Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement of 2005 with the

Transcription

Reservoir Watershed Management
Agreement of 2005
with the 2005 Action Strategy
Supported by Background Information on the Program
Baltimore Reservoir Watershed Management Program
2006
Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement of 2005
with the 2005 Action Strategy for the Reservoir Watersheds
________________________________
Supported by Background Information on the Program
________________________________
Baltimore Reservoir Watershed Management Program:
Signatory Governments and Agencies
Reservoir Watershed Protection Committee
Reservoir Watershed Technical Group
2006
Land Area of Reservoir Watersheds, by County
County
Baltimore
Carroll
Harford
York, PA
Total
Loch Raven
217 sq. mi.
1 sq. mi.
1 sq. mi.
4 sq. mi.
223 sq. mi.
Prettyboy
40 sq. mi.
33 sq. mi.
Liberty
33 sq. mi.
131 sq. mi.
7 sq. mi.
80 sq. mi.
164 sq. mi.
ii
Total
290 sq. mi.
165 sq. mi.
1 sq. mi.
11 sq. mi.
467 sq. mi.
Table of Contents
page
Introduction 1
Requirements for Reservoir Program Success
2
Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement of 2005
4
2005 Action Strategy for the Reservoir Watersheds 14
Chart Summarizing the Action Strategy Commitments
24
Background (physical setting) and Program History
33
Structure and Operation of the Program
34
Appendix A: Highlights of the 1984 Agreement
36
Appendix B: Principal Water Quality Concerns - 2005
38
Appendix C: Listing of Past Accomplishments
41
Appendix D: Membership of the Standing Committees
44
Appendix E: Selected List of References
45
Photos by Donald Outen, Baltimore County; Janice Outen, MDE
iii
Introduction
The central Baltimore metropolitan area receives its public drinking water primarily from three reservoirs owned and operated by Baltimore City, but which lie entirely in Baltimore County and Carroll
County, in locations north and northwest of the City. Taken together, the watersheds draining to Loch
Raven, Prettyboy and Liberty Reservoirs occupy a total of some 467 sq. mi. Since the late 1970s, there
have been cooperative arrangements among local governments to try to reduce pollution sources in the
three watersheds. A major milestone occurred in 1984, when a comprehensive Reservoir Watershed
Management Agreement was signed, greatly strengthening the region’s cooperative Reservoir Watershed
Management Program. Another major milestone was reached in November 2005, when a new Agreement (intended to replace the 1984 pact) was signed by essentially the same government agencies.
The main purpose of this document is to present the 2005 Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement and its accompanying Action Strategy in a format that will facilitate future reference by program
participants and by the public. Following the 2005 Action Strategy and its supporting chart, narrative
text explains the Reservoir Program’s origins and history, as well as its current mode of operation.
A set of appendices provides important details in order to give the reader more context for understanding the 2005 Agreement and 2005 Action Strategy. These include some of the goals of the 1984 Reservoir Agreement (for purposes of comparison with the 2005 Agreement), an overview of the current key
water quality concerns we have about the reservoirs, and a partial listing of past projects and activities
benefiting the reservoirs which were carried out by the participating committees and agencies.
The Reservoir Watershed Management Program is intended to:
•
monitor water quality trends in the three metropolitan water-supply reservoirs;
•
promote regulatory policies and actions that will protect the reservoirs;
•
address emerging, new technical issues involving the reservoirs; and
•
evaluate and comment on land-use trends, local government policies, utility plans, and proposed
land-use decisions in the watersheds that could affect one or more of the three lakes.
Requirements for Reservoir Program Success.
There are a number of information requirements and policy needs that must be met, if the Reservoir
Program is to attain its general goals of preserving and improving the current water quality of the reservoirs and protecting their water quality in the future. (The specific program goals are set forth in the
2005 Reservoir Agreement, which follows.)
Acting in concert with others, Reservoir Program participants need to:
•
understand the major in-lake processes that determine how each lake “handles” the inputs it receives
of key pollutants;
•
restrict or limit additional point-source inputs of phosphorus in the watersheds, which can contribute
to algal growth in the reservoirs;
•
better understand the generation, transport and delivery of nonpoint source pollutant loads from the
landscape, including in-stream processes and transformations;
•
gather data that are sufficient to allow us to estimate the seasonal and annual inputs of key pollutants
of concern, and to document in-lake trends over time;
•
promote land-use patterns in the watersheds that will help to reduce the inputs of phosphorus, sediment, sodium and chlorides to the tributaries;
•
promote beneficial stewardship of the land in the watersheds by owners and operators. This would
include such things as using agricultural “best management practices”, encouraging enhanced management of private forests, and encouraging modified management of large paved areas;
•
restore and stabilize the most badly degraded sections of stream channels in the tributaries; and
•
ensure that protective measures are in place which will minimize the risks from possible spills of
hazardous substances in the watersheds.
Some of these broad concerns are reflected in several of the “Program Goals” set forth in Article II of
the 2005 Reservoir Agreement, which follows.
Given the physical size of the watersheds; the complexity of all the pollutant sources, pathways, and
transformations as the various substances move towards the reservoirs; and the natural variability of the
water quality data, there is a high degree of uncertainty as Reservoir Program participants attempt to
understand the key pollutant sources and their eventual in-lake effects.
This fact suggests that, to be conservative in our efforts to protect the reservoirs, we need to work on
many fronts at the same time. This assumption is reflected in the range and diversity of issues addressed
by the many commitments which are contained in the 2005 Action Strategy.
Carroll County Commissioner Julia W. Gouge signs the 2005 Reservoir Watershed Agreement
as (left to right) Baltimore County Councilman T. Bryan McIntyre (Chair, Reservoir Watershed
Protection Committee), Carroll County Commissioner Perry L. Jones, Baltimore County Exective James T. Smith Jr., Carroll County Commissioner Dean L. Minnich and Baltimore City
Mayor Martin O’Malley witness the signing.
RESERVOIR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT OF 2005
THIS AGREEMENT is effective as of the _____ day of __________________, 2005
by and among the MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter called “the City”); BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, a body corporate and
politic (hereinafter called “Baltimore County”); CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND, a body
corporate and politic (hereinafter called “Carroll County”); the MARYLAND DEPARTMENT
OF THE ENVIRONMENT, a State agency; the MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, a State agency; the BALTIMORE COUNTY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT and the
CARROLL SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT (hereinafter called the “Districts”); the RESERVOIR WATERSHED PROTECTION COMMITTEE (hereinafter called “the Committee”); and
the BALTIMORE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, an intergovernmental body created by compact among the six major political jurisdictions in the Baltimore region (hereinafter called “the
BMC”);
WHEREAS, the first Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement, executed in 1979 by
and among the City, Baltimore County, and Carroll County, provided that the signatories review
problems and actions affecting the three metropolitan water-supply reservoir watersheds, and
report their findings and recommendations to a regional water quality committee; and
WHEREAS, the parties to the present Agreement (or their predecessors) executed a more
comprehensive Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement in June 1984 (hereinafter called
“the 1984 Agreement”), which was accompanied by a detailed Action Strategy that specified the
policies and actions that would be put into effect with the intent of protecting the three water-supply reservoirs; and
WHEREAS, the parties in 1990 and again in 2003 reaffirmed the commitments made and
the working committees established under the 1984 Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the parties have worked diligently since 1984 to implement the commitments made under the 1984 Action Strategy and the subsequent 1990 Action Strategy; and
WHEREAS, Baltimore City owns and operates the three reservoirs, the watershed areas
of which lie principally in Baltimore County and/or Carroll County, and from the reservoirs provides untreated water to Carroll and Harford Counties, and itself treats and provides water from
the reservoirs for consumption throughout the City and in portions of Anne Arundel, Baltimore
and Howard Counties; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of Maryland has established through the
Code of Public Local Laws of Baltimore City, Subtitle 25, that Baltimore City has a statutory
obligation to protect and otherwise improve the reservoir watersheds for the purpose of securing
a pure and constant supply of drinking water; and
WHEREAS, the Code of Public Local Laws of Baltimore City, Subtitle 25, authorizes
the City and the Counties to enter into agreements as may be necessary for these purposes; and
WHEREAS, Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Carroll County are mandated by
State and local law to operate sediment control, stormwater management, and forest conservation
programs; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of Maryland has established the Department of the Environment and charged it with operating regulatory programs to protect the safety
and adequacy of public drinking water sources, to control point-source discharges of treated
wastewaters, to set statewide standards for the use of septic systems, to administer programs for
sediment control and stormwater management, and to generally serve as Maryland’s lead agency
for complying with federal and State laws that relate to water quality; and
WHEREAS, the Soil Conservation Districts are independent subdivisions of the State
charged with carrying out State policy relating to the conservation of soil, water and related
resources; and the Districts have entered long-term agreements with State agencies and with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture to carry out State and federal programs relating to soil conservation, water quality, and natural resource management and protection; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of Maryland has established the Department of Agriculture and charged it with fostering, protecting, and developing the agricultural
interests of the State; administering agriculturally-related soil conservation, water-quality-protection, and non-point-source pollution control programs; and administering outreach, technical
and financial-assistance programs to achieve State goals; and has authorized the Department of
Agriculture to collaborate with the Soil Conservation Districts to implement these programs; and
WHEREAS, the parties recognize the importance of maintaining good water quality in
the three water-supply reservoirs in order to ensure a continued supply of high-quality potable
water to all the customers of the regional water system at reasonable cost; and
WHEREAS, Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County, Carroll County, Harford County and
Howard County, as purveyors of treated water whose raw water sources are Loch Raven Reservoir, Liberty Reservoir and/or the Susquehanna River, must comply with the requirements of the
federal Safe Drinking Water Act; and WHEREAS, all waters in the reservoir watersheds must comply with the requirements of
the federal Clean Water Act, and with the requirements of related Maryland law and regulations,
except in those portions of the watersheds where Pennsylvania law applies; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire that the benefits of and responsibilities for necessary actions be equitably shared by all parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in consideration of the covenants and
agreements set forth hereinafter, it is mutually covenanted and agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I.
RIGHTS OF SIGNATORIES NOT TO BE ABROGATED
A. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit or abrogate any right or rights delegated to any of the signatory governments or agencies by acts of the General Assembly of the State of Maryland.
B. It is further understood and agreed that the police, legislative and governmental powers of the City, the County Executive and County Council of Baltimore County, the Carroll County Commissioners, and the State of Maryland are in no sense abridged or restricted by this Agreement.
C. Each signatory hereto agrees that participation in the Reservoir Watershed Man
