This article on stormwater regulations is from this week`s Washington Business Journal.
Of general interest.
Final D.C. stormwater regulations to cost developers more
Premium content from Washington Business Journal by Michael Neibauer, Staff Reporter
Date: Friday, August 17, 2012, 6:00am EDT
[http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/print-edition/2012/08/17/final-dc-stormwater-regulations-to.html?s=print]
The District`s first major overhaul of its stormwater regulations in three decades
directs developers to retain more than twice as much runoff from their
properties as they have been required to in the past.
Three-plus years in the making, the proposed rules issued Aug. 10 represent a wholesale
shift in stormwater management. By raising the bar on stormwater controls as
the Environmental Protection Agency has ordered, the District hopes to address
its pollution problem by putting the onus — both technical and financial — on
property owners and developers to absorb rainwater runoff before it reaches the
sewer system and, ultimately, D.C.`s dirty waterways. The amount of investment
in retention systems, such as green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and permeable
pavement, is likely to boom as a result.
The 90-day comment period is now open for the regulations, which must go into
effect by July of next year at the latest.
``I think we have to accept that this major shift is on its way,`` said David
Tuchmann, vice president for development with Akridge and vice chair of the
D.C. Building Industry Association`s environment committee. ``The question is
how is it implemented, what level of flexibility will there be, what types of
systems and procedures will be implemented, and how efficient will it be.``
The proposed rules require that most new developments larger than 5,000 square feet
retain 1.2 inches of stormwater volume. Buildings undergoing a ``major
substantial improvement,`` where the cost of the work equals at least half the
value of the property, would have to retain 0.8 inches of stormwater volume.
Retaining runoff means keeping it on site through infiltration,
evapo-transpiration (how water is transported from surfaces into the
atmosphere), storage or some combination.
The District`s current stormwater policy, last updated in 1988, mandates that
similar-sized developments detain, and ultimately release into the sewer
system, much smaller amounts of runoff — those equal to 0.3 to 0.5 inches of
water volume.
The difference between ``detain`` and ``retain`` is critical. The goal of the new
policy is to retain, to keep runoff entirely out of the sewer system, said Jeff
Seltzer, associate director for stormwater management for the D.C. Department
of the Environment.
``The design that your engineers are trying to achieve for stormwater management is
the difference,`` said Brian Van Wye, a DDOE environmental protection
specialist. ``Rather than just designing in a sand filter into the site, they`ll
be looking at where are the opportunities to use these retention practices.
Generally, it`ll mean that the project sites have more of that green
infrastructure. I`m sure there will be a learning curve for the designers
working on this.``
The development community`s initial concerns, Akridge`s Tuchmann said, focus on
cost impacts, time lost to permit reviews, DDOE`s outreach and the agency`s
general tone. The last time Tuchmann said he saw a draft of the rules was 2009.
On cost, Tuchmann said, DDOE`s research likely does not account for all of the
fiscal impacts of implementing this ``new regime.`` The price of purchasing and
installing a cistern, for example, may not account for the lost opportunity
cost of, say, two potential parking spaces that cistern will replace. The price
of operation, maintenance, transactions all must be accounted for before the
District declares the expenses reasonable, Tuchmann said.
But most disconcerting, he added, is DDOE`s tone. Its rulemaking, he said, makes
developers out to be polluters. In the preamble to its regulations, for
example, DDOE states: ``The principle that the polluter should pay for
pollution is a fundamental and established element of equitable environmental
policy.``
``Real estate developers aren`t for the most part the people who ran gas stations for
40 years,`` Tuchmann said. ``Rain is falling onto our property, and it`s
running off. It`s a far cry from implying that the property owner is actually
polluting the waterways directly.``
The District does not anticipate that more stringent stormwater regulations will
deter developers from building in D.C. The cost will increase marginally, said
Van Wye, but ``we don`t think it`s something that`s going to be fundamentally
changing the landscape for the development community.``
And there are options under the regulations for developers who find it technically
difficult or financially prohibitive to meet the stormwater requirements on
their project sites. The proposed rules, for example, offer builders the option
of paying an ``in lieu of`` fee to DDOE. Or they could achieve as much as half
of their run-off retention off-site, or purchase Stormwater Retention Credits
from the private market.
In its rulemaking, DDOE stated that its proposed standards are ``technically
feasible,`` that they ``do not impose unreasonable compliance costs,`` and that
they are ``consistent with requirements being implemented in other
jurisdictions.``
That said, the amount and number of fees DDOE charges also will jump significantly
under the rules. New fees have been added for field visits, geotechnical report
reviews, after-hours inspections, stormwater retention credit plans and
applications for relief.
The current charge for sites measuring more than 5,000 square feet is $72, plus
$3.25 for each additional 100 square feet more than 5,000 square feet. The new
charges could total as much as $5,800 for lots between 5,000 and 10,000 square
feet, and $10,500 for lots larger than 10,000 square feet.
The rules must be implemented by July 2013 to meet EPA mandates. DDOE will accept comments
for 90 days, and it expects to hold two public hearings during that comment
period. The public hearing dates have not been set.
Of general interest.
Final D.C. stormwater regulations to cost developers more
Premium content from Washington Business Journal by Michael Neibauer, Staff Reporter
Date: Friday, August 17, 2012, 6:00am EDT
[http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/print-edition/2012/08/17/final-dc-stormwater-regulations-to.html?s=print]
The District`s first major overhaul of its stormwater regulations in three decades
directs developers to retain more than twice as much runoff from their
properties as they have been required to in the past.
Three-plus years in the making, the proposed rules issued Aug. 10 represent a wholesale
shift in stormwater management. By raising the bar on stormwater controls as
the Environmental Protection Agency has ordered, the District hopes to address
its pollution problem by putting the onus — both technical and financial — on
property owners and developers to absorb rainwater runoff before it reaches the
sewer system and, ultimately, D.C.`s dirty waterways. The amount of investment
in retention systems, such as green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and permeable
pavement, is likely to boom as a result.
The 90-day comment period is now open for the regulations, which must go into
effect by July of next year at the latest.
``I think we have to accept that this major shift is on its way,`` said David
Tuchmann, vice president for development with Akridge and vice chair of the
D.C. Building Industry Association`s environment committee. ``The question is
how is it implemented, what level of flexibility will there be, what types of
systems and procedures will be implemented, and how efficient will it be.``
The proposed rules require that most new developments larger than 5,000 square feet
retain 1.2 inches of stormwater volume. Buildings undergoing a ``major
substantial improvement,`` where the cost of the work equals at least half the
value of the property, would have to retain 0.8 inches of stormwater volume.
Retaining runoff means keeping it on site through infiltration,
evapo-transpiration (how water is transported from surfaces into the
atmosphere), storage or some combination.
The District`s current stormwater policy, last updated in 1988, mandates that
similar-sized developments detain, and ultimately release into the sewer
system, much smaller amounts of runoff — those equal to 0.3 to 0.5 inches of
water volume.
The difference between ``detain`` and ``retain`` is critical. The goal of the new
policy is to retain, to keep runoff entirely out of the sewer system, said Jeff
Seltzer, associate director for stormwater management for the D.C. Department
of the Environment.
``The design that your engineers are trying to achieve for stormwater management is
the difference,`` said Brian Van Wye, a DDOE environmental protection
specialist. ``Rather than just designing in a sand filter into the site, they`ll
be looking at where are the opportunities to use these retention practices.
Generally, it`ll mean that the project sites have more of that green
infrastructure. I`m sure there will be a learning curve for the designers
working on this.``
The development community`s initial concerns, Akridge`s Tuchmann said, focus on
cost impacts, time lost to permit reviews, DDOE`s outreach and the agency`s
general tone. The last time Tuchmann said he saw a draft of the rules was 2009.
On cost, Tuchmann said, DDOE`s research likely does not account for all of the
fiscal impacts of implementing this ``new regime.`` The price of purchasing and
installing a cistern, for example, may not account for the lost opportunity
cost of, say, two potential parking spaces that cistern will replace. The price
of operation, maintenance, transactions all must be accounted for before the
District declares the expenses reasonable, Tuchmann said.
But most disconcerting, he added, is DDOE`s tone. Its rulemaking, he said, makes
developers out to be polluters. In the preamble to its regulations, for
example, DDOE states: ``The principle that the polluter should pay for
pollution is a fundamental and established element of equitable environmental
policy.``
``Real estate developers aren`t for the most part the people who ran gas stations for
40 years,`` Tuchmann said. ``Rain is falling onto our property, and it`s
running off. It`s a far cry from implying that the property owner is actually
polluting the waterways directly.``
The District does not anticipate that more stringent stormwater regulations will
deter developers from building in D.C. The cost will increase marginally, said
Van Wye, but ``we don`t think it`s something that`s going to be fundamentally
changing the landscape for the development community.``
And there are options under the regulations for developers who find it technically
difficult or financially prohibitive to meet the stormwater requirements on
their project sites. The proposed rules, for example, offer builders the option
of paying an ``in lieu of`` fee to DDOE. Or they could achieve as much as half
of their run-off retention off-site, or purchase Stormwater Retention Credits
from the private market.
In its rulemaking, DDOE stated that its proposed standards are ``technically
feasible,`` that they ``do not impose unreasonable compliance costs,`` and that
they are ``consistent with requirements being implemented in other
jurisdictions.``
That said, the amount and number of fees DDOE charges also will jump significantly
under the rules. New fees have been added for field visits, geotechnical report
reviews, after-hours inspections, stormwater retention credit plans and
applications for relief.
The current charge for sites measuring more than 5,000 square feet is $72, plus
$3.25 for each additional 100 square feet more than 5,000 square feet. The new
charges could total as much as $5,800 for lots between 5,000 and 10,000 square
feet, and $10,500 for lots larger than 10,000 square feet.
The rules must be implemented by July 2013 to meet EPA mandates. DDOE will accept comments
for 90 days, and it expects to hold two public hearings during that comment
period. The public hearing dates have not been set.
0 comments:
Post a Comment