Which states let you write your own SWPPP?
Every row below was read from that state's current construction general permit or its implementing regulation on 2026-08-03. Nine states require a licensed professional for a 1–5 acre site, Missouri publishes its permit conditions only inside a login portal, and the remaining 40 allow the operator to prepare the plan — five of them only once you have answered questions about the site itself.
| State | Can the operator prepare it? | Basis | Permit / regulation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | No — licensed professional required | Alabama requires the construction best-management-practice plan to be certified by a Qualified Credentialed Professional, and every route to that credential starts from a professional licence or certification. Alabama's permit PDF has no text layer; the quoted wording was recovered by OCR (Ghostscript and Tesseract, two independent passes agreeing) rather than copied from selectable text. Re-verify by the same method. | NPDES CGP ALR100000 (effective 2026-04-01), Part III.F.1–2 and Part V definitions |
| Alaska | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Alaska only asks for a "qualified person"; for 1–5 acre sites the stated preparer threshold is being familiar with the permit. | APDES CGP AKR100000 (effective 2026-02-01), Part 5.1.2.3 and Appendix C Table 4 |
| Arizona | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Arizona requires a "qualified person", defined to include the operator's own employees as well as outside personnel. | AZPDES CGP AZG2025-001, Part 2.2.3(a) and Appendix A |
| Arkansas | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Arkansas requires "qualified personnel", defined by knowledge and skill in erosion and sediment control rather than by any licence. | CGP ARR150000, Part II.A.1 and Part I definition 44 |
| California | No — licensed professional required | California requires the SWPPP to be developed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, and QSD status presupposes an existing PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, landscape-architect or geologist credential. | CGP Order WQ 2022-0057-DWQ, §V.A.2 and §V.F.2–V.F.5 |
| Colorado | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Colorado asks only for good engineering, hydrologic and pollution-control practice; the "Qualified Stormwater Manager" role covers inspection and implementation, not preparation. | CDPS COR400000, Part I.C.1 and Part I.F(28) |
| Connecticut | Depends on site conditions | Connecticut normally requires a licensed professional engineer or landscape architect to certify the plan, but a 1–5 acre project approved in writing by a municipal land-use commission is exempt from state review. | CGP CTR100000 (effective 2026-01-01), §2.2.14 and §2.5.3 |
| Delaware | No — licensed professional required | Delaware requires the plan to be designed by a licensed professional — an architect, landscape architect or professional engineer — with no small-site exemption. | CGP WPCC 3082/20 (NPDES DE0051268, effective 2026-03-11), Part 1.B(b) and the definitions section |
| Florida | Yes — no preparer requirement | Florida asks only that the SWPPP follow standard industry practices; it names no preparer qualification. | FDEP Generic Permit, Rule 62-621.300(4)(a), Part 4.2 |
| Georgia | No — licensed professional required | Georgia requires the erosion, sedimentation and pollution control plan to be prepared by a design professional (PE, architect, landscape architect or land surveyor). | GAR100002, Part IV; O.C.G.A. §12-7-19(b) |
| Hawaii | Yes — no preparer requirement | Hawaii requires permittees and their contractors to develop the SWPPP; the "qualified person" wording appears only in the inspection clause. | NPDES CGP, HAR Title 11 Ch. 55 Appendix C (2024-01-29), §7.1 and §9.1.1 |
| Idaho | Yes — no preparer requirement | Idaho requires operators to develop the SWPPP; qualification and training language is confined to inspections. | IPDES CGP IDR100000 (IDAPA 58.01.25), §7.1 and §6.3 |
| Illinois | Yes — no preparer requirement | Illinois requires the plan to follow good engineering practices; PE, CPESC and CESSWI appear only in the inspection-personnel definition. The Illinois permit was read for this classification, but no stable public address for the permit document itself was recorded. The address here is the agency site, not the permit. | NPDES ILR10 (effective 2023-09-22), Part IV |
| Indiana | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Indiana requires the SWP3 to be signed by a "trained individual", a disjunctive definition that annual in-house training already satisfies. Indiana expects the signer to be a "trained individual"; annual in-house training is enough, but keep a record of it. | CSGP INRA00000 (effective 2021-12-18), §3.0(c), §4.1 and Appendix B definition 66 |