agement Program by any party to this Agreement can be terminated by that party by providing three months’ prior written notice to the other parties.
ARTICLE II.
ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESERVOIR WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A. Organization This Agreement serves as the basis for the continuation of the Reservoir Watershed
Management Program (hereinafter called “the Reservoir Program”), which consists of ongoing, cooperative efforts to improve and protect water quality in Loch
Raven, Prettyboy and Liberty Reservoirs, and in their tributaries. The Reservoir
Program shall be managed through the signatories as described below:
1)
There is established a Reservoir Watershed Protection Committee (herein
after called “the Committee”) and a Reservoir Watershed Technical Group
(hereinafter called “the Reservoir Technical Group”). The Committee
is responsible for providing policy guidance to the Reservoir Technical
Group, consistent with the goals of this Agreement; for reviewing the tech
nical work of the Reservoir Technical Group; and for informing the BMC
Management Committee of the ongoing work of the Reservoir Program.
2) The Committee shall consist of one member (or alternate) each from
Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford and Howard Counties (hereinafter called “the five counties”). Each such member
shall be appointed to the Committee by the chief elected official of his
respective jurisdiction. The Baltimore County Soil Conservation District,
the Carroll Soil Conservation District, the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of the Environment, and the BMC shall designate one person
each to participate fully in the Committee’s meetings.
3)
The Reservoir Technical Group is responsible for day-to-day operation of
the Reservoir Program and for providing technical advice, recommendations, and assistance to the Committee and to the signatories of this
Agreement or their designees. The Reservoir Technical Group shall be a
professionally staffed advisory body, working on behalf of and at the direc
tion of the signatories or their designees.
4)
The Reservoir Technical Group shall consist of one technical staff repre
sentative appointed by each signatory or his designee. Other members
shall include one representative each from Anne Arundel, Harford and
Howard Counties and from the BMC.
5)
The BMC will provide staff support for the purposes of program coordi
nation and administration, using funds provided by Baltimore City and the
aforementioned five counties.
B. Program Goals
1) The broadest and most fundamental goal of the Reservoir Program is to
ensure that the three reservoirs and their respective watersheds will con
tinue to serve as:
(a) Sources of high-quality raw water for the Baltimore metropolitan
water-supply system; and
(b) Areas where the surface waters will continue to support existing
environmental, wildlife-habitat, and aesthetic purposes, as well as
beneficial recreational uses.
2)
It is a goal of the Reservoir Program to ensure that water quality in the
three reservoirs and their tributaries consistently will meet all the appli
cable water quality standards established by federal and state regula
tions.
3) In order to ensure continued satisfactory water quality in the reservoirs
themselves, the Reservoir Program adopts the following specific technical goals:
(a) Maintain existing water quality in the reservoirs and their tributaries, and reduce phosphorus, sediment, bacterial, sodium and chloride loadings to the reservoirs (and their tributaries) to acceptable
levels, in order to:
•
eliminate existing and prevent future water quality impairments, as defined under the federal Clean Water Act, Section
303(d);
•
prevent health and nuisance (taste and odor) conditions from
developing in the treated water; and
•
assist Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford and
Howard Counties (as water providers) to meet the requirements of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
(b) Improve the safety and security of the metropolitan water supply
by reducing the risk of hazardous material contamination of the
resevoir watersheds.
4)
It is a goal of the Reservoir Program to promote patterns of land use
in the three reservoir watersheds and promote landowner stewardship
practices that together will help to meet the aforementioned water quality
standards and technical goals for the reservoirs and their tributaries.
C. Program Operation
1)
Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Carroll County shall work in
cooperation with the Baltimore County Soil Conservation District, the
Carroll Soil Conservation District, the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of the Environment, and the BMC to develop and adopt
balanced source-water-protection and pollution-control policies, and to
implement measures for the water-supply watersheds that are intended to
achieve the Program Goals defined in Section II.B above.
2)
The Committee and the Reservoir Technical Group shall review and
evaluate existing problems and conditions, as well as proposed policies,
programs and actions anywhere in the reservoir watersheds that might
prevent the three reservoirs and their tributaries from attaining the fundamental goal, the water quality standards, and the specific technical
goals defined in Section II.B above.
3) The Reservoir Technical Group shall, from time to time, develop and
publish technical reports relating to reservoir and tributary water quality,
trends in land use and land cover in the watersheds, particular pollutants
of concern, and/or critical land and water management issues in the water
sheds. Drafts of these reports shall be submitted to the Committee and to
the BMC Management Committee for their review prior to public distri
bution.
4) The reviews and evaluations authorized in paragraph II.C.2 may address
existing or proposed reservoir protection policies, master plans and land
use plans, proposed zoning ordinances, zoning reclassification proposals,
local master water and sewer plans, development proposals, proposed dis
charge permits, proposed best management practices, and other policies,
plans or activities which could affect reservoir water quality. The reviews
and evaluations shall be conducted within the framework of this Agree
ment and all applicable State and local laws and programs. The reviews
and evaluations conducted by the Reservoir Technical Group (RTG) are
advisory in nature. It is not intended that the RTG will review individual,
private, single-density residential development projects. Final drafts of
10
review comments by the RTG shall be submitted to the Committee for its
review and approval. 5) In developing recommendations for new or improved local or State policies or initiatives, the Committee and the Reservoir Technical Group shall
focus on issues related to the Program Goals stated above.
6) The Reservoir Technical Group shall meet at least semi-annually with the
Committee and, as stated above, shall keep Committee members informed
of the projects and issues being addressed by the Reservoir Technical
Group.
7) The Reservoir Technical Group and the Committee shall prepare biennial
progress reports that summarize trends and recent changes in reservoir
water quality, emerging water quality issues of concern, and critical trends
in reservoir watershed land use, among other topics.
8) The 2005 Action Strategy for the Reservoir Watersheds (herein called
“the 2005 Action Strategy”) hereby supersedes the 1984 Action Strategy
for the Reservoir Watersheds and the 1990 Action Strategy for the Reservoir Watersheds. The signatories commit themselves to the expeditious
adoption and/or execution of the policies, initiatives, investigations and
projects listed in the 2005 Action Strategy.
9) As needed new initiatives or policies related to the Program Goals are
identified over time, these initiatives or policies may be incorporated by
amendment into the 2005 Action Strategy, with the consent of the Committee and of all signatory parties to this Agreement. An amendment to
this Agreement will not be required to allow the participants of the Reservoir Program to address new technical issues that relate to the Program
Goals.
11
12
13
2005 Action Strategy for the Reservoir Watersheds
Baltimore Reservoir Watershed Management Program - November 2005
1.0 Reservoir and Watershed Assessment
1.1 Monitoring
(1) Baltimore City will continue to conduct comprehensive water quality monitoring in the three reservoirs and in selected major tributaries. Concentrations of key pollutants of concern will be measured,
and estimated annual loadings of sediment and total phosphorus will be calculated. (2) Baltimore County will continue to conduct chemical and biological sampling in the tributaries in its
portions of the three reservoir watersheds, including its Randomized Biological Monitoring Program
to assess general water quality in the three watersheds and its Baseflow Chemical Monitoring Program
to assess dry-weather-flow water quality in the three watersheds. Results will be reported annually in
Baltimore County’s NPDES/MS4 report, submitted to MDE.
(3) The RTG will work cooperatively to evaluate the existing reservoir monitoring programs and to determine the resources needed to develop and maintain an integrated comprehensive monitoring program
which will support the following objectives (a – e). The signatories will commit to carry out this
evaluation within one year of the signing of the 2005 Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement. Based on the results of this evaluation, the RTG will develop a collaborative monitoring strategy for
the reservoirs and their tributaries. This strategy will include the development of funding arrangements for the planned monitoring efforts.
a)The evaluation of annual and long-term water-quality trends in the reservoirs and in their contributing watersheds, with emphasis on those parameters related to the use of the reservoirs as sources of
potable water and to their ability to support desirable types of living resources (including the need
to sample for sodium and for “disinfection byproduct” precursors);
b)The evaluation of both monitoring efforts and available predictive tools (such as computer models)
for their effectiveness in helping to manage reservoir water quality;
c)The investigation and evaluation of new technologies (including “best management practices”) that
might improve the effectiveness of ongoing reservoir watershed management efforts;
d)The evaluation of various types of pollutant sources in relation to current land use and land cover
in the watersheds; and
e)The evaluation of the areal extent and adequacy of the existing monitoring networks, including the
need to sample additional areas in Carroll County or in selected watersheds.
1.2 Reservoir Modeling and Predictive Analysis
(1) The Department of the Environment (MDE) and its contractors, working in consultation with the
members of the Reservoir Technical Group (RTG), will develop in-lake models of Prettyboy and Loch
Raven reservoirs. This will be in support of MDE’s efforts to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) for nutrients and sediments entering Loch Raven and for nutrients entering Prettyboy. These
numbers in turn will support the establishment of annual loading goals for each reservoir.
14
(2) MDE, working with the RTG, will develop pollutant loading targets for Liberty Reservoir (expressed
in maximum pounds per year), using the TMDL process or a suitable alternative method. MDE will
consider funding this work through the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund.
1.3 Watershed Studies and Modeling
(1) MDE will link its hydrologic and water quality model of the Prettyboy and Loch Raven watersheds
(completed in 2002) with the in-lake models described in Section 1.2 to develop TMDLs (see above)
for the two reservoirs and to allocate load-reduction goals among the various land uses in the respective watersheds.
(2) MDE will give high priority to the reservoir watersheds on the new statewide Priority List for Watershed Water Availability Studies. These studies will determine the availability of ground water and
surface water sources to meet future water demands.
(3) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will work with the RTG to conduct GIS-based landscape assessments
of the reservoir watersheds and will develop appropriate “landscape indicators” for use in summarizing watershed conditions (for example, the percent of sub-watershed streams which have forested
buffers.) The counties and the RTG will use the data for the various “landscape indicators” to track
progress over time towards reservoir watershed management objectives. 2.0 Point Source Management
(1) Hampstead WWTP will continue to meet the requirements of its NPDES discharge permit (issued by
MDE in 1997), which requires an effluent phosphorus concentration below 0.3 mg/l. Since its latest
upgrade, the WWTP has consistently met this requirement.
(2) Policy for new municipal discharges in the watersheds: The Department of the Environment (MDE),
through its NPDES permit program, will discourage new discharges exceeding 1,000 gpd, except as
needed to correct failing septic systems. In those cases, MDE will encourage land treatment of the
plant effluent.
(3) MDE, through its NPDES permit program, will discourage discharges from package sewage treatment plants intended to serve new residential communities and proposed to discharge in the reservoir
watersheds.
(4) Policy for existing industrial discharges in the watersheds: MDE, through its NPDES permit program, will set a phosphorus limit of 0.3 mg/l effluent concentration when each permit comes up for
renewal, if phosphorus is present at any significant level in the waste stream.
(5) Policy for new industrial discharges in the watersheds: MDE, through its NPDES permit program,
will discourage significant phosphorus discharges to the reservoir watersheds.
(6) When a phosphorus loading goal has been established through the TMDL process (see item 1.2.1)
for each reservoir, MDE, through its NPDES permit program, will not permit an increase in the total
phosphorus load delivered to the reservoirs.
3.0 Nonpoint Source Management, Land Use and Resource Protection
3.1 Agricultural Practices
(1) The Baltimore County Soil Conservation District (SCD) and the Carroll SCD will continue to encourage farm owners/operators in the three reservoir watersheds to utilize their various technical and
financial assistance programs for soil conservation practices and other measures to protect local water
15
quality. This includes both the federal programs (from NRCS and FSA) and the state assistance programs which are delivered in cooperation with the two SCDs (see items below). (2) The Baltimore County SCD and the Carroll SCD (also referred to as “the two SCDs”) will give targeted attention to farms operated in the reservoir watersheds, and will adopt the long-term goal of
preparing a “soil conservation and water quality plan” (SCWQ plan) for every farm in the reservoir
watersheds.
(3) The two SCDs will continue their efforts to follow up on the implementation by farmers in the watersheds of their existing SCWQ plans (i.e., plan maintenance) and to update all SCWQ plans that are
10 or more years old.
(4) The two SCDs will continue to assist farmers in meeting the requirements of federal (USDA) laws and
regulations, which require up-to-date SCWQ plans for all farms that apply for benefits under a variety
of federal USDA programs.
(5) The two SCDs will continue to assist farmers in meeting the requirements of Maryland laws and
regulations, including:
a)Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Program requirements that participants develop and implement a SCWQ plan. The same plan requirements apply for the local land preservation programs
and for Rural Legacy designation;
b)Maryland water-quality and sediment-control requirements, which utilize SCWQ plans to address
pollution concerns;
c)Maryland state discharge permits for confined animal feeding operations, which require SCWQ
plan components as part of a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan for such operations; and
d)The Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act, which requires farmers to implement animal waste
management measures as part of a complete nutrient management plan.
(6) The two SCDs will encourage farm owners and operators in the reservoir watersheds to use the Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share program (MACS) to help offset the costs of best management practice
(BMP) implementation.
(7) The two SCDs will provide information and assistance to farm owners and operators in the watersheds
to help them utilize the Low-Interest Loan Agricultural Conservation Program to cover the cost of
implementing conservation measures.
(8) The two SCDs will promote and support farmer participation in various federal conservation programs,
including EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentive Program), CRP (Conservation Reserve Program),
CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program), WHIP (Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program),
AMA (Agricultural Management Assistance) and other new programs as they become available. These programs typically provide funding or other incentives for the application of eligible BMPs on
farms or for the removal of highly erodible areas from crop production.
(9) The two SCDs will encourage and assist agricultural producers to comply with the requirements of
their “nutrient management plans”, including the implementation of those soil-conservation, waterquality, and animal-waste-management BMPs which support the appropriate management of nutrient
inputs to croplands. The Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 requires all farms that make $2500 or more
annually (or have 8 or more animal units) to have and implement a nutrient management plan. Begin16
ning July 2005, all such plans must address nitrogen and phosphorus as a limiting nutrient, in accordance with the regulatory guidelines.
(10) In support of the Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998, as well as the Reservoir Watershed Management Program, the Department of Agriculture (MDA) will:
a)provide comprehensive educational programs developed for nutrient consultants, as well as operation-specific training and certification for farmers, nutrient applicators, and fertilizer users in urban/
suburban areas;
b)offer related assistance to farmers through the MACS cost-share program;
c)support technical assistance provided through the SCDs and county Extension offices;
d)enforce the Act and its regulations, including taking action against noncompliant farms;
e)compile information and generate reports at the county and state levels on operator/farmer compliance with nutrient management plan requirements; and
f)with the development of an advanced database system, may generate nutrient plan implementation
reports at both the county and watershed levels.
(11) The signatories will work together to evaluate the pollution potential from horse operations located
in the reservoir watersheds. The two SCDs will expand outreach and assistance to those operations.
(12) Baltimore County DEPRM and the Baltimore County SCD will continue to provide technical review
of proposed farm ponds in the county.
(13) MDA and the two SCDs will target assistance to farmers with on-site problems having the potential
to cause water pollution. Where polluting conditions are suspected to exist on a farm, the particular
SCD will work with MDA and with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to follow
the enforcement protocol developed pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding among MDA,
MDE, and the State Soil Conservation Committee.
(14) MDE will continue to inspect each site (often a farm) proposed for sewage biosolids application, and
may issue a permit which specifies the allowed application rate, taking the sludge nutrient content into
consideration. An MDE inspector also visits the site/farm at the time the biosolids are being applied,
to verify that permit conditions are being met.
(15) Baltimore City, the Carroll SCD and MDA will continue their cooperative agreement, under which
the City partially funds an MDA position at the SCD to work with farmers in the reservoir watersheds,
to help them implement agricultural BMPs. As a result of this and other funding, the Carroll SCD
currently has three full-time staff who work in the reservoir watersheds.
a)The signatories agree that an effort will be made to be able to relate this “targeted” staff work to
the agricultural BMPs installed and to the estimated pounds of phosphorus saved per year in the
respective watersheds.
(16) The signatories agree to investigate the possibility of increased staffing support for the Baltimore
County SCD, so that more outreach and assistance effort can be focused on farms in the reservoir
watersheds in the county. (17) The two SCDs, working with MDA staff and with the Reservoir Technical Group, will develop “indicators” of agricultural-pollution-reduction program effectiveness in the watersheds. These indicators
should include measures of BMPs actually applied, which can be related directly to the need to reduce
phosphorus and sediment inputs to the reservoirs.
17
3.2 Sediment Control and Stormwater Infrastructure
(1) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to implement state-mandated stormwater management
regulations for all new development (including residential, commercial and institutional.) The current county regulations, amended to adhere to MDE’s year 2000 regulations and supporting Design
Manual, provide for enhanced water quality protection and onsite groundwater recharge, as compared
to the older local regulations. (The counties and the State Highway Administration are also subject to
the state law, in connection with all new or reconstructed road projects.)
a)In 2004, Carroll County adopted new regulations which require the use of enhanced stormwater
management practices for all new commercial or industrial development in the county’s designated
“surface watershed/water resource management areas” (which, under the regulations, include the
reservoir watersheds.)
(2) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to operate their respective programs for the periodic
inspection of all existing stormwater management facilities in their jurisdictions. The two counties’
programs meet state/federal requirements for stormwater facility approval, inspection and enforcement, as set forth in their federal/state NPDES/MS4 (municipal stormwater) permits, which are issued
in Maryland by MDE.
(3) In accordance with the conditions of their respective NPDES/MS4 permits, Baltimore and Carroll
Counties will continue to carry out long-term studies of a few specified stormwater BMPs. Each
county will estimate the annual nutrient load reductions (on a watershed basis) resulting from all
completed capital projects (stormwater retrofits and conversions; stream restorations.) For projects
located in the reservoir watersheds, the estimated reductions will be counted against the established
nutrient-load-reduction goals.
(4) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue their respective maintenance programs for all publiclyowned stormwater management facilities.
(5) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will review and revise, as necessary, their respective design standards
for roads and parking areas, in order to reduce the extent of impervious surfaces. (6) The Reservoir Technical Group will investigate the feasibility of having local and state agencies adopt
an alternative de-icing policy in the reservoir watersheds.
(7) Baltimore and Carroll Counties, working in cooperation with their respective SCDs, will continue to
operate sediment and erosion control programs county-wide, in order to limit sediment runoff from all
new private construction and redevelopment sites. (The SCDs and the county agencies cooperate on
sediment-control plan review and approval, while the county agencies do the inspection and enforcement.) At the present time, Carroll County enforces the sediment and erosion control regulations in
the towns of Hampstead, Manchester and Westminster.
(8) The state (MDE) will continue to enforce sediment and erosion control on state agency construction
projects; the State Highway Administration provides sediment control inspection on its own construction projects; and the two counties will continue to enforce sediment and erosion control on local
government projects, using the same standards as those applied to private construction projects.
(9) The state (MDE) will continue to carry out triennial reviews of the respective local sediment/erosion
control programs and stormwater management programs.
3.3 Sewerage System Infrastructure
(1) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to operate sewage pumping stations located in the
Liberty and Loch Raven watersheds in compliance with current state standards for backup systems,
18
including secondary power sources and/or reserve storage capacity, in addition to backup pumps. This greatly reduces the chances of sewage overflows from the public collection systems which are
adjacent to the two reservoirs.
(2) Baltimore County will implement new capital and operating/maintenance programs for its countywide sewerage system, in compliance with the requirements of the recent Consent Decree (a settlement with state and federal agencies to be filed in federal court) addressing overflows from its sanitary
sewers. (3) Carroll County has surveyed both the Hampstead and Freedom sewage collection systems and soon
will implement a computer-based inspection/maintenance system for these service areas. Implementation will be completed for the Freedom system in the coming year, with implementation scheduled
for Hampstead in the following year. Westminster runs a systematic and thorough sewer inspection
program, with facility upgrades where needed. Manchester also performs regular inspections.
(4) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to maintain their respective Master Water and Sewerage
Plans (as required under state law) so as to reinforce the reservoir- protection goals and policies which
are contained in their master land-use plans. (See also section 3.6.)
3.4 Septic Systems
(1) The signatories will seek funding through the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund to carry out a study
regarding the extent to which residential septic systems in the reservoir watersheds contribute nutrients, sodium, and pathogens to the tributary streams. (2) Financial assistance for income-eligible residents for the repair of failing septic systems will continue
to be provided by Baltimore County through its Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan and Emergency
Repair Program.
(3) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will promote the proper maintenance of septic systems by homeowners through education conducted via the development-approval process. The Carroll County Health
Department (a state agency) will continue to distribute brochures to the public on proper septic system
operation.
(4) The Baltimore County Soil Conservation District will continue to distribute its educational booklet
for rural homeowners, which includes information on maintenance of septic systems. Carroll County
will consider the publication of a similar booklet.
(5) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to license septic system scavengers and will provide facilities for septage disposal into public sewer systems. (Septage can be put into the Baltimore County
sewer system at two points in the reservoir watershed areas. In Carroll County, septage is accepted at
the site of the Westminster WWTP, which is located outside the reservoir watersheds.)
(6) The Baltimore County DEPRM and the Carroll County Health Department will continue to administer
septic system regulations and design standards which are intended to ensure reliable service and to
prevent septic system failures.
(7) The Baltimore County DEPRM and the Carroll County Health Department will conduct sanitary surveys, as needed, to identify areas of failing septic systems and to evaluate the alternatives available
for making corrections.
(8) The Department of the Environment (MDE) will develop a protocol to evaluate and verify the stated
performance of “best available technology” being used to remediate conventional on-site disposal
systems which have experienced problems.
19
(9) MDE will evaluate the legal/financial options for providing long-term maintenance of existing innovative on-site disposal systems.
3.5 Urban Nutrient Management
(1) The Department of Agriculture (MDA) will continue to operate a statewide training and certification
program for commercial lawn care companies, which addresses the proper use of lawn fertilizers and
pesticides. Baltimore County will continue to offer on a periodic basis fertilizer/pesticide training to
institutional grounds managers (for facilities such as business parks, hospitals and schools.)
•
Several agencies, including MDA, Extension, and Baltimore County DEPRM, have ongoing programs to educate homeowners about “environment-friendly” lawn management practices, includ
ing reduced fertilizer use.
(2) Baltimore County will continue to conduct programs involving street-sweeping, stormdrain-inlet
cleaning, and storm pipe cleaning in its urbanized areas, in support of urban nonpoint source control
objectives (by reducing pollutant inputs.)
(3) Carroll County will continue to regularly inspect inlets and storm sewers in commercial and industrial
areas. (4) Baltimore County and Baltimore City will conduct a cooperative study of the water-quality benefits
of regular street-sweeping and stormdrain-inlet cleaning.
(5) The two counties and Baltimore City will continue to evaluate a variety of urban best management
practices under the technical work required by their NPDES/MS4 (municipal stormwater) permits,
which are issued by MDE.
3.6 Land-Use Planning and Zoning (1) Baltimore County will continue to apply Resource Conservation (RC) zoning in the reservoir watersheds, with allowed residential densities and performance standards that are protective of water
quality.
(2) Baltimore County will maintain insofar as possible the current limits of extension of the Urban-Rural
Demarcation Line (URDL) in the Loch Raven and Liberty watersheds. (The Prettyboy watershed lies
well outside of the URDL line.) The URDL essentially represents Baltimore County’s urban growth
boundary.
(3) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will maintain the current extent of conservation and agricultural zoning in the reservoir watersheds, insofar as possible.
(4) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will protect the reservoir watersheds by limiting insofar as possible
additional urban development zoning within the reservoir watersheds.
(5) The Baltimore County and Carroll County master land-use plans will continue to support the goals
of the Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement and the commitments made in this Action Strategy.
(6) The signatories will work with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources to include the reservoir
watersheds in the Forest Legacy Program and to seek funding for protection of forested areas from the
Coastal Estuarine and Land Preservation Program.
3.7 Resource Protection and Restoration; Development Guidelines
(1) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to implement the sensitive-area-protection provision
of their development regulations for non-tidal wetlands, steep slopes, floodplains and water courses,
20
forests, water bodies, and natural land areas. These regulations are intended to protect important ecosystem functions and tributary stream quality.
(2) Baltimore County will work to establish a comprehensive forest resource management program in the
watersheds, with the goal of ensuring the ecological and economic sustainability of forest resources as
a means to help stabilize watershed hydrology and to help protect water quality. This program should
seek to:
a)reduce forest loss and fragmentation;
b)prioritize establishment and expansion of forested buffers along streams;
c)educate landowners about forest sustainability and sustainable forest management practices, and
provide incentives for private forest stewardship;
d)conduct forest assessments and develop forest management plans for all major public forest lands;
e)conduct forest-health monitoring to identify and address forest diseases and pests;
f)develop and use “indicators of forest sustainability” to measure progress and to guide program
implementation; and
g)in all of the above, develop partnerships with federal, state and local agencies and organizations.
(3) The signatories will encourage the Department of Natural Resources to manage its land holdings in
the reservoir watersheds so as to benefit reservoir protection.
(4) Baltimore City will work with Baltimore and Carroll Counties to evaluate the adequacy of land-acquisition and development-rights easement programs (e.g., Rural Legacy, etc.) for protecting critical
or sensitive areas in the reservoir watersheds which are vulnerable to development. Following this
evaluation, the City and the two counties will develop a strategy for supplementing current preservation and/or acquisition efforts in the reservoir watersheds.
(5) Baltimore City and Baltimore County will work cooperatively with the Department of Natural Resources to develop a comprehensive deer management program for the reservoir watershed areas, with
an initial focus on the Loch Raven watershed. Within one year of the signing of the 2005 Reservoir
Agreement, the City and the County will develop a preliminary set of recommendations for deer management, and will present these recommendations to the BMC Management Committee. Baltimore
City will continue the existing programs in its Liberty and Prettyboy watershed properties.
(6) Baltimore County will continue to implement its capital improvement program for stream restoration and for upgrading of existing stormwater best management practices to stabilize selected stream
channels and to improve water quality in the reservoir watersheds. The objectives are to restore more
natural conditions to the streams and to reduce the potential for further erosion and sediment delivery
to the reservoirs.
(7) Carroll County will continue its current multi-year process of systematically assessing the condition
and integrity of various tributary streams in the reservoir watersheds. Portions of these streams will be
selected on a priority basis for restoration work, to be supported with county capital funds. This effort
is one condition of the County’s NPDES/MS4 (municipal stormwater) permit from MDE.
(8) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will evaluate and implement, where desirable, the site-design recommendations of the Builders for the Bay Roundtable, in order to enhance resource protection in the
reservoir watersheds.
21
(9) Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to apply their regulations for the design, construction
and operation of golf courses. These guidelines address water-quality and habitat-protection issues,
including appropriate nutrient application and pesticide management, as well as the preferred designs
for wetlands crossings and guidance on the removal of vegetation.
4.0 Management of Municipal Watershed Property
(1) Baltimore City will continue its efforts to maintain diverse and vigorously-growing forest communities on the City-owned watershed properties surrounding the three reservoirs.
(2) When and where appropriate, Baltimore City will implement the recommendations of the Comprehensive Forest Conservation Plan for Long-term Watershed Protection on the City of Baltimore’s
Reservoirs, which was prepared by the state DNR Forest Service in 2003. These recommendations
are aimed at improving the health, diversity and sustainability of the forests surrounding the lakes.
a)Within one year of the signing of the 2005 Reservoir Agreement, the City will evaluate the DNR
report and develop a list of recommended actions for implementation.
(3) New or expanded recreational or commercial facilities should not be constructed in the City-owned
watersheds. Existing facilities should be managed so as to not represent a significant threat to the
health of the City-owned forests, nor to the water quality of the reservoirs.
(4) Baltimore City will continue to take action to discourage or prevent unauthorized recreational uses
of the City-owned watersheds which present a significant threat to public safety, forest health, and/or
reservoir water quality.
(5) Baltimore City DPW officials will continue to meet periodically with the “Friends of the Watersheds”
advisory group. This group serves as a forum for nearby community associations, watershed advocates, and recreational users’ groups to exchange information and views with City managers and to
discuss problems and opportunities involving the reservoirs and the City-owned watersheds.
5.0 Toxics, Pathogens, Potential Spills, and Disinfectant Byproduct Precursors
(1) The Department of the Environment (MDE), working in cooperation with the Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Board, will enforce the provision in State law which prohibits the siting of any hazardous
waste facility that would “adversely affect” a public water supply, such as the reservoirs.
(2) The program participants will continue to stay abreast of new developments and new issues relating
to potential toxics problems in the reservoirs.
•
The signatories do not have evidence of a toxics problem in the reservoirs at this time (except for
mercury, addressed below.) Baltimore City labs routinely screen for some specific toxic compounds in the raw water, and they find no violations of EPA standards.
(3) MDE will continue to support fish-consumption “advisories” for fish taken from the three reservoirs,
based on the potential for bioaccumulation of mercury present in the water column. Such advisories
have been issued for most Maryland lakes. The source of the mercury is atmospheric, with much of
it coming here from out of state.
(4) Baltimore City will analyze the raw (untreated) reservoir water for a range of pathogens, in compliance
with new federal EPA requirements (the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.)
(5) Baltimore City will track sodium and chloride levels in both the raw water and the finished water, in
view of the upwards trends seen in these substances over the past thirty years. (Previously, the City
has not been analyzing the raw water for sodium.) Using the information gained, Reservoir Program
22
participants, working through the RTG, should establish a goal for sodium concentration in the lakes.
This goal should relate to the current EPA advisories for water consumed by individuals who are on
a sodium-restricted diet.
(6) Baltimore City, in cooperation with other Reservoir Program signatories, will investigate the principal sources of the “precursors” (organic substances present in the raw water) of the disinfection
byproducts (DBPs) which have been detected at various points in the metropolitan water system. The
research would include a study of the relationship between sub-watershed land cover, total organic
carbon/dissolved carbon in the tributaries and the reservoirs, and DBP precursors in the raw water.
(7) Reservoir Program signatories, working with other agencies as appropriate, will study the routine
transport of hazardous materials over the bridges crossing the reservoirs and their major tributaries,
and will make recommendations on the prevention of and response to accidental spills on or near
those bridges. The potential hazards of ruptured pipelines also will be evaluated. (8) Reservoir Program signatories will review and comment on the existing arrangements and established
procedures for notification of all appropriate agencies in the event of a significant spill or discharge of
a hazardous substance in any of the reservoir watersheds. 6.0 Reservoir Watershed Protection Program: Coordination and Administration
(1) The six major jurisdictions in the Baltimore region will continue to fund the operation and coordination of the Reservoir Watershed Protection Program by making annual payments to the Baltimore
Metropolitan Council, with each jurisdiction’s contribution based in part on the volume of Baltimore
City or reservoir water consumed by that jurisdiction in the previous fiscal year.
(2) Program participants, working through the Reservoir Technical Group, will prepare a biennial report
on progress made in implementing the Action Strategy for the Reservoir Watersheds, including the
quantification of cumulative accomplishments, such as the estimated reduction of the annual pollutant
loads to each reservoir.
(3) Program participants will encourage greater participation by the municipalities (Westminster, Hampstead and Manchester) in the Reservoir Watershed Management Program. 7.0 Public Awareness
(1) Reservoir Program participants, working through the Reservoir Technical Group, will continue to
identify and pursue opportunities for public education programs relating to reservoir protection, including outreach to schools.
(2) The Reservoir Watershed Protection Program will continue over the years to distribute its progress
reports and technical reports to public agencies and to interested citizens’ groups.
(3) Reservoir Program participants will use the Baltimore Metropolitan Council website to disseminate
current information and to promote public awareness about the Reservoir Program and its activities
and accomplishments.
(4) Reservoir Program signatories will continue to assist and encourage the efforts of local citizens’ organizations which are concerned about watershed management issues and reservoir protection.
23
24
Commitment Number – Brief Description (October 12, 2005)
Continue
Policy/Program
w/Current
Resources
Existing
Policy/Program
w/Enhancement
New or
Significantly
Expanded
Commitment
Reservoir and Watershed Assessment (Section 1.0)
√
1.1.1
Baltimore City water quality monitoring
1.1.2
Baltimore County tributary monitoring – chemical and biological
1.1.3
Technical evaluation of existing monitoring programs & expansion/enhancement as needed
1.2.1
Develop in-lake models and TMDLs for Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs
√ MDE
1.2.2
Develop annual pollutant-loading targets for Liberty Reservoir
√ MDE, RTG
1.3.1
Connect existing model of Prettyboy and Loch Raven watersheds with in-lake models
√ MDE
1.3.2
Give high priority to the three reservoir watersheds on State’s list for watershed water
availability studies
Adopt a set of “landscape indicators” for summarizing conditions; start to apply them
√ MDE
1.3.3
City
√ Baltimore County
√ RTG
New Cost
√ Balto. Co.
Point Sources (Section 2.0)
2.0.1
Hampstead WWTP will continue to comply with permit and remove P to 0.3 mg/l
√ Carroll County
2.0.2
MDE policy on new municipal wastewater discharges – will discourage new ones
√ MDE
2.0.3
MDE policy on package treatment plants proposed to serve new residential developments
2.0.4
MDE policy on existing industrial wastewater discharges – P removal, if present
2.0.5
MDE policy on new industrial discharges – will discourage significant P discharges
√ MDE
2.0.5
MDE policy on point sources – once P loading goals are set, establish a “cap” on P loads
√ MDE
25
√ MDE
√ MDE
√ Carroll Co.
Continue
Policy/Program
w/Current
Resources
Existing
Policy/Program
w/Enhancement
New or
Significantly
Expanded
Commitment
Agricultural Nonpoint Sources (Section 3.1)
3.1 Items (1)-(9) Multiple key aspects of SCD work to help farmers apply best management practices
√ Two SCDs
3.1.10
Responsibilities of MDA in implementation of Maryland Nutrient Management Law
√ MDA
3.1.11
Evaluation of the water pollution potential from horse operations; expand outreach
3.1.12
Technical review of proposed new farm ponds in Baltimore County
3.1.13
Assistance to farms with on-site (potentially) polluting conditions
3.1.14
MDE program to regulate sewage sludge (biosolids) application
3.1.15
Baltimore City/MDA/Carroll SCD funding agreement to support technical position at SCD
3.1.16
Investigate the possibility of increasing staffing at the Baltimore County SCD
3.1.17
Develop, adopt and implement “agricultural pollution reduction indicators”
√ Balto. Co. SCD &
DEPRM
√ Two SCDs, MDA,
MDE
√ MDE
√ City, MDA,
Carroll SCD
√ SCDs, RTG,
others
√ Tying SCD
work to load reductions
√ Two SCDs,
RTG, MDA
Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Infrastructure (Section 3.2)
3.2.1
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will apply state-mandated stormwater management regulations/
designs
Carroll County
3.2.2
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to inspect all existing stormwater management
facilities
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to study/measure selected stormwater
management facilities
Carroll County
Carroll County
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue maintenance programs for public stormwater
management facilities
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will review and possibly revise their design standards for roads
and parking areas
Carroll County
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
26
Count nutrient
load redns. for
facilities in the
watersheds
√ Baltimore Co.
Carroll Co.
√ City, MDA,
others
New Cost
Continue
Policy/Program
w/Current Resources
Existing
Policy/Program
w/Enhancement
New or
Significantly
Expanded
Commitment
Sediment Control and Stormwater Management Infrastructure (Section 3.2) (Cont.)
3.2.6
3.2.7
3.2.8
3.2.9
RTG will investigate the feasibility of having local/state agencies adopt modified deicing
policies
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to operate sediment and erosion control
programs
√ Two counties
Two SCDs
MDE to enforce sed/EC on State construction sites; SHA does inspection on own projects;
counties do the same on local government projects
MDE will continue to perform triennial reviews of the local S/EC and stormwater
management programs
√ MDE, SHA, Two
counties
√ MDE, Two
counties
√ RTG, counties,
SHA
Sewerage System Infrastructure (Section 3.3)
3.3.1
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to operate sewage pumping stations which meet
MDE requirements for backup systems
3.3.2
Baltimore County will implement new capital projects and a new inspection and maintenance
program for all county sanitary sewers
3.3.3
Carroll County collection system inspection/maintenance for existing sanitary sewers
3.3.4
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will maintain Master Water and Sewerage Plans to reinforce
the reservoir protection policies in local land use plans
Carroll County
Manchester
Westminster
√ Westminster
Manchester
Carroll County
√ Balto. Co.
New cost
√ Carroll County
Septic Systems (Section 3.4)
3.4.1
Signatories will investigate the extent to which residential septic systems contribute pollutants
to reservoir tributaries
3.4.2
Baltimore County will continue to offer $ aid to low-income residents to repair failing septics
3.4.3
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will promote proper septic-system maintenance by homeowners
3.4.4
Baltimore County SCD will continue to distribute resource booklet to rural homeowners
(includes septic system issues)
√ Baltimore County,
Carroll County
Health Department
SCD
27
Two counties,
MDE, City, RTG,
Possible new cost
Continue
Policy/Program
w/Current Resources
Existing
Policy/Program
w/Enhancement
New or
Significantly
Expanded
Commitment
Septic Systems (Section 3.4) (Cont.)
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.4.7
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to license septic scavengers and provide
disposal facilities for septage
Baltimore County DEPRM and Carroll County Health Department will continue to administer
septic system regulations
Baltimore County DEPRM and Carroll County Health Department will conduct sanitary
surveys as needed
Carroll County
Carroll County
Health Department
Carroll County
Health Department
3.4.8
MDE will develop a protocol to evaluate the performance claims by manufacturers of “best
available technology” being used to remediate septic systems which have failed
3.4.9
MDE will evaluate the legal/financial options for providing long-term maintenance of innovative on-site disposal systems
Urban Nutrient Management (Section 3.5)
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
Proper fertilizer/pesticide use on lawns – MDA will train/certify professional lawn care
companies; several agencies offer information to homeowners; Baltimore County offers
training to institutional property managers
Baltimore County will continue its programs for street-sweeping, inlet cleaning, stormdrain
cleaning
Carroll County inspects drains and inlets in commercial areas.
Baltimore County and Baltimore City will investigate the water quality benefits of regular
street-sweeping
Two counties and Baltimore City will continue to study various urban BMPs, as required by
their MS4 permits from MDE
√ MDE
√ MDA
Extension
Baltimore County
DPW
√ Carroll County
√ Baltimore City
Baltimore County
Carroll County
Land Use Planning and Zoning (Section 3.6)
3.6.1
Baltimore County will continue to apply its Resource Conservation zoning in the watersheds
3.6.2
Baltimore County will maintain the current limits of extension of its URDL line
3.6.3
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will maintain the current extent of conservation and agricultural zoning in the reservoir watersheds, insofar as possible
Carroll County
28
√ MDE
√ Baltimore City
Baltimore Co.
New cost?
Continue
Policy/Program
w/Current Resources
Existing
Policy/Program
w/Enhancement
New or
Significantly
Expanded
Commitment
Land Use Planning and Zoning (Section 3.6) (Cont.)
3.6.4
3.6.5
3.6.6
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will limit, insofar as possible, additional urban zoning in the
reservoir watersheds
Baltimore and Carroll Counties’ master land use plans will support the goals of the Reservoir
Management Agreement and the commitments in this Action Strategy
Signatories will work with MD DNR to include the reservoir watersheds in the Forest Legacy
Program and to seek funding for protection of forested areas.
Carroll County
Carroll County
√ Baltimore City
Baltimore Co.
Carroll County
DNR
Resource Protection and Restoration; Development Guidelines (Section 3.7)
3.7.1
3.7.2
3.7.3
3.7.4
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to implement the sensitive area protections contained in their development regulations
Baltimore County will establish a comprehensive forest resource management program in the
watersheds
Signatories will encourage MD DNR to manage its land holdings in the watersheds so as to
benefit reservoir protection.
City to work with the two counties to evaluate the adequacy of current land preservation
programs for protecting vulnerable areas in the reservoir watersheds
3.7.5
Baltimore City and County to work with MD DNR to develop a comprehensive deer
management program for the reservoir watershed areas.
3.7.6
Baltimore County will continue to operate its capital improvement program for stream
restoration and stormwater management retrofits
Carroll County will continue its process for systematically assessing the condition of tributary streams in the reservoir watersheds
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will evaluate and implement where desirable the recommendations of the Builders for the Bay Roundtable.
Baltimore and Carroll Counties will continue to apply their regulations for design,
construction and operation of golf courses
3.7.7
3.7.8
3.7.9
29
Carroll County
√ Counties,
DNR
√ City
Counties
√ City, Baltimore
County, DNR,
SCDs?
√ Carroll County
Carroll County
√ Baltimore Co.
Carroll County
√ Baltimore Co.
New Costs
√ Possible new
costs for easements
Possible new
costs
Continue
Policy/Program
w/Current Resources
Existing
Policy/Program
w/Enhancement
New or
Significantly
Expanded
Commitment
Management of Municipal Watershed Property (Section 4.0)
4.0.1
Baltimore City will continue its efforts to maintain diverse/vigorous forest communities
4.0.2
Baltimore City will evaluate the DNR report on management of City-owned forest and
develop a list of recommended actions for implementation
New or expanded recreational or commercial facilities should not be allowed on City
watersheds.
Baltimore City will continue to discourage/prevent unauthorized use of City watersheds
4.0.3
4.0.4
√ Baltimore City
Possible new
costs
√ Baltimore City
√ Baltimore City
Baltimore City DPW will continue to meet periodically with “Friends of the Watersheds”
advisory group
Toxics, Pathogens, Potential Spills, Disinfectant Byproduct Precursors (Section 5.0)
√ Baltimore City
5.0.1
√ MDE
4.0.5
√ Baltimore City
5.0.3
MDE (together with Hazardous Waste Siting Board) will prohibit the siting of any facility that
would adversely impact a reservoir
Program participants will continue to keep abreast of new toxics issues relating to public
water supplies
MDE will continue to support fish consumption advisories for fish taken from the reservoirs
5.0.4
Baltimore City will analyze untreated reservoir water for an expanded range of pathogens
√ Baltimore City
√ Additional cost
5.0.5
Baltimore City will track sodium and chloride levels in both raw and treated water. Program
participants should establish a goal for sodium concentration in the reservoirs
Baltimore City will investigate the principal sources of DBP precursors present in the raw
water
Signatories will study transport of hazardous materials over bridges in the watersheds and
