Application of the ordinance as currently written to typical roadway projects has proved challenging over the last 18-years.  Publicly maintained roadways are generally in land holdings that reflect the absolute minimum land necessary to accomplish the primary mission of transportation.  As is often pointed out by those charged with that mission, “the purpose of a transportation project is not stormwater management”.   In this day and age, however, no responsible public official suggests that transportation projects can, or should, ignore stormwater impacts.  We do though need to evaluate our approach to stormwater management for public roadways and make sure we get maximum benefit from the infrastructure and tax dollars available to build and maintain it.

A workable application of the current Ordinance has relied heavily on interpretation and intent.  A sub-group of the Steering Committee met recently to discuss roadways, and more broadly “linear Transportation Projects” in the context of the Ordinance update, and has a few recommendations that will begin our discussion.

• As we have been discussing throughout this Update, keep the focus on Impervious areas, and changes to impervious areas.
• The changes in impervious surfaces from a roadway project should not cause an increase in flood flows from the right-of-way.   This is within the control of the roadway agency, and is a different case than the flow from a cross culvert draining areas through the Right-of-way.  Often, an undersized cross-culvert turns the roadway into a low-level dam.  The dam attenuates peak flows downstream by “backing up” flood water.  Just like a dam, at some event the roadway will overtop, which can cause “traffic damages” in the form of delays and slowed emergency response, and sometimes even more hazardous conditions.  So what are the options?  If the size of the culvert is increased, is it the roadway agencies responsibility to create a flood control reservoir to mimic action of flood attenuation of the undersized culvert?  Different jurisdictions have answered that question differently, but the implications of that answer are enormous for roadway agencies who own very limited land.  Very often, a “problem culvert” becomes an institution because of the inability to replace the “dam effect” elsewhere than at that culvert.  While no specific recommendation is offered, the issue needs to be further discussed.
• Roadways are key factors in the pollutant loading to a stream, and like all impervious surfaces a contributor to the total runoff volume.  Would it be a better focus of the funds spent on stormwater management for roadway projects to require that the “Water Quality Control Volume” be addressed (see earlier post for a discussion)?  One of our conclusions in the subgroup was that if we could get strict compliance with the “Water Quality Control Volume”, and the changes to impervious area did not increase discharges, we don’t really need roadway stormwater infrastructure to do much else except of course drain the road.
• Simple engineering applications, like the unit area detention nomagraph already used for roadway projects, are usually as technical as we need to get for the limited real impact roadways have.

So, what are your thoughts on roadways?

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.