Home Sustainable Land Development Today February 2005

Technology Helps NPDES Permitting Process

Written by J.P. Johns

Wednesday, 02 February 2005

Automated solution aids county officials as well as developers. When Greenville County (SC) wanted to establish a better watershed management plan, they turned to the basics. They determined that they somehow needed to manage data and information on a parcel-by-parcel basis if they were going to truly manage the entire watershed. With NPDES requirements and a permitting process already in place, Greenville County, in concert with its engineering consultant, Woolpert, Inc., decided to automate key processes in the county’s permit tracking system in order to increase efficiency, organize and store grading permit data, and allow trend analysis of data. Another major incentive for the county was a new ordinance that went into effect in 2000 that required county planners, inspectors, and reviewers to process permit applications within 10 working days. And, with NPDES Phase I and Phase II regulations requiring permitting on all construction activity impacting one acre or greater, Greenville County faced up to 500 permit applications per year. Like most counties located near a major metropolitan area, 75 percent of the development activity is residential, but when considering the dollar amount the majority is commercial. When evaluating the potential solution design, the first step was to review the current process being utilized. Greenville’s process was similar to many other municipalities. It involved a number of county personnel on multiple projects that often resulted in information not being passed along the chain and/or wasted time trying to locate information. “In some instances,” states Jason Gillespie, director of the Greenville County Soil and Water District, “getting a wide variety of people in government together to make changes can be very difficult. We are lucky enough to have a number of progressive thinkers that saw the changes we wanted to make would help them and our residents—not just the Soil and Water District.” The project looked to combine the efforts and information collected by the following departments: Building Codes/Permits; Flood Plain Management; Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Planning Commission; Public Works; Roads and Bridges; Soil and Water Conservation; and, Zoning. “Before we implemented this new system,” Gillespie explains, “we relied solely on a paper system. If we needed information from a file, we needed to track down where in the process it was and try and locate the information. Perhaps it was not even in a file because it was active and someone was out in the field conducting an inspection.” The Solution According to Gilbert Inouye, an engineer and information technology project manager with Woolpert, the decision to change the county’s system to an automated one was not a tough sell because everyone realized that manual process was inefficient. “Compiling reports as required by NPDES Phase I and II, if done manually, requires a lot of personnel time and research,” states Inouye. “The county saw that they could put more employees out in the field to work with the public instead of having them dig through files in the office.” In addition to streamlining the process, it would allow the county to better serve its constituents, especially the builders, developers, and contractors that are affected by the more efficient permitting process. One of the first pieces of the new puzzle to be determined was which software package to customize. Woolpert wanted to tie together three primary components into the automated system:     1. Track citizen complaints and have these spur immediate action by county officials.     2. Incorporate a complete work management system.     3. Handle the permitting and inspection process and produce tracking reports to meet local, state, and federal ordinances and requirements. Many off-the-shelf software products were reviewed, but none were deemed appropriate for Greenville. As a result, Inouye became the software developer for this project by creating a custom application for Greenville County. Taking into consideration the needs of the county and the desire for as much automation and efficiency as possible, he created a software product that incorporates multiple tablet personal computers (Fujitsu ST-4121), the county’s computer network, a comprehensive IBM database (DB2), an intranet, Garmin GPS units (model 76), and Logitech 420 digital cameras. All data and information is spatially related, allowing the entire permitting process to be available to the county’s GIS system and viewable via various ESRI products owned by the county. Today’s Process The conversion from the paper manual process and a spreadsheet and file folder system took about six months. During a short transition period, both processes, the manual and automated, were utilized in an effort to ease employees and users while also testing the new system. As a result, the county’s four inspectors take the tablet computers into the field. The inspectors can see live GPS maps to identify locations and complete the inspections. With the digital camera that is attached to the computer, inspectors also record images with the report. The reports and images are stored to the computer. When the inspector returns to the office, he/she connects to the county network and uploads the data to the database. At the same time, relevant information from the network, including reports from other inspectors, becomes immediately available to all necessary county personnel. “Instead of waiting around for information or finding the person to ask,” explains Gillespie, “the information is now at everyone’s disposal.” As a result of these automated advances, Greenville is now able to do the following in a more efficient process:     1. Construction permit applications are reviewed and then approved or disapproved.     2. Permit approval/disapproval letters are automated.     3. Stormwater and erosion plans are reviewed and then approved or disapproved.     4. Erosion plan approval/disapproval letters are automated.     5. Sites with grading activity are inspected when a Notice of Intent (NOI) is received from the owner/developer/contractor.     6. Warning/violation letters are also automated.     7. All data related to the permit is stored in a relational database (AS/400 UDB). Even with these automated features, both Greenville and Woolpert intend to make additional enhancements. For instance, there is a goal to enable owners/developers/contractors to submit applications via an online Internet interface. Gillespie expects the use of an automated approach will continue to expand and eventually include the public’s access via the Internet. “I think we are moving toward a point in time that plans can be submitted to us digitally by contractors and developers,” predicts Gillespie. “This will also enable our inspectors to submit their reports digitally. Eventually, the public will have access to some of the appropriate information online which will further eliminate calls and questions coming in to the various offices.” SLDT