montgomery county clean water task force final report and ... · montgomery county clean water task...

Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force

Final Report and Recommendations to Montgomery County Executive and Council

Report Prepared for Montgomery County, Maryland

April 2007

Prepared by RESOLVE

1255 23rd St., NW Suite 275 Washington, DC 20037

Contact

Robin L. Roberts (202) 965-6380

[email protected]

Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Final Report and Recommendations to

Montgomery County Executive and Council

Table of Contents

Page

List of Acronyms.................................................................................................................... ii

Executive Summary..........................................................................................................ES-i

Background ............................................................................................................................ 1

Task Force and Work Group Meeting Process................................................................... 2

Work Group Products......................................................................................................... 16

Continued Coordination Needs .......................................................................................... 17

Next Steps ............................................................................................................................. 19

Attachments

A. Letter from County Executive and Council President

B. Task Force Meeting Summaries

C. Work Group Meeting Summaries

D. Priority Issues Ranking Matrix

E. Stormwater Partners’ Network Comments on Priority Issues Matrix

F. List of Interagency Committees

G. Stormwater Partners’ Network Comments on Draft Recommendations

H. Work Group Products

Montgomery County, Maryland

Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force ii April, 2007

List of Acronyms

CIP Capital Improvement Program CWTF Clean Water Task Force DEP Department of Environmental Protection DPS Department of Permitting Services DPWT Department of Public Works and Transportation ESD Environmental Site Design LID Low-Impact Development MCPS Montgomery County Public Schools M-NCPPC Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OMB Office of Management and Budget WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission



Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Final Report and Recommendations to

Montgomery County Executive and Council

Executive Summary

In May 2006, County Executive Douglas M. Duncan and County Council President George Leventhal jointly established the Clean Water Task Force. As stated in the letter requesting agencies to participate, the purpose of the Task Force was to “evaluate existing interagency coordination for all programs related to water resources protection” and “to examine in detail the existing roles and responsibilities for stormwater management and water resources protection among agencies.” The Task Force was established in part to respond to concerns raised by the Stormwater Partners' Coalition, an organization of over 20 regional and local environmental and community groups, about the effectiveness of the requirements in the Montgomery County's stormwater permit (i.e., National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit, or "MS4" Permit). The members of the Coalition, which later became the Stormwater Partners' Network, felt that the County's stormwater management programs should place a greater emphasis on environmental site design approaches to minimize imperviousness and maintain more natural hydrology during and after development. This approach was supported in Executive Leggett's Transition Team Report for Healthy and Sustainable Communities, which states that the County should "Develop an aggressive watershed protection strategy infiltrating stormwater on-site rather than holding it in ponds or disgorging it directly into streams." Clean Water Task Force members included the directors and high-level administrators from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Department of Permitting Services (DPS), Department of Public Works and Transportation, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC), and the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC). These public agencies have either regulatory and review responsibilities related to stormwater management, or their operations or facilities produce or suffer potential significant impacts from stormwater runoff. All Task Force meetings were facilitated by Robin Roberts and Bradford Spangler of RESOLVE, Inc. (www.resolv.org) to assure objective discussion among all participating agencies. Task Force members identified four priority recommendations that will have a high impact on stormwater management and recommended that these be pursued over different timeframes: immediate, short-term, and long-term. “Immediate” items have been completed by the Work Groups or can be accomplished without additional resources. “Short-term” items will require that staff be allocated to implement after publication of the Task Force Final Report. “Long-term” items will require additional and significant resources and analysis after July 2007, the start of Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 08). The Task Force members reached consensus on four high priority recommendations presented below.

Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page ES-ii April, 2007

Recommendation 1

1. Assess, evaluate, and recommend improvements to existing coordination committees and water resources protection processes.

Immediate: The Work Groups concluded that the existing interagency committees and Work Groups had been created to address very specific issues and concerns and do not necessarily need modification.

Immediate: The agencies on the “Clean Water Task Force” should become the core of an overarching “Water Resources Protection Policy Committee” to improve stormwater management approaches, encourage innovation, and integrate natural drainage/volume reduction design approaches into the existing processes. The Committee should determine an official method for communicating with or involving non-Agency stakeholders.

Short-term: The Development Approval Process should be included as part of the proposed third-party study on legislation/regulation/codes in Recommendation 3.

Recommendation 2

2. Encourage innovation/new techniques and tools that emphasize Environmental Site Design (ESD) and Low Impact Development (LID) approaches while assuring standards, maintenance, and long-term success and with the goal of making ESD/LID mandatory for public and private facilities. ESD/LID approaches for stormwater management will be considered for all public Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects (e.g. buildings and parks) beginning with projects programmed for facility planning in FY09. (This might require CIP funding adjustments for public facilities). This effort should include exploration of ESD/LID implementation in new development and redevelopment, as well as retrofits on existing residential and commercial properties. ESD/LID for road projects is being discussed as part of the ongoing review of the Road Code by the County Executive and Council.

Immediate: The Work Groups have begun compiling available information to develop a research program that will include the following elements:

Implementation, monitoring, maintenance; Mapping and collecting data on local projects; Data from other counties, non-governmental organizations, and nearby

universities; and Potential case study sub-watershed.

Short-term: Draft a scope of work for a third-party study to evaluate nationwide trends for ESD/LID implementation, including policy guidance, manuals, technical standards, and maintenance. Incorporate information collected in a “Matrix of County Practices.”

