DOCSLIB.ORG

Countywide Implementation Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Countywide Implementation Strategy COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY TMDL AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RESTORATION PLAN HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND DECEMBER 2015 COUNTYWIDE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY DECEMBER 2015 PREPARED FOR HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 6751 COLUMBIA GATEWAY DRIVE, SUITE 514 COLUMBIA, MD 21046-3143 PREPARED BY KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 936 RIDGEBROOK ROAD SPARKS, MD 21152 WITH SUPPORT FROM MCCORMICK TAYLOR, INC. TH 509 S. EXETER STREET, 4 FLOOR BALTIMORE, MD 21202 Countywide Implementation Strategy 2015 Acknowledgements This watershed restoration plan was completed as a collaborative effort between the following partners: Howard County Stormwater Management Division KCI Technologies, Inc. McCormick Taylor, Inc. The report was authored by the following individuals from KCI Technologies, Inc.: Megan Crunkleton Mike Pieper Bill Frost, P.E. Database support and GIS analyses were provided by McCormick Taylor, Inc.: Joe Knieriem County staff providing expertise, oversight, and review include: Kelly Hargadin Christine Lowe, P.E. Mark Richmond, P.E. Appropriate citation for the CIS is as follow: KCI Technologies, Inc. 2015. Countywide Implementation Strategy. Prepared by KCI Technologies, Inc., Sparks MD for Howard County Department of Public Works, Stormwater Management Division, Columbia Maryland. Dated December 2015. For more information pertaining to the CIS, please contact: Mark S. Richmond, Chief Stormwater Management Division Howard County Department of Public Works 6751 Columbia Gateway Drive, Suite 514 Columbia, MD 21046 410-313-6413 [email protected] And visit us on the web: http://www.howardcountymd.gov/swm.htm ii Howard County DPW Countywide Implementation Strategy 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Howard County MS4 Permit ................................................................................................. 1 1.1.2 MS4 Permit Coverage ........................................................................................................... 4 1.2 TMDL Allocations and Impervious Restoration Targets................................................................ 5 1.2.1 Local TMDLs .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Chesapeake Bay TMDL ........................................................................................................ 11 1.2.3 Impervious Restoration ....................................................................................................... 12 1.3 Restoration Plan Elements and Structure ................................................................................... 15 2 Causes and Sources of Impairment ............................................................................... 18 2.1 Impairments ................................................................................................................................ 18 2.1.1 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 18 2.1.2 Biological Impairments ....................................................................................................... 19 2.2 Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 21 2.2.1 Land Use/Land Cover .......................................................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Impervious Surfaces ............................................................................................................ 27 2.3 Anticipated Growth ..................................................................................................................... 30 2.3.1 Offsetting Loads from Future Growth ................................................................................ 30 2.3.2 Estimates of Future Growth ................................................................................................ 30 3 Management Measures ............................................................................................... 34 3.1 County Planning Process ............................................................................................................. 34 3.1.1 Watershed Assessment - 2015............................................................................................ 34 3.1.2 Watershed Assessment – 2016 ........................................................................................... 37 3.1.3 Project Implementation ...................................................................................................... 37 3.2 Modeling Approach..................................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Best Management Practices ....................................................................................................... 39 4 Expected Load Reductions and Impervious Treatment .................................................. 48 4.1 2015 Progress – Actual Implementation .................................................................................... 48 4.1.1 Local TMDLs ........................................................................................................................ 48 4.1.2 Chesapeake Bay TMDL ........................................................................................................ 51 4.1.3 Impervious Restoration ....................................................................................................... 51 4.2 Planned Implementation ............................................................................................................ 53 4.2.1 Local TMDLs ........................................................................................................................ 57 4.2.2 Chesapeake Bay TMDL ........................................................................................................ 59 4.2.3 Impervious Restoration by 2019 ......................................................................................... 60 5 Technical and Financial Assistance Needs ..................................................................... 62 5.1 Technical Requirements .............................................................................................................. 62 iii Howard County DPW Countywide Implementation Strategy 2015 5.2 Financial Needs ........................................................................................................................... 