Annual Report Review

The findings from the 2022 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) Program annual report review.

Chart Details
This bubble chart visually represents the relationship between total budget, per capita spending, and population groups for MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) programs. The chart aims to provide insights into the distribution of financial resources across different population sizes. The chart provides a comprehensive overview of how financial resources are distributed among MS4s of varying population sizes. By examining per capita spending against total budgets, it highlights the disparities and commonalities in funding allocation, with smaller MS4s often showing higher per capita spending. The chart's median line serves as a reference point to assess where most MS4s stand in terms of per capita spending, offering valuable insights for budgeting and resource planning in stormwater management programs.

Interact with the chart hover over each point for more detail of click the legend to filter population groups.
How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:

The y-axis represents the total budget.

The x-axis shows the per capita spending.

Bubble Size and Color:

The bubbles are color-coded based on population groups:

Blue: >100k

Light Blue: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Yellow: <10k

Blue: >100k

Each bubble's size corresponds to the population size of the MS4.

Median Line:

A vertical red dotted line at $1.68 indicates the median per capita spending, calculated after removing outliers.

Key Insights
From our analysis, we observed a weak positive correlation between population size and total budget, despite that some communities are performing above expectations relative to their size. However, it is worth noting that due to the lack of consistency budgets may not accurately reflect all expenditures and as a results may skew the data. Additional insights are provided below:

High Per Capita Spending and Budget:

A few MS4s with small populations (<10k) have significantly high per capita spending and total budgets, indicating more substantial financial resources allocated per individual in smaller communities. Example: The highest per capita spending is approximately $159, with a total budget of around $141,892 for a population of 892.

Larger Populations with Moderate Spending:

MS4s with larger populations (>100k) show moderate per capita spending, generally above the median line, but have higher total budgets. This indicates economies of scale where the cost per capita is reduced despite a large total budget. Example: An MS4 with a population of 278,475 has a per capita spending of $3.99 and a total budget of $1,113,000.

Median Per Capita Spending:

The majority of MS4s, especially those in the middle population groups (24.9-10k and 49.9-25k), cluster near the median per capita spending of $1.68. This suggests a common range of spending per individual across these sizes.

Outliers:

There are notable outliers where smaller MS4s have exceptionally high per capita spending, indicating potentially unique financial needs or priorities in those areas.
Chart Details
These stacked bar charts represent MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) MCM (Minimum Control Measures) budget allocations across different population sizes. Each chart breaks down the budget by MCM categories for MS4s of varying population ranks, providing a visual comparison of financial distribution across different-sized communities.

Interact with the chart hover over each point for more detail of click the legend to filter population groups.
How to Interpret the Chart
Axes:

The y-axis shows the budget amount.

The x-axis shows the population rank within each population size category.

Stacked Bars:

Each bar is segmented by MCM categories (MCM 1 to MCM 6), color-coded as follows:

Green: MCM 1

Teal: MCM 2

Purple: MCM 3

Yellow: MCM 4

Blue: MCM 5

Red: MCM 6

Population Size Tabs:

Tabs at the top allow for switching between different population size categories:

100,000 or More

99,999-50,000

49,999-25,000

24,999-10,000

Less than 10,000

Median Line:

A vertical red dotted line at $1.68 indicates the median per capita spending, calculated after removing outliers.

Key Insights
These charts offer a detailed view of how MS4 budgets are allocated across different population sizes and MCM categories, highlighting the diversity in funding strategies and priorities based on community size. The visual representation helps in understanding the financial emphasis placed on various MCMs within each population group, providing valuable insights for resource allocation and program planning in stormwater management. Based on our review, it was determined that there is a lack of consistency in reporting amongst programs. Some count all capital expenses, while others do not. Many are not reporting labor costs, while others are. As you cycle through the stacked graphs, you'll start to see some outliers relative to their respective population group, but also see how MS4s are prioritizing their budgets, and that population size is not necessarily indicative of budget size.