Long-term: Obtain resources for consultant study no later than FY09.

Long-term: Work with the Maryland Department of the Environment to adopt an updated State Stormwater Design Manual that includes technical guidance for a broader list of ESD/LID practices.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page ES-iii April, 2007

Recommendation 3

3. Identify, assess, and recommend changes to remove barriers, gaps, and deficiencies in existing legislation/regulation/codes and to encourage more effective and innovative planning, review, and implementation approaches to achieve water quality and watershed protection.

Short-term: Develop a scope of work and cost-estimate for a third-party evaluation such as that used in the Roundtable process and in the Fairfax County Watershed Community Needs and Funding Options to identify, assess, and recommend changes to remove barriers, gaps, and deficiencies in existing legislation/regulation/codes and to encourage more innovative planning, review, and implementation approaches to achieve water quality and watershed protection. Details on the consensus-based approach of the Roundtable process are shown in the Work Group products in Attachment H.

Short-term: Develop a scope of work and cost-estimate for a consultant study for the investigation of a procedure to model the cumulative impact of development in the County and to determine current hydrologic and hydraulic impacts from existing developments. Also, the evaluation should include a procedure to analyze (and possibly mitigate) existing development, new development and/or redevelopment impacts on the storm drain system and/or streams in the County.

Long-term: By FY 09, obtain resources and initiate the third-party evaluation of the County's legislation/regulations/codes and the consultant study for cumulative impacts hydrology and hydraulic modeling.

Recommendation 4

4. Top priority funding and resource allocation needs. Immediate: Based on preliminary funding estimates by DPWT, there will be a need for $240,000 to update and $1.51 million to implement DPWT’s facility Pollution Prevention Plans. In addition, MCPS has indicated that it will require $1.2 million to bring its stormwater management facilities to DEP standards. DEP’s preliminary estimate indicates that an additional $800,000 per year will be needed for routine maintenance of those facilities.

Immediate: The Work Groups identified both County and non-County funding for water resources protection. Non-County sources include grants, volunteer programs, and partnerships with non-profits or the private sector. Since the start of the watershed restoration program in the late 1980s, State and Federal grant funding has supported about 46% of the cost of restoration projects but these non-County sources are expected to decrease due to increased competition in the State and in the region.

Immediate: The Work Groups developed a matrix of existing structural and non-structural practices by type in the County, purpose by type (quality, quantity, or both), and literature survey for environmental benefits (pollutant reduction or runoff reduction). This preliminary matrix will be passed on for the proposed third-party study in Recommendation 2 on innovation and new techniques which will also consider maintenance needs and 'typical' costs per unit effectiveness.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page ES-iv April, 2007 Task Force Meeting Process

The Task Force developed its recommendations between September 2006 and March 2007. At the first meeting of the Task Force, the Directors and senior-level staff from all of the Task Force agencies were represented along with representatives of the Executive's office, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Planning Implementation, and the County Council. At this meeting, the Task Force approved a process diagram for future meetings, which outlined opportunities for input and participation by non-agency stakeholders. Diane Cameron and Ed Murtagh of the Stormwater Partners’ Network and Dusty Rood, a business representative on the County's Water Quality Advisory Group (WQAG) presented their perspectives at the first and last meetings of the Task Force. In addition to these presentations at the first meeting, non-agency participants submitted written comments to the Task Force over the course of its meetings and participated in the Work Group meetings in January and February and at the Task Force meetings in December, February, and April. Key to the success of the Task Force was the intensive work accomplished by the senior level staff who participated on the work groups, where issues were identified, assessed, prioritized, and finally developed into the recommendations presented in this report. The Task Force plenary and Work Group meetings proved to be an effective vehicle for opening up lines of communications between sister agencies, facilitating their collaboration on complex but interrelated issues that can most effectively be addressed through the combined resources and expertise of multiple agencies. Summary of Next Steps

Once the final report of the Clean Water Task Force is published, it is anticipated that outside parties will submit their issues and concerns related to the recommendations and potential next steps to the County Executive and County Council. Moving forward on the consensus Clean Water Task Force recommendations will require re-allocation of existing staff or additional funding or staffing. There are ongoing legislative and regulatory activities at the local and state level related to water resources protection and stormwater management that require continuing discussions. At the State level, these include changes in the State's Stormwater Management Design Manual, the production of the Water Resources Element for planning purposes, and development of implementation plans to meet recently approved Total Maximum Daily Loads to control pollutant loadings to impaired water bodies. Most immediate at the local level are the changes being considered for the Road Code to include preferred consideration of ESD approaches to reduce runoff impacts from roads and rights-of-way. Assuring that productive dialogue continues among the Task Force agencies is critical to successfully meeting these anticipated additional legal and regulatory requirements and moving toward the Task Force goal to improve the quality of impaired waters and protect healthy waters in the County through short-term actions and long-term commitments for enhanced stormwater management and water resources protection.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 1 April, 2007

Background The Task Force is Announced

On May 16, 2006, County Executive Douglas M. Duncan and Council President George Leventhal announced the establishment of an inter-agency Clean Water Task Force to “evaluate existing interagency coordination for all programs related to water resources protection” and “to examine in detail the existing roles and responsibilities for stormwater management and water resources protection among agencies.” Attachment A includes an example of the letter sent to each agency head from County Executive Duncan and County Council President Leventhal to establish the Task Force. Task Force Participants Identified

The Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was tasked with securing a facilitator and managing meeting logistics for the Task Force process. RESOLVE, Inc. (www.resolv.org) was brought on board to provide third-party facilitation of all Task Force meetings and assure objective discussion among participating agencies. The facilitators were Robin Roberts and Bradford Spangler. Paul Folkers, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, addressed the first meeting on behalf of the County Executive.

