommends that priority areas be identified
for detailed screening of the system based on the likelihood of illicit connections (e.g., areas with older sanitary sewer lines). Methods that can locate problem areas include: public
complaints; visual screening; water sampling from manholes and outfalls during dry weather; and use of infrared .and thermal photography. @Find the Source Once a problem area or discharge
is found. additional efforts usually are necessary to detennine the source of the problem. Methods that can find the source of the illicit discharge include: dye-testing buildings in
problem areas; dye-or smoke-testing buildings at the time of sale; tracing the discharge upstream in the storm sewer; employing a certification program that shows that buildings have
been checked for illicit connections; implementing an inspection program of existing septic systems; and using video to inspect the storm sewers. o Remove/Correct Illicit Connections
Once the source is identified. the offending discharger should be notified and directed to correct the problem. Education efforts and working with the discharger can be effective in
resolving the problem before taking legal action. e Document Actions Taken As a final step. all actions taken under the plan should be documented. This illustrates that progress is being
made to eliminate illicit connections and discharges. Documented actions should be included in annual reports and include information such as: the number of outfalls screened; any complaints
received and corrected; the number of discharges and quantities of flow eliminated; and the number of dye or smoke tests conducted. Educational Outreach Outreach to public employees,
businesses. property owners. the general community, and elected officials regarding ways to detect and eliminate illicit discharges is an integral part of this minimum measure that will
help gain support for the pennitlee's storm water program. Suggested educational . outreach efforts include: • Developing informative brochures, and guidances for specific audiences
(e.g .• carpet cleaning businesses) and school curricula; • Designing a program to publicize andfacilitate public reporting of illicit discharges; • Coordinating volunteers for locating.
and visually inspecting. outfalls or to stencil storm drains; and • Initiating recycling programs for commonly dumped wastes. such as motor oil. antifreeze. and pesticides. What Are
Appropriate Measurable Goals? Measurable goals. which are required for each minimum control measure, are intended to gauge pennit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable
goals. as well as the BMPs. should reflect the needs and characteristics of the operator and the area served by its small MS4. Furthermore. they should be chosen using an integrated
approach that fully addresses the requirements and intent of the minimum control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals:
Target Date Activity I year .......... .. Sewer system map completed; recycling program for household hazardous waste in place. 2 years .......... Ordinance in place; training for public
employees completed; a certain percentage of sources of illicit discharges detennined. 3 years ......... . A certain percentage of illicit discharges dell::cted; illicit discharges eliminated;
and households participating in quarterly household hazardous waste special collection days. 4 years .......... Most illicit discharge sources detected and eliminated. The educational
outreach measurable goals for this minimum control measure could be combined with the measurable goals for the Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure (see Fact Sheet 2.3).

------------------------•Fact Sheet 2.5 -Illicit Discharf!e Det.....'on and EUmination Minimum Control 􀁍􀁥􀁾􀀠.•'e 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭For Additional Information Contact ... US. EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202260-5816 • E-mail: SW2@epa.gov • Internet:
www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 Reference Documents <li' StOlID Water Phase II Final Rule Fact Sheet Series • Internet:. www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 ... StOlID Water Phase nFinal Rule (64 FR
68722) • Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw/phase2 • Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center -Phone: 202 260·7786 -E-mail: 􀁣􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁲􀀮􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁣􀁥􀁀􀁥􀁰􀁡􀀮􀁧􀁯􀁶􀀠 Sources
Maryland Department of the EnVironment. Water Management Administration. 1997. Dry Weather Flow and 1Ilicit Discharges in Maryland Storm Drain Systems. Baltimore, Maryland. U.S. EPA
Office of Water. 1993. Investigation of Inappropriate Pollutant Entries into Stonn Drainage Systems: A User's Guide. EPAl6001R·92I238. Washington, D.C. Wayne County Rouge River National
Wet Weather Demonstration Project. 1997. Guidancefor Preparing a Program for the Elimination ofIllicit Discharges. Wayne County, Michigan. 􀁾􀀭􀀭
In order to help us determine the success of this event in meeting your needs and expectations please take a few moments to write down your comments and suggestions. Your input is very
valuable and will help us to formulate the regional strategy and plan accordingly for upcoming forums. Content: How beneficial were the topiCS that were addressed during the presentations?
Not at All Somewhat Extremely Beneficial B Which topiCS or presentations did you find most beneficial? GfS Which topics or presentations did you find least beneficial? What other topics
could have been included in the forum? /1 p • I'eqmJlt-ll,.."lf</y;.., rvr<L 􀁾Git). Would you like to see additional forums on this topic? )/rr What could we as a region undertake cooperatively
in the area of Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination? 7I2¥/t,.if • I I Format: Do you feel the format and length of the forum was appropriate? tYesl Was the allocated time for
each presentation sufficient? 􀁾􀀠 Overall, how satisfied are you with the event? Not Not Satisfied Somewhat Extremely Satisfied ConSidering the accessibility of the Grapevine Convention
Center and 􀁩􀁾􀁥􀁳(size, space, etc.) would you recommend having future forums at this location? 􀁾􀀠No Please include any other feedback comments and suggestions: 7C r.2 A I" • c.tP
Please return this form to Leslie Calderon via fax at 817/695-9191 or mail at P.O. Box 5888, Arlington, TX 76005 by November 12. Thank you for your feedback. 
Unile' ltes OHice of Water EPA 833-F-99-007 􀁅􀁮􀁶􀁩􀁲􀁾􀀠."ntal Protection (4203) April 1999 Agency Fact Sheet 2.5 Storm Water Phase II&EPA Proposed Rule Illicit Discharge Detection
and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule Fact Sheet Series Overview 1.0 -Stann Waler Phase II Proposed Rule OvelView Small MS4 Program 2.0 -Small MS4
Stann Water Program Overview 2.1 -Who's Covered? OesiQl1lltion and Waivers of Regulated S"mall MS4s 2.2 -Urbanized Areas: Definition and Description llfinlmum ConIrDI M••..,,... 2.3
-Public Education and Outreach Minimum Control MeaSlJ!e 2.4 -Public Panicipatlon/Involvement Minimum Control Measure 2.5 􀀭􀁬􀁉􀁉􀁩􀁣􀁾􀀠Oischatge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control
Measure 2.6 -Construction Site Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure 2.1 Post-Construction Runoff Control Minimum Control Measure 2.B -Pollution Prevention/GoodHousekeeping Minimum
Control Measure 2.9 -􀁐􀁥􀁲􀁭􀁾􀁮􀁧and Repor1ing:The Process and Requirements 2.10 -Federal and State-Owned MS4s: Program Implemenratlon Conslruction Program 3.0 -Construction Program
OvelView Industrial uNo Exposure" 4.0 -Conditional No ExposureExemption for Industrial Actlvity This/oct sheet is based on the Storm Water Phase II Proposed Rule. Therefore, the information
provided herein is subject f(J change upon publication of ,bellnal Phase II rule in November 1999. A revised series offocr sheetS wUl be provided at that time. A comprehensive lisl oft
e current/act sheets is in the text box alleft. This fact sheet profiles tbe proposed llIicit Discharge Detection and Elimination minimum control measure, one of six measures the owner
or operator of a Phase II regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) would be required to include its storm water management program to meet the conditions of its National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) penni!. This fact sheet outlines the Phase II Proposed Rule requirements and offers some general guidance on how to satisfy them. It is
important important to keep in mind that the small MS4 owner or operator would have a great deal of flexibility in choosing exactly how to satisfy the minimum control measure requirements_
What Is An "illicit Discharge"? -.:::;'ederaI regulations define an illicit discharge as "...any discharge to an MS4 that is not composed r entirely of storm water .._" with some exceptions.
These exceptions include discharges from NPDES-pennitted industrial sourceS and discharges from fire-fighting activities. TIlicit discharges (see Table I) are considered "illicit" because
MS4s are not designed to accept, process, or discharge such non-storm water wastes. Table 1 Why Are Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Efforts Necessary? Sources of illicit
Discharges Discharges from MS4s often include wastes and Sanitary wastewater wastewater from non-stmTIl water sources. A study conducted in 1987 in Sacramento, California, found that
EHluent from sepUc tanks almost one-half of the water discharged from a local MS4 Car wash wastewaters was not directly attributable to precipitation runoff. A Improper 011 disposalsignificant
portion of these dry weather flows were from illicit andlor inappropriate discharges and connections to Radiator flushing disposal tbeMS4. Sump pump discharges Laundry wastewaters connections
(e_g., wastewater piping either mistakenly or TIlicit discharges enter the system through either direct Spills from roadway accidents deliberately connected to the storm drains) or indirect
Improper disposal of auto and connections (e_g_, infiltration into the MS4 from cracked household toxicssanitary systems, spills collected by drain outlets, or paint or used oil dumped
directly into a drain). The result is untreated discharges that contribute high levels of pollutants, including heavy metals, toxics, oil and grease, solvents, nutrients, viruses, and
bacteria to receiving waterbodies. Pollutant levels from these illicit discharges have been shown in EPA studies to be high enough to significantly degrade receiving water quality and
threaten aquatic, wildlife, and human health. 
Fact Sbeet 2.5 -Dlldt Discharge Detection and Elimination Minimum Control Measure Page 2 •"---------'---􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭What IsEPA Proposing?
Recognizing the adverse effects illicit discharges can have on receiving waters, the proposed rule would require an owner or operator of a regulaled small MS4 to develop and implement
an illicit discharge detection and elimination program. This program would need to include the following: a A stonn sewer system map showing the location of major pipes, outfalls, and
topography. In addition, if such data exist, the map needs to show the areas of concentraled activities that are likely to be sources of pollution; a Through an ordinance, order. or
similar means, a prohibition (to the extent allowable under State, Tribal, or local law) on illicit discharges into the MS4, and appropriate enforcement procedures and actions; o A plan
to detect and address illicit discharges, including illegal dumping, into the MS4; o The education education of public employees, businesses, and the general public about the hazards
associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste; and o The determination of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for this minimum control
measure. Some program implementation approaches, BMPs (i.e., the program actions/activities), and measurable goals are suggesled below. Would This Measure Need to Address All Illicit
Discharges? No. The illicit discharge detection and elimination program would not need to address the following categories of nonstonn water discharges or flows unless the owner or operator
of the regulated small MS4 identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to its MS4: • Water line flushing; • Landscape irrigation; • Diverted stream flows; Rising ground
waters; • Uncontaminated ground water infiltration; • Uncontaminated pumped ground water; • Discharges from potable water sources; • Foundation drains; • Air conditioning condensation;
• Irrigation Irrigation water; • Springs; • Water from crawl space pumps; Footing drains; • Lawn watering; • Individual residential car washing; • Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands;
• Dechlorinated swimming puol discharges; aud • Street wash water. What Are Some Guidelines for Developing and Implementing This Measure? The objective of the illicit discharge detection
and elimination minimum control measure is to have regulated small MS4 owners and operators galn a thorough awareness of their systems. This awareness allows them to determine the types
and sources of illicit discharges entering their system, and establish the legal, technical, and educational means to attempt to eliminate these discharges. Permittees could meet these
objectives in a variety of ways depending on their individual needs and abilities, but some general guidance for each requirement is provided below. The Map The stann sewer system map
is meant to demonstrate a basic awareness of the intake and discharge areas of the SyStellL It is needed to help determine the extent of discharged dry weather flows, the possible sources
of the dry weather flows, and the particular waterbodies these flows may be affecting. Since the location of the major pipes and outfalls could be indicated on an existing topographical
map, a new map would not need to be created specifically for this purpose as long as the infonnation is clearly presented on the existing map. The permittee would be allowed to choose
the type and size of map that best fits its needs. EPA recommends collecting all existing infonnation on outfall locations (e.g., review city records, drainage maps, Stonn drain maps),
and then conducting field surveys to verify locations. It probably will be necessary to walk (i.e., wade through small receiving waters or use a boat for larger waters) the strearnbanks
and shorelines for visual observation, It may take more than one trip to locate all outfall •. Legal Prohibition and Enforcement EPA recognizes that some permittees may have limited
authority under under State or Tribal law to establisl1 and enforce an ordinance or similar means, prohibiting illicit discharges. In such a case, 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀂷􀀠?ermittee would be encouraged
to obtain the necessary authority, If at all possible, Otherwise, the NPDES permitting authority would assume the responsibility for implementation of this component of the minimum measure,
yet the permittee would remain ultimately responsible for the quality of its MS4 discharge. Model ordinances, inclUding examples of amendments to local cudes or existing ordinances,
will be provided in the Phase IT stonn water guidance for regnlated small MS4s, which is part of EPA's planned implementation "tool box" for the final rule (see Fact Sheet 1.0). 􀁾􀀭..
---'-----------
3 Fact Sbeet 2.5 Minimum ThePlan The plan to detect and address illicit discharges is the central component of this minimum control measure, The plan would be shaped by several factors,
including the permittee's available resources, size of staff, and degree and character of its illicit discharges, EPA envisions a plan similar to the one recommended for use in meeting
Michigan's general storm water NPDES permit for small MS4s, As guidance only, the four steps of a recommended plan are outlined below: o Locate Problem Areas EPA recommends that priority
areas be identified for detailed screening of the system based on the likelihood of illicit connections (e,g" areas with older sanitary sewer lines), Some methods that could be used
to locate problem areas include: public complaints and other input; visual screening; water sampling from manholes and outfalls during dry weather; and use of infrared and thermal photography,
• Find tbe Source Once a problem area or discharge is found, additional efforts usually would be necessary to determine the source of the problem, Some methods that could be used to
fmd the source of the illicit discharge include: dye-testing buildings in problem areas; dye-or smoke-testing buildings at the time of sale; tracing the discharge upstream in the storm
sewer; employing a certification program that shows that buildings have been checked for illicit connections; implementing an inspection program of existing septic systems; and using
video to inspect the storm sewers. @} Remove/Correct Illicit Connections Once the source is identified. the offending discharger would need to be notified and directed to correct the
problem. Education efforts and worldng with the discharger can be effective in resolving the problem before taldng legal action. e Document Actions Taken As a final step, all actions
taken under the plan should be documented. Doing so would illustrate that progress is being made to eliminate illicit connections and discharges. Documented actions should be included
in the required annual reports and include information such as: the number of outfalls screened; any complaints receivedand corrected; the number of discharges and quantities of flow eliminated; and the number of dye or smoke tests conducted. Educatjomd Outreach Educational outreach to public employees,
businesses, property owners, the general community, and elected officials would be necessary to inform them of what they could do to detect and eliminate illicit discharges, but it would
also help to gain support for the permittee's stann water program. The educational outreach efforts should. at a minimum, include: • Providing training programs for public employees;
• Developing informative brociw.res, and guidances for specific audiences (e,g., carpet cleaning businesses) and school curricula; • Designing a erograrn to publicize and facililate
public reporting of Illicit discharges; • Coordinating volunteers for locating, and visnally inspecting, outfalls or to stencil storm drains; and • Initiating recycling prol;!'fJms for
commonly dumped wastes. such as motor 011, antifreeze, and pesticides. What Would Be Appropriate Measurable Goals? M easurable goals, which would be required for each minimum control
measure, are meant to help gauge permit compliance and program effectiveness. The measurable goals, as well as the BMPs, would greatly depend on the needs and characteristics of the
owner/operator and the area served by its small MS4. The measurable goals should be chosen using an integrated approach that would fully address the requirements and intent of the minimum
control measure. An integrated approach for this minimum measure could include the following measurable goals: Target Date Acthitv I year ........... . Sewer system map completed; recycling
program for household hazardous waste in place, 2 years ......... . Ordinance in place; training for public employees completed; a certain percentage of sources of illicit discharges
determined, 3 years ........ .. A certain percentage of: illicit discharges determined; illicit discharges eliminated; and households participating in quarterly household hazardous waste
special collection days, 4 years ........ .. Most illicit discharge sources determined and , eliminated, The educational outreach measurable goals for this minimum control measure could
be combined with the measurable goals for the Public Education and Outreach minimum control measure (see Fact Sheet 2.3). 
For Additional Information Contact IS' U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management • Phone: 202 260-5816 • E-mail: SW2@epa.gov • Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw2.htm Reference Documents IS'
Stonn Water Phase II Proposed Rule Fact Sheet Series. • Contact the U.S. EPA Water Resource Center at 202 260-7786 or at waterpubs@epa.gov • Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw2.htm IS' Stonn
Water Phase II Proposed Rule, published on Jan. 9, 1998 in the Federal Register (63 FR 1536). • Internet: www.epa.gov/owmlsw2.htm Sources Maryland Department of the Environment, Water
Management Administration. 1997. Dry Weather Flow and illicit Discharges in Maryland Storm Drain Systems. Baltimore, Maryland. U.S. EPA Office of Water. 1993. investigation oj Inappropriate
Pollutant Entries into Slorm Drainage Systems: A User's Guide. EPN6001R-921238. Washington, D.C. Wayne County Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project. 1997. GuidanceJor
Preparing a ProgramJor the Elimination ojIllicit Discharges. Wayne County, Michigan. 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
PHASE II SMALL MS4s REQUIRED LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONTROL ILLICIT DISCHARGES 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b). (2) Illicit discharge means any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is
not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES pennit (other than the NPDES pennit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges
resulting from fire fighting activities. *** (13) Storm water means storm water nmoff, snow melt runoff, and surface nmoff and drainage. 40 C.F.R. § 122.34(b )(3). Illicit discharge
detection and elimination. You must: * * * (ii) To the extent allowable under State or Tribal law, effectively prohibit, through ordinance, order, or similar means, illicit discharges
into your storm sewer system and implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions; (iii) Implement a plan to detect and address illicit discharges, including illegal dumping,
to your system. 
, 
MODEL ORDINANCE PROVISIONS TO CONTROL ILLICIT DISCHARGES II. GENERAL PROHIBITION A. No person shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) any discharge that is not composed entirely of storm water. B. It is an affirmative defense to any enforcement action for violation of Subsection A ofthis section that the discharge
was composed entirely ofone or more ofthe following categories of discharges: 1. A discharge authorized by, and in full compliance with, an NPDES permit (otber tban tbe NPDES permit
for discharges from tbe MS4); 2. A discharge or flow resulting from fire fighting by the Fire Department; 3. A discharge or flow of fire protection water that does not contain oil or
hazardous substances or materials [tbat tbe Fire Code in this Code ofOrdinanees requires to be contained and treated prior to discharge, in which case treatment adequate to remove harmful
quantities ofpollutants must have occurred prior to discharge 1; 4. Agricultural storm water nmoff; 5. A discharge or flow from water line flushing, but not including a discharge from
water line disinfection by superchlorination or otber means unless [the total residual chlorine (TRC) has been reduced to less tban __mgII and] it contains no harmful quantity of [chlorine
or] any [other] chemical used in line disinfection; 6. A discharge or flow from lawn watering, [or] landscape irrigation [, or otber irrigation water]; 7. A discharge or flow from a
diverted stream flow or natural spnng; 8. A discharge or flow from uncontaminated pumped groundwater or rising groundwater; 
9. Uncontaminated groundwater infiltration (as defIned as 40 C.F.R. § 35.2005(20» to the MS4; 10. Uncontaminated discharge or flow from a foundation drain, crawl space pump, footing
drain [, or sump pump]; 11. A discharge or flow from a potable water source not containing any harmful substance or material from the cleaning or draining of a storage tank or other
container; 12. A discharge or flow from air conditioning condensation that is unmixed with water from a cooling tower, emissions scrubber, emissions filter, or any other source of pollutant;
13. A discharge or flow from individual residential car washing; 14. A discharge or flow from a riparian habitat or wetland; IS. A discharge or flow from water used in street washing
that is not contaminated with any soap, detergent, degreaser, solvent, emulsifIer, dispersant, or any other harmful cleaning substance; [16. Storm water runoff from a roof that is not
contaminated by any runoff or discharge from an emissions scrubber or filter or any other source of pollutant;] 17. Swimming pool water [that has been dechlorinated so that total residual
chlorine (TRC) is less than __mg/I and] that contains no harmful quantity of [chlorine,] muriatic acid or other chemical used in the treatment or disinfection of the swimming pool water
or in pool cleaning. C. No affirmative defense shall be available under Subsection B of this section ifthe discharge or flow in question has been determined by the [City Engineer] to
be a source of a pollutant or pollutants to the waters of the United States [or to the MS4], written notice of such determination bas been provided to the discharger, and the discharge
has occurred more than 15[?] days beyond such notice. The correctness oftbe [City Engineer's] determination that a discharge is a source of a pollutant or pollutants may be reviewed
in any administrative or judicial enforcement proceeding. 2 
III. SPECIFIC PROmBITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS A. The specific prohibitions and requirements in this section are not [necessarily] inclusive ofall the discharges prohibited by the general
prohibition in Section II. B. No person shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the MS4 any discharge that causes or contributes to causing the City to violate a water quality
standard, the City's NPDES permit, or any state-issued discharge permit for discharges from its MS4. C. No person shall dump, spill, leak, pump, pour, emit, empty, discharge, leach,
dispose, or otherwise introduce or cause, allow, or permit to be introduced any ofthe following substances into the MS4: I. Any used motor oil, antifreeze, or any other motor vehicle
fluid; 2. Any industrial waste; 3. Any hazardous waste, including hazardous household waste; 4. Any domestic sewage or septic tank waste, grease trap waste, or grit trap waste; 5. Any
garbage, rubbish, or yard waste; 6. Any wastewater from a commercial carwash facility; from any vehicle washing, cleaning, or maintenance at any new or used automobile or other vehicle
dealership, rental agency, body shop, repair shop, or maintenance facility; or from any washing, cleaning, or maintenance of any business or commercial or public service vehicle, including
a truck, bus, or heavy equipment, by a business or public entity that operates more than 2[?] such vehicles; 7. Any wastewater from the washing, cleaning, de-icing, or other maintenance
ofaircraft; 3 
8. Any wastewater from a commercial mobile power washer or from the washing or other cleaning ofa building exterior that contains any soap, detergent, degreaser, solvent, or any other
harmful cleaning substance; 9. Any wastewater from [commercial?] floor, rug, or carpet cleaning; 10. Any wastewater from the washdown or other cleaning of pavement that contains any
harmful quantity of soap, detergent, solvent, degreaser, emulsifier, dispersant, or any other harmful cleaning substance; or any wastewater from the washdown or other cleaning ofany
pavement where any spill, leak. or other release ofoil, motor fuel, or other petroleum or hazardous substance has occurred, unless all harmful quantities of such released material have
been previously removed; 11. Any effluent from a cooling tower, condenser, compressor, emissions scrubber, emissions filter, or the blowdown from a boiler; 12. Any ready-mixed concrete,
mortar, ceramic, or asphalt base material or hydromulch material, or material from the cleaning of [commercial?] vehicles or equipment containing, or used in transporting or applying,
such material; 13. Any runoff or washdown water from any animal pen, kennel, or foul or livestock containment area [containing more than __animals]; 14. Any filter backwash from a swimming
pool, [or] fountain [, or spa]; 15. Any swimming pool water containing [total residual chlorine (TRC) of __ mg/I or more or containing] any harmful quantity of [chlorine,] muriatic acid
or other chemical used in the treatment or disinfection ofthe swimming pool water or in pool cleaning; 16. Any discharge from water line disinfection by superchlorination or other means
if[the total residual chlorine (TRC) is at mgIJ or more or if] it contains any harmful quantity of [chlorine or] any other chemical used in line disinfection; 4 
17. Any fire protection water containing oil or hazardous substances or materials [that the Fire Code in this Code of Ordinances requires to be contained and treated prior to discharge,
unless treatment adequate to remove pollutants occurs prior to discharge. (This prohibition does not apply to discharges or flow from fire fighting by the Fire Department.)]; 18. Any
water from a water curtain in a spray room used for painting vehicles or equipment; 19. Any contaminated runoff from a vehicle salvage yard; 20. Any substance or material that will damage,
block, or clog the MS4; 21. Any release from a petroleum storage tank (PST), or any leachate or runofffrom soil contaminated by a leaking PST, or any discharge ofpumped, confined, or
treated wastewater from the remediation of any such PST release, unless the discharge satisfies all of the following criteria: (a) Compliance with all state and federal standards and
requirements; (b) No discharge containing a harmful quantity of any pollutant; [and] (c) No discharge containing more than 50 parts per billion of benzene; 500 parts per billion combined
total quantities ofbenzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); or 15 mgll of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). D. No person shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the
MS4 any harmful quantity of sediment, silt, earth, soil, or other material associated with clearing, grading, excavation or other construction activities [, or associated with landfilling
or other placement or disposal of soil, rock, or other earth materials,] in excess of what could be retained on site or captured by employing sediment and erosion control measures to
the maximum extent practicable [under prevailing circumstances]. 5 
E. No person shall connect a line conveying sanitary sewage, domestic or industrial, to the MS4, or allow such a connection to continue. F. No person shall cause or allow any pavement
washwater from a service station to be discharged into the MS4 unless such washwater has passed through a properly functioning and maintained, grease, oil, and sand interceptor before
discharge into the MS4. G. Used Oil Regulation I. No person shall: (a) Discharge used oil into the MS4 or a sewer, drainage system, septic tank, surface water, groundwater, or water
course; (b) Knowingly mix or commingle used oil with solid waste that is to be disposed of in a landfill or knowingly directly dispose of used oil on land or in a landfill; (c) Apply
used oil to a road or land for dust suppression, weed abatement, or other similar use that introduces used oil into the environment. H. [A particular city may want to include, or retain
from existing ordinances, certain "nuisance" provisions requiring removal oftrash and debris from property, prohibiting stagnant water from being allowed to stand on property, and prohibiting
storage of toxic or hazardous substances on property so as to allow exposure to precipitation and storm water runoff, etc.] I. [A particular city may want to include any prOVISIOns deemed
necessary to protect special local reatures critical to control of storm water runoff --for example, wetlands, swales, or ponds.] AUS;I777969.1 6 1201 
Smaller cities gear up for new EPA regulations The coming spring promises the typicai spate of thunderstorms, warmer temperatures, and bright greens of new growth, But for many smaller
cities and counties located in urban areas) future showers wilt also bring new worries if! the form of storm water compliance costs. Larger cities have already begun implementing storm
water programs under Phase I of the Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulation,. With the release of Phase II now expected by
September 1999. cities Quorlerly I 22 with populations under 100,000 will also be required to develop extensive local storm water management programs to meet NPDES storm water regulations
proposed in January 1998. "To satisfy the proposed permit conditions, the Phase II programs will likely need to include stonn water ordinances tailored to local 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠ditions. pubHc
information campaigns, and enforcement activities targeting illicit storm water discharges," says Steve Veal, senior vice 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠ident and head of Carter & Burgess' Environmental
Division. 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 
The costs of compliance EPA estimates smaller cities will spend between $1.39 and $7.83 per capita on storm water compliance during the first five-year pennit term. In other words. the
"average" city of 50,000 may spend in excess of $200,000 complying with Phase II over the next five years. Many larger cities have already spent several million dollars to 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁾􀀠ply
with similar stonn water regulations under Phase I. far exceeding EPA's original estimate of $35,000 to $75,000 per permit. Cities are not the only ones who will feel the pinch. The
proposed regulations will also likely require NPDES pennits for construction activities involving as little as one aCre (the current standard is five acres), including parcels under
an acre that are part of a larger development. On top of the one-acre requirement, Phase II cities will be required to aggressively monitor construction sires. The new rules will automatically
affect cities with populations less than 100,000 tbet are located in census-defined urban areas, requiring such cities to obtain permit coverage for storm water discharges from their
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Small MS4s also include systems operated by state departments of transportation and stare, tribal, and federal facilities. such as military
installations, penitentiaries, universities, and similar institutions with separate storm sewers. Under the proposed Phase II regulations, a11 non-Phase I small MS4s in urbanized areas
will be required to apply for NPDES permit coverage by May 31, 2002. Permit covernge is likely to be afforded by a generol permit system. In addition to this national automatic designation.
each NPDES permitting authority may make designations based on local, watershed-based water quality needs. At this time, more than 35 states are authorized to adrnlnister the NPDES program.
EPA acts as the NPDES pennltting authority in non-authorized states. (The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commisslon recently applied for, and was granted, NPDES permitting authority
in the state, effeetive September 1998.) "For those cities and counties required to develop a storm water permit application or notice of intent in Phase II, the year 2002 isn't very
far away," says Veal, Ult would be in their best interest to begin planning now for the best way to meet potential stonn water permit requirements, induding inventorying their storm
drainage systems and budgeting for future compliance costs." Each NPDES pennitting authority will be required to select sources of storm water 􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁾􀀠charges not automatically designated
by the Phase II regulations, In addition, permitting authorities are to develop criteria to evaluate whether a storm water discharge exceedst or wouId potentially exceed, water qua1ity.
According to EPA, Jocal conditions or watershed and total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessments could be used to make exceedance determinations. Once an NPDES permitting authority develops
its designation criteria, it must apply these criteria to an nonurban MS4s in places with a population of 10,000 or more and a population density exceeding 1.000 per square mile. EPA
further recommends that each permitting authority consider designating other 􀁮􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁵􀁲􀁢􀁡􀁮􀀠MS4s for permit coverage on the basis of water quality impacts. Designation criteria
may include discharges to sensitive waters, high growth or growth potential, high population density, contiguity to an urbanized area, Significant contribution of polIutants to "waters
of the U.S .•" and ineffective control of water quality concerns by other programs. Proposed control measures To satisfy the new Phase n regulations, regulated cities and counties will
need to implement the folIowing measures at a minImum: • Adopt ordinances to regulate stOrIn water discharges from construction sites disturbing one or more acres of Jand. • Develop
and enforce programs to address storm water runoff from new development and redevelopment. including: (a) ordinances limiting growth. (b) ordinances pr0tecting sensitive areas, (c) ordinances
minimizing impervious ground cover, and (d) ordinances maintaining open spaces. • Develop a system for detecting and eliminating illicit discharges, including adopting ordinances 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁾􀀠hibiting
such discharges and implementing an inspectlo:n program. With fhe release of Ph"", /I regulotions, ciJies with populo/ions under 100,000 will be 'equired /0 develop extensive loco! slorm
wofet monagement pro9foms 10 meet NPDES slorm wofer rffgufo· lion proposed eorly in 1998. • Develop an education and outreach 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁾􀀠gram for their communities. • Reduce pollutant
runoff from municipal operations by imposing certain best management practices (EMFs). • Comply with any state and local public notice requirements and public participation initiatives
in the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of storm water management programs. "Ultimately, Phase II programs will be quite similar to those adopted by Phase I cities," says Candace
Watkins. senior storm water engineer at Carter & Burgess. "In the proposed Phase II regulation., EPA places signiftcant emphasis on development controlscontrols that could become the
focal point for heated political discussions in small, rapidly growing cities," According to Veal. Phase lllmpJementation may prove particularly difficult for many counties, since counties
often have limited regulatory authority. Permit options EPA anticipates developing a general per· mit for Phase II regulated MS4.. The general pennit has not yet been proposed, and EPA
has not indicated when such a permit wiJl be available for review and comment. The proposed regulations do allow applicants up to three years to apply for an individual permit, if they
choose not to be covered by the general permit Funding compliance As noted above, compliance costs for Phase n cities could be significant. Many Phase I cities-and some proactive Phase
II cities-have implemented storm water utilities to fund compliance costs. Monthly storm water utility fees In those cities generaHy range from $1 to $10 for a typical residence._ 23
I Quorterly 
Smaller cities and counties can expect to pay millions to meet Initial paperwork and ongoing recordkeeping requirements, Additional compliance costs could easily top $100'()()() annually,
Inside Phase II Designation Matrix,., ........ , ...." .. " ..,',.. 3 FAQs About Phase II ,.., 4 TPWWA'sNew Storm Water Web Site,S Designated Phase II Cities & Counlies in TX, 6 GIS
& Storm Water ....... 7 Key C&B Personnel & Projects ........ " .. "",,....... 8 Technically Speaking I I I ' _ i\sp,eciai repol't [rpm Carter & 􀁂􀁵􀁲􀁧􀀺􀁾􀁳􀀬􀀠Illc. _" Construction
Sites as Small as 1 Acre To Be Regulated EPA Storm Water Regulations Proposed for Smaller Cities Thousands ofurbancilies and counties nationwide will soon be required to develop extensive
local stann water management programs to meet regulations proposed earlier this year by the Environmental Protection Agency. To satisfy proposed pemlit conditions, the programs willi
ikely need to include stonn water ordinances tailored to local conditions, controls for developing areas, public infonnation campaigns and enforcement activities targeting illicit stonn
water discharges. EPA estimates smaller cities will spend between $1.39 and $7,83 per capita during the first 5-year pennit term. Tn other words, an "average" city of 50,000 may spend
in excess of $200,000 for compliance during the first pennit term, Many larger cities have already spent several million dollars to comply with similar stoml water regulations, far exceeding
the EPA's original estimate of $35,000 to $75,000 per pennit. The. new rules will automatically affect cities with populations less than 100,000 that are located in census-defined urban
areas. The proposed regulations also require pennits for construction activities involving as I ittle as one acre (the current standard is five acres), including parcels under an aCre
that are part of a larger development. -= Carter: Burgess 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁮􀁬􀁬􀀠in PIonning, Engineering. tv<:hitectvffl, CmrtlNdi¢o Managcm{mt, olld Reloted Services EPA proposed Phase IT
regulations for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) on January 9, 1998 and is expected to adopt the proposed regulations by March 1, 1999, The new rules will
automatically affect cities witll populations fewer than 100,000 tbat are located in census-defined urban areas, requiring such cities to obtain pemlit coverage for stonn water discharges
from their municipal separate stonn sewer systems (MS4s), MS4s in unincorporated areas located in urbanized portions ofcounties are also covered by Phase II, Small MS4s also include
systems operated by state departments of transportation and state, tribal and federal facilities, such as miJitmy installations, penitentiaries, universities and similar institutions
with separate stonn sewers, (continued 011 page 2 . , .) ._--_...._---_..
"For those cities and counties required to develop a storm water permit application or notice of intent in Phase II, the year 2001 isn't very far away." ( .. continued /;'0111 page 1)
Cities with populations exceeding 100,000 are already covered by Phase I of the NPDES program. Under the proposed Phase II regulations, all non-Phase I small MS4s in urbanized areas
will be required to apply for NPDES pennit coverage by May 31, 2002. In addition to this national automatic designation, each NPDES permitting authority may make designations based on
local, watershed-based water quality needs. At this time, 38 states are authorized to administer the NPDES program. EPA acts as the NPDES permitting authority in the remaining 12 states,
including Texas. "For those cities and counties required to develop a storm water permit application or notice ofintent in Phase Il, the year 200 I isn't very far away," said Steve Veal,
head ofthe Environmental Division at Carter & Burgess. "It would be in their best interest to begin planning now for the best way to meet potential storm water permit requirements, including
inventorying their storm drainage systems and budgeting for future compliance co·sts." Each NPDES permitting authority will be required to designate sources ofstorm water discharges
not automatically designated by the Phase II regulations. In addition, permitting authorities are to develop criteria to evaluate whether a storm water discharge exceeds, or would potentially
exceed, water quality. According to EPA, local conditions or watershed and total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessments could be used to make exceedance determinations. Once an NPDES
permitting authority develops its designation criteria, it must apply these criteria to all non-urban MS4s in places with a population of 10,000 or more and a population density exceeding
1,000 per square mile, EPA further recommends that each permitting authority consider designating other non-urban MS4s for permit coverage on the basis of water quality impacts. Designation
criteria may include discharges to sensitive waters, high growth or growth potential, high population density, contiguity to an urbanized area, significant contribution ofpollutants
to waters of the United States and ineffective control of water quality concerns by other programs. A city located in an urbanized area but with fewer than 1,000 people may apply for
a permit waiver under the proposed rules, ifwater quality modeling indicates the city's storm water discharges do not contribute to water quality violations within the applicable watershed.
Proposed Control Measures To satisfy the new Phase II rcgu lations, regulated cities and counties will need to implement the following measures at a minimum: • Adopt ordinances to regulate
storm water discharges from construction sites disturbing I or more acres ofland. Develop and enforce programs to address storm water runoff from new development and redevelopment, including:
(a) ordinances limiting growth, (b) ordinances protecting sensitive areas, (c) ordinances minimizing impervious ground cover and (d) ordinances maintaining open spaces. • Develop a system
for detecting and eliminating illicit discharges, including (continued on page 4 .. .) 2 _ Carter· Burgess 􀁾in Planning. Enginooring. AW>i'octum. CQnslroct\¢n MClnogemefll. and Rdoled_SeNki!.l

PHASE II DESIGNATION DECISION MATRIX r WATER QUALITY IMPACT OF SOURCES 􀁾􀀠LOW LlKELIHOODI INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION NOT AUTOMATICALLY DESIGNATED BY RULE • Non·Phase I small MS4s located
outside Urbanized Areas, _-ConstnJction activity that results in the land disturbance of les5 than 1 acre. * Non-Phase! industrial and commercial sources. BUT DESIGNATED BY PERMITTING
AUTHORITY IF: • A small MS4 meets the designation criteria that permitting authorities are required to develop. The criteria must be applied to alleasl those small MS4s located in an
area with a population of at least 10,000 and a population density oLat least 1,000. • Watershed plan, TMDL,' or other local water quality assessment dennes need to cover small MS4s
and construction activities not currently regulated. • EPA or State delermines that the storm water discharge contributes to a violationof a water quality standard or is a Significant contributor of pollutants to Ihe waters of the United States. 'EP,\ \\'iil 􀀧􀀨􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁪􀁮􀁵􀁾􀀠((\ 􀁲􀁲􀀧􀀺􀁛􀁝􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁲􀁾􀀠􀁓􀁲􀀺􀁬􀀧􀁾􀁩􀀠W
c(lnll'h' lI'ilh th"ir T).IDL 􀁩􀁭􀁬􀀧􀁫􀁬􀀱􀁬􀁾􀁬􀁬􀀱􀁭􀁩􀀨􀁬􀀱􀁬􀀠SdlCc!uk..;. . . . HIGH LIKELIHOOD. NATIONAL AUTOMATICALLY ASSESS.llENT DESIGNATED BY RULE 􀁾􀀠• All non·Phase I small
MS4s located Inside Urbanized Areas. • Construction activity that results in the land disturbance of greater than or equal to 1 acre and less than 5 acres. WATER QUA-LIT!' BUT WAIVERS
PROVIDED FOR: ASSESSMENT 􀁾􀀠• Regulated small MS4s serving jurisdictions with a population of less than 1,000 where a watershed plan or TMDL assessment addresses the pollutants of concern,
• Construction activities between 1 and 5 acres where: (1) activity occurs during negligible rainfall period, (2) determi"nation of 10VJ 􀁳􀁯􀁾􀀱􀀠loss, or (3) a watershed plan of TlvlDL
assessment addresses the pollutants of concern. Source: EPA Carter & Burgess Offers a Full Range ofEnviromneJtttll and Related Services, Iucluding: • Storm Water Mmragemcnl • Permitfing/Regu!afory
Compliarlce • BMP & Storm Water Ordinance Development • Geograpllic Infi:muatioll Systems (GIS) • Water/Was{l!W{fter F(lCilities & Systems Analysis/Modeling • Environmental Impact Statemenf"
• Environmental Site Asse5.'iments • Wetlands Delille.ations • Hazardolls Mnterials Management • Air Quality Analysis • Emissions Inventonj Analysis • Public illvolvement/Retntioris
_ Carter= Burgess C(ltl$\lllonb ,n Pklnning. Engineutil".g, Ard-JImII!<!, CO;')$lrvCl,on l'J\cHlo:gemenl, oo'ld Reiaroo S<xvioos 3 
If TNRCC gets program delegation and develops the BMP menu for the state, don't be surprised if Texas ends up with one of the tougher storm water programs in' the nation. (. .. continued
jimn page 2) adopting ordinances prohibiting such discharges and implementing an inspection program. • Develop an education and outreach program for their communities. • Reduce pollutant
runoff from municipal operations by imposing certain best management practices (BMPs). • Comply with any state and local public notice requirements and public participation initiatives
in the adoption, implementation and enforcement of storm water management programs. "Ultimately, Phase II programs will be very similar to those adopted by Phase I cities," said Candace
Watkins, senior storm water engineer at Carter & Burgess. "In Phase II, EPA places significant emphasis on development controls--controls that could become ttle focal point for heated
political discussions in small, rapidly growing cities," Permit Options EPA anticipates developing a general permit for Phase Il regulated MS4s. The general permit has not yet been proposed,
and EPA bas not indicated when such a permit will be available for review and comment. The proposed regulations do allow applicants the option to apply for an individual permit, ifthey
choose not to be covered by the general permit. Funding Compliance As noted above, compliance costs for Phase II cities could be significant. Many Phase I cities, and some proactive
Phase II cities, have implemented storm water utilities to fund compliance costs. Monthly storm water utility fees in those cities generally range from $1 to $10 for a typical residence.C!II:
Frequently Asked Questions About Phose II How can a small city Implement Phase II requirements without breaking the budget? First, don't reinvent the wheel. Whenever possible, leverage
Phase I resources and stick with a program that is responsive to EPA without overcommitting city resources. It is easy to get carried away with a general permit, so stick with programs
and tasks absolutely required of you. Incorporate ''wish list" items only if you have the political backing and resources to make them work. When possible, shift compliance burdens back
to EPA through their own industriall construction general permit program. A small city inspection and enforcement staff can effectively put the private sector on notice and earn points
with EPA. When costs exceed general fund budgets, storm water utilities can be effective funding mechanisms. Cities can also make liSe ofavailable technology for public involvement and
reporting (the Internet) and self-reporting by industries and construction activities, as well as available regional resources. Should small cities tag along with a large MS4's program,
as allowed by the proposed regulations? The answer is, it depends. Often a small city's politics are completely different than a large city's, so what works in, for example, Dallas may
not work in Seagoville. A tough development and redevelopment program like Austin's might be be a tough sell in a city like Leander tbat is 4 _ Carter-Burgess 􀁃􀁏􀁦􀁬􀀤􀀼􀁬􀁾in Planning.
tll9ir.e!!ong, Atd"iW<lvrll, Conl.h'vctioo M.t.nogcmell1, ond Itclole-d S'1f"ke! 
growing rapidly (and proud of it). So pick and choose programs that seem saleable in your city and make sense to consolidate from a cost-efficiency standpoint. Generally, it may not
make sense for a small enclave city to have its own inspection staff when the surrounding Phase I city has an excellent, nationally renowned staff. Similar to restaurant inspections,
storm water inspections can be contracted from a larger municipality. What Is the BMP menu going to look like if the TNRCC takes over the NPDES program for Texas? Seven or eight years
ago, when the NPDES program was just getting off the ground and the State ofTexas claimed we would get NPDES delegation at any moment, most folks would probably have told you that state
delegation was the way to go: Texas good 01' boys and gals would treat Texans a lot fairer than a bunch of Washington bureaucrats. Right? Not necessarily. Working in the middle of the
City ofAustin, with one ofthe most aggressive storm water control programs in the nation, the typical TNRCC staffer may be more inclined to think like an Austinite than a Dallasite or
residents of smaller cities. Recent comments by TNRCC staff on wetland permit applications indicate that TNRCC staff members take a very aggressive approach in protecting our state waters,
even toward highly disturbed urban streams where it may take extraordinary measures to save the stream corridor. IfTNRCC gets program delegation and develops the EMP menu for the state,
don't be surprised if Texas ends up with one ofthe tougher storm water programs in the nation. TNRCC staff members are generally young and idealistic, and they often choose to live and
work in Austin because oflhe city's perceived environmentally friendly (and, hence, developmenttough) quality oflife. They may be inclined to believe that what works inAustin should
be the norm in Brownwood, too. Surprisingly, over the past seven years EPA has demonstrated tolerance of Phase I cities regarding compliance issues. This is especially true if a Phase
I city is making making a reasonable effort to comply with the NPDES program. In other words, EPA's initial regulatory "bark" has been much worse than its enforcement "bite."_ 􀀧􀁔􀀧􀁉􀀾􀁬􀁾􀀠.<I!<.
I, dul'V'"d W j1,,,old,, 􀀮􀁷􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀬􀀠􀁪􀀱􀁡􀁾mll...tf;II...t<>t 􀀧􀁾􀁦􀁷􀁭􀀮􀁢􀁴􀁬􀁮􀀠W ,,!rbI!, "",",'Il,.rutl...... b 6f'"r 􀀢􀁵􀀮􀁟􀁾􀀠Int<o,._d 􀁰􀁾􀁲􀁴􀀮􀀱􀁕􀀬􀀠 1lI"
􀁤􀁱􀁾..Iop".. • ..t 01""1, .a.. Is fund .. d '" ",.rt \h"....lIn .. IlI.S. '""",,,m_1 "'ow"""" $l9"M,. 31,;(") 'lI""nt "''''''''lln u... 􀁾􀁨􀁉􀀮􀀡􀀱8sw",,,,,, C,?""rati?? Cpmm!..h",.
ee 􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭..􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀁾_ Carter.. Burgess 􀁃􀁯􀀡􀁜􀁾􀁶􀁨􀁯􀁯􀁬􀁳􀀠in Planning, Engireerln9, Atehilecll.ro, COI'I:!llVction MOl'lOgemenl, and Rdol(ld 􀁓􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁫􀁥􀁳􀀠
5 
Texas Cities Potentially Designated Under Phase 11* "''''' ....... """ AAgI,ton BayCity...,.. Big Spfing Borger """""'" """"""'"-, Cleburno """"" CO<voo Col'$icana Del Rio ""Eagle Pass
ElCampo """'" Gaines\,lle"'-Roscnbefg RrundRodt SarlMal'C:l)s seguin Stephenville """" ........'" T"", TheColony V""", """'" Vldoc "Act:Q(dtng to 1990C$rtSusof Popul"aliOnandHousiOg,
U.S. Ctl!¥.J.I$ &Jreau, {L>stmay changewith!he 200Q(AmsUS-.j Bowie (i()unty OUncanville Bnnona County EctorCounty Brazos COUJ'lty Edgaeflff Brookside Edinburg Village Brownsville "-Ell"'"Btrddngham
Everman BunimrHIII Farmer.; VIllage Flower Mound Cameron County ForestHill Carrollton Fort Bend Ca$(laH!!Is County CedarHiU Friendswood Cedar Park GakmaPark Cibolo Galveston Clearlake
Galveston Shams County Clint GnllldPrairJe CoekrellHili Gl'\'IIpevine College Station GraysonCounty CoIleyvllkl Gregg County Collin County Gro\tt:s Combes Guadalupe County ConversC!
Haltom City Addison -.0 AlamoHo!g:hts 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁮􀀠... Batch Springs Salcones Heights BayouVlSta"""'..,Bedford l3eilCotJnty Bellaire Bellmead ...on Benbrook BavertyHHls BexarCotlnty Blue
Mound 􀁾􀀠􀁈􀁟􀁾􀀠Here':ord Hunlsville Jacksonville Kemile Kingsville ........"""" """'" '""""'"....., "'''''''''' 􀁍􀁾􀁐􀁜􀁥􀁡􀁳􀁡􀁮􀁬􀀠􀁎􀁡􀁾􀁯􀁤􀁬􀁥􀁳􀀠􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁵􀁦􀀱􀁦􀁥􀁬􀁳􀀠Paleslirw
"""" ""'" PlalrMew""'.......-C;lpperas Cove Hardin County Corinth HartterHelghts Coryell County HarfiogooC.-,. HedwIg Village OaflasCounty Hewitt Oollworthington HickoryCI'\'Iek Gardens
Hidalgo County _Pa.. Highland Park Denimn HightandVillAgo Denton HIli 􀁃􀀻􀁬􀁵􀁮􀁢􀁹􀁖􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁾􀀠Denton County Hilshire Village Oe5gto Hitchcock Olchlnson twl!ywood ParK Donna "Ooub!eOak
Ki<1>y Pa/mValiey Sun5etValley WhiteOak La MaJ'que I>',"",,"w Tal'tlUltCounty White La Porta Pantu90 Taylor C;ltmty settlement i.m;y-LaktMew Peartaod Taylor Lake Village Vlfk;hita County
LakE'OaUas PflulletVllio T._ WichIta Faits Lake Worth Pharr TerreflHiUs Williamson LakGSide PineyPorntVillage 􀁔􀁥􀁬􀁇􀁬􀁾􀁮􀁡􀀠County Lake$1i;kCity PortArthUl 􀁔􀁾􀁃􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀠Wilmer Lancaster
Port Necftes. Tom Green County Windcrest 1.1lagtreCity Pot1land Travis County --Leander Pol,terCounty ,., LeooValkly Primera T,.. U!wisville RandallCounty UnMrsal City SOurce: EPA1998
liv.Oak Richardson Ul'liVersftyf'artt Longview RlehlMd Hilla VIctoria Lubbock County RlverOllks Victoria County Lumberton Robinson WakeVdlage Mr;Alien _I Watauga Mclennan Rockw3!!County
w.,bb County County Ro1liflgwood Webster...,,,,,",, 􀁾􀁏􀀤􀁥HiIlACfYJ$ Wes!aco Midland ""wfett Midland County s_ Mission ..-MissouriClty San Allgelo Montgomery San Benito County SanJuan
Morllan':!! Point San Patricio..,. County "",om P,ri< Santa Fe Scherb: Information regarding each designated Phase II city and county in Texas, and storm water best management practices
(BMPs), is available on the Texas Public Works Association's new web site (see box on page 5): www.txnpsbook.org ..􀀭􀁾.. ------------..􀁾􀀭.. Texas Cities & Counties Proposed To Be
Automatically DeSignated Under Phase II HutchiflS Impact JacintoCity Jeffefson County " " __!lay Nederland HObrlviHe Sherman ""'''',n''Smith County WestLake Hflls JeI'Sf!yVilIage Horth
Rh::hland Soeorr.o West Ka1¥ ""HocKetl\3h Hills Norttlct(!st Neuees County Sooth Houston So\rltl$lde Plaea SprlngV<t1ley UnMlrs.lty Plae<t V«astover K<lnnedaie ad_ Stafford Hills Killeen
","-PruI< SugarLand Westworth _ Carter= Burgess Con5l.11t.',mh. ill Plonnlrl9. Englnnering, i\rchi!ectvfo, ConslTucfoon MonogfJmcnl, olla lIe!oled $e1"ke5 6 
GIS & Storm Water Management Completing an NPDES stornl water pemlit application call be a sizable task involving: • defining the storm water drainage system; • characterizing discharges
into the system, including illicit discharges; • designing a monitoring program to track stOml water pollutants; and proposing a package of measures to reduce stOml water pollution.
It might not seem that geographic infomlation systems (GIS), all application based On linking information to points On a map, would be a good choice for managing non-point source water
pollution programs, but just the opposite turns out to be true. "Completing a stOml water permit application involves many activities for which GIS is particularly useful," said Jeff
Fitzgerald, Carter & Burgess GIS Manager. "For example, the first task is to define a city's storm drainage system. GIS is an excellent tool to organize the data resulting from sueh
an inventory." GIS and Permit Compliance For the City of Dallas , Phase I pemlit application, Carter & Burgess used ARC! INFO GIS to choose sample site locations, map industrial facilities
and storm water outfaUs, perform spatial analysis of pollutant loadings and produce map sheets for submission to EPA "Many cities got involved with GIS just to meet the information requirement
in the stOml water pemlit application, to inventory and map the storm drainage system and locate potential sources ofpollution," "Completing a system, the District will be storm water
permit able to readily identifY the application involves source ofreported pollumany activities for tion problems." which GIS is Desktop GIS particularly useful." said Steve Veal, head
of Carter & Burgess' Environmental Division. "But there are important ways GIS can assist municipalities and other agencies in the ongoingjob ofstonn water management" For example, the
Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT) District Five has to closely monitor and manage its storm water management ponds, drainage connection pefilittees and outfalls as required
by its NPDES Phase I pennit "Carter & Burgess developed a GIS-based stoml water pefilit compliance system for the District," said VeaL "By using GIS to correlate information about adjoining
properties that discharge onto its roadway drainage "Not so long ago, anyone who wanted to have GIS had to buy a big workstation, a $10,000 ARC/INFO license and have a full-time UNIX
guru to run the system," said Veal. "Now a couple of thousand dollars will put functional GIS softwarc on your desktop computer:' Newer versions ofGIS arc designed to run on PCs in a
Windows environment GIS data is easier to obtain, too. "Data is now available in digital format from a great number ofsources, including the Internet, value-added reseller files, government
agencies and commercial vendors, greatly reducing start-up costs," said Veal. _ _ Carter-Burgess CoowliQl'lrs In Planning. Englntffiring, Architecture, 􀁃􀁏􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁬􀁲􀁮􀀬􀁉􀀱􀀰􀀱􀁴􀀠MOM9MW01,
and R!llcred 􀁓􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠 7 
KEY CARTER &BURGESS STORM WATER PERSONNEL /PROJECTS Key Carter & Burgess Storm Water Personnel Our nationally recognized stonn water experts have helped many Texas cities meet EPA's
stonn water requirements since the inception of the NPDES program, Storm water persOlmel are available throughout Texas to assist you with your stonn water needs: Area C!)ntact Pers!!!!
Telepl!one No. Austin Hank Smith (512)314-3100 Dallas Burt Weathersbee (214) 920-8042 Fort Worth Steve Veal (817)735-6161 Candace Watkins (817)735-6108 Houston Eric Hall (713)803-2119
Selected Carter & Burgess Storm Water and Related ProJects .:. City of Dallas NPDES Penni! .:. White Rock Lake Dredging .:. City of Laredo Ordinance/Manual ,',, North Little Rock Stonn
Water Management Plan .:. City of Shreveport NPDES Compliance Program .:. City ofIrving Stonn Water Utility .:. Florida DOT District 5 NDPES Compliance .:. City of Orange Flood Protection
Study .:. City ofAustin Digital Mapping .:. City ofPearland Storm Water Utility .:. City ofPlano Stonn Water Utility .:. Texas Nonpoint Source Book Web Site 960L-ll8 (Slt) 6606-􀁾􀀶􀁬􀀠(S,j7)
lnkSS£ (lOS) 91l6S-£SL (616) 60£S-£9l (W9) 9SvB-Sll7 (LOV) vS;:B-OIS (sal') OOtS-S9!> (m S) 9Sll-S19 (9S6) SSSL-vSL (919) <;1<;0-£1:;: (109) LOOI-S6L (ZOL) 006L-69S (£ IL) 9696-£;:9
(SOS) 0009-S£L (LIS) O";:S-OlS (£0£) 91710-g£9 (NZ) Zg;;Z-vOg (9S6) OOI£-Ne (lIS) LgSg-OgS (LIS) 􀁓􀁊􀀮􀀹􀁶􀁾􀀡􀀧􀁉􀁢􀁲􀁥􀀢􀁈􀀠􀁾􀁕􀀧􀁉􀁦􀀩􀁤􀀮􀀢􀁏􀀺􀀾􀀮􀀠'o'M 'alllEas \fJ 􀀧􀁯􀁯􀁳􀁬􀀳􀁵􀁥􀁬􀁾􀀠ueS
ln 'hli8 􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁬􀀠ues 8N 􀀧􀀴􀀶􀁩􀁡􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠Z'o' 'XjUa04d 1:1 'opuellO )40 'i\j!8 􀁥􀁷􀁯􀀴􀁥􀁬􀁾􀀰􀀠'0'8 􀀧􀁰􀁵􀁥􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁯􀀠Xl'uall'o'3 1i'J '0'8 'sala6u'o' SOl IN 􀀧􀁾􀀳􀀰􀁾􀀠slllll
I\N 'se6al\ sel Xl'uolsnoH IH 'nlnlouoH ,Xl '4l.JOM '1:1 08 'JaAUaa Xl'seliBa Xl 'aUiASUMOJ8 Xl'U!lSn'o' Xl 'UO)6u!llV' saoYJ.O 99<:(: 'ON jiWJed Xi '4jloM 'J:j Ol'o'd;l e50jsod 's'n
8j01l 􀁾􀁬􀁮􀀸􀀠55.& .... 8 =".1".)