1. 1 What Makes a Good Local E&S Program? Issued May 2009 Level IB: Advanced Fundamentals Seminar Education and Training Certification Requirements for Persons Involved with Land Disturbing Activities

2. 2 Overview Purpose of the local program –Erosion and sediment control program implemented on the local level Principles of the local program –Five key standards of an effective program Processes of the Local Program –Ordinance adoption and implementation –Program Administration Permitting process Inspection process Complaint investigation process Enforcement process

3. 3 Purpose of the Local Program Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1975 states that cities and counties shall adopt a comprehensive ordinance establishing procedures for land disturbing activities If a city or county fails to adopt an ordinance, DNR Board will adopt rules governing activities in that jurisdiction District offices of EPD enforces NPDES Construction Activity Permit

4. 4 Purpose of the Local Program Intent of law = Local programs Local officials have… –Local knowledge of –Local authority over –Local responsibility for soil and water resources.

5. 5 Principles of an Effective Local Program Manual for Erosion and Sediment Control in Georgia Chapter 4

6. 6 Principles of an Effective Local Program 1.Erosion and sediment control should be a stated public policy and have buy-in of: Public and private agencies Developers Landowners Consultants Planners and engineers

7. 7 Principles of an Effective Local Program 2.Public and private support should be encouraged through public information and education programs

8. 8 Principles of an Effective Local Program 3.Local programs should have competent personnel Technically skilled Knowledgeable about local conditions Familiar with local procedures

9. 9 Principles of an Effective Local Program 4.Provisions for erosion and sediment control must be made in the planning stage Design principles planned and applied Local government involvement in process

10. 10 Principles of an Effective Local Program 5.Program should be reviewed periodically to determine needed improvements Observation by program personnel Evaluation by outside parties

11. 11 Local Program Processes Ordinance Development and Implementation To be a certified Local Issuing Authority (LIA), a city or county must adopt an ordinance Meets or exceeds the standards of the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1975 and the state general permit Adopted ordinances and ordinance changes must be submitted to GSWCC and EPD and be certified by EPD

12. 12 Local Program Processes Ordinance Development and Implementation GSWCC developed Model Ordinance –Reflects current statutes –2009 most recent –Intended to provide guidelines for local ordinance –Should be tailored to fit specific needs of program

13. 13 Local Program Processes Ordinance Development and Implementation Local ordinance must be comprehensive –May integrate with other local ordinances relating to land development Tree protection Flood plain protection Stream buffers Storm water management

14. 14 Local Program Processes Ordinance Development and Implementation Ordinance Summary List of certified LIAs is available in the course notebook www.gaswcc.georgia.gov www.gaepd.org

15. 15 Local Program Processes Program Administration Commonly seen program administration problems: Staffing –If we had more people/time/support Policies and Procedures –This is the way we’ve always done it –This is how I think we do it –This is how my boss says to do it but I think… Program Growth –We have a proactive program with excellent personnel and established procedures, why would we need to change?

16. 16 Program Administration Why are written procedures important? – Demonstrate program is being operated in an efficient manner – Provides program credibility – Allows staff to understand expectations – Quicker program recovery in times of staff turnover

17. 17 Program Administration Written Procedures Procedures should be written by those with knowledge of: –Regulations –City/county management culture –Implementation issues –Reality of situation Writing style –Step by step, easy to read format –Not overly complicated –Should not be wordy, redundant or overly lengthy

18. 18 Program Administration Written Procedures Checklists –Checklists or forms that are part of an activity should be included in the written procedure –Checklists are not the written procedure but part of the written procedure

19. 19 Program Administration Written Procedures Written procedures are needed for the following aspects of the local program: –Permitting process –Inspection process –Complaint Investigation Process –Enforcement process

20. 20 Program Administration Written Procedures Document contents –Personnel involved and their qualifications –Equipment and supplies Inventory of required equipment Maintenance of equipment –Outline of procedural steps –Data and records management Identification of forms to be used Reports to be written Examples of correspondence Recordkeeping procedures

21. 21 Program Administration Recordkeeping Each LDA Permit should have a project file containing: –Permit application –Approved plan –Inspection reports –Photographic evidence –Correspondence –Complaint information –Record of enforcement action

