NCS000442_OTHER_20050906

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
M54 PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
DOCTIIPE
❑FINAL PERMIT
❑ ANNUAL REPORT
❑ AMICATION
❑ C MPLIANCE `
�YTHER
DOC DATE
❑ � � U���� ""
Z
YYYYMMDD

LEGAL ADVERTISING INVOICE No. 2 4 9 3 0
THE- ROCKY MOUNT TELEGRAM
PUBLISHED BY ROCKY MOUNT PUBLISHING COMPANY
ROCKY MOUNT, NORTH CAROLINA 27804
July 26 2005.
� O @�� V
FNC` Division of, water Quality Sip 0 6 2aa5
'1 61 7 Mail Service Center.; DENR -WATER
ZOMYry
Raleigh, NC. 27699-1.617 Welands & Stormatwgwch
Attn: Sarah Young'
" AFIDAVIT OF' PUBLICATION !
ly swear that ,from m personal
TOTAL INCHES O A UNT DUE $
Y. p
e and from reference to the files of
1CKY'MOUNT ,TELEGRAM, a % .! ;.DESCRIPTION:
sr printed and published at Rocky, :' PubliC Notice
the COUNTY.. of Nash. STATE of .r '
'olina' fldtllFtif;S►ly t referred to
date(s) h
ndasAilh'ZT[bed't6r me Pis,
§?aU- '" PUBLISHED:
• r July'26, 2005
fission EzpifE
•! t. i
newspaper of dine of publication of
'was qualified under G.S. r1-597 to
ch tegal advertising.° r -
#'.rPUSLiC O
NORTH CAROLINA
L ENVIRONMENTAL`
MANAGEMENT.' ';F :•
"COMMISSION '
y,1617MAIL-SERVICE4%i '
l°1f .CENTER--
RALEIGHA } ,
4 NORTH'CAROLINA
"7tie town'liif N''anshvllla has }
eppliod:,efor�.n an,i•NPPES-
"Phase'll';Stormwatar„Per 3
�imit to.dlscharga`stormwa ,
tar,x from,'their, "'municipal
separate'storm"sawar. YS!,
lam NM541,located 'within,
the Town of. Nashville iuris=,; ,...Y
Xdictionallarea;,Nash Coun
ty ,' to., recaiving`;waters,`
- Stoney Croak and unnamed'
fributarlas,',Sapony,: Creak
Tributary; and Gust Branch
of tSapony Creek,twilhin the
Tar-Pamllc_o River.BasinA_-,
;- All'comments and requests,
'should'rafarence dralt'parr;
m1t"' numbeQ ,NCS0004$5."
. ico�riments',.=;mvstr•,?abe� , i
trecaivad no, -later, thae; Sap-.,
'tembar 7;+_2005', Copies of;
'.thee draft. permit, are-avall I I:
+alb,la at" http /
h2o enr.state ne us/su/c !
' phaso2 draft pormlts:htm or .j
1by contacting; t •!,: >`�,a.
'Mika Randall" .;'";: C
NC Division of Water' '---'.`•: { '•-'1'
�•' ,uaiity f a I
1611-Mall SafYlc! Canter
Raleigh, NC 71699
Teleilyphone Nu17s-soar;mber: •' . !"
-W
• LMlkeramtallancmall;net,'•r !

imap://kcn.picklc%40dwq.denr.ncmaiI.net @cros.nemail.nei:143/fete...
Subject: Stormwater Permits
From: "Amy Pickle" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:45:45 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>, <coleen.sullins @ ncmai 1. net>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: "Jim Stephenson" <[e-mail]>, "Heather Jacobs" <[e-mail]>,
"David McNaught" <DMcNaught@env iron men taldefense.org>, "Brianna Bond" <[e-mail]>,
"Derb Carter" <[e-mail]>, "Trip Van Noppen" <[e-mail]>
All:
I have attached 8 comment letters for your consideration —one letter addressing both general permits and seven
comment letters on eight different individual permits. All letters have significant exhibits, which are attached to the
hard copies that were mailed yesterday.
We remain disappointed that North Carolina's Phase II Stormwater Program will have no beneficial impact on
water quality and concerned that the permits authorize discharges that contravene the Clean Water Act and state
law. As discussed in more detail in the letters, discharges of stormwater pursuant to the general permits and the
individual permits, especially to sensitive waters and waters providing aquatic habitat for endangered species,
likely will cause water quality violations and degradation of existing uses. Furthermore, the Department's decision
to deem existing stormwater programs compliant with the Phase II post -construction standards is particularly
troubling, and clearly violates federal law and the Phase II session law.
As you review our letters, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Amy
Amy Pickle
Staff Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
200 West Franklin Street, Suite 330
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2559
[phone]
This email may contain confidential information and is intended to be received solely by the
addressee(s) above. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please delete it
immediately and contact sender.
of' 1 2/25/2005 9:48 AM

IPub 1 1G CO 1 JbGa Lam., 4,61 -ft 2 t l
December 30, 2004
Bradley Bennett
Stormwater Permitting Unit
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
RE: Draft NPDES Permit No. NCS000442, Rocky Mount
Draft NPDES Permit No. NCS000437, Greenville
Dear NIr. Bennett:
Please accept these comments from the Pamlico -Tar River Foundation ("PTRF")
and the Southern Environmental Law Center ("SELC") on the draft stormwater Phase I1
NPDES permit NCS000442 for the City of Rocky Mount and NPDES permit
NCS000437 for the City of Greenville. PTRF is a grassroots organization, representing
over 1400 members, whose mission is to protect and improve the environmental quality
of the Tar -Pamlico River, its estuaries and watershed. SELC is a non-profit legal
advocacy group dedicated to protecting the environment of the South. SELC works with
more than 100 partner groups in a six state region. SELC has been actively involved in a
variety of efforts to improve water quality in the Tar -Pamlico watershed, including work
on protections for the dwarf wedge mussel.
As discussed in more detail below, the North Carolina Phase 11 stormwater
program is inadequate to protect water quality and does not fulfill the requirements of the
Clean 'rater Act. In particular, in the Tar -Pamlico basin, those cities and counties already
covered by the Tar -Pamlico Stormwater rule, 15A NCAC 02B .0258 (2004), are deemed
compliant with the Phase Il requirements for post -construction stormwater management
model practices. However, there are requirements of Phase I1 that are not included in the
Tar -Pamlico rule, including requirements for removal of Total Suspended Solids ("TSS")
and requirements to address stormwater quantity. Also, the State's stormwater regulations
have actually weakened the City of Greenville's stormwater program. The city changed
its ordinance from requiring Best Management Practices ("BMP") to address the 2, 5, and
10-year storms, to now only requiring designs for the I-yr, 24-hour storm. This is
unacceptable, irresponsible, and must be corrected before further damage is done to
public trust waterways.
In addition, the conditions and limitations in these draft permits are inadequate to
ensure compliance with water quality standards. The Clean Water Act and North
Carolina law require that all NPDES permits include limitations necessary to comply
with applicable water quality standards. North Carolina law places the burden on the

applicant to demonstrate compliance with water quality standards. Issuance of a permit
without adequate measures to protect federally listed endangered species may result in a
prohibited taking in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
I. General Comments
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharges that violate water quality standards;
and the federal Phase 11 rules require regulated entities to "develop, implement, and
enforce a stormwater management program designed to reduce the discharge of
pollutants ... to the maximum extent practicable, to protect water quality, and to
satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act." 40 C.F.R.
§ 122.34 (a) (emphasis added). The stormwater programs described by the regulated
entities' applications will not reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent
practicable, protect water quality, or satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Furthermore, because the permits provide only a recitation of Session Law 2004-
163 and only incorporates via reference the Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Program Report, which includes components of the permit application, the program
report, and any approved modifications, the public cannot comment adequately on the
actual stormwater program to be implemented by this permit. Without having the actual
stormwater program subject to public comment, the public has no means to evaluate
whether the program is sufficient to meet the specific water quality needs of this area.
See Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. United States EPA, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19073 (91h Cir.
2003) (holding that permits that do not require measures that control pollutants to the
"maximum extent practicable" contravene the public notice requirements of the Clean
Water Act).
Countywide coverage is needed to ensure adequate protection of water quality.
Pitt, Nash and Edgecombe Counties are required to develop a stormwater program for the
Tar -Pamlico stormwater rule. However TSS removal is not required under the Tar -Pam
rule and BMP designs to address stormwater quantity are inadequate. The Tar -Pam
stormwater rule states, "At a minimum the new development shall not result in a net
increase in peak flow leaving the site from pre -development conditions for the 1-year, 24-
hour storm event" 15A NCAC 02B.0258c(C). Therefore, the Tar -Pam rule requires the
first flush (the first inch of rainfall) to be treated and detained for 2-5 days. While you get
a peak flow that is no greater than pre -construction peak glow, this peak flow occurs for a
much longer duration than pre -construction conditions. Phase I1 requires the BMP's to
store the difference in volume from pre and post -construction of the 1-yr, 24-hour storm
event, which goes further to address the quantity issue.
II. Specific Comments
The federal rules require municipalities to reduce the discharge of pollutants to
the maximum extent practicable ("MEP"), to protect water quality, and to satisfy the
appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act. 40 C.F.R. § 122.34(a)
2

(2004). The federal rules also specifically require post -construction measures to prevent
or minimize water quality impacts and "to attempt to maintain pre -development runoff
conditions." 40 C.F.R. § 122.34 (b)(5)(i),(iii) (2004). As discussed below, the Rocky
Mount and Greenville NPDES permits fail to meet these federal standards.
A. Rocky Mount NPDES draft permit
Currently, Rocky Mount and Nash County are responsible for a WS-IV
stormwater and the Tar -Pam stormwater programs. Stormwater BMP's for the WS-IV
program are triggered with a sediment and erosion control plan for high -density
development with a built upon area ("BUA") of 24%. Under the Tar -Pam rule, BMP's
are triggered at approximately I 1 % BUA for all new development to comply with
phosphorus requirements. Under the Swift Creek Outstanding Resource Water ("ORW")
stormwater program (within Nash County), BMP's are triggered at 12% BUA and must
reduce TSS by 85%. However, the BMP's are designed for the I-yr, 24-hour storm
whereas the discharge rate shall be no larger than the pre -development discharge rate and
the draw -down is from 2-5 days (as in the Tar -Pam rule & WS-IV rule). The Phase 11
post -construction requirements also required a removal of TSS by 85%. The difference
lies in the stormwater quantity issue, whereas under Phase 11, new development must
implement BMP's that store the difference in volume from pre and post -construction of
the 1-yr, 24-hour storm. However, BMP's are not triggered until you reach it BUA or
24%. The Tar -Pam rule does not adequately address stormwater quantity issues, in that
you may have a pre -construction peak flow for a much longer duration than pre -
construction conditions. This will lead to increased physical deterioration of the streams
and ultimately lead to more erosion and sedimentation problems.
Where does one stormwater program begin and the other end? Rocky Mount and
the unincorporated parts located in Nash County are deemed compliant with the Phase 11
post -construction stormwater rules due to the existing Tar -Pam stormwater program. Is
this also true with WS-IV and Swift Creek ORW requirements? Or does Nash County
now have to implement and run four stormwater programs (Phase II, WS-IV, ORW, and
Tar -Pam)?
Furthermore, Stoney Creek is on the 303(d) list for impaired waters for sediments
based on biological impairment. The 2004 Tar -Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan states, "the cause of the depressed bioclassification is likely habitat degradation, as
there was little riparian area and moderate to severe bank erosion." NC Department of
Natural Resources, Tar-Pandico River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, 109 (2004).
Cokey Swamp, located in sub -basin 03 is currently impaired and will be on the 303(d) list
in 2006. The Basinwide plan states, "Habitat degradation, as well as high conductivity,
was noted... Tributaries to this segment drain urban areas in southern Rocky Mount. The
downstream extent of the impaired biological community is not known." The plan
continues, "DWQ will work with the town of Rocky Mount in developing stormwater
programs that will reduce future and current impacts to streams in this watershed." There
are clear indicators that stormwater runoff from urban areas of Rocky Mount is degrading
3

local waterways and that the existing stormwater programs are insufficient to protect
water quality and do not control discharges to the maximum extent practicable.
B. Greenville NPDES Draft Permit
Currently the city of Greenville is responsible for the Tar -Pam and Neuse
stormwater rules and Phase II regulations. Pitt County is responsible for Phase It, Tar -
Pam and Neuse rules, and WS-IV rules.
Prior to Phase 1I stormwater requirements, the City of Greenville required BMP's
to be designed for the 2,5, and 10-year, 24-hour storms. The city recognized that BMP
design for the I-yr, 24-hour storm was inadequate to protect against localized flooding
and to protect water quality. The city has now weakened its ordinance to comply with the
Phase 11 and Tar -Pamlico stormwater regulations. However, the city's staff recognizes
the problem Greenville will face if the ordinance is not amended back to its original
requirements and will work to have the stricter regulations reinstated.
Green Mill Run, whose watershed lies within the City of Greenville, is an
impaired waterway. DWQ does not sample this stream, but the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program has a planned project within this watershed for stream and wetlands restoration.
Green Mill Run is a typical urban stream, with characteristic bank erosion, habitat
degradation due to sediment, and an altered hydrograph resulting in increased frequency
of flooding and peak volumes. Parker Creek, located in the northern section of Greenville
also show signs of impairment, although DWQ did not rate this stream in the 2004
Basinwide Plan. The plan stated, "Parker Creek drains parts of northern Greenville and
had a low habitat score with high conductivity noted at site )~-1. There were also elevated
numbers of tolerant macroinvertebrate species, indicating water quality impacts." The
2003 Basinwide Assessment Report states "the stream had the lowest rated habitat of any
stream in the basin in 2002 (habitat score = 39)." NC Department of Natural Resources,
Tar -Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (2004). Stormwater is clearly causing
impairments in these two streams and the existing stormwater programs are failing to
protect water quality or control pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable.
111. Endangered Species Concerns
Where water quality protection and maintenance of existing and anticipated uses
is not being achieved, more stringent stormwater measures must be required. Existing
uses include federally listed endangered species. As explained below, the draft permit for
Rocky Mount does not adequately protect the existing uses as endangered mussel habitat.
A. The areas subject to stormwater limitations affects waters that provide habitat to
federally -listed aquatic species that would be adversely affected by stormwater.
The area subject to stormwater limitations affect waters that provide habitat to
two federally -listed endangered aquatic species —the dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta
4

