Response to public comments so far…

We have received a number of comments in the “Public Comment” section of the website.  Before we start into the thick of the real drafting of the Ordinance Update, I want to respond and acknowledge the comments we have received, and to the extent I can let commenters know what is being done about the comment.  Rather than respond to each comment individually, we have “collapsed” similar comments into a single concern.

1. Comments on BMPs:  Volume credits should be provided for BMPs, permeable pavers should be encouraged, wetlands should be given credit for higher evapotranspiration and since they are more effective than dry ponds, guidance should be provided on soak away systems.  Response:  We are looking for all opportunities to properly credit the multiple benefits of BMPs as we proceed into Drafting Ordinance Update language.
2. Comments on Redevelopment:  Redevelopment exemptions are too difficult to achieve, they should be expanded and simplified. Redevelopment should be encouraged to avoid sprawl.  Response:  Requirements related to redevelopment are being re-thought, recognizing that redevelopment is something that current trends in water quality and stormwater management, as well as urban planning, would encourage.
3. Comments on Easements and Deed Restrictions:  The Ordinance should clearly state when and where BMP and SMA easements and deed restrictions are required for both public and private development sites, and, how they shall be recorded.  Response: Noted.
4. Comments on Restoration:  There should be a separate category for projects that are for restoration work.  Response:  We have come to recognize that restoration, along with a whole class of projects whose purpose is to improve the ecological health of the project site, should be treated differently.  Watch for work under the project category “Naturalization”, as the real purpose of that category is to respond to this comment.
5. Comments on CLOMR:  CLOMR requirement should be eliminated for BFE reductions when there is no floodway impact.  Response:  This will be considered in discussions on Floodplain/Floodway regulations.  The enabling legislation says we must be consistent with IDNR.
6. Comments on FEQ:  Consider alternatives to FEQ.  Response:  The required use of FEQ will be made clearer in the ordinance update.  As stated in the Watershed Plan, alternative models will be acceptable where appropriate.
7. Comments on restrictors:  Eliminate small diameter/small volume restrictors that are prone to failure and need constant maintenance.  Response:  While we will review this situation carefully, the ordinance has been in place a long time and several designs have come into common usage that do not seem to be the source of a lot of complaints.
8. Comments on Roadways:  Roadway procedures should be formalized.  Response:  We all agree, and we are looking closely at that.

As new comments are received, we will post additional responses.

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now developed their Final Rules for limiting pollution from construction site runoff.  In discussions with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), the State has indicated unofficially that they were waiting for the EPA’s final rules before tackling this issue in Illinois.   The federal rules will be phased in, according to the fact sheet.  More information on this federal regulation can be found at the following link:

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/construction/

How do you think this should influence this ordinance update effort?  Should we try to anticipate the Federal/State rules, or leave that issue for a future update when the State has had a chance to implement this rule making in Illinois?

In looking over the “Erosion and Sediment control” section of the Ordinance, It occurs to me that a lot has changed in this area since the Ordinance was first adopted.  The NPDES requirements for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan overlap these requirements, and reference the Illinois Urban Manual for technical specifications on practices.  Many of the provisions of the current ordinance were written because there was no real effective program in place, and acted in the absence of an effective program at the time.  In an effort to reduce duplicative regulatory submittals and coordinate requirements, what do you think of the idea of requiring a SWPP based on the Illinois Urban Manual and IEPA rules for all DuPage County Stormwater permits, in lieu of the requirements of Section 15-117 of the Ordinance?  This would extend the NPDES requirement to sites that are not currently large enough to fall under NPDES (1-acre threshold) but for sites larger than 1-acre the documents required to be produced and maintained for the NOI would be the same as for the Stormwater Permit under the County Ordinance.  Those sites which do not currently have to submit to the IEPA would not have to submit an NOI under this concept, it only makes the design requirements and documentation uniform.  Is this a bad idea?