Latest News

Soltesz recently participated in the 2016 University of Maryland Spring Career & Internship Fair. Sponsoring a company table and prepared with information about the firm and popular giveaways, the Soltesz team met a lot of students during the busy afternoon, sharing information about current career openings and potential internship opportunities.Soltesz was represented by Maryland alums Kris Pettit, Dana Ng, and Kyle Walker, as well as Ivan Zapata.Kris Pettit, Director of HR, had the following to say regarding the event:“It was great being back on campus yesterday and the Career Fair was pretty busy all day. All of spoke with a lot of students… It was good for Soltesz to be there.”The annual UMD Spring Career & Internship Fair is one of the largest career fairs on campus, boasting 100 employers each day over a three-day period.Interested in learning about careers at Soltesz? Visit our website at www.solteszco.com/careers or contact Kris Pettit at kpettit@solteszco.com.

Soltesz has been ranked a Top Engineering Firm by the Washington Business Journal’s 2016 Book of Lists! The list includes engineering firms from the metro-area. Soltesz is proudly listed at #16 for this year.

Soltesz joined Hord Coplan Macht for a presentation on urban sustainability at the 5th Annual USGBC Maryland Engineering Green conference earlier this month. The 2015 conference was held at Towson University in Baltimore, MD and attracted civil engineers, landscape architects, property owners, developers, green building professionals for in-depth discussions surrounding the technical engineering design of sustainable sites.The presentation featured the recently-completed Fenwick Station, a transit-oriented urban development in downtown Silver Spring, MD, including a six-story 310-unit multi-family apartment building complete with a public plaza, courtyard, and outdoor pool. The LEED Gold certified building features innovative design solutions integrating landscape architecture and stormwater management through a variety of stormwater management facilities, including bio-retention planters and tree pits, a green roof, and rain water harvesting. The facilities were integrated into the overall project site to maximize function and enhance the overall building environment.Soltesz Vice President and Director of Environmental Engineering, Ed Carroll, PE, addressed the technical project design and methodology surrounding the stormwater management facilities. The highly collaborative project supported new stormwater management regulations by use of street-level bio-retentions, podium-level green roof, and rain water harvesting.For more information regarding this project or to learn more about Soltesz use of innovative stormwater management techniques, contact Soltesz Vice President and Director of Environmental Engineering, Ed Carroll, PE, at 301-870-2166 or ecarroll@solteszco.com.

WSSC’s new general manager, Carla Reid, has appointed Jim Soltesz to serve on her transition team. Ms. Reid has 20 years of experience at WSSC, having previously served as both deputy general manager and interim general manager. Ms. Reid has more recently worked as Director of Permitting Services in Montgomery County and Deputy Chief Administrative Officer in Prince George’s County. Mr. Soltesz released the following statement: “I am honored to work for Carla, who I have known for many years and respect greatly. Her experience with WSSC along with her roles in both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties are to the benefit of the agency and its customers. I look forward to supporting Carla in this new position.”WSSC is one of the largest utility companies in the nation, operating over 10,000 miles of pipeline to serve 1.8 million residents in Montgomery County and Prince George’s County. The agency has an annual budget of $1.4 billion for 2016 and a Capital Improvements Program totaling $4.4 billion for 2017-2022. Jim Soltesz is President and CEO of Soltesz, Inc., the largest civil engineering, planning and environmental sciences company in Montgomery County and ranked as a Top Design Firm in the Mid-Atlantic. Mr. Soltesz has served on numerous committees on regulatory and development issues, including transportation, adequate public facilities, infrastructure financing, school construction, and permit processing, for Prince George’s County, Maryland and Montgomery County, Maryland.

Every year, Soltesz hosts a Holiday Card Art Contest with students at Mario A. Loiederman Middle School in Silver Spring, Maryland. Here are some of the fun design entries from students for the 2015 Holiday Card!

