HB893- Impact of Growth concerning ENR upgraded wastewater facilities Big Question Does it promote “Growth”? Does es it it reduce duce the Ni Nitrog ogen en and nd Phosph phor orous ous conce ncentrat ntration ion levels els that are e dis ischarged charged from m wastew ewat ater er effluents? uents?
SB SB320 – Water r Pollu lutio tion – State e Waters ers – Bay y Restorat toration ion Fund (2 (200 004) 4) Establ tablishes ishes : Re- commitment to restoring the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality and natural character Bay Restorati storation on Fund nd in the Department of the Environment; The intent is to award grants and loans from the fund to upgrade the Nutrient Removal T echnology at certain WWTP facilities to achieve ENR Status. Bay Restorati storation on Fees s – paid by wastewater facility, septic systems and sewage holding tank users. [Enha hance nced Nutrie ient nt Remova oval l T ech chnol nology ogy – refers to technology capable of reducing the nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations in wastewater effluent to concentrations not more than 3 milligrams/per liter total nitrogen and not more than 0.3 milligrams/per liter total phosphorous, as calculated on an annually average basis.] .]
HB893 - Bay Restoration Fund – Wastewater T reatment Facilities Upgrades – Report ortin ing g Requir irem emen ent Requi quires es MDE E and MDP P to jointly intly report rt on the impact act that t an ENR NR upgr graded aded wastewater water es . treatment tment facilit ility y has on Growth th in the juris risdiction diction it serves Beginni ginning ng Januar uary 1, 2009 – and every year therea eafter fter – The Repor port shoul ould d consist nsist of: Permi mit t Acti tivi vity ty – Resid identi ential al and Commercial ercial Build lding ing Permit its. s. Othe her r Appropriat opriate e Informa ormati tion on - determ ermined ed in cons nsult ultat ation on with th the e Bay Restora toratio tion n Fund d Advisor visory y Commi mitt ttee ee, and with th assis sista tance nce of the e munic icipal ipality ty and county unty in which ich the e ENR upgrad ade e is loca cate ted. Planning anning satis isfi fies s the requir uirement ement : Conduct nducting ing growth owth analys lyses es and reporting orting the e findi ndings gs Real l Propert erty y Parce cel l Data - Maryland yland Depar artm tment ent of Assess essme ment t and T axat ation on Approv oved ed Sewer wer Servi vice ce Area a and d Certi tified ed Priority ority Fundi ding ng Area a (PFA) ) Data a - provid vided d From om Loca cal Govern ernme ments nts to Planni ning U.S. S. Census us Data a – Growth owth Indic dicat ator or - Popula latio tion n and Housin sing g Unit it Data Othe her r Offi fici cial al Docu cumenta mentatio tion – Loca cal l Gover ernment nment Water er and Sewage age Maste ter r Plans ns, , WR WREs, , Comprehe prehens nsive e Plans, s, etc. c.
2017 BRF Methodology: Basic Approach & Analysis • Prepare are a Plan • Up Updat ate e the Statewide ewide SSA Data a layer yer • Verif ify y ENR NR Sewe wersheds rsheds • Collec lect parcel rcel poin int t data a - latest st and greatest atest avail ilable able ( R ecommend) • Resear earch ch gr grow owth data • Archive hive the Data
ENR Progression – Connections Before ENR Start artin ing g Po Points nts - ENR Repo eporting rting 2005 2007 2009 Celanese Brunswick 2010 Crisfield Hurlock Chestertown Bowie Hagerstown 2006 Talbot Region II Cumberland Havre De Grace Easton Delmar 2008 Mt. Airy Kent Island Elkton Pocomoke Perryville Indian Head 2011 City Federalsburg Denton George’s Creek Little Poolesville 2012 Patuxent Cambridge Joppatown/ 2013 Sod Run 2014 La Plata Piscataway Snow Hill Aberdeen Thurmont Broadneck Parkway Md. City Damascus Patuxent
Reporting 36 “S1” Aft ENR Fund “ S1” B4 ENR Fund Period ENRs 17 e d b a c (Start Pt.) Table ble 1 Existing Ex sting Servi vice ce Area Ar Develop velopment ment Tracker cker Prior orit ity Fundin ding g Area geographies relate to Maryland’s economic growth, resource protection and planning policies
Total Increase Hook-ups New Development a c b 36 ENRs Tabl ble e 2 Growth owth Impact Im pact Total l Incre rease ase = Ne New Developmen lopment t + Possib ible le Hook-ups ps
Valid idati ation on Proc ocess: ss: Correct rection ion & Dis iscov overy ery Bowie S1 B4 S1 Aft Current rrent S1 Older der S1 Over erlay lay
Total Increase Locations - Formerly S4 and S5 w/ one major exception Bowie Current Total Connections = 20,949 Total Increase = 390 S1 Aft S1 B4 Older der Sewer er Svc. c. Curren rent t Sewer er Svc.
North Bowie Spring Meadows and Collington Anthony’s Addition. Ide dentificati tification on Total Increase Locations Zoom-In Ashleigh Station, Hall Station, Woodmore @ Oak Creek Collingbrook, The Preserve @ Woodmore Estates and Ashleigh
Discove covery: ry: 2005 Annexation – Bowie Woodmore at Oak Creek New Development Result ult: 32 parcels records = 141 allocated to “S1 B4” Problem: (Year built >2010) Lag Time detected in: 1) Planning receiving new corporate Bowie boundaries from local Possible Septic governments Activity 2) Annexations reflected in GIS format, possible = 249 due to lack of technical staff Correctio rrection: Bowie Possible Septic Activity = 217 In PFA =173 (80%) Out PFA = 44 (20%)
Bowie PFA Piscataway Total Increase = 1,053 (Shown below) In PFA= 527 Out PFA = 526 Highlighting Improved Parcels Out PFA = 290 Curren rent t S1 Curren rent t S1 w/PFA FA Overlay verlay w/PFA FA Overlay verlay
U.S .S. . Cen ensus sus Data ta
Conclus clusion ion: Planni ning g main intain ains s the posit itio ion n that there is little to indicate that an ENR upgrade encourages extension of services to and consumption of WWTP capacity by development (nor by development outside of PFAs). Our analysis shows that ENR improvements provide a significant opportunity for municipalities to continue to meet their growth goals under highly improved water quality standards. Angela Butler, GIS Analyst/Planner III Geospatial & Data Analysis Division Maryland Department of Planning angela.butler@maryland.gov
Recommend
More recommend
