DOCSLIB.ORG

Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Bacteria for the Non-Tidal Jones Falls Basin in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Bacteria for the Non-Tidal Jones Falls Basin in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland FINAL Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Bacteria for the Non-Tidal Jones Falls Basin in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland FINAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Montgomery Business Park Center 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230-1718 Submitted to: Water Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 September 2006 EPA Submittal Date: September 22, 2006 EPA Approval Date: February 12, 2008 Jones Falls TMDL Fecal Bacteria Document version: September 19, 2006 FINAL Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SETTING AND WATER QUALITY DESCRIPTION................................................. 3 2.1 General Setting................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Water Quality Characterization .................................................................................... 11 2.3 Water Quality Impairment ............................................................................................ 14 2.4 Source Assessment........................................................................................................ 19 3.0 TARGETED WATER QUALITY GOAL.................................................................... 31 4.0 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND SOURCE ALLOCATION.................. 31 4.1 Overview....................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Analysis Framework ..................................................................................................... 32 4.3 Estimating Baseline Loads............................................................................................ 33 4.4 Critical Condition and Seasonality ............................................................................... 39 4.5 Margin of Safety ........................................................................................................... 42 4.6 TMDL Loading Caps.................................................................................................... 42 4.7 Scenario Descriptions ................................................................................................... 43 4.8 TMDL Allocation......................................................................................................... 48 4.9 Summary....................................................................................................................... 50 5.0 ASSURANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................... 51 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 53 Appendix A – Table of Bacteria Concentration Raw Data per Sampling Date with Corresponding Daily Flow Frequency..................................................................................... A1 Appendix B - Flow Duration Curve Analysis to Define Strata ................................................B1 Appendix C - Identifying Sources of Fecal Pollution in Nontidal Waters in Maryland Watersheds................................................................................................................................C1 Jones Falls TMDL Fecal Bacteria Document version: September 19, 2006 FINAL List of Figures Figure 2.1.1: Location Map of the Jones Falls Watershed ............................................................ 5 Figure 2.1.2: General Soil Series in the Jones Falls Watershed .................................................... 6 Figure 2.1.3: Land Use of the Jones Falls Watershed.................................................................... 9 Figure 2.1.4: Population Density in Jones Falls Watershed ........................................................ 10 Figure 2.2.1: Monitoring Stations in the Jones Falls Watershed ................................................. 13 Figure 2.3.1: Conceptual Diagram of Flow Duration Zones ....................................................... 16 Figure 2.4.1: Sanitary Sewer Service Area and Septics in the Jones Falls Watershed................ 21 Figure 2.4.2: Location of Sanitary Sewer Overflows in the Jones Falls Watershed ................... 23 Figure 2.4.3: Sanitary and Combined Sewer Overflows Structures in the Jones Falls Watershed ............................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 2.4.4: NPDES WWTPs with Permits Regulating the Discharge of Fecal Bacteria in the Jones Falls Watershed........................................................................................................... 27 Figure 4.2.1: Diagram of Non-tidal Bacteria TMDL Analysis Framework ................................ 33 Figure 4.3.1: Monitoring Stations and Subwatersheds in the Jones Falls Watershed ................. 37 Figure A-1: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for Jones Falls Monitoring Station JON0039 ....... A5 Figure A-2: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for Jones Falls Monitoring Station JON0082 ....... A6 Figure A-3: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for Jones Falls Monitoring Station JON0184 ....... A6 Figure A-4: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for Jones Falls Monitoring Station SRU0005....... A7 Figure A-5: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for Jones Falls Monitoring Station UQQ0005 ...... A7 Figure B-1: Jones Falls Flow Duration Curves............................................................................B2 Figure B-2: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Jones Falls Monitoring Station JON0039 (Average Annual Condition) ................................................................................B5 Figure B-3: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Jones Falls Monitoring Station JON0082 (Average Annual Condition) ................................................................................B5 Figure B-4: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Jones Falls Monitoring Station JON0184 (Average Annual Condition) ................................................................................B6 Figure B-5: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Jones Falls Monitoring Station SRU0005 (Average Annual Condition)................................................................................B6 Figure B-6: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Jones Falls Monitoring Station UQQ0005 (Average Annual Condition)...............................................................................B7 Figure C-1: Jones Falls. Classification Model: Percent Correct versus Percent Unknown.......C8 Jones Falls TMDL Fecal Bacteria Document version: September 19, 2006 i FINAL List of Tables Table 2.1.1: Land Use Percentage Distribution for Jones Falls Watershed................................... 7 Table 2.1.2: Number of Dwellings Per Acre ................................................................................. 8 Table 2.1.3: Total Population Per Subwatershed in Jones Falls Watershed.................................. 8 Table 2.2.1: Historical Monitoring Data in the Jones Falls Watershed....................................... 12 Table 2.2.2: Locations of DNR (CORE) Monitoring Station in the Jones Falls Watershed ....... 12 Table 2.2.3: Locations of MDE Monitoring Stations in the Jones Falls Watershed ................... 12 Table 2.2.4: Locations of USGS Gauging Stations in Jones Falls Watershed ............................ 12 Table 2.3.1: Bacteria Criteria Values from Table 1 COMAR 26.08.02.03-3 Water Quality Criteria Specific to Designated Uses. ................................................................................... 14 Table 2.3.2: Weighting factors for Average Hydrology Year Used for Estimation of Geometric Means in the Jones Falls Watershed (Average Hydrology Year)......................................... 16 Table 2.3.3: Jones Falls Annual Steady-state Geometric Mean by Stratum per Subwatersheds. 18 Table 2.3.4: Jones Falls Seasonal (May 1st-September 30th) Period Steady-state Geometric Mean by Stratum per Subwatersheds.................................................................................... 19 Table 2.4.1: Septic Systems and Households per Subwatershed in Jones Falls Watershed........ 20 Table 2.4.2: Sanitary and Combined Sewer Overflow Structures in the Jones Falls Watershed 24 Table 2.4.3: NPDES municipal WWTPs with permits regulating the discharge of fecal bacteria directly in the Jones Falls Watershed (02-13-09-04)............................................................ 26 Table 2.4.4: Distribution of Fecal Bacteria Source Loads in the Jones Falls Watershed for the Average Annual Period......................................................................................................... 29 Table 2.4.5: Distribution of Fecal Bacteria Source
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gunpowder River
    Table of Contents 1. Polluted Runoff in Baltimore County 2. Map of Baltimore County – Percentage of Hard Surfaces 3. Baltimore County 2014 Polluted Runoff Projects 4. Fact Sheet – Baltimore County has a Problem 5. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Back River 6. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Gunpowder River 7. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Middle River 8. Sources of Pollution in Baltimore County – Patapsco River 9. FAQs – Polluted Runoff and Fees POLLUTED RUNOFF IN BALTIMORE COUNTY Baltimore County contains the headwaters for many of the streams and tributaries feeding into the Patapsco River, one of the major rivers of the Chesapeake Bay. These tributaries include Bodkin Creek, Jones Falls, Gwynns Falls, Patapsco River Lower North Branch, Liberty Reservoir and South Branch Patapsco. Baltimore County is also home to the Gunpowder River, Middle River, and the Back River. Unfortunately, all of these streams and rivers are polluted by nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment and are considered “impaired” by the Maryland Department of the Environment, meaning the water quality is too low to support the water’s intended use. One major contributor to that pollution and impairment is polluted runoff. Polluted runoff contaminates our local rivers and streams and threatens local drinking water. Water running off of roofs, driveways, lawns and parking lots picks up trash, motor oil, grease, excess lawn fertilizers, pesticides, dog waste and other pollutants and washes them into the streams and rivers flowing through our communities. This pollution causes a multitude of problems, including toxic algae blooms, harmful bacteria, extensive dead zones, reduced dissolved oxygen, and unsightly trash clusters.
    [Show full text]
  • This Special Bulletin Brings to You the Summary and Recommendations of the Whitman, Requardt and Associates Report on Lake Rolan
    SPECIAL REPORT FROM Associates, Engineers, to do an engineering study on how THE LAKE ROLAND WATERSHED FOUNDATION, INC. best to remove silt now clogging the Lake, and collecting daily at a rapid rate. This study was authorized by Baltimore This special Bulletin brings to you the Summary and City and Baltimore County. Recommendations of the Whitman, Requardt and Associates (2) The offer of free dredging services for two months by report on Lake Roland, published in July, 1974. We are Ellicott Machine Corporation, and reduced labor-operating grateful to Mr. Douglas L. Tawney, Director, Baltimore City costs by C. J. Langenfelder & Company and the Operating Bureau of Recreation and Parks, for permission to do this. Engineers Union. We alsoprovide you with a map showing where the planned (3) Theformation of a tax-exempt, non-profit community basins will be and the location of the spoil areas. organization, under the auspices of the Ruxton-Riderwood We ask you to read this carefully so that you will know the Improvement Association, known as The Lake Roland facts when the community meeting is held Monday evening, Watershed Foundation, Inc. The Foundation will act as a September 30, in the Auditorium of the Church of the Good voice for the community, and will work to insure that any Shepherd, Boyce Avenue, Ruxton, at 8P.M. At this time, Mr. conservation program for Lake Roland is carefully and John B. Gillett of Whitman, Requardt and Associates, will sensitively executed. present the project and will try to answer any questions you (4) Expression of interest in the designation of Lake may have.
    [Show full text]
  • Upstream, Downstream from Good Intentions to Cleaner Waters
    Upstream, Downstream From Good Intentions to Cleaner Waters A Ground-Breaking Study of Public Attitudes Toward Stormwater in the Baltimore Area Sponsored by the Herring Run Watershed Association and the Jones Falls Watershed Association OpinionWorks / 2008 OpinionWorks Stormwater Action Coalition The Stormwater Action Coalition is a subgroup of the Watershed Advisory Group (WAG). WAG is an informal coalition of about 20 organizations from the Baltimore Metropolitan area who come together from time to time to interact with local government on water quality issues. WAG members represent all the region’s streams and waters and recently pressed the city and county to include stormwater as one of the five topics in the 2006 Baltimore City/Baltimore County Watershed Agreement. The Stormwater Action Coalition is focused on raising public awareness about the problems caused by contaminated urban runoff. Representa- tives of the following organizations have participated in Stormwater Action Coalition activities: Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Baltimore Harbor Watershed Association Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Foundation Clean Water Action Environment Maryland Friends of the Patapsco Valley Gunpowder Valley Conservancy Gwynns Falls Watershed Association Herring Run Watershed Association Jones Falls Watershed Association Parks & People Foundation Patapsco/Back River Tributary Team Prettyboy Watershed Alliance Watershed 263 We extend our appreciation to our local government colleagues: Baltimore City Department of Public Works Baltimore City Department of Planning Baltimore County Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management Baltimore Metropolitan Council And to our funders: The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment The Rauch Foundation The Abell Foundation The Baltimore Community Foundation The Cooper Family Fund and the Cromwell Family Fund at the Baltimore Community Foundation More than half of the study participants strongly agree that they would do more, if they just knew what to do.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chesapeake Bay Trust
    The Chesapeake Bay Trust Working to promote public awareness and participation in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries Annual Report 2003 From the Chairman Dear Friends of the Chesapeake Bay, With the help of many partners, volunteers, and donors, 2003 has been a terrific year for the Chesapeake Bay Trust. In 2003, the Trust was pleased to award more than $1.8 million in grants to nonprofit organizations, community groups, schools, and public agencies—an increase of nearly 50 percent from the previous year. This marks the highest level of annual grantmaking in the Trust’s 18-year history. Through this ambitious year of grantmaking, the Trust has supported hundreds of projects that benefit the Bay and involve the citizens of Maryland in the process. Trust grants helped plant stream- side forests to reduce water pollution and create important wildlife habitat. They supported innovative streambank stabilization projects—called “living shorelines”—that absorb polluted run-off and reestablish fish and crab habitat. And Trust grants gave thousands of Maryland students a greater appreciation for the Bay through hands-on experiences like skipjack trips and schoolyard habitat projects. The following pages detail these and other projects supported by the Trust at locations throughout the state. This report also summarizes other notable Trust activities in 2003, including a new scholarship, an urban watershed grant program, and a new design for the popular Treasure the Chesapeake license plate. In 2003, the Trust made significant strides in advancing its mission to promote public awareness and participation in the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers.
    [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]
  • Analysis of the Jones Falls Sewershed
    GREEN TOWSON ALLIANCE WHITE PAPER ON SEWERS AUGUST 31, 2017 IS RAW SEWAGE CONTAMINATING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREAMS? ANALYISIS OF THE JONES FALLS SEWERSHED ADEQUATE PUBLIC SEWER TASK FORCE OF THE GREEN TOWSON ALLIANCE: Larry Fogelson, Retired MD State Planner, Rogers Forge Resident Tom McCord, Former CFO, and MD Industry CPA, Ruxton Resident Roger Gookin, Retired Sewer Contractor, Towsongate Resident JONES FALLS SEWER SYSTEM INVESTIGATION AND REPORT It is shocking that in the year 2017, human waste is discharged into open waters. The Green Towson Alliance (GTA) believes the public has a right to know that continuing problems with the Baltimore County sanitary sewer system are probably contributing to dangerous bacteria in Lake Roland and the streams and waterways that flow into it. This paper is the result of 15 months of inquiries and analysis of information provided by the County and direct observations by individuals with expertise in various professional disciplines related to this topic. GTA welcomes additional information that might alter our analysis and disprove our findings. To date, the generalized types of responses GTA has received to questions generated by our analysis do not constitute proof, or provide assurance, that all is well. 1. The Adequate Public Sewer Task Force of the Green Towson Alliance: The purpose of this task force is to protect water quality and public health by promoting the integrity and adequacy of the sanitary sewer systems that serve the Towson area. It seeks transparency by regulators and responsible officials to assure that the sewerage systems are properly planned, maintained, and operated in a manner that meets the requirements of governing laws and regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Water Resources 2009 CITY OF WESTMINSTER Water Resources 2009 What is the Water Resources Element? Community Vision for During its 2008 General Session, the Maryland General Water Assembly, as part of section 1.03 (iii) of Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, mandated that all Maryland The City’s ability to provide water to counties and municipalities exercising planning and residents and businesses has become an zoning authority prepare and adopt a Water Resources issue of great importance in recent years. Element in their Comprehensive Plans. According to the 2008 Community Survey, 65% of residents are satisfied with Requirements: the quality of water in Westminster, while Identify drinking water and other water resources others were concerned with the quality of that will be adequate for the needs of existing and their water service. future development Residents would like to improved water Identify suitable receiving waters and land areas to service in terms of improved meet the storm water management and wastewater communication. For example, residents treatment and disposal needs of existing and future development would like the City give proper notification when performing sewer or Purpose: water system repairs, as those repairs affect water pressure or the color of water. To ensure the Comprehensive Plan integrates water resources issues and potential solutions Residents also suggested that the City create incentives for residents to conserve To outline how management of water, wastewater and stormwater will support planned growth, given water in order to ensure reliable water water resource limitations service can continue into the future. Water Resources Priorities: State Planning Visions found in this Element: Water supply availability Infrastructure: Growth areas have the water resources and infrastructure to accommodate Reclaimed water use population and business expansion in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally sound manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighborhood News Summer 2010 Summer
    Neighborhood News Summer 2010 Summer Ruxton-Riderwood-Lake Roland Area Improvement Association springs. As the Flynn family drove to one of Jack’s Toad Haul lacrosse games, Kevin described their experience via car phone, with Jack chiming in from the back seat. INSIDE by Bliss McCord It seems that each spring hundreds, perhaps One rainy night this Three Ways to thousands, of toads make spring, as I was Help the Bay winding my way home their annual migration from down the Bellona Towson Run to Lake Roland, Page 3 looking for true love. They Avenue hill, my heart Election sank. Down at the used to swim through the Information bottom were the culvert where Towson Run is telltale signs of a car piped under Bellona. For at Page 4 accident: flashing least 15 years now, however, Home Sales hazard lights, orangey- siltation has forced the red highway cones, toads to go overland across Page 6 men with flashlights. the road. The resultant Judging by the amount carnage gave birth to a new Blakehurst Hosts of activity, I worried volunteer movement, what Board Meeting & that the accident might we are calling The Toad Legislative be serious. Brigade. Woe to the toad Wrap Up who tries crossing without As I was waved around its help. Toad escorting Page 8 the cones by someone is not unique to Towson. Winner of Azalea who looked like The In Philadelphia, parts of House Award Fisherman from the Port Royal Avenue and Eva Gorton’s ads, my eyes Street are closed annually so Page 9 darted to the right, that local toads can make Stream drawn by more lights their way from the hills of Clean Up 2010 well off the road.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Stories Baltimore County History
    REAL STORIES FROM BALTIMORE COUNTY HISTORY Data Obtained hvJ the Teachers and Children of Baltimore County (Maryland) Schools IDustrated with drawings by 7th and 8th Grade Pupils Revised and Adapted by ISOBEL DAVIDSON, Supercisor of Primary Grades, Baltimore County School.s. ---0--- BALTIMORE WARWICK & YORK, INC. 1917. Copyrighted, 1917, by· WARWICK & YORK, INc. REAL STORIES FROM BALTIMORE COUNTY HISTORY CONTENTS Page A FOREWORD ················~···························~---························ . 1 I. ONCE UPON A TIME IN OUR., ~OMMUNITY 1. Neighborhood Changes ....... .-........................................ 5 2. Our Country Long ~,g-0................................................ 9 3. Indians of Marylat'lct: Susquehannoughs and Al- gonqu1ns ......................................... .. ......................... 10 4. Con1ing of the First White 1'Ian-Captain John Smith in the Chesapeake . .: ........................ ~............. 13 5. How Maryland Was Named ........................................ 16 II. ONCE UPON A TIME IN BALTIMORE COUNTY 1. The Changing Boundary Line...................................... 19 2. The Early Pioneers...................................................... 20 3. Colonial Times .............................................................. 22 4. County Seats: Old Baltimore, Foster's Neck, Joppa, Baltimore Town, Towson ........................................ 37 III. ONCE UPON A TIME IN BALTIMORE TowN ........................ 46 IV. ONcE UPON A TIME IN OuR TowN AND V1c1NITY 1. Green Spring. Valley-1743.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Patapsco Regional Greenway the Patapsco Regional Greenway
    THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While the Patapsco Regional Greenway Concept Plan and Implementation Matrix is largely a community effort, the following individuals should be recognized for their input and contribution. Mary Catherine Cochran, Patapsco Heritage Greenway Dan Hudson, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Rob Dyke, Maryland Park Service Joe Vogelpohl, Maryland Park Service Eric Crawford, Friends of Patapsco Valley State Park and Mid-Atlantic Off-Road Enthusiasts (MORE) Ed Dixon, MORE Chris Eatough, Howard County Office of Transportation Tim Schneid, Baltimore Gas & Electric Pat McDougall, Baltimore County Recreation & Parks Molly Gallant, Baltimore City Recreation & Parks Nokomis Ford, Carroll County Department of Planning The Patapsco Regional Greenway 2 THE PATAPSCO REGIONAL GREENWAY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................4 2 BENEFITS OF WALKING AND BICYCLING ...............14 3 EXISTING PLANS ...............................................18 4 TREATMENTS TOOLKIT .......................................22 5 GREENWAY MAPS .............................................26 6 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX .................................88 7 FUNDING SOURCES ...........................................148 8 CONCLUSION ....................................................152 APPENDICES ........................................................154 Appendix A: Community Feedback .......................................155 Appendix B: Survey
    [Show full text]
  • Sewage and Wastewater Plants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 21 Sewage Plants Violated Permit Limits in 2016; PA and VA Used Trading to Allow Pollution
    Sewage and Wastewater Plants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 21 Sewage Plants Violated Permit Limits in 2016; PA and VA Used Trading to Allow Pollution NOVEMBER 29, 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was researched and written by Courtney Bernhardt and Tom Pelton of the Environmental Integrity Project. THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT The Environmental Integrity Project (http://www.environmentalintegrity.org) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for effective enforcement of environmental laws. EIP has three goals: 1) to provide objective analyses of how the failure to enforce or implement environmental laws increases pollution and affects public health; 2) to hold federal and state agencies, as well as individual corporations, accountable for failing to enforce or comply with environmental laws; and 3) to help local communities obtain the protection of environmental laws. For questions about this report, please contact EIP Director of Communications Tom Pelton at (202) 888-2703 or [email protected]. PHOTO CREDITS Cover photo of Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant from University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Photo of Back River WWTP by Tom Pelton. Photo of Monocacy River by Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Photo of Massanutten Wastewater Treatment Plant by Alan Lehman. Sewage and Wastewater Plants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Executive Summary Across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 21 sewage treatment plants violated their permit limits last year by releasing excessive amounts of nitrogen or phosphorus pollution that fuel algal blooms and low-oxygen “dead zones” in waterways, according to an Environmental Integrity Project examination of federal and state records.1 The plants in violation included 12 municipal sewage facilities in Maryland that treat more than half of the state’s wastewater, with the most pollution coming from the state’s largest two facilities: Baltimore’s Back River and Patapsco wastewater treatment plants.
    [Show full text]