| Iowa | Yes — no preparer requirement | Iowa requires the SWPPP to be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and sets no preparer qualification. | NPDES General Permit No. 2 (effective 2023-03-01), Part IV |
| Kansas | No — licensed professional required | Kansas requires the plan to be developed under the supervision of a licensed engineer, geologist, architect, landscape architect or a CPESC, with no small-site exemption. | KDHE General Permit S-MCST-2208-1 (KSR100000), Part 7.1 |
| Kentucky | Yes — no preparer requirement | Kentucky requires each permittee to develop the SWPPP with no qualification attached; training requirements apply to inspectors. The Kentucky permit was read for this classification, but no stable public address for the permit document itself was recorded. The address here is the agency site, not the permit. | KPDES KYR100000 (effective 2025-01-03), §2.2 and §2.2.7.3 |
| Louisiana | Yes — no preparer requirement | Louisiana requires good engineering practices; its "qualified personnel" definition is used only for inspections. | LPDES LAR200000 (small construction, 1–<5 acres), Part III and Part VII |
| Maine | Yes, after an open-enrolment course | Maine requires the preparer to hold a DEP certification in erosion control practices — an open-enrolment course, not a licence. The certification is issued by the DEP Nonpoint Source Training Center and is open to contractors, landscapers, municipal officials and project managers. Whether an online session exists has NOT been verified — confirm directly with NPSTraining.DEP@maine.gov before relying on it. | 2024 MCGP (MEPDES, effective 2025-01-14), Part III.B |
| Maryland | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Maryland mandates certification for the personnel who implement controls; preparer certification is only something an approval authority may require. Source URL not recorded in the gate scan — mde.maryland.gov blocked automated retrieval and the text was read from a mirror. | COMAR 26.17.01 §.06.A/B, §.07.B(6)(i) and §.07.C |
| Massachusetts | No — licensed professional required | Massachusetts attaches 310 CMR 10.00 to every construction general permit discharge, and the resulting Stormwater Report must be prepared under the direction of a Registered Professional Engineer. The sentence quoted here has a known grammatical ambiguity: read at its strictest, it makes 310 CMR 10.00 apply unconditionally; a narrower reading limits it to wetland jurisdiction. We hold Massachusetts at "not serviceable" on the strict reading. Opening the state up would require a written position from the agency. | EPA 2022 CGP (as modified) Part 9.1.2 (§401 state conditions) → 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k) Standard 8 |
| Michigan | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Michigan lets the landowner or a designated agent submit the soil erosion and sedimentation control plan; certification applies to plan reviewers and storm water operators. Classification rests on the Michigan Administrative Code rules cited above; the gate scan recorded no direct document link, so this points at the agency site. | NREPA Part 91; Mich. Admin. Code R 323.1706–1708 and R 323.2190 |
| Minnesota | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Minnesota requires the person preparing the SWPPP to be trained, but accepts training from any agency, professional organisation or other entity with expertise. Training must be refreshed every three years. There is no exam and no certificate — but keep evidence of the training you took. | CSGP MNR100001 (2023-08-01 – 2028-07-31), §21.2 and §21.3 |
| Mississippi Detail page pending a source. The gate scan recorded Mississippi from a subagent report; no permit document was read and no URL was captured. | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Mississippi uses a soft "qualified person" formulation with no licence prerequisite. Gate scan recorded this state from a subagent report without capturing the permit URL — re-verify before publishing a Mississippi state page. | Mississippi construction general permit (soft "qualified person" requirement) |
| Missouri | Not verified — treated as no | Missouri could not be verified: the MOR100 permit conditions are only available inside the state ePermitting portal, so there is no public text to quote and we will not guess. Blocked conservatively. If Missouri publishes the permit text, this state can be re-classified. | MOR100 (permit conditions published only inside the MoGEM ePermitting portal) |
| Montana | Yes, after an open-enrolment course | Montana requires SWPPP preparers to hold a certification from a DEQ-approved course; the course has no degree or licence prerequisite. The DEQ-approved course is open to anyone — no degree or licence is required — and the certification lasts three years. Complete it before you use a self-prepared SWPPP in Montana. | CGP MTR100000, Part 3.2 and 3.2.1 |
| Nebraska Detail page pending a source. The gate scan recorded Nebraska from a subagent report; no permit document was read and no URL was captured. | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Nebraska uses a soft "qualified person" formulation with no licence prerequisite. Gate scan recorded this state from a subagent report without capturing the permit URL — re-verify before publishing a Nebraska state page. | Nebraska construction general permit (soft "qualified person" requirement) |
| Nevada Detail page pending a source. The gate scan recorded Nevada from a subagent report; no permit document was read and no URL was captured. | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Nevada states expressly that the preparer may be either the operator's employees or outside consultants. Gate scan recorded this state from a subagent report without capturing the permit URL — re-verify before publishing a Nevada state page. | Nevada construction general permit (preparer may be an employee or a consultant) |
| New Hampshire | Yes — qualified person, no licence | New Hampshire runs on the federal permit, whose "qualified person" definition is a knowledge and skill threshold that in-house staff can meet. | EPA 2022 CGP (no state NPDES authorisation), Appendix A definitions |
| New Jersey | No — licensed professional required | New Jersey requires the engineering items of the soil erosion and sediment control plan to be sealed by a licensed New Jersey engineer or architect, triggered above 5,000 square feet. | N.J.A.C. 2:90-1.5(c)4; 2017 NJ Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control |
| New Mexico | Yes — qualified person, no licence | New Mexico runs on the federal permit, whose "qualified person" definition can be met by the operator's own staff. | EPA 2022 CGP (no state NPDES authorisation), Appendix A definitions |
| New York | Depends on site conditions | New York splits by project type, not acreage: Table 1 projects (single-family homes, residential subdivisions, agricultural buildings, underground utilities, trails) can be self-prepared, while commercial development and other Table 2 projects need a stormwater management practice component and therefore a licensed professional — with no acreage floor. | GP-0-25-001, Part III.A.3.4; Appendix A; Appendix B Table 1 / Table 2 |
| North Carolina | Yes — no preparer requirement | North Carolina places no qualification on the plan preparer; approval authority sits with the reviewing agency, not with a licensed preparer. | NCG010000 CGP, Sections A/B/C; N.C.G.S. §113A-54.1 |
| North Dakota | Yes — no preparer requirement | North Dakota's permit contains no professional engineer, licence, stamp or seal requirement; signature rules are corporate-officer rules, not qualification rules. | NDPDES General Permit NDR11-0000 (effective 2025-04-01) |
| Ohio | Yes — no preparer requirement | Ohio asks for a "professional experienced in the design and implementation" of erosion and sediment controls but names no licence, exam or issuing body, and applies the same clause to 1–5 acre sites. The gate scan's summary table counts Ohio as C; the "experienced professional" wording reads as B2 in its per-state row — self-preparation is allowed either way. | Ohio EPA CGP OHC000006 (2023-04-23 – 2028-04-22), Part III.A |
| Oklahoma | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Oklahoma states expressly that a licensed professional engineer is not required to prepare the plan. | OPDES OKR10 (effective 2022-10-18, revised 2023-11-01), Part 5.1(B) |
| Oregon | Depends on site conditions | Oregon small sites can self-prepare by default; a stamp by a CPESC, CPSWQ, PE, RLA or CEG is required only when the site disturbs 20 acres or more, when a non-standard buffer compliance option is used because water is within 50 feet, or when an engineered sediment basin or erosion management plan is built. | Oregon DEQ 1200-C Permit (2025-12-15 – 2030-12-14), Schedule A.21 |
| Pennsylvania | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Pennsylvania requires both plans to be prepared by a person "trained and experienced" in the relevant methods; the licensed professional requirement attaches to site implementation, not preparation. This link is §102.4 (the E&S plan). The PCSM plan clauses live at the sibling URL .../chapter102/s102.8.html, which is where §102.8(e) and §102.8(k) are read from. | 25 Pa. Code §102.4(b)(3) (E&S plan); §102.8(e) and §102.8(k) (PCSM plan) |
| Rhode Island | No — licensed professional required | Rhode Island requires the erosion and sediment control plan to be stamped and signed by a registered PE, CPESC, CPSWQ or registered landscape architect, and the stamp requirement survives the small-site filing exemption. Rhode Island's current permit expires 2026-09-26 and a 2026 draft is out for comment; this classification may change. | 2025 RIPDES CGP (effective 2025-09-26), Part III.C and Part III.F |
| South Carolina | Split by acreage | South Carolina requires a licensed engineer, landscape architect or Tier B land surveyor to stamp the plan only above 2 disturbed acres; at or below 2 acres a sketched plan with no seal is accepted. | SCR100000 CGP (issued 2026-02-27, effective 2026-03-30) §3.1.2.B, incorporating S.C. Reg. 72-307 |
| South Dakota | Yes — qualified person, no licence | South Dakota requires only "knowledgeable and experienced" personnel; signature rules are corporate-officer rules and there is no acreage tier. | SD DANR CGP SDR100000 (2023-11-01 – 2028-10-31), §5.3(1) and §7.4 |
| Tennessee | Yes — no preparer requirement | Tennessee's preparer qualification requirements apply only to sites disturbing more than five acres; at or below five acres they do not apply. Tennessee's current permit expires 2026-09-30 and a 2026 version is proposed to take effect 2026-10-01. That draft has NOT been reviewed; if it lowers the five-acre threshold, Tennessee stops being self-serve. | TNR100000 CGP (2021 version, current), §5.2 Qualification Requirements |
| Texas | Yes — no preparer requirement | Texas requires the SWP3 to be developed and implemented by the primary operator; the permit contains no PE, CPESC or licensing language for preparation. | TPDES TXR150000 (effective 2023-03-05), Part III.F |
| Utah | Depends on site conditions | Utah requires a qualified SWPPP writer for a 1–5 acre site only when perennial surface water sits within 50 feet or the site has a slope of 70% (35 degrees) or steeper. Whether Utah's "Registered SWPPP Writer" credential is open to register for has NOT been verified. If it turns out to be open, Utah becomes a course-first state rather than a screened one. | UPDES UTRC00000 (effective 2024-07-01), Part 7.2 |
| Vermont | Depends on site conditions | Vermont scores each site as Low or Moderate risk; Moderate-risk sites need an EPSC plan prepared by a certified engineer, while Low-risk sites need only a self-made site drawing. | VT DEC GP 3-9020 (2025), Subpart 3.2 |
| Virginia | Yes — qualified person, no licence | Virginia requires only that SWPPPs be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices; its certification classes apply to agency reviewers and inspectors, not to preparers. | VAR10 (9VAC25-880-70 Part II A 2 / B 2 a); 9VAC25-875-550 B; 9VAC25-875-400 A 3 |
| Washington | Yes — no preparer requirement | Washington requires the permittee to prepare the SWPPP; the Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead requirement applies to site inspections. | Ecology CSWGP (2026-01-01 – 2030-12-31), S9 versus S4.B |
| West Virginia | Yes — qualified person, no licence | West Virginia requires a "Qualified Person", which the permit allows to be in-house staff or a third party. The formal definition of "Qualified Person" could not be located in the gate scan; the classification rests on the permit allowing in-house staff. | WVDEP CSGP WV0115924 (reissued 2024), Part II.H |
| Wisconsin | Yes — no preparer requirement | Wisconsin puts the duty on the landowner or applicant to develop the erosion control plan and states no qualification at all. | WPDES General Permit WI-S067831-6 (reissued 2021-10-01), §3.1 |
| Wyoming | Yes — no preparer requirement | Wyoming states expressly that the SWPPP need not be prepared or certified by a registered engineer. Read from a Wayback mirror of the 2020 permit; a newer version may exist and has not been verified. | WYPDES Small CGP WYR10-A000 (2020), Part 9.1.1 and 7.2 |
3 states (MS, NE, NV) have a row but no page of their own: the scan recorded them from a subagent summary rather than from permit text anybody here has read, so there is nothing to quote and nothing to link. All three allow self-preparation and none of them blocks anybody — but a page is a claim, and we are not making one until the permit has been read. Maryland and Missouri also have no source link: Maryland's text came from a mirror, and Missouri publishes none at all.