After the first meeting, it was apparent that there would be three levels of participation in Task Force meetings: Primary Task Force members; Secondary Task Force members; and non-agency stakeholders, i.e., representatives from environmental networks and business interest groups who wished to comment on the Task Force’s deliberations. Primary Task Force members included the Directors from the participating agencies. These primary members developed the overarching goal of the Task Force. Primary Task Force members included: Mary Bradford, M-NCPPC, Parks Robert Hubbard, DPS (replaced by Carla Jim Caldwell, DEP (replaced by Fariba Kassiri in January 2007)

Joyner in March 2007) Art Holmes, DPWT

Paul Folkers, Office of the County Executive

Keith Levchenko, County Council Doug Weisburger, OMB

Faroll Hamer, M-NCPPC, Planning Joe Zorica, WSSC Dick Hawes, Public Schools Secondary Task Force members were senior-level staff from each of the above agencies. They were responsible for developing and continuously revising the draft text of the recommendations for presentation and approval at Task Force meetings. Most of their work was accomplished between Task Force meetings, in Work Group sessions. Work Group members included:


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 2 April, 2007 Rick Brush, Montgomery County DPS Ligia Moss, DPWT Martin Chandler, WSSC Doug Redmond, M-NCPPC, Parks Meosotis Curtis, DEP Stan Edwards, DEP

Pamela Rowe, M-NCPPC before January 2007; DEP after January 2007

Andy Frank, M-NCPPC, Parks Steve Shofar, DEP Sean Gallagher, Public Schools Mark Symborski, M-NCPPC, Planning Daniel Harper, DEP Keith Van Ness, DEP John Hench, M-NCPPC, Parks Stan Wong, DPS Additional senior level staff who participated at one or more of the Task Force meetings included: Edgar Gonzales, DPWT Michael Mitchell, DPWT M.T. Habibian, WSSC Al Roshdieh, DPWT Mike Hoyt, DPWT Lisa Rother, County Executive’s Office Sherry Kinikin, County Council President Praisner’s Office

Robert R. Thompson, DPWT Jorge Valladares, M-NCPPC, Planning

Two non-agency stakeholder groups also participated in some of the Task Force and Work Group meetings. These groups were represented by Diane Cameron and Ed Murtagh of the Stormwater Partners’ Network and Dusty Rood, a business representative on the County's Water Quality Advisory Group. Chris Kloss of the Low Impact Development Center spoke as an invited speaker for the Stormwater Partners’ Network at the first meeting. Additional non-agency attendees at one or more Task Force or Work Group meetings included: Robert Boone, Anacostia Watershed Society

Wayne Goldstein, Montgomery County Civic Federation

Steve Dryden, Stormwater Partners’ Network; Friends of Rock Creek

Anne Merwin, Potomac Conservancy Jenny Reed, Friends of Sligo Creek

Task Force and Work Group Meeting Process This section summarizes the work accomplished by the Task Force and its Work Groups between September 15, 2006 and April 4, 2007. During this time, the Task Force met five times and the Work Groups met three times and had extensive email communication. The Task Force and Work Group meeting summaries are included in this report as Attachments B and C, respectively. The Work Groups were responsible for the detailed review of “priority issues” and the development of consensus-based recommendations for actions for the Task Force’s consideration. Primarily senior-level staff (i.e. Secondary Task Force members) participated in the Work Group meetings.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 3 April, 2007 CWTF Meeting 1: September 15, 2006

Developing the Task Force’s Goal

At this meeting, the Task Force determined that in order to meet the objective set out by the County Executive and County Council, it should develop recommendations for near-term actions for achieving significant improvements in water quality and reductions in stormwater quantity and velocity. The Task Force members agreed that while focusing the recommendations on short-term actions was important, it was imperative to not lose sight of longer-term activities that must occur to ensure that water quality continues to improve and remain protected over the long-term. Consequently, the members agreed that the long-term goal for the Task Force recommendations would be to:

Improve the quality of impaired waters (“yellow and red”) and protect healthy waters (“green and blue”) in the County through short-term actions and long-term commitments for enhanced stormwater management and water resources protection.

The terms “yellow and red” and “green and blue” refer to the County-Wide Conditions Map developed by DEP through their stream assessment program, which indicates the full spectrum of the County’s water resources, from most to least impaired (see Figure 1).



Figure 1: County-Wide Stream Resource Conditions Map (from CSPS update 2003)


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 5 April, 2007 Approach to Achieving the Goal

At the first meeting, two Work Groups were established to do the detailed work of developing recommendations. The Work Groups were comprised of agency staff that conducted analyses, prepared inventories, and defined recommendations. The process diagram shown in Figure 2 was developed to establish the timeline for non-agency stakeholder input and for the Work Groups to brief and receive feedback from the Primary Task Force members. The Work Groups incorporated feedback throughout the process, refining the recommendations accordingly. The Task Force members agreed to strive to achieve consensus on the recommendations, and then submit the recommendations in a Final Report to both the County Executive and the County Council for consideration and implementation.

