DOCSLIB.ORG

Charles County Municipal Stormwater Restoration Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Charles County Municipal Stormwater Restoration Plan CHARLES COUNTY MUNICIPAL STORMWATER RESTORATION PLAN PLAN TO ACHIEVE STORMWATER WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RESTORATION CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND DECEMBER 2017 CHARLES COUNTY MUNICIPAL STORMWATER RESTORATION PLAN P L A N T O A C HI E V E S T O R M W AT E R W A ST E LO AD A LLOCATIONS AND IM P E R V IO U S S U R F AC E R ESTORATION Compliance document for Part IV.E.2.a. and b. of MS4 Discharge Permit #11-DP-3322. DECEMBER 2017 PREPARED FOR CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT 200 BALTIMORE ST. LA PLATA, MD 20646 PREPARED BY KCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 936 RIDGEBROOK ROAD SPARKS, MD 21152 Restoration Plan Acknowledgements This watershed restoration plan was completed as a collaborative effort between the following partners: Charles County Department of Planning and Growth Management KCI Technologies, Inc. The report was authored by the following individuals from KCI Technologies, Inc.: Susanna Brellis Mike Pieper Bill Frost, P.E. Megan Crunkleton County staff providing expertise, oversight, and review include: Karen Wiggen Charles Rice Erica Hahn Appropriate citation for the Restoration Plan is as follow: KCI Technologies, Inc. 2016. Charles County Municipal Stormwater Restoration Plan. Prepared by KCI Technologies, Inc., Sparks, Maryland for Charles County Department of Planning and Growth Management, La Plata, Maryland. Dated June 2016. For more information pertaining to the Restoration Plan, please contact: Karen Wiggen, Planner Charles County Government Department of Planning and Growth Management P.O. Box 2150 La Plata, MD 20646 301-645-0683 [email protected] And visit us on the web: www.charlescountymd.gov/watershed ii Charles County, Maryland Restoration Plan Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Background ......................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Plan Development ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Charles County MS4 Permit .......................................................................................................... 9 1.4 MS4 Permit Coverage ................................................................................................................. 11 1.5 Anticipated Growth ..................................................................................................................... 13 1.5.1 Offsetting Loads from Future Growth ................................................................................ 13 1.5.2 Estimates of Future Growth ................................................................................................ 13 1.6 Impairments, Water Quality, and Land Use/Land Cover ............................................................ 17 1.6.1 Impairments ........................................................................................................................ 17 1.6.2 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 17 1.6.3 Biological Condition ............................................................................................................ 19 1.6.4 Land Use/Land Cover .......................................................................................................... 20 1.7 Watershed Planning Approach ................................................................................................... 24 1.7.1 Watershed Assessments ..................................................................................................... 24 1.7.2 Impervious Surface Restoration Assessment ...................................................................... 26 1.8 Best Management Practices ....................................................................................................... 26 1.8.1 Structural Practices ............................................................................................................. 27 1.8.2 Operation and Programmatic Practices .............................................................................. 29 1.8.3 Implementation Levels ........................................................................................................ 32 1.8.4 Pollutant Reductions and Impervious Credits .................................................................... 32 2 Local TMDLs ................................................................................................................. 34 2.1 Mattawoman Creek TMDL for Nitrogen and Phosphorus .......................................................... 39 2.1.1 Sources ................................................................................................................................ 40 2.1.2 Modeling Approach ............................................................................................................. 40 2.1.3 Reduction Target Derivation ............................................................................................... 41 2.1.4 Summary of Findings from 2015 Watershed Assessment .................................................. 44 2.1.5 2015 Progress ...................................................................................................................... 44 2.1.6 Restoration Plan .................................................................................................................. 46 2.1.7 Load Reductions Expected .................................................................................................. 50 2.1.8 Cost and End Date of Mattawoman TMDL Restoration ..................................................... 52 2.2 Lower Patuxent Bacteria TMDL (Indian Creek, Charles County, MD) ......................................... 54 2.2.1 Sources ................................................................................................................................ 54 2.2.2 Summary of Findings from Lower Patuxent Assessment ................................................... 56 2.2.3 Modeling Approach ............................................................................................................. 56 2.2.4 Reduction Target Derivation ............................................................................................... 60 2.2.5 2015 Progress ...................................................................................................................... 63 iii Charles County, Maryland Restoration Plan 2.2.6 Restoration Plan .................................................................................................................. 63 2.2.7 Load Reductions Expected .................................................................................................. 64 2.2.8 Cost and End Date of Indian Creek TMDL Restoration ....................................................... 64 2.3 Potomac River PCB TMDL ........................................................................................................... 65 2.3.1 Potomac River PCB Disaggregation ..................................................................................... 65 2.3.2 Sources ................................................................................................................................ 65 3 Chesapeake Bay TMDL and Impervious Surface Reduction ............................................ 68 3.1 Impervious Restoration ............................................................................................................... 68 3.1.1 Impervious Surface Analysis ............................................................................................... 68 3.1.2 20% Impervious Restoration Goal ...................................................................................... 71 3.1.3 Impervious Restoration Progress ........................................................................................ 72 3.1.4 Planned Impervious Restoration (Scenario 1) .................................................................... 75 3.1.5 Planned Impervious Restoration (Scenario 2) .................................................................... 77 3.1.6 Cost of Impervious Restoration .......................................................................................... 80 3.2 Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nitrogen and Phosphorus ................................................................ 85 3.2.1 Sources ................................................................................................................................ 85 3.2.2 Modeling Approach ............................................................................................................. 85 3.2.3 Baseline and Target Loads .................................................................................................. 86 3.2.4 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Progress ......................................................................................... 87 3.2.5 Bay TMDL Restoration ........................................................................................................ 88 3.2.6 Load Reductions Expected .................................................................................................. 91 3.2.7 Additional Reductions ........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Bladensburg Prehistoric Background
    Environmental Background and Native American Context for Bladensburg and the Anacostia River Carol A. Ebright (April 2011) Environmental Setting Bladensburg lies along the east bank of the Anacostia River at the confluence of the Northeast Branch and Northwest Branch of this stream. Formerly known as the East Branch of the Potomac River, the Anacostia River is the northernmost tidal tributary of the Potomac River. The Anacostia River has incised a pronounced valley into the Glen Burnie Rolling Uplands, within the embayed section of the Western Shore Coastal Plain physiographic province (Reger and Cleaves 2008). Quaternary and Tertiary stream terraces, and adjoining uplands provided well drained living surfaces for humans during prehistoric and historic times. The uplands rise as much as 300 feet above the water. The Anacostia River drainage system flows southwestward, roughly parallel to the Fall Line, entering the Potomac River on the east side of Washington, within the District of Columbia boundaries (Figure 1). Thin Coastal Plain strata meet the Piedmont bedrock at the Fall Line, approximately at Rock Creek in the District of Columbia, but thicken to more than 1,000 feet on the east side of the Anacostia River (Froelich and Hack 1975). Terraces of Quaternary age are well-developed in the Bladensburg vicinity (Glaser 2003), occurring under Kenilworth Avenue and Baltimore Avenue. The main stem of the Anacostia River lies in the Coastal Plain, but its Northwest Branch headwaters penetrate the inter-fingered boundary of the Piedmont province, and provided ready access to the lithic resources of the heavily metamorphosed interior foothills to the west.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 2 26.08.01.00 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapter 01 General Authority: Environment Article, §§9-313—9-316, 9-319, 9-320, 9-325, 9-327, and 9-328, Annotated Code of Maryland 3 26.08.01.01 .01 Definitions. A. General. (1) The following definitions describe the meaning of terms used in the water quality and water pollution control regulations of the Department of the Environment (COMAR 26.08.01—26.08.04). (2) The terms "discharge", "discharge permit", "disposal system", "effluent limitation", "industrial user", "national pollutant discharge elimination system", "person", "pollutant", "pollution", "publicly owned treatment works", and "waters of this State" are defined in the Environment Article, §§1-101, 9-101, and 9-301, Annotated Code of Maryland. The definitions for these terms are provided below as a convenience, but persons affected by the Department's water quality and water pollution control regulations should be aware that these definitions are subject to amendment by the General Assembly. B. Terms Defined. (1) "Acute toxicity" means the capacity or potential of a substance to cause the onset of deleterious effects in living organisms over a short-term exposure as determined by the Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area
    Approved and Adopted July 2014 10Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area Montgomery County Planning Department M-NCPPC MongomeryPlanning.org APPROVED and ADOPTED 10 Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan ans Hyattstown Special Study Area Abstract This document is a Limited Amendment to the 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed. It retains the 1994 Master Plan vision, but refines 1994 Plan recommendations to better achieve two important objectives: the creation of a well-defined corridor town that provides jobs, homes, and commercial activities; and the preservation of natural resources critical to the County’s well-being. The Amendment contains land use, zoning, transportation, parks, and historic resources recommendations for the portions of the Planning Area in the Ten Mile Creek Watershed. Source of Copies The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 Online: www.MontgomeryPlanning.org/community/plan_areas/I270_corridor/clarksburg/ clarksburg_lim_amendment.shtm Notice to Readers An area master plan, after approval by the District Council and adoption by the Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission, constitutes an amendment to The General Pl (On Wedges and Corridors) for Montgomery County. Each area master plan reflects a vision of future development that responds to the unique character of the local community within the context of a Countywide perspective. Area master plans are intended to convey land use policy for defined geographic areas and should be interpreted together with relevant Countywide functional master plans. Master plans generally look ahead about 20 years from the date of adoption.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    Gaithersburg A Character Counts! City City of Gaithersburg WATER RESOURCES A Master Plan Element February 17, 2010 2009 MASTER PLAN CITY OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT Planning Commission Approval: January 20, 2010, Resolution PCR-2-10 Mayor and City Council Adoption: February 16, 2010, Resolution R-10-10 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Mayor Sidney A. Katz Council Vice President Cathy C. Drzyzgula Jud Ashman Henry F. Marraffa, Jr. Michael A. Sesma Ryan Spiegel PLANNING COMMISSION Chair John Bauer Vice-Chair Matthew Hopkins Commissioner Lloyd S. Kaufman Commissioner Leonard J. Levy Commissioner Danielle L. Winborne Alternate Commissioner Geraldine Lanier CITY MANAGER Angel L. Jones ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Erica Shingara, former Environmental Services Director Gary Dyson, Environmental Specialist Christine Gallagher, former Environmental Assistant Meredith Strider, Environmental Assistant PLANNING AND CODE ADMINISTRATION Greg Ossont, Director, Planning & Code Administration Lauren Pruss, Planning Director Kirk Eby, GIS Planner Raymond Robinson III, Planner CIT Y CITY OF GAITHERSBURG OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 2 WATER RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................................ 1 2. Background.......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections Vol
    SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 96, NO. 4, PL. 1 tiutniiimniimwiuiiii Trade Beads Found at Leedstown, Natural Size SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 96. NUMBER 4 INDIAN SITES BELOW THE FALLS OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK, VIRGINIA (With 21 Plates) BY DAVID I. BUSHNELL, JR. (Publication 3441) CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SEPTEMBER 15, 1937 ^t)t Boxb (jBaliimore (prttfe DAI.TIMORE. MD., C. S. A. CONTENTS Page Introduction I Discovery of the Rappahannock 2 Acts relating to the Indians passed by the General Assembly during the second half of the seventeenth century 4 Movement of tribes indicated by names on the Augustine Herrman map, 1673 10 Sites of ancient settlements 15 Pissaseck 16 Pottery 21 Soapstone 25 Cache of trade beads 27 Discovery of the beads 30 Kerahocak 35 Nandtanghtacund 36 Portobago Village, 1686 39 Material from site of Nandtanghtacund 42 Pottery 43 Soapstone 50 Above Port Tobago Bay 51 Left bank of the Rappahannock above Port Tobago Bay 52 At mouth of Millbank Creek 55 Checopissowa 56 Taliaferro Mount 57 " Doogs Indian " 58 Opposite the mouth of Hough Creek 60 Cuttatawomen 60 Sockbeck 62 Conclusions suggested by certain specimens 63 . ILLUSTRATIONS PLATES Page 1. Trade beads found at Leedstown (Frontispiece) 2. North over the Rappahannock showing Leedstown and the site of Pissaseck 18 3. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 18 4. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 18 5. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 18 6. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 26 7. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 26 8. Specimens from site of Pissaseck 26 9. I. Specimens from site of Pissaseck.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Investigations 71 (Pdf, 4.8
    Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 71 A STRATEGY FOR A STREAM-GAGING NETWORK IN MARYLAND by Emery T. Cleaves, State Geologist and Director, Maryland Geological Survey and Edward J. Doheny, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared for the Maryland Water Monitoring Council in cooperation with the Stream-Gage Committee 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Sarah Taylor-Rogers Secretary Stanley K. Arthur Deputy Secretary MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 General DNR Public Information Number: 1-877-620-8DNR http://www.dnr.state.md.us MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2300 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 554-5500 http://mgs.dnr.md.gov The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical or mental disability. COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER ROBERT W. RIDKY JAMES B. STRIBLING CONTENTS Page Executive summary.........................................................................................................................................................1 Why stream gages?.........................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • From My Backyard to Our Bay an Anne Arundel County Resident’S Guide to Improving Our Environment and Protecting Our Natural Resources
    From My Backyard to Our Bay An Anne Arundel County Resident’s Guide to Improving our Environment and Protecting our Natural Resources From My Backyard to Our Bay The Chesapeake Bay is in Peril. What’s threatening the Bay? Nitrogen. Phosphorus. Sediment. These are the major pollutants responsible for the decline of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients that are essential food in the right quantities, but too much can be lethal to the Bay. Too much nutrients spawn the growth of algae which turns the water green and can be toxic to marine life, pets, and humans. When those algae die, they rob the water of oxygen and create ―dead zones‖ where fish, oysters, clams, and crabs can’t survive. Sediment is soil that washes into the Bay when it rains. It clouds the water and prevents underwater grasses from growing. These grasses produce oxygen and provide a place for young fish and crabs to develop and thrive. So who’s responsible? Every one of us. Every drop of water that falls on Anne Arundel County will make its way to the Bay. Along the way it will pick up and carry with it the things that we put on the ground. What can I do? From My Backyard to Our Bay offers tips for living in harmony with the Bay. It highlights how you can contribute to the health of your local watershed, maintain an environmentally friendly lawn, and manage stormwater runoff, wells, and septic systems in ways that will reduce the flow of pollutants and sediment into the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray, Diana Harley, Mervin Savoy, Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac, Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson, Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman, Barry Wilson, Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler, Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan
    Maryland’s 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230-1718 December 15, 2014 Updated August 4, 2016 Published and distributed by the Section §319(h) Nonpoint Source Program Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230 Phone: 410-537-3906 Fax: 410-537-3873 Lee Currey, Director Science Services Administration Jim George, Manager Water Quality Protection and Restoration Program Ken Shanks, Chief TMDL Implementation Division Maryland’s Nonpoint Source Program is funded in part by a Section §319(h) Clean Water Act Grant from the U.S. EPA. Although this program is funded partly by U.S. EPA, the contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of EPA. Maryland’s 2015-2019 NPS Management Plan page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ------ see first page(s) of each chapter for subheadings - Executive Summary - Chapter 1 – Introduction - Chapter 2 – Objectives and Milestones - Chapter 3 – Resource Assessment and Monitoring Programs - Chapter 4 – Maryland NPS Programs and Initiatives - Chapter 5 – Watershed Management to Achieve NPS Goals - Chapter 6 – Public Education, Outreach and Financial Assistance APPENDICES - Abbreviations - Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Two-Year Milestones - Components of Maryland’s 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan o (Documents designated as integral parts of Maryland’s NPS management plan) - Internet Sources - Milestones for Tracking Progress 2016 UPDATE LISTING - Cover
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Maryland's Environment: a Holistic Solution Douglas F
    University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 40 Article 3 Number 2 Spring 2010 2010 Protecting Maryland's Environment: A Holistic Solution Douglas F. Gansler Former Maryland Attorney General Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gansler, Douglas F. (2010) "Protecting Maryland's Environment: A Holistic Solution," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 40: No. 2, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol40/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE PROTECTING MARYLAND'S ENVIRONMENT: A HOLISTIC SOLUTION By: Douglas F. Gansler* I. AN ENVIRONMENTAL "AMERICA IN MINIATURE" aryland, like its nickname,l really is "America in Miniature." From M the mountainous west to the largest estuary in the United States, Maryland's variety of ecosystems provides a wealth of recreational and economic opportunities for its citizens and visitors. Whether hiking, boating, crabbing, or just enjoying the view, all Marylanders benefit from a healthy environment. However, Maryland's environment is increasingly vulnerable to damage from pollution. Many of Maryland's most threatened environments, including the Chesapeake Bay and its watersheds, are part of delicate ecosystems that are affected by pollution that does not respect political boundaries. The Bay's watersheds are endangered by upstream nutrients that eventually travel to Maryland, causing eutrophication and destruction of important marine habitat.
    [Show full text]