heterodon) and the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio stein.stan.sana). The dwarf wedge
mussel is known to exist in Stoney Creek and Swift Creek, which are both receiving
waters for stormwater runoff from Rocky Mount. One of the last remaining populations
of the Tar River spiny mussel exists in the Tar -Pamlico watershed and is susceptible to
stormwater runoff from Rocky Mount.
Dwarl' Wedge Mussel
The dwarf wedge mussel was listed as endangered on March 14, 1990. 55 Fed.
Reg. 9447 (March 14, 1990) (attached as Exhibit 1). In listing the dwarf wedge mussel,
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service "USFWS" concludes:
The dwarf wedge mussel was once widely distributed in river systems of
the Atlantic slope from New Brunswick, Canada, south to the Neuse River
system in North Carolina. It was recorded from 70 localities in 15
drainages in I I states and one Canadian province. River systems
historically inhabited by this species included: the Petitcodiac River
system in New Brunswick; the Taunton River, Agawam River, Merimac
River, Connecticut River and Quinnipiac River systems in New England;
the Hackensack River, Delaware River, and Susquehanna River systems in
the Middle Atlantic states: the Choptank River, Rappahannock River,
James River, Tar River and Neuse River systems in the Southeast. Based
on The Nature Conservancy's rangewide status survey and other recent
survey data, A. heterodon is now thought to be extirpated from all but ten
small sites in five drainages in four states...
The disappearance of the dwarf wedge mussel from most of its historic
sites can best be explained by agricultural, domestic, and industrial
pollution of its aquatic habitat. Mussels are known to be sensitive to
[.many elements]. Pesticides, chlorine, excessive nutrients, and ,silt
carried by runoff also present a threat to this species.
Id. at 9449 (emphasis added) (for more information on the dwarf wedge mussel, see
Exhibit 2). The Stoney Creek and Swift Creek watersheds in Nash & Edgecombe
Counties, which contain one of the last populations of the dwarf wedge mussel, receive
much of the stormwater runoff from the Town of Rocky Mount. Id.; see also Rocky
Mount Map (attached as Exhibit 3). Because the draft NPDES permit does not contain
adequate measures to protect this endangered mussel population, the stormwater runoff
regulated under the permit will result in adverse impacts to the dwarf wedge mussel.
2. Tar River Spinymussel
In June 1985, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listed the Tar River spinymussel
as an endangered species. 50 Federal Register 26572-2657 (June 27, 1985) (attached as
Exhibit 4). in listing the species, the Service concludes:
5

Results of it recent Service -funded survey of the Tar, Neuse, and Roanoke rivers
indicate that the Tar River spiny mussel (with an estimated total population size
of 100 to 500 individuals) exists only in approximately 12 miles of the Tar River
in Edgecombe County, North Carolina. This represents a significant reduction in
known range, as historic records show the species was once also found both
upstream (Nash County, North Carolina) and downstream (Pitt County, North
Carolina) of its present range.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by this species in
determining to make this rule final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action
is to list the Tar River spiny mussel as endangered. The mussel's small
population and present restricted range (12 river miles) make it extremely
vulnerable to a single catastrophic event, and its range has greatly contracted
within the immediate past.
Id. at 26574 (emphasis added) (for more information on the Tar River spinymussel, see
Exhibit 5). The Tar -Pamlico watershed contains the only remaining population of the Tar
River spinymussel. The endangered mussel has been extirpated from the Tar River above
Rocky Mount but an extremely small population remains extant downstream of Rock
Mount in the Tar River near Tarboro. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission ("WRC") now recognizes populations of the Tar River spinymussel in
Franklin, Nash, Halifax, and Edgecombe Counties. The adverse impacts to the Tar River
spinymussel identified by the USFWS Service include erosion, siltation, and reduced
water quality and are associated with stormwater runoff. This population is impacted by
stormwater runoff from Rocky Mount. See NatureServe, Comprehensive Report Species
— Elliptio steinstansana (attached as exhibit). Because the draft NPDES permit does not
contain adequate measures to protect this endangered mussel population, the stormwater
runoff regulated under the permit will result in adverse impacts to the Tar River
spinymussel.
B. Endangered or threatened aquatic species require enhanced protection from
stormwater.
Scientific information and conclusions that formed the basis for listing of critical
habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel establish that the impacts from stormwater runoff
associated with new development are the types of impacts that will appreciably reduce
the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the endangered mussel. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ("WRC"), in consultation with the USFWS,
has identified measures that if implemented and enforced would avoid adverse impacts
from stormwater. WRC, Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary
and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality
(August 2002) (attached as Exhibit 6). These measures constitute the best scientific
information available on actions to avoid adverse modification of habitat and jeopardy of
the dwarf wedge mussel. DWQ and the permit applicant must assure that these measures
are included in the final NPDES permit.
6

For watersheds that support federally listed species, the WRC recommends that
certain measures be implemented to provide a higher degree of protection. The WRC
encourages the maintenance and establishment of 200 foot native, forested riparian
bttffers on perennial streams and 100 foot forested buffers on intertnittettt streants.
WRC, Guidance Memorandum (August 2002) (emphasis added). These buffer widths are
based on detailed studies that establish the need for wider buffers to protect endangered
aquatic species.' The WRC goes on to say that if forested buffets do not exist, the buffer -
area should be allowed to revegetate naturally to increase its functionality. Id. The WRC
also advocates maintenance of the natural predevelopment hydrograph. In order to do so,
the guidelines recommend that "new developments can build rising traditional designs at
a level of 7%n impen4ousness, or build more densely, using dedicated open space and
other stormwater practices to mimic the hydrograph which would occur at only 7%
imperviousness." Id (emphasis added).
C. The proposed NPDES stormwater permit_fails to provide adequate._ protection_ to
endangered or threatened aquatic species.
The draft NPDES permits for Rocky Mount includes conditions and limitations
that fall well short of the WRC's guidelines. The following table compares —with
emphasis added —the stormwater permit's wholly inadequate requirements with the
WRC's guidelines for the protection of mussel populations.
Requirement
Impervious-
ness
WS1 IV
Low -Density
Tar -Pam NSW
•.
No distinction
between high and
Phase 11
Low -Density
Option
O.
Requirements
Low -Density
Option
In order to maintain
predevelopment
Option
2 dwelling
low density
No more than 2
BUA of 12% or
hydrographic
units per acre
development.
dwelling units
less or single
conditions,
or 24% built
BMPs are
per acre or 24%
family
including flow
upon area
triggered at
built-ttpon area
residential
volumes, new
("BUA") or 3
approximately
("BUA") for all
development on
developments can
dwelling units
11%n BUA to
residential and
lots of one acre
build using
per acre or
control nutrient
nonresidential
or greater.
traditional designs
36% BUA
problems. No
developments.
Stormwater
at a level of 7%
without curb
nitrogen loads
runoff must be
impen4ottsness, or
and gutter
over 4 Iblacrel r
l Hiph-Density
I transported
build more densely,
1 Knutson, K.L., and V.L.,Nacf, Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats:
riparian. Washington Department of ]"ish and Wildlife, Olympia (1997); Martin, C.O., R.A. Fischer, &
Ii.H. Allen, Riparian Issues on Corps of Engineers and DOD Military Lands (2000), Todd, Makinr
Decisions About Riparian Buffer Width, Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association
International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi -land use watersheds, 445-450,
Portland, OR (2000) (attached as lExhibit 7).

street systems
& no phosphorus
Option
through
using dedicated
outside of any
loads over 0.4
Install structural
vegetated
open space and
critical areas
Ib/acre/yr; & no
best management
conveyances.
other stormwater
net increase in
practices
practices to mimic
High -Density
flow from the 1-
("BMPs")
High -Density
the hydrograph
Option
year, 24-hour
designed to
Option
which would occur
Development
storm. With
control and treat
Control systems
at only 7%
shall control
mitigation,
the difference in
must be wet
imperviousness.
the runoff from
nitrogen loading
storm water
detention ponds
the first inch of
up to 6 lb/acrelyr
runoff volume
or alternative
rainfall and
residential and 10
leaving the
stormwater
BUA must not
lblacrelyr
project site
management
exceed 70%.
industrial.
between the pre
systems
and post
designed in
development
accordance with
conditions for
15A N.C.A.C.
the 1-year, 24-
2H.1008 &
hour storm event.
control systems
All structural
must be
BMPs used to
designed to
meet these
control runoff
requirements
from all surfaces
must be designed
generated by one
to have an 85%
inch of rainfall.
average annual
removal for Total
Suspended
Solids.
General
engineering
design criteria
for all projects
must be in
accordance with
15 NCAC 2.H
.1008(c).
Riparian
Low -Density
Establishes 50-
Low -Density
Low -Density
Maintain a 200 foot
Option
Buffers
foot two zone
Option All BUA
Option
naturally forested
30-foot
vegetated buffers
must be at a
30-foot
buffer on all
vegetated
to all perennial &
minimum of 30-
vegetative buffer
perennial streams
buffer on blue
intermittent
feet landivard of
and a 100 foot
lined streams;
streams. Zone I
all perennial and
forested buffer on
Water
shall consist of an
intermittent
all intermittent
dependent uses
undisturbed 30-
surface waters.
streams in new
can impose on
foot vegetated
developments. If
the buffer
area with the
High -Density
I
wooded buffers do

where no
practicable
alternative
1-ligh-Density
exception of
certain uses. Zone
2 - shall consist of
a 20-foot
vegetated area
with certain
Option All BUA
must be at a
minimum of 30-
feet landward of
all perennial and
intermittent
not exist, then these
areas should be
revegetated to allow
development of a
naturally forested
buffer.
Option
100-foot
allowable uses.
surface waters.
vegetated
Sets up mitigation
buffer on blue
program for
lined streams;
impacts to buffers.
Water
dependent uses
can impose on
the buffet -
where no
practicable
alternative.
DWQ must require the more stringent measures recommended by the WRC
within the areas that drain to the Swift Creek watershed, the Tar -Pam watershed, and the
Stoney Creek watershed in order to protect the endangered dwarf wedge mussel and the
endangered Tar River spinymussel. Although a portion of Swift Creek is classified as
ORW and has more stringent stormwater measures in place, the portion of the watershed
which will receive stormwater from Rocky Mount is not protected by the ORW
designation. The draft NPDES permit sets a definition for low -density development in
the Tar -Pamlico Riverbasin at approximately 11% BUA. Low -density developments are
not required to implement engineered stormwater management controls, such as
infiltration systems or detention ponds. Well documented scientific studies have found
that sensitive waters begin to loose uses and sensitive values decay once built upon areas
reach 10 %l.2 For areas with endangered and threatened aquatic species, the studies
suggest that BUA be limited to 7% imperviousness. This can be achieved through the
use of conventional design at a level of 7% imperviousness or using conservation clusters
with higher densities which incorporate dedicated open space and other controls to
2 Paul, M.J., J.L. Meyer, Streams in the Urban Landscape, ANNUAL REVIEW OF EcoLOGY AND
SYSTEMATICS 32:333-365 (2001); Stewart, J.S., et. al., hifluences of'riparian corridors on aquatic biota in
agricultural watersheds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association international
Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi -land use wastersheds, 209-214, Portland, OR
(2000); May, C.W., and R.R. Horner, Tile crrnrrdative impacts of watershed urbanization oil stream -
riparian ecosystems. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International Conference
on riparian ecology and management in multi -land use wastersheds, 281-286, Portland, OR (2000); Doll,
B.A., et. al., Hydraulic geometry, relatioliship.s far urban streams throughout the piedmont of Not -ill
Carolina, Proceedings ol'the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian
ecology and management in multi -land use wastersheds, 299-304, Portland, OR (2000); Arnold, C.L. and
C.J. Gibbons, Impervious sruface coverage ---the emergence of a key, environmental indicator. JOURNAL or
THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 62: 243-258 (1996); Schueler, T., The importance of
lmpery ouslless, WATERMirmPRO'I'I--C'I'ION'I'>~CttNlQues 1(3):100-111 (1994). (Impervious studies arc
attached as Exhibit 8).
7