CWTF Meeting 2: October 20, 2006

Identifying Issue Areas

At the second meeting, Primary and Secondary Task Force members identified and explained their selection of 58 priority issues for stormwater management. Members then discussed how to sort the lengthy list of issues presented, given the agreement that the Task Force intended to provide detailed recommendations on the three to five issues identified as most important to achieve the agreed upon water resources goal. The Task Force members decided that all of the priority issues could be assigned to one of the following eight categories:

1. Legislation, Codes, Regulations and Standards 2. Inter-Agency Communication & Coordination 3. Plans & Policies 4. Outreach & Education 5. Innovation, Incentives, New Tools & Techniques 6. Monitoring & Measurement 7. Needed Funding 8. Resources Allocation & Management

Convening the Work Groups

After considerable discussion, two Work Groups were formed around the following categories.

Work Group 1: Legislation, Codes, Regulations and Standards; Inter-Agency Communication & Coordination; and Plans & Policies. Lead Daniel Harper, DEP.

Work Group 2: Outreach & Education; Innovation, Incentives, New Tools & Techniques; and Monitoring & Measurement Lead, Meo Curtis, DEP.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 7 April, 2007 Each Work Group was charged with reviewing and considering all of the issues within their assigned categories and ranking the priority issues for more detailed evaluation and analysis that would lead to Task Force recommendations. The Task Force members decided that funding and allocation needs applied to all agencies and for all of the priority issues. The Work Groups were then tasked with identifying those several issues for which specific changes could be recommended to make direct and immediate improvements to water quality. The Work Groups were also expected to develop recommendations for Task Force consideration for long-term stormwater quality improvement and water resources protection. The Work Groups were charged with applying the following set of criteria/questions to help rank issues for further consideration.

Does this require Task Force (i.e. interagency) attention, or can an individual agency commit to this on its own?

Do Task Force member agencies agree that this is a high priority issue? Is there a clear path forward? Is it low effort, high impact? Would the results be measurable? Is this an operational or on-the-ground project (short-term), or a

regulatory/policy change (long-term)?

CWTF Meeting 3: December 15, 2006 Criteria to Rank Priority Issues

At this meeting, the two Work Groups presented the matrix and criteria they developed to review and rank the 58 priority issues. RESOLVE, Inc. had regrouped the 58 priority issues among the eight categories identified by the Task Force. The Work Groups then went through this list and combined the priority issues they felt were closely linked. They also assigned narrative rankings based on impact (high/medium/low) and timeframe (immediate/short-term/long-term). The Work Groups decided to move a few of the priority issues to different categories. The results of the Work Group ranking exercise are presented in Attachment D. Handout #1 lists the priority issues and the ranking or resolution by the Work Group based on six of the eight Task Force categories. Handout #2 includes the priority issues listed under “Needed Funding” and “Resource Allocation/Management.” The Work Groups had not separately ranked the priority issues under these two categories because they felt that funding and resource allocation/management needs would be a priority for any recommendation.



Handout #1 includes the final category and rank assigned to each priority issue within the six Work Group categories. The Work Groups used the following three key criteria for ranking the priority issues:

1. Does the issue affect multiple agencies?

2. Will addressing the issue have a high, medium, or low impact on stormwater management?

High: the issue needs to be addressed as soon as possible Medium: the issues should be addressed soon but action can be deferred to

FY09 or beyond Low: there is a potential benefit to addressing the issue, but extent of that

benefit is unknown and additional evaluation is needed

3. What is the likely timeframe for taking action on the issues – immediate, short-term, or long-term?

Immediate: agencies could begin work after agreement from the Task Force Short-term: agencies could begin work after this report is released, with

reallocation of resources among agencies involved or with those agencies' intent to include funding in FY08; and

Long-term: the solution requires more evaluation to gain stakeholder input and support or to allocate additional significant resources.

The Work Groups acknowledged the significance of all of the 58 priority issues on the original list, but due to limited time and staff resources, recommended that the Task Force focus their efforts on in-depth evaluations for priority issues within the two or three highest-ranked categories, rather than providing superficial recommendations on all six. The six categories were ranked from 1 (highest total of ranking) to 6 based on one rank assigned per category per agency.

1. Identify and analyze barriers to improve Legislation/Regulation/Codes (phased)

2. Encourage innovation but maintain standards

3. Identify ways for more effective cooperation and coordination

4. Assess LID practices (phased)

5. Increase the effectiveness of environmental outreach

6. Evaluate tools for monitoring and assessment NOTE: The Work Group used the term “phased” to indicate that two of these categories would require analysis and action over a longer term than the current Task Force timeline of six months.



The two phased categories were Legislation/Regulation/Codes (#1) and Assess LID practices (#4). The Work Groups determined that some analysis should begin immediately on the priority issues within these two categories to provide recommendations for guiding the long-term actions. Public Comments on the Priority Issues

The DEP had communicated with the Stormwater Partners’ Network on the list of priority issues and had reviewed their detailed paper on the priority issues. The two key themes from the Network paper were: 1) public involvement in decision making about stormwater management; and 2) implementing ESD/LID, and green infrastructure techniques and practices as soon as possible. The Network also provided notice of its intention to develop more agency-specific comments and recommendations as follow-up to the first paper. The Network’s complete comments are included as Attachment E. Top Priority Issues Emerge

The Task Force members engaged in an in-depth discussion on the six priority issue groups developed by the Work Groups. Eventually they agreed to revise the description of the priority issues ranked as high impact / immediate action, merge Category #4 Assessment of LID with Category #2 Encourage innovation while Maintaining Standards, and agreed to develop recommendations on issues one through three as stated below:

1. Identify and analyze barriers to improve legislation/regulation/codes (phased) (#9);

2. Encourage innovation/new techniques and tools while assuring standards, maintenance, and long-term success (#36) + (#40) (phased); and

3. Assess, evaluate, and recommend improvements to existing coordination committees and the water quality approval process (#13);

NOTE: The numbers in parentheses refer to the number of the priority issue as shown on the original matrix in Attachment D. An important and recurring concern of all The Task Force members was that long-term priorities should be not be overshadowed by priorities requiring immediate action. Consequently, members agreed that the following issues are important long-term issues for the County to address.

4. Increase the effectiveness of environmental outreach (#32); and 5. Evaluate tools for monitoring and assessment (#44).


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 10 April, 2007 Identification of Funding and Resource Allocation Needs

Task Force members also decided to identify high priority needs under “Needed Funding” and “Resource Allocation/Management,” on the matrix. The Task Force identified the following high priority funding needs:

Implementation of stormwater pollution prevention plans for DPWT, M-NCPPC, and Public Schools (#48; relatively high cost; the DPWT could provide estimates for DPWT facilities and MNCPPC-Parks could provide estimates for their facilities);

Develop and implement a Storm Drain Maintenance Plan (#49; high impact, high cost; identified as a problem for past 10 years);

Make DEP pollution prevention program training mandatory for park managers and maintenance crew leaders (#54; tied to #48);

Ensuring parks have appropriate numbers of trash receptacles and adequate collection service allocated to them (#55); and

Examination of stormwater management practices at all County agencies’ facilities to identify opportunities to retrofit and implement LID, possibly starting with pilot projects.

CWTF Meeting 4: February 16, 2007

Presentation of Preliminary Recommendations Developed by Work Groups

At the fourth meeting of the preliminary recommendations developed by the Work Groups were presented. Prior to the fourth Task Force meeting, the two Work Groups merged because of significant overlapping membership. The Work Group met twice more to develop recommendations on the priority issues within the four categories identified by the Task Force at the December meeting. The Work Groups ranked the recommendations according to two key variables – level of impact and timeline for action. The Work Groups focused on developing recommendations around activities they identified as “high impact” and indicated whether the timeline for action is immediate, short- or long-term. As of Meeting Four, the Work Groups had developed a recommendation about the need for a variety of interagency and regional committees with some water quality role, that have technical, coordinating, and/or administrative responsibilities. The list of interagency committees developed by the Work Group is included as Attachment F. Non-Agency Stakeholder Comments

After presentation of the Work Group recommendations, the non-agency stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment. Dusty Rood, a business representative on the Water Quality Advisory Group emphasized that the issues on which the Task Force was concentrating were overly geared toward enhancing stormwater management measures in new developments. He noted that the growth rate in the County is declining and that future development will be mostly infill in down-County areas where many waters are already impaired. Therefore, he suggested that the Task Force’s


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 11 April, 2007 recommendations should include more attention to redevelopment of existing sites as well as retrofitting existing commercial and residential sites. He concluded by strongly advising the Task Force to focus on improving stormwater management in the urban areas of the County.

Diane Cameron, representing the Network and the National Resources Defense

Council, outlined aspects of the preliminary recommendations with which the Network/NRDC agrees, which included the following:

Forming a permanent interagency clean water policy group; Reviewing regional and national ESD/LID experience; and Conducting a comprehensive study of needed watershed protection / stormwater

management policy changes. She then outlined several points that the Task Force should incorporate into the recommendations, including the following:

Make environmental site design and low impact development mandatory; Include the following elements in the consultant study and LID/ESD approaches;

o Ways to institute stormwater quantity impact analysis for new development and redevelopment projects (in-stream monitoring and modeling).

o Evaluate current impacts from existing developments and then review their relationship to potential LID retrofits.

Recommend that all future CIP project proposals have built-in LID/ESD features for maximum stormwater prevention.

Task Force Moves Forward with Preliminary Recommendations

Following comments from stakeholders, Task Force members, agency participants, and non-agency stakeholders discussed the preliminary recommendations, raised concerns, and suggested modifications. The group addressed several concerns by making editorial changes to the preliminary recommendations. Task Force members and non-agency stakeholders agreed that the Task Force should only recommend high impact activities, and that these recommendations should be pursued over different timeframes: immediate, short-term and long-term. The Task Force defined these timeframes as follows:

“Immediate” – items intended for immediate action by the County Executive and Council and can be accomplished without additional resources;

“Short-term” – items that will require resources to implement; “Long-term” – items that will require additional and significant resources and

analysis beginning in Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 08). Ultimately, the group agreed to move forward with a set of four preliminary recommendations with the understanding that there would be additional opportunities for refinement.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 12 April, 2007 Between Meeting Discussion on Preliminary Recommendations