Large Populations (>100k):

The largest population group shows significant budgets across all MCM categories, with MCM 5 and MCM 6 receiving the highest allocations.

Moderate Populations (99,999-50,000):

This group displays a wide range of budget allocations. High-ranked MS4s have substantial budgets, such as $1,113,650, with considerable funds directed towards MCM 6. Lower-ranked MS4s in this category show more balanced budget allocations across MCMs.

Smaller Populations (49,999-25,000 and 24,999-10,000):

These groups generally have smaller budgets. The highest budget observed in the 49,999-25,000 range is $49,999.98, evenly distributed across MCMs. In the 24,999-10,000 range, the highest budget is $288,000, with notable allocations towards MCM 5 and MCM 6.

Smallest Populations (<10,000):

This category includes significant outliers. For example, an MS4 with a total budget of $178,074.84, heavily allocated to MCM 5, and another with $141,891.96, also emphasizing MCM 5 and MCM 6.
Chart Details
This stacked bar chart displays the percentage allocation of budgets across six Minimum Control Measures (MCMs) for different population groups in MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) programs. The chart illustrates how funds are distributed among various MCMs for MS4s of different sizes, with outliers removed to provide a clearer representation.

Interact with the chart hover over each point for more detail of click the legend to filter population groups.
How to Interpret the Chart
Axes:

The x-axis represents the budget allocation percentage.

The y-axis shows the population groups, ranging from ">100k" to "<10k", with an aggregated category at the bottom.

Stacked Bars:

Each bar is divided into segments representing the percentage of the budget allocated to each MCM, color-coded as follows:

MCM 1

MCM 2

MCM 3

MCM 4

MCM 5

MCM 6

Percentage Labels:

Each segment within the bars is labeled with the percentage of the budget allocated to the corresponding MCM, allowing for quick comparison across population groups.

Key Insights
The removal of outliers significantly impacted the budget allocation percentages, particularly for smaller population groups, highlighting shifts in financial priorities towards certain MCMs. This chart provides a detailed view of how MS4 budgets are strategically allocated across different control measures, reflecting varying priorities based on population size. Once the outliers were removed, the lowest population tiers allocate the largest percentage of their budgets to MCM 1, while the upper tiers spend most of their budget on MCM 5 and 6.

Large Populations (>100k):

The largest population group allocates a significant portion of their budget to MCM 5 (29%) and MCM 6 (39%). MCM 4 also receives a notable share (16%), while MCM 1, MCM 2, and MCM 3 have smaller allocations (around 7%, 6%, and 3% respectively).

Moderate Populations (99,999-50,000):

This group shows a high allocation to MCM 5 (39%) and MCM 4 (23%), followed by substantial shares for MCM 3 (16%) and MCM 1 (10%). MCM 6 and MCM 2 have lower allocations (10% and 1.7% respectively).

Intermediate Populations (49.9-25k):

The budget is evenly distributed across all MCMs, each receiving approximately 17%, indicating a balanced approach to funding various control measures.

Smaller Populations (24.9-10k):

This group prioritizes MCM 1 with a significant 36% allocation, followed by MCM 6 (23%) and MCM 2 (17%). MCM 3, MCM 4, and MCM 5 receive smaller shares (11%, 8%, and 5% respectively).

Smallest Populations (<10k):

The smallest population group allocates the largest share to MCM 1 (41%) and MCM 2 (25%), with significant portions also going to MCM 3 (22%) and MCM 6 (17%). MCM 4 and MCM 5 have the smallest allocations (5% and 4% respectively).
Chart Details
This scatter plot visualizes the relationship between population size and stormwater utility fees for various Kentucky municipalities, with most entities being MS4s (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems). The chart aims to show how stormwater utility fees vary with population, highlighting the average and median fees, along with the standard deviation.
How to Interpret the Chart
Axes:

The x-axis represents the stormwater utility fee in dollars ($).

The y-axis shows the population size of the municipalities.

Data Points:

Each blue dot represents a municipality, positioned according to its population and stormwater utility fee.