preserve the natural hydrograph. In the Chesapeake Bay area of Maryland, these
measures have been implemented with much Success.I DWQ must require the 7% BUA
trigger for all areas of Rocky Mount that drain to Swift Creek, Stoney Creek, and the Tar
River.
DWQ must also require the more stringent buffer requirements in areas that drain
to Swift Creek, Stoney Creek, and the Tar River, The Tar -Pamlico River Basin —
Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy sets buffer requirements to control for
nutrient problems at 50 feet landward of all perennial and intermittent streams. The
Water Supply Watershed rules for WS-IV waters sets buffer requirements at 30 feet for
low density development and 100 feet for high density development on all perennial and
intermittent streams. Water dependent uses are allowed to invade the buffer area under
certain circumstances. Neither of these buffer requirements are stringent enough to
ensure survival of the dwarf wedge mussel and the Tar River spinymussel. WRC
guidelines recommend 200-foot forested buffers for perennial streams and 1.00-foot
buffers for intermittent streams. DWQ must include these more stringent measures in the
draft permit for areas within the Swift Creek watershed in order to protect the endangered
mussel populations.
D. The NPDE_S permit must include limitations necessary to meet water quality_
standards.
The NPDES permits must satisfy the federal Phase II requirements. The Clean
Water Act prohibits discharges that violate water quality standards. The rules
promulgated pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (p) by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") require regulated entities to "develop, implement, and
enforce a stormwater management program designed to reduce the discharge of
pollutants ... to the maximum extent practicable, to protect water quality, and to
satisfy the appropriate requirements of the Clean Water Act." 40 C.F.R. § 122.34 (a)
(emphasis added).
Based upon existing case law, "maximum extent practicable" means to the fullest
degree technologically feasible for protection of water quality, except where costs are
wholly disproportionate to the potential benefits. See Haeuser v. Department of Law, 97
F.3d 1152, 1 155 (91h Cir. 1996) ("practicable" has been defined as "capable of being
done: feasible"); Rybachek v, United States E.P.A., 904 F.2d 1276, 1289 (9" Cir. 1990)
(EPA must select best level of technology unless costs are "wholly disproportionate" to
the benefits); Assn of Pac. Fisheries v. United States E.P.A., 615 F.2d 794, 805 (91' Cir.
1980). In the stormwater context, these stringent definitions of the term "practicable" are
further narrowed by the use of "maximum," clearly indicating that the measures to be
required must be more protective than standard practice, or than ordinary measures,
where those measures are failing to protect water quality. Such a definition would also
comport with the recent Ninth Circuit decision interpreting Phase II program
requirements. The court there suggested that the "maximum extent practicable" standard
3 Prince George's County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources, Low Impact Development
Design Strategies (1999) (attached as Exhibit 9).
10

may require more of permittees than mere compliance with water quality standards or
numeric effluent limitations designed to meet such standards. Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v.
United States EPA, 319 F.3d 398, 425-26 (9`t' Cir. 2003) (noting that although general
permits will explicitly require compliance with numeric effluent limitations designed to
ensure compliance with water quality standards, additional review of permittees' notices
of intent is required to ensure that permittecs have also designed programs that do in fact
reduce their stormwater pollution to the maximum extent practicable).
Furthermore, because the stormwater management program is regulated through a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit other requirements
apply. "Since 1973, EPA regulations have provided that an NPDES permit shall not be
issued 'when the imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with the applicable
water quality requirements of all affected States.' n 10 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(d) (1991); see
also 38 Fed. Reg. 13533 (1973); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d) (1991); Arkansas v. Oklahoma,
503 U.S. 91, 105 (1992). Federal and North Carolina law require that NPDES permits
ensure compliance with water quality standards. NPDES regulations issued under the
Clean Water Act "specifically require that each NPDES permit contain `any
requirements ... necessary to: (1) achieve water quality standards established under
Section 303 of the Act.' 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1). Thus any permit that fails to contain
conditions necessary to achieve water quality standards violates both the Act and 40
C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)." Champion Intl Corp. v. United States EPA, 648 F. Supp, 1390,
1395 (D.N.C. 1986) (vacated caul reman(led for clifferent reasons by 850 F.2d 182, 186
(4th Cir. 1988).4
North Carolina law prohibits the discharge of waste to waters of the state in
violation of water quality standards. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1(a)(6). Permitted
stormwater discharges (direct or indirect) must not result in "water pollution" or
"alteration of the ... biological ... integrity of waters of the state." N.C. Gen. Slat.
143-215.1(a)(11) - 213(19). The FMC's permitting regulations place the burden on an
NPDES permit applicant to demonstrate a proposed system will meet water quality
standards. North Carolina NPDES permitting regulations state:
The permit applicant has the burden of providing sufficient evidence to
reasonably ensure that the proposed system will comply with all
applicable water quality standards and requirements. No permit may be
issued when the imposition of conditions cannot reasonably ensure
4 "1'he Preamble to EPA's stormwater permitting regulations describe the circumstances in which
stormwater permits must comply with water quality standards:
...small MS4 permittees should modify their programs if and when available information
indicates that water quality concentrations warrant greater attention or prescriptiveness in
specific components ofthe municipal program. if the program is inadequate to protect
water quality, including water quality standards, then the permit will need to be modified
to include any more stringent limitations necessary to protect water quality.
64 Fed. Reg. 68753.

compliance with applicable water quality standards and regulations of all
effected states.
15A N.C.A.C. 2H.01 12(c),
E. North Carolina water duality standards require protection and maintenance of
threatened or endangered aquatic species.
Water quality standards applicable to all waters identify "best usage of waters" to
include "maintenance of biological integrity" and further state "[tlhe waters shall be
suitable for aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity..., sources of
water pollution which preclude any of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis
shall be considered to be violating a water quality standard." 15A N.C.A.C. 213.021 1(1),
(2). "Biological integrity means the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support and
maintain a balanced and indigenous community of organisms having species
composition, diversity, population densities and functional organization similar to that of
reference conditions." 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0200(11). Loss of endangered or threatened
aquatic species, often the most sensitive and vulnerable organisms in an aquatic
ecosystem, contravenes the requirement of water quality standards that the biological
integrity of all waters must be maintained.
North Carolina's antidegradation policy also requires that "existing uses" of all
waters be maintained. 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0201(b). "Existing uses mean uses actually
attained in the water body, in a significant and not incidental manner, on or after
November 28, 1975, whether or not they are included in the water quality standards..."
15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0200(30). North Carolina's water quality regulations recognize that a
use of a water may include providing habitat for endangered or threatened species:
"Certain waters provide habitat for federally -listed aquatic animal species that are listed
as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service or National Marine
Fisheries Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-
1544 and subsequent modifications. Maintenance and recovery of the water quality
conditions required to sustain and recover federally -listed threatened and endangered
aquatic animal species contributes to the support of maintenance of a balanced and
indigenous community of aquatic organisms and thereby protects the biological integrity
of the waters." 5 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0110
F. Issuance of stormwater permits without adequate protection for federal) -listed
endangered or threatened species violates the Endangered Species Act.
Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, it is "unlawful for any person" to
"take any [endangered] species within the United States...." 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B).
' 15A N.C.A.C. 28.0110 directs the Division of Water Quality to develop site -specific management
strategies under the provisions of 15A N.C.A.C. 213.0225 (Outstanding Resource Waters) or 15A N.C.A.C.
2B.0227 (Water Quality Management Plans) to protect the endangered or threatened aquatic species in
these waters. Although the rule was adopted in August 2000, the Division has yet to propose or designate
any waters under these provisions.
12

It is also "unlawful for any person" to "attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or
cause to be cointnitte(f' a taking of any endangered species within the United States. 16
U.S.C. § 1538(g) (emphasis added). The term "person" is defined to include "any
officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government, [or]
of any State..." and thus includes DWQ. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(13). "Take" under the Act
includes any "harm" to an endangered species and specifically includes habitat
degradation.' Section 9 prohibits not only the actions of those who directly exact the
taking of endangered species, "but also bans those acts of a third party that bring abOUt
the acts exacting a taking." Strahan v. Coxe, t27 F.3d 155, 163 (1st Or. 1997). In
Strahan, the State of Massachusetts was found to have exacted .a taking of endangered
Northern Right Whales through its licensing and permitting of certain fishing practices
that exacted a taking of the species.7 In Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia
County, a federal district court in Florida held that the Volusia County government
caused takings of endangered sea turtles through its authorization of vehicular beach
access during turtle mating season. 896 F. Supp.1 170, 1 180-1181 (M.D. Fla. 1995). As
currently proposed, the draft permit for Rocky Mount would "cause to be committed" a
taking of the endangered dwarf wedge mussel in violation of federal law.
IV. Summary
The Phase 11 requirement that triggers BMP implementation at 24%n BUA is
completely inadequate and will not protect water quality. Well documented scientific
studies have found that sensitive waters begin to lose uses and sensitive values decay
once built upon areas reach 10 percent.8 The Tar -Pam rule triggers implementation of
BMP's as 1 1% BUA, which PTRF agrees is adequate for unimpaired streams, and
waterways that do not have endangered or threatened aquatic species present. We further
understand that as the BUA increases so do the number of BMP's needed to comply with
nutrient reduction requirements. However, we continue to be concerned about several
issues:
No stormwater program looks at downstream effects, this must be addressed
6 Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for- a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995),
7 See also Sierra Chub v. Yrretter, 926 F.2d 429.438-39 (5`h Cir. 1991)(finding forest Service caused take of
endangered red -cockaded woodpecker by permitting logging practices near nesting colonies); Defenders of
Wildlife v. Administrator, is wd Protection Agency, 882 F.2d 1294, 1300-01 (8" Or.1989)(finding EPA
caused take of endangered species through its registration of pesticides for use by others).
s Booth, D., Urbanization and the natural drainage system -impacts, solutions and prognoses, NORTHWEST
ENVIRONMEN'rALJOURNAL. 7(1): 93-1 18 (1991); Hicks, A.L. and J.S. Larson., The Impact of Urban
Stormwater Runoff on Freshwater Wetlands and the Role of Aquatic Invertebrate Bioassessment, The
Environment Institute, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA (1997); Jones, R. and C. Clark, impact of
Watershed Urbanization on Stream Insect Communities, WATER Resources BULLETIN 15(4) (1987);
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Watershed Restoration SOurcebook, Department of
Environmental Programs, Washington, DC (1992).
13

■ The Tar -Pam rule does not require removal of 85% of TSS. For example, grass
swales comply with Tar -Pam rule to address N and P reductions but do not reach an
85% reduction of TSS.
■ BMPs designed for the I-yr, 24-hour storm event is inadequate in urban areas. The
City of Greenville wishes to strengthen their stormwater ordinance to require 2,5, or
10-year designs, because they recognize that the current requirements are insufficient
to protect against flooding and protect water quality.
■ Without a comprehensive or watershed program, water quality will not be protected.
■ In Rocky Mount and Nash County's jurisdiction, this NPDES permit applies, as well
as ORW for Swift Creek, Tar -Pamlico Stormwater rule, and WS-IV. In Greenville
and Pitt County's jurisdiction, the NPDES permit, Tar -Pamlico Stormwater rule,
Neuse Stormwater rule, and WS-IV all apply. This makes it extremely difficult to
implement and to enforce.
In Rocky Mount and Greenville's jurisdiction, Phase II is not necessarily the less
stringent stormwater program. For example, Phase 11 may impose a more stringent
requirement of treating the difference in pre- and post -development runoff for one
year, 24 hour storm (as opposed to just the first inch of runoff).
In Rocky Mount and Greenville's jurisdiction, Phase II requires an 85% reduction in
TSS, whereas the Tar -Pam rule does not. Therefore, the Tar -Pam rule does not ensure
compliance with the Phase I1 program or the Clean Water Act.
An effective stormwater rule would include the following:
i.) Countywide coverage
ii.) Consider downstream effects
iii.) Require implementation of all stormwater BMP's at 10% BUA
iv.) Require removal of TSS
v.) Require BMP's to be designed for the t0-year, 24 hour storm
In the Swift Creek watershed, the implementation of WRC's guidelines to protect
endangered mussels is essential to ensure the survival of the endangered dwarf wedge
mussel.
Because of the significant public interest evidenced by the vital issues raised in
the above comments, we also request a public hearing on the merits of granting these
proposed permits. As you know, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-215.1 requires DWQ to consider
all written requests for a public hearing made within thirty days following the notice of
intent to take action on a permit application and to grant such a request if there is
significant public interest. The permits will allow significant degradation of water
quality in the Swift Creek watershed and will have a significant effect on the survival of
the dwarf wedge mussel. DWQ should carefully weigh the effects of its permitting
decision before implementing lax stormwater controls in the habitat of the endangered
14

mussel. Considering the potential effects the permit may have on Swift Creek and more
specifically on the dwarf wedge mussel, we respectfully request that DWQ hold a public
hearing on the proposed NPDES stormwater permit for Wake County. ?
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on the permits. If you
have any questions please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
Mary Alsentzer
Executive Director
Pamlico -Tar River Foundation
Derb S. Carter, Jr.
Senior Attorney, SELC
Brianna Bond,
Associate Attorney, SELC
Heather Jacobs
Pamlico -Tar RIVERKEEPER D
Amy Pickle,
Staff Attorney, SELC
cc. Richard Hamilton, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Asheville Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
15

Pub ! ic- G4.+n h^a d o e to e-qt-7'-0 1 qt:� 2-l 'O
DEC 2 2 20134
DENR -_WATERQiIALkTY
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Bradley Bennett, Supervisor
Stormwater Permits Unit
Division of Water Quality
FROM: Maria Tripp, Northeast Coastal Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 20, 2004
SUBJECT: Draft NPDES Permit to Discharge Stormwater for City of Rocky Mount, Nash County,
North Carolina, NPDES Permit No. NCS000442.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended), the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), and North Carolina General Statutes
(G.S. 113-131 et seq.), and the North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 10I.0102.
The City of Rocky Mount has applied for a NPDES permit to discharge stormwater
runoff from their municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) into receiving waters Compass
Creek, Cowlick Creek, Goose Creek, Grape Branch, Hornbeam Branch, Little Cokey_Swamp,
Maple Creek., Stony Creek, Swift Creek, and their tributaries in the Tar River basin. jThere are
records of the Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) (FE, SE), Yellow lance (Elliptio
' r lanceolate) (FSC, SE), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) (FSC, SE), Yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa) (FSC, SE), Triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) (ST), Creeper (Strophitus
undulatus) (ST), Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata) (ST), Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio
roanokensis), (ST), Notched rainbow (Villosa_constricta) (SSC), and Carolina madtom_(Noturus
furiosus) (FSC, SSR) within the waters of Swift Creek. Stony Creek is on the State's 303(d) list
due to impaired biological integrity. The potential-stressors are unidentified.
Although the Phase II stormwater rules represent an appropriate baseline for proactively
addressing stormwater issues, we believe additional, more protective measures are appropriate and should
be required to preserve the existing uses and ecological integrity of North Carolina waters over the long-
term, k ' In wagers where federal threatened and endangered species are known to occur, the following
additional measures should be incorporated as permit conditions.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 • Fax: [phone]

