approved water resources functional master plan

Water Resources Functional Master Plan

The Maryland-National CapitalPark and Planning CommissionPrince George’s County Planning Departmentwww.mncppc.org/pgco

September 2010

Approved

Approved W

ater Resources Functional M

aster Plan Septem

ber 2010

$17.00

ABSTRACT

Title: ApprovedWaterResources FunctionalMasterPlan

Author: TheMaryland-NationalCapital ParkandPlanningCommission

Subject: CountywideWaterResources

Date: January2010

SourceofCopies: TheMaryland-NationalCapital ParkandPlanningCommission 14741GovernorOdenBowieDrive UpperMarlboro,Maryland20772 On-lineathttp://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Ongoing_ Plans_and_Projects/Special_Projects/Water_Resources.htm

SeriesNumber: 830102405

NumberofPages: 328

Abstract: ThisreportcontainsthetextoftheApprovedWaterResourcesFunctionalMasterPlan(WaterResourcesPlan).ItamendsPrince George’s County’s 2002 General Plan. The WaterResourcesPlanprovidesinformationrelatingtocountywaterandsewerservicecapacityrelativetoplannedgrowthto2030,summarizesandprovidesatechnicalmodeltoestimatethenutrient loadings on watersheds from existing and futureconditions,andidentifiesthepoliciesandstrategiestoamendthe General Plan that are needed to maintain adequatedrinkingwatersupplyandwastewatertreatmentcapacityto2030 and tomeetwaterquality regulatory requirements asthecountycontinuestogrow.ItsatisfiestherequirementsofMDHouseBill1141.

Local and Neighboring Jurisdictions

CityofBowie

JosephMeinert,Director,DepartmentofPlanningandEconomicDevelopment

CityofLaurel

JackBrock,DeputyDirectorofPlanning

AnneArundelCounty

LynnMiller,AICP,LongRangePlanningAdministrator

CindyCarrier,SeniorPlanner,LongRangePlanning,OfficeofPlanningandZoning

MontgomeryCounty

MarkSymborski,CountywidePlanningDivision,EnvironmentalPlanning

CalvertCounty

GregoryA.Bowen,DepartmentofPlanningandZoning

JudyTrow,DepartmentofPlanningandZoning

CharlesCounty

JasonGroth,APF-ProgramManager(primary)

ReedFaasen,ActingPlanningDirector(secondary)

HowardCounty

SusanOverstreet,PlanningSupervisor,DivisionofEnvironmentalandCommunityPlanning

Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan i

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning CommissionPrince George’s County Planning Department

14741 Governor Oden Bowie DriveUpper Marlboro, Maryland 20772

www.mncppc.org/pgco

Water Resources Functional

Master PlanSeptember 2010

ii Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Samuel J. Parker, Jr., AICP, Chairman Françoise M. Carrier, Vice ChairmanOfficersPatriciaColihanBarney,ExecutiveDirectorJosephZimmerman,Secretary-TreasurerAdrianR.Gardner,GeneralCounsel

TheMaryland-NationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommissionisabicountyagency,createdbytheGeneralAssemblyofMarylandin1927.TheCommission’sgeographicauthorityextendstothegreatmajorityofMontgomeryandPrinceGeorge’sCounties:the Maryland-Washington Regional District (M-NCPPC planning jurisdiction)comprises1,001squaremiles,whiletheMetropolitanDistrict(parks)comprises919squaremiles,inthetwocounties.

TheCommissionhasthreemajorfunctions:

� Thepreparation,adoption,and,fromtimetotime,amendmentorextensionoftheGeneralPlanforthephysicaldevelopmentoftheMaryland-WashingtonRegionalDistrict;

� Theacquisition,development,operation,andmaintenanceofapublicparksystem;and

� InPrinceGeorge’sCountyonly,theoperationoftheentirecountypublicrecreationprogram.

TheCommissionoperatesineachcountythroughaPlanningBoardappointedbyandresponsibletothecountygovernment. All localplans,recommendationsonzoningamendments,administrationofsubdivisionregulations,andgeneraladministrationofparksareresponsibilitiesofthePlanningBoards.

ThePrinceGeorge’sCountyDepartmentofPlanning(M-NCPPC):

� Our mission is to help preserve, protect and manage the county’s resources byprovidingthehighestqualityplanningservicesandgrowthmanagementguidanceand by facilitating effective intergovernmental and citizen involvement througheducationandtechnicalassistance.

� Ourvisionistobeamodelplanningdepartmentofresponsiveandrespectedstaffwhoprovidesuperiorplanningandtechnicalservicesandworkcooperativelywithdecision-makers,citizensandotheragenciestocontinuouslyimprovedevelopmentqualityandtheenvironmentandactasacatalystforpositivechange.

PrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningBoard MontgomeryCountyPlanningBoardSamuelJ.Parker,Jr.,AICP,Chairman FrançoiseM.Carrier,ChairmanSylvesterJ.Vaughns,ViceChairman MaryeWells-Harley,ViceChairmanSarahCavitt JosephAlfandreJesseClark NormanDreyfussJohnH.Squire AmyPresley

THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL

PARK AND PLANNING COMM

ISSION

Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan iii

Jack B. Johnson, County Executive

CountyCouncil

The County Council has three main responsibilities in the planning process: (1)settingpolicy,(2)planapproval,and(3)planimplementation.Applicablepoliciesareincorporatedintoareaplans,functionalplans,andthegeneralplan.TheCouncil,afterholdingahearingontheplanadoptedbythePlanningBoard,mayapprovetheplanasadopted,approvetheplanwithamendmentsbasedonthepublicrecord,ordisapprovetheplanandreturnittothePlanningBoardforrevision.ImplementationisprimarilythroughadoptionoftheannualCapitalImprovementProgram,theannualBudget,thewaterandsewerplan,andadoptionofzoningmapamendments.

CouncilMembers

ThomasE.Dernoga,1stDistrict,CouncilChairman

WillCampos,2ndDistrict

EricOlson,3rdDistrict

IngridM.Turner,4thDistrict

AndreaC.Harrison,5thDistrict,CouncilViceChairwoman

SamuelH.Dean,6thDistrict

CamilleExum,7thDistrict

TonyKnotts,8thDistrict

MarilynnBland,9thDistrict

ClerkoftheCouncil

RedisC.Floyd

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY

iv Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan v

TABLE OF CONTENTSI.Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II.Plan Purpose and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5HB1141StatutoryRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5PlanPurpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5PublicParticipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6InterjurisdictionalandInteragencyCoordinationandCommunication. . . . 7PlanMethodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

III.Planning Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11CountyPlanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12FederalAgencies,Programs,andRegulations.......................16StateAgencies,Programs,andRegulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20RegionalPartnerships,Programs,andRegulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

IV.Growth Policies and Land Use Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29LandUseandLandCover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30GeneralPlanFramework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32CountyLandUseandDevelopmentPatterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32LandUseImpactFactors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35UnderstandingRelationshipsBetweenLandUse,DevelopmentPattern,andWaterQuality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38ImplicationsfromTheoreticalModelObservations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42CurrentLandCoverWithintheCounty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43SubwatershedLandCover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45ConservationPriorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47DevelopmentCapacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50LandUseScenarioDevelopment–TheModel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51ModelingResults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54SignificanceofDevelopmentPatterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54ChapterIssuesSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54PoliciesandStrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

V.Watershed Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Watersheds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57ImpactsofLandUseonWatersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58LocalWaterQualityIssues.....................................59WatershedsasaFrameworkforPlanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61BenefitsofWatershed-BasedPlanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62TheChesapeakeBayBasin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66PrinceGeorge’sCountyWatersheds,TributaryTeams,andWatershedRestorationActionStrategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68PotomacRiverBasin..........................................68PatuxentRiverBasin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

vi Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

ImplementationEfforts,WatershedAssessments,andWatershedRestorationActionStrategies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73ChapterIssuesSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82PoliciesandStrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

VI.Environmental Resources & Land Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85WaterResources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86NaturalResources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95EnvironmentalandNaturalResourcesConservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100LandDevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104ChapterIssuesSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108PoliciesandStrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

VII.Stormwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115StormwaterLandDevelopmentRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116StormwaterResponsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118StormwaterRegulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Nutrients,Sediment,andTrash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126StormwaterFacilitiesOperationsandMaintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128Flooding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130EnvironmentalSiteDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132BasisforRevisionofCountyStormwaterPolicies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133ChapterIssuesSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134PoliciesandStrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

VIII.Drinking Water and Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141DrinkingWater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Wastewater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152ChapterIssuesSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162PoliciesandStrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

IX.Stewardship and Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

IntergovernmentalandInterjurisdictionalCommunication,Cooperation,andCoordination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170EducationandOutreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171CommunityEngagementandFunding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172DataCollection,Management,andDistribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175LandConservation,Preservation,andRestorationPrograms..........176RegulatoryRevision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179Systems-BasedManagement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179ChapterIssuesSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183PoliciesandStrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan vii

Appendices

I.Nonpoint Source Modeling for Prince George’s County . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193ReviewofNonpointSourceModels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194PollutantLoadAnalysisModelStructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197MethodologyforPrinceGeorge’sCountyWaterResourcePlanNonpointSourceModeling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200LandUseResults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229SepticSystemDataInput. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243PointSourceLoadDadInput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244LoadingRateDataInputs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244NonpointSourceLoadingModelRunsandResults. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248SummaryofFindingsfromPrinceGeorge’sCountyModeling. . . . . . . . 267

MarylandDepartmentofPlanningLandUse/LandCoverClassificationDefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

II. WSSC Wastewater Capacity Projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

III.WSSC 2006 Water Production Projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287ExecutiveSummary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288PerUnitWaterProductionFactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288GrowthandAverageProductionForecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292MaximumDayProjections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295DrinkingWaterAvailabilityandCapacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

IV.Land Conservation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301ThePrinceGeorge’sCountyPurchaseofDevelopmentRightsProgramandtheHistoricAgriculturalResourcePreservationProgram. . . . . . 301TheMarylandAgriculturalLandPreservationFoundation. . . . . . . . . . . 302RuralLegacyProgram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302TransferofDevelopmentRights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302PriorityPreservationAreas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304StateLandConservationPrograms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304FederalLandConservationPrograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Glossary of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

M-NCPPC Resolution and Certificate of Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

viii Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Maps

1. ChesapeakeBayWatershedandSurroundingArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302. GeneralPlanTiers,Centers,andCorridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333. ProjectedDwellingUnitGrowth2005–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344. WatershedswithinPrinceGeorge’sCounty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465. PriorityFundingAreasPerWatershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476. CountywideGreenInfrastructureNetwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497. SewerEnvelopesPer2008WaterandSewerPlan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508. CurrentPlanningAreasandWatersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509. HighQuality(TierII)WatersinPrinceGeorge’sCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6010. BenthicIBIWaterQualityofMajorWatersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7911. HabitatWaterQualityofMajorWatersheds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8012. WetlandsandWatersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9013. AquiferOutcrops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9214. PrinceGeorge’sCountyGeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9915. FEMA100YearFloodplainsandWatersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13116. GroundwaterMonitoringWellsandWatersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

Figures

1. IncreaseinStormwaterRunoffwithUrbanization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312. UrbanGrowthPatterninMaryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343. NewDwellingUnits2002-–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374. PrototypicalLandUseConfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395. LandUseModelProcessDiagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536. AcresinNewDevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537. WaterRecharge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 878. PhysiographicProvinces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 879. CoastalPlainAquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9110. ContiguousandDisconnectedRiparianBuffers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9511.SchematicRenderingofanOn-LotBioretentionArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13212.SepticSystemDiagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan ix

FOREWORD

ThePrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningBoardispleasedtomakeavailabletheApproved Water Resources Functional Master PlanforPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

ThisplanfulfillstheprovisionsoftheWaterResourcesElement,oneofseveralstateplanningrequirementssignedintolawinMarylandonMay2,2006,andmandatedinHB1141,Section1.03(iii)ofArticle66BoftheAnnotatedCodeofMaryland.TheWaterResourcesPlanshowshowdrinkingwatersupplies,wastewatereffluents,andstormwaterrunoffcanbeanticipatedandmanagedtosupportexistingandplannedgrowth.

Policy guidance for this plan came from the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan.

Itcontainsrecommendationsforgrowthpolicies;landuse;environmentalconservationandpreservation;waterresourceprotectionandrestoration;waterresourceconservationandefficiency;interagencyandintergovernmentalcommunicationandcoordination;outreach and education; community engagement; regulatory revision; and data andsystemsmanagement.Thisplanorganizesanapproachtowaterresourcesustainabilitythatclarifiesthecounty’sintenttoprioritizewaterresourceprotection;identifiesissuesandregulationscriticaltowaterresourcepreservationandrestoration;andprovidesaframeworkforestablishingthecriterianecessarytoachieveandevaluateoursuccesstowardmeeting theseobjectives.Thiseffort is supportedandreinforcedcountywidethrough the Envision Prince George’s initiative to engage a broad cross section ofstakeholdersindevelopingasharedvisionforthecounty’sfuturedirectionandgrowth.We invite you to visit the Envision Prince George’s web site at www.mncppc.org/Envisiontolearnmoreabouthowtoparticipateinthisexcitinginitiative.

OnFebruary23,2010,thePrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningBoardandtheDistrictCouncil held a joint public hearing on the preliminary functional master plan.ThePlanning Board adopted the plan in May 2010 with modifications as contained inPGCPBResolutionNo.10-44.TheDistrictCouncilapprovedtheplaninJune2010withadditionalmodificationsstipulatedinCR-59-2010.

ThePlanningBoardandDistrictCouncilappreciatethecontributionsofthecommunitymembersandstakeholdersthroughouttheplandevelopmentphaseandatthepublichearing. We look forward to this plan providing the foundation for water qualityprotection,conservation,andenhancementthatwillbenefittheresidents,citizens,andvisitorsinPrinceGeorge’sCountyforyearstocome.

SamuelJ.Parker,Jr.,AICPChairmanPrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningBoard

x Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Chapter I: Executive Summary 1 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

“The world’s water resources are our lifeline for survival and for sustainable development in the twenty-first century.”

Kofi Annan, former Secretary General

United Nations March 22, 2005

I. EXECUTIVE SUMM

ARY

Virtuallyeverythingthatsocietydoes,andhasdone,onthesurfaceofthelandhasimpactedourwater resources.Waterandcommunityare linkedand interdependentelements that combined have shaped the landscape of Prince George’s County.Historically, thenaturalwatersof thecountyhavestimulatedgrowthandeconomicdevelopmentandhaveinfluencedtheevolutionofourcommunitiesandneighborhoods.Similarly,theadvancementandexpansionofsocietyhasimpactedandaffectednaturalwaters in numerous respects. Today it is attainable and necessary to maintain thegrowthandvitalityofourcounty,whilesustainingtheintegrityofthenaturalwaterresourcesthatsupportourexistence.

ThenaturalenvironmentofPrinceGeorge’sCountyisrichindiversityandprovideseconomicandsocial,aswellasenvironmental,resources.Thecountyhaslargeandsmallrivers;streamsandtributaries;maturewoods;farmland;floodplains;tidalandnontidalwetlands;habitatsof rare, threatened,andendangered species; andsteepandgentleslopesthatmakeupitsphysicalform.Thisnaturallandscapesustainsthehydrologicsystemthatprovidesdrinkingwater,absorbswaste,andmanagesstormwaterconsumedandproducedbyourlanduses.Preservationofthenatural,environmental,andwaterresourcesofPrinceGeorge’sCountyisanecessarypriorityinordertosustainexistingdevelopment,allowforgrowthandchange,andadapttofutureconditions.

This Water Resources Functional Master Plan (Water Resources Plan) has beenpreparedinconformancewithstaterequirementsandguidelinesasanamendmenttothe2002Prince George’s County Approved General Plan.TheWaterResourcesPlanisapolicydocumentthatisformallyadoptedbythePlanningBoardandapprovedbytheCountyCouncil.Thisplanmakesrecommendationsandestablishesgoals,policies,and

2 Chapter I: Executive Summary Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

strategiestoassistthecounty,state,andfederalagencies,communities,citizens,andothersin making informed decisions about growth and development, land preservation,environmental and water resource protection, and the infrastructure needed to supportsoundlanduse.

TheWaterResourcesPlanstrivestosupportcontemporarywaterresourceprotectionpoliciesandstrategies, incorporatenatural resourceand landpreservationprograms,enumeratecoordinationandcommunicationopportunities,andmaintainsupportiveplanningprocesses.Theplanwasassembledtoprovideanassessmentoftheimpactsofexistingandfuturelanduseoncountywaterresources,includingdrinkingwaterandwastewater supply and demand capacities, and point source and nonpoint sourceimpactstostreamsandlocaltributaries.Multipleresourceswereconsultedincludingstudies,research,andreportsproducedbyfederal,state,local,andnonprofitagenciesthataddresswaterresourceprotectionaspolicy,planning,programs,andpartnerships.

The task of creating sustainable communities is daunting but achievable.This planorganizesanapproachtowaterresourcesustainabilitythatclarifiesthecounty’sintenttoprioritizewaterresourceprotection,identifiesissuesandregulationscriticaltowaterresourcepreservation and restoration, andprovide a framework for establishing thecriterianecessarytoachieveandevaluateoursuccesstowardmeetingthisobjective.

Communityengagementreflectedthedraftproposedgoals,concepts,andguidelinesandthepublicparticipationprogramestablishedattheinitiationoftheWaterResourcesFunctional Master Plan by the County Planning Board and County Council inSeptemberandOctober2008.ThepublicoutreachprocessbeganwithacountywidepublicforumonNovember20,2008,andculminatedinafinalpublicpresentationonMarch18,2009.Commentson,andinputsto,thedraftplanrecommendationswerealso received through focus groups, telephone surveys, and web page e-mails andsurveys.Publiccommentwassummarizedinwritingandevaluatedbystafftoestablishprioritygoalsandplanrecommendations.

The Water Resources Plan has incorporated differing growth and developmentdirectivesintomodelingscenariostodeterminewaterqualityimpactsassociatedwithdevelopment patterns. An ideal growth pattern was based on state smart growthpolicies,thecountypriorityfundingareasandproposedprioritypreservationareas.Themodeling decisions for the ideal growth pattern regarding land preservation,conservation,andgrowthboundariesreflectthepoliciesoftheApproved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan and the2008Water and Sewer Plan.TheWaterResourcesPlanisintendedtohelpinformplanners,planreviewers,permittingandimplementationagencies,thecountycitizenry,andthedevelopmentcommunitytoachieveandmaintainhealthywaterresourcesforthecurrentandfuturecitizensofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.It is the intent of this plan to advocate for smart growth strategies, to establishdevelopment capacities, to incorporate environmental site design, and preservation,conservation,andrestorationprogramsintocountywidegrowthpoliciesintheinterestofmaintaininghealthyandsufficientwaterresourcesforthecountyanditsmunicipalities.TheWaterResourcesPlanbroadlysupportstheGeneralPlan,anditscorepoliciesandrecommendationsforthecountytoguidedecisionsaboutgrowthanddevelopment.

TheWaterResourcesPlanpromotessourceandreceivingwaterprotectionanduseanddemand management of water resources. Through conservation and efficiencyrecommendations, this plan establishes achievable sustainability goals for waterresources in Prince George’s County. Public drinking water availability has been

“Sustainable communities can improve the quality of life for their citizens

and at the same time take responsibility to protect

common goods and natural resources. Good

governance toward sustainable development

requires permanent, cyclic management mechanisms

and instruments (e.g., systems and tools) in

municipal management aimed at effective target

setting, monitoring, reporting, and continual improvement. The aim is to anchor sustainability

principles within all municipal decision-

making.”

—ICLEI Local Governments for

Sustainability1

1 ICLEI—Local GovernmentsforSustainability.http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-about-iclei

Chapter I: Executive Summary 3 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

evaluatedpertheInterstateCommissiononthePotomacRiverBasin’sWaterSupplyReliabilityForecastforWashingtonMetropolitanArea,Year2025studythatindicatescurrentwaterresourcesareabletomeetdemandforecastfortheregion,includingthearea of Prince George’s County served by the Washington Suburban SanitaryCommission,totheyear2025,andasprojectedto2045.WSSCdevelopswastewaterflowprojectionsbasedonpopulationandemployment forecastscompiledbyPrinceGeorge’s County and developed for the Metropolitan Washington Council ofGovernments.Theseshowexistingandprojecteddemands,andcapacitylimitsattheirwastewatertreatmentplants.WSSCforecastsindicatethatcurrentpublicwastewatertreatmentcapacityforPrinceGeorge’sCountyissufficientthroughtheyear2030.Theprotectionof receivingwatersandestablishmentofwaste loadcapacities forcountystreams and watersheds are examined and considered in this plan. Many waters inPrinceGeorge’sCountyarecurrentlyimpairedandstrategiestomitigateimpactsandrestorebiologicalandphysicalhealthhavebeenaddressedparticularlythroughgrowthpolicies,landdevelopmentstandards,andpreservationstrategies.

Duringtheplanningprocessandinconversationwithcitizens,environmentalgroups,builders,anddevelopers,thenecessityofproductivecoordinationamongjurisdictions,agencies, communities, organizations, and citizens responsible for water resourceprotectionandmanagementwasclear.Thisplanconfirmsthatitisimperativetoreachacrosstraditionallanduseplanningboundariestopartnerwithleadersindiversefieldsincluding:policy-makers,publicandprivatefunders,landowners,appraisers,economists,engineers, environmentalists, and educators. In order to achieve meaningful goalsdevelopedwithmeasurablecriteria,weneedtogalvanizeacooperativedirectiveandshareresponsibilitywithourmultiplecountyagenciesandenvironmentalnonprofits,neighboringjurisdictions,andlocal,state,andfederalagenciesthattogetheroversee,manage, and protect our water resources. Water by nature does not respond tojurisdictionalboundariesandacomprehensivemanagementandprotectionprogramcannoteither.

TheWaterResourcesPlanisstructuredonmajorthemesofwhy,what,who,andhowandhasbeenorganizedtoreadsequentiallyaswellasspecifically.Waterresourceshavebeen addressed holistically but with special emphasis given to the preservation,conservation,andprotectionoftheseresourcesthroughlanduseplanning.Thisplanacknowledges thatwater is a naturally renewing resource, but alterations tonaturalhydrologyandecologicalprocessesmay impactwater’sability tobereplenishedandrenewed.Itisourresponsibilitytoforestallandreversethistrendtoensurethecontinuedhealth,safety,andwelfareofourcountyanditsresidents.

4 Chapter I: Executive Summary Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Chapter II: Plan Purpose and Benefits 5 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

II. PLAN PURPOSE AND BENEFITS

HB 1141 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTSTheWaterResourcesElement(WRE)isoneofseveralstateplanningrequirementssignedintolawonMay2,2006,asHB1141.MandatedinHB1141,Section1.03(iii)of Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, all Maryland counties andmunicipalitiesthatexerciseplanningandzoningauthoritymustprepareandadoptaWREintheircomprehensiveplansbyOctober2009(orOctober2010withextensions).This Water Resources Functional Master Plan (Water Resources Plan) fulfills therequirementsoftheWRE.

PLAN PURPOSE ThepurposeoftheWaterResourcesPlanistoevaluateexistinggrowthandanticipatedfuture development and consider any impacts to, and demands on, water resources,drinkingwater,wastewater,andstormwater.TheWaterResourcesPlanprovidesgrowthguidanceexpressedasgoals,policies,andstrategies toaddresswaterquality impactsassociatedwithlanduseinthecounty.ThecreationofthisWaterResourcesPlanwillassurethatthePrinceGeorge’sCounty’sGeneralPlanfullyintegrateswaterresourceissuesandplanning solutions into itsoverallmissionandaddresses the relationshipbetweenplannedgrowthandthearea’swaterresourcedemandsandcapacities.

ThisWaterResourcesPlanshowshowdrinkingwatersupplies,wastewatereffluents,andstormwaterrunoffcanbeanticipatedandmanagedtosupportplannedandexistinggrowth.Waterresourcelimitationsincludefinitesourcewatersuppliesandthresholdson wastewater and stormwater discharge based on the assimilative capacity of thereceiving watersheds. The identification of limitations and/or opportunities in theplanningprocessensuresthattheWaterResourcesPlanisrealisticandenvironmentally

Ensure that the Water Resources Functional Master Plan, as a Water Resources Element of the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan, achieves the mandated requirements of HB 1141 and keeps the county in conformance with all federal and state planning requirements and responsibilities.

6 Chapter II: Plan Purpose and Benefits Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

sustainable.TheWaterResourcesPlanprovidesasoundfoundationandsupportforsmartgrowthprinciplesandtheestablishmentofsustainabledevelopmentcapacitiesinPrinceGeorge’sCountybasedonwaterresources.

ThepurposeoftheWaterResourcesPlanisto:

� Ensureasafeandamplesupplyofdrinkingwaterfrombothsurfaceandgroundwatersourcesandadequatetreatmentofwastewater.

� Minimizethenutrientloadingimpactstoourgroundwater,streams,rivers,andtheChesapeakeBayfromtheusesweemployonourland.

� ImprovedatacollectionandpromoteawatershedplanningprocesstoachieveadesirablebalanceofsustainablegrowthandpreservationoftheChesapeakeBay.

� Provide water resources data that can be transparently interpreted to establishgrowthareaboundaries,informland-userecommendations,andtargetpreservation/conservation/restorationareas.

Thegoals,policies,andstrategiesinthisWaterResourcesPlanarebasedonascientificunderstanding of the hydrology and water quality conditions in Prince George’sCounty. Water behaves in response to established principles, and solutions formanagement,preservation,andrestorationoftheseresourcesshouldbedevelopedinconcertwithaclearunderstandingofthehydrologicsystemandwaterprocesses.TheWaterResourcesPlanspecificallyaddresses:

Drinking Water Supply—Production capacity of drinking water supply facilities;protection of source waters, headwaters, aquifers, and the quality and quantity ofreceiving waters; water appropriation permit limits; and drinking water resourceavailabilityduringdrought.

Wastewater Treatment—Treatmentandallowabledischargecapacityofwastewatersystems; wastewater management through alternate distribution technologies;inspectionandmaintenanceofexistingandproposedpublicandprivatewastewatersystems;locationandimplementationofadvancedwastewatertreatmentsepticsystems;expansion or restriction of public sewer systems; and prevention of public seweroverflowsandwastewatertreatmentsystemfailures.

Stormwater Management—Currentandproposedstormwatermanagementsystemsand practices; water quality protection in receiving waters, headwaters, wetlands,aquifersandgroundwater;streammorphology,ecosystems,woodlandsandtreecanopypreservation and restoration; policy support and implementation strategies forenvironmental site design; support for conservation, preservation, and restorationprograms; and community engagement and education to maintain and/or improvewaterquality.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONThePlanningBoardisrequiredbythePrinceGeorge’sCountyZoningOrdinancetoprepareaprogramforpublicparticipationinthepreparationofanyplan.Thepublicparticipation program encourages a balance of participation by area residents andbusinessesaffectedbytheplan.Stakeholdersforthisplanningeffortincludepropertyowners,civicassociations,environmentalgroups,theagricultureandforestrycommunity,localbusinessgroups,thedevelopmentandbuildingcommunity,governmentagencies,andallmunicipalitiesandjurisdictionswithinoradjacenttothecounty.


The public participation program utilized various outreach techniques to facilitatecommitted public involvement in the preparation of the plan including: Publicmeetings, PowerPoint presentations, round table focus groups, telephone surveys,onlinesurveys,andquestionandcommentopportunities.ThepresentationmaterialsincludedatimetablefortheWaterResourcesPlanpreparationandthepointsatwhichpublicbriefingswouldbeheldandpublicinputwouldbeaddressed.Thecriteriaforthepublicparticipationprogramincluded:

� Atimelineandplantoengageandencouragepublicparticipation.

� Acompilationofinterestedindividuals,communitygroups,stakeholders,agencies,andcommissionsandamethodtoengagethemintheplanprocess.

� Preparation and administration of the public participation process includingstaffing,presentations,informationalboards,andhand-outsforpublicmeetings.

� Standardsfortheacknowledgmentandevaluationofpublicinput.

� Reports andPowerPointpresentations summarizing thepublic’s comments andrecommendations.

INTERJURISDICTIONAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATIONThe Water Resources Plan planning area encompasses approximately 300,000 landacreslocatedinPrinceGeorge’sCounty,Maryland.Thephysicalandgeographicnatureofallwaterresourcesmadeitessentialthatthewaterplanincludeinterjurisdictionaland interagency coordination. Because watersheds, water supply areas, and waterqualityissuesoftenoverlappoliticalboundariesandagencyagendas,asuccessfulwaterresourcesplanrequirescoordinatedeffortsamongadjacentjurisdictionsandstateandcountyagenciessharingwatershedlandareaorwaterresourceresponsibilities.

KeydepartmentsandagenciesinvolvedincreatingthisWaterResourcesPlanandtheirresponsibilitiesaresummarizedbelow.

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC)—ThemissionofM-NCPPC is tomanagephysicalgrowthandplancommunities,protectandstewardnatural,cultural,and historic resources; and provide leisure and recreationalexperiences. M-NCPPC is responsible for preparing andadministeringtheGeneralPlanandmanagingtheregionalsystemofparksforPrinceGeorge’sandMontgomeryCounties.

The Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources (DER)—ThemissionofDERistoprotectandenhancethenaturalandbuiltenvironmentsofPrinceGeorge’sCountybyenforcingfederal,state,andcounty laws to create a healthy, safe, and aestheticallypleasingenvironmentforallresidentsandbusinessesofthecounty. DER is responsible for water and sewer services,sanitationservices,andseveralstormwater-relatedprogramsincludingMunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystem(MS4)permitcomplianceandfloodplainmanagement.

8 Chapter II: Plan Purpose and Benefits Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

The Prince George’s County Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T)—The mission of theDepartmentofPublicWorks andTransportation (DPW&T)includes maintenance, improvements, and beautification byprofessionals who use innovative technologies to stimulate“livable communities” through development. DPW&T isresponsibleforvariouscountyprogramsincludingmaintenanceof stormwater facilities; roadway and public right-of-waymaintenance;stormwatermanagement,erosion,andsedimentationcontrolinspections;theLivableCommunitiesInitiative;andtheenforcementofwoodlandconservationandcriticalarealaws.

The Prince George’s County Health Department—Themission of the Health Department is to protect publichealth,assureavailabilityofandaccesstoqualityhealthcareservices, and promote individual and communityresponsibility for the prevention of disease, injury anddisability. The Health Department issues permits and

conductsinspectionsforsepticsystems,privateresidentialwells,andfoodservices.TheHealthDepartmentalsoworkswiththeWashingtonSuburbanSanitaryCommission(WSSC) to reduce the amount of fats, oils, and grease getting into its wastewatermanagementsystems. TheHealthDepartment’sEnvironmentalEngineeringPrograminvestigatescomplaintsofoverflowingsewersintostreams.

Prince George’s Soil Conservation District (SCD)—TheSCD protects and promotes the health, safety, and generalwelfare of the county’s citizens and residents by conservingsoil, water, and related resources through various measuresdesignedtoprotectpublicland.Servicesprovidedinclude,butare not limited to: reviewing and approving grading andsedimentcontrolplansforallconstructionprojectsthatdisturb5,000square feetof landarea;workingwith stateand federalagenciesonagriculturalissuesthat includeerosioncontrol,nutrientmanagement,andlandstrategiesthathelpimprovewaterquality intheChesapeakeBayandits tributaries;developingeducationandoutreachprograms thathelpprotect anddiscourage the abuseof land,water, andrelatednaturalresources;approvingpondsfordamssafetyinlieuofastatepermit;andadministeringthecounty’sAgriculturalLandPreservationProgramprovidinginformationforthefarmingcommunityregardinggovernmentalprogramsaffectingagriculture.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC)—WSSC is the bicounty water andwastewater utility that is “entrusted by ourcommunity to provide safe and reliable

drinkingwater,life’smostpreciousresource,andreturncleanwatertoourenvironment,allinanethicallyandfinanciallyresponsiblemanner”(WSSCmissionstatement).

TheplanhasexaminedlanduseandlanduseplanningintheCityofLaurel,theTownof Bowie, Prince George’s County’s municipalities, Montgomery County, CharlesCounty,AnneArundelCounty,andCalvertCounty.Tributaryteams,regionalcouncilsofgovernment,andwatershed-basedorganizationsalsohelped informtheplanningprocessandparticipatedintheongoingdevelopmentofrecommendationstoestablish

The Livable Communities Initiative is an exciting strategic plan that will

guide, support, and assist government, residents, and businesses in the

creation and implementation of

principles that will result in a healthy, safe, litter-free environment and promote more livable

communities in Prince George’s County, one community at a time.


shared and unified goals. The state’s Departments of Planning, Environment, andNaturalResources,aswellasthePrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningDepartmentandmultiplecountyagencies,participatedinprovidingplanrecommendationsthatincludestrategies to maintain continued communication and coordination beyond thepreparationofthisplan.

PLAN METHODOLOGYTheWaterResourcesPlanreexaminestheplanningprocessandhowgrowthpoliciesdrive and direct land use.The state has recently initiated many regulatory changesregardinglocalenvironmentalresponsibilitiesandthecountyiscalledupontoexamineandaddresstheimpactsourlandusesandbehaviorshaveonnaturalsystemsandwaterresources.TheWaterResourcesPlanaddressescapacityissuesassociatedwithgrowthand land use policies and practices and provides an analysis of existing and futuregrowth scenarios; the drinking water quality and demand associated with existingconditions and future growth, the wastewater demands and treatment capacitiesnecessary for current and future conditions, and impacts toour surface andgroundwaterfrompointandnonpointsourcepollutants.Thisplanacknowledgesthatcurrentgrowthpatternsanddevelopmentstandardshaveresultedinenvironmentalimbalancesandunsustainablelanduses.

OneoftheexpressgoalsofthisWaterResourcesPlanistointegratelanduseplanningwith sustainable water supply and water quality goals. It is necessary to gauge thecarryingcapacityofthecountywatershedsandtodirectfuturedevelopmentaccordingly.Effortsatthesitelevelrequirethesupportofabroaderplanningframeworktoprotectandpreservewaterquality.TheWaterResourcesPlanrecommendsthatexistingzoningcodes,legislation,environmentalregulations,andplanreviewstandardsandprocessinthe county be evaluated to achieve water resource protection through coordinatedPlanning Department and interagency efforts.The recommendations in this WaterResourcesPlanarepresentedintermsofoverarchinggoalsandpolicieswithsupportingstrategies.Thestrategiesare intendedtooutlineagreater levelofdetailandspecificfutureactionsrecommendedtosupportthestatedpoliciesandachievethegoals.

Awiderangeofstressorsarecontributingtothedeteriorationofthecounty’slandandwaterresources.Consequently,anincreasingmyriadofenvironmentalregulationsandcitizen concerns must be addressed to manage the county’s water resources in acomprehensiveandegalitarianmanner.Federalandstateregulatoryrequirementsareoftencomplex,costly,andconfusingtoimplement.Thisplanadvocatesforacoordinatedwatershed-based approach as the preferred method to address these mandates andconcerns.

OneofthekeytasksofthePrinceGeorge’sCountyWaterResourcesElement(WRE)planisanevaluationofnutrientloadstoeachofthecounty’sPotomacandPatuxentwatersheds fromstormwater runoffbasedonvarious landusescenarios. Inorder toproduce a tool that supports dynamic water resource planning for and beyond theevaluationsassessedforthisplan,theplanningteamevaluatedseveralexistingmodelingoptionstoestimatelanduse-basedwatershedpollutantloads.Theevaluationincludedtheprojectneeds,whichareguidedbyMarylandDepartmentofPlanning’sModels&Guidelines 26, The Water Resources Element: Planning for Water Supply andWastewaterandStormwaterManagement (MDPMG26,2007), inaddition to thescaleofanalysisappropriateforthecountyassumingfutureevaluationswillcontinueforincreasinglysmaller-scalewatersheds.

10 Chapter II: Plan Purpose and BenefitsApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Asummaryofthenonpointsourcemodelingconductedforthecounty’slandareaisprovidedinthisplanwhichdescribestheimpactsoflanduseandlandmanagementonnutrientloadsinthePotomacandPatuxentwatersheds.TechnicalAppendixIprovidesamoredetailedoverviewofthewatershedpollutantloadmodelsthatwereevaluatedandadescriptionofthePollutantLoadAnalysisModel(PLAM)developedforuseintheWater Resources Plan. Descriptions and results of the various nonpoint sourceloadingmodelrunsconductedfortheplanarealsoprovidedinTechnicalAppendixI,followedbyasummaryoffindingsfromthemodelingeffortaswellasadiscussionofthefutureuseofPLAM.

Chapter III: Planning Context 11 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

III. PLANNING CONTEXTSupport the goal, policy, and strategy recommendations of relevant federal, state, county, and other plans and programs to protect, preserve, and enhance water quality in the watersheds of Prince George’s County.

Thereareseveralimportantexistingcountyplansandanumberoffederal,state,andregionalregulationsandprogramsthatwereconsideredduringthedevelopmentofthisWaterResourcesPlan.Currentcountyplansservedasabaseline.Thischapterprovidesabriefoverviewoftheexistingplanningandregulatoryenvironmentforwaterresources,recognizing that Prince George’s County must comply with the details of theseregulations and any applicable permits associated with federal, state, and localregulations.

Thecurrentoverarchingcomprehensiveplanisthe2002Prince George’s County Approved General Plan.TheGeneralPlanputsforthbroadplanningpoliciesforthecountyinordertoguidegrowthandsetgoalsandbenchmarksforadditionalplanningefforts.Functionalmasterplans,subregionplans,masterplans,andsectorplan,arepreparedtosupportthecounty’svision,goals,andpoliciesoftheGeneralPlanortoamenditasnecessarytoachieveneworadditionallydefinedgoals.Therecommendationsmadeincountyplanningdocumentsaddressexistingconditionsandissues,changezoningtosupportdesiredlandusepatterns,andprovideregulatoryguidanceduringthereviewandimplementationofdevelopmentplansandprojects.

Thecountypreparesfunctionalmasterplanstoestablishcountywidegoals,policies,andstrategies for specific planning considerations such as: transportation, greeninfrastructure, historic sites and districts, and adequate public facilities. Functionalmasterplansinformsubregion,master,andsectorplansregardingspecificfunctionalplanning recommendations. The Water Resources Plan has been developed as afunctionalmasterplantoaddressthespecificplanningconsiderationsforcountywidewaterresources.

12 Chapter III: Planning ContextApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Additionally, other county and state agencies produce plans that either inform thepoliciesof theGeneralPlan, as in the caseof the1992StateofMaryland’sSmartGrowthAct,orprovidetechnicalsupporttoimplementpoliciesdefinedbyfunctionalmasterplans,asinthe2008WaterandSewerPlandevelopedbythePrinceGeorge’sCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalResources.AnoverarchingintentofthisWaterResourcesPlanistointegrateitsgoals,policies,andstrategieswithallrelevantcountyandstateplansinaconsistentandtransparentmanner.

COUNTY PLANNING Prince George’s County General Plan—The2002Prince George’s County Approved General Plancontainsgoals,policiesandstrategiestoguidefuturegrowth,development,preservation,andrestoration.TheGeneralPlanestablishesthreegrowthpolicytiersinthecounty—Developed,Developing,andRural.WithintheseTiers,apolicyoverlayforcentersandcorridorsfocusesonspecificareaswheremoreintensedevelopmentisencouraged to take advantageofpublic infrastructure investments in transportationandotherpublicfacilities.TheWaterResourcesPlanevaluatesthesegrowthareasforconsistencywithwater resources capacity anddemand.Thedevelopmentpattern asespousedinthecountyGeneralPlanis:

The Developed Tier is most densely developed along the Washington, D.C.,borderandeasttotheCapitalBeltway.Environmentalgoalsforthisareaaretopreserve existing, and restore degraded, sensitive environmental features andprovideopenspace.Sincethisareaishighlyurbanized,environmentalfeatureswilloftenincludeinnovativedesigns,technologies,andmanagementtechniques.

TheDeveloping Tier,withinthemiddlesectionofthecounty,iswheremuchofthe county’s future development is currently focused. This area contains manyvaluableenvironmentalfeatures,suchasforests,streams,floodplains,andwetlands.NumerouspassiveandactiverecreationalopportunitiesandagriculturallandsexistthroughouttheDevelopingTier.Environmentalpreservationandenhancementisanimportantpolicyinthistier.

TheRural Tier,intheeasternandsouthernportionsofthecounty,shouldremainruralincludingportionsofthePatuxentRiver,PotomacRiver,PiscatawayCreek,and Mattawoman Creek watersheds. Preservation and enhancement of theremaining environmentally significant areas, including the large amounts ofwoodland, wildlife habitat, and recreational areas, should be a high priority.Agriculturalpreservation,ruralcharacter,andscenicvaluearealsoimportanthere.PublicfundsshouldnotencouragefuturedevelopmentintheRuralTier:

� Prohibit extension of water and sewer services into the Rural Tier unlessnecessarytoaddressexistinghealthproblemsoriffoundtobeconsistentwithothercountygrowthpolicies.

� Designatewater and sewer line extension into theRuralTier as controlledaccessonly.

ThecountywidegoalsoftheGeneralPlandescribetheimportanceofpreservingrural,agricultural,andscenicareas,andprotectingenvironmentallysensitivelandsthroughplanning.


TheGeneralPlanmakesthefollowingspecificenvironmentalrecommendations:

� Protectandenhance/restoreareaswithinthegreeninfrastructurenetwork.

� Protect/restoreecologicalfunctions(includingaquaticlivingresources).

� Protectandenhancewaterqualitywithineachwatershed.

� Meet or exceed forest/tree cover goals (26 percent DevelopedTier, 38 percentDevelopingTier, 60 percent RuralTier; 44 percent countywide), reduce forestfragmentation,andpreservematureforests.

� Encourageenvironmentalawarenessthroughoutreachandeducation.

� Continuepropertyacquisitionoreasementsalongkeystreamvalleys.

� Controlfloodingandreduceflood-relatedpropertydamage.

TheGeneralPlanmakesthefollowingspecificwater-relatedstrategyrecommendations:

� Preserve,protect,andenhancesurfaceandgroundwaterfeaturesandrestorelostecologicalfunctions.

� Prepare and implement major watershed management plans to address thepreservation and restoration of ecological functions within watersheds, with anemphasisontherestorationandmaintenanceofwaterquality,protectionoftheaquaticlivingresources,andthecontrolofwaterqualitywithconsiderationofthedevelopmentpatternoftheGeneralPlan.

� Periodicallyemployawater-qualitymodelthatevaluatesexistingwaterqualityandusetheresultstodeterminewhereadditionaleffortsareneeded.

� Evaluatetheeffectivenessofcurrentordinancesandregulationsregardingstreamandwetlandbufferwidths.Consider revising the current regulations toprovidevaryingbufferwidths.

� Augmentcurrentforestconservationandsedimentanderosioncontrolenforcementefforts.

� Continueparklandacquisition inkeysteamvalleysandseekadditional fundingsourcesforacquisitionandconservationeasements.

� Continue implementation of available federal and state programs to controlfloodingandlossesduetofloodingwithoutimpairingwaterquality.Seekadditionalfundingsourcestoaugmentcurrentefforts.

� Implement through existing ordinances the use of systems and processes fortreatingstormwaterrunoffthatpreserveand/orreestablishnaturalresourcesandsystems,suchasreducingnaturalvegetationremoval,reducingimpervioussurfaces,andincreasinginfiltration.

� Evaluatecurrentregulationsthatresultintheconstructionofmandatedimpervioussurfaces. Encourage the use of innovative design that reduces the amount ofimpervioussurfaces.

� Treat stormwater on site to the fullest extent possible to maximize infiltration,restorethenaturalhydrologicsystem,improvewaterquality,andminimizerun-off.

� Evaluate opportunities for coordination of watershed protection policies andprogramswithadjoiningjurisdictions.

Infiltration or Percolation: The penetration and movement of water

downward and radially through the ground surface into subsurface soil layers,

usually continuing downward to ground water; can also entail

upward movement of water through capillary action.

Hydrologic Cycle: The natural pathway water

follows as it changes between liquid, solid, and

gaseous states; biogeochemical cycle that moves and recycles water in various forms through the ecosphere. Also called

the water cycle.

Run-Off: That part of precipitation,

snow melt, or irrigation water that runs off the land

into streams or other surface-water. It can carry

pollutants from the air and land into receiving waters.


The General Plan notes that the implementation of comprehensive plans involvesmaking choices concerning future development patterns considering the cost ofinfrastructureandtheneedforenvironmentalprotection.PrinceGeorge’sCountyisrequiredtoremaincurrentinitsconformancewithstatesmartgrowthprinciples,whichofferarangeofpolicychoicesforimplementingdevelopmentcontrolsandensuringasustainablequalityoflife,including:

� Intergovernmentalcooperationandpublicparticipation.

� Additionalandongoingplanningactivities.

� Regulatoryreviewandrevision.

� BiennialGrowthPolicyUpdates.

The Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan—The2005Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan has identified a contiguous network of environmentally sensitiveareasandsetsforthgoals,policies,strategies,andobjectivestopreserve,protect,andenhancetheseareasby2025.Inthisplan,theidentifiedcountywidegreeninfrastructurenetworkencompasses themostsignificantnatural resource lands, includingstreams,wetlands,buffers,100-yearfloodplains,severeslopes,interiorforest,colonialwaterbirdnesting sites, and unique habitats, as well as critical wooded uplands that providenetwork connectivity. This system of resources currently comprises approximately168,000acres,or54percentofthecounty.Ofthis,33percentispubliclyownedand67percentisprivatelyowned.1Withinthisplan,thegreeninfrastructurenetworkclassifieslandintothreecategories:

Regulated Areas include environmentally sensitive features, such as streams,wetlands,100-yearfloodplains,andsevereslopesandtheirassociatedbuffersthatare protected during the land development process. These areas compriseapproximately32percentofthemappedgreeninfrastructurenetwork.

Evaluation Areas include features such as interior forests, colonial waterbirdnestingsites,anduniquehabitatsthatarenotprotectedduringthelanddevelopmentprocess. These areas comprise approximately 52 percent of the mapped greeninfrastructurenetwork.

Network Gapsincludeareasthatarecriticaltotheconnectionofregulatedandevaluationareas.Theseareasaresuggestedforevaluationofrestorationopportunitiestoenhanceecologicalfunctioningofthenetwork.Theycompriseapproximately16percentofthemappedgreeninfrastructurenetwork.

Theplanalsoidentifiesspecialconservationareas,whichshouldbecarefullyconsideredwhen land development proposals are reviewed in their vicinity to ensure that theuniqueandsensitiveecologicalfunctionsareprotectedorrestored.

ThegoalsfortheseareasoutlinedintheGreenInfrastructurePlaninclude:

� Preserving,enhancing,andrestoringtheseenvironmentallysensitivefeatures.

� Implementingdesireddevelopmentpatternthroughoutthecountywhileprotectingthesesensitiveareas.

1 http://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Ongoing_Plans_and_Projects/Environmental/Green_Infrastructure/Countywide_Green_Infrastructure_Functional_Master_Plan_on_Publication.htm


� Restoringandenhancingwaterqualityinareasthathavebeendegradedbyahighpercentageofimpervioussurfacesandpreservingwaterqualityinareasnotdegraded.

� Preservingsomeportionsofthecountyfromfuturedevelopment.

Ten-Year Water and Sewerage Plan—Since1970,thecountyhasbeenrequiredtoprepareandannuallyupdateaten-yearplanandprogramfortheextensionofwaterandsewerservice.TheTen-YearWaterandSeweragePlanisthecentralcountypolicystatementastowhere,when,andatwhatrategrowthcanbeexpectedtooccur.Theplanhasbeenusedasamajorguidetomasterplanstagingandisconsideredinzoningdecisionsandthegrantingofsubdivisionapprovals.Theplanisalsothemajorguidetothe programming of other public facilities in the Capital Improvement Program,particularlywithrespecttoprovidingservicestonewdevelopment.2

Awaterandsewerservicenetworkisimportantinmanaginganddirectingdevelopmentinthecounty.Urbandevelopmentrequirescommunityormultiusewaterandsewerservice;urbangrowthisdirectlydependentonexpansionofthisservice.Ontheotherhand,individualwatersupplyandsepticsystems,aswellassharedfacilities,canonlysupport relatively low-density development. Water and sewer management thatprovidesforadequatewatersupplies,healthydrinkingwater,andappropriatesewagedisposalmethodspromotespublichealthandenvironmentalquality.3

TheWaterandSewerPlanforPrinceGeorge’sCountyactsasastatementofpolicyandasaworkingdocument.Asapolicystatement,theplandefinesthelanduseanddevelopmentpoliciessetbythecountythroughitsdesignationofgeographicboundarieswherepublicwater and sewermustbeused.As aworkingdocument, it guides thecountyplanninganddevelopmentprocessesby settingout thecriteriaunderwhichbothpublicandprivatewaterandsewerservicescanbeprovided.4

ThePrinceGeorge’sCountyTen-YearComprehensiveWaterSupply andSewerageSystems Plan establishes a water and sewer service area category for each propertywithinthecountyasfollows:

� Category1forpropertiesapprovedforandgenerallywithaccesstopublicservice.

� Category 3 for properties planned, approved, and with the highest priority forpublicservice.

� Categories4or5forpropertiesplannedforfuturepublicservice,butwhichneedtouseprivate,on-sitesystems(usuallywellsandsepticsystems)intheinterim.

� Category6forpropertiesthatwilluseprivate,on-sitesystems,wherepublicserviceisnotplanned.

The2008Water and Sewer Plan,thecurrentplan,waspreparedbythePrinceGeorge’sCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalResources.The2008Water and Sewer Planisrequiredbystatelawtobeconsistentwiththe2002GeneralPlanandapprovedmasterandsectorplans.Toensurethelong-termmaintenanceandrestorationofwaterqualityinour streams and rivers, the2008Water and Sewer Planmakes strategicplanning

2 h t tp : / /www.pr incegeorgescount ymd.gov/Government/L eg i s l a t i veBranch/CouncilAdministration/plan_develop.asp?nivel=subfoldmenu(0,4,0)

3 http://www.co.pg.md.us/government/agencyindex/der/PDFs/Adopted%202008%20Water%20and%20Sewer%20Plan.pdf

4 http://www.co.pg.md.us/Government/AgencyIndex/DER/PDFs/chap1.pdf


recommendationsforsewagetreatmentandtransmissioncapacity.The2008Water and Sewer Plannotes:

� Wastewatertreatmentplantsservingthecountyareapproachingcapacity,andthesanitarysewertransmissionsystemissufferingfromoverflowsduringstormevents.

� MarlboroMeadows’wastewatertreatmentplantinitiallyaddressedthesubdivision’scommunitywastewaterbutWSSChassinceacquiredthefacility.

� RegionalwaterqualityinitiativesintheChesapeakeBaywatershedincorporatestheBayRestorationFundLaw,theenhancednutrientremovalrequirements,andthebayrestorationfee that isbeingcollected fromall residents (commenced inJanuary2005)frompublicutilitycustomersandOctober2005fromprivatesepticsystemowners.

� Sanitary sewer overflows require a description of the cause and effect of theoverflows,enforcementactionsbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA),and improvements implemented by the Washington Suburban SanitaryCommission(WSSC)onitscollectionandtransportsystems.

� RegulatoryrequirementsforpermitsassociatedwiththeapplicationandstorageofbiosolidsisregulatedbytheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE).OnebiosolidslagoonislocatedinCedarvilleinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

The2008Water and Sewer Plandocumentsexistingwaterresourcesandwastewatertreatmentcapacitiesandidentifiesmechanismsneededtomeetfuturedemand.Landuseinrelationtopublicwaterandsewerservice,aswellasindividualwellsandsepticsystemsinthecounty,arealsogovernedbythisplan

FEDERAL AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS Inmanyinstances,federalagencies’regulationsandprogramsestablishtheplatformforstate-andcounty-implementedregulationsandpermits.Thefederalagencies,programs,and regulations outlined in this plan include the Clean Water Act, Safe DrinkingWaterAct,regulationstoaddressflooddamageandloss,andprogramsthatsupportpartnershipsandestablishenvironmentalpolicies.

The Clean Water Act (CWA)providesthebasisformostfederalandstateregulationsgoverningwaterpollution.Thestatuteemploysavarietyofregulatoryandnonregulatorytoolstosharplyreducedirectpollutantdischargesintowaterways,financemunicipalwastewater treatment facilities, andmanagepolluted runoff. In the1970s andearly1980s,thefocuswasonregulatingdischargesfromtraditional“pointsource”facilities,suchasmunicipalsewageplantsandindustrialfacilities,withlittleattentionpaidtorunofffromstreets,constructionsites,farms,andother“wet-weather”sources.Inthelate1980s,thefocusexpandedtoincludenonpointsourcepollutionfromstormwaterrunoff. For “nonpoint” runoff, voluntary programs, including cost-sharing withlandowners,arethekeytool.For“wet-weatherpointsources”likeurbanstormsewersystemsandconstructionsites,aregulatoryapproachisbeingemployed.

Additionally,theCWAhastrendedtowardlookingatamoreholisticwatershed-basedapproachversuslookingateachregulatedentityindividually.5Overthepast15yearsthe emphasis has shifted from a programmatic approach to a watershed approach.

5 http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/

Biosolids: is also referred to as treated sludge and is a

term used by the wastewater industry to

indicate the byproduct of domestic and commercial

sewage and treated wastewater.

—Wikipedia


Underthewatershedapproachequalemphasisisplacedonprotectinghealthywatersandrestoringimpairedones.Afullarrayofissuesareaddressed,notjustthosesubjecttoCWAregulatoryauthority.ThereareseveralcomponentsoftheCWAthatareofinterestfortheWaterResourcesPlan.

Nonpoint Source Management Program (Section 319)—CongressamendedtheCWAin1987toestablishtheSection319NonpointSourceManagementProgrambecauseitrecognizedtheneedforgreaterfederalleadershiptohelpfocusstateandlocalnonpointsourcepollutioncontrolefforts.UnderSection319,thestatemayreceive grant money to support a wide variety of activities including technicalassistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer,demonstrationprojects,andmonitoringtoassessthesuccessofspecificnonpointsourceimplementationprojects.

Water Quality Standards—TheCWAauthorizesstatestoestablishwaterqualitystandards that include setting the designated use for water bodies and thenestablishingappropriateallowableconcentrationlimitsforvariousparametersofconcern.Biennially, states develop a list ofwater bodies that donotmeet statestandardsaccordingtomonitoringactivities.Thesewaterbodiesareknownasthe303(d)listofimpairedwaters.InMaryland,waterqualitystandardsandthe303(d)listaredevelopedbyMDE.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)—Under theNPDESprogram,anydischargeofpollutantstowatersoftheUnitedStatesmustbe permitted. In Maryland, these permit programs are managed by MDE inaccordance with federal provisions. There are two types of permits under theNPDESprogram,individualpermitsandgeneralpermits.Individualpermitsarespecifictoafacility,whereasgeneralpermitshavestandardizedconditions.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)—ATMDListhemaximumamountofapollutantthatawaterbodycanassimilateandstillmeetwaterqualitystandards(seeCodeofMarylandRegulations26.08.02).Maryland’sReportofIntegratedSurfaceWaterQuality6

lists thewaterbodies thatdonotmeet state standardsandeitherhaveorwillhaveTMDLs developed. TMDLs have been developed for a number of water bodies,includingseveralinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Currently,MDEisworkingwithEPAonaTMDLfortheentireChesapeakeBaywatershedthatisexpectedtobecompletedbyDecember2011.

The Safe Drinking Water Actisintendedtoprotectpublichealthandpublicdrinkingwater supplies from groundwater or surface water sources.The requirements includetreatment to primary health-related standards and the 1996 amendments require adetailedriskassessmentfordrinkingwatersourcesandprotectionofgroundwatersources.

The National Flood Insurance Protection (NFIP) Act allows property owners inparticipatingcommunitiestopurchasefloodinsuranceinexchangeforthecommunityadoptingafloodplainmanagementordinanceandprogramtoreducetheriskoffloods.Communities are given a score through the community rating system that guidesinsurance premiums. The insurance program was created to mitigate the need fordisasterreliefduetofloods.Aspartofthisprogram,theFederalEmergencyManagement

6 http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/waterprograms/tmdl/maryland%20303%20dlist/index.asp

Designated uses are human uses and ecological conditions that are

officially recognized and protected. States must designate one or more

uses for each water body.

—Maryland Department of the

Environment (MDE) Water Quality Standards


Agencymapsthe100-yearfloodplainasanarearequiringprotectiontopreventagainstfloodlosses.

Watershed Plan Guidance Elements7—Beginninginfiscalyear2003,EPArequiresall watershed restoration projects funded under Section 319 of the CWA to besupportedbyawatershedplan.Thewatershedplansmustensure:

� Thecausesandsourcesofimpairmentareidentified;

� Themanagementpracticesareidentifiedtohelpaddressthecausesandsourcesofimpairment;and

� Thereisamonitoringcomponentfortheprojecttodemonstrateprogresstowardmeetingwaterqualitystandards.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)8—TheUSGSmissionistomakeavailablerelevantinformationbyprovidingextensivedata,maps,publications,andapplicationssoftware.USGS has developed the Water Resources Discipline (WRD) to provide reliable,impartial,timelyinformationthatisneededtounderstandthenation’swaterresources.WRDactivelyendorsestheuseofthisdataandinformationbydecisionmakersto:

� Minimizelossoflifeandpropertyasaresultofwater-relatednaturalhazards,suchasfloods,droughts,andlandmovement.

� Effectively manage ground-water and surface-water resources for domestic,agricultural,commercial,industrial,recreational,andecologicaluses.

� Protect and enhance water resources for human health, aquatic health, andenvironmentalquality.

� Contributetowisephysicalandeconomicdevelopmentofthenation’sresourcesforthebenefitofpresentandfuturegenerations.

USGScollectsmostofthewaterdatainthenation,butofficialforecastsaremadebyother agencies. Inmost cases,USGSpartnerswith federal, regional, state, and local,agenciestoprovidereliablecurrentandhistoricalwaterdatathatareessentialforsoundplanningandaccurateforecasts.TheWaterResourcesPlanincorpateddataregardingaquiferdrawdownandstreambaseflowstounderstandexistingconditionsinthecounty.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) has reaffirmed its commitment to theenvironmentbyformalizingasetofenvironmentaloperatingprinciplesapplicabletoallitsdecision-makingandprograms:Theseprinciplesare:

� Strive to achieve environmental sustainability.Anenvironmentmaintained in ahealthy,diverseandsustainableconditionisnecessarytosupportlife.

� Recognizetheinterdependenceoflifeandthephysicalenvironment.ProactivelyconsiderenvironmentalconsequencesofACEprogramsandactaccordinglyinallappropriatecircumstances.

� Seek balance and synergy among human development activities and naturalsystems by designing economic and environmental solutions that support andreinforceoneanother.

7 http://www.epa.gov/nps/tribal/pdf/r5c.pdf8 http://water.usgs.gov/


� ContinuetoacceptcorporateresponsibilityandaccountabilityunderthelawforactivitiesanddecisionsunderACEcontrolthatimpacthumanhealthandwelfareandthecontinuedviabilityofnaturalsystems.

� Seekwaysandmeanstoassessandmitigatecumulativeimpactstotheenvironment;bringsystemsapproachestothefulllifecycleofourprocessesandwork.

� Buildandshareanintegratedscientific,economic,andsocialknowledgebasethatsupportsagreaterunderstandingoftheenvironmentandimpactsofACEwork.

� RespecttheviewsofindividualsandgroupsinterestedinACEactivities,listentothemactively,andlearnfromtheirperspectiveinthesearchtofindinnovativewin-win solutions to the nation’s problems that also protect and enhance theenvironment.9

InJuly2002,theEPAandACEannouncedtheselectionoftheAnacostiaRiverasoneof eight urban river restoration pilot projects.These projects are part of the UrbanRiversRestorationInitiative,designedtopromoteurbanrivercleanupandrestorationnationwidethroughthecollaborativeeffortsofthesetwofederalagencies.Thisprojectwas selected throughacompetitiveprocess for itsplans to restorewetlands,expandforestcoverage,redevelopunderusedbrownfieldsproperties,andexpandprivateandpublicstakeholderinvolvement.Inpartnershipwithstateandlocalgovernments,tribalauthoritiesandprivateorganizations,thisprojectfocusesonwaterqualityimprovement,cleanupofcontaminatedsediments,andhumanandanimalhabitatrestoration.Thisprojectstrivestodemonstratehowcoordinatedgovernmentandprivatesectoreffortscan not only restore contaminated rivers, but also revitalize urban environments. Amemorandumofunderstanding aims tobetter coordinatehazardouswaste cleanup,waterqualityimprovements,andenvironmentalrestorationactivitiesundertheCWA,Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the various WaterResourcesDevelopmentActauthorities.10

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—ConservationofenvironmentalresourcesthatareanintegralpartoffarmingisamajorgoalofUSDA.USDAadministersprogramstosupportwetlandandriparianbufferprotectionandcreation;nutrientmanagementplanning;soilproductivity;andconservationplanningandtechnicalassistance.USDAadministers theNationalWaterManagementSystem,whichgivesdirect assistance,information, and technology on water-related issues for the purpose of conservingnaturalresources.Itsfunctionsalso includewaterresourceplanning;watershedplandevelopmentandreview;watershedassessments;andwaterpolicyimplementation.11TheUSDAComprehensiveNutrientManagementPlans(CNMPs)12areconservationplansthatareuniquetolivestockandpoultryoperations.Theseplansdocumentthepracticesandstrategiesadoptedbythelandowneroroperatortoaddressthenaturalresource concerns related to soil erosion, water quality, utilization of manure, anddisposaloforganicby-products.

The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)isatechnicalagencyoftheU.S. Department of Agriculture. The Agency was established in 1935 as the Soil

9 http://www.usace.army.mil/Environment/Pages/eop.aspx10http://enviro.blr.com/news.aspx?id=3616611http://wmc.ar.nrcs.usda.gov/12http://www.md.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/agronomy/cnmp.html


ConservationService(SCS)topromotesoilandwaterconservation.In1994,NRCSwas organized to combine the authorities of the former SCS as well as additionalprograms that provide financial assistance for natural resource conservation. NRCSworks with farmers providing technical assistance and education and also managesseveralgrantprograms.TheMarylandNRCShasapolicystatementsupporting“cleanandabundantwatertoprotecthumanhealth,supportahealthyenvironment,encouragea productive landscape, and ensure an abundant and reliable supply.”1

Action items for the Maryland NRCS include reducing the potential delivery ofsedimentandnutrientsfromagriculturalproducersby70milliontonsandconservingeightmillionacre-feetofwater.TheSoilandWaterResourcesConservationActof1977,asamended,providesbroadstrategicassessmentandplanningauthorityfortheconservation,protection,andenhancementofsoil,water,andrelatednaturalresources,including:

� Appraisal of the status and trends of soil, water, and related resources on non-federallandandassessmentoftheircapabilitytomeetpresentandfuturedemands;

� Evaluation of current and needed programs, policies, and authorities; anddevelopmentofanationalsoilandwaterconservationprogramtogivedirectiontoUSDAsoilandwaterconservationactivities.

The U.S. Department of Transportation issues policy guidance on coordinatinghighwayandwaterresourcedevelopmentprojects.TheFederalHighwayAdministrationcooperateswithfederalandstateagenciesinidentifyingexistingorplannedhighwaysegmentsthatmayneedtobemodifiedtoaccommodatewaterresourcedevelopmentprojectsandtoequitablysharethecostsofinfrastructureprojectsusingpublicfunds.

STATE AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS ThereareanumberofStateofMarylandregulationsandprogramsthatcomplementandsupporttherecommendationsinthisWaterResourcesPlan.Theplanacknowledgesthatthestatehastakenasignificantroleintheprotection,preservation,andrestorationoftheChesapeakeBaywatershed.

Maryland’s Planning Act and Smart Growth Initiatives—TheMarylandDepartmentofPlanningEconomicGrowth,ResourceProtectionandPlanningActof1992(thePlanningAct)wasenactedtoorganizeanddirectcomprehensiveplanning,regulations,andfundingbystate,county,andmunicipalgovernments.ThePlanningActisorganizedaround statutory vision statements that must be pursued in county and municipalcomprehensive plans, where priorities for land use, economic growth, and resourceprotectionareestablished.Thevisionstatementsmustalsobefollowedandsupportedbythestateinitsvariousprogramsandpublicprojects.ThePlanningActalsoestablishedan Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Commission to oversee,study,andreportonprogresstowardimplementationofthevisionstatements.Stateand local fundingdecisionsonpublic constructionprojectsmust alsoadhere to thevisionstatements.

Maryland’sPlanningActandSmartGrowthInitiativesrecentlyupdatedthesevisionstatements in HB294-2009. The newly established 12 visions for all Marylandjurisdictionstofollowastheyplanforthefutureare:

1 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/rca/


1. Quality of life and sustainability:Ahighqualityoflifeisachievedthroughuniversalstewardshipofthe land,water,andairresulting insustainablecommunitiesandprotectionoftheenvironment.

2. Public participation:Citizensareactivepartnersintheplanningandimplementationof community initiatives and are sensitive to their responsibilities in achievingcommunitygoals.

3. Growth areas:Growthisconcentratedinexistingpopulationandbusinesscenters,growthareasadjacenttothesecenters,orstrategicallyselectednewcenters.

4. Community design:Compact,mixed–use,walkabledesignconsistentwithexistingcommunity character and located near available or planned transit options isencouraged to ensure efficient use of land and transportation resources andpreservationandenhancementofnaturalsystems,openspaces,recreationalareas,andhistorical,cultural,andarcheologicalresources.

5. Infrastructure: Growth areas have the water resources and infrastructure toaccommodate population and business expansion in an orderly, efficient, andenvironmentallysustainablemanner.

6. Transportation: A well-maintained, multimodal transportation system facilitatesthe safe, convenient, affordable, and efficient movement of people, goods, andserviceswithinandbetweenpopulationandbusinesscenters.

7. Housing:Arangeofhousingdensities,types,andsizesprovidesresidentialoptionsforcitizensofallagesandincomes.

8. Economic development: Economic development and natural resource-basedbusinessesthatpromoteemploymentopportunitiesforallincomelevelswithinthecapacity of the state’s natural resources, public services, and public facilities areencouraged.

9. Environmental protection: Landandwaterresources,includingtheChesapeakeandcoastalbays,arecarefullymanagedtorestoreandmaintainhealthyairandwater,naturalsystems,andlivingresources.

10. Resource conservation: Waterways, forests, agricultural areas, open space, naturalsystems,andscenicareasareconserved.

11. Stewardship:Government,businessentities,andresidentsareresponsibleforthecreationofsustainablecommunitiesbycollaboratingtobalanceefficientgrowthwithresourceprotection.

12. Implementation: Strategies, policies, programs, and funding for growth anddevelopment,resourceconservation,infrastructure,andtransportationareintegratedacrossthelocal,regional,state,andinterstatelevelstoachievethesevisions.2

Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) implements a diversity ofregulatory and planning programs to reduce the input of pollutants to surface andground waters of the state. Reduction of nutrients from both point and nonpointsourcesisthefocusofthepermitrequirements,alongwithcontrolofbacterialpollutionfromsewagetreatmentplantsandtoxicmaterialsfromanysource.3

2 http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/chapters_noln/Ch_177_hb0294E.pdf3 http://www.mde.state.md.us/Water/water_programs/index.asp.

Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Habitats and

Species—In 1995, Maryland’s Rare and

Endangered Species List contained about 500 plant

and 125 animal species. These species are protected

by law under the Non-Game and Endangered

Species Conservation Act of 1975. At least 185 of these species no longer

exist in Maryland.

—Maryland Department of

Natural Resources


Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)isresponsiblefortheMarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey(MBSS).TheMBSSwasfirstdevelopedin1993asasmallpilotstudyinthreewatersheds.TheMBSSwasMaryland’sfirstprobability-basedorrandomdesignstreamsamplingprogramintendedtoprovideunbiasedestimatesofstreamconditionswithknownprecisionat various spatial scales ranging from large6-digit river basins and medium-sized 8-digit watersheds to the entire state. TheMaryland DNR supports the Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS)ProgramandhascoordinatedthesteadydevelopmentoffivenewWRASseachyearalongwithotherspreparedbylocalgovernments.DNRisalsothecoordinatingagencyfortheChesapeakeBayTributaryTeams.

Stormwater Management Act—Originallypassed in1984, theact required that eachcounty and municipality adopt ordinances to implement a stormwater managementprogramwithafocusonmitigatingpost-constructionstormwaterrunoff.TheStormwaterManagement Act of 2007, which became effective on October 1, 2007, requiresenvironmental site design (ESD) through the use of nonstructural best managementpracticesandotherbettersitedesigntechniquesbeimplementedtothemaximumextentpracticable.TheactwasapprovedbythestateinMay2009andPrinceGeorge’sCountyisrequiredtoupdatethestormwaterordinancetobeincompliancewiththerequirementsof the act by May 2010. MDE has published the 2009 Model Standard StormwaterManagementPlan.Whileitmayvaryamongcountiesbecauseofspecificlocaldevelopmentordinances,MDEwillusethisdocumentasatemplatetoensureeffectiveimplementationof standard plans.4 MDE has proposed emergency regulation and they have a newguidancedocument,StormwaterManagementRegulationsGuidanceforImplementationofLocalStormwaterManagementPrograms(March2010),thatdefinesgrandfatheringaswellasotherlocalplanningissues.5Priortothisact,ESDwasencouragedthroughaseriesofcreditsfoundinMaryland’sStormwaterDesignManual.ThespecificrequirementsforESDareoutlinedingreaterdetailinChapterVII:Stormwater.

Wetlands and Waterways Program—ThisMDE-housedprogramregulatesactivitiesintidalwetlandsaswellasactivitiesinwaterwaysandfloodplains.Authorizationsarerequiredforfilling,dredging,grading,alteringwaterlevels,anddestroyingorremovingvegetation. Applicants must demonstrate that there is no practicable alternative toconductingandactivityinawetland,unlesstheactivityiswaterdependent,andmustattempt to avoid or minimize impacts. Compensatory mitigation is required forwetlands lostthroughregulatedactivities.Inaddition,theWetlandsandWaterwaysProgram produces educational materials and technical and planning guidance onvariousaspectsofwetlandmanagementandmonitorsthestatusofwetlandsandtrendsinwetlandconservationinMaryland.

Maryland Geological Survey Coastal Plain Aquifer and Groundwater Study—TheU.S.GeologicalSurveyandtheMarylandGeologicalSurveyhaveundertakenseveralstudiesonthegroundwaterresourcesintheAtlanticCoastalPlainofMaryland.Onesuchstudyfocusedonthesustainabilityofgroundwaterresourcestodeterminetheabilityoftheaquifersystemtomeetfuturewaterdemands,thepatternsofwaterquality,andhowtoenhancehydrologicmonitoringnetworksandmanagementtoolsforgroundwaterallocation.ThestudyhighlightedthedeclininggroundwaterlevelinSouthernMaryland.6

4 http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/SedimentStormwater/swm2007.asp5 http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/Stormwater%20Guidance%20Document.pdf.6 http://www.nemw.org/cbbriefing-shedlock.pdf


The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission—In1984,tosafeguardthebayfromthenegativeimpactsofintensedevelopment,theMarylandGeneralAssemblyenactedtheChesapeakeBayCriticalAreaProtectionProgram,afar-reachingefforttocontrolfuturelandusedevelopmentintheChesapeake’swatershed.Theribbonoflandwithin1,000 feet of the tidal influence of the bay was determined to be crucial becausedevelopmentinthiscriticalareahasdirectandimmediateeffectsonthehealthofthebay.

TheChesapeakeBayCriticalAreaCommissionwas chargedwithdevisinga setofcriteriathatwouldminimizetheadverseeffectsofhumanactivitiesonwaterqualityand natural habitats and would foster consistent, uniform, and more sensitivedevelopment activity within the critical area. In cooperation with the Critical AreaCommission, Prince George’s County critical area management programs areadministeredbythePlanningDepartmentandtheDepartmentofPublicWorksandTransportationfortheareasofthecountywithinthecriticalarea.

TheCriticalAreaLawrequiresthatPrinceGeorge’sCountyidentifyandprovideforthe establishment, preservation, and maintenance of habitat protection areas.Theseareasinclude:anaturallyvegetated100-footbuffer;nontidalwetlands;thehabitatsofthreatenedandendangeredspecies,speciesinneedofconservation,andtheirhabitat;significantplantandwildlifehabitat;andanadromousfish-spawningareas.7

The Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) has an environmentalpolicy that integrates environmental protection and stewardship into the everydaybusinessactivitiesofallmodesoftransportation,includingthepreventionofpollutionthrough reduced water usage and sound stormwater management practices.8

Byplanningtoprotectnaturalecosystems,MDOTstrivestoavoid,minimize,orlastly,mitigateimpactsoftransportationfacilitiesonthestate’snaturalresources.Provisionsof the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 requires thattransportationplanners,highwayofficials,andtransitinterestsrecognizeenvironmentalvalues and incorporate environmental protection and enhancement measures intoprograms to develop and improve the nation’s surface transportation system. Animportant element of the process is the consideration of various environment andqualityoflifeplanningfactors.9

TheMarylandStateHighwayAdministrationaskedtheLandandWaterConservationFundtocoordinateaNaturalResourcesWorkGroupwiththeMarylandDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandtheU.S.FishandWildlifeService.Theworkgroupisutilizinga green infrastructure approach to identify and evaluate environmental stewardshipopportunitiesandtostrategicallyprioritizeconservationandrestorationprojectsthatprovide environmental benefits to the communities affected by a planned roadimprovement in the vicinity of the US 301 WaldorfTransportation ImprovementsProjectinCharlesandPrinceGeorge’sCounties,Maryland.

The Maryland Department of Agriculture’s Office of Resource Conservation (RC) works closely with Maryland farmers and soil conservation districts to plan andimplement conservation practices and programs that balance crop and livestockproduction with the need to protect natural resources. RC provides a range of

7 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/section2.html8 http://www.mdot.state.md.us/Enviromental%20Compliance/index.html9 Maryland’sTransportationAgencies:CommittedtoProtectingMaryland’sWaters,MDOT,

2004


educational, financial, technical assistance, and regulatory programs to supportMarylandagricultureandtoprotectnaturalresourcesforfuturegenerations.Theofficeworkswithanumberoflocal,state,andfederalagencies,whileimplementingpoliciesestablished by the State Soil Conservation Committee. Four key areas—ProgramPlanningandDevelopment,ConservationGrants,theNutrientManagementProgram,andConservationOperations—comprisetheOfficeofResourceConservation.

REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, AND REGULATIONS InresponsetotheimportanceofpreservingandprotectingtheChesapeakeBay,thereare a number of regional partnerships, programs, and regulations that provide foradditionalwaterqualityprotection.

Chesapeake Bay ProgramisaregionalpartnershipthathascoordinatedandconductedtherestorationoftheChesapeakeBayanditswatershedsince1983.PartnersincludetheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, representingthe federalgovernment; theU.S. Department of Agriculture; the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York,Pennsylvania,Virginia,andWestVirginia;theDistrictofColumbia;theChesapeakeBayCommission,atri-statelegislativebody;andadvisorygroupsofcitizens,scientists,andlocalgovernmentofficials.TheChesapeakeBaysignatoriescommittedtoworkwithlocal governments, community groups, and watershed organizations to develop andimplement locally supported watershed management plans in two-thirds of the baywatershedby2010.Theseplansaredevelopedtoprotect,conserve,andrestorestreamcorridors,riparianforestbuffers,andwetlandstoimprovehabitatandwaterquality.

Sincethe1980sseveralagreementshavebeensignedthatadvancetheprotectionofthebay. In addition to these agreements, each year the Chesapeake Executive Councilmeetstoreaffirmitscommitmenttobayrestorationandthepolicyagendaissetfortheyearahead.Thestate’splansforactionsthrough2011werereleasedinMay2009anddescribeanumberofprogramsandcommitmentsincludingincreasedcontrolofrunofffromagricultureandurban/suburbanlandsthroughbestmanagementpractices.Someoftheagreementsandpolicydocumentsareoutlinedbelow.

Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreement (C2K)—InJune2000,ChesapeakeBayProgrampartners adopted C2K, a strategic plan to achieve a vision for the future of theChesapeake Bay.The agreement details nearly 100 commitments important to bayrestoration,organizedintofivestrategicfocusareas:


� Engagingindividualsandlocalcommunities.

� Improvingwaterquality.

� Managinglandssoundly.

� Protectingandrestoringvitalhabitat.

� Protectingandrestoringlivingresources.10

Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy11—TheC2Kagreementcalledforwaterqualitygoalsbasedscientificallyontheconditionsrequiredtorestorethelivingresourcesinthebay.Maryland’snutrientloadinggoalsare37.3millionpoundsperyearfornitrogenand2.9millionpoundsperyear forphosphorus.Thesegoalsarealsocaps,meaningonce Maryland and the other states in the bay watershed achieve the necessaryreductions, they must maintain that level in order to achieve and sustain improvedwater quality in the bay.The statewide tributary strategy was developed to achieveMaryland’snutrientreductiongoalsandincludesactionsinagriculturalfields,urbanandsuburbandevelopment,wastewatertreatmentplants,andatmosphericdeposition.

“By2010,workwithlocalgovernments,communitygroups,andwatershedorganizationstodevelopandimplementlocallysupportedwatershedmanagementplansintwo-thirdsofthebaywatershedcovered

bythisAgreement.Theseplanswouldaddresstheprotection,conservation,andrestorationofstreamcorridors,riparianforest

buffersandwetlandsforthepurposesofimprovinghabitatandwaterquality,withcollateralbenefitsforoptimizing

streamflowandwatersupply.”—ChesapeakeBayProgram

The tributary strategy is structured to identify the level of effort needed to achievemeasurablereductionsinnutrientsenteringlocalwaterwaysfeedingtothebaythroughtheimplementationofspecificmanagementpractices.Maryland’stentributaryteamshavetheprimarychargeoffacilitatingtheimplementationofmanagementpracticesandpolicychangesneededatthestateandlocallevelstomeetthenutrientreductiongoals.Theteamscomprisecitizens,farmers,localgovernmentrepresentatives,watershedgroups,andbusinessleaders,andareappointedbytheSecretaryofNaturalResourcesonbehalfofthegovernor.12

BayStat Chesapeake—Thegovernor’sChesapeakeBayCabinetisasubcabinetcouncilfor interagency coordination and integration of Chesapeake Bay-related activities.GovernorMartinO’Malleyhas,throughthiscouncil,initiatedBayStatChesapeake13

toassurethatbaymanagementandrestorationprogramsarereachingtheirmaximumefficiencyandthattogethertheycomplementeachothertoassuremaximumoverallefficiencyandeffectiveness.

The Patuxent River Commission (PRC) is an interjurisdictional group created bystatelegislationin1980toprovideguidanceonlanduseandgovernmentalpoliciesinthePatuxentwatershedwiththeaimofpromotingtheprotectionandrestorationof

10CHESAPEAKE2000,ChesapeakeBayProgramAWatershedPartnership11http://www.chesapeakebay.net/tributarystrategies.aspx?menuitem=1991712Maryland’sChesapeakeBayTributaryStrategyStatewideImplementationPlan,1/24/200813http://www.baystat.maryland.gov/


theriver.ThePatuxentRiverPolicyPlan,14alandmanagementstrategytoprotecttheriverand itswatershed,wasoriginallyprepared in1984by representatives fromthestateandsevencountiesinthewatershed.PRCischargedwiththeimplementationofthePatuxentRiverPolicyPlanandin1995expandedto34membersandassumedtheadditionalroleofthePatuxentRiverTributaryTeam.ThefocusofthePatuxentRiverPolicyPlanistoaddressprogrammaticandlandmanagementissueswhilethePatuxentRiverTributaryTeam seeks to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution.The PRC’smembershiprepresentsacross-sectionofthewatershed’sinterestgroupsandservesasaninterjurisdictionalforumfortheprotectionandrestorationoftheriver’seconomic,recreational,andenvironmentalresources.Membershipincludesbusinesses,developers,state and local governments (including Prince George’s County) and its agencies,M-NCPPC,federalfacilities,andenvironmental,academic,agricultural,andwatermeninterests.

Middle Potomac Tributary Team—MarylandDNRcoordinatestributaryteamsforeach of the state’s ten Chesapeake Bay tributary basins. The teams comprise localcitizens,farmers,businessleadersandgovernmentofficialsappointedbythegovernor.Members of the Middle PotomacTributaryTeam include representatives from theInterstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Metropolitan WashingtonCouncil of Governments, M-NCPPC, WSSC, Prince George’s and MontgomeryCounties, federal and state agencies, and environmental, academic, agricultural, andcommunity representatives. The teams’ mission is to reduce nutrient and sedimentinputsandtorestorehabitatthroughcommunityparticipation.Theprimaryfocusoftheteamin2004wastherevisionofthestatetributarystrategy,particularlywastewater,urbanstormwater,agriculture,andoutreachandeducationaspects.Sincethattime,theteamcontinuestoworkcloselywithstateandlocalgovernmentstospurdiscussionandactionstoaddressthecomplexwaterqualityissuesthatdominatetheveryurbannatureoftheMiddlePotomacBasin.TheseissuesincludemultijurisdictionalmanagementofPotomac Basin waterways, issues related to the Blue Plains Advanced WastewaterTreatment Plant, urban stormwater retrofits, and the highly impervious watershedsthatcharacterizetheRockCreekandAnacostiaRivers.

Anacostia Watershed Restoration Partnership (AWRP)15—The AnacostiaWatershed Restoration Partnership16 is a coalition focused on the clean-up andrestoration of the Anacostia watershed. Housed in the Metropolitan WashingtonCouncil of Governments, the partnership grew out of an agreement to restore thewatershed that dates from 1987. The partnership includes government agencies,environmental advocates, and business leaders, including the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, the State of Maryland (represented by the MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmentandtheMarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources),the District of Columbia, Montgomery County, Prince George’s County, and theUniversityofMaryland.Recently,thepartnershiphassteppedupitseffortstorestorethe watershed, adding additional staff and undertaking some important initiatives,including working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to development acomprehensiveplantorestorethewatershed.Thepartnershipisadvisedbyagroupof

14www.mdp.state.md.us/info/patxattach/PPP-Update-xComplete.pdf15http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/anacostia.htm16http://www.anacostia.net/restoration.html

Physiographic Province is an area delineated

according to similar terrain that has been shaped by a common geologic history.

Headwaters is a descriptive rather than a scientific word. Generally

it describes the upper parts of a watershed that

contribute flow to a specific river or storage reservoir.

—American

Groundwater Trust, Glossary of Terms


citizens who are active in watershed restoration, the AnacostiaWatershed CitizensAdvisory Committee, comprising representatives of ten active subwatershed citizenstewardshipgroups.

The Potomac Watershed Partnership (PWP) works to restore the Potomac Riverwhichdrainsanine-million-acreareaincludingtheDistrictofColumbia,Maryland,Virginia,WestVirginia, andPennsylvania.ThePotomacRiver is the second-largesttributaryoftheChesapeakeBayandcrossesfivephysiographicprovincesrepresentingadiversityofeasternforestecosystemsandisaffectedbynearlyfivemillionresidents.

AlmostfourcenturiesofintenselandusehavethreatenedthehealthofthePotomacRiverwatershed.Manyoftheriver’stributarieshavebeenalteredanddegraded.Acidminedrainagehaspolluteditsheadwaters,whilefarminghasoverloadedthewaterwaywithsedimentsandnutrients.Rapidlyexpandingurbanpopulationsandurbansprawlhavecreatedahostofproblems,fromurbanstormwaterrunoffandalteredstreamstofragmentationoftheforestanddestructionofcriticalfishandwildlifehabitat.

PWPisnottheonlyrestorationeffortinthePotomacRiverwatershed,butitisoneofthefirst large-scale collaborative efforts to focuson the region’s landuse andwaterquality.PWPworkwithprivatelandowners,communityorganizations,businesses,andgovernmentstoundertakeavarietyofeffortstoimprovewaterquality;enhanceforest,wetland, and aquatic habitats; restore threatened and endangered species; reduceerosion;andconserveopenspace.ThefollowingsixgoalsguidePWPefforts:

� Increaseandspreadknowledgethroughassessment,monitoring,andeducation

� Accelerateriparianandwetlandrestoration

� Promotelandprotectionandstewardship

� Enhanceforeststewardshipandreducewildfirerisk

� Createmorelivablecommunities

� Sustainandexpandpartnerships17

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)—TheChesapeakeBayandWaterResourcesPolicyCommittee(CBPC)wasestablishedbytheMWCOGBoardofDirectorsin1998astheChesapeakeBayPolicyCommittee;CBPCtracksdevelopments under the federal/state Chesapeake Bay Program for implications tolocalgovernmentsandrecommendsbay-relatedpoliciestotheboard.Boardactionin2005added“WaterResources”tothecommittee’stitleandexpandeditsmandatetoincludeotherregionalwaterqualityissuesinadditiontothoseassociatedwiththebay.Thecommittee’smembership comprises electedofficials and staff fromMWCOG’s20-membergovernments.UpontherecommendationofCBPC,theMWCOGBoardhasendorsedfourwaterqualityprinciplestoguideregionalpolicyregardingthebayrestorationeffortandotherwaterqualitygoals.Theseprinciples,whichweredevelopedoriginallyin1997andrecentlyrevisedbyCBPCare:

“Holistic Requirements—Programs and policies to restore and protect theChesapeakeBayanditstributaries,whetherregulatoryornot,shallreflectaholistic,multi-sector analysis of environmental benefits and costs as well as technicalfeasibility,beforebeingestablished.

17http://www.potomacwatershed.org/pwp_about.html


“Equitable Responsibility—Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries shall strive forequityandcost-effectivenessinallocatingresponsibilitiesamongregions,counties,andmunicipalitiesandamongthedifferentsourcesofpollution.

“Sound Science—Programsandpolicies to restore andprotect theChesapeakeBay and its tributaries shall rely on a sound scientific foundation and shall berevisedasneeded,reflectingadvancesinthatfoundation.

“Communication and Voice—Programsandpolicies to restoreandprotect theChesapeakeBayanditstributaries,whetherregulatoryornot,shouldbedevelopedthrough a cooperative process among stakeholders including local governmentsand wastewater utilities. Given their implementation responsibilities, localgovernmentsandwastewaterutilitiesshallbeengagedattheearlieststagesofthesedevelopmentprocesses.”

MWCOGalsosupportsanurbanforestryprogramthatseekstoenhanceandpreserveforestryresourcesintheregionthroughpublicoutreachandeducation.TheCommunityForestryNetwork(CFN)wasofficiallyorganizedattheMWCOGin1991.OneofthegoalsoftheCFNistoprovideaframeworkfordiscussionsandactivitiesforMWCOGmembergovernmentsandotherinterestedpartiestodevelopsolutionsforurbanandcommunity forestryproblems in theWashingtonmetropolitanarea.Water resourceprotectionisinherentlylinkedtotreecanopyandforestresources.18

18http://www.mwcog.org/

Chapter IV: Growth Policies and Land Use Planning 29 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

IV: GROWTH POLICIES AND LAND USE PLANNING

Adopt land use policies and practices that will manage and monitor growth in a manner that is sustainable, reflects watershed goals and targets, and is protective of environmentally sensitive resources.

Prince George’s County is situated at the approximate geographic center of theChesapeakeBaywatershed and encompasses a gross areaof roughly300,000 acres.Althoughthecountyrepresentsonly0.7percentlandareaoftheoverallbaywatershed,itisasignificantpartofthegrowingurbancorearoundtheDistrictofColumbiaandhasinfluencedthequalityandhealthoftheentirebaywatershed.

Populationgrowthandassociateddevelopmentrequirewater.Thetypeofdevelopment,whereittakesplace,andhowitismanagedimpactstheenvironmentandinfluencesthedeliverycostofwaterservice.Conventionalgrowth,withcharacteristicsoflargelots,lowdensity,andsprawlingdevelopment,increasestheamountofinfrastructurerequiredand therefore the costofdeliveringwater services.Smart growthprinciples, on theotherhand,helpdirectgrowth to areaswithexisting infrastructure,promotemixedlanduses,andencouragewalkableplacesandtheuseoftransit.Suchprinciplescanhelp reduce thequantityofwaterneeded, reduce infrastructurecosts,andpositivelycontributetoimprovingwaterqualitythroughbettersitedesign,preservationofopenspace,andapplicationofbestmanagementpractices.

TheamountoflandinMarylandconvertedtodevelopmentisstatisticallyoutpacingpopulation growth. It has been estimated that between 1970 and 1980 developedacreage increased, as apercentage,more than twiceas fast as thepopulation.A7.5percentpopulationincreasewasaccompaniedbya16.5percentincreaseindevelopedacreageduringthistimeperiod.Between1982and1997,theChesapeakeBaywatershedlostover750,000acresofforestlandtodevelopment—arateofabout100acresperdayandatotalsizeequalto20DistrictofColumbias.Atleast36percentofallforestland

30 Chapter IV: Growth Policies and Land Use PlanningApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Map 1: Chesapeake Bay watershed and surrounding area. Source: USGS

inthebaywatershedisathighriskfordevelopmentoverthenextfivetotenyears.1Developmenthasbeen the largest causeof forest lossover thepast15 to20 years.ForestsactasaneffectivenutrientspongeandtheChesapeakeBayProgramestimatesthatiftheentirewatershedwereforested,only60millionpoundsofnitrogenperyearwouldreachthebay.2

LAND USE AND LAND COVERItisimportanttounderstandthedistinctionbetweenlanduseandlandcoverandhowtheyinfluencewaterquality.Landuseistheemployedactivityoccurringonadefinedpieceoflandwhereaslandcoveristheactualtypeofsurfacefeatureontheground.Landuseistiedtoaparcelboundary,whereaslandcoverisindependentofparcels.Thecountyrealestateclassificationsystemidentifiespropertiesaccordingtotheirprimaryuse.Forexample,alargeparcelcontaininganindustrialbuildingwouldbeclassifiedas

1 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/section2.html2 http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=2898


an industrial landuse.However, the sitemay include abuilding, aparking lot, andforestedlandcovers.Anagriculturallyzonedpropertyoftenhasassociatedwoodlandsandwetlandsandonlyapercentageofthepropertyisactivelyfarmedorusedaspastureforlivestock.

Each landcover influenceswaterqualitydifferently.Landdevelopmenthas impliedlandcovernecessarytosupportitsuse.Forinstance,multifamilyresidentiallanduserequiresparkingataprescribednumberofspacesper livingunit.Consequently, theland cover associated with this land use will include a prescribed amount of pavedsurfacestoaccommodatethelanduse.

Forwaterresourceanalysispurposes,landcoverdataismoresuitablethanlandusedataincapturingthetruewaterqualitysignatureofanarea,buttheimplicationsoflandusewereanalyzedtodeterminelandcoverasbuild-outscenariosinthisplan.ForpurposesoftheWaterResourcesElement(WRE)model,theMarylandDepartmentofPlanning2007DraftLandUseLandCoverdataprovidedthebasisfortheanalysisofexistingconditionsandwasappliedtoprojectionsoffutureimpacts.

Aslandcoverchanges,theamountofrainfallabsorbedintothegroundorthatrunsoffas stormwater changes too.Water quality is largely dependent on a number of keyfactors—thenatureandtypeof landdevelopmentandthecorrespondingpollutantsandthetypeandconditionofchannels,drainageandmanagementsystemsthatcarrywaterandassociatedpollutants.Theformeristhedirectresultofthelanduseinanareawhile the latter is dependent on the topography, soils, land cover, and any existingdrainage features in an area and how these natural conditions are managed andincorporatedtosupportdevelopment.

Figure 1: Increase in stormwater runoff with urbanization.


GENERAL PLAN FRAMEWORKThe2002PrinceGeorge’sCountyApprovedGeneralPlanprovidesaframeworktoguide future growth within the county. The plan strives to reconcile growth andconservation goals through a thoughtful countywide approach. The General Plandesignatesthreegrowthpolicytierstodescribeandguidegrowthwithinthecounty:theDevelopedTier, theDevelopingTier, and theRuralTier.As shownwithin theDevelopedandDevelopingTiers,anoverlayofcentersandcorridorsrepresentsareaswheretheplanencouragesaconcentrationofnewdevelopmenttotakeadvantageofexistinginfrastructure.IncludedamongthesecentersandcorridorsaretheMetrorailstations,whichprovidethemostprominentopportunitiesforhighdensityandmixed-usedevelopment.TheGeneralPlanalsooutlinesspecificobjectivesforhousinggrowthwithinthecounty.Theseobjectiveshaverelevancetowaterresourcessincegrowthinpopulationrequireswaterandsewerserviceanddevelopmentoflandtoaccommodatethegrowth.

Gen

eral

Pla

n

Obj

ectiv

es

Developed Tier

Developing Tier

Rural Tier

Captureadesignatedpercentageofthecounty’sdwellingunitgrowthby2025

>33% <66% <1%

Captureadesignatedpercentageofeachtier’shousinggrowthby2025incentersandcorridors

>50% >20%

Table 1: General Plan growth objectives by tier. Source: 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan

Directing new growth to previously developed areas holds the potential to preventunnecessary land consumption and conserve valuable natural areas. Infill andredevelopmentopportunitiesinsidetheBeltwayandwithintransitcentersareplentifulandrepresentpowerfultoolstoprotectwaterresources.RedevelopmentoflandwithintheDevelopedandDevelopingTiersprotectsgreenfieldareasandprovidesopportunitiesto improve water quality, reduce impervious surfaces, and provide infiltrationopportunitiesatthesitelevel.Infillandredevelopmentalsotiegrowthtoexistingwaterandsewerinfrastructureandavoidconstructionofexpandedinfrastructureoradditionalsepticsystemswherepublicserviceisunavailable.Sustainablebenefitsincludereductionofinfrastructurecosts,reducedvehicletrips,andrevitalizationofexistingneighborhoods.

COUNTY LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNSPrinceGeorge’sCountyexperienceddramaticgrowthduring thedecades followingWorldWarIIduetoitsproximitytotheDistrictofColumbia.Asaresult,thelandareaeastoftheDistrictbecamethefocusofagreatdealofresidentialdevelopment,largelylow-tomedium-densitysingle-familyneighborhoods,insidewhatwouldlaterbecomeknownastheCapitalBeltwaycorridor.Accordingtoa2007studyonMarylandgrowthpatterns, urbanization, or the rate of land conversion, Prince George’s County hasaveragedaround1.65percentlandconversionperyear,aboutthree-quartersofthestate


Map 2: General Plan tiers, centers, and corridors. Source: 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan


Figure 2: Urban growth pattern in Maryland. Source (1973–2002 maps): Shen, Qing et al, “Changing Urban Growth Patterns in a Pro-Smart Growth State: The Case of Maryland, 1973-2002”, Research Paper, April 2007; 2007 map based on 2007 LULC Data provided by USGS.

1973

1997 Map 3: Round 7.1 projected dwelling unit growth in Prince George’s County. Source: M-NCPPC

2002


averageof2.65percent.3ThesamestudyalsoconcludedthatthecountyhasasprawlindexcomparabletothatofadjacentMontgomeryCountyandlower(lesssprawl)thanthestateaverageoramajorityoftheothercountiesinMaryland.Thestudyalsoratedthegrowthpatternasmoderatelycompactandlessfragmentedthanadjacentcounties,althoughitalsoindicatedatrendtowardmorefragmenteddevelopment.

Anotabletrendinrecentdecadesisasignificantshift inthepercentageofpopulationliving inside versus outside the Beltway. This dispersal in population has resulted inadditionallowerdensityresidentialdevelopmentmainlytotheeastandnorthandwithinthecounty’sDevelopingTier.Morethan80percentofnewhousingunitsbuiltfrom1970to2000,andnearlyallpopulationgrowthduringthattime,occurredoutsidetheBeltway.4Figure2providesahistoricalperspectiveofdevelopmentpatterns in theWashington,D.C.,metropolitanregionduringthelastthreedecadesofthetwentiethcentury.

TheMetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments,incooperationwiththecounty,hasgeneratedprojectionsofpopulation,employment,anddwellingunitgrowthto2030.Thiseffort,termedtheCooperativeForecastingProgram,servestoreconcilearegionalgrowthmodelwithprojectionsatthelocallevelprovidingforecastsinfive-yearincrementsfor each locality. Projections indicate steady growth in the county through 2030 withrespecttobothpopulationandemployment.Howthecountymanagesthepattern,type,andlocationofnewgrowthwillinfluencethesuccessofitswaterresourceinitiatives.

Table 2: Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecast for Prince George’s CountyRound 7.1 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Dwellings 318,966 341,187 359,324 373,290 384,216 392,490Households 307,319 328,636 345,989 359,376 369,865 377,820Population 852,875 900,831 936,843 961,598 979,836 992,868Employment 347,886 365,386 389,136 420,386 461,886 518,386

Source: M-NCPPC

LAND USE IMPACT FACTORSUrbandevelopmentisoftenconsideredtheprimarycauseofwaterqualitydegradationindevelopedwatersheds.Although landdevelopmentdoesdirectlyaffectwatershedfunctions,thepatternandmanagementofdevelopmentatbotharegionalandsitelevelcanhelpmitigateorreduceimpactsovertime.Wherenewdevelopmentislocatedandhowwaterrelativetothatdevelopment ismanaged isultimatelyresponsible for theimpactonwaterqualityintherivers,streams,andlakeswithinthewatershed.

3 UrbanGrowthPatterninMaryland.Source(1973–2002maps):Shen,Qingetal,“ChangingUrbanGrowthPatternsinaPro-SmartGrowthState:TheCaseofMaryland,1973-2002”,ResearchPaper,April2007

4 EmergingTrends:TheManyFacesOfPrinceGeorge’sCounty,September2004,Volume1,Issue1


Inmosturbandevelopments,thelargestsourceofwaterpollutionisnotpointsourceorfromapipe,suchasasewagetreatmentplant.Instead,thelargestamountofpollutionis attributed to surfacewater runoffknownasnonpoint sourcepollution.Nonpointsourcepollutionisadirectresultoflanduse,landcover,theextentofimperviousness,and the quality of stormwater management facilities within the watershed. Surfacewater runoff is conveyed across varying land covers and land uses and requires awatershed-based approach to evaluate, analyze, and plan to control and effectivelymanagetheimpactsofnonpointsourcepollution.

Fourmajorfactorsmustbeconsideredwhenassessingtheimpactstothehealthofawatershedfromalanduseperspective:

� Amountofdevelopment

� Locationofdevelopment

� Intensityofdevelopment

� Patternandtypeofdevelopment

Amount of Development—Asthepopulationgrows,moreandmorenaturalland—such as forests, brush and grasslands, and water recharge areas—are converted intodevelopedlandtoaccommodatethenewgrowth.Thesenaturallandsplayacriticalroleinprotectingwaterresourcesbyallowingprecipitationtoinfiltrateintotheground.Inforestedripariancorridorsthatflankcountystreamsandtributaries,thevegetationandsoils help improve water quality by processing nutrients, filtering contaminants,absorbingfloodwaters,recharginggroundwatersystems,supportingecosystems,andmaintainingstreamflows.

Accommodatingnewgrowthdoesnothavetoresultinhighlyconsumptivelandusepractices.Growthcanbeaccommodatedwithintelligentpoliciesandpracticesthataremore considerate and protective of natural systems. Policies adopted in the 2002GeneralPlanhavesoughttodirectandmanagetheamountandlocationofdevelopmentbyencouraginggrowthintospecifiedcentersandcorridorswithinhierarchaltiersofdevelopment.AccordingtotheSeptember2008GeneralPlanGrowthPolicyUpdate,“The county has made very limited progress toward achieving the General Planobjectives for the development pattern. Since 2002 dwelling unit growth in theDeveloped,Developing,andRuralTiershasnotbeenontargettowardachievingtheseobjectives.The shareof residential growthwithin centers and corridors inboth theDevelopedandDevelopingTiershasbeenlowerthantheGeneralPlanobjectives.Thecountyismovingintherightdirectioninincorporatingtransit-orientedand/ortransit-supportingdesignfeaturesinnewdevelopmentwithincentersandcorridors.Intermsofprotecting sensitive lands, althoughconsiderable land ispreservedeachyear, thisamountismuchlessthantheGeneralPlanobjective.”5

GeneralPlanpolicieswereassessedintheGeneralPlanGrowthPolicyUpdate(2008)6andshowedthat,between2002and2007,developmentintheRuralTierwaswithintheplannedobjectives,anddevelopmentintheDevelopedTierwasapproximately18percent,much less than the 38percent benchmark.TheDevelopingTier absorbed roughly 79

5 http://www.pgplanning.org/Projects/Completed_Projects/Recently_Completed_Studies/Growth_Policy_Update.htm

6 http://www.pgplanning.org/Resources/Publications/General_Plan_Growth_Policy_Update__Prince_George_s_County.htm

Greenfield: A piece of usually rural or semirural property that is

undeveloped except for agricultural use, especially one considered as a site for

expanding urban development.


percentofthenewgrowth,whichwasmuchhigherthanthe66percentbenchmark.Thistrendsuggeststhatinfillandredevelopmentarelessdesirabletodevelopersthangreenfielddevelopment and county policies and incentives and disincentives would need to bestrengthenedtoencouragemoredevelopmentintheDevelopedTier.Thecounty’snextGeneral Plan Growth Policy Update will provide an opportunity to reassess planneddevelopmentobjectivesrelativetowaterresourceprotection.

Year Developed Tier

Developing Tier

Rural Tier

2002 527 2,597 972003 351 1,721 762004 344 1,855 1042005 550 2,488 1142006 803 2,543 1162007 412 2,063 61Total 2,987 13,267 568

Percentage 18 79 3

Table 3 and Figure 3: General Plan Policy Update (2008). Source: M-NCPPC

Location of Development—Itisdifficulttoestablishtheimpactsoflandusealoneonwaterqualityduetothedynamicnatureofnonpointsourcepollutionandcumulativeimpairmentsinawatershedthatbuildupovertime.However,certaintypesofpracticesareknowntoexacerbatewaterqualityconditions.Muchofthegrowthbetween1970and1980intheentireChesapeakeBaywatershedoccurreddirectlywithin1,000feetof the Chesapeake Bay—identified as the Chesapeake Bay critical area. Past landprotection strategies to protect riparian areas along streams and rivers oftentimesneglectedtoincludesmallertributaries,wetlands,orothernaturalfeaturesthatprovidenatural,costeffectivewaterresourcemanagementbenefits.Siteconstraintsorpreviousdevelopmentpracticesmayconsequentlymakeripariancorridorpreservationdifficultforinfillorredevelopmentsites.However,thesetypesofsitesshouldnotbeexemptfromprovidingsitemanagementpracticesthatcanachievesimilarbenefitsinmanagingstormwaterimpacts.Currently,Subtitle24oftheCountyCoderequirespreservationofareasdirectlyaroundstreams,tributaries,andwetlandstoensureanadequatebufferexistsbetweendevelopmentandthewaterresource.

Significantnaturalfeaturescansimilarlybeprotectedthroughconservationandlandpreservation efforts that strongly regulate development or prevent it entirely. Largecontiguousamountsofopenspaceandforestshelpcontrolandreducerunoff,absorbnutrients, and provide flood control benefits. Other benefits from open space andforestsincludeprovisionofhabitatforanimalsandplants,communityrecreation,airqualitybenefits,reducedtemperatures,andcontributiontocommunitycharacterandoverallqualityoflife.

Intensity of Development—Theintensityofadevelopment,asitaffectsstormwaterrunoff,canbemeasuredbycalculatingthelevelofimperviousnesswithinawatershed.Rooftops,driveways,pavement,androadwaysareexamplesoffeaturesthatcontributeto imperviousness levels. Impervious surfaces collect pollutants deposited from theatmosphereandothersourcesandincreasethevolumeandintensityofrunoff,resulting

3%18%

79%

New Dwelling Units2002 to 2007

DevelopedTier

DevelopingTier

Rural Tier


inincreasedlevelsoferosionandassociatedsediment,andnutrientandpollutantloadstonearbystreams.Lowdensitydevelopmentdoesnotnecessarilycorrelatetoreducedimperviouslevels.Lawnsandresidentiallandscapefeaturesmayfunctioninthesamewayasdegradednaturalareasduetowholesalegradinganddisturbance,removaloftopsoil,andsoilcompaction.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses a threshold of ten percentimperviousnessinawatershedasanindicatorthatwaterresourcesmightbeimpaired.BasedontheanalysesconductedaspartoftheWaterResourcesPlan,thePotomacwatershed maintains an average impervious rate of 18 percent and the Patuxentwatershedmaintainsanaverageimperviousrateof12percent.Redevelopmentofareasthatalreadycontainimperviouscoverintomixeduse,higherdensitycommunitiescanhelp reduce land consumption, reduce overall watershed impervious levels, provideopportunitiestoretrofitstormwaterfacilitiesthatareineffectiveorunsustainable,andprovidefacilitieswherenoneexist.Overall,imperviouscoverforawatersheddecreasesassitedensityincreasesbecausemoredevelopmentisaccommodatedwithlessland,therebypreservinggreenspace.

Pattern of Development—Theintensityofdevelopmentisnotnecessarilytheprimaryfactor contributing to water pollution but must be considered in concert with thelocationandtypeofstormwatermanagementpractices.Thepatternorarrangementoflanduse and activitieswithin awatershedplays a critical role in affecting thewaterquality.Atthewatershedlevel,thesamepopulationaccommodatedinahigherdensity,smaller,morecompactpatternat strategic locations typicallyhasmanywaterqualityadvantagesoversprawlinglowdensitydevelopment.Byplacingpollutingactivitiesawayfromnaturaldrainageandgroundwaterrechargeareasandallowingstormwatertotravelacrossvegetatedareastofilteroutpollutantsbeforerunoffflowsenterthestreamsandponds,evenhighintensityusesmaybeaccommodatedwithoutadverseimpact.

UNDERSTANDING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT PATTERN, AND WATER QUALITYInordertocompareandunderstandtheimpactoflandusepatternsonwaterquality,anempiricalstudywasconductedusingthemodeldevelopedfortheWaterResourcesPlanandvariousprototypicallanduseconfigurationsonafixed200-acresite.AversionoftheWaterResourcesPlanmodeldevelopedbyMDEwascustomizedforPrinceGeorge’sCounty’sWaterPlanasdescribedinmoredetail inTechnicalAppendixI.Themodelcalculates estimated nitrogen and phosphorus loads from various land use/land covercategoriesbasedonaverageloadingratesprovidedbytheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE).Applicationofthemodeltotheprototypical200-acrelanduse/landcoverconfigurationsshowninFigure4providesasimplisticcomparisonbetweentherelativewaterquality impactsofeachofthesetypesofdevelopment.ItshouldbenotedthattheWaterResourcesPlanmodeldoesnotincludefunctionalitytorepresentspecificprecipitationeventsorwatershedcharacteristicsand,therefore,cannotbeusedtoevaluateimpactsofmanydevelopmentaspectsdiscussedabove(e.g., improvementsinsitedrainageorstormwatermanagementthroughredevelopment).Rather,theresultsforthevariousconfigurationsreflectonlythedifferences inthe loadscalculatedfromtheacreagesofeachlanduse/landcoverwithintheparcelsillustratedinFigure4.

Formodelingpurposes theWaterResourcesPlanhasutilizedstatedesignated landuse/landcoverdefinitionsinTechnicalAppendixI.


Figure 4: Prototypical land use configuration. Source: M-NCPPC


TheconfigurationschosenforFigure4representarangeofintensitiesandpatternsofdevelopment.Apredevelopmentconditionofthesitecompletelycoveredbyforestwasconsideredabaselineinwhichtocompareotherresults.Threekeyindicatorsofwaterquality—compositeimperviousness,terrestrialnitrogenlevels,andterrestrialphosphoruslevels—werecompared.Theresultsofotherconfigurationswerenormalizedbytheresultsoftheforestedbaseline,whichyielded338poundsofnitrogenperyearandninepoundsofphosphorusperyearfromthe200-acreparcel.OtherconfigurationresultsshowninTable4indicatethemagnitudeofpollutionlevelscomparedtotheforestedbaseline.

Detailsoflanduseacreagesappliedforeachconfigurationandasummaryofmodelresults are shown on Figure 4. The prototypical land use configurations were firstevaluatedwiththemodelbyapplyingdataprovidedbyMDEthatrepresentloadingratesreflectiveof2002landmanagementpractices(2002bestmanagementpractices[BMP] implementation loading rates). The land use configurations were thenreevaluated by applying average nutrient reductions resulting from moderateenhancementsinbestBMPs,asmeasuredbythemodelduringtheworkconductedfortheWaterResourcesPlanandsummarizedinAppendixI.TheseresultsareshownintheimprovedwaterqualityscoresintheEnhancedBMPImplementationcolumnsofFigure 4. This modeling work supports the implementation of improved landmanagementpracticesasastrategyforachievingwaterqualityimprovements,andthemodestnutrientreductionsshowninTable4couldbeincreasedbymodelingamoreaggressiveBMPstrategythantheoneillustrated.

The model runs described herein were developed to provide an illustration of theimpactsthatdevelopment,landuse,andlandmanagementdecisionscanhaveonwaterquality.The200-acrelanduseparcelsandthesuiteofBMPsappliedtoprovideresultsofenhancedmanagementtechniqueswerepurelyhypotheticalandwerenotintendedto provide quantitative estimates of any specific county land use or watershedmanagementstrategy.ThemodeldevelopedfortheWaterResourcesPlancanbeusedby the county to evaluate the impacts of more specific development and landmanagementpolicydecisionsastheyaredevelopedinthefuture.

AlthoughtheresultsofthishypotheticalanalysisarelimitedbythesensitivityoftheWaterResourcesPlanmodel,thestudyconfirmsthatlandusepatternandintensityhaveanimpactonwaterqualitywithsomeinterestingobservations:

� Forestcoverandbrushlandareequivalentintermsofnitrogenandphosphorusloads,basedonthedataprovidedbyMDPandMDE,andeachoftheselanduseconfigurations reflect “baseline” loads representative of natural, undevelopedconditions.

� NutrientloadsfromactivelyfarmedagriculturallandsaresignificantunderMDE’s2002 BMP implementation scenario. Implementation of additional BMPs cansignificantlyreducerunoffandhelpmitigatenutrientloadsfromagriculturallanduse.Thestate’sstrategiesforeffectiveagriculturallandmanagementarecontinuingtoevolvealongwithimprovedBMPeffectivenessdata,andfuturestrategiesshouldbe applied in subsequent analyses in order to develop quantitative estimates ofagriculture’s water quality impacts within the county. Within the developedresidentiallanduseconfigurations,theconservationdevelopmentpatternprovidedthelowestmodelednutrientloads,withestimatedannualnitrogenandphosphorusloadsthatwereapproximately45percentlowerthanloadsgeneratedfromtypicalsprawlandlargelotruraldevelopment.Aspreviouslydescribed,thesemodelresults


Land Use Configurations—Model Result Comparison

Tabl

e 4: M

odel

resu

lts.

Sour

ce: M

-NCP

PC.

PRO

TOTY

PICA

L LA

ND

USE

CO

NFI

GU

RATI

ON

S 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

LAN

D U

SE

Impe

rvio

usne

ss F

acto

r A

ll Fo

rest

A

ll Br

ushl

and

All

Agr

icul

tura

l Ty

pica

l Lar

ge

Lot

Rura

l Co

nser

vati

on

Dev

elop

men

t Ty

pica

l Sp

raw

l Sm

art

Gro

wth

Acres of Land

Fore

st

0.00

19

0 30

15

52

32

Br

ushl

and

0.00

160

10

22

4 Pa

rks

0.09

39

10

20

Ro

ads

0.95

4

10

4 30

20

Cr

opla

nd

0.00

16

7

In

dust

rial

0.

53

20

Rura

l Res

iden

tial

0.04

170

Lo

w D

ensi

ty R

es

0.14

4

73

40

Med

ium

Den

sity

Res

0.

28

50

40

H

igh

Den

sity

Res

0.

41

40

Com

mer

cial

0.

72

35

20

In

stitu

tiona

l 0.

34

5

14

Wat

er

0.00

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

To

tal

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

Com

posi

te Im

perv

ious

ness

0.

00%

0.

00%

2.

18%

8.

15%

8.

77%

43

.25%

33

.78%

RESULTS with 2002BMP Rates

Nitr

ogen

(tot

al lb

/yea

r)

338

338

2,36

2 1,

404

1,02

8 1,

492

1,27

2 Ph

osph

orus

( to

tal l

b/ye

ar)

9 9

124

113

75

111

92

Nitr

ogen

(For

est E

quiv

alen

t)

1 1

7.0

4.2

3.0

4.4

3.8

Phos

phor

us (F

ores

t Equ

ival

ent)

1

1 13

.8

12.5

8.

3 12

.3

10.2

Ove

rall

Wat

er Q

ualit

y*

2.0

2.0

20.8

16

.7

11.4

16

.7

14.0

RESULTS with Enhanced BMPs

Nitr

ogen

(tot

al lb

/yea

r)

338

338

2,09

7 1,

263

984

1,42

2 1,

216

Phos

phor

us (t

otal

lb/y

ear)

9

9 11

8 10

7 72

10

5 87

Nitr

ogen

(For

est E

quiv

alen

t)

1.0

1.0

6.2

3.7

2.9

4.2

3.6

Phos

phor

us (F

ores

t Equ

ival

ent)

1.

0 1.

0 13

.1

11.9

7.

9 11

.7

9.7

Ove

rall

Wat

er Q

ualit

y*

2.0

2.0

19.3

15

.6

10.9

15

.9

13.3

* N

itrog

en a

nd p

hosp

horu

s fo

rest

equ

ival

ent


reflectonly thedifferences innutrientestimatesgeneratedbyadifferentmixoflanduseacreages,sothisexampleillustratesthesignificantbenefitsofprovidingorconservingmoregreeninfrastructurewithinthedevelopmentparcel.Agriculturalland use/land cover in the county often includes forests, riparian buffers, andwetlands, and the model representation of agriculture only considers activefarming—landincropsorutilizedforlivestockgrazing.Agricultureasalanduseisvalued,and itspreservation isencourageddue to theassociatedwaterqualityprotection land covers, such as forest, that typically make up the total farmenvironment.Thismodeldoesnothavetheabilitytoestimateadditionalbenefitsof environmental site design such as reduced erosion, improvements in streamchannel stability, enhanced riparian habitat, and other significant water qualitybenefits that would result from this pattern of development. However, theconservation development pattern does illustrate the benefits of enhanced landmanagement practices (such as reductions in fertilizer applications) that weremodeledandillustratedintheEnhancedBMPcolumnofFigure4.Theseresultswere generated from modeling a very moderate suite of BMPs described inTechnicalAppendixI,andreductionscouldbegreater throughmoreaggressiveimplementationofBMPswithinallhypotheticaldevelopmentpatterns.

� Acompact,denserdevelopmentpatternthatincorporatestherightmixofopenspaceandgreeninfrastructureasshowninthesmartgrowthlanduseconfigurationreduceswaterqualityimpactscomparedtothesamesizeparceloftypicalsprawlorevenrural large lotdevelopment.Themodelresultsestimatedthatnitrogenandphosphorus loads from the smart growth parcel were approximately 10 to 20percentlowerthantheloadsfromthetypicalsprawlandlargelotruraldevelopmentparcels.Aswiththepreviousdescriptions,additionalimprovementswereshownbyapplyingthenutrientreductionsestimatedfrommodelingamoderatedegreeofenhancedBMPimplementation,andmoresignificantimprovementsareexpectedfrommoreaggressiveBMPimplementation.

IMPLICATIONS FROM THEORETICAL MODEL OBSERVATIONSTheempiricallanduseprototypestudysupportstheconclusionthatcarefulandsmartlanduseplanningprotectswaterqualityandthatpreservationorrestorationofgreeninfrastructureisacomponentpartofwaterresourceprotection.Basedonthemodelingresultsproducedfrom application of MDE’s load rate data, the study results suggest that density ofdevelopment is not the primary factor contributing to pollution, but the location ofdevelopmentandmixoflandcoversstronglyinfluencethedegreeofnitrogenandphosphorusloadsfromterrestrialsources.Aspreviouslydiscussed,theWaterResourcesPlanmodeldoesnothavetheabilitytofullyestimatethebenefitsofbettersitedesign,includingreductionsinwatershedwide impervious rates that canbeachieved through increaseddevelopmentdensities.Improvementinsiteinfiltration,reducedvolumeandintensityofrunoff,andtheresultingreductions insedimentandnutrient loadscanbemoreaccuratelyestimatedbymoredetailedmodelingwithlocalwatersheddata.However,themodeldoesindicatethatsignificantwaterqualityimprovementscanbeprovidedthroughacombinationofcarefulland use decisions, such as those illustrated by the smart growth and conservationdevelopmentexamples,andimprovedlandmanagementpractices,suchasthoseincludedinthemoderatesuiteofBMPsused for thisexample.Themodeldeveloped for theWaterResourcesPlanprovidesatoolforthecountytousewithlocalwatersheddatatogeneratequantitativepredictionsofspecificlanduseandwatershedmanagementdecisionsthatwillbedevelopedaspartofcountywideandcommunity-levelplanningeffortsinthefuture.


ThecountyhascurrentstrategiestopromotesmartgrowthbyencouragingdevelopmentinDevelopedTiercentersandcorridorsandthroughadoptionoftheGreenInfrastructurePlan.However,despitesuchpolicies,thecumulativeimpactsofcountywidedevelopmenttrendsindicatethatmostgrowthisoccurringintheDevelopingTier;therefore,strongerpoliciesareneededtobetterguideandmanagegrowthinawaythatismoreconsiderateofwatershedandwaterresourceimpacts,especiallyinlightofnewandmorestringentfederal,state,andlocalregulatoryrequirements.AsadditionaldatabecomeavailabletheensuingwaterresourcesplansshouldcontinuetoupdateandrefineNPSanalysisappropriately.

CURRENT LAND COVER WITHIN THE COUNTYTheMarylandStateLandUseLandCover(LULC)datafor2007uses12developedlanduseclassificationsand13undevelopedlandcoverclassificationstodescribethecounty.

Table5 summarizes thisdata at the county level.Basedon this information, themostcommontypeofdevelopedlandismediumdensityresidentialdevelopmentfollowedbylowdensityresidentialdevelopment.Maryland’scommitmenttosmartgrowthechoestheunderstandingof impacts associatedwith lowdensity,highlydisperseduses correlatingwithadecreaseinwaterquality.Lowdensitysingle-familydevelopmentisassociatedwithincreasedroadwayanddrivewayimpervioussurfaces,aswellascompactedlawnsthatlackthefiltrationbenefitsofnaturalgreenspaces (“ProtectingWaterResourceswithSmartGrowth”).7Baseduponthestatedata, thepredominantdeveloped landuse type in thecountyismediumdensityresidential,followedbylowdensityresidential—twolandusetypesthataretraditionallyconsideredmoreconsumptiveofland.Nearly34percentofthecountylandareaiscategorizedasresidential,andtheadditionalamountoflanddevotedtohousinghasincreasedbyapproximately11percentsince2002.Commercialandindustrialusesaccountforonlyaroundthreepercenteachofthetotalcountylandarea.Theseusestypicallyhavecharacteristicsoflargebuildinglots,largebuildings,andexpansiveparking—usesassociatedwithhigherlevelsofimpervioussurfacesand,therefore,increasedstormwaterrunoff.Industrialusesarealsolinkedwithpointsourcepollutantloadings,althoughthesearehighlyregulatedandmanaged.Finally,institutionalusesaccountforapproximatelyfivepercentofthecounty’sland,associatedlargelywithJointBaseAndrewsNavalAirFacilityWashington. Institutional uses, while often possessing large buildings and parking lotsassociatedwithindustrialandcommercialuses,typicallyhaveahigherleveloftreecoverthatcanhelpmitigatesomeoftheeffectsofimpervioussurfaces.

Somepartsofthecountyhavenotbeendevelopedandremaininanaturalstateorareused forproductionpurposes.Within theundeveloped landusecategory,nearly31percent of the county is categorized as forest cover, followed by nearly 11 percentclassified as agriculturally related (cropland, pasture, etc.) uses. In general, a greaterpercentageofforestedandagriculturallandsarelocatedinthePatuxentwatershedintheeasternhalfofthecounty,althoughacreageofeachcanalsobefoundinthePotomacwatershed.

7 http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/waterresources_with_sg.pdf


LU CODE Land Use Description CountyExisting Acres Percentage

101 Rural (Agriculture) 2,121 0.69102 Rural (Forest) 8,821 2.8511 Residential Low 29,774 9.6212 Residential Medium 52,504 16.9713 Residential High 13,542 4.3814 Commercial 9,516 3.0815 Industrial 8,333 2.6916 Institutional 14,537 4.7018 Parks & Open Space 7,946 2.5721 Cropland 23,616 7.6322 Pasture 8,867 2.8724 Agriculture Facilities 198 0.0625 Row and Garden Crops 260 0.0841 Deciduous Forest 77,416 25.0342 Evergreen Forest 3,545 1.1543 Mixed Forest 29,628 9.5844 Brush 3,135 1.0150 Water 1,401 0.4560 Wetlands 2,693 0.8773 Bare ground 6,175 2.0071 Beaches 58 0.0217 Mining 1,695 0.5580 Transportation 3,573 1.16

Total 309,355 100.00

Overall Land Use/Land CoverDeveloped 49%Undeveloped 51%Urban 45%Rural 55%

Table 5: The Maryland State Land Use Land Cover (LULC) data for 2007.


SUBWATERSHED LAND COVERA subwatershed level of analysis can provide a finer grain of detail and a deeperunderstandingof landusepatterns inthecounty.Thepredominantexisting landusesvarysubstantiallyacrossthecounty,asdofactorsaffectingthepotentialforfuturegrowth.

The county is almost evenly divided into two subwatersheds at the state’s 6-digitclassification and nine subwatersheds at the 8-digit classification. Map 4 shows thelocationsofthesesubwatershedsandTable6showsthelandareatheyencompass.Table7shows the variation in developed and undeveloped land area percentages across thedifferentsubwatersheds.

Althoughthe6-digitPotomacandPatuxentwatershedsareapproximatelyequalinsize,thepatternsofdevelopmentvary.ThePotomacwatershedismoredeveloped(55percent)than the Patuxent (43 percent), which is consistent with overall countywide policiesinherentintheGeneralPlan.TheWesternBranchandAnacostiawatershedshavethelargest land areas in the 8-digit category and are more than 50 percent developed.AlthoughitappearssomegrowthisoccurringintheDevelopedTierincentersandalongcorridors,ahighrateofdevelopmentisoccurringintheDevelopingTier.Forexample,almost90percentofthePiscatawaysubwatershedislocatedintheDevelopingTier,andalmost half of it is currently developed. Similarly, 57 percent of the Upper PatuxentsubwatershedisintheDevelopingTierand43percentisintheRuralTier,yetalmosthalfoftheentirewatershedisalreadyconsidereddeveloped.

Reviewsoflandusestatisticssuchasthesearehelpfulinassessingtheimpactthecurrentpolicieshaveongrowthandwhethertheyalignwithintendedresults.Basedontheselanduse figures, half of the county is already considered developed, and five of the ninesubwatersheds assessed are more than 50 percent developed. Development trends andconsumptionoflandispushingeastward,andeventuallythesubwatershedsintheruraltierwillseeaslowreductioninundevelopedlandasforestandagricultureusesareexchangedforhousingorothertypesofdevelopmentwithoutstrongerpoliciesandregulations.

Table 6: Acres and percent of county land by watershed. Source: 2007 MD State LULC Data and 2005 General Plan Update

Percentages shown relative to total land area of county.

Table 7: Percentage of 8-digit subwatersheds per General Plan tiers.

Subwatershed Acres Percent of County

Anacostia 54,396 18LowerPatuxent 32,420 10LowerPotomac 23,108 7MiddlePatuxent 33,454 11OxonCreek 6,509 2Piscataway 42,933 14UpperPatuxent 32,585 11WashMetroArea 24,674 8WesternBranch 59,302 19Potomac 151,621 51Patuxent 157,761 49County 309,382 100

Subwatershed Developed Tier

Developing Tier

Rural Tier

Anacostia 62 22 16LowerPatuxent 0 0 100LowerPotomac 0 31 69MiddlePatuxent 0 28 72OxonCreek 100 0 0Piscataway 1 90 10UpperPatuxent 0 57 43WashMetroArea 36 57 7WesternBranch 9 85 6Potomac 33 47 20Patuxent 3 50 47County 18 49 34


Map 4: Watershed classifications within Prince George’s County.


Becauseoverhalfofthecountyisdeveloped,amajorfocusmustbeplacedonrestorationofexistingurbanizedareaswithagoalofreducingnonpointsourcepollution.Opportunitiesexist to retrofit sites that were developed prior to the establishment of stormwatermanagementregulations.Areaswithhighconcentrationsofdevelopmentcanbecometargetsforrestorationandforpromotingsustainableinfillandredevelopmentprojects.Subwatershedswith ahighpercentageofundeveloped land,on theotherhand,holdsignificantpotentialforprotectingandpreservingexistingnaturalsystemssotheycancontinuetoservetheirintendedfunction,particularlywheredevelopmentisimminent.

Naturalforestcoverisgoodforthehealthofawatershedbecauseofitsinherentabilitiesto intercept rainwater, remove pollutants, promote surface water infiltration andgroundwaterrecharge,andprovidewildlifehabitat.TheLowerPotomachasthehighestpercentage (57percent)ofnatural forested land,while theLowerPatuxenthas thehighestpercentageofagriculturallandinthecounty.Researchandstudiesindicatethatsustainablepracticesintimbering,agriculture,andminingcanhavepositiveimpactsonwaterqualityandreducedemandsforwatersupply.

Forestry, agriculture, and mining are land and impact intensive uses that often havesignificant influencesongroundandsurfacewater.Combined, theseusesaccount formore than 130,000 acres in the county.The benefits and challenges associated withproduction-relatedlandscanvarytremendouslydependinguponthelevelofresourcesneededandthetypesofBMPsinplace.

RecentgrowthtrendsinPrinceGeorge’sCountysuggestamoreaggressivemanagementapproachisneededtodirectgrowthinawaythatistrulyprotectiveofwaterresources.Designation of a countywide priority preservation area(PPA) is a promising step in the protection of areas thathave countywide significance and contribute positively toprotecting water resources. Development that recognizesthebenefitsandadherestotheprinciplesforthepreservationofagreeninfrastructurenetwork,asidentifiedintheGreenInfrastructure Plan, is also a critical part of the solutionsuitethatmustbeincorporatedinordertomeetthegoalsoftheWaterResourcesPlan.

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES Conservationstrategiesformakeyelementinthesustainedsuccess of any water resource protection policy. Providingadequatequantitiesofopenandnatural landsnecessary toperform the ecological services that sustain thehealth andfunctionalityofhealthyenvironmental,social,andeconomicsystems is the responsibility of Prince George’s County’sPlanningDepartment,PlanningBoard,countyagencies,andelectedofficials.Severalregulatoryrequirementsrequiredbythestateareinplacetosupportthisgoal.

Priority Funding Areas—The state and county havedesignated priority funding areas (PFA) (Map 5), thatconsistofexistingcommunities,municipalities,andplaceswherelocalgovernmentswantstateinvestmenttosupport

Map 5: Priority funding areas per watershed.


futuregrowth.ThePFAboundarieswereestablishedbefore thecountyadoptedthethreetiersintheGeneralPlan.

SB-276,passedinthe2009Marylandlegislativesession,setsastatewidelandusegoalofincreasingthecurrentpercentageofgrowthinPriorityFundingAreas(PFAs)anddecreasing the currentpercentageof growthoutsideofPFAs.SB-276 also requireslocalgovernmentstodevelopapercentagegoaltowardachievingthestatewidegoal.ThenewannualreportrequirementsunderSB-276willnotbefileduntilJuly1,2011.PrinceGeorge’sCountyshouldestimateitspercentageofgrowthtobeservedbypublicwater and sewer and if itwill be sufficient to contribute to the achievementof thestatewidelandusegoal.StatewideinMaryland,thecurrent(asof2006)percentageofgrowthinPFAsis68percent.8

Priority Preservation Areas—ThePPAisdefinedbythestateinHB2-2006asanareathatislargeenoughtosupportprofitableagriculturalandforestryenterprises,thatmayormaynotcontainproductiveagriculturalorforestsoils,andthataregovernedbylocalpolicies established for the purpose of preventing development from encroaching orcompromisingtheseresources.Thisareaisbeingpreservedforthepurposeofmaintainingastable landbaseappropriateforagriculturalandforestryaswellasforprotectionofwildlifeandhabitatandthescenicandhistoricvistasthatcharacterizeitsruralcharacter.LandswithinthePPAarebeingpreservedusinganumberoffundingtools,includingthe purchase of development rights or agricultural easements and other types ofeasements.Thiseffortisunderwayinthecounty.

The County’s Green Infrastructure Plan—Theplanidentifiesapotentialgreeninfra-structurenetworkofapproximately167,000acresor54percentofthecounty.About32percentofthenetworkiscategorizedasregulatedandincludesfeaturessuchasfloodplainsandsteepslopesandisprotectedduringthelanddevelopmentprocess.Theremaining68percentcomprisesavarietyofotherenvironmentallysensitivefeaturesbutisgenerallynotregulatedorprotected.Thisremaining68percentrepresentsasignificantopportunitytotargetpreservationforwaterqualityimprovement.SeeMap6.

The 2008 Water and Sewer Plan—The2008Water and Sewer Plan for Prince George’s Countydocumentsexistingwaterresourcesandwastewater treatmentcapacitiesandidentifiesmechanismsneededtomeetfuturedemand.Thesewerenvelope,asdepictedinMap7,definestheboundarybeyondwhichnocommunitywaterandsewerfacilitieswillbeapprovedexceptincasesofpublichealthandsafety.Althoughtheexistingwaterandsewerboundariesestablishedinthe2008WaterandSewerPlanwereestablishedtoconformto theGeneralPlanTierdesignations,excludingand/or limitingpublicwaterandsewerinfrastructureintheRuralTier,somediscrepanciesdoexist.NotablysomeM-NCPPCpropertiesinsidethesewerenvelopearenotonapublicwastewatersystem.Thisplan recommends theuseof composting toilets at thepublic restroomfacilitiesinordertoeliminateprivatesepticusewithinthesewerenvelope.

Landuseinrelationtopublicwaterandsewerservice,aswellasindividualwellsandsepticsystemsinthecounty,arealsogovernedbythisplan.Since2000,thecentralandsouthernportionsofthecountyoutsidetheBeltwayexperiencedincreasedpopulationgrowth.Thisgrowth is expected tocontinue to2030withan increasing shareofgrowthgoing to thesouthernportionofthecounty.After2010,areasinsidetheCapitalBeltwayareexpectedtoreceive increased population growth with the promotion of infill development and

8http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/PFA/Resid_Growth/by_County/PFA_cnty_index.htm


Map 6: Countywide green infrastructure network.


redevelopmentaroundMetrostations.ForecastedredevelopmentaroundMetrostationsisbasedontheGeneralPlangoalofmoreintensedevelopmentattransitstations.Duringthesametimeperiod,moregrowthisalsoexpectedinthenorthernpartofthecounty.Factorssuchas transportationand jobopportunitieswillplayan importantrole indefiningthisgrowthwithinthecounty.

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITYGrowthinthecountyresultsinnewdevelopmentstomeetpopulationandemploymentdemands. The MWCOG/M-NCPPC 2030 population, employment and dwellingunitprojectionsrepresentananticipatedlevelofgrowthto2030.Theseprojections,developed as Round 7.1, served as the basis for land use scenarios in the WaterResources Plan model with the totals serving as limiting parameters. Additionalcounty projections have more recently been developed in Round 7.2A projectinggrowthuntil2040.

Thecounty’szoningcodeandsubdivisionordinanceregulatestheamountofdevelopmentthatcanoccur—orthedevelopmentcapacityofthelandunderexistingregulations.Thelimitswithinthezoningcodeinmanycasesdonotrepresenttheactualdensitiesthathave been constructed.There is a lack of consistency between the county’s existingzoningcategoriesandthetypeofdevelopmentorlandusethatisbuilt.Forexample,

Map 7: Sewer envelope per 2008 Water and Sewer Plan. Map 8: Current planning areas per watershed.


manyareasthatarezonedforhighdensityarenotbeingbuilttocapacity.Additionally,manyruralandforestedareasofthecountyarezonedtopermitlowdensityresidentialdevelopment,makingthemvulnerabletosuburbanandexurbansprawl,especiallyintheRuralTier.Thedevelopmentbuild-outofthecounty,whenconsideringcurrentzoningregulations,wouldresultinafargreaternumberofhouseholdsthanisenvisionedintheRound7.1and7.2CorporativeForecasts.Growthprojectionsinthecountyareinfluencedby a number of factors and thoughtful planning is needed to ensure that existingregulations,includingzoning,areconsideredinacomprehensivemannerthatintegratesassociatedimpactsoninfrastructure,qualityoflife,andtheenvironment(includingwaterresources).

Growthtrendstodateindicatethatlowdensitylanduseswillcontinuetopredominatedespiteuntappedcapacityinexistingurbancentersandcorridors.Zoningbuild-out,wereittooccur,wouldplaceseverestressnotonlyoncountyinfrastructure,butonthehealthoflocalwaterways.Morethan26,000acresofthecountylandareaiscurrentlyzonedR-A(Residential-Agricultural), permitting one dwelling unit per two acres. Approximately61,000additionalacresarezonedO-S(OpenSpace),whichpermitsoneunitperfiveacres.These zoning categories are located almost entirely in the RuralTier, and holdsignificant potential for residential development, well beyond what the General Planrecommendsandinconflictwithadditionalconservationandwatershedplanninggoals.

Futurelanduseplansinthecountyaredevelopedaspartofthemasterplanningprocessatvarious scales. These plans serve as frameworks for growth and provide more specificguidanceinsupportofthecounty’sGeneralPlan.Therearesevensubregionplanningareasthat are not currently aligned to watershed boundaries and, therefore, struggle to fullyaddressthedevelopmentsuitabilityandcapacityofthelandfromawatershedperspective.

AnexpressbenefitoftheWaterResourcesPlanistobetterintegratelanduseplanningwithoverarchingwatersupplyandwaterqualityconsiderations.Inlightofthepotentialforfuturestaterequirementsfornutrient loadingcaps,proactiveplanningtorestoreandpreservewaterqualityshouldbeintegratedwithgrowthpoliciesastheyaddressthecarryingcapacityofwatershedsandtheassimilationofnutrientsandshoulddirectfuturedevelopmentaccordingly.

LAND USE SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT—THE MODELInordertoexploretherelationshipbetweenlanduseandwaterquality,developmentscenarioswere formulated toaccommodateanticipatedpopulationandemploymentgrowthinPrinceGeorge’sCounty,asshownintheRound7.1CooperativeForecasts.These scenarios were later integrated into a nonpoint source model to evaluate theimpacttheselandusepatternswillhaveonthecounty’swatersheds.

Using the 2030 forecasts as constants, possible land use scenarios were developedapplyingdevelopment capacities anddemonstrating alternative snapshots of countyland use in 2030. Assuming the anticipated level of growth to be a constant, thescenariosexploredhowmuchundevelopedlandmustbeconvertedtodevelopedusestoaccommodatetheplannedincreaseinpopulationandemploymentby2030.ScenariosweredevelopedforthePotomacandPatuxentwatersheds,alongwithmoredetailedanalysesatthe8-digitlevelfortheWesternBranchandPiscatawaywatersheds.Thelatter twosubwatershedsareofparticular interestbecauseofdevelopmentpressuresandexistingcountyplanningeffortsintheseareas.


Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecast for Prince George’s County2005 2030 Growth

PotomacPopulation 570,708 655,566 +84,858Employment 245,258 361,439 +116,181

PatuxentPopulation 282,175 337,305 +55,130Employment 102,627 156,949 +54,322

Table 8: MWCOG/M-NCPPC Growth Projections. Source: M-NCPPC

Landusescenariosweretermed“trend”and“ideal,”withtrendscenariosrepresentingthestatusquo,acontinuationofexistinglandusepatternsandcontinueddevelopmentofgreenfieldasrelativelylowdensityresidentialneighborhoods.Idealscenariosplacedagreateremphasisonhigherdensityandmixed-usedevelopmentwithinthecounty’sDeveloped Tier’s designated centers and corridors. The ideal scenarios maintainedambitiousinfillandredevelopmenttargetstoalignwiththeobjectivesoftheGeneralPlan.Inthedevelopmentofbothtrendandideallandusescenarios,newgrowthwaspurposelydirectedaway fromthedesignatedgreen infrastructurenetwork, includingforests,wetlands,brush,andnativegrasslands.Becausetheideallandusescenarioplacesahigheremphasisoncompactandmixed-usedevelopmenttoaccommodategrowth,maintaininggreeninfrastructurelandusesisgenerallymorefeasibleandgoalsforgreeninfrastructureconservationaremoreattainablethaninthetrendlandusescenario.Thedrivers behind the ideal scenario included goals to incorporate: infill development,redevelopment in urban centers, and maximum green infrastructure conservation,acknowledgingtheknownimpactsassociatedwithconversionofundevelopedlandtodevelopeduses.Infill,forpurposesofthisWaterResourcesPlan,representsdensificationofanexistinglanduse,whereasredevelopmentmeansconversionofonetypeoflanduseto another. The land use scenarios considered future land use and opportunities toachieve varying levels of green infrastructure preservation and protection whileaccommodatinggrowth.Thescenariosalsotookintoconsiderationtheuniquesizeof,andexistinglandusepatternin,eachsubwatershedandtheimpactsthesefactorswillhaveonrecommendationsforaction.Forexample,becauseofthebuilt-outdevelopmentpatternsthatexistinthePotomacwatershed,strategieswillneedtobedevelopedthatencouragethecreationofgreeninfrastructureandopenspaceinurbanizedareasthroughthe redevelopment process and through stormwater management retrofits in olderestablishedcommunities.However,inthePatuxentwatershed,asdevelopmentpressurecontinuestopushintotheRuralTier,strategiesthatpermanentlyprotectopenspaceandconservationareasfromdevelopmentwillbeneeded.

Comparisonofexisting(2007)landusebysubwatershedwiththehypothetical2030scenariosintheWaterResourcesPlanprovidedasummaryofchangesinlanduse,aswellasatotalofnewlydevelopedacreage.ThisinformationwasfedintothenonpointsourcemodeldescribedinTechnicalAppendixI.

TheidealscenariosforboththePotomacandPatuxentwatershedsindicatedthatthesame level of population and employment growth could be accommodated bydevelopingfarfeweracresofnewland.ThesameistruefortheWesternBranchandPiscataway subwatersheds. Subsequently, green infrastructure conservation targetswere exceeded in nearly every watershed scenario by placing greater emphasis oncompactmixed-usedevelopment.


Figure 5: Land use model process diagram.

Figure 6: Newly developed acres per trend and ideal scenarios.

Existing Land UseBy Watershed

Prince George’s County Land Use and Growth Trends

and Policies

COG Projections By Watershed

Green Infrastructure Targets By Watershed

2010 Population + Employment Model

Land Use Projection and Optimization Model

Land Use Density Assumptions

Undeveloped Land Supply Priority

Population and Employment Factors Redevelopment Land

Supply Assumptions

New Growth %

Infill Growth %

Infill Growth %

Land Area Change

2030 Land Use


MODELING RESULTSAlthoughthedifferencesinnewlydevelopedacresunderthetwoscenariosarestriking,itisimportanttoplacethisinthecontextofthecountyasawhole.Thetotalcountylandareaisover300,000acres,andwhilethePotomacwatershedidealscenarioresultsinnearly7,000feweracresofnewdevelopmentasopposedtothetrendscenario,thisdifferencerepresentsarelativelysmallpercentageofthecounty’stotallandarea.

Thebenefitsofmorecompactdevelopmentaremanyandvaried, includingreducedrequirementsforexpandedinfrastructureinvestmentsandconservationofforests,openspace,andremainingviableagriculturelands.Althoughtheamountoflandrequiredtomeetnewdevelopmentto2030mayseemtobeunsubstantial inthecontextof themanythousandsofacresdevelopedtodate,incrementalchangesnonethelessprovidevaluable benefits. Findings from the land use analysis emphasize the need for amultifaceted approach that addresses not only new development, but also urbanredevelopmentandchangestoexistingdevelopment.

SIGNIFICANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERNSThelandusechangespredictedbythefuturetrendandidealdevelopmentscenarioswillhaveamultitudeofimpactstothewaterresourcesofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.TheincreaseddensitiesreflectedinthefutureidealdevelopmentscenariosupportMaryland’sgoalsforpreservationoflandandgreeninfrastructureand,comparedtothemoreland-consumptivetrendscenario,helplowerthewatersheds’percentageofimperviousareabyreducingtheamountofpavedroadsandotherinfrastructurerequiredtosupportthepopulationaccommodatedwithinthedevelopment.Combinedwithenvironmentallysensitivedesignpractices,compactorsmartgrowthdevelopmentcanaidinthecounty’seffortstoconservenaturaldrainagepatternsandhydraulicconditions,reducerunoffvolume,andimprovegroundwaterrecharge.Inaddition,theuseofdenserdevelopmentpreserves and protects natural resources and limits the quantity of soil disturbance,massgrading,andcompaction,andthereforereducestheoverallsedimentandpollutantloadsfromland.

CHAPTER ISSUES SUMMARY� Incorporating smart growth principles through compact development, balanced

withopenspaceandbuiltgreen infrastructure,canhelptoreducewater-relatedinfrastructurecostsandcontributetowaterqualityimprovement.

� Both how and where development occurs in a watershed can help to mitigatenegativewaterqualityimpacts.

� FutureplanningeffortsshouldfocusonpreservationoftheremainingnaturalareasinthePatuxentRiverwatershedandonrestorationofnaturalareasinthePotomacRiverwatershed.

� Landusedecisionsshouldincorporateanalysisandevaluationofdataatawatershedscale.


POLICIES AND STRATEGIESPOLICY:Incremental growth and development/redevelopment targets at multiple watershedlevelsconsidersthecumulativeimpactsofexistingandfuturelanduseonwaterqualitytoensuregrowthdoesnotout-pacetheassimilativecapacityofcountywaterways.

STRATEGIES:� Continue to update the county’s land use classification database to ensure an

accuratebaselineisavailabletoestablishfuturelanduseandwatershedprotectiondecisionsonthemostcurrentandaccuratedataavailable.

� Integratenonpointsourcemodelingoflanduseintomasterplansatanappropriatewatershedlevelinordertoevaluatetheimpactsofexistingandproposedlanduse,policy,andzoningchanges.

� Continuetoassessandevaluatethecumulativewaterqualityimpactsandbenefitsfromdevelopmentinwatersheds.

� MaintainthegrowthtargetswithintheGeneralPlantotargetnewgrowthwithintheDevelopedTier;directgrowthintheDevelopingTiertodesignatedcentersandcorridors;andmaintainlittletonogrowthintheRuralTier.

� Promotedevelopmentandredevelopmentofhighdensity,mixed-usecentersandcorridorsneartransitstopsinexistingcommunitieswithintheDevelopedTierandwithinthecentersandcorridorsoftheDevelopingTier.

� Developprogramsandincentivesthatwillmaximizethepreservationofforestedland,whichcontributestheleastamountofnutrientloadingperacre.

� Developprogramsandincentivestoprotectwaterresourcesthatencourageurbanredevelopmentandretrofittingovergreenfielddevelopment.

� Evaluateandutilizemodelingresultstoinformgrowthpolicies,landuseplanning,regulatoryrequirements,andsubsequentupdatestotheWaterResourcesPlan.

� Conductacountywidestudytoidentifyopportunitysitesforreforestationandstreamvalleyparklandacquisitionincludingbothpubliclyandprivatelyownedproperty.

� Establish and support transfer of development rights, purchase of developmentrights,anddensitytransfersprograms.

POLICY:Sustainabledevelopmentpolicies,goals,andcriteriashouldbeadoptedandenforcedtoensurethebuiltenvironmentcontributestoimprovedwaterqualityconditions.

STRATEGIES:� Supportandincorporatetheprotectionofcriticalecologicalareassuchaswetlands,

floodplains,andripariancorridorsthatservetoprotectwaterquality,andecosystemfunctionsandprovidenaturalfilteringofstormwater,intomasterplanningefforts.

� Developanenvironmentalchecklistthatrequiresdeveloperstodemonstratethattheir development proposal is consistent with watershed goals and improves ordoesnotdamage,inclusiveofmitigation,theoverallhealthofallwaterresources,proximatetothedevelopment,withinthewatershed.


� Coordinateregionalstormwatermanagementopportunitieswithtransit-orienteddevelopmentandothermixed-useprojectstothemaximumextentpracticable.

� Revisezoningandsubdivisionrequirementstoensurebuilt-inflexibilityallowingreductionsinroadwidthrequirements,parkingrequirements,anddrivewayswiththeintenttoencouragecompactdevelopmentthat:

� Encouragescommondriveways

� Establishesparkingmaximums

� Permitsshareddrivewaysandwalkways

� Encouragesorrequiresharedparking

� Developprinciplesforopenspacedesigntoguidedevelopmentandensureopenspace/habitatconnectivityacrosssitesandwithinandbetweenwatersheds.

Chapter V: Watershed Planning 57 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Water quality throughout Prince George’s County has been impacted by theconversion of forest land to agricultural use over the past three centuries and toincreasinglyurbanizedlandoverthepastfewdecades.Thisconversionhasresultedindegradation of streams, decline in forest and wetland habitats, and decreasedopportunitiestobenefitfromtherecreationalandeconomicopportunitiesthathealthywaterresourcesprovide.

PrinceGeorge’sCountyencompassesapproximately300,000acresorfivepercentofthelandareaofMarylandandlieswithintheChesapeakeBaywatershed—thelargestestuary in the United States and the third largest in the world. On May 12, 2009,PresidentBarackObamasignedanexecutiveorder that recognizes theChesapeakeBayasanationaltreasureandcallsonthefederalgovernmenttoleadarenewedefforttorestoreandprotectthenation’slargestestuaryanditswatershed.1

WATERSHEDSThetermwatershedisoftenappliedtogeographicalareasofdifferentsizesandscales.Ingeneral,thedefinitionofawatershedisageographicareainwhichwater,sediments,anddissolvedmaterialsdrainfromhigherelevationstoacommonlow-lyingoutletorbasindischargingatapointonalargerstream,lake,underlyingaquifer,orestuary.2Thelargestwatershedmanagementunitiscalledabasin,whichisalargedrainagearearelatedtoalake, river, or estuary, such as the Chesapeake Bay. Within each basin is a group ofsubbasinsthatcanextendoverhundredsofsquaremiles.Marylandcontains13subbasins,

1 http://www.cbf.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=38823.02 http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/glossary.aspx

V: WATERSHED PLANNING

Restoration and preservation policies for rivers, streams, tributaries, and wetlands begin with an identification of the existing conditions as issues and opportunities within watersheds, culminating in the development and implementation of effective solutions based on best management practices.

58 Chapter V: Watershed PlanningApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

tenofwhichfallwithintheChesapeakeBaybasinandcorrespondtotentributarybasinsoften referred to as Maryland’s “6-digit” watersheds as defined by the MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR).

Subbasinscontaingroupsofwatersheds,whichtypicallyrangefrom20to100squaremiles in size and are composed of groups of subwatersheds that cover an area ofapproximatelytensquaremilesorless.MarylandDNRhasdefined138watersheds,whichareoftenreferredtoasMaryland’s“8-digit”watersheds.Theycollectivelycontaintheapproximately1,100subwatershedsreferredtoas“12-digit”watersheds.3Anyoftheseunitsmaybereferredtoaswatersheds,anddependingontheirsizeandlocation,contain a number of land uses including forests, streams, and other natural areas;agricultural and natural resource areas; urban, suburban, and rural communities;roadways and other transportation systems; commercial development and industry;andschools,hospitals,governmentofficesandotherpublicfacilities.Waterresourceissuesincludingwatersupply,waterquality,andhabitatforfishandwildlifearecloselylinkedandinterdependentwithhumanlanduses.Howlandandwaterresourcesareusedhaveimpactsontheentirebaywatershed.

IMPACTS OF LAND USE ON WATERSHEDSPrinceGeorge’sCounty’slandscapehaschangeddramaticallyoverthepastcenturyalongwithotherareasoftheChesapeakeBaywatershed,particularlyinandaroundthemetropolitanWashingtonarea.Aswehavespreadacrossthewatershedandbuiltawayfromexistinginfrastructure,weareusingmorelandthanweneed.Between1970and 2000, the watershed’s population increased by approximately eight percent.Duringthistime,theaveragefamilysizeperhouseholddecreasedbutaveragehomeandlotsizesincreased,andtheamountofimpervioussurfacearea(roads,rooftops,parkinglots,andotherhardenedorpavedareas)increasedbyover40percent.4Thistype of low density residential and commercial growth has extended to largergeographicareaswithinthecounty,resulting inmoredevelopmentoutsideexistingmunicipalities,cities,andtowncenters.Expansionrequiresadditionalinfrastructureintheformofmoreschools,roads,andshoppingcentersthatincreasespavementandroof areas. Open areas between developed areas have gradually filled with newdevelopment,whichreducesthequantity,quality,andconnectivityofforests,riparianbuffers,wetlands, andagricultural lands.Forests and streambuffersprovidecriticalecological services and act as buffers and filters within their watersheds; their losscauses increasedpollution anddegradationof land andwater and, consequentially,qualityoflifeforresidentsandvisitors.

Populationgrowthcan result ineconomicbenefits,but it canalsohavedetrimentalimpactsonnaturalresourcesifnotplannedforcarefullytocontroltheuseof,andavoiddegradationto,waterresources.Increasingpopulationsrequiremoredomesticdrinkingwater from available surface and groundwaters while increasing the amount ofwastewaterandstormwaterpollutants(pointandnonpointsource)thataredischargedintothereceivingwaters.Inaddition,duringandafterthedevelopmentprocess,thenaturalcycleofwaterisdisruptedbyalterationofthetopographyandtheadditionofimpervioussurfacesthatresultinreducedwaterinfiltrationthroughsoilstogroundwaterandincreasedquantitiesandvelocitiesofrunoffcarryingsedimentsandpollutantsto

3 CenterforWatershedProtection(CWP)User’sGuide4 Ibid


streams.Streamflowsaremaintainedthroughgroundwaterinfiltrationwhenrainfallsonforestedornaturallyvegetatedareas.Afterdevelopment,theincreaseinimpervioussurfaces,decreaseofsoilfunctionality,anddecreaseinavailablegroundwatermeanthatstreamflowsreceivemoresurfacerunoffandassociatedpollutantsatgenerallyhighertemperatures.

Theprimaryimpactstothehydrologicsystemfromchangesduetodevelopmentinclude:

� Changes in stream flow—increased runoff volumes, increased peak discharges,greaterrunoffvelocities,increasedflooding,andlowerdryweatherstreamflows.

� Changesinstreamgeometry—streamwideninganddown-cutting,lossofripariantree cover, sedimentation in the channel, increased flood elevations, anddisconnectionofstreamsfromadjacentwetlandsandfloodplains.

� Degradation of aquatic habitat—degradation of habitat structure, loss of pool-riffle structure, reduced stream base flows, increased temperatures, and reducedabundanceanddiversityofaquaticbiota.

� Water quality impacts—reduced dissolved oxygen and increases in nutrientenrichment, microbial contamination, hydrocarbons (oils and grease), toxicmaterials(pesticides,metals,andorganiccontaminants),sedimentation,increasedtemperatures,andtrash/debris.

� Impairmentofdrinkingwatersuppliesandincreasedcostoftreatment.

� Decliningvaluesoffisheries,waterfrontproperties, and lossof recreationaluses(boating,fishing,swimming,etc.).

LOCAL WATER QUALITY ISSUESDegradationoftheChesapeakeBayhasbeenrecognizedfordecades,withexcessivenutrient loading identified as a critical problem.Major sourcesofnutrients includeurban,suburban,andagriculturalrunoff,failingsepticsystemsandsewagetreatmentfacilities,andatmosphericdepositionfromvehicles,powerplants,andothersources.Excessnutrientscausealgalbloomsthat reduce theamountof sunlightavailable tosubmergedaquaticvegetation.Decompositionofthealgaedepletesbottomwatersofoxygen,whichcauses“deadzones”andharmsaquaticlivingresourcessuchasbluecrabsandoysters.Otherwaterqualityissuesaffectingthebayincludewaterpollutionfromsediments and chemicals, over-harvesting of aquatic resources, invasive plant andanimal species, climate change, sea level rise, and tidal and nontidal wetland loss.Improvedreductionandcontrolof thepollutant sources,alongwithprotectionandrestorationstrategies,areneededinordertorestorethebaytoafishableandswimmablecondition.

Aswithmanyother tributaries to thebay, themajorityof thewatershedsofPrinceGeorge’sCountyaredegradedbynutrients,sedimentandotherpollutants.Basedonthe ecological health evaluated by the DNR Maryland Biological Stream Survey5program,theoverallconditionofPrinceGeorge’sCountystreamsispoor,particularlyinthehighlydevelopedwatersheds.Highqualitywatersarefoundsparinglythroughoutthecountybutoccurmostfrequentlyinandaroundareasofsignificantnaturalland.Themajorityofcountystreamsareconsideredtobeimpaired.

5 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/streams/mbss/index.html

Down-cutting: Downward or vertical erosion is a geological

process that deepens the channel of a stream or

valley by removing material from the stream’s

bed or the valley’s floor. How fast down-cutting occurs depends on the

stream’s base level, which is the lowest point to which

the stream can erode.

Sedimentation: The deposition of soil,

sand, and minerals washed from land into water,

usually after rain. They pile up in reservoirs, rivers and

harbors, destroying fish and wildlife habitat, and

clouding the water so that sunlight cannot reach

aquatic plants.

Pool: A region of deeper

slower-moving water with fine bed materials.

Ripple: A region with coarse bed

materials and shallow, fast moving water sometimes

associated with whitewater. The pool-riffle is important in the cycling of nutrients

in a stream.


Maryland’s Antidegradation Policy followsthe national model required by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Theantidegradationpoliciescanbefoundinthe Code of Maryland Regulations(COMAR) at 26.08.02.04, 04-1, and 04-2.Where a waterbody is designated Tier IIwater, based on a specific water qualitymeasure, potential impacts to only thatspecificcharacteristicshallbesubjecttoTierIIreview.Beforesubmittingapplicationforanewdischargepermitormajormodificationofanexistingdischargepermit,thedischargeror applicant shall determine whether thereceivingwaterbodyisTierII.

Marylandhasmadeameaningfulinvestmentin upgrading the state’s major wastewatertreatment plants to significantly reduce theamountofnitrogenandphosphorusdischargedtostatestreamseachyear;thecounty’sfacilitiesare planned to be upgraded by 2013. Theprimarychallengefacingthecounty,inordertofurther reduce nutrient loading, remains thecounty’s ability to adequately address loadsfromothersourcessuchassepticsystemsandstormwater sources. Significant efforts havebeen made by Prince George’s County, theStateofMaryland,andtheotherstateswithinthe bay watershed resulting in water qualityimprovements in a number of the bay’stributaries. However, additional measures arerequiredtoimprovethequalityofthecounty’s

riversandstreamsandtomeetthegoalofrestoringandsustainingtheChesapeakeBay.Thechallengeofreducingnutrientpollutionfromlandrequiresanextensiveanddiversearrayofmeasurestoaddressgrowthandmanagementofavarietyoflandusesinruralandagriculturalareas,suburbandevelopment,andurbancommunities.Significantinroadstoachieve bay restoration requires increased federal coordination of the mitigation andprotection efforts, resulting innew regulatory requirements tobe implementedby allfederal, state, and local agencieswithin thebaywatershed, includingPrinceGeorge’sCounty. Because of the diverse range of issues required to improve water quality, awatershed framework is needed to facilitate and strengthen the county’s ability toimplementplanningeffortsandprogramswithnumerouscurrentandfuturewatershedpartners.

The Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan specifies that the rating of eachwatershed should improvebyat leastonecategoryby theyear2025, asopposed tosimplymaintainingthe2001conditionratingsasstatedintheGeneralPlan.Becausethe baseline information contained in the Green Infrastructure Plan is the onlyinformationavailabletodate,notrackinginformationhasbeenobtained.

Map 9


Water Quality WaterqualityratingswerereportedintheCountywideGreenInfrastructurePlanin2005.Theseratingswerebasedonwatersamplingatspecificsitesaroundthecountythataresampledeveryfiveyears,withonlyone-fifthofthecountysampledeachyear.Inordertoevaluateprogressonwaterquality,basedontheobjectivesintheGeneralPlanandtheGreenInfrastructurePlan,waterqualitysamplingdataareneeded.TheDepartmentofEnvironmentalResourcesdiscontinuedthewatersamplingprogramin2005. Staff is currently researching sources of state sampling data to ensure somecontinuityinthesamplingandreportingprocesses.

WATERSHEDS AS A FRAMEWORK FOR PLANNINGGrowthpolicyandplanningdecisionsrelativetolandusearemadebylocalgovernmentsforareaswithintheirpoliticalboundaries.Comprehensiveandsmaller-scaleplanningisconductedwithinestablishedandgeographicallydefinedplanningareastoestablishgoals, programs, and policies to guide growth, development patterns, investment,infrastructure,preservation,andotheraspectsrelatedtocommunityandcountyneedsandrequirements.Thereisastrongbackgroundandbasisforprotectingwaterresourcesonawatershedbasis.TheTrustforPublicLandandtheNationalAssociationofLocalGovernmentEnvironmentalProfessionalshasidentifiedtenstrategiesforprotectingandrestoringwaterqualityincommunitiesaspartofwatershedmanagement.Theseactionsforadvancingsmartgrowthforcleanwaterinyourcommunityare:

1. ConnecttheIssuesofLandandWater

2. EstablishaGreenprint6andaBlueprintforYourCommunity

3. ThinkandActLikeaRegion

4. RevitalizeBrownfields

5. ExpandUrbanandCommunityForestry

6. ProvideIncentivestoDevelopers

7. UseGISTechnology

8. PartnerwithStatePrograms

9. LeverageNewResources

10. UseWatershedManagementApproachestoProtectLandandWaterQuality7

Thebenefitsofwatershed-basedplanningarewelldocumented;itoffersaframeworkforwaterresourceplanningthatintegratestheworkofcountydepartmentsthatplayarole in protecting and preserving water quality. Watershed-based planning alsotranscendspoliticalboundariesandconsidersallpollutantsthatdraintothewatershed.TheCenterforWatershedProtectionhasidentifiedtheninebenefitsassociatedwithwatershed-basedplanningdescribedbelow.

6 http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/7 http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolmanager/CustomO93C337F42157.pdf

Greenprint Maryland has a first in the nation

web-enabled map showing the relative ecological

importance of every parcel of land in the state.


BENEFITS OF WATERSHED-BASED PLANNING1. Providescomprehensiveinformationneededforfutureplanningandassessmentof

compliancewithwasteloadallocationsandotherwaterqualityrequirements,suchas nutrient loads, impervious cover estimates, water supply needs, and otherinformation;

2. Providesa frameworkfor identifyingneedsandprioritizingresources(e.g.,staffandfunding);

3. Protectswildlifehabitat,improvesnaturalresources,andimprovesqualityofwaterfordrinkingandrecreationaluse;

4. Controlsfloodingandprotectspropertyandpublicsafetythroughrestorationofriparianandwetlandareas;

5. Provideseducationalopportunitiesforcitizenstounderstandandbecomeinvolvedin affecting the interactions between development and natural resourcesmanagement;

6. Providesastructureforcommunitiestotargetconservationanddevelopmentareastomaximizetheefficiencyandeffectivenessofplanningefforts;

7. Enablesmoreefficientmanagementofpermittingprograms;

8. Avoidsdevelopmentinsensitiveareas,reducesmitigationrequirementsandreducescostsforenvironmentalcomplianceandmitigation;and

9. Providesaframeworkfordevelopmentandgrowthprogramsthataresustainableduetotheenvironmentalandeconomicbenefitsprovidedtothecommunity.8

EPA has developed nine criteria for successful watershed-based planning and hasestablishedtheseasabaselineforissuing319grantfundsforrestorationandpreservationprojects.Thenineelementsofacomprehensivewatershedplanare:

1. Anidentificationofthecausesandsourcesorgroupsofsimilarsourcesthatwillneedtobecontrolledtoachievetheloadreductionsestimatedinthiswatershed-basedplan.

2. Anestimateoftheloadreductionsexpectedforthemanagementmeasures.

3. Adescriptionofthenonpointsource(NPS)managementmeasuresthatwillneedtobeimplementedtoachievetheloadreductionsandanidentification(usingamaporadescription)ofthecriticalareasinwhichthosemeasureswillbeneededtoimplementthisplan.

4. Anestimateof the amountsof technical andfinancial assistanceneeded, associatedcosts,and/orthesourcesandauthoritiesthatwillbereliedupon,toimplementthisplan.

5. An information/education component that will be used to enhance publicunderstandingoftheprojectandencouragetheirearlyandcontinuedparticipationin selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS management measures thatwillbeimplemented.

8 A User’s Guide toWatershed Planning in Maryland, December 2005, published by:TheCenterforWatershedProtection


6. Aschedule for implementing theNPSmanagementmeasures identified in thisplanthatisreasonablyexpeditious.

7. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPSmanagementmeasuresorothercontrolactionsarebeingimplemented.

8. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions arebeingachievedovertimeandsubstantialprogressisbeingmadetowardattainingwater quality standards and, if not, the criteria for determining whether thiswatershed-basedplanneedstoberevisedor,ifaNPSTMDLhasbeenestablished,whethertheNPStotalmaximumdailyloads(TMDLs)needstoberevised.

9. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementationeffortsovertime.9

Watershed-basedplanningprovidesaframeworkthatrecognizesnaturalsystemsandacknowledgestheimpactofdevelopmentonwaterresources,aswellasthedependenceofdevelopmentontheabilityofwaterresourcestosupportorrestrictfuturegrowthandeconomic success.Watershed-basedplanningconsiders the impactsof landusewithinanappropriatelyscaledwatershedduringtheestablishmentofgoals,programs,andpoliciesforvariousplanningareas.Byidentifyingpriorityareasforpreservationand development at the watershed level, communities can develop policies andincentivesthataccommodategrowthandprovideopportunitiestoprotectandrestorewaterresources,therebyallowingthecommunity’spublic,economic,andenvironmentalhealthtobesustained,accordingtoEPA’sProtecting Water Resources with Smart Growth.

A key aspect of watershed-based planning is the identification of planning areaboundariesaspartofawatershedsystem,requiringinformationrelatedtopublichealthrequirements, development and economic needs, water quality or quantity issues,habitatrequirementsandchallenges,infrastructureneeds,andconditionandextentofnaturalresourceswithinthewatershed.Therefore,watershed-basedplanningrequirescooperationamongavarietyofstakeholders,suchasgovernmentagencies,homeandother property owners, environmental organizations, and a variety of industries, toestablishthegoalsandobjectivestomakedecisions.Finally,watershed-basedplanningrequirestheopenandtransparentexchangeofinformationsothatallstakeholderscanmakeinformeddecisions.Ashifttowatershed-basedplanningrequiresdevelopmentofnewprogramsandsystemsthatfacilitatecollection,storage,analysis,evaluation,andcommunicationofinformation.

Watershed-basedplanningatthemasterplan levelbeginswiththe identificationofexistingcondition;opportunitiesandconstraints,andtheeventualdevelopmentofaplanthatrespectstheseconditionsandprovidesstrategiestoincorporateandaugmentthe natural system.The following is a table template to begin evaluate analysis ofexistingconditionsinawatershed:

9 http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/watershed_techguidance.pdf


Watershed Characterization

Data Current Conditions Comments

Watershed percentage6-Digit8-Digit12-Digit

Tier percentageDevelopedDevelopingRural

Land Use percentageUrbanLandAgriculturalIndustrialInstitutionalEasementsOpenLandPublicLand

Environmental percentageForestFloodplainsWetlandRiparianBufferSlopesSoilsHabitatBiodiversity

Stream ConditionsBaseFlowFlooding


Synoptic Survey


Chemical AnalysisNutrientsSedimentsTrash

Biological SurveyMacroInvertebratesFishesHabitat

Stream Corridor Assessment


Physical AnalysisPipeOutfallsErosionSitesStreamBuffersFishBlockagesSewerOverflowsStreamBaseFlowCulvertsTrashChannelizationUnusualConditions

Table 9: Watershed Characterization Template

Oneofthekeybenefitsofwatershedplanningistheopportunityforcoordinationandintegration with related planning processes and programs. As with other areas ofMarylandandtheChesapeakeBaywatershed,PrinceGeorge’sCountyfacesanumberofthewaterresourcechallenges,manyofwhichareaddressedbynumerousgroupsandother local governments.The watershed management structure brings the multiplechallengesandgroupsintoanintegratedandfocusedplanningframework.


THE CHESAPEAKE BAY BASINTheChesapeakeBaybasinencompasses64,000squaremilesoflandandincludespartsofsixstates(Maryland,Virginia,NewYork,Pennsylvania,WestVirginia,andDelaware)andtheDistrictofColumbia;itwasthenation’sfirstestuarytargetedbyCongressforrestorationandprotection.Excessivenutrientshavebeenlongunderstoodasaprimarysourceofbaydegradation,andcooperativewatershed-wideeffortstorestorethebayhavebeenongoingsincethefirstChesapeakeBayAgreementwassignedin1983.TheeffortstoprotectandrestorethebayarecoordinatedbytheChesapeakeBayProgram,aregionalpartnershipthatincludestheEPA;theU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture;thestatesofDelaware,Maryland,NewYork,Pennsylvania,Virginia,andWestVirginia;theDistrictofColumbia;theChesapeakeBayCommission;andadvisorygroupsofcitizens,scientists,andlocalgovernmentofficials.

CoordinatedeffortssincetheChesapeakeBayProgrambeganhadresultedinreductionsofnitrogenfrom338millionpoundsto285millionpoundsandphosphorusfrom27.1to19.1millionpoundsperyear,buttheseweredeterminedasinsufficienttorestorethebaytoahealthyecosystem.Computermodelsestimatetheamountofnitrogenandphosphorusloadsthatcanenterthebayandstillachievethewaterqualitycriteria.Asa result, inMarch2003, thebaypartners agreed to reduce theamountofnutrientsflowingintothebayanditsriversbymorethantwiceasmuchashadbeenaccomplisheduptothattime.The1983goalscommittedthesixbaywatershedstatesandtheDistrictofColumbiatoreducecombinednitrogenfrom285millionpoundstonomorethan175millionpoundsperyear,andphosphorusfrom19.1millionpoundstonomorethan12.8millionpoundsperyear,by2010.Eachstateandmajorsubbasinwasassignednutrientreductionsneededtomeetthewaterqualitygoals.Thestatesdevelopedactionplanscalled tributary strategies todefine theactivities thatwouldbeundertaken tomeet the nutrient reduction goals in their tributaries. Maryland’s allocations of the1983loadcapsareshowninTable10.

Basin* Nitrogen (million pounds/year)

Phosphorous (million pounds/year)

Sediments (million tons/year)

Patuxent 2.46 0.21 0.095

Potomac 11.81 1.04 0.364

*http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/waterqualitycriteria/nutrient_goals_by_state.pdf

Table 10: Prince George’s County 6-digit watershed nutrient goals.

Theobjectiveofthe1983agreementwastoachievenutrientreductiongoalsbytheyear2010andprecludetheneedtodevelopabasinwideTMDLforthesenutrients.TMDLsareregulatedlimitsontheamountofapollutantthatcanenterawaterbodyfromanysource. However, despite the significant regional cooperation and over $5 billioninvestedinvoluntaryprograms,thebay’snutrientreductiontargetsarenotgoingtobemetbythe2010deadline.Therefore,abaywideTMDLwillbeissuedbyEPAin2010thatwillsetregulatory-mandatednutrientlimitsforthebay,andtheselimitswillbegeographicallyrefinedintoallocationsforeachsubbasinwithineachstate.Thebasinsdemonstrating the lowestwaterquality criteriawill be assignedhighestpriority fornutrientreductionsand,thus,theywillreceivethemoststringentlimitsandviceversa.Additional programs will be developed to achieve further nutrient and sediment


reductions to the Chesapeake Bay, but it has not yet been determined what theseprogramswillbe.Somepossibilitiesinclude:

� Additionalregulatoryprogramstoincreasecontrolsondevelopment.

� Additionalpermittingtoreducepollutantsfromurbanand/oragriculturalrunoff.

� Federal,stateand/orlocalpoliciesandprogramsfornutrientcaps.

� Incentive and/or penalty programs to enhance implementation of better landmanagementtechniques.

� Fundingprograms.

� Restructuringofplanningand/orpermittingauthoritiestoprovidemoreregional-scaledecisionmakingandlandmanagementauthority.

In fall2008, theChesapeakeExecutiveCouncil committed to set two-yearmeasurablemilestonestoacceleratetherateofnutrientreductionfrombaytributaries.Thestate’splansforactionsthrough2011werereleasedinMay2009anddescribedanumberofprogramsand commitments including increased control of runoff from agriculture and urban/suburbanlandsthroughbestmanagementpractices(BMPs).ThisunprecedentedactionwillenhancewaterqualityimprovementsandhelpthestatespreparefortherequirementsthatresultfromthebasinwideTMDLtobeissuedbyUSEPA.WasteloadallocationsoftheTMDLwilllikelybedistributedwithinthestate’sbasinsandmaybefurtherrefinedintheformofsmallwatershedallocations.Theseallocationsandtheeffortstoincreasethepaceofnutrientreductionwillrequireincreasedeffortsfromagenciesandlandmanagementplannersthroughoutthewatershed,includinglocalgovernmentsandlandowners.

TheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture (USDA)andEPAhave announced additionalmeasuresforcoordinationandcooperationinprioritizingandimplementingnutrientreductionactivitiesintheChesapeakeBaywatershed(cropandpastureuseaccountfor25percentoflanduseinthebaywatershed).USDAandEPAwillfocusnutrientreductionactivities on septic systems, municipal wastewater, stormwater runoff from growingurbanandsuburbanareas,andagriculturalcontributionsfromlivestock,cropping,andforestry operations. Major environmental challenges affecting the Chesapeake Baywatershed include landscape change, toxic chemical contaminants, air pollution,sediment,andexcessnutrients(primarilynitrogenandphosphorous).

The Watershed Assistance Collaborative is a partnership between MD DNR,ChesapeakeBayTrust,UniversityofMarylandSeaGrantExtension,EnvironmentalFinanceCenter,andothersthatprovidefundingandtechnicalassistanceforwatershedrestorationplanninganddesign.Thestatehasdevelopedthisservicetoconnectlocalcommunities interested in undertaking comprehensive watershed restoration andprotectionprojectstothepeopleandprogramsthatwillhelpaccomplishtheirgoals.10

Training:TheUniversityofMarylandEnvironmentalFinanceCenter,alongwithstatepartners,willprovidehands-ontrainingforcommunitiesinterestedinwatershedtargeting,planning,andfinancingstrategiesoflong-termrestorationefforts.

Resources:InpartnershipwiththeChesapeakeBayTrust,thestatewillofferplanninganddesigngrantsandtechnicalassistancetomeettheneedsoflocalgovernmentsandcommunitiespreparingtoundertakewatershedmanagementactivities.

10http://www.ccgov.org/uploads/PublicWorks/WACOnePager2-09.pdf


Support: In partnership with the Maryland SeaGrant and the University ofMarylandsystem,thestatewilltoprovideregionalwatershedspecialiststoprovideimplementationassistancefocusedonhelpinglocalandcountywatershedefforts.

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY WATERSHEDS, TRIBUTARY TEAMS, AND WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGIESPrinceGeorge’sCountyiswithinthePatuxentRiverandMiddle/LowerPotomacRiversubbasinsoftheChesapeakeBaywatershed.Forthepurposesofthisplan,thePatuxentandPotomacRiversubbasinsarereferredtoasPrinceGeorge’sCounty’stwo“6-digit”watersheds. These subbasins are further subdivided into twelve “8-digit” watershedsdefinedbyMarylandMDEandshowninMap4,page46.Watershedplansprovideamechanismforidentifyinglocalopportunitiesandneedsforimplementingthetributarystrategygoalsfornitrogen(N),phosphorous(P),andsediments.Thegoalsofthetributarystrategyshouldbeconsideredaswatershedplansaredeveloped.Whereappropriate,localwatershedplansshouldincludeactionsasrecommendedbythelocaltributaryteam.Thetributaryteamsmayalsobeasourceofcommunityadvocacytoencouragelocalwatershedgroups’supportforplancreationandimplementation.

TheChesapeakeBaysignatoriescommittedtoworkwithlocalgovernments,communitygroups,andwatershedorganizationstodevelopandimplementlocallysupportedwatershedmanagementplansintwo-thirdsofthebaywatershedby2010.Theseplansaddresstheprotection,conservation,andrestorationofstreamcorridors, riparianforestbuffers,andwetlandsforthepurposesofimprovinghabitatandwaterquality,withcollateralbenefitsforoptimizingstreamflowandwatersupply.TheDNR-supportedWatershedRestorationActionStrategy(WRAS)Programwasdevelopedtohelpcoordinate localgovernmenteffortsforthesteadydevelopmentoffivenewWRASseachyear.

POTOMAC RIVER BASINPrinceGeorge’sCountylieswithinboththemiddleandlowerportionsofthePotomacRiverBasin.ThePotomacRiverwatersheddrainsapproximately14,670squaremilesofland, covering four states. Major bodies of water in the area include the Potomac,Anacostia,Cacapon,Monocacy,theNorthBranch,theSouthBranch,theOccoquan,and the Shenandoah Rivers.The Potomac River flows over 383 miles from FairfaxStone,WestVirginia,toPointLookout,Maryland.MajorcitiesinthewatershedincludeWashington, D.C., Bethesda, Cumberland, Frederick, Gettysburg, and Alexandria.Forestisthemajorlanduse,followedbyactivelyfarmedagriculture.The2000censuspopulationofthewatershedwasapproximately5.35millionresidents,with3.7millionresidinginWashington,D.C.ThePotomacRiverwatershedreceivedamoderate–poorecological health score in the 2008 Ecocheck report card,11 which is prepared by apartnershipprogrambetweentheNationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration’sChesapeakeBayProgramOfficeandtheIntegrationandApplicationNetwork(IAN)attheUniversityofMarylandCenterforEnvironmentalSciences(UMCES).

The Middle Potomac River BasinisthemosturbanizedofthethreePotomacbasins.Itishighlypopulatedwithoverhalfofthewatersheddeveloped.Pointsources(municipalwastewater treatmentplantsand industrialoutputs)contributemostof thenitrogen,andurban runoff contributesmost of thephosphorus and sediment loads.TheBluePlainsWastewaterTreatmentPlanthasflowsupto370milliongallonsperday.Blue

11http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2008/summaries/potomac_river/

Potomac River: 2008 moderate–poor

ecosystem health. Highest score in the past five years

due to improved water clarity and phytoplankton

and benthic community condition.

Water quality: Water quality index in 2008 was 45 percent (moderate).

This is a slight improvement in water

clarity compared to the past few years. The

dissolved oxygen score in 2008 (78 percent—good)

was consistent with scores over the past 20 years,

which have ranged between 69 to 81 percent.

Biotic indicators: Benthic and phytoplankton

community condition improved in 2008, leading to the highest Biotic Index scores since 1993. Aquatic

grass score has been declining for the past three years.


Plains began implementing biological nutrient removal in October 1996 and wascompletelyon-lineby2000,helpingtoreducenitrogenloadingsfromthisplant.12TheMiddlePotomacRiverbasindrainsapproximately610milesofland,includingportionsof Montgomery and Prince George’s County in Maryland. Approximately 130,000acresofPrinceGeorge’sCountyliewithintheMiddlePotomacbasin;allofthesewithintheCoastalPlain.ThelargerwaterbodiesincludePiscatawayCreekandtheAnacostiaRiver.SmallportionsoftheMiddlePotomacwatershedcontainhighqualitywatersthatmeetwaterqualitycriteria(TierII),13includingsmallareaswithinthePiscatawayandnontidal Anacostia subwatersheds. Tier II waters trigger the state antidegradationrequirements. Maryland’s antidegradation policy has been promulgated in threeregulations:COMAR26.08.02.04setsoutthepolicy itself;COMAR26.08.02.04-1provides for implementation ofTier II (high quality waters) of the antidegradationpolicy;andCOMAR26.08.02.04-2describesTierIII(outstandingnationalresourcewaters),thehighestquality.NoTierIIIwatershavebeendesignatedatthistime.

However,manyotherareasoftheMiddlePotomacRiverbasinwatershedshavebeenidentifiedas303dimpaired.IndependentoftheChesapeakeBaybasinwideTMDLthat will be established in 2010 as described earlier in this section,TMDLs havepreviously been established to address water quality issues within these individualtributariesforvariouspollutantsources,includinglimitsonpolychlorinatedbiphenyls(PCB) infishwithin thePotomacRiverupper tidalwatershed, fecal coliform fromnonpoint source runoff in Piscataway Creek, and a number of pollutants causingimpairmentsinthetidalandnontidalportionsoftheAnacostiaRiver.

Table 11: Prince George’s County 303d Impaired Waters* Tributary Basin or Other Name Impairments

Patuxent River Area

WesternBranch Dissolvedoxygenduetowastewatertreatmentplanteffluent

PatuxentRiverMiddle Biological,sediment,totalphosphorus,totalnitrogen,metals

PatuxentRiverLower Biological,sediment,totalphosphorus,totalnitrogen

Potomac River Middle/Lower

PotomacRiverUpperTidal PCBinfishfromupstreamsources

PiscatawayCreek Fecalcoliformfromnonpointsources

MattawomanCreek Totalphosphorus,totalnitrogen

AnacostiaRiverNontidal PCBfromupstreamsources,fecalcoliformfromnonpointsources,totalsuspendedsolidsfromurbanrun-off,impairedfortrash(debris/floatables/trash)

AnacostiaRiverTidal PCBinfishfromupstreamsources,fecalcoliformfrompetwaste,upstreamsources*Maryland’s2008DraftIntegratedReport

12http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Bay/pdfs/MidPotBasinSum8505FINAL07.pdf13http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/hb1141/prince_georges/PrinceGeorges_County.pdf


Middle Potomac Tributary Team—The mission of the Middle Potomac TributaryTeamis to reducenutrientandsediment inputsandto restorehabitat in theMiddlePotomacwatershedthroughcommunityparticipation.Theprimaryfocusoftheteamin2004 was the revision of the state tributary strategy, particularly wastewater, urbanstormwater,agriculture,andoutreachandeducationaspects.Theteamcontinuestoworkcloselywithstateandlocalgovernmentstospurdiscussionandactionsthatwilladdressthe complexwater quality issues thatdominate the veryurbannature of theMiddlePotomacbasin.TheseissuesincludemultijurisdictionalmanagementofPotomacbasinwaterways, the Blue Plains SewageTreatment Plant, urban stormwater retrofits, andhighlyimperviouswatershedsthatcharacterizetheRockCreekandAnacostiaRivers.Theteam’sperspectiveisthateventhoughloadallocationsarenotofficiallyset,therearenumerousareaswherethetributaryteamscanmakepolicyrecommendationsandhelpframetheissuesregardingtheformatandcontentoftherevisedtributarystrategies.

Potomac Riverkeeper14—The Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc. (PRK) is a nonprofitorganization that protects and restores water quality in the Potomac River and itstributariesthroughcommunityactionandenforcement.ThegoalistospreadawarenessofthepollutionthreateningtheriversandstreamsofthePotomacwatershedandtoinitiateandsupportclean-upefforts.ThePotomacRiverwatershedishometocities,farms,andforests.Itsgeographicaldiversityismatchedonlybyitsdiversityofwildlife.PRK, through enforcement and community actions, is working to maintain thisdiversityandkeepthewatershedpristineandbeautiful.

Anacostia River—The Anacostia River flows from the Maryland suburbs ofWashington,D.C., to itsmouthat thePotomacRiverneardowntownWashington.TheAnacostiaRiverwatershedcomprisesa173-square-miledrainagearea,contains13subwatersheds with a drainage area that is 49 percent in Prince George’s County,Maryland,34percentinMontgomeryCounty,Maryland,and17percentintheDistrictofColumbia.Thewatershediscomposedofthreemaindrainageareas—theNortheastBranch,theNorthwestBranch,andthetidalriver.ThemainchanneloftheAnacostia,extendingfromtheconfluenceofitstwolargesttributaries,theNorthwestBranchandtheNortheastBranchinBladensburg,Maryland,drains70percentoftheAnacostiawatershedandformsthetidalAnacostiaRiver.TheAnacostiaflows8.4milesthroughMarylandandWashington,D.C.,untilitmeetsthePotomacRiveratHainsPoint.Theother two major tributaries of the Anacostia, Lower Beaverdam Creek and WattsBranch,drainhighlyurbanizedareasinPrinceGeorge’sCountyandtheDistrict.Themain channel of the Anacostia is an estuary with a variation in water level ofapproximatelythreefeetoveratidalcycle.TheAnacostiawatershedishometoover800,000residentsofMarylandandWashington,D.C.,andincludessomeofthemosteconomically distressed areas in the metropolitan region.The land uses include thehighlyurbanizedareasoftheDistrict,oldandnewlydevelopingsuburbanneighborhoodsinthesurroundingmetropolitanareas,croplandsandpasturesattheUSDA’sBeltsvilleAgriculturalResearchCenter,andforestedparklandsthroughoutthewatershed.

Wetland loss, deforestation, and urbanization have significantly degraded the waterquality of the Anacostia River and compromised its biological integrity. About 23percentofthelandareaofthewatershedis impervious.UrbanizationisparticularlydenseontheeastandwestbanksofthetidalriverinWashington,D.C.,wheremorethan70percentofthelandiscoveredbyimpervioussurfaces.

14http://www.potomacriverkeeper.org/cms/index.php

Headwater Streams: The small swales, creeks, and streams that are the

origin of most rivers. These small streams join together to form larger streams and rivers or run directly into larger streams and lakes.


Lower Potomac—The Lower Potomac watershed drains approximately 730 squaremiles of Charles and St. Mary’s Counties, and a small portion of Prince George’sCounty (approximately23,000acres)within theheadwatersofMattawomanCreekandZekiahSwamp.Thearea ischaracterizedbyforestwithsomedevelopmentandagriculture,butitisexperiencinggrowthfasterthananyoftheothermajorwatershedsin the state.Thebasinhas sixmajorwastewater treatmentplants,noneofwhich islocatedinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

BasedontheresultsoftheChesapeakeBaywatershedmodel,themostsignificantcontributorofnitrogenandphosphorusintheLowerPotomacRiverbasinwasactivelyfarmedagriculture,followedbyurbansourcesandpointsources.AportionoftheMattawomanCreekwatershedintheLowerPotomacRiverbasinhasbeenidentifiedasimpairedwithaTMDLestablishedfor nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) to address water quality issues by limiting thequantitiesofnutrientsthatcanenterthistributaryfromallsources.

Lower Potomac Tributary Team—TheLowerPotomacTributaryTeamhasastrongcitizenbase,representativesofCharles,St.Mary’sandPrinceGeorge’sCountiesandthe State of Maryland, local government, and the business community.The team’smission is to reduce nitrogen and sediment inputs and to restore habitat throughcommunity participation. Managing agricultural run-off and reducing the impactsfromtheincreasingamountofdevelopedlandsareamongtheteam’shighestpriorities.

PATUXENT RIVER BASINThePatuxentRiverbasin encompasses930 squaremilesof land inportionsofSt.Mary’s,Calvert,Charles,AnneArundel,PrinceGeorge’s,Howard,andMontgomeryCounties,andisthelargestrivercompletelyinMaryland.ThePatuxentRiverisalsooneofthemostmonitoredandmodeledriversofitssizeintheworld.Theupperwatershedincludestroutstreamsandadual reservoir system, thenbecomesa large tidal freshwaterecosystem,andcontinuesasaproductivetidalestuaryuntilitemptiesintotheChesapeakeBayinSouthernMaryland.

OverhalfofPrinceGeorge’s landarea,orapproximately158,000acres, lieswithin thePatuxentRiverbasin,withallbutafewhundredacreswithintheCoastalPlain.ThreemainstreamsdrainintothePatuxentRiver:theLittlePatuxent,whichdrainsmuchofthenewlyurbanizedareaofColumbiainHowardCounty,Maryland;theMiddlePatuxent,whichdrainsagriculturallandsandtheoutersuburbanareasofColumbiainthesouthernpartofitswatershed;andtheupperPatuxentRiver,whichhasremainedprimarilyagricultural.

Land use in the watershed is very mixed with significant forest, urban and agriculturedevelopment.Thewatershedhasexperiencedsignificantsuburbandevelopmentinthepastfewdecades.ColumbiaandLaurelhavedevelopedalongtheI-95corridor,whichbisectstheupperhalfof thewatershed.The2000censuspopulation for thewatershedwas618,000people.15BasedontheresultsoftheChesapeakeBaywatershedmodel,themostsignificantcontributorofnitrogeninthePatuxentRiverbasinwasurbansources,followedbyagriculture,pointsources,andseptic.Forphosphorus,thelargestcontributorwasurbansources,followedbypointsourcesandagriculture.ThePatuxentRiverwatershedreceivedaverypoorecologicalhealthscoreinthe2008Ecocheckreportcard.16ThelowestscoreswerereceivedinthelowerportionofthePatuxentestuarythatdrainsCharlesandSt.Mary’sCounties,withthemiddleportiondrainingPrinceGeorge’sCountyshowingsomeimprovementoverpreviousassessments.

15MarylandTributaryStrategyPatuxentRiverBasinSummaryReportfor1985-2005DataAugust200716http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/chesapeake/2008/


Table 12: Patuxent River Subwatersheds Quality Rating

Indicator GroupSubwatershed Quality Rating

Good Fair Poor Very Poor

WaterQualityConditions <5 5–11 12–17 >17

LivingResourceConditions <18 18–39 39–65 >65

HabitatConditions <38 38–83 84–128 >128

LandscapeConditions <33 33–72 73–111 >111

HydrologicConditions <8 8–17 18–26 >26

OVERALLBCS <101 101–220 220–345 >345

Severalsubwatersheds,asshowninTable12,havehighqualitywatersthatmeetwaterqualitycriteria,includingsmallareaswithintheWesternBranch,upperPatuxentRiver,middlePatuxentRiver,lowerPatuxentRiver,andZekiahSwampwatersheds.However,impairmentshavebeenidentifiedfortheLowerandMiddlePatuxentRiverbasinsandnutrientandbiologicalimpairmentlimitswillbesetthroughestablishmentofTMDLsforbothofthesewatersheds.Inaddition,TMDLswillbeestablishedforsedimentsandmetals intheMiddlePatuxentRiverbasin.TheWesternBranchwatershedhasalso been identified as impaired with a TMDL established for biological oxygendemandtoaddresswaterqualityissuesinthistributary.

Patuxent River Commission—ThePatuxentRiverCommission (PRC)developed thePatuxent River Policy Plan, a land management strategy to protect the river and itswatershed,whichwasoriginallypreparedin1984byrepresentativesfromthestateandsevencountiesinthewatershedandfunctionsasthePatuxentRiverTributaryTeam.Theoriginal1984PatuxentRiverPolicyPlanestablished20goalsthatprovidedabroadvisiontorestoreandmaintainwaterquality,habitat,andgroundwaterandsurfacewatersupplies,andahighqualityof lifealong thePatuxentRiverand its tributaries.Thepolicyplanincludedrecommendationstocontrolnonpointsourcepollution,includingestablishmentofaprimarymanagementareaalongtheriveranditstributariesthatcreatedconglomeratevegetativebuffers requirements topromote connectivity;developmentofprograms forBMPs;surveyandidentificationofmajornonpointpollutionsites;developmentofstatecost-share programs to aid local governments for retrofit of existing development;accommodationoffuturedevelopmenttominimizewaterqualityimpactsandmaximizeexistingdevelopmentopportunities;protectionofexistingforestcoverandreforestationof areas important for water quality protection; preservation of prime and productiveagriculturalland;managementofsandandgravelextractiontoavoiddamagetotheriver;andadoptionofanannualactionprogramtoimplementthestrategies.A1997updatetothepolicyplanrecommendedthefollowingactions:

� Implement a comprehensive watershed management approach to control allsourcesofpollutionandresourcedegradation.

� Continue to restore, improve, and protect the habitat function of aquatic andterrestriallivingresources.

Patuxent River: 2008 Very poor ecosystem health. Most health indicators remained

consistently poor over the past 20 years. Benthic

community condition has declined in the 2000s

compared to the late 1990s.

Water Quality: In 2008, the score was 29 percent and largely

attributable to very poor water clarity and

chlorophyll a conditions. The water quality index has

remained consistently poor, ranging between 24 and 40 percent over

the past 20 years.

Biotic Indicators: The aquatic grass and phytoplankton index

scores in 2008 were very poor (12 and 11 percent, respectively), changing little from recent years. The benthic community

score remains in poor condition since significant

decline in 2000.


� Concentrate new development in and around existing developed areas andpopulation centers while protecting rural lands and the associated agriculturaleconomy.

� Enhance the environmentalquality andcommunitydesign innewandexistingcommunities.

� DevelopasenseofstewardshipforthePatuxentRiveranditswatershedthroughincreasedpubliceducationandparticipationprograms.

� Providesufficientfundingandstafftosupportcontinuedprograms,policies,andprojectstomeetthetenrecommendationsofthepolicyplan.

Sincethe1997update, thePRCisworkingwithstateagenciesandstakeholderstodevelop and implement the tributary nutrient and sediment reduction strategy,continuingtopartnerwithlocalgroupsforthepreservationandrestorationofriparianbuffers,andworkingonadoptionofupdatestothepolicyplan.

Patuxent Riverkeeper—In coordination other interested groups and individuals, thePatuxentRiverkeeperpreparedthePatuxent20/20reporttooutlinespecificpoliciesandaction strategies to forward theprotectionand restorationof thePatuxentRiver.ThereportidentifiestheprimarysourcesofpollutioninthePatuxentandtheshort-andlong-termstepsrequiredtoaddressthem.Patuxent20/20wasdevelopedbyintegratingexistingstudiesandreportsontheriverintoasingledocument.ItprovidesabriefoverviewofthePatuxentRiver,includingacharacterizationofthewatershed,thewaterqualitychallengesitfaces,ahistoryofrestorationefforts,andanexaminationofthebarrierstoitsrestoration.Patuxent20/20thendelves intotheactionsneededtorestore theriver,analyzingthesteps needed to address growth and development, land preservation, point sources,agriculture,airdeposition,andmanagementoftheresource.17

IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS, WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS, AND WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTION STRATEGIESTheMarylandDNR,inpartnershipwiththePrinceGeorge’sCountyDER,completedwatershedrestorationactionstrategiesfortheUpperPatuxentWatershed(2002),theWestern Branch Watershed (2003) and the Anacostia River Basin (2006). TheMaryland DNR supports the Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS)ProgramhascoordinatedthesteadydevelopmentoffivenewWRASseachyearwithotherspreparedbylocalgovernments.

TheWRASProgramisamultiyear,multiagencyprogramfocusedonthecomprehensivedesignandimplementationofwaterqualityandhabitatimprovementactivitiesonalocalwatershedscale.TheWRASProgrambuildsuponthe1998FederalCleanWaterActionPlan,whichproposedanexpandedcollaborativeeffortbystate,federal,andlocalgovernments,theprivatesector,andthepublictoaddressallaspectsofwatershedhealth.TheMarylandCoastalProgramandthestate’sNonpointSourcePollutionControlProgram(CleanWaterAct§319)jointlyfundthedevelopmentandimplementationofWRASs.AcompletedWRASisaworkplanbasedonanassessmentofnaturalresourceconditionsandscientificmonitoringdata,including:

17www.paxriverkeeper.org/patuxent-2020-report/05/03/2009


� A Characterization Report that includes a summary of readily available naturalresourceinformationonwaterquality,landuseandcover,livingresources,andhabitat.

� ASynoptic SurveyconductedbytheMarylandDepartmentofNaturalResourcesthatcontainsbothawaterchemistryanalysis(nutrients,temperature,conductivity,pH),andabiologicalsurvey(macroinvertebrates,fishes,habitat)on30–80sitesalongstreamcorridorswithinthewatershed.

� AStream Corridor Assessmentthatexaminesandassesses100milesofstreamswithin the watershed for problems such as pipe outfalls, erosion sites, lack ofbuffers,fishpassageblockages,seweroutfalls,orunusualconditions.Eachsiteisratedforaccessibility,severity,andcorrectability.18

The Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan recommends that the results of thesestudies be used to address water quality concerns during the development reviewprocess. Currently the data have been stored in a database and are being used asindividualapplicationsaresubmittedthatcouldsignificantlyaffectwaterquality.DERisdevelopingacountywidedatabasethatcontainsalloftheidentifiedsitessothatitcanbeusedduringthelanddevelopmentprocesstoidentifymitigationsites.19

AcomprehensiveWRASstrategyincludesthefollowing:� A watershedwide assessment of existing and anticipated future conditions that

significantly affect water quality and natural resources. The assessment shouldidentify the principal sources and relative contributions of point and nonpointsourcepollution;majorsourcesofhabitatloss;andthreatstodrinkingwater,aquaticlife,andnaturalresourcescriticaltomaintainingtheintegrityofthewatershed.

� Measurableenvironmentalandprogrammaticgoalsandatimeframeforachievingsignificantmilestones/accomplishments.

� Apublicinvolvementprocessthatprovidesmechanismsforinformingthepublicandincorporatingtheirconcernsandpriorities.

� Aprocessfortargetingindividualprojectsforpreventiveorremedialactivities(e.g.,identifying appropriate areas to implement BMPs and buffer strips that willmaximizetheachievementofcleanwaterandothernaturalresourcegoals.

� Awaterqualityandnaturalresourcemonitoringelementthatutilizesexistingandsupplementaldatasourcestodocumentcurrentandfuturechangesoccurringinthewatershed.

� Aprocess to routinely evaluate the effectivenessofprojects and/or systemsandtheirprogresstowardachievingenvironmentalandprogrammaticgoals.20

Anacostia Watershed Restoration Action Strategy—Thestate’slong-termobjectiveistohaveWRASsthatarecomprehensiveandaddressallaspectsofwatershedconditionandwaterquality,includingpublichealth,aquaticlivingresources,physicalhabitat,andthelandscape.AWRASwillprovideinformationandguidancethatwillhelpthepublic,watershed organizations, and federal, state and local agencies focus their staff andmoniesinareasandonissuesimportanttothepublicandthatwillresultinmeasurable

18http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Bay/czm/wras_06_04.pdf19http://www.pgplanning.org/Resources/Publications/General_Plan_Growth_Policy_

Update__Prince_George_s_County.htm20http://www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap/


environmental improvement.Thestrategiesmaybedrawnfromexistingassessments,plansandprograms, suchasacounty’sGeneralPlanandGreenInfrastructurePlan,stormwaterandsewerplans,capitalbudgets,greenwaysandopenspaceplans,watershedstewardshipprograms,sitedesignstandards/BMPs,erosionandsedimentcontrolplans,soilconservationdistrictwatershedworkplans,andotherefforts.

PrinceGeorge’sCountyreceivedafederalgranttoprepareaWRASforitsportionoftheAnacostiaRiverwatershed.Aspartof theWRASproject, theMarylandDNRprovided technical assistance, including preparation of a watershed characterization(compilation of available water quality and natural resources information andidentificationofissues),astreamcorridorassessment(usesfielddatatocatalogissuesandrateseverity)andasynopticsurvey(analyzesbenthicmacroinvertebrates,fish,andwater samples with a focus on nutrients).The AnacostiaWRAS was developed byconsideringtheinformationobtainedthroughDNR’stechnicalassistance.TheWRASincludes:agoalaimedatprotecting,preserving,andrestoringhabitatandwaterquality;adescriptionofthestakeholderprocess;adiscussionofopportunities,concerns,andchallenges;andadescriptionofnaturalresourcemanagementobjectives.TheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE)hasidentifiedtheAnacostiaasimpairedbynutrients,sediments,fecalbacteria,impactstobiologicalcommunitiesinnontidalwaters, toxins includingPCBsandheptachlorepoxide, trash/debris,andPCBsinfishtissueintidalwaters.TheDistrictofColumbiahasidentifiedtheAnacostiaasimpairedbybiochemicaloxygendemand,bacteria,organics,metals,totalsuspendedsolids,andoilandgrease.TMDLshavebeendevelopedfortheAnacostiaRiverfortheseimpairmentsandidentifythebaselineloads,theoverallTMDLloadingcaps,andthepercentreductionsfromthebaselineloadsrequiredinordertoattainwaterqualitystandardssetbyMarylandandtheDistrictofColumbiafortheAnacostia.TheAnacostiaWatershedAgreementwassignedin1987andusheredinformalcooperationbetweenvariousgovernmentagenciesforrestorationefforts.Theagreementalsoresultedinthe creation of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC). Progresstowardachieving thegoals enumeratedbelow is trackedby restorationbenchmarks setforthintheagreement.Thefollowingsixmajorrestorationgoalsweredevelopedforthewatershedaspartoftheagreement:

Goal 1: Dramaticallyreducepollutantloads,suchassediment,toxins,CSOs,othernonpointinputsandtrash,deliveredtothetidalriveranditstributariestomeetwaterqualitystandardsandgoals.Goal 2: ProtectandrestoretheecologicalintegrityoftheAnacostiaRiveranditsstreamstoenhanceaquaticdiversity, increase recreationaluse,andprovide foraqualityurbanfishery.Goal 3:Restorethenaturalrangeofresidentandanadromousfishtohistoricallimits.Goal 4:Increasethenaturalfilteringcapacityandhabitatdiversityofthewatershedbysharplyincreasingtheacreageandqualityoftidalandnontidalwetlands.Goal 5:Protectandexpandforestcover throughoutthewatershedandcreateacontiguousriparianforestbufferadjacenttoitsstreams,wetlands,andriver.Goal 6:Increasecitizenandprivateawarenessoftheirvitalroleinboththecleanupandeconomicrevitalizationofthewatershed,andincreasevolunteerandpublic/privatepartnershipparticipationinwatershedrestorationactivities.

Biological integrity is commonly defined as “the ability to support

and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community of organisms

having a species composition, diversity,

and functional organization comparable

to those of natural habitats within a region.”

(Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological

perspectives on water quality goals.

Environmental Management 5: 55-68).

Biological integrity is equated with pristine

conditions, or those conditions with no or minimal disturbance.


In2006, theCouncilofGovernmentsBoardadopteda resolution to theagreement thatestablishedanewAnacostiaWatershedRestorationPartnership(AWRP).TheAWRPaidedin the development of the 2008 Anacostia Restoration Plan (ARP) Interim ReportFramework, which serves as part of the planning effort to produce a ten-year plan forenvironmentalandecologicalrestorationwithintheentireAnacostiaRiverwatershedandtoenhance collaboration among all stakeholders. The ARP report uses the Sligo Creeksubwatershedasacasestudytodemonstratethemethodsandanalysesthatwillbeusedtocompletethestudy.Aspartofthiseffort,andinventoryofvariousrestorationprojects(e.g.,stormwatermanagementfacilityretrofits,streamrestoration,wetlandcreation,fishblockageremovalormodification)wereidentifiedtoimprovethecurrentconditionofthewatershed.A follow-up study will apply the method used for the Sligo Creek subwatershed to theremaining13subwatershedsandthetidalriverreachintheAnacostiaRiverbasin,andacombinedplanwillbereleasedfortheentirewatershed.ThefinalARPwillserveasaten-yearrestorationplanandsettheframeworkforlong-termrestorationwithinthewatershed.

Upper Patuxent River Watershed Action Strategy—The Upper Patuxent RiverWRAS was completed in 2003 to characterize and define priorities for actions tominimizewaterqualityimpactstotheriveranditstributariesfromlandusechanges.Toaccomplishthisgoal,actionitemsweredevelopedbasedonareviewofhistoricandcurrentnaturalresourcesandwaterqualityconditions,aswellaswatershedstakeholderinput.AnneArundelandPrinceGeorge’sCountiesworkedcloselywithstatestafftocollectinformationanddevelopanexistingwatershedprofileandtofieldassesscurrentwatershed and water quality conditions. Additionally, the WRAS partners (AnneArundel and Prince George’s Counties and Maryland DNR) undertook publicparticipationactivitiestoascertaintheperceivedissuesandassetsassociatedwiththeUpperPatuxentRiverwatershed.

Theurbanlandwithinthiswatershedwasalsoreviewedandassessedforthepotentialtoretrofitorimplementenvironmentallysensitive,lowimpact,developmenttechniquestoaddressandreducenonpointsourcepollutionfromsiterunoff.Fromtheexistinginformationandcurrentassessments,theWRASpartnersdevelopedamethodologytoprioritizesubwatershedsforrestorationand/orprotectionactivitiesbasedondifferencesinecologicalconditions(e.g.,waterquality,habitatconditions,landuses).Restorationand protection action strategies were then developed to address and improve thoseecologicalconditionsandtoachievetheoverallWRASgoal.

The overall results of the Upper Patuxent WRAS included a prioritized listing ofsubwatershedsinneedofrestorationorprotection;aprioritizedlistingofassociatedsubwatershedprojectsthatwilladdressthoserestorationandprotectionneeds;alistofthetoptenprojectsprioritizedonawatershedwidebasis;andpotentialprogrammaticchanges to protect and preserve the Upper Patuxent River watershed. Detaileddescriptionsofthewatershedcharacterizationsandrecommendationscanbefoundin:Upper Patuxent River Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for Anne Arundel and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland, Prince George’s County, Final Report, July 2003.

Western Branch Watershed Restoration Action Strategy—In a cooperativeagreement,PrinceGeorge’sCountyandtheCityofBowiepreparedaWRASfortheWesternBranchwatershed in2004.TheWesternBranchWRASwasdevelopedbyconsideringtheinformationobtainedthroughtechnicalassistancefromtheMarylandDNRaswellaslocalknowledgefromstakeholderinvolvement.TheplanrecommendsthecreationofaWesternBranchWatershedAssociationtohelpimplementtheWRAS


andensure itscontinuedupdatinganduse.ThetechnicalassistanceprovidedbytheDNRfortheWRASincludedpreparationofawatershedcharacterization(compilationofavailablewaterqualityandnaturalresourcesinformationandidentificationofissues),a stream corridor assessment (used field data to catalog issues and rate severity), asynopticsurvey(analyzedwaterqualitywithafocusonnutrientsandassessedbenthicmacroinvertebrates,habitat,andfishcommunities),alowimpactdevelopment(LID)retrofitassessment(evaluatedthefeasibilityofapplyingLIDretrofitstovariouslandusesforstormwatermanagement),andapublicparticipationprocess.Theresultsandrecommendationsforeachareasfollows:

� Watershed Characterization: Thecharacterizationfoundthatthewatershedwas44percentforested.AmappingeffortwasrecommendedtohelpidentifypriorityprotectionareasforthesubwatershedswithintheWesternBranchwatershed.

� Stream Corridor Assessment: Environmentalproblemsidentifiedinthewatershedincludedpipeoutfalls,fishbarriers,erosion,channelalterations,andtrashdumping.Pipeoutfalls,themostcommonconcern,wereaddressedfirstusingLIDretrofitting.Otherproblemswerethenprioritizedaccordingtoseverity,restorationcapabilities,andaccess.

TMDL has been developed for biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the WesternBranchRiver,atributaryofthePatuxentRiver.TheTMDLwasdevelopedtoaddresslowdissolvedoxygenconcentrationsfoundneartheconfluenceoftheWesternBranchand the Patuxent River. Modeling efforts determined that the dissolved oxygenimpairmentsweredue toBOD,which isawayofmeasuring theamountofoxygentaken up by microorganisms that decompose organic waste matter and is, therefore,usedtoexpresstheamountoforganicpollution.ThewaterqualitygoaloftheTMDLwas to establish allowable BOD inputs at a level that ensures the dissolved oxygenstandard(5.0mg/l)willbeconsistentlymetintheriver.TheTMDL,whichincludesBOD load allocations, will be implemented through National Pollutant DischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)permitsandthroughtheMarylandwatershedcyclingstrategy,whichincludesfollow-upmonitoringwithinfiveyearsofestablishingaTMDL.

Nutrients,specificallyphosphorus,exceededEPArecommendedlevels.Recommendationsincludedconductingapilotstudyinoneofthesubwatershedstodetermineappropriaterestorationefforts,includingmonitoring,withtheultimategoalofreducingphosphorusloading.

Thewatershedwasassessedaspoorforbenthicmacroinvertebrates;partiallysupportingforphysicalhabitat;andfair/poorforfish.

Urbanization and historic mining were identified as potential stressors. Variousrestoration and rehabilitation techniques were recommended for prioritized sites,includingreestablishinghydrologyandremovinginvasivespecies.

� LIDRetrofitAssessment:65siteswererankedaspartoftheLIDassessment.TheWRASrecommendedtargetingonesubwatershedforLIDretrofitsperyear.

� PublicParticipationProcess:Concernsidentifiedbystakeholdersincludedpointsources,openspaceandforestcoverloss,streamandwaterqualitydegradation,andresourceandhabitatloss.RecommendationsfromstakeholdersincludedimprovingwaterqualityusingLIDandprovidingandprotectingpublicaccesstothemainstemoftheriver.


Watershed Flooding Studies—Inadditiontothecounty’spartnershipsinthelargerwatershed efforts described above, the Prince George’s County Department ofEnvironmental Resources (DER) conducts watershed studies that serve multiplepurposes including evaluation of existing flooding and future flooding challenges,basedonbuild-outconditions,andidentificationofopportunitiestoreduceflooding.Thesestudiesincludedetailedmodelingthatincorporatesfielddatapredictedconditionsreflected in land use plans and other information regarding local conditions.Thesestudieshavebeencompletedforsmallwatershedstodate.

Water Quality Monitoring—DNR,throughitsChesapeakeBayWaterandHabitatQuality Monitoring Program, has collected water quality samples in Marylandtributariessince1985.Samplesareanalyzedfornutrients,suchastotalnitrogenandtotalphosphorus,andforphysio-chemicalparameters,suchasdissolvedoxygen.Thisprogram assesses the water quality by evaluating the levels of nutrients and closelyrelatedhabitatimpactssuchasdissolvedoxygenandwaterclarity.

TheCountywideGreenInfrastructurePlanincorporatedthiswaterqualitydataintotheestablishmentofspecificimprovementobjectives:

� Bytheyear2025, improvewaterquality ineachmajorwatershedtoelevatetheBenthic Index of Biological Integrity rating of the watershed by at least onecategoryusingasabaselinethe1999-2003biologicalassessmentofstreamsandwatershedsofPrinceGeorge’sCountycompletedbyDER(Map12).

� Bytheyear2025,improvestreamhabitatineachmajorwatershedtoelevatethehabitat ratingof thewatershedby at least one categoryusing as a baseline the1999-2003biologicalassessmentofthestreamsandwatershedsofPrinceGeorge’sCountycompletedbyDER(Map11).

Stream Corridor Assessments—M-NCPPC,inconjunctionwiththePrinceGeorge’sCounty DER, has been funding stream corridor assessments (SCAs) for all of thestreamswithinthecounty.DNRcreatedtheSCAprotocolinordertorapidlyassessthe generally physical condition of a stream system.This data can then be used toidentify the location of a variety of common environmental problems within thecorridorsofthesestreams.BothM-NCPPCandDERutilizethesedatainregardstomanagementdecisionsconcerningstreampreservationandrestoration.ThecommonphysicalproblemsidentifiedduringaSCAinclude:

� ErosionSites

� InadequateStreamBuffers

� FishMigrationBlockages

� ExposedorDischargingPipes

� Channelized(concrete)StreamSections

� TrashDumpingSites

� InorNearStreamConstruction

� UnusualConditions

Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The oxygen freely available

in water, vital to fish and other aquatic life and for the prevention of odors.

DO levels are considered a most important indicator

of a water body’s ability to support desirable

aquatic life.

Water Clarity: A measure of the amount

of sunlight that penetrates into the water and reaches the leaves of underwater grasses. The amount of

light is critical to survival of the underwater grasses

that grow in shallow waters. These underwater

bay grasses provide shelter for finfish and shellfish and

food for waterfowl. Underwater bay grasses

also stabilize the sediment in the bay and buffer wave

action in shallow areas.


Map 10: Benthic IBI water quality of major watersheds 1999-2003 biological assessments.


Map 11: Habitat water quality of major watersheds 1999-2003 biological assessments.


Thesurveydataalsocollectsinformationregardingwetlandcreationandwaterqualityretrofit sites, along with data with the general condition of in-stream habitat andripariancorridorhabitat.ThemainobjectivesoftheSCAsurveyare:

� Toprovidea listofobservableenvironmentalproblemspresentwithina streamsystemandalongitsripariancorridor.

� To provide sufficient information on each problem so that a preliminarydeterminationofboththeseverityandcorrectabilityofaproblemcanbemade.

� Toprovidesufficientinformationsothatrestorationeffortscanbeprioritized.

� Toprovideaquickassessmentofbothinandnearstreamhabitatconditionssothatcomparativeassessmentscanbemadeoftheconditionofdifferentstreamsegments.

All of the streams within Prince George’s County are expected to be walked anddocumentedby2011.

DER Watershed Management Program—DER is required under the MunicipalSeparate Storm Sewer System (MS4) to perform a detailed watershed assessment,evaluaterestorationoptions,anddeveloparestorationstrategyforonewatershedperyear.Theoverallgoalistoensurethateachcountywatershedhasbeenthoroughlyevaluatedandhasanactionplantomaximizewaterqualityimprovements.Tothisend,DERhasdevelopeda strategy that is summarized in its“WatershedAssessment andPlanningProgram: Supporting Clean Water and Livable Communities through WatershedRestoration andProtection.”Thedocumentprovides a framework that linksmultipledepartmentsandexistingregulatoryrequirementsunderawatershedapproach.

DER Watershed Management Initiatives—Prince George’s County DER hasdevelopedastrategythatprovidesaframeworkforinitiatingwatershedmanagementinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Theframeworkwillprovideamechanismthatlinksmultipledepartmentsandexistingregulatoryrequirementsunderawatershedapproach.DERhascompletedtheBearBranchWatershedStrategyandisworkingonthePiscatawayCreekWatershedStrategy.Thestrategieswillprovideacomprehensiveblueprintforprotectingandrestoringthesewatersheds.Theywillincludeacomparativerankingofpotential projects and guide future monitoring efforts, watershed assessments, andrestoration/preservationstrategydevelopment.

The watershed strategy will engage multiple departments as it integrates landconservation, land development, water resources, and community issues into oneconsolidatedframework.Thewatershedprogramwillleveragedatacurrentlycollected,suchasMS4permitmonitoringdata,andcreateaGIS-baseddatastorageandretrievalsystemtosharethedatacountywide.PlanningonawatershedbasisisenvisionedbyDERtohelpstreamlineexistingrequirementsforMS4permits,TMDLs,ChesapeakeBayrestorationelements,andotherregulatoryrequirements,aswellasincreasePrinceGeorge’sCounty’seligibilityforgrantfunds.

AsubstantialamountofinformationexistsforthewatershedsofPrinceGeorge’sCounty,andnumerousprogramshavebeenundertakentoimproveandprotectwaterquality.ThePrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningDepartmentischargedwithdevelopingvisions,goals,programs, and strategies for future county growth and development, while severaldepartments within the county are responsible for implementation of the programsneededtosupportthecounty’svisionsandrequirements.Althougheachofthesetopicsisaddressedseparatelyinthisplan,alloftheagenciesthatprovidethefunctionsrelated


towaterresourcesshareacommonneedforaccesstoinformationonwhichtobasetheirplanningdecisions,fundingandresourceprograms,andcoordinationefforts.Additionalorganization and communication around a watershed framework would improveinformationsharingandstrengthenthecounty’sabilitytoprovideeffectivewatershedenhancement measures. In addition, trends indicate watershed-based regulatory andpermittingprogramsareincreasingandcouldpossiblybeimplementedwithinthenextfewyears.TheEPAisexploringtheconceptofwatershed-basedNPDESpermittingtoencompassallstressorswithinawatershedratherthanthecurrentapproachofaddressingindividualpollutantsourcesonadischarge-by-dischargebasis.Thistypeofpermittingsystemmaybecreatedtomoreeffectivelycoordinateandsynchronizepermitswithinabasin,orcouldincludewaterquality-basedeffluentlimitsorTMDLsforsubwatershedsorindividualpermitholders.Althoughthistypeofprogramisnotyetestablished,recentrecommendations from USEPA, the National Academies of Sciences, and PresidentObama’s May 2009 Executive Order indicate that the concept of watershed-basedpermittingisgainingwidespreadsupport.

Anytypeofnewwatershed-basedregulatorystructurewillaffectmultiplestakeholdersincluding; federal agencies; state agencies; local governments; the business anddevelopment community; agricultural and other resource industries; and privatelandowners, necessitating successful forums for stakeholder participation andwidespread public education. Organization of county planning efforts around awatershed-basedframeworkwillhelpPrinceGeorge’scountyprepareforanticipatedchanges. Prince George’s County DER’s 2008 watershed management reportrecommendsinitiatingawatershedmanagementprogramthatlinksmultiplecountydepartments and existing regulatory requirements under a watershed approach.PlanningaroundasimilarframeworkwillenhanceM-NCPPC’sefforts,andtheabilityofalldecision-makersandstakeholders,toestablishgrowthpoliciesandprogramsthatprotectandrestorethecounty’swaterresource.Thisapproachwillalsohelppreparethecounty’sagenciesforfuturechangesinregulatoryprogramsandrequirements.

CHAPTER ISSUES SUMMARYWatershed-basedplanningoffersaframeworkfor:

� Planningthatintegratesandcoordinatestheworkofvariouscountydepartmentsandpartnersresponsiblefortheprotectionofwaterresources.

� Providingaclearinghousefordatasharingandcollaboration.

� Givingnonprofitandcitizengroupsanopportunitytocontributetheirexpertiseandprovideinput.

� Prioritizingpreservationofnatural ecosystemsandutilizinganenvironmentallysensitivedevelopmentapproach.

As conventional development increases, impervious surfaces such as roof tops,driveways,andparkinglotsalsoincrease,creatingmorestormwaterrunoffintoalreadyimpairedstreams

Atthewatershedscale,impervioussurfaceareasgreaterthantenpercentbegintohavedeleteriouseffectsontheecologicalhealthofstreamsandgroundwatersupplies


POLICIES AND STRATEGIESPOLICY:The county recognizes that a watershed-based system of information collection,analysis,evaluation,andlanduseplanningstrivestoimprovethequalityofimpairedwaterandprotecthealthywater.Watershed-basedplanningisthepreferredanalyticalframeworkforlanduseplanninganddecision-making.

STRATEGIES:� Evaluate environmental conditions at a watershed scale appropriate for the

planningareaduringsubregion,master,andsectorplanningefforts.

� Establishmasterplanningprotocolsandpracticesthatintegratedataandresourcesfrom federal, state, and county agencies, watershed groups, and PlanningDepartment staff to provide a cooperative and consensual watershed-basedapproachtoenvironmentalplanning.

� Developanassessment tool formasterplanning tobetter integrateawatershedanalysis processes, particularly in watersheds with limited data. Identify anddocumentpotentialconsequencesfromchangesinwatershedconditionstohelpinform future decision-making in the watershed. Maintain consistent andstructuredcoordinationbetweenplanningandimplementationagencies.

� Continuetodocumentexistingbaselinewaterqualityandwatershedconditionsandidentifyexistingandpotentialopportunities,impacts,andrisks.Establishaprogramtoevaluatelong-termwaterqualitychangesrelativetolanduseanddevelopmentchanges.

� Integrate nonpoint source watershed modeling into master plans to evaluateexisting conditions and impacts and proposed remediation, conservation, andprotectionstrategiesthroughdevelopmentandredevelopment.

� MapandincorporatedevelopmentandpreservationdecisionsbasedonGeneralPlanandGreenInfrastructurePlanpolicies,priority fundingareas,andprioritypreservationareasperwatershedaspartofthemasterplanningprocess.

POLICY: Watershedanalysisandplanningincludesmeasurablecriteriathatdefinesdatagapsandevaluatesplanandprogramaccomplishments.

STRATEGIES:� DevelopacountywidewatershedplanthatmeetsEPA’sninecriteriaforawatershed

plantobeeligibleforfederalgrantfunding.

� Createparameters to identify restorationandpreservationpriorities suchaslevelofimpairmentorhighqualitywatersandrestorationof303dimpairedwaters.Parametersshouldhelpestablishlocalizedpolicy,institutedevelopmentrequirementsandproffers(includingrequiredBMPs),guidepublicinvestmentdecisions,raisecountywideawareness,andcatalogfundingopportunities.

� Identify priority 8-digit and 12-digit subwatersheds for preservation andrestoration and identify priority actions within each watershed to beimplemented in short-, mid-, and long-term time frames to protect andimprovewaterqualityandhydrologicconditions.


� Track ongoing water pollution management activities in terms of TMDLimplementation, NPDES requirements, MS4 permitting, and water qualityattainment;includingfederalantidegradationpolicyimplementation.

� Establishandachievemeasurablewatershedgoalsrelatedtocompactlanduse,reducedimpervioussurface,additionalandenhancedtreecanopy/forestation(includingstreettrees),improvedwaterquality(aquaticlife,usedesignation),contiguousandaccessibleopenspace,andparks.Goalsshouldreflectexistingconditions of each subwatershed, community goals, established limits ofacceptable levels of nutrients concentrations, and measurable targets forimprovement.

� Define existing and projected water quality nutrient concentrations based on adynamic watershed simulation model integrating hydrologic data with otherwatershedconditions,suchaslanduseorlandcovertoanalyzestreamflowandwaterqualityconditionswithinwatersheds.

� Augmenttheexistingwaterqualityinventorywithacomprehensiveaccountofexisting,biological, chemical, physical, andhabitatdata collectedby county,state, and federal agencies and local watershed/volunteer groups for PrinceGeorge’sCountystreams.

� Integratewaterresources,watershedconditions,andwater-relatedobjectivesintolanduseplanninganddevelopmentdecisionstoensurethatsitebysitedecisionsareevaluatedfortheircumulativeimpactsandbenefitstothewatershed.

� DevelopacentralizedGIS-baseddatastorageandretrievalsystemtostoremultipledata types in order to access environmental information and make informeddecisionsaboutrestoringandprotectingwaterresourcesandnaturalprocesses.

� Routinelyupdatewatershedplanninggoalsandpriorityactionstoincorporateasystems-basedadaptivemanagementapproachthat responds toevolving federaland state requirements, changing conditions in water quality and watershedconditions,andsustainabilitygoals,andutilizesaprecautionaryapproachtowaterresourcemanagement.

Chapter VI: Environmental Resources and Land Development 85 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Increased population and the associated land use changes continue to be primaryfactorscausingwaterqualityandhabitatdegradationintheChesapeakeBayanditsdrainagebasins.Developmentitselfisnotnecessarilyharmfultothewaterqualityinourrivers,streams,creeksandtributaries;itisourdevelopmentpatternsandpractices—wherewe locatenewroadsandbuildingsandhowwebuildthem—thatcanhavealastingnegativeimpactonournaturalenvironment.

Aswespreadacrosswatershedsandbuildawayfromexistinginfrastructure,weareusingmorelandthanweneed.Between1970and2000intheChesapeakeBaywatershed,theaverage national household population decreased; however, lot sizes increased by 60percent.Theaveragehomesizeincreasedfrom1,500squarefeetto2,265squarefeet.1

Theamountof landweuse relative toourpopulationgrowth isoftenmeasuredbyimpervioussurfaces:roads,rooftops,parkinglots,andotherhardenedareas.Impervioussurfacedataareused togauge the rateofdevelopmentacross thewatershedandtoidentifypotentialsprawlingdevelopmentpatterns.Between1990and2000,theamountofimperviousareaintheChesapeakeBaywatershedincreasedbynearly250,000acres,orabout41percent.Duringthatsametimeperiod,populationincreasedbyjusteightpercent,2resultinginanetlossofopenspaceandforest.

Thislossofforestisapermanentlossofairandwaterfilters,wildlifehabitat,andotherecosystem services that forestsprovide. In addition to forest loss, 60percentof theChesapeakeBaywatershedforestsaredividedbyroads,subdivisions,andfarmsinto

1ChesapeakeBayProgram,awatershedpartnership2 Ibid

VI: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES & LAND DEVELOPM

ENTUnderstand the relationship of the availability, quality, reliability, and overall sustainability of water and other natural resources relative to our land use decisions that establish where, how, and what we build.

86 Chapter VI: Environmental Resources and Land DevelopmentApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

disconnectedfragmentssurroundedbyotherlanduses.Forestfragmentationisolatesanimalandplantpopulationsintosmallerareas,andmakesforestlandmorevulnerabletodevelopment,fires,andinvasiveplantspecies.Additionally,conversionoffarmlandto residential and commercial developments can adversely impact the long-termsustainabilityoftheagricultureindustry,asignificantpartoftheculture,openspaceconservation,heritage,andeconomyoftheChesapeakeregion.3

Aswelookforwardto2030,dependingonthedevelopmentchoiceswemakeandthepoliciesweimplement,wefacesignificantlydifferingoutcomes.Accordingtostudiespreparedby theMarylandDepartmentofPlanning (MDP),a choice to let currenttrends continue by maintaining current planning policies, yields consumptivedevelopmentpatterns.4

In Prince George’s County, the Planning Department has made population andemploymentprojectionsthrough2030.Assumingcurrentdevelopmenttrendscontinueinthecounty,andthatlandwillcontinuetobedevelopedaccordingtoexistingprogramsand policies (e.g., zoning, sewer service areas, etc.) that are currently in place, thedepictionevaluatedthough2030showsadditionalacresofforestandagriculturallandbeingconvertedfromrurallandusestourbanorsuburbandevelopment.Forestsandfarmswillbereplacedbyhousesandhighways.Waterqualitywilldegradefurtherandthecosttoprovideandmaintaininfrastructuretosupplydrinkingwaterandwastewatermanagementwillincrease.Changestoourcurrentgrowthpoliciesanddevelopmentpatternscanprovidecriticalresourceprotectionandoverallqualityoflifeenhancement.

“Humanpopulations,andassociatedurbanareas,areexpectedtogrowto19millionpeoplebytheyear2030andwillbethemajorfactorimpacting

restorationoftheecosystem.”—BoeschandGreer,2003

WATER RESOURCESAllwaterresourcesrespondtothenaturalhydrologiccycle.Thehydrologicprocessisthe renewing loopwithinwhichwatercyclesandrecyclesonearth.Theseprocessesincludecrystallizationofice;evaporationofliquid;transportationofmoisturebyair,rain,snow,river,lake,andoceancurrents;andevapotranspirationofwaterbyplantsandother livingorganisms.All theseprocesses are related to thephysical and chemicalproperties of water.The hydrologic cycle renews our water resources over time andallowslifeprocessestocoexistandshareintheresponsibilityfortheuseandmanagementofwater resources.Diminishingwaterqualityandwateravailability, and the lossofcriticalhabitatforfishandwildlife,arekeyissuesfacingPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Ourcountydependsonreliablesuppliesofcleanwatertosupportgrowingcommunities,sustainournaturalresources,andprovideforagriculturalproduction.Inordertomoveforwardonincreasinglycriticalwaterissues,citizens,interestgroups,andgovernmentagencieswillneedtodevelopnew,morecollaborativeandcooperativewaysofsolvingproblems.

3Ibid4 WhereDoWeGrowFromHere?AReportoftheTaskForceontheFutureforGrowthand

DevelopmentinMaryland,December1,2008,MarylandDepartmentofPlanning

Development means any building, construction,

renovation, mining, extraction, dredging, filling, excavation, or

drilling activity or operation; any material

change in the use or appearance of any

structure or in the land itself; the division of land

into parcels; any change in the intensity or use of land, such as an increase in the number of dwelling units in a structure or a change

to a commercial or industrial use from a less intensive use; any activity that alters a shore, beach,

seacoast, river, stream, lake, pond, canal, marsh,

dune area, woodlands, wetland, endangered

species habitat, aquifer, or other resource area,

including coastal construction or other

activity.


Figure 7: Water recharge.

Figure 8: Physiographic provinces. Source: USGS

Hydrologic Cycle: A description of the

circulation of water on Earth involving transfers

and storage of water vapor from the Earth’s surface via evapotranspiration into the atmosphere, from the atmosphere

via precipitation back to Earth, and through

infiltration to ground water, runoff into streams,

rivers, and lakes, and ultimately into the oceans.

Fluvial Geomorphology: The study of landform

evolution related to rivers. The variables affecting stream systems, such as

climate, geology, vegetation, valley

dimensions, hydrology, channel morphology,

and sediment load, have different causal

relationships with one another, depending upon the time scale of analysis.

Segment11includespartsoftheCoastalPlain,thePiedmont,theBlueRidge,theNewEngland,theValleyandRidge,theAppalachianPlateaus,andtheCentralLowlandPhysiographicProvinces.Twooftheseprovinces—theBlueRidgeandtheReadingProng,whichispartoftheNewEnglandProvince—arediscussedtogetherbecausetheyhavesimilargeologyandhydrology.

EXPLANATIONPhysiographicProvincesCoastal PlainPiedmontBlue RidgeNew EnglandValley and RidgeAppalachian PlateausCentral Lowland

ModifiedfromFenneman,N.M.,andJohnson,D.W.,1946,PhysicaldivisionsoftheUnitedStates:U.S.GeologicalSurvey,scale1:7,000,000,1sheet.


Stream Morphology—PrinceGeorge’sCounty’sstreamnetworkcanbedividedinto14 subwatersheds that are best described as gently rolling to hilly and moderatelydissectedbybroad,shallowvalleys.Elevationrangesfromsealevelto365feetabovesealevel.5Hydrologically,one-halfofthecountydrainseasterlytothePatuxentRiver,whiletheremainingareadrainssouthwesterlytotheAnacostiaRiverandothertributariesofthePotomacRiver.Severalofthecounty’ssouthernstreamsaretidallyinfluenced.

Maryland’scoastalplainstreamsextendfromthefalllineeastwardtowardtheAtlanticOcean.Thesestreamsaretypicallylowgradient(lessthanonepercent)andarefoundatelevationsoflessthan50feetabovesealevel.Silt,sand,gravel,andsmallcobblearethedominantsubstrates.Thetypeof substrateandtheshapeof thestreamchannelinfluence the typeof in-streamhabitat.Thereare fourdescribed types—pool,glide,riffle,andrun.Mostcoastalplainstreamscontainonlyruns,glidesandpools.Becausecoastalplain streams lackstable substrates suchasbedrockandboulders,woodandsubmergedaquaticvegetationareimportantchannelfeatures.Submergedlogsandtreeroots slow the flow of nutrients and sediment, provide cover for fishes and streaminsects,andcontrolstreambankerosion.

Streamsandstreamcorridorsevolveinconcertwithandinresponsetosurroundingecosystems. Changes within a surrounding ecosystem (watershed) will impact thephysical,chemical,andbiologicalprocessesoccurringwithinastreamcorridor.Streamsystems normally function within natural ranges of flow, sediment movement,temperature,andothervariables,inwhatistermed“dynamicequilibrium.”6

Overtheyears,humanactivitieshavecontributedtochangesinthedynamicequilibriumofstreamsystemseverywhere.Theseactivitiescenteronmanipulatingstreamcorridorsystemsforawidevarietyofpurposes,including;domesticandindustrialwatersupplies,irrigation, transportation, hydropower, waste disposal, mining, flood control, timbermanagement,recreation,aesthetics,andfishandwildlifehabitats.Increasesinhumanpopulation and industrial, commercial, and residential land use have placed heavydemands on the country’s streams and their stream corridors. In Prince George’sCounty,manyoftheolderdevelopedareashavehighlyalteredstreamsandnumerousstreams are piped underneath the concrete and asphalt supporting development. Asignificant number of streams have been channelized, resulting in stream corridorspaved to form trapezoidal channels. These altered channels provide no in-streamhabitatforfloraandfauna,canincreasethetemperatureofreceivingwatersduetotheheatcollectionofthepavementsurface,andincreasethevelocityofstormwaterflows.Thecumulativeeffectsoftheseactivitieshaveresultedinsignificantchanges,notonlyto thecorridors,butalso to theecosystemsofwhichtheyareapart.Thesechangesincludedegradationofwaterquality,decreasedwaterstorageandconveyancecapacity,loss of habitat for fish and wildlife, and decreased recreational and aesthetic values(NationalResearchCouncil1992).7

Developmentgreatlyincreasesthefrequencythatastreamexceedsthecriticaldischargerate(thedischargerateassociatedwithbankfullflowanddynamicequilibrium)thatcorrespondstotheonsetofchannelerosionandenlargement.Asaresult,thestreambed

5 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/WCDP_Chapter4_Part4_20050926.pdf6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equilibrium7 www.usda.gov/stream_restorationOct1998,RevisedAug,2001,adaptedasPart653ofthe

NationalEngineeringHandbook,USDA-NaturalResourceConservationService

Dynamic Equilibrium: In constantly changing

ecosystems, it is the ability of a stream system to

persist within a range of conditions

Bankfull Flow: Maximum amount of

discharge that a stream channel can carry without

overflowing.

Base Flow: Normal sustained flow

conditions between precipitation events. Base flows provide a range of

suitable habitat conditions that support the natural

biological community of a specific river subbasin.


andbanksareexposedtohighlyerosiveflowsmorefrequentlyandforlongerperiods.Streamstypicallyrespondtothischangebyincreasingcross-sectionalareatohandlethemorefrequentanderosiveflowseitherbychannelwideningordowncutting,orboth.Thisresultsinahighlyunstablephasewherethestreamexperiencesseverebankerosion and habitat degradation. The stream often experiences some or all of thefollowingchanges:

� Rapidstreamwidening.

� Increasedstreambankandchannelerosion.

� Declineinstreamsubstratequality(throughsedimentdepositionandembeddingofthesubstrate).

� Lossofpool/rifflestructureinthestreamchannel.

� Degradationofstreamhabitatstructure.8

Developmentanditsassociatedimpervioussurfacesreducetheinfiltrationofrainwaterand consequently the recharge of groundwater and maintenance of base-flows instreams. Stream systems seek topographic low points and flow toward larger waterbodiesandeventuallythesea.Assurfacewatermovesacrossthelandscapeiterodestheunderlyingsoilandrock,incisingthelandandcombiningwithgroundwatertoprovidestreambase-flows.Whengroundwaterrechargeiscompromisedduetoimpedimentstothenatural infiltrationprocess,base-flows instreamsdeclineandduringdroughtconditionscandisappearentirely.

Thereisastronglinkbetweenphysicalstreamprocessesandthehabitatandbiologyofthe stream. Since most biological systems co-evolved within physical systems, anadaptive ecosystem management approach is recommended. Adaptive managementallowsprotectivestrategiestodevelopasagreaterunderstandingofbiologicalconditionsisattainedtosupportstreamfunctions.Researchandactionshould:

� Improveecosystemknowledgeaboutstreamsystemsandtheirphysicalprocessesandbiologicalfunctions.

� Identifyresearchgapsandthebestmethodstofillthesegaps.

� Developadaptivemanagementtoolstoimprovestreamsystems

� Providetrainingandtechnicalsupporttoplanandimplementstreamrestoration.

Wetlands—Awetlandisdefinedasanareaoflandwherewatercoversthesoilorispresenteitheratornearthesurfaceofthesoilallyearorforvaryingperiodsoftheyear,includingduringthegrowingseason.AccordingtotheArmyCorpsofEngineers,thethreeindicatorsofawetlandinclude:

Hydrology:Therecurrentorprolongedpresenceofwateratornearthesoilsurface.

Hydrophytic Vegetation: Plantsthatareadaptedtolifeinsaturatedorwetsoils.

Hydric Soils:Soilsthatformunderfloodedorsaturatedconditions.9

Overall water quality improvement is due to the wetland’s ability to process excessnutrients,interceptotherpollutants,trapsediment,andreducesuspendedsolidsinthe

8 http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/chapter1.pdf9 http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/pdfs/wlman87.pdf


overlying water. This quality makes wetlandsimportant in urban and suburban areas whereimpervioussurfacesincreasetherateandvolumeofrunoff.Wetlandpocketsoftenoccuralongthefringesofstreams,wheretheycoincidewiththefrequentinundationfromwaterinthefloodplain.

Wetlandsalsohelpcontrolerosionandflooding.Likeanaturalsponge,wetlandssoakupandholdlargeamountsoffloodandstormwater,releasingwatergraduallybackintothewatersystems.Fast-moving flood or stormwaters are slowedby thevegetation and temporarily stored in wetlandareas. Subsequent gradual release of the waterminimizes erosion and property damage. It isessentialtopreserveandprotectwetlandsbecauseoftheirabilitytoactasbuffersbyregulatingtheflow of pollutants into the rivers, streams, andgroundwater. Wetlands also recharge streambaseflows,especiallyduringdroughts.

Roughly22,000acresofvegetatedwetlandsinthe Chesapeake Bay watershed were lostbetween 1982 and 1989, a number thatindicates little change from the more than2,800 acres a year that were lost during anearlier 1956-1979 study, though there weredifferences in the types of wetlands lost.Thefindingswerebasedonastatisticalanalysisofaerial photos acquired during the 1980s forvarious portions of the bay’s 64,000 square-milewatershed.Thedata covers a timewhenmoststateshadnonontidalwetlandprogramsandwhenthefederalregulatoryprogramswereevolving.The report estimated that about1.7

millionacresofwetlandsremaininthebaywatershed,ofwhichabout12percentaretidal wetlands—those in areas near the bay that are impacted by the Chesapeake’stides—and88percentarenontidalwetlandslocatedfurtherinland.10

Prince George’s County’s scattered tidal and nontidal wetlands exist as submerged,forested, ponded, and shrub/scrub wetlands. Digital information available from theNationalWetlands Inventory aswell as theMarylandDigitalOrthophotoQuarterQuad(DOQQ)mapsdepictmappedwetlands.FromthesereferencesMDEestimatesthat there are 22,530 mapped acres of vegetated wetlands.The State of MarylandmaintainsbothTidalandNontidalWetlandProtectionActs.AlthoughMDEisintheprocess of updating its Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, andMitigation,itremainsthemostcurrentlocalresourceasaninformationalsourceand

10http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=164

Map 12: Wetlands and watersheds.


targeting guide for water quality protection and habitat conservation.11 Stream andwetland mitigation sites, identified in the county, should be consistent with therecommendationsinthisdocument.

Floodplains—Floodplains are low-lying areas adjacent to streams and rivers.Theseareasnaturallyabsorbtheenergyoffloodwatersandreducethedamagetotheriverchannel.Floodplainsarealsoareaswhereexcesssedimentanddebrisassociatedwithfloodsaredepositedbytheriverafterastorm.Floodplainsprovidenaturalnitrogenprocessing(denitrification)duetothebacteriapresentinthesoil,andprovidehabitatformanyplantandanimalspecies.FloodplainsaremappedbytheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA)aspartoftheNationalFloodInsuranceProgram(NFIP).The100-yearoronepercentchanceofafloodismappedandusedforregulatorypurposes.

Thetypesoflanduseinanareaaffecttheoverallnatureoffloods;intotallyforestedareas,rainfallisreadilyabsorbedintothegroundandflowsslowlyintostreamsthroughgroundwaterpathways.Roadways,parkinglots,androoftopsindevelopedareasshedwaterquicklyandchannelitdirectlyintostreams,resultinginmoredamagingfloods.

Groundwater/Aquifers—Groundwaterisanintegralpartofthewatersystem.Whenwater vapor is cooled, clouds and rain develop. A portion of rainfall that falls onvegetated (or pervious) land percolates through the soil and into the underlyinggeologicallayers.Thetermgroundwaterreferstowaterthatisfoundundergroundinthecracksandspacesinsoil,sandandfracturedrock.Groundwaterisstoredin,andmoves slowly through, these layers of soil, sand, and rocks, called aquifers. Thesematerialsarepermeablebecausetheyhaveconnectedspacesthatallowwatertoflow

11http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/wetlandswaterways/CB_all.pdf

Figure 9: Coastal plain aquifers. Source MGS

Ground Water: The supply of fresh water found beneath the Earth’s surface, often in aquifers,

which supply wells and springs. Because ground water is a major source of

drinking water, there is growing concern over contamination from

leaching agricultural or industrial pollutants or

leaking underground storage tanks.


through.Thespeedatwhichgroundwaterflows,typicallyontheorderoffeetperyear,depends on the size of the spaces in the soil or rock and how well the spaces areinterconnected.

Exceptforaverysmalllandareawestofthegeologicalfallline,PrinceGeorge’sCountyisunderlainbytheNorthernAtlanticCoastalPlainAquiferSystem.Thisisaregionalaquifer system that extends fromNew Jersey toNorthCarolina along theAtlanticcoast.Outcropareas forseveral importantaquifersunderlie thenorthernportionofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Theoutcropareas,wheremostwaterfortheaquifersystemsisrecharged, occur primarily in these more densely developed areas. Increases inimperviousareadevelopmentintheseoutcropareasdecreasesgroundwaterrechargethrough percolation and infiltration and increases stormwater runoff. The reducedrechargemainlyaffectsthewater-tableaquiferintheformoflowerwaterlevelsandreducedgroundwaterdischarge(baseflow)tostreams.

TheaquifersoftheNorthernAtlanticCoastalPlainAquiferSystemcanbeeitherconfinedorunconfined.Aparticularaquiferisconsideredtobeconfinedwhereitisboundedaboveandbelowbybedsofdistinctlylowerpermeability(i.e.,clay)thanthatoftheaquiferitselfand, therefore, contains groundwater under pressure. This term is synonymous withartesianaquifer.Anaquiferisconsideredtobeunconfinedwhereitisnotboundedabovebyabedofdistinctlylowerpermeabilitythanthatoftheaquiferitselfandgroundwaterisundernoorlowpressure.Thistermissynonymouswith“water-tableaquifer.”Typically,theaquifersoftheNorthernAtlanticCoastalPlainhereinPrinceGeorge’sCountyareunconfined in their outcrop areas,where there is an absenceof a clay layer above theaquifersands,andbecomeconfinedtothesoutheastwhereyoungerclaylayersoverlaytheaquifersands.Someimportantdifferencesbetweentheunconfinedandconfinedportion

of the aquifers are that wheretheyareunconfinedtheyaremoresusceptibletocontaminationfromsources at the land surface, aremorereadilyinfluencedbyshort-termdroughtandclimatechange,and are more likely to dischargewater into nearby surface watersystems. Hence, groundwater intheshallowunconfinedportionoftheaquifersoftheCoastalPlainissensitive to how people manageand use the overlying land. TheMaryland Department of theEnvironmenthas implementedaWellhead Protection Programincluding strategies designed toprotect public drinking waterwells by managing the landsurfacearoundawelltominimizethe potential of groundwatercontaminationbyhumanactivitiesthatoccuronthelandsurfaceorinthesubsurface.

Map 13: Aquifer Outcrops. Source: M-NCPPC


Alternatively, where these aquifers are confined, while better protected fromcontaminationbecauseoftheoverlyinglowerpermeabilityclay,theyaresusceptibletothe adverse impacts of regional scale groundwater pumpage. Groundwater can bebrought to the surface by pumping wells that are completely submerged into thesaturatedaquifersands.Theamountofwaterthatcanbepumpedoutdependsonthestructure andhydraulicproperties of the aquifer and the competingwaterdemands.Currentlyindividual,privatedomesticwellsinPrinceGeorge’sCountyarepredominantlysupplied by four major aquifers—the Aquia, Magothy, Upper Patapsco, and LowerPatapsco.PublicsupplyattheCityofBowieispredominantlyfromthePatuxentandLowerPatapscoaquifers.Decliningwaterlevelsassociatedwithregionalscalepumpageinneighboring counties is a concern in several of these aquiferswhere groundwaterlevelshavebeendecliningatarateofabouttwofeetperyear.Groundwaterresourcesmustthereforebeactivelymanagedatthesameregionalscaleastheaquifersystem.

Thedemandforgroundwaterhascontinuedtoincreaseovertime.Thisdemandmayaffect the character of streams and watersheds by diverting natural discharge. Theemergingemphasisonecosystemhealthaspartofwaterresourceplanningdemandssophisticated integration of diverse professional expertise. Water is the connectingelement in the cooperative planning of multiple environmental disciplines. Duringdevelopmentandredevelopmentinareasofthecountynotedasaquiferrechargeareasallplansshouldbereviewedforimperviousnessandrecommendationstoreducethecurrentimperviouscoveragetothemaximumextentpracticableshouldbeincluded.

Water Quality—In order to make proactive recommendations to improve waterquality in Prince George’s County, decision-makers rely on specific base data tounderstandexistingstreamconditions.Manyagencies,departments,andorganizationstakeanactiveroleinthecollectionandevaluationofwaterqualitydataonthecounty’sstreams and water bodies.Thus, our overall understanding of the condition of ourwaterwayshasgrownsignificantlyoverthelastseveralyears.

Collectionanddocumentationofstreamdataisthefirststepintheevaluativeprocess.Scientificandphysicaldataonsurfacewaterconditionsarebynaturetimesensitiveandtheconditionsinstreamsarealwaysinflux,respondingtoexternalconditionssuchasairtemperatures; frequency,duration,andintensityofstormevents;changes in landuse,andchangesinpollutioncontrolrequirementsandhumanbehavior.Consequently,the timeline interface between data collection, interpretation, development ofremediationstrategies,andimplementationiscritical.

Waterqualitycomprisesmanyparametersandtheyalldealwiththebiological,chemical,orphysicalhealthofthemeasuredwaterbody.Table13indicatesthemostcommonlymeasuredparametersandwhattheymeanforthehealthofthewaterbeingmeasured.

AccordingtodatacollectedbytheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)fromnationwide water assessments, the top reported impairments in assessed rivers andstreamsregardlessofdesignatedusewerethefollowing:

� Sediment or siltation, which can smother streambeds, suffocate fish eggs andbottom-dwelling organisms, and interfere with drinking water treatment andrecreationaluses.

� Pathogens(bacteria),whichindicatepossiblefecalcontaminationthatmaycauseillnessinpeople.

� Habitatalterations,suchasdisruptionofstreambedsandriparianareas.

Designated uses, water quality criteria, and an antidegradation policy

constitute the three major components of a Water

Quality Standards Program.

The designated uses (DUs) of a waterbody are those uses that society, through

various units of government, determines should be attained in the

waterbody. The DUs are the goals set for the waterbody. In some cases, these uses

have already been attained, but sometimes conditions

in a waterbody do not support all the DUs.


InPrinceGeorge’sCounty,theassessmentsofwaterqualityofthecounty’sstreamsindicateimpairmentsconsistentwiththoselistedabove.Thehighlyurbanizingnatureofthecounty,habitatalterations,andconsequentstreamdisturbancesresultindegradedwaterquality.Also,becauseofthewidespreadconstructionprojectsoccurringwithinthe county, sediment from construction sites is finding its way to streams throughstormwaterrunoff,contributingtosiltation.Andfinally,whereoldersepticsystemsorsewerinfrastructureisfailing,pathogenslikeE.coliarereachingwatersources,makingthemunsuitableforswimmingordrinking.

Water Quality Parameter What it MeansTemperature Thetemperatureisrelatedtohowmuchoxygenthewatercontains.Colder

temperaturewaterscancontainmoreoxygenthanwarmerwaters.Salinity Ameasureofchlorideionsinthewater,orhow“salty”thewateris.Conductivity Ameasureoftheelectricalconductivityofwaterthatisinfluencedbyallthe

dissolvedconstituentsinwater.pH Ameasureofthehydrogenionsinthewater,indicatinghowacidicorbasic

thewateris.Lightattenuation Ameasureofhowmuchlightisattenuated(diminished)throughthewater

column.Itisinfluencedbydissolvedandsuspendedcompoundsinthewaterandisimportanttotheheathofplantsandalgae.

Secchidepth Thismeasuresthelightattenuationbyutilizingaround,flat,diskpaintedhalfblackandhalfwhite.Thediskisloweredinthewatercolumnuntilitcannotbeseen;thenitslengthismeasured.

Dissolvedoxygen MeasureofwaterqualityindicatingfreeO2dissolvedinH20.BiologicalOxygenDemand(BOD) Ameasurementofthedemand(usuallybybacteriaorchemicalreactions)for

dissolvedoxygeninthewatercolumn.Turbidity Ameasureoftheparticlessuspendedinthewater,includingsediment,

plankton,detritus.TotalSuspendedSolids(TSS) Similartoturbidity,TSSisameasureofsuspendedparticlesinthewater

column.FecalColiformBacteria Thesearebacteriathatexistintheintestinesofmammalsandbirds.They

indicatethepresenceofanimalorhumansewagethatmaycontainpathogens.Chlorophylla Chlorophyllaisaplantpigmentusedinphotosynthesis(makingplants

green).Thismeasurestheamountofplantoralgaematerialinthewater.Nutrients—nitrogenandphosphorous

Nutrientsareimportantforthegrowthofalgaeandaquaticvegetation.Toomuchofthemcancausealgalblooms,whichcanhavenegativeeffectsonwaterquality.

Heavymetals—arsenic,cadmium,mercury,lead,etc.

Heavymetalscanbetakenupbyaquaticlifeandcanharmthemandtheotheranimals,includinghumans,whichfeedonthem.

Table 13: Water Quality


Figure 10: Contiguous and disconnected riparian buffers.

NATURAL RESOURCESNaturalresourcesprovidethecountyanditsresidentswithmanyneededmaterialsandassetstosustainandallowforgrowthandadaptation.Water,soil,forests,wildlife,fish,andmineralsareallpartofthenaturalenvironment.Sustainablemanagementofthesenatural resources ensures we respect their limitations and understand the naturalprocessesthatprovidenaturalandwaterresourceprotectionandrenewal.

Green Infrastructure—ThePrinceGeorge’sCounty Green Infrastructure Plan wasdevelopedasatooltohelpidentifyareasofgreatest countywide ecological importanceand to avert the risk of their loss todevelopment. It identifies large contiguousblocksofnatural landand incorporatesaninterconnectedsystemofcorridorstoallowanimal and plant dispersal and migration.Regulated, evaluation, and network gapswere identified within the county toestablishprioritizationforprotectionbasedonecological importanceandresistance todevelopment. The Green InfrastructurePlan is alsoused toguidePrinceGeorge’sCounty’songoinglandconservationefforts.Atamultistatescale,thegreeninfrastructuremethodhasbeenusedastheframeworkforsetting landscape ecological priorities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. At aregionalscale,themethodhasbeenusedtorankorfocusareasforstatelandconservationprograms.Withinalocalgovernmentplanningcontext,themethodistranslatedintorelevantcriteriatosupportcounty-scalegreeninfrastructureinitiatives.

TheGreenInfrastructurePlanhassetspecifictreecoverpercentagesobjectivespertier.

Objective:Meetorexceedthefollowingforestandtreecovergoalswithineachtierandcountywideby2025:

� DevelopedTier26percent

� DevelopingTier38percent

� RuralTier60percent

� Countywide44percent

According to the 2008 General Plan Growth Policy Update, the Developed andDevelopingTiercoveragewasabovethe2025goal.The2025goalintheRuralTieriscurrentlybeingmet.ForestandtreecoverincreasedbythreepercentintheRuralTier,whileitdecreasedintheDevelopingTier.

Intheyear2000,ananalysiswascompletedthatshowedtheexistingforestandtreecoverpercentageineachtier.Theanalysiswasrepeatedin2005toshowthechangesbytierandtocomparetothe2025goal.Theterms“forest”and“treecover”wereusedintheGeneralPlantodenotethatbothwoodlandareasandurbantreecanopyshouldbeusedtomeetthegoals.Theterms“forest”and“woodlands”aregenerallysynonymous,


exceptthattheterm“woodlands”hasaspecificdefinitionintheWoodlandConservationOrdinanceandtheterm“forest”ismoregeneral.

Greeninfrastructurehasincreasinglybeentailoredastheterminologyusedtorepresentanenvironmentally responsive built environment and restoration practices that strive toreplicatenaturalsystemsandbiologicalprocesses.Theterm“greeninfrastructure”isbeingapplied at a wide range of landscape scales, from regional conservation networks toresidentialraingardens.Fundamentally,greeninfrastructureisaplanningframeworkforrecognizingthevaluableservicesthatecosystemsprovide.Agreeninfrastructurenetworkhelpsprotectlandandwaterresourcesthatsupporthealthyplantsandanimals,cleanseairandwater,andprovidenaturalspacesforpeopletorecreate.Itisalsoatoolthatcanhelplocalcommunitiesbecomemoreresilienttonaturalhazardsandadapttoclimatechange.12

Atthelargestscale,thepreservationandrestorationofnaturallandscapefeatures(suchas forests, floodplains, and wetlands) are critical components of green stormwatermanagementinfrastructure.Byprotectingtheseecologicallysensitiveareas,communitiescan improve water quality while providing wildlife habitat and opportunities foroutdoorrecreation.Greeninfrastructureisanapproachtowetweathermanagementthatiscost-effective,sustainable,andenvironmentallyresponsible.Greeninfrastructure,asastormwatermanagementstrategy,utilizesenvironmentalprocess-basedtechnologiestoinfiltrate,evapotranspire,capture,andreusestormwatertomaintainorrestorenaturalhydrologies.Onasmallscale,greeninfrastructurepracticesincluderaingardens,porouspavements, green roofs, infiltration planters, trees and tree boxes, and rainwaterharvestingfornonpotableusessuchastoiletflushingandlandscapeirrigation.13

Woodlands and Wildlife Habitats—Forestsareoneofthemostbeneficiallandusesfor improvingandmaintainingcleanwater.Similar towetlands, forestsactasgiantspongesthatabsorbandslowlyreleasepollutantsandsedimentfromstormwaterrunoff.Forests store, cleanand slowly releaseabout two-thirdsof thewater thatmaintainsstream-flowandreplenishesgroundwater.Ahealthyforestisacomplex,interdependentcommunityofplants,animalsandsoil.Eachlayeroftheforestprovidesdiversehabitatsandhelpstoprotectcleanwater.14

12http://www.csc.noaa.gov/magazine/2009/03/issue.pdf13http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=29814http://www.chesapeakebay.net/riverflow.aspx?menuitem=14714

Tier

Woodland Cover

in 2000 (acres)

Woodland Cover

in 2000

Woodland Cover

in 2005 (acres)

Woodland Cover

in 2005

Net Change in Percentage Points of

Woodland Cover (2000-2005)

Raw Data Percent Change

(2000-2005)

Developed 14,886 27% 14,630 27% 0 -1.7%Developing 65,035 43% 61,276 41% -2 -5.8%

Rural 59,732 57% 62,916 60% 3 5.3%Countywide 139,653 45% 138,822 45% 0 -0.6%

Table 14: Woodland cover objects per the Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan.

Habitat: The place where a

population (e.g. human, animal, plant,

microorganism) lives and its surroundings, both living and nonliving.


PrinceGeorge’sCountyhasdevelopedaWoodlandandWildlifeHabitatConservationOrdinance (WCO) that provides a regulatory framework to require woodlandconservationandprotectionduringandfollowingthedevelopmentprocess.TheGreenInfrastructure Plan provides guidance regarding targeted woodland preservation toprotectwaterwaysandsupportacontiguousforest.EnforcementprotocolsareinplacewithintheWCOandpenaltiesforinfractionsandnoncomplianceareenumerated.

“Allthingsbeingequal,forestsarebyfarourmoststrategicallyimportantnaturalresource.Inadditiontoprotectingwaterquality,cleaningourair

andprovidingwildlifehabitat,onelargetreecaneliminate5,000gallonsofstormwaterrunoffannuallyandwell-placedtreescanhelp

reduceenergycostsby15to35percent.”—MarylandGovernorMartinO’Malley

Riparian Forest—Trees,shrubs,andothertypesofvegetationmakeupafilterstripalongwaterwaysknownasaforestriparianbuffer,orstreamsideforest.Theseplantsbufferwaterwaysfromtheimpactsofsurroundinglanduse.Theplantsprefermoisttoverywetsoilandcanwithstandthedisturbanceofwaterflowingoverandaroundthem.There are many functions attributed to the vital and beneficial resources that arestreamsideforests.Theyinclude:

� Slowingfloodwatersandreducethevolumeofwaterthroughrootabsorption.

� Improvingwaterqualitybyfilteringrunoffandpromotingsedimentdeposition.

� Allowingwaterstorageinplantrootsandtoprovidingpathwaystogroundwaterlayers.

� Providing canopy cover that shades and cools the stream, improving habitatconditionsforinstreamorganisms(fish,salamanders,frogs,etc.).Thisshadealsoprovidesrelieffromextremeheatforterrestrialanimals.

� Providinghabitatforavarietyofbirdsandsmallmammals.Thebuffersalsoactascorridorsofwildlifehabitat,providingfood,shelter,andnestingsites.Providinggreatopportunitiesforrecreationalactivitiessuchasfishing,hiking,birdwatching,picnicking,andcamping.15

Riparianforeststhatbufferstreamssignificantlyreducetheamountofpollutantsthatenterwaterways,sometimesbyasmuchas30to60percentifstormwaterflowsthroughthebuffersratherthanbeingpipeddirectly intothestream.Forestscurrentlybufferabout 60 percent of the rivers and streams in the bay watershed.16 Riparian forestsshade the water beneath their canopies, maintaining cooler water temperatures insummermonths.Maturetreesalsoprovidedeeprootsystemsthatholdsoilinplace,helping to stabilize stream banks and reduce erosion and siltation.Trees that havefallen intoa streamoftenprovide in-streamhabitatandapotential foodsource foraquaticanimals.

Biodiversity—Speciesdiversityisessentialtothehealthoftheecosystem.Faunarelyon flora for food and habitat, and the vegetation likewise depends on animals topropagateseedsandspreadpollensandspores.Nativeplantsarecriticalandperformnecessaryfunctionstomaintainthespeciesdiversityofourlocalecosystem.

15http://www.naturalresources.umd.edu/YourWoodlandRiparianBuffers.html16http://www.chesapeakebay.net/forests.aspx?menuitem=14640

Biodiversity refers to the variety and variability

among living organisms and the ecological

complexes in which they occur. Diversity can be

defined as the number of different items and their relative frequencies. For

biological diversity, these items are organized at

many levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the biochemical structures that are the molecular basis of heredity. Thus, the term encompasses different

ecosystems, species, and genes.


Nonnative or invasive plants can overpopulate an area utilizing various aggressivereproductiveandsurvival techniques.Withoutnativepredators thatwouldnaturallyreducetheproliferationofthenonnativevegetation,theyspreadrapidly,oftenresultinginmono-cultures.Mono-culturescancreate“feast”conditionsandaresusceptibletotherapidspreadofdiseaseorpests.Theaggressivenatureofinvasivesallowsthemtoinfiltrateatwoodlandedgesandthisbecomesincreasinglyproblematicwhenwoodlandsarefragmentedduetodevelopmentofroadsandbuildings.Nonnativesareoftenusedintheornamentalhorticultureindustryandifaggressiveandinvasive,oftenescapeintothewildandovertakenativeplantcommunities,disruptingthelocalecosystem.Nativeplants generally have less maintenance requirements than their non-invasive aliencounterparts.Becausenativeplantshaveadaptedtolocalgrowingconditionsovertimetheyarelesslikelytofailduringperiodsofstresssuchasdroughtorprolongedcold.

Conventionallawnandgardencarecontributestopollutionofourairandwaterandusesupnonrenewableresourcessuchasfuelandwater.Manytypicallandscapesreceivehighinputsofchemicals,fertilizers,waterandtime,andrequirealotofenergy(humanas well as gas-powered) to maintain. The effects of lawn and landscaping on theenvironment can be reduced if properties are properly managed by using organicalternatives appliedcorrectly,decreasing thearea requiringgas-powered tools,usingnativespeciesthatcanbesustainedwithlittlewateringandcare,andusingadifferentapproachtomaintenancepractices.ThestatepassedtheChesapeakeBayPhosphorusReduction Act of 2009, SR-553, which bans phosphorus from being sold in lawnfertilizer(unlessitisstarterlawnfertilizer).ThebantakeseffectonApril1,2011.17

Americansmanagemorethan30millionacresof lawn.Wespend$750millionperyearongrassseed.Inmanagingouryardsandgardens,wetendtoover-applyproducts,using 100 million tons of fertilizer and more than 80 million pounds of pesticidesannually.Theaveragehomeowner spends40hoursperyearbehindapowermower,usingaquartofgasperhour.Grassclippingsconsume25to40percentoflandfillspaceduringagrowingseason.Perhourofoperation,smallgas-poweredenginesusedforyardcareemitmorehydrocarbonthanatypicalauto(mowers10timesasmuch,stringtrimmers21times,blowers34times).Ayardwith10,000squarefeetofturfrequires10,000gallonsofwaterpersummertostaygreen;30percentofwaterconsumedontheEastCoastgoestowateringlawns.18

Gradually shifting landscapingpractices tousingnative speciesprovides rewards interms of environmental quality, landscape sustainability, improved aesthetics, costsavings,andsupportingwildlifeontheproperty.

Soils and Slopes—Soil resilience19 has recently been introduced into soil science toaddresssustainabilityofsoilasaresourceandasameasuretoidentifyandcombatsoildegradation.Factorsthataffectsoilresilienceincludesoiltypeandvegetation,climate,landuse,scale,anddisturbance.Researchcontinuesinthedevelopmentofindicatorsorquantitativemeasuresregardingtheabilityofsoilstorecoverfromspecificdisturbances.Theextentofsoildegradationandtheassociatedimpactsonagriculturalproductivitycanbeevaluatedthroughunderstandingoftheprocessesandfactorsleadingtoestablishment

17http://www.environmentmaryland.org/legislature/testimony/clean-water/clean-water/sb-553---chesapeake-bay-phosphorus-reduction-act

18http://www.nps.gov/plants/pubs/chesapeake/pdf/chesapeakenatives.pdf19http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1753670

Biomass: All of the living material

in a given area; often refers to vegetation.

Microbial Activity: The multiplication of

microorganisms such as bacteria, algae, diatoms,

plankton, and fungi.


Map 14: Prince George’s County geology.


of the cause/effect relationships for major soils groups, eco-regions, and land uses. Aquantitativeassessmentofsoildegradationcanbeobtainedbyevaluatingitsimpactonproductivityfordifferentlandusesthroughdecreaseinproductivity,reductioninbiomass,anddeclineinthequalityofthenaturalenvironment.20Microbialactivitiesinsoilarecriticalforpollutantreduction.Soils,inconcertwithvegetation,breakdownmanyofthechemicalsandmetalsfoundinstormwaterrunoff.

The relationshipsbetween topsoil assets and topography indicate landmanagementanddevelopmentrestrictionsshouldconsiderthis interdependentrelationshipwhentargeting improvements to soil quality in the county. The spatial variations of soilpropertiesareaffectedcomprehensivelybytopographicfactors,landuse,erosion,anderosion control practices in watersheds. Topographic conditions, along with soilstructure,affectthecapacityoferosiveelementstoactonsoilparticles.Soilerosionbywater,wind,andtillageaffectsbothagricultureandthenaturalenvironment.Soilloss,and its associated impacts, is one of the most important of today’s environmentalproblems.Inasmallwatershed,existingsoilandwaterconservationmeasuresplayanimportantroleincontrollingsoillossanddegradation.Becausetherestorationofsoilproperties isdifficult toachieve,efforts to reduce loss is strategicallymoreeffective.Comparing untilled soil with conventionally farmed soil indicates a reduction innutrientandstructuralhealthduetosoildisturbanceassociatedwithtillage.21

Development activities traditionally strip and discard productive topsoil. Developmentpracticesthatpreserveand/orrestoresoilfunctionalityshouldbeencouraged.Developmentshouldbedirectedawayfromhighlyvaluableandproductiveagriculturalsoils,ensuringtheyremainviableresourcesforfuturegenerations.Erosionandsedimentationcontrolrequirementsreducethetransportofsedimentfromactiveconstructionsitesbutdonotnecessarilylimitthefootprintofdisturbedarea.Limiting theareagradedduringdevelopment, inaddition tophasingactiveareasofgrading,willreducesedimentationtolocalwaterbodies.Inadditiontolimitinggradedareas,PrinceGeorge’sCountymayconsiderprovidingstormwaterbenefitstodeveloperswhorestoresoilfunctionalityaspartoftheconstructionprocess,allowingwatertoinfiltrateinwaysthatreplicatesimilartopredevelopmentconditions.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATIONParksandOpenSpace—M-NCPPC’sDepartmentofParksandRecreationinPrinceGeorge’sCountyhasphysicalcontroloverapproximately24,000acresof landinitsparksystem,aswellasvariousstructuresandrecreationalamenities.Theparksystemhasabout6,200acresofriverparks,7,100acresofstreamvalleyparks,and5,200acresofcommunityparks.Theacquisitionofstreamvalleysforpublicparklandhasbeenamajor endeavor of Prince George’s County since 1927 with the creation of TheMaryland-NationalParkandPlanningCommission(M-NCPPC).Sitespecificparkplans(e.g.,PatuxentRiverParkandtheAnacostiaRiver)establishconceptualusesforspecificlandswithinadesignatedareaoftheparksystem.Todate,6,200acreshavebeenpreservedasthePatuxentGreenways.

Waterresourceprotection,whichiscloselytiedtoriparianbuffers,isenhancedviatheDepartmentofParksandRecreation’sownershipofsignificantstreamvalleyparkland.These park systems flank many of the county’s waterways and offer environmentalprotectionaswellasrecreationalopportunitiesforcountyresidentsandvisitors.

20http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=169198121http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008EnGeo..53.1663W

Conservation is preserving and renewing, when possible, human and natural resources and the

use, protection, and improvement of natural resources according to

principles that will ensure their highest economic or

social benefit.


Planning,environmentalevaluation,andpublicinvolvementconcerningmanagementactionsthataffectthenaturalresourcesofstreamvalleyparksareessentialforcarryingoutM-NCPPC’sresponsibilities.Itiscriticaltoensurethattheenvironmentalcostsandbenefitsofanyproposedoperation,development,and/orresourcemanagementarefullyandopenlyevaluatedbeforetakingactionsthatmayimpacttheparkland’snaturalresources.This evaluation must include appropriate participation by the public; theapplicationofscholarly,scientific,andtechnical informationinplanning,evaluation,and decision-making; department knowledge and expertise through the creation ofinterdisciplinaryteamsandprocesses;andtheaggressiveincorporationofmitigationmeasures, pollution prevention techniques, and other principles of sustainable parkmanagement.22

Urban Forests—Theurbanforestisthesystemoftreesandassociatedplantsthatgrowindividually,insmallgroups,orunderforestconditionsonpublicandprivatelandsincities, towns and municipalities, and their suburbs. Urban forest research and newtechnicalanalysis toolshavedefinedawiderroleandvalueforurbantrees.There isgreaterrecognitionofhowurbantreesandforestsimproveairandwaterquality,reducestormwaterrunoff,conserveenergy,andprotectpublichealth,provideawiderangeofecosystemservices,andincreasepropertyvalues.Atthesametime,thelossoftreesandforests inwatersheds experiencingdevelopmentpressures continues, andurban treecanopyininnercitiesdeterioratesthroughremoval,death,orlackofreplacement.Therateofconversionofforeststourbanusesincreasedtwofoldfrom1982to2001intheUnitedStates,reinforcingtheneedforgreaterintegrationofurbanforestryandlanduseplanning(NaturalResourcesConservationService,2001).

Inordertoaccuratelyandconsistentlyplanforwaterresourceprotection,conservation,andpreservation,theplanningprocessshouldincluderesearchandtechnicalanalysisof land cover to support the ecosystem function of trees to improve air and waterquality,aswellastheirabilitytoeffectivelyreduceenergyconsumption.Publicpoliciesshouldbeinplacetoprovideaneffectivetreecanopyprogramdesignedtoprotectandincreasetreecanopyinoururbanizedcommunities.PrinceGeorge’sCounty’sdevelopedcommunitiesneedplanningassistancetoassesstheirexistingtreecover,calculatetheeconomic value of their trees as an ecosystem service, set tree canopy goals, andimplement and fund steps to achieve them. Success stories of cities that haveincorporated the ecosystem value of trees into their local ordinances, BMPs, andreplacementvalueofdestroyedtreesareabundantandserveasmotivationforPrinceGeorge’sCountytopursuesimilargoals.

UpdatestothecountyWCOcontainlanguagetohelppromote,support,protect,andreplanturbanforestsandtree canopy in the developed communities in PrinceGeorge’sCounty.By site, theordinance requiresa15percenttreecanopyforurbandevelopment, infill,andredevelopmentprojects.

Agricultural Land—Agricultural ecosystems arecommunities of plants and animals that have beenmodified by people to produce food, fiber, fuel, andother products for consumption and processing.

22http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1334

Nutrient: Any substance assimilated

by living things that promotes growth. The term

is generally applied to nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater, but is also applied to other essential

and trace elements.

Urban Forestry refers to individual

parks, yards, and street trees, as well as forest

fragments such as wooded parkland, unimproved lots,

and naturally regenerating areas.


“Agriculture is a land use that assumes a dynamic form and assumes functions ofinterrelationshipsandprocesses.Anareausedforagriculturalproduction,isacomplexmanaged system in which ecological processes found under natural conditions alsooccur, e.g., nutrient cycling, predator/prey interactions, competition, symbiosis, andsuccessionalchanges.”23

YearafteryeartheChesapeakeBayisinundatedwithnutrientpollutionasmillionsofpoundsofnitrogenandphosphorousflowintoitstributariesfromthelandandfallintoitswatersfromtheair.Everysummertheeffectsofthatpollutionarerevealedinalgaebloomsandmassivedeadzonesthatspreadoverathirdofthebay.Despitethebesteffortsofmanyfarmers,agricultureremainsoneoftheleadingsourcesofthesenutrients,whichrunoffofbothcropandanimalfarms.

AgriculturerepresentsasignificantlanduseintheruralandsomesuburbanportionsofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Agriculturalactivitiessuchastillage,drainage,intercropping,rotation,grazing,wastemanagement,andextensiveusageofpesticidesandfertilizershave significant implications for water quality and wild species of flora and fauna.Agricultureisanintensiveandchangeablelandusethatiscapableofquicklyadjustingto changes andprogress in thedevelopmentofBMPs.Thecounty and its agenciesshould actively support local framers’ implementation of BMPs to ensure thatagriculture, as the county’s largest open space resource, contributes to thehealthofregionalsurfaceandgroundwaterresources.

Marylandlawrequiresfarmerstohavenutrientmanagementplanssotheyknowhowmuchfertilizertouseeachseasonandcanreducetheirrunoffbyonlyapplyingwhattheyneed.Thestorageanddisposalofanimalwasteisalsoasourceofnutrientsthataffectsthebay.Thereareadditionalmethods,BMPs,thatfarmerscanimplementontheirfieldsandfarmstofurtherreducethenutrientrunoff.InPrinceGeorge’sCounty,theAgriculturalNutrientManagementProgramisfundedbytheMarylandDepartmentofAgriculture.TheprogramprovidesnutrientplanningservicestoMarylandfarmersviaanetworkofnutrientmanagementadvisorsatcountyextensionoffices,soilconservationdistricts,andwithprivateconsultants.These serviceprovidersadministercontinuingeducationandtechnicalsupporttoachievecertifiednutrientmanagementplans.

Activeagricultureisalsorequiredtomaintainsoilconservationandwaterqualityplans(SCWQPs). A SCWQP is a comprehensive plan that addresses natural resourcemanagementonagriculturallandsandutilizesBMPsthatcontrolerosionandsedimentlossandmanagerunoff.SCWQPsincludemanagementpractices(suchascroprotations)andstructuralpractices(suchassedimentbasinsandgradestabilization).Attherequestofafarmer,aprofessionalfromasoilconservationdistrict,theMarylandDepartmentofAgriculture,ortheUSDAworkswiththefarmertodeterminethegrouporsystemofpracticesneededtoaddressspecificerosionandrunoffconcernsonthefarm.Thepracticesare designed to control erosion within acceptable levels and to be compatible withmanagementandcroppingsystems.ASCWQPcanbeusedforuptotenyearswithoutrevisionifsubstantialchangesinmanagementdonotoccur.Nutrientreductionisonlyone of many benefits derived from SCWQPs. Also included in a SCWQP arerecommendationsconcerningforestrymanagement,wildlifehabitatandplantings,pondconstructionandmanagement,andothernaturalresourcemanagement.

23MiguelA.Altieri,“Agroecology:PrinciplesandStrategiesforDesigningSustainableFarmingSystems,”UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,1995.

Conservation Tillage: To conserve moisture and

reduce evaporation on sun-baked crop fields,

farmers leave the stalks and leaves of harvested crops on the ground to create a type of natural

mulch for newly planted crops.


Forestry—Activelymanagingour forests,woodlands,andurbantreesassustainableandrenewableresourcesiscriticaltomaximizingtheeconomic,social,andenvironmentalbenefitstheseresourcesprovide.Forestersshoulddemonstrateaproactivecommitmenttosustainabilitybydevelopingandimplementingalong-termforestmanagementplan.Managementplansshouldrequireactiveandadaptiveparticipationinachievingthecounty’sobjectives,beconsistentwiththescaleoftheforestryoperation,andreflectimplementationofthemostcurrentBMPsavailableforforestryandnaturalresourcemanagement. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is available toprovidetechnicalassistanceandsometimesgrantfundingforsitesimplementingbestpractices.

Sand and Gravel—Sand and gravel assets in Prince George’s County represent asignificant economic resource. These operations have historically created divisionswithincommunitiesandrepresentaninvasive landusethatmustbemonitoredandmanaged tominimize itsoperational impacts to socialandenvironmentalconcerns.Sandandgravelextractionandcrushing,washing,andscreeningfrompitsorhillsidesleaves behind large holes and pits on the landscape and creates nonpoint sourcepollutionthataffectslocalwaterbodies.Whenminingactivitiesarelocatednearwaterrechargeorsurfacewaterareas,itcanexposethesaturatedzonesleavinggroundwatervulnerable tocontamination.Furthermore,abandonedpitshavebeenusedas illegaldumping sites for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes and runoff from thesecontaminantscancauseadditionalpollutantimpacts.BMPsforminingoperationsandreclamation should be reviewed and required in order to minimize the detrimentalenvironmentalconsequencesassociatedwiththisactivityincluding:

� Installditchesanddikestocollectwashwateranddivertrunofftocontrolerosionandsedimentation.

� Constructbermstopreventfuelandsoilmaintenanceareasfromcontaminatinglargegroundareas.

� Use reclamation activities to enhance the aesthetics of the land and preventcontinued erosion, sedimentation, and infiltration of nutrients once miningactivitiesarecomplete.

Prince George’s County is currently reviewing sand and gravel practices and theassociated regulatory requirements. New environmental legislation should require anatural resource inventory (NRI) to be submitted with applications for specialexceptionstoundertakeminingactivities.

Fisheries—The Chesapeake Bay Agreement includes commitments to aid in therestoration of the bay’s once productive fisheries. One priority commitment is to“provideforfishpassageatdamsandremovestreamblockageswherevernecessarytorestorepassageformigratoryfishes.”Sections4-501and4-502oftheNaturalResourcesArticle,AnnotatedCodeofMaryland,requiretheownersofdams“toconstructandkeeprepairedatleastonefishladderiftheDNRdeemsitnecessaryforthepassageoffish.”Thedefinitionof“dam”isconsideredtoincludeanystructureblockingthepassageoffishsuchasroadcrossings,gauges,weirsandpipelines,etc.

Fishblockagescanbecausedbymanmadestructuressuchasdamsorroadculvertsandbynaturalfeaturessuchaswaterfallsorbeaverdams.Fishblockagesoccurforthreemainreasons.First,thereisaverticalwaterdrop,suchasadam,thatitistoohighforfishtoswimover.Averticaldropofsix inchesmaycausefishpassageproblemsfor


some resident fish species, while anadromous fish can usually move through waterdropsofuptoone-foot,providingthereissufficientflowandwaterdepth.Thesecondreasonastructuremaybeafishpassageproblemisbecausethewateristooshallow.This canoftenoccur in channelized stream sections or at road crossingswhere thewaterfromasmallstreamhasbeenspreadoveralargeflatareaandthewaterisnotdeepenoughforfish.Finally,astructuremaybeafishblockageifthewaterismovingtoofast.Thiscanoccuratroadcrossingswheretheculvertpipehasbeenplacedatasteepangleandthewatermovingthroughthepipehasavelocityhigherthanafish’sswimmingability.24Theuseofembeddedorarchedculvertsatsmallercrossingscanprecludetheneedforfishladdersandallowforfishmigrationandalsohelpreduceerosioncommonatbridges.

Due to the increasing amount of fish blockages on the various tributaries to thePatuxentandPotomacRivers,fish that spawn in freshwater streamsarenotable tomigrateupstreamtolaytheireggs.Thisblockage,coupledwithintensefishingpractices,hasvastlydecreasedthepopulationsofpopularspecieslikeyellowperchandshad.

LAND DEVELOPMENTWaterqualityisultimatelylinkedtopopulationgrowthanddevelopmentpatterns;asweaddmoreroads,septicsystems,parkinglots,anddisturbedareasofland,wecreatemore pathways for pollutants to reach surface water and groundwater at an everescalatingrate.Aspeoplemovefurtherawayfromcitycenters,theyoftenhavetospendmore time on the road to reach their destinations, increasing both congestion andgreenhousegases.Vehicleemissions,asourceofairbornenitrogen,eventuallyfallstothegroundandiscarriedoffinstormwater,addingtoexcessivenutrientloadsinourstreams.Anincreaseinroadwaysandvehicletrafficalsocontributesotherpollutantsincludingmetals,trash,anddebris.

Building away from existing centers also dramatically changes the heritage andeconomic diversity of local communities. Increased development in small and ruralcommunitiescanimpactexistinglocalindustries,suchasfarming,fishing,andforestry.Newresidentialandcommercialdevelopmentintheseareascanalsoalterthevisualcharacterand“senseofplace”thatmaketheChesapeakeregionunique.25Fewdecisionshavegreaterimpactonthequality,reliability,availability,andoverallsustainabilityofwaterresourcesthanhowandwherewegrow.

Transportation—Therateofincreaseinimperviousnesscreatesacompellingcaseforapplying smart growth strategies to maximize the use of existing transportationinfrastructure and implementing environmental site design (ESD) stormwatermanagementpracticestomanagerunoffalongtransportationcorridors.Roads,bridges,driveways, and parking lots currently constitute a large portion of the impervioussurfacesinthecounty.Afterconstruction,imperviousareapreventsrainfallfrombeingabsorbedintotheground,andthereforeitbecomesstormwaterrunoff.Thisdevelopmentcycle negatively impacts water quality, bringing trash, oil, chemicals, and sedimentalongwiththestormwaterintowaterbodies.Pavedsurfaces,evenasbikeways,trails,andsidewalks,canexacerbatetheproblemofcontaminatedwaterresourcesresultingfromthisnonpointpollutionsource.

24http://dnr.md.gov/streams/res_protect/fish_barrier.html25http://www.chesapeakebay.net/developmentpressure.aspx?menuitem=19514


Planningtransportationinfrastructurewiselyisessentialtoimprovingthequalityofwater and reducing thequantity ofwater that enters streams, rivers and thebay asstormwater runoff. Long-term infrastructure needs, as represented in MDOT’sConsolidatedTransportationProgram(CTP)26ortheStateHighwayAdministration’s(SHA) Highway Needs Inventory (HNI)27, significantly affect the placement anddensityofdevelopmentwithinPrinceGeorge’sCountywhich in turn influence thelocalandregionalwaterneeds.Consistentwithstatepolicies,theCountywideMasterPlan of Transportation emphasizes transit and nonmotorized modes of travel,demonstratingthecounty’scommitmenttoenvironmentalstewardshipandhealthiertravelchoicestotheplaceswherepeoplelive,work,shop,andengageinrecreation.Railand bus transit improvements, with accompanying enhancements to sidewalkconnectivity,areplannedfortheDevelopedandDevelopingTiersofthecounty,wheremostfuturedevelopmentwilloccur.Thesemeasuresareestablishedtoincreasevehicleoccupancyandfostermoreefficientuseofexistingtransportationinfrastructure.Theyreducetheneedfornewroadconstruction,orwideningofexistingroads.Thecounty’sRuralTierpoliciesdiscourageadditionaldevelopmentandencouragethemaintenanceoftheexistingtransportationsystemthatpreservesitsopenspace,ruralcharacter,andenvironmentalquality.Implementationofthesepolicieswillleadtofeweremissionsofnitrogenoxides,volatileorganiccompounds,andcarbondioxide,whichbuildupfromtheburningoffossilfuelsandfindtheirwayintosurfaceandgroundwatersupplies.Inaddition,measurestoimprovevehicleefficiencyusecleaner,lower-carboncontentfuelsfrom renewable sources and reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), are key toimprovingairandwaterqualityandreducinggreenhousegases.DevelopmentthatisclosetoandaccessibleviatransitandnonmotorizedtransportationmodesfostersthereductionofVMT.Shortertransportationtripsarepossiblewithcompactdevelopment,alsoprovidingformoreopenspaceandgreeninfrastructureopportunities.

Mitigating the adverse impacts of transportation infrastructure using nonstructuraland/orstructural techniquesofstormwatermanagement isessential toreducingtheerosionofstreamchannelsandimprovinglong-termwaterquality.Acquiringrights-of-wayfortransportationprojectsshouldincludeprovisionsforstormwatermanagementareasaswellasbikelanes,shoulders,andsidewalks.TheCountywideMasterPlanofTransportationincludesenvironmentalstewardshipstrategiestominimizestreamandwetlandcrossings;crossstreamsatrightanglesandwithwidthsthatmatchthestreamwidthwherepossible;protectwildlifeandhabitat;usedrainagestructuresthatpreventroadandditchrunofffromdirectlyenteringthestream;retrofitstreamcrossingsinawaythatremovesfishblockages;andlocatestormwatermanagementstrategieson-siteandwithintheroadrights-of-wayand/oropensectionroadswithbio-swalescontain2.5feetofengineeredsoil,andgravelbottomswithunderdrains).Thecountyisalsousing permeable pavements where possible; minimizing impermeable pavement;prescribinglimitstoroadwidthsandparkingspacesrequiredwithdevelopment;andpromotingefficientuseofparkinginfrastructure.

Industrial—Prince George’s County was developed at a time when the waterwaysformedthebackboneofthecounty’stransportationnetwork.Riverbanks,floodplains,andriparianbuffersweredevelopedtosupportindustrythatrequiredthetransportof

26http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Planning/2009_ctp_tour/Index27http://www.sha.state.md.us/oppen/hni_PG.pdf


goods.Today,theselandusescontinuetoflankmanyofthecounty’swaterwayswithdevelopmentpatternsthatconsistofextensivepavedsurfaces,large,lowbuildingswithsignificant roof surfaces, and occasionally, effluent discharges with little to no landavailable to assist in toxin removal, temperature reductions and/or velocity controls.Industrial stormwater discharges are only permitted under the National PollutantDischarge Elimination System Program and facilities are required to maintain astormwater pollution prevention plan to mitigate polluted runoff. Maryland’sBrownfieldsRevitalization IncentiveProgramswas established inFebruary1997 aspartofMaryland’sSmartGrowthpolicy.Thisprogramisintendedtopromoteeconomicdevelopment, especially in distressed urban areas, by identifying and redeployingunderutilized properties. Reusing real property makes efficient use of existinginfrastructurewhileprovidinganalternativetodevelopingopenspacethatcontributestourbansprawl.MDE’sbrownfieldssiteassessmentandvoluntarycleanupprograms(VCP) may provide valuable assistance to the county for the rehabilitation,redevelopment, revitalization or property acquisition of commercial or industrialproperty.These programs involve environmental site assessment in accordance withacceptedindustryandfinancialinstitutionstandardsforpropertytransfers.28

Eco-industrial design (EID) is based on the idea that a flourishing economy andenvironmental health can coexist through strategies that integrate environmental,economic,andcommunitydevelopmentgoals.Atitsroot,however,isanemphasisonfosteringnetworksamongbusinessesandcommunitiestooptimizeresourceuseandreduceeconomicandenvironmentalcosts.Theeco-industrialconceptencompassesarangeofapproaches,includingpollutionprevention;byproductexchange;greendesign;life-cycle analysis; joint trainingprograms; andpublicparticipation.Theunderlyingprincipleof industrialecology is thatcommerceandecologyshouldunitesuchthatproduction and distribution mimic and enhance natural processes.29 EID seeks topromoteenvironmentalstewardshipat thebusiness, site,andcommunity levels.Theultimateenvironmentalgoalsofeco-industrialstrategiesaretoreducetheuseofvirginmaterials,decreasepollution,increaseenergyefficiency,reducewateruse,anddecreasethevolumeofwasteproductsrequiringdisposal.Thisapproachencouragescompaniestoadoptinnovativeprocessesandtechnologiesthatreducewasteofenergy,water,andmaterials.30

Eco-industrial planning recommends closed production loops to support theelimination of wasted energy, water, and materials. “The goal is to minimizeenvironmental impacts by changing both the way goods and services are produced(processtechnology)andtheproductsthemselves(productdesign).”31Thesesystemspromoterecoveryofendproductsandrecyclingofbasematerialsandreusableindustrialwastesbackintotheproductionprocess.

Residential, Commercial, and Institutional—Smart growth principles provide atemplatetodevelopstandardsandstrategiesregardingwhereandhowwelive,work,shop,recreate,andlearn.LeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign(LEED)standardsareincorporatedintosustainablesitedesignandbuildingtechniquesinorder

28http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/LandPrograms/ERRP_Brownfields/bf_info/index.asp29http://www.eda.gov/PDF/1G3LR_5_schlarb.pdf30Ibid.31Ibid.


to create a built environment that protects water and other natural resources andminimizesenergyusetothemaximumextentpracticable(MEP).Buildinginconcertwith thenatural environment is cost-effective toconstructandmaintain,prioritizeshumancomfortandwell-being,andrepresentsvalueaddedbecauseoftheseinherentenvironmental,economic,andsocialbenefits.Selectingdevelopmentsitesthatavoidprotectedresourcesandhazardousconditionsmakesitpossibletobuildfewerroadsandavoidassociatedconstructionimpactsbylimitingaccess.Developmentaccessibleby transit, sitedwithinone-quarter toone-halfmileof transit service,providingforgreenway,bikeway,andsidewalklinkages,helpstoreducecarbonandnitrogenemissionstoboththeairandthewater.Energyconservationthatemphasizesrenewableenergysourcessuchassolar,wind,andgeothermal,alsoreducesgreenhousegasemissions,amajorcontributortoclimatechange.

Communitiesprotectopenspacebecauseitprotectsstreamsandwaterquality;provideshabitat forplantsandanimals;preserves rural character;provides recreationalareas;protects home values, and reduces costs of municipal services. Consequently, landconservationmakescommunitiesbetterplacestolive.Conservationsubdivisiondesign(CSD)isagreendevelopmentstrategythatcanhelpcommunitiespreserveopenspaceandnaturalareasinresidentialhousingdevelopments.Eachtimeapropertyisdevelopedintoaresidentialsubdivision,anopportunityexistsforaddinglandtoacommunitywidenetworkofopenspace.CSDrearrangesthedevelopmentoneachparcelasitisbeingplanned so that half (or more) of the buildable land is set aside as open space.Conservation subdivision can provide open space amenities on land that has beendesignatedappropriateforresidentialdevelopmentbutshouldbediscouragedinareasof the county that are better suited for farm and forest preservation. Withoutcontroversial“downzoning,”thesamenumberofhomescanbebuiltinalessland-consumptivemanner,allowingthebalanceofthepropertytobepermanentlyprotectedandadded toan interconnectednetworkofcommunitygreenspaces.This“density-neutral” approach provides a fair and equitable way to balance conservation anddevelopmentobjectives32whereappropriate.

Developments that use environmental site design (ESD), which conserves existingnaturalsystemsandtopographicfeatures,canreducefloodingandotherstormwaterchallenges. ESD furthers stormwater infiltration, helping to reduce surface runoffduring storm events. By controlling erosion and sedimentation during constructionandthroughoutthebuilding’susefullife,naturalsystemswillcontinuetofunctionandprovideprotection from storms andmaintainhealthy ecosystems inourwaterways.Impervioussurfacesthatcontributetonegativeenvironmentalimpactscanbemitigatedthroughtheenhancementofanurbantreecanopy.Rooftopgardensprovideshadeandreduceheatgeneratedbypavement,parkinglots,andotherhardsurfaces,helpingtocoolsurfacewaterandstormwater.ESDreducesoverallenergycostsbydecreasingtheamount of impervious surfaces and increasing the amount of green space and treecanopy to reduce heating and cooling costs in buildings. Using ESD stormwatermanagementenhances,restores,andprotectsthequalityofthewaterresourcesthatarecriticaltoalllivingthings.

32http://www.natlands.org/uploads/document_33200515638.pdf


CHAPTER ISSUES SUMMARY� Waterbehavesinresponsetoestablishedscientificprinciplesandprotectionand

restorationstrategiesforwaterresourcesshouldbedevelopedtorespondto,andsupport,thenaturalhydrologicprocess.

� Sprawlinggrowthpatternshaveresultedindegradedstreamsystems,fragmentedforests,reducedgroundwaterandaquiferrecharge,andadecreaseintheamountoftidalandnontidalwetlands.

� Unsustainable development practices have consumed open space that providessocialandenvironmentalbenefitsandhascontributedtoeconomicburdensfromthesupportiveandexpansiveinfrastructurerequirements.

POLICIES AND STRATEGIESHydrology, Water Quality, and Stream MorphologyPOLICY:NaturalhydrologicpatternsaremaintainedtotheMEPtopreservestreambaseflows;control flooding; support neighborhood, community and countywide health; andprotectandpreserveenvironmentallysensitivefeaturesandlivingresources.

STRATEGIES:� Completeandroutinelyupdatestreamcorridorandwaterqualityassessmentsfor

allwatershedsinthecountytoinformandsupportwatershedrestorationefforts.

� Acknowledge that stream water quality declines when impervious cover inwatersheds exceeds 10 percent and is severely degraded when imperviousnessexceeds 25 percent, and provide pre- and post-development accountability forreductionsinimperviouscoverasappropriateinwatersheds.

� Provideopportunitiesindevelopmentandredevelopmentprojectsforgroundwaterrechargeandstormwaterinfiltrationthroughreductionofimpervioussurfaces.

� Protectandpreserveheadwaterwetlands,headwaterareasofstreams,andripariancorridorsbyincreasingbufferswherepracticabletopreserve,restoreand,maintainnaturalhydrology.

� Utilizeacautionaryapproachwhenrecommendingandimplementingstreamcorridorrestorationprojects,acknowledgingthatsingularactionshavesystem-basedeffects.

Wetlands and FloodplainsPOLICY: Wetlandsandfloodplainsareprotectedtoregulatetheflowofpollutantsintotherivers,streams,andgroundwater;controlerosionandflooding;controltherateandvolumeofrunoff;providecriticalwildlifehabitat;improvewaterquality;protectshorelinesandproperty;andprovideeconomicandrecreationalopportunities.

STRATEGIES:� Reduce,mitigate,oreliminateanypotentialfloodhazardsandpreventfutureflood

hazards caused by new development on flood-prone land through rigorousenforcementofexistingfloodplainregulations.


� Provideadditionalbufferprotectionforwetlandsincriticalflood-proneareasfortheirabilitytosoakupandholdlargeamountsoffloodandstormwater.

� Developawetlandprotectionprogramtoidentify,preserve,protect,enhance,andrestorewetlandresourcesinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

� Develop a comprehensive inventory of wetland resources that identifieswetlandsbylocation,type,extent,condition,andfunction.

� Identifywetlandresourcesthathavebeenlostorimpairedduetoalterationstosurfaceandgroundwaterquantityandqualityfromlandusechanges.

� Prioritizeprotection,restoration,andenhancementofwetlandswithhighestprioritygiventoenhancingsurfaceandgroundwaterqualitytomeetregulatoryrequirements.

� Providewetland-relatedgoalsandprioritiestoinformandguidecountymasterplanning.

� Reviewcountyenvironmentalguidelinesandenvironmentalreviewcriteriaforneeded changes and amendments to enhance wetland protection andrestoration,suchasincreasedwetlandbufferrequirements.

� Increaseregulatoryprotectionrequirementsforwetlandsandtheirbuffers,aswell as for development on land near high-quality wetlands that influencesurfaceandgroundwater.

� Considermorerestrictivezoningandhigherstandardsforpermitsrelatedtodevelopment,suchasstormwaterdischargepermits,onlandnearhigh-qualitywetlands.

� Analyzethecumulativeeffectofallproposeddevelopmentonwetlandsandtheirbuffers,andensurethemaintenanceofadequatesurfaceandgroundwaterquantityandqualitytowetlandsbeforeallowingindividualprojectstoproceed.

Groundwater and AquifersPOLICY:Sourcewater aquifers, reservoirs, and streams areprotected to assure the continuedavailabilityofhighqualitydrinkingwaterforcountyresidents,workers,andvisitors.

STRATEGIES:� Educatecitizens,developers,andregulatoryagenciesregardingtheimportanceand

sensitivityofgroundwaterresources.

� Raise public awareness regarding the importance of groundwater as a drinkingwatersourceandthenecessitytopreventcontamination.

� ProvideplanninganddatasharingassistancetoWSSCandregulatoryagenciestohelpprotectvaluabledrinkingwaterresources.Improvedatamanagementandaccessibility.

� Reduceexistingimpervioussurfacesduringredevelopment,andlimitimpervioussurfacesduringdevelopmentprojectsinaquiferrechargeareasofnorthernPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

� Encourage ESD stormwater features that recharge groundwater, such as raingardens, bioretention, infiltration areas, and created or enhanced wetlands, tomaintainstreambase-flowsduringdrought.


Natural ResourcesPOLICY:The county considers a broad-based green infrastructure approach to wet weathermanagement that is cost-effective, sustainable, and utilizes environmental process-basedtechnologiestoinfiltrate,clean,andmanagestormwater.

STRATEGIES:� Completeanassessmentofurbanforests,adoptlocalgoalstoincreaseurbantree

canopy, and encourage measures to attain the established goals with localjurisdictions,municipalities,and/orcommunities.

� Protect and enhance ecological biodiversity through deer, geese, and invasivespeciesmanagementprogramstoensurethelong-termhealthofforestsandhelpreducefecalbacteriacontaminationofwaterresources.

� Protecttheurbantreecanopyindevelopingwatershedsbyencouragingpreservationandrequiringreplacementofmaturetreesthatareremoved.

� Expand thedefinitionof green infrastructure to apply to anurban context andinclude urban tree canopy, green roofs, and other environmentally beneficialfeaturesthataremorefeasiblethanlandconservationindenseurbanenvironments.

� Measure and document categories of green infrastructure in urbanized andurbanizing watersheds to establish green infrastructure goals based upon thecurrent levelof impairment, futurecompliancewith totalmaximumdaily loads,anddevelopaprogramtosupportimplementation.

� Woodland mitigation sites should be actively identified during the planningprocess and landowners should be contacted and supported to place desirablewoodlandsintomitigationbanks.

POLICY:Land management and development practices to preserve and/or restore soilfunctionalityconsidertherelationshipsbetweentopsoilassets,topography,andclimate.Thesepracticesprovidetargetsforpreservationofhigh-qualitysoils,improvementstodegradedsoils,andmitigationoftopsoillossthrougherosioninthecounty.

STRATEGIES:� Providequantitativeassessmentsofsoildegradationbyevaluatingitsproductivity

fordifferentlanduses,anyreductioninbiomass,orgeneraldeclineinthequalityofthenaturalenvironment.

� LimittheareagradedduringdevelopmenttotheMEPandphaseactiveareasofgradingtoreducesedimentationtolocalwaterbodies.

� Disallowdevelopmentactivitiesthatstripanddiscardproductivetopsoil.

� Deviseamethodtoprovidestormwatermanagementcredits todeveloperswhorestoresoilfunctionalityaspartoftheconstructionprocess.


Parks and Open SpacePOLICY:Thecountyrecognizesthevalueandimportanceofestablishing,preserving,restoring,andmaintainingpublicconservationareasandeasementsforwaterresourceprotection.

STRATEGIES:� Review all recreational development plans for conformity with water resource

protectiongoalsandcountysustainabilitypolicies.

� Targetparklandacquisitionthatmakesimportantopenspaceconnections,protectssensitiveenvironmentalfeatures,provideswaterresourceprotection,andassistsincompliancewithcurrentandfutureTMDLsinthewatershed.

� Evaluatepublicopenspace,particularlyinurbancenters,tomeetmultiplegoalsincluding stormwater management and restoration of natural systems, byintegratinggreeninfrastructureandESDprinciplestotheMEP.

� Design, build, and maintain trail networks in stream valley parks to minimizenegativeimpactstothenaturalenvironmentresultinginlossofbiodiversity,forestfragmentation,disruptionofnaturalprocess,andthedegradationofwaterresources.

AgriculturePOLICY: Sustainable management of working forests and farms reduces and/or eliminatesunsuitable agricultural practices and supports economic, environmental, and publichealth goals while contributing to a pastoral and cultural landscape that promoteswaterqualityprotectionandprovidesecologicalservices.

STRATEGIES:� Encourage theuseof conservation tillage,no-till farming, rest-rotationgrazing,

crop rotation, and intercropping to minimize surface soil disturbance duringplantingtoreducesoilerosionandsedimentrunoff.

� Encouragecovercropssuchaswinterwheat,rye,orbarleytoreducesoilerosionand absorb excess nitrogen and phosphorous that remains in the soil after thesummercrophasbeenharvested.

� Supportfarmersinthedevelopmentofnutrientmanagementandsoilandwaterquality plans to comply with the state’s nutrient management law and reducenutrientandsedimentloadingratesassociatedwithactiveagriculture.

� Identifyopportunitiestoestablishstreamsidebuffers,wetlands,andotherwildlifehabitatareasthroughtheConservationReserveEnhancementProgram.

� Encourage reduction of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers through integratedpestmanagement.33

33Integratedpestmanagement(IPM)isaneffectiveandenvironmentallysensitiveapproachtopestmanagement.


� Support manure management programs including building manure sheds,transportingmanuretoareasforbeneficialuse, theuseofwateringtroughsandfencingtokeeplivestockoutofstreams,anddevelopingmanagementplanstohelpfarmershandletheirexcesswaste.

� Encouragecompostingandrecyclingofbiomassfromagriculturalsources.

� Manage organic matter, enhance soil biotic activity, support biodiversity, andencouragespeciesandgeneticdiversificationtoprovide favorableconditions forplantgrowth.

� Minimizewater,soilandnutrientlossesduetosolarradiation,airflow,andwaterrunoffviamicroclimatemanagement,waterharvesting,andsoilprotectionthroughincreasedsoilcover.

Forestry, Sand and Gravel Mining, and FisheriesPOLICY:Sustainablenaturalresourceindustriesthatprovidethecountywitheconomicstabilityareevaluatedforassociatedenvironmentalimpacts,mustprovideastructuredplantominimizedisturbancetothenaturalsystem,andarerequiredtorestorethelandscapeand water resources to a healthy biological community to the MEP during andfollowingallnaturalresourceindustry-relatedactivitiesinatimelyfashion.

STRATEGIES:� Enforceregulationswithregardtotimberharvestingandtheprotectionofsensitive

resources to ensure that harvesting operations are conducted in a manner thatprotectstheresourcesremainingaftertheharvest.

� Support managed woodlands to promote sustainable forestry, improve streamhealth,stabilizesoil,reducenutrientrunoff,andsequestercarbonthroughactivelygrowingforestsandtreebiomass.

� Prepareaspecialcountywidestudytoanalyzepast,current,andfuturesandandgravel mining operations with regard to sensitive extraction, compatibility withexistingcommunities,andappropriatefuturelanduses.

� Ensuresandandgravelminingoperationsimplementtimelyrestoration,remediateenvironmentallyhazardousconditions,andensurefillmaterialsdonotcontributetosurfacewaterorgroundwaterdegradation.

� Restore,enhance,andprotectaquaticlivingresources,theirhabitats,andecologicalrelationships.

� Sustainfisheriesandprovideforabalancedecosystemwhilemaintainingthewaterqualitynecessarytosupportthoselivingresourcesandtoprotecthumanhealthbyregulatingharvestingpracticesandprotectinghabitatquality.


Land DevelopmentPOLICY:Growthpolicies,developmentpatterns,zoning,environmentalregulations,andbuildingstandardsmaintainenvironmentalbalancesandsustainablelanduses.

STRATEGIES:� Supportpublictransitandtransportationorienteddesignstrategiestoreduceair

depositionofpollutants.

� Evaluatetransportationprojectsatawatershedleveltodeterminethestormwaterrunoffimpactsandopportunitiesforstormwatermanagement.

� Plantransportationinfrastructuretoreducecarbonemissions,managestormwater,andlimitinfrastructurecosts.

� Acquirerights-of-wayfortransportationprojectsasopportunitiesforstormwatermanagementaswellasprovidingforbikelanes,sidewalks,shoulders,andutilityeasementswherefeasible.

� Designopensectionroadswithbio-swales,encouragetheuseofperviouspavement,build to minimum pavement standards, and utilize nonstructural stormwatermanagementinallnewroadprojectswherepracticable.

� Retrofit highway median and interchanges using ESD techniques and plantvegetation in highway rights-of-ways, such as clover leafs and diamonds nearinterchanges,medianstrips,andrequiredbuffers.Wherepracticable,ensurethatalltransportation retrofits and new construction projects continue to provide safetransportforvehicles,bikes,andpedestrians.

� ReviewandsupportcodemodificationstoadapttoemergingplanningBMPsthatreduce waste, minimize impervious surfaces, diminish impacts associated withconstruction,provideforconservationandefficientwaterstandards,andincorporatesmartgrowthprinciples.

� Workwithcommunitiestodevelopstandardstoencourageretrofitofcountyindus-triallandusestominimizenegativeenvironmentalimpactsandimprovestormwatermanagement,includingthereductionofdischargeeffluents,developmentofrecyclingstrategies toreduceoverallwaste,establishmentofenergyreductionandefficiencygoals,andreductionofwaterusagethroughconservationandrecyclingprograms.

� Supportadaptivereuseofbuildings,infilldevelopment,redevelopment,andESDretrofitsincountycentersandcorridornodes.

� SupportLEEDandothergreenbuildingprinciplesthatreduceenergyconsumptionandprovideforlong-termsustainability.

� Develop countywidebuilding code standards that incorporateLEEDcertificationrequirementsforimplementationofgreenroofs,waterreuse,andothergreenpractices.

� Reviewthecounty’sconservationsubdivisionstandardstoensurethecodesupportstheintenttoprotectandpreservemorenaturallandandopenspacethanwouldbeprotectedthroughconventionaldevelopment.

� Enforce stringent maintenance requirements and inspection schedules for allcountyandprivatestormwatermanagementstructuresandfacilities.

Chapter VII: Stormwater 115 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Stormwaterrunoffreferstorainthatfallsonimperviousareas(hardsurfacessuchaspaved streets, parking lots, and rooftops) or areas with limited permeability (lawns,decks,patios)andflowstothestormwaterdrainagesystemand/orlocalwaterbodies.Impervious areas do not allow rainfall to soak or infiltrate into the soil; therefore,precipitationbecomesstormwaterrunoff.Stormwaterrunoffaffectswaterquantityandquality and is closely associatedwith landuse.Because stormwaterpollution is theresult of everyone’s everyday activities and existing land uses, the management ofstormwater pollution requires a watershed-based effort and participation from anumberofstakeholders.

Understandingtheimpactsofdevelopmentonwaterqualitycontinuestoremainanundefined variable; however, there are known benchmark standards to assist inevaluating existing and proposed development. One such benchmark acknowledgesthatstreamwaterqualitydeclineswhenimperviouscoverinwatershedsexceedstenpercentandisseverelydegradedwhenimperviousnessexceeds25percent.1

Effortstoimprovewaterqualityhavetraditionallyfocusedonreducingpollutantsfrompoint sourcedischarges suchas industrial facilities andmunicipal sewage treatmentplants. Congress amended the CleanWater Act in the late 1980s and early 1990s,increasingthefocusonstormwaterpollution.AccordingtoEPA,stormwaterpollutionis the leading cause of water quality impairment in the United States.2

Similarly, watershed impairment in the Chesapeake Bay basin and Prince George’sCountyisattributedtostormwaterpollution.

1 ChesapeakeBayProgram,aWatershedPartnership2 http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/whatis.html

VII: STORMW

ATERStormwater management decisions will be made within a watershed-based system of knowledge based on the best available scientific data, regulatory requirements, watershed and development needs, economic, and environmental impacts, and local opportunities and constraints.

116 Chapter VII: StormwaterApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

STORMWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTSThePrinceGeorge’sCounty’slandscapehaschangeddramaticallyoverthepastcenturyalong with other areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed around the Washingtonmetropolitanarea.ThelandusechangesinPrinceGeorge’sCountyandtheirimpactareoutlined ingreaterdetail inthesectionsonWatershedandLandUsePlanning.Changes in the landscape and the intensityofdevelopment can cause anumberofstormwater-relatedchallenges,ifnotproperlymitigated,including:

� Increasedfloodingand/orfloodfrequency.

� Increasedthevelocityofstreamflow.

� Increasedstreambankandinstreamerosion.

� Changedstreamgeometry.

� Reducedgroundwaterrechargeandbaseflowsduringdroughtperiods.

� Alteredstreamhydrology.

� Impairedaquatichabitatandrecreationalusesofwaterresourcesandthebay.

� ReducedqualityoflifeforPrinceGeorge’sresidents.

Stormwaterrunoffreachesstreamsveryquicklyfollowingstorms,allowingforminimalinfiltrationandcausingdecreasedstreambaseflowsduringdrytimes,thusincreasingthefrequencyandintensityoffloodingandacceleratedstreamerosion.Aslandcoverchangesfromnaturalconditionstosuburbanandurbandevelopment,thepercentofrunoffincreases.Inadditiontotheincreaseinstormwaterrunoff,thereisacorrespondingdecreaseindeepgroundwaterrechargeandinterflow.Depressedlevelsofinterflowcanleadtodramaticchangesinstreamflows;flowsareveryheavyfollowingraineventsandverylowduringdryperiods.Thefluctuationinstreamflowscanstressaquaticlifeandaggravatestreambankerosion.GroundwaterrechargeisimportantintheruralareasofPrinceGeorge’sCountythatrelyongroundwatersuppliestomeetmanyoftheirwaterneeds,includingagricultureandfiresuppression.

Asstormwaterrunofftravelsacrosstheland,itpicksuppollutantsthatcanadverselyaffect water quality. The pollutants can negatively impact water quality, threatendrinkingwatersupplies,impairaquatichabitat,andimpactrecreationalusesofstreamsandthebay.Inadditiontostormwaterpollutants,theincreasedvelocityandquantityofstormwaterincreasesstreambankandin-streamerosion,addingadditionalsedimentloadstolocalwaterbodies.AsthelandusechangesinthesuburbanizingareasofPrinceGeorge’sCounty,erosioncanaddsedimentloadsifconstructionsitesarenotproperlyprotected during and after development. Topsoil also provides for infiltration andtreatmentofrainfallthatisnotachievedbyimperviousareasandtheclaybelowthetopsoilthatcanbeexposedduringthedevelopmentprocess.

PastlandusechangesinPrinceGeorge’sCountyhaveresultedinanincreaseinhigherdensity residential areas, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses that aremore likely to produce potential stormwater pollutants. Similarly, agricultural landsthatdonotfollowbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)fornutrientapplication,erosionandsedimentcontrol,andwastemanagementalsoaddpollutedstormwaterrunoff.Theclearingoftrees,alterationofnaturaltopography,andstrippingoftopsoilcanresultinchangestothenaturalunderlyinghydrology.SeepsandperchedwatertablescanandmayhaveresultedfromthisactivityinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Itisrecommendedthat

Baseflow: The proportion of water flowing in streams and rivers that comes from

ground water. River flow during dry weather

conditions may be virtually all baseflow. At least 40 percent of all the

annual flow total of rivers in the U.S. is derived

from baseflow.

Accelerated Erosion: Erosion of soil and

sediments at a much more rapid than (geologic)

erosion, usually resulting from land use influences or natural catastrophes, such as fire, that expose

soil surfaces.

Interflow: Water that infiltrates the

soil surface and then moves laterally through the upper

soil layers toward stream channels and other water

bodies (lakes andwetlands). Interflow occurs on slopes where lower soil horizons

(layers) are less permeable.


reports of flooding be geographically documented and aligned with a soils andtopographylayertoidentifypatternsandhotspots.Currentregulationsfordevelopmentpractices, as well as additional practices recommended in this section, help protectwaterqualityduringfuturelandusechanges.

Mitigating Impact of Development—A key to protecting watershed health is tomaintain as close to the natural hydrologic and water quality conditions and waterbalanceasisachievableandpracticable.Thisshouldbeachievedthroughoneormoreofthefollowing:

� Developinglandinawaythatminimizesitsimpactonawatershedandreducesboththeamountofrunoffandvolumeofpollutantsgenerated.

� Usingthemostcurrentandeffectiveerosionandsedimentationcontrolpracticesduringtheconstructionandpost-constructionphasesofdevelopment.

� Controlling stormwater runoff peaks, volumes, and velocities to prevent bothdownstreamfloodingandstreambank/channelerosion.

� Treatingpost-developmentstormwaterrunoffbeforeitisdischargedtoawaterway.

� Implementingpollutionpreventionpracticestopreventstormwaterfrombecomingcontaminatedinthefirstplace.

� Usingvarioustechniquesandpracticestomaintaingroundwaterrecharge.

It is important toassessvarious scaledwatershedsduring theevaluationofexistinglanduseandlanduseplanning.Onasmallerlocalorsite-levelscale,thereareavarietyofstructural,nonstructural,andsitedesignmeasuresthatcanbeusedforachievingthegoalofwaterqualityimprovement.

“Developmentitselfisnotnecessarilyharmfultowaterquality;itisthewaythatlandisdeveloped—wherenewroadsandbuildingsarelocatedandhowthey’rebuilt—thatcanhavealastingnegativeimpactonthenaturalenvironment.Clearingremovesthevegetationthatintercepts,

slows,andreturnsrainfalltotheairthroughevaporationandtranspiration.Gradingflattenshillyterrainandfillsinnatural

depressionsthatwouldotherwiseslowandprovidetemporarystorageforrainfall.Thetopsoilandsponge-likelayersofhumusarescrapedandremovedandtheremainingsubsoiliscompacted.Rainfallthatonce

seepedintothegroundnowrunsoffthesurface.Theadditionofbuildings,roadways,parkinglots,andothersurfacesthatareimpervioustorainfall

furtherreducesinfiltrationandincreasesrunoff.“– Chesapeake Bay Program Site

Best Management Practice (BMP):

Methods that have been determined to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing

pollution from nonpoint sources.


STORMWATER RESPONSIBILITYStormwaterpollutionresultsfromdevelopedlandandthedailyactivitiesthatoccurontheland.Becauseofthevastnumberofsourcesofstormwaterpollution,thereareanumber of departmentswithinPrinceGeorge’sCounty thathave responsibility forstormwater management. A watershed-based approach to stormwater managementprovides a logical foundation for cooperation between these programs.The variousdepartments, agencies, and working groups’ roles and responsibilities are outlinedbelow.

Department of Environmental Resources (DER)—ThemissionofDERistoprotectandenhancethenaturalandbuiltenvironmentsofPrinceGeorge’sCountybyenforcingfederal, state, and county laws to create a healthy, safe, and aesthetically pleasingenvironmentforalltheresidentsandbusinessesofthecounty.DERisresponsibleforthe following stormwater related programs: municipal separate storm sewer systempermits,floodplainstudiesandmanagement,watershedassessmentsandplanning,andpollutionprevention.Theextentoftheseprogramsissummarizedbelow:

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit—DERisthepermitadministratorforcompliancewiththeNationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I permit, including annualreporting.PrinceGeorge’sCountyhasoperatedunderaMS4permit(MD0068284)since 1993, with the permit updated most recently in 2004.The MS4 permit is arequirementunder theCleanWaterAct toaddress stormwaterwaterquality in thecounty.DERisresponsibleforcomplianceoversightwiththeMS4permitrequirements,includingannualpermitreporting.Thepermitrequiresthefollowingprogramelements:

Source Identification—Sources of pollutants in stormwater runoff will beidentifiedandlinkedtospecificwaterqualityimpactsonawatershedbasis.Thisinvolves maintaining a Geographic Information System (GIS) database thatincludes the storm drain system, urban BMPs, impervious surfaces, monitoringlocations,andwatershedrestorationprojects.Thisprocesswillbeusedtodevelopwatershedrestorationplansthateffectivelyimprovewaterquality

Discharge Characterization—Dischargecharacterizationinvolvesmonitoringtoassess the effectiveness of stormwater management programs and watershedrestorationprojectsdevelopedbythecounty.

Management Programs—Theseincludedallareasservedbythecounty’smunicipalseparatestormsewersystemimplementprogramsdesignedtocontrolstormwaterdischarges and include stormwater management, erosion and sediment control,illicit discharge detection and elimination, county property management, roadmaintenance,andpubliceducationandoutreach.

TheMS4programisroutinelyevaluatedbyMDEandthepermitisrenewedeveryfiveyears.InOctober2009,DER’sNPDESpermitwillberenewed.Atthistime,MDEwill incorporateadditional requirementsrelatedto imperviouscoverrestorationandTMDLs,aswellasthenewrequirementsofthe2007StormwaterAct.ThisreviewandupdateaffordsanopportunitytoreexaminecountyMS4standardsinlightofadditionalunderstandingsregardingtheimpactsofstormwateraswellasBMPstomanagethoseimpacts.3

3 WhenMDErenewsthepermittheywillprovideguidance.

Hydrology: The scientific study of the

properties, circulation, and distribution of water as it

occurs within the atmosphere and at and

below the earth’s surface. Hydrology generally

includes hydrologic aspects of ground water, rivers,

and wetlands.


Floodplain Management—DER is responsible for many aspects of floodplainmanagementwithinthecounty includingdelineatingthefloodplainboundariesandpermitting development activities related to flood prevention. DER is currentlystudyingseveralwatershedsandupdatingfloodmapsbasedonhydrologicandhydraulicmodels.The DER manages the County’s participation in FEMA’s National FloodInsuranceProgram(NFIP)andCommunityRatingSystem(CRS).PrinceGeorge’sCountycurrentlyholdsaClass5rating,whichisinthetoptwopercentofover1,000communitiesnationwidethatparticipateintheCRS.

Under Prince George’s County Code Subtitle IV, Group 4, the Department ofEnvironmental Resources has the responsibility to conduct watershed-based floodstudiesinorderto:

� Determinethemagnitudeandfrequencyofpotentialfloodeventsbasedonexistingconditions.

� Determine the magnitude and frequency of potential flood events based ondevelopmentthatisplannedforthefuture.

� Define the possible alternative management techniques to control floods andminimizeflooddamage.

� Coordinateappropriatestormwatermanagementstrategiestoalleviatethefloodingimpactsoflanddevelopmentandstreamchannelerosionconsistentwithfederal,stateandcountyprogramsandregulations.

Flood Management Studies—DERhasperformedwatershedstudieson12individualwatersheds that serve multiple purposes including looking at existing floodingchallengesandfuturefloodingchallengesbasedonbuild-outconditionsandidentifyingopportunitiestoreducefloodingchallenges.

Permitting Functions—DER oversees building review and zoning inspections forresidentialandcommercialconstruction.

Citizen Drainage Complaint Response—DERstaffinvestigatesapproximately500citizen complaints regarding drainage problems per year. Approximately 45 newdrainageremediationprojectsareinitiatedeachyearasaresultofeitherhomeownercomplaints,referralsbyotheragencies,orrequestsbycountycouncilmembers.

Department of Public Works and Transportation (DPW&T)—The mission ofDPW&T includes maintenance, improvements, and beautification by dedicated,diverseprofessionalswhouseinnovativetechnologiestostimulatelivablecommunitiesthroughvibrantdevelopment.4TheDPW&Thasresponsibilityforseveralstormwatermanagement programs including development plan review, maintenance of publicstormwater facilities, erosion and sedimentation control inspections, the LivableCommunitiesInitiative,theenforcementofwoodlandconservation,andtheChesapeakeBay Critical Areas compliance. DPW&T is responsible for most of the aspects offloodplainmanagementasitrelatestoanyproposeddevelopment,floodplainstudies,anddelineationapproval.

Development Plan Review—DPW&Tisresponsibleforreviewofallproposeddevelopment plans including the stormwater management conceptual approvalthrough the issuance of site development grading permit. The quantity of

4 http://www.co.pg.md.us/Government/AgencyIndex/DPW&T/


stormwaterdischargemustsatisfytheStormwaterActof2007forwaterquality,channelprotection,andrechargevolumeusingenvironmentalsitedesign(ESD)practices.TheMarylandStormwaterActrequiresthateachcountyandmunicipalityadoptordinancestoimplementastormwatermanagementprogramwithafocuson mitigating post-construction stormwater runoff. The DPW&T reviewdevelopmentplansforcompliancewiththe2000MarylandStormwaterDesignManual to ensure that development activity does not negatively impact thestormwatersystemortheenvironment.

Stormwater Maintenance—DPW&T is responsible for the road right-of-waymaintenanceandrepairsofthestormwaterinfrastructure.DPW&Trespondstocustomercomplaintsandperformsroutinemaintenanceandemergencyrepairstothesystemasneeded.Servicesincludemaintenanceofthepublicstormdrainageandfloodcontrolfacilities;thefloodcontrolpumpingstationsandtheirgrounds;andstabilizationoferodedstormwaterchannels.

Erosion and Sediment Control—DPW&T is responsible for inspecting county-permittedactiveconstructionsitesforcompliancewitherosionandsedimentcontrolplans.Theauthorityforerosionandsedimentcontrolisdelegatedtothecountyfromthe Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) with the authority beingrenewedeverytwoyears.DPW&TcoordinateswiththeSoilConservationDistrict(SCD) to ensure that active construction sites are properly maintained to reducesedimententeringthestormdrainagesystemandlocalwaterbodies.ThemunicipalitiesofBowie,Laurel,andGreenbeltprovideinspectionandmaintenanceforerosionandsedimentcontrolintheircommunities.TheStateHighwayAuthorityisresponsibleforerosionandsedimentcontrolforallstatehighwayprojectswithinthecounty.

Woodland Conservation Program—As part of the construction process,DPW&T is responsible for the enforcement of the approved tree conservationplans(TCPs)andassociatedregulationsoftheWoodlandConservationOrdinance(WCO).TheWCOappliestoallsitescontainingatleast40,000squarefeetinareaor10,000squarefeetormoreofwoodlandsthatdonothaveapreviouslyapprovedTCP.Ifwoodlandconservationtargetscannotbeprovidedon-site,off-siteareasmustbeprovided.ThewoodlandconservationprogramsupportsTheCountywideGreen Infrastructure Plan and also supports the Chesapeake Bay Programagreement signed in 2000 (Chesapeake 2000),with a goal for permanentpreservationof20percentofthelandareainthewatershedby2010.

Livable Communities Initiative and Litter Control Programs—DPW&ToverseestheLivableCommunitiesInitiative(LCI),whichbeganwithanevaluationof environmental problems facing the county and identified opportunities toenhance existing successful programs and develop new programs to enhancelivability. One of the LCI initiatives includes expanding the existing roadsidedebrismanagementprogramwithmoreexpansivelitterreductionprograms.TheDPW&T also manages the Adopt-A-Road/Median program that supportsvolunteerswhoroutinelycleandebrisandtrashfromtheiradoptedarea.DPW&Tprovided logistical support to over 10,000 volunteers during Gorgeous PrinceGeorge’sDay inFY2009.The litter reductionprograms, inpart, areassociatedwith the 2007 Trash Free Potomac Watershed Initiative that is committed tocreatingatrashfreePotomacRiverby2013.PrinceGeorge’sCounty,aspartofthePotomacRiverWatershedTrashTreaty,hascommittedto:


� Supportingandimplementingregionalstrategiesaimedatreducingtrashandincreasingrecycling.

� IncreasingeducationandawarenessofthetrashissuethroughoutthePotomacwatershed.

� Reconveningannuallytodiscussandevaluatemeasuresandactionsaddressingtrashreduction.

Prince George’s Soil Conservation District (SCD)—SCDreviewsallconstructionplansforconformancewiththe1994MarylandStandardsandSpecificationsforSoilErosionandSedimentControlaswellasthe2005PrinceGeorge’sSoilConservationDistrictSoilErosionandSedimentControl-PondSafetyManual.SCDalsoadministersthecounty’sagriculturallandpreservationandeasementprograms.

Prince George’s County Cooperative Extension—The Prince George’s CooperativeExtensionisacountywideeducationalsystem.ItissponsoredjointlybytheUniversityofMaryland, thePrinceGeorge’sCountygovernment,andtheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.Amongitsotherservices,theCooperativeExtensionprovideseducationand outreach services to youth, home gardeners, and commercial agriculture. TheCooperativeExtensionagentsarecurrentlyworkingonanumberofrecertificationandcertification programs related to thisWater Resources Plan including; pest control,nutrientmanagement,andlandscapetechnician.Thesecertificationprogramsensurethatprofessionalsareknowledgeableintheirfieldstoprotecttheenvironment.

Office of Management and Budget—The Office of Management and Budget isresponsible for budget formulation; fiscal control; program and project control andevaluation;andmanagementandpolicyanalysis.Althoughnotdirectlyresponsibleforstormwatermanagement,theOfficeofManagementandBudgetisinvolvedwiththeformulation of the budgets that support the departments who actively manage thestormwater infrastructureandthestormwaterregulatoryrequirements.Withcountyrevenues expected to decline over time, budgets for both DER and DPW&T aredecreased from previous funding levels. DER and DPW&T share a stormwatermanagemententerprisefundthroughacombinationoftaxrevenuesandpermitfeesthatincludein-lieuofstormwaterfees.Bothdepartmentsalsoreceivegrantfundsthatassistwithfundingforspecialprojects.

Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT)—In Maryland many federalprocesseshavebeendelegatedtoMDEorcombinedwith MDE’s in a joint reviewprocess.Thereare also severalrequirementsthatareuniquetoMaryland. SinceMDOTprojects are linear in nature, MDE allows MDOT to consolidate stormwatermanagementfeaturesalongthelinearprojecttomeetthestatestormwaterrequirements.

Transportationprojectsaresubjecttoreviewandapprovalby federal and state agenciesresponsibleforregulatingvariousaspectsoftheenvironment.Theserequirementsbeginintheearlieststagesofplanningandcontinueuntilaprojectiscomplete.Insomecasesthere may also be post-construction processes, required maintenance, or operatingpermitsthattakeeffectafterprojectcompletion.


STORMWATER REGULATIONSAnticipated Regulatory RequirementsThe watershed management framework discussed in Chapter V, EnvironmentalResources and Land Management, provides a format to ensure all water resourceregulationsarebeingmetwithconsiderationofthediversityofcountydepartmentsinvolvedinmeetingtheseregulations.Inadditiontotheexistingstormwater-relatedrequirements outlined in Chapter III, Planning Context, as part of the planningcontext,thereareanumberofnewregulatoryrequirementsthatareanticipatedinthenear-termfuture.

Overall,thecountyhasmettheintentofallofthestormwaterregulationsincludingthose related to their current NPDES MS4 permit. The county has developed aWatershedRestorationActionStrategy(WRAS)fortheUpperPatuxentRiverandWesternBranchwatersheds;however the county stillneeds to continuedevelopingrestorationstrategiestomeettheimpervioussurfacetreatmentgoals.Alackoffundinghasslowedeffortstowardimplementingwatershedrestorationprojects,althoughfiverestorationprojectswerecompletedwithinthe2006MS4permitreportingperiod.

Thecounty’sexistingMS4stormwaterpermitexpiredinOctober,2009,andanewonehas not yet been issued.The old permit will remain in effect until Prince George’sCounty receives an approved new permit. Several additional requirements areanticipatedandDERwilllooktoMontgomeryCounty’sapprovedpermitforguidance.5Currently,PrinceGeorge’sCountymustidentifyprojectsandprogramstoreducebytenpercentthecounty’scurrentimperviousarea.MDEislikelytorequireanincreaseinthereductionlevelsto20percentoftheimpervioussurfaceareatothemaximumextentpracticable.TherenewedMS4permitwilllikelyprovidefurthersupporttotheTrashFreePotomacTreatyanddevelopmentoftotalmaximumdailyload(TMDL)implementationplansasdefinedinMDE’sTMDLguidancedocument.6Currently,the emphasis is shifting from establishing TMDLs to implementation strategies.Whethertheresourcesexisttoactuallyaccelerateimplementationisnotyetevident.Likewastewatertreatmentplants(WWTPs),MS4saretreatedaspointsourcesandaresubjecttoreceivingawasteloadallocation(WLA)asapartofaTMDL.AlthoughtheexplicitpermitlinkbetweenTMDLsandWWTPsiswellestablished,thepermitlink betweenTMDLs and MS4s is still evolving and the specifics remain unclear.What is clear is that the legal requirements are increasing and that WLAs areanticipated.ItislikelythatthiswillbemanagedwithBMPtranslatorstoquantifythenecessaryloadreductions.TheimplementationguidanceplandocumentsthestrategiesthatwillbeincorporatedtoreducepollutantloadsbasedonthenumericalreductionoutlinedintheTMDL.EPAnotesthat“effluentlimitationsinNPDESpermitsmustbenumericunless such limitsare infeasible tocalculate, inwhichcase theymaybeexpressedasBMPs.”TheBMPapproachappearstobeprettyuniversallyacceptedforMS4permits.However,linkagesandquantificationofsomelevelofexpectedpollutantloadreductionsfromaprescribedsuiteofBMPcontrolswill likelybedevelopedinordertosatisfytheneedtodeveloplocalloadallocations.By2011,baywideTMDLs

5 http://www.environmentmaryland.org/legislature/testimony/clean-water/clean-water/sb-553---chesapeake-bay-phosphorus-reduction-act

6 http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/final_TMDL_Implementation_Guidance_for_LG.pdf


fornutrientsandsedimentarescheduledforcompletion.Thesewill,ineffect,overlayandadjustlocalizedTMDLstoassurerestorationoflocalanddownstreamconditionsinthelowerriverestuariesandthebay.

To streamline the stormwater-related activities within the existing organizationalstructure,PrinceGeorge’sCountyshouldconsiderstormwaterworkgroupsthatmeetroutinely to share information and followuponongoing initiatives.Theseworkinggroupsarerecommendedtomeetat leastquarterlyanddonotreplacenormaldailystaffinteractions.Workinggroupsmayfocusontopicssuchaswaterquality,watershedplanning, stormwater operations and maintenance, and public education,communication,andengagement.

Stormwater Funding—TheChesapeakeBayisanimportantenvironmental,economic,and social resource of regional and national significance.The regulatory requirementsbothforlocalgovernments,suchasPrinceGeorge’sCounty,andtheprivatedevelopment

Table 15: Prince George’s County TMDLs as of February 25, 2009

TMDL DNR 8-digit Basin Number Status

DraftTotalMaximumDailyLoadsofPhosphorusandSedimentsfor Triadelphia Reservoir (Brighton Dam) and Total MaximumDailyLoadsofPhosphorus forRockyGorgeReservoir,Howard,Montgomery,andPrinceGeorge’sCounties,Maryland

02131107PatuxentRiver

August20,2007(submittedtoEPAonSept.26,2007)

Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nutrients/Biochemical OxygenDemand for the Anacostia River Basin, Montgomery and PrinceGeorge’sCounties,MarylandandTheDistrictofColumbia

02140205AnacostiaRiver

ApprovedJune5,2008

Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Bacteria for the NontidalPiscatawayCreekBasininPrinceGeorge’sCounty,Maryland

02140203PiscatawayCreek

ApprovedSept.20,2007

TotalMaximumDailyLoadsofSediment/TotalSuspendedSolidsfor the Anacostia River Basin, Montgomery and Prince George’sCounties,MarylandandTheDistrictofColumbia


ApprovedJuly24,2007

TotalMaximumDailyLoadsofFecalBacteria for theAnacostiaRiverBasininMontgomeryandPrinceGeorge’sCounties,MD


ApprovedMar.14,2007

Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus forMattawomanCreekinCharlesCountyandPrinceGeorge’sCounty,MD

02140111MattawomanCreek

ApprovedJan.5,2005

TMDLofBiochemicalOxygenDemand(BOD)fortheWesternBranchofthePatuxentRiver,PrinceGeorge’sCounty,MD

02131107WesternBranch

ApprovedJune6,2000

TotalMaximumDailyLoadsForPolychlorinatedBiphenyls(PCBs)TidalPotomac&AnacostiaRiverWatershed


ApprovedOct.31,2007

AnacostiaRiver(nontidal)forPCBs 02140205AnacostiaRiver

Scheduledtobedevelopedin2010


communitymaycontinuetoincrease.Theincreaseinresponsibilitiesmayalsoleadtoanincreaseincosts.Forexample,theincreasedrequirementsforESDfornewdevelopmentsmay increase initial costs for the development community at the time of design andconstruction;withalargernumberofsmallstormwaterfacilities,itmayalsoincreasethecost of plan review and long-term stormwater facility inspections by Prince George’sCountystaff.Similarly,theincreasedattentiononrestoringimpairedwatershasafinancialimpactonPrinceGeorge’sCounty.WatershedrestorationactivitiessuchasBMPretrofits,stream restoration, and bank stabilization are very expensive to design and construct,placingadditionalburdensontightbudgets.Retrofitstoaddresswaterqualitychallengesareoftenneeded in themosturbanareas,where land isveryexpensive,goodsitesaredifficult to identify, stormwater management is inadequate or is nonexistent, andunderground infrastructure can increase design and construction costs. This planrecommendsimplementingmoreaggressivestormwatermanagementfundingstrategiesbeyondthecurrentadvalorumtaxthatiscurrentlyinplaceinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

Stormwater Utility Fees—Like other public utilities, stormwater utilities chargepropertyowners for servicesprovidedby the localgovernment.Stormwaterutilitiesprovide a stable anddedicated revenue source formost stormwater andwatershed-related projects. Fees provide an alternative to tax increases or impact fees for thesupportoflocalprograms.Stormwaterutilitiesareverysimilarinnaturetoenterprisefundsestablishedbymoretraditionalwaterandwastewaterutilities.

Specifically, stormwaterutilitiescollect fees frompropertyowners in relationship totheir stormwater impact to fund provided services. Stormwater impacts for eachproperty are calculated based on their relative burden on the stormwater systemresultingfromchangesthattheyhavemadetothecharacter(volume,rate,andpollutantcontent)ofthestormwaterthatrunsofftheirproperty.Moststormwaterutilitiesrelatethisburdentothetypeoflanduseactivityandthepercentageofimperviousgroundsurfaceforeachproperty.Propertieswithagreaterlevelofimpervioussurfacepaymorefortheirincreasednegativecontributiontothesystem.Becauseastormwaterutilityisafeeforserviceprovided,ifpropertyownersprovideaportionoftheservice,thenacreditshouldbeissuedthatrelatestothebenefitprovided.Servicesmaybecalculatedtoinclude:treecanopy,infiltration,greenroofs,andotherESDpractices.

Stormwaterutilitieshaveexistedforanumberofyearsinseveralstates.Astormwaterutility can provide a vehicle for consolidating and coordinating activities andresponsibilities;generatefundingthatisadequate,stable,equitable,anddedicated;anddevelop programs that are comprehensive, cohesive, and consistent. More detail onstormwaterutilitiesasafundingsourceandtheprocessfordevelopingastormwaterutilityareoutlinedlaterinthissection.

InPrinceGeorge’sCountytheresponsibilityforstormwaterserviceswastransferredfromWSSCtothecountygovernmentinJuly1987.Thecountyisauthorizedtoissuebonds to provide funds for stormwater management facilities. A StormwaterManagement District has been established that includes all the land in the countyexcludingtheCityofBowie.AStormwaterManagementEnterpriseFundisusedtopay for stormwater management operations and activities within the district. Thestormwater fund is supported by a stormwater management ad valorum tax on allproperty assessed for tax purposes within the district that receives stormwatermanagementservices.Manyofthecounty’sstormwaterstructuresaretenormoreyearsold. They need significant maintenance to clear tree growth from dams, remove

Designated Use: Each major stream

segment in Maryland is assigned a use. The use is a goal for water quality and may or may not be served now, but should

be attainable.

Bottle Bill: Failed HB 839, sponsored

by Del. Pete Hammen, D-46, would have required

a $.05 deposit, and subsequently a refund, on beverage containers (glass, aluminum and

plastic) sold in Maryland. Currently, 11 states across the U.S. have bottle bills.

Although every bill differs, the common thread

running through them is that a person pays an extra amount when purchasing

a bottle and receives it back when returning the

bottle for recycling.


sedimentthathasreducedpeakrunoffcontrolstoragevolumes,andrepaircloggedordeteriorated outlets. Without regular and adequate maintenance, these structuresgraduallylosetheirwaterqualityprotectionfunctionsand,eventually,somestructurescanbecomeseriouspublicsafetyhazards.

Thecurrentstormwatertax/feestructureinPrinceGeorge’sCountyhasnotadequatelyaddressedexistingstormwaterissuesandwillcontinuetofallshortofwaterqualityandregulatoryrequirements,asstructured,inthefuture.

Supplemental Funding Options—A comprehensive stormwater managementprogramrequireseitherdedicatedrevenuesfromthegeneralfundorastormwaterfeetofundthebulkoftheprogrammaticrequirements.Thereare,however,severalsourcesof supplemental funding that can augment the primary funding source, includingseveraldifferenttypesofloans,servicefees,andgrants.

� Loans/Bonds—Loans and bonds allow immediate expenditures on stormwaterandwatershedprojects beyond readily available local funds.Funds are typicallypaidovera15-to20-yearperiodwithinterestcharges,similartoahomemortgage.Despiteinterestcharges,loansandbondsareoftenafinanciallysoundmethodforfunding capital improvement projects. For some capital improvement projects,suchas replacementofculverts toavoidcollapseorfloodmitigationprojects toreducepropertydamage,theup-frontexpendituremaybelessthanthelong-termexpenseofdamagerepairduetodeferredmaintenance.Typicallyloansandbondsareused forcapital improvementprojects thatcannotwaituntil local fundsareavailable;theyarenotrecommendedforroutineoperations.Repaymentschedulesforloansandbondscanbedevelopedtosmoothoutpeaksandvalleysinrevenuerequirementsand, thus, reduce theneed for sporadic large rate increases.MDEofferswaterqualityrevolvingloanstoeligiblecommunitiesthatcanbeusedforstormwater,greeninfrastructure,andwaterqualityimprovementprojects.In2009,thegrantamountmaybeupto$6millionpercommunity.

� Service Fees—Localgovernmentshavetheauthoritytoestablishspecialtaxesorservicefeestoaddressspecificlocalchallenges.Servicefeesincludespecialpurposelocal-option sales tax (SPLOST) funds, impact fees, special assessments/taxdistricts,in-lieuofconstructionfees,andmitigationbanks.PrinceGeorge’sCountycurrentlyassesses service fees forplanreviewsandconstructionsite inspections.Thecountyalsohasastormwatermanagemententerprisefundthatincludestaxrevenuesaswellaspermitfeesandfee-in-lieuforfacilityconstruction.

� Grants—Agrantisaformoffederalorstatefinancialaidthatdoesnotneedtoberepaidandistypicallybasedondemonstratedneed.Grantstypicallyrequirealocalmatchbutareagoodwaytoleverageexistingfunds. Althoughgrantsarehelpfultoextendlocally-availablefunds,theytypicallyareawardedonacompetitivebasisandinvolvealongleadtimetosecurefunds.Mostgrantswillnotfundcompletedprojects.PrinceGeorge’sCountycurrentlyhasseveralgrants.MDEoffersanumberofgrantsthatsupportstormwaterandwatershedprojectsincluding319(h)grants,astormwaterpollution control cost-share program, a small creeks and estuaries restorationprogram,andacomprehensivefloodmanagementgrantprogram.


NUTRIENTS, SEDIMENT, AND TRASH Maryland’s efforts to reduce stormwater pollution have focused on protecting andrestoringwaterquality in theChesapeakeBay.Thebiggest challenges that face thecounty include nutrients, sediment and trash according to the results from theChesapeakeBayprogramasoutlinedbelow.Thewatershedsthatdraintothebayhaveaccomplished significant reductions inpollution levels frompoint sources;however,stormwaterpollutionremainsachallenge.AbaywideTMDLwillbeissuedbyEPAin2010thatwillprovidenutrientloadallocationsthatwillcontinuetheexistingprogresstowardprotectingandrestoringthebay.

ThecountyhasperformeddetailedwaterqualitymonitoringintheBeaverdamCreekwatershed and has completed an initial assessment of 41 watersheds through thecountywide biological monitoring program. The county is still developing a formalprotocol for source identification to link pollutants of concern with a specific waterqualityimpactforthewatershed.Acomprehensivewaterqualitymonitoringprogramthatcoverstheentirecountyandlooksatchemical,habitat,andbiologicalconditionsinmajorwaterbodieswillprovidetheframeworknecessaryforacomprehensivewatershedmanagementprogram.Thecountyshoulddevelopamethodforcollectingandanalyzingdatathatcanbeusedtodocumentwaterqualitytrends.Effortsareunderwaytodevelopashareddatabasethatwouldallowmultipledepartmentstoviewandusecollecteddataandforecastedtrends.ThetrendswillshowifwaterqualityisdecliningbasedonnewlanddevelopmentandalsodocumentimprovementsrelatedtoBMPs.

Nutrients—Nutrientsincludenitrogenandphosphorusthatinexcessivequantitiescancausedisproportionatealgaegrowthandreducetheoxygenlevelsinwaterbodies,whichmaynegativelyimpactaquaticconditions.Nutrientsaretypicallyassociatedwithpointsource pollution and nonpoint sources such as fertilizer, wastewater, and runoff fromactive agricultural operations. The EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office createdstandards for dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, and water clarity that were developed toprotectthedesignateduseofthetidalAnacostiaRiver.ThereisaTMDLfornitrogen,phosphorus,andbiologicaloxygendemandthataddressestheexceedanceoftargetlevelsfortheseparameters.

WithintheChesapeakeBaywatershed,preliminaryestimatesindicatedthat291millionpoundsofnitrogenand13.8poundsofphosphorusreachedthebayduring2008,whichrepresentsa13millionpounddecreaseinnitrogenanda7.5millionpounddecreaseinphosphorus from2007 (ChesapeakeBayProgram).WithinPrinceGeorge’sCounty,the nonpoint source nutrients are primarily associated with active agricultural andurban/suburbanlandusesaccordingtotheWaterResourcePlanmodelinAppendixI.

Sediment—Sediment refers to organic and inorganic particles that result fromstormwaterrunoffandinstreamprocessesthatreducetheclarityofwaterbodiesandcannegativelyimpactaquatichabitat.SourcesofsedimentinPrinceGeorge’sCountyare primarily related to stormwater and include urban runoff, construction sites,agriculture, and instream/streambank erosion. Although Maryland does not have anumeric standard for sediment,MDEhas estimated sediment loads anddevelopedthreshold sediment loads to determine streams with sediment impairment andsubsequent TMDLs. The sediment impairment is based on comparing actualmonitoringdataresultstoareferencewatershedthatisnotimpacted.TheAnacostiaRiverisconsideredimpairedforhighsedimentloadsaccordingtothismethodology.ATMDLforsedimentfortheAnacostiaRiverwaspublishedbyMDEin2007.


WithintheChesapeakeBaywatershed,preliminaryestimatesindicatethat3.3milliontonsofsedimentreachedthebayduring2008,a700,000tonincreasefrom2007butan 800,000 ton decrease from the average load for 1990–2008 (Chesapeake BayProgram).WithinPrinceGeorge’sCounty,sedimentloadsarethoughttobeassociatedwith instream erosion that results from increased stormwater flow velocities. Olderdevelopments within Prince George’s County do not always meet contemporarystormwater management requirements and do not have BMPs to slow the flow ofstormwaterfromthesite.

Prince George’s County, as part of the NPDES MS4 permit and WRAS, shouldidentify development without proper stormwater management controls and seek toretrofittheseconditionseitherwithgrantfundingorthroughredevelopmentactivities.Thecountyshouldalsocontinuetoenforceandupgradeexistingregulationstopreventerosionandsedimentationfromongoingdevelopmentactivities.

Trash—Trashisastormwaterparameterofconcern,mostlyinurbanareas,andincludesdebristhatispickedupbystormwaterflowsanddepositedinstreamsandstormwatertreatmentfacilities.Trashishighlyvisibleand,therefore,receivesagreatdealofpublicattention.Volunteercleanupeffortscanhelpremovetrashfromwaterbodies.Propermaintenanceofparkinglots,dumpsters,andstormwatertreatmentfacilitiescanreducethevolumeoftrashinurbanwaterways.

TheTrashFreePotomacWatershedTreaty,whichhasbeensignedbytheGovernorofMarylandandPrinceGeorge’sCounty,calls foratrashfreePotomacby2013.7TheinitiativeencouragesactivitiestoreduceandremovetrashfromlocalwaterbodiesthatimpactthePotomac.

TheD.C.CouncilunanimouslyapprovedlegislationinJune2009banningtheuseofdisposable,nonrecyclableplasticbagsandassessing

consumersafive-centfeeperrecyclablepaperandplasticbagusedtohaulawaypurchasesatplacessuchasgroceryandconveniencestores.

—TheWashingtonTimes

Inadditiontomunicipalprograms,PrinceGeorge’sCountyenliststhesupportofthecommunitytoremoveandreducelitterfromroadways.DPW&TmanagestheAdopt-A-Road/MedianProgramthatsupportsvolunteerswhoroutinelycleandebrisandtrashfromtheiradoptedarea.TheDPW&Talsoprovidedlogisticalsupporttoover10,000volunteersduringGorgeousPrinceGeorge’sDayinFY2009.Accordingtothe2006MS4 permit report, volunteers collected 52,900 tons of solid waste, 597 tires, and72,700gallonsofhazardouswastethroughvariouscleanupactivities.

StateeffortstoinitiateabottlebillinMarylandshouldbeactivelysupportedinPrinceGeorge’sCountytoensurerecyclingissustainedatthehighest levelpossible inthecounty.Abagbillhasbeen legislated inneighboringWashington,D.C., to removenonrecyclablebagsfromthetrashstream;itappearstobeagovernmentalsolutionforamajorpollutionculpritinmanywaterways.

7 http://www.fergusonfoundation.org/trash_initiative/trash_index.html


STORMWATER FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCEThe Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies place emphasis on controlling nonpointsourcepollution fromurban runoff tohelpprotect local streamsand thebay.Since1983,thousandsofstormwatermanagementfacilitieshavebeenbuiltthroughoutthestatetoslowtheerosiveeffectsofrunoffand/ortocaptureandreducepollutantsfromdevelopedurbansurfaces.InPrinceGeorge’sCountyalone,over170privatestormwaterfacilitieswerebuiltbetween2000and2006forwaterquantityand/orqualitycontrols.Inaddition,DPW&Tinspectsandmaintainsthe382publiclyownedandmaintainedstormwater management ponds in Prince George’s County. Although DPW&Tmaintains the publicly owned stormwater system, DER assists with responding todrainagecomplaints.

Many of the county’s stormwater structures are ten or more years old. They needsignificant maintenance to clear tree growth from dams, remove sediment that hasreducedpeakrunoffcontrolstoragevolumes,andrepaircloggedordeterioratedoutlets.Withoutregularandadequatemaintenance,thesestructuresgraduallylosetheirwaterqualityprotectionfunctionsand,eventually,somestructurescanbecomeseriouspublicsafetyhazards.

DPW&Tmaintainsthestormwaterfacilitieslocatedwithintheright-of-way.Basedon the 2006 MS4 permit report, Prince George’s County performed preventativemaintenanceinspectionson297county-ownedstormwaterfacilitiesoverathree-yearperiodandcollected700 tonsof leavesandcleaned5,965stormdrain inlets.SomeareasofPrinceGeorge’sCountyweredeveloped20to30yearsago.Thestormwaterinfrastructureintheseareasisnearingtheendofitsusefullifeandmaterialsusedwereoccasionallysubstandardcomparedtomodernmaterialsanddevelopmentrequirements.PrinceGeorge’sCountywillexperiencegrowingfinancialpressurestomaintainandreplacetheseportionsoftheaginginfrastructure.Inotherportionsofthecounty,thereisnewdevelopment that is extending the footprintof theexistingmunicipal stormsewer system. The extension of the system should be carefully planned to ensurelongevityandpreventfutureflooding.

Therearesevencounty-ownedandoperatedfacilitiesthatrequireNPDESindustrialstormwaterpermits.Accordingtothe2006MS4report,onlythreeofthesevenfacilitieshavetherequiredStormwaterPollutionPreventionPlan(SWPPP)thatisrequiredbytheirNPDESindustrial stormwaterpermit.PrinceGeorge’sCountyshouldconsultthelistoffacilitiesthatrequireindustrialstormwaterpermitstoensurethatallmunicipalfacilitiesarecoveredandhaveSWPPPstoreduceimpacttolocalwaterresources.

Privatelandownersareresponsibleformaintainingtheirstormwaterfacilities;however,Prince George’s County, under the MS4 permit, is responsible for performinginspections of these facilities to ensure proper operations. Based on the 2006 MS4permit comments fromMDE,PrinceGeorge’sCountydidnothaveaprogramforinspectionoftheseprivatefacilities.Manyprivatelandownersarenotawareoftheirmaintenance responsibility and/or are unaware of proper maintenance operations.Inspections of these stormwater facilities will help ensure they operate correctly toprotectwaterresources.

Landscape and Road Maintenance—TheDPW&Tisresponsibleforroadmaintenanceactivities that include landscapemaintenance in the right-of-way.Oneof themorerecognizable roadmaintenanceprograms is street sweeping.According to the2006


MS4 permit report, 434 tons of debris was removed from roadways through streetsweeping. DPW&T sweeps all residential subdivisions annually and arterial andcollectorroadwaystwiceayear.

DPW&Tshouldstrivetominimizetheuseofchemicalsintheroutinemaintenanceofroadwaysandrights-of-waytoreducewaterqualityimpacts.Whendesigningnewroadwaysorroadwaymaintenanceprojects,thecountyshouldusenativelandscapingwherepossibletoreducemaintenanceandincreasesurvivalrates.Stormwaterrunoffshouldbetreatedusinggreeninfrastructureandenvironmentalsitedesigntechniquestothemaximumextentpracticabletoreduceenvironmentalimpacts.

Erosion and Sediment Control—As discussed previously, excess sediment in localwaterbodiesreducesclarityandimpactsthehabitatofaquaticlife.Understandingtheerosionprocessisessentialtothedevelopmentandimplementationofeffectiveerosioncontrolplans.Thekeytoerosioncontrolispreventingthedetachmentofsoilparticlesandreducingthevolumeofrunoff.Thisisachievedthroughtheuseofpracticessuchasminimizinglanddisturbanceactivitiesandmaintainingvegetativecoversorsubstitutingforlackofgrowingvegetationbymulchingorapplyingacompostblanketorerosioncontrol mat. Sediment control is trapping detached soil particles that are beingtransported and ensuring they are deposited on site to prevent damage to otherpropertiesorreceivingwaters.Thisisachievedbysuchpracticesassiltfenceinstallation,andsedimentcontrolbasins.

Theinitialconstructionofnewdevelopmentscancontributesubstantialamountsofsedimentstothestreamsystemsanditstributaries.Constructionsitescancontribute,on a per-acre basis, 10 to 20 times as much sediment as agricultural lands. Excesssuspended sediment is one of the largest contributors to the bay’s impaired waterquality.Theculpritsarethetinyclay-andsilt-sizedfractionsofsediment.Theseparticlesare frequently suspended in thewaterbecauseof their sizeandcanbecarried longdistancesduringstorms.8 Ifproperlydesigned,constructed,andmaintained,erosionand sediment control measures can greatly reduce sediment from entering localwaterbodies.

TheSedimentandErosionControlProgramdevelopedin1970isessentiallythesamethatexists todaywithanapprovedplanbeing required foranyearthdisturbanceof5,000squarefeetormoreand100cubicyardsormore;planapprovalexemptionsforagriculturaluses;planreviewandapprovalbylocalSCDs;gradingordinanceadoptionandprojectinspectionbylocaljurisdictions;utilityconstructioninspectionbyWSSC;andcriminalpenalties for sedimentpollution.Agriculturalpollutioncontribution isultimatelysubjecttoMDEauthorityenforcement.Variousprogrammaticimprovementshaveincludedrequiringsedimentcontrolplanapprovalpriortoissuinggradingandbuildingpermits(1973);requiringtrainingandcertificationofresponsiblepersonnel(1980); shifting enforcement authority from local to state control and establishingdelegation criteria (1984); limiting the exemption for single-family residentialconstructionontwo-acrelots(1988);requiringNPDESstormwaterdischargepermitsforconstructionactivity(1991).

TheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE)initiatedacomprehensivereviewofthestate’serosionandsedimentcontrolstandardsinearly2009andhasdevelopedaninitialdraftof the“2010MarylandStandardsandSpecifications forSoilErosionand

8 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/sediments.aspx?menuitem=14691

Wetland: An area inundated or

saturated by ground or surface water at a

frequency and duration sufficient to support,

and that under normal circumstances do support, a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life

in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and

similar areas (U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers Regulation 33 CFR 328.3 (1988)).

Floodplain: The generally flat area

adjacent to rivers that is periodically flooded.

Evolving over hundreds or thousands of years, the

size of floodplains is related to the frequency

of flooding, the energy of the flow of the river when in flood and the amount of sediment in the river

system.


SedimentControl”9 aspartoftheMay30,2010,scheduleforincorporationintoregulation.Maryland’s Erosion Control Law and regulations specify the general provisions forprogramimplementation;provisionsfordelegationofenforcementauthority;requirementsforerosionandsedimentcontrolordinances;exemptionsfromplanapprovalrequirements;requirementsfortrainingandcertificationprograms;criteriaforplansubmittal,review,andapproval;proceduresforinspectionandenforcement;andapplicantresponsibilities.Clearlydefiningminimumstandardsisessentialtomakeerosionandsedimentcontrolwork.The current1994standardsandspecificationsforsoilerosionandsedimentcontrolare incorporated by reference into state regulations and serve as the official guide forerosionandsedimentcontrolprinciples,methods,andpractices.10

Contractorsandotherconstructionindustrypersonnelknowledgeableabouterosionand sediment control principles, implementation and maintenance techniques, andspecificationsassociatedwithvariousBMPsareanessentialcomponentofMaryland’sstatewide sediment control program. Well-trained construction personnel help toensure that quality implementation and maintenance occur. Since 1980, manyconstruction industry personnel have attended the MDE’s Responsible PersonnelTrainingforErosionandSedimentControlProgram.11Accordingtothe2006MS4annual report,137 individualswerecertifiedaspartof the“greencard”erosionandsediment control training program that helps to ensure professionals are designing,constructing,andmaintainingmeasuresproperly.

Althoughtrainingandenforcementareimportantanderosionandsedimentcontrolmeasures minimize soil movement on disturbed areas, reducing the area disturbedduringconstruction,especiallyareaswithsteepslopes,reduceserosionandsedimentchallenges.PrinceGeorge’sCountymayconsiderestablishinglimitsforareasdisturbedduring development, which protects greenspace and limits erosion potential.Theselimitsaremostbeneficialinsuburbanandruralareasandnotnecessarilyappropriateforhigherdensitylanduses.

FLOODINGFlooding inMarylandiscausedbybothheavyrainsandwind.Intheuplandareas,stormscancausestreamsandriverstooverflowtheirbanks,inundatingthesurroundingfloodplains.AlongthetidalreachesoftheAtlantic,theChesapeakeBaycoastline,andintidalareasofstreamsandrivers,wind-drivenwavesontopofelevatedtidallevelscanseverelydamagecoastalpropertyandendangerthelivesofresidents.12

Rain,wind,andsnowstormsofallsizescancauseflooding,dependingontheamountofprecipitationanditsintensityand/orthespeedanddirectionofthewind.Summerthunderstormsaregenerallyveryintensebutshort-durationevents,whichcancauseflooding of major rivers. Hurricanes and “nor’easters” typically bring the sustainedwindsandrainnecessarytocausesignificantfloodinginlargeriversandcoastalareas.

9 http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/sedimentstormwater/MD_ESC_Standards_10-15-09_DRAFT_III.pdf

10http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/waterprograms/sedimentandstormwater/erosionsedimentcontrol/standards.asp

11http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/SedimentandStormwater/erosionsedimentcontrol/index.asp

12http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Flood_Hazard_Mitigation/reliefAssistance/index.asp


Prince George’s County has a history ofmodest storm-related flooding. Mostfloodingeventshaveusuallyoccurredduringmidandlatesummerandareassociatedwithtropicalstormsandhurricanes.Smallsectionsof the county are also subject to occasionalfloodingduetotheinfluenceoftides.

Storms are typicallymeasured in termsoftheaveragefrequencythatastormof thatsize occurs. Hurricane Fran (1996) wasclassified as a “40-year storm” meaning astorm the size of Fran has a one in fortychanceofoccurringinanygivenyear.Largerstorms such as Hurricane Agnes (1972)havea1in100chanceofoccurringinayear.Isabelwasconsideredtobea75-to80-yearstorm based on the tidal surge. In a fewplaces,therainfallfromFloyd was20inchesandexceededthe500-yearstorm.

FloodinginPrinceGeorge’sCountyisalsoattributed to changes in topography andincreases in impervious surfaces due todevelopment that can result in perchedgroundwater.Groundwaterthatmigratestothe surface often results in seepage intobuildingbasements.Wheretheseconditionsexist, or could likely exist, a no-basementpolicyforconstructionshouldbeconsidered.

Floodplain Management—Newdevelopmentsmust be carefully designed to ensure thatflooding inPrinceGeorge’sCounty isnotaggravated.Insomecases,historicdevelopmentpractices have aggravated downstreamflooding and changed natural stream flowdynamics. Flood damage is mitigated bypreserving and protecting floodplains asnaturalareasabletoholdstormwaterduringandfollowingstormevents.

The National Flood Insurance Program regulates developments within mappedfloodplains,typicallythe100-yearfloodplain(ortheareawithaonepercentannualchanceofbeingflooded).Landdevelopmentactivitiescanalterawatershed’sabilitytohandlestormevents,therebyimpactingthefrequencyoffloodevents.Forexample,thedelineated 100-year floodplain may experience flooding more frequently than onceevery 100 years because upstream developments have changed the landscape andtiming of flows into the stream. Floodplain maps are not updated regularly and,therefore, do not always indicate the true risk of flooding. In other words, an areadelineatedinthe100-yearfloodplainthathasexperiencedrecentupstreamdevelopment

Map 15: FEMA 100-Year floodplains and watersheds.

Perched groundwater occurs above the main

body of groundwater and is separated from it by

unsaturated, impermeable sediments or rocks.


activitymayactuallyhaveahigherthanonepercentchanceofbeingflooded.PrinceGeorge’sCountyreviewsstormwaterplansaspartofthelanddevelopmentprocesstoensure new developments preserve the floodplain and do not impact downstreamlandowners.

Flood Relief Assistance13—FEMA provides emergency financial assistance toindividualsandcommunitiesfollowingafloodifthedamagethresholddefiningafederaldisasterisexceededinthearea,oriffederalfloodinsuranceisinforce.FloodinsuranceisofferedbyFEMAthroughparticipatingcommercialagents.Foruninsuredpersons,theamountof the relief for afirst timefloodevent is reducedby theamountof thepremiumthatwouldhavebeenrequiredtoinsurethebuildinganditscontents.Reliefforsecondandsubsequenteventsmaynotbeprovidedunlessinsurancehasbeenpurchased.

Under the state’s Comprehensive Flood Management Grant Program (CFMGP),establishedin1976followinghurricanesAgnesandEloise,thelegislatureauthorizedMDEtorequestthesaleofbondstogeneratefundstopurchase,relocate,andelevatehouses.Theprogramcanalsobeused toestablishwarning systemsandbuildfloodcontrolstructures.Statefundsprovidedbythisprogramarematchedona50/50basiswiththosefromlocalgovernments.

ENVIRONMENTAL SITE DESIGNESDisdefinedbytheStormwaterManagementActas“usingsmall-scalestormwatermanagementpractices,nonstructuraltechniques,andbettersiteplanningtomimicnaturalhydrologicrunoffcharacteristicsandminimizetheimpactoflanddevelopmentonwaterresources.” ESD can also include conserving natural features, drainage patterns, andvegetation; minimizing impervious surfaces; slowing down runoff; and increasinginfiltration.Prior to theStormwaterManagementAct of 2007,ESDwas encouragedthrough a series of credits within the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual. TheStormwaterManagementActof 2007 requires thatESDbeused to theMEP.MEPmeansdesigningstormwatermanagementsystemssothatallreasonableopportunitiesforusingESDplanningtechniquesand treatment practices areexhausted and, only whereabsolutelynecessary,astructuralBMPisimplemented.

TheregulatorydefinitionforMEPconsists of two parts: definitionandperformance.Thedefinitionrequires that all reasonableopportunities for using ESDplanningtechniquesandpracticesareexhausted.Thethresholdformeeting the MEP definitionconsists of performance criteria.MEPismet ifchannelstabilityandpredevelopmentgroundwater

13http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/Flood_Hazard_Mitigation/reliefAssistance/index.asp

Figure 11: Schematic rendering on an on-lot bioretention area.

Source: DER


recharge rates are maintained and nonpoint source pollution is minimized. In both thedefinition and performance threshold, the condition is the same; structural stormwaterpracticesmaybeusedonlyifdeterminedtobeabsolutelynecessary.Althoughsomeflexibilityandbestprofessionaljudgmentwillbeneededtodeterminewhentheseconditionsaremet,the performance threshold is straightforward. Local plan review and approval agenciesshouldnotapprovestructuralBMPsifESDoptionsareavailable.

DERhasdevelopedabioretentionhandbookthatbeenpreparedtoreplaceandupdatethe1993editionoftheDesign Manual for Use of Bioretention in Stormwater Management.Thismanualbuildsonthatworkandfurtheridentifiesmethodologies,practices,andexamplesofbioretention.Changesthatweremadefocusprimarilyonfourparameters:(1) functionalityandapplication; (2)pollutantremovalefficiency; (3)aestheticsandsiteintegration;and(4)designsimplificationforcostcontainment.14

Updates to County Stormwater Ordinance—Prince George’s County is currentlyupdating the county’s Stormwater Ordinance to comply with the StormwaterManagementActof2007.ChangeswillincluderequiringdeveloperstodemonstrateESDtothemaximumextentpracticablebeforestructuralpracticesareconsideredandrequiring coordination with the planning and approval, implementation, andmaintenanceagenciespriortoapproval.OtherchangesmayemphasizetheneedforimpervioussurfaceareareductionsassociatedwiththeanticipatedMS4permitrevision.Coordination is critical to the success of the new stormwater regulations and thePlanningDepartment,theDepartmentofEnvironmentalResources,andthePrinceGeorge’sCountySoilConservationDistrictshallalltakeanactiveandparticipatoryroleinassuringthatallstormwatermanagementpracticescontributetotheprotectionandimprovementofwaterqualityinthecounty.PrinceGeorge’sCountyhasplanstosubmittheproposedstormwaterordinancerevisionsforstatereview.OncereviewedbyMDEitmustbeadoptedbyPrinceGeorge’sCountybyMay2010.ThisordinanceappliestoallnewandredevelopmentprojectsthathavenotreceivedfinalapprovalforerosionandsedimentcontrolandstormwatermanagementplansbyMay 4, 2010.

BASIS FOR REVISION OF COUNTY STORMWATER POLICIESTherecommendationsfortherevisionofexistingstormwaterpoliciesandprogramsarebased on an evaluation of the Prince George’s County existing stormwater relatedprograms, consideration of both existing and future regulatory requirements, and areview of national stormwater management trends. The stormwater policyrecommendations also considered future land use pollutant load modeling analysisdiscussed in theGrowthPoliciesandLandUsePlanningsectionof this report.Asdescribed throughout this section and the entire Water Resources Plan, numerousprograms provide effective stormwater management throughout the county, whichprotects water quality. However, additional organization and access to informationwould strengthen the county’s ability to provide effective watershed enhancementmeasures.

14http://www.co.pg.md.us/Government/AgencyIndex/DER/ESG/Bioretention/pdf/Bioretention%20Manual_2009%20Version.pdf


CHAPTER ISSUES SUMMARY� CurrentstormwaterregulationsrequiretheuseofnonstructuralBMPsthatmimic

natural systems, encourage infiltration, and manage stormwater on-site to themaximumextentpracticable.

� Developmentthatpredatescurrentstormwaterregulationsandaginginfrastructurefailureshasleadtodegradedstreamsystemsandflooding.

� Funding for stormwater management, to achieve water quality protection andimprovement,requiresadedicatedfundingsourcemanagedatawatershedscale.

� TrashremainsasignificantimpairmentinmanyofPrinceGeorge’sCounty’surbanwaterways and undermines community investment, environmental health, andeconomicviabilityforredevelopment.

� Stormwater issues crossgovernmental and jurisdictionalboundaries and requirecooperativesolutionsandcommunityengagementandparticipation.

POLICIES AND STRATEGIESStormwater Management OrganizationPOLICY: Stormwater management decisions are made within a watershed-based system ofanalysisbasedonthebestavailablescientificdata,regulatoryrequirements,watershedanddevelopmentneeds,economicandenvironmentalimpacts,andlocalopportunitiesandconstraints.

STRATEGIES:� Create a watershed-based organization to administer water protection and

remediationactivitiesbuiltonstormwaterandecosystemBMPs.Theframeworkandresponsibilitiesofthisorganizationshouldbebasedoninputfromavarietyofworkinggroups.

� Createastormwaterworkinggroup(s)thatencouragesinterjurisdictionalandintrajurisdictional collaboration on stormwater issues within a watershedmanagement framework. This group should support education, training,outreach,communication,andcommunityengagement.

� Createawaterqualityworkinggroup(s) thatmeets todiscusswaterqualitytrends, shares collected data, provides status reports on ongoing correctiveactions,anddiscussesinter-relationshipsbetweenprograms.

� Createawatershedplanningworkinggroupbasedonthe2008DERreportWatershed Management Program: Supporting Clean Water and Livable Communities through Watershed Restoration and Protection to link multipledepartments and existing regulations under one watershed managementprogram.

� Develop an iterative approach for assessing progress toward pollutant loadingreduction benchmarks and for identifying additional projects and programs ifbenchmarksarenotachieved.


POLICY: ThecountywidestormwatermanagementprogramcomplieswiththeintentofanyandallenvironmentalrequirementsoftheEPA,theStateofMaryland,andanyregionalregulationsorprograms.

STRATEGIES:� Properlyfundprogramsandactivitiesrequiredtomeetallstormwaterregulatory

requirementsthroughastormwaterutilityorotherequitableandsufficientfundingsourceorsources.

� Assess stormwater utility fees associated with commercial and high densityresidentialasapercentageofimperviousnessminusanymitigationstrategiessuchastreecanopy.

� Stormwaterfeesforeachpropertyshouldbecalculatedbasedontheirrelativeburdenonthestormwatersystemresultingfromchangesthatlandownershavemadetothecharacter(volume,rate,andpollutantcontent)ofthestormwaterthatrunsofftheirproperty.

� ContinuetodevelopandimplementWRASforcountywatershedsandmonitortheeffectivenessofprojectsatreducingstormwaterpollutant loads.TheWRASmayincludethefollowingelements:

� Developmentofstreamrestorationplanstoincludestrategiestoreduceflowvelocityandstreamscouringandincising.

� Constructionofgradecontrols instreams toprevent further incisionof thestreamchannelandcreateariffle-poolsystemforaquatichabitat.

� Establishmentandachievementofmeasurablegoalsbywatershedforforestcover,treecanopy,andimpervioussurfacebypercentages.

� IdentificationandmitigationofpollutionsourcesinthePatuxentandPotomacwatershedsthroughprovenandinnovativetechniquestomeettheTributaryStrategiesagreedtoaspartoftheChesapeakeBayAgreementin2000.

� Managepointandnonpointpollutionsourcestocomplywithcounty,regional,andstateloadallocationsestablishedbytheChesapeakeBayTMDLandsubsequentgeographicalrefinements.

� DevelopaframeworkforthecoordinationofTMDLimplementationplanswith state and county agencies; municipalities; adjacent counties andjurisdictions; and watershed organizations that adhere to a comprehensivewatershedapproach.

� Require additional and enhanced stormwater volume reduction and qualityimprovement requirements for all new development and redevelopment inareas draining to waters with existing TMDLs, of known water qualityimpairments,orTierIIwaterquality.

� Developsubwatershedtreecanopygoalsincountymasterandsectorplanstoachieve the forest protection and expansion strategies as set forth in theAnacostia Watershed Forest Management and Protection Strategy,June2005.


Water QualityPOLICY: Thecountyiscommittedtoimprovethequalityofimpairedwaterandprotecthealthywaterinthecountythroughshort-termactionsaswellasalong-termcommitmenttoeffectivestormwatermanagementandwaterresourcesprotection.

STRATEGIES:� Maintain and fund a comprehensive water quality, habitat, and biological

monitoring program that provides data needed to assess watershed health andtrackthebenefitsofrestorationactivities.

� RespondtochangesinenvironmentalregulatoryrequirementstoproduceTMDLimplementation plans and institute pollution limits for nutrients, trash, andsedimentinstreamsandtheirtributariesbasedonbenchmarksforstreamhealth.

� Fundimplementationprojectsthatachievesignificantandmeasurableimprovementinwaterquality.

� Reducingpollutedrun-offfromurbandevelopmentandagriculture.

� ImplementingTMDLstorestoreimpairedwaterbodies.

� Protecting and restoring habitat including riparian corridors, floodplains,wetlands,andthebay.

� Encouragepartnershipsamongagenciesandorganizationsthathavepurviewoverwaterqualityandlandusedecisionstoprotectandrestorewatershedfunctionsandvalues.

POLICY:Thecountyisobligatedtoachievethecommittedgoalsofatrash-freePotomacRiverby2013bydevelopingtrashreduction,recycling,andeducationprogramsthatpromoteliterreductionsinallstreamsandcreeksinthecounty.

STRATEGIES:� Supporteffectiveyardwasteandother recyclingprograms, street sweeping,and

trashremovalstrategiestoreducetrashandwastethatcanimpedestormwaterflowandimpactriversandstreams.

� Develop an outreach and education program to improve trash management,increaserecyclingrates,andreducelitteringandillegaldumping.

� Develop a baseline of existing levels of trash in the Potomac and benchmarkongoingprogramstodetermineiftheywillmeetthetrash-freePotomacgoalby2013.Addadditionalpublicandprivateprogramsasnecessarytomeetthegoal.

� Educatelocalbusinessesontheimportanceoftrashandwastepreventionthroughroutine cleaningofparking lot areas,dumpster areas, and structural stormwatermanagementfacilities.

� Supportstatewideeffortstoincreaserecyclingandreducetrashthroughtheotherlegislativeexamplessuchas;thebagandbottlebills.


Stormwater Operations and MaintenancePOLICY:Ensure the efficient and safe performance of all stormwater management facilitiesincludingcounty-ownedandprivatelyownedfacilities.

STRATEGIES:� Completeandmaintainanaccuratedatabaseofallprivatelyandpubliclyowned

andmaintainedstormwaterfacilitiesandstormdrainagesystemsinthecounty.

� Conduct preventative maintenance and inspections of county stormwatermanagementfacilitiesonaregularbasis.Documentandprovidecorrectivemeasuresasneeded.

� Provide documentation of inspection schedules, enforcement actions, and otherrelevantinformationtoguaranteeoptimumfunctioningofstormwatermanagementsystems.

� Develop a program for routine inspections of private stormwater facilities incompliancewithNPDESMS4permitrequirements.

� Developaprogramfor inspectingandcleaningstreamcorridorsofdebris,bothmanmadeandnatural,especiallyinknownfloodingareas.

� EnsurethatallmunicipalfacilitiesthatrequireindustrialstormwaterpermitsarekeptcurrentandhaveSWPPPstoreduceimpacttolocalwaterresources.

Landscape and Road MaintenancePOLICY:Reduce pollutants associated with road maintenance from herbicides, fertilizers,pesticides,deicing,andvegetationmaintenance.Requiretenacresorgreateroftreatedroadway to follow the University of Maryland’s guidelines for documenting allmaintenancepracticesandbesubjecttoinspectionsbytheMarylandDepartmentofAgriculture.

STRATEGIES: � Incorporate green infrastructure and ESD into roadway construction and

maintenanceactivities.

� Considerreducingstreetwidthandparkinglotrequirementstoreduceimperviousarea.

� Utilizeconservationlandscapingtechniquesthatreducewaterconsumptionandtheneedforfertilizersorchemicalapplications.

� Plant adapted native vegetation and use efficient irrigation, mulching, soilpreparation, and appropriate planning, design, and maintenance standards andtechniques.

� Continue to limit the use of herbicides and fertilizers in roadway maintenanceactivitiesandimplementmeasurestoensuredeicingmaterialsarenotover-applied.Ensure that street sweepingmaterials andotherdebris collectedduring routineroadmaintenanceisproperlydisposed.


� Captureandreuserainwatertoprovideirrigationandmaintenanceoflandscapedareas,wherepracticable;createdemonstrationprojectsonpublicproperties.

� Design landscaped areas to intercept stormwater, thereby increasing pollutantremovalandreducingtheneedforirrigation.

Erosion and SedimentationPOLICY:Thecountyproactivelyactstopreventerosionfromactiveandcompletedconstructionsitesthatmayresultinsedimentationofstreamsandcreeks.

STRATEGIES:� Keepdisturbedareastoaminimumduringconstruction,especiallyareaswithsteep

slopes.

� Specify theamountof timeallowedtostabilizeexposedsoilwhenconstructionactivitieshavetemporarilyorpermanentlyceased.

� Requireerosionandsedimentcontrolinspectionstobeconductedatleastevery7to14daysorfollowinganyrainfalleventof0.5inchesormore.

� Requiretheremovalofaccumulatedsedimentfromcontroldeviceswhensedimentstoragecapacityhasbeenreducedby25percent.

� Provide continued training and education to construction site operators andinspectorsregardingerosionandsedimentcontrolcompliance.

� Requireinspectionandenforcementofallpubliclypermittederosionandsedimentcontroldevicesbymeansofregularsitevisitsanddocumentationofallinfractionsthatshallrequirefinesand/orcease-workorders.

FloodingPOLICY:Protect the health, safety, and welfare of Prince George’s County citizenry andpropertiesbyidentifyingfloodhazardswithinthecounty,seekingfundingtoaddressfloodhazards,andprotectingfuturefloodingfromnewdevelopments.

STRATEGIES:� Prohibit inappropriate and incompatible uses in floodplains to maintain water

storagefunctionstotheMEPandprovideforexpandedenvironmentalpreservationopportunities.

� Create a strategy to address repetitive property loss through FEMA’s buyoutprogramorotherpermanentcorrectiveaction.

� Documentfloodingeventsassociatedwithnonexistentand/orpoorlyperformingstormwater management facilities, floodplain encroachments, or perched watertablesand/orgroundwaterseepsandtransferidentifieddataintoaGISmappingformat.

� Spatiallyanalyzeexistingfloodingdataandpatternsanddeveloppolicyandactionstrategies, legislation, andbuilding standards to remedy existing conditions andavertfutureproblems.


� Identifysoilsandgeologyinthecountyassociatedwithperchedgroundwaterand/orwaterseepsthatmaycauseflooding,particularlyinstructureswithbelowgradeconstruction.

Stormwater Land Development StandardsPOLICY:Land development practices will support healthy hydrologic systems that maintainminimum stream flows, control flooding, support neighborhood, community andcountywide health, and protect and preserve environmentally sensitive features andlivingresources.

STRATEGIES:� ThequantityofstormwaterdischargemustsatisfytheStormwaterActof2007for

waterquality,channelprotection,andrechargevolumeusingESDpractices.

� Captureandmanage,throughinfiltrationandevapotranspiration,thefirstinchofrainwater associatedwithover 90 percent of all stormevents in the county forurbandevelopmentandredevelopmentprojects.

� Minimizeuseofimpervioussurfaces.

� Designtotheminimumparkingrequirementsduringdevelopment.

� Establishincentivesforsharedparkingprograms.

� Concentratedevelopmentinordertoprovideeconomicincentivestodevelopparkingstructuresincenters.

� Breakuplargeexpansesofpavedsurfaceswithlandscaped/infiltrationareas.

� Setmaximumsonareasofpavedsurfacesindevelopmentplans.

� Establish targets for impervious percentages within defined watershed, sub-watershed,andcatchmentareasbasedonlanduseandwatershedconditions.

� Optimizeconservationofnaturalfeatures,includingdrainagepatterns,topography,andvegetationduringdevelopmentandredevelopmentprojects.

� Manage changes in topography during development and redevelopment toencouragesheetflowandmaximizelengthofflowpaths.

� Disconnect impervious areas such aspavement and roofs from the stormdrainnetwork,allowingrunofftobetransportedoverperviousareastosupportinfiltrationandgroundwaterrecharge.

� Preserveandprovidevegetationalongstreambanks, roadways,andwithin largepaved areas to reduce stormwater run-off velocity and temperature, absorbpollutants,diminishgreenhousegases,andsupportbiodiversity.

� TiepreservednaturallandareastotheGreenInfrastructurePlansothattheyaretrackedandcountedtowardthecountywidegoals.

� DevelopacountytreeordinancethatsupportsthepreservationandenhancementoftheurbantreecanopythatiscompatiblewithESDrequirements,thecounty’sGreen Infrastructure Plan, and associated environmental legislation or coderequirements.


Environmental Site DesignPOLICY: The county supports and implements the stormwater design policies, principles,methods,andpracticesasputforthinthe2000MarylandStormwaterDesignManualanditsupdates,aswellastheprovisionsofMaryland’sStormwaterManagementActof2007requiringstormwatertobetreatednonstructurallytotheMEP.

STRATEGIES:� Update the county stormwater ordinance to comply with the Stormwater

Management Act of 2007 to require developers to demonstrate ESD to themaximumextentpracticalbeforestructuralpracticesareconsidered.

� RecognizethatnonstructuraltechniquesandESDmimicnaturalhydrologicrunoffandinfiltrationcharacteristicsandprovidealong-termcosteffective,low-impactmethodtominimizetheimpactsoflanddevelopmentonwaterresources.

� Design,develop,implement,andmaintainESDdemonstrationprojectstomanagenonpoint sourcestormwater run-offonpublicproperties toprovideeducationalopportunities,increasepublicawareness,andhoneaknowledgebaseforrefiningsitedesignandESDbestpracticesapplication.

� Secure the sustained success of ESD facilities by establishing guidelines andstandardsfordesign,implementation,maintenance,andevaluationofnonstructuraland/orinnovativestormwatermanagementpracticesandtechnologiestomanagenonpointsourcerun-off.

� Identifylegislative,physical,andeconomicimpedimentstotheimplementationofESD.

� Modifythedevelopmentandredevelopmentplanreviewandapprovalprocesstorequire coordination of sediment control and stormwater management design,inspectionandmaintenancepractices,andplanningpoliciesandrecommendationsasnecessaryinordertoimplementESDtotheMEP.

Chapter VIII: Drinking Water and Wastewater 141 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

AsafeandadequatedrinkingwatersupplyandwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesarenecessaryforthevitalityofcurrentcommunitiesandfutureresidentsofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Humanlifeandpublichealth,safety,andwelfaredependoncleanandpotabledrinkingwaterandsufficientwastewatermanagement.Wastewatertreatmentisalsoimportant to ensure theprotectionof receivingwaterways for recreationalpurposesandthehealthrequirementsoflivingorganisms.Asthepopulationandgrowthofthecountycontinuestoincrease,itisnecessarytoensurethatthepotablewatersourcesandthepropertreatmentofwastewatercanbeaccommodated.

ScientistsestimatethateachyearuptosevenmillionAmericansbecomesickfromcontaminatedtapwater,whichcanalsobelethal.Pollution,old

pipes,andoutdatedtreatmentthreatentapwaterquality.—TheNaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil

Waterandsewersystemsprovidethebasicbuildingblocksforamodern,growingandenvironmentallyhealthycommunity.Waterandsewerplanningiscriticaltothestagingandpromotionoforderlygrowthofcommunitiesandthepreventionofurbansprawl.Therefore,waterandsewerplanningmustbebasedonconsiderationofgeographicalfeaturesandenvironmentalfactors,communityneedsasexpressedinthecounty’slanduse and development policies, federal and state policy guidance, and public healthrequirements.The contextual framework for water and sewer planning includes thenaturalenvironment,communityplanninganddevelopment,andlegalrequirements.

VIII: DRINKING WATER AND W

ASTEWATER

Maintain, inspect, protect, and manage drinking water sources and distribution methods and wastewater management facilities and infrastructure systems to sustain public, environmental, and economic health.

142 Chapter VIII: Drinking Water and WastewaterApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) is the eighth largestwaterandwastewaterutilityinthenation,withanetworkofmorethan5,500milesoffresh water pipeline and nearly 5,400 miles of sewer pipeline. WSSC has servicedcustomers in Prince George’s and Montgomery counties since 1918 and WSSC’sdrinkingwaterhasalwaysmetor surpassed federal standards.WSSCis required toconductand submitanannualwateruseaudit toMDEasa conditionof itswaterappropriationpermit.

TheWaterResourcesPlancontainspolicyandstrategyrecommendationstoaddressinspection and maintenance of existing water and wastewater infrastructure and toplan for future growth in response to drinking water and wastewater managementdemandsandcapacities.TheWaterResourcesPlanpromotessourcewaterprotectionstrategiesanduseanddemandmanagementofwaterresources.Throughconservationandefficiencyrecommendations,thisplanstrivestoestablishachievablesustainabilitygoalsforwaterresourcesinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

DRINKING WATERPlanforpotablewaterdemandsthroughefficiencyandconservation

standards;protectionofpotablewatersources;andoversight,monitoring,andenforcementofwaterquantityandqualitystandards.

PrinceGeorge’sCounty’spublicdrinkingwatersupplyoriginatesfromthePatuxentandPotomacRivers,whichistreatedanddistributedbyWSSC.TheremainderofthecountyisservedbygroundwatersuppliesinareasoutsidetheWSSCserviceareaandwaterandsewerenvelopeasdefinedinthe2008WaterandSewerPlan.Thesamelandusepracticeswhichimpactthewaterqualityandquantityofstreamsandriverscanalsoimpact the availability and quality of the county’s drinking water sources. Becauseheadwatersandreservoirsthatultimatelyprovidepotabledrinkingwaterarebeyondthejurisdictionalboundariesofthecountyandthegroundwatersourcesarepartofasharedregionalsystem,itisimperativethatsourcewaterprotectionandgroundwatermanagementpoliciesarecoordinatedwithneighboringcounties.

Approximately two-thirds of Prince George’s County is serviced by a public watersupply from WSSC. WSSC is a bicounty agency, which provides water and sewerserviceto1.8millionresidentsinMontgomeryandPrinceGeorge’sCountiesandtosmallportionsofHowardandCharlesCounties.WaterforPrinceGeorge’sCountyisdrawnfromboththePotomacRiverandoneoftworeservoirsonthePatuxentRiver.ItistreatedatthePotomacandPatuxentwaterfiltrationplants,respectively.Currentwater demand forecasts are prepared by WSSC (seeTechnical Appendix III, 2006Water Production Projections) and indicate that WSSC’s average production isexpectedtoincreaseapproximatelyonepercentperyear,reaching224milliongallonsperday(mgd) in theyear2030.TheInterstateCommissiononthePotomacRiverBasin (acting for WSSC, Fairfax (VA) Water, and Washington Aqueduct), alsoperiodically prepares water demand forecasts as well as future resource availabilityassessments (see Technical Appendix III, Water Supply Reliability Forecast forWashingtonMetropolitanArea,Year2025).This study indicates that currentwaterresourcesareabletomeetdemandforecastfortheregion;includingtheareaofPrinceGeorge’sCountyservedbyWSSC,totheyear2025,andasprojectedto2045underdroughtconditionssimilartothoseexperiencedintheperiodofrecord(thepast80years).

Source Water Protection Areas are delineated by a

state for a public water supply or including

numerous such suppliers, whether the source is

groundwater or surface water or both.

Turbidity: A cloudy condition in

water due to suspended silt or organic matter.

Protozoa: One-celled animals that

are larger and more complex than bacteria;

may cause disease.

Disinfection By-Products: Chemical, organic, and

inorganic substances that can form during a reaction

of a disinfectant with naturally present organic

matter in the water.


According to the terms of a long-standing agreement, WSSC has extended publicwatersupplyinfrastructuretoCharlesCounty.CharlesCountywillrelievetheircurrentdemandsonthePatapscoaquiferby1.4mgdinthecommunityofWaldorfthroughextension of the WSSC surface water source public system. Charles County hasdiscussedpurchasingadditionalwaterfromWSSC,uptoexceeding5mgd.AdditionalpublicwatersystemswithinthecountyincludetheCityofBowie,locatedinPrinceGeorge’sCounty,agroundwatersourcedistributionsystemsuppliedbysixwellsthatcanprovideuptothesystem’s5.2mgdcapacitytoservethenorthernportionsoftheCityofBowie.Thecurrentdemandisapproximately2mgdandnotexpectedtoreachthesystemcapacitywithintheplanningperiodaddressedinthisdocument.However,thecountyshoulddevelopprojectionsoftheestimatedwaterdemandfortheCityofBowie based on residential and nonresidential population projections and theimplementationofthecity’slanduseplan.Ifthedemandisforecastedtobegreaterthanthecity’sgroundwaterappropriationpermit,futurelanduseplansshoulddiscusswaystoaddressthisconstraint.Theremainingcountyresidentsareservedbyprivatewells that are concentrated in the southwestern, southern and eastern areas of thecounty.Severalpropertiesthroughoutthecountythatfallwithinthesewerenvelopearecurrently on private water and/or sewer system. Individual water supply and septicsystems,aswellassharedsystems,canonlysupportrelativelylow-densitydevelopment.ThefollowinghavebeennotedasCategory6designationswithinthesewerenvelope:

� GreenbeltPark� FortLincolnCemetery,PortTowns� BeltWoods� NationalHarmonyCemetery� LincolnMemorialCemetery,Suitland� OxonHillFarm� RosaryvilleStatePark� LouiseM.CoscaRegionalPark

AlsoseveralparcelsattheDuvalWoodsdevelopmentandtheMagruderTractWestinUpperMarlboro,andtheTimberHighlandsinAccokeekhavebeennotedasCategory6designationswithinthesewerenvelope.

ItisnotanticipatedthatanycommunitywaterorsharedsepticsystemsinthecountywillrequireexpansionwithintheWREplanningperiod.Intheeventthatasystemwould require public water or wastewater, review by WSSC foravailable capacity in the water pressure zone and the sewer basinwherethedevelopmentislocatedwouldberequired.

Prince George’s County’s RuralTier, approximately one-third of thelandarea,reliesonindividualwellwaterfordomesticsuppliesandotheruses.The2008WaterandSewerPlandelineatesthewaterandsewerenvelope boundaries that are reviewed by the Planning Departmentduringupdatestotheplanandduringtri-annualwaterandsewerreviewcycleswhenrequestsforwaterandsewercategorychangesareconsidered.Protectionofthequalityandqualityofthiswaterresourceisbecomingmore critical as regional demands on the aquifer system continue toincrease,andgroundwaterlevelscontinuetodeclineinmanyareas. Patuxent Water Filtration Plant

Cryptosporidium and Giardia

are parasites that exist in rivers and lakes.

These parasites can cause intestinal illnesses.

Fecal Coliform are bacteria, which are

present in large numbers in the feces and intestinal

tracts of humans and other warm-blooded animals,

and can enter water bodies from human and animal waste.

Dieldrin is no longer produced or

used. From the 1950s until 1970, aldrin and dieldrin were used extensively as

insecticides on crops such as corn and cotton.


Patuxent Water Supply Patuxent Water Supply—The Triadelphia and Rocky GorgeReservoirsprovidewatertothePatuxentWaterFiltrationPlant(WFP)fortreatment.Thesereservoirs,locatedintheupperreachesofthePatuxentRiverinCentralMarylandbetweenthecitiesofBaltimoreandWashington,D.C.,haveacombinedwaterstoragecapacityof11billiongallonsandcollectwaterfroma132-square-milewatershed;thevastmajorityofthewatershedislocatedinMontgomeryandHowardCounties,withonlyasmallportionwithinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Muchofthewatershedisrural,althoughtherearesomeareasofdenser,mixedlanduse.WSSCownsandcontrolsonly6.9squaremilesoflandimmediatelyadjacenttothereservoirs.Theprimarypurposeofthisprotectedareaistoprovideabufferzonetocontrolsedimentandpollutantrunoffintothereservoirs.PrinceGeorge’sCountyCode currently restricts impervious surfaces within the Rocky Gorge watershed to tenpercent,whileCodeofMarylandRegulationsprohibitstheinstallationofasepticsystemwithin300feetofthespillwaycrestwaterlevelofawatersupplyreservoir.Potentialsourcesofcontaminationforthereservoirsincludeavarietyofpointandnonpointsources,suchasroadways, a railroad, a petroleum product pipeline, agricultural activities, septic systems,surfacewaterdischarges,andstormwaterrunofffromdevelopedareas.BasedonwaterqualitymonitoringresultsandanalysesconductedbyWSSC,phosphorusistheprimarycontaminantofconcerntothereservoirs.Additionalcontaminantsofconcernincludeturbidity,disinfectionby-products,iron,manganese,andprotozoa.

ThePatuxentReservoirsWatershedProtectionGroupwasformedin1998topromotepoliciesthatwouldprotectthelong-termbiological,physicalandchemicalintegrityofthePatuxentreservoirs watersheds.The group engages participants from relevant programs in HowardCounty, Montgomery County, M-NCPPC, Prince George’s County, Soil ConservationServicesforHowardandMontgomeryCounties,theStateofMaryland,andWSSC.Thisgrouphashistoricallysupportedinitiativestargetedatreducingcontaminantloadingintothereservoirs,suchasimplementationofstormwatermanagementBMPsalongtributariesleadingintothereservoirs.ThegroupalsoisinvolvedinpublicoutreachactivitiesandhassponsoredworkshopsandPatuxentReservoirDayseveryspringandfall.TheseoutreacheffortshavealsopromotedtheestablishmentandrecognitionofseveralschoolswithinPrinceGeorge’sCountyastheMarylandAssociationforEnvironmentalandOutdoorEducationGreenSchools.

The following recommendations were made in the Maryland Department of theEnvironment’s 2004 Source Water Assessment for the WSSC Patuxent WFP toprotectthereservoirsandensureasafeandadequatewatersupplyforWSSCcustomers:

� Strengthen the existing Patuxent Reservoirs Watershed Protection Agreement1(establishedin1996).

� Expand protected property within the watershed and improve management offorestedlands.

� EnhanceWSSC’sexistingwaterqualitysamplingprogram.� Reducephosphorusloadings.� Implementcontrolsforspillsatmajorhighwaycrossings.� Analyzetrafficaccidentstatisticsandpatternstoidentifypotentialproblem/spill

locations.� Establishnotificationandemergencyresponseproceduresforpotentialcontaminant

sources.

1 http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/deptmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/csps/Watersheds/csps/html/upperpat.asp


Potomac Water Supply—The Potomac River is the water source for the PotomacWFP,whichisalsoownedandoperatedbyWSSC.ThePotomacRiverwatershedisapproximately11,400squaremilesandisprimarilyforested,withsignificantagriculturaluseandsomeurbanlanduses.TheexistingintakefortheplantislocatedonthebankofthePotomacRiverandisoppositeseveralislandsintheriver.Theintakestructure,neartheC&OCanalaboveSwain’sLock,wasbuiltin1982.TheWSSC’sPotomacWFP has a maximum treatment capacity of 300 mgd. There are numerous long-standingeffortstoimprovewaterqualityinthePotomacRiver.Inparticular,effortsarecurrentlyunderwayintheWattsBranchwatershedinMontgomeryCountytoidentifyprioritystreamrestorationandstormwatermanagementprojectstoimproveboththehabitat and water quality of the watershed. According to the findings of the 2002Source Water Assessment for the Potomac WFP, contaminants that cause majorchallengesandareofparticularconcerninclude:naturalorganicmatteranddisinfectionby-productprecursors,sediment,cryptosporidiumandgiardia,tasteandodorcausingcompounds,ammonia,sediment/turbidity,algae,fecalcoliform,ammonia,anddieldrin(a banned pesticide). Sources of these contaminants are present throughout thewatershed.ThePotomacWFPisalsovulnerabletospillsandoverflowsfromvarioustransportationandindustrialsourcesinthewatershed.

SourcewaterattheintakecanbecomelargelyisolatedfromthemainflowoftheriverandbeheavilyinfluencedbylocalrunofffromWattsBranch,whichflowsintothePotomacRiverapproximately1,800feetupstreamoftheintake.WSSCanalystsbelievethattheWattsBranchisthecauseofsuddennegativechangesinrawwaterqualityandtreatabilityat the Potomac WFP intake. Analyses conducted as part of the 2002 Source WaterAssessmentfortheWSSCPotomacWFPindicatethatasubmergedchannelintake(atamid-channellocation)wouldallowtheplanttoeffectivelyavoidtheseimpacts.

The following recommendations were made in the Maryland Department of theEnvironment’s 2002 Source Water Assessment for the WSSC Potomac WFP toprotectthewatershedandriverandensureasafeandadequatewatersupplyforWSSCcustomers:

� Formulationofawatershedprotectiongrouprepresentingallstakeholders.Amongotherthings,thisgroupshouldhaveaggressiveinvolvementinupstreamagriculturalandanimalfarmingBMPimplementationplanstoaddressnutrient,bacteria,andpathogenloads.

� Serious consideration should be given to an upgraded intake structure withflexibilitytowithdrawwaterfromasubmergedmid-channellocation.Aspreviouslynoted,suchastructurewouldhelpmoderatechangestorawwaterqualityatthePotomacWFPintake.

� Preparationofaproactivespillmanagementandresponseplantominimizetheriskofcontaminationresultingfromspillsinthewatershed.

� Considerationofappropriatesourceevaluationandmanagementpracticesforfecalcontaminationtoimprovepublichealthprotection.

The Potomac River Basin Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership (DWSPP) is aunique regionalorganization formed tohelp ensure that thebasin’spublicdrinkingwatersources,servingmorethanfivemillionpeople,areprotectedfromcontaminationthatcouldadverselyaffectthehealthofconsumers.Thepartnershipwasformalizedin2004.Atthepresenttime,20drinkingwaterutilitiesandgovernmentagenciesfromthroughoutthePotomacRiverbasinareDWSPPmembers.


Groundwater and Aquifers—Groundwater iswater foundbelow the ground surfacelocatedinsoilporespaceandinrockfissures.Groundwaterisrechargedfrom,andcaneventuallyflowto, thesurface,discharging intostreamsandwetlandsoras seepsandsprings.Anaquiferisanundergroundwaterlayerwithinunconsolidatedmaterialssuchasgravelsandorclayorfracturedrock.Aquifersfunctionasundergroundreservoirsthatprovidecleanpotablewaterviadrilledwellsthataccesstheaquiferwaterandpumpittothesurface.CoastalPlainaquiferscomposedprimarilyofsandandgravelwithlayersofsilt and clay are productive groundwater sources of generally good quality domesticdrinkingwater.PrinceGeorge’sCountygroundwaterlevelsfromunconfinedportionsoftheaquifersundergoseasonalfluctuationandareprincipallyrechargedbyprecipitationduringthespringandwintermonths.Groundwaterlevelsintheconfinedportionsoftheaquifersaresubjecttoimpactsfromgroundwaterpumpageataregionalscale.

Increasedwaterdemandsfromagrowingpopulationplacenewandadditionalstressesontheaquifers,andadditionalanalysisofthecounty’sgroundwaterresourcesisneededto assess the long-term viability of the county’s aquifers in the face of increasingdemands.Exceptinsomeurbanandindustrialareas,countygroundwaterisgenerallyof good quality and deeper, confined aquifers meet drinking water standards. Theunconfined Coastal Plain aquifers are vulnerable to groundwater contaminationassociated with human activities on the land surface, but incidents of seriouscontamination are usually localized around specific sources. A historical source ofcontaminationhasresultedfromabandonedsandandgravelminingoperationsthatthenbecamelandfillsorrubblefills.Certainheavymetals,pathogens,andothertoxicelementseasilycombineandbecomeactivatedbywaterresultingincontamination.

Maryland Groundwater Rights—WaterrightsinMarylandrunwiththelandandareconsideredinseparablefromtheproperty’s“bundleofrights.”Landownersareallowedreasonable use of groundwater in view of the similar rights of others (reasonableuse=withoutunreasonable interference toothers).BecauseMarylandadheres to thereasonable use (American rule) for water rights, allocation includes the followingprioritizationofallowancesandrestrictions.Ifa“watersupplyemergency”exists,thenpriorityis:

� Domesticandmunicipalusesforsanitation,drinkingwater,andpublichealthandsafety;

� Agriculturaluses,includingtheprocessingofagriculturalproducts;and

� Allotheruses.

Maryland’s“rechargerule”isanunwrittenadministrativepolicythatcalculateswaterrechargeveryconservatively.Ifonewishestowithdraw3,000gallonsofgroundwaterperdayandassumearechargecalculationof300gallons/day/acre,onemustownorhavecontrolovertenacresofland.Thispolicycanproveveryproblematicforpublicwatersuppliersandcommercialusers,becausesufficientlandareamustbecontrolledtoassumerechargeequaltoorgreaterthanwithdrawals.

Source Water Protection—The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)provides funding through Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to assist in thecoordinationofgroundwaterprotectionactivities.Maryland’sannualfundingforthisprogramisapproximately$385,000.Thesefundsareusedtosupportthecoordinationofactivities,aswellasforgroundwaterassessmentprojects,wellheadprotectionefforts,andeducationaloutreachactivities.

Groundwater is water present in

saturated ground, where all the pore spaces are completely filled with

water. Groundwater moves slowly, commonly less

than one foot per day, and moves down gradient from higher to lower water table

elevations.


Groundwateraquifers,whereunconfined(geologicallyprotectedbyaclaylayer),similartosurfacewater,canbecontaminatedandcompromisedbyactivitiesemployedontheland. Pollutants can seep through the ground surface or streambeds and accessgroundwater.TheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE)isresponsiblefor thedevelopmentand implementationof the stateComprehensiveGroundwaterProtectionStrategyand to coordinate effortsbyother state agencies toprotect andmanagegroundwater.

Maryland’s environmental, agricultural, and natural resources protection programsadministered by MDE, the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA), and theMarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources(MDNR)worktoachievegroundwaterprotectionthroughtheimplementationandadministrationofprogramsthateducatethe general public, businesses, and industries concerning the importance of waterquality protection and water conservation. In addition, these departments promotelandusepracticesthatstrivetominimizetheimpactsofdevelopmentinenvironmentallysensitive areas and encourage the preservation of natural resources by promotingdevelopmentingrowthcenterswheretransportationandinfrastructureexists.

TheStateofMarylandiscommittedtoprotectthephysical,chemical,andbiologicalintegrityofthegroundwaterresource,inordertoprotecthuman

healthandtheenvironment,toensurethatinthefutureanadequatesupplyoftheresourceisavailable,andinallsituations,tomanagethat

resourceforthegreatestbeneficialuseofthecitizensofthestate.—TheMarylandGroundwaterProtectionStrategy

Inordertoprotectimportantpublicwatersupplysources,Marylandhasdevelopedandimplemented the Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP), a preventive programdesigned toprotectpublicwater supplywells fromcontaminationby establishing awellhead protection area (WHPA) around each well. Existing and potentialcontaminationsourcesareidentifiedandmanagementplansaredevelopedtoidentifythebestmeansforprotectingthesources.EPAapprovedMaryland’sWHPPinJune1991.Theprogramcoordinateswellheadprotectionactivities amongStateagencies,publicwatersuppliers, localgovernments,andthepublic.TheMDE’sWaterSupplyProgram(WSP)assistslocalgovernmentsindelineatingWHPAsandindevelopingmanagementprogramstoprotectwatersupplieswithintheWHPAs.Participationatthelocallevelisvoluntary.

ItistheresponsibilityoftheWSPtoensurethesafetyofnewpublicwatersuppliesbyreviewingandevaluatingproposalsforthesitingofnewwells.Toensurethatwellsaresitedinthesafestlocations,staffreviewdepartmentaldatabasestoidentifyexistingorpotentialcontaminationsourcesandusesiteinvestigationstoverifythisinformationandevaluateanyadditionalfactorsthatmightinfluencethesafetyofthewatersupply.Itisimperativethatwaterwithdrawalpermittingconsiderthecumulativeimpactsofwithdrawsandensure that residentsandbusinesses inPrinceGeorge’sCounty thatcurrentlyrelyonwellwaterdonotsufferadverseimpactstothequalityandquantityofthatresourceduetooverpermittingtonewcustomers.

Additionally,theuseofsurfaceandgroundwateriscontrolledthrough thestatewaterappropriationpermits.ThesepermitshelptoensurethatMaryland’swaterresourcesareconservedandprotectedwhileprovidingsafedrinkingwatertothestate.Specificproposed uses are reviewed to determine if the resource is adequate to sustain therequested allocation without adverse impacts and whether impacts are reasonable

Cone of Depression: A depression in the water

table that develops around a pumped well.

Drawdown: (1) The drop in the water table or level of water in

the ground when water is being pumped from a well.

(2) The amount of water used from a tank or

reservoir. (3) The drop in the water

level of a tank or reservoir.


relative to the recharge rule requirements for surfacewaterandunconfinedgroundwaterandrelativetotheso-called80percentmanagement (20percentofpre-pumping drawdown) level reserve requirement forconfinedgroundwater.

Aquifer and Groundwater Monitoring—GroundwatercontinuestobeaplentifulnaturalresourceservingasasignificantsourceofdrinkingwaterinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Aboutonethirdofthelandareaofthecountyandapproximately12percentofitspopulationdependsongroundwaterforitsdrinkingwatersupply.

Groundwater also serves as a critical resource foragriculturalcommunitiesandasasourceofwaterbaseflowincountyriversandstreams.Ashouseholdsandbusinessesincreaseinthecounty,demandforadditionalgroundwater resources rises as well. As of 2008, theaverage daily well water demand in Prince George’sCountywasestimatedtobe0.2milliongallonsaday(mgd). By 2030, development will create demand forapproximately0.36mgd.2

Duetolimitedscientificstudytothispoint,theamountof sustainable aquifer withdrawal in Prince George’sCounty is unknown. The United States GeologicalSociety (USGS) along with the Maryland GeologicSociety(MGS)havebeenmonitoringaquiferwellstoverify thewater levels over thepast fewdecades.Thegeneraltrendshowsrechargeisnotkeepingpacewithwithdrawals.Thisrealityhascreatedseverallarge-scalecones of depression around both individual pumping

well points and aquifer pumping centers throughout Maryland. These areas ofgroundwater-leveldepressionhaveresultedinsignificantdropsinwaterlevelsinseveralaquifersunderlyingPrinceGeorge’sCounty,particularlyinthesouthwesternareasofthecounty.

MDEisconsideringextensionoftheexistingwatermanagementstrategyareasinIndianHeadandWaldorfinCharlesCounty,intosouthwesternandsouthernPrinceGeorge’sCounty.ThisdesignationwouldallowMDEtoadoptspecificuserestrictionsorcriteriaforpermitapprovalinordertoprotectthewaterresourceorexistingwaterusers.Thereisalsotheoptionofdirectingdomesticresidentialwelluserstoadeeperaquifer,butthatoptionhasassociatedelevatedwellconstructionandenergydemandcosts.

The2003AdvisoryCommitteeontheManagementandProtectionofthestate’swaterresourcesidentifiedtheneedforacomprehensiveassessmentofgroundwaterresourcesintheMarylandCoastalPlain,wherepopulationisexpectedtogrowby44percentbetweentheyears2002and2030.In2007,USGS,MGS,andMDEcontinuedtheirPhaseIwork(2006-2008)ontheRegionalCoastalPlainAssessmentoftheMarylandCoastalPlain,documentingthehydrogeologiccharacteristicsoftheaquifersystem.

2 WolmanReport:http://wsscwater.com/AnnualReports/WSSC-AR2003.pdf

Map 16: Monitoring wells.

Hydrogeology: The scientific study of the occurrence, distribution,

and effects of groundwater.

Aquifer: An underground geological

formation, or group of formations, containing

water. Aquifers are sources of groundwater for wells

and springs.


Future assessment activitieswill include conductingdetailed studiesof the regionalgroundwaterflowsystemandwaterbudget;improvingdocumentationofpatternsofwater quality in the aquifers; enhancing groundwater level, streamflow, and waterquality monitoring networks; and developing tools to facilitate scientifically soundmanagement of the groundwater resources in the Maryland Coastal Plain. Phase Iactivities are being jointly supported by funds and services from MDE, MGS, andUSGS.PhasesIIandIIIwill requiresignificantadditional investmentfromcurrentandnewfundingpartnersfrom2008to2013.

MGS continues the study, begun in 2001, of the hydrogeologic characteristics andwater supply potential of the Patapsco aquifer system in southern Maryland. Theobjectivesoftheprojectaretoobtainadditionalhydrogeologicinformationregardingthe upper, middle, and lower Patapsco aquifers in Charles, Calvert, and St. Mary’sCounties,tointegratethesedataintoaquantitativeassessmentoftheaquifers’capacitytosupplyfuturewaterdemandsinthetri-countyregion,andtoconstructobservationwellstomonitorfuturechangesinPatapscowaterlevels.PreliminaryanalysisindicatesthateventhoughthePatapscoaquifersarewidelydistributed,theirwater-producingpropertiesarelocallyvariable.ThePatapscoaquiferistheprimarysourceforprivatewells in southwestern Prince George’s County and impacts to and influences ofwithdrawals in the county have been reflected, to some extent, in this study. MGSshould expand the study into southern Prince George’s County to account for thebroad-basedregionalinfluencesonthePatapscoaquifer.

Water Supply Program3—The Water Supply Program (WSP) of the MDE isresponsibleforregulatingpublicdrinkingwatersystemsinMarylandandimplementingdevelopment capacity standards. The WSP is a part of the Water ManagementAdministrationwithintheMDE.ThemissionoftheWSPistoensurethatpublicdrinkingwatersystemsprovidesafeandadequatewatertoallpresentandfutureusersin Maryland, and that appropriate usage, planning, and conservation policies areimplementedforMaryland’swaterresources.Thismissionisaccomplishedthroughproperplanningforwaterwithdrawal,protectionofwatersourcesthatareusedforpublicwatersupplies,oversightandenforcementofroutinewaterqualitymonitoringat public water systems, regular on-site inspections of water systems, and promptresponsetowatersupplyemergencies.Capacitydevelopmentistheprocessofwatersystems acquiring and maintaining adequate technical, managerial, and financialcapabilitiestoenablethemtoconsistentlyprovidesafedrinkingwater.Publicdrinkingwatersystemsfallintothreecategories.Communitywatersystemsserveyear-roundresidents;non-transientnon-communitywatersystemsserveregularconsumers,suchasinaschoolordaycaresetting;andtransientnon-communitywatersystemsservedifferent consumers each day, such as in a campground or restaurant. Historically,WSPhasemphasizedpreventativemeasurestoavertseriouspublichealthincidentsinsteadofreactiveenforcementactions.Preventativemeasuresincludeactivitiessuchas sanitary surveys, training and technical assistance, comprehensive performanceevaluations, monitoring, operator certification, financial assistance, consolidation,county water and sewer planning, source water assessments, and special initiatives.MDE’sWSPrecentlyinitiatedastatewideefforttoevaluatewatershedsbyassessingtheavailablewatersupplywithinawatershedasitrelatestoexistingandfuturewater

3 Safe Drinking Water Act Capacity Development Report, September 2002, MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmentWaterSupplyProgram


demands.Althoughresourcesforthiseffortarelimited,thegoalistoprovideregulators,planners,andwatersupplierswithinformationthatcanserveasaguidewhenplanningforfuturewaterneeds.

Wastewater Permits Program—The mission of the MDE’s Water ManagementAdministration(WMA)istorestoreandmaintainthequalityofthestate’sgroundandsurfacewaters,andtoplanforandsupervisethedevelopmentandconservationofthestate’s waters. WMA manages a broad range of activities, including regulating andfinancingmunicipalwastewatertreatmentsystems;regulatingtheuseanddevelopmentofthestate’swaterresources,publicwatersupplies,andon-siteresidentialsanitationsystems; regulating well drilling and industrial pretreatment; providing technicalassistance for water and wastewater utilities; financing small creek and estuaryrestoration; approvingerosion/sediment control and stormwatermanagementplans;issuing stormwater permits; inspecting and issuing dam permits; protecting andmanagingtidalandnontidalwetlandsandwaters;andregulatingminingactivitiesandmitigationproblemsassociatedwithabandonedmines.Theseprotections,financing,and regulatory activities help WMA ensure that state waters are safe for drinking,recreation,andwildlife.

MDEprogramsthatareadministeredbyWMAaredesignedto:

� Createoutreachandassistanceactivities thatcanaddresscross-functional issuesinvolvingwaterregulatoryprograms.

� Managewater,wastewater,andnonpointsourcepollutioncontrolcapitalprojectsthatarefundedthroughgrantsandloansfromthedepartment.

� Permitandprovideconstructioninspectionforwaterandseweragefacilities.

� Develop and implement the new federally mandated stormwater permittingprogram.

� Reviewandapproveerosion/sedimentcontrolandstormwatermanagementplansforstateandfederalconstructionprojects.

� Inspectdamsforsafety,issuenewpermits,andapprovedownstreamwarningplansforhigh-hazarddams.

� Issuewaterappropriationpermitsforuseofsurfaceandgroundwaters.

� IssuepermitsfordischargestosurfaceandgroundwaterfrombothindustrialandmunicipalfacilitiesasrequiredbythefederalCleanWaterAct.

� Oversee programs delegated by the department to local health departments.ActivitiesincludeMDE’sregionalconsultantswhoprovidetechnicalassistancetolocalhealthdepartmentsforon-sitewaterandwastewatersystemsandassistanceindevelopingandtestingnewinnovativeoralternativesepticsystemdesigns.

� Regulate activities conducted in nontidal wetlands and their buffers, nontidalwaterways(includingthe100-yearfloodplain)andtidalwetlands.

� Create,restore,andenhancenontidalwetlandsandstreams;providetrainingandtechnicalassistanceforthedevelopmentofwatershedmanagementplans.

� Inspectindustrialandmunicipalwastewaterdischarges,coalandsurfaceminingoperations,agriculturalsites,andconstructionactivitiesinvolvingsedimentcontrol,stormwatermanagement,wetlands,andwaterways.


� Regulate active mines and mitigate environmental problems associated withabandonedmines.Also,regulateoilandgasexploration,production,andstorage.

� EnsuresafedrinkingwaterinMarylandbyadministeringthefederalSafeDrinkingWater Act, develop the state’s comprehensive groundwater protection program,andrespondtolocalwatersupplyemergencies.

� Conductperformanceevaluationsofsurfacewaterfiltrationplantstoassistsystemsin optimizing treatment and reducing the risk of passing cryptosporidium (aprotozoanparasitethatcaninfecthumans)intothefinishedwater.

� Train public water and wastewater treatment operators, and provide on-sitetechnical assistance to support the state’s operator certification program andachievecomplianceandpollutionpreventiongoals.

� Financestormwatermanagementpracticesandsmallcreekandestuaryrestorationprojects.4

The Prince George’s County Health Department hastheresponsibilitytoassureasafeandadequatewatersupplyforeveryresidenceandbusinesswithinthecounty.Itisspecificallymandatedtoevaluatewelllocations,permittheinstallationofwells,inspectwellsduringtheirconstructionandsamplewellstoassurethepotabilityofthewatersupply. The department reviews monthly reporting from community water supplyoperators.Thedepartmentalsorespondstocallsfromindividualwellusers,alongwithcomplaintsconcerningillegaldischargesofhazardouswasteintostreamsorotherwaterbodies, and requires environmental assessment as part of the county’s subdivisionreviewprocessifgroundwatercontaminationispossiblebasedonpreviouslanduseorevidenceofillegaldisposalofwasteproducts.TheHealthDepartmentisalsoresponsibleforassessing thenecessityofwaterappropriationpermitsduringsubdivisionreviewandtoimplementandenforcetheStateofMaryland’swellconstructionregulations.

SenateBill 970was signed into lawonMay8, 2007, and codified asChapter 365covering theenvironment,water appropriationpermits, andpenalties.Thisnew lawexemptsmostsmallwaterusers(5,000gallonsperdayorless)fromtherequirementtoobtainawaterappropriationpermitandprovidesspecifiedpenaltiesformisappropriationormisuseofwater.ThenewlawwillallowMDEtobetterallocateresourcestoaddresslargerandmorecomplexpermitsandtobetterenforceexistingpermitrequirements.Publicdrinkingwatersystemsandwithdrawalslocatedingroundwatermanagementstrategyareasmuststillobtainapermit.

Otherexemptionsincludetemporaryconstructiondewatering(upto30daysandlessthan10,000gallonsperday),creationofsmallsubdivisions(5,000gallonsperdayorless), individual domestic use, agricultural use under 10,000 gallons per day, andextinguishingafire.

The most effective way for a water system to improve its water use efficiency is todevelop and implement a water conservation plan. A water conservation plan is awritten document developed for public and private drinking water systems thatevaluates current and projected water use; assesses infrastructure, operations, andmanagementpractices;anddescribesactionstobetakentoreducewaterlosses,waste,orconsumptionandincreasetheefficiencywithwhichwaterisused,treated,stored,

4 http://www.mde.state.md.us/Permits/WaterManagementPermits/index.asp#3.02


andtransmitted.Aslocalgovernments,not-for-profits,andtheprivate-sectorindustrylookforcost-savingopportunities,weneedtofocusexplicitlyonwaterefficiency.Theuse of water-saving appliances, low-flush toilets (1.6 gallons) water-saving showerheads,andmeteredwaterfaucetsareexamplesofmeasuresthatindividualhouseholdsandbusinesseshaveusedtoreducewaterconsumption.Theobjectiveofconservationandefficiencyisunderminedbycrackedandbrokenpipes,outdatedmeteringsystems,potable water used for inherently nonpotable uses, extensive public infrastructureextensionsintoexurbanlargelotresidentialcommunities,andwaterbillingprocessesthatfailtorewardconsumersforreducingwaterconsumption.

WASTEWATERMaintainasafeandefficientwastewatermanagementsystemandsewage

disposaltoservicePrinceGeorge’sCounty’sexistingandfuturedevelopmentneedsandpreservehuman,environmental,andeconomichealth.

Public Wastewater—Duringthe1940s,WSSCdevelopedasewagetreatmentplantin Bladensburg in Prince George’s County to provide pollution control service toMaryland’sportionofthebicountyAnacostiaBasin.ShortlyaftertheendofWorldWarII,negotiationsbeganwiththeDistrictofColumbiaforthejointMarylandandD.C. development of the Blue Plains Water Pollution Control Plant, which wasdesignated as the regional facility for both Washington, D.C. and the Marylandsuburbs.The cooperative arrangement permitted the abandonment of the WSSC’sBladensburgPlantintheearly1950s.TheregionalBluePlainsWastewaterTreatmentPlant(WWTP)hasapresentdaycapacityof370mgd,ofwhichjustunder170mgdhas,byagreement,beenallocatedtotheWSSC.

Itwasnotuntilthelate1950sandthe1960sthatWSSCbegantodevelopsomenewpermanentsewagetreatmentfacilitiesofitsown.TheseplantswerelocatedinPrinceGeorge’sCountytoserveareasthatwereearmarkedforgrowthandwerefinanciallyandoperationallyoutofreachoftheregionalBluePlainsWWTP.Inthemid-1950s,WSSCdesignedandbuilttheParkwayWWTP(openedin1959),whichhasacurrentcapacityof7.5mgd.The1960ssawtheopeningofthePiscatawayPlantinsouthwesternPrinceGeorge’sCounty(nowabletotreat30mgd)andtheWesternBranchWWTPineasternPrinceGeorge’sCounty,wherethenominalcapacityis30mgd.

WSSCforecastswastewatertreatmentdemandsbasedonpopulationandemploymentfigures compiled by Prince George’s County and developed for the MetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments.Theseprojectionsarecurrentlyestablished inPrinceGeorge’sCountythroughtheyear2040asRound7.2andarereevaluatedonacyclicalbasis.WSSCdevelopswastewaterflowprojections(seeTechnicalAppendixII)basedonthesefigurestoshowexistingandprojecteddemandsandcapacitylimitsattheirWWTP.WSSCforecastsindicatethatcurrentwastewatertreatmentcapacityforPrinceGeorge’sCountyissufficientthroughtheyear2030.

Additionally,severalprivateandcommunitysystemsare inplace inPrinceGeorge’sCounty to service areas of Bowie and Cedarville. A private system was originallyinstalledintheMarlboroMeadowsdevelopmentbuthasbeenacquiredbyWSSCandeffluentswillbeprocessedthroughtheWesternBranchfacilitybytheyear2012.

Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades—TheprimarycauseoftheChesapeakeBay’spoorwaterqualityandaquatichabitatlossiselevatedlevelsofnitrogenandphosphorus.Excessiveamountsofnitrogenandphosphoruscreatedensealgaebloomsthatdeplete

Waste Load Allocation: The maximum load of

pollutants each discharger of waste is allowed to

release into a particular waterway. Discharge limits

are usually required for each specific water quality

criterion being, or expected to be, violated. Waste load allocation is based on the portion of a stream’s total

assimilative capacity assigned to an individual

discharge.


oxygenandlight,eventuallykillinggrassesandaquaticspecies.NutrientsenterthebaythroughriversandstreamsfrompointandnonpointsourcesinPrinceGeorge’sCountyandtheentirebaywatershed.Thevastmajorityofpointsourcedischargesofnutrientsarefromsewagetreatmentplants,alongwithsmallercontributionsfromindustries.Inrecent years, allWSSCWWTPshavebeenequippedwith some formof advancedtreatment.TheWSSCserviceareaisgenerallyaheadoftherestofthenationinthedevelopmentof facilities thathave taken abig step (tertiary treatment)beyond theconventionalprimary/secondaryprocessingofwastewater.Consequently, itproducesan exceptionally high quality of effluent (treated wastewater) at all of its plants.Wastewaterplanttreatmentupgradesovertimehavemadesignificantprogresstowardrestoring water quality in county tributaries and the bay at large. Although plantupgradeshaveloweredconcentrationsofnutrientsindischarges,increasesintreatmentvolumeshaveresultedinadditionalflowintoreceivingwaters.

The WSSC WWTPs servicing Prince George’s County include Western Branch,Parkway, and Piscataway. These plants are all funded and scheduled for enhancednutrientremoval(ENR)upgradesinthenextseveralyears.TheBluePlainsWWTP(ownedandoperatedbyD.C.WaterandSewerAuthority)andMattawomanWWTP(owned and operated by Charles County) also treat sewage from Prince George’sCounty and have ENR treatment upgrades underway. The Bowie WWTP has apermittedcapacityof3.3mgdandcurrentlytreatsapproximately2.2mgdofwastewaterconveyed to the plant from its mostly developed service area. Future flows are notexpectedtoexceedtheplant’scapacity;however,thecountyshoulddevelopprojectionsoftheestimatedwastewaterdemandfortheCityofBowiebasedonresidentialandnonresidentialpopulationprojectionsandtheimplementationoftheareamasterplanforgrowthto2030ortobuildout.Ifthedemandisforecastedtobegreaterthanthecity’s WWTP capacity, future land use plans should discuss ways to address thisconstraint.AdditionallytheCityofBowie,inPrinceGeorge’sCounty,hasscheduledanENRupgradetoitswastewaterfacilitywithinthenextyearandahalf.

“Theneedforever-changingtechnologyinthewastewaterindustrystemsfrompastbiologicalsystemsthatdidagoodjobatremovingparticulate

matterthatweknewexisted.Butinstrumentationjustkeptgettingbetterandbetteratdetectingmoreandmoretracecompoundsthatwe

didn’tknowexistedorcouldn’tdetectinearlieryears,”—RobertMcMillon,formerpresidentoftheWaterEnvironmentFederation

Activated Sludge Treatment Process—In the early 1960s, the Blue Plains WWTPincorporated an activated sludge treatment process to improve the quality of treatedwastewater that it discharges into the Potomac River.This process passes wastewaterthroughscreens,whichcaptureslargeitems.Thisisfollowedbyagritremovaltank,whichslows down the wastewater flow enough to settle relatively heavy particles such assand. Thescreensandgrittankrepresentthepreliminarytreatmentsystem.Thewastewaterthenflows into aprimary clarifier, inwhich thevelocityofwastewaterflow is furtherreducedtoallowforlighterparticlestosettle.Afterthisphysicaltreatmentprocess,thewastewaterisdirectedtothebiologicaltreatmentprocessintheaerationbasin.

Intheaerationbasin,bacteria take inorganicmatter,ammonia,andaddedoxygentoproducecarbondioxideandnitrates.Thisbiologicalprocessremovesmorebiochemicaloxygendemandandsuspendedsolids.Approximately90percentofthesludgeisreturnedtotheaerationbasinfromthefinalclarifiertoallowformorebacteriagrowth.Oneofthe


by-productsofthistreatmentwasthecollectionofmassivequantitiesofsolidsfargreaterthancouldbemanagedatorneartheplant.In1974,aregionalagreementwassignedrequiring each major jurisdiction sending flows to the plant—Montgomery County,PrinceGeorge’sCounty,andtheDistrictofColumbia—tomanageitsshareofthesludge.

Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)—Raw or untreated wastewater containsammonia,which is toxic tofish.Ammoniadegrades tonitrates,which removes theoxygenfromthestream,therefore,killinganimalandplantlife.Nitratesalsobecomefertilizerspromotingalgaegrowth.Asalgaedieanddecompose,ahighoxygendemandiscreated,whichleadstolowdissolvedoxygeninthewater.TheBNRdenitrificationprocesscanconvertsomeofthenitrateintonitrogengasbubblesthatareharmlessandthewastewatereffluenthasnodeleteriouseffectsonreceivingwaters.

MarylandhonoreditscommitmentoftheChesapeakeBayAgreementbyestablishingthe Biological Nutrient Removal Program (BNR)5 to reduce nutrients in treatedsewage.ThegoaloftheBNRProgram,establishedin1984,istoreducenitrogenlevelsin the treatedwastewater (effluent)down to8milligramsper liter (mg/l).WithoutBNR, a typical WWTP discharges nitrogen at a level of about 18 mg/l.To date,Maryland has provided funding for this program to upgrade 45 of the 66 targetedfacilitieswiththeBNRprocess.Anadditionalestimated$100millioninstategrantfunding is needed to complete the remaining BNR upgrades, and the state hascommittedtoprovidethefundingthroughannualcapitalappropriations.

Enhanced Nutrient Removal—Maryland’s Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR)ProgramtakesthenextstepbeyondBNRandcontrolspointsourcenutrientdischargeby upgrading wastewater treatment plants to the limit of technology for nutrientremoval.ENRreducesnitrogendischargefromBNRtreatmentlevelof8milligramsper liter to 3 mg/l and phosphorus from 3 to 0.3 mg/l.The Bay Restoration Fundprovidesgrantstolocalgovernmentsforupto100percentofthecostofupgradingaBNRplanttoENR.AsacommonmethodtoachieveENR,filtersareaddedtotheBNR process for additional nitrogen and phosphorus removal. An external carbonsource,suchasmethanol,isaddedtothefiltertoincreasebacteriagrowthandfurtherimprove treatment. This process allows wastewater treatment facilities to achievemaximumnutrientremovalwithcurrenttechnologies.

Point Source Load Data Input—An evaluation of the six majorWWTPs locatedwithinPrinceGeorge’sCountywasconductedtoreflectpointsourceloadsfortotalnitrogenandtotalphosphorusfortheinitialandfuturescenarios.TheseWWTPsareidentifiedinTable16.

Initial (year 2005) and future (year 2030) nitrogen and phosphorus loads weredeterminedbasedonreviewofseveralresourcesincluding:

� DemandandcapacityprojectionspreparedbyWSSCforWSSC-ownedWWTPs.

� 2005NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystempermitdischargelimitsfortheWWTPs.

� MonthlydischargemonitoringreportsforWSSC-ownedWWTPs.

� ENRpreliminaryengineeringreportsforWSSC-ownedWWTPs.

� Maryland’sTributaryStrategyStatewideImplementationPlan.

5 http://www.mde.state.md.us/ResearchCenter/Publications/General/eMDE/vol1no7/enr.asp


Loads were determined based on historic information contained in the above-mentionedresourcesandpopulationforecaststoyear2030bysewershedasrepresentedinTable 16.The ultimate ENR total nitrogen and total phosphorus load caps areidentified in the Statewide Implementation Plan as shown in Appendix II. Thisinformationshowsthatfortheyear2030,thelargerWWTPswillbeneartheirultimatenutrientloadcapacities.

Maryland’snumericallimitisamaximumof37millionpoundsperyearnitrogenand2.9million pounds per year phosphorus.To achieve this, Maryland still needs to reducenitrogen loading by an additional 20 million pounds per year and phosphorus by 1.1million pounds per year. Nutrient reduction from both point and nonpoint sources isnecessarytoaccomplishthisgoal.Thegoalistoremovethebayandthetidalportionsofitstributariesfromtheimpairedwaterslist,Section303doftheCleanWaterAct,by2010.

Alternative Distribution wastewater management can rely on land distribution andtreatment methods in order to reduce direct discharges into streams. Land treatmentsystemsarepermittedinsomestates,butarenotwidelyusedbecauseoftheirlargelandarearequirements.Forexample,asprayirrigationsystemrequiresaboutfourtimestheareaofanindividualhomelagoon.Whenthesesystemsareused,largebufferareasandfencingmayberequiredtoensureminimalhumanexposure.Also,requirementsincludedisinfectionand significant pretreatment before application. Spray irrigation systems distributewastewaterevenlyonavegetatedplotforfinaltreatmentanddischarge.Sprayirrigationcanbeusefulinareaswhereconventionalon-sitewastewatersystemsareunsuitableduetolow soil permeability, shallow water depth table or impermeable layer, or complex sitetopography.Treatmentoccurswithinthesoilbeforethewastewaterreachesthegroundwater.

Theevapotranspiration/infiltrationprocessisasubsurfacesystemdesignedtodisposeofeffluentbybothevapotranspirationandinfiltrationintothesoil.Inevapotranspiration/infiltrationsystems,effluentisallowedtopercolateintotheunderlyingsoil.Modificationstoevapotranspiration/infiltrationsystemsincludemechanicalevaporatingdevicesandabroad array of different designs andmeans of distribution, storage of excess influent,wicking,andcontainmentorinfiltrationprevention.Somenewerstudiesareusingdripirrigationwithdistributiontoforestedareaswithpurportedsuccess.6

6 http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r00008/html/html/tfs6.htm

Table 16: Approximate Population Forecasts by Sewershed in Prince George’s CountyBASIN 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030BluePlains 407,110 425,381 440,766 450,204 456,129 458,289Mattawoman 3,516 5,348 6,707 7,691 9,339 10,989Parkway 54,125 55,649 55,725 55,585 55,375 55,091Piscataway 158,835 165,315 171,417 175,374 178,771 181,490WesternBranch 167,601 185,641 196,857 204,723 210,963 216,883Unsewered 20,212 21,924 22,775 23,414 24,197 24,702TOTAL 811,399 859,258 894,247 916,991 934,774 947,444Source: Prince George’s County Planning Department (M-NCPPC) Round 7.1 Cooperative Forecasts, 2008.

Infiltration or Percolation: The technique of applying

large volumes of waste water to land to

penetrate the surface and percolate through the

underlying soil.

Evapotranspiration: The combined effect of water removal from a

medium by direct evaporation and by plant transpiration.


Rapid infiltration isa soil-based treatmentmethod inwhichpretreatedwastewater isappliedintermittentlytoashallowearthenbasinwithexposedsoilsurfaces.It isonlyusedwherepermeablesoilsareavailable.Becauseloadingratesarehigh,mostwastewaterinfiltratesthesubsoilwithminimallossestoevaporation.Treatmentoccurswithinthesoilbeforethewastewaterreachesthegroundwater.Therapidinfiltrationalternativeisrarely used for on-site wastewater management. It is more widely used as a small-communitywastewatertreatmentsystemintheUnitedStatesandaroundtheworld.

Inanoverlandflowsystem,pretreatedwastewaterisspreadalongacontouratthetopof a gently sloping site that has minimum permeability.The wastewater then flowsdowntheslopeandistreatedbymicroorganismsattachedtovegetationasittravelsbysheetflowoververyimpermeablesoilsuntilitiscollectedatthebottomoftheslopefordischarge.

Today’swastewatertreatmentchallengesaretoimproveordeveloptechnologiesthataddress the changing issues of society, while keeping an eye on the advances thesetechnologiesmayprovideinthefuture.Sometechnologyadvanceswillleadawayfromchemicaladditivesandbacktousingnaturallyoccurringbacteriaaswellasrecyclingwhat is produced naturally in the process, such as oxygen and methane. Suchtechnologiesmustcontinuetoadvanceandprovideadditionalnutrientremovalservicestobestmanageeffluentsandwastewaterdischarges.

Septic Systems—Ten to 12 percent of propertyowners in Prince George’s County rely on on-sitesewage disposal systems (OSDS), for wastewatertreatment.Theaveragepersonusingasepticsystemdeliversabout9.5poundsofnitrogenperyeartothegroundwater. If you liveononeof theover51,000propertiesinthecountywithintheChesapeakeBaycritical area (the land within 1,000 feet of tidalwaters) and are served by a septic system,approximately80percentofthenitrogenfromyoursepticsystemwillreachsurfacewaters.

The standard on-site wastewater treatment systemfor homes and small businesses consists of a basicseptictankconnectedtoasepticdrainfield.Effluentfromhomesandbusinessesflowsintotheseptictank.Flowsleavethetankthroughonesolid-walledpipethat carries the effluent to a distribution box fromwhencetheflowisdistributedintoaconnectedseries

ofdrainfields.Thepipeswithinthedrainfieldarelaidoutparalleltothecontourofthegroundinregularspacingintervalstoformasubsurfacedispersalsystem.Perforationswithinthepipewallsalloweffluenttoleavethepipesatrandomratesofflow.Manymodernsepticsystemsaredesignedtouseapumpchamberthatallowstheeffluenttobepressuredosed,resultinginamoreuniformrateofflowthroughoutthedrainfieldsystem.Theuseofsmalldiameterpipeswithintheconveyancesystemassociatedwithlowpressuredistributionanddripsystemsallowforthesystemtobelocatedclosertothesurfacewhereevapotranspirationmaymoreeffectivelyremovenitrogenintheformofnitratesandphosphorus.

Figure 12: Septic system diagram.


Ofcriticalimportancetothefunctioningofthesepticsystemisthesizeofthecentralreceivingtank.Thevolumeofthecentraltankisdirectlyproportionaltotheexpectedflowrateoftheeffluent.Asaruleofthumb,thevolumeofthetankwillbeatleast50percentmorethantheexpecteddailyeffluentflow.Thetankservesasasettlingbasinthat separates out the various components of the effluent. Fortunately, septic tankswithinPrinceGeorge’sCountyaresized30percentlargerthaninotherjurisdictions.Theuseoftwocompartmenttanksandoutletfiltersareoptionsthatresultinimprovedseptictankeffluentquality.

Mostofthenitrogenintraditionalseptictankeffluent,wheredenitrificationhasnotoccurred,isdischargedprimarilyashighlydilutednitratesintogroundwater.Althoughshallowgroundwaterisstillutilizedasadrinkingwatersourcebysomecountyresidents,groundwaterispredominantlydischargedtosurfacewaters.Septicsystemshavebeendesignedtoremediatemostpublichealththreats, butnomatterhowwellthesepticsystems may have been constructed, they are not designed to significantly reducedischarged nitrogen. All septic systems are contributors of nitrogen to our localwatersheds at varying degrees. This excess loading of nutrients, like nitrogen andphosphorus,fromsepticsystemscontributetodegradedwaterqualityandnegativelyimpacttheecologyofthebayanditstributaries.

The Prince George’s County Health Department plays an important part in thesubdivisionreviewandsingle-lotdevelopmentprocess.Duringtheprocess,theHealthDepartmentworkswiththeapplicanttodeterminethebesttypeofsewagedisposalaswellasthebestpossiblelocationofthesewagedisposalsystemtomaximizebufferstogroundwater and distances to streams and other bodies of water.Through its testingprocedures,theHealthDepartmentassuresthatthelandhasthecapacitytoassimilatesewageeffluentasnecessarytopreventhealthconsequences.Aftertesting,theapplicantisrequiredtoprovidetheHealthDepartmentasiteplandelineatingtheproposedsewagedisposalareasandwelllocationsforon-sitesystems.Thedepartmentisalsoresponsibleforthereviewofsiteplansthatdesignatethesepticsystemdesign,thepermittingoftheconstructionofthatsystem,andtheinspectionanddocumentationoftheinstallationofthe system.At a larger scale, theHealthDepartment alsoplays an active role in thedevelopment of water and sewer plans for the county and provides comments andtestimonyforproposalandamendmentstotheplan.ThelocalHealthDepartmentandenvironmentalprotectionprogramsareinplacetoensurethecitizensofPrinceGeorge’sCountyhavesafedrinkingwater,adequatesepticsystems,andcleanstreams.

Septic System Upgrades7—Nitrate contamination in groundwater has become anincreasingly serious problem, especially in agriculture-oriented communities. Septictanksystemsarethemostcommonformofon-sitewastewatermanagementsystemsin the rural communities of Prince George’s County. However, traditional septicsystemsfail tosignificantlytreatnitrateandothercontaminants,whichmakeseptictanksystemsaminorsourceofnitratecontaminationtosurfacewaterswithinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Eventhoughsepticsystemswithinthecountylikelycontributelittletototalnitrogenwaterresourceloads,ithasbecomeimperativetoremovenitratefromseptic tank effluent in order to reduce the cumulative impacts from nitrogen ingroundwater and in surface waters within the Chesapeake Bay critical areas andpropertiesinthevicinityofthePatuxentreservoirs.

7 http://www.mde.state.md.us/ResearchCenter/Publications/General/eMDE/vol3no6/septic_upgrades.asp


One of the most efficient methods to treat nitrate is the biological denitrificationprocess. Biological denitrification is effective in nitrate removal as long as there issufficientexternalorganiccarbontosupportbacteriagrowth,somethingthatistypicallyavailable in the discharge of household waste. Currently there are several approvedaeration treatment units that utilize biological denitrification to effectively removeapproximately 40 percent of the nitrogen within a septic system.Through the BayRestorationFundtheMDEhasawardedgrantstotalingapproximately$9milliontotenjurisdictionsstatewidetoprovidemoneyforsepticsystemupgrades.Thegrantswillfinancetheimplementationofapproximately700septicsystemupgradesannuallyinMaryland.Recently,fundinghasbeenlimitedtotheinstallationofthesesystemsaspart of a replacement system for failing septic systems located in the critical area.SeveralpropertyownerswithinPrinceGeorge’sCountyaretakingadvantageofthesemoniesintheremodelingoftheirdisposalsystems.AlawenactedbySenateBill554requiresthatallresidencesbuiltwithintheChesapeakeBaycriticalareaafterOctober1,2009,incorporatebayrestorationsystemsintotheirsepticsystemdesign.

TheBayRestorationFundisalsobeingusedtosupporttheupgradingofthe66largestwastewatertreatmentplantsinMarylandtoENRtechnologyandtoexpandplantingofnitrogendepositionreducingcovercropsonagriculturalland.

By2030,basedonthenormallifetimeofasepticsystem,itcanbeassumedthatallexistingsepticsystemswillneedtoberepairedduetothesystemfailuresthatwilllikelyoccurduringthenext20years.Thiswillbeadauntingtasksincethereisnomandatedlawenforcementforupgradesandself-reportingorahousebyhouseinspectioncannotbe expected.With this assumption, a 100 percent implementation of septic systemupgrade is unlikely. Therefore, the default implementation rate of 50 percent fornonpointsources isused inthenutrientmodelexerciseof thisplanfor theexistingsepticsystemupgrade,100percentforanynewsepticsystem,andsomewherenearfivepercentisassumedtobeconnectedtopublicsystemsby2030.

Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSO)isanunintentionaldischargeofuntreated,rawsewageintolocalwaterways.Overflowsoccurwhentherearetoomuchinfiltrationandinflowintothesanitarysystemfromsurfacewaterorgroundwaterinfiltratingthroughcracksinthepipeinfrastructure,particularlyduringsignificantrainevents;rainwater,snow-melt,orgroundwaterflowing intothesanitarysystemthroughroofdrainsorhouseleadsconnectedtosewers;undersizedsanitarysystemswithsewersandpumpsthataretoosmalltocarrythesewage;systemfailuresduetotreerootsgrowingintothesewer;sectionsofsewerpipesettlingorshiftingsothatpipejointsnolongermatch;streamincisingbelowsewerpipesinstreambeds,underminingtheirsupportcausingthepipestorupture;sediments,fats,oils,greaseand/orothermaterialbuilding-upandcausingblockages;equipmentandpumpfailures;powerfailures;andhumanerror.

TheenvironmentalimpactofSSOsisdifficulttoquantify;however,thereareseveralrelated items that put them in context regarding WSSC’s sewer system in PrinceGeorge’sCounty.SSOsoccurinwetweatherandindryweather.WetweatherSSOsare by far the fewest bynumber in the systemand are causedbypoweroutages atsewagepumpingstations,systemlimitations,andexternalinflow(groundandsurfacewater).Inordertocontrolthesourcesoftheseoverflows,WSSChasbeguninstallingpermanentelectricitygeneratorsatcriticallocations,buildingpermanentfacilitiestotemporarilystorehighflowsinacontrolledmanner,andinspectingandrepairingleakysewersinordertoreduceinflow.DryweatherSSOsarebyfarthelargestbynumberin

Infiltration: The penetration of water from the soil into sewer or other pipes through

defective joints, connections, or manhole walls.

Denitrification: The biological reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria

in soil.


oursystem.Theyarecausedbyblockages fromgrease, tree roots, trash,andcrackedpipes.WSSCisaddressingdryweatherSSOsbyimplementingaFats,OilsandGrease(FOG)programwherebyrestaurantsarerequiredtokeepgreaseoutofthesewers,andresidentsareencouragedtodo thesame.NutrientconcentrationswouldbevariablebaseduponwhethertheSSOoccurredindryorwetweather,andtheannualnutrientloadwouldvarydependingonwhetheritwasawetordryyear.Inaddition,aprogramis underway to inspect and remediate root blockages and cracked pipes. Also, byregulation,WSSCisprohibitedfromhavingSSOsandisfinedbyMDEwhentheyhappen.

SeweroverflowshavetakenplaceattheBroadCreekpumpingstationandPiscatawayand Western Branch WWTPs. These overflows, as well as sewer line breaks, havedischargeduntreatedwastewater into countywaterways.WSSChasbegunplanninganddesignofasewerfromtheBroadCreekpumpingstationtoPiscatawayWWTPandawastewaterstoragetankattheWWTP.Thistankisexpectedtoserveasaback-upineventof failures atBroadCreekand toprevent sewagedischarges there. In2005WSSCenteredintoaconsentdecreewithMDEandtheU.S.EPAforPrinceGeorge’sand Montgomery Counties to implement reporting, monitoring, inspection,maintenance,repairandreplacementremedialmeasuresforitssewagecollectionsystemaspartofacomprehensive12-yearplan.IntheareaspecifictothePiscatawayWWTP,WSSC must conduct sewer system evaluation surveys, develop a water qualitymonitoringplan,determinebacteriasources,andtestforfecalcoliform.StateandfederalregulationsrequireWSSCtoreduceoverflowsandmeetCleanWaterActrequirements.

Sanitarysewersaredesignedandinstalledwithsufficientdiametertocarrythenormalwastedischargesfromaresidenceorbusiness.Whenfats,oils,andgrease(FOG)aredischargedtothesewer,itcoolsandaccumulatesonthesidewallsofthesewerpipes.Overtime,thisaccumulationofgreaserestrictstheflowandcausesblockagesinthesewer that may result in overflowing manholes or basement backups. SSOs candischargetostormdrainsandcreeksthatultimatelyflowtotheChesapeakeBay.Allfoodserviceestablishments(FSE)havingthepotentialtodischargeFOGmustapplyforaFSEwastewaterdischargepermit.Theestablishmentsmayincluderestaurants,cafeterias,grocerystores,hotelkitchens,churchkitchens,schoolkitchens,bars,oranyothercommercialorindustrialoperationthatdischargesgrease-ladenwastewater.8

UpontheissuanceofaFSEwastewaterdischargepermit,WSSCprovidesinspectionservices to address compliance. WSSC is currently partnering with the RestaurantAssociationofMarylandtohelpthefoodservice industryunderstandtheproblemsassociatedwithFOGdischargesandtoprovidebusinessownersassistancemanagingFOGcorrectlythroughtheuseofBMPs.

Wastevegetableoil(“yellowgrease”)fromrestaurantsisbecomingaresourcefortheagriculturalindustrybecauseitcanbeconvertedtobio-fuelandrunmuchofitsfarmequipmentandtrucksonconverteddieselengines.Currentlyrestaurantsmustpayahaulertocarryawaythecookingoilwaste.Pennsylvaniaimplementedaprogramtoswapcookingoilforfreshproducewhenthefarmerscameintothecitywithgoods.Thisprogramnotonlyensures thatcookingoildoesn’t reach thesewersystemsbutsupportslocalfarmersandfoodproduction.MontgomeryandPrinceGeorge’sCounty’sparksarealsopossibleusersforrecycledcookingoilinconverteddieselequipment.

8 http://www.wsscwater.com/rsg/FOGProgram/index.cfm#overview


Reclaimed Water Reuseiswastewater,graywater,orrainwaterthathasbeentreatedtosuchahighlevelitcanbeusedsafelyandeffectivelyfornondrinkingpurposessuchaslandscapeandagricultural irrigation,heatingandcooling, and industrialprocessing.Reclaimedwaterisavailableyear-round,evenduringdrysummermonthsorwhenadroughtstrainsotherwaterresources.Reclaimedwaterishighlyfilteredanddisinfectedand is testedoften. It containsonly trace amountsof somenutrients anddissolvedchemicals.Althoughreclaimedwaterisnotdrinkingwater,itissafeforhumancontact,evenunintentionalswallowingorexposuretoopencuts.Reclaimedwaterisdistributedthroughaseparatesetofpurplepipes.Purpleisthenationallydesignatedcolormarkingreclaimedwaterpipes,hoses,pumps,andotherequipment.Developmentofaplantostudy opportunities for reclaimed water will require an open regional participationprocesstoprovideinputandadvicethroughouttheplanningprocess.Theparticipationprocessshouldprovideabroadrangeofopportunitiestoengagecommunityleaders,environmental groups, regulatory agencies, water/wastewater utilities, business andcivic organizations, the general public, and potential agricultural, recreational,commercial,andindustrialusergroups.

PandaEnergy,9agas-firedpowerplantinBrandywine,developedareclaimedwatersystemtosupporttheplant’scoolingoperation.PandaworkedcloselywiththePowerPlantResearchProgram10tostudythefeasibilityofbringingtreatedeffluentwaterintothefacilityforcooling.Ultimatelytheplantdevisedacombinationpermitforwateraccess:onepermitforanaverageof64,000gallonsperdayofgroundwaterforthe boiler structure and other auxiliary uses and a second for effluent from theMattawomanWWTPinCharlesCountyforthefiveunitmechanicaldraftcoolingtowers.AlleffluentsarethenreturnedtoMattawomanWWTP.Pandaconstructeda17-milepipelinetobringtertiarytreatedeffluenttotheplantforthecoolingtowerthatenteredcommercialoperationonOctober31,1996.

Mirant’sChalkPointGeneratingPlant,thelargestpowerplantinMaryland,helpssupporttheD.C.area’sthrivingeconomichub.ChalkPoint,locatedinAquasco,ispredominatelyacoal-firedsteamgeneratingpowerplant.Steamgeneratingplantsuse large volumesofwater for cooling andChalkPointuses thenearbyPatuxentRiverasitswatersource.Thesurfacewaterappropriationisbasedonaforecastoftheplant’swaterneedsoverseveralyears.Thesurfacewatersalsoreceivetheeffluentandwastewaterdischargesfromthepowerplant.Bothwithdrawalanddischargeofwaterat power plants can adversely affect surface water quality. MDNR’s Power PlantResearchProgramisworkinginpartnershipwithelectricutilitiestoavoid,minimize,andmitigateadverseimpactsonbothlocalandregionalscales.Recentresearchonthe regional level undertaken by MDNR includes a statewide biological streamsurvey toprovidecomprehensivebaseline informationon thehealthof freshwatersystemsinMarylandandtoreference-basedecologicalindicators.Theseindicatorsarecritical forassessingtheeffectsofdifferentdegradingactivitiesandmeasuringprogresstowardenvironmentalgoals.Arelatedcumulativeimpactmodel,currentlyunderdevelopment,willcoupleindicatorsofbiologicalintegritywithspatialdataon

9 http://esm.versar.com/PPRP/powerplants-new/pandainfo.htm#aspects10http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Bay/pprp/

Greywater is nonindustrial

wastewater generated from domestic processes such as dish washing, laundry and bathing. Greywater

comprises 50-80% of residential wastewater. Greywater comprises

wastewater generated from all of the house’s sanitation

equipment except for the toilets (water from toilets is blackwater, or sewage).


land uses, power-related impacts, and other anthropogenic stressors to evaluatewatershedimpactsonaquaticsystems.11

ChalkPointhasrecentlyappliedforpermitstodrilltothePatuxentaquifer,inordertowithdrawwaterfortheplant’sairscrubbersasapartofitscompliancewithupdatestotheCleanAirAct.Thisadditionalconsumptionofpotablewaterfornonpotableuseshouldbecarefullyscrutinizedinlightofthestatewidedeclineinaquiferwaterlevels.Alternativerecycledwastewateroptionsshouldbeanalyzedforfeasibilityandcost.

Although ample water is available to provide cooling for Chalk Point, adverseenvironmental impacts can result from withdrawing, heating, and discharging suchlarge volumes of water. The aquatic organisms are impacted through entrapment,impingement, entrainment, and discharge effects. Alternative recycled graywateroptionsshouldbeanalyzedforfeasibilityandcost.ApartnershipwithWSSCcouldalleviatetheneedfordrilling,aquiferwaterwithdrawal,andfurtherdeclineofwaterresourcesinthecounty.Considerationsshouldinclude:

� Technicalfeasibilityandcosteffectivenessofvariouspollutioncontrolalternatives.

� Airemissionsofacidrainprecursorsandparticulatematter,includingheavymetals.

� Aquaticimpactsofcoolingwaterwithdrawalsanddischarges.

� Beneficialuseofcombustionby-products.

� Uniqueapproachestominimizeresourceconsumption.

Mirant is in the process of a $1.6 billion upgrade to the coal-burning plant to installscrubbers that will filter out sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury before they leave the smokestacks.Themeasures are expected tobe completeby early 2010.CurrentlyMiranthasreceivedpermitapprovalfromMDEtoremovepotablewaterfromthePatuxentaquiferforthisprocess.WSSCandMirantdiscussedusingrecycledgraywaterfromtheWesternBranchWWTPfortheairscrubbers.ThestudyindicatedthatMirantwasunabletousewastewaterfromthewesternbranchfacilityuntiltheplanthadcompleteditsERNupgrade.

Duringthecombustionofcoal,bottomash,flyash,fluegasdesulfurizationwaste,andfluidizedbedboilerwastemaybeproduced.

Although some of these wastes are used in building materials and as structural fillmaterial,themajorityisdisposedinlandfillsandsurfaceimpoundments.Thepotentialfor groundwater contamination from leachate originating from these landfills andsurfaceimpoundmentsrepresentsthegreatestenvironmentalconcernfordisposalofcoalcombustionby-products.Leachatefromcoalcombustionby-productscancontainelevatedconcentrationsofboron,sulfate,tracemetals,andotherinorganicconstituents.Toproperlyevaluatethepotentialimpactofcoalcombustionby-productsdisposalongroundwater quality, the physical and chemical properties of coal combustion byproducts, transport processes in groundwater, and the solution techniques ofmathematicalmodelsmustbeunderstood.12

11http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V78-3XK0PBH-22&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=980667681&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3e3102fa59548aec29fa8edfae14fa53

12http://www.mcrcc.osmre.gov/PDF/Forums/CCB/6-1.pdf

Fly Ash is produced from the burning of pulverized

coal in a coal-fired boiler is a fine-grained, powdery particulate material that is carried off in the flue

gas and usually collected from the flue gas by

means of electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, or mechanical collection devices such as cyclones.


Rainwater Harvesting—On-siterainwatercollectionisonemeanstoaugmentfreshwater needs and help prevent rapid stormwater accumulation and runoff from roofareas.Harvestedrainwaterisrainwaterthatiscapturedfromtheroofsofbuildingsandcanbeused indoorsor for irrigationdependingon itsprocessingand intendeduse.Rainwaterharvestingtechniquescanprovideafree,high-qualitywatersourceoncetheinitialinvestmentincollectionandstoragesystemsisrecouped.Systemsassimpleasrainbarrels,ormorecomplexwithfiltersandpurifiers,arebecomingincreasinglymoremainstream and commercially available.The U.S. Green Building Council supportsrainwaterharvestingandappliescertificationcreditsforimplementationofarainwatercollectionandreusesystem13.

RainwaterHarvestingRooftopCollectionEstimation:Oneinchofrainfallona1,000-square-footroofcouldcollect600gallonsofwater.

—TucsonWater;RainWaterHarvestingandGrayWaterReuseResources

CHAPTER ISSUES SUMMARY� Plansforfuturegrowthmusttakeintoaccountprotectionofthecounty’swatersupplies

fordrinkingwaterandassimilativecapacityofstreamsforwastewatertreatment.

� Aquifers cross jurisdictional boundaries and are utilized by many counties andmunicipalities, necessitating the need for regional planning for conservation oftheseresources.

� Conservation and efficiency standards for potable water should be defined andincentivized.

POLICIES AND STRATEGIESPOLICY:Waterandsewerserviceareaboundariesareconsistentwithcountygrowthpoliciesrecognizingthatpublicwaterandsewershouldservicehigh-densitydevelopmentthatisgreaterthanonedwellingunitperacreexceptincasesinvolvingpublichealthandwelfarerisks.

STRATEGIES:� Modify the 2008 Water and Sewer Plan to prohibit public water and sewer

extensionstotheOpen-Space(O-S),Rural-Agricultural(R-A),andRural-Estate(RE)zoneswiththeexceptionofcaseswithdocumentedsepticand/orwellhealthoradequacyissuesthatcannotbemeton-site.

� Continue to reviewwater and sewer category changesduring scheduled reviewcycles(threetimesperyear)toaddresspolicyinconsistencies,newenvironmentalregulationsorconditions,and/orpublichealthandwelfareconcerns.

� Create and maintain adequate funding mechanisms to finance perpetualmaintenanceandreplacementofpublicwaterandsewerinfrastructure.

� Infrastructurerenewalfees.

� Phasedimplementationofadditionalfees.

� Public education to increaseunderstandingof additional fees andwhy they arenecessary,howtheywork,andthedirectandindirectbenefitstheyprovide.

13http://www.greenhomeguide.org/documents/leed_for_homes_rating_system.pdf


� Adoptastewardshipeducationandoutreachprogramthatpromotesandsupportsstandardsforresidential,commercial,andinstitutionalpracticesthatreducewateruse,andsupportwaterreuseandwastewaterrecyclingfornonpotableuses.

POLICY:The reuse of reclaimed water including wastewater; grey water; and rainwater fornonpotablepurposesoffersthepotentialtoreducetheexistingandfuturedemandsforpotablewaterandsupportofournaturalhydrologiccycle.

STRATEGIES: � Capture, treat, and reuse wastewater for nonpotable uses including industry,

commerce,agriculture,andirrigation.

� Developawaterreuseprogramthatestablishesstandardsforregionalparticipation.

� Consolidateissueanalysisandcoordinatewithcommunityleaders,environmentalgroups, regulatory agencies, water/wastewater utilities, business and civicorganizations, the general public, and potential agricultural, recreational,commercial,andindustrialusergroups.

� Evaluate elements of a future reclaimed water program within Prince George’sCountytoinclude:

� Identification of regional issues related to developing a reclaimed waterprogram including environmental, public health, financial, regulatory,community,andwastewatersystemoperationalissues.

� Consideration of treatment, transport and reuse standards as part of futurereusestrategies.

� Descriptionofcosts,challenges,andbenefitsassociatedwithreclaimedwaterincluding financial, operational, social, and environmental considerations.Evaluationof thecounty’sbuildingcode for regulatory impediments to thereuse of wastewater, graywater or rainwater for residential, commercial,institutional,andcommercialuses.

� CoordinationwithWSSCtoestablishadvantages,disadvantages, feasibility,andactionsneededtodevelopareclaimedwaterprogram.

� Identifyopportunitiesforusingreclaimedwaterincluding:

� Nonpotabledomesticuses� Commercialuses� Industrialuses� Steamflowaugmentation� Wetlandsenhancement� Groundwaterrecharge� Irrigation� Firesuppression

� Developpoliciesthatfacilitateimplementationoffeasible,beneficial,andeconomicalapplicationsofreclaimedwater.


POLICY:Adequate public and private drinking water and sewerage disposal are sufficientlyaddressedintheplanning,development,andsubdivisionprocess,andtheroleofwaterandsewerservicecategoriesasanimplementationtoolforcountygrowthpoliciesiscomprehensivelyaddressedintheTen-YearWaterandSewerPlan.

STRATEGIES:� Evaluatethecurrentplanning,review,andapprovalprocess forwaterandsewer

permittingtoassureconsistencywithGeneralPlanpolicies.

� BringWSSCintothemasterplanninganddevelopmentreviewprocessearlierinordertoassurecapacitymanagementplansandwaterdemandforecastsarecurrentwithongoingandplanneddevelopmentinthecounty.

� Proactivelypursuestateandothergrantsforinstallinginnovativeandalternativenitrogen removal septic systems and connecting failing systems to communitysystemsifappropriate.

Drinking WaterAsafeandadequatedrinkingwatersupplyiscriticaltothesustainability

ofexistingcommunitiesandtotheviabilityoffutureplannedgrowth.

POLICY:Thecountyprovidesasafeandamplesupplyofdrinkingwaterfrombothsurfaceandgroundwatersourcestocountyresidents,workers,andvisitors.

STRATEGIES:� Provideregulatoryprotectionforsourcewaterresourcesincludingreservoirs,rivers,

streams,wetlands,andaquiferstoassurehighqualityandanadequatequantityofdrinkingwater.

� Preserveandenhancethegreeninfrastructurenetworktoprovidepollutantremovalbenefits, provide some protection for both groundwater and surface sources ofdrinkingwater,andprovidegroundwaterrechargeopportunities.

� Establishandmaintainqualitystandardsandcontrolsforlocaldrinkingwater,androutinelymaintainandimprovedrinkingwater infrastructuresystemstosustainpublic,environmental,andeconomichealth.

� When reviewing land development proposals, emphasize the protection andpreservationofsourcewaterresourcesincludingwetlandsandheadwaterareasofstreamsandthepreservationandmaintenanceofnaturalhydrologyandtopography.Encouragegroundwaterrechargethroughtechniquessuchasraingardens,existingwetlandareaenhancements,andriparianbufferpreservationandcreationtothemaximumextentpracticable.

� Evaluatetheexistingaquiferdrawdowns,providefutureuseprojections,establishconservationandefficiencystrategiesandlocate,putintooperation,andmaintainmonitoringwellstoverifyassumptionsandrealities.

� Conduct a comprehensive aquifer study in coordination with neighboringjurisdictions to evaluate future growth scenarios and watershed environmentsconsideringwatersupplyconditionsanddemands.


� Utilize sourcewaterassessment reports,waterqualityassessmentsconductedbytheU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)ortheMarylandGeologicalSurvey(MGS)andotheravailablecountyorregion-specificassessmentstoprovideinformationforassessingareasservedbyresidentialwells.

� Developsourcewaterassessmentreportstoproviderecommendationsforpublicandprivatewatersystemsanddeveloparea-specific,countywideorregionalwatermanagementsolutions,forexample,interjurisdictionalagreementsforprotectingregionalreservoirs.

� Developawaterconservationplanforpublicandprivatedrinkingwatersystemsthatevaluatescurrentandprojectedwateruse,assessesinfrastructure,operations,and management practices, and describes cost effective actions to be taken toreducewaterlosses,waste,orconsumptionandincreasetheefficiencywithwhichwaterisused,treated,stored,andtransmitted.1415

� Upgrade the Potomac RiverWFP intake structure with flexibility to withdrawwaterfromasubmergedmid-channellocationifdeemedfeasible.

� Establish county and localized strategies for efficiency regarding demand andsupplyfordrinkingwater.

Supply Side

� Ensuresourcewaterprotection

� Implementimprovementsinmeteringandbilling

� Locateillegalorunregisteredconnections

� Inspect,clean,andperformmaintenanceonpipestopreventleaks

� Managepressuretoreducevolumeandfrequencyofwaterloss

� Controlwaterlevelstoreducestorageoverflow

Demand Side

� Eliminatedownsizing,orpostponingtheneedforcapitalprojects

� Extendthelifeofexistingfacilities

� Lowervariableoperatingcosts

� Avoidnewsourcedevelopmentcosts

� Improvedroughtoremergencypreparedness

� Educatecustomersaboutthevalueofwater

� Improvereliabilityofsafeanddependableyields

� Protectandpreserveenvironmentalresources16

14http://www.mde.maryland.gov/assets/document/water_cons/WCP_Guidance2003.pdf15http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/pubs/guide.html16Developing and Implementing aWater Conservation Plan Guidance For Maryland Public

WaterSystemsOnBestManagementPracticesForImprovingWaterConservationAndWaterUseEfficiency,2003,MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmentWaterSupplyProgram


POLICY:The county recognizes the limitations of groundwater resources in the county andestablishespriorityusesaswellasconservationandefficiencystandards.

STRATEGIES: � Consider water withdrawals and availability on a watershed basis to allow for

evaluation of demands being placed on groundwater resources by others andevaluaterechargeopportunitieswithinthewatershed.

� Evaluatetheexistingaquiferdrawdowns,providefutureuseprojections,establishconservationandefficiencystrategiesandlocate,putintooperation,andmaintainmonitoringwellstoverifyassumptionsandrealities.

� WorkwithUSGSandMGStocontinuetoupdateaquiferdrawdownandstreamflowdataandcoordinatedatacollectionandfindingswithneighboringjurisdictionsthatrelyon,andcontributeimpactsto,sharedwaterresourcestoaccountforthebroad-basedregionalinfluencesonthePatapscoaquifer.

WastewaterSafe,functional,andefficientwastewatermanagementandsewage

disposalsystemsarecriticaltothepreservationofhuman,environmental,andeconomichealth.

POLICY:Wastewater management treatment technologies are consistently becoming moreefficient and versatile. Incorporate the most effectual and ecologically sustainabletechnologiestocountywidewastewatersystems.

STRATEGIES:� Reduce or eliminate septic system failure and compromised functions that

contribute significant nitrogen loads to waterways particularly relative to soilconditionsandinrelationshiptophysicalproximityofsurfacewaters.

� Require nitrogen removal septic systems for all new development and retrofitexistingsepticsystemswithin1,000feetofsurfacewatersandtributaries.

� Requireallneworfailingsepticsystemscountywidetobereplacedwiththebestavailabletechnology.

� Developaninspectionandmaintenanceprogramfortraditionalanddenitrificationsepticsystems.

� Continue to support wastewater treatment facility upgrades to achieve ENRstandards.

� Support funding and implementation of advanced treatment technologies andotherfuturecapitalupgradesrequiredforwastewatertreatmentfacilitiestomeetwasteloadallocations.

� Consideralternativestosurfacewaterdischarges,whereapplicable,byidentifyingland for future spray irrigation of treated wastewater if the direct discharge ofeffluentintoastreamcouldbecomelimitedbyaTMDLortheBayAgreementnutrientallocations.


� Establish growth and development planning policies and programs requiringassessment of impacts to wastewater conveyance capacity, treatment capacity,wasteloadallocations,andotherfactorsimpactingwaterresourcemanagement.

POLICY:Wastewater treatment plant and infrastructure failures result in untreated effluentbeingdirectlydischargedontosurfacewaterandgroundwater.CoordinatewithWSSCto promote strategies, programs, and funding required to minimize these events.Developstrategiestoeliminate,orataminimum,mitigatetheseevents.

STRATEGIES:� Coordinate with WSSC to support implementation of programs, funding, and

outreach for wastewater collection system upgrades that will reduce sewageoverflows and flooding due to pipe failure, capacity constraints, infiltration,blockages,andpower,process,andpumpstationfailure.

� Developstreambankrestorationandprotectionprogramstoreduceerosionthatcancontributetopipefailure.

� Supportdevelopmentofa“yellowgrease”recaptureprogramatbicountyrestaurantstoeliminategreasethatcancauseseweroverflowsandprovideareusableresourceforagriculturalandparksdepartments’needsutilizingdiesel-poweredequipmentconvertedtobio-fuelderivedfromcookingoil.

� Supportprogramsand funding thatprioritize infrastructure repair indevelopedcommunitiesanddesignatedcentersandcorridors,particularlyinareasdesignatedforredevelopmentthroughothercountyplans.

� Inspect all oil/water separators, grease interceptors, andgrit traps on an annualbasistoensuretheyareoperatingproperlyandthatoilandaccumulatedsedimentsareremovedbeforetheyexceedthecapacityofthevessel.

� Supportimplementationofprogramsandfundingneededtoprovideanynecessaryinvestments in infrastructure such as holding tanks and back-up generators atwastewatertreatmentplantsthatassistwithflowmanagementduringpowerloss,humanerror,orexcesscapacitycontributingtounintendedrawsewagedischarges.

Chapter IX: Stewardship and Implementation 169 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

A viablewaterresourceprotectionandrestorationplanwillrequireamoreexpansiveplanningstrategythaniscurrentlyinpracticeinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Newplanningmethodologies, coupled with expanded data resources and modeling technologies,allowlocalplanningdepartmentstoexamineexistingconditionsandprojectedimpactsfrom proposed development and growth scenarios more thoroughly using systems-basedanalysis.Toimplementwaterresourceprotection,mitigation,andremediationstrategies,PrinceGeorge’sCountywillneedtoassessexistingandfuturedevelopmentpatterns while considering the cost of infrastructure, environmental protection andlandconservation, and the integrationofdata and technological resources. It is theresponsibilityofthecounty’sagencies,departments,andpoliticalelectoratetoestablishaclearcommunicationofconsensual intenttothecitizenryregardingthepoliciesandprioritiesfortheexistingandfutureprotectionofthecounty’snaturalenvironment,social well-being, and economic stability. Smart growth principles offer a range ofimplementationstrategiesforensuringasustainablequalityoflife:

IntergovernmentalCooperationandCommunication

� EducationandOutreach

� CommunityEngagementandFunding

� DataCollection,Management,Distribution,andIncorporation

� Conservation,Preservation,andRestorationPrograms

� RegulatoryRevision

� Systems-BasedManagement

IX: STEWARDSHIP AND IM

PLEMENTATION

Achieve water resource protection and restoration through implementation strategies that incorporate scientific research; data collection and dissemination; funding opportunities; regulatory revision; conservation programs and strategies; community engagement; outreach and education; and interagency and interjurisdictional communication, coordination and cooperation to achieve measurable goals and successes for water quality improvement.

170 Chapter IX: Stewardship and ImplementationApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL COMMUNICATION, COOPERATION, AND COORDINATION

Collaboratewith,anddevelopplanninginitiativesandactionsbetween,governmentalagenciesandpoliticalrepresentatives,neighboring

jurisdictions,andcountymunicipalitiesthatshareresponsibilityforwaterresourceprotectionandmanagement.

DiminishingwateravailabilityandqualityandthelossofcriticalhabitatforfishandwildlifearekeyissuesfacingPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Thecountydependsonreliablesuppliesofcleanwatertosupportgrowingcommunities,restoreournaturalresources,and provide for agricultural production. In order to move forward on increasinglycriticalwater issues, citizens, interest groups, andgovernment agencieswill need todevelopnew,morecollaborativewaysofsolvingproblems.

Land use decisions in Maryland are overwhelmingly made by municipal and countygovernments,whereasmanyenvironmental regulations, suchaswaterwithdrawalandallowable quantities of wastewater delivered to the receiving waters, are made andenforcedbythefederalandstategovernmentsthroughtheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency (EPA) and the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Theseregulationshavedirectandindirectincentivesandimpactsthataffectlandusedecisions.

Lackof coordination sometimesposes a conflict between local government growthplansandtheinfluencesandlimitationsthatareplaceduponthoseplansbythestate.Infact,thereareafewexamplesinwhichMDEhasasserteditsauthorityinwaysthatresulted in development moratoria that frustrated growth plans. MDE asserted itsauthoritydue to limitedwater suppliesorbecausewastewater treatmentplanswereovertheircapacityandunabletomeetpermitlimits.1

Bringing together the county’s agencies, utilities, and the municipalities’ planningobjectives intooneprocessallowsplanners,regulators,andtheelectoratetoworkaspartnerstoevaluatemorespecificallytheresourceprotectionneedsinwatershedsandidentifystrategiestoprovidewaterandwastewaterservicetosupportfutureplannedgrowth.Water supply andwastewaterplanningmustbedone in concertwith localplanningobjectives,interests,andneedsandmustbeaccomplishedatthecountylevelinclosecoordinationwiththeagenciesthathavewaterresourceresponsibilitywithinthecounty.Thus,waterresourceplanningmustbeperformedasamultiagencyeffortforwaterresourcemanagementofsharedwatershedsandsewershedsforwatersupplyand/orwastewaterdisposal.

TheWaterResourcesElement(WRE)ofthePrinceGeorge’sCounty’sGeneralPlanhasbeendevelopedasanintegratedcountywideWaterResourcesFunctionalMasterPlan (Water Resources Plan) in order to establish a framework for, and provideguidanceto,waterresourceprotectionandrestoration,andtoprovidesupportfor,andinformation to, similar planning efforts at various agencies and at various planningjurisdictionallevels.OngoingcoordinationwithMDOT,SHA,DER,DPW&T,SCDandotherlocalandstateagenciesiscriticaltothelong-termsuccessofthisplan’sgoalsandpolicies.

1 ChallengesofaGrowingMarylandBalancingLandUseandEnvironmentalDecisions,ASeriesofWorkshopsSponsoredby:MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironmentandMarylandDepartmentofPlanning.


EDUCATION AND OUTREACHProvideenvironmentaleducationalresources,training,andactivitiestotheresidents,businesses,institutions,industries,andothercountylandusersthroughanopenandtransparentplatformthatservestoinformandengagethecommunityinsharedgoals,policies,andstrategiesfor

waterresourcepreservation,protection,andrestoration.

Stormwater runoffresults fromourdailyactivities; therefore,publiceducation isanimportantcomponentofastormwatermanagementprogram.Stormwatereducationefforts should include traditional educational efforts and activities for the public tobecomeinvolvedandengagedinstormwatermanagement.Messagesshouldfocusonthedailyactivitiesofresidentsandbusinessesthatcontributetostormwaterpollution.Stormwatereducationisconsideredoneofthemostcost-effectivebestmanagementpractices(BMPs).

AnneArundelCounty,Maryland,offersagreatexample—The Watershed Stewards Academy2—of community education coupled with active project engagement.Thisprogram,createdbytheAnneArundelCountyDepartmentofPublicWorks(DPW)andAnneArundelCountyPublicSchools, trains county residents towork in theircommunitiestoreducethepollutionthatflowsintothecounty’sstormdrains, localriversand,eventually,thebay.

Theideafor theWatershedStewardsAcademyformedwhenDPWpartneredwithArlington Echo3,whichispartoftheAnneArundelCountyPublicSchoolsystem,tofindawaytoteachcitizensaboutreducingpollutioninordertomeetfederalpollutionreductionregulations.Thelong-termgoaloftheWatershedStewardsAcademyistoreduce polluted runoff to the bay and empower citizens through improving theirunderstandingoftheactionstheycantaketorainscape,reducenitrogenandphosphorus,properlydisposeofpetwaste,andplantmoretreesandnativespecies.TheWatershedStewardsAcademygoalis:

TogiveMasterWatershedStewardsthetoolstoeducate,engage,andempowercitizens,businesses,andcommunitiestorestoresubwatersheds

inAnneArundelCounty.Restorationeffortswillemphasizestormwaterinfiltrationtorestorewatershedfunction.

—TheMasterWatershedStewards

The Surf Your Watershed project is a cooperative effort involving the MarylandDepartments of the Environment and Natural Resources to catalog importantenvironmental, socioeconomic,andprogrammatic informationonawatershedbasis.Theprojectprovidesadatabaseinwhichnaturalresourcesandbiologicalinformation(includinghydrologic,hydraulic,andwaterquality);bibliographicreferences;contacts,programsandactivitydescriptions;andotherdatacancoexistandbeeasilyobtainedforwatershedmanagement,planning,andnaturalresourceconservationprogramsandprojects.4ThisprojectaffordsallinterestedpartiesinPrinceGeorge’sCountyaccesstowatershed information. The county should actively support this project and helpeducatecitizensregardingitsuseanditsapplicability.

2 http://www.arlingtonecho.net/Restoration-Projects/Watershed-Stewards-Academy.html.3 http://www.arlingtonecho.net/4 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/watersheds/surf/


Greenindustriesandenvironmentaltechnologiesoffermultipleopportunitiestoprovideeconomic,social,andenvironmentalbenefitstothecountyanditsresidents.Partnershipswith schools, nonprofits, environmental education centers, and green businesses canfacilitate countywide participation in programs, funding opportunities, and accessinginformational resources in order to proactively engage in personal and communitymanagementofwaterresources.Bymaximizinganarrayofeducationandparticipationopportunities,weoptimize thechance toconnectwithpeople in thecontextof theirinterestandvalues,andaugmenttheircurrentlevelofunderstandingormotivation.

Communityandcitizenparticipationinwaterresourcesprotectionandpreservationiscritical to the long-term successof implementation strategies.Educational training,workshops, conferences, tours, and other events for the general public, as well asenvironmental professionals, community groups, and the business and industrialcommunityshouldprovide:

� Technicalenvironmentaltraining

� Homeandbuildingefficiencyeducation

� Personalsustainabilityeducationandevents

� Civicleadershiptraining

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND FUNDINGThePrinceGeorge’sCountycitizenryandbusinesscommunityshouldbe

informed,engaged,supported,andincludedindecision-makingthatestablishesandachievessharedcommunityvisionsandobjectivesto

protect,restore,andmanagewaterresources.

Community support for resource protection by planning and regulatory agenciesincreases a community’s capacity to respond to change and opportunity, therebyincreasingcommunityresilience.Providingtheopportunityforcommunitiestoactivelyparticipateinevaluatingtheirexistingconditionsanddevelopmentexperiencesenablesthem to avoid errors and replicate successes. Resilient communities can activelyinfluenceandprepareforeconomic,social,andenvironmentalchange.Communitiesthat utilize social capital maintain access to good information and communicationnetworks and can call upon a wide range of external as well as internal resources.Although community members cannot control all the changes that impact theircommunity,theycanrespondeffectivelytothosechangesandcancontinuetoimprovetheir community’sability to thriveandchange.Sucha strategywillneed toengagestakeholders, identify and set priorities for action, assign responsibility, monitorimplementation,andkeepstrategiesunderregularreview.

TheAlliance for the Chesapeake Bayisaregionalnonprofitorganizationthatbuildsandfosterspartnershipstoprotectandrestorethebayanditsrivers.Thealliancedoesnotlobbyorlitigate.Instead,theybridgedialoguebetweengroupsthatdonotseeeye-to-eye,formingstrategiesforjointsolutions,andbuildthecapacityofcommunitiesforlocal-levelaction.Tothisend,thealliance:

� Develops methods and tools for restoration activities and trains citizens to usethem.

� Mobilizes decision-makers, stakeholders, and other citizens to learn about bayissuesandparticipateinresolvingthem.


� Provides analysis, information, and evaluation of bay policies, proposals, andinstitutions.

TheAlliancefortheChesapeakeBaybuildspartnershipsandconsensustoprotectandrestorethebay.Theiractivitiesareorganizedwithinfourmajorprogramareas:

� Watershed Protection and Partnerships—Projects that teach or promotesustainablepracticesforhowtolive,work,andplayinthebaywatershed.Projectsoften involve: (1) training of individuals, organizations, local governments, andbusinesses on watershed protection techniques; (2) involvement of citizenvolunteersintheplanningandimplementationoflocalactivities;and(3)astrongpartnershipcomponent.ProjectsincludeRestoreCorps,BayScapes,BusinessesfortheBay,andRiverSojourns.

� Restoration and Monitoring—Projects involve on-the-ground restoration andmonitoringactivities,oftenforthepurposeofdemonstratinginnovativerestorationormonitoring techniques.Projectsusually involve citizenparticipation.Projectsincludesubmergedaquaticgrassrestorationandmonitoring.

� Communication and Information—Projectsthatpresentbalanced,objective,andin-depthinformationonissuescentraltotherestorationoftheChesapeakeBaywatershed.Projects includeBayJournal,AsktheBayExperts,andAlliancefactsheetsandwhitepapers,aswellas theannualTasteof theChesapeakeandtheFrancesFlaniganEnvironmentalLeadershipAward.

� Public Policy—ProjectsandrolesthatfacilitatethebalancedanalysisofChesapeakeBaypolicyissues,fosterscitizenparticipationintheestablishmentofsoundpolicy,and builds consensus where constructive dialogue is lacking. Projects includeCitizensAdvisoryCommitteetotheChesapeakeBayProgramandBuildersfortheBayroundtables.

ManycommunitiesinPrinceGeorge’sCountyareactivelyengagedandparticipateintheplanningprocess.Duringthedevelopmentofsector,master,andsubregionplans,the planning process must include a significant outreach and public participationprogram.Manyresidentsgobeyondthescopeofparticipationincommunityplanningand have organized groups, committees, and nonprofits that address complexenvironmental,social,andeconomicissues.Aspartofacountywideefforttoremediate,protect,andmanagewaterresources,itisclearthatthesegroups,andtheengagedandconcernedcitizenryofPrinceGeorge’sCounty,representaninvaluablehumanresourcethat is critical to the success of the implementation, oversight, monitoring, andregulatoryenforcementoftheWaterResourcesPlan’sgoals.

Itisimperativethatthecountyrecognizeandempoweritscitizenrytoactivelyengageinwaterresourcesprotection.Theresidentsaretheeyesandearsofthecounty.Citizenshaveon-the-ground,real-timeconnectionstotheirneighborhoodsandcommunitiesandofferade factomonitoring service that shouldbe recognized, acknowledged, and supportedthrough transparent documentation and follow-up actions. All reported incidents ofenvironmental infractions should be taken seriously and, on DER’s county web site,accepted,documented,andmadeavailableforreviewbyneighborsandothercitizens.

Funding sources from federal, state, and regional programs encourage cooperativepartnerships that are established with clear intents and incentives for continuedcommunityand stakeholder investment.Thecounty should support, encourage, and


helpfacilitatecommunitiestoaccessfinancialresourcesandutilizehumancapitaltoachieve shared environmental goals to protect and enhance water resources. TheDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR)providesanumberofdirectgrantandprojectgrantprograms,aswellasreimbursementprogramsandlowinterestandnointerestloans.5

TheTownofEdmonstonhasrecentlyproven,byexample,thatadirectedpartnershipwithclearintentandwill,caninfactachievepositiveandimpactfulresults.Edmonstonconstructedseveralbioretentionfacilitiestoreducerunoffandpollutantsenteringthenortheastbranchof theAnacostiaRiver inEdmonston.Theworkwasdoneby theUniversity of Maryland, College Park’s chapter of EngineersWithout Borders, theAnacostiaWatershedRestorationPartnership,andtheCityofEdmonston.Theprojectteam, consisting of students, faculty advisers and various professionals, designed abioretentionsystemandimplementeditinaparkownedbyTheMaryland-NationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommissionnearEdmonston’sDecaturStreet.

ForestHeights,acommunityalongOxonRuninPrinceGeorge’sCounty,ispreparingfor construction of an eco-friendly roof for its administration building. Unliketraditionalflatrooftops,agreenroofhasmultiplemembranelayerstoabsorbanddrainwater. The roof would better insulate the building and reduce energy costs. Therenovationsareexpectedtocutthetown’senergybillbyupto50percent.CouncilwomanJacqueline Goodall said the town hopes to become a “green” model for othermunicipalities.Thegoal,shesaid,isforthetowntoproducezerostormwaterrunoffintotheChesapeakeBaywatershedbecausestormwateroftencarriespollutants.6

TheU.S.DepartmentofAgricultureprovidesmanysupportprogramsthatfamilyandindividuallandownerscanusetoconservetheirworkingland.Theprogramsprovideexperttechnicaladviceandoftenincludefinancialassistanceforlandownerswhousespecific management practices. Some programs also offer rental payments to offsetincomelossesduetochangesinlanduse.

Thesearevoluntaryprograms—propertyownerschoosetheprogramthatmostcloselymatches their management goals, such as improving wildlife habitat or restoring awetland. The Natural Resources Conservation Service administers many of theprogramsandtheU.S.ForestServiceandFarmServiceAgencymanageotherprograms.

Stormwatertaskforcescouldprovideopportunitiestoengagethepublicinidentifyingstormwatersolutionsthatbenefittheircommunityandthecounty.Thecountycurrentlyincludes citizens in a number of stormwater-related programs including Adopt-A-Road/Median,LivableCommunities Initiative, andGorgeousPrinceGeorge’sDay.Concepts for new opportunities to engage the public in stormwater task forces areoutlinedbelow.

� Stormwater Program Funding Task Force—Funding ongoing stormwatermanagementprograms isacontinuingchallenge forPrinceGeorge’sCountyasrevenuestreamsdecreaseandregulatoryrequirementsincrease.ManycommunitiesacrosstheUnitedStateshavesoughttheadviceofcitizensthroughataskforcetoevaluate funding opportunities that address the community expectations forstormwaterservicesandqualityoflife.Typically,thetaskforcewilllookatexisting

5 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/land/grantsandloans/grants.asp6 http://www.gazette.net/stories/10012009/clinnew190523_32529.shtml


fundinglevelsandthecostofmeetingregulatoryrequirements.Thetaskforcewillalso evaluate how the cost increases as additional services are provided to thecommunity.Thecommitteewillthenanalyzeexistingandpotentialfuturerevenuesources,suchasstormwaterfees,andmakearecommendationformovingforward.Astormwaterprogramfundingtaskforcecanbeaverypowerfultoolfordevelopingasoundfundingstrategythatprovidesforcompliancewithregulatoryrequirementsandmeetsthecommunity’sexpectationsforservice.

� Commercial and Industrial Stormwater Task Force—A task force could becreatedtoeducateandsharesuccessstoriesfromlocalcommercialandindustrialfacilitieswithinPrinceGeorge’sCountyandbeyond.Thistaskforcecoulddevelopinafewdifferentdirections;thetaskforcecouldbeavoluntarygroupofcommercialandindustrialbusinesswhoseektolearnandshare,itcouldbecomeanavenueforpublicrecognitionwhereparticipatingcommercialandindustrialbusinessesreceive“green”recognition,oritcouldhavealearningfocusandinvolveentitieswithrecentstormwaterviolationsand/orcommercialandindustrialbusinessesnewtoPrinceGeorge’sCountywhomayneedstormwaterpollutioneducation.ThenatureofthetaskforceandtheemphasismaychangeovertimeorthePrinceGeorge’sCountygovernmentmaydeterminethatmorethanoneoftheoptionswouldbebeneficial.This task force may also travel throughout Prince George’s County to increaseparticipationfromcommercialandindustrialbusinesses.Oneareaofemphasisforthecommercialandindustrialstormwatertaskforceshouldbethemaintenanceofprivatestormwaterinfrastructure,toclarifyresponsibilityformaintenanceaswellasprovideanoverviewofpropermaintenancepractices,asrequiredbythemunicipalseparatestormsewersystems(MS4)permit.Thistaskforcemaybecoordinatedwithongoingactivitiesby thecountybusiness licenseoffice,water conservationeducationefforts,orcommercialsanitarywasteeducationefforts.

DATA COLLECTION, MANAGEMENT, AND DISTRIBUTIONProvideallcountywidestakeholdersabaseofinformationtoinform

countypoliciesandsupportspecificactionsforwaterresourceprotection,preservation,andrestoration.

Data provides baseline information to inform planning and development decisions.Dataqualityandquantitymustbemanagedwithinastructuredandtransparentprocessand with defined management protocols to ensure its incorporation into decision-makingisclearandcomprehensive.

Natural systems aredynamic and evolving.Data collection and interpretationmustremaintimelyandcontinuedupdatesmustbepreparedtoensureplanningdecisionsarerelevanttothemostcurrentconditions.Dataalonecannotprovidetheguidancenecessary to make informed decisions regarding our natural environment and ourcounty’swater resources. It is important todevelopdatacollectionprotocolswithaclear understanding of its intended use. Data alone serves no function; it is theapplicationofdatafordecision-makingthatisthetruepurpose.

Data, management, interpretation, and application combine to form the basis ofscientificallyinformeddecision-making.

TheWaterResourcesPlanhasprovideda startingpointanda tool forongoingandfuture water quality impact assessments of the county’s watersheds. Assessment ofnutrientloadsfromdifferenttypesoflandusescanbebestachievedthroughsmall-scale


analysisusinglocallytestedloadingrates,measuredimperviouspercentages,topographicandsoilconditions,andhydraulic,hydrologic,andotherdatarelativetothewatershedsbeingmodeled.Inadditiontoestimationofloadsfromprimarylanduses,theseanalysesshouldincludeassessmentofthespecifictreatmenttechniquesorBMPsknowntoexistwithin the modeled area using local effectiveness data for those specific treatmenttechniques.Asdescribedpreviously,thewatertreatmentmodel(WTM)providedbytheCenterforWatershedProtectioncontainsthefunctionalitytoanalyzesmallareas,andsowasincorporatedintothepollutantloadanalysismodel(PLAM)toprovidethecounty with the ability to conduct and compile analyses of individual subwatershedareasovertime.ThePLAMmodeldevelopedfortheWaterResourcesPlanprovidesatoolforthecounty’sfutureassessmentofpolicyandwatershedmanagementimpactswithinindividualdevelopmentsites,smallsubwatersheds,orlargerhydrologicunits,asmorelocalinformationanddatabecomeavailable.

LAND CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PROGRAMS

Continuetosupportlandpreservationprogramsandactivities,suchastheMarylandAgriculturalLandPreservationFoundation(MALPF),

ConservationReserveEnhancementProgram(CREP),theHistoricAgriculturalResourcePreservationProgram(HARPP),andRural

Legacy,andthewoodlandconservationprogram.Encouragethepurchaseoflandbypublicagenciesandprivateorganizationsasconservation

easements,streambuffers,andwetlandprotectiononlandthatdrainstoTierIIwaters,waterswithestablishedtotalmaximumdailyloads(TMDLs)orwaterqualityimpairments,orinpriorityprotection

watershedswhereimperviouscoverapproachesorexceedstenpercent.

Conservation,preservation,andrestorationofournaturalenvironmentalandassociatedecosystemsarecriticaltowaterresourceprotection.Clearcriteriafor,andidentificationof,highprioritypreservationareasaretheinitialrequirementsfortheestablishmentofa preservation strategy that responds to natural and developed conditions withinwatersheds. The state, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and EPA have all developedguidelinesrelativetopercentagesofdevelopedandopenlandswithinwatershedstomaximizeprotectionofwaterqualityandminimizeimpactsduetodevelopmentanddevelopmentpatterns.

PrinceGeorge’sCountyfarmers,underpressurefromrisingcostsoflivingandfarming,havebeensubdividingtheirlandtomakeendsmeetortocovertheirretirements.Thisdynamic is altering the land use patterns in the more rural portions of the county.Strategies,programs,andpoliciesareinplacetostemthistrend,buttheneededsupportforthecontinuedeconomicviabilityofagricultureinPrinceGeorge’sCountyshouldcontinuetobestrengthened.

ThePrinceGeorge’sCountySoilConservationDistrictprovidesagriculturallandusesupportbybringingvariousagenciestogethertoprovideamultipurposeservicecenterforthelocalfarmcommunity.Currentlythereareover63,000acresofagriculturallandinthecounty,with917parcelsovertenacresinsizeand712parcelslessthantenacresinsize.Thereareover29,000acresofactivecroplandinthecounty. TheSoilConservationDistrictcurrentlymaintainsover500soilandwaterqualityconservationplansonfile.Theseplansinventorythenaturalresourcesonaspecificpropertyandoffertechnical


advicebasedonsoundengineeringandagronomicprinciplesthataddresssoilerosionandwaterqualityissues.

As the face of agriculture has changed, so has the farming community. The horseindustryInPrinceGeorge’sCountyhasbecomethefastestgrowingsectorwithintheagricultural landscape. According to the 2002 Maryland Equine Census,7 PrinceGeorge’sCountyhasthefourthlargestnumberofhorsesinMaryland. Thisindustryusesalmost20percentoftheagriculturallandinthecountyandrequiresspecialneedsasrelatedtosoilerosion,soilcompaction,wastemanagement,andwaterquality.

AgricultureisasignificantlandscapeofPrinceGeorge’sCounty,bothasanindustryandasacontributortothecounty’scharacter.ThateconomyaddsmillionsofdollarsofincometothecitizensofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Thereforeseriouseffortsareunderwaytoprotectouragriculturallandsandruralcharacter.

ThePrinceGeorge’sSoilConservationDistrictalsoadministersthecounty’sagriculturalpreservationprograms.From2006to2008atotalof565acresofprimefarmlandhasbeen perpetually protected from development and an additional 3,500 acres haveapplied to be protected.The land will be preserved forever as productive farmland,woodland,wildlifehabitat,andopenspacethatwillkeepapartofthecounty’sruralheritagealive.Inthefuturemanymorefarmswillbepreservedwithhelpfromtheseprograms.8TheGreenInfrastructurePlanestablishedalandpreservationobjective:

Protectacountywideaverageof1,500acresperyearofagricultural,strategicforest,or other sensitive lands through theuseof theRuralLegacyProgram, county-fundedacquisitions,andotherconservationprograms.

Accordingtothe2008GeneralPlanPolicyUpdate,thisobjectivehasnotbeenmettodate.Atotalof3,233acreswereprotectedfromJanuary2002throughDecember2006undervariousprograms,foranaverageof646.6acresperyear.Sincethebeginningof2002,over100woodlandconservationeasementshavebeenestablishedthatprotectover1,493acres.ThetrendsaredifferentforthedifferentprogramsasnotedinTable17.Overall,thereisanincreaseinthetotalamountofpreservedlandinthelasttwoyears.The Prince George’s County Historic Agricultural Resource Preservation Program(HARPP)isintheprocessofidentifyingandpreservingpropertiestotalingover1,500acres.

Thetrendstrackcloselywiththeamountofstatefundsavailableforeasementandlandacquisition. Various programs are in place to protect sensitive lands through theestablishmentofeasementsorthroughacquisition.Exceptforwoodlandconservation,which is achieved through the implementation of the Woodland ConservationOrdinance,theprogramsrelyonstatefunding.Someyearstherehasbeenlittleornofundingavailableforpreservationprograms.

Variousfederalandstateconservationprograms,alongwiththoseofPrinceGeorge’sCounty,havebeensummarizedinAppendixIV,LandConservationPrograms.

Conservation Corps—The Maryland Conservation Corps (MCC) is an award-winningAmeriCorpsprogramthatengagesyoungadultsinextensivenaturalresourcemanagementandparkconservationprojects.ManagedbytheMarylandParkService

7 http://www.equinestudies.umd.edu/extension/Bennett.pdf8 http://www.pgscd.org/


since 1984, MCC provides members with opportunities for skill development andpersonal growth through a supportive, team-based environment, emphasizing thesatisfactionofcompletingprojectsthatbenefitMaryland’snaturalresources.Underthesupervision of experienced Maryland DNR staff, MCC members work in crewsconsistingoffivetosevenpersons.FromstateparksandforeststotheChesapeakeBay,theyareengagedinprojectsinMaryland’smostbeautifulplaces.9

AttheMerkleWildlifeSanctuary,positionedontheUpperPatuxentRiverinPrinceGeorge’s County, the conservation service activities include: trail maintenance,environmentaleducation,streamandwetlandrestoration,parkfacilityimprovements,invasive species removal, and bay grass planting. The sanctuary’s nature center isoperated by the crew and includes interpretive exhibit development, programming,specialevents,andthecareofliveanimals.ThewildlifesanctuaryisabeautifulnaturalarearenownedforprovidingcriticalrestinghabitatforwinteringCanadageese.

The Bay Crew is based out of Mitchellville, Maryland, located in Prince George’sCounty.Theteam’sservicefocusesonvariousfacetsoftheprotectionandrestorationoftheChesapeakeBay.BayCrewmembersconductstreamcorridorassessmentsfortheMarylandDNR,identifyingphysicalproblemsinthewatershedforpotentialmitigationbythestateorcounty.MembersparticipateinscientificstudiessuchasinventoryingmigratingwaterfowlandassessingthehealthoftheoysterpopulationsattheAcademyofNaturalSciences.TheBayCrewalsoassists in shorelineandwetland restorationprojects, removal of invasive, nonnative species, and the replanting of native bayvegetation. Like the other crews, this team performs hazardous tree removal, trailconstruction,andtrailmaintenanceatvariousparks.

Cedarville State Forest was purchased In the 1930s in an effort to create a forestdemonstrationarea.TheCivilianConservationCorps(CCC)developedCedarville’sroadsandtrailsforfireprotectionandfuturerecreationdevelopment.From1933to1935,approximately160menoftheCCC,mostlyAfrican-AmericansfromBaltimoreandWashington,D.C.,workedatCedarville.

Conservationcorpsprovidetheimplementationarmcriticaltothesuccessofanyandall environmental restoration projects. Conservation corps and other training andeducationalorganizationsprovidethecountywithopportunitiestoimplementprojects,engageandeducateyouthaboutnaturalprocess,andreinvestinlocalcommunities.

9 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/mcc/

Table 17: Preservation Acres by YearYear 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Woodlandconservationeasements 315 203 522 163 290MarylandEnvironmentalTrusteasements 115 172 0 74 71RuralLegacyProgramacquisitions/easements 61 188 0 240 0ProgramOpenSpaceacquisitions 83 2 0 119 360MarylandAgriculturalLandPreservationFoundationeasement

0 123 0 132 0

Total3,233acres 574 688 522 728 721Average646.6acresperyear


REGULATORY REVISIONAdoptandimplementpoliciesthroughlegislation,ordinances,codes,

standards,andprogramstoguidebothdevelopmentandconservationinordertoestablishasuitablebalancebetweenmeaningfulregulationandpermanentprotectiontoimprovewaterqualityandproactivelysustain

waterresources.

Animportantconsiderationintheassessmentoflanduseimpactsisthecapabilityoflocal government agencies to administer land and water management policies andprograms.These should provide sufficient regulatory controls and planning tools toimprovecurrentenvironmentalconditionsandmitigateenvironmentalimpactsfromlandusechange.

Evaluationsofcurrentregulationsoccurinthecountywithreviewofzoning,subdivision,andenvironmentalordinancesandcomprehensiveplansforpolicyconsistencyinordertoachievecountywidesmartgrowthandsustainability.Evaluationandreviewmakeitpossible to identify regulations that are not meeting the stated goals and to noteresourceprotection thathasbeenoverlookedor inadequatelymonitoredby localorstategovernmentagencies.Naturalresourceinventories,treeconservationplans(TCP),siteplan,subdivision,anddevelopmentreviewprovideanexcellentregulatoryprocesstoensurethatdevelopmentdoesnotnegativelyimpacttheenvironment.

Green building techniques, urban landscape, wetland protection, biodiversity,transportation systems, plumbing, environmental site design watershed planning,wastewaterandwatersystemmaintenance,andneighborhooddevelopmentstandardsshouldbecodifiedtoincorporatethemostcurrentunderstandingsandtechnologiestoachievewaterresourcessustainability.

Our current zoning, development standards, and building codes should reflect thecounty’s desire to maximize opportunities for smart growth in the county. Manycommunitiesnationallyaredevisingincentiveprogramsalongwithmandatestofosterchangeintheirbuildinganddevelopmentparadigmstoachievelong-termsustainabilityof the built and natural environment. Prince George’s County should developconsistencybetweencountygrowthpoliciesandbuildinganddevelopmentstandardstosustainandprotectwaterresourcesinthecounty.

AccomplishingacomprehensiverestorationplanforanecosystemascomplexastheChesapeakeBayrequiresthefullengagementof

restorationleaders,citizens,andallstakeholdergroupsthroughoutthewatershed.Allofthebay’sstakeholdersrequireabaseofinformationand

motivationtotakeaction.Byprovidinganarrayofopportunitiesweoptimizeourchancetoconnectwithpeopleinthecontextoftheir

interests,values,andcurrentlevelofunderstandingormotivation—TheChesapeakeBayProgram.

SYSTEMS-BASED MANAGEMENTEmploysystems-basedmanagementbyintegratingmultipledisciplinesandstakeholders,adaptingmanagementdecisionsbasedonscientificallycollecteddata,takingprecautionindecision-making,andincorporatingsustainablemanagementdecisionstomosteffectivelyandefficientlyaddresstheimpactstowaterresourcesfromlandusepractices.


The systems-based management approach assimilates four principles—integratingmultipleusersandusesofresources,providingforasustainableuseofresources,takingprecaution against making deleterious actions, and adapting management decisionsbased on past-experiences.10 Although systems-based management is not new, it isdifficulttoimplementcomprehensivelyandrequiresaproactiveeffortonthepartofmanystakeholders,includingthepublic,scientificgroups,andgovernmentalregulators,along with the political will to prioritize water resource protection and sustainablemanagement.TheWaterResourcesPlanisanexcellentexampleofwhentheadoptionofasystems-basedmanagementapproachmaybenecessaryandcanresultinsignificantsuccessdue to theconsiderableoverlapamongmanygroups responsible for currentwaterresourcemanagementandforitssustainabilitytoaccommodatefuturegrowth.11

Toensurea true systems-basedapproach tomanagingwater resources, it isvital thatscientificdataalongwithotherinformationisintegratedintothemanagementdecisionsregarding water resources. Many different agencies in Prince George’s County havevarious roles in water resource management, and it is imperative that integration ofscientificfindingsareincorporatedintothemanagementdecisionsandresultingpolicies.

Adaptive Management—Promising advances for natural resource management can beseen in the area of adaptive management (or adaptive environmental assessment andmanagement),throughtheintegrationofecologicalandparticipatoryresearchadvancements.

Manycurrentresearcheffortsconcentrateonestablishingapproachesthatmorecloselylinkscience,management,andpolicyatanecosystemlevel.Theseeffortsrepresentadesireforresearchandimplementationstandardsthatcombine:

� Resourcemanagementtesting,evaluation,innovation,andflexibility.

� Naturalresourcesystemmanagementatawatershedscale.

� Methodsforbringingaboutactionstrategiesamongmultipleagencies.

� Facilitation of the social and political processes and organizational capacity torealizeadaptivemanagementgoals.

Adaptivemanagementfocusesonlearningandadapting,throughpartnershipsamongmanagers,scientists,andotherstakeholderswhotogetherdevisestrategiesandactionplanstocreateandmaintainsustainableecosystems.Managersmustmaintainflexibilityintheirdecisions,knowingthatuncertaintiesexist,andprovidethelatitudetoadjustdirectiontoimproveprogresstowarddesiredoutcomes.Thismanagementtechniqueisbasedonlearningfrompastexperiencesthatinfluencethefutureofcurrentdecision-making regarding the health and sustainability of water resources. Managementdecisionsarebestinfluencedthroughcomprehensiveandlong-termdatacollection.

Precautionary Principle—Admittedly,uncertaintyexistsregardingplanningdecisionsand management practices for natural resource protection, yet risks of serious andirreversible damage to environmental, human, and economic health exist. Theprecautionaryprincipleunderlies theexecutionof conservationefforts andpromotesactions to avoid seriousor irreversible environmentalharm,despite lackof scientificcertaintyastothelikelihood,magnitude,orcauseoftheharm.

10Boesch, D.F. 2006. “Scientific requirements for ecosystem-based management in therestorationoftheChesapeakeBayandCoastalLouisiana.”EcologicalEngineering26:6-26.

11http://www.dnr.state.md.us/met/ce.html


Thereleaseanduseoftoxicsubstances,resourceexploitation,andphysicalalterationsoftheenvironmenthavehadsubstantialunintendedconsequencesonhumanhealthand the environment.Althoughhuman activitiesmay involvehazards, peoplemustproceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history. Corporations,governmententities,organizations,communities,scientists,andotherindividualsmustadoptaprecautionaryapproachtoallhumanendeavors.Whereanactivityraisesthreatsofharmtotheenvironmentorhumanhealth,precautionarymeasuresshouldbetakenevenifsomecauseandeffectrelationshipsarenotfullyestablishedscientifically.12

Sustainability—In order to apply sustainability principles to decision-making forwaterresourceprotection,aholisticevaluationofcostsisnecessary.Typically,financialdecisionshavebeenmadeinresponsetoshort-term/up-frontfinancialcost,buttimehasshownthatthelong-termcostsofdecisionshavefar-reachingimpactsandanewandbroaderunderstandingof costover timeand for various impacts is essential toestablishsustainablesolutions.

Thetriplebottomline(or“TBL,”“3BL,”or“people,planet,profit”)capturesanexpandedspectrum of values and criteria for measuring organizational (and societal) success:economic,ecological,andsocial.13Thisnewparadigmofmeasurehasbeenincorporatedinto true cost analysis of projects, particularly infrastructure projects.With an eye tosustainability,ithasbecomeincreasinglyclearthatourcurrentstandardsofmeasureforprojectcostsarepatentlyremissinaddressinglong-termsustainability.Thetriplebottomlineisaformofreportingthattakesintoaccounttheimpactabusinesshasintermsofsocialandenvironmentalvaluesalongwithfinancialreturns.TBLreportingisbecominganincreasinglyrecognizedconceptandaccepted wayfor businessestodemonstratetheyhave strategies for sustainable growth.Traditional economic models are about profit,profit, and more profit; triple bottom line accounting recognizes that without happy,healthypeopletostaffbusinessesandahealthynaturalenvironmenttosustainpeopleandsupplyresourcesfortrade,businessisfundamentallyunsustainableinthelongrun.

People: Thisisalsoknownashumancapital.Itmeanstreatingemployeesright,butalsothecommunitywherethebusinessoperates.InthispartoftheTBLmodel,business not only ensures a fair pay for fair work but also ensures some of thebusinessgainsreturntothecommunitythroughsponsorships,donation,orprojectsthatgotowardthecommongood.

Planet:Thisisalsoknownasnaturalcapital.Businessshouldstrivetominimizeecological impact in all aspects of its work from sourcing raw materials, toproduction processes, to shipping and administration. It is a “cradle to grave”approachor“cradletocradle”includingtakingresponsibilityforgoodsaftertheyhavebeensoldthroughofferingarecyclingortake-backprogram.ATBLbusinessrefrainsfromtheproductionoftoxicitems.

Profit: Thisisaboutmakinganhonestprofit,notprofitatanycost—profitthatcomesinaccordwiththeothertwoprinciplesofpeopleandplanet.Somebigboxstoreshavebegun“greening”uptheirimageandindoingso,demandingthattheirsuppliers use less packaging or banning certain ingredients from products.Thepublicresponsehasbeenpositiveandintheprocesspeoplehavegainedagreaterunderstandingofsustainabilityandcommunityresponsibility.

12WingspanStatementonthePrecautionaryPrinciple13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line


TBLisnotanaward,accreditation,oracertificationbutanongoingprocessthathelpsbusinesseskeepontrackinanefforttorungreeneranddemonstratetothecommunityatlargetheyareworkingnotjusttowardriches,butthegreatercommongood.

Resiliency—Intheemergingfieldofecosystemrestoration,thetermresiliencyisbeingusedunderthelargersustainabilityheading.Resiliencyistheabilityofanecosystemorcommunitytohandledisturbances,likestorms,fire,orpollution,withoutshiftingintoaqualitativelydifferentstate.Aresilientsystemisabletowithstandthesedisturbancesandshocks,andifdamaged,isabletoself-correctandrebuilditself.Whendesigningrestored ecosystems, this principle sets out to mimic natural systems that are self-correcting and, therefore, sustainable. Restoring ecosystems in a well-rounded,comprehensive,andresilientmannerwillleadtosustainableresourcesthatwillprovidefreeecosystemserviceslikecleanwaterwellintothefuture.

Climate Change—Becauseofitsvulnerabilitytoclimatechange,theChesapeakeBayestuarymaybeanomenfortherestofthecountryregardingpotentialimpactsfromsealevelrise,increasingstormintensities,andothereffects.Althoughthemagnitudeofanticipatedimpactsfromclimatechangeareunknown,enoughinformationisavailableto suggest that adaptive estuary management, assessments of the ecosystems’vulnerabilities, development of adaptation plans, and implementation of adaptationmeasureswillberequiredtoprotectwaterresourcesasmuchaspossiblefromdirectandindirectimpacts.DuetothetidalcoastlinealongthePotomacandPatuxentRiversinPrinceGeorge’sCounty,itisimperativethatmanagementdecisionsstarttointegratedataandinformationwithaneyetowardprecautionagainsttheunpredictablenatureoftheestimatedsealevelrisechanges.

The Maryland Commission on Climate Change issued a technical report entitled“GlobalWarmingandtheFreeState:ComprehensiveAssessmentofClimateChangeImpactsinMaryland”inJuly2008basedonmodeledpredictionsofclimatechangeeffects across Maryland.With a chapter devoted to“Water Resources and AquaticEcosystems,”thereportassessesthefollowingthreatsandchallengesinregardstothepredictedimpactsofclimatechange:

� Reliabilityoffreshwatersupply,includingbothsurfacewaterandgroundwater.

� Changesinfloodhazards.

� Effects of changes in runoff and water temperature on aquatic habitats andpopulations.

� Impacts on water quality with implications for management and regulation ofsedimentsandnutrients.

� Potential salt contaminationof aquifers and freshwater intakesas theboundarybetweenfreshandbrackishwatershiftswithrisingsealevel.

The study also incorporates projections of impacts of both climate change anddevelopmentonwaterresources.Thekeytake-homepointsfromthisstudyregardingtheimpactsofclimatechangeonwaterresourcesandaquaticecosystemsinclude:

� Increased precipitation would supply reservoirs but not alleviate overdraft ofaquifers.

� Urbanfloodingwilllikelyworsenbecauseofintensificationofrainfallevents.

� Aquaticecosystemswilllikelybedegradedbyincreasedtemperaturesandflashyrunoff.


AlthoughnoformalstudyhasbeenconductedinPrinceGeorge’sCountyregardingthepredictedeffectsofclimatechangespecifictothisarea,itisrecommendedthatthecountyengage inastudy incooperationwithallagencies thatwouldhavearole inimplementingmanagementdecisionsbasedonthisreport.Agreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsinventoryshouldbeconductedassoonaspossibleforthecountytoestablishabaselineagainstwhichitcanmeasuretheeffectivenessofneededGHGreductionstrategies.

AsamemberoftheMetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments(MWCOG),the county endorsed the National Capital Region Climate Change Report14 inNovember2008andagreedtocollaborateinmeetingthefollowingreductiontargets:

� 10percentbelowbusinessasusuallevelsby2012.

� 20percentbelow2005levelsby2020.

� 80percentbelow2005levelsby2050.

TheNationalEstuarineResearchReserveSystem15isdevelopingahabitatrestorationstrategytoprovidethescientificbasisandtechnicalexpertisetorestore,enhanceandmaintainestuarineecosystems.Theplanwilldevelopandtransfereffectiveapproachestoidentify,prioritize,restore,andmonitordegradedorlostcoastalhabitat.Thestrategyusesapartnershipapproachcoupledwitheducationandcommunityinvolvement.Therestorationareasinwhichthereservesystemhopestoplayanationalroleinclude:

� Planningproject.

� Developing effective approaches to test and evaluate innovative technology forrestoration.

� Monitoringrestorationresponse.

� Servingaslocalreferenceorcontrolsites.

� Translating/transferringrestorationinformation.

� Providing scientific and technological advice to support policy and regulatorydecisions.

� Buildingawarenessforthevalueofrestorationscience.

� Coordinatingregionalscience.16

CHAPTER ISSUES SUMMARY� Datasharingandcommunicationbetweenpartnersresponsibleforwaterresources

protection, preservation, and restoration is needed to achieve the goals of thisWaterResourcesPlan.

� Outreach,education,andstewardshipawarenessgivecitizensbetteropportunitiesandresponsibilityforwaterresourceprotectionandmanagement.

14http://www.mwcog.org/store/item.asp?PUBLICATION_ID=334 National Capital RegionClimateChangeReport,11/12/2008.

15http://nerrs.noaa.gov/16http://nerrs.noaa.gov/Restoration/Strategy.html


� Current regulations, ordinances, and codes can be a barrier to progressive andinnovative ideas and solutions for water resource management and should bereviewedandupdated.

� Systems-basedthinkingwillhelpintegrateworkprogramsandgalvanizeeffortstoimprovethequalityofwaterandwaterresourcesinPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

POLICIES AND STRATEGIESImplementationofwaterresourceprotection,preservation,and

remediationstrategiesunitesmakingchoicesconcerningexistingandfuturedevelopmentpatternswithconsiderationofthecostof

infrastructure,environmentalprotection,aclearcommunicationofintent,andtheintegrationofdataandtechnologicalresources.

Intergovernmental Cooperation and CommunicationPOLICY:Shareddataandresourcesbetweenagenciesprovideforbetterassessmentofexistingconditions,preventadditionalnegativeenvironmental impacts,andhelpfosterplansforremediationandlong-termprotectionofwaterresources.

STRATEGIES:� Bringtogetherthecounty’sandstate’sagenciesanddepartmentsresponsiblefor

infrastructure planning and development to work as partners to evaluate morespecificallytheresourceprotectionneedsinwatersheds.

� Setprotocols fordataandresourcesharingbetweenagencies,communities,andorganizations that have an interest and responsibility for water protection andconservation.

� Developaweb-basedcommunicationplatformthatwillenablecountyagenciesaswell as county residents to coordinate the mission and information needed toprotectwaterresources.

POLICY: Watersupplyandwastewaterplanningandstormwatermanagementisperformedinconcertwithlocalplanningobjectives,interests,andneedsandisaccomplishedatthecounty level through close coordination with the agencies that have water resourceresponsibilitywithinthecounty.

STRATEGIES:� Evaluateplans,policies,andstrategiesdeveloped for thePatuxentandPotomac

watersheds by various agencies and jurisdictions, and incorporate appropriatepoliciesandstrategiesintocountyplans.

� Incorporate existing studies developed by various governmental and nonprofitorganizations into county plans and regulations to help mitigate water qualitydegradation, improveexistingconditions,andpreserveandavert futureharmfulimpactstowaterresourcesincountywatersheds.


POLICY: Coordinationwithfederal,state,county,localagencies,andmunicipalitiestodeveloplanduse,zoning,redevelopment,urbandesign,forestconservation,wetlandpreservation,andgreeninfrastructurepoliciesisnecessarytoachieveimplementationoftheWaterResourcesPlan.

STRATEGIES:� Createaninteragencywaterresourcepolicyboardatthedepartmentheadlevelto

recognize the need for broad-based interagency coordination to address theongoinganddevelopingwaterresourcesandwaterquality-relatedregulatoryandsustainabilityissuesandneedsthecountyisfacing.

� Continue and expandM-NCPPC’sparticipation in local and regional advisorycommitteesandworkgroupsthatfocusonandsupportenvironmental,watershed,andwaterqualityprotectionandimprovementplanning.

Community EngagementPOLICY: Thecountysupportscommunicationandcooperationamongresidents,communities,environmental groups, and county agencies promoting activities such as streammonitoring,streamsidetreeplantings,trashremoval,andstormdraininletstenciling.

STRATEGIES:� Engage county communities and municipalities to plant and conserve trees on

privateproperties.

� Create landscape incentives and technical support in urban areas to increasenumber,quality,andsurvivabilityoftreesplantedinthepublicright-of-wayandonprivateproperty.

� Buildandmaintainan informationnetwork service thatprovideson-linewaterresource updates on county programs and regular specific suggestions such as“green tips” to inform and encourage residents to take action to conserve andprotectwaterresources.

� Establish and coordinate a coalition with representation from a broad range ofcommunity organizations to support outreach, raise awareness of the waterresources protection strategies, and to provide opportunities and support foreducationprograms.

� Create a water resource task group that includes a diversity of interest groups,organizations, and citizens to forward the water resource goals and policies asestablishedintheWaterResourcePlan.

� Establish a citizen’s advisory committee to evaluate impacts to, and providemitigation recommendations for, water resources from land use changes anddevelopmentprojects.


POLICY:Thecountystrivestoprovidescientificbasisandtechnicalexpertisetorestore,enhance,andmaintainestuarineecosystems.

STRATEGIES:� Promote individual stewardship and assist individuals, community-based

organizations,businesses,localgovernmentsandschoolstoundertakeinitiativestoachievethegoalsandcommitmentsofthisplan.

� Supportmunicipalitiestoworkwithlocalgovernmentstoidentifysmallwatershedswherecommunity-basedactionsareessentialtomeetingbayrestorationgoals—inparticularwetlands,forestedbuffers,streamcorridors,andpublicaccess,andworkwith local governments and community organizations to bring an appropriaterangeofbayprogramresourcestothesecommunities.

� Enhancefundingforlocallybasedprogramsthatpursuerestorationandprotectionprojectsthatwillassistintheachievementofthegoalsofthisandpastagreements.

� Develop and maintain a clearinghouse for information on local watershedrestorationefforts,includingfinancialandtechnicalassistance.

� Develop easily-accessible information suitable for analyzing environmentalconditionsatasmallwatershedscaleandworkwithplanningandothercountyagenciestoapplythisinformationtogrowthandlandusedecision-making.

Education and OutreachPOLICY:Informationismadepubliclyavailableregardingtheimpactsofstormwaterdischargeson receiving waters, why controlling these discharges is important, and what theindividual citizens as well as business and industry can do to reduce pollutants instormwaterrunoff.

STRATEGIES:� Establish, coordinate, and maintain a county interdepartmental education and

outreachprogramtoaddresswaterconservationandwaterqualityprotectiongoals.

� Implementandmaintainaneducationandoutreachprogramtohelpreducethedischargeofpollutantscausedbystormwaterrunoff.

� Maintainandmonitorapubliclyaccessibledatabaseofall reportedincidentsofenvironmentalinfractionsincludinglocationandnatureofthereportedsituation,dateofthereport,andfollow-upactionstakentoremedythecondition.

� Provide training and education to construction site operators and inspectorsregardingerosionandsedimentcontrolcompliance.

� Adoptastewardshipeducationandoutreachprogramthatpromotesandsupportsstandards for residential, commercial, and institutional practices that reducefertilizer,herbicide,pesticide,andwateruse.

� Providecountysupportforeducationandtrainingprogramsthatpreparecitizens,especially youth, for environmental jobs and provide environmental services tocommunitiesandthecounty.


� ConservationCorps

� AmeriCorps

� EnvironmentalEducationCenters

� Internships

POLICY:Thecountymaintainsaninterdepartmentaleducationandoutreachprogramtoexplainstormwater management challenges, reduce the discharge of pollutants caused bystormwaterrunoff,andprovidetechnicalassistancetotheregulatedcommunity.

STRATEGIES:� Provideinformational,technical,andresearchassistancetocommunitiesproactively

pursuingenvironmentalandecologicalrestorationprojects.

� Encourageandfosterschoolprograms,integraltocurricula,thatpromoteincreasedstudentinvolvementandengagementinforestandtreeplanting,waterconservation,andstormwaterpreventionprogramswithintheircommunities.

� Supportandpublicizeopportunitiesforinteractionbetweenresidents,communityandenvironmentalgroups,andcountyagenciespromotingannualactivitiessuchasstreammonitoring,streamsidetreeplantings,trashremoval,andstormdraininletstenciling.

� Consider creating stormwater task forces to engage citizen representatives instormwaterdecision-making.Thesetaskforcescouldaddressstormwaterprogramfundingand/orcommercialandindustrialstormwater.

� Developeducationalmaterialsonmaintenanceofprivatestormwaterinfrastructureand to respond to common commercial/industrial stormwater pollution sourcesidentifiedthroughNPDESMS4permitinspections.

Data Collection, Management, and DistributionPOLICY:Provideaccessibilitytoandincorporationofthebestavailablescience,technology,anddata for planning recommendations that support the protection, preservation, andrestorationofwaterresources.

STRATEGIES:� WorkwithMarylandGeologicalSocietyandU.S.GeologicalSocietytoevaluate

theexistingaquiferdrawdowns,incorporatefuturelanduseprojections,establishconservationandefficiencystrategies,andlocate,putintooperation,andmaintainmonitoringwellstoverifyassumptionsandrealities.

� WorkwithDERtodevelopecosystemandscience-basedwatershedmanagementplansthatprovideaclearidentificationofthesources,impacts,andconsequencesofexistingpollutionproblems.

� Identify informationgaps inthescientific, technological,andecologicalsystemsdatanecessarytomakeinformeddecisionstorestoreandprotectwatershedsystemfunctions,waterquality,andstreamhealth.


� ContinuetodevelopandexpandexistingGeographicInformationSystems(GIS),supportthedevelopmentofwatershedmanagementplans,andcontinuetoevaluateandupdatewaterqualityandstreammorphologyconditionstoprovidethebestpossibledatatoassistindecision-makingandplanningefforts.

� Buildandmaintainaninformationnetworkservicethatprovideson-lineupdateson county programs and legislation and specific suggestions to inform andencourageresidentstotakeactiontoprotectandimprovestreamandgroundwaterquality.

� Build and maintain an informational web-based network service that providestransparentonlinedocumentationof,updatesto,andactionstakenonenvironmentalviolationsasreportedbythepublic,notedbypermittingandinspectionagencies,orotherwiseobserved.

� WorkwithDERtodevelopaweb-basedcommunicationplatformthatwillenablecounty residents, as well as county agencies, to coordinate the mission andinformationneededtoprotectwaterresources.

� Minimizethetimelineinterfacebetweendatacollection,interpretation,develop-mentofremediationstrategies,andimplementationofBMPs.

Conservation, Preservation, and Restoration ProgramsPOLICY:Landconservationprogramsareafocusedpreservationmethodtoachievewoodland,forest, and tree cover; stream and wetland buffers; and open space goals for waterresourceprotection.

STRATEGIES:� Develop simplified processes and economic incentives to enable landowners to

establishconservationeasementsand/orprotectionareas.

� Provideadequatefunding,technicalassistance,andenforcementtoensurethattheagricultural community implements nutrient management plans on farmlandutilizingnaturalsystemprotectionandenhancementtoprotectwaterquality.

� Continue to acquire targeted parcels and sites along stream corridors to createcontiguousstreambuffers.

� Supportagriculturalcertificationeffortsinthecountyinordertoacquireadditionalfunding for MALPF easements, purchase of development rights, and HARPPthroughtheidentificationandprotectionofcountywideprioritypreservationareas(PPA).

Regulatory RevisionPOLICY:Prince George’s County regulates consumption of, and impacts to, water resourcesthrough the activities employedon the land acknowledging that resourcedepletionmustberelativetotherateatwhichthatresourcecanbereplenished.


STRATEGIES:� Ensurecountyregulationspreventthe lossofopenspace, treecanopy,andrural

character,whichisimportanttoqualityoflife,environmentalhealth,andeconomicstabilityinthecounty.

� Provide for coordinated planning and communication among agencies and thecommunity to avoid controversial development patterns that may impactcommunitiesinanindirectandcumulativemanner.

� Seekandleveragefederal,state,andlocalfundingtoacquireorpermanentlyprotectsensitiveandecologicallyvaluablelandsthroughconservationprogramsandeasements.

POLICY:Thecountyreviewsandupdatesmethodstoachievestrongerpolicysupportforwaterresourceprotectionthroughthecounty’sdevelopmentandsiteplanreview,environmentalanalysis,regulation,andpreservationrequirements.

STRATEGIES:� Developlanduseandzoningprinciples,standards,andguidelinesthatchampion

compactgrowthoutsideofenvironmentally sensitiveandvaluable resource landareas,andwithintransitserviceablecentersandcorridors.

� Identifyexistinglegislation,regulation,andcodestandardsthatcreatebarrierstoeffective and innovative implementation of water resources and water qualityprotectiongoals.

� Identify and modify current zoning classifications that are not tied to existingenvironmentallegislationandconstraints.

� Clearlyshowthatdevelopmentproposalshaveidentifiedexistingwaterresourceconditionsandhavedevelopedappropriatepreservation,mitigation,andrestorationstrategiesthroughthedevelopmentproposalandapprovalprocess.

� Establishadequatepublicdrinkingwaterandpublicwastewatertreatmentcapacities,appropriateseptictreatmentareasandmethods,andwellwaterwithdrawalcapacityandavailabilityconcurrentwithvariousdevelopmentplanapprovals.

� Basedonexistinglanduseinformation,estimatethecurrentlevelofimpervioussurfaceinwatersheds.

� Basedonwaterqualitycharacteristicsofthereceivingwaterwaysofthewatershed,establishatargetlevelofimperviousarea.

� Calculatethepotentialcapacityforadditionalimpervioussurfaceinthewatershedbasedoncurrentzoningcategoriesandonanassumedfullbuild-outofexistingallowablezoning.

� Requiresurfacewaterqualityandstreammorphologyanalysisaspartofthenaturalresourceinventoryrequirements.


POLICY:Prince George’s County reviews, and changes as necessary, county regulations,ordinances,permitting,andenforcementrequirementstosupportgreeninfrastructure,environmental site design (ESD), stormwater management, Leadership in EnergyEnvironmentalDesign(LEED)buildinganddevelopmentstandards(orothersimilaror equivalent standards),water conservationandefficiency, andeffectivewastewatertreatment.

STRATEGIES:� Modifycodesandregulationstoremoveimpedimentsforexistingdevelopment,

newdevelopment,andredevelopmenttoimplementwaterconservationandreusepracticesandtechnology.

� Supportandincorporateinnovativeplanningtoolsincluding:watershedplanning;environmental-basedandagriculturalzoning;conservation,andlow-densityruralsubdivision;andESDandlow-impactbuildingdesignstandardstoprotectwaterresourcesandruralcharacter.17

� Evaluateexistingresidentialzoningandassociateddensityregulations,specificallyas defined by one- to three-acre minimum lot sizes, which do not adequatelyprotectnaturalsystemsandhasresultedinruralsprawl.

� Developazoningcategorytoprotectlandidentifiedasagriculturaland/orforestresourcethroughthePPAprocess.

� EvaluatetheintentandsuccessofthecurrentConservationSubdivisionOrdinancetoachieveopenspace,naturalresourceprotection,andrurallandscapepreservation.

� Provideincentivesforconstructingnewgreenbuildingsandgreenretrofittingofexistingbuildings,greendevelopment,andredevelopment.

� ExpeditedPermitting

� TaxIncentives

� FloorAreaRatioBonuses

� StormwaterBillingCredits

� CostSharing

� Low-IncomeAssistance

� GrantPrograms

� RateIncentives

17 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/met/ce.html


POLICY:Localregulationsaredevelopedinconcertwithestablishedfederalandstateregulatoryrequirements.

STRATEGIES:� Improve the permit review and oversight procedures for wastewater discharge,

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits, and well waterwithdrawals to achievepoint sourcepollution control and support conservationmanagementofaquifers.

� Aggressively enforce laws regarding erosion control, critical area encroachment,wetland and source water protection, stormwater management, and woodlandconservation.

� Revisetheenvironmentalguidelines,LandscapeTechnicalManual,andwoodlandandwildlifeconservationlawsandregulationstoenhanceandaddmeasuresandrequirements that will increase the success of tree planting efforts to establishhealthynewforestsandprotectandimprovewaterquality.

� Tie futurechanges inenvironmental regulatoryrequirements to totalmaximumdaily loads(TMDLs)implementationneeds.Ifhigherstormwatermanagementstandards are needed to meet TMDLs, then assume additional regulatoryrequirementsmaybenecessary.

Systems-Based ManagementPOLICY:Objectives, measurables, testing, and flexibility standards are developed to achievewaterresourcesprotectionandrestorationgoals.

STRATEGIES:� Establish,monitor,andevaluatemeasurablegoalstocomplywithwatershedand/

orsubwatershedforestcoverandimperviouspercentages.

� Plans, programs, projects, and policies should be monitored and evaluated todetermine whether the expected land conservation and protection results areachievedandtoimprovefutureprogramsandpractices.

� Developmodelingandscientificallysoundapproachestointegratelandusechangefindings and forecasts with respect to impacts to water quality, quantity, andenvironmentallysensitivehabitatsandresources.

� Synthesizeresearchandmodelingfindingsanddevelopsupportforstrategiestoconservelandsthatprovidewaterqualityandecologicalbenefits.


POLICY:PrinceGeorge’sCounty’swaterwaysandwater-related resourcesareprotected frompotential impacts fromsea level rise, increasing storm intensities, andother climatechangerelatedeffects.

STRATEGIES:� Incorporatenaturaldesignfeatures,throughbestpractices,withanemphasison

creatingaresilientsystem,andprotectandrestorenaturalshorelines,tidalwetlands,and vegetated stream buffers that inherently shield shoreline development andresourcesfromtheimpactsofsealevelriseandcoastalstormevents.

� Incooperationandconsultationwithallrelevantstakeholders,engageinaclimatechangeimpactstudyforPrinceGeorge’sCountyanditswaterresources.

� Promoteprogramsandpoliciesaimedattheavoidanceand/orreductionofimpacttoexistingdevelopment,aswellasfuturedevelopment,inareasvulnerabletosealevelriseandensuingcoastalhazards.

� Evaluatesealevelriseimpactstowastewatertreatmentfacilities,powerplants,andothervulnerableindustrialservices.

� Avoidthefinancialriskofdevelopmentandredevelopmentinhighlyhazardousflood-proneareas.

Appendix I: Nonpoint Source Modeling for Prince George’s County 193 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

OneofthekeytasksofthePrinceGeorge’sCountyWaterResourcesFunctionalMasterPlan(WaterResourcesPlan)projectisevaluationofnutrientloadstoeachofthecounty’s6-digitwatershedsthroughstormwaterrunoffbasedonvariouslanduses.Severalmodels exist to estimatewatershedpollutant loadsunderdifferent landusescenarios.Inordertoproduceatoolthatsupportsdynamicwaterresourcesplanningforandbeyondtheevaluationsassessedforthisplan,theplanningteamandconsultantsevaluated several existing modeling options to estimate land use-based watershedpollutant loads.Theevaluation included theprojectneeds,whichareguidedby theMarylandDepartmentofPlanning’sModels&Guidelines26,TheWaterResourcesElement:PlanningforWaterSupplyandWastewaterandStormwaterManagement(MDPMG26,2007),inadditiontothescaleofanalysisappropriateforthecountyasfutureevaluationsprogressatincreasinglysmallerhydrologicunits.

AppendixIprovidesanoverviewofwatershedpollutantloadmodelsthatwerereviewedandadescriptionofthepollutantloadanalysismodel(PLAM)developedforuseintheevaluationofnonpointnutrient loadsaspartof theWaterResourcesPlan.ThedescriptionofPLAMincludesadetaileddiscussionofthepopulationandemploymentprojectionsandfuturelandusescenariosdevelopedaspartoftheanalysis.The6-digitwatershedslocatedwithinthecounty(PatuxentBelowFallandPotomacBelowFall)wereassessedaswell asone smaller,8-digit subwatershedwithineachof the largerwatersheds(WesternBranchandPiscataway,respectively).Descriptionsandresultsofthevariousnonpointsourceloadingmodelrunsconductedfortheplanareprovided,followedbyasummaryoffindingsfromthemodelingeffortaswellasadiscussionoffutureuseofPLAM.

APPENDIX I:NONPOINT SOURCE M

ODELING FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY

194 Appendix I: Nonpoint Source Modeling for Prince George’s CountyApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

REVIEW OF NONPOINT SOURCE MODELSWater Resources Element ModelAnonpoint source loading spreadsheetwasdevelopedby theStateofMaryland toserveasadefaultanalyticaltoolforconductingthenonpointsourceanalysiscomponentoftheWaterResourcesElementoflocalcomprehensiveplans,andtheMDPMG26provides a default methodology for utilizing the state’s spreadsheet. The State ofMaryland’s nutrient load analysis spreadsheet and the MDP MG26 defaultmethodologyaresubsequentlyreferredtohereinasthe“WaterResourcesPlanmodel.”

The Water Resources Plan model calculates existing and projected nitrogen andphosphorusloadsfromnonpointsourcesbasedonexistingandfuturelandcover.Themodel uses the Maryland Department of Planning’s (MDP) 2002 Land Use/LandCoverforexistinglanduseconditions,andusesnitrogenandphosphorusloadingratesthatarebasedontheWatershedModel(Phase4.3)oftheChesapeakeBayProgram(CBP).Theloadingratesvarybylandusecategory(LUC)andstatebasin(i.e.,6-digitwatershed),andarealsoaffectedbybestmanagementpractices(BMPs)implementedtocontrolnutrientloads.TwosetsofloadingratesareincludedintheWaterResourcesPlanmodel:

� “2002 Best Management Practice (BMP) Implementation,” which reflectsimplementationofBMPsattheratesreportedbylocaljurisdictionsin2002;and

� “TributaryStrategyImplementation,”whichreflectstheanticipatedachievementofnitrogenandphosphorusreductiongoalsthrougharateofBMPimplementationdeveloped by the state in coordination with CBP as part of the state’s 2003ChesapeakeBaytributarystrategy.

Theversionof themodel thatwas evaluatedby the teamwasdeveloped forPrinceGeorge’sCountyandprovidedtoTheMaryland-NationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission(M-NCPPC)bytheMarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment(MDE).ThePrinceGeorge’sCountyversionincludesannualterrestrialnutrient(i.e.,nitrogenandphosphorus)loadingratesforvariousLUCsinthecounty’slandareawithinthe6-digitPatuxentandPotomacbasins,andanitrogenloadequationforsepticsystemsin the form of annual pounds per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU).The terrestrialloading rates are specific to the two large watersheds, with two sets of load ratesprovidedforlandswithinthePatuxentwatershedaboveandbelowthefallline,whichbisectsthenorthernpartofthecountyandseparatesitsPatuxentwatershedintothePiedmontphysiographicandCoastalPlainprovinces,respectively.Therefore,themodelprovides three setsof terrestrial loading rates foreachof theBMPimplementationscenariosdescribedabove—PatuxentAboveFall,PatuxentBelowFall,andPotomacBelowFall,sinceallofthecounty’sPotomacbasinlandareaiswithintheCoastalPlainprovince.TheMDP’s2002landcoverandsepticestimatesforeachoftheseareaswereincludedinthespreadsheetprovidedbyMDE,asweretheestimatedannualnitrogenandphosphorusloadsfromthose2002landcoversandsepticsystems.

Theannual terrestrial loadingratesdiscussedabovewere intendedtoreflectaveragenutrient loadsgenerated from land fromcurrent (2002) landmanagementpracticesdocumentedbythecounty,andthelowerloadingratesanticipatedfrommoreaggressivelandmanagementpractices contained in the tributary strategy.Manyof theBMPsincorporatedinthesetwoscenariosarethesame,butthetributarystrategyincludesadditional implementation of some BMPs that are expected to effectively reduce


nutrientrunoff.ThetypesofBMPsincludedinthesetwoloadratescenariosincludetypical stormwater management practices such as urban infiltration and filteringpractices, in addition tourban stream restoration, reforestation,wetland restoration,forestandgrassbuffers,agriculturallandretirement,andnumerousagriculturalrunoffandnutrientmanagementstrategies.Insomecases,thenutrientloadingratesforthetributarystrategyarehigherthanthosereflecting2002BMPs(e.g.,higherphosphorusloadingfromcropland),butinmostcasesthetributarystrategyloadingratesarethelowerofthetwosetsofrates.AdditionalinformationregardingstatelandusecategoriesandotherWaterResourcesPlanmodelparameterscanbefoundinadraftdocumententitled“User’sGuideforNutrientLoadAnalysisSpreadsheetinSupportoftheWaterResourcesElement”providedbyMDEwiththePrinceGeorge’sversionofthemodel,and additional information regarding Maryland’s tributary strategy, BMPimplementation, nutrient loads, and other data related to the Chesapeake Bayrestoration effort can be found on the web sites for the Chesapeake Bay Program,Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and Maryland Department of theEnvironment.

UseoftheWaterResourcesPlanmodelentailsfivebasicsteps:

1. EstimateinitiallandcoverandsepticEDUs(MDP’s2002landcoverprovidedinMDEspreadsheet).

2. EstimatethefuturelandcoverandsepticEDUs.

3. Estimatethenonpointsourcenitrogenandphosphorusloadsforinitialconditions(providedinMDEspreadsheet).

4. Estimate the nonpoint source nitrogen and phosphorus loads for the futureconditions.

5. Comparetheinitialloadstothefutureloads.

TheWaterResourcesPlanmodelalsocontainsuserinputcellsforcurrentandfutureannualpointsourcenutrientloads,whichthemodeladdstothenonpointandsepticloadscalculatedasdescribedabovetogenerateatotalannualloadestimate.Themodel’sresults are presented in tabular and graphical format and provide estimated annualnitrogenandphosphorusloadsfor:

1. Current (2002) land use conditions using the load rates reflecting 2002 BMPimplementation

2. Current(2002)landuseconditionsusingtheloadratesreflectingtributarystrategyimplementation.

3. Future land use conditions using the load rates reflecting tributary strategyimplementation,comparedtocurrent(2002)landuseconditionsusingloadratesreflectingtributarystrategyimplementation.

The model is formatted to include up to four future land cover scenarios that arespecified, developed, and input by the user. The nutrient loads are categorized todistinguishthosegeneratedfromvariousterrestrialcategories(development,agriculture,forest,andotherterrestrialsources),versussepticsystemsorpointsources.Inaddition,foreachscenario,themodelallowsinputoflandcoveracreages,septicEDUs,percentageof land cover as open space (agriculture or forest), and percentage of land cover asimperviousarea.


TheintentoftheWaterResourcesPlanmodelistoprovidethecountywidechangeinfuturenutrientloads,imperviouscover,andopenspacecomparedtothecurrent(2002)landuseconditions,basedonuser-definedfuturedevelopmentscenarios.Foreachofthe modeled development scenarios, the model utilizes one set of loading ratecoefficientsperlargewatershedarea(i.e.,thetributarystrategyimplementationloadingrates).Therefore,theWaterResourcesPlanmodel’sterrestrialnutrientloadestimatesreflect changes that occur from shifting existing land acres into different land usecategories and do not reflect impacts that could occur through modified landmanagementpractices.

Watershed Treatment ModelTheWatershedTreatmentModel (WTM),whichwasdevelopedby theCenter forWatershedProtection(CWP),isanothertoolthatwasevaluatedformodelingnonpointsourcenutrientloadsaspartofthePrinceGeorge’sCountyWaterResourcesPlan.TheWTMisatoolforrapidassessmentandquantificationofvariouswatershedtreatmentoptions, including stormwater treatment practices and stormwater managementprograms.Inadditiontocalculatingnitrogenandphosphorus loads, theWTMcanalsotracksedimentandbacterialoads.

TheWTMhastwobasiccomponents:(1)pollutantsources,and(2)treatmentoptions.The pollutant sources component estimates the load from a watershed withouttreatmentmeasuresinplaceandaccountsforbothprimarylandusesandsecondarypollutant sources, such as septic systems, sanitary and combined sewer overflows,channelerosion,andotherfactors.Theprimarylandusecomponentofthemodelissimilar totheWaterResourcesPlanmodel inthatnutrient loadfactorsareusedtoestimateannualloadsfromvariouslandusecategories.Themodelcalculatestheloadsforbothexistingandone future condition scenariobasedon landuse acreages andotherinputsdefinedbytheuser.

TheWTMdifferssignificantlyfromtheWaterResourcesPlanmodelinitstreatmentoption component, which allows the user to identify and claim credits (i.e., loadreductions) for a varietyofBMPsandotherwatershed treatmentpractices, suchaslawncareandpetwasteeducationprograms,sedimentanderosioncontrolmeasures,streetsweeping,andotherpollutionreductionapproaches.Theuseridentifiestreatmentoptions applied to existing conditions as well as those future treatment options orextensionsofexistingprogramsthatareplannedforthewatershedbeingmodeled.TheWTMcontainsdefaultloadingratesforpollutantsourcesand“discounts”forasuiteoftreatmentoptions;however,theuserisencouragedtomodifythesevaluesasappropriatebasedonlocalconditionsorknowledge.

Duetoitsstructure,theWTMprovidesasignificantamountofflexibilityfortheusertoestimatenutrientchangesresultingfromchangesinfuturelandusessuchasthoseestimatedbytheWaterResourcesPlanmodel,inadditiontochangesinfuturelandmanagement practices that may affect the nutrient loading rates generated fromdifferenttypesof landcovers.However,becausetheWTMincludesdefault loadingratesforonlyafewLUCs,generationofloadestimatesfromchangesbasedonlanduserequiresasignificantamountoflocalknowledgeregardingtypicalloadsfromlanduseswithinthewatershedbeingmodeled.Similarly,thediscountsprovidedfortreatmentoptionsarebasedondatacollectedfromnumeroussourcesthatmayormaynotreflectlocaleffectivenessrates.Therefore,theflexibilityofferedbytheWTMismostbeneficialinwatershedanalysesconductedonasmallscaleusingwell-documenteduserinputs,


whichcannoteasilybeextendedtoconductanevaluationonalargerscale.InordertousetheWTMatthecountyscale,discountfactorsandlanduse-basedloadingrateswouldneedtobeobtainedformultiplewatershedareas,andeachareawouldneedtobemodeledindependentlywiththeresultssummarizedoutsidetheWTMframework.

POLLUTANT LOAD ANALYSIS MODEL STRUCTUREAs previously stated, the state’s Water Resources Plan guidance document (MDPMG26)providesadefaultmethodologyforconductingtherequirednonpointsourceloading analysis, utilizing the Water Resources Plan nonpoint source loadingspreadsheetdevelopedbythestateforthispurpose.However,thedocumentnotesthatlocalgovernmentsmayrefinethedefaultmethodologyorusetheirownmethodforconductingthenonpointsourceloadinganalysiscomponentoftheWaterResourcesPlan,providedthatassumptionsarejustifiedandsourcesofinformationaredocumented.InordertoprovideflexibilityandfunctionalityforPrinceGeorge’sCounty’sfutureuseofthestate’spollutantloadanalysistool,PrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningDepartmentchosetodepartfromthedefaultmethodologyandspreadsheetandtaskedAECOM,theWaterResourcePlan’sconsultantteam,withdevelopmentofthePrinceGeorge’sCounty Pollutant Load Analysis Model (PLAM). The Center for WatershedProtection’sWTMand theWaterResourcesPlanmodeldiscussed above form thebasisofPLAM.ThestructureofPLAMisfurtherexplainedbelow.

PLAM was developed based on theWater Resources Plan model described above.Similartothestate’sspreadsheet,PLAMisaspreadsheetmodelthatestimatesnitrogenandphosphorusloadsfromspecificlandusecategorieswithinthemodeledwatershed(s).Nitrogen loads from residential and nonresidential onsite disposal systems are alsoestimated,andpointsourcenitrogenandphosphorusloadsareincludedtoprovideatotalnutrientloadestimateperwatershed.Toprovidethecountywithmaximumfutureflexibility,AECOMconstructedthemodeltoincorporateuptotenwatersheds,withtheestimatedloadsfromeachmodeledwatershedsummedintabularandgraphicalformat.Thisformatallowsthecountytomodelnumerouswatershedsatonetimeforaside-by-sidecomparison,ordividealargerwatershedintonumeroussmallsubwatershedstocalculateatotalwatershedloadbasedonthevaryinglocalloadrates,and/orlandusesthatreflecteachsmallarea.

The landuse acreages for initial and futuredevelopment scenarios canbemanuallyinputintoPLAM,orautomaticallyenteredthroughlinksestablishedinPLAMthatimportdatafromanexternallandusedatafile,whichisformattedtocontainacreagesforuptotenwatersheds.Theterrestrialloadingratesforeachlandusecategorycanalsobemanually entered intoPLAMor imported froman external load ratesdatafile,whichisformattedtocontainuptotensetsofloadrates.Thisstructureallowstheusertoestablishnumeroussetsof loadratesbasedonvariouscurrentand/orfuture landmanagement scenarios or varying degrees of BMP implementation for individualwatersheds,andselectwhichratestoapplyforthescenariosbeingmodeled.Theusercanalsorefineterrestrialloadingratesbasedonavailabledetailandbetterunderstandingofphysicalconditions(e.g.,soilinformation)thatmightaffecttheeffectivenessofBMPs

As in the state’s Water Resources Element model, PLAM will model loads fromterrestrial,septicandpointsourcesforinitialconditionsanduptofourfutureWaterResources Plan scenarios, with initial and future loads for the modeled watershedsshownindividuallywithineachofthefourWaterResourcesPlanscenarioworksheets.The total initial and future loads calculated for each development scenario are also


tabulated in a worksheet entitled “Water Resources Plan Summary Results” andillustratedinaworksheetentitled“WaterResourcesPlanCharts,”bothofwhichcanbemodifiedasneededtopresentresults intheuser’spreferredformat.Alistoftheworksheets developed based on the Water Resources Plan nutrient load analysismethodologyisprovidedinTable1.

TheresultsprovidedbythePLAMworksheetsshowninTable1areverysimilartotheoutput from the state’s default Water Resources Plan model, in that the outputsummariesprovide thechange innutrient loads resulting fromchanges in landuse,estimatedsepticloads,andpointsources.AlthoughPLAMisconstructedtoprovidetheuserflexibility tomodelmultiplewatersheds, landuse scenarios, and/or loadingrates,liketheWaterResourcesPlanmodel,PLAM’sdefaultconstructionreliesononesetofloadingratesthatareappliedacrosstheinitialandfuturescenarios.Asdescribedlater in this document, the above worksheets were used in this fashion to generatenutrientloadestimatesaspartofthedevelopmentoftheWaterResourcesPlanbasedonlanduses,septicsystems,andestimatedpointsourceloadswithinthePatuxentandPotomacwatershedsofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.

Table 1: PLAM Worksheets Developed for the Prince George’s County Planning Department

(Based on Maryland’s Default Water Resources Plan Nutrient Load Analysis Spreadsheet)

Instructions for Water Resources Plan-PLAM

Watersheds

Water Resources Plan Scenario 1




Water Resources Plan Summary Results

Water Resources Plan Charts

Descriptionsof the landuseand loadingratedata inputsandthe initialand futuredevelopmentlandusescenariosarediscussedintheMethodologySectionbelow.

Inorder toprovideadditional functionalitybeyondthestate’snutrient loadanalysisdefault approach developed for the Water Resources Plan, AECOM provided theWaterResourcesPlan scenario and resultsworksheetswithin aworkbook structureprovidedbyCWP’sWTMversion 3.1.TheWTMversion3.1worksheetnamesareshowninTable2.


Table 2: Watershed Treatment Model Worksheets in PLAM

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

Existing Management Practices

Future Management Practices

Future Land Use

New Development

Discounts—Existing

Existing Loads

Loads with Future Practices

Loads Including Growth

Summary Sheet

TheWTMprovidestheuserwiththeflexibilitytomodelprimarysources(loadsfromlandusecategories)separatelyfromsecondarysources(e.g.,seweroverflows,channelerosion, etc.), as well as modifications related to implementation of specific BMPs.Because these functionalities are not provided in the Water Resources Plan-basedapproachprovidedbythestate,PLAMwasconstructedtoexportthe“initialconditions”land use acreage data for one watershed (i.e., the initial land use data for the firstwatershedincludedintheWaterResourcesPlanScenario1worksheet)automaticallyintotheWTMPrimarySourcesworksheet.Inaddition,thelanduseacreagedatafromonefuturedevelopmentscenario(i.e.,thefuturelandusedataforthefirstwatershedincludedintheWaterResourcesPlanScenario1worksheet)areautomaticallyexportedintotheWTMFutureLandUseworksheet.

The loading rates used for the Water Resources Plan portions of PLAM are notexportedintothePrimarySourcesworksheet,sincethebaselinestate-providedWaterResourcesPlanloadingratesareconsideredtobeinclusiveofbothprimarysourcesandsecondary sources (per landuse category), and theusermaywish to separate thosesources.Therefore, appropriate loading rates need to be entered by the user in theWTMPrimarySourcesworksheetincludedinPLAM.Thedefaultloadingratesandimpervious areas originally included in the WTM version 3.1 Primary SourcesworksheetwereremovedfromthisworksheetinPLAM,becausethelandusecategoriesexportedfromWaterResourcesPlanScenario1maynotbethesameasthelandusecategoriescontainedintheoriginalWTMfiles.

With the exceptions noted herein, the other WTM version 3.1 worksheets wereincorporatedintoPLAMintheiroriginalformatwithoutmodification,andtheuseoftheirfunctionalityshouldbeguidedbytheuser’sexperienceand/ordirectionfromtheCenterforWatershedProtection.


METHODOLOGY FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY WATER RESOURCE PLAN NONPOINT SOURCE MODELINGThePLAMmodeldescribedabovewasutilizedtogeneratedatainsupportofPrinceGeorge’sCounty’sWaterResourcesPlan.TogeneratedataconsistentwiththedefaultWaterResourcesPlanmodelmethodology,thebaserunsfortheWaterResourcesPlanweregeneratedusingthePLAMworksheetsshowninTable1toestimatechangesinnutrientloadsresultingfromchangesinlandusebyapplyingauniformsetofloadingrates across the initial and future scenarios.The worksheets shown inTable 2 wereincorporatedintoPLAMtoprovideagreaterlevelofflexibilityforthecounty’sfutureevaluationofsmaller-scalewatershedprograms,butwerenotneededforgenerationofthedatarequestedbythestateforthePrinceGeorge’sCountyWaterResourcesPlan.

The land use acreages, septic systems, and point source loads for initial and futuredevelopmentscenarioswerecompiled inadata inputworkbookentitled“LandUseData.xls”andimportedintoPLAMmodelrunsusingexternalreferenceformulas.Theloading rates used for the model were complied in a data input workbook entitled“Load Rates.xls” and imported into PLAM model runs using external referenceformulas.ThemajorityofdatainputswereidenticaltoorbaseduponthedataprovidedintheMDE-providedspreadsheetscreatedfortheWRE.However,therewereafewvariances from the MDE model that were incorporated due to inherent countyinformation(e.g.,countylandusecategories)orformatofcountydata(e.g.,dataonemployment use of septic systems), or a few other reasons, and these variances arediscussedthroughoutthismethodologysectionandsummarizedattheendofAppendixI,Attachment1.Bothsetsofdatainputsaredescribedbelow.

Land Use Data InputThelandusedataprovidedforthenonpointsourcemodelingworkwaspreparedinclose coordination with the Planning Department’s information management andplanningpersonnel.Theconsultantteamutilizedageographical informationsystem(GIS) and land use modeling in conjunction with data provided by the PlanningDepartment and Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) to generate the datadiscussedinmoredetailbelow.

INITIAL CONDITIONSMDP publishes statewide land use/land cover data based on analysis of parcelinformationinconjunctionwithhighaltitudeaerialphotographyandsatelliteimagery.ThedefaultWaterResourcesPlanmodel spreadsheetprovidedbyMDEcontainedMDP’s2002landcoverdataforinitialconditionsforthefollowing6-digitwatershedslocatedwithinPrinceGeorge’sCounty:PatuxentAboveFall,PatuxentBelowFall,andPotomac Below Fall. Subsequent to receipt of the default Water Resources Planspreadsheet,MDPreleasedadraft2007LandUse/LandCoverUpdate.Thepurposeof this update was to capture and analyze the consumption of land due to recentdevelopmentandtocharacterizethenewdevelopment.ThePrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanning Department evaluated both data sets and selected the 2007 data since itreflectedthemostcurrentandaccurateexistingconditions.Thus,thestate’s2007landusedatawasincorporatedintoPLAMandrepresentsinitialconditionsfortheWaterResourcesPlan’snonpointsourceloadinganalysis.


Attachment1ofthisappendixprovidesthelandusecategoriesincludedintheWaterResourcesPlanmodelspreadsheetcreatedbyMDEforPrinceGeorge’sCounty,alongwith the respective associated impervious cover percentages and loading rates. InMDP’s 2007 land use data, two new urban land use categories were included thatreplace the state’s 191—Rural Residential land use category included in theWaterResourcesPlanmodel.Thestate’sdefinitionsforthesecategoriesareprovidedbelowandinAttachment 1:

� 191—Large Lot Subdivision (Agriculture)—Residential subdivisions with lotsizesoflessthan20acresbutatleastfiveacres,withadominantlandcoverofopenfieldsorpasture.

� 192—LargeLotSubdivision(Forest)—Residentialsubdivisionswithlotsizesoflessthan20acresbutatleastfiveacres,withadominantlandcoverofdeciduous,evergreen,ormixedforest.

The landareawithin thePatuxentbasinabove the fall line is very small (600acrescomparedto161,000acresbelowthefallline),andthelineisnotdefinedwithinthestateorcounty’sGIS,makingdelineationoflandusesaboveandbelowthefall linedifficult.Therefore,theanalysisconductedfortheWaterResourcesPlanwasdevelopedbasedontheassumptionthattheentirecountywascontainedwithinthetwo6-digitwatershedsPatuxentBelowFallandPotomacBelowFall,andallthecounty’sacreagefromthestate’s2007landusedataforthevariouslandusecategorieswereassignedtothesetwowatershedsinthePLAMmodelruns.Inpreparingthe2007landusedataforthemodelinputfiles,thedataweredividedamongthenine8-digitsubwatershedslocatedwithinthePatuxentBelowFallandPotomacBelowFallwatersheds.Ofthesenine8-digitsubwatersheds,perthedirectionofthePrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningDepartment,thefollowingtwowatershedswerefullyincorporatedintothelanduseanalysis and PLAM for the Water Resources Plan: Western Branch (within thePatuxentBelowFall)andPiscataway(withinPotomacBelowFall).Table3outlinesthelandcovercategoriesincludedunderthe2007MDPLandUse/LandCoveranalysis,as well as the associated 2007 acreage data for Prince George’s County. A mapillustratingthe2007dataisprovidedasMap1(AppendixI).


Table 3. MDP 2007 Land Use/Land Cover Categories

Land Use Code Description Existing Acres

242 Agricultural Building, Breeding and Training Facilities 198

73 Bare Ground 6,175

71 Beaches 58

44 Brush 3,135

14 Commercial 9,516

21 Cropland 23,616

41 Deciduous Forest 77,416

42 Evergreen Forest 3,545

17 Extractive 1,695

241 Feeding Operations 0

13 High Density Residential 13,542

15 Industrial 8,333

16 Institutional 14,537

191 Large Lot Subdivision (Agriculture) 2,121

192 Large Lot Subdivision (Forest) 8,821

11 Low Density Residential 29,774

12 Medium Density Residential 52,504

43 Mixed Forest 29,628

18 Open Urban Land 7,946

23 Orchards/Vineyards/Horticulture 27

22 Pasture 8,867

25 Row and Garden Crops 260

80 Transportation 3,573

50 Water 1,401

60 Wetlands 2,693

Total 309,382

Inadditiontothelanduse/landcovercategoriesprovidedbytheMDEWaterResourcesPlanspreadsheet,thePLAMLandUseData.xlsspreadsheetincludesanumberoflandusecategoriesusedbyPrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningDepartmentandinformationalmanagementsystem.NotesregardingcorrelationsbetweenthestateandcountylandclassificationsareincludedinthePLAMworkbookswhereapplicable.


Future Land Use Scenarios TheMetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments(COG),throughaCooperativeForecastingProgramwith localgovernments, creates andmaintainspopulationandemployment projections through 2030.The COG data is generally considered as areliablesourceformostregionalplanningstudies,andtheWaterResourcesPlanbasesits future land use analysis on the 2005 MWCOG/M-NCPPC baseline and 2030projections. However, COG maintains its data aggregated by traffic analysis zones(TAZs)thatdonotcorrespondtothewatershedboundariesusedasanalysisunitsbytheWaterResourcesPlan.Inordertocreateamoreapplicabledataset,AECOMusedsimple scaling methods to aggregate TAZ-based data into 8-digit and 6-digitwatershed-basedpopulationandemployment totals.UsingGIS,AECOMattachedtheCOGtablestoaTAZGISlayer.AssuminguniformdistributionwithineachTAZ,AECOMcalculatedalinearscalingratio,ordensityofattribute/acreofTAZforeachpopulation,employment,anddwellingunitsattributeforeachoftheyears:2005,2010,2015,2020,2025and2030.ThenacopyofthismodifiedTAZlayerwasclippedtothewatershedboundary.Theareaof theclippedpolygonwas recalculatedand then theresultingattributeinformationwasupdatedbyusingtheformula:

Updated Attribute = Updated Area x Attribute Scaling Ratio

e.g., 2030 Population = (TAZ area in watershed) x original population density(pop/acre)

EachTAZpolygonwasthentaggedwiththewatershedIDofthe8-digitwatersheditwascontainedwithin.EachattributewasthensummedbyusingthewatershedIDtoproduceanewtable(seeTable4)withtotalsofpopulation,employment,anddwellingunitsbywatershedandbyyear(2005,2010,2015,2020,2025and2030).ThepopulationdatafortheCityofLaurelwasincludedaspartoftheUpperPatuxentsubwatershedinTable4.ThemethodologywasvalidatedbybothCOGandcountyplanners.


Table 4: MWCOG/M-NCPPC Population, Dwelling Unit, and Employee Data and Projections

Watershed Subwatershed Population2005

DwellingUnits2005

Employment2005

Population2030*

DwellingUnits2030*

Employment2030*

Patuxent LowerPatuxent 3,727 1,322 661 3,735 1,390 746

Patuxent MiddlePatuxent 22,768 8,039 5,312 30,282 11,302 6,361

Patuxent UpperPatuxent 93,317 36,899 27,794 101,034 41,680 44,703

Patuxent WesternBranch 162,363 60,193 68,860 202,254 79,217 105,138

Potomac Anacostia 326,839 119,320 167,107 366,474 142,745 255,233

Potomac LowerPotomac 8,133 2,906 3,704 15,593 5,872 4,715

Potomac OxonCreek 67,166 27,998 16,699 69,512 30,474 21,105

Potomac Piscataway 67,172 23,007 23,357 81,512 29,522 28,932

Potomac WashMetroArea 101,398 39,282 34,392 122,476 50,297 51,455

852,883 318,966 347,885 992,871 392,498 518,388

*COGProjectionsbyTAZ(Round7.1CooperativeForecastforPrinceGeorge’sCounty)

Thedifferencebetween2005and2030populationandemploymentfiguresrepresentstheanticipatedgrowthduringthattimeandtheservesasthebasisforthedevelopmentscenarios.This level ofnewgrowthwas assumed tobe constantwithin aparticularwatershed.Table5definesthepopulationandemploymentgrowthtobeaccommodatedto2030(froma2005baseline)by6-digitor8-digitwatershed.


Table 5: Population and Employment Growth to 2030 by Subwatershed

Watershed Population Growth to 2030

Employment Growth to 2030

Potomac 84,858 116,181Piscataway 14,339 5,574Patuxent 55,129 54,322WesternBranch 39,891 36,278

Thedevelopmentcapacityofthelandintermsofresidentialandemploymentzoningdensitiesalsoservedasaconstantindevelopingthe2030landusescenarios.Existingcountyzoningcapacitybydwellingunitsperacre,aswellasFloorAreaRatiosandsquarefootageperemployeestandards,werestudiedinordertoassignvaluestoeachstate land cover category. Despite the fact that no exact correlation exists betweencounty zoning and state land coverdesignations, thedensities selected to representeachcategorywerechoseninconsultationwiththecountyandarecloselylinkedtothecorresponding zoning.Tables 6 and 7 show the density data used to calculate thescenarioacreages.

Table 6: Residential Densities by MDP Land Cover Category

Land Use Dwelling Unit Density

LargeLotSubdivision(Agriculture) 0.05LargeLotSubdivision(Forest) 0.05ResidentialLow 2ResidentialMedium 5ResidentialHigh 16Mixed-UseResidential 8

Table 7: Employment Density Factors by MDP Land Cover Category

Land Use FAR SF/Employee

Commercial 0.41 325Mixed-UseCommercial 0.41 325Industrial 0.31 700Institutional 0.41 1,250Mixed-UseResidential 1.5 325


The compilation and structure of the future development scenario data used in PLAM were the same as described above for the initial conditions data. In addition, the following three land use categories were incorporated into the future development scenarios to reflect the county’s smart growth initiatives:

� 129—MixedUseResidential:Denseurbanresidentialdevelopmentsuchashigh-rise apartment or condominium dwelling units over ground-level commercialdevelopmentcomprisingamixofapproximately50percenthigh-densityresidentialspace,20percentcommercialspace,tenpercentopenurbanorparkland,and20percentundevelopedspace.Thepercentageofimperviousareaishigherthanhigh-densityresidentialdevelopmentbut lower thancommercialdevelopmentduetotheopenandundevelopedspaceprovided.

� 129s—MixedUseResidential:ThislandusecategorywasdevelopedtoreflectthePrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningDepartment’s visionof smart growth aroundtransportation centers and growth corridors, which reflects moderately dense,mixedsuburbanresidentialdevelopmentsuchasapartmentsandcondominiums,townhouses,anddensedetachedhousingcombinedwithcommercialdevelopment.Thislandusecategoryisenvisionedtocompriseapproximately50percentmediumandhighdensityresidentialandinstitutionalspace,10percentcommercialspace,20percentopenurban,parklandandrecreationalspace,and20percentundevelopedspace.Thepercentageofimperviousareaislowerthanthemoredenselydevelopedurban mixed residential category described above, and similar to medium highdensitydevelopment.

� 149—MixedUseCommercial:Denseurbancommercialdevelopmentwithmixofretail,officeandothernonresidentialdevelopment.Thepercentageofimperviousareaisthesameascommercialdevelopment.

IndevelopingtheWaterResourcesPlanmodelscenarios,twofuturelandusescenarioswere considered for theyear2030,whichwereguidedbya setof related factors asdiscussedindetailbelow.Theoverallapproachwastodevelopcontrastingalternativestocompare landuseacreagesunderwhatweretermedtrendandidealdevelopmentscenarios.Thetrendscenariorepresentedacontinuationofexistinglandusepatternstoaccommodate future population growth, so the trend scenario extrapolated thecompositionoffuturelandusebywatershedinlinewithwhatcurrentlyexistsinthecountybysubwatershed.Bycontrast,theidealscenariowasdevelopedtorepresentthecounty’s smartgrowthvision,which consistsofmore compactdevelopment aroundtransportation centers and growth corridors to accommodate future growth. Thecompletedportionofthecounty’sfuturelanduseplan(beingpreparedseparatefromthe Water Resources Plan for strategic planning purposes), along with designatedtransportationcentersandgrowthcorridors,areillustratedinMap2(AppendixI).Thecounty’slanduseplanningeffortshavehistoricallybeentargetedatspecificplanningsubregions,andtheavailabledataincludedsmallareaandsectorplans,aswellasthepartial county land use plan illustrated here.This information helped to guide thescenariodevelopment, and isdiscussed inmoredetail for each subwatershed in theFutureLandUseScenariosSectiontofollow.


Map 2 (Appendix I): County future land use and designated centers and corridors.


Future Trend Development vs. Future Ideal Development InputIn order to fully define the distinction between trend and ideal scenarios, a set ofparameterswasestablishedforeachwatershed.Thethreeoverarchingdriversbehindeachscenarioweretargetsrelatedtoinfill,redevelopment,andpreservationofcountygreeninfrastructureacreage.Figure1providesagraphicalrepresentationoftheprocessused to generate the land use scenarios. The first of these, infill, represented theproportionofthenewpopulationandemploymentthatcouldbeaccommodatedwithinexistinglanduses.Forinstance,densificationofanexistingcommercialorresidentialarea does not change the overall land use acreage, but simply absorbs new growthwithinanexistingcontext.Theinfillpercentagetherebyrepresentsthepercentageofpopulationgrowththatdoesnotrequiredevelopmentofnewacreage.

Existing Land UseBy Watershed

Prince George’s County Land Use and Growth Trends

and Policies

COG Projections By Watershed

Green Infrastructure Targets By Watershed

2010 Population + Employment Model

Land Use Projection and Optimization Model

Land Use Density Assumptions

Undeveloped Land Supply Priority

Population and Employment Factors Redevelopment Land

Supply Assumptions

New Growth %

Infill Growth %

Infill Growth %

Land Area Change

2030 Land Use

Figure 1: Land use model process diagram.


Incontrasttoinfill,redevelopmentinvolvesgrowthwithinpreviouslydevelopedland,butinamannerthatchangestheusesignatureoftheland.Conversionoflandfromcommercial to a mixed-use land use category is an example of redevelopment thatallowsfornewpopulationandemploymentgrowthwithoutdevelopmentofgreenfieldacres.Theredevelopmentpercentagerepresentsthepercentageofnewpopulationandemploymentgrowththatcanbeaccommodatedinthisway.

Finally,thecountygreeninfrastructurenetworkdeservedspecialattentionintermsofaccommodatingnewdevelopment.TheacreagesassociatedwiththethreecategoriesoflandasdefinedintheApprovedCountywideGreenInfrastructurePlan,namelytheregulatedarea, theevaluationarea, andnetworkgap wereconsideredas targets forpreservationunderfuturelandusescenarios,butstrictlyasaquantitativeexercise.Theideal scenarios represented attempts to fully preserve the sum total of all acreageidentifiedaspartofthegreeninfrastructurenetwork,whilethetrendscenariosincludedalowerpreservationthreshold.Duetothefactthatthelandusescenariomodelisnotspatial, the designation of acreages to be preserved was not meant to be a literalinterpretationoftheCountywideGreenInfrastructurePlanortotranslateintopolicy,butwas intended to serveas aplanning tool forpurposesof scenariodevelopment.Green infrastructure acreage targetswere represented in termsof forest, brush, andotherundevelopedMDPlandusecategories,whichweretargetedforpreservation.

Table8providestheinfillandredevelopmentpercentagesutilizedforeachwatershedunder trend and ideal scenarios, as well as the corresponding green infrastructurepreservationtargets.

Priority Conversion of Redevelopment Acreage. Assignment of land forredevelopmentwasdoneonaprioritizationbasisbywatershedandscenario.Thiseffortwastailoredtotheuniquesituationineachsubwatershedandtheperceivedpotentialforredevelopment.Forexample,thepresenceofsubstantiallargelotresidentialacreageincertainsubwatershedsprovidesthemostlogicaltargetforredevelopment,whereasinothers the focus is aging or underutilized commercial properties. The targetredevelopmentpercentagetranslatesintoaspecificacreagebasedontheseparametersin combination with the previously established zoning data. The land supply forredevelopmentderivedfromexistinglargelotsubdivision,residentiallow,commercial,and industrial uses. Conversion to new land uses was specified for both residential(population) and employment growth. The specific redevelopment calculations arespecifiedinTables9to24bywatershedandscenario,whereTables9to16outlinetheredevelopmenttargets,andTables17to24showthelandsupplynecessarytoaccomplishthetargets.Inthecaseofthelatter,thelandusesforredevelopmentsupplyareassignedpercentagestorepresenteachinrelationtothetotalacreagenecessaryforredevelopment.


Table 8. Infill, Redevelopment and Conservation Targets by Watershed, Trend and Ideal Scenarios

Potomac Watershed Trend Ideal

Infill 5% 20%

Redevelopment 15% 50%

Gre

en

Infr

a-st

ruct

ure RegulatedArea 100% 100%

EvaluationArea 60% 100%

NetworkGap 20% 100%

Patuxent Watershed Trend Ideal

Infill 5% 8%


Gre

en

Infr

a-st

ruct



NetworkGap 20% 100%

Piscataway Watershed Trend Ideal

Infill 5% 10%


Gre

en

Infr

a-st

ruct



NetworkGap 20% 100%

Western Branch Watershed Trend Ideal

Infill 5% 10%


Gre

en In

fra-

stru

ctur

e

RegulatedArea 100% 100%


NetworkGap 20% 100%


Table 9: Redevelopment Target for Potomac Trend Scenario

ResidentialRedevelopmentAllocation

LU Code Description Used Description

Percent of Redevelopment

Population

Area Required

(acres)

Redevelopment Population

12 ResidentialMedium ResidentialMedium 0.0 0.0 013 ResidentialHigh ResidentialHigh 50.0 137.2 6,364129 MixedUseResidential MixedUseResidential 50.0 201.5 6,364

100.0 338.7 12,728NonresidentialRedevelopmentAllocation

14 Commercial Commercial 40.0 126.9 6,970149 MixedUseCommercial MixedUseCommercial 10.0 31.7 1,74215 Industrial Industrial 20.0 180.7 3,48516 Institutional Institutional 10.0 122.0 1,742129 MixedUseResidential MixedUseResidential 20.0 52.0 3,485

100.0 513.2 17,424

Table 10: Redevelopment Target for Potomac Ideal Scenario




Population

Area Required

(acres)




14 Commercial Commercial 20.0 211.4 11,618149 MixedUseCommercial MixedUseCommercial 50.0 528.5 29,04515 Industrial Industrial 0.0 0.0 016 Institutional Institutional 5.0 203.3 2,904129 MixedUseResidential MixedUseResidential 25.0 144.5 14,522

100.0 1,087.7 58,089


Table 11: Redevelopment Target for Patuxent Trend Scenario




Population

Area Required

(acres)




14 Commercial Commercial 10.0 9.9 543149 MixedUseCommercial MixedUseCommercial 40.0 39.5 2,17215 Industrial Industrial 0.0 0.0 016 Institutional Institutional 10.0 38.0 543129 MixedUseResidential MixedUseResidential 40.0 32.4 2,172

100.0 119.9 5,430

Table 12: Redevelopment Target for Patuxent Ideal Scenario




Population

Area Required

(acres)





100.0 359.6 16,294


Table 13: Redevelopment Target for Piscataway Trend Scenario




Population

Area Required

(acres)


12 ResidentialMedium ResidentialMedium 10.0 9.9 14313 ResidentialHigh ResidentialHigh 45.0 13.9 644129 MixedUseResidential MixedUseResidential 45.0 20.4 644


14 Commercial Commercial 10.0 1.0 55149 MixedUseCommercial MixedUseCommercial 30.0 3.0 16715 Industrial Industrial 0.0 0.0 016 Institutional Institutional 25.0 9.7 139129 MixedUseResidential MixedUseResidential 35.0 2.9 194

100.0 16.7 555

Table 14: Redevelopment Target for Piscataway Ideal Scenario




Population

Area Required

(acres)




14 Commercial Commercial 10.0 2.5 139149 MixedUseCommercial MixedUseCommercial 40.0 10.1 55715 Industrial Industrial 0.0 0.0 016 Institutional Institutional 15.0 14.6 208129 MixedUseResidential MixedUseResidential 35.0 7.3 487

100.0 34.6 1,391


Table 15: Redevelopment Target for Western Branch Trend Scenario




Population

Area Required

(acres)




14 Commercial Commercial 10.0 9.9 544149 MixedUseCommercial MixedUseCommercial 40.0 39.6 2,17615 Industrial Industrial 0.0 0.0 016 Institutional Institutional 10.0 38.1 544129 MixedUseResidential MixedUseResidential 40.0 32.5 2,176

100.0 120.1 5,440

Table 16: Redevelopment Target for Western Branch Ideal Scenario




Population

Area Required

(acres)





100.0 544.2 18,136


Table 17: Supply of Land for Redevelopment, Potomac Trend Scenario

RedevelopmentLandSupply

LU Code Description Used

Description

Percent of Redevelopment Acres Required

Area Lost

Existing Population

Existing Employment

101 LargeLotSubdivision(Agriculture)

Rural(Agriculture) 20.0 160.0 23 0

102 LargeLotSubdivision(Forest)

Rural(Forest) 20.0 160.0 23 0

11 ResidentialLow ResidentialLow 5.0 40.0 231 014 Commercial Commercial 30.0 240.0 0 13,18615 Industrial Industrial 25.0 200.0 0 3,857

100.0 513.2 17,424 17,043ExistingResidentsAccommodated—277ExistingEmployeesAccommodated—17,043

Table 18: Supply of Land for Redevelopment, Potomac Ideal Scenario



Description


Area Lost

Existing Population

Existing Employment




Rural(Forest) 10.0 184.8 26 0

11 ResidentialLow ResidentialLow 30.0 554.5 3,216 014 Commercial Commercial 20.0 369.7 0 20,31315 Industrial Industrial 30.0 554.5 0 10,696

100.0 1,848.3 3,268 31,009ExistingResidentsAccommodated—3,268ExistingEmployeesAccommodated—31,009


Table 19: Supply of Land for Redevelopment, Patuxent Trend Scenario



Description


Area Lost

Existing Population

Existing Employment




Rural(Forest) 0.0 0.0 0 0


100.0 234.1 73 5,891ExistingResidentsAccommodated—73ExistingEmployeesAccommodated—5,891

Table 20: Supply of Land for Redevelopment, Patuxent Ideal Scenario



Description


Area Lost

Existing Population

Existing Employment








Table 21: Supply of Land for Redevelopment, Piscataway Trend Scenario



Description


Area Lost

Existing Population

Existing Employment





11 ResidentialLow ResidentialLow 30.0 17.4 100 014 Commercial Commercial 30.0 17.4 0 95615 Industrial Industrial 20.0 11.6 0 223


Table 22: Supply of Land for Redevelopment, Piscataway Ideal Scenario



Description


Area Lost

Existing Population

Existing Employment





11 ResidentialLow ResidentialLow 40.0 49.1 284 014 Commercial Commercial 20.0 24.5 0 1,34815 Industrial Industrial 20.0 24.5 0 473



Table 23: Supply of Land for Redevelopment, Western Branch Trend Scenario



Description


Area Lost

Existing Population

Existing Employment







Table 24: Supply of Land for Redevelopment, Western Branch Ideal Scenario



Description


Area Lost

Existing Population

Existing Employment





11 ResidentialLow ResidentialLow 20.0 196.0 1,136 014 Commercial Commercial 20.0 196.0 0 10,77215 Industrial Industrial 40.0 392.0 0 7,562

100.0 980.1 1,164 18,334ExistingResidentsAccommodated—1,164ExistingEmployeesAccommodated—18,334


One consideration in redevelopment calculations is the displacement of existingresidentsandemployeesbyconversionofonelandusetypetoanother.Thispopulationisfactoredbackintothecalculationsaspartofthegrowthtobeaccommodated.Forinstance,conversionofalow-densityresidentialneighborhoodtoahigherdensityormixed-usedevelopmentwill,atleastfromtheperspectiveofthewatershed,necessitateanadjustmentofthegrowthpotentialtoconsiderthedisplacedpopulation.

Priority Conversion of Greenfield Acreage. Thepopulationandemploymentgrowthtobeaccommodatedbeyondtheestablishedredevelopmentandinfillcapacityrequiresconversionofgreenfieldlandtodevelopeduses.Ahierarchywithrespecttolandsupplyforconversionaswellasfuturelandusedesignationswasestablishedtocorrespondtothegoalsforaspecificscenarioandwatershed.BasedoncoordinationwiththePrinceGeorge’sCountyPlanningDepartment,existingbaregroundwaschosenasthefirstlanduseforconversiontodevelopment,followedbybrushandcropland.Thelandusecategoriesconstitutingthegreeninfrastructuredesignation,includingforests,pasture,andwetlands,werelastintheconversionsequenceinordertoallowformeetingthepreviouslydiscussedconservationtargets.Capsweresetwithrespecttoeachlandusecategorytorepresentthemaximumpercentageofeachcategoryavailableforconversionbefore proceeding to the next land use in sequence (termed maximum utilizationpercentageinthetablesthatfollow).Thefloorarearatio(FAR)andgrossfloorarea(GFA) data allows for calculation of employment figures under the assumption ofstandardsquarefootagesperemployee.ThespecificgreenfielddevelopmentparametersarespecifiedinTables25to32bywatershedandscenario.


Table 25 Greenfield Development Parameters for Potomac Trend Scenario

LU Code Description DU Density Existing Percent

of PopulationTarget Percent New

Population101 LargeLotSubdivision(Agriculture) 0.05 0.01% 0.05102 LargeLotSubdivision(Forest) 0.05 0.05% 0.0511 ResidentialLow 2 6.8% 6.912 ResidentialMedium 5 49.0% 49.013 ResidentialHigh 16 43.9% 34.0129 MixedUseResidential 8 0.0% 10.018 Openurbanland 0.15 0.3% 0.0

100.0% 100.0

Nonresidential(Employment)

LU Code Description FAR Existing Percent

of EmploymentTarget Percent New Employment GFA

14 Commercial 0.41 58.4% 48.4149 MixedUseCommercial 0.41 0.0% 10.015 Industrial 0.31 14.8% 14.816 Institutional 0.41 26.8% 21.8129 MixedUseResidential 1 0.0% 5.0

100.0% 100.0

PriorityOrderofConversiontoGreenfieldDevelopment

LU Code Description Order of

Development Total Area Maximum Utilization Percent

73 Bareground 1 3,292 9044 Brush 2 1,042 7521 Cropland 3 7,318 6022 Pasture 4 3,624 1041 Deciduousforest 5 33,282 543 Mixedforest 6 15,433 542 Evergreenforest 7 2,342 517 Extractive 8 864 024 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtraining 9 141 025 Rowandgardencrops 9 47 050 Water 9 534 060 Wetlands 9 234 080 Transportation 9 2,273 071 Beaches 9 58 0

68,152


Table 26 Greenfield Development Parameters for Potomac Ideal Scenario



Population101 LargeLotSubdivision(Agriculture) 0.05 0.01 0.05102 LargeLotSubdivision(Forest) 0.05 0.05 0.0511 ResidentialLow 2 6.8 2.912 ResidentialMedium 5 49.0 10.013 ResidentialHigh 16 43.9 37.0129 MixedUseResidential 8 0.0 50.018 Openurbanland 0.15 0.3 0.0

100.0 100.0




14 Commercial 0.41 58.4 10.0149 MixedUseCommercial 0.41 0.0 45.015 Industrial 0.31 14.8 5.016 Institutional 0.41 26.8 20.0129 MixedUseResidential 1.5 0.0 20.0

100.0 100.0




73 Bareground 1 3,292 8044 Brush 2 1,042 2521 Cropland 3 7,318 522 Pasture 4 3,624 541 Deciduousforest 5 33,282 543 Mixedforest 6 15,433 542 Evergreenforest 7 2,342 517 Extractive 8 864 024 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtraining 9 141 025 Rowandgardencrops 9 47 050 Water 9 534 060 Wetlands 9 234 080 Transportation 9 2,273 071 Beaches 9 58 0

68,152


Table 27 Greenfield Development Parameters for Patuxent Trend Scenario




100.0% 100.0





100.0% 100.0




73 Bareground 1 2,883 9044 Brush 2 2,093 7521 Cropland 3 16,298 1022 Pasture 4 5,243 1041 Deciduousforest 5 44,134 543 Mixedforest 6 14,196 542 Evergreenforest 7 1,203 517 Extractive 8 832 024 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtraining 9 58 025 Rowandgardencrops 9 213 050 Water 9 868 060 Wetlands 9 2,458 080 Transportation 9 1,300 071 Beaches 9 0 0

90,478


Table 28 Greenfield Development Parameters for Patuxent Ideal Scenario




100.0% 100.0





100.0% 100.0




73 Bareground 1 2,883 9044 Brush 2 2,093 6521 Cropland 3 16,298 522 Pasture 4 5,243 541 Deciduousforest 5 44,134 543 Mixedforest 6 14,196 542 Evergreenforest 7 1,203 517 Extractive 8 832 024 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtraining 9 58 025 Rowandgardencrops 9 213 050 Water 9 868 060 Wetlands 9 2,458 080 Transportation 9 1,300 071 Beaches 9 0 0

90,478


Table 29 Greenfield Development Parameters for Piscataway Trend Scenario




100.0% 100.0





100.0% 100.0




73 Bareground 1 907 8044 Brush 2 446 7021 Cropland 3 3,042 5022 Pasture 4 1,083 5041 Deciduousforest 5 12,797 543 Mixedforest 6 3,598 542 Evergreenforest 7 616 517 Extractive 8 193 024 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtraining 9 58 025 Rowandgardencrops 9 19 050 Water 9 123 060 Wetlands 9 72 080 Transportation 9 324 071 Beaches 9 0 0

22,955


Table 30 Greenfield Development Parameters for Piscataway Ideal Scenario




100.0% 100.0





100.0% 100.0




73 Bareground 1 907 8044 Brush 2 446 7021 Cropland 3 3,042 5022 Pasture 4 1,083 5041 Deciduousforest 5 12,797 543 Mixedforest 6 3,598 542 Evergreenforest 7 616 517 Extractive 8 193 024 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtraining 9 58 025 Rowandgardencrops 9 19 050 Water 9 123 060 Wetlands 9 72 080 Transportation 9 324 071 Beaches 9 0 0

22,955


Table 31: Greenfield Development Parameters for Western Branch Trend Scenario




100.0% 100.0





100.0% 100.0




73 Bareground 1 1,628 9044 Brush 2 1,185 7521 Cropland 3 5,183 5022 Pasture 4 1,900 5041 Deciduousforest 5 17,569 543 Mixedforest 6 725 542 Evergreenforest 7 135 517 Extractive 8 0 024 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtraining 9 33 025 Rowandgardencrops 9 36 050 Water 9 273 060 Wetlands 9 143 080 Transportation 9 706 071 Beaches 9 0 0

28,810


Table 32: Greenfield Development Parameters for Western Branch Ideal Scenario




100.0% 100.0





100.0% 100.0




73 Bareground 1 1,628 8044 Brush 2 1,185 7021 Cropland 3 5,183 5022 Pasture 4 1,900 5041 Deciduousforest 5 17,569 543 Mixedforest 6 725 542 Evergreenforest 7 135 517 Extractive 8 0 024 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtraining 9 33 025 Rowandgardencrops 9 36 050 Water 9 273 060 Wetlands 9 143 080 Transportation 9 706 071 Beaches 9 0 0

28,810


LAND USE RESULTSThedescriptions and tables on the followingpagesoutline the changes in landuseassociatedwiththe2030trendandidealscenariosascomparedtothe2007baselinedataforeachsubwatershed.Thechangesinpercentageofeachlandusecategoryareindicated as well, drawing attention to the shifts in land use necessary under eachscenariotoaccommodatetheprojectedlevelofpopulationandemploymentgrowth.

Potomac WatershedBasedoncountyexistinglanduseinformation,thePotomacwatershedislargelybuiltup with an average medium density residential with denser developments aroundMetrostops.IndustrialandcommercialusesoccuralongkeycorridorssuchasUS1,US 50 and MD 4. The central portion of the watershed lies under the county’sDevelopedTierclassificationwhilemostportionsofthenorthernandsouthernpartsareclassifiedundertheDevelopingTier.Asmallportionofthewatershedinthenorthis classified under the Rural Tier and incorporates the rural, very low densitydevelopment.

According tocountyprojections, thePotomacwatershedwillexperiencepopulationincreaseof84,858andanemploymentincreaseof116,181personsby2030.ThecountyfuturelanduseplanforthePotomacwatershedincludessomemajornewdevelopmentssuchasBrandywinebutalsoemphasizessmartgrowthconceptsforintensificationofuses along corridors and nodes organized mostly around transit opportunities.Thegeneralintentoftheplansreviewedconfirmsthedevelopmentpatternisintendedtofollowthetiers—withtheDevelopingTierexperiencingmostofthenewgrowthandtheDevelopedTierabsorbinginfillandredevelopment.

FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOSThetrendscenarioforPotomacwatershedassumesthatfivepercentofthepopulationgrowthwillbeaccommodatedasinfilland15percentasredevelopment.Theareasofredevelopmentandinfillwillpredominantlybearoundthecorridorsandnodes.Newareasofdevelopmentwill largelybe in the southernDevelopingTier.This scenarioprojectsthataround10,925acresofnewland,oraround7.2percentofthewatershedlandarea,wouldberequiredtoaccommodatethepopulationgrowth.Table33providesthelanduseresultsforthePotomactrendscenario.

Theidealscenarioisbasedonmoreaggressiveandoptimisticassumptionsonfollowingthe future land use patterns and the nodes and corridor concepts promoted in theGeneralPlan.Thescenarioassumesthat20percentofthegrowthwillbeabsorbedasinfilland50percentofthegrowthwillbeabsorbedasredevelopment.Thisredevelopmentwilllargelyoccuralongthehighwaycorridors,theBeltway,MARCandMetrostations,andothernodesandtransformlowdensityandindustrialusestomoremediumdensityandmixed-usepatterns.Theidealscenariorequires3,555acrestoaccommodatenewdevelopmentor2.3percentofthewatershedarea,butrequiresnearly1,888acrestoberedeveloped and transformed.The ideal scenario proposes an overall higher averagedensityofdevelopment(12.5DU/acre)thanthetrendscenario(5.5DU/acre)promotingamorecompactdevelopmentthantheexistingpattern.Table34providesthelanduseresultsforthePotomacidealscenario.


Table 33: Potomac Trend Scenario Land Use Results

LU Code Land Use Description

Potomac Potomac Change in PercentageExisting Acres Percent 2030 Acres Percent

101 Rural(Agriculture) 325 0.21 400 0.26 0.05102 Rural(Forest) 3,194 2.11 3,269 2.16 0.0511 ResidentialLow 11,029 7.27 11,800 7.78 0.5112 ResidentialMedium 31,643 20.87 33,946 22.39 1.5213 ResidentialHigh 8,852 5.84 9,489 6.26 0.42129 MixedUseResidential 0 0.00 417 0.28 0.2814 Commercial 5,904 3.89 6,760 4.46 0.56149 MixedUseCommercial 0 0.00 232 0.15 0.1515 Industrial 4,272 2.82 7,012 4.62 1.8116 Institutional 10,441 6.89 12,292 8.11 1.2218 Parks&OpenSpace 5,468 3.61 5,978 3.94 0.3421 Cropland 7,318 4.83 2,927 1.93 -2.9022 Pasture 3,624 2.39 3,261 2.15 -0.2424 AgricultureFacilities 141 0.09 141 0.09 0.0025 RowandGardenCrops 47 0.03 47 0.03 0.0041 DeciduousForest 33,282 21.95 31,618 20.85 -1.1042 EvergreenForest 2,342 1.54 2,342 1.54 0.0043 MixedForest 15,433 10.18 15,128 9.98 -0.2044 Brush 1,042 0.69 261 0.17 -0.5250 Water 534 0.35 534 0.35 0.0060 Wetlands 234 0.15 234 0.15 0.0073 Bareground 3,292 2.17 329 0.22 -1.9571 Beaches 58 0.04 58 0.04 0.0017 Mining 864 0.57 864 0.57 0.0080 Transportation 2,273 1.50 2,273 1.50 0.00

Total 151,609 100.0 151,609 100 0


Table 34: Potomac Ideal Scenario Land Use Results


Potomac Potomac Change in PercentageExisting Acres Percent 2030 Acres Percent

101 Rural(Agriculture) 325 0.21 239 0.16 -0.06102 Rural(Forest) 3,194 2.11 3,108 2.05 -0.0611 ResidentialLow 11,029 7.27 10,618 7.00 -0.2712 ResidentialMedium 31,643 20.87 31,841 21.00 0.1313 ResidentialHigh 8,852 5.84 9,538 6.29 0.45129 MixedUseResidential 0 0.00 751 0.50 0.5014 Commercial 5,904 3.89 5,866 3.87 -0.03149 MixedUseCommercial 0 0.00 1,068 0.70 0.7015 Industrial 4,272 2.82 4,059 2.68 -0.1416 Institutional 10,441 6.89 11,617 7.66 0.7818 Parks&OpenSpace 5,468 3.61 5,978 3.94 0.3421 Cropland 7,318 4.83 6,952 4.59 -0.2422 Pasture 3,624 2.39 3,442 2.27 -0.1224 AgricultureFacilities 141 0.09 141 0.09 0.0025 RowandGardenCrops 47 0.03 47 0.03 0.0041 DeciduousForest 33,282 21.95 33,169 21.88 -0.0742 EvergreenForest 2,342 1.54 2,342 1.54 0.0043 MixedForest 15,433 10.18 15,433 10.18 0.0044 Brush 1,042 0.69 782 0.52 -0.1750 Water 534 0.35 534 0.35 0.0060 Wetlands 234 0.15 234 0.15 0.0073 Bareground 3,292 2.17 658 0.43 -1.7471 Beaches 58 0.04 58 0.04 0.0017 Mining 864 0.57 864 0.57 0.0080 Transportation 2,273 1.50 2,273 1.50 0.00

Total 151,609 100.0 151,609 100 0


Patuxent WatershedBasedon county landuse information, thePatuxentwatershed’s existingdevelopedlanduseconsistsofmostlylowdensitytoruraluseswiththeexceptionoftheWesternBranch subwatershed that has a denser, more conventional suburban character.ThePatuxent watershed has a nearly equal division between the Developing and RuralTiers.

Accordingtocountyprojections,thePatuxentwatershedwillexperienceapopulationincreaseof55,129andanemploymentincreaseof54,322personsby2030.ThecountyfuturelanduseplanforPatuxentshowsdevelopmentmostlyfocusedintheDevelopingTier portion in central and upper-central portions of the Patuxent watershed.TheremainingareasremainlargelyruralwithsomegrowthintheUpperMarlboroarea.

FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOSThetrendscenarioforPatuxentassumesthatfivepercentofthepopulationgrowthwillbeaccommodatedasinfillandtenpercentasredevelopment.ThisrationaleassumesthatthemajorityofdevelopmentwilloccurasnewdevelopmentlargelyintheDevelopingTier.Thetrendscenariorequires9,278acrestoaccommodatenewdevelopmentor5.9percentofthewatershedarea.Table35providesthelanduseresultsforthePatuxenttrendscenario.TheidealscenarioisbasedonmoreaggressiveandoptimisticassumptionsthatfuturegrowthwillfollowtheprioritycorridorconceptspromotedintheGeneralPlan.Thescenario assumes that eightpercentof thegrowthwill be absorbedas infill and30percent of the growth will be absorbed as redevelopment.This redevelopment willlargelyoccuralongtheBeltwayandLargoTownCenterandaroundMARCstations,transforminglowdensityandindustrialusestomoremediumdensityandmixed-usepatterns.NewdevelopmentwillfocusonWestphaliaandnewsuburbsontheeasternportionoftheWesternBranchsubwatershed.Theidealscenariorequires7,904acrestoaccommodatenewdevelopmentor5.0percentofthewatershedarea.Theidealscenarioproposesanoverallslightlyhigheraveragedensityofnewdevelopment(2.4DU/acre)thanthetrendscenario(2.0DU/acre).Table36providesthelanduseresultsforthePatuxentidealscenario.


Table 35: Patuxent Trend Scenario Land Use Results


Patuxent Patuxent Change in PercentageExisting Acres Percent 2030 Acres Percent

101 Rural(Agriculture) 1,796 1.14 3,368 2.13 1.00102 Rural(Forest) 5,627 3.57 7,245 4.59 1.0311 ResidentialLow 18,745 11.88 20,125 12.76 0.8712 ResidentialMedium 20,861 13.22 22,412 14.21 0.9813 ResidentialHigh 4,690 2.97 4,992 3.16 0.19129 MixedUseResidential 0 0.00 236 0.15 0.1514 Commercial 3,612 2.29 3,969 2.52 0.23149 MixedUseCommercial 0 0.00 134 0.09 0.0915 Industrial 4,062 2.57 5,147 3.26 0.6916 Institutional 4,096 2.60 4,805 3.05 0.4518 Parks&OpenSpace 2,478 1.57 2,808 1.78 0.2121 Cropland 16,298 10.33 14,669 9.30 -1.0322 Pasture 5,243 3.32 4,719 2.99 -0.3324 AgricultureFacilities 58 0.04 58 0.04 0.0025 RowandGardenCrops 213 0.13 213 0.13 0.0041 DeciduousForest 44,134 27.98 41,928 26.58 -1.4042 EvergreenForest 1,203 0.76 1,164 0.74 -0.0243 MixedForest 14,196 9.00 13,486 8.55 -0.4544 Brush 2,093 1.33 523 0.33 -0.9950 Water 868 0.55 868 0.55 0.0060 Wetlands 2,458 1.56 2,458 1.56 0.0073 Bareground 2,883 1.83 288 0.18 -1.6471 Beaches 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0017 Mining 832 0.53 832 0.53 0.0080 Transportation 1,300 0.82 1,300 0.82 0.00

Total 157,746 100.0 157,746 100 0


Table 36: Patuxent Ideal Scenario Land Use Results


Patuxent Patuxent Change in PercentageExisting Acres Percent 2030 Acres Percent

101 Rural(Agriculture) 1,796 1.14 4,175 2.65 1.51102 Rural(Forest) 5,627 3.57 8,040 5.10 1.5311 ResidentialLow 18,745 11.88 18,906 11.99 0.1012 ResidentialMedium 20,861 13.22 21,344 13.53 0.3113 ResidentialHigh 4,690 2.97 5,057 3.21 0.23129 MixedUseResidential 0 0.00 794 0.50 0.5014 Commercial 3,612 2.29 3,524 2.23 -0.06149 MixedUseCommercial 0 0.00 679 0.43 0.4315 Industrial 4,062 2.57 4,012 2.54 -0.0316 Institutional 4,096 2.60 4,531 2.87 0.2818 Parks&OpenSpace 2,478 1.57 2,808 1.78 0.2121 Cropland 16,298 10.33 15,483 9.82 -0.5222 Pasture 5,243 3.32 4,981 3.16 -0.1724 AgricultureFacilities 58 0.04 58 0.04 0.0025 RowandGardenCrops 213 0.13 213 0.13 0.0041 DeciduousForest 44,134 27.98 41,928 26.58 -1.4042 EvergreenForest 1,203 0.76 1,203 0.76 0.0043 MixedForest 14,196 9.00 13,530 8.58 -0.4244 Brush 2,093 1.33 732 0.46 -0.8650 Water 868 0.55 868 0.55 0.0060 Wetlands 2,458 1.56 2,458 1.56 0.0073 Bareground 2,883 1.83 288 0.18 -1.6471 Beaches 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0017 Mining 832 0.53 832 0.53 0.0080 Transportation 1,300 0.82 1,300 0.82 0.00

Total 157,746 100.0 157,746 100 0


Piscataway WatershedBased on county land use information, the Piscataway watershed has an existingdevelopedlanduseofmostlymediumtolowdensityresidentialwithportionsofJointBaseAndrews(institutional)andcommercialusesalongthenorthernportionofMD5(BranchAvenue).Alargeportionofthewatershedremainsundevelopedorunderverylowdensityruraldevelopment.

Accordingtocountyprojections,Piscatawaywatershedwillhaveapopulationincreaseof14,339andanemploymentincreaseof5,574personsby2030.ThecountyfuturelanduseplanforPiscatawayshowsdevelopmentmostlyfocusedalongtheentirestretchof Branch Avenue (MD 5) and portions of MD 210. The Brandywine proposeddevelopmentinthesouthernportionofthewatershedisamajormixed-usedevelopmentalongBranchAvenue.Otherlocationsofexpansionandredevelopmentincludeareasaround of Joint Base Andrews, which are expected to grow in the near future.Thegeneral intentof theplans reviewed suggests that a low-mediumsuburban formofdevelopmentwilloccuralongcorridorsandthatasubstantialportionofthewatershedwillbemaintainedwitharuralcharacter.

FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOSThetrendscenarioforPiscatawayassumesthatfivepercentofthepopulationgrowthwillbeaccommodatedasinfillandtenpercentasredevelopment.Thisrationaleassumesthatthe majority of development will occur as new development because redevelopmentopportunities are relatively limited along the Branch Avenue corridor. This scenarioprojectsthataround1,400acresofnewland,oraround3.5percentofthewatershedlandarea,wouldberequiredtoaccommodatethepopulationgrowth.Table37providesthelanduseresultsforthePiscatawaytrendscenario.

TheidealscenarioisbasedonmoreaggressiveandoptimisticassumptionsonfollowingtheprioritycorridorconceptspromotedintheGeneralPlan.Thescenarioassumesthattenpercentofthegrowthwillbeabsorbedasinfilland25percentofthegrowthwillbeabsorbedas redevelopment.This redevelopmentwill largelyoccuralong theBranchAvenue corridor and around of Joint Base Andrews, transforming low density andindustrialusestomediumdensityandmixed-usepatternstoagreaterdegreethanwasdeemed possible under the trend scenario.The ideal scenario requires 878 acres toaccommodatenewdevelopmentortwopercentofthewatershedarea.Theidealscenarioproposes an overall higher average density of development (6.8 DU/acre) than thetrendscenario(4.2DU/acre)duetofocusingdevelopmentalongthemaincorridorsofMD5andMD210.Table38providesthelanduseresultsforthePiscatawayidealscenario.


Table 37: Piscataway Trend Scenario Land Use Results


Piscataway Piscataway Change in PercentageExisting Acres Percent 2030 Acres Percent

101 Rural(Agriculture) 97 0.23 94 0.22 -0.01102 Rural(Forest) 1,087 2.53 1,171 2.73 0.2011 ResidentialLow 4,822 11.23 5,171 12.04 0.8112 ResidentialMedium 8,020 18.68 8,601 20.03 1.3613 ResidentialHigh 352 0.82 393 0.92 0.09129 MixedUseResidential 0 0.00 40 0.09 0.0914 Commercial 845 1.97 850 1.98 0.01149 MixedUseCommercial 0 0.00 25 0.06 0.0615 Industrial 200 0.47 250 0.58 0.1216 Institutional 3,259 7.59 3,443 8.02 0.4318 Parks&OpenSpace 973 2.27 1,059 2.47 0.2021 Cropland 3,042 7.09 2,638 6.14 -0.9422 Pasture 1,083 2.52 1,083 2.52 0.0024 AgricultureFacilities 58 0.14 58 0.14 0.0025 RowandGardenCrops 19 0.04 19 0.04 0.0041 DeciduousForest 12,797 29.81 12,797 29.81 0.0042 EvergreenForest 616 1.44 616 1.44 0.0043 MixedForest 3,598 8.38 3,598 8.38 0.0044 Brush 446 1.04 134 0.31 -0.7350 Water 123 0.29 123 0.29 0.0060 Wetlands 72 0.17 72 0.17 0.0073 Bareground 907 2.11 181 0.42 -1.6971 Beaches 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0017 Mining 193 0.45 193 0.45 0.0080 Transportation 324 0.75 324 0.75 0.00

Total 42,933 100.0 42,933 100 0


Table 38: Piscataway Ideal Scenario Land Use Results


Piscataway Piscataway Change in PercentageExisting Acres Percent 2030 Acres Percent

101 Rural(Agriculture) 97 0.23 79 0.18 -0.04102 Rural(Forest) 1,087 2.53 1,153 2.69 0.1511 ResidentialLow 4,822 11.23 4,938 11.50 0.2712 ResidentialMedium 8,020 18.68 8,185 19.07 0.3913 ResidentialHigh 352 0.82 453 1.06 0.23129 MixedUseResidential 0 0.00 163 0.38 0.3814 Commercial 845 1.97 833 1.94 -0.03149 MixedUseCommercial 0 0.00 30 0.07 0.0715 Industrial 200 0.47 204 0.48 0.0116 Institutional 3,259 7.59 3,435 8.00 0.4118 Parks&OpenSpace 973 2.27 1,059 2.47 0.2021 Cropland 3,042 7.09 3,042 7.09 0.0022 Pasture 1,083 2.52 1,083 2.52 0.0024 AgricultureFacilities 58 0.14 58 0.14 0.0025 RowandGardenCrops 19 0.04 19 0.04 0.0041 DeciduousForest 12,797 29.81 12,797 29.81 0.0042 EvergreenForest 616 1.44 616 1.44 0.0043 MixedForest 3,598 8.38 3,598 8.38 0.0044 Brush 446 1.04 295 0.69 -0.3550 Water 123 0.29 123 0.29 0.0060 Wetlands 72 0.17 72 0.17 0.0073 Bareground 907 2.11 181 0.42 -1.6971 Beaches 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0017 Mining 193 0.45 193 0.45 0.0080 Transportation 324 0.75 324 0.75 0.00

Total 42,933 100.0 42,933 100 0


Western Branch WatershedBasedoncountyexistinglanduseinformation,theWesternBranchwatershedhasadistinct developmentpatternwithhigh andmediumdensity residential anddensercommercial and industrial uses predominantly along the I-495 Beltway and LargoTownCenter,lowtomediumdensitysuburbanresidentialinthenorthandnortheasternportions,andmoreruralandlowdensityresidential inthesouthernportionsofthewatershed.

According to county projections, the Western Branch watershed has a projectedpopulationincreaseof39,891andanemploymentincreaseof36,278personsby2030.TheWesternBranchwatershedwillaccommodateamajorityofthegrowthprojectedforthelargerPatuxentwatershed.ThecountyfuturelanduseplanforWesternBranchshowsseveralnewlargedevelopmentsplannedforthisarea.Inthesouthernportion,the Westphalia proposed development includes medium-high to medium densityresidentialaswellasmixed-usedevelopmentsaroundapotentialnewMetrostop.Inthenorthernportion,thereispotentialfortransitorienteddevelopment(TOD)aroundtheMARCstations.OtherareastotheeastshowsubstantialexpansionofinstitutionalusesinthewatershedaswellasgrowthintheUpperMarlboroarea.Thegeneralintentoftheplansreviewedsuggeststhatmostofthewatershedwillbebuiltoutwithdenserurbanareasonthewesttransitioningtoalowdensitysuburbancharactertotheeast.

FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOSThetrend scenario forWesternBranchassumes thatfivepercentof thepopulationgrowthwillbeaccommodatedasinfilland15percentasredevelopment.TheareasofredevelopmentandinfillwillpredominantlybearoundtheBeltway,butamajorityofgrowthwilloccurasnewdevelopmentinWestphaliaandotherexpansionareas.Thisscenarioprojects thataround3,691acresofnew land,oraround6.2percentof thewatershedlandarea,wouldberequiredtoaccommodatethepopulationgrowth.Table39providesthelanduseresultsfortheWesternBranchtrendscenario.

TheidealscenarioisbasedonmoreaggressiveandoptimisticassumptionsonfollowingthefuturelanduseandthenodesandcorridorconceptspromotedintheGeneralPlan.Thescenarioassumesthattenpercentofthegrowthwillbeabsorbedasinfilland50percent of the growth will be absorbed as redevelopment.This redevelopment willlargelyoccuralongtheBeltway,MARCstationsandothernodesandtransformlowdensityandindustrialusestomoremediumdensityandmixed-usepatterns.Theidealscenariorequires2,050acrestoaccommodatenewdevelopmentor3.5percentofthewatershedarea,butrequiresnearly980acrestoberedevelopedandtransformed.Theidealscenarioproposesanoverallhigheraveragedensityofdevelopment(11DU/acre)thanthetrendscenario(6.2DU/acre)promotingamorecompactdevelopmentthantheexistingpattern.Table40providesthelanduseresultsfortheWesternBranchidealscenario.


Table 39: Western Branch Trend Scenario Land Use Results


Western Branch Western Branch Change in PercentageExisting Acres Percent 2030 Acres Percent

101 Rural(Agriculture) 247 0.42 192 0.32 -0.09102 Rural(Forest) 672 1.13 737 1.24 0.1111 ResidentialLow 6,087 10.26 6,646 11.21 0.9412 ResidentialMedium 11,619 19.59 12,557 21.17 1.5813 ResidentialHigh 2,780 4.69 3,038 5.12 0.43129 MixedUseResidential 0 0.00 288 0.49 0.4914 Commercial 1,929 3.25 2,111 3.56 0.31149 MixedUseCommercial 0 0.00 104 0.18 0.1815 Industrial 2,711 4.57 3,324 5.60 1.0316 Institutional 2,377 4.01 2,876 4.85 0.8418 Parks&OpenSpace 1,362 2.30 1,601 2.70 0.4021 Cropland 5,183 8.74 3,848 6.49 -2.2522 Pasture 1,900 3.20 1,900 3.20 0.0024 AgricultureFacilities 33 0.06 33 0.06 0.0025 RowandGardenCrops 36 0.06 36 0.06 0.0041 DeciduousForest 17,569 29.63 17,569 29.63 0.0042 EvergreenForest 135 0.23 135 0.23 0.0043 MixedForest 725 1.22 725 1.22 0.0044 Brush 1,185 2.00 296 0.50 -1.5050 Water 273 0.46 273 0.46 0.0060 Wetlands 143 0.24 143 0.24 0.0073 Bareground 1,628 2.75 163 0.27 -2.4771 Beaches 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0017 Mining 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0080 Transportation 706 1.19 706 1.19 0.00

Total 59,302 100.0 59,302 100 0


Table 40: Western Branch Ideal Scenario Land Use Results


Western Branch Western Branch Change in PercentageExisting Acres Percent 2030 Acres Percent

101 Rural(Agriculture) 247 0.42 51 0.09 -0.33102 Rural(Forest) 672 1.13 672 1.13 0.0011 ResidentialLow 6,087 10.26 5,891 9.93 -0.3312 ResidentialMedium 11,619 19.59 11,915 20.09 0.5013 ResidentialHigh 2,780 4.69 3,143 5.30 0.61129 MixedUseResidential 0 0.00 506 0.85 0.8514 Commercial 1,929 3.25 1,886 3.18 -0.07149 MixedUseCommercial 0 0.00 219 0.37 0.3715 Industrial 2,711 4.57 2,659 4.48 -0.0916 Institutional 2,377 4.01 3,294 5.55 1.5418 Parks&OpenSpace 1,362 2.30 1,601 2.70 0.4021 Cropland 5,183 8.74 5,183 8.74 0.0022 Pasture 1,900 3.20 1,900 3.20 0.0024 AgricultureFacilities 33 0.06 33 0.06 0.0025 RowandGardenCrops 36 0.06 36 0.06 0.0041 DeciduousForest 17,569 29.63 17,569 29.63 0.0042 EvergreenForest 135 0.23 135 0.23 0.0043 MixedForest 725 1.22 725 1.22 0.0044 Brush 1,185 2.00 438 0.74 -1.2650 Water 273 0.46 273 0.46 0.0060 Wetlands 143 0.24 143 0.24 0.0073 Bareground 1,628 2.75 326 0.55 -2.2071 Beaches 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0017 Mining 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.0080 Transportation 706 1.19 706 1.19 0.00

Total 59,302 100.0 59,302 100 0


Land Use Scenario SummaryTheresultsofthetrendandidealscenariosbywatershedservedtovalidatetheoriginalhypothesisthatgreateremphasisonmixed-useandhigherdensitydevelopmentwouldallow for accommodation of the projected population and employment growth viaconversionoffewergreenfieldacresandpreservationofahigherpercentageofgreeninfrastructure assets. The difference is most striking with respect to the Potomacwatershed,wherethenewlydevelopedacreageundertheidealscenarioislessthanhalfthatofthetrend.

A combination of factors makes possible the significant reduction in the landrequirementforthePotomac,notablytheaggressiveinfillandredevelopmenttargetsalreadydiscussed for thePotomacwatershed. Inaddition, the target residential andemploymentlandusesforgreenfielddevelopmentmakemoreefficientuseofthelandavailablepossible.Forinstance,whereasthetrendscenariospecifiedthattenpercentofthegreenfieldgrowthinresidentialpopulationbeintheformofmixed-useresidentiallanduse, the target for the ideal scenario is50percent.Thedwellingunitdensitiesassociatedwiththeshiftinemphasisfromlowandmediumdensityresidentialgrowthtohighandmixed-useresidentialgrowthresultinasignificantreductioninassociatedacreagetoaccommodatetheidenticalpopulationgrowth.

Figure 2: Greenfield development acreage by subwatershed, trend, and ideal.


Figure 3. Greenfield residential land use targets, potomac trend and ideal scenarios.

0.1

0.34

Potomac Trend

0.5

Potomac Ideal


Intandemwiththereductioninnewdevelopmentdescribedabove,theidealscenariosallowedforagreaterdegreeofconservationofgreen infrastructureacreage.Ineachcase,theidealscenarioresultedinpreservationofadditionalquantitiesofforestedandpastureareasascomparedtothetrend.Conservationgoalsgohandinhandwithmorecompactdevelopment.

Significance for the Water Resources PlanAlthoughthedifferencesinnewlydevelopedacresunderthetwoscenariosarestriking,itisimportanttoplacethisinthecontextofthecountyasawhole.Thetotalcountylandareaisover300,000acres,andwhilethePotomacwatershedidealscenarioresultsinnearly7,000feweracresofnewdevelopmentasopposedtothetrendscenario,thisdifferencerepresentsarelativelysmallpercentageofthetotallandareainthecounty.

Thebenefitsofmorecompactdevelopmentaremanyandvaried, includingreducedrequirements for infrastructure investment and conservation of forests and viableagriculturelands.Althoughtheamountoflandrequiredtomeetnewdevelopmentto2030maybesmallinthecontextofthemanythousandsofacresdevelopedtodate,incrementalimprovementsareavaluablecomponentofaviablelong-termdevelopmentplan. Findings from the land use analysis emphasize the need for a multifacetedapproachthataddressesnotonlynewdevelopment,butredevelopmentandexistingdevelopment.

SEPTIC SYSTEM DATA INPUTThenumberofresidentialsepticsystemsincludedinthe2007initialconditionsscenariowas based on the number of households in non-sewered areas, as reflected in thecounty’s2005populationinformation,andthecounty’s2030populationprojectionsprovidedthenumberofhouseholdsinnon-seweredareasforthefuture2030landusescenarios.Thenumberofhouseholds fromthepopulationdatawasallocated to thecounty’s watersheds, resulting in septic system data inputs of 8,661 current versus10,117futurehouseholdsinthePatuxentwatershed,and7,423currentversus9,295futurehouseholdsinthePotomacwatershed.Thenitrogenloadsfromsepticsystemswere calculated using an estimated load per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU), asdescribedintheLoadRateDataInputsSection,below.

Thenumberofnonresidentialsepticsystemsincludedinthe2007initialconditionsscenariowasbasedonthenumberofemployeesinnon-seweredareas,asreflectedinthecounty’s2005populationinformation,andthecounty’s2030populationprojectionsprovidedthenumberofemployeesinnon-seweredareasforthefuture2030landusescenarios.The number of employees from the population data was allocated to thecounty’s watersheds, resulting in septic system data inputs of 5,317 current versus12,721futureemployeesinthePatuxentwatershedand12,402currentversus16,276futureemployeesinthePotomacwatershed.ThemethodofestimatingnonresidentialsepticloadsprovidedbyMDEintheWaterResourcesPlanmodelisbasedonestimatednonresidential septicflowpernonresidential acre.Because the county’sGIS systemused for future landuseprojectionsdoesnotdelineatenonresidential acres innon-seweredareas,thismethodwasnotapplicableforfutureloadestimates.Therefore,thecounty’savailabledatareflectingthenumberofemployeesoutsidethesewerenvelopewereusedwithaconversionfactortoestimatenitrogenloadsbasedonfactorsprovidedin the MDE Water Resources Plan model as well as data provided by WSSC, asdescribedinmoredetailintheLoadRateDataInputssection,below.


ThemajorityofresidentialandnonresidentialsepticsystemsarelocatedinRuralTierwhichisdelineatedfairlycloselywiththesewerenvelopeasillustratedinMaps2and7in Chapter IV. However, county planning information indicates a few small areasservedby individual systems inside the sewer envelope,mostnotably in the6-digitWesternBranch,WashingtonMetroandOxonHillsubwatersheds.Thesystemsinsideandoutsidethesewerenvelopewereincludedasinputstothenon-pointsourceloadingmodeldescribedinsubsequentsections.

POINT SOURCE LOAD DATA INPUTAnevaluationofthesixmajorwastewatertreatmentplants(WWTPs)locatedwithinPrinceGeorge’sCountywasconductedtodeveloppointsourceloadsfortotalnitrogenandtotalphosphorusfortheinitialandfuturescenarios.TheseWWTPsareidentifiedinTable41.

Asshown inTable41, the loads fromthesixmajorwastewater treatmentplants inPrinceGeorge’sCountyareprojectedtobeneartheirultimatenutrientloadcapacitiesintheyear2030.

LOADING RATE DATA INPUTSTo conduct thenonpoint source loading analysis, nitrogen andphosphorus loadingrates (poundsperacreperyear)wereapplied to the landusecategoriesused in theinitial and future land use scenarios described above. Generally, the “2002 BMPimplementation”andfull“tributarystrategyimplementation”nitrogenandphosphorusloading rates and percent of impervious covers provided by MDE for the WaterResources Plan’s pollutant load analysis spreadsheet were used for the PlanningDepartment’s analysis. However, the following modifications to the MDE loadingratesweremadetoreflectnewlandusecategoriescontainedinthestate’s2007landusedataset,themixed-usecategoriesdiscussedabove,andknowledgeoflocalconditionsinPrinceGeorge’sCounty:

� 129—Mixed-Use Residential (Prince George’s County Land Use Code): TheperviousversusimperviousloadingratesarethesameforeachofthedevelopedlandusesintheMDEmodel,butthetotalloadingrateiscalculatedbyapplyingthepercentofimperviousareafromeachLUCtodeterminetherelativeweightoftheperviousversusimperviousportionsoftheload.Therefore,creationofanewloadingraterequiresdeterminationoftheappropriatepercentimpervioustobeappliedtothedevelopedLUCloadingrates.Theloadingrateforthe129—UrbanMixed-UseResidentialcategorywascreatedusinganimperviousfactortoreflectthefollowinglanduseallocations:20percentLUC13ResidentialHigh;50percentLUC14Commercial;and20percentLUC18UrbanOpenLand.Inaddition,aten percent undeveloped area was included as LUC 44 Brush. In reality, thedevelopmentmixmaymorecloselyapproximate50percentresidentialversus20percent commercial use, but the purpose in creation of this category was thegeneration of an impervious profile that would be expected with this type ofdevelopment(i.e.,>=45percent).

� 129s—MixedUseResidential—SmartGrowth:Thisloadingrateforthissuburbanmixed-useresidentialcategorywascalculatedusingthesameapproachasdescribedaboveforLUC129,usinganimperviousfactortoreflectthefollowinglanduseallocations:20percentLUCResidentialMedium;22percentLUC13ResidentialHigh;10percentLUC14Commercial;8percentLUC16Institutional;10percent


Table 41. Estimated Current and Future Point Source Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads

Major Wastewater Treatment Plant

Discharge Location/

Sub-Watershed

2005 2030 Chesapeake Bay Program Limit

TN (lbs/yr)

TP (lbs/yr)

TN (lbs/yr)

TP (lbs/yr)

TN (lbs/yr)

TP (lbs/yr)

PatuxentBelowFallWatershed

ParkwayWWTP1 PatuxentRiver/

UpperPatuxent

63,557 3,890 82,800 6,210 91,370 6,850

BowieWWTP2 UnnamedTributaryofPatuxentRiver/

UpperPatuxent

34,525 1,225 40,201 3,015 40,201 3,015

WesternBranchWWTP1

WesternBranch/WesternBranch

86,663 29,677 340,940 25,570 372,600 27,945

MarlboroMeadowsWWTP1

UnnamedTributaryofPatuxentRiver/

WesternBranch

12,490 1,038 --- --- --- ---

Total Patuxent Point Source Load 197,235 35,830 463,941 34,795 504,171 37,810

PotomacBelowFallWatershed

PiscatawayWWTP1 PotomacRiver/Piscataway 191,776 6,941 328,763 14,794 365,300 16,440BeltsvilleUSDAEastWWTP2

UnnamedTributaryofBeaverdamCreek/Anacostia

3,566 1,710 7,553 566 7,553 566

Total Potomac Point Source Load 195,342 8,651 336,316 15,360 372,853 17,006Total Six Major WWTPs with Discharges in Prince George’s County

392,577 44,481 800,257 50,155 877,024 54,816

BluePlainsWWTP* PotomacRiver(DC) 669,550 13,896 645,349 29,041 NA NA Nitrogen and Phosphorus Load Data Sources:1WashingtonSuburbanSanitaryCommission.Notes:TheMarlboroMeadowsWWTPwillnotbeoperatingin2030.Flowswill

bedirectedtotheWesternBranchWWTP(asreflectedintheloadsdatapresentedinthistable).*The Blue Plains WWTP treats flow from Prince George’s County sewersheds but does not discharge into Prince George’s County watersheds. Therefore Blue Plains loads were not included in the NPS nutrient modeling runs which were conducted to estimate nutrient loads to county watersheds.

2LoadsforBowieandBeltsvilleUSDAWWTPsfor2005and2030(assumedequaltotheMarylandENRtotalloadcaps)takenfromMaryland’sTributaryStrategyStatewideImplementationPlan,2008.TheTownofBowieanticipatesflowslowerthanthe3.3mgdplantcapacityin2030,whichwouldbeexpectedtoproduceloadslowerthantheENRcapsiftheplantisachievingENRperformance.ThehigherENRcapsthereforeprovideaconservativeestimateofBowieWWTPpointsourceloadsinlieuofplant-specificdata,butshouldberevisitedaftertheplant’sENRupgradesarebroughtintoservice,oruponanyrevisionstothetermsoftheplant’sNPDESpermit.

Asshownabove,theloadsfromthesixmajorwastewatertreatmentplantsinPrinceGeorge’sCountyareprojectedtobeneartheirultimatenutrientloadcapacitiesintheyear2030.

NA=notapplicable


LUC81Roads;and10percentLUC18UrbanOpenLand.Inaddition,20percentundevelopedas18percentLUC44Brushand2percentLUC60Wetlandswasincluded.Inreality,tenpercentOpenUrbanLandand20percentUndevelopedAreamaynotbeachievable,butthemixofopenurban,brushandwetlandLUCswasusedtoreflectloadingratesrepresentingmorenaturallandscapinganticipatedwith future smart growth development, as opposed to managed turf and othermanaged landscaping reflected in the MDE 2002 open urban loading rates.Thereforethegoalwastoprovidealoadingratethatreflectslessmanagedopenspace without changing the open urban rates provided by MDE. The overallimperviouspercentassociatedwiththisLUCisapproximately35percent.

� 149—Mixed Use Commercial (Prince George’s County Land Use Code):ThisLUCwascreatedusingthesameimperviousfactorandloadingratesasLUC14Commercial to reflect mixed commercial use including retail, office, and othernonresidentialuses.

� 191—LargeLotSubdivision (agriculture):Loading rates and impervious factorare the same as the Rural Residential land use category provided in the state’sdefaultspreadsheet.

� 192—Large Lot Subdivision (Forest): Impervious factor is the same as RuralResidential.However,perviousloadingratesadjustedtoreflect90percentForested(LUC41)and10percentdevelopedasResidentialLow(LUC11).

� 72—BareExposedRockand73—BareGround:Imperviousloadingrateschangedtomatchperviousloadingratestocorrectthestate-issuedimperviousrateof0.0forthesetwoLUCs.

Inaddition,newloadingratedatasetswerecreatedforsomemodelrunstoreflecttheapplicationofvariousBMPs.Descriptionsofthesemodelruns,includinganexplanationofhowtheseBMPswereapplied,areprovidedintheModelRunssection,below.

Septic Loading Rate EstimatesThenitrogenloadsfromresidentialsepticsystemswerecalculatedusingtheformulaprovidedbyMDEintheWaterResourcesPlanmodel,whichisbasedonanestimatedaverage annual pounds of nitrogen per person, an average number of persons perhouseholdorequivalentdwellingunit(EDU),andatransportfactor,asshownbelow.

N lbs/yr = EDUs x 9.5 lbs/person/year x average people/household x 0.4 (transport factor)

Where:

� Numberofsepticsystems=householdsorEDUs

� Meanhouseholdsizeyear2000=2.74

� Meanhouseholdsizeyear2030=2.54

� Thetransport factor,0.4,representsthefractionofnitrogenthat isestimatedtoreachthenearestsurfacewaters.ThisvaluewasadoptedfromtheChesapeakeBayProgram.

Theeffectofsepticdenitrificationisestimatedbyhalvingtheload,i.e.,bymultiplyingby0.5fortheresidentialestimates.


ThemethodofestimatingnonresidentialsepticloadsprovidedbyMDEintheWaterResources Plan model is based on an estimated nonresidential septic flow pernonresidentialacres.Aswiththeresidentialloads,theeffectofsepticdenitrificationisestimatedbyhalving the load.However, because the county’sGIS systemdoesnotdelineate nonresidential acres outside the sewer envelope, this method was notapplicabletofutureloadestimates.Therefore,thecounty’savailabledatareflectingthenumberofemployeesoutsidethesewerenvelopewereusedwithaconversionfactortoestimatenitrogenloadsbasedonfactorsprovidedintheMDEWaterResourcesPlanmodelaswellasdataprovidedbyWSSC,asshownbelow:

N lbs/yr = Employees x 9.5 lbs/person/year x .44 (conversion factor) x 0.4 (transport factor)

Where:

� Load per resident = 9.5 lbs/person/year based on MDE’s residential equationdescribedabove.

� Thetransportfactor=0.4asdescribedaboveinMDE’sresidentialequation.

� Loadperemployee=0.44xloadperresident,basedon

� 250gpdperEDU*/2.74**=91gpdperresident

� 40gpdperemployee*/91gpdperresident=1employee=.44residents.Basedonthecurrentandfuturepopulationdata(describedintheprecedingSepticSystem Data Input section), in the Patuxent watershed, 8,661 currenthouseholds and 5,317 current employees are estimated to yield an annualnitrogen load of 99,070 pounds, versus future scenarios in which 10,117householdsand12,721employeesarepredicted toyieldanannualnitrogenloadof118,919pounds.InthePotomacwatershed,7,423currenthouseholdsand12,402currentemployeesareestimatedtoyieldanannualnitrogenloadof98,037pounds,versusfuturescenariosinwhich9,295householdsand16,276employeesarepredictedtoyieldanannualnitrogenloadof116,927pounds.These estimated loads were used as the septic system data inputs for thenonpointsourcemodelingrunsdescribedinthenextsection.

*FlowfactorsusedbyWSSC=250gpdperresidentialdwellingunitand40gpdperemployee(Note: the future land use scenarios used for the Water Resources Plan do not indicatenonresidential growth, such as planned heavy water use industries, that would alter thisemployeeaverage.)

**Averageyear2000householdsizeasprovidedinMDE’sresidentialloadformula.


NONPOINT SOURCE LOADING MODEL RUNS AND RESULTSAnumberofmodelrunswereconductedwithPLAMtoobtaininformationonthepotentialrangeofloadingratesiflanduseacreagesalonearechangedandifBMPsarealsochanged.Thelanduseacreageusedasthebasisforthemodelrunsareencompassedin the initial conditions scenario (describedonpage200), and the future trendandfutureidealscenarios(describedbeginningpage207).Thesemodelrunsincludedthefollowing:

� Run1—BaseConditions,PotomacandPatuxent6-DigitWatersheds:Applicationof the Water Resources Plan “2002 BMP Implementation” loading rates tocountywidelandusecategoriesforinitialconditionsacreageandfuturetrendandfutureidealscenarios.

� Run2—SepticUpgrades,PotomacandPatuxent6-DigitWatersheds:SimilartoRun1,butfactoredinupgradingofsepticsystemstoachievedenitrification.

� Run3—BaseConditions,WesternBranch8-DigitWatershed:ConductedinthesamemannerasRun1,butconductedfortheWesternBranchsubwatershedonly.

� Run4—BaseConditions,Piscataway8-DigitWatershed:ConductedinthesamemannerasRun1,butconductedforthePiscatawaysubwatershedonly.

� Run5—EnhancedBMPImplementation:SeveralsuitesofBMPswereappliedasmodeliterationstodeterminetheimpactofimprovedlandmanagementpractices.

Eachrunisfurtherdescribedbelowalongwithasummaryofresults.

Run 1—Base Conditions, Potomac and Patuxent 6-Digit WatershedsThe Water Resources Plan “2002 BMP Implementation” loading rates (with themodificationsnotedabove)wereappliedcountywidetolandusecategoriesforinitialconditionsacreageandthefuturetrendandfutureideallandusescenarios.Byapplyingonesetofloadingratesacrosseachofthescenarios,thisrunprovidedthechangeinterrestrialloadsresultingfromchangesinacreagecategorieswithoutevaluatingimpactsfromchangesinlandmanagementpractices(suchasincreasedBMPimplementation),similartothemethodologydevelopedbythestatefortheWaterResourcesPlan.

Inaddition,thisrunestimatedchangesinsepticloadsbasedonpopulationprojectionsrepresenting growth outside the Rural Tier compared to current populations, andincorporatedestimatedchangesinpointsourceloadsshowninTable41,whichprovidefuture wastewater treatment plant total load allocations compared to the plants’estimatedcurrentloads.

SUMMARY OF RUN 1 MODEL PREDICTIONS TheresultsofRun1areshowninTable43.Futuredevelopmentisprojectedtocauseincreased nitrogen and phosphorus loads from land use, septic systems, and pointsources.

Theincreaseddensityassociatedwiththecounty’sSmartGrowthInitiativeasreflectedinthefutureidealscenarioresultsinfeweracresconvertedfromforestandruralusestodevelopment,comparedwiththecurrentdevelopmentpatternsreflectedinthefuturetrendscenario.


Tab

le 4

2: 2

002

BMP

Impl

emen

tatio

n Lo

adin

g R

ates

Impe

rvio

us

Basin

1 L

oadi

ng R

ates

Basin

2 L

oadi

ng R

ates

Basin

3 L

oadi

ng R

ates

Patu

xent

Abo

ve F

all

Patu

xent

Bel

ow F

all

Poto

mac

Bel

ow F

all

(lbs/

acre

/yea

r)(lb

s/ac

re/y

ear)

(lbs/

acre

/yea

r)N

itrog

enPh

osph

orus

Nitr

ogen

Phos

phor

usN

itrog

enPh

osph

orus

MD

P La

nd U

se C

ateg

orie

sIm

pPct

Per-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

Per-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

Per-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

LULC

11(L

owD

ensit

yR

esid

entia

l)0.

1411

.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

12(M

ediu

mD

ensit

yRes

iden

tial)

0.28

11.3

28.

041.

130.

507.

157.

570.

600.

509.

457.

701.

220.

50LU

LC13

(Hig

hD

ensit

yR

esid

entia

l)0.

4111

.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

14(C

omm

ercia

l)0.

7211

.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

15(I

ndus

trial)

0.53

11.3

28.

041.

130.

507.

157.

570.

600.

509.

457.

701.

220.

50LU

LC16

(Ins

titut

iona

l)0.

3411

.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

17(E

xtra

ctiv

e)0.

0211

.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

18(O

pen

Urb

anL

and)

0.09

11.3

28.

041.

130.

507.

157.

570.

600.

509.

457.

701.

220.

50LU

LC21

(Cro

plan

d)0.

0023

.07

0.00

1.17

0.00

13.1

00.

000.

680.

0016

.11

0.00

0.84

0.00

LULC

22(P

astu

re)

0.00

6.65

0.00

0.59

0.00

6.02

0.00

0.86

0.00

10.6

80.

002.

030.

00LU

LC23

(Orc

hard

s)0.

006.

650.

000.

590.

006.

020.

000.

860.

0010

.68

0.00

2.03

0.00

LULC

24(F

eedi

ngO

pera

tions

)0.

0227

.24

0.00

1.24

0.00

18.8

40.

001.

000.

0022

.42

0.00

1.31

0.00

LULC

25(R

owan

dG

arde

nC

rops

)0.

0023

.07

0.00

1.17

0.00

13.1

00.

000.

680.

0016

.11

0.00

0.84

0.00

LULC

41(D

ecid

uous

For

est)

0.00

1.78

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.27

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.28

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

42(E

verg

reen

For

est)

0.00

1.78

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.27

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.28

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

43(M

ixed

For

est)

0.00

1.78

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.27

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.28

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

44(B

rush

)0.

001.

780.

000.

020.

001.

270.

000.

020.

001.

280.

000.

020.

00LU

LC50

(Wat

er)

0.00

10.2

80.

000.

570.

009.

680.

000.

570.

009.

750.

000.

570.

00LU

LC60

(Wet

lands

)0.

001.

780.

000.

020.

001.

270.

000.

020.

001.

280.

000.

020.

00LU

LC71

(Bea

ches

)0.

001.

780.

000.

020.

001.

270.

000.

020.

001.

280.

000.

020.

00LU

LC72

(Bar

eRoc

k)1.

0011

.32

0.00

1.13

0.00

7.15

0.00

0.60

0.00

9.45

0.00

1.22

0.00

LULC

73(B

areG

roun

d)0.

096.

650.

000.

590.

006.

020.

000.

860.

0010

.68

0.00

2.03

0.00

LULC

80(T

rans

porta

tion)

0.95

11.3

28.

041.

130.

507.

157.

570.

600.

509.

457.

701.

220.

50LU

LC19

1(R

ural

Res

iden

tial)

0.04

11.3

28.

041.

130.

507.

157.

570.

600.

509.

457.

701.

220.

50LU

LC24

1(F

eedi

ngO

pera

tions

)0.

0227

.24

0.00

1.24

0.00

18.8

40.

001.

000.

0022

.42

0.00

1.31

0.00

LULC

242

(Agr

icultu

ralB

uild

ings

)0.

026.

650.

000.

590.

006.

020.

000.

860.

0010

.68

0.00

2.03

0.00


Patuxent Watershed—UsingtheMDEimperviousfactorsandloadingrates,theidealland use pattern results in a small net decrease in future watershedwide nitrogen andphosphorusloadsfromterrestrialsources(i.e.,<1percentdecrease)comparedtothefuturetrenddevelopmentpattern.Theimprovementsinnonpointsourcenutrientloadsaremoreclearly seen when the changes in land use acreages projected by the ideal and trenddevelopmentscenariosareisolatedfromtheremainingunconvertedlandinthewatershed.Themodelestimatesan18percentreductioninannualpoundsofnitrogenfromidealscenariolanduseconversionscomparedtothetrendscenariolanduseconversions,anda59percentreductioninannualpoundsofphosphorusfromtheidealscenariocomparedtothetrendscenario.Althoughtheseimprovementsaresignificant,theyaremaskedbythebaseline loads generated from terrestrial sources in 2007 initial conditions land usepatterns,whichcomprise80percentofthefutureannualnitrogenloadandgreaterthan95percentofthefutureannualphosphorusloadfromterrestrialsources.

Nitrogen loads fromseptic systemsarepredicted to increaseby20percent fromtheinitialconditionsto2030.Nitrogenloadsfrompointsourcesarepredictedtoincreaseby135percentandphosphorusloadsfrompointsourcesarepredictedtoincreasebyonepercentfromtheinitialconditionsto2030.Septicandpointsourceloadsareequivalentinboth futuredevelopment scenarios.FourWWTPswere included in this analysis:Parkway, Western Branch, Bowie, and Marlboro Meadows.1 The majority of thepredictednitrogenloadincreasesareexpectedtooccurduetoincreasesinflowstobetreatedattheWesternBranchWWTP.Theplant’scurrentupgradetoENRtechnologywillreducetheloadsthatwouldhaveotherwiseoccurredfromincreasedfutureflowsand will reduce total phosphorus loads that are reflected in the relatively smallwatershedwidepointsourcephosphorusincreasesresultingfromfuturedevelopment.

Potomac Watershed.UsingtheMDEimperviousfactorsandloadingrates,theideallandusepatternresultsinasmallnetincreaseinfuturewatershedwidenitrogenloadsfrom terrestrial sources (i.e., <2 percent increase in N) and a small net decrease inwatershedwidephosphorusloadsfromterrestrialsources(i.e.,~2percentdecreaseinP)comparedtothefuturetrenddevelopmentpattern.Althoughthenitrogenloadfromdevelopedacresislowerintheidealscenariocomparedtothetrendscenario,thesmallnetincrease(comparedtothetrendscenario)isseenbecausetheruralland(cropland)modeledforinitialconditionsusingMDE’s2002BMPloadingratesproducehigherloads than the reductions resulting from land preservation in the ideal scenariocompared to the trend scenario. In addition, in contrast to thePatuxentwatershed,MDE’snitrogenloadingratesforthePotomacwatershedplacealargercomponentofthetotalloadontheperviouscomponentofthedevelopedlandusecategories,whichisparticularlypronouncedinthe2002BMPloadingrates.Consequently,themodel’sapplication of MDE’s 2002 BMP rates provides results that do not supportimprovementsinrunoffandpollutantcontroltypicallyexpectedfromimperviousareareductions.ByusingtheMDE’sWaterResourcesPlanmodelprotocol,whichappliesthesameloadingratesovertheinitialconditionsandbothdevelopmentscenarios,theRun1resultsdonotreflectanynutrientreductionsfromimprovedfuturedevelopment

1 WSSC2030projectedloadswereusedforParkwayandWesternBranchWWTPs,andtotalENRnutrientloadallocationasdefinedbytheStatewideImplementationPlanwasusedfor2030loadsfortheBowieUSDAWWTP.NoprojectedloadswerereportedforMarlboroMeadowsWWTPsincethisfacilityisshuttingdownandflowswillbedirectedtoWesternBranchWWTP.InitialconditionsestimatedasdescribedinthePointSourceLoadInputSection.


Tabl

e 43.

Res

ults

of P

rince

Geo

rge’s

Cou

nty P

ollu

tant

Loa

d A

naly

sis M

odel

ing

for t

he W

ater

Res

ourc

es P

lan

Run

: 1D

escr

iptio

n: W

ater

Res

ourc

es P

lan

PGC

o R

un 1

—

Bas

e Con

ditio

ns, 6

Dig

it W

ater

shed

s, 20

02 B

MP

Load

ing

Rat

es ap

plie

d co

nsist

ently

acro

ss al

l sce

nario

s.La

ndU

seSu

mm

ary

Poto

mac

and

Patu

xent

Wat

ersh

eds

No

chan

ges i

n la

nd m

anag

emen

tIn

itial

Con

ditio

ns

2007

Lan

d U

seSc

enar

io 1

Fu

ture

Tre

ndSc

enar

io 2

Fu

ture

Idea

lLa

nd U

se S

umm

ary

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lPa

tuxe

ntPo

tom

acTo

tal

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lTo

talD

evelo

pmen

tAcr

es70

,982

87,5

5615

8,53

777

,661

95,0

5917

2,72

076

,292

88,4

7616

4,76

8To

talF

ores

tAcr

es64

,084

52,3

3311

6,41

759

,559

49,5

8310

9,14

259

,851

51,9

5911

1,81

0To

talR

ural

Acr

es21

,812

11,1

8732

,999

19,6

586,

434

26,0

9220

,735

10,6

4031

,375

Tota

lOth

erL

and

Use

Acr

es86

853

41,

401

868

534

1,40

186

853

41,

401

Tota

l Acr

es15

7,74

615

1,60

930

9,35

515

7,74

615

1,60

930

9,35

515

7,74

615

1,60

930

9,35

5To

talI

mpe

rvio

usA

rea(

acre

s)18

,572

27,2

1845

,789

20,5

1731

,138

51,6

5619

,714

28,7

3548

,448

Wat

ersh

edIm

perv

ious

12%

18%

15%

13%

21%

17%

12%

19%

16%

Nitr

ogen

lbs/y

ear

Poto

mac

and

Patu

xent

Wat

ersh

eds

Initi

al C

ondi

tions

Scen

ario

1Sc

enar

io 2

2002

BM

P Lo

ad R

ates

2007

Lan

d U

seFu

ture

Tre

ndFu

ture

Idea

lN

itrog

en L

oad

Sour

ces:

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lPa

tuxe

ntPo

tom

acTo

tal

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lTe

rrestr

ialL

oad

821,

829

992,

120

1,81

3,94

983

4,33

397

3,49

51,

807,

827

832,

130

986,

282

1,81

8,41

2Se

ptic

Load

99,0

7098

,037

197,

107

118,

919

116,

927

235,

846

118,

919

116,

927

235,

846

Poin

tSou

rceL

oad

197,

235

195,

342

392,

577

463,

941

336,

316

800,

257

463,

941

336,

316

800,

257

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

Loa

d1,

118,

134

1,28

5,49

92,

403,

633

1,41

7,19

31,

426,

738

2,84

3,93

01,

414,

990

1,43

9,52

52,

854,

515

Phos

phor

uslb

s/yea

rPo

tom

ac an

d Pa

tuxe

nt W

ater

shed

sIn

itial

Con

ditio

nsSc

enar

io 1

Scen

ario

220

02 B

MP

Load

Rat

es20

07 L

and

Use

Futu

re T

rend

Futu

re Id

eal

Phos

phor

us L

oad

Sour

ces:

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lPa

tuxe

ntPo

tom

acTo

tal

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lTe

rrestr

ialL

oad

56,0

2410

1,63

115

7,65

556

,736

101,

121

157,

857

56,3

1698

,943

155,

259

Poin

tSou

rceL

oad

35,8

308,

651

44,4

8134

,795

15,3

6050

,155

34,7

9515

,360

50,1

55To

tal P

hosp

horu

s Loa

d91

,854

110,

282

202,

136

91,5

3111

6,48

120

8,01

291

,111

114,

303

205,

414


or land management practices such as environmental site design practices that areappliedtoreducerunoffandnutrientloads.

Nitrogenloadsfromsepticsystemsarepredictedtoincreaseby19percentfromtheinitialconditionsto2030.Nitrogenloadsfrompointsourcesarepredictedtoincreaseby72percentandphosphorusloadsfrompointsourcesarepredictedtoincreaseby78percent from the initial conditions to 2030. Two WWTPs were included in thisanalysis:PiscatawayandBeltsvilleUSDAEastWWTPs.2ThemajorityoftheloadsoccuratthePiscatawayWWTP,whichisexpectedtoreceiveincreasedflowsduetofuture development. Septic and point source loads are equivalent in both futuredevelopmentscenarios.

CONCLUSIONSThismodelrunillustratestheimpactofcurrentlanduseconditionsonnutrientloadstothewatershedsofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Theimperviousacresestimatedforthefutureidealversusfuturetrenddevelopmentscenariosdemonstratethebenefitsofthecounty’ssmartgrowthvisioncomparedtoexistingdevelopmentpatterns,whichwouldbeexpectedtoresultinatwopercentincreaseinthepercentageofcountylandareacoveredbyimpervioussurfacesby2030.Incontrast,theresultsoftheidealscenarioindicate impervious coverage increases can be controlled by increasing the rates ofredevelopment and infill development versus the current trends toward greenfielddevelopment.ByapplyingMDE’sloadingratesconsistentlyovertheinitialandfuturescenarios,thenutrientimpactsofmodifyingfuturedegreesofdevelopmentdensitiesandlandpreservationarepredictedtobesmallincomparisonwithcurrentestimatedloads,whichdemonstratestheneedforimprovedlandmanagementmethodstoreduceloading rates from existing land in addition to improved development practices toreducerunoffandnutrientloads.

2 WSSC2030projectedloadswereusedforthePiscatawayWWTP,andtotalENRnutrientloadallocationasdefinedbytheStatewideImplementationPlanwasusedfor2030loadsfortheBeltsvilleUSDAWWTP.InitialconditionsestimatedasdescribedinthePointSourceLoadInputsectionofthismemorandum.


Run 2—Septic Upgrades, Potomac and Patuxent 6-Digit WatershedsRun2isaduplicateofRun1,withtheexceptionofthesepticloadcalculationinthefutureidealscenario.Inthisscenario,thesepticloadswererecalculatedtosimulatetheeffectsofupgradinghalfoftheexistingsepticsystemsincludedintheinitialconditionsruntoachievedenitrification.Inaddition,allofthenewsepticsystems(i.e.,thenetincreasebetweeninitialconditionsand2030)werecalculatedasdenitrifyingsystems.Thenitrogenloadsfromdenitrifyingsepticsystemsarecalculatedas50percentoftheloadsfromconventionalsystems.Allofthesepticsystemsintheinitialconditionsandfuturetrendscenarioswereenteredasconventionalsystems.

SUMMARY OF RUN 2 MODEL PREDICTIONSTheresultsofRun2areshowninTable44,andareidenticaltoRun1withtheexceptionofthereducednitrogenloadsreflectedintheresultsfortheidealscenario.Nitrogenreductions of approximately 36,000 pounds in the Patuxent watershed and 35,000poundsinthePotomacwatershed(30percentreductions)resultedfromapplyingtheloading rate calculations for denitrifying septic systems to all of the new systemsinstalledbetweeninitialconditionsand2030,andtoone-halfofthesystemsincludedintheinitialconditionsscenario.Themodelpredictsthatthisscaleofsepticsystemupgrade would result in a reduction of approximately 61,000 pounds of nitrogencountywide,orapproximatelytwopercentofthenitrogenloadscomparedtothetrendscenario,whichdoesnotincludeanydenitrifyingsepticsystems.

CONCLUSIONSThemodelpredictsthatasignificantcountywidesepticsystemupgradeprogramwouldgeneratesmallreductionsintotalnitrogenloadstothePatuxentandPotomacwatersheds.


Tabl

e 44.

Res

ults

of P

rince

Geo

rge’s

Cou

nty P

ollu

tant

Loa

d A

naly

sis M

odel

ing

for t

he W

ater

Res

ourc

es P

lan

Run

: 2

Des

crip

tion:

Wat

er R

esou

rces

Pla

n PG

Co

Run

2—

Base

Con

ditio

ns w

ith 2

002

BMP

Load

ing

Rat

es +

Sep

tic U

pgra

des i

n Id

eal S

cena

rio.

Land

Use

Sum

mar

y

Poto

mac

and

Patu

xent

Wat

ersh

eds

No

chan

gesi

nlan

dm

anag

emen

tIn

itial

Con

ditio

ns

2007

Lan

d U

seSc

enar

io 1

Fu

ture

Tre

ndSc

enar

io 2

Fu

ture

Idea

lLa

ndU

seS

umm

ary

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lPa

tuxe

ntPo

tom

acTo

tal

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lTo

talD

evelo

pmen

tAcr

es70

,982

87,5

5615

8,53

777

,661

95,0

5917

2,72

076

,292

88,4

7616

4,76

8To

talF

ores

tAcr

es64

,084

52,3

3311

6,41

759

,559

49,5

8310

9,14

259

,851

51,9

5911

1,81

0To

talR

ural

Acr

es21

,812

11,1

8732

,999

19,6

586,

434

26,0

9220

,735

10,6

4031

,375

Tota

lOth

erL

and

Use

Acr

es86

853

41,

401

868

534

1,40

186

853

41,

401

Tota

lAcr

es15

7,74

615

1,60

930

9,35

515

7,74

615

1,60

930

9,35

515

7,74

615

1,60

930

9,35

5To

tal I

mpe

rvio

us A

rea (

acre

s)18

,572

27,2

1845

,789

20,5

1731

,138

51,6

5619

,714

28,7

3548

,448

Wat

ersh

edIm

perv

ious

12%

18%

15%

13%

21%

17%

12%

19%

16%

Nitr

ogen

lbs/y

ear

Poto

mac

and

Patu

xent

Wat

ersh

eds

2002

BM

PLo

adR

ates

Initi

al C

ondi

tions

20

07 L

and

Use

Scen

ario

1

Futu

re T

rend

Scen

ario

2

Futu

re Id

eal

Nitr

ogen

Loa

dSo

urce

s:Pa

tuxe

ntPo

tom

acTo

tal

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lPa

tuxe

ntPo

tom

acTo

tal

Terre

stria

lLoa

d82

1,82

999

2,12

01,

813,

949

834,

333

973,

495

1,80

7,82

783

2,13

098

6,28

21,

818,

412

Sept

icLo

ad99

,070

98,0

3719

7,10

711

8,91

911

6,92

723

5,84

682

,581

81,5

6216

4,14

3Po

intS

ourc

eLoa

d19

7,23

519

5,34

239

2,57

746

3,94

133

6,31

680

0,25

746

3,94

133

6,31

680

0,25

7To

tal N

itrog

en L

oad

1,11

8,13

41,

285,

499

2,40

3,63

31,

417,

193

1,42

6,73

82,

843,

930

1,37

8,65

21,

404,

160

2,78

2,81

2

Phos

phor

uslb

s/yea

r

Poto

mac

and

Patu

xent

Wat

ersh

eds

2002

BM

PLo

adR

ates

Initi

al C

ondi

tions

20

07 L

and

Use

Scen

ario

1

Futu

re T

rend

Scen

ario

2

Futu

re Id

eal

Phos

phor

usL

oad

Sour

ces:

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lPa

tuxe

ntPo

tom

acTo

tal

Patu

xent

Poto

mac

Tota

lTe

rrestr

ialL

oad

56,0

2410

1,63

115

7,65

556

,736

101,

121

157,

857

56,3

1698

,943

155,

259

Poin

tSou

rceL

oad

35,8

308,

651

44,4

8134

,795

15,3

6050

,155

34,7

9515

,360

50,1

55To

tal P

hosp

horu

s Loa

d91

,854

110,

282

202,

136

91,5

3111

6,48

120

8,01

291

,111

114,

303

205,

414


Run 3—Base Conditions, Western Branch 8-Digit WatershedRun3wasconductedinthesamemannerasRun1usingthe2002BMPimplementationloadingrates for the initialconditionsandfuturetrendandidealscenarios,butwasconductedfortheWesternBranchsubwatershedonly.WesternBranchisoneofthe8-digitwatershedswithinthePatuxentRiverbasin.

SUMMARY OF RUN 3 MODEL PREDICTIONSTheresultsofRun3areshowninTables45and46.Futuredevelopmentisprojectedtocauseincreasednitrogenandphosphorusloadsfromlanduse,septicsystems,andpointsources.

Theincreaseddensityassociatedwiththecounty’sSmartGrowthInitiativeasreflectedinthefutureidealscenarioresultsinfeweracresconvertedfromforestandruralusestodevelopment,comparedwiththecurrentdevelopmentpatternsreflectedinthefuturetrendscenario.

Currentdevelopmentpatternsreflectedinthetrendscenariopredictanetincreaseofapproximately 2,200 developed acres, and decreