Agenda - Council - 02/11/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

(You may use stormwater educational materials provided by your State, Tribe, EPA, or, subject to the approval of the local' government, environmental or other public interest' or trade organizations. The materials or outreach.programs should inform individuals and households about, the steps they can. take, such as ensuring proper septic system maintenance, limiting: the. use and runoff of garden, chemicals, . becoming involved in local stream restoration activities that are coordinated by youth service and conservation corps.and other, citizen groups, and participating in storm drain stenciling, to reduce storm water 'pollution. In addition~ some of the-materials '. or outreach programs should be-directed toward targeted groups, of commercial, industrial, and institutional entities likely to have significant storm water impacts. For example, information to resta'urants on the impact of grease clogging storm drains and to garages on the impact of oil discharges. You are encouraged to tailor your outreach program to address the viewpoints and' concerns of .all communities, particularly'minority and disadvantaged communities, as well' as children.) The "regulatory" wording in parentheses is not mandatory but suggested. There is wide room for interpretation of the intensity and detail' necessary to accomplish this minimum control. The devil' is always in the details, and there will always be great variability in what two different programs intend` to do to accomplish the same general goals. NAFSMA (1999a, 1999b) published a survey on potential Phase II program costs .responded to by 121 cities and counties natiOnally. Ten communities responded with programs that had three or more suggested elements in the first minimum control: Public Education and Outreach. The annual per capita costs for these ten ranged from $0.04 to $1.17 - again a wide range. ' ' Of those responding, only one community stated that it had program activity in each of the six minimum control measure areas and it spent $15.-11 per capita annually, wall above the EPA estimate (the city has a population of'- about 25,000). Of the 1 21 respondents only 26 had programs in at-least three (most had only three) of the six mandatory minimum control areas,, and .these can be considered far from complete. Figure 2 shows the distribution o.f costs for these 26 programs. The vertical axis is. the annual, per capita cost for these elements. The median was $1.44 and the average was $'4.07. The low value was $0.04 and the high was $-26'.00.. We can speculate that if many of these communities had a fully developed Phase II program, the average costs could more than double, since each community would be adding both new program areas and' upgrading their existing programs they had to' make them comply with the details of the Phase II permit writers requirements. 32 - 199-