Recommendations for Incorporating National Ordinance Review Findings in Ordinance Update
Filed in Stormwater Management |
The National Ordinance Review Technical Memorandum has been finalized and posted to this site for several months. The Review helped to identify innovative practices and standards used by progressive stormwater programs across the Country, and included a number of recommendations for the update to DuPage’s Stormwater and Floodplain Ordinance. The key recommendations that may be considered for incorporation into the current update have been pulled into a separate document, with additional details and backup information that may be helpful.
We want to insure that the recommendations serve as input for the Steering Committee as it prepares to draft the ordinance update, and therefore we are posting this document (see attached) to this website so that each point can be discussed and refined. We ask that Steering Committee members, designated municipal representatives, and the public provide comments on the recommendations pertaining to their feasibility for incorporation into the DuPage County Stormwater and Floodplain Ordinance. Your comments will be reviewed closely as decisions are made pertaining to each point.
Wednesday, February 3rd 2010 at 9:17 am |
I forsee some push back on chainging the release rate – at least as the way it is written in the summary recommendations. The intent in increasing the rate would be to provide for better stream quality in the long-term, but what are the short term impacts of any potential downstream flooding resulting from such an increase? I took away from the SC had that a decrease in the release rate would be tied to a BMP that treats the first flush – correct? Perhaps a sliding scale based on the extent of development (or impervious area) would tie it together.
Further, as other municipalities have 0.1 cfs/ac currently in their specific Codes, will they be required to move to the less stringent (allbeit better for the stream degradation ) rate? Can they maintain a more stringent release rate, if the same BMP is still coupled with the project?
The document also touches on maintenance issues. I would discouarge any movement towards a separate assesment that puts the County or muni’s in posistion to collect money for maintenance work as, in the end, they’ll likely end up maintaining. I would encourage the frequent inspection of these facilities as it is effective in capturing the main issues with most of the systems (blocked/missing restrictors, unmaintained sediment traps/grease traps, etc.). For the most part, property owners and associations are agreeable to correcting these issues and avoiding flooding problems.
Friday, February 5th 2010 at 10:58 am |
Good Points. You are highlighting why I bleieve the requirements must all work together to accomplich a purpose. If we move toword requireing retention of a “water quality volume”, from a technical standpoint there is not alot of justification to require the more restrictive “detention” release rate. I think we have to strive for a “balance” in public policy, to get the most benefit from the investment in infrastucture that is part of new development or redevelopment.
Maintenance is still an issue in this County. There are many responsible landowners and owners associations out there, but we have found few prepared to deal with the issue of maintenance if the costs are more than minimal. What is good public policy on this issue? For comparison, why do we shy away from private roads, or water and sewer systems serving multiple people but run by private associations? Is stormwater infrasturcture really different?
Much discussion and study is needed before a release rate change in this county is implemented, including the points you raise about existing municipal ordinances.
Friday, February 12th 2010 at 8:59 am |
Release Rate
I agree we should look at conducting a peak release rate study. However, the study should also consider the fiscal impacts of modifying the peak release rate, not just the environmental impacts. Most environmental impacts are from more frequent lesser storm events which can be addressed through other methods such as volume reduction.
Friday, February 12th 2010 at 11:16 am |
Water Quality – 3. Identify Pollutant of Concern
Some of the more effective phosphorous reduction programs involved non-structural BMPs like legislation banning fertilizers containing phosphorous and education. Is it best to treat phosphorous or any other pollutant by non-structural methods or are structural BMPs best? Are multiple BMP strategies needed? The “desired level of stream health” will need to be determined first in order for us to properly identify the pollutants of concern.
Friday, February 12th 2010 at 11:55 am |
Water Quality – 4. Compliance Process
I think this will help both developers and permit reviewers to more easily determine compliance by undertaking these measures. It will also help municipalities address upcoming new water quality standards and TMDLs. Hwever, a recognition and an analysis of the costs to comply must be performed. This could help determine the most cost effective regulation to adopt.
The process will help address the chemical nature of storm water runoff but could do little if anything to improve the overall quality and use of our streams. Several studies have shown that restoration and enhancement of habitats do more to improve the health of a stream as compared to pollutant load reductions which concentrate on water chemistry. Current needs for restoration/enhancement are significantly underfunded. Therefore, it makes sense to incorporate some of these strategies as alternatives. DRSCW has performed extensive biological and water quality studies that could be useful.
Friday, February 12th 2010 at 12:07 pm |
Water Quality – 5. Impervious Area Reduction
Yes there is a relationship between impervious area and stream degradation. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that reducing impervious area in a County that is mostly built out will result in healthy streams. LID strategies may be more difficult to impliment and less effective in DuPage County. Realistically how much LID or impervious area must be reduced to see an appreciable improvement in stream health? Is this even a feasible goal? I think financially realistic goals should be set that have been shown to be attainable through LID.
Tuesday, March 2nd 2010 at 11:25 am |
While I agree that reducing impervious areas in a county that is mostly built out, It will at least be getting what we can in that regard from new development. I dont think it is realistic at all to expect new development to bring about healthy streams, but the fact that it cant do it alone does not justify setting expectations for new development. What constitutes “finacially realistic”? Who determines that? How is that determined? I dont know.
Friday, February 12th 2010 at 1:05 pm |
Water Quality – 6. Treatment Requirements
I like the idea of having a defined water quality volume and treatment value, but I’m uncertain what the exact meaning is of the term “maximum extent technically feasible”. That could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Some effort must be made to define this term more specifically for DuPage County.
Also, for the comparatively small amount of development left in DuPage County will capturing and treating the “90 to 95 percentile annual rainfall event” have much impact? What will be the impact to an already severely depressed economy? I think there needs to be some type of threshold placed on redevelopment and on size.
Friday, February 12th 2010 at 2:47 pm |
Both DuPage County and the municipalities have struggled with providing proper maintenance of (SWMF) storm water management facilities (detention & retention basins, storm sewers, overland flow routes, restrictors, wetlands, riparians, etc.) let alone BMPs. This has become even more evident with extremely tight budgets. Granted governmental agencies are probably doing a better job than most of the private sector, but we are far from providing the maintenance to the multitude of SWMFs under our control. Furthermore, private entities are required to have a maintenance plan with their permit and it’s up to municipalities to enforce those plans. If you are like most villages, enforcement of maintenance plans is probably only done on a complaint basis. I believe governmental agencies should set the standard first before we impose it on others. To be successful this will require a dedicated funding source and a defined level of maintenance that is acceptable and practible by all.
I’m not real sure we can set appropriate standards to pre-approve vendors. If it is based on soley on experience it will greatly depend on the quality of their previous work. If it is based on the vendors ability to perform the job, much like IDOT’s process, I don’t think this will provide the qulaity vendors we are looking for. We may want to require a certain level of trained personnel which may help attain quality contractors although there are no guarantees.