NPDES Permit No. NCS000442 Page 2
City or Rocky Mount
December 20, 2004
I. Permits for new developments exceeding 6% imperviousness shall be required to include stormwater
controls designed to replicate and maintain the hydrographic condition at the site prior to the change
in landscape and at a minimum include provisions that satisfy WS II-HQW minimum standards
(WSII-HQW waters as precedent; Schueler 1994; Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Doll et al. 2000; Mallin
et al. 2000; May and Horner 2000; Stewart et al. 2000).
2. Infiltration practices (e.g., reduced road widths, rain gardens, parking lot bioretention areas, increased
sheet flow instead of ditching, and disconnect impervious areas) to maintain predevelopment
hydrographic conditions shall be emphasized over detention ponds. Condition information should
include the base flow for low flow conditions.
A 200-foot native; forested buffer on perennial streams and a 100-foot forested buffer on intermittent
streams, or the full extent of the 100-year floodplain, shall be required for new developments. If
wooded buffers do not exist, then these areas shall be revegetated or allowed to naturally revegetate
(so long as the area is pervious) to increase the functionality of a forested buffer. (Knutson and Naef
1997, and references therein; 200-foot buffers on Randleman Lake; 200-foot buffers associated with
protection of aquatic endangered species habitats required for Buckhorn Reservoir Expansion Project
in 1995 — City of Wilson).
4. Delineation of streams should be conducted for the municipal service area according to U. S. Arm% -
Corps of Engineers (USACOE) or N. C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) methodology, This
information can be found at htt ://h2o.enr.state.nc.ushigwetlands/strmfrm.html (accessed December
2004), Stream delineation should occur prior to site clearing activities including tree removal.
5. Commercial or residential development within the 100-year FEMA floodplain and jurisdictional
water floodplains should be prohibited and floodplains should be protected as undisturbed forested
areas.
Grassed swales shall be used in place of curb and gutter for new developments, except in areas with
>5% slope. Check dams, level spreaders, and other associated best management practices shall be
used to minimize the effect of stormwater runoff entering the riparian buffer areas. In areas where
slopes exceed 5%, stormwater collected in piped conveyance systems shall be directed away from
surface waters and best management practices shall be employed at both the intake and the outlet
areas.
7. Direct discharges of stormwater to streams should not be allowed. Effective energy dissipation at the
pipe outlet shall be accomplished to prevent scour of the stream channel and buffer. The ditching or
piping of stormwater except when used in combination with grassed swales, level spreaders and
check dams shall not be allowed in the riparian buffer. At no time should any mandated vegetated
buffer zone be used for these engineered devices.
8. Sewer lines, water lines, and other utility infrastructure should be kept out of riparian buffer areas
(Knutson and Naef 1997; and references therein). Where practicable, utilities should follow the
contours along the edge of floodplains. All utility crossings should be kept to a minimum and the
directional bore (installation of utilities beneath the riverbed, avoiding impacts to the stream and
buffer) stream crossing method should be used for utility crossings wherever practicable. A
minimum I00-200 feet setback on all streams, lakes, and wetlands should be maintained. Pesticides
should not be used for maintenance of rights -of -way within 200 feet of perennial streams and 100 feet
of intermittent streams, or within floodplains and wetlands associated with these streams.

NPDES Permit No. NCS000442 Page 3 December 20, 2004
City of Rocky Mourd
9. Local governments shall encourage and offer incentives for new developments; as part of the
subdivision review process, to use low impact development technique for stormwater control (Low
Impact Development; EPA Document # 841— B-00-002 and 84 1 -B-00-003), and reduce impediments
to implementing the plan. Proposed projects that are subject to NCEPA review shall identify as a part
of the subdivision review process anticipated impervious surface amounts prior to plat approval.
10. Municipalities should incorporate the elements listed below into their erosion and sediment control
plans (see Brown and Caraco 2000 for additional information).
a) Minimize clearing and grading.
b) Protect waterways by preventing clearing adjacent to waterways, and stabilize drainage ways.
c) Phase construction for larger construction sites (>25 acres).
d) Stabilize soils as rapidly as possible (<2 weeks).
e) Protect steep slopes, and avoid clearing or grading existing steep slopes as much as possible.
f) Establish appropriate perimeter controls.
g) Employ advanced settling devices.
h) Implement a certified contractors program.
i) Perform regular inspection of erosion control measures, and sediment control devices.
11. In addition to the items listed above, locally enforced stringent erosion and sedimentation control
requirements shall be developed and implemented for all construction. The development of these
requirements shall be fully coordinated with the state and federal agencies involved in aquatic
endangered species protection. These measures shall be state -of -the -science and significantly exceed
state minimum requirements for sediment and erosion control. Local ordinances shall be developed
to prevent agricultural or forestry exemptions from turning into development opportunities.
12. Developers and builders, including land -clearing operators, shall be required to participate in a local
government stormwater and sediment erosion control education program. Certification and bonding
is recommended.
13. Conservation Reserve Program lands and restoration of prior converted wetlands shall be encouraged
to help manage overall stormwater impacts as part of a regional integrated stormwater management
plan.
14. The local government shall solicit assistance and concurrence from resource agencies such as
NCDWQ, N. C. Division of Land Resources, NCWRC, N. C. Natural Heritage Program, and USFWS
during the initial development and assessment of best management practices for stornnwater
management, sediment and erosion control, utility placement, etc.
15. The local government shall provide an environmental check -off list that a developer must complete
before the issuance of development approvals or any land disturbance, including timbering, to ensure
protection of aquatic habitats for threatened and endangered species and that proper state and federal
permits have been obtained. This shall preclude the issuance of any subdivision plan, building, and
utility permits without inclusion of pertinent protective measures. This process shall ensure that land
clearing does not occur without a site plan, including erosion control.
16. A watershed impact evaluation board shall be established to review projects within the service area
with aquatic, endangered species. The board would ensure compliance, preview infrastructure and
development plans, and be eligible to seek funding for conservation initiatives designed to protect and
preserve aquatic, endangered species.

NPDES Permit No. NCS000442 Page 4 December 20, 2004
City of Rocky Mount
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this draft permit. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact our office at [phone].
Literature cited.
Arnold, C. L., and C. J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage—thc emergence of a key
environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243-258.
Brown, W., and D. Caraco. 2000. Muddy water in - muddy water out? Watershed Protection Techniques
2(3):393-403.
City of Wilson. 1995. EIS for the Buckhorn Reservoir Expansion.
Doll, B. A., D. E. Wise -Frederick, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, and R. E. Smith.
2000. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the piedmont of North
Carolina. Pages 299-304 in P. J. Wigington, Jr, and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi -land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
Knutson, K. L., and V. L. Nae£ 1997, Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats:
riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Mallin, M. A., K. E. Williams, E. C. Esham, and R. P. Lowe. 2000. Effect of human development on
bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10(4):1047-1056,
May, C. W. and R. R. Homer. 2000. The cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization on stream -
riparian ecosystems. Pages 281-286 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi -land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. ] (3):100-111.
Stewart, J. S., D. M. Downes, L. Wang, J. A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian
corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209-214 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and
R. L. Beschta, cds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International
Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi -land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.

Pk,4bL Cd*m~r c?�oeuazc4'700 GQnfrd1 7:24i
CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT °Lt'`' I WORKS
""'rrr S
PUBLIC w
November 23, 2004
Ken Pickle
Permit Writer
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject:: NPDES Permit Number NCS000442, City of Rocky Mount
Dear Mr. Pickle:
Enclosed, please find the City of Rocky Mount comments on the Draft Phase II NPDES permit and a marked up
copy of the draft permit indicating areas where the City would like to she changes to the permit language.
Sincerely,
William "Brad" Kerr
Asst. Public Works Director
cc: Doug Roberson, PE, Director of Public Works
One Government Puri • Post Office Sox 1180• R(wky Mount, North Carolina 27802-1180
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • Wehsite: www.ci.rocky-nuiuut.uc.0

• Page 2 January 21, 2005
NPDES Permit Number NCS000442, City of Rocky Mount
Comments on Draft Permit
Comment 1. Part II, Section C
Language in item c) needs to provide more flexibility. It appears to require establishment of a permanent
standing advisory panel. The City of Rocky Mount, in keeping with past practice, intends to seek feedback on
the annual report and Stormwater Management Plan through the City Council Committee of the Whole meetings.
When specific policy changes or major initiatives dictate a need for additional outreach and/or input, the city will
consider establishment of a stakeholders group tasked with addressing the item of concern. This same
stakeholder process was used when developing the stormwater utility and updates to the stormwater design
manual.
Comment 2: Part II, Section D
Illicit Discharge Schedule needs to be modified as noted to be consistent with the City of Rocky Mounts Tar -
Pamlico Nutrient Management Plan which calls for dry weather screening of 10% of the jurisdiction per year to
start with the identified highest priority area in 2007. (Year 3 assuming approval of permit in early 2005).
Comment 3: Part II, Section E
Erosion control provisions of this permit shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the local
program delegation authority granted to the City of Rocky Mount by the Environmental Management
Commission. The City will rely on NCDENR Land Quality Section to administer these provisions within the ETJ.
Comment 4: Part II, Section F
The City of Rocky Mount intends to regulate post development controls in accordance with the provisions of the
Nutrient Management Program and Post -Development ordinance approved by the EMC in September 2004 and
the provisions of the Water Supply Watershed protection ordinance. Items (a), (b) and (d) are already being
implemented under this plan and ordinance.
Comment 5: Part II, Section G
The City is proposing an adjustment to the implementation of this program to more closely coincide with the
implementation schedule for the illicit discharge program and to provide time to fully implement other provisions
of the program.
Comment 6: Part III
The City would like to use the same annual report for compliance with Tar -Pamlico and NPDES and would prefer
that that these reports be submitted at the same relative time.
Comment 7: Part V, Section A
The City is concerned that items 2 and 3 of Part V, Section A could be construed to hold the City liable for an illicit
discharge from facilities not operated by the City.

0 Page 3
January 21, 2005
Comment 8: General Comment
The individual permit issued to Rocky Mount appears to be essentially the same document as the General
Permit except that the implementation schedule is included as and integral part of City's permit. If the
implementation schedule for each element were to be referenced as the stormwater management plan rather
than within the permit it would appear that the City would be covered under a General Permit subject to General
Permit fees

F �N A TF Michael F. Easley, Governor
`O�O RQG William G. Ross Jr., secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DW� Alan W. Klimck, Y. E. Director
�_• )W; Division of Water Quality
p Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Vi� Division of Water Quality
November 8.2004
Doug Roberson, Director of Public Works
POB 1 180
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Subject: NPDES Permit Number NCS000442
City of Rocky Mount
Dear Mr. Roberson:
On July 12, 2004 the North Carolina General Assembly ratified Senate Bill 1210 (S 1210)
- Phase H Stormwater Management. The Governor signed the bill on August 2, 2004. This bill
addresses implementation of the federal NPDES Phase 11 stormwater program in North Carolina.
1n S 1210, the General Assembly provided a framework that will allow state and local
government agencies to begin implementing the program. The bill establishes minimum
stormwater management requirements for municipal storm sewer systems and also applies
stormwater controls to some developing areas around these municipalities.
Phase 11 Draft permits for local governments were publicly noticed the week of
November 1, 2004 for those communities identified in the 1990 U.S. Census. Your community's
permit has been noticed and copies of the draft permit are available at:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/phase2_draft_permits,htm
We look forward to receiving your comments on this draft permit and continuing to work
together for the benefit of your community and North Carolina. All comments and request
should reference draft permit number NCS000442. Please provide your comments by Friday,
December 10, 2004. If you have any questions about this draft permit don't hesitate to contact
me at [phone], ext. 584.
Sincerely,
Ken Pickle
cc: Stormwater Permitting Unit
Raleigh Regional Office
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone]
l
WC-DENR
Customer service
1-877-623-6748

micnav r. tavey, taovemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Emrtronment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
DMsion of Water Quality
DATE: October 27, 2004
TO: EVENING TELEGRAM
NUMBER: 252-446-7068
FROM: MIKE RANDALL, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
SUBJECT: PUBLIC NOTICE
PAGES: 1
On July 12, 2004 the North Carolina General Assembly ratified Senate Bill 1210 (S1210) - Phase It
Stormwater Management. The Governor signed the bill on August 2, 2004. This bill addresses
implementation of the federal NPDES Phase II stormwater program in North Carolina. In S1210, the
General Assembly provided a framework that will allow state and local government agencies to begin
implementing the program. The bill establishes minimum stormwater management requirements for
municipal storm sewer systems and also applies stormwater controls to some developing areas around
these municipalities.
The Division has received submittals from 113 municipalities and 25 counties. Submittals include
applications for permit coverage, requests for waivers from coverage and certifications that the local
governments do not own/operate a storm sewer system.
S1210 requires the Division to have draft permits for local governments ready for notice by November 1,
2004 for those communities identified in the 1990 U.S. Census.
Please publish only the information (Public Notice) below, ONE TIME in the legal section of your
paper during the week of November 1A, 2004.
PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
The City of Rocky Mount has applied for an NPDES Phase It Stormwater Permit to discharge stormwater
from their municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) located within the City of Rocky Mount
jurisdictional area, Nash and Edgecombe Counties, to receiving waters, Compass Creek, Cowlick Creek,
Goose Creek, Grape Branch, Hombeam Branch, Little Cokey Swamp, Maple Creek, Stony Creek, Swift
Creek, and unnamed tributaries to them, all within the Tar River Basin.
Copies of the draft permit, No. NCS000442, are available at
httoalh2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/phase2 draft�permits.htm or by contacting:
Ken Pickle
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Telephone Number: [phone], extension 584
[e-mail]
All comments and request should reference draft permit number NCS000442.
ICI /. �....— 4 &4 9 a V.l P--4-- 11-I-:-L \I/+ .Y 4-[.--..--