Subsequent to Meeting 4, two Task Force members expressed concern that Recommendation 3 did not include all short-term and long-term, high-impact elements necessary for water resources protection. These members proposed that the recommendation include a directive for the County to develop a watershed-based, hydrology and hydraulic model to evaluate the cumulative impacts of development including pre-development, post-development, and redevelopment scenarios. This issue had been discussed at considerable length during the priority setting process and at subsequent Task Force and Work Group meetings. There was agreement about the high/immediate need for a comprehensive evaluation of the legislation/ regulations/codes used by the County for stormwater management and water resources protection. However, most of the Task Force agencies were opposed to detailed cumulative impacts hydrology and hydraulic modeling because of the costs and amount of time necessary to collect the data and develop a model with the sensitivity necessary to distinguish long-term changes development-by-development. The Task Force facilitators collected input from members about Recommendation 3 and queued up outstanding concerns for discussion at Task Force Meeting Five. Non-Agency Stakeholder Comments on Preliminary Recommendations

The Stormwater Partners’ Network also provided comments on the preliminary recommendations between Task Force Meetings Four and Five. The Network’s detailed comments are included in Attachment G.

CWTF Meeting 5: April 4, 2007

Definition of ESD/LID

As late in the process as Meeting Five, some members and participants were still unclear as to the Task Force’s working definitions of “environmental site design” (ESD) and “low-impact development” (LID). As it was, the Work Group engaged in considerable discussion at its January 18, 2007 meeting about what constituted LID compared to 'ESD'. The Work Group did not reach agreement on a definition for LID, but did agree on the need for a comprehensive evaluation of types of practices and implementation approaches. The Work Group did agree on the following proposed definition for ESD:

Environmental Site Design (ESD) – refers to a type of subdivision design that reduces impervious cover and retains natural drainage patterns by limiting clearing and grading through site fingerprinting, retains the maximum amount of forest cover, uses the narrowest width streets as possible, and clusters development. This type of development pattern is also referred to as “conservation subdivision” or “open space design” (Randall Arendt), or Better Site Design (Center for Watershed Protection).


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 13 April, 2007 Discussion and Resolution of Outstanding Concerns

The focus of Task Force Meeting Five was to resolve outstanding concerns among Task Force members and non-agency stakeholders to the greatest extent possible. After a review of the issues raised since Meeting Four, Diane Cameron offered comments on the proposed CWTF recommendations on behalf of the Stormwater Partners’ Network. Ms. Cameron went through each recommendation, noting the aspects with which SPN agreed or would like to see enhancement. Following Ms. Cameron’s remarks, the Task Force discussed outstanding issues related to Recommendation 3 as well as Recommendations 2 and 4. With regard to Recommendation 2, the group illuminated a distinction between the information needs associated with applying ESD/LID to “vertical” engineering projects (i.e. buildings) and “horizontal” engineering projects (i.e. roads). The group agreed to adjust the wording of Recommendation 2 to reflect this distinction. On Recommendation 3, members ultimately agreed to an alternate proposal that incorporated a study to determine a modeling approach for cumulative development impacts. Members also agreed to some minor adjustments to the wording of Recommendation 4 to clarify the information presented therein. Four Consensus Recommendations

At the conclusion of Meeting Five, the Clean Water Task Force reached consensus on the following four recommendations to the Montgomery County Executive and County Council:

Recommendation 1

1. Assess, evaluate, and recommend improvements to existing coordination committees and water resources protection processes.

Immediate: The Work Groups concluded that the existing interagency committees and Work Groups had been created to address very specific issues and concerns and do not necessarily need modification.

Immediate: The agencies on the “Clean Water Task Force” should become the core of an overarching “Water Resources Protection Policy Committee” to improve stormwater management approaches, encourage innovation, and integrate natural drainage/volume reduction design approaches into the existing processes. The Committee should determine an official method for communicating with or involving non-Agency stakeholders.

Short-term: The Development Approval Process should be included as part of the proposed third-party study on legislation/regulation/codes in Recommendation 3.



Recommendation 2

2. Encourage innovation/new techniques and tools that emphasize Environmental Site Design (ESD) and Low Impact Development (LID) approaches while assuring standards, maintenance, and long-term success and with the goal of making ESD/LID mandatory for public and private facilities. ESD/LID approaches for stormwater management will be considered for all public Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects (e.g. buildings and parks) beginning with projects programmed for facility planning in FY09. (This might require CIP funding adjustments for public facilities). This effort should include exploration of ESD/LID implementation in new development and redevelopment, as well as retrofits on existing residential and commercial properties. ESD/LID for road projects is being discussed as part of the ongoing review of the Road Code by the County Executive and Council.

Immediate: The Work Groups have begun compiling available information to develop a research program that will include the following elements:

Implementation, monitoring, maintenance; Mapping and collecting data on local projects; Data from other counties, non-governmental organizations, and nearby

universities; and Potential case study sub-watershed.

Short-term: Draft a scope of work for a third-party study to evaluate nationwide trends for ESD/LID implementation, including policy guidance, manuals, technical standards, and maintenance. Incorporate information collected in a “Matrix of County Practices.”

Long-term: Obtain resources for consultant study no later than FY09.

Long-term: Work with the Maryland Department of the Environment to adopt an updated State Stormwater Design Manual that includes technical guidance for a broader list of ESD/LID practices.



Recommendation 3

3. Identify, assess, and recommend changes to remove barriers, gaps, and deficiencies in existing legislation/regulation/codes and to encourage more effective and innovative planning, review, and implementation approaches to achieve water quality and watershed protection.

Short-term: Develop a scope of work and cost-estimate for a third-party evaluation such as that used in the Roundtable process and in the Fairfax County Watershed Community Needs and Funding Options to identify, assess, and recommend changes to remove barriers, gaps, and deficiencies in existing legislation/regulation/codes and to encourage more innovative planning, review, and implementation approaches to achieve water quality and watershed protection. Details on the consensus-based approach of the Roundtable process are shown in the Work Group products in Attachment H.

Short-term: Develop a scope of work and cost-estimate for a consultant study for the investigation of a procedure to model the cumulative impact of development in the County and to determine current hydrologic and hydraulic impacts from existing developments. Also, the evaluation should include a procedure to analyze (and possibly mitigate) existing development, new development and/or redevelopment impacts on the storm drain system and/or streams in the County.

Long-term: By FY 09, obtain resources and initiate the third-party evaluation of the County's legislation/regulations/codes and the consultant study for cumulative impacts hydrology and hydraulic modeling.

Recommendation 4

4. Top priority funding and resource allocation needs. Immediate: Based on preliminary funding estimates by DPWT, there will be a need for $240,000 to update and $1.51 million to implement DPWT’s facility Pollution Prevention Plans. In addition, MCPS has indicated that it will require $1.2 million to bring its stormwater management facilities to DEP standards. DEP’s preliminary estimate indicates that an additional $800,000 per year will be needed for routine maintenance of those facilities.

Immediate: The Work Groups identified both County and non-County funding for water resources protection. Non-County sources include grants, volunteer programs, and partnerships with non-profits or the private sector. Since the start of the watershed restoration program in the late 1980s, State and Federal grant funding has supported about 46% of the cost of restoration projects but these non-County sources are expected to decrease due to increased competition in the State and in the region.

Immediate: The Work Groups developed a matrix of existing structural and non-structural practices by type in the County, purpose by type (quality, quantity, or both), and literature survey for environmental benefits (pollutant reduction or runoff reduction). This preliminary matrix will be passed on for the proposed third-party study in Recommendation 2 on innovation and new techniques which will also consider maintenance needs and 'typical' costs per unit effectiveness.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 16 April, 2007 Work Group Products Each of the Task Force recommendations includes specific items that required immediate action by the Work Groups supporting the Task Force. The Work Groups had identified several of these items prior to the fourth meeting of the Task Force, and at the fourth meeting, they committed to developing several products identified as high/immediate priorities for inclusion in the final report. The Work Groups deemed these items as necessary background information for either additional work by agency staff or for consideration by third parties as part of the recommended evaluation and analytical studies. The Work Groups developed detailed products for each of the following high/immediate recommendations. The products are included in Attachment H.

Recommendation Two:

The Work Groups developed a list of potential research questions and guidance on how to develop an effective ESD/LID program in Montgomery County. A number of these are being considered as part of the RESOLVE, Inc. study for the DEP's RainScapes incentive program for voluntary implementation of these types of practices in residential settings. This report is due out in April, 2007;

The Work Groups identified a need to develop a map of existing ESD/LID private and public projects countywide and to create a database of project type, design goals, any monitoring available, and thus begin to track the effectiveness of projects. The DEP has taken the lead on this mapping exercise because of their lead agency role for County-owned public facility stormwater retrofits. The DEP is working with DPS to identify innovative practices that have been permitted on private properties. The Work Groups also discussed the possibility of creating a development project evaluation checklist and pursuing a partnership with volunteers to collect information on already existing practices on private properties, particularly residential properties;

The DEP contacted nearby counties and compiled insights from Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Howard and Prince George’s counties about those jurisdictions’ experience implementing LID/ESD projects; and

The Work Groups attempted to identify a potential sub-watershed as a case study candidate. The Work Groups evaluated Cabin Branch in the Upper Seneca watershed as a potential case study area, but determined development is too far along, and did not have time to evaluate other possibilities. The DEP RainScapes program is considering sub-watersheds within the Anacostia and Lower Rock Creek watersheds for LID pilot projects.

Recommendation Three:

The DEP conducted research on Site Design Roundtable Efforts. This included compiling information about the site design roundtable concept including, its origin, the basic process and goal, where they have been done, results to date, and other similar approaches.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 17 April, 2007 Recommendation Four:

The DPWT identified a need of $240,000 to update and $1.51 million to implement DPWT’s facility Pollution Prevention Plans;

The MCPS identified a need of $1.2 million to bring its stormwater management facilities to DEP standards. An additional $800,000 per year will be needed for routine maintenance of those facilities;

The Work Groups identified both County and non-County funding for water resources protection. Non-County sources include grants, volunteer programs, and partnerships with non-profits or the private sector. Since the start of the watershed restoration program in the late 1980s, State and Federal grant funding has supported about 46% of the cost of restoration projects but these non-County sources are expected to decrease due to increased competition in the State and in the region;

The DEP and DPS developed a matrix of existing structural and non-structural practices by type in the County, purpose by type (quality, quantity, or both), and literature survey for environmental benefits (pollutant reduction or runoff reduction. This preliminary matrix will be passed on for the proposed third-party study on innovation and new techniques, which will also consider maintenance needs and 'typical' costs per unit effectiveness.

Continued Coordination Needs There have been or are several ongoing legislative and regulatory activities at the local and state level in Maryland that demand continued communication and coordination among the agencies of the Clean Water Task Force. The most pertinent legislative and regulatory activities are outlined below.