63 5.2.1 Project Cost Estimates – Watershed Assessment ............................................................... 63 5.2.2 CIS Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................ 63 5.2.3 Cost Summary ..................................................................................................................... 65 6 Public Participation / Education ................................................................................... 68 6.1 CIS and Watershed Assessment Public Participation ................................................................. 68 6.2 Program Summary ...................................................................................................................... 68 6.2.1 Stormwater Management Division (SWMD) Education Programs ..................................... 69 6.2.2 Recycling Division Programs ............................................................................................... 69 6.2.3 Department of Recreation and Parks (DRP) Programs ....................................................... 70 7 Implementation Schedule and Milestones .................................................................... 71 8 Load Reduction Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................... 74 8.1 Tracking Implementation of Management Measures ................................................................ 74 8.2 Estimating Load Reductions ........................................................................................................ 76 8.3 Tracking Overall Program Success through Monitoring ............................................................. 76 8.4 Best Management Practices Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................ 76 9 Monitoring................................................................................................................... 77 9.1 Current Howard County Monitoring ........................................................................................... 78 9.2 Recommended Monitoring to Track Implementation Progress ................................................. 81 10 References ................................................................................................................... 85 List of Tables ES Table 1. Howard County Local TMDL Summary .................................................................................. ES-3 ES Table 2. CIS Planned
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Plan Progress Report Fiscal Year 2016
    Strategic Plan Progress Report Fiscal Year 2016 July 2016 Introduction This report provides a one-year review of actions taken to achieve Columbia Association’s (CA) Strategic Plan goals and objectives. This is the second annual Strategic Plan Progress Report. It highlights CA’s accomplishments in FY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016) as CA works toward achieving its vision of ―Making Columbia the community of choice — today and for generations to come.‖ Columbia Association’s current Strategic Plan was developed in 2013 and 2014 and became effective May 1, 2014, as approved by the Board of Directors. The strategic planning process included a review of trends and driving forces, as well as self-examination. CA also engaged an extensive group of different stakeholders and organizations that interact with or are impacted by CA. This helped CA develop a framework of goals and objectives to achieve its desired future. Moving the Needle - Recent Progress/Activities Columbia Association’s Strategic Plan identifies five high-level goals to guide the organization. 1. Deliver programs and services that meet stakeholders’ expectations and enhance the quality of life in Columbia 2. Maintain and enhance Columbia’s facilities, open spaces, connectivity and environmental stewardship 3. Develop and communicate a shared community vision for Columbia and advance the vision through advocacy, partnerships and alignment of CA programs and services 4. Strengthen communication and community engagement in CA 5. Demonstrate the practices of a high-performing and responsive organization This progress report is organized by Strategic Plan goal. Additional detail is provided in the appendix. We’re Serving ―Deliver programs and services that meet stakeholders’ expectations and enhance the quality of life in Columbia‖ Overview CA’s mission is ―Working every day in hundreds of ways to make Columbia an even better place to live, work and play.‖ CA offers a wide array of programs, events, activities and services putting that mission into action.
    [Show full text]
  • Patuxent River Watershed Functional Plan
    TI11E Functional \laster Plan for the Patuxent Ril'er Watershed in \lontgome1y Count) AUTHOR The \lai-·land-\ational Capital Park and Planning Commi:sion Functional \laster Plan for tl1e Patuxent Ril'er \\'atershed in \lontgomei- Count)· DATE \01·ember 1993 PUNNING AGENCY The \Ian land-\ational Capital Park and Planning Cammi ion s~s~ Georgia Al'enue Sill'er Spring. \\D 20910-3~60 SOURCE OF COPIES The \lai-land-\ational Capital Park and Planning Commission s~s~Georgia Al'enue Siller Spring.\!D 20910-3"6o ABSTRACT This document contains the text. 11ith supporting graphics. for the Functional \laster Plan for tl1e Patuxent Rim\\ atershed in \lontgomm Count\. This plan amends the General Plan for the ,\lan·land-\X'ashington Regional District and the \laster Plan for Highwa1, for the \lard and-\\ ashington Regional District. and the following area master plans: Damascus. Olnel'. Sandi Spring-Ashton Special Stud, Area. Eastern \lontgomei-· Count\·. as well as the Functional \laster Plan for Presefl'ation of Agriculture and Rural Open Space. and the Patuxent Ril'er \\ atershed Park .\laster Plan. COPYRIGHT The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 1993 PUBLISHED BY The Montgomery County Planning Department of The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.3760 APPROVED BY The Montgomery County Council October 1993 ADOPTED BY The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission November 1993 THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION is a bi-county agency created by the General Assembly of Maryland in 1927. The Commission's geographic authority extends to the great majority of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; the Maryland-Washington Regional District (M-NCPPC planningjurisdiction) comprises 1,001 square miles, while the Metropolitan District (parks) comprises 919 square miles, in the two counties.
    [Show full text]
  • The Goldfinch Newsletter of the Howard County Bird Club a Chapter of the Maryland Ornithological Society
    May/June 2019 Volume 47, Issue 5 The Goldfinch Newsletter of the Howard County Bird Club A Chapter of the Maryland Ornithological Society www.howardbirds.org Club Meeting - By Jane Geuder Inside this Issue: hursday, May 9, 2019 “Mongolia: Birding in the Footsteps of Genghis T Khan,” by Gail Mackiernan. To the naturalist, Gail’s June 2018 trip into immense grasslands, the vast Gobi Desert, wild mountains, and varied Club Meeting ......................... 1 wetlands is of great interest. The group recorded about 175 of the planet’s Winter Bird Records ............. 1 most wanted birds. Gail and Barry are club members. They have traveled Field Trips ............................ 2 on seven continents and have seen more than 6,000 bird species. Managing a Rare Bird ........... 2 Meetings are at the Robinson Nature Center, 6692 Cedar Lane, Columbia MD 21044. Hospi- May Count ............................ 6 tality at 7:00 p.m. Meeting with program begins at 7:30 p.m. There is no admission charge. Board of Directors Meeting ... 6 For further information call Mary Lou Clark at 410-465-4061. Mid-winter Count Summary .. 7 Website: http://www.howardcountymd.gov/RobinsonNatureCenter New Members ....................... 9 Potluck Thanks ................... 10 Birding Basics Class ............ 10 WINTER BIRD RECORDS: DECEMBER 1, 2018 – FEBRUARY 28, 2019 BY JOANNE SOLEM Birding in Mongolia he 2018-19 winter was typical for central Maryland with cold, snow, T ice, sleet, fog, rain, a polar vortex, and record heat! And with those dramatic weather changes came a Greater White-fronted Goose, Trumpeter Swans, and Iceland Gulls. The predicted invasion of boreal species enter- tained many feeder watchers; special species included one Evening Gros- beak and one Common Redpoll.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Study: Demand And
    2015 Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Study Demand and Resource Availability Forecast for the Year 2040 Prepared by S.N. Ahmed, K.R. Bencala, and C.L. Schultz August 2015 ICPRB Report No. 15-4 The Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 30 West Gude Drive, Suite 450 · Rockville, Maryland 20850 2015 Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Study: Demand and Resource Availability Forecast for the Year 2040 Prepared by S.N. Ahmed, K.R. Bencala, and C.L. Schultz August 2015 ICPRB Report No. 15-4 Copies of this report are available at the ICPRB website, at www.PotomacRiver.org, under “Publications.” To receive printed copies of this report, please write to ICPRB at 30 West Gude Drive, Suite 450, Rockville, MD 20850; or call 301-984-1908. 2015 Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Study Table of Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... viii Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................................. viii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... xi Recent & Forecasted Water Use .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan Chapter 2: General Background 2017 – 2026 Plan (County Executive Draft - March 2017)
    Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan Chapter 2: General Background 2017 – 2026 Plan (County Executive Draft - March 2017) Table of Contents Table of Figures: ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 Table of Tables: ......................................................................................................................... 2-2 I. INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................... 2-3 II. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: .......................................................................................... 2-3 II.A. Topography:................................................................................................................. 2-4 II.B. Climate: ....................................................................................................................... 2-4 II.C. Geology: ...................................................................................................................... 2-4 II.D. Soils: ............................................................................................................................ 2-5 II.E. Water Resources: ....................................................................................................... 2-6 II.E.1. Groundwater: ........................................................................................................ 2-6 II.E.1.a. Poolesville Sole Source Aquifer:
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the BOARD of DIRECTORS MEETING Held: July 23, 2015
    Minutes of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Held: July 23, 2015 Approved: October 8, 2015 A meeting of the Columbia Association Board of Directors was held on Thursday, July 23, 2015, at the Columbia Association Building. Present were Chairperson Jeanne Ketley and members Dick Boulton, Brian Dunn, Janet Evans, Alan Klein, Nancy McCord, Gregg Schwind (arrived 7:33 p.m.), and Andrew Stack. Members Reg Avery and Chao Wu were absent. Also present were CA President/CEO Milton Matthews, Chief Staff Liaisons Susan Krabbe (arrived 7:35 p.m.) and Norma Heim, Governance Chief of Staff Jane Dembner, and General Counsel Sheri Fanaroff (arrived 7:33 p.m.). 1. Call to Order: The Board of Directors Meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. by the Chair, Jeanne Ketley. 2. Announcement of Closed/Special Meetings Held/To Be Held: The Architectural Resource Committee held a closed meeting at the Columbia Association Building on July 13, 2015 to discuss covenant cases. Members present were: Jane Dembner, Craig Garrison, Debbie Bach, and Gordon MacPhee. Also present were: Ingrid Hatz, Carole MacPhee, Debbie Nix, Pat Loeber, Carl McKinney, Karen Turcan, Dale Wasmus, and Sheri Fanaroff. The vote to close the meeting was 4-0-0. The closed meeting was authorized under the Maryland Homeowners Act, Md. Code, Real Property §11B-111 (4)(iv) Consultation with staff personnel, consultants, attorneys, or other persons in connection with pending or potential litigation or other legal matters. The meeting was closed from 1:15 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. The Audit Committee held a closed meeting at the Columbia Association Building on July 22, 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Gorge Reservoir Phosphorus TMDL
    Rocky Gorge Reservoir Phosphorus TMDL Source Document: MDE (Maryland Department • Volume: 17,000 acre-feet of the Environment). 2008. • Drainage Area:132 square miles (including Total Maximum Daily Loads drainage to Triadelphia Reservoir) of Phosphorus and Sediments • Average Discharge: 85.9 feet per second for Triadelphia Reservoir (Brighton Dam) and Total Only a small portion of the drainage area lies in Prince Maximum Daily Loads of George’s County. This fact sheet provides summary data Phosphorus for Rocky Gorge related to the TMDL and includes specific information Reservoir, Howard, related to allocations made for Prince George’s County, Montgomery, and Prince Maryland, regulated stormwater sources. George’s Counties, Maryland. Document Version June 13, 2008. Water Body Type: Non-tidal stream reaches draining to the Rocky Gorge Reservoir (basin code 02-13- 11-07) Pollutant: Phosphorus Designated Uses: Use I-P – Water Contact Recreation and Protection of Aquatic Life and Use IV-P – Recreational Trout Waters and Public Water Supply Size of 35,000 acres (55 square Watershed: miles); excluding drainage to Triadelphia Reservoir Water Quality Chlorophyll a endpoint Standards: consistent with the boundary between mesotrophic and eutrophic conditions ( average 10 µg/L) Analytical Linked HSPF – CE-QUAL- Approach: W2 modeling framework Date Approved: Approved November 24, 2008 Figure 1. Rocky Gorge Reservoir in the Patuxent River watershed Introduction Source: MDE 2008. This Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was developed for the Rocky Gorge
    [Show full text]
  • Area's #1 Fishing & Hunting Outfitter
    Dear Angler: Here in Maryland, we need only look to our State Seal — depicting the fisherman and the ploughman — for proof that fishing really is part of our heritage. It’s a fun, affordable and accessible activity for all ages, and a great excuse to get our children away from video and computer games and into the great outdoors! Approximately 700,000 adults and thousands of young people fish each year in Maryland, with an estimated annual impact of $1 billion on our economy. Gov. Martin O’Malley and Sec. John R. Griffin More than a third of our anglers visit from out of state, testimony to the value and quality of our great fishing resources. We are very fortunate to have expert biologists and managers – working to- gether with our Sport Fisheries, Tidal Fisheries and Oyster Advisory Commissions, and our Coastal Fisheries Advisory Committee, to guide fisheries management across our State. We are also very fortunate to have you -- committed conserva- tionists and advocates – working with us. Your license revenues support protection and enhancement of Maryland’s fishery resources, research and management activities, expanded public access and enhanced law enforcement. And we look forward to strengthening our partnership with you as we work toward our goals for a restored Chesapeake Bay, thriving freshwater streams, and healthy abundant fish populations. Thank you for being a part of a great cultural tradition, and here’s wishing you a terrific year of fishing in Maryland. Martin O’Malley John R. Griffin Governor Secretary About the Cover: This edition of the Maryland Fishing Guide is dedicated to Frances McFaden, who retired from public service after 43 years as a steadfast, ever-helpful, and resourceful Maryland state worker.
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Data Report Gunpowder River, Patapsco/Back River West Chesapeake Bay and Patuxent River Watersheds
    2000 Data Report Gunpowder River, Patapsco/Back River West Chesapeake Bay and Pat uxent River Watersheds Gunpowder River Basin Patapsco /Back River Basin Patuxent River Basin West Chesapeake Bay Basin TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 GUNPOWDER RIVER SUB-BASIN ............................................................................. 9 GUNPOWDER RIVER....................................................................................................... 10 LOWER BIG GUNPOWDER FALLS ................................................................................... 16 BIRD RIVER.................................................................................................................... 22 LITTLE GUNPOWDER FALLS ........................................................................................... 28 MIDDLE RIVER – BROWNS............................................................................................. 34 PATAPSCO RIVER SUB-BASIN................................................................................. 41 BACK RIVER .................................................................................................................. 43 BODKIN CREEK .............................................................................................................. 49 JONES FALLS .................................................................................................................. 55 GWYNNS FALLS ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • U N S U U S E U R a C S
    ) d R y r o e ) m k E P d ( Fallston R d ) e l 1 r d o e O 9 g ( R y im S lt id 4 n w a 5 o t B R 8 t H tH ( y g w S S 7 in y tHwy weet Air R w 145 (S 2 h 1 d ( Belair Byp ) B H s 4 d t a 0 a StHwy 165 tR S S ( l S S d W B DISTRICT t w H a t l H DISTRICT i w ti n y m w ) M ) 2 o y e 4 d r 6 k il e 3 l 1 P R ) R B 0 d 108th45 Congress of the United States 1 e d n l y l v ( w R H l ) o d H t i t S R ) r Mill d) v g a r e e s l p n n t a t i P t o ( e h u v r s B r e ( a a r 8 J W R 2 ( d 1 w 6 S ) e y 4 tH w N 1 ( w H t y y 7 S w 1 9 6 H y t 5 Atkisson Reservoir w S ( d F H R t o ir r Aberdeen Proving Ground Edgewood Arsenal S Worthington Rd k A l R e d B Pleasant ) Hills r Rd utle StHwy 91 (Gamber Rd) B S t M Hw y a i 3 n 2 S ( W t a s h in StHwy 152 g Cockeysville CARROLL t o G n r e R e n d s ) p r in g Reisterstown Rd A v Reisterstown G e a r r i s S o tH n w y F 1 S o Loch Raven 2 t r 9 H Reservoir e ( n s P i w l t a r DISTRICT y k N R k DISTRICT n ico d d 4 ra em us R d H F e 5 d ig lv 1 ( h Edgewood B Y 1 t DISTRICT h R d s o Kingsville 2 c r r A Lutherville- u 83 k h v C R e) Mays Ln d Timonium 6 s ) an Owings ym Chapel S rr t Be H w Mills Semi ve DISTRICT y Gre nary A ens 1 p 5 S ring StH w 2 tH Valley Rd y 1 Rd 3 ( w Thornton 1 Hampton 1 y J ) M 1 o d 4 p a p R 795 0 a g ( R d Joppatowne n R d r e o o i t f s r l F i te S a r a a s s l R t l s H o e l ( d r w R ) a n d 7 R h W Joppa Rd d 4 ) C 1 Lakeside y Perry Hall D Blvd w Liberty e H e n t Reservoir r d u R S P P R e d Carney i a ld R Dulaney Valley Rd HARFORD n r e New Town
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality in Montgomery County
    League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, MD, Inc. (rev. 4/1/2014) Fact Sheet, April 2014 WATER QUALITY IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY INTRODUCTION The state of Maryland is responsible for implementing the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and has delegated to the counties Lower the responsibility for preparing a strategic plan for achieving Monocacy the standards set out in the Clean Water Act for each watershed within the county. Seneca Creek Patuxent As shown in the individual watershed reports below, the overall water quality in Montgomery varies considerably, driven Upper Potomac Direct mostly by the degree of urbanized Rock development of the land. Further Creek development in the county constitutes a Lower significant potential for further degradation Potomac Anacostia Direct of the water supply and significantly increases threats of flooding when development occurs on flood plains Cabin in the area. Stormwater runoff, containing nutrients used on farmlands John and on lawns and gardens in developed areas, as well as increased runoff volume due to the increased creation of impervious surfaces, provides a significant threat to water quality in the two rivers bordering the county and to the Chesapeake Bay, into which both rivers drain. To successfully meet its regulatory requirements and environmental goals, Montgomery County must complete watershed assessments on all county lands on a 5-year rotation and develop a specific implementation plan to correct deficiencies found. The implementation plan must include plans to meet the requirements of the County’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit to show progress toward meeting the waste-load allocations for the Environmental Protection Agency-approved Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) for various reservoirs within the county and how they will affect the Chesapeake Bay.
    [Show full text]