“Stormwater Management Act of 2007” Implementation Strategy …mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/StormwaterManagement... · 2019. 7. 12. · “Stormwater Management Act of 2007”

“Stormwater Management Act of 2007”

Implementation Strategy Public Outreach Meeting

Sponsored by:

July 30, 2007

Main Conference Room

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Montgomery Park Offices

1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230

Meeting Summary

Prepared by:

Maryland Environmental Service

259 Najoles Road Millersville, MD 21108

For:

Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21230

Final Stormwater Outreach Meeting Summary August 29, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES..............................................................................................3 LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................5 PLENARY .....................................................................................................................................6

Meeting Introduction - Robert Summers, Deputy Secretary (MDE).........................................6 Additional Introduction - Glenn Page (EcoLogix) ....................................................................6

PANEL DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................8 BREAK-OUT SESSIONS ...........................................................................................................12

SESSION 1: The Practice of Environmental Site Design .......................................................12 BLUE GROUP.....................................................................................................................12 YELLOW GROUP ..............................................................................................................15 RED GROUP.......................................................................................................................20

SESSION 2: Incentives and Disincentives ..............................................................................23 BLUE GROUP.....................................................................................................................23 YELLOW GROUP ..............................................................................................................25 RED GROUP.......................................................................................................................28

SESSION 3: Design/Construction/Maintenance Issues ..........................................................31 BLUE GROUP.....................................................................................................................31 YELLOW GROUP ..............................................................................................................33 RED GROUP.......................................................................................................................36

SUMMARY OF BREAK-OUT SESSIONS ...............................................................................38 SESSION 1: The Practice of Environmental Site Design .......................................................38 SESSION 2: Incentives and Disincentives ..............................................................................39

Overcoming Barriers to Implementation .............................................................................40 SESSION 3: Impacts to Design, Construction, and Maintenance...........................................41 ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS AND “NEXT STEPS” .......................................................43

CONCLUDING REMARKS.......................................................................................................45

2


LIST OF MEETING ATTENDEES

A. Morton Thomas & Associates: Stuart Robinson Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works: Ronald Bowen ATCS, P.L.C.: James Whitehead Ausherman Development Corporation: Jeremy Holder Alliance for Sustainable Communities: Anne Pearson Baltimore City Department of Public Works: William Stack Biohabitats, Inc.: Ted Brown Ecosite, Inc.: Michael Clar Carroll County Department of Planning & Resource Management: Martin Covington Carroll County Office of Environmental Compliance: James Slater Center for Watershed Protection: Karen Cappiella, Paul Sturm Centex Homes: Paul Ferreri Charles County Planning & Growth Management: Robert Harrington, Karen Wiggen Chesapeake Bay Foundation: Jenn Aiosa, Bruce Gilmore Chesapeake Stormwater Network: Tom Schueler CNA: Carl Corse Consultant to EcoLogix Group: Fran Flanigan Constellation Generation Group: Ed Miller D.S. Thaler and Associates, Inc.: David S. Thaler EcoLogix Group (EcoLogix): Glenn Page, Paul Massicot Frederick County Division of Permitting and Development Review: Betsy Smith Gaylord Brooks Realty Co.: Stephen Smith Greenhorne & O’Mara: Al Arnold Guttschick, Little & Weber, P.A.: David Little Harford County Department of Public Works: Bruce Appell Hedgerow Land Ecology Services: Deborah Slawson Howard County Bureau of Environmental Services: Mark Richmond Johnson, Mirmiran, and Thompson: Paul Clement Lobbyist: Bruce Bereano Loiderman Soltesz Associates, Inc.: Andrew Der Low Impact Development Center: Neil Weinstein Maryland Association of Counties: Les Knapp Maryland Critical Areas Commission: Lee Anne Chandler, Lisa Hoerger Maryland Department of the Environment: Robert Summers, Ken Pensyl, Brian Clevenger, Raymond Bahr, Deborah Cappuccitti, Stewart Comstock, Dela Dewa, Maria Warburton, Lorrie Delpizzo, John Joyce, Amanda Sigillito, Bill Sieger Maryland Department of Natural Resources Coastal Zone Management Division: Carrie Decker Maryland Department of Planning: Jason Dubow Maryland Environmental Service (MES): Anna Compton, Megan Simon, Stephanie Peters, James Jett, Brad Dinder Maryland Municipal League: Candace Donoho

3


Maryland Society of Professional Engineers: Eduardo Acevedo, Robert Mead Maryland State Builders Association: Kathleen Maloney Maryland State Highway Administration: Karuna Pujara Moffatt Nichol: Mitchell Manchester Montgomery County Department of Permitting Services: Richard Brush Morris & Ritchie Associates, Inc.: Ernie Sheppe National Association of Home Builders: Glynn Rountree Patuxent Riverkeeper: Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, Fred Tutman Prince George’s Soil Conservation District: Dave Bourbon Queen Anne’s County Development Review: John Scarborough, Vijay Kulkarni Rockville Department of Public Works: Lise Soukup Salisbury Department of Public Works: Dale Pusey South River Federation: Drew Koslow Stormwater Partner’s Coalition: Diane Cameron Talbot County Department of Public Works: Michael Mertaugh University of Maryland: Houng Li Washington County Engineering Department: Terrence McGee Worcester County Department of Development Review & Permitting: Chris McCabe

4


LIST OF ACRONYMS BOCA – Building Officials and Code Administrators BMP – Best Management Practice ESD – Environmental Site Design FSC – Forest Stewardship Council HOA – Homeowners’ Association LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LID – Low Impact Development MD DNR – Maryland Department of Natural Resources MDE – Maryland Department of the Environment MEP – Maximum Extent Practicable MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SEA – Street Edge Alternatives

5


PLENARY Meeting Introduction - Robert Summers, Deputy Secretary (MDE) In his opening remarks, Deputy Secretary Summers stated that he and Secretary Wilson are committed to stormwater management and intend for the writing of new regulations to be a transparent process. He noted that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is working under a tight timeframe and will not have as much time as was allotted for completing the 2000 Maryland Stormwater Design Manual (Manual). He and the Secretary would like to see low impact, nonstructural design with maximum efficiency and longevity implemented. He noted the challenge to creating Best Management Practices (BMP) that meet these standards and yet are aesthetically pleasing. Deputy Secretary Summers asked the group: “While it is clear that we need dramatic improvements to achieve water quality goals, how do we make sure the Environmental Site Design (ESD) practices are implemented?” He requested input from everyone present and requested that participants scrutinize constructively with specific suggestions. Deputy Summers stated that written suggestions would also be accepted later in the process. He closed his remarks by stating that all involved want the best treatment and prevention of stormwater impacts. Maryland has a good stormwater program to support this initiative and Governor O’Malley is committed to growth in MD and in stormwater runoff reductions. Additional Introduction - Glenn Page (EcoLogix) Mr. Page introduced himself and noted that “today is about listening” for MDE. He stated that Section III of the Stormwater Management Act states that MDE shall seek input from all stakeholders, and that is the focus of today’s outreach meeting. Mr. Page explained that implementation of the Stormwater Management Act and the creation of supporting regulation is going to be a challenging task. There are risks involved if no action is taken to reduce stormwater runoff and there are risks if timely action is not taken. Mr. Page indicated that one of the meeting goals is to improve the processes involved in stormwater management. Mr. Page gave a few examples of MDE’s goals for the new regulations, such as controlling new development runoff, reducing the size of BMPs (such as ponds), and improving water quality management. He noted that stakeholders all have a shared vision, which is cleaner water and an improved process at the State and local levels. This goal can be achieved by working together. Mr. Page gave an overview of the day’s proceedings, describing the structure and goals of the plenary session and following break-out sessions. The plenary session will involve a question and answer period, with a panel selected to be representative of the various stakeholder groups present. The panel proceedings are intended to introduce items for discussion and spur conversation that will segue into the break-out sessions. During the break-out sessions, the participants will be divided into randomly chosen groups for independently-facilitated discussions.

6


The responses to the questions posed and additional suggestions will help MDE prioritize the actions it needs to take, and provide them with examples of ideal stormwater management techniques. Mr. Page emphasized that, during the break-out sessions, there should be talking and listening rather than debating.

7


PANEL DISCUSSION Following the introduction by Deputy Secretary Summers (MDE) and meeting facilitator Glenn Page (EcoLogix), Mr. Page lead a discussion of key issues with the panel, which consisted of five members: Betsy Smith (Frederick County, Division of Permitting & Development Review), Al Arnold (Greenhorne & O’Mara Engineering Consultants), Diane Cameron (Natural Resources Defense Council/ Stormwater Partner’s Coalition), Fran Flanigan (Consultant to EcoLogix), and Jeremy Holder (Ausherman Development Corporation). Mr. Page noted that each of the five panelists would be asked the same questions that will be asked during the break-out group sessions. The first question was “What Environmental Site Design practices are practical and impractical?” Mr. Holder cautioned that he has a background in residential development and noted that there are distinctions between residential and commercial practices. Mr. Holder stated that geology affects the practicality of the techniques used and that it is important that the regulations do not attempt to force areas that are geographically unique into a uniform set of practices that may be less effective in particular areas (i.e., building on a coastal plain is much different than building in a mountainous region). Mr. Holder stated that practicality of including ESD in residential development is limited by the public’s understanding of the intent of the regulations while practicality of including ESD in commercial development is limited by available space for implementation. He said that homeowners must embrace the concept of inspections, fines, and new techniques, such as rain gardens, in order for ESD to work. Ms. Smith echoed Mr. Holder’s remarks that the forthcoming regulations should not generalize the State and added that local government support of the regulations is essential. Ms. Smith stated that long-term maintenance of ESD is of concern to stakeholders and suggested that MDE coordinate a long-term evaluation process to identify the effectiveness of various ESD practices over five year increments. Mr. Arnold added that a large volume of practices would be needed to make an impact. Ms. Cameron stated that, despite geographic differences, a core set of ESD practices could be established to optimize the conservation of natural features, regardless of site conditions. Ms. Cameron added that ideal ESD practices should incorporate concepts such as conservation of natural features to optimize ESD effectiveness (e.g., increasing groundwater recharge by modeling design flow after natural hydrology).

Ms. Cameron informed the group that a consortium of 22 environmental advocacy groups and individuals developed a proposal of 11 core ESD principles and recommended that MDE adhere to the principles in development of the forthcoming regulations. (Note: A copy of the “Consensus Proposal” was presented to MDE. Participants can obtain copies from Ms. Cameron at: [email protected].)

