As reported previously here, the PADEP-organized effort to revise its Stormwater BMP Manual (2006) re-convened for an almost day-long session at the South Central Regional Office in Harrisburg on 12/15/09.

The Manual Revision Committee met once in September and has resulted in the formation of 9 sub-groups. Each sub-group was assigned a specific substantive topic, and continued meeting during the Fall.

The appropriateness and transparency of this process has been questioned.  As a result (and also for budgetary reasons), PADEP has reduced its direct sponsorship of the now all-volunteer Committee. To the extent that PADEP staff continue to participate, they do so on their own time.

The intent of the December 15 meeting was to summarize and review sub-group findings and determine future actions.  Dr. Robert Traver from Villanova University had been asked by PADEP to chair the meeting, rather than PADEPs Domenic Rocco, the Committee’s initial organizer and coordinator.  About 30 attended, including several staff from regional PADEP offices (PADEP Central Office staff have been directed not to participate; however, regional office are free to participate as they see appropriate).

Some major actions included:

1.  Re-Constituting the Group:  considerable time was spent in re-affirming the existence of the group and establishing an organizational structure

• including its separation from PADEP
• to be called a “stormwater technical work group”

2..  A mission statement was defined, expanding future work beyond Manual editing to include all related aspects of PADEPs stormwater management program

• its primary focus is to be “technical”
• but the group work also is likely to include aspects of policy (the group seems to feel that a technical focus invariably involves weighing in on policy issues such as recommended control guidelines or standards, as well as other important issues like Chapter 102 Revisions or the pending Draft MS4 General Permit and others)

3.  Goals were defined

• Manual editing, both simple and complex
• possible comment on Chapter 102 Revisions and Draft MS4 General Permit program and others

4.  Membership in the group was given some definition

• additional representatives can be added with submission of a resume, etc. provided that any/all focus on the “technical” work and agree to work cooperatively

5.  Roberts Rules of Order will be used

6.  The work group will have a board composed of the existing chairs of each of the 9 existing sub-groups; without establishing more complex by-laws, this board will meet and decide whatever needs to be decided

7.  In terms of group outputs, “minority opinions” will be included when substantive disagreements emerge

8.  No end or completion date was established.

Sub-group reports were given, mostly in verbal form but some with written attachments (to be included in the minutes of the meeting).  Some highlights include:

Control Guidelines - Rob Traver stressed that CGs interrelate with so many of the other sub-groups.  Thus far this sub-group is thinking that there…should be a collection of CGs rather than the more prescriptive Manual approach which is probably limiting use of LID at sites

Calculation Methods - The point was made that given the enormous shortcomings of rational, soil cover complex, and related methodologies, continuous flow modeling is likely to be the preferred way to go, though it is frustratingly data intensive and difficult to make happen across Pennsylvania’s 2550+ municipalities.  Furthermore, this method isn’t compatible with event-based standards such as CG1 and its 2-yr storm.  The methods are related to the standards that are being recommended!

Vegetated Systems - This sub-group is arguing for explicit Standards of Practice so that explicit engineering standards can be applied at sites.

Capture/Re-Use - This sub-group has substantially expanded the definition of this BMP from the current Manual.

Water Quality - This sub-group wants to establish water quality standards which transcend the current Manual, especially in light of new standards being promulgated for the Chesapeake Bay by EPA and others.

Infiltration - The major focus of this sub-group has been revising the appendices dealing with soil testing and site testing.

The Redevelopment and Highways and Maintenance sub-groups provided very condensed reports.

StormwaterPA will continue to report on this important effort in future weeks as it continues to evolve.

admin BMP Manual Revision BMPs, calculation methods, capture and re-use, control guidelines, infiltration, LID, PA BMP Manual, PA DEP, stormwater best management practices, vegetated systems

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has completed the creation of a rigorous accountability framework for reducing pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s streams, creeks and rivers. A letter sent today to the six states in the Bay watershed and the District of Columbia outlined a series of consequences EPA could impose if jurisdictions do not make adequate progress in reducing water pollution.

President Obama, EPA and the states want real, measurable results to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. To get there EPA is strengthening support for our partners, setting clear standards for progress, and ensuring accountability if those standards aren’t met,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Pollution in the Chesapeake is a challenge that has persisted for decades. This federal-state partnership presents new opportunities for cleanup, and we’re increasing support and accountability to be sure we get the job done.”

Federal, state and local officials have been working together on development of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), a pollution budget that will set limits for sources of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment to the Bay and its tidal creeks, rivers and bays. EPA is confident the collaborative work will continue and that the states and D.C. will successfully meet expectations for reducing water pollution. The series of consequences will serve as a backstop, however, to achieving water quality goals.

To help the states and D.C. improve the performance and accountability of pollution control programs, EPA will provide technical assistance and an additional $11.2 million in grants for fiscal year 2010, more than doubling 2009 funding levels to the states. The funds are designed to improve permitting, enforcement and other key regulatory activities that increase accountability for reducing water pollution.

EPA is creating the rigorous accountability framework for accelerating cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s waterways by utilizing the authorities of the Clean Water Act, President Obama’s Executive Order and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Letters to the states and D.C. in September 2008 and November 2009 stated that the jurisdictions must create strategies and schedules for reducing water pollution loads as part of the accountability framework.

While the six Bay states - Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia - and D.C. have considerable flexibility in how they achieve reductions, the jurisdictions must meet milestones every two years for implementing pollution controls. EPA may impose a variety of consequences for inadequate plans or failure to meet the milestones, including:

• Expanding coverage of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to sources that are currently unregulated.
• Increasing oversight of state-issued NPDES permits.
• Requiring additional pollution reductions from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants.
• Increasing federal enforcement and compliance in the watershed.
• Prohibiting new or expanded pollution discharges unless sufficient offsets are provided.
• Redirecting EPA grants.
• Revising water quality standards to better protect local and downstream waters.
• Establishing finer scale load allocations in the Bay TMDL.

Within 60 days of receiving a deliverable - such as a plan, milestone or permit - EPA will provide an assessment.  If EPA finds a deliverable inadequate, the state or D.C. will then have 30 days to respond. EPA will deliver its final assessment and indicate any consequence the agency intends to impose within 120 days of the original submission.

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL will be completed by December 31, 2010. Under the TMDL, EPA expects the states and D.C. to provide specific timelines for enhancing programs and implementing controls to reduce pollution. By November 2010, the states and D.C. are required to identify gaps in current programs that must be addressed to meet pollution limits. Bridging these gaps may require expanding regulatory authorities, improving compliance with existing regulations, securing additional financial resources and issuing more stringent permits for wastewater facilities.

By 2011, EPA expects the states and D.C. to divide their allocated pollution loads to the local level so that counties, municipalities, conservation districts and watershed organizations understand their role in meeting water quality goals. States and D.C. must also offset any increased loads from population growth and land use changes anticipated in the coming decades. EPA expects that pollution controls will be in place that should result in approximately 60 percent of the required reductions by 2017. All measures needed to reach the pollution load limits must be in place no later than 2025.

Go here to view the letter sent by EPA to the Bay States.

admin Chesapeake Bay BMPs, Chesapeake Bay, Nonpoint source pollution, NPDES, ordinances, stormwater legislation, stormwater standards, TMDL, water quality, watershed protection

Although the TO DO list seems to get longer rather than shorter, we believe StormwaterPA has gained alot of forward momentum over the past year, and we look forward to 2010 with considerable excitement.

In the very near future, you’ll be seeing some major expansion in the resources we offer - with special focus on how to help you municipal officials out there deal with the rapidly expanding maze of regulations.

As always, we would love to hear from you:

• What we’re doing right?
• What we’re doing wrong?
• What would be most useful to you?

The world of stormwater shows no signs of shrinking in 2010 - at the very least it remains a figurative flood!

admin From the Editors stormwater, stormwater best management practices, stormwater legislation, stormwater runoff