WA7'E Michael F. Easley, Governor
RQG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
G] Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Director
Division of Water Quality
.0 Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
September 28, 2004
Doug Roberson, Director of Public Works
One Government Plaza
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802
Subject: NPDES Permit Number NCS000442
City of Rocky Mount
Dear Mr. Roberson:
Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft Phase II NPDES
Stormwater Permit for the City of Rocky Mount. Following an appropriate public
notice and comment period, we anticipate this permit will become effective in the
4th quarter of 2004.
We believe that this draft permit will provide your community with the
flexibility vital for your community, while at the same time safeguarding and
protecting our natural environment for future generations of North Carolinians.
We look forward to receiving your comments on this draft permit and
continuing to work together for the benefit of your community and North
Carolina. Please provide your comments by Friday, October 15, 2004. You will
also have an opportunity to submit comments during the public comment period
in November, 2004. If you have any questions about this draft permit please
contact me at [phone], ext. 584.
Sincerely,
Ken Pickle
Permit Writer
cc: Stormwater Permitting Unit
Raleigh Regional Office
W:A
WC-D 3
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 [phone]
Customer Service
1-877-623.6748

Rocky Mount MS4 Review, NCS000442
May 20, 2004
KBP
Background
The City of Rocky Mount reports 56,800 permanent residents. The town is in Nash and Edgecombe
Counties and the City's MS4 drains into the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. The jurisdictional area is 46.4
square miles and the MS4 area served is 36.4 square miles. Land use is reported as 33.45%
residential, 7.97% industrial, 35.68% open, and 22.9% commercial. The application reports nine
primary receiving waters, but does not classify them. The responsibilities for elements of the
Stormwater Management Program Plan fall to the City Manager, the Director of Public Works, and
numerous city staff and contractors.
Application review
a) The four -page permit application has been signed and sufficiently completed. OK
b) Section 10 Public Education - Sufficient content (year one actions, minorities and
disadvantaged included by virtue of targeting schools, educational program, utility mail
outs, PLUS newpapers, TV, Keep America Beautiful, presence at special events.) No web
site included, but other methods sufficient to satisfy Public Education requirement. OK
c) Section 11 Public Involvement - Sufficient content (notice requirement for public meeting,
public meeting.) The city has met the absolute minimum. However, it appears that they
may have misunderstood that the objective is to get volunteer citizen participation. OK,
but transmittal letter to suggest the volunteer aspect expected in this program.
d) Section 12 Illicit Discharges - Sufficient content (develop program, establish ordinance,
mapping, enforcement provisions, inspections, training, PLUS telephone and internet hot
lines, public education.) OK
e) Section 13 Construction Site Runoff - Sufficient content (reliance on the City's delegated
Sediment and Erosion Control program within city limits, reliance on DLR program in ETJ.)
OK
f) Section 14 Post Construction Management - Sufficient content (The city already has a
watershed protection area and will be subject to the Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Management
Strategy, and further commits to meet the additional requirements of the Post
Construction program.) OK
g) Section 15 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping - Sufficient content (training on
O&M for the collection system, municipal operations inventory provided, PLUS used oil
recycling program for city operations.) OK
h) Staffing and budget - Sufficient. The Stormwater Management Program Plan activities are
spread out to various departments and staff. The Plan recognizes a need to hire or
contract for several other tasks within the Plan. Rocky Mount's staffing and division of
responsibility seems appropriate. No budget information is provided. OK
i) Timing - Sufficient. Some public education BMPs start in the first year. Other minimum
measures are timely. OK
j) Measurable goals - Sufficient. OK
k) The Plan is consistent with the temporary rules in effect at the time of submittal
and the instructions provided with the application form. Plan approvable as is.
September 7, 2004 subsequent review of Rocky Mount's MS4 Stormwater Management Program Plan
against the final provisions of Session Law 2004-163 and the Stormwater Management Rule (SMR):
OK. Plan is consistent with the Law and the SMR. Plan is approvable as is.
September 8, 2005 final permit prepared for signature incorporating selected comments from the
public comment period and from the City of Rocky Mount. The annual report due date was set to
coincide with the Tar Pam nutrient management program report, October 30. Permit effective date
October 1, .2005.
END

O�O� W A
7
� r
Doug Roberson
Director of Public Works
City of Rock! Mount
P.O. Box 1180
Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27802-1180
Doug Roberson:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
March 13, 2003
Subject: NPDES Phase II Stormwater Program
Application for discharge permit
Application Number NCS000442
Nash County
The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater and General Permits Unit hereby acknowledges receipt of
your NPDES Phase II Stormwater permit application package on March 11, 2003. The submitted package
contained the required form SWU-264, comprehensive stormwater program narrative, and $715.00
application fee.
A preliminary review of your application package has been conducted and it appears to be complete. No
further information is required at this time. This application has been assigned application number
NCS000442. Please include this number with all future correspondence.
If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Mr. Darren England at telephone number
[phone], extension 545.
Sincerely,
Bradley Bennett
Stormwater & General Permits Unit
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699.1617 [phone]
NCDEN
Customer Service
1 800 623-7748

Permit orocessin summaryand public comments record
The City of Rocky Mount, NCS000442
KBP
1. Application dated 3/10/03, received at DWQ 3/11/03.
2. Permit writer's review 5/20/04, rev. 9/7/04.
3. Advance courtesy copy of permit sent to Rocky Mount 9/28/04.
4. 11/1/04 public notice of draft permit published. Publication confirmed by affidavit.
5. 11/8/04 written notice to Rocky Mount of public notice of draft permit.
6. 11/23/04 comments from Rocky Mount on the draft permit. Public comment
document control number 209. Comments as follows.
a. Part II.C.2(c) - request more flexibility and avoidance of permanent standing
Citizens Advisory Panel.
b. Part II.E. -- clarifying note that Rocky Mount will rely on its own, delegated
DLR program. And further, that RM will rely on the DLR program,
administered by DLR, in the ET].
c. Part II.F. - RM intends to regulate post -development controls in accordance
with the Nutrient Management Program and Post -Development ordinance
approved by the EMC in September 2004, and the provisions of the Water
Supply Watershed protection ordinance.
d. Part II.G. - request schedule adjustment to coincide with illicit discharge
program efforts.
e. Part III. - request avoid duplication of reporting effort for Tar -Pamlico and
Phase II annual reports, with concurrent submittal dates.
f. Part V.A.2. and 3. - RM concerned that these two provisions could be
construed to hold RM liable for an illicit discharge from facilities not operated
by RM.
g. General comment - RM's permit seems so similar to the General Permit that
the only significant difference appears to be in the annual fee.
7. RRO sign -off on the draft permit not received.
8. 12/20/04 comments from NC Wildlife Resources Commission, public comment
document control number 210. NCWRC comments were not keyed to specific
enumerated sections of the draft permit. NCWRC suggests the following
modifications to the permit for areas draining to Swift Creek, and perhaps Stony
Creek.
a. 6% low density threshold; maintain pre-existing hydrographic conditions;
WS-II minimum standards.
b. Prefer infiltration practices over detention ponds.
c. 200' forested buffer on perennials, 100' forested buffer on intermittents, or
100-year floodplain for new developments.
d. Delineation of streams per USACOE or DWQ methodology.
e. Prohibit most development in the 100-year floodplain.
f. Replace curb & gutter with grassed swales where s < 5%.
g. No direct discharge of stormwater; no control structures in buffers.
h. Protect riparian buffers from utility infrastructure; 100' - 200' setback; no
pesticides.
i. Local governments should facilitate the implementation and approval of LID
techniques.
j. Municipalities should increase constraints on construction activities for
increase sediment control.
k. Municipalities should implement state-of-the-art construction site controls,
rather than just state minimums.
I. Mandatory contractor education programs.

m. Encourage the Conservation Reserve Program.
n. The local government shall seek guidance from various state agencies during
selection of BMPs for its program.
o. Implement an additional early permitting process for development activities,
including timbering.
p. Establish a watershed impact evaluation board to review and approve
projects.
9. 12/30/04 comments from the Pamlico -Tar River Foundation and the Southern
Environmental Law Center, public comment document control #211. Comments
were not keyed to specific enumerated sections of the draft permit. SELC and PTRF
commented as follows.
a. SELC and PTRF offer numerous comments to the effect that the DWQ's Phase
II program does not comply with EPA rules, the Clean Water Act, and other
requirements in rule or law. Those comments on the program, as distinct
from comments on RM's draft permit NCS000442, are not repeated in this
permit comments review summary.
b. Conditions and limitations in the draft permit are inadequate to ensure
compliance with water quality standards.
c. Issuance of the permit may cause DWQ to violate the Endangered Species
Act.
d. Lacking access to RM's Stormwater Management Report (an enforceable part
of the permit), the public has not been able to conduct an effective review of
the permit.
e. The draft permit does not reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum
extent practicable, does not protect water quality, and does not satisfy the
Clean Water Act. The draft permit does not require post -construction
measures that minimize water quality impacts, and does not attempt to
maintain pre -development runoff conditions, all as required by applicable rule
and law.
f. RM's draft permit does not contain adequate measures to protect the existing
uses of the Tar River, Stony Creek, and Swift Creek as endangered mussel
habitats.
g. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission has identified measures necessary to
avoid adverse impacts from stormwater, including, in part, 100' and 200'
buffers and a 711/o imperviousness limitation. RM's final permit must include
these measures.
h. DWQ must modify RM's permit to require the more stringent measures
recommended by WRC, including the buffers and the 7% built upon area
trigger identified above.
i. SELC and PTRF request a public hearing on the permit.
10. 12/31/04 public comment period expires.
11. 9/8/05 final permit prepared for signature with an effective date of October 1, 2005.

Permit processing summary and public comments record
The City of Rocky Mount, NCS000442
KBP
1. Application dated 3/10/03, received at DWQ 3/11/03.
2. Permit writer's review 5/20/04, rev. 9/7/04.
3. Advance courtesy copy of permit sent to Rocky Mount 9/28/04.
4. 11/1/04 public notice of draft permit published.
5. 11/8/04 written notice to Rocky Mount of public notice of draft permit.
6. 11/23/04 comments from Rocky Mount on the draft permit. Public comment
l document control number 209. Comments as follows.
a. Part ILC.2(c) - request more flexibility and avoidance of permanent standing
,q r��nnfC t� Lo+nA+K�t Citizens Advisory Panel.
b. ParOI.E. -- clarifying note that Rocky Mount will rely on its own, delegated
DLR program. And further, that RM will rely on the DLR program,
administered by DLR, in the ETJ.
c. Part IIF. - RM intends to regulate post -development controls in accordance
with the�Nutrient Management Program and Post -Development ordinance
approved\by the EMC in September 2004, and the provisions of the Water
Supply Watershed protection ordinance.
d. Part II.G. request schedule adjustment to coincide with illicit discharge
program efforts.
e. Part III. - request avoid duplication of reporting effort for Tar -Pamlico and
Phase II annual\reports, with concurrent submittal dates.
f. Part V.A.2. and 3. - RM concerned that these two provisions could be
construed to hold\ liable for an illicit discharge from facilities not operated
by RM.
g. General comment - RM's permit seems so similar to the General Permit that
the only significant difference appears to be in the annual fee.
7. RRO sign -off on the draft permit not received.
8. 12/20/04 comments from NC Wildlife Resources Commission, public comment
document control number 210. NCWRC comments were not keyed to specific
enumerated sections of the draft permit. NCWRC suggests the following
modifications to the permit for areas draining to Swift Creek, and perhaps Stony
Creek.
i eY rue) /J
eAe,,�
v/l,"5°
e
a. 6% low density threshold; maintain pre-existing hydrographic conditions;
WS-II minimum standards.
b. Prefer infiltration practices over detention ponds.
c. 200' forested buffer on perennials, 100'\forested buffer on intermittents, or
100-year floodplain for new developments
d. Delineation of streams per USACOE or DWQ methodology.
e. Prohibit most development in the 100-year floodplain.
f. Replace curb & gutter with grassed swales where s < 5%.
g. No direct discharge of stormwater; no control structures in buffers.
h. Protect riparian buffers from utility infrastructure; 100' - 200' setback; no
pesticides.
i. Local governments should facilitate the implement tion and approval of LID
techniques.
j. Municipalities should increase constraints on construc ion activities for
increase sediment control.
k. Municipalities should implement state-of-the-art constru tion site controls,
rather than just state minimums. \
1. Mandatory contractor education programs.