State and Local Legislation

During the 2007 State legislative session, there were several bills introduced by House members related to stormwater management and water resources protection. Of these, two proposed the establishment of Task Forces and one bill proposed a charge for new impervious surfaces. Only HB786/SB784, the Stormwater Management Act of 2007, was passed, unanimously, by both the House and the Senate. The Stormwater Management Act of 2007 requires the MDE to adopt regulations and a model ordinance to promote environmental site design to 'the maximum extent practicable'. It also requires that jurisdictions must evaluate their planning and zoning and public works ordinances to 'remove impediments to environmental site design implementation'. Montgomery County has activities in place that will go well beyond the intent of this act. Recommendation #2 of the Clean Water Task Force will require all public facilities to consider ESD/LID stormwater management approaches beginning with those in the planning stage in FY09. That recommendation also proposes a consultant study to identify, evaluate, and recommend approaches and practices that would be most cost-effective for Montgomery County.


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 18 April, 2007 At the local legislative level, promoting ESD techniques seems likely as a result of the County Council consideration of changes to the Road Code (Bill 48-06). The Executive Branch has indicated support for changes that place a greater emphasis on the use of environmental site design to reduce runoff impacts from County roads and rights-of-way.

Water Resources Element

The Water Resources Element is a state regulatory requirement adopted in 2006 through HB1141. This Bill requires jurisdictions to address water supply, wastewater treatment, and stormwater management capacity of receiving waters within their Comprehensive Plans by October 2009. The Water Resources Element will also need to address and coordinate with other key regulatory and programmatic State initiatives such as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), Anti-degradation regulations, and Basin Tributary Strategy Implementation Plans. Montgomery County is within two Maryland Tributary Basins, the Middle Potomac, and Patuxent Rivers, which have established nutrient and sediment load limits for the restoration of the Bay and Tidal Tributaries. This is currently a voluntary program for local jurisdictions, but is anticipated to become a TMDL when the restoration goals are not achieved in 2011. Local jurisdictions are being required to integrate these nutrient and sediment goals, as well as any TMDLs for local waters, in each jurisdiction’s Water Resources Element. The MNCPPC is taking the lead on coordinating the development of the Water Resources Element required within the Comprehensive Plan. Montgomery County has already completed analyses for drinking water supply and wastewater capacity for planned development. However, the data gathering, analyses, and reporting for the stormwater management and non-point source loadings analyses and the development of a realistic implementation strategy will require a new level of coordination and staffing and funding allocation among local agencies. These will include MNCPPC, DEP, DPS, and WSSC in the urban areas and with the Department of Economic Development-Agricultural Services Division, including the Soil Conservation District, for non-point source management issues and potential offsets in agricultural areas.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

TMDLs are maximum pollutant loads allowed to a water body while maintaining water quality standards. The MDE must identify water bodies that are not maintaining standards, determine the allowed total load of the pollutant under consideration, and allocate allowed loads among sources (point and non-point, dry weather and stormflow if applicable). The EPA must approve the TMDL and then a local implementation plan must be developed to assure that the TMDL is achieved and maintained. The County has participated and is participating in the process for developing TMDLs for local waters. To date, these have included completed TMDLs for phosphorus and sediment to Clopper


Montgomery County Clean Water Task Force Page 19 April, 2007 Lake in the Seneca watershed and for fecal bacteria to the Anacostia, Cabin John, and Rock Creeks. There are ongoing efforts to establish TMDLs for sediment in the Anacostia and nutrients in the Patuxent Reservoirs. Developing feasible implementation plans and timelines will require input and commitment from not just the Clean Water Task Force agencies, but also municipalities, state and federal agencies with properties within the County, the agricultural community, the business and development industry, and the general public.

Enforcement Activities

Another area requiring continued coordination is that of environmental enforcement. DEP, DPS, and M-NCPPC all have enforcement responsibilities in particular subject areas that are relevant to water quality issues. For instance, DEP is responsible for investigating incidents of illegal dumping, DPS issues a number of permits (such as sediment control permits) which include inspection and enforcement mechanisms. Both DEP and DPS have the authority to issue stop work orders, civil citations, and notices of violations. M-NCPPC enforces the County’s Forest Conservation Law. Effective enforcement of existing laws and regulations and any future laws or regulations that may be considered is critical to the success of any regulatory process. The Task Force did not make specific recommendations regarding any changes in current enforcement mechanisms such as agency responsibilities, or the sufficiency of penalties. However, the Task Force expects that enforcement issues will be an important component of Recommendation #3 “Identify and analyze barriers to improving legislation/regulation/codes.”

Next Steps Once the final report of the Clean Water Task Force is published, it is anticipated that outside parties will submit their issues and concerns related to the recommendations and potential next steps to the County Executive and County Council. The consensus Clean Water Task Force recommendations all require allocation or re-allocation of existing staff as well as additional funding to support the proposed Water Resources Protection Policy Committee, the consultant studies, the DPWT facility pollution prevention implementation plans, and the MCPS stormwater facility program. Ensuring that productive dialogue continues among the Task Force agencies is critical to successfully meeting anticipated additional legal and regulatory requirements. Continued discussion and coordination among agencies is also essential for moving toward the Task Force goal to improve the quality of impaired waters and protect healthy waters in the County through short-term actions and long-term commitments for enhanced stormwater management and water resources protection.


montgomery county clean water task force final report and ... · montgomery county clean water task...

Documents