their project management process; 11 (26%) have a formal construction stormwater management program; and 6 (14%) have managed their construction stormwater systems by using either a formal program or a project management process, depending on the scope and size of a project.

The survey respondents were asked to identify divisions involved in the construction stormwater management programs in their state DOTs and were allowed to select all that apply. Figure 5 summarizes the results of this question. More than half of the 42 DOTs indicated that the following four divisions are involved in the construction stormwater management program:

1. Construction division (41 of 42 DOTs, 98%)
2. Environment division (35 of 42 DOTs, 83%)

From the responding state DOTs that selected “Other” for this question, one DOT mentioned that all projects that disturb 1 or more acres of land require a CGP to follow its water quality specifications and that all projects smaller than 1 acre are required to follow a special standard. Another DOT uses the DOT Resident Construction Engineer Office to manage construction stormwater systems. In addition, one other DOT stated that their approach to construction stormwater management is based on the size of the contributing area.

The survey respondents were asked to select all the construction stormwater management control measures approved by their DOTs for use in highway construction projects, as each respondent could choose more than one selection. Figure 7 summarizes the results of this question.

More than 90% of the responding 42 state DOTs have approved the following construction stormwater management control measures for use in highway construction projects:

• Erosion control logs such as wattles, sediment tubes, fiber rolls, or composite socks (42 of 42 DOTs, 100%)
• Check dams, including rock, sandbags, socks, rolls, silt fence, or tubes (42 of 42 DOTs, 100%)
• Stabilized construction entrances and exits (42 of 42 DOTs, 100%)
• Silt fence and barriers (42 of 42 DOTs, 100%)
• Sediment basins (42 of 42 DOTs, 100%)
• Temporary or permanent hydromulching/seeding (42 of 42 DOTs, 100%)
• Erosion control blankets such as channel or slope (41 of 42 DOTs, 98%)
• Drainage swales/ditches (41 of 42 DOTs, 98%)
• Limitations of disturbance, such as grading limits (41 of 42 DOTs, 98%)
• Riprap (41 of 42 DOTs, 98%)
• Inlet protection (41 of 42 DOTs, 98%)
• Diversion berms/dikes (40 of 42 DOTs, 95%)
• Construction dewatering (39 of 42 DOTs, 93%)
• Sediment traps (39 of 42 DOTs, 93%)
• Mulching such as grass, hay, wood chips, wood fibers, or straw (39 of 42 DOTs, 93%)

More than 80% of the responding 42 state DOTs have approved the following construction stormwater management control measures for use in highway construction projects:

• Dust control (38 of 42 DOTs, 90%)
• Turbidity barrier such as staked or floating (38 of 42 DOTs, 90%)
• Preservation of existing vegetation (38 of 42 DOTs, 90%)
• Temporary stream crossing (37 of 42 DOTs, 88%)
• Surface roughening, such as tracking, stair-step grading, and grooving (36 of 42 DOTs, 86%)
• Outlet protection (36 of 42 DOTs, 86%)
• Water quality structural controls such as detention ponds and vegetated filter strips (35 of 42 DOTs, 83%)
• Pipe slope drains (35 of 42 DOTs, 83%)

Five state DOT responses selected “Other” and provided additional information. One DOT mentioned using topography (landform), vegetative buffers, and temporary stabilization phasing (tracking, terracing, slope controls). The same DOT allows non-standard control measures if a project specialist or engineer approves. Another DOT has a stormwater design manual that includes standard permanent practices and an environmental handbook for construction operations that covers standard temporary control measures.

Figure 7 also shows that 20 of the 42 responding state DOTs (48%) have used flocculants for their construction stormwater management control measures. For the five DOTs that selected “Other,” one DOT had used flocculants in the form of synthetic polymers (e.g., polyacrylamide), and two DOTs had used flocculants in the form of inorganic polymers (e.g., polyaluminum chloride). Additionally, one DOT indicated that anionic polyacrylamide is allowed but has not yet been used. One DOT mentioned that it does not have restrictions on flocculants and that contractors determine the use of flocculants. The same DOT also pointed out using flocculants in some cases of sediment discharges.