Data Points:

Red Line: Indicates the average fee of $3.64.

Orange Line: Represents the median fee of $3.96.

Teal Lines: Mark the standard deviation range, providing a sense of variability around the mean fee.

Key Insights
This scatter plot provides a comprehensive view of how stormwater utility fees are distributed among different population sizes in Kentucky municipalities. It highlights the general trend of increasing fees with larger populations while also showcasing the variability and common fee ranges. The reference lines for average, median, and standard deviation offer valuable benchmarks for comparing individual municipality fees against broader trends.

Fee Distribution:

The stormwater utility fees range from $1.50 to $10.58. Most fees cluster between $2.00 and $5.00, indicating a common range for stormwater utility charges among the municipalities.

Population and Fee Correlation:

Larger municipalities tend to have higher stormwater utility fees, as observed with the highest fee of $10.58 for the largest population of 693,604. There are exceptions where smaller municipalities also have higher fees, such as a population of 6,310 with a fee of $5.00.

Average and Median Fees:

The average fee is $3.64, while the median fee is slightly higher at $3.96, indicating a generally consistent fee distribution with a slight skew towards higher values.

Standard Deviation:

The standard deviation range, highlighted by the teal area, shows the spread of fees around the average (±1.32). Most municipalities' fees fall within this range, suggesting moderate variability. However, the municipality with the largest population is greater than three standard deviations from the mean and is considered an outlier. To prevent skewing the data, the above-mentioned outlier was removed. This exclusion helps in providing a clearer view of the typical fee distribution.
Map Details
This Map contains information regarding stormwater utilities in the United States. The source of this data was the 2023 Stormwater Utility Survey conducted by Western Kentucky University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. The map displays symbols whose size are proportionately scaled based on population, and colored based on their monthly fee. Click a symbol or multiple symbols to get information on the community, state, fee type, year of implementation, population size, and monthly fee. You can also filter the selection by selecting the state(s) that you want to visualize.

Chart Details
The survey chart (pictogram) below visually represents the MCM 1 activities that were reported by the MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) programs. The allows you to group and shade by activity or population size. For best results, Group by: "MCM 1 Activity", and Shade by: "Population Size". Once the the activities have been grouped. Compare by "Population Size" to see which activities were the most popular amongst the Population Tiers. Additionally, you can change the shape of the chart by selecting the bar or cluster option.

The stacked bar chart below shows the percentage of engagement in various MCM 1 activities by MS4 across different population sizes. Each bar represents a population size category, and the segments within each bar represent different activities. The height of each segment corresponds to the percentage of engagement in that activity within the given population size.

How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:

The y-axis displays the MCM 1 activity.

The x-axis shows the Percentage of Implementation.

Bar Color:

Each Population Group is color-coded:

Blue: >100k

Light Blue: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Yellow: <10k

Key Insights
From our analysis, we observed a diverse engagement in MCM 1 activities across various population sizes, with higher population communities favoring Brochure/Publication and Website, while smaller communities show increased engagement in Social Media and TV/Video/Radio. However, it is worth noting that some activities like Cinema and Soil Test have consistently low engagement across all population sizes. Additional insights are provided below:

Population Size Insights:

100k

The most significant activities are Brochure/Publication, Social Media, Website, and Events/Field Day/Presentations, each engaging 5% of the population. Activities like Cinema, Soil Test, and Extension are minimally or not at all engaged in this population bracket.

99.9-50k

This population size sees a higher engagement in Brochure/Publication (14%), Events/Field Day/Presentations (14%), K-12/Education Kit (12%), and Website (12%).

49.9-25k

The highest engagement in this bracket is with the Website (16%) and TV/Video/Radio (12%). Brochure/Publication, Social Media, and Events/Field Day/Presentations each have a 12% engagement rate. Signage, Emails/Mailer, and Local Leader Education are engaged moderately.

