1. Oregon Department of Transportation Stormwater Management Initiative: Meeting New Challenges
Presented by:
William Fletcher, ODOT
March 4, 2008
When I started at ODOT in Feb 2006, one of my first tasks was to help with the stormwater problem.
William Fletcher and I worked diligently to develop a work plan that identified the problems that ODOT project teams were facing with stormwater management and to work toward development of a solution.

2. Water Quality Storm Cloud
MLK Viaduct project. Originally no treatment. The reconstruction will treat all of the stormwater. None-the-less, NMFS classified the project as LAA based on copper concentrations in the stormwater, ignoring the improvement over pre-project conditions. Project delayed 1.5 years for ESA review, with no change in the treatment provided.

3. Overview of Water Quality Issues
Regulation of stormwater is a state-wide and national issue
Development is causing more degradation of in-stream habitat
Copper at very low concentrations harms salmon
The Endangered Species Act has become the most stringent regulatory driver
Stormwater a problem nationwide because – new science indicating SW deleterious effects on fish and habitat
More development leading to increase in SW runoff
-needs to be high-level
There is a problem and it is real and we have a role in the problem

4. Problem Statement
Stormwater has become a major impediment to efficient ESA consultation process due to:
Changing criteria for effect determinations in ESA Section 7 consultations
Extension of the “action area” from the point of discharge to the sea
The second component of the work plan deals with stormwater when ESA listed fish are present
New scientific literature regarding the effects of dissolved metals, especially copper, on juvenile salmonids has concluded that concentrations as low as 5 ppb have sublethal effects
New literature that was cited by NMFS also concludes that the fate and transport of dissolved metals is different than that of sediment. This research has shown that dissolved metals do not settle out of the water column, rather they are resuspended and travel to the ocean or estuary. Beyond that the fate is not really known.
HCD Guidance caused problems
MLK project
Impact on workload and projects basis for EDs becoming more stringent and using new criteria
NMFS indicated wants to extend AA

5. Effect Determinations
ODOT has based effect determinations on the change between pre-project and post project conditions
ODOT procedure and criteria:
A No Effect Determination made if:
No receiving waters with listed species are present, or
If listed species are present:
Hydraulic engineer certifies in writing no change in water quality or quantity to receiving water and
Biologist agrees

6. Effect Determinations
NMFS is basing Effect Determinations on the quality of the stormwater at the point of discharge
No Effect
Projects where ISA added is non-pollutant generating or
No hydrological connection to occupied habitat/designated critical habitat
Not Likely to Adversely Affect
ISA added is pollutant generating and
All stormwater from the WQ design storm from new ISA will be detained and completely infiltrated in ROW
Hydrological connection needed? How far away from a stream does the project have to be to become a NE unclear
Likely to Adversely Affect
All other projects

7. Action Area Current ODOT Action Area Definition
2-miles downstream from point of discharge
Rationale: Pollutant load and concentration reduced by sedimentation and dilution

8. Action Area NMFS Proposed Action Area Definition
From point of discharge to the ocean
Rationale: Dissolved pollutants stay in water column for length of fluvial system

9. Impact to ODOT’s Program
The expansion of the Action Area would require consultation for projects in large areas of Regions 4 and 5 that have never had to consult with NMFS before

10. Impact to ODOT’s Program
Increased project development costs and timelines to deal with additional consultations
Overwhelming of NMFS’ ability to process consultations
Potential for project deadlock if adversarial relationship develops between ODOT and NMFS

11. Impact to ODOT’s Program
Nightmare Scenario
Required numeric standards
Monitoring to demonstrate compliance
Potential remediation requirements
Consultation gridlock
Wash – requirements that SW discharge meet numeric stds
Effect of numeric stds – increased treatment, monitoring, higher cost
If monitoring shows aren’t meeting the stds – then what?
Lack of operational control
Summarize – increases costs, permit uncertainty, lack of schedule control – makes us unsure we could build something

12. ODOT’s Goals Develop a streamlined stormwater treatment program to:
Provide ODOT and FHWA with certainty regarding scope, schedule, and budget
Meet all regulatory needs
Streamline the permitting process
Result in an overall environmental benefit and promote species recovery
We identified several goals in relation stormwater management

13. Solution Strategy All solutions must be Permitable Constructible
Maintainable
If too expensive and difficult to maintain then the treatment is not feasible or practicable

14. Solution Strategy
Collaborative approach that includes all of the interested parties
ODOT USFWS
NMFS ODFW
FHWA EPA
DEQ
We have agreed to a collaborative approach
Segway – emphasize – not new approach
We approach all regulatory issues from a collaborative approach – the model was established with CETAS and carried through bridge prog and carried through here
Has worked in the past – has been very effective approach from us
Due to complexity of this issue we have been meeting for a year and half

15. Solution Strategy Internal ODOT Participation
ODOT Environmental and Hydraulics Technical staff,
ODOT Office of Maintenance
ODOT Environmental Leadership Team, Technical Leadership Team, and Area Managers Team
High level people and support
In addition to reg partners we have included other technical staff
Want to include Maint – b/c if aren’t maintainable then won’t work
Solution – needs to be permitable, constructible and maintainable

16. Solution Strategy Twin tracks:
Technical: Develop the process and tools for effectively managing stormwater quality
Regulatory: Streamline the ESA consultation process

17. Strategy for Solutions: Technical
Clarify ODOT’s process for addressing stormwater management
Develop tools to select the most effective treatment for individual projects
Select design storms based on science

18. Strategy for Solutions: Regulatory
Articulation and clarification of Effect Determination criteria and thresholds
Develop tools for streamlined permitting:
Pilot projects to use the technical products in consultation
Programmatic approaches to consultation on stormwater issues

19. Strategy for Solutions: Regulatory
Effects Determinations
Agree that copper causes sublethal effects to listed salmonids
NMFS develops guidelines for Effects Determinations based on project elements and stormwater management
A task force comprised of agency representatives from DEQ, NMFS, USFWS, EPA, FHWA, and ODOT has been meeting to work toward resolution and toward development of a program and process
This team has been working for over a year on the following topics

20. Strategy for Solutions: Regulatory
Permitting Streamlining
Agree that if “effective” BMPs are used then stormwater has been treated to maximum extent feasible
Include Design Storms and Preferred BMPs in SLOPES IV
Explore ESA Programmatic with FHWA as Action Agency

21. Status: Technical Project Development Process
Planning for stormwater management early in project development
Incorporate Low Impact Development techniques whenever feasible

22. Status: Technical BMP Summary Reports Completed
BMP Selection Tool in development
Draft rating of BMP effectiveness
Preferred BMPs identified
BMP Selection Tool Users’ Guide to be developed

23. Status: Technical BMP Selection
Priority BMPs for Treating Dissolved Metals
Treatment Mechanisms
Hydrologic Attenuation (infiltration) – preferred
Sorption, uptake, microbial transformation
“Preferred” BMPs
Infiltration trench
Bioretention
Bioslope (“Ecology Embankment”)
Amended Swale and Filter Strip

24. Status: Technical BMP Selection
Key selection criteria (metrics)
Treatment capability
Physical site suitability
Maintenance
Cost
Resources, risk and public perception

26. Status: Technical
Water Quality Design Storm and the Flow Control range of storms have been accepted.

27. Status: Technical Water Quality Design Storm

28. Status: Technical Water Quality Design Storm
Table 1. Definition of Water Quality Design Storm
Zone
Factor (Percentage) x
2-yr, 24-hour rainfall depth at project location 1
50 % 2 3 4
67 % 5
75 % 6 7 8 9

29. Status: Technical Flow Control (Water Quantity) Design Storm
Lower Discharge Endpoint
Western OR - 42 percent of the 2-year, 24 hour event
Southeast, Northeast, North Central Regions: 48 percent of the 2-year, 24 hour event
Eastern Cascades Region: 56 percent of the 2-year, 24 hour event
Upper Discharge Endpoint
Minimally incised streams - Channel bank overtopping event
Incised Streams -10-year/24-hour storm event

30. Status: Technical Flow Control (Water Quantity) Design Storm
Proposed threshold of concern :
Flow control does not need to be addressed if the project increases the 10 year 24 hour storm discharge by less than 0.5 cfs

31. Status: Regulatory
Agreement that if “effective” BMPs are used, then stormwater has been treated to maximum extent feasible
We will not be held to numerical standards for ESA purposes
-Instead of having to meet numeric goals – if we used effective BMPs then have demonstrated treating as much as can and need to
Wont’ be asked to do more
ED – based on project elements and management of the SW – so can know what ED is quickly
More projects will be required to consult – but don’t lose time trying to figure out what the ED is
AA – more projects – so Streamlining more imp

32. Status: Regulatory
NMFS has provided written guidance for effect determinations
NMFS has presented a draft guidance on stormwater effects action area
Pilot projects selected, with active work on one in Region 1
Proposal for a Stormwater Programmatic rejected

33. Status: Regulatory
SLOPES IV, incorporating the use of Preferred BMPs, and the Design Storms, has been reviewed by ODOT
Determined that for non-SLOPES projects, stormwater analysis and conditions can be inserted into consultations via “incorporation by reference”

34. Next Steps
Investigate desirability of developing a “SLOPES” with FHWA as the Action Agency
Reassess usefulness of a stormwater programmatic
Develop alternative “action area” definition

35. Next Steps Watershed Approach
Trading or banking of credits for small projects or projects that cannot meet water quality treatment goals
Mitigation for residual adverse effects from permitted projects
This will be a big task. Must develop a clear understanding of WA goals and expectations. Otherwise we may find that no one gets what they need or want.

36. Definition of Success When guidance is approved by regulatory partners
When tools and guidance are in use by project teams
When stormwater is no longer a contentious issue

37. Definition of Success Anticipated Benefits for ODOT
Stormwater solutions appropriate for the project
Certainty in project development and construction
Reduction in project delays
Support ODOT’s sustainability goals

38. Definition of Success Anticipated Benefits for Regulatory Agencies
Meet regulatory requirements
Well-defined terms and conditions that allow for flexibility in application
Protect ESA-listed fish
Protect Oregon’s water quality and wetland resources
Certainty in project development and construction would result, thus leading to reduction in project delays and project cost, thereby saving time and money while protecting ESA-listed fish

39. Questions?