Special Bulletin From the Editors

The Chesapeake Bay drainage is by a large measure the single largest watershed in Pennsylvania, comprising approximately 50 % of the state.  Impaired water quality in the Bay for some years has been the focus of national attention, with EPA and other federal agencies working hard to improve problems (e.g., nutrients nitrogen in various forms, phosphorus, and sediment) which persist.  In recent months, after years of strenuous management actions that failed to deliver the desired water quality improvements, more stringent actions have been defined and are pending, all likely to add more water quality requirements on municipalities within the watershed.  Given the extent of the Bay watershed in Pennsylvania and the number of municipalities which these new actions could potentially affect, keeping track of what’s going on makes sense.

We recently interviewed Harry Campbell, Senior Scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (Harrisburg Office) for a summary of these pending actions.

Harry points out that at the moment, there are 4 major developments with both legal and regulatory and technical ramifications for municipalities to watch.  Although these developments seem to be converging to some extent, they also are driven somewhat separately by distinct legal and technical mandates.

1.  Federal governments significant tightening of water quality performance at its own facilities.  Refer to President Obama’s Executive Order 13508 Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.  This Order discusses preparation of an Accountability Framework, comprehensive Watershed Implementation Plans, definition of explicit milestones, application of rigorous LEED performance standards at federal facilities, and a host of other new management measures.  This is a thesis unto itself!

2.  Introduction of Congressional (Senate S. 1816 and House H.R. 3852, named the Chesapeake Clean Water Act) bills to reauthorize and strengthen Section 117 of the Clean Water Act, specifically focusing on the Chesapeake Bay.  Go to the CBF webpage ( http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=1420) for explanation of why this expanded and more specific law is necessary.  Although these 2 companion bills started out life being quite similar, as time progresses, aspects of the bills are undergoing some change.  Nevertheless, the legislative intent here is to:

-Places legally enforceable, science-based limits on pollution from all sources.

-Gives states pollution reduction standards to meet and allows them the flexibility to achieve those reductions as they best decide.

-Provides significant funding for technical assistance to farmers so they can implement pollution controls, as well as funding for stormwater pollution controls.

-Encourages market-based approaches to pollution reduction, which could provide an estimated $300 million annually to rural areas.

3.  The Bay TMDL.  Most folks at this point have come to understand what Total Maximum Daily Loads or TMDLs are all about.  TMDLs have been created by the Clean Water Act to quantify the total amount of pollution (pollutant loads from both point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and nonpoint sources such as dispersed stormwater runoff).  TMDLs are supposed to address both existing sources and future or projected sources of pollution.  As can be imagined, calculating and modeling the 6-state watershed to develop a single TMDL for the Chesapeake is one challenging exercise.  Scientists have been at it for some time and have promised to have the TMDL developed by December 31, 2010 for the pollutants of primary concern in the Chesapeake: nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment.

These TMDLs are critical for any number of reasons.  In describing the relationship between the new Congressional bills (above), the CBF website points out:

-EPA will require the states to specify, in great detail, how they will achieve pollution reductions from all sources through enforceable or binding, rather than voluntary measures.

-EPA wants these plans designed to ensure 100% implementation of pollution reduction practices by 2025.

-EPA has indicated its intent to invoke strict consequences if the states fail to develop adequate implementation plans or to make progress in achieving the necessary pollution reductions.

-The TMDL will require tidal states to set pollution caps for smaller geographic areas than in the past, e.g., counties, because much of the reduction efforts will occur at the local level. To clean-up the Bay and its tidal rivers, we need to reduce pollution from all the streams and rivers that feed them. So implementing the TMDL will help clean up local streams as well as the Bay.

-The local pollution caps for tidal states will increase accountability by providing a goal against which local efforts can be measured

The Chesapeake Clean Water Act adopts the Bay-wide TMDL pollution caps and the state cleanup plan requirements, but it also clarifies and strengthens EPA’s role in ensuring the needed pollution reductions occur. In addition, the legislation includes more than $1.5 billion in grants for state and local governments to help cover the costs associated with implementing those reductions. It also establishes an interstate trading program designed to lower the costs of compliance with the new TMDL, particularly for local municipalities.