Preparation and Management of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans

The survey respondents were asked to identify parties responsible for preparing and managing SWPPPs in highway construction projects and to select all parties that apply. Figure 8 summarizes the results of this question. The main parties responsible for preparing SWPPPs include

design engineers (26 of 42 responding state DOTs, 62%), contractors (24 of 42 DOTs, 57%), and consultants (21 of 42 DOTs, 50%). The main parties responsible for managing SWPPPs include contractors (33 of 42 DOTs, 79%), construction project managers (26 of 42 DOTs, 62%), and consultants (16 of 42 DOTs, 38%).

From the “Other” responses, two state DOTs mentioned that an agronomist is responsible for preparing SWPPPs for their highway construction projects. One DOT uses a District Environmental Planner to prepare SWPPPs. Another DOT indicated that an inspector is responsible for preparing and managing SWPPPs. One DOT stated that the contractor prepares SWPPPs for design-build projects but that the department approves and oversees the plan during construction. Another DOT uses a Resident Engineer to manage SWPPPs. One DOT responded that preparation and management of SWPPPs are incorporated into municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) permit requirements for a design-bid-build project.

Figure 9 shows the timeline for state DOTs preparing a SWPPP for a highway construction project. Each responding DOT was allowed to select all that apply. Of 42 DOTs, 25 (60%) reported that they prepare SWPPPs during project design and engineering; 15 (36%) prepare SWPPPs

during the pre-construction phase; and 8 (19%) prepare SWPPPs prior to the construction phase. Four responding DOTs (10%) prepare the SWPPP for a highway construction project in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act plan.

From the responding state DOTs that selected “Other,” one DOT mentioned that the contractor is required to complete the SWPPP following the permitting requirements before starting any earth-disturbing activities. Another DOT indicated that a contractor is responsible for preparing the SWPPP before getting a permit. One DOT reported that the design team completes SWPPP components as known and that contractors prepare an implementation plan for unknown items such as schedule-related items and dewatering activities. Another DOT prepares the SWPPP after the project is awarded. One DOT mentioned that “preparing the SWPPP varies based on contract types. It is a requirement from the Form 128 Clearance process in most cases. The design of the SWPPP is completed on projects before the advertisement on design-bid-build projects and modified by the contractor per specifications when the project is active.”

Responsibilities for Construction Stormwater Management

State DOTs rely on in-house staff, contractors, or consultants to design, monitor, and maintain construction stormwater systems. Figure 10 summarizes the responsibilities of state DOTs, contractors, and consultants associated with typical tasks in construction stormwater management. For each party listed (state DOT, consultant, contractor), responding state DOTs could select all that apply.

Figure 10 also shows that more than three-quarters of 41 state DOT responses (one responding DOT did not answer this question) indicated that contractors are responsible for the following tasks related to construction stormwater management:

• Installation (41 of 41 DOTs, 100%)
• Violation remediation (40 of 41 DOTs, 98%)

• Maintenance (39 of 41 DOTs, 95%)
• Inspection deficiency remediation (36 of 41 DOTs, 88%)
• Monitoring and tracking control measures (33 of 41 DOTs, 80%)
• Inspections (31 of 41 DOTs, 76%)

More than half of 41 state DOTs responding to this question indicated they are responsible for the following tasks related to construction stormwater management:

• Design guidelines development (36 of 41 DOTs, 88%)
• Monitoring and tracking control measures (36 of 41 DOTs, 88%)
• Inspections (35 of 41 DOTs, 85%)
• Training project personnel (34 of 41 DOTs, 83%)
• Reporting (33 of 41 DOTs, 80%)
• Violation remediation (26 of 41 DOTs, 63%)

More than one-third of 41 state DOT responses indicated that consultants are responsible for the following tasks related to construction stormwater management:

• Inspections (22 of 41 DOTs, 54%)
• Monitoring and tracking control measures (19 of 41 DOTs, 46%)
• Reporting (17 of 41 DOTs, 41%)
• Design guidelines development (15 of 41 DOTs, 37%)

The survey respondents were asked about the percentage of construction stormwater management inspections conducted by consultants. Figure 11 summarizes the results of this question. Of 42 responding state DOTs, 15 (36%) indicated that consultants conduct less than 10% of their construction stormwater inspections; 6 (14%) have not used consultants to inspect their construction stormwater management; and 5 (12%) have used consultants for more than 50% of their construction stormwater management inspections.

Respondents were asked about the cost of installing and maintaining control measures; each respondent could select all parties that apply. Figure 12 shows that 27 of 41 responding state DOTs (66%) (one responding state DOT did not answer this question) indicated that they are responsible for the cost of installing stormwater control measures for highway construction

projects. In contrast, 13 DOTs (32%) mentioned that contractors are responsible for the cost of installing stormwater control measures.

Figure 12 also shows that 18 of 41 responding state DOTs (44%) indicated that they are responsible for the cost of maintaining and replacing stormwater control measures. In comparison, 8 DOTs (20%) reported that contractors are responsible for the cost of maintaining and replacing stormwater control measures. Two DOTs (5%) have used a percentage agreed upon between DOTs and contractors for the cost of maintaining and replacing stormwater control measures. Three DOTs (7%) have used a percentage agreed upon between DOTs and contractors for the cost of installing stormwater control measures.

Of the responding state DOTs that selected “Other,” one DOT mentioned that the cost of installing and maintaining control measures varies by project and is included as separate bid price items, a change order, or a percentage of the total contract bid. Another DOT emphasized that “there is a bid item for temporary erosion control, and the costs are included in the bidding process. The contractor includes the costs in their bid. Additionally, erosion control is incorporated into the individual bid items.” One DOT mentioned that “during construction, the contractor is not reimbursed for short-term stabilization and repair (such as covering an excavation area with straw prior to rain or repairing an eroded temporary construction access road) but is paid for building the permanent practices and for most of the temporary practices such as silt fence, hydroseeding, mulch, topsoil, and turf establishment.”

Survey respondents were asked about estimating initial costs to install and maintain control measures for highway construction projects. Figure 13 summarizes the results of this question. Of 37 responding state DOTs (five responding DOTs did not answer this question), 22 (59%) have used a standard estimating approach to initial costs to install and maintain stormwater control measures; and 9 (24%) have used estimated ranges based on project size and complexity.

Additionally, for the state DOTs that responded with “Other,” one DOT uses established cost for individual items and includes a stormwater budget item for payment on the contract. Another DOT uses a combination of cost ranges based on size and complexity and risk management to estimate the costs of installing and maintaining stormwater control measures for a highway construction project. One DOT responded: “The DOT defines the initial cost of installing and maintaining stormwater control measures per project based on the quantities of the SWPPP plan sets. The plan sets are part of the contract documents, and bids are prepared according to the contract type.”

Design Standards and Qualifications of Construction Stormwater Programs

Installing and maintaining construction stormwater systems require designers and inspectors to have specific qualifications to comply with permit requirements. Therefore, state DOTs were asked to select the qualification requirements for designers, inspectors, and installers; respondents were allowed to select all the qualifications that apply to each party. For designers, Figure 14 shows that 19 of 42 DOTs (45%) require designers to have a Professional Engineer (PE); 9 (21%) require designers to have DOT-administered certification; and 6 (14%) require designers to have national certifications such as Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC), Certified Inspector of Sediment and Erosion Control (CISEC), or State Stormwater Program Certification. Additionally, one DOT mentioned that licensed professionals

(e.g., PE, Professional Geologist, Registered Landscape Architect, Professional Land Surveyor) are required for permanent stormwater control measures design. One DOT indicated that qualification requirements for designers vary by project. Another DOT requires field project engineers to be certified through the DOT E&SC measures certification program.

In relation to inspectors, 18 of 42 responding state DOTs (43%) require them to have DOT-administered certification; 8 (19%) require inspectors to have State Stormwater Program Certification; and 6 (14%) require inspectors to have national certification (CPESC, CISEC) or state regulator administered certification.

Figure 14 also shows that 9 of 42 responding state DOTs (21%) require installers to have a DOT-administered certification. From the “Other” responses, one DOT indicated that “the SPDES General Permit requires the prime contractor and all subcontractors performing earthwork or soil-disturbing activities to identify at least one trained individual from each company who is responsible for implementing the SWPPP and who shall be on-site daily when the company is performing soil disturbance activities. These activities include clearing, grubbing, grading, filling, excavation, stockpiling, demolition.”

The survey respondents were asked to identify the basis for design guidelines for construction stormwater management; respondents selected all that apply. Figure 15 summarizes the results of this question. Of 42 responding state DOTs, 40 (95%) have relied on DOT guidelines for their construction stormwater management; 34 (81%) have relied on state regulator guidelines; and 21 (50%) have used federal guidelines or general construction practices. Less than a third of DOTs have used scientific research or rules of thumb and current practices to develop design standards for their construction stormwater management.

In addition, two responding state DOTs selected “Other” for this question. One DOT has used its Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines to develop design standards for construction stormwater management. Another DOT mentioned that its primary guidelines are based on state permit requirements and current practices.

The survey respondents were asked to identify the parties responsible for developing design standards for construction stormwater management. Responses included selecting all that apply for this question, as multiple parties are responsible for developing design standards at state DOTs. Figure 16 shows that, of 42 responding state DOTs, 37 (88%) indicated state DOTs; 22 (52%) indicated state environmental agency; 6 (14%) indicated FHWA; and 4 (10%) indicated AASHTO as the parties responsible for the development of design standards for construction stormwater management. Additionally, one DOT mentioned that it relied on the state’s Soil and

Water Conservation Committee, and two DOTs indicated that the Environmental Protection Agency is the main party responsible for developing design standards for construction stormwater management.

The survey results also identify the frequency of updating state DOT guidelines for construction stormwater management. Figure 17 shows that, of 42 responding state DOTs, 20 (48%) have updated their guidelines as needed; 5 (12%) have updated their guidelines based on the federal and state requirements; and 4 (10%) have updated their construction stormwater management guidelines every 2–3 years or every 4–5 years. Additionally, one DOT mentioned that its major construction stormwater design manual has been updated every 5 years in line with nationwide permit updates.

Stormwater Management Tracking and Inspection

State DOTs were asked to provide methods used to track construction stormwater compliance. The responses from state DOTs included selecting all that apply, as DOTs use multiple methods. Figure 18 shows that the top five methods that state DOTs have used for tracking their construction stormwater management compliance are as follows:

• Site investigations (38 of 42 DOTs, 90%)
• Field logs and databases (33 of 42 DOTs, 79%)
• Photographs and videos (31 of 42 DOTs, 74%)

Figure 19 also shows that 5 of 42 responding state DOTs (12%) have used performance metrics to monitor their construction stormwater management requirements. The main performance metrics used by these four DOTs include the following:

• Regular intervals for inspecting control measures and BMPs (4 of 4 DOTs, 100%)
• Number of control measures and BMPs in place (3 of 4 DOTs, 75%)
• Percentage of time the project is in non-compliance with stormwater permit requirements (3 of 4 DOTs, 75%)
• Amount of time used to remedy deficiencies (2 of 4 DOTs, 50%)

When an inspection deficiency of construction stormwater occurs, state DOTs often take less than 2 weeks to correct it, as the timeline for correcting deficiencies is typically a requirement included in contract documents. Figure 20 shows that, of 42 responding state DOTs, 17 (40%) take fewer than 5 days to correct deficiencies found in an inspection, while 15 (36%) take 5–10 days to correct an inspection deficiency of construction stormwater.

Furthermore, seven responding state DOTs selected “Other” for this question. One DOT mentioned that, if sediment from a deficiency has already entered receiving waters or the department’s right-of-way, the deficiency must be addressed within 24 hours. Another DOT reported that “deficiencies are listed as low-, medium-, or high-priority. Low-priority must be addressed within 7 calendar days, medium-priority within 3 days, and high-priority within 24 hours.”

Construction Stormwater Management Audits

Audits of construction stormwater management are detailed inspections by internal DOT personnel (internal audits) or third-party agencies or firms (regulatory audits) to help ensure that construction stormwater practices and associated BMPs and E&SC measures adhere to all permit requirements. In the survey, state DOTs were asked about the frequency of audits performed, and each response included selecting all that apply. As shown in Figure 21, of 40 responding state DOTs (two responding state DOTs did not answer this question), 17 (43%) indicated that internal audits have been conducted annually or as needed, and 5 (13%) have internal audits when revisions to federal and state permit and regulatory requirements occur. In relation to regulatory audits, 20 DOTs (50%) are subject to them as needed; 8 (20%) have been involved in audits of their construction stormwater management program every 4 to 5 years; and 6 (15%) are subject to regulatory audits annually.

From the “Other” responses, one DOT mentioned that “the internal audit of contractors per project is every 30 days. Our regulating agency typically audits our projects at about 12 per year.” Two DOTs indicated that the regulatory agency determines the frequency of audits of construction stormwater management programs.

Finally, survey respondents were asked whether their DOTs had been fined for non-compliance with construction stormwater management requirements. Of 42 responding state DOTs, 22 (52%) indicated that they had been fined for non-compliance or stormwater discharge issues within the past 10 years.