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 consultant team and the Steering committee are making progress in giving shape to an improved approach to permitting projects whose underlying purpose is to improve the ecological health of the County, whatever the economic driver of the project is.  An earlier blog post talked somewhat about this, and we are calling this category of project “naturalization Projects”.  A draft of both the guidance for this approach and specific ordinance language is coming soon for review, but we are anxious to get your feedback on this approach.

Recognizing that some projects improve rather than harm the environment may seem obvious, but language in an ordinance recognizing the fact presents a significant improvement on what is allowed under the current Ordinance while maintaining the level of protection the current Ordinance provides to wetlands and buffers. Below we have tried to summarize the positive benefits in the area of wetlands permitting we expect this Ordinance Update to produce:

1. One of the biggest complaints we hear is that the current Ordinance outright “Prohibits” impacts to wetlands and strongly discourages impacts to buffers unless it can be proven that there are no practicable alternatives.  The Ordinance, as written, assumes that avoidance of impact is the best alternative.  If wetland or buffer must be impacted the applicant must provide documentation to support that there are no practical alternatives to the impact.  Unfortunately, no specific listing of information is provided that details what that information should be, unlike other local Ordinances.

The updated version of the Ordinance will specifically define what is permissible, giving applicants and reviewer’s upfront knowledge regarding permissible projects. Applicants should be able to review their projects prior to making the formal submittal, determine what aspects of the project are not going to be allowed, make the necessary changes, and feel comfortable that provided they meet the requirements of the Ordinance that permit issuance is likely.

2. The Ordinance does not distinguish between temporary and permanent impacts. For example:

• • In the Ordinance’s current form, there is no ability to complete wetland enhancement or restoration without mitigating for the impacts caused by physically entering a wetland.  Under the current Ordinance, this is an impact to the wetland that must be mitigated.   The applicant has to create additional wetland or purchase credits for the impact.  This situation discourages restoration or enhancement of existing wetland areas because the applicant is penalized by having to mitigate the impact and increase the total area of wetland and associated buffer onsite.
  • The same situation would be true for installation of a utility line.  A utility line may be installed and grades returned to original contour.  Currently compensatory mitigation is required, however, the updated Ordinance will distinguish between temporary and permanent impacts, and in many circumstances, no additional compensatory wetland mitigation will be required, only restoration of the impacted area will be necessary.

Permitting for projects that involve only temporary wetland impacts should experience cost savings due to eliminated mitigation costs and improved turnaround times for reviews.

3. There are many situations in which the applicant is willing to install native vegetation or enhance existing plant communities within their project site; however there is no direct benefit to the applicant in the permitting process for doing so. The updated Ordinance will give wetland mitigation and BMP credit to the applicant for installing native vegetation within the development, provided it meets a minimum floristic quality standards established in the permit review process.

The Consultant team has been talking to Staff at DuPage County who regularly review Special Management Areas about the idea of creating a special project “category” for projects whose purpose is primarily to improve, restore or protect “natural features” of the landscape.  We will be bringing a fuller discussion of the issues to the Steering committee very soon.   Natural features of regulatory significance in the current ordinance include “Waters of DuPage”, and Riparian areas.  These categories refer to what is on the site pre-project, and do not speak directly to the nature of the project itself.  Not all projects represent degradation of the existing resource, and in many cases the environmental resource is not “better off in a no-build scenario”, compared to its expected condition after a project is built.  Examples of the types of projects we are referring to here include:

• Wetland creation
• Wetland and Steam Restoration
• Streambank Stabilization
• Retrofitting of BMPs to existing development
• In-steam aquatic habitat creation or enhancement projects
• Enhancement of existing degraded wetlands and riparian areas.

There are good reasons why a stormwater ordinance needs to look at these types of projects differently, and it seems advisable to create a vehicle within the ordinance structure to do so.  To date, we have named this category “naturalization projects”.  The need for development mitigation factors like “site runoff storage (detention)” and some other mitigation practices would be applied differently or sometimes not at all to naturalization projects, as the “development” involved in such projects is a form of mitigation for old developments.

Do you see these categories as in need of different requirements from a stormwater perspective?  What other types of projects should such a category encompass?  What sections of the Ordinance, if any, would be applied differently in your view?