In addition to the CBF website, more details on the TMDL process can be found here, on EPA’s website>>

4.  Finally, in the midst of all of the above, there has been a May 11, 2010 lawsuit settlement, reached between environmental groups (including CBF) and the EPA which will require EPA to strengthen measures to protect and restore Bay water quality.

This historic settlement is a legally binding, enforceable document that requires EPA to take specific actions by dates certain to ensure that pollution to local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay is reduced sufficiently to remove the Bay from the federal “dirty waters” list. The settlement mandates:

-Reasonable assurances: The settlement outlines what “reasonable assurances” EPA will require of the states to support the Bay TMDL.. The states will be required to develop Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) explaining how they will meet the limits for all sources in each area of their state.

-Consequences: The settlement identifies what consequences EPA will impose upon states and localities that fail to develop sufficient WIPs or meet their limits. One of those consequences could be that permits will not be issued to new sources of pollution. That could include new sewage treatment plants or major new developments.

-Offsets: The settlement requires that the states offset all new nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment loads. In the settlement EPA has agreed that each state’s WIP will provide offsets for new or increased permitted discharges.

-Dates certain: The settlement establishes dates identifying when EPA will complete development of a Bay TMDL and when the states are to provide WIPs.

-Tracking: The settlement requires EPA to develop a tracking system that is publically available and which describes whether increased pollution from new, small sewage treatment plants and industrial dischargers have been included in calculating whether the state or local jurisdiction is meeting its new limits. CBF has recently seen an increase in small sewage treatment plants that are below EPA’s permit threshold.

-Stormwater: EPA agrees that one of the biggest sources of pollution in the Bay region is urban stormwater and that this form of pollution is growing.  EPA agreed to:

1. review all new construction general permits (those that apply to categories of construction) drafted by Bay states and make sure they meet federal standards;
2. by July 31, 2010 develop a guidance for major municipal stormwater permits in the Bay region; and
3. by Nov. 19, 2012, take final action on industrial and municipal stormwater regulations.

-Reducing pollution from agriculture: The settlement commits EPA to proposing new regulations for controlling pollution from agriculture by Dec. 15, 2012 and taking final action by Dec. 15, 2014.

-Addressing air pollution: Under the settlement EPA will require an allocation for air deposition of nitrogen from the states in the Bay TMDL, so that some portion of the total nitrogen budget will be attributed to air pollution.

More details on this lawsuit settlement agreement can be found at the CBF website>>

Change is coming to Pennsylvania’s Bay municipalities.  Many thanks to Harry Campbell and the Chesapeake Bay Froundation for the work they are doing in forging these changes. Harry can be reached at (717-234-5550, HCampbell@cbf.org)

admin Chesapeake Bay, From the Editors agriculture, Chesapeake Bay, clean water, Clean Water Act, nitrogen pollution, Nonpoint source pollution, nutrient reduction, phosphorous reduction, stormwater, stormwater legislation, stormwater runoff, TMDL, US EPA, water quality, watershed protection

From the Editors

Stormwater management, once the exclusive purview of engineers, has moved in interesting directions to embrace many other disciplines.   For example, as we were reviewing our array of professional  journals and magazines like StormwaterPA for this Blog, we were impressed by two recent projects highlighted in the June issue of Landscape Architecture magazine.   Two articles document and applaud the efforts of officials in Seattle (”Unpaved Paradise:  A Stream Buried under Mall Parking Is Reborn as a Giant Bio-Swale” by Clair Enlow) and a single city dweller in San Francisco to integrate urban stormwater management into the landscape, as well as add nature back into culture (”From Gray to Green:  A Designer Depaves San Francisco Neighborhoods, Encouraging Stormwater to Sink In and Residents to Enjoy Nature” by Losa Owens Viani).   Both projects stimulated neighborhood revitalization on multiple levels.  And there’s more.  Two other articles in the journal, one on the development of the Gulf Coast in Florida as a model of environmental planning forty years ago (”Back from the Beach” by Daniel Jost), and the other (”A View from Below” by Robert Such) describing how a stream was reintegrated in the heart of Seoul, South Korea as a park, also demonstrate how landscape architects are becoming central to innovative stormwater management.

The articles in this months Landscape Architecture magazine highlight the efforts that landscape architects have played in the preservation of water systems and work within those natural drainage parameters to keep development as green as possible as well as balance cultures needs.  A digital preview of the magazine is available at www.zinio.com.  Go to the magazine tab, then select Home,  then select Gardening.  The American Society of Landscape Architects website is http://www.asla.org.

admin From the Editors environmental planning, green infrastructure, landscape architecure, natural drainage, rainwater harvesting, stormwater runoff, urban redevlopment, urban stormwater

EDITORS NOTE:

This week, we’re sharing an article from the USGS on research focusing on development and stream impacts–namely the adverse effects on aquatic biota. The article has major implications for stormwater management:

More development means more impervious cover means more water impacts means less aquatic life.

Sounds reasonable. These research results have been played out time and again; they have been communicated by well-respected sources such as the Center for Watershed Protection over many years, and argued by stormwater experts such as the Center’s former director, Tom Schueler. And they send an important message.

But, we feel the need to insert an important caveat here – lest these research findings be used to condemn all development and equate any sort of higher density development as inimical to stream life. After all, don’t we continue to maintain in other contexts that the “city” is the ultimate BMP?! The message here must be understood to include an important qualification:

More development using the same conventionally flawed stormwater practices (or none at all) means more impervious cover means more water impacts means less aquatic life.

This is critical. Evaluate the details of the USGS research more closely (metropolitan areas in Boston, Raleigh, Atlanta, Birmingham, Milwaukee-Green Bay, Denver, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Salt Lake City, Portland Oregon). Because the watersheds of the streams being studied include all types of development, much of it older, and because much of this watershed development suffers from no stormwater management whatsoever (in some older cases) or, alternatively, inadequate stormwater management (i.e., simple detention),we need to be very careful about drawing conclusions. What we lack are the results from higher density development using optimal or close to optimal stormwater management systems.

Our BMP manuals make the case for substantial quality and quantity performance for many BMPs. Although few give us 100 percent performance, the argument can be made that with intensive use of both non-structural and structural BMPs, impacts to streams and aquatic life can be dramatically reduced, minimized. Particulate and solubilized nonpoint source pollutant loads can be kept to modest levels. Natural instream hydrology can be nearly mimicked. Pre-development temperature regimes can be almost maintained.

Density is not a dirty word - just the reverse. The “city” is the ultimate BMP. Load as much human-related development into the most compact form (the “city”) as is feasible – using state-of-the-art BMPs (see green infrastructure and all the rest). Retain as much undisturbed area surrounding the “city” in perpetuity. And human life and aquatic life can achieve balance. We must be very careful not to conclude that low density development with impervious cover less than 10 percent, including extremely large-lot residential subdivisions is the ultimate solution to stormwater management/watershed management problems. Such a mindset translates - net -into vastly more land disturbance and vastly more impervious cover and vastly more nonpoint source pollutant loads with vastly more stormwater flow.

For the USGS  discussion, Aquatic Life Declines at Early Stages of Urban Development, go here>>

admin From the Editors aquatic life, BMPs, environmental site design, green infrastructure, impervious cover, LID, Nonpoint source pollution, PA BMP Manual, stormwater runoff, water quality

EDITORS NOTE: The American Society of Civil Engineers (ACSE) has recently released a review of Pennsylvania’s infrastructure programs, including stormwater management.  The results are sobering.  They parallel an equally dismal “report card” issued some time ago by Tom Schueler at the Chesapeake Stormwater Network.  ASCE gives Pennsylvania’s stormwater program a D minus, a barely passing grade.  ASCE recommendations have merit, and we would urge readers to review what they have to say (it’s a great condensed summary).

But, lest we be too critical and too negative (which we often are), keep in mind that in a relatively short period of time, PADEP has pushed the stormwater program with all of its unfunded mandates forward in significant ways.  Even as we speak, there are major changes - improvements- being made to Chapter 102 provisions and to the MS4 program, involving over 900 of Pennsylvania’s over 2,500 municipalities - a crazy quilt of management challenges.  In a relatively short period of time, we have moved from a single-focused peak rate detention management approach to embracing much more comprehensive objectives - peak rate and total volumes and water quality and temperature and re-use and water conservation with dozens of BMPs.  The Act 167 program is being bent into a new mold.  Yes, much remains to be done.  We are not there yet.  But some credit is due to committed state actors, both within and outside of PADEP, who have been working hard to push Pennsylvania’s stormwater program forward.  Don’t give up now!

FROM ACSE:

When looking at infrastructure, potholes and rotting bridges are easy to see-a failing stormwater system is not.  Stormwater infrastructure is vital to providing and maintaining safe drinking water supplies and a healthy environment, since stormwater runoff ends up in lakes and reservoirs.  Approximately 84 percent of Pennsylvania’s population relies on surface water for their drinking water supply.  Chemical and biological contamination from stormwater runoff can endanger both of these goals.  The primary obstacles to improving the state’s stormwater infrastructure are that there is no dedicated funding source for investigation, operation and maintenance of existing systems; no funding for taking the next step to improve water quality as well as manage water quantity; and little to no regulatory oversight of stormwater systems.  The Pennsylvania sections of the American Society of Civil Engineers encourage the Commonwealth to support a list of recommendations.

Fully fund and enforce Act 167

Comply with the recommended legislative priorities of the state water plan, including: Clearly authorize by legislation, regulation, or policy the creation and operation of local Authorities, Utilities, or Management Districts and/or other sustainable funding sources that enable entities to collect fees and generate revenues dedicated to planning, constructing, monitoring, maintaining, improving, expanding, operating, inspecting and repairing public and private stormwater management infrastructure.

Manage the level of effort allotted for preparing and updating stormwater management plans. Target critical watersheds with serious quality or quantity problems, based on a set of criteria (e.g., percent impervious cover, population density, federal requirements, special protection watersheds, impaired waters, rate of development, chronic flooding history and critical water planning area designation) for detailed planning efforts. Remaining areas could be covered using a standard planning outline.

Use stormwater management planning as a tool to achieve compliance with the total maximum daily load (TMDL) implementation where a water body is impaired by stormwater and a TMDL has been prepared or adopted.

Improve enforcement provisions to provide meaningful economic incentives to adopt, amend and implement stormwater management plans and ordinances.

Include provisions to address long-term operation and maintenance of stormwater management facilities.

Adequately fund regular updates to the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual to reflect innovation and change and continue to maintain and update the Stormwater Management Model Ordinance to reflect Manual revisions and statutory amendments.

To the maximum extent practicable and cost effective, vegetated buffers should be preserved and restored along all waterways. Through legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions, seek to manage stormwater so as to reduce excess runoff and pollutants.

Fund, promote and encourage water resource restoration projects.

With the decreasing federal funding for the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program, Pennsylvania should leverage the available federal funds that remain, using them as collateral for the issuance of state bonds, effectively doubling the amount of funds available for infrastructure investments.

Establish a statewide infrastructure inventory to increase public awareness of the problems and needs facing the state’s physical infrastructure and help the state legislature to focus on programs devoted to long-term growth and productivity.

Promote sustainable infrastructure initiatives to close the funding gap by promoting better asset management techniques for reducing long-term costs and improving performance and supporting reduction of non-point source pollution of water sources.

Continue to fund low-interest loans to farmers to implement best management practices for manure handling and storage and land management to protect water sources.

The Full ACSE Stormwater Report Card can be found here>>

admin From the Editors Act 167, BMPs, buffers, clean water, flood control, Nonpoint source pollution, ordinances, PA BMP Manual, special protection waters, state revolving fund, sustainable infrastructure, TMDL

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