1,900 listeners attended a three hour and fifteen minute webcast on February 3^rd, during which the EPA provided a presentation on the Proposed National Rulemaking to Strengthen the Stormwater Program.  Five rulemaking considerations were outlined: expand the area subject to federal stormwater regulations; establish requirements to control stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment; develop a single set of consistent regulations; require MS4s to address stormwater in existing development through retrofitting; and explore provisions to protect sensitive areas.

EPA has made available a copy of EPA’s presentation from the listening sessions (PDF) 30 pp, 2.7MB.

For over two hours the phone lines were opened up to those who wished to provide comments and feedback on the proposed stormwater rulemaking.  Because it is early in the rulemaking process and EPA is soliciting feedback, many questions were raised and issues were discussed:

MS4’s represent about 2% of the land area in Pennsylvania, which means that the EPA stormwater regulations currently apply to a very small fraction of land (and potentially development) in this state.  The EPA is considering whether the stormwater program should be expanded to include land development activities outside the boundaries of MS4’s.  What criteria should be used to expand the area?  Should new regulations include certain types or sizes of development outside of MS4’s, such as  industrial development or oil and gas development?

The agency was clear in their intention to consider volume control and promoting the concept of green infrastructure.  Can the proposed rulemaking establish post-construction requirements that mimic natural hydrologic processes?  Should EPA impose regulations to retain/infiltrate specified storm events, limit impervious surfaces, or require applicants to calculate the pre-development hydrology to weigh against post-development hydrology?  Should standards for new development be different or more stringent than those for old developments or redevelopment?

One theme that listeners seemed to agree on was a need for consistent requirements for Phase I and Phase II MS4’s.  There is also a need for consistency in how MS4’s are formed - should they be formed as watersheds, sub-watersheds or sub-basins, by county, or other logical boundary?

If MS4’s are required to address stormwater discharges in existing developments, how would retrofits be identified and prioritized?  Would MS4’s be required to prepare a retrofit plan?  Would Phase I MS4’s be a higher priority?  How would municipalities pay for implementing the plan?  Would this be a requirement in all watersheds, or only in impaired watersheds?

The Chesapeake Bay  has been identified as a sensitive area where pollution from stormwater discharge is an issue for immediate action.  Are there other sensitive areas that should have the same status with specific provisions for their protection and restoration?  What other regions should have “sensitive area” status?  Should they be subject to buffer requirements with E&S requirements for all new construction?  Is there any data available that demonstrates degraded or threatened watersheds?

Discussion and feedback: (this is a list of examples and is not a comprehensive list)

• Enhance water quality requirements
• Introduce a new program that addresses impaired waters
• Establish numeric targets for Nitrogen and Phosphorous
• Give special status to Lake Champlain and other waters in New England that are subject to management conferences under the Clean Water Act
• Improve enforcement of existing regulations rather than adding new regulations
• Promote porous paving for retrofit projects and redevelopment
• Provide more compliance assistance rather than enforcement with a new industry compliance program
• Provide objective standards based on hydrology
• Prioritize redevelopment and provide incentives for redevelopment and retrofits
• Regulate agricultural runoff
• Require a watershed approach to MS4’s
• Address the issue of mobile wash operations
• Provide financial assistance to municipalities to enforce requirements
• Stage new requirements so that they are introduced over time
• Consider nutrient trading for MS4’s
• Require MS4’s to report data and use that data for TMDL pre- to post-loadings
• Require an impervious limit of 10% in each sub-basin
• Provide more data on what BMPs accomplish for TMDLs, justify the costs, and provide support for MS4’s
• Provide grants to implement retrofits and for studies to gather data
• Use flow as a surrogate for TMDL requirements
• Increase control over isolated and small-scale development

Schedule of rulemaking

January - March Listening Sessions

Spring 2010 Federal Register Notice to review revised surveys, public comment period

Late 2011 Federal Register Notice to propose a rulemaking, public comment period

Late 2012 EPA Rulemaking

NOW is your opportunity to provide input into EPA’s stormwater rulemaking.  Comments must be received by February 26^th, 2010.  For more information, go here.

admin National, Stormwater Regulations BMPs, buffers, Chesapeake Bay, clean water, MS4, special protection waters, stormwater best management practices, stormwater legislation, stormwater runoff, stormwater standards, TMDL, volume control, watershed protection

A recent article published by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay suggests that it is possible since proposed actions are backed up by regulations, funding and consequences.

The hope stems from two new initiatives the federal government is undertaking. One is the total maximum daily load, better known as a TMDL, which is being developed by the EPA this year and will set limits for how much pollution a waterway can accept from stormwater, sewage treatment plants, agricultural runoff and other sources. The other is a multi-agency response to President Barack Obama’s executive order, which declared the Bay a “national treasure” and called for a strategy to restore and protect the Bay, its watershed and resources-all while providing more public accountability than in the past.

You can find the full article written by Karl Blankenship online at the Bay Journal.

admin Chesapeake Bay, Stormwater Regulations Chesapeake Bay, clean water, Nonpoint source pollution, stormwater legislation, TMDL, water quality, watershed protection, wet weather, wetlands

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s (CBF) Pennsylvania Office has called on the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to dramatically strengthen the stormwater permit governing major urban and suburban areas in the Commonwealth. This permit, known as the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit, is required by the federal Clean Water Act, and is a critical vehicle for achieving pollution reductions in the Chesapeake Bay.

“The draft permit proposed by DEP falls far short of the requirements of both Pennsylvania law and the federal Clean Water Act,” said Matthew Royer, CBF’s Pennsylvania attorney. “Not only is the permit long overdue, what has been proposed thus far fails to adequately reduce stormwater pollution to our local rivers and streams.”

Read the complete article in the January edition of Bay Bound, CBF’s monthly e-newsletter.

admin NPDES / MS4, Stormwater Regulations Chesapeake Bay, clean water, Clean Water Act, MS4, Nonpoint source pollution, PA DEP, stormwater legislation, stormwater runoff, watershed protection