Soltesz is pleased to have received gratitude and appreciation by Community Temple Church on services related to design and installation of a new stormwater management facility performed on their property. The church commended the firm’s communication, work ethic, and overall project management skills:“We are very grateful and thankful for the project that was done. From the communication with me to let me know what project would be done, to the start of the project, the excellent work ethics of those who actually did the work, to the finish of the project. We are just so pleased with the entire process... Thank you for the work you have done for our church and property, and also what you are doing for our environment.”The work performed on the property was part of Soltesz’s efforts with Prince George’s County’s Alternative Compliance Program, for which the firm is designing facilities to treat impervious property owned by local municipalities, neighborhood streets, and county-owned property. Soltesz is working with over 130 faith-based organizations as part of the county-wide program.Soltesz has been responsible for the successful design of these types of facilities at many locations across Prince George’s County, such as the MGM Casino, the new County Regional Hospital, and as a part of the County’s Stormwater Management initiative under the mandate of the MS4 permit requirements. Soltesz is County Based Business Certified, having operated in Prince George’s County for over 35 years. To learn more about the program, contact Ken Dunn at 301.794.7555 or kdunn@solteszco.com.

Previous voluntary measures requested from all of the states draining to the Chesapeake Bay did not provide sufficient positive results. Therefore, the EPA set forth new regulations that apply to the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, and West Virginia; the Commonwealth of Virginia; and the District of Columbia. In order to achieve cleaner water draining into the Chesapeake Bay, the EPA prescribed a “pollution diet” – known as the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) – that mandated reduction in pollutant loading into the Chesapeake Bay from all of these states. Each state was required to submit a detailed plan outlining their actions to reduce the loading of pollutants into the Chesapeake Bay by the year 2025. This Watershed Implementation Plan is referred to as WIP.The WIP program is comprised of three phases, which are scheduled to occur between 2010 and 2025.Phase 1, or WIP1, which required each state to identify generalized strategies for addressing pollutant target goals, was submitted to the Federal Government by the States and reviewed by the EPA in 2010. Upon acceptance and approval of the WIP1 program, the EPA then required a more detailed approach specifically identifying how they would achieve these goals – Phase 2. Specifically in Maryland, through the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), the State of Maryland divided the approved WIP1 program responsibilities among its counties and municipalities.Each county and municipality (local jurisdiction) was then required to put forth its own strategic plan known as Watershed Implementation Plan Phase 2, or WIP2. WIP2 required a very detailed program of obtaining pollutant level reduction into the Chesapeake Bay, measuring phosphorus, nitrogen and suspended solids, as well as identifying specific controls and practices that will be implemented no later than 2017 to meet the EPA’s interim water quality goals.Lastly, the EPA expects the states and the District to submit Phase 3, known as WIP3, in 2017 with actions and controls that will be implemented between 2018 and 2025 to achieve the ultimate water quality standards for the Chesapeake Bay.Within the State of Maryland, the two local jurisdictions of Anne Arundel and Caroline Counties, were selected by MDE to fully understand the impact of this Federal mandate through a pilot program. These two Counties were required to submit their detailed WIP2 report to MDE, including estimated costs to achieve the EPA and MDE mandate. The projected costs for each were staggering. As an example, Anne Arundel County cleanup measures to reduce their pollutant loading into the Chesapeake Bay were estimated to be $2.3billion.How are these programs being funded?With the State’s adoption of the Watershed Protection and Restoration Program (HB987 – April, 2012), specific jurisdictions are now mandated to establish their own fee called a Water Protection Restoration Fund (WPRF) or Stormwater Management (SWM) Utility Fee, which would be assessed based on a property owner’s annual property tax bill. Jurisdictions not affected by this mandate, are looking to establish their own version of a SWM utility fee to raise funds to address their WIP requirements. The following jurisdictions, subject to an NPDES Phase 1 MS4 permit and to the WPRF, are implementing their respective program on July 1, 2013 coined the “Rain Tax”: Montgomery County Prince George’s County Charles County Frederick County Baltimore County Howard County Carroll County Baltimore City Anne Arundel County Harford County In addition to these jurisdictions, several other municipalities currently have, or will be proposing, similar programs (i.e. City of Rockville, City of Gaithersburg, and City of Annapolis). In accordance with HB-987, each of the above listed jurisdictions shall establish a process to allow property owners to reduce their respective rain tax fee.These processes vary by jurisdiction, however most have provisions for receiving reduction credits for non-residential properties.Many jurisdictions are currently setting up a policy where a non-residential property owner may appeal the rain tax assessment for a fee reduction if the property owner can demonstrate that the jurisdiction’s calculation for on-site impervious surface is incorrect. Further, some jurisdictions offer a fee reduction of up to a 50% - 60% maximum if the property owner can certify that they have existing stormwater BMPs in place that are functioning as designed, being properly maintained, and are managing a specific drainage area to the facility. Credit reductions could range (10% - 60% max) depending on what the BMP is managing (Water Quality volume requirements, ground water recharge requirements, and/or channel protection volumes) and when it was constructed. For commercial properties with large amounts of impervious cover, such a reduction of an annual fee could be significant. Along with a fee credit or reduction program, most jurisdictions also have in place or are establishing an appeal process. This process differs from the fee reduction program where fees are offset by the placement and maintenance of SWM features. In the appeal process case, an appeal can be submitted should a property owner feel their property has been improperly assessed; misidentification of owner, error in equivalent residential unit (ERU) calculation or estimate of impervious surface totals are examples of a basis for an appeal. Finally, the regulations developed within the various jurisdictions include a financial hardship exemption for qualifying property owners.Soltesz understands these latest programs and can navigate clients through determining which approach to take in ultimately reducing the impact of the rain tax on their properties. We can provide fee verification services and credit qualification services. Please contact us for more detailed information specific to your local jurisdiction.

WSSC has over 150 miles of 36-inch and larger Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipes (PCCP) water transmission pipelines and is proposing new requirements in its Pipeline Design Manual – originally adopted in 2008 – concerning PCCP and cast iron water pipelines among other matters.The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), the eighth largest water and sewer utility in the United States, serves nearly 2 million customers in both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. WSSC has over 150 miles of 36-inch and larger Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipes (PCCP) water transmission pipelines. PCCP was once the most commonly used material for large diameter water pipelines nationwide. Some of these pipes, however, were produced with brittle reinforcements and explosive eruptions have occurred. Based on results from several studies, WSSC has determined that catastrophic failure of 36-inch and larger PCCP pipelines can extend in excess of 80 feet beyond the pipeline. Therefore, WSSC proposes new requirements in its Pipeline Design Manual – originally adopted in 2008 – concerning PCCP and cast iron water pipelines among other matters.WSSC’s proposed rule regarding horizontal separation from large diameter (36-inch diameter or larger) water pipelines was previously 25 feet in each direction from the center of the pipe. The proposed rule, which is currently being implemented, states that the minimum setback in each direction from the outer side of the pipe in question is 80 feet from a building or dwelling.A couple of items to note are: WSSC is open to relaxing the 80-foot right of way, and, parking, parks, and other uses are permitted within these setbacks. The 80-foot right of way is a no-building zone, meaning no building or dwelling can be built in the specified area. With regards to WSSC compromising on the 80-foot setbacks, the builder must demonstrate with adequate documentation the ability to mitigate potential damage through use of structural enhancements, building material selections rated to withstand a potential pipeline failure or have their site-specific engineering solutions approved by WSSC. As of yet, they cannot or will not define suitable structural enhancements or what adequate documentation is needed to prove safety and to reduce the horizontal separation.As a reference, please refer to the modified Common Design Guidelines document that can be found on the WSSC website. The latest pipeline changes, as they relate to the required minimum horizontal separation, or setback, between large diameter water mains and structures, are notated in red in Part Three, Section 3: Pipeline Crossings and Clearances (pages C-3.2 - C-3.3).Soltesz and other industry representatives continue to communicate with WSSC. For example, Soltesz met with WSSC’s General Counsel’s Office, including the Office of the General Manager, in November of 2011. During that meeting, WSSC shed light on several of their proposed design manual modifications, including the topic of 80-foot setbacks. WSSC also discussed their Bi-County Working Group, who is working to gather input from industry leaders and ensuring their process of rule-making is more transparent. To date, decisions are still underway for additional revisions to be made to the manual. WSSC has put the finalization of the publication on hold while these updates and other design criteria are still pending. Soltesz continues to monitor the latest status as the manual progresses and more information is made public.

