Congress for the New Urbanism and Partners Submit Stormwater Regulation Reform Letter to EPA

StormwaterPA’s Editors have commented often on EPA’s NPDES Phase II MS4 program, as administered by PADEP here in Pennsylvania.  After much agonizing with much public input, major changes in MS4 have been adopted by PADEP - some of them controversial.  We have argued that the need for an MS4 program here and in other states is real, although the reality of these MS4 programs with their various requirements, including these new changes, is open to question.  It’s not at all clear that, as an unfunded mandate, this is all making the sense that it should be making - and resulting in the water resource benefits intended by the Clean Water Act.

In June, a group of Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) members helped form a Rainwater Initiative aimed at reforming regulations that encourage sprawl.  One goal of this group is to intervene in the ongoing reform of the EPA’s stormwater regulations National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) process.

The group — whose leaders include national stormwater leaders Paul Crabtree, Lisa Nisenson, Tom Low, and John Jacob — is concerned that the EPA “has been issuing and promoting new source- and volume-control regulations that are site-based, not watershed-based, and thus have the unintended consequence of promoting sprawl rather than fixing it.”

On July 15, in an effort initiated by this group, CNU and a set of partners (the Local Government Commission, Center for Neighborhood Technology, Coastal Conservation League, City of Madison, Wisconsin, and the National Town Builders Association) submitted a letter to the EPA. Referencing EPA’s participation in the historic Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities with HUD and US DOT, the signers address some of these MS4 problems and suggest ways to make the program better. They wrote:

As the federal agencies take a holistic look at how they work together to support sustainable development, we would like to discuss a similarly holistic approach for the EPA Office of Water’s efforts as it revises the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As US DOT, HUD and EPA strive to break down silos, we urge you to continue this effort with stormwater regulations and make them complement broader environmental objectives.

The letter addresses the shortcomings with the current and proposed rainwater/stormwater management approach:

• Current regulations focus on individual site mitigation not larger-scale prevention.
• Current regulations hinder shared practices.
• Current regulations are silent on a site’s context and location within the watershed and weak on larger watershed scale.
• Current regulations assume costs are equal for different development environments.
• Current regulations depend on development to cure waterways.

The letter also offers suggestions for advancing an effort that makes regulatory reform more meaningful through making redevelopment a priority, establishing separate regulatory tracks for new development and redevelopment within NPDES, placing watershed and sub-watershed analysis at the forefront, and updating best management practices with solutions appropriate to their urban context.

We agree.

On a related note, PA DEP recently announced delays in the implementing the MS4 program changes discussed above.  It needs to be understood that delays in implementation are just that - delays.  Program requirements will still need to be addressed by affected municipalities (more than 900 of Pennsylvania’s 2500+ municipalities, certainly comprising the bulk of state population and economic development activity). Get more details here>>

admin NPDES / MS4, National Add new tag, BMPs, clean water, Clean Water Act, development, holistic, MS4, NPDES, PA DEP, redevelopment, runoff prevention, source control, sprawl, sustainable development, volume control, watershed protection, watershed scale

As previously noted in our September posts, PA DEP has convened a BMP Manual Revision Committee. In their notification to attendees, they noted that

… recommended updates may include edits to existing portions, complete omissions, or additions of new material.  All changes much be justified through acceptable principles of engineering or science.  If unable, to do so, subgroups may bring new ideas before the bigger committee for consideration and feedback.

Following is PA DEPs statement on the focus of this  Sub-Group, as presented at the first Committee Meeting:

Redevelopment is encouraged to limit green field development.  However, there are also requirements in place to make up for past sins with redevelopment (i.e. 20% meadow, etc.)

• Are there other ideas besides the 20% meadow criteria?   Should there be less stringent criteria for small redevelopment sites?  Should there be more stringent criteria for large projects?  Should building additions/ expansions be included in redevelopment?
• Should the 20% rule only kick in when there are no existing SWM facilities?   (i.e.  no peak rate controls)
• Should anything extra be needed if the % impervious is reduced by 20% or more?
• How should redevelopment be applied to highway projects that propose widening/ adding a couple lanes?  (see Subgroup Topic  H)

Contaminated sites can become quite complex.  DEP has written some guidance aimed at specifically addressing issues with contaminated sites during construction.

• Knowing that brownfields redevelopment is often proposed as retail, office or other high density use, what recommendations does the group have for PCSM for a contaminated site (i.e. redevelopment) that may have conflicts with infiltration?
• How do we factor in a special protection watershed or an impaired receiving stream?

Big Box Retail is commonly incorporated into redevelopment projects.   These projects often consist of high percentages of impervious cover which leads to issues with SWM particularly when volume control (such as infiltration) is limited.

• What recommendations does the subgroup  have for big box development, whether redevelopment or not?   The group may read the following document for background info.  LID for Big Box Retailers. www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/bigbox/

admin BMP Manual Revision contaminated, LID, PA BMP Manual, redevelopment, special protection waters, special protection watershed, stormwater, watershed protection