24.9-10k

This bracket shows significant engagement in Events/Field Day/Presentations (24%), TV/Video/Radio (22%), and Website (17%). Brochure/Publication, Social Media, and K-12/Education Kit also have notable engagement.

10k or Less

Social Media (22%) and Website (21%) have the highest engagement. TV/Video/Radio (19%), Events/Field Day/Presentations (17%) also have substantial engagement.

Activity Preferences:

High Engagement

Website, Social Media, Events/Field Day/Presentations, and TV/Video/Radio activities show consistent high engagement across various population sizes.

Moderate Engagement

Brochure/Publication, K-12/Education Kit, and Local Leader Education are moderately engaged across different population sizes.

Low Engagement

Cinema and Soil Test activities generally show low engagement, particularly in larger population brackets. Signage and BMP Demo also have varying but generally lower engagement compared to other activities.

Trends:

Brochure/Publication and Website activities are popular across all population sizes. Social Media and Events/Field Day/Presentations show increasing engagement as the population size decreases. TV/Video/Radio engagement is higher in smaller population brackets. K-12/Education Kit shows substantial engagement particularly in mid-sized to smaller population brackets.
Chart Details
The survey chart (pictogram) below visually represents the MCM 2 activities that were reported by the MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) programs. The allows you to group and shade by activity or population size. For best results, Group by: "MCM 2 Activity", and Shade by: "Population Size". Once the the activities have been grouped. Compare by "Population Size" to see which activities were the most popular amongst the Population Tiers. Additionally, you can change the shape of the chart by selecting the bar or cluster option.

The stacked bar chart below shows the percentage of engagement in various MCM 2 activities by MS4 across different population sizes. Each bar represents a population size category, and the segments within each bar represent different activities. The height of each segment corresponds to the percentage of engagement in that activity within the given population size.

How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:

The y-axis displays the MCM 2 activity.

The x-axis shows the Percentage of Implementation.

Bar Color:

Each Population Group is color-coded:

Blue: >100k

Light Blue: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Yellow: <10k

Key Insights
From our analysis, we observed a varied engagement in MCM 2 activities across different population sizes. However, it is worth noting that activities like Apps and Community Gardens have consistently low engagement across all population sizes, Additional insights are provided below:

Population Size Insights:

100k

The most significant activities are Inlet Marking (5%), Advisory Committee (5%), Recycle/Haz Waste/Drug/Tire (5%), and Trash/Litter (5%). Activities like Apps and Community Gardens are minimally or not at all engaged in this population bracket.

99.9-50k

This population size sees a higher engagement in Trash/Litter (14%), Recycle/Haz Waste/Drug/Tire (12%), Workshops/Classes/Training (10%), and Advisory Committee (9%).

49.9-25k

The highest engagement in this bracket is with Trash/Litter (14%) and Recycle/Haz Waste/Drug/Tire (12%).

24.9-10k

This bracket shows significant engagement in Trash/Litter (19%), Recycle/Haz Waste/Drug/Tire (14%), and Workshops/Classes/Training (10%).

10k or Less

Trash/Litter (19%) and Recycle/Haz Waste/Drug/Tire (10%) have the highest engagement. Advisory Committee (9%) and Workshops/Classes/Training (5%) have notable engagement.

Activity Preferences:

High Engagement

Trash/Litter and Recycle/Haz Waste/Drug/Tire activities show consistent high engagement across various population sizes.

Moderate Engagement

Advisory Committee, Workshops/Classes/Training, and Inlet Marking are moderately engaged across different population sizes

Low Engagement

Apps and Community Gardens activities generally show low engagement, particularly in larger population brackets. Stream Walks and Volunteer Monitoring also have varying but generally lower engagement compared to other activities.