m. Encourage the Conservation Reserve Program.
n. The local government shall seek guidance from various state agencies during
selection of BMPs for its program.
o. Implement an additional early permitting process for development activities,
including timbering.
p. Establish a watershed impact evaluation board to review and approve
projects.
9. 12/30/04 comments from the Pamlico -Tar River Foundation and the Southern
Environmental Law Center, public comment document control #211. Comments
were not keyed to specific enumerated sections of the draft permit. SELL and PTRF
commented as follows.
a. SELC and PTRF offer numerous comments to the effect that the DWQ's Phase
II program does not comply with EPA rules, the Clean Water Act, and other
requirements in rule or law. Those comments on the program, as distinct
from comments on RM's draft permit NCS000442, are not repeated in this
permit comments review summary.
b. Conditions and limitations in the draft permit are inadequate to ensure
compliance with water quality standards.
c. Issuance of the permit may cause DWQ to violate the Endangered Species
Act.
d. Lacking access to RM's Stormwater Management Report (an enforceable part
of the permit), the public has not been able to conduct an effective review of
the permit.
�rLA 6u�
e. The draft permit does not reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum
nrh
extent practicable, does not protect water quality, and does not satisfy the
Clean Water Act. The draft permit does not require post -construction
a�
measures that minimize water quality impacts, and does not attempt to
0 f
maintain pre -development runoff conditions, all as required by applicable rule
and law.
r�l�
f. RM's draft permit does not contain adequate measures to protect the existing
r^'�r
�er
uses of the Tar River, Stoney Creek, and Swift Creek as endangered mussel
habitats.
g. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission has identified measures necessary to
avoid adverse impacts from stormwater, including, in part, 100' and 200'
buffers and a 7% imperviousness limitation. RM's final permit must include
these measures.
h. DWQ must modify RM's permit to require the more stringent measures
recommended by WRC, including the buffers and the 7% built upon area
trigger identified above.
i. SELC and PTRF request a public hearing on the permit.
10. 12/31/04
public comment period expires.

w A
c
O 'C
THE CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT
STEPHEN RAPER, CITY MANAGER
P.O. BOX 1180
ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27802-1180
Stephen Raper:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
11/6/2002
Subject: NPDES Phase II Stormwater Program
In 1990 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Phase I stormwater program was promulgated under the
Clean Water Act. Phase I relies on National Pollutant discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage to
address stormwater runoff from: (1) "medium" and "large" municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) generally
serving populations of 100,000 or greater, (2) construction activity disturbing 5 acres of land or greater, and (3) ten
categories of industrial activity. The NPDES Stormwater Phase 1I Final Rule was promulgated in December 1999 and is
the next step in EPA's effort to preserve, protect, and improve the Nation's water resources from polluted storm water
runoff. The Phase II program expands the Phase I program by requiring additional operators of MS4s in urbanized areas
and operators of smal l construction sites, through the use of NPDES permits, to implement programs and practices to
control stormwater runoff. Phase II is intended to further reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat by
instituting the use of controls on the unregulated sources of stormwater discharges that have the greatest likelihood of
causing continued environmental degradation.
The NPDES Stormwater Phase It Final Rule requires nationwide coverage of all operators of small MS4s that are
located within the boundaries of a Bureau of the Census defined "urbanized area" based on the latest decennial Census.
We are writing to you to remind you that the City of Rocky Mount has been identified as being located within a census
designated urbanized area in both the 1990 and 2000 decennial census. As a regulated community, you are required to
develop a stormwater management program and apply for stormwater permit coverage, if you own and operate a small
MS4 or file a certification that the City of Rocky Mount does not own or operate a small MS4. The deadline for
submitting your application package or non -ownership certification is March 10, 2003. Application and certification
documents, as well as additional information on the NPDES stormwater program, are available for download at our web
site . Our web address is http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/su/stormwater.hIm1. You may also contact us for hard copies of the
documents. If you have any questions about this letter, please feel free to contact me (919-733-5083, ext.525) or Darren
England (9I9-733-5083, ext. 545)
Sincerely,
Bradley Bennett, Supervisor
Stormwater and General Permits Unit
cc: Central Files
Stormwater and General Permits Unit Files
Raleigh Regional Office
N. C. Division of Water Quality ,1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone]
ern
NCDENR
Customer Service
1-800-623-7748

NCS000442
STATE of NORTH CAROLI.NA
DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION of WATER QUALITY
PERMIT NO. NCS000442
TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER UNDER THE
NATIONAII POLLUTANTDISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of North Carolina Genera,tatut 14-215.1, other lawful
standards and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Jn.Vironmental
Management Commission, and the Federal Water Poll ution.Control Acts amended,
City of Rocky M01-I ff
is hereby authorized to discharge stormwater from their munici rI separate storm sewer system
located: f,/ AV %%—
within the Cit
t Jurisdictional Area
Nash nd:Edgc"co be Counties
ti
to receiving waters Compass Creek, CowlicklC�ek, Goose Creek, Grape Branch, Hornbeam
Branch, Little Cokey Swamp, Maple Creck,IStony Creek, Swift Creek, and unnamed tributaries
to them, all within the Tar River basntin accordance with the discharge limitations, monitoring
requirements, and other conditions sc"('fOT-th in Parts I, 11, I1_I, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII hereof.
This permit shall become effective Month Day, Year.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight on Month Day, Year.
Signed this day Month Day, Year.
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

f
NCS000442
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I PERMIT COVERAGE
PART II FINAL LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS FOR PERMITTED DISCHARGES
SECTION A: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
SECTION B: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
SECTION C: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
SECTION D: ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION
SECTION E: CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROLS
SECTION F: POST -CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROLS
SECTION G: POLLUTION PREVENTION AND GOOD HOUSEKEEPING FOR
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
PART III PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
PART IV REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
PART V STANDARD CONDITIONS
SECTION A: COMPLIANCE AND LIABILITY
SECTION B: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
SECTION C: MONITORING AND RECORDS
PART VI LIMITATIONS REOPENER
PART VII ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE
REQUIREMENTS
PART VIII DEFINITIONS

NCS000442
PART I PERMIT COVERAGE
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until
expiration, the City of Rocky Mount is authorized to discharge stormwater from the
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) to receiving waters Compass Creek,
Cowlick Creek, Goose Creek, Grape Branch, Hornbeam Branch, Little Cokey Swamp,
Maple Creek, Stony Creek, Swift Creek, and unnamed tributaries to them, all within the
Tar River Basin. Such discharge will be controlled, limited and monitored in accordance
with the permittee's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program Report, herein
referred to as the Stormwater Plan. The Stormwater Plan includes components of the
permittee's Phase II Municipal NPDES Stormwater Permit Application, Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Program Report, and any approved modifications.
2. All discharges authorized herein shall be adequately managed in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this permit. Any other point source discharge to surface waters
of the state is prohibited unless it is an allowable non-stormwater discharge or is covered
by another permit, authorization, or approval.
3. This permit does not relieve the permittee from responsibility for compliance with any
other applicable federal, state, or local law, rule, standard, ordinance, order, judgment, or
decree.
4. This permit covers activities associated with the discharge of stormwater from the MS4
within the jurisdictional area of the permittee and surrounding areas as described in the
approved local Stormwater Plan to control potential pollution from the MS4. The permit
applies to current and future jurisdictional areas of the permittee, as well as areas that
seek coverage under this permit through inter -local or other similar agreements with the
permittee. Agreements i'or coverage under this permit must be approved by the Division
of Water Quality, herein referred to as the Division.
The Division may deny or revoke coverage under this permit for separate entities and may
require independent permit coverage as deemed necessary. In addition, the permittee may
petition the Division to revoke or deny coverage under this permit for specific entities.
6. Under the authority of Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act Lind implementing
regulations 40 CFR Part 122, 123 and 124, North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.1
and Session Law 2004-163 and in accordance with the approved Stormwater Plan, all
provisions contained and referenced in the Stormwater Plan are enforceable parts of this
permit. The permittee will develop and implement its approved Stormwater Plan in
accordance with Section 402(p)(3)(B) of the Clean Water Act, provisions outlined by the
Director, and the provisions of this permit.
7. Discharges authorized under this permit shall not cause or contribute to violations of
water quality standards.
Part I Page 1 of 2

NCS000442
8. The permit authorizes the point source discharge of stormwater runoff from the MS4. In
addition, discharges of non-stormwater are also authorized through the MS4 of the
permittee if such discharges are:
(a) Permitted by, and in compliance with, another NPDES discharge permit including
discharges of process and non -process wastewater, and stormwater associated
with industrial activity; or
(b) Determined to be incidental non-stormwater flows that do not significantly impact
water quality and may include:
• water line flushing;
• landscape irrigation;
• diverted stream flows;
• rising groundwaters;
• uncontaminated groundwater infiltration;
• uncontaminated pumped groundwater;
• discharges from potable water sources;
• foundation drains;
• air conditioning condensate (commercial/residential);
• irrigation waters (does not include reclaimed water as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0200);
• springs;
• water from crawl space pumps;
• footing drains;
• lawn watering;
• residential car washing;
• flows from riparian habitats and wetlands;
• dechlorinated swimming pool discharges;
• street wash water;
• flows from emergency fire fighting.
The Division may require that non-stormwater flows of this type be controlled
by the permittee's Stormwater Plan.
Part I Page 2 of 2

NCS000442
PART II FINAL LIMITATIONS AND CONTROLS FOR PERMITTED
DISCHARGES
SECTION A: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The permittee will implement, manage and oversee all provisions of its Stormwater Plan to
reduce pollutants discharged from the MS4. This includes, but is not limited to, the following
areas:
The permittee will develop and maintain adequate legal authorities to implement all
provisions of the Stormwater Plan. The permittee will keep the Division advised of the
status of development of appropriate ordinances and legal authorities and will pursue
these authorities in accordance with the schedule outlined in the Stormwater Plan. Any
changes to the schedule must be approved by the Director.
2. The per-mittee's Stormwater Plan will be implemented and managed such that the
discharge of pollutants from the MS4 is reduced to the maximum extent practicable. It is
anticipated that in order to meet this provision, implementation of the Stormwater Plan
Will occur with emphasis given to priority areas and to management measures and
programs that are most effective and efficient at varying stages of the plan's
implementation.
3. The permittee will implement the appropriate components of the Stormwater Plan to
assure that, to the maximum extent practicable, illicit connections, spills, and illegal
dumping into the MS4 are prohibited.
4. The permittee will implement provisions of the Stormwater Plan as appropriate to
monitor Lind assess the performance of the various management measures that are a part
of the Stormwater Plan. This will include the provisions of this permit.
The permittee will maintain adequate funding and staffing to implement and manage the
provisions of the Stormwater Plan.
6. The permittee will implement appropriate education, training, outreach, and public
involvement programs to support the objectives of this Stormwater discharge permit and
the Stormwater Plan.
7. The permittee will implement a program to reduce pollution from construction site runoff
as described in the Stormwater Plan and in accordance with this permit.
8. The permittee will implement an appropriate post -construction site runoff control
program to regulate new development and redevelopment by requiring structural and non-
structural best management practices to protect water quality, to reduce pollutant loading,
and to minimize post -development impacts. This program will include provisions for
long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs.
Part Ii Page 1 of 12

N C S000442
9. The permittee will evaluate municipal operations and develop and implement an
appropriate program for municipal activities and ongoing operation and maintenance of
municipal facilities to reduce the potential for stormwater pollution.
10. Proposed permit modifications must be submitted to the Director for approval.
11. Within one year after receiving notice that the permitted MS4 is subject to an approved
TMDL, the permittee shall identify any stormwater outfalls that have the potential of
discharging the pollutant(s) of concern either to the impaired stream segment or to a
tributary of that stream segment and submit a monitoring plan for the pollutant(s) of
concern to the Division. The permittee shall submit information on the location of
outfalls with the potential for discharging the pollutant(s) of concern in the next
Stormwater Plan annual report due at least one year after notice of the TMDL.
Subsequent annual reports shall include the results of the monitoring. The Division will
consider the monitoring results in determining whether additional BMPs are needed to
control the pollutant(s) of concern to the maximum extent practicable. If additional
BMPs are needed to achieve the required level of control, the permittee will be required
to submit a timetable for incorporation of those BMPs into the permitted stormwater
program.
Part iI Page 2 of 12

NCS000442
SECTION B: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
1. ObJectives for Public Education and Outreach
(a) Distribute educational materials to the community.
(b) Conduct public outreach activities.
(c) Raise public awareness on the causes and impacts of stormwater pollution.
(d) Inform the public on steps they can take to reduce or prevent stormwater
pollution.
2. UNIPs for Public Education and Outreach
The permittce shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objectives of the Public
Education and Outreach Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification of any goals.
IRMP
Measurable Goals
YR
YR
YR
YR
Ylt
1
2
3
4
S
(a) Establish a Public
Develop a public education program and
X
X
X
X
X
Education and
implement within 12 months of the permit
Outreach Program
issue date. Incorporate outreach elements
for significant minority and disadvantaged
communities.
(b) Informational Web Site
Develop and maintain an internet web
X
X
X
X
X
site. Post newsletter articles on
stormwater, information on water quality,
stormwater projects and activities, and
ways to contact stormwater management
program staff.
(c) Public education
Develop general stormwater educational
X
X
X
X
X
materials for schools,
material targeting school children,
homeowners, and/or
homeowners and/or businesses.
businesses
(d) Public education
Distribute Wi-itten material through utility
X
X
X
X
X
material dissemination
mailouts, at special events, and at high
traffic businesses.
Part 11 Page 3 of' 12

NCS000442
SECTION C: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION
1. Objectives for Public Involvement and Participation
(a) Provide opportunities for the public to participate in prograrn development and
implementation.
(b) Reach out and engage major economic and ethnic groups.
(c) Comply with applicable state and local public notice requirements.
2. BMPs for Public Involvement and Participation
The permittee shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objectives of the Public
Involvement and Participation Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification of any
goals.
Measurable Goals
XR
YR
YR
•YR-
YR
_
41
2=
3
4.
5
(a) Administer- a Public
Conduct at least one public meeting to
X
X
X
X
X
Involvement Program
allow the public an opportunity to review
and comment on the Stormwater Plan.
(b) Organize a volunteer
Organize and implement a volunteer
X
X
X
X
X
community
stormwater related -program designed to
involvement program
promote on oing citizen 2articipation.
(c) Establish a Citizens
Establish a citizens advisory panel to
X
X
X
X
X
Advisory Panel
review the Stormwater Plan, to review the
annual report, and to advise the permittee
on the Stormwater Plan.
Part 11 Page 4 of 12

NCS000442
SECTION D: ILLICITDISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION
Objectives for Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
(a) Detect and eliminate illicit discharges, including spills and illegal dumping.
(b) Address significant contributors of pollutants to the MS4. The permittee may
require specific controls for a category of discharges, or prohibit that discharge
completely, if one or more of these categories ol'sources are identified as a
significant contributor of pollutants to the MS4.
(c) implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions.
(d) Develop a storm sewer system map showing all outfalls and waters receiving
discharges.
(e) Inform employees, businesses, and the general public of hazards associated with
illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste.
2. 13MPs for Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
The permittee shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objectives of the illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification of any
goals.
^fit :I3NHP
� sMeasu able Goals Xt,
YR'
YR
YRF
YR'"
-. Ye3" .=ds'- _
i.\.%w'c.re� .: k'i.."-"ii"a"^il,>•i -E':.r .; -.�1' .Y',�. .ilk
�d •;.,
+Y 2
- f_;.k
A'5Y.�'
(a) Develop/Implement
Develop and implement an Illicit
X
X
X
X
X
Illicit Discharge
Discharge Detection and Elimination
Detection and
Program. Include provisions for program
Elimination Program
assessment and evaluation.
(b) Establish and
Establish and maintain adequate legal
X
X
X
X
X
maintain appropriate
authorities to prohibit illicit discharges
legal authorities
and enforce the approved illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination Program.
(c) Develop a Storm
Complete identification, locations of, and
X
X
X
X
Sewer System Base
mapping of, stormwater drainage system
Map
components. At a minimum, mapping
components include outfalls, drainage
areas, and receiving? streams.
(d) Implement illicit
Implement an inspection program to
X
X
X
discharge detection
detect dry weather flows at system
procedures
outfalls. Establish procedures for tracing
the sources of illicit discharges and for
removing the sources. Develop procedures
for identification of priority areas likely to
have illicit discharges. Continue to update
the map of drainage system components
on a priority basis per the approved Illicit
Discharge Program.
Part 1.1 Page 5 of 12

NCS000442
1Vleasierable Goals
uYR
YR
gyGR
YR"
YIZ
z-,
s,x.: c•., :S Psi _ :: .�: .�°
.<: _,....az,„, �.r �°:. .'S �,' -,.. .xi-dam--.;:w:.
1.
6:. v
.
(e) Conduct employee
Conduct training for municipal staff on
X
X
X
X
X
cross -training
detecting and reporting illicit discharges.
(f) Provide public
Inform public employees, businesses, and
X
X
X
X
X
education
the general public of hazards associated
with illegal discharges and improper
disposal of waste.
(g) Establish a public
Establish and publicize a reporting
X
X
X
X
X
reporting mechanism
mechanism for the public to report illicit
dischar es.
Part II Page 6 of 12

NCS000442
SECTION E: CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROLS
1. Objectives for Construction Site Runoff Controls
(a) Reduce pollutants in storrnwater runoff from construction activities disturbing one
or more acres of land surface and those activities less than one acre that are part of
a larger common plan of development.
(b) Provide procedures for public input, sanctions to ensure compliance, requirements
for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment
control practices, for review of site plans which incorporates consideration of
potential water quality impacts, and procedures for site inspection and
enforcement of control measures.
(c) Establish requirements for construction site operators to control waste such as
discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and
sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water
quality.
2. i3M:Ps for Construction Site Runoff Controls
The permittee shall implement the following; BMPs to meet the objectives of the Construction
Site Runoff Controls Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification of any goals.
BM13
Measurable Goals
YR
1
YR
2
YR
3
YR
4
YR
5,.
(a) Implement a
Develop a regulatory mechanism and
X
X
X
X
X
program and
implement a program requiring erosion and
establish a
sediment controls at construction sites and
regulatory
providing for sanctions to ensure compliance.
mechanism for
Instead of originating a new program, the
erosion and
permittee has elected to comply by relying on
sediment control
its own delegated program within the city
limits, and the NCDENR Division of Land
Resources (DLR) Erosion and Sediment
Control Program within the ETJ. The
permittee may rely on the delegated DLR
program, and the DLR program (in the ETJ)
only to the extent that those programs satisfy
all of the following BMI's.
(b) Develop
Require construction site operators to
X
X
X
X
X
requirements on
implement erosion and sediment control BMPs
construction site
and to control construction site wastes that
operators
may cause adverse water quality impacts.
Part 11 Page 7 of 12

NCS000442
BMP`''
.. Measurable.Goals -
YR. _
YR
YR'
Y�R'
,�YR'.
1 _
2-
3•
.4 ..'5
(c) Provide
New materials may be developed by the
X
X
X
X
X
educational and
permittee, or the permittee may use materials
training materials
adopted from other programs and adapted to
for construction
the permittee's construction runoff controls
site operators
program.
(d) Institute plan
Review construction plans and establish
X
X
X
X
X
reviews
procedures that incorporate water quality
considerations in construction site plan
reviews.
(e) Establish public
Establish procedures for receipt and
X
X
X
X
X
information
consideration of erosion and sedimentation
procedures
information submitted by the public. Publicize
the procedures and contact information. The
procedures must lead directly to a site
inspection or other timely follow-up action.
(t) Establish
Establish procedures for site inspection and
X
X
X
X
X
inspection and
enforcement of control measure requirements.
enforcement
The procedures should include prioritizing
procedures
areas of inspections based on local criteria.
Part 1..1 Page 8 of 12

N C S 000442
SL+'C,1'ION F. POST -CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF CONTROLS
1. Objectives for Post -Construction Site Runoff Controls
(a) Manage stormwater runoff from new development / redevelopment that drains to
the MS4 and disturbs an acre or more of land surface, including projects less than
an acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale.
(b) Ensure long term operation and maintenance of BMPs.
(c) Ensure controls are in place to minimize water quality impacts.
2. BM.Ps for Post -Construction Site Runoff Controls
The permittee shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objectives of the Post -
construction Site Runoff Controls Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification of
any goals.
]BMP
'Measurable Goals
YR
YR
Yk
YR
YR
]
2
3
4
5
(a) Establish a Post-
Develop, adopt by ordinance (or similar
X
X
X
X
Construction Site
regulatory mechanism), implement, and
Runoff Controls
enforce a program to address stormwater
Program
runoff from new development and
redevelopment. The ordinance must be
reviewed and approved by the Director prior
to implementation. Ensure that controls are
in place to prevent or minimize water quality
impacts.
(b) Establish strategies
Develop and implement strategies that
X
X
X
X
which include BMPs
include a combination of structural and/or
appropriate for the
non-structural 13MPs. Ensure adequate long-
MS4
term operation and maintenance of structural
BMPs. Require annual inspection reports of
permitted structural BMPs performed by a
qualified professional.
(c) Establish a program to
Control the sources of fecal coliform to the
X
X
X
X
control the sources of
maxims rn extent practicable. Develop and
fecal coliform to the
implement an oversight program to ensure
maximum extent
proper operation and maintenance of on -site
practicable
wastewater treatment systems for domestic
wastewater. Municipalities must coordinate
this program with the county health
department.
Part 11 Page 9 of 12

NCS000442
BMP
Measurable Goals
YR
1.
YR
.2
YR
3
. YR
:4_
; YR
.5.
(d) Establish nutrient
Develop, adopt.. and implement an ordinance
X
X
X
X
sensitive waters (NSW)
(or- similar regulatory mechanism) to ensure
protection measures for
that the best management practice for
programs with
reducing nutrient loading is selected. In
development or
areas where the Environmental Management
redevelopment draining
Commission has approved a Nutrient
to NSW waters
Sensitive Water tJrban Stormwater
Management Program, the provisions of that
program fulfill the nutrient loading reduction
requirement. Develop and include a nutrient
application (fertilizer and organic nutrients)
management program in the Post -construction
Stormwater Management Program.
3. The evaluation of Post -construction Stormwater Management Program measures
(a) Those areas within the jurisdictional area of the permittee that are already subject
to the existing state stormwater management programs listed herein are deemed
compliant with the post -construction stormwater management model practices
identified in (b) below. The listed programs are: the Water Supply Watershed
protection programs for WS-I — WS-IV waters, the HQW and QRW waters
management strategies, the Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy, the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy, and the Randleman Lake Water Supply Watershed
program.
(b) Model Practices. For those areas within the jurisdictional area of the permittee
that are not subject to the post -construction stormwater management provisions of
another existing state stormwater management program, the permittee's Post -
construction Stormwater Management Program must equal or exceed the
stormwater management and water quality protection provided by the following
model practices.
(i) The permittee may issue a local stormwater management permit to a
development or redevelopment project as either a low density project or a
high density project.
(ii) A project may be permitted as a low density project if it meets the following
criteria:
(A) No more than two dwelling units per acre or 24%n built -upon area;
(B) Use of vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable;
(C) All built -upon areas are at least 30 feet landward of perennial and
intermittent surface waters; and,
(D) Deed restrictions and protective covenants are required by the
locally issued permit and incorporated by the development to
ensure that subsequent development activities maintain the
Pail it Page 10 of 12

NCS000442
development (or redevelopment) consistent with the approved
plans.
(iii) A project not consistent with the requirements for a low density project may
be permitted as a high density project if it meets the following requirements:
(A)The stormwater control measures must control and treat the
difference between the pre -development and post -development
conditions for the 1-year 24-hour storm. Runoff volume
drawdown time must be a minimum of 24 hours, but not more than
120 hours;
(B) All structural stormwater treatment systems must be designed to
achieve 85% average annual removal of total suspended solids;
(C) Stormwater management measures must comply with the General
.Engineering Design Criteria For Ali Projects requirements listed in
15A NCAC 2H .1008(c);
(D)AII built -upon areas are at least 30 feet landward of perennial and
intermittent surface waters; and,
(E) Deed restrictions and protective covenants are required by the
locally issued permit and incorporated by the development to
ensure that subsequent development activities maintain the
development (or redevelopment) consistent with the approved
plans.
(c) Watershed Protection Plans. Public bodies may develop and implement
comprehensive watershed protection plans that may be used to meet part, or all, of
the requirements for post -construction stormwater management.
(d) A regulated entity may develop its own comprehensive watershed plan, may use
the model ordinance developed by the Commission, may design its own post -
construction practices based on the Division's guidance and engineering standards
for best management practices, or it may incorporate the post -construction model
practices to satisfy, in whole or in part, the requirements for post -construction
stormwater management.
Part I I Page I l of 12

NCS000442
SECTION G. POLLUTION PREVENTION AND GOOD HOUSEKEEPING FOR
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
1. Objective for Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal
Operations
Prevent or reduce stormwater pollution from municipal operations.
2. BMPs for the Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal
Operations
The permittee shall implement the following BMPs to meet the objective of the Pollution
Prevention and Good Housekeeping Program and shall notify the Division prior to modification
of any goals.
BMP
Measurable Goals `
.YR...
YR
YR
YK
YR
1
.2;
3
4 +.
5.
(a) Develop an operation
Develop an operation and maintenance
X
X
X
X
X
and maintenance
program that has the ultimate goal of
program
preventing or reducing pollutant runoff
from municipal operations.
(b) Inspection and
Develop an inventory of all facilities and
X
X
X
X
X
evaluation of facilities
operations owned and operated by the
and operations
permittee with the potential for generating
polluted stormwater runoff. Specifically
inspect the potential sources of polluted
runoff, the stormwater controls, and
conveyance systems. Evaluate the sources,
document deficiencies, plan corrective
actions, and document the
accomplishment of corrective actions.
(c) Conduct staff training
Conduct staff training specific for
X
X
X
X
pollution prevention and good
housekeeping procedures.
(d) Review of municipally
Conduct an annual review of the industrial
X
X
X
X
X
owned or operated
activities with a Phase I NPDES
regulated industrial
stormwater permit owned and operated by
activities
the permittee. Specifically review the
following aspects: the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan where one is
required, the timeliness of any monitoring
reports required by the Phase I permit, and
the results of inspections and subsequent
follow-up actions at the facilities.
Part 11 Page 12 of 12

NCS000442
PART III PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
implementation of the Stormwater Plan will include documentation of all program
components that are being undertaken including, but not limited to, monitoring and
sampling, inspections, maintenance activities, educational programs, implementation of
BMPs, and enforcement actions. Documentation will be kept on -file by the permittee for
a period of five years and made available to the Director or his authorized representative
immediately upon request.
2. The permittee's Stormwater Plan will be reviewed and updated as necessary, but at least
on an annual basis. The permittee will submit a report of this evaluation and monitoring
information to the Division on an annual basis. This information will be submitted by
[Set date two months after permit year's end] of each year and cover the previous year's
activities from [Insert start date] to [Insert end date]. The permittee's reporting will
include appropriate information to accurately describe the progress, status, and results of
the permittee's Stormwater Plan and will include, but is not limited to, the following
components:
(a) The permittee will give a detailed description of the status of implementation of
the Stormwater Plan. This will include information on development and
implementation of all components of the Stormwater Plan for the past year and
schedules and plans for the year following each report.
(b) The permittee will adequately describe and justify any proposed changes to the
Stormwater Plan. This will include descriptions and supporting information for
the proposed changes and how these changes will impact the Stormwater Plan
(results, effectiveness, implementation schedule, etc.).
(c) The permittee will document any necessary changes to programs or practices for
assessment of management measures implemented through the Stormwater Plan.
In addition, any changes in the cost of, or funding for, the Stormwater Plan will be
documented.
(d) The permittee will include a summary of data accumulated as part of the
Stormwater Plan throughout the year along with an assessment of' what the data
indicates in light of the Stormwater Plan.
(e) The permittee will provide information on the annual expenditures and budget
anticipated for the year following each report along with an assessment of the
continued financial support for the overall Stormwater Plan.
{i) The permittee will provide a summary of activities undertaken as part of the
Stormwater Plan throughout the year. This summary will include, but is not
limited to, information on the establishment of appropriate legal authorities,
project assessments, inspections, enforcement actions, continued inventory and
Part III Page 1 of 2

NCS000442
review of the storm sewer- system, education, training, and results of the illicit
discharge detection and elimination program.
(g) The permittee will provide information concerning areas of water quality
improvement or degradation. Depending on the level of implementation of the
Stormwater Plan, this information may be submitted based on pilot studies,
individual projects, or on a watershed or sub -watershed basis.
3. The Director may notify the permittee when the Stormwater Plan does not meet one or
more of the requirements of the permit. Within 30 days of such notice, the permittee will
submit a plan and time schedule to the Director for modifying the Stormwater Plan to
meet the requirements. The Director may approve the corrective action plan, approve a
plan with modifications, or reject the proposed plan. The permittee will provide
certification in writing (in accordance with Part IV, Paragraph 2) to the Director that the
changes have been made. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the
Director's ability to conduct enforcement actions for violations of this permit.
4. The Division may request additional reporting information as necessary to assess the
progress and results of the permittee's Stormwater Plan.
Part III Page 2 of 2

NCS000442
PART IV REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
1. Monitoring Records
The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration
and maintenance records and all original chart recordings for continuous monitoring
instrumentation, and copies of all reports required by this permit for a period of at least
five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application. This period
may be extended by request of the Director at any time prior to the end of the five year
period.
2. Report Submittals
(a) Duplicate signed copies of all reports required herein, shall be submitted to the
following address:
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Stormwater Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
(b) All applications, reports, or information submitted to DWQ shall be signed by a
principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or duly authorized
representative. A person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a principal executive officer or
ranking elected official;
(ii) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having
responsibility for the overall operation of a regulated facility or activity or
an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental/stormwater matters: and
(iii) The written authorization is submitted to the Director.
M Any person signing a document under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall
make the following certification:
"1 certify, under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed
to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system,
or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
Part IV Page l of 3

NCS000442
information, including the possibility of fines and imprisonment for knowing
violations."
3. Recording Results
For each measurement, sample, inspection, or maintenance activity performed or
collected pursuant to the requirements of this permit, the permittee shall record the
following information:
(a) The dates, exact place, and time of sampling, measurements, inspection, or
maintenance activity;
(b) The individual(s) who performed the sampling, measurements, inspection, or
maintenance activity;
(c) The date(s) analyses were performed;
(d) The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
(e) The analytical techniques or methods used; and
(f) The results of such analyses.
4. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned changes
or activities which could significantly alter the nature or quantity of pollutants discharged.
This notification requirement includes pollutants which are not specifically listed in the
permit or subject to notification requirements under 40 CFR Part 122.42 (a).
S. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned changes
which may result in noncompliance with the permit requirements.
6. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
The permittee shall report to the central office or the appropriate regional office any
noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be
provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee became aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within S days of the time the
permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.
The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance, and its causes;
the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance
has not been corrected, the anticipated time compliance is expected to continue; and steps
taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
Part IV Page 2 of 3

NCS000442
The Director may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis if the oral report has
been received within 24 hours.
7. Annual Reporting
The permittee will submit reporting and monitoring information on an annual basis per
Part III of this permit on forms provided by the DWQ.
8. Additional Reporting
The Director may request reporting information on a more frequent basis as deemed
necessary either for specific portions of the permittee's Stormwater Plan, or for the entire
Program.
9. Other Information
Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in applying
to be covered under this permit or in any report to the Director, it shall promptly submit
such facts or information.
Part IV Page 3 of 3

NCS000442
PART V STANDARD CONDITIONS
SECTION A: COMPLIANCE AND LIABILITY
1. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance
constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for
permit termination, revocation and r-eissuance, or modification; or denial of permit
coverage upon renewal application.
(a) The permittee shall comply with standards or prohibitions established under
section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time
provided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions, even if
the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.
(b) The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates a permit condition is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by
Section 309(d) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
(28 U.S.C. §2461 note) as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31
U.S.C. §3701 note) (currently $27,500 per day for each violation). Any person
who negligently violates any permit condition is subject to criminal penalties of
$2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 1 year,
or both. Any person who knowingly violates permit conditions is subject to
criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for
not more than 3 years, or both. Also, any person who violates a permit condition
may be assessed an administrative penalty not to exceed $11,000 per violation
with the maximum amount not to exceed $.137,500. [Ref: Section 309 of the
Federal Act 33 USC 1319 and 40 CFR 122.41(a)]
(c) Under state law, a daily civil penalty of not more than twenty-five thousand
dollars ($25,000) per violation may be assessed against any person who violates
or fails to act in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements of a
permit. [Ref: North Carolina General Statutes t43-215.6A]
(d) Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for
violating sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of this Act. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 19 and the Act, administrative
penalties for Class I violations are not to exceed the maximum amounts
authorized by Section 309(g)(2)(A) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act (28 U.S.C. §2461 note) as amended by the Debt
Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. §3701 note) (currently $11,000 per
violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed
$27,500). Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 19 and the Act, penalties for Class 11 violations
Parts V, VI, VIl & VILI Page t of 8

NCS000442
are not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by Section 309(g)(2)(B) of
the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (28 U.S.C. §2461
note) as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C.§3701
note) (currently $1 1,000 per day for each day during which the violation
continues, with the maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed
$137,500).
2. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in
violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human
health or the environment.
3. Civil and Criminal Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for noncompliance pursuant to NCGS 143-215.3,
143-215.6A, 143-215.6B, 143-215.6C or Section 309 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1319.
Furthermore, the permittee is responsible for consequential damages, such as fish kills,
even though the responsibility for effective compliance may be temporarily suspended.
4. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
permittee is or may be subject to under NCGS 143-215.75 et seq. or Section 311 of the
Federal Act, 33 USC 1321.
5. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal
property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or
regulations.
6. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit,
shall not be affected thereby.
1:'i►i't5 V, V 1, V I I& V II 1 Page 2 of 8

NCS000442
7. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any information
which the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying,
revoking and reissuing, or terminating the coverage issued pursuant to this permit or to
determine compliance with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Director
upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
8. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly
renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this
permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more that $20,000 per day of violation,
or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both.
9. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to
be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or
noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
10. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit
condition.
SECTION B: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE of POLLUTION CONTROLS
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all time,, properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of'
treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are owned and/or operated by
the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation
and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality
assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when the operation is
necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
Parts V, VI, V1I & VU.I Page 3 of 8

NCS000442
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a del'ense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been
necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the
condition of this permit.
SECTION C: MONITORING AND RECORDS
1. Representative Sampling
When required herein, stormwater samples collected and measurements taken shall be
characteristic of the volume and nature of the permitted discharge. Analytical stormwater
sampling shall be performed during a representative storm event. These samples shall be
taken on a day and time that is characteristic of the discharge. Where appropriate, all
stormwater samples shall be taken before the discharge joins or is diluted by any other
waste stream, body of water, or substance. When specified herein, monitoring points
established in this permit shall not be changed without notification to and approval ol'the
Director.
2. Flow Measurements
Where required, appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with
accepted scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and
reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges.
3. 'Pest Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to the EMC regulations
published pursuant to NCGS 143-215.63 et. seq, the Water and Air Quality Reporting
Acts, and to regulations published pursuant to Section 304(g), 33 USC 1314, of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as Amended, and Regulation 40 CFR 136.
To meet the intent of the monitoring required by this permit, all test procedures must
produce minimum detection and reporting levels and all data generated must be reported
down to the minimum detection or lower reporting level of the procedure.
4. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative (including an
authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Director), or in the case of a facility
which discharges through a municipal separate storm sewer system, an authorized
representative of a municipal operator or the separate storm sewer system receiving the
discharge, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required
by law, to;
(a) Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located
or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
Parts V, VI, VII & VIIi Page 4 of 8

NCS000442
(b) Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under
the conditions of this permit;
(c) Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and
control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit;
and
(d) Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring permit
compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act, any substances or
parameters at any location.
5. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under NCGS 143-215.3(a)(2) or Section
308 of the Federal Act, 33 USC 1318, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of
this permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Division of Water
Quality. As required by the Act, analytical data shall not be considered confidential.
Knowingly making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of
criminal penalties as provided for in NCGS 143-215.613 or in Section 309 of the Federal
Act.
PART VI LIMITATIONS REOPENER
The issuance of this permit does not prohibit the Director from reopening and modifying the
permit, revoking and reissuing the permit, or terminating the permit as allowed by the laws, rules,
and regulations contained in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122 and 123; Title 15A
of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Subchapter 2H .0100; and North Carolina General
Statute 143-215.1 et. al.
PART VII ADMINISTERING AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING FEE
REQUIREMENTS
The permittee must pay the administering and compliance monitoring fee within 30 thirty days
after being billed by the Division. Failure to pay the fee in a timely manner in accordance with
15A NCAC 2H .0105(b)(4) may cause this Division to initiate action to revoke the permit.
Parts V, VI, VII & Vill Page 5 of 8

NCS000442
PART VIII DEFINITIONS
Act.
See Clean Water Act.
2. Best Management Practice (BMP)
Measures or practices used to reduce the amount of' pollution entering surface waters.
BiVIPs can be structural or non-structural and may take the form of a process, activity,
physical structure or planning (see non-structural BMP).
3. Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), as
amended, 33 USC 1251, et. seq.
4. Department
Department means the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.
5. Division (DWQ)
The Division of Water Quality, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
6. Director
The Director of the Division of Water Quality, the permit issuing authority.
7. EMC
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission.
S. Grab Sample
An individual sample collected instantaneously. Grab samples that will be directly
analyzed or qualitatively monitored must be taken within the first 30 minutes of
discharge.
9. Hazardous Substance
Any substance designated in 40 CFR Part 116 pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act.
l0. Illicit Discharge
Any discharge to a MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater except discharges
pursuant to an NPDES permit (other than the NPDES MS4 permit), allowable non-
stormwater discharges, and discharges resulting from fire -fighting activities.
11. Industrial Activity
For the purposes of this permit, industrial activities shall mean all industrial activities as
defined in 40 CFR 122.26.
Parts V, V1, V1I &. Vill Page 6 of 8

NC S 000442
12. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MS4
Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(8) means a conveyance or system of conveyances
(including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters,
ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains):
(i) Owned or operated by the United States, a state, city, town, county, district,
association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to state law) having
jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, stormwater, or other
wastes, including special districts under state law such as a sewer district,
flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe
or an authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved
management agency under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) that
discharges to waters of the United States or waters of the State;
(ii) Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater;
(iii) Which is not a combined sewer; and
(iv) Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined
in 40 CFR 122.2.
13. Non-stormwater Dischareeg Categories
The following are categories of non-stormwater discharges that the permittee must
address if it identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to the storm sewer
system: water line flushing, landscape irrigation, diverted stream flows, rising
groundwater, uncontaminated groundwater- infiltration, [as defined in 40 CFR
35.2005(20)], uncontaminated pumped groundwater, discharges from potable water
sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, irrigation 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 (discharges or flows from fire fighting activities are
excluded from the definition of illicit discharge and only need to be addressed where they
are identified as significant sources of pollutants to waters of the United States).
14. Non-structural BMP
Non-structural BMPs are preventive actions that involve management and source controls
such as: (1) Policies and ordinances that provide requirements and standards to direct
growth to identified areas, protect sensitive areas such as wetlands and riparian areas,
maintain and/or increase open space, provide buffers along sensitive water bodies,
minimize impervious surfaces, and/or minimize disturbance of soils and vegetation; (2)
policies or ordinances that encourage infill development in higher density urban areas,
and areas with existing storm sewer infrastructure; (3) education programs for developers
and the public about minimizing water quality impacts; (4) other measures such as
minimizing the percentage of impervious area after development, use of measures to
minimize directly connected impervious areas, and source control measures often thought
of as good housekeeping, preventive maintenance, and spill prevention.
Parts V, VI, V11 & VIII Page 7 of 8

NCS000442
15. Outfall
The point of wastewater- or stormwater discharge from a discrete conveyance system. See
also point source discharge of stormwater.
16. Permittec
The owner or operator issued this permit.
17. Point Source Discharge of Stormwater
Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance including, but not specifically limited
to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, or discrete fissure from which
stormwater is or may be discharged to waters of the state.
18. Redevelopment
Means any rebuilding activity other than a rebuilding activity that results in no net
increase in built -upon area, and provides equal or greater stormwater control than the
previous development.
19. Representative Storm Event
A storm event that measures greater- than 0. l inches of rainfall and that is preceded by at
least 72 hours in which no storm event measuring greater than 0.1 inches has occurred. A
single storm event may contain up to 10 consecutive hours of no precipitation. For -
example, if it rains for 2 hours without producing any collectable discharge, and then
stops, a sample may be collected if a rain producing a discharge begins again within the
next 10 hours.
20. Stormwater Runoff
The flow of water- which results from precipitation and which occurs immediately
following rainfall or as a result of snowmelt.
21. Toxic Pollutant
Any pollutant listed as toxic under Section 307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
Parts V, V I, V I1 & V I II Page 8 of 8