8

mailto:[email protected]


Ms. Flanigan responded that, when determining what is practical and impractical, MDE must first identify why existing legislation (prior to the Stormwater Management Act of 2007) was determined insufficient to produce the desired result and identify barriers to successful stormwater program implementation. These deficiencies may include regulatory program funding and/or staffing. Ms. Flanigan recommended that meeting attendees, in addition to voicing their ideas and concerns, pay close attention and respond to the suggestions made by other group members in the break-out sessions in order to assist MDE in formulating a plan of action that addresses all concerns to the extent possible. Mr. Page gave an introduction to the day’s break-out session topics, and posed additional questions to the panel. The panel was asked: “What are the biggest challenges and their solutions?” Mr. Holder responded that barriers to implementation at the local level include the inclination of some local government agencies to refuse to adjust local public works ordinances and practices to accommodate ESD. Mr. Holder stated that increasing the effectiveness of ESD implementation requires the cooperation of everyone included in the process, and especially a change in philosophy and mindset of local government officials. Mr. Holder gave the example of a minimum road width required by a fire marshal preventing the construction of more narrow roads desired to reduce impervious surface coverage and increase stormwater infiltration. Equipment should be built to fit roads, not vice-versa. Ms. Smith responded that at the local government level, fear of change is the biggest challenge. Ms. Smith listed additional challenges, including obtaining local agency involvement in the planning process, and a general lack of knowledge of basic ESD principles on the part of homeowners, developers, and local government. Specifically, Ms. Smith suggested that, if knowledge is passed to homeowners, they may understand the justification for increased stormwater management efforts and be more receptive of initiatives like dedicated funding through tax increases. Ms. Smith suggested highlighting cost-effective aspects of the design and maintenance processes and adding incentives to exceeding regulatory requirements to expedite the shift in mindset. Mr. Arnold responded that developers design what people want. Therefore, designs including ESD must be aesthetically pleasing and accommodate the daily practices of the intended land use, rather than attempting to change the market. Mr. Arnold stated the necessity of assuring that the local zoning regulations are open to changes to accommodate the use of ESD. Mr. Arnold specifically suggested the use of large-scale bioretention facilities in plans. Ms. Cameron stated that the goal of the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 is for new ESD practices to be established as the “norm”, and suggested that local plan review and approval should be incorporated into the implementation process as well. Ms. Cameron suggested that those involved in ESD plan design, review and implementation undergo a rigorous training and certification process in order to reduce permitting delays. Ms. Cameron agreed with Ms. Smith’s statement that a successful implementation strategy will address the fear of change, but cited Pembroke Woods in Frederick County as an example of successful community-wide ESD implementation.

9


Ms. Flanigan agreed with Ms. Cameron’s statement of the importance of education of those involved (including the public, government, and builders) to the technical aspects of the process for success. Ms. Flanigan added that the importance of stormwater management to the “Save-the-Bay” agenda should be highlighted in the education process, which could look to the organization Builders for the Bay for examples. Ms. Flanigan indicated that there needs to be coordination across levels of local government and between elected officials and the public. Ms. Flanigan added that, in formulating the new regulations, MDE should explore the concept of potential changes to the design of existing developments. Mr. Page noted that attendees should pay attention to the points of view of other attendees while in the break-out sessions. He then gave an introduction to the day’s break-out session topics, and then asked more questions of the panel. Mr. Page asked the panel, “What criteria should be used for measuring effectiveness?” Mr. Holder responded that the effectiveness of stormwater management should be reviewed holistically: the quantity and quality of water reaching the outfall would be one means of measuring the effectiveness of ESD. Mr. Holder suggested that existing ESD be evaluated to determine general effectiveness in formulating a comparison with new ESD practices. Mr. Holder stated that the longevity of individual ESD practices should be tracked and indicated that tracking the effectiveness of smaller-scale ESD practices, such as rain gardens, will be especially difficult.

Ms. Smith indicated that end users and those living in homes in the buffer areas should be encouraged to get involved to relate their experiences with regard to the effectiveness of individual ESD practices. Mr. Arnold suggested the use of existing engineering criteria in the evaluation of effectiveness, such as percent nutrient removal. Mr. Arnold agreed with Mr. Holder’s suggestion to keep a log of ESD performance and determine if current ESD is functional, as well as Mr. Holder’s observance that that long-term follow up will be difficult. Mr. Arnold added that ESD should require as little maintenance as possible to ensure longevity of the system. Ms. Cameron stated that the previously mentioned Consensus Proposal lists potential assessment criteria, with hydrology, nutrient load limits, and turbidity standards (numeric and narrative criteria in construction phase) identified as the most important. Ms. Cameron suggested the enforcement of clear and consistent design criteria and quantitative requirements at the local level with State support. She also suggested periodic performance monitoring for individual practices across the State, to be supported by fees. Ms. Flanigan suggested that the end goal for the system (reduce water runoff and sediment loads) should be considered in developing assessment criteria. Ms. Flanigan asked the group to determine how the forthcoming regulations will apply to redevelopment.

10


Mr. Page reviewed the day’s agenda and asked the panel members what they hoped to learn in the break-out group discussions. Mr. Holder responded that he would like to see intellectual honesty and a critical analysis of which ESD tools will work in practice and which will produce a return. Ms. Smith and Mr. Arnold agreed. Ms. Smith added that she would like to gain an understanding of the concerns of other participating stakeholders, such as the environmental advocacy and engineering communities. Ms. Flanigan stated that she would like the discussions to specifically identify areas of consensus (and discourse) on the technical aspects for MDE’s use in developing the implementation strategy. Ms. Cameron indicated that she would like the discussion to focus on the details of implementing the new Act and would like to share ideas from the Consensus Proposal to this end to solicit feedback from the other participants.

11


BREAK-OUT SESSIONS SESSION 1: The Practice of Environmental Site Design Questions:

1. Which practices are ideal for each interest group? Consider residential vs. commercial.

2. What is the practicality of these ideal practices? Consider residential vs. commercial. 3. What impact do regional and physiographic variations have on ideal practices?

Consider residential vs. commercial BLUE GROUP Paul Massicot (EcoLogix) – Facilitator Stephanie Peters (MES) - Documentation Question 1: Which practices are ideal for each interest group? Consider residential vs. commercial. Facilitator Comments: Mr. Massicot asked the group: “What are the ideal ESD practices? What is the practicality of ESD practices in a residential setting?” Group Response1: Group members defined ideal ESD practices (and implementation methods) to include: • An understanding of the site-specific environmental setting in order to minimize disturbance; • A focus on sustainability and the ability of individual ESD practices to function as a

system to serve multiple purposes (habitat and engineering) from one project or practice, thereby minimizing maintenance;

• The value-based preservation of natural site features (e.g., grass swales, wooded ditches, wetlands), to model historical drainage patterns, maximize the use of available resources, and document preservation actions at the site;

• Using site planning and nonstructural practices, such as rain gardens, roof-top and other disconnects, and ditches, to minimize stormwater runoff;

• Maintaining or restoring natural soil structure during construction and top soiling to ensure that disconnects are not ineffective due to compacted soil;

• Reintroducing flow to mimic natural processes; • Reforestation in agricultural areas where preservation is not possible; • Performance standards to change culture by setting a focus on regulatory outcomes and

their intent to preserve the “Commons” as healthful and sustainable; • Using landscaping areas, tree pits, and planters for stormwater treatment; • Using textural reference in the site plan; • Using stormwater as a resource for nutrients, including the capture and reuse of grey water

for irrigation; • Encouraging impervious surface disconnects and introducing pervious surface requirements

1 Note: Responses in bold indicate a general concensus and/or suggestions or issues that were mentioned repeatedly.

12


in residential areas (e.g., requiring that materials for driveways and other areas that are low traffic and/or low load bearing be porous);

• Encouraging, through zoning, the placement of high-density areas where infiltration to soil is high;

• Encouraging and offering incentives for clustering and reducing lot size to prevent net loss in density of natural drainage ways;

• Using maximum disturbed area limits and phasing during construction to limit disturbances and reduce sediment runoff;

• Using individual ESD features where they perform best, rather than adhering to hard and fast criteria;

• Using practices such as bioretention facilities in Seattle that give a sense of nature back to the community and have a focus on beauty as well as function to encourage public “buy-in”. Other examples include the current project in Crofton, MD that directs stormwater from roads to private rain gardens, and stormwater retrofits/curvilinear grates in Portland, OR;

• Changing public works standards to accommodate ESD (e.g., more narrow, less straight roads);

• Defining practicable as possible and attainable rather than fast and economical; • Inclusion and/or consideration of the following suggestions from the Consensus Proposal:

o Combining practices o Using BMP o Establishing gentle sheet flow into forested areas o Establishing forest conservation buffers o Integrating the ESD map with all other site plans o Creating a model ordinance o Using many discreet levels of phasing in construction to minimize disturbance and sediment runoff

• Using the standards set by the Bowie Baysox Stadium stormwater project; and • Include and/or consider the 22 design principles outlined in the Center for Watershed

Protection’s “Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community”.

Question 2: What is the practicality of these ideal practices? Consider residential vs. commercial. Group Response: The group’s discussion on practicality of the ideal practices can be divided into themes of existing and proposed regulations and guidance, design tools and practices, incentives and education, and outreach. Regulations and Guidance: • There is a need for clarity, simplicity, and direction in the language and content of model

ordinances and guidance documents/manuals; • Existing guidance documents do not provide enough specific instruction on designing

effective ESD systems or credits to encourage them (e.g., how to design a rain garden or effectively use porous paving) and are written in a manner which is not friendly to the end

13


user. Approximately 40 stormwater management practices are outlined in the current Manual. Of these, only approximately 1/3 are nonstructural practices;

• There is a need to define the intent of ESD and the relationship between ESD and site mitigation so that there is a focus on what can be done to preserve any existing beneficial site features. It was suggested that, after construction begins, the implementation of ESD becomes mitigation, rather than prevention;

• MDE should provide guidance on the use of creativity in ESD. Flexibility should be provided for plan reviewers to provide for modifications to maximize ESD while accommodating unique site features, such as soil and terrain;

• MDE should provide guidance on how to produce and/or integrate county manuals with the new regulations;

• Adjustments should be made to Public Works standards to accommodate ESD: Stormwater management should be included in zoning laws to maximize the use of areas that drain well. The creation of an ESD overlay ordinance, which would override local zoning and subdivision codes, may be effective to this end; and

• The regulations should be phased in. Design Tools and Practices: • A unified site design map should be developed early in the conceptual stage to discourage

the placement of ESD where it will fit rather than where it will perform best; • The role of vegetation should be emphasized in the development of criteria; • Providing numeric criteria will be difficult; • An examination of the purpose and value of the stormwater management system (stormwater

treatment and/or capture quality vs. quantity) is necessary (e.g., Carroll County has implemented a design system in which water is filtered prior to infiltration);

• Treating stormwater close to the source may not be feasible or sustainable; • Impervious surface requirements may be more tangible in residential development. A 10%

reduction in pervious surface may be possible; • An examination of the appropriateness and effectiveness of approved practices and/or a

uniform set of statewide ESD criteria to accommodate a broad spectrum (i.e., the State’s differing terrain) is necessary. Specifically, the ½-inch infiltration regulation is problematic; and;

• Examples shown on the Chesapeake Bay Program’s website indicate that home sites using ESD principles sell faster. Therefore, ESD may not be a barrier to home sales2.

Incentives: • Incentives should be offered to encourage clustering of development and reduced lot size and

the use of porous paving to decrease impervious surface; and • There should be an increase in the value of incentives to encourage the pursuit of the

maximum credit allowable. Education and Outreach 2 Table 1 of the environmental advocacy group Consensus Proposal, available from Ms. Cameron, contains additional ESD practices and approaches.

14


• Changes in culture and public mindset regarding stormwater management are necessary to protect the intent of the regulation and provide for effective implementation. Apprehension is likely if the public is unaware of the regulatory intent (e.g., providing citizens with the purpose of stormwater ponds so that they will tolerate subsequent nuisances, such as mosquitoes);

• ESD may prove beneficial to builders in some instances (e.g., native soil removed from locations of future stormwater ponds may be useful as a borrow source for the site in locations of proposed structures);

• Training and education are especially important for plan reviewers as they may not be as familiar with some aspects of design and hydrology. Additional education requirements for licensed contractors/designers (e.g., professional engineers and landscape architects) may not prove useful;

• Residents should be integrated into the ESD process. The purpose and function of ESD should be explained to the resident in order for the design to remain intact, properly maintained, and effective throughout the lifetime of the site;

• Collaboration of designers/engineers/builders with the ecological community can lead to quantifiable criteria; and

• An examination of the appropriateness of available resources for the education of the public, designers, builders, and plan reviewers is necessary.

The group did not have an opportunity to respond to the third question before the break. YELLOW GROUP Fran Flanigan (Consultant to EcoLogix) – Facilitator Anna Compton (MES) - Documentation Facilitator Comments: Ms. Flanigan spurred the discussion by asking the group: “Why are we here? What do we hope to gain? What is our mission? What is the need? The General Assembly passed another law for stormwater management - why?” Ms. Flanigan noted that, during the panel discussion, Mr. Holder made the comment that local ordinances drive us in the opposite direction - away from stormwater management. Ms. Flanigan cited the example of fire codes in Charles County that dictate that public roads must be wide enough to accommodate a truck that can fight a seven-story fire. Ms. Flanigan suggested that a pertinent issue at hand is how to get local government cooperation to accommodate ESD. Group Response: Effectiveness of the 2000 Regulations/Need for Supporting Data and Monitoring In reference to Ms. Flanigan’s call for the meeting mission and need, group members provided the following response:

• Stormwater systems are drastically failing, due to maintenance and design flaws, with no accountability.

• The most current design utilizes conventional stormwater management practices per the 2000 regulations, rather than ESD. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these practices are not as effective as ESD at addressing all contaminants, especially those from non-point sources.

15


• ESD, while perhaps more difficult to institute in urbanized areas, utilizes a more holistic site approach.

• There is a need for identification of the flaws in the 2000 regulations and information supporting this value judgment.

• Some group members indicated that it may be unreasonable or premature to make judgments of the failure or success of the 2000 regulations because:

o No existing stormwater management designs based on the Manual are older than two years.

o There is a lack of a scientific evaluation of the suite of practices that conform to 2000 regulations.

o There is a perception issue with regard to the success of current stormwater management practices in that there is a lag time between when the management practices are instituted and when results are apparent. Therefore, some BMPs are working.

Responses generally indicated that the 2000 regulations were not flawed, but did not fully incorporate ESD. It was suggested that the intent of the new regulations is to elaborate on Chapter 5 of the existing Manual. A group member stated that current stormwater management requirements for new development are excessive. Conversely, another group member indicated that requirements for redevelopment should be investigated because ESD on new development will not address existing stream degradation problems. A group member asked if MDE is seeing more innovation beyond the guidance in the 2000 regulations. The response was “yes”. Effectiveness of the 2000 Regulations/Data Collection Efforts and Results A group member noted that modeling/monitoring is showing that some stormwater management practices are working and some are not. The group member requested feedback from jurisdictions on the effectiveness of the Manual practices. A group member responded that data on stream restoration and stream channel protection, is available for Baltimore County. A group member indicated that, in Howard County, monitoring of stormwater runoff pre-development vs. post development is indicating fluctuations and is currently inconclusive. However, hydrological improvement has been documented for local site BMPs, such as stream channel protection BMPs, which are working to reduce peak flow and pollutant levels. In addition, new modeling technology allows for the user to add new factors to process and monitor changes. However, it takes seven years to obtain data on stream channel erosion. Another group member noted that their organization has been conducting baseline monitoring for six years in Howard County. The monitoring was conducted before, during, and after development and was focused on evaluating biological and physical changes rather than chemical changes within the stream. Although the study is currently inconclusive, because more time is needed to accurately discern trends, results indicate that the monitored area is status quo at this point with no significant degrading of the biology (fish, etc.) in the area. A group member noted that stream fluctuations are on a geomorphologic time scale, meaning it will take a long time to actually be able to see differences in a stream.

16


A group member indicated concern with regard to ground-truthing/assessment of ESD efficiency because there are discrepancies in the predictions of hydrological models that calculate pre- and post development runoff for current stormwater design practices and actual site observations. A group member responded that the use of models, such as TR-20 and TR-55, should be evaluated to this end. Group members stated that planning and zoning offices should be informed of technical information available for assessment purposes. Effectiveness of 2000 Regulations: Collaboration with Local Government Entities With regard to the public works ordinance issues, a group member echoed Mr. Holder’s sentiment that it is difficult to near impossible to accommodate ESD, such as cluster development and narrow street design, when local ordinances have conflicting requirements. The group member indicated that one of his recent projects, which incorporated ESD based on Maryland’s Critical Area Commission guidance, was dismantled by local ordinances. It was noted that, at the county level, zoning codes make ESD difficult for developers to implement and may need to be changed. Other comments and suggestions regarding collaboration with local government entities and policy issues associated with the use of ESD include:

• House Bill 786, driven by “stormwater management failures”, attempts to address both technical and policy impediments to ESD implementation and provide better guidance to developers. The law would mandate further coordination between developers and local planning and zoning offices.

• Chapter 5 of the Manual (regulations) should be expanded. A group member inquired as to whether the new regulations will supercede existing 2000 regulations. MDE interjected that the 2000 regulations will be used for guidance on implementing the new regulations. The Stormwater Management Act of 2007 Act is geared at future growth and redevelopment. Questions 1 and 2: Which practices are ideal for each interest group? Consider residential vs. commercial. What is the practicality of these ideal practices? Consider residential vs. commercial. Facilitator Comments: Ms. Flanigan indicated that there are neo-traditional, rural, urban, style communities that all have regional differences and site-specific variations as well as commercial vs. residential variations. In light of the fact that one size does not fit all for stormwater management, what are the best practices? Group Response: A group member noted that successful stormwater management practices slow water down or store it on site. The group member stated that Baltimore County has implemented a policy for the inclusion of large stream buffers and 5% grade limits. A group member challenged how realistic these limits were. Another member mentioned a concern of seasonal fluctuations with regard to infiltration rates, indicating that at certain times of the year the ground is frozen and infiltration will be limited.

17


A group member noted that the recent trend in land use is that local jurisdictions have gone in the direction of “neo- traditional” style, which decreases lot size and increases impervious surface. The group member indicated that implementing ESD in these instances is difficult and requires that the developer “tuck-in” ESD wherever possible. Therefore, stormwater management should be regionalized to the extent possible. A group member mentioned a decision tree approach for developers to use when applying for permits, well before ground breaking, to show that there was appropriate consideration for ESD. The decision tree should be comprehensive, address the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP) language in the legislation, and contain questions on soil type and other pertinent site characteristics, while making the necessary distinctions between land use and land cover as they relate to land management. It was suggested that use of the decision tree approach could be used to “fast track” the building permit. A group member indicated that the credit system in Chapter 5 should include language on limitations to systems. For example, while rooftop disconnections work, they can not be considered to have complete infiltration without accommodations for receiving soil type (e.g., sandy soils on the Eastern Shore). Another group member suggested including local or regional organizations, such as Builders for the Bay, which surveys properties from county to county to draw inferences on which low impact designs work best on the local scale. A group member mentioned that natural wooded buffers, which are required by many local jurisdictions, are one of best practices for ESD because sediment blowouts do not travel far in these areas. Additional suggestions and comments regarding buffers include:

• Credits should be allotted for maintaining existing buffers. • Requirements for buffers should be added to the stipulations in Chapter 5 of the Manual. • Other ESD practices could be used to reduce buffer size on a case-by-case basis. • The adequacy of the buffers should be a component of a triennial review. • Buffer issues should be part of the basic land management assessment. • Buffers do not work in instances where storm drains provide a by-pass. In addition, some

devices drive stormwater underground where buffers can not be utilized. An initial environmental assessment should be completed to include a tree inventory and checklist of other pertinent land management tools. After deciding where the trees will remain, the designer should identify the remaining open space and appropriate uses, with value placed on public use.

Additional suggestions for successful ESD included: • Reducing impervious surface by clustering development and increasing density; • Minimizing the impact to existing vegetation (e.g., including existing trees in the site plan

and reducing the amount of grading); • Utilizing mass transit to reduce the necessity for new roadways; • Maximizing priority forest area, for instance, forests near local streams; • Using underground stormwater storage devices to maximize land use; • Conducting stream restoration; and

18


• Providing education and training to form a public understanding of stormwater management concepts and practices.

Ms. Flanigan requested suggestions on practical ESD for commercial properties. Group members reiterated the ideas of underground stormwater management features, such as underground sand filters. A group member added that while underground chambers should be encouraged so water leaves the site filtered, they present the problem of disposing of the filter cartridge and grey water. A group member stated that large stores, such as Wal-Mart bring special problems, which require creativity and accountability to solve. Designers should insist on reduced parking space, and consider whether the property could support the use of a rain garden or green roof and increased permeable surfaces that work better with commercial development. In addition, retrofits of raised islands in parking lots should be required. Some group members questioned the extent to which permeable pavements are pervious. While the group agreed that these types of pavements are superior to asphalt in their permeability, a group member mentioned that if the soil does not support the runoff, a filter might be necessary. It was suggested that redevelopment would be a good method to help in impervious material removal using pervious materials when repaving roads and creating medians, or conducting schoolyard blacktop removal. It was suggested that redevelopment projects incorporating ESD should get credit for offsite mitigation. The creation of permanent wetlands was also suggested. It was noted that, while these wetlands tend to occupy a large amount of site space, they can be marketed as amenities by the developer. It was also noted that the creation of wetlands is a mitigation technique. Another suggested ESD for commercial use was the use of grass channels in public rights-of-way. A recommendation on the specifications for a grass channel was 2 feet wide with a flat bottom. The use of dry swales was suggested. A group member stated that dry swales are more acceptable to the public because they are more aesthetically pleasing in comparison to the vegetated swales with standing water. It was noted that, if installed properly, swales are low maintenance. Suggestions to the contrary were considered to be public perception problems. Additional suggestions for commercial properties included:

• Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification requirements for properties over 10,000 sq. ft.

• Recycling of grey water. • Street sweeping as a BMP because it has been highly successful in controlling the

downstream impacts from pollution in areas such as the District of Columbia. • Implementation of protective zoning to limit the size and number of commercial areas.

(At the request of a group member, MDE indicated that they could request changes to zoning laws, but could not require them because this is beyond the agency’s jurisdiction.)

• Retrofitting vegetated swales. The group did not have an opportunity to respond to the third question before the break.

19


RED GROUP Glenn Page (EcoLogix) - Facilitator Jim Jett (MES) - Documentation Question 1: Which practices are ideal for each interest group? Consider residential vs. commercial. Group Response: • As a general comment, discussion of ESD should not begin with a list of practices, but

should rather entail conceptual planning to develop conservation measures to prevent and avoid environmental impacts. Taking an approach to list ESD practices misses the first steps in the planning process. There are many existing resources that could be used to list ESD practices.

• An initial step in the development of the State regulation should assess the local ordinances that affect stormwater management. Based on the assessment of local ordinances, MDE should consider the feasibility of the December deadline for the 2007 Stormwater Management Manual (ESD Manual). o Prince George’s County is implementing stormwater controls that will most likely meet

the requirements of the Stormwater Management Act of 2007. o Baltimore County has gone through the extensive stormwater management development

process and will be entering the implementation phase. o Other Maryland counties have far less developed programs. This may result in a

prolonged implementation period. MDE needs to reach out to the counties to see what site design/management practices are currently being encouraged.

• Examples of Low Impact Development (LID) and ESD should be included in the ESD Manual. Consultants should consider sharing previous design plans to analyze how LID has been applied to pre-development conditions as a brainstorming activity.

• The ESD Manual should include a list of design items that will continue to be allowed or prohibited. The ESD Manual should also attempt to present site conditions particularly compatible with each of these techniques.

Question 2: What is the practicality of these ideal practices? Consider residential vs. commercial. Group Response: • Emphasis should be placed on nonstructural techniques.

o The designs should first focus on nonstructural practices, especially in high-density developments.

o Carroll County has added language to the 2004 Carroll County Stormwater Management Manual stating that developers must manage stormwater discharge to the most practical extent possible. Nonstructural techniques successfully implemented in Carroll County have included roadway disconnects, grading around houses, and manual dry swales. The 2004 Carroll County Stormwater Management Manual includes engineering guidelines and standards that may be used to evaluate stormwater controls.

o MDE should include bioretention methods (porous media, sand fills) in a list of BMPs.

• MDE should provide very specific guidance for ESD practices.

20


o Rural and lesser-developed counties host a majority of small-scale development projects. Prolonged environmental studies to develop ESDs are often impractical for small projects that constitute the majority of development within these counties. Consultants are not working to develop new concepts in these regions. Instead, they are consulting the county government to request direction on compliance with county ordinances and ESD concepts.

o From the consultants’ viewpoint, it is the responsibility of government to provide guidance on compliance with new regulations as they are developed.

• Improvement of Plan Reviews o The efficiency of local plan review must be improved. Developers should be provided a

review in a timely manner. o MDE should provide local plan reviewers with a checklist to evaluate plans. This list

should allow flexibility for the designers. o The review process is subject to conflicting ordinances and interests from various county

government departments. The plan reviewer currently has to ensure plans are in compliance with all departments. The group should look to organizations such as Builders for the Bay to counteract these conflicting requirements.

o There exists the potential for a lack of experience on the part of the reviewer when reviewing designs containing ESD and that incorporate less traditional stormwater systems. The reviewer is more accustomed to accept design elements that have been implemented in the past, which puts constraints on the designer. Innovative stormwater plans often require the plan reviewer to coordinate with several county departments, which decreases efficiency.

o A training and certification program for stormwater management is currently unavailable and should be offered. Delaware may provide a model for certification of construction reviewers. Some participants disagreed, stating that a training class might not greatly improve the abilities of professional engineers to work with ESD. Training would be informal because MDE cannot provide professional certifications.

• Role of MDE o Stormwater management needs to be more technically regulated at the State level.

Increased regulation at the State level will reduce conflict among the local departments. The regulations will require enough flexibility to minimize disincentives to generate innovative stormwater management strategies locally.

o MDE should coordinate its efforts with MD Department of Planning. o County departments function independently, which often leads to internal conflicts and

competing interests when managing aspects of development. MDE should provide direction to the counties to improve collaboration. The State should begin delegating responsibilities to the counties, while keeping in mind that some counties are not capable of handling an increased workload.

o Local governments look to the State government for leadership. The Stormwater Management Act of 2007 will not alter this sentiment among the counties. MDE needs to send the message to local government that the current stormwater regulations must and will change. MDE also needs to communicate a timeframe for implementation to local government.

21


o MDE should coordinate with local government but also strive to meet any regional goals as well.

• There is a need to develop a practical approach to managing stormwater within urban areas. o The Manual is biased towards management in the Piedmont area. There is little guidance

or text on stormwater management of highly urbanized areas in comparison to guidance that has been applied to new development.

o Local government must encourage BMPs for previously developed urban properties. Retrofitting is most commonly used. However, this method has been performed in the Rockville area where it has not achieved the 50% recovery rate goal.

• The ESD Manual must specify that water must be captured and conveyed to the stormwater management facility at a consistent design level. Existing facilities were designed and built to different specifications.

• Water re-use fixtures should be installed in plumbing on institutional/commercial properties. This may entail working with building reviewers to comply with Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) requirements.

• There is a need to further develop residential stormwater management techniques. o Wide shoulder technique (non-rooftop disconnect) o Grading to residential dry wells (rooftop disconnect) o Dry Swales o Forest conservation o Soils

o Previous public outreach efforts have distributed rain barrels and promoted construction of rain gardens in residential areas. These efforts have failed in the past due to improper use and poor location selection (rain gardens). These techniques should not be discarded as stormwater management options. However, their proper use must be assured in some way.

o MDE should consider ways to improve the use and efficiency of swales on residential properties. These considerations may include design requirements and preliminary installation inspections to reduce mistakes made during construction. The ESD Manual should add soil/sod specifications to be used during swale construction. Other landscape features, such as adding tree plantings to swales, should be incorporated into the design to meet Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) requirements.

o The ESD Manual should provide specifications for green roofs and rainwater capture systems, as well as porous paving materials. This would include a description of how these materials may be used for credit, and clarification on installation (to reduce potential for destabilization) and maintenance.

o Consultants need to better coordinate with planners to ensure that there is adequate land area reserved for stormwater management infrastructure.

• It is key to look at individual techniques with an economic perspective and remove practices that are impractical. (Note: Tom Schuler agreed to follow-up with a list of practices for MDE). From the designer’s perspective, however, no practices should be removed from consideration, as each may be applicable on a site-by-site basis. Practical techniques would involve those that would not require long-term maintenance. For example, bioretention areas

22


that would function as a dry extended retention area would eventually perform as an infiltration system.

• MDE needs to look beyond what has been done locally to manage stormwater and pursue national examples. Washington State is a beneficial source of information regarding soils specifications for incorporation into stormwater management design. Other examples include use of vegetative cover to increase infiltration rates. Creation of an oversight committee may aid in developing these specifications for Maryland.

• MDE should provide clarification of the term “MEP”. The group did not have an opportunity to respond to the third question before the break. SESSION 2: Incentives and Disincentives Questions:

1. What are the short-term incentives/disincentives? 2. What are the long-term incentives/disincentives? 3. How do we overcome the barriers to implementation?

BLUE GROUP Paul Massicot (EcoLogix) – Facilitator Stephanie Peters (MES) - Documentation Questions 1 and 2: What are the short-term incentives/disincentives? What are the long-term incentives/disincentives? Facilitator Comments: Mr. Massicot asked the group to discuss incentives and disincentives to ESD implementation. Group Response: The resultant discussions can be further divided into existing incentives to ESD and potential new incentives to encourage ESD. With regard to existing incentives to ESD, the group responded that: • The increase in stormwater management requirements will boost the local economy by

providing additional business for consultants and lowering maintenance costs through the use of effective ESD practices. Initial costs and life cycle economics have shown to be a net positive;

• ESD will provide a more pleasing site design; • Stormwater management system failure is less likely when ESD is incorporated; and • The use of ESD will encourage redevelopment (because they will only apply to new

development) and the use of green building technologies. With regard to potential new incentives, the group responded that: • Homeowners should be provided examples of properties with ideal ESD; • Credits could be provided for the use of impervious trails and cluster development; • Provide State funding to local governments for adequate plan review; • Provide clarity in regulations to encourage compliance and thoughtful plan review;

23


• Provide better incentives to encourage compliance and reduce enforcement costs; • Provide broad regulations to allow for successful local application; • Provide an incentive for local government to create guidelines and exercise ingenuity; • Provide additional credits for retrofits in older communities per Chapter 5 of the

existing Manual; • Provide policy and technical support to other agencies and the public to assist in

implementation. The establishment of a help hotline was suggested; • Increase the amount of data and anecdotal information available for research on the

effectiveness of ESD practices; and • Fully implement the existing supporting regulation. Disincentives • MDE should provide for a strong regulatory disincentive for failure to comply with

regulations; • New regulations add complexity; homebuilders will have to go to consultants or MDE for

guidance. Outreach will be necessary to explain why the regulation changes were necessary; • Site-specific negotiations may be likely following plan review. MDE may not have

resources available to support these negotiations; • Additional time and effort will be necessary in the design, approval and inspection processes.

Specifically, additional engineering commitments will be necessary prior to preliminary site plan approval;

• Assigning a credit value to individual practices will be difficult; • Some sites do not lend themselves to ESD; • Public apprehension leading to compliance issues is possible. In addition, a lack of

knowledge in the purpose of site ESD features may lead to a lack of maintenance. • A complete change of culture/mindset will be required for some groups. Coordinating

education efforts for all involved will be difficult. Consideration should be given to the fact that no one entity is more important than another;

• The new regulations will add to the complexity of existing regulations and will require political will to be implemented;

• There may be a need to increase State and local taxes to support initial, maintenance, and long-term enforcement costs;

• The issue is broader than stormwater. Some ESD practices will conflict with other local codes and ordinances and public works standards (e.g., road with and emergency vehicle passage);

• Because local government will implement the regulations, they must be given flexibility while remaining unbiased to projects;

• The regulations must remain flexible to accommodate and encourage new technologies and practices; and

• The concept of stormwater management using ESD does not receive as much publicity as other “green” design concepts. Consideration should be given to linking ESD to the LEED concepts, which focus more on energy efficiency and are currently more popular.

Question 3: How do we overcome the barriers to implementation? Group Response:

24


Group members stated that there must be both incentives and disincentives and “bottom-up” thinking for the program to be successful. The successful approach will use a combination of solutions to address the needs of all involved. A group member advised that MDE should not be discouraged by any ESD site plan failures, but rather highlight the positive case studies in assessment and education efforts. A group member offered Seattle’s Street Edge Alternatives (SEA) program as an example of a successful project. Group members reiterated the need for education and outreach efforts and recommended follow-up evaluations of the effectiveness of ESD, to include an evaluation on the effectiveness of projects using “piecemeal” erosion and sediment control (ESC) practices. A group member requested that the site plan define site conditions and imperviousness. A group member suggested that a watershed context should be used to assess the quality of the receiving waters. It was suggested that this approach include tiers of ESD criteria. The potential use of ESD in site redevelopment was briefly discussed. A group member suggested that redevelopment clauses be included in the regulations and include stipulations that runoff on redeveloped sites be reduced by 50% (rather than the existing 20%), or that the plan reviewer/MDE allow no less than a decrease of 30% if 50% is determined to be technically infeasible. It was also suggested that redevelopment be treated with the same requirements as new development. Group members requested that MDE provide additional insight into its plan for implementation of the Stormwater Management Act. Transparency throughout the implementation and regulation forming process was requested. Additional opportunities for the public to interact with MDE throughout was suggested as well. YELLOW GROUP Fran Flanigan (Consultant to EcoLogix) – Facilitator Anna Compton (MES) - Documentation Questions 1 and 2: What are the short-term incentives/disincentives? What are the long-term incentives/disincentives?

25


Group Response: Incentives With regard to incentives, a group member suggested that a routine procedure may facilitate the permitting process. Conversely, if the procedure were more complicated, it could have the opposite result. It was suggested that utilizing new techniques could make the process cheaper, better, faster, and more user-friendly for developers. Another group member suggested that designs using innovative ESD approaches should be fast-tracked through the permit process as an incentive. Tax breaks or credits and the use of LEED certifications and credits were also suggested as incentives to promote compliance. A group member stated that the LEED certification could be a public relations and sales incentive because the building could be promoted as “green” and thus would be less expensive to heat and cool. It was suggested that LEED certification would create a reduction of other stormwater management requirements. It was also suggested that the increase in compliance of the receiving waters with TMDLs would reduce the risk of environmental lawsuits for the property owner. Disincentives With regard to potential disincentives, it was suggested that ESD could be more costly and/or cumbersome because it may result in:

• An increase in cost from larger designs for structural BMPs; • An increase in the need for training for, and a shortage in the availability of, engineers,

landscape architects and contractors; • The accumulation of pollutants in filtering devices, the disposal and monitoring of which

becomes the responsibility of the end user; • Increased maintenance and replacement costs in landscaping and wetlands replacement

following droughts and die-offs; • A potential loss of income for designers and developers via density reduction; • Private property issues and public nuisance claims from potential citizen complaints

regarding aesthetics, wildlife, and an increase in mosquitoes and resultant human disease from vegetated and/or standing water BMPs;

• Concerns about the longevity of the process and the techniques; • Conflict with existing building codes; • The potential failure and “back to the drawing board” for new ESD; • An increase in safety issues and liability from decreased passage for emergency vehicles

on narrower roads with medians and drowning from standing water; • Jurisdictional wetland issues (e.g., permits needed for created wetlands); • Potential infiltration into sewer systems and basements; • Local government requirements for underground stormwater management; • Reluctance to change both design and regulations; and • Site topography issues with installing BMP.

Group members stated that MDE should provide both guidance and prioritization with regard to the use of ESD.

26


Question 3: How do we overcome the barriers to implementation? Group Response: It was mentioned that ESD forces development away from undeveloped terrain towards dense cities, which is desirable. A group member stated that an estimated 1 million people are projected to be moving into the State in the next 20 years. Because the public does not desire vertical development, a balance must be made between preserving the ecosystem and responding to public demand. A group member stated that developers do not create a market; instead they address a need and public end user “want”. Another group member responded that, once the public is made aware of the issues related to stormwater and its impact on the system, it will take responsibility for its actions. The group expressed concern about whether or not all disincentives can be overcome, but recognized that many disincentives are merely perception issues rather than true barriers. The group suggested that the barriers be addressed through a mix of training, education, and guidance. Specifically, group members mentioned the need to train engineers and administer public education. Public Education A group member stated that the implementation of the new regulations will require a cultural change, to which there will be reluctance. For example, there is a negative public perception of wetlands due to aesthetics issues. The public will need to be educated regarding stormwater issues in order to embrace created wetlands as an acceptable site feature. Success stories can be used to this end. Another group member suggested that educational efforts should be focused within stakeholder groups: peer-to-peer, government-to-government, developer-to-developer, etc. A group member stated that consultants should also be educated on the new requirements, their purpose, and steps to compliance. Another group member suggested that the support of the Home Builders Association is necessary for success. With regard to the curriculum for public education, it was suggested that there should be emphases on: the costs associated with developing beyond the carrying capacity; the environmental benefits of “green” development and sustaining existing resources; and maximizing the use of natural features in stormwater management. Better educational materials and tools suggested to increase public compliance include demonstrations of rain garden planting, models from other cities, and pictures depicting how ESD devices should look when properly installed. A group member stated that education and outreach efforts should be coordinated with the new regulations. Another group member indicated that signage identifying ESD projects would be helpful (e.g., signs in PG County identifying rain gardens). A group member suggested that certain ESD practices may not be appropriate on all sites. End users should be given the ability to make choices in the design plan to encourage compliance (Note: There was dissent on this issue.). A group member added that although homeowners may

27


be offered a choice, there will still be resistance to accepting that some form of ESD is necessary. A group member stated that, due to additional costs associated with designs and soil testing, the cost of a new home including ESD will increase $10-20,000 resulting in citizen complaints. The group member called for suggestions on a way for the additional costs to be directed to homebuilders rather than homebuyers. Tax incentives and local government subsidies were suggested to this end. Government Guidance A group member suggested that MDE form a strong framework with priorities for local government to follow because localities may be concerned with a potential negative public reaction following the institution of the new rules. A group member suggested that approval of BMPs should be the sole responsibility of MDE. Another group member stated that further clarification of the term “ESD” will solve many implementation problems. It was suggested that the public can be forced to comply with the new regulations. However, there is limited political will to pass mandates on citizens. A group member responded that those members of the public that are not supportive of the mandates should get more involved with the political process. A group member stated support for the use of property “takings” and easements on the part of government in order to protect stormwater management facilities. A group member asked how the conflicts between local zoning codes and regulations should be resolved. Creation of a statewide stormwater utility (if funding is available) or a mandatory statewide ESD overlay that would trump local ordinances was suggested. A group member stated that such an overlay would not restrict developing, other than in hard lots, but rather direct how to integrate ESD. RED GROUP Glenn Page (EcoLogix) - Facilitator Jim Jett (MES) - Documentation Question 1: What are the short-term incentives/disincentives? Group Response: Short-term Incentives mentioned by the group include: • Consultants and developers should be awarded with strong incentives for taking the initial

risks. Local governments should provide a strong, expedited plan review and waive fees wherever possible for those developing ESD plans. The MDE regulations should unify the contents of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Programs to simplify the process.

28


Short-term Disincentives mentioned by the group include: • Public Relations Issues

o A principle challenge to MDE will be receiving a public “buy-in”, which is a precursor to local officials’ acceptance of the regulations. Anything perceived as a cost increase will not be well received.

o Public perception of the program’s link to the Chesapeake Bay may not encourage involvement in areas far removed from the Bay. In these areas it may be best to link stormwater management practices with the health of local waterways.

o MDE must overcome difficulties in convincing local officials that the ESD Manual will be effective.

• Funding Issues o The costs of mandated, sophisticated water management systems would eventually reach

a threshold where the private sector will refuse to pay for it. o Funding for stormwater management maintenance may be rolled into the general

construction, ESC (MDE), and local application fees. A percentage of these fees could be allocated to fund monitoring.

o MDE should pursue the idea of matching stormwater management program funds for local governments.

Question 2:What are the long-term incentives/disincentives? Group Response: Long-term incentives mentioned by the group include: • MDE should collaborate within the local departments to find a cross-purpose for using LID

techniques. For example, LID could be used to meet forest conservation goals. • MDE should provide the counties with adequate standards to review plans. When an out-

of-the ordinary plan is submitted, the plan review staff often has to consult with other departments. Efficiency is subsequently decreased. Counties should consider setting a timeframe for plan review based on New Castle County, DE as a model.

• Fee Incentives o The 2004 Carroll County Stormwater Management Manual states that residential plans

employing nonstructural practices receive a significantly lower fee than those requiring a structural review. This incentive to encourage designers and planners to use nonstructural techniques could be used statewide.

Long-term disincentives mentioned by the group include: • The lack of uniformity in stormwater regulation

o The lack of uniform regulation between Maryland and bordering states (increased environmental regulations on development within Maryland) may create a disincentive to commercial growth within Maryland, leading to a loss of job opportunities to competing states. Virginia and West Virginia currently have far less stringent regulations on stormwater discharges.

o The State should attempt to establish uniform stormwater management practices and fees. Differences between local environmental regulations may also impact economic development between the counties.

29


• The Stormwater Management Act of 2007 contains language that will require a central person(s) to review current regulation to locate conflicts and disconnects. o The legislation does not assign responsibility for this task. Many counties would have

very limited staff to perform this. It was suggested that the State develop a task force for this purpose. MD Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Coastal Programs may be a potential funding source for this task force.

• MDE must clarify that the responsibility for implementing the ESD Manual is not to be directly designated to the counties.

• BMPs will not be uniform across all State regions. BMPs of low relief areas (i.e., Eastern Shore) should differ from those of Western MD counties.

• MDE should begin identifying areas (counties) where implementation is anticipated to be more difficult, including areas that currently have less developed stormwater management programs.

Question 3: How do we overcome the barriers to implementation? Group Response: • Adaptive management should be applied to stormwater management practices

o Data to evaluate the management techniques is currently unavailable. A monitoring program will need to be developed to properly assess the efficiency of stormwater management systems. Creating this monitoring program will be a challenge to local governments.

o A monitoring program will reduce ambiguity and subjectivity with regard to whether the design achieved the objective. This will be especially valuable in determining appropriate LID design.

o The scientific information will be beneficial to all parties. Therefore, all parties should hold responsibility for funding.

o MDE should develop a numerical objective for nutrient removal/reduction in the ESD Manual.

• There exists a need for accountability for on-lot stormwater management. Often the developer informs local officials that they were not permitted to enter the property for maintenance purposes once the property is sold. The lot owner should be required to provide access to the developer after the sale to provide long-term maintenance as needed. The instances where developers are refused access to perform maintenance should be discouraged through fines.

• Unification of Plan Review o There exists a need for a holistic review process. o County plan reviews should be standardized to cover FSC, wetlands, buffer, stormwater

management, ESC, floodplain, and public works criteria. A unified plan review would increase efficiency and decrease review time.

o County departments will need integration on stormwater management programs. Conflicting ordinances between county departments has been evident.

o In Eastern Shore counties, much of the land area is within the Chesapeake Bay or Coastal Bay Critical areas. Environmental site design has already been successfully implemented in these areas. Stormwater management regulations must be consistent with the existing land management.

30


o Implementation of the existing stormwater regulations has been inconsistent throughout the State. MDE should concentrate on enforcing the existing regulations. The ESD Manual should correct the lack of uniformity in enforcement across the State.

• MDE should ensure that stormwater regulations do not push development out of existing urbanized areas into more rural areas.

• Stormwater management regulations should also not result in such an economic drain on cities and towns that vital civil services become under funded.

SESSION 3: Design/Construction/Maintenance Issues Questions:

1. What are the impacts to Design? 2. What are the impacts to Construction? 3. What are the impacts to Maintenance?

BLUE GROUP Paul Massicot (EcoLogix) – Facilitator Stephanie Peters (MES) – Documentation Question 1: What are the impacts to Design? Group Response: The group identified the following design information requirements and potential issues: • There is a need to define the ESD criteria, and identify areas of flexibility, as well as the

party responsible for determining whether or not a design meets the criteria; • More varied designs will lead to inconsistencies between projects; • The informational needs of the developer with regard to the ESD process should be defined; • There is a need for better design tools and examples, as well as feedback on the design

challenges met by those using the current Manual; • The site should be considered as a whole rather than in piecemeal. A group member

reiterated the need for the designer to create an early, unified ESD map in order to evaluate site conditions holistically. Another group member suggested that ESD be considered a “pre-design” stage - a planning stage prior to design.

• Cost considerations should also be made holistic and include re-design if the project fails. However, a project’s merit should not be based on costs alone and, while better design often leads to lower maintenance costs, low to no maintenance projects are not necessarily ideal. Although often times more costly, successful ESD can incorporate the stormwater management feature into the overall site design, rather than hiding it at the back of the property.

• There exists a gap between the design initiated by the developer and approval by the plan reviewer and the requirements for construction on the part of the builder. In these instances, the burden to enforce the ESD requirements shifts to the local government. The builder should be made aware of the purpose of the ESD and its ideal location with considerations for stormwater management effectiveness and future building modifications;

• Design impediments are unique to each county. The process of reviewing and implementing design is time-consuming;

31


• Design should include ways to manage nutrient loads, turbidity, and hydrology; and • Simple analysis tools are not readily available and future analysis may provide that

nonstructural BMPs are not the best solution in the long run. Question 2: What are the impacts to Construction? Group Response: The group identified the following construction information requirements and potential issues: • Monitoring and management will be necessary. Although better construction could lead to

lower maintenance costs, additional specifications will require additional site inspectors; • ESD construction costs should be examined across the State rather than in one area; • To maximize compliance, the construction industry should be provided simple and explicit

instructions; • The timeline for incorporating ESD in construction needs to be established and should be

considered in evaluations of the practicality of ESD. Question 3: What are the impacts to Maintenance? Group Response: The group identified the following maintenance information requirements and potential issues: • Although better design and construction could lead to lower maintenance costs, the

importance of long-term maintenance to the longevity of the system must be considered. • The financial burden for maintenance is placed on the homeowner or local government.

Some homeowners may not be educated on the function of ESD or the necessity of its maintenance. In addition, local governments will not receive funding to support maintenance costs. Potential solutions include: o Educating Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) regarding the necessity of on-lot

maintenance in order to assure that their residents comply. ESD maintenance fees could be incorporated into the HOA fee, or shifting the maintenance costs to a land trust in some subdivisions. Adjustments can be made for developments in locations where county supplemental fees exist (e.g., Montgomery County). Impediments to non-compliance could be presented in covenants, HOA rules, etc.

o Creation of a State entity for tracking and enforcement of on-lot practices; o Creation of pamphlets that provide information on maintenance and prolonging the life of

on-lot and larger-scale practices Following the discussion on maintenance, Mr. Massicot opened the floor to additional information requests and suggestions. The group provided that: • The term “MEP” requires definition (e.g., do costs enter into determining MEP? If so,

does practicable mean practicable?) • ESD will complicate the plan reviewer’s duties and increase subjectiveness because there

will not often be quantitative information available to evaluate and approve the effectiveness of ESD practices. Therefore, baseline requirements and standards are needed. The regulations should be clear, specific, and measurable, with as little judgment required of the reviewer as possible because the approval of innovative design is more easily overturned. A decision tree could be created to evaluate the use of ESD practices.

32


• Examples of communities with ESD practices were made, including Sandy Spring in Montgomery County, which incorporated open section roads and meadow preservation. Case studies at the county level are requested;

• There is value in recording and evaluating the life cycle of the ESD practices, including maintenance, costs, rebuilding, and ownership. With regard to the evaluation of the effectiveness of ESD practices, small, discrete BMPs will be more difficult to track; tracking larger BMPs will be more practical for assessment purposes;

• MDE should evaluate how successful the information flow will be. It was suggested that stormwater managers/stakeholders should meet more often to share knowledge;

• Smart growth will lead to more impervious surfaces because of cluster development; • An approach should be developed in order to deliver the intent of the regulations to

developers; • MDE should evaluate how quantity management can be performed without structural

practices; • TMDLs should be included in the assessment criteria; • Group members indicated concern with regard to the timeline for completion of the draft

regulations and Manual adjustments and made the following suggestions: o Regulations should be developed first, then the guidance; o MDE should consider a phased approach, including four to eight practices and associated

guidance initially, with ESD planning component considerations in the next phase; o MDE should notify the General Assembly that more time is required than was allotted in

order to produce a quality product; • It was suggested that the project requires the effort of more MDE personnel than is available. YELLOW GROUP Fran Flanigan (Consultant to EcoLogix) – Facilitator Anna Compton (MES) - Documentation An MDE representative noted that MDE welcomes input from the group on the cost and cost-effectiveness of ESD practices with regard to design, construction, and maintenance. A group member responded that some costs belong to developers, while others fall on builders that are not bonded. Question 1: What are the Impacts to Design? Facilitator Comments: Ms. Flanigan asked the group: “Regarding implementation, how do we get from July (due date for draft regulations) to December 2007 (due date for final regulations)? What are the considerations for design, construction, and maintenance?” Group Response: The group’s response with regard to design was centered on a discussion of clarification of requirements and tools and techniques.

33


Clarification of Requirements A group member reiterated the need to develop a clear process for defining the terms like “ESD”, “environmentally sensitive”, and “MEP”. It was suggested that without such clarification, there might be an unintended incentive for developers to cut corners. A group member requested additional clarification on the criterion by which it was determined that existing regulations were inadequate. A group member suggested that MDE provide a written justification of the needs and benefits to the new practices for issuance to local politicians, engineers, and local government, to facilitate implementation of the new regulations. A group member asked for the timeline for local government implementation of the new regulations. MDE noted that the 2007 law gives mandates that ESD will be implemented. However, the MDE Secretary set the deadline for completion of the regulations as December 1, 2007. MDE noted that the 2000 regulations should be considered building blocks to the new process. Therefore, the creation of the 2007 regulations is not anticipated to be as daunting a task as that of the 2000 regulations. Tools and Techniques With regard to successful design, a group member suggested that ESD techniques should be well described and simple. A group member added that requiring counties to identify BMPs as easements will assist in making end-users aware of their legal responsibilities with regard to BMPs. A group member suggested the use of case studies to determine appropriate ESD and cited Parole Plaza in Annapolis as an example of a “missed opportunity” for stormwater treatment. A group member suggested coordination with such organizations as Builders for the Bay to assist in the implementation process by obtaining their experience in coordinating with local jurisdictions and planning and zoning offices on code and ordinance issues related to development. Specifically, such groups can identify whom to coordinate with and when. Question 2:What are the Impacts to Construction? Group Response: With regard to successful construction, a certification process for contactors was suggested in order for local government and inspectors to indicate to contractors where ideal locations for BMPs are, how BMPs should be installed, what BMPs should look like, and what things can go wrong. A group member added that education on proper installation techniques would reduce the amount of runoff that moves through the BMP without being filtered. Another group member added that local government, inspectors and Maryland Department of Planning personnel also need to be educated on what BMPs should look like. Credits for developers for such improvements as a 50% reduction of impervious surface and clustering were suggested as a cheaper approach to implementation, although there exists an issue with site constraints due to local topography. A group member suggested a bookkeeping system for credits from the use of ESD.

34


Question 3:What are the Impacts to Maintenance? Group Response: With regard to maintenance, a group member suggested that monitoring the effectiveness of ESD is also an important element of implementation, due to its newness, and in an effort to form consensus on acceptable practices. It was suggested that the assessment process include downstream (of drainage) monitoring for nitrogen and phosphorus loads, stream erosion, turbidity, and bacteria level. Another group member suggested monitoring following storm events. It was also suggested that groundwater should be monitored in addition to surface water. A group member requested a discussion of the cost of monitoring, indicating that monitoring is expensive, can be complicated, and therefore should be conducted by professionals. A group member stated that it often takes about six years to see the influence of new developments on ambient water quality. Considering this lag, who should be responsible for post development monitoring (e.g., the developer, the homeowner or local government)? A group member responded that the developer should be responsible for the monitoring costs because they make the most profit on the property transaction. The group member added that the costs of not conducting proper stormwater management, resulting in retrofits and maintenance, should be figured into the equation. A group member suggested that the developer should also be required to submit a baseline investigation for redevelopment sites. A group member asked how sediment erosion would be addressed. The group discussed appropriate water quality criteria. It was suggested that large storm events, such as 100-year storms, should be considered in plans for water quality protection. A group member explained that, during regular weather patterns, an attempt is made to slow down flow so that water can infiltrate. However, during large rain events, the idea is to move water along to prevent back up and flooding. In the case of an overflow, it is important to know where the water will go. A group member stated that, there is a tradeoff regarding how water quantity vs. quality should be addressed based on different weather situations and ideals. A group member stated that the topic of water quality and its importance is addressed in the Manual and suggested that the information provided may be sufficient. It was suggested that some stormwater concepts are still not well understood and some techniques are more complicated than others. A group member stated that, specifically, research on how BMPs perform during period of frozen ground is necessary. Therefore, the new regulations should allow for flexibility for developing new technologies. A group member stated that there is a need to provide incentives to develop and use new and improved practices because such practices may be initially more expensive but cost effective in the long-term. It was noted that MDE conducts triennial compliance reviews, at which time it would be appropriate to analyze the progress of implementation – specifically whether ESD is being used or if stormwater management is an afterthought in site design. Next Steps The group discussed “next steps”. It was suggested that group members provide input via the MDE website. A group member suggested that the break-out group reconvene when MDE is

35


about 75% complete with the new stormwater regulations. It was suggested that planning and zoning office coordination and the identification of pertinent modifications to local ordinances should be conducted as soon as possible. A group member added that some “big picture” issues involved with stormwater management implementation are: carrying capacity/and the propensity for “build-out”; making transfer development rights cross jurisdictional; creating a stormwater utility and a “green” fund; and ESC. Additional group members added the need to define ESD, to coordinate with contractors, and to reduce runoff at the source as much as practicable. RED GROUP Glenn Page (EcoLogix) - Facilitator Jim Jett (MES) - Documentation Question 1: What are the Impacts to Design? Group Response: • It is of higher value to prioritize regulations of ESD rather than list acceptable design

practices. ESD, however, needs to be defined in the statute; LID is a defined technique. Optimum design would incorporate LID and ESD. If the ESD Manual will seek to encourage ESD, it should attempt to establish unified sizing criteria.

• Simplicity o Simple design will lead to simple construction. This is important in areas not served by

sophisticated construction and engineering firms. There will be political repercussions if local contractors are put out of business.

o Simple design will lead to simple maintenance. Some counties will not be equipped to maintain sophisticated designs.

o The BMPs should focus on simplicity using native plants and soils. Bioretention areas have been successfully constructed using deep rooting, native plants. Demonstrations of sustainable stormwater management techniques using native plants have been performed at Villanova University.

• Land use/Zoning o Design is complicated in areas with mixed-use development and in highly urbanized

areas where space is an issue. MDE needs to consider what stormwater management systems can be applied to multi-use land development.

o Members of the group asserted that the intention of Stormwater Management Act of 2007 was to increase State-level involvement in the land use decision-making process. It was suggested that authority over local land use is very important to local officials, whom may be defensive over this authority.

• Measurement of Effectiveness o There exists a need to establish a general benchmark of effectiveness. Government

officials and the private sector have thus far been resistant to changing stormwater management methods. Therefore, a list of design practices without overarching limitations will not be sufficient to encourage adoption of new practices. MDE should exercise diligence in setting benchmarks as certain requirements could potentially end a project or demand offsite mitigation.

36


o MDE should apply simple means to measure effectiveness. Projects should look to achieve predevelopment recharge rates and use habitat indicators to monitor local streams. The Maryland Biological Stream Survey is a potential source of information for these indicators (non-tidal waters only).

• Redevelopment o The Stormwater Management Act of 2007 does not differentiate between regulation of

new development and redevelopment. Stormwater management redevelopment projects should be extracted and dealt with as a separate chapter in the ESD Manual.

o Redevelopment projects provide the opportunity to redress existing problems. MDE should be cautious not to discourage redevelopment through increased regulations. However the developer should be charged to do as much as possible to improve the stormwater management of the site.

Question 2: What are the Impacts to Construction? Group Response: • MDE needs to provide greater input on clearing and grading practices to be used in ESD. Question 3:What are the Impacts to Maintenance? Group Response: • It is often difficult for inspectors to determine whether nonstructural elements need

maintenance. • BMPs should include those practices that do not require long-term maintenance. The burden

of long-term maintenance will eventually be placed on the lot owner and should therefore be avoided.

• MDE should prioritize the integration of predevelopment site characteristics and sustainable, nonstructural features into site design to lessen maintenance over the long-term.

Miscellaneous Comments: • The environmental community is supporting the Stormwater Management Act of 2007. All

parties should offer openness and accessibility to information. • It will be important to gain feedback from this group in order to adaptively manage

stormwater management practices. MDE should consider offering a biannual conference to exchange ideas.

• Stormwater Regulations Deadline o The statute is taking effect on October 1, 2007. However, a regulation is not needed by

this time. o MDE should not rush to complete the regulations by December 1, 2007. Although MDE

should form a definitive plan of action during this time, the deadline is unreasonable.

37


SUMMARY OF BREAK-OUT SESSIONS SESSION 1: The Practice of Environmental Site Design Identifying Ideal Practices and Practicality (with attention to land use and geographic variations) With regard to ideal practices for each interest group, there was a lack of consensus across and within groups. Some participants and/or groups indicated that MDE should not begin by focusing on a list of practices, but rather encourage broader conceptual planning. This will help develop conservation measures that prevent and avoid environmental impacts from stormwater runoff with an emphasis on nonstructural techniques. Participants in one group repeatedly stated a need for a focus on sustainability and the ability to create a multi-function stormwater management system using ESD. While participants recognized the validity of these statements, many argued that, for the sake of consistency in design and efficiency in function, the Manual adjustments and/or regulations should not only list acceptable practices, but also give explicit instruction on how to properly construct them (e.g., how to construct a rain garden, soil/sod specifications to be used during swale construction). One group repeatedly mentioned the need for clarity, simplicity, and direction in the language and content of model ordinances and guidance documents/manuals. Those opposing the inclusion of explicit instruction on acceptable practices noted that doing so might decrease the ability of the designer to use creativity and decrease the incentive for the industry to develop new practices. Participants in one group suggested solving the issue by including a general consideration in the ESD Manual and/or regulations indicating that stormwater must be captured and conveyed to the stormwater management facility at a consistent design level. This would allow for designers to have flexibility in the practices used in order to accommodate regional differences and site-specific variations in land use and geologic and hydrogeologic conditions and yet assure system efficiency. The groups indicated general agreement on ideal ESD practices at the design level, to include barrels and rain gardens, reduced impervious surface, rooftop, and other stormwater system disconnects, vegetated swales and ditches, and bioretention ponds. Participants in all groups requested further definition of the term “MEP” as used in the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 and requested that the new regulations include a formal definition in order to further assess which practices are acceptable or ideal. With regard to differences in ideal practices and practicality in residential and commercial properties, participants in one group repeatedly indicated that there is a need to further develop residential stormwater management techniques. Another group added that, because residential projects constitute the majority of development in rural areas, the greatest potential for stormwater reduction might lie in the use of ESD. Participants also indicated that there is a need to develop a practical approach to managing stormwater within urban areas (redevelopment). All groups agreed that changes to local ordinances and public works standards (e.g., more

38


narrow, less straight roads) that affect stormwater management to accommodate ESD are essential and will be difficult to obtain. One group added that stormwater management should be regionalized to the extent possible. For these reasons, all groups agreed that, while developing and reviewing the new regulations, MDE should consult early and often with the local jurisdictions and planning and zoning offices. One group added that developers should continue this coordination with the State and local jurisdictions during the implementation stage. Another group stated that MDE also needs to communicate a timeframe for implementation to local government. Participants in another group stated that MDE coordination with the Maryland Department of Planning should continue through implementation and include supporting technical information as it is obtained. Participants in one group identified a need to determine which low impact designs and ESD work best on the local scale and a need for monitoring to further assess what practices are ideal. The group suggested a need for pre- and post development monitoring of runoff because stream fluctuations can occur over an extended amount of time. Participants in another group generally agreed that MDE needs to look beyond what has been done locally to manage stormwater and pursue national examples. The importance of training and education to successful implementation was recognized across all groups. The groups agreed with the necessity to provide outreach and education to inform the public about stormwater management concepts and practices and promote stewardship to increase sustainability and system maintenance. One group suggested performance standards to change culture by setting a focus on regulatory outcomes and their intent to preserve the “Commons” as healthful and sustainable. The groups also agreed on the necessity for additional education. Plan reviewers need more training regarding common concepts in design and hydrology in order to perform consistent and efficient project evaluation. One group suggested a plan review checklist to assist in this effort, noting that some flexibility should be incorporated into the checklist. However, there was some discourse on the necessity for additional training and education for licensed contractors (e.g., professional engineers and landscape architects). Some participants stated that developers and builders require additional education on ESD to increase their understanding and comfort level with new designs and practices. A stormwater management training and certification program should be developed to accomplish this. Others disagreed, stating that additional requirements for already licensed contractors will unnecessarily complicate the system and decrease the availability of qualified professionals. One group recommended that MDE further examine the appropriateness of available resources for the education of the public, designers, builders, and plan reviewers on stormwater management. SESSION 2: Incentives and Disincentives A short-term incentive to implementing ESD regulations repeatedly mentioned within one group was that an increase in stormwater management requirements will boost the local economies by providing additional business for consultants and lowering maintenance costs through the use of effective ESD practices. Proposed incentives generally agreed upon within this group were for MDE to provide clarity in the regulations to encourage compliance and thoughtful plan review;

39


and provide additional credits for retrofits in older communities. Proposed incentives for compliance agreed upon in this group include collaboration with local jurisdictions and other State agencies to identify LID techniques with multiple program benefits (e.g., stormwater runoff prevention and forest conservation goals). Additional incentives generally agreed upon within the group included providing counties with adequate standards for plan reviews and fee incentives for nonstructural design techniques. Disincentives mentioned over all groups include the previously mentioned need for a paradigm shift in the mindset of some stakeholder groups and/or the public. According to one group, the receipt of this “buy-in” may be further complicated by any increase in initial, maintenance, and/or long-term enforcement costs of ESD and the difficulty in coordinating education efforts. The issues of potential conflicts between ESD and local codes and ordinances and public works standards were again mentioned as a disincentive in one group. Also stated was the complexity of granting local plan review flexibility while maintaining objectivity to all projects. Short-term disincentives to ESD implementation for which there was general consensus in one group include potential public relations and funding issues. Most notably was the program’s link to the Chesapeake Bay and how that may discourage public involvement and compliance in areas far removed from the Bay. The group suggested that, in these areas it may be best to link stormwater management practices with the health of local waterways. The group suggested that MDE must also overcome difficulties in convincing local officials that the ESD Manual will be effective. A participant suggested that the costs of mandated, sophisticated water management systems would eventually reach a threshold where the private sector will refuse to pay for it. A solution offered within the group was to provide funding for stormwater management maintenance by rolling the costs into other application fees, a percentage of which could be allocated to fund monitoring. It was also suggested that MDE pursue the idea of matching stormwater management program funds for local governments. With regard to long-term disincentives, one group indicated general consensus that additional or supporting regulations to the current design manual will pose potential conflicts in language and direction. A central committee or task force should be developed to address such issues. Group members identified the MD Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Coastal Programs as a potential funding source for this task force. Overcoming Barriers to Implementation Previously mentioned suggestions for training engineers and educating the public regarding new requirements were repeated in one group. Better educational materials and tools were again suggested. These tools include demonstrations of rain garden plantings, models from other cities, and pictures depicting how ESD devices should look when properly installed. With regard to overcoming implementation barriers, another group’s discussion provided repeated suggestions for: applying adaptive management to stormwater management practices; accountability for on-lot stormwater management; and a unified and holistic approach to plan review to increase efficiency and decrease review time. With regard to the latter, the group suggested that county plan reviews should be standardized to cover FSC, wetland, buffer,

40


stormwater management, ESC, floodplain, and public works criteria. SESSION 3: Impacts to Design, Construction, and Maintenance In the discussions of design requirements and potential issues, the groups reiterated the need to define ESD terms (MEP, “environmentally sensitive”) and criteria in order to reduce inconsistencies between projects. A participant in one group suggested that optimum design would incorporate LID, which has defined criteria, and ESD. One of the groups reiterated the need to identify areas of flexibility in design to accommodate unique site features and prevent an increase in plan review time. Two groups agreed on the need for better design tools, case study examples and feedback from existing projects employing ESD. Participants in one group stated that MDE should provide additional justification of the needs and benefits to stakeholders to induce cooperation. A participant in one group reiterated the need to prioritize the function of nonstructural design rather than list acceptable design practices. A participant in another group added that the design should include ways to manage nutrient loads, turbidity, and hydrology. One group reiterated the need for coordination with local jurisdictions and the Planning and Zoning office on design criteria as they relate to building codes and ordinances. It was suggested that organizations such as Builders for the Bay should be consulted to obtain a frame of reference for the coordination process. Another group indicated that MDE should make the responsibilities of the builder and developer explicit in the regulations to avoid unnecessary burdens to government entities. One group reiterated the need for holistic design and cost estimates early in the planning stage. These should include, but not be limited to, an ESD site map and cost estimates for redesign, if necessary. Participants in this group noted that costs should not be the primary consideration in determining the ideal design. A group identified the need for simple design to facilitate simple construction and maintenance, which are essential in areas not served by sophisticated construction and engineering firms. This simple design should employ the use of native plants and soils for which demonstrations are available. Participants in this group also indicated that MDE should give extra consideration to which stormwater management systems can be applied to highly urbanized areas and areas with multi-use land development for which the design may be more complicated. Two groups indicated that assessing ESD efficiency is necessary. It was suggested that simple analysis tools are not readily available. Also, establishing a general benchmark like achieving predevelopment recharge rates, and monitoring streams using habitat indicators, similar to the Maryland Biological Stream Survey, would help determine system effectiveness. MDE should exercise diligence in setting benchmarks as certain requirements could potentially end a project or demand offsite mitigation. A participant in one group requested clarification in the regulations and Manual of the role of, and criteria for, redevelopment. Other participants in this group stated that developers should be

41


encouraged to improve stormwater management at redevelopment sites, but not given unnecessary burdens from regulations. Construction With regard to construction issues, the groups formed a general consensus that additional guidance for contractors is needed, such as education on proper ESD installation techniques and ideal location to increase system efficiency (Note: the previous discourse on whether the educational effort should or should not include a certification process.). Participants generally agreed that local government, inspectors, and Maryland Department of Planning personnel should be included in the education process. Participants in one group indicated a specific need for MDE to provide greater input on clearing and grading practices to be used in ESD. A participant in another group indicated that a timeline for construction should be established. Participants in two groups expressed concern for additional costs associated with ESD construction. Participants in one group indicated a need for site monitoring and additional site inspection and management although better construction could lead to lower maintenance costs. One group indicated that average construction costs should be generated, to include properties across the State. Participants in another group suggested credits for developers and an associated bookkeeping system for credits from the use of ESD. Maintenance In identifying potential maintenance issues, participants in one group stated that, although better design and construction could lead to lower costs, end users with no experience with ESD nor the financial means to support future maintenance could become a problem. Participants in another group agreed and stated that BMPs should include those practices that do not require significant long-term maintenance. Predevelopment site characteristics and sustainable, nonstructural features can be integrated into site design to lessen long-term maintenance. Participants in this group also cautioned that it is often difficult for inspectors to determine whether nonstructural elements require maintenance. It was suggested that HOAs could assist with maintenance fees and/or education or that the State establish a task force to track and enforce compliance. The creation of literature on proper ESD maintenance practices and necessity of the systems was also suggested. One group thoroughly discussed the role of monitoring in maintenance and the determination of the effectiveness of ESD practices. Participants in this group believed that the assessment process should include groundwater monitoring and downstream monitoring for nitrogen and phosphorus loads, stream erosion, turbidity, and bacteria levels following storm events. It was also noted that accommodating large storm events should be considered in the initial planning stages and judgment calls should be made on the appropriateness of treatment for water quantity versus quality. Group members indicated that monitoring is expensive, can be complicated, and therefore, should be conducted by professionals. It was also mentioned that the costs of retrofits and maintenance be included in a cost-benefit analysis for ESD. Members of the group indicated concern regarding the amount of time needed to develop monitoring trends. Participants also requested guidance on who should be responsible for monitoring and baseline investigations.

42


It was noted that MDE should conduct research and/or provide guidance on how BMPs perform, possibly during triennial compliance reviews. Information on how BMPs perform during period of frozen ground was specifically requested, as was flexibility for developing more appropriate practices and incentives to develop new technologies. ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS AND “NEXT STEPS” The groups were offered the opportunity to provide additional input. Suggestions offered generally fit into four categories, including evaluating ESD efficiency, coordination efforts, the project deadline, and other items requiring MDE attention: Evaluating ESD Efficiency It was determined that the life cycle of ESD practices, the maintenance and rebuilding costs, and ownership should be recorded and evaluated. Suggestions to this end include: • Tracking larger BMPs will be more practical for assessment purposes; • TMDLs should be included in assessment criteria; • A decision tree could be created for use in determining effective ESD for sites; and • Case studies at the county level are needed. Coordination Efforts Information flow and continued consultation with the participants and other parties were identified as necessary prior to the completion of implementation. Suggestions to this end included: • All parties should offer openness and accessibility to information; • Group members should provide input and suggestions to MDE via the Department’s website; • The break-out groups should reconvene when MDE is about 75% complete with the new

stormwater regulations; • A biannual conference should be held to exchange ideas; and • Local planning and zoning office and Maryland Department of Planning coordination and the

identification of necessary modifications to local ordinances should be conducted as soon as possible;

Project Deadline Participants indicated concern with regard to the due date for the final regulations. Suggestions to this end included that: • MDE should notify the General Assembly that more time is required than was allotted in

order to produce a quality product; • Regulations should be developed first, then the guidance; • MDE should consider a phased approach, including four to eight practices and associated

guidance initially, with ESD planning component considerations in the next phase;

43


Other Items: “Big picture” issues requiring MDE’s attention were identified to include: • Defining ESD; • The need to reduce runoff at the source as much as practicable; • Addressing carrying capacity and the propensity for “build-out”; • Making transfer development rights cross jurisdictional; • Creating a stormwater utility and a “green” fund if needed; and • Providing for ESC; Available case studies and examples cited throughout the break-out session discussions include: • Sandy Spring in Montgomery County, which incorporated open section roads and meadow

preservation; • A current project in Crofton, MD that directs stormwater from roads to private rain gardens

and stormwater; • Retrofits/curvilinear grates in Portland, OR; • Pembroke Woods in Frederick County • Bowie Baysox Stadium; • Seattle’s Sea Street Program:

http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natural_Drainage_Systems/Street_Edge_Alternatives/COS_004467.asp; and

• Examples shown on the Chesapeake Bay Program’s website

44

http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natural_Drainage_Systems/Street_Edge_Alternatives/COS_004467.asp

http://www.seattle.gov/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natural_Drainage_Systems/Street_Edge_Alternatives/COS_004467.asp


CONCLUDING REMARKS

Concluding Remarks and Charge To MDE (Ken Pensyl, MDE) Mr. Pensyl thanked the participants and noted that a great deal of valuable information was gained in the day’s break-out sessions. This information will be given appropriate consideration while the regulations are being drafted. Mr. Pensyl noted that participants in some break-out sessions contributed suggestions for major program overhauling. He stated that, although these are beyond the scope of the task at hand (draft regulation development for ESD), they will be kept on file and given consideration in the future. Mr. Pensyl stated that the draft regulations will be made available to the public for review sometime in mid-to-late September 2007. Local ordinances will need to be modified subsequent to the adoption of final regulations. He anticipated this to occur sometime in 2008. A group member asked Mr. Pensyl to elaborate on the deadline for completion. Mr. Pensyl reiterated the December 1, 2007 deadline for completing a final draft. Some group members indicated concern with a perceived shortage in MDE time, personnel, and funding to complete a final draft by December 1, 2007. Mr. Pensyl indicated that, although a commitment has been made by the Department to complete the regulations in a timely manner, no financial assistance to complete the task was allocated along with the legislation. Therefore, MDE must complete the regulations using existing staff and funding. Mr. Pensyl emphasized that the self (Department)-imposed December deadline does not include the formal promulgation process and that the State’s Stormwater Management Program is not “broken”. Therefore, MDE does not have to start from scratch. Mr. Pensyl described the in-depth process for the completion of the current Manual and regulations, which took approximately three years, and the ability of the documents to form a strong framework for the task at hand. Mr. Pensyl added that, although the current regulations were passed in 2000, due to “grandfather” clauses, counties did not begin implementing BMP per the Manual until 2003 and have implemented design per the 2000 regulations to varying degrees. The Stormwater Management Act of 2007’s requirements will force a more advanced and uniform application standard for ESD. Additionally, the intent of the regulations is to indicate what ESD is and how to implement it to the MEP rather than to produce new planning and grading codes. Mr. Pensyl thanked the participants again and closed the meeting by indicating that additional comments will be accepted in writing following completion of the draft regulations.

45

Documents

“Stormwater Management Act of 2007” Implementation Strategy …mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/StormwaterManagement... · 2019. 7. 12. · “Stormwater Management Act of 2007”