22. 22 Program Administration Personnel Adequate Staff Division of responsibilities How many inspectors? What type of inspectors? Chain of command

23. 23 Program Administration Personnel Trained Personnel –Must be “Certified Inspectors” within 6 months of hire date –Level IB Advanced Fundamentals Course Requires 60 days of experience or Level IA certification –Importance of continuing education

24. 24 Program Administration Personnel Inter-departmental Cooperation –Often many city/county departments are either directly or indirectly involved with E&SC Planning and Zoning Engineering Public Works Code Enforcement –Different departments must communicate and have clear responsibilities

25. 25 Program Administration Permitting Process Local issuing authorities are responsible for processing land disturbing activity applications and issuing permits Every LIA must have a defined permitting process

26. 26 Program Administration Permitting Process Commonly seen problems –Confusing maze of permits –LDA permits not acted on quickly enough –Plan review process not implemented correctly –Lack of communication between LIA and applicant –Recordkeeping

27. 27 Program Administration Permitting Process Process must be well defined and manageable –Written procedures for accepting permits, reviewing permits, approving permits –Must meet state requirements - 45 days –Must work in conjunction with other permitting and review processes within the LIA –Easy to follow and communicate

28. 28 Program Administration Permitting Process Identify types of permits issued –Overall LDA Permit –Timber harvesting –Clearing and grubbing –Grading –Demolition Identify related ordinances

29. 29 Program Administration Permitting Process How are permit applicants informed of permitting requirements? –Informational packets –Website information –Pre-construction conferences

30. 30 Program Policies and Procedures Permitting Process Who reviews plans? –Does the city/county have an MOA –Identify SWCD approving plan and identification of technical reviewer –Plan review process - LIA responsible for forwarding plan to District for review

31. 31 Program Administration Permitting Process Are pre-construction conferences conducted with applicant? –Who attends? Developer Contractor Plan designer E&SC Inspector –Exchange all pertinent contact information –Review construction schedule –Outline expectations

32. 32 Program Administration Permitting Process Identify permit fees and collect accordingly –Accurate formula –Inclusion of NPDES permitting fees –Purpose of NPDES permitting fee for LIA was to help off-set workload

33. 33 Program Administration Permitting Process Recordkeeping –Accurate log of permits by identifier Applicant with contact information Accurate site name and location Application date Plan review status Date permit issued Project status –Permit log should correspond to inspection, enforcement and complaint logs –Project files kept up to date

34. 34 Program Administration Inspection Process Commonly seen problems –Inspection frequency –Inconsistent approach to inspections –“Drive-by inspections” –Lack of documentation –Follow-up

35. 35 Program Administration Inspection Process Ratio of sites per E&SC Inspector? –Reasonable work load for wet periods not just drought conditions –Is an individual site assigned to an inspector or are daily inspections assigned? –Consideration for project size How often are sites inspected for erosion and sediment control compliance? –Weekly? –Construction activity schedule? –In response to complaints?

36. 36 Program Administration Inspection Process Develop or refine written procedures for inspections –Consistency regardless of inspector –Fairness to all sites –Method of inspections Inspect entire perimeter of site Inspect BMPs Apparent violations and emerging violations

37. 37 Program Administration Inspection Process Good documentation of inspections –Checklist or report completed for every inspection –Photographic evidence –Completed inspection reports entered or filed as appropriate

38. 38 Program Administration Inspection Process Inspection Follow-up –Finish recordkeeping responsibilities –Communicate with owner/operator –Re-inspect as required –Follow through on required enforcement action

39. 39 Program Administration Complaint Investigation Process Commonly seen problems –No record of complaint –No inspection –Lack of follow-up with referring authority –No referral to EPD when needed

40. 40 Program Administration Complaint Investigation Process City or county must follow a Complaint Investigation Process –Investigation of the complaint by the local issuing authority within 5 business days –Mechanism for referral of unresolved complaints to the Division –Monthly log of complaints and inquiries including actions taken DNR Rule 391-3-7-.09

41. 41 Program Administration Complaint Investigation Process Monthly log of complaints and inquiries including actions taken

42. 42 Program Administration Complaint Investigation Process LIA must investigate complaint within 5 days Respond to complainant as appropriate Local Issuing Authority Citizen Complaints EPD Complaint Referral GSWCC Complaint Referral Inter-departmental Complaint Referral