In conjunction with the federal Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA), the six Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia were required to identify waterways that did not meet water quality standards. In June 2000, the Bay watershed partners signed the voluntary Chesapeake 2000 Agreement to identify action items and commitments required to achieve water quality standards for the Chesapeake Bay. With this agreement came the understanding that if these voluntary actions were not fully successful in achieving the required water quality standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would step in and prepare and complete a multi-jurisdictional Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay. A TMDL dictates the maximum amount of pollution that the receiving waters can withstand while still meeting federal water quality standards. In May 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508: Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration that grants the EPA the authority to implement the TDML with a goal of restoring the Chesapeake Bay to adequate water quality standards by 2025. At the present time, EPA is actively working with the seven jurisdictions within the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia) in crafting the TMDL, which will be implemented by December 31, 2010.Chesapeake Bay TMDLThe purpose of the TMDL is to restore water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, clarity, chlorophyll-a, and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) to tidal segments of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries and embayments that are currently listed as impaired under the criteria outlined in Section 303(d) of the CWA due to the pollutants of excess nutrients and sediment from the watershed runoff. The source of these pollutants can include discharge from the end of a wastewater pipe (point sources) or from regulated stormwater runoff, agricultural sources, septic systems, surface runoff, and groundwater flows (non-point sources). The TMDL outlines maximum specific target loadings, or allocations, of nutrients and sediment allowed to be delivered to the Chesapeake Bay from all sources throughout the watershed, including atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to the subject waterways. It is essentially a “pollution diet” for the Chesapeake Bay. The EPA has stipulated that “reasonable assurance of implementation” will be made as part of this TMDL. “Reasonable assurance” is a demonstration by the six states and the District of Columbia that the determined goals for load reductions, as set forth by the TMDL going into effect at the end of this year, can be reasonably achieved through each state’s and the District’s respective commitments, policies, and resources.Process of Developing the TMDLStep one of developing the TMDL was identifying which waterways were impaired—thus not meeting water quality standards. This step involved assessing the implementation of water monitoring and the establishment of an overall water model analysis. If a waterway segment was considered unimpaired, then the water model analysis determined how much additional pollutant loading the waterway could assimilate without violating water quality standards. Upon completion of the water model analysis, a maximum pollutant load (TMDL) is established and allocated amongst point and non-point sources throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.As part of the “reasonable assurance of implementation” demonstration, each state within the Bay watershed and the District of Columbia is currently establishing their own respective Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs). The WIPs contribute to a fair and transparent wasteload and load allocation process for nutrients and sediment (i.e. phosphorus, nitrogen, sediment) among various pollution source sectors and in different geographical areas. The WIP development process consists of three distinct phases. Phase 1 WIP (Draft) for each state and the District of Columbia is currently available on Maryland Department of the Environment’s website for review. The Phase 1 WIP outlines a description of the authorities, actions, and possible control measures, which may be implemented to achieve point source and non-point source target loads and TMDL allocations. In the future, the final Phase 1 WIP will include information for the permit writers to issue future permits for point sources that are consistent with wasteload allocations (WLAs). Phase 1 WIPs will establish a tracking program to verify if control practices are effective and will create certain specific jurisdiction milestones (2 year increments). These milestones will describe the reduction of loading required to meet the interim target TMDL goals (60% total reduction by 2017 based on current loads / 70% for Maryland) and final TMDL goals (100% reduction by 2025 / 2020 for Maryland). The jurisdictions will factor for their respective future growth and may distribute allocations accordingly based on their planned growth. Currently, Phase 1 WIPs are under a public comment period through November 8, 2010, with final Phase 1 WIPs being submitted to the EPA on November 29, 2010. The EPA shall establish the final TMDL on December 31, 2010.The Chesapeake Bay watershed states and District of Columbia will develop draft Phase 2 WIPs, which will be submitted in draft and final formats on June 1, 2011 and November 1, 2011 respectively. The Phase 2 WIPs shall further distribute non-point source finer-scale load allocations and any aggregate point source wasteload allocations into smaller geographic areas, waterways, or sources where appropriate. The states shall coordinate with the agencies at the local level (ie: County, City, Soil Conservation Districts) to develop more specific nutrient and sediment target loads. The Phase 2 WIPs shall identify specific controls and practices that will be implemented no later than 2017 to meet the interim TMDL water quality goals.Phase 3 WIPs from the Bay watershed states and District of Columbia will then be submitted to the EPA in 2017 with further refined control measures, based upon the outcome of the 2017 interim TMDL milestone assessment, to implement controls between 2018 and 2025 to achieve TMDL water quality standards.Impacts on Land Development ProjectsCurrently, the Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia are working to establish methods for controlling nutrient and sediment loadings into the Chesapeake Bay as part of the WIP process. It is evident that due to the pending TMDL, changes to the current permitting processes are forthcoming and will impact the land development community. Although the overall nutrient and sediment load impacts to the Chesapeake Bay from “new” construction is minimal in comparison to the impacts associated with agriculture and existing urban/suburban development runoff (a large portion of which was developed prior to the mid-1980s before stormwater management regulations and sediment and erosion control regulations), loading from new construction and redevelopment projects can be easily enforced through the issuance of permits. It seems apparent that permitting changes (i.e. stormwater management, sediment and erosion control, NPDES) associated with achieving the target goals for the TMDL may have some significant effects on land development projects. These effects may include: New restrictions on nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment discharges reflected on all new NPDES permits within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Establishing a goal of “no net discharge” for new development projects through the implementation of low impact development (LID) or environmental site design (ESD) techniques, which may increase construction costs. Project requirements stating open space needs to be increased and/or parking areas decreased respectively, due to LID/ESD stormwater implementation that may have negative impact on the allowable densities for projects as more physical land area is being devoted to stormwater management. Redevelopment Projects to require between 30% to 50% retrofitting for stormwater management to reduce impacts from existing impervious surfaces not currently being managed. The WIPs have not finalized the specific percentage requirement; however, it will be determined before the end of 2010. This requirement will further increase construction/development costs for redevelopment projects within urban areas. Post construction monitoring/testing of site discharged runoff to determine pollutant levels of sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus. These pollutant levels will be evaluated against the required pollutant allocations established by the issued permit. Sediment and Erosion Control requirements for limits on the maximum allowable areas of disturbance, for providing vegetative buffers outside of silt fences/limits of disturbance, and for shortening timeframes for the implementation of stabilization of disturbed areas. Proposing that all new and failed residential septic systems within 1,000 feet of tidal waters install denitrification systems (Cost: $8K to $11K per system). Strengthening the requirements of the Forest Conservation regulations to achieve a “No Net Loss of Forest” through utilization of more forest mitigation banks and eliminating the fee-in-lieu option. Reduction in the usage of commercial fertilizers found in urban/suburban runoff. An increase in engineering design budgets for projects associated with stormwater management and sediment and erosion control. An increase in the overall time process associated with obtaining permits through the regulatory agencies. An increase in overall construction costs with regard to stormwater management and sediment and erosion control. An increase in stormwater management maintenance costs, which most likely will be passed to the commercial user and/or residential user (HOA).How Soltesz Can AssistSoltesz has been actively following the process of the EPA’s establishment of the upcoming Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Soltesz’s staff is well-versed with the imminent changes to the land development process that will be approaching in the next several months, from the institution of the Watershed Implementation Plans to the establishment of the final TMDL. Soltesz has been and remains in the forefront with regards to the revisions of the latest stormwater management, sediment and erosion control, and NPDES regulations and has extensive knowledge on how these regulations may be applied to the new Chesapeake Bay TMDL and, ultimately, how these regulations may affect your projects. Our vast knowledge of these latest changes in regulations, combined with our distinguished reputation as a consulting leader in site/civil design, allows Soltesz the ability to offer exceptional professional services to our clients while meeting their respective project goals on time and within budget.