Trends:

Trash/Litter and Recycle/Haz Waste/Drug/Tire activities are popular across all population sizes. Workshops/Classes/Training and Advisory Committee show increasing engagement as the population size decreases. Inlet Marking and Tree Planting engagement is higher in larger population brackets. Plant/BMP Tours show consistent but lower engagement across all population sizes.
Chart Details
The survey chart (pictogram) below visually represents the MCM 1 and 2 Topics that were reported by the MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) programs. The allows you to group and shade by activity or population size. For best results, Group by: "MCM 1 and 2 Topics", and Shade by: "Population Size". Once the the Topics have been grouped. Compare by "Population Size" to see which Topics were the most popular amongst the Population Tiers. Additionally, you can change the shape of the chart by selecting the bar or cluster option.

The stacked bar chart below shows the percentage of engagement in various MCM 1 and 2 Topics by MS4 across different population sizes. Each bar represents a population size category, and the segments within each bar represent different Topics. The height of each segment corresponds to the percentage of engagement in that activity within the given population size.

How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:

The y-axis displays the MCM 2 Topics.

The x-axis shows the Percentage of Usage.

Bar Color:

Each Population Group is color-coded:

Blue: >100k

Light Blue: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Yellow: <10k

Key Insights
From our analysis, we observed a varied engagement in MCM 1 and 2 topics across different population sizes, with larger communities (>100k) focusing significantly on Trash and Litter, Lawn Care/Leaves, and Runoff, while smaller communities (<10k) engage mostly target Trash and Litter and Contractors/EPSC. However, it is worth noting that topics like Habitat/Biology, Salt/Deicer, and Karst have consistently low engagement across all population sizes. Additional insights are provided below:

Population Size Insights:

100k

The most significant topics are Trash and Litter, Lawn Care/Leaves, Runoff, Post Construction BMPs, and K-12, each engaged multiple times. Topics like Wastewater, Habitat/Biology, Organic/Oil, Sediment, Bacteria, and Nutrients also have notable engagement. Karst and Salt/Deicer are also addressed but less frequently.

99.9-50k

This population size sees a higher engagement in Trash and Litter, Contractors/EPSC, Runoff, and K-12. Topics like Post Construction BMPs, IDDE, Residential, and Nutrients are also commonly addressed. Habitat/Biology, Salt/Deicer, and Karst have lower engagement.

49.9-25k

The highest engagement in this bracket is with Trash and Litter, IDDE, and Runoff. Topics like Bacteria, Nutrients, Residential, and Post Construction BMPs are also addressed. Salt/Deicer and Karst are not mentioned in this bracket.

24.9-10k

This bracket shows significant engagement in Trash and Litter, Runoff, and IDDE. Topics like Pet Waste, Contractors/EPSC, Lawn Care/Leaves, and K-12 are also addressed. Salt/Deicer, Karst, and Organic/Oil have moderate engagement.

10k or Less

Trash and Litter and Contractors/EPSC have the highest engagement. Topics like Pet Waste, Organic/Oil, Lawn Care/Leaves, and Residential are also commonly addressed. Habitat/Biology, Salt/Deicer, and Karst have lower engagement.

Activity Preferences:

High Engagement

Trash and Litter, Contractors/EPSC, and Runoff topics show consistent high engagement across various population sizes.

Moderate Engagement

Lawn Care/Leaves, Post Construction BMPs, K-12, and IDDE are moderately engaged across different population sizes.

Low Engagement

Topics like Habitat/Biology, Salt/Deicer, and Karst generally show low engagement, particularly in larger population brackets. Organic/Oil and Sediment also have varying but generally lower engagement compared to other topics.

Trends:

Trash and Litter and Runoff topics are popular across all population sizes. Contractors/EPSC and IDDE also show consistent engagement. Habitat/Biology and Salt/Deicer topics show lower engagement.

Chart Details
The following charts provide insights into the implementation and communication methods related to Minimum Control Measure (MCM) 3 among selected MS4s (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) in Kentucky. The first chart illustrates the percentage of MS4s that have an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) plan in place, while the second chart highlights the various notification methods utilized under MCM 3.

Chart 1: Do you Have an IDDE Plan?

This donut chart displays the percentage of MS4s from the sample population that have established an IDDE plan. The data is segmented across different population groups, allowing for a detailed analysis of compliance based on the size of the MS4’s service area. You can filter by population size using the menu below.

Chart 2: MCM 3 Notification Methods

The bar chart illustrates the variety of notification methods utilized by MS4s (sample population) to communicate about illicit discharges under MCM 3. The data reflects the usage percentage of each method, providing insights into the preferred channels for outreach and communication. This chart is aggregated

Key Insights
Across all surveyed MS4s, 94.6% have an IDDE plan in place, indicating a high level of adherence to regulatory requirements. However, 5.4% of MS4s reported not having an IDDE plan. The data for IDDE notification methods indicates that traditional communication methods like phone and website are heavily favored among MS4s, while newer digital methods are gradually gaining traction. However, there remains a limited reliance on more specialized entities like law enforcement and health departments for these notifications.

Population Group Analysis:

>100k Population Group: Full compliance, with 100% of MS4s reporting an IDDE plan.

99.9-50k Population Group: Similar to the largest population group, 100% compliance.

49.9-25k Population Group: Compliance drops slightly, with 80% of MS4s having an IDDE plan and 20% without.

24.9-10k and 10k or Less Population Groups: Both groups report 100% compliance, with all surveyed MS4s having an IDDE plan.

Top IDDE Notification Methods:

Phone

The most utilized method, with 96.4% of MS4s using phone communication for notifications.

Website

Over half of the MS4s (57.1%) use their websites for disseminating information related to illicit discharges.

Email

37.5% of MS4s rely on email notifications, showing a moderate level of usage.

Secondary Methods:

Elected Officials and Public Works

Used by 32.1% and 14.3% of MS4s respectively, indicating that direct communication with local government entities and public works departments is also a significant strategy.

Digital Applications and Social Media:

Both have similar usage rates at 12.5%, reflecting a growing trend towards digital and social media platforms for public notifications.

Low Usage Methods:

Law/Code Enforcement and Fire Department

These methods have lower adoption rates, with 8.9% and 7.1% respectively.

Health Department

The least utilized, with only 1.8% of MS4s using this channel for MCM 3 notifications.
Chart Details
How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:

The y-axis displays the Major Outfall and Screening Count.

The x-axis shows the Population Rank.

Bin Color:

Each Population Group is segmented by a color-coded bin:

Blue: >100k

Yellow: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Light Blue: <10k

The following charts provide insights into the status of major outfall mapping and screening efforts among selected MS4s (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) in Kentucky. The first chart illustrates the percentage of MS4s that have mapped their major outfalls, while the second chart details the count of major outfalls mapped and screened, categorized by population rank.

Chart 1: Have You Mapped Major Outfalls?

This donut chart visualizes the percentage of the sample population of MS4s that have completed the mapping of their major outfalls. The data is segmented by population group to assess mapping efforts across different service area sizes.

Chart 2: Major Outfall Counts and Screening by Population Rank

This bar chart provides a detailed representation of the number of major outfalls mapped and screened, categorized by the population rank of each MS4. The chart offers a comparative view of outfall management efforts across different MS4s based on their population size.

Key Insights
Across all surveyed MS4s, 91.1% have successfully mapped their major outfalls, showcasing a high level of compliance. However, 8.9% of MS4s have not yet completed this essential task.

Population Group Analysis (Have You Mapped Major Outfalls):

>100k Population Group: Full compliance, with 100% of MS4s in this group having mapped their major outfalls.

99.9-50k Population Group: Also demonstrates full compliance, with 100% of MS4s having completed mapping.

49.9-25k Population Group: Shows a slight drop in compliance, with 90% of MS4s reporting mapped outfalls, while 10% have not.

24.9-10k Population Group: Compliance decreases further to 82.4%, with 17.6% of MS4s in this group yet to map their major outfalls.

10k or Less Population Group: High compliance at 94.1%, with 5.9% of MS4s not having completed the mapping.

Population Group Analysis (Have You Mapped Major Outfalls):

The 49.9-25k group shows a considerable range in the number of outfalls (Min: 5, Max: 340), pointing to the diversity within this group. In contrast, the 10k or Less population group has a much smaller range and variability, with a standard deviation of 35.7 and a range of outfalls (Min: 0, Max: 132), suggesting more consistency within this group.

Despite mapping a moderate number of outfalls, some MS4s have not initiated screening. Only one MS4 in the entire sample population (10k or Less group) has zero mapped outfalls, indicating that most MS4s have at least mapped their outfalls even if their screening percentages are not optimal (20% per year). The 24.9-10k group has the most MS4s with zero screened outfalls (6 MS4s).

The table below provides aggregated population group descriptive statistics for additional details.
Chart Details
How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:

The y-axis displays the Number of Reported/Discovered Illicit Discharges.

The x-axis shows the Population Rank of the MS4.

The Column Bar displays the count of the Number of Reported/Discovered Illicit Discharges.

Bin Color:

Each Population Group is segmented by a color-coded bin:

Blue: >100k

Yellow: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Light Blue: <10k

This bar chart visualizes the number of illicit discharges that were either reported or discovered across various MS4s, ranked by population size. The bars represent the total number of discharges for each MS4, categorized into different population groups, allowing for an assessment of illicit discharge occurrences across varying service area sizes.

Key Insights
The >100k and 99.9-50k groups show higher numbers of reported or discovered illicit discharges, likely due to more extensive monitoring efforts in larger urban areas with higher pollution risks. Rank 2 in the >100k group is a significant outlier with 74 discharges, the highest of all MS4s. The 49.9-25k, 24.9-10k, and 10k or Less groups have fewer reported discharges. The 10k or Less group has the lowest reported illicit discharges, with the majority of MS4s reporting no incidents. Additionally very few (<1%) of the discharges were discovered during dry weather screening.

Chart Details
The following charts provide insights into the minimum land disturbance standards that require Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (EPSC) documentation among selected MS4s (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) in Kentucky. The first chart presents an overall summary of land disturbance thresholds requiring documentation, while the second chart breaks down the specific minimum submission standards for disturbances under one acre.

Chart 1: Minimum Land Disturbance Requiring Documentation

This donut chart provides an overview of the minimum land disturbance area that triggers EPSC documentation requirements across all surveyed MS4s. The chart segments the data into four main categories: less than one acre, one acre or more, unspecified, and none.

Chart 2: < 1 Acre Breakdown

This bar chart displays the frequency of different minimum standards applied by MS4s for land disturbances under one acre. The data highlights the variety of thresholds that MS4s use to determine when documentation is required for smaller land disturbances.

Key Insights

The data reveals a wide range of minimum submission standards for land disturbances under one acre, reflecting differing levels of regulatory rigor among MS4s. While some MS4s require documentation for very small disturbances (e.g., 750 Sq. ft), others have no minimum threshold or do not require documentation at all.

The most common threshold across MS4s is the <1 Acre standard, with nearly half of all MS4s adopting this as the minimum requirement.

The presence of a significant proportion of MS4s with unspecified or no documentation requirements suggests variability in how EPSC regulations are implemented. The diversity in minimum submission standards and the significant number of MS4s with no or unspecified requirements highlight the need for more standardized guidelines across the state.
Chart Details
The following charts provide insights into the permitting practices and issuance of land disturbance permits under Minimum Control Measure 4 (MCM 4) among selected MS4s (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) in Kentucky. The first chart shows the percentage of MS4s that permit land disturbances of one acre or larger, or smaller if part of a larger plan, segmented by population group. The second chart details the number of land disturbance permits issued, categorized by population rank and size.

Chart 1: Are You Permitting Land Disturbances of 1 Acre or Larger, or Smaller if Part of a Larger Plan?

This donut chart visualizes the percentage of MS4s that require permits for land disturbances of one acre or larger, or smaller if they are part of a larger plan. The data is segmented by population group to allow you to assess the consistency of permitting practices across different MS4 sizes.