make recommendations on the prevention of and response to spills.
√ Baltimore City
√ MDE, RTG
5.0.2
5.0.6
5.0.7
5.0.8
30
Program participants will review the current arrangements and procedures for notification of
all appropriate agencies in the event of a significant spill or discharge of a hazardous substance
in any of the watersheds.
√ MDE, RTG,
Baltimore City
√ MDE, Baltimore
City
√ Balto. City,
RTG, New Cost
√ RTG
Possible new
cost
√ RTG and
others,
Possible new
cost
Continue
Policy/Program
w/Current Resources
Existing
Policy/Program
w/Enhancement
New or
Significantly
Expanded
Commitment
Reservoir Watershed Protection Program: Coordination and Administration (Section 6.0)
The six major jurisdictions in the Baltimore Region will continue to fund the Reservoir
Program at BMC
6.0.2
Program participants will prepare a biennial progress report on Action Strategy
implementation
6.0.3
Program participants will encourage greater participation by the municipalities (Westminster,
Hampstead and Manchester) in the Reservoir Program.
Public Awareness (Section 7.0)
√ Six jurisdictions
7.0.1
Program participants will continue to pursue opportunities for public education
√ RTG
7.0.2
The Reservoir Watershed Program will continue to distribute its reports to agencies and to
interested citizens’ groups.
Program participants will use the BMC website to promote public awareness of the Reservoir
Watershed Program
Signatories will continue to assist and encourage local citizens’ groups concerned
about watershed management
√ RTG, WPC
6.0.1
7.0.3
7.0.4
31
√ RTG, WPC
√ RTG, WPC,
Carroll County
√ RTG, BMC
√ RTG, City, counties,
SCDs
32
Background (physical setting) and the history of the Reservoir Program
Many of the urbanized portions of the Baltimore metropolitan area draw their water supply from the three
reservoirs owned and managed by Baltimore City: Loch Raven and Prettyboy reservoirs (in the Gunpowder watershed) and Liberty (in the upper Patapsco watershed). Separate pipeline and pumping facilities
have existed since 1966 to use the Susquehanna River above Conowingo Dam as a backup source, but
because of the extra operating costs involved and the somewhat poorer quality of the raw water, the City
uses this source only during drought periods, such as the one that occurred in 2001-2002.
This system of reservoirs (and the City’s treatment plants at Montebello and Ashburton) provides highquality drinking water to some 1.8 million people living in many parts of our region. Treated water is
provided to all of Baltimore City, all of the urbanized portions of Baltimore County, almost all of the
urbanized areas of Howard County, and the northern end of Anne Arundel County. In addition, Harford
County treats water taken from Loch Raven Reservoir to meet about 60 percent of its public water needs,
and Carroll County treats water withdrawn from Liberty Reservoir to serve residents in the EldersburgFreedom area. The reservoirs and the associated treatment works are truly a regional asset. They are essential to the region’s long-term future.
The watersheds which drain to the three reservoirs lie primarily in Baltimore County and Carroll County. (Refer to the map of the watersheds and the accompanying table of land areas by county.) Activities and
land uses in these large watershed areas have a direct influence on the biological health and the quality
of the streams flowing into the lakes, and therefore help to determine the water quality of the reservoirs
themselves.
Land Area of Reservoir Watersheds, by County
County
Baltimore
Carroll
Harford
York, PA
Total
Loch Raven
217 sq. mi.
1 sq. mi.
1 sq. mi.
4 sq. mi.
223 sq. mi.
Prettyboy
40 sq. mi.
33 sq. mi.
Liberty
33 sq. mi.
131 sq. mi.
7 sq. mi.
80 sq. mi.
164 sq. mi.
Total
290 sq. mi.
165 sq. mi.
1 sq. mi.
11 sq. mi.
467 sq. mi.
NOTE: All areas are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Deteriorating water quality was documented in all three reservoirs in the 1970s, particularly involving
increasing levels of algal production in the lakes. Elevated algae levels can put the reservoirs’ ecosystems
out of balance, can increase treatment costs, and can cause other problems, as well. Sediment accumulation in the reservoirs also was identified as a significant concern.
In 1978, a regionwide water quality plan called for an interlocal agreement to protect the reservoirs. Recognizing that the watersheds crossed jurisdictional boundaries, a Reservoir Watershed Management
Agreement was signed by Baltimore City, Baltimore County and Carroll County in 1979. This launched
the first cooperative reservoir management program.
As new issues arose in the early 1980s, the parties recognized the need to bring more agencies to the
table. A new, more comprehensive agreement was signed in June 1984 by Baltimore City, Baltimore
County, Carroll County, the two counties’ soil conservation districts, two Maryland state agencies, and the
(Baltimore) Regional Planning Council. This agreement established the Baltimore Reservoir Watershed
33
Management Program, a cooperative program intended to reverse the negative water-quality trends in the
three reservoirs by attacking the problem on many fronts simultaneously. Staff representatives of the original signatories to the 1984 Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement have been working cooperatively ever since that time, and much has been accomplished under the
umbrella of the Reservoir Program. (Refer to the partial listings in Appendix C.) A reaffirmation of the
1984 Agreement was signed by the participating governments and agencies in 1990, and another reaffirmation was signed in February 2003, calling for the development of a new Reservoir Agreement and
Action Strategy.
By this time, it was agreed by the participants that the 1984 Agreement and Action Strategy needed updating, for a number of reasons. New issues had emerged that were not addressed by the earlier documents.
These included the recently noted upward trends in sodium and chlorides, and new concerns about possible
spills of hazardous materials in the watersheds. There was a recognition that, despite great efforts made
since 1984--resulting in gradual reductions in phosphorus loadings to the reservoirs--we had not attained
the loading goals which were adopted at that time. The goals needed to be reviewed, and more work in the
watersheds likely was needed. Zoning policies and development patterns in the areas had changed over
the prior two decades; these needed to be evaluated in light of the current understanding of land use/water
quality connections. Lastly, many new programs and policies had been put in place since 1984 at both the
State and county levels, which have implications for the management of nonpoint pollution sources in the
watersheds. These needed to be recognized by the Reservoir Agreement and the Action Strategy.
Work to update the two documents occurred during 2005, culminating in a public signing ceremony held
at Loch Raven Dam on November 7, 2005. The signatories included the leaders of Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Carroll County, the Baltimore County Soil Conservation District (SCD), the Carroll SCD,
the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Maryland Department of the Environment, the chairman of
the Reservoir Watershed Protection Committee, and the executive director of the Baltimore Metropolitan
Council.
Structure and operation of the Reservoir Watershed Management Program
The 1984 Reservoir Agreement endorsed the implementation of a detailed Action Strategy for the reservoir
watersheds, which included a broad range of policy commitments and resource commitments. Implementation was assigned to two groups. The policy board, the Reservoir Watershed Protection Subcommittee
(WPC), consisted mainly of local elected officials or agency heads. The Reservoir Watershed Technical
Group (RTG) was to include a technical staff member from each signatory entity. This dual committee
structure was reaffirmed in the 2005 Reservoir Agreement.
Over the years, these two committees have served as forums and coordinating mechanisms for the parties to the Agreement, as they investigated or addressed new issues which arose. At the same time, the
actual implementation of many of the specific commitments in the 1984 Action Strategy has been done by
the State and local agencies, working through their planning and zoning programs, regulatory programs,
public works departments, and other specialized programs that provide direct assistance to communities
and to landowners.
The RTG meets approximately bi-monthly at the Baltimore Metropolitan Council. Representatives of
Harford and Howard Counties, and of interested citizens’ groups, also are present. The group discusses
any new issues of concern relating to the reservoirs, reviews local land-use plans and rezoning proposals, and reviews proposed revisions to the local comprehensive water and sewerage plans. The RTG also
shares new watershed-related technical information among the members. The group plans/implements
cooperative projects that are intended to benefit the reservoir watersheds in keeping with the goals of
34
the Agreement. There is frequent communication among members between the bi-monthly meetings; at
times, coordination occurs on an almost daily basis. This allows the RTG to respond quickly and gather
relevant facts whenever new issues arise.
The Reservoir Watershed Protection Committee (WPC) meets three or four times a year. It reviews and
provides policy guidance for the work and initiatives of the RTG.
Readers wishing to learn more about the current work of the Reservoir Program should contact the Baltimore Metropolitan Council or visit the BMC website.
35
Appendix A: Highlights of the 1984 Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement
In 1975, a regional Water Quality Coordinating Committee (WQCC) was established, in response to
the federal requirements for areawide water quality planning under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. It continued to function through the 1980s. The 1984 Reservoir Agreement established a Reservoir
Watershed Protection Subcommittee and a Reservoir Watershed Technical Group to implement the
new Agreement. The signatory parties were to be represented on both of these groups, and the two
committees were to inform the WQCC of their efforts on an ongoing basis.
Although the WQCC has ceased to exist since then, the two other committees have continued in
operation. They are reaffirmed in the 2005 Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement.
The principal purpose of the 1984 Reservoir Agreement was to commit the parties to protecting the
three reservoirs from increased phosphorus and sediment inputs, and reducing the phosphorus inputs
to all three lakes to desirable levels. It was clear at the time that all three reservoirs were accumulating
sediments from the tributaries, and that each had been experiencing its own level of phosphorus-based
overenrichment, resulting in worsening seasonal algal problems.
Article II of the 1984 Agreement included a section on “Goals and Functions” (Section B). It stated, in
part:
“1. The above organizations [i.e., the two committees] shall periodically review and evaluate
existing problems and proposed actions which may affect the water supply reservoirs as:
a. Sources of high-quality raw water for the metropolitan water supply system water; and
b. Desirable places for existing recreational, environmental enhancement, aesthetic, wildlife,
and other beneficial uses.
“2. Baltimore City, Baltimore County, and Carroll County will work in cooperation with…[the
other signatories: the two soil conservation districts, the two state agencies, and the Regional
Planning Council]…as expeditiously as possible in cooperatively developing and applying
balanced pollution control policies and measures for the water supply watersheds to:
a. Prevent increased phosphorus and sediment loadings to all three reservoirs; and
b. Reduce phosphorus loadings in Loch Raven Reservoir to pre-1970 levels; and
c. Reduce phosphorus loadings in Liberty and Prettyboy Reservoirs to acceptable levels.
“3. The reviews and evaluations cited in Section B.1 [above] may include reservoir protection
policies, development proposals, plans, Best Management Practices, and other matters that affect
reservoir water quality, and shall be conducted within the framework of and coordinated with the
[regional] Clean Water Plan, the State Agricultural Plan, and State and local laws and programs.
“Cooperative arrangements should be developed to ensure that all parties participate actively in
work [intended] to improve reservoir water quality….
“5. The report, ‘Action Strategy for the Reservoir Watersheds’ is hereby approved by the
signatories. The signatories hereby commit themselves to expeditious implementation of
the work activities listed in Chapter III on a continuing basis [and] to incorporate into the
recommendations…significant enhancements and technological advances as they become
available….”
36
These goals and mandates for the reservoirs, adopted in 1984, have provided the technical and policy
foundation for most of the actions and technical work carried out by the signatories over the 21 years of
the Reservoir Program’s existence. The reader should refer to the 2005 Reservoir Agreement to see the
revised and additional program goals that were endorsed by the signatories.
37
Appendix B: Principal water quality concerns for the reservoirs - 2005
Monitoring of water quality in the reservoirs and their major tributaries is done by Baltimore City and by
agencies of Baltimore and Carroll Counties. There is a data record for most parameters (substances) that
goes back to the early 1980s. In late 2004, the Reservoir Technical Group (RTG) released a technical
report which summarized our knowledge about various key parameters or potential pollutants. (The
report’s title is given at the end of this appendix.) Although the 1984 Reservoir Agreement focused on
the need to reduce phosphorus and sediment loads to the reservoirs, studies since then and recent trend
analyses suggest that there are also other contaminants about which we need to be concerned. There are
some substances that already are a problem, and there are some categories of substances that represent
possible future threats.
(A) Remediation of current water quality problems in the reservoirs
1) Phosphorus - Stimulates algal blooms, which can cause a variety of other problems in the
reservoirs, including oxygen depletion at depths, ecosystem imbalances in the lakes, and possible
formation of “disinfection byproduct” precursors in the raw water. In 1984, the Reservoir
Program adopted a threshold concentration of 26 micrograms per liter of total phosphorus (ug/l
of TP) for the upper waters of each lake. (The scientific literature suggested that this was the
level above which eutrophication would occur.) A different annual TP input load was calculated
for each reservoir (a function of average annual flows and lake volumes.) Judging from the
available data, we have fallen short of meeting these phosphorus loading goals, because the
in-lake TP maximum criterion of 26 ug/liter has not been met consistently. The Loch Raven
epilimnion (uppermost waters) exceeded the criterion 57.2% of the time (from 1982-1999),
the TP in Prettyboy’s epilimnion exceeded the criterion 55.5% of the time, and the TP in
Liberty’s epilimnion exceeded the number 15.7% of the time. The Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE) is currently working on setting nutrient “total maximum daily loads”
(TMDLs) for Loch Raven and Prettyboy; this will include a reconsideration of the annual TP
loading goals for each lake that were set in 1984 by the Reservoir Program.
2) Algae - Chlorophyll a is an indicator of overall algal levels in the water column. Drawing upon
the scientific literature, the Reservoir Program adopted a chlorophyll a concentration of 10
micrograms per liter as the threshold for “eutrophic” (severely impaired) reservoir conditions. The City reviewed chlorophyll a data for the upper levels of each lake in the spring and summer
months from 1985-2000. In Prettyboy Reservoir, the observed chlorophyll a values met or
exceeded this threshold 26.2% of the time; in Loch Raven, this occurred 19.8% of the time; and
in Liberty, the threshold was exceeded 9.9% of the time. There was a modest downward trend
in chlorophyll a levels observed in each lake during these 15 years, but recent data suggest this
trend may be reversing itself.
3) Sediments - Some of the sediments that are transported in streamflow help to deliver phosphorus
to the reservoirs. Most sediments accumulate in the lakes, reducing the maximum available
storage capacity. For example, Loch Raven has lost about 11% of its original capacity due to
sediment buildup in the headwater areas. Over their lifetimes, Prettyboy has lost 7.5% of its
initial capacity and Liberty has lost 3.3% of its original capacity. Forebays (intentional sedimenttrapping basins at the head of each reservoir) are mostly filled with sediment, especially in Loch
Raven, and are ceasing to provide protection. There is a need to perform a cost/benefit analysis
for the possible removal of the accumulated sediment from the upper (headwater) pool of each
reservoir.
38
4) Sodium and chlorides - A recent analysis by Baltimore City of sodium data taken since
1973 from the finished (treated) drinking water revealed a three-fold increase in the sodium
concentration in Ashburton water (coming from Liberty) and an almost four-fold increase
in the sodium concentration in Montebello water (from Loch Raven). Concentrations in the
Montebello water observed after 1998 have repeatedly exceeded the 20 mg/l maximum level
recommended by EPA for water consumed by persons who have been placed on a sodiumrestricted diet. (Road and parking lot de-icing activities are the most likely cause of these trends
over the past 30 years.) There is a need to start tracking in-lake sodium concentrations yearround.
5) Mercury – MDE has detected elevated levels of mercury (Hg) in fish taken from a number
of Maryland’s fresh-water lakes, including the reservoirs. Allowing for the bioaccumulation
of Hg, MDE calculated the desired maximum concentration in the water column that would
reduce the concentration in the fish tissue to acceptable levels. In the case of each reservoir,
the observed total Hg concentration in the water column was more than twice the desired
“acceptable” concentration. Accordingly, MDE has placed all three lakes on its 303(d) list
(“impaired waters”) for mercury. MDE believes that most of the Hg in the lakes is coming from
atmospheric pollution sources, most of them non-local.
(B) Prevention of possible future problems
1) Precursors of “disinfection byproducts” - DBPs form in the treated water, out in the distribution
system, where trace organic compounds remaining in the water react with various forms of the
chlorine used for disinfection. The annual and quarterly averages of values for water taken at
multiple points in the distribution system from 1996-2003 did not exceed the EPA criteria for
total trihalomethanes and the total of five haloacetic acids. However, new EPA criteria will
require the standards to be met at all individual locations sampled throughout the distribution
system. Individual stations in both the Montebello system and the Ashburton system have
had maximum values which exceeded the EPA criteria. The principal means for reducing
the formation of DBPs is to reduce the concentration of total organic carbon (TOC) in the
treated water. It is possible that in-lake algae are one source of TOC in the raw water, but their
significance relative to other “background” sources is not well understood.
2) Petroleum products transport, handling and storage - There is always the potential for small
spills in areas upstream of the reservoirs. County fire departments are equipped to respond to and
contain small spills; the larger spills will also trigger a response by Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) hazardous materials teams. The greatest potential danger would be from
a spill on one of the bridges that crosses over Liberty or Loch Raven just upstream of the intake
structure, because there would be only minimum time to notify City operators of the need to take
preventive measures. There is a need to confirm that arrangements exist for quick notification
and rapid response to such incidents. Reliable coordination and communication must be in place
between the local fire departments, MDE and the City’s water-system operators.
3) Hazardous materials transport, handling and storage - There also exists the potential for spills
of non-petroleum hazardous substances on roadways or on properties in the watersheds. In
such events, MDE would almost always be among the responders, because they have the
equipment and supplies to deal with a wide range of contaminants. There is a need to confirm
the notification procedures that are in place in the event of a hazardous material spill.
4) Nitrogen - All measurements of nitrate levels in the raw water withdrawn from Loch Raven
and Liberty reservoirs are less than 3.0 mg/l (milligrams per liter), with the average being about
39
1.6 mg/l. (The maximum nitrate concentration allowable in drinking water is 10 mg/l.) Nitrate
levels can sometimes be a good indicator of the presence of “companion” contaminants. There
is a need to continue to track nitrate levels in the reservoirs and tributaries, because new trends
(when observed) might indicate important changes in the particular watershed. 5) Pathogens - Pathogens and bacterial contamination can result from concentrations of wildlife,
from sewage spills adjacent to reservoir tributaries, from runoff from some urban areas, and from
agricultural runoff (especially livestock operations.) Probably the greatest risk to the lakes is
from sanitary sewer failures. Ongoing, daily monitoring by the City tracks total coliform and
fecal coliform levels in the untreated water. The average and maximum values for fecal coliform
are always less than 50 MPN/100 ml in Montebello raw water. (The state standard for source
waters is 200 MPN/100 ml.) The same is true for Ashburton raw water, except that the typical
values are lower than for Montebello raw water.
The reader is referred to a recent Reservoir Program technical report for a more detailed discussion of
pollutants of concern: Water Quality Assessment, Targeted Studies and Ongoing Water Quality Issues in
the Baltimore Metropolitan Water Supply Reservoirs and Their Watersheds. (November 2004).
40
Appendix C: Selective listing of past accomplishments in the reservoir watersheds by the
participating governments and agencies
Reservoir Program participants have played key roles in a number of watershed-related issues, studies
and projects over the past 21 years. Sometimes the RTG and the WPC took positions on pending local
issues. Often, local governments or State or local agencies responded to the requirements of federal
and/or state laws. On occasion, they pursued opportunities on their own that supported the goals of
the 1984 Agreement. Here is a list of representative actions taken by the Reservoir Program or by its
participating governments or agencies over the years:
• Supported federal and state grant funds for phosphorus-removal equipment at the Town of
Hampstead waste water treatment plant (WWTP).
• Supported the seasonal use of land treatment (the application of treated effluent) for the Town of
Manchester WWTP.
• Encouraged Dutterer’s meat packing plant (which had phosphorus-rich wastewaters) to connect
its discharge to the Manchester sewerage system.
• Supported land application of the effluent from the former Montrose School (now Camp
Frettard), located in the Liberty watershed portion of Baltimore County.
• The Reservoir Program set a numerical “total phosphorus” annual loading goal for each reservoir
and attempted to track “best management practices” (BMPs) installed in the watersheds and to
count them as contributing to load reductions in pursuit of these annual loading goals.
• Working with the Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore County carried out a
set of capital projects intended to eliminate periodic sewage overflows from the Long Quarter
pumping station, which had drained into Loch Raven.
• Ever since 1987, Baltimore City has provided funding for a technician position at the Carroll
SCD, to provide assistance specifically to farmers in the reservoir watersheds.
• Program participants, including the Maryland Department of Agriculture, supported the targeting
of federal and state cost-share money (in a variety of grant programs) to help farmers in the
reservoir watersheds install agricultural BMPs.
• Baltimore City carried out a targeted study of Piney Run watershed (a tributary of Loch Raven)
below Hampstead, in order to document the effects of intensive agricultural BMP installation in a
small rural watershed.
• Baltimore City and the two counties have operated expanded tributary-monitoring programs in
the three watersheds (compared to the monitoring programs of the 1970s), in order to assess the
health of the streams themselves and to better estimate the annual delivery of phosphorus and
sediment to the reservoirs.
• Baltimore County in the early 1980s reviewed the effectiveness of privately-owned urban
stormwater basins in its portions of the reservoir watersheds. Based on its findings, the County
moved to assume responsibility for long-term maintenance of private stormwater management
facilities, county-wide.
• Once every four years since 1988, in connection with the Baltimore County Comprehensive
Zoning Map Process, the Reservoir Program has commented on rezoning petitions involving
particular properties or areas in the Baltimore County portions of the watersheds. Generally,
the program has supported downzoning requests for parcels or for entire areas, and has opposed
upzoning requests or any proposals involving changes from rural to urban zoning designations.
• The Reservoir Technical Group has routinely commented on proposed changes to the local
comprehensive water and sewer plans (a document required under Maryland law) of both
Baltimore County and Carroll County.
41
• In 1996-97, at its own initiative, Baltimore County developed a “water quality management
plan” (essentially a stream-channel-assessment and restoration plan) for the tributaries in the
Loch Raven watershed. The County since has carried out six of the recommended streamrestoration projects, using local funds.
• The Reservoir Program sponsored and helped design a Public Awareness Survey of watershed
residents (1994) by the University of Baltimore, which measured the public’s awareness of and
support for reservoir-protection issues.
• The Program worked with local educators to develop a reservoir-related public school curriculum
unit for use in Baltimore County and Carroll County schools (1996).
• Carroll County completed a project to restore Piney Run just below the Hampstead WWTP to a
more natural condition, with the objectives of reducing stream temperatures in the summer and
restoring habitat quality in the stream. The project also involved the retrofit of three existing
stormwater management facilities draining to the headwaters of Piney Run (1999).
Program participants have continued to work in recent years on a wide range of watershed-related issues
and initiatives. Key projects and activities of the Reservoir Program since 2002 include:
• Reviewed and commented on Carroll County’s Phase 2 Commercial and Industrial
Comprehensive Rezoning Package (comments were made in 2001 and 2002.)
• Drafted the Reaffirmation document and made all the arrangements for the Reservoir Agreement
Reaffirmation Ceremony, which was held in Eldersburg in February 2003.
• Performed the local lead role in carrying out the Prettyboy Source Water Stewardship Project,
in cooperation with The Trust for Public Land, Carroll and Baltimore Counties, and local
citizens’ groups. This involved a weeklong workshop in April 2003 and the release of a detailed
consultants’ report in October 2003.
• Reviewed the Spring and Fall 2003 Amendments and the Spring and Fall 2004 Amendments
to the Carroll County Water and Sewerage Plan. Submitted written comments to the County
Commissioners.
• Commented on the 2004 Triennial Review of the Baltimore County Water and Sewerage Plan
(October 2004). Comments were submitted to the County Planning Board.
• Reviewed and commented on Source Water Assessment reports prepared by Baltimore City for
Liberty Reservoir watershed (2003) and by MDE for Loch Raven watershed (2004).
• Reviewed and commented (in preliminary form) on the water supply chapter of the draft 2005
Update to the Baltimore City Water and Sewerage Plan (2005).
• Reviewed and provided public testimony on Carroll County’s draft new development-related
environmental regulations (March 2004).
• Supported Carroll County’s development (with Maryland DNR) of a Water Resources Action
Strategy for the Carroll County portion of the Liberty Reservoir watershed (2002-03).
• Baltimore County 2004 Comprehensive Rezoning Map Process (CZMP): The Program carried
out a detailed review of all proposed zoning changes for Resource Conservation-zoned parcels
in the reservoir watersheds. The Reservoir Technical Group prepared comments letters on 72
different rezoning “issues” and submitted them to the Planning Board. Presented testimony at
the public hearings in Councilmanic Districts 3 and 4, stressing the importance of considering
reservoir protection and discouraging rural sprawl when looking at the individual rezoning
petitions.
• Baltimore County DEPRM (in 2003-04) analyzed available tax map data to identify trends in
rural residential development in the County’s portions of the reservoir watersheds over time,
42
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
and to estimate the “build out” potential for further such development in the rural areas of the
County, given the current zoning (2000 data). Some of the findings of this analysis were cited
in the comments letters submitted by the Reservoir Technical Group under the County’s 2004
CZMP rezoning cycle.
The Reservoir Technical Group (RTG) reviewed and drafted detailed comments on the draft
Finksburg Corridor Conservation Plan prepared by Carroll County (comments in October 2004).
Members of the RTG drafted a report summarizing the broad, thirty-year trends (since 1970) in
the use of agricultural land in the reservoir watersheds and noting the current issues relating to
the reduction of farm-related nonpoint source pollution, in the light of the new patterns in local
farm ownership and operation.
The RTG developed a detailed report, entitled Water Quality Assessment, Targeted Studies
and Ongoing Water Quality Issues in the Baltimore…Reservoirs and their Watersheds. This
report summarized over twenty years of monitoring and analysis of key reservoir pollutants;
summarized major watershed studies done in the past decade; and spelled out a list of the current
major concerns regarding water quality trends and the gaps in our understanding of water quality
in the lakes. This report was released at a well-attended public conference in November 2004. It
also was sent to top local planning and public works officials in the Baltimore region.
The RTG presently (2005-06) is advising MDE on its development of computer models to
support Total Maximum Daily Loads for sediment and nutrients for Loch Raven Reservoir and
for nutrients for Prettyboy, as required under federal law.
The Reservoir Program assisted local Baltimore County and Carroll County residents with the
establishment of a new citizen-based advocacy and outreach group, the Prettyboy Watershed
Alliance (2004).
During 2005, the Program comprehensively reviewed the 1984/1990 Reservoir Watershed Action
Strategy and used it as the basis for developing the 2005 Action Strategy. This effort included
detailed review and comment on the new version by all signatories to the 2005 Agreement.
During 2005, the Program comprehensively reviewed the 1984 Reservoir Watershed
Management Agreement and used it as a starting point for developing the 2005 Agreement,
which was eventually negotiated to completion by representatives of the key local signatories. All arrangements were made for the public signing ceremony, which was held in November.
43
Appendix D: Membership of the Standing Committees
Membership of the Reservoir Watershed Protection Committee - 2005
Anne Arundel County: Ronald Bowen, Director, Dept. of Public Works
Baltimore City: Jay Sakai, Head, Bureau of Water and Wastewater, DPW
Baltimore County: Councilman T. Bryan McIntire, Third District **RWPC Chairman
Carroll County: The Hon. Julia Gouge, President, County Commissioners
Harford County: Joel V. Caudill, Deputy Director, Dept. of Public Works
Howard County: Elmina Hilsenrath, Division Chief, Dept. of Planning and Zoning
Baltimore County Soil Conservation District: Stephen R. Smith, Chairman
Carroll Soil Conservation District: Myron R. Frock, Chairman
Maryland Dept. of the Environment: Saeid Kasraei, Admin., Water Supply Program
Maryland Dept. of Agriculture: Douglas Scott, Asst. Secty. for Resource Conservation
Membership of the Reservoir Watershed Technical Group – 2005
Baltimore City: William Stack and Clark Howells, Dept. of Public Works
Baltimore County: Donald Outen, Dept. of Envtl. Protection and Resource Mgt.
Carroll County: James Slater and Thomas Devilbiss, Dept. of Planning
Harford County: Matt Kropp, Dept. of Planning and Zoning
Howard County: Jessica Ritter, Dept. of Planning and Zoning
Baltimore County Soil Conservation District: Jim Ensor, District Manager
Carroll Soil Conservation District: Ed Null, District Manager
Maryland Dept. of the Environment: Janice Outen and John Grace, Water Supply
Maryland Dept. of Agriculture: Rowland Agbede, Resource Conservation
Baltimore Metropolitan Council: Gould Charshee, Reservoir Program Coordinator
44
Appendix E: Selected List of References
Baltimore City Department of Public Works, Bureau of Water and Wastewater. 2001. Reservoir water
quality assessment for Loch Raven, Prettyboy and Liberty Reservoirs.
• Presents in summary form and discusses approximately 20 years of data for chlorophyll,
dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorides and other parameters in the reservoirs
themselves and in selected major tributaries.
Baltimore County Dept. of Environmental Protection and Resource Management. 2000.
Gunpowder Study monitoring report.
• Discusses the results of two years of sampling by the County at ten stations located on various
tributaries to Loch Raven. Addresses nutrient levels, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, protozoans,
selected metals, pH and stream temperature. Also includes an analysis of data from six stations
related to a study of the effects of the town of Hampstead on the Piney Run subwatershed.
Carroll County Department of Planning. 2003. Liberty Reservoir watershed restoration action strategy
(WRAS) within Carroll County, Maryland.
• Presents the results of field work by Carroll County and Maryland DNR in the Liberty
watershed. Following initial surveys, two subwatersheds, Middle Run and Snowdens Run, were
selected for intensive field surveys (stream-corridor assessments). Observed problem sites were
recorded and mapped. Strategies for follow-up are described.
Gannett Fleming, Inc. 2003. Final Liberty Reservoir watershed assessment. (Source water assessment
submitted to Baltimore City DPW and to MDE.)
• Meets requirements of federal law. Characterizes the watershed draining to Liberty Reservoir,
inventories potential sources of contamination, and summarizes water quality data for
Ashburton treated water and the data resulting from in-lake and tributary monitoring. Includes
a susceptibility analysis for various groups of contaminants. Makes recommendations for
enhanced protective measures.
Maryland Department of the Environment. 2005. Source water assessment for Loch Raven Reservoir
watershed.
• Meets requirements of federal law. Characterizes the watersheds draining to Loch Raven and
Prettyboy Reservoirs, and inventories/maps potential sources of contamination. Summarizes
water quality data for raw water drawn from Loch Raven, and for treated water produced at
the City’s Montebello works and at Harford County’s Abingdon plant (which uses Loch Raven
water). Presents the in-lake concentrations of a number of pollutants for the period 1998-2002. Includes a susceptibility analysis for various groups of contaminants. Makes recommendations
for enhanced protective measures in the watershed.
Reservoir Technical Group. 2004. Technical report: water quality assessment, targeted studies and
ongoing water quality issues in the Baltimore metropolitan water supply reservoirs and their watersheds. (Available from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council.)
• Presents an overview of all existing in-lake and tributary monitoring programs. Summarizes
trends in a variety of key pollutants over a period from the mid-1980s to 2000. Describes and
presents the major findings of a variety of targeted subwatershed studies/evaluations carried out
45
by local and state agencies from the mid-1990s through 2003. Concludes with a discussion of
the major ongoing and emerging (new) water quality concerns for the reservoir watersheds.
Reservoir Watershed Protection Committee. [Year] 2000 action report for the reservoir watersheds. (Available from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council.)
• The latest in a series of periodic progress reports by the Reservoir Program. Describes recent
(late 1990s) federal, state and local programs and initiatives which could contribute to reservoir
protection. Presents in table form the actions taken/progress made pursuant to the commitments
included in the 1984 and 1990 Action Strategies. Summarizes water quality trends in the
reservoirs since the mid-1980s. Briefly identifies issues needing further investigation. Lists
possible future work that is needed. Reproduces the 1984 Reservoir Watershed Management
Agreement and the 1990 Reaffirmation document. Briefly describes the 1994 reservoir
watershed public awareness survey.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1997. Water quality management plan for Loch Raven watershed. (Submitted to
Baltimore County DEPRM.)
• Presents the results of several years of field work assessing the stability of streams in fourteen
subwatersheds tributary to Loch Raven. Also estimates pollutant loadings to Loch Raven, based
on the land uses represented in the respective subwatersheds. Makes recommendations for
management actions in four different portions of the watershed, which are defined based on the
extent of urbanization and the area’s proximity to Loch Raven. Recommends specific streamrestoration projects in the fourteen “case study” subwatersheds.
The Trust for Public Land. 2003. Prettyboy watershed: source water stewardship exchange team report. (Also available from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council.)
• Presents the findings and recommendations of a panel of “outside” experts who visited the
Prettyboy watershed for a week in April 2003 and who reviewed data and heard reports
from local and state officials on such topics as water quality monitoring, forestry, agriculture
and development. Numerous observations and recommendations are made in the areas of:
understanding (assessing) the Prettyboy watershed; interjurisdictional coordination and
partnership-building; land conservation; and land management.
46
Baltimore Metropolitan Council
2700 Lighthouse Point East, Suite 310
Baltimore, MD 21224-4774
How Can BMC Help You?
Support for Strategic Planning
Custom Mapping
Geographic Coding
Statistical Analysis
Demographic/Economic Forecasting
www.baltometro.org

Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement of 2005 with the

Transcription

Similar documents

Sunday May 22nd Ellouise Schoettler

ContourGlobal acquires Fibrominn litter

attached flyer - Baltimore St. Patrick`s Day Parade

TO BENEFIT 89.7 WTMD

Baltimore LGBT Guide Media Kit

LAND FOR SALE Who is Beiler

Nina Allen Minkyeong Bae Richard Blake Keia Butts Leslie Chung

GWD1000W GWD1000BLS Water Dispenser

Material on this site may be quoted or reproduced for personal and

Leaders Legends Flier Winners_sv