Comments on: Special Project Category for Special Management Areas

By: new language

new language — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:28:55 +0000

new language…

[...]Special Project Category for Special Management Areas | StormWaterUpdate[...]…

By: StormBlog53

StormBlog53 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:13:11 +0000

There are some excellent suggestions in each of the above comments. We have generally received conceptual approval from the Steering Committee to implement “naturalization” and will consider these suggestion futher as we come up with the first draft of ordinance language

By: StormBlog24

StormBlog24 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:38:44 +0000

What about projects that avoid or minimize impacts to these areas? What comes to mind is a utility company boring under these areas to avoid any disturbance (maybe a splice pit). If the disturbance is avoided, perhaps a streamlined permit can be issued that would still monitor that the work is completed as planned.

By: StormBlog55

StormBlog55 — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:28:04 +0000

I fully agree that these types of “naturalization projects” should be automatically exempt from stormwater detention requirements, and in most cases exempt from wetland mitigation and riparian mitigation requirements as well. These types of projects often involve removing non-native trees such from the floodplain, and Ordinance currently doesn’t differentiate between removing Buckthorn vs. Swamp White Oaks — both scearios would require a riparian mitigation plan with post-project performance standards to be met and potentially years of site monitoring and management.

The Ordinance also discourages any work at all within existing wetlands, even low quality areas filled with Reed Canarygrass. Presently, the wetland permitting process takes all the fun and enthusiasm out of doing natural-area restoration projects, due to the extensive post-project monitoring, management, and reporting requirements. Why do we want to discourage an applicant from temporarily disturbing a low quality wetland if the primary aim of the project is to create a higher quality wetland? Even if the restoration attempt completely fails, no harm, no foul, because we’re still left with the low quality wetland that we started with.

By: StormBlog23

StormBlog23 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:34:21 +0000

I’d like to see this category also apply to projects that make stormwater/water quality/floodplain improvements on properties when there are no requirements to do so, or perhaps when a project goes above and beyond what’s required by the ordinance. One example would be a pre-1992 office building with parking lot; the site is now > 50% impervious. The building owner needs to repave the lot, and rather than just repaving the existing lot, he installs pervious pavement with bioswales, and adds other native landscaping to the property. Another example would be a homeowner’s association that takes an old dry detention basin with concrete channels in the bottom and redesigns it as a wet bottom basin with native plantings throughout. As it exists today, these would be expensive projects in terms of permit cost. What can we do in the new ordinance to ENCOURAGE these types of projects? If DuPage had a stormwater utility, these could be given credits against their stormwater bill. I believe someone responding to the survey has suggested property tax breaks, but is it possible, legally, to do that? Some kind of an incentive is needed–reduced permit fees, others?

By: StormBlog9

StormBlog9 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:50:10 +0000

I would agree that a special category needs to be identified for these types of projects. Having gone through the process to get a permit for a stream bank stabilization project has been rather difficult. Applying all the rules with extremely limited flexibility makes a very environmentally beneficial project almost infeasible. More latitude and greater recognition of the benefits needs to be given for “naturalization projects”.

I’m not sure what is meant by “retrofitting of BMPs to existing development”. If this involves retrofitting a catch basin insert into a hydrodynamic separator, I’m not sure that would be considered a “naturalization project”. However, retrofitting a typical retention pond with existing mowed turf grass side slopes into a native prairie buffer would. Would this apply to both pre and post BMP Manual BMPs?

I also have a question on how “degraded” does a wetland or riparian area have to be before it is considered as a “naturalization project” and what is deemed an “enhancement”? Would something that is required, e.g. wetland or riparian mitigation or a BMP, apply?

I’m sure these issues can all be resolved and I would be in favor of creating a category for “naturalization projects”. We may also want to include demonstration/improvement type projects where a municipality, developer or HOA wants to put in a pervious parking lot, rain garden, infiltration basin or some other device to improve storm water quality that isn’t being required as part a development. It’s not really retrofitting an existing BMP, but rather adding anew one. I think it would meet the intent.