Chart 2: Number of Land Disturbance Permits Issued

This bar chart provides a detailed representation of the number of land disturbance permits issued, categorized by the population rank of each MS4. The chart offers a comparative view of permitting activity across different MS4s based on their population size.

Key Insights
Across all surveyed MS4s, 86.2% require permits for land disturbances of one acre or larger, or smaller if part of a larger plan, demonstrating a strong adherence to regulatory standards. However, 13.8% of MS4s do not have this requirement. The data indicates strong overall compliance with permitting requirements across most population groups, though there are some gaps in mid-sized MS4s (49.9-25k). However, many of the non-permitting entities are Universities.

There is significant variability in the number of permits issued across different MS4s, particularly in the 99.9-50k and 49.9-25k groups. Some MS4s issue a large number of permits, which is largely the result of a lower minimum permitting standard for land disturbance.

Population Group Analysis (Are You Permitting Land Disturbances of 1 Acre or Larger, or Smaller if Part of a Larger Plan?):

>100k Population Group: Full compliance, with 100% of MS4s in this group requiring permits for land disturbances of one acre or larger, or smaller if part of a larger plan.

99.9-50k Population Group: 88.9% of MS4s in this group follow the same permitting requirement, with a small percentage (11.1%) not requiring permits.

49.9-25k Population Group: 75% of MS4s in this group require permits, indicating a slightly lower level of compliance, with 25% not requiring permits.

24.9-10k Population Group: 88.2% of MS4s require permits, showing a high level of compliance similar to larger groups, with 11.8% not requiring permits.

10k or Less Population Group: This group mirrors the 24.9-10k group with 88.2% compliance and 11.8% not requiring permits.

Stormwater Utility Atlas

Annual Report Review

Chart Details

How to Interpret the Chart

Key Insights

Chart Details

How to Interpret the Chart

Key Insights

Chart Details

How to Interpret the Chart

Key Insights

Chart Details

How to Interpret the Chart

Key Insights

Map Details

Chart Details

How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:​​

​

The y-axis displays the MCM 1 activity.

​​

The x-axis shows the Percentage of Implementation.

​ Bar Color:​ ​​​

Each Population Group is color-coded:​

Blue: >100k

Light Blue: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Yellow: <10k

​​​

Key Insights

Chart Details

How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:​​

​

The y-axis displays the MCM 2 activity.

​​

The x-axis shows the Percentage of Implementation.

​ Bar Color:​ ​​​

Each Population Group is color-coded:​

Blue: >100k

Light Blue: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Yellow: <10k

​​​

Key Insights

Chart Details

How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:​​

​

The y-axis displays the MCM 2 Topics.

​​

The x-axis shows the Percentage of Usage.

​ Bar Color:​ ​​​

Each Population Group is color-coded:​

Blue: >100k

Light Blue: 99.9-50k

Green: 49.9-25k

Orange: 24.9-10k

Yellow: <10k

​​​

Key Insights

Chart Details

Chart 1: Do you Have an IDDE Plan?

​

Chart 2: MCM 3 Notification Methods

​

Key Insights

Chart Details

How to Interpret the Chart

Axes:​​

​

The y-axis displays the Major Outfall and Screening Count.

​​

The x-axis shows the Population Rank.

​

Bin Color:​ ​​​

Each Population Group is segmented by a color-coded bin:​

Blue: >100k

Yellow: 99.9-50k

Axes:

Bar Color:

Each Population Group is color-coded:

Axes:

Bar Color:

Each Population Group is color-coded:

Axes:

Bar Color:

Each Population Group is color-coded:

Axes:

Bin Color:

Each Population Group is segmented by a color-coded bin:

This bar chart provides a detailed representation of the number of major outfalls mapped and screened, categorized by the population rank of each MS4. The chart offers a comparative view of outfall management efforts across different MS4s based on their population size.

Axes:

Bin Color:

Each Population Group is segmented by a color-coded bin: