Maryland Storm Water Regulations

For more information on how these regulations may affect you, contact John Gonzalez from the LandmarkJCM Maryland Office at john.gonzalez@landmarkengineering.com

A reprint from the Baltimore Sun:


February 24, 2010, The Baltimore Sun

The new state storm water regulations set to go into effect this spring, when applied to approved projects and to redevelopment properties, would have severe consequences, including a loss of density, that will cause a substantial increase to the costs and the value/economics of a project. Certain environmental interest groups are arguing that the several hundred developers who are protesting the regulations would actually save money. The fact is that the construction industry, which is in the best position to judge the impact of the new rules, clearly understands that costs will increase significantly -- in many cases to levels that will doom needed projects and the jobs they bring. Local governments have drawn similar conclusions.

Certain environmental interest groups have relied heavily on an EPA study that did not review Maryland's proposed regulations and, in fact, was done before Maryland even developed the regulations. When you look at the details of that study -- instead of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's self-serving interpretation, you discover:

• Many of the projects revealed significantly increased costs;

• The bulk of the projects examined were greenfield development, not urban redevelopment;

• Loss of density (sprawl) was not a consideration;

• Numerous estimated savings were attributed to a reduction of road width, yet the fire marshalls and public works departments in Maryland would not permit this; and

• Higher maintenance costs were not accounted for in these studies.

As a matter of fact, there were no case studies of private or public redevelopment of high-density, mixed use projects. So the EPA study does nothing to address our legitimate fears.

These environmental interest groups also suggest that Maryland's new regulations are similar to those already in place in Montgomery County and Philadelphia. Again, the facts, when examined objectively, show that is inaccurate. There are some common elements, but the differences are great enough to greatly reduce the cost impacts.

It is true that in Montgomery County there is a current requirement for a 100 percent reduction of impervious surfaces. However, Montgomery County allows many credits that Maryland's new regulations will forbid. To mention a few: Montgomery County allows a 100 percent credit for a green roof (Maryland does not); Montgomery County allows environmental site design to the maximum extent practicable for water quality (Maryland does not). These differences have huge impacts on cost and density in the real world.

CBF also cites Philadelphia as an area using similar standards -- yet upon looking at the facts, there are much bigger differences than similarities. Philadelphia requires a smaller reduction of impervious surfaces, allows a greater credit for green roofs and provides more alternatives and flexibility in meeting its goals.

The real facts are that every bit of hard evidence out there indicates that Maryland's regulations will greatly increase costs. EPA's hypothetical studies and the details of the Montgomery County and Philadelphia standards simply illustrate how extreme the new Maryland regulations are compared to reasonable standards. This problem is compounded by the state's insistence that the regulations apply retroactively to projects that are working their way through the long development pipeline.

There has been a suggestion that the new regulations will create more "green jobs" -- apparently referring to the additional huge costs that the counties and municipalities will incur in maintaining the new environmental site designs. That burden will, of course, fall on taxpayers, not developers and those jobs can only be created if the new regulations do not kill new development. We know that the new regulations will kill projects, and that is why we are certain that the regulations will directly cause the loss of jobs in the construction industry.

Recent articles have cited a 41 percent growth in impervious area with an 8 percent population increase, and that these hard surfaces have created the stormwater pollution problem. This data is factually inaccurate. Based on our consultant's analysis of the EPA Watershed Model 5.2, the EPA's data shows a Bay watershed population increase of 10.3 percent and an increase in impervious surfaces of 14.2 percent from 1990-2000. Further for the state of Maryland, from 1990-2000, the Maryland population increase was 10.7 percent while the impervious surface increase was 15.2 percent.

The Maryland Home Builders supported the 2007 storm water legislation, and we continue to support keeping the May 4, 2010 standards for new projects entering the long entitlement process. But the new stormwater regulations should not apply retroactively to projects that are working their way through the approval process.

Lastly, we think the dialogue stemming from the debate over these regulations is good because it is important this time around when bay clean up goals are set that they have a chance of being met. To be direct, development contributes 3 percent of the sediment pollution to the bay and minuscule amounts to the nitrogen and phosphorous pollutants. The development industry is prepared to do its part. Development cannot shoulder the pollutant burden by itself. It would be too costly (thus impacting affordability), and it would not happen and yet another goal would not be met.

So let's get all of the stakeholders at the table, and let's come up with revenue strategies, policies and programs that allow all of the pollutant sources to shoulder their proportionate responsibility. The development industry is ready.

Thomas M. Farasy

The writer is president of the Maryland State Builders Association.

A Note to Our Engineering Clients

This note went out today to our mailing list:

The merger of JCM Environmental and Landmark Engineering was designed to better assist our developer/builder clients by enabling us to provide the engineering component more often needed to solve the more complex environmental issues that can arise on a project.

This merger was designed to strengthen our abilities as problem solvers.

We at LandmarkJCM operate our business with the highest integrity and truly respect the business relationships our clients have developed with other engineering companies.

It was important to me that as part of the merger, we made the committment that we could still serve your environmental science needs without the threat of stealing clients.

We have had a great working relationship over the last twenty years and hope to continue that relationship by providing the best environmental services to you and your clients.

Sincerely,


Bruce Tease
President, LandmarkJCM

Jim McCulley
Vice President of Sciences Division.
LandmarkJCM

Pennsylvania Coast Day 2009 Remembered

John Phelps found this great picture on Flickr. It is from the Pennsylvania Coast Day at Penn's Landing in 2009. LandmarkJCM exhibited native reptile and amphibians and helped educate young people about identification and characteristics of these species.

This youngster is observing a copperhead, a poisonous snake found in this area. This particular copperhead has had the venom glands removed to make it safer for educational purposes.

To learn more about our educational commitment at LandmarkJCM, please contact Jim at jim@jcmenv.com or visit www.LandmarkJCM.com for more information.

Bog Turtle Season is Coming

The snow will be melting, soon....I promise! February is always the time to start planning our activities for Bog Turtle Season.

The LandmarkJCM Sciences Division is currently preparing by obtaining permits and licenses and talking to other surveyors about working together as needed. We have already issued several proposals and anticipate a large influx of work as we get closer to April 15th.

If you think you will need a Phase II Bog Turtle Survey this spring, you should call us as soon as possible to get on our schedule. Every year we end up turning clients away because there are not enough hours in the day to complete their survey. This work is scheduled on a first come, first served basis.

There are strict weather and timing requirements for these surveys and all must be completed between April 15th and June 15th with at least two surveys taking place in May.

Contact us for more information and remember that if you miss this bog turtle season, you will have to wait until April of 2011 to conduct your study.

www.LandmarkJCM.com

It's All a Matter of Perspective

This is the weekend of the Daytona 500 and long time friends and clients will remember that in 2005, JCM was one of the sponsors on the 27 car of Kirk Shelmerdine in the Daytona 500.

For those that don't know the story, here it is:

We bid on the sponsorship on eBay after hearing about the promotion on the radio. We were not the high bidder but Kirk was willing to let everyone pay what they had bid to be on the car (there were four of us).

Shelmerdine's claim to fame was that he was Dale Earnhardt's crew chief and he was from the Dover, Delaware area.

We got a lot of mileage (no pun intended) from our sponsorship and many of our clients followed the Speed Week festivities closely to see how we did.

In one of the televised pre-race practices, Kirk's motor blew up and the cameras followed him around the track as his car billowed smoke. After the commercial break, they interviewed Kirk in the garage area with the car and our logo behind him.

In the televised qualifying race, as Kirk raced for the remaining transfer spot, he crashed on the backstretch with another driver eliminating his chance to race in the 500. The TV cameras focused on his car (and our logo) as he spun across the track and came to rest in the infield.

Our clients called and e-mailed, wanting to know the inside story and talked about it for months. Every once in a while someone still mentions it.

The Newark Post got the headline all wrong (see above), we got TV time for our logo, buzz with our clients and it was a fun thing to talk about with employees, vendors and friends. Yeah, it would have been great to have see Kirk actually race in 500 but that would have just been the icing on the cake.

Kirk tried again this year and just missed qualifying for the Daytona 500 but you have to admire his perseverance....GO KIRK......2011 will be your year!

LandmarkJCM Opens at Noon Today

Jen Casey (Executive Director of the Homebuilder's Association of Delaware) visited LandmarkJCM's Dover Delaware Office this morning on what must have been extremely urgent business.

LandmarkJCM officially opens at noon today due to the snow.  If you have urgent business that can't wait until then e-mail us at info@landmarkengineering.com or leave a message at 302-323-9377

Enjoy the snow and be careful.

Storm Water Pond Compliance Seminar Goes Well

Just prior to the second round of snow storms, John Phelps, Keith Rudy and Jim McCulley presented a lunch time seminar on Storm Water Pond Compliance, Maintenance and Management.  Several developer clients attended as well as New Castle County Officials from Special Services and Land Use and the Environmental and Engineering staff at LandmarkJCM.

The seminar created lots of good dialogue about Pond Design, Construction, Maintenance and Management.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, contact John Phelps at (302) 323-9377 or jphelps@jcmenv.com

Also, see this article by Jim McCulley of LandmarkJCM and Kevin Tucker of Virginia Lake Management.

Jim McCulley Recognized by NAHB at IBS in January

Jim McCulley was recognized last month as a finalist for Associate of the Year for the National Association of Home Builders. This is huge feat considering NAHB has several hundred thousand members across the country! Read about it at the Home Builder's link below:

http://www.hbade.org/blog/category-9.html

Congrats Jim, we are all very proud!

Development Rule Changes Needed

Jim had two meetings last week with regulatory agencies and is encouraged that development and environmental protection interests are getting closer on many issues.

• The first meeting was between the Homebuilders Association of Delaware and DNREC Water Resources.  The subject of the meeting was the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and how Delaware was going to meet its goals.  There was a clear consensus that we need a new way of developing property, higher density, narrower streets, low impact bmps, in other words, green development.  Builders and developers would love to have this as an option and the market will determine if this is a viable product.

• The second meeting was with the City of Dover and the Environmental Ordinance re-write committee.  While looking at the City of Dover ordinances for protection of floodplains, trees and wetlands it was also clear that be allowing clustered density, these resources could be more easily protected without severely impacting economic development.

If there is a market for higher density, low impact development (and many developers believe that there is), it must be allowed as a by-right option.  Developers will not put significant sums of at-risk capital into a conditional use plan in this market.

Regulators charged with environmental protection understand this and the developers understand this and hopefully they can work together to get the planning and zoning officials to understand this.

To help with this effort or to discuss further, contact Jim at jim@jcmenv.com or 302-323-9377 x143.

http://www.landmarkjcm.com/