43. 43 Program Administration Enforcement Process Commonly seen problems –Lack of enforcement –Inadequate use of enforcement tools –Inconsistent enforcement –No follow-up after enforcement action –Recordkeeping

44. 44 Program Administration Enforcement Process Enforcing the local ordinance requires complying with procedures for: –Notice of Violations –Stop Work Orders –Court Actions Enforcing the ordinance is not a choice

45. 45 Program Administration Enforcement Process Considerations for written procedures –What triggers enforcement action? –Who is authorized to issue warning notices, citations, fine and stop work orders for violations? –How is enforcement action carried out from beginning to end?

46. 46 Program Administration Enforcement Process Procedures for notifying project owners that a site is out of compliance –Issue written warnings –Enforcement orders should contain specific measures or corrections which need to be made and specify deadlines for completion –Proper mailing precautions Registered or certified mail Hand delivered with signature

47. 47 Program Administration Enforcement Process Required Enforcement Actions 1 st or 2 nd Violation → Written warning –5 days for correction –No correction → Stop Work Order 3 rd Violation → Stop Work Order

48. 48 Program Administration Enforcement Process Case for immediate Stop Work Order –Violation presents imminent threat to public health or state waters –Action without a permit –Failure to maintain a stream buffer –Sediment discharged into state waters –BMPs not properly designed, installed or maintained

49. 49 Program Administration Enforcement Process Enforcement of Stop Work Orders –Effective immediately upon issuance –Effective until corrective action or mitigation is completed –Applies to all land-disturbing activities on the site except for installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls

50. 50 Program Administration Enforcement Process Civil Penalties –Staff should be trained to issue and follow-up on citations –Good relationship with municipal or magistrate judge –Maximum penalty - $2500/violation/day

51. 51 Program Administration Enforcement Process Additional tools for enforcement –$3000 per acre bond –Forfeiture of business licenses –Denial of Certificate of Occupancy –Denial of building inspections

52. 52 Internal Program Evaluation Overall program should be systematically reviewed on periodic basis –Are policies current and reflective of current regulations? –Do written procedures need to be changed? –Are inspections being done regularly and consistently? Where is there room for improvement?

53. 53 Local Program Overviews Purpose: To provide administrative and technical assistance in an effort to improve the effectiveness of local programs

54. 54 Local Program Overviews GSWCC is required by law to conduct overviews semi –annually LIAs are required to complete and submit the Semi – Annual Report to GSWCC (Jan and July) GSWCC’s review of the report will determine if a more in depth overview is required

55. 55 Local Program Overviews SWCD will send correspondence to LIA scheduling an overview –Before the overview, LIA will receive a questionnaire which must be completed before day of overview with all required documentation DAT (GSWCC, SWCD, NRCS, etc) will conduct program overview including office visit and site visits

56. 56 Overview Criteria Questionnaire

57. 57 Local Program Overviews Overview Report –Outline of findings –Notes strong points and deficiencies –Recommendations for improvement –Rating Consistent Provisionally Consistent Inconsistent

58. 58 Local Program Overviews LIAs with Memorandum of Agreement –Must receive two grades of at least provisionally consistent. Overall effectiveness of the E&SC Program has to be at least provisionally consistent and the Quality of Plan Review Section has to be at least provisionally consistent. –The Final Grade will be weighted 80% to the overall effectiveness of the E&SC Program and 20% to Quality of Plan Review

59. 59 EPD Overview Purpose: Ensure local issuing authorities are properly implementing the requirements of the Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act Review of certification status

60. 60 EPD Overview May be done in response to notification by SWCD or GSWCC to investigate ineffective local program LIA must submit documentation showing continued compliance with criteria for certification and plans for program improvement

61. 61 Review Effectiveness of local program depends on adoption of credible procedures and implementation of those procedures Recordkeeping vital to program success SWCD, GSWCC and EPD may perform periodic overviews Periodic internal reviews necessary for program success

62. 62 Resources for Assistance –Technical Guidance information on www.gaswcc.georgia.gov and www.gaepd.org –GSWCC Regional Representatives –Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisors –EPD District Offices –EPD NonPoint Source Program

63. 63 Questions?