Stormwater Committee Minutes
July 23, 2003
ATTENDEES
Emily Ayers, Ed Murtagh, Robert Goo, Sally Gagné, Ann Hoffnar, Anne Kitchell, Kathy Michels
BUSINESS ITEMS
Emily volunteered to be the recorder for this meeting, and everyone agreed to rotate the task in future meetings.
We all agreed that the group should meet every other month, on the third Wednesday of the month.
DISCUSSION OF STORMWATER COMMITTEE DRAFT GOALS
Long Term Goals:
- To enhance legal means for Municipal, County and State stormwater management control managers with stronger laws/regulations and enforcement authorities.
It was suggested that we change this goal to “improve the effectiveness of.”
Robert suggested “..promote more effective Municipal, County and State stormwater management programs.”
Ed noted that the County DPW stormwater regulations are being rewritten; there may be an opportunity to influence those changes. At the county level, DEP, DPS and other agencies need coordination. There has been some movement toward creating a county stormwater task force.
First Year Goals:
- Under a grant, implement a stormwater retrofit project in Sligo Creek Watershed.
Anne K. (CWP) has $5000 to do a study to locate the most effective places for stormwater retrofits in the Sligo Creek Watershed. She would like to use the Sligo Creek Assessment to help identify potential sites. Anne K. volunteered to work with Tina to get the assessment finished, and to get the available GIS data together.
FOSC is currently helping the County to identify spots to install raingardens in the watershed.
Some in the group were concerned that it might not be possible to get a grant to do a retrofit project within the year. Anne K. noted that it’s possible to get a small ($2000) grant from the Chesapeake Bay Trust within a few months.
- Develop a slide program.
Ann H. noted that this is partly done, and should be easy to finish.
- Encourage the use of rain barrels.
All agreed that this goal is fine as is.
- Encourage development of rain gardens and other retrofits, including tree planting, on private property.
Robert wondered why we don’t focus on public property. Kathy noted that we are already working with various public agencies.
It was reiterated that there is a lot going on in different county departments. But that they need help coordinating, need to support each other, and need support from county residents.
It was noted that Montgomery County scores pretty well on the flexibility of their codes to allow Low Impact Development (LID), BUT there is no limit on site imperviousness, so in theory a person could pave their entire front and back yards.
- Alert public to the hazards of fertilizer and pesticide use. Encourage use of native plants, including trees, and xeriscaping.
It was suggested that this language be changed to “improper fertilizer and pesticide use.”
Robert stressed that we should be promoting the maintenance of a mature tree canopy in the watershed. He noted that Takoma Park’s tree ordinance is currently under assault.
It was suggested that we collect all of the tree references from the various goals and put them together under their own goal.
It was noted that DEP has a forest restoration program going on, and we might work with them.
Robert stressed the need to promote a long term plan to promote tree cover, and the need for a comprehensive tree inventory. He suggested that we could use the DC guidelines.
Ann H. wondered whether we should just encourage tree preservation, or actively plant trees.
It was noted that we were piling on too much for the first year. We decided to make all first year goals general goals, and to change the “Long Term Goals” to “Mission”.
- Begin educating for eventual push to get County to adopt a homeowner stormwater fee
Robert noted that Takoma Park created their stormwater utility out of an existing stormwater tax, so there is no new revenue associated with the utility.
Ann H. expressed the desire to tie the utility fee to actual site imperviousness.
It was noted that Takoma Park is in the process of installing new curbs and gutters on many streets. FOSC should demand mitigation of the new discharge to Sligo Creek.
Kathy asked about whether we should support requiring roof downspout disconnection, and requiring properties to have “zero effective imperviousness” (take care of the runoff from their own property) through the use of rain gardens, etc.
Anne K. said that incentive-based approaches tend to go over better.
Robert asked how water quality fits in to the stormwater committee’s goals. Sally answered that the FOSC water quality committee focuses primarily on monitoring within the stream.
Robert suggested that we add some language to our goals on water quality improvement. He suggested that we try to identify “hot spots”, such as auto shops.
- Survey public sites where rain gardens, retention ponds, or other stormwater control projects could be encouraged.
It was noted that DEP will be installing four rain gardens in the near future. Emily asked for clarification of what the DEP situation was, and Ann H. et al explained that DEP will be installing four rain gardens: one at the Dennis Avenue Health Center, one at the Dennis Avenue Rec Center, a third outside the Sligo Creek Watershed, and they haven’t yet chosen a spot for the fourth. DEP is reluctant to install a rain garden in the headwaters because of the heavy clay soil. Emily noted that even in clay soil where infiltration is impossible, rain gardens can still reduce peak flow and improve water quality.
- Lobby to improve P&P Planning Board notifications.
We decided to request that FOSC be notified of planned development of any parcel within the watershed.
- Monitor Forest Conservation Easements.
Kathy would like FOSC to emphasize the need to USE stream buffers.
Goal 10 was incorporated into goal 8.
- Label storm drains.
It was agreed that this was doable in the near term. Someone will get information from MWCOG.
Update on the development of the Nairn Road/Channing Ave. Property
(added by Ed Murtagh)
A public hearing on the development of property (located at the headwaters of Sligo Creek Park) was held on May 22, 2003, without notification as mandated in the county code and the Planning Board’s own printed guidelines. A petition was submitted to Chairman Berlage of the Planning Board on July 21, 2003. The Upper Sligo and Sligo Headwaters Civic Associations submitted a petition to assert the residents’ right to appropriate notification of plans affecting their neighborhoods and the adjoining park. The petition also noted that notification is important to our right and civic duty to testify at public hearings or otherwise go on record regarding such plans. The petition noted that stormwater and other environmental related issues impacting Sligo Creek were not raised at the May 22, 2003 hearing. One of the objectives of the petition is to bring stormwater or other environment related concerns to the attention of the Planning Board, and why stormwater management is important. The petition is also a useful form of outreach to the residents. Before the petition was prepared, few of the residents had any knowledge of the importance of stormwater management. During the stormwater committee meeting, Kathy Michels asked if Friends of Sligo Creek would sign the petition as an Interested Party. Sally Gagne said she would bring this up to the Board for approval. A copy of the petition can be viewed on http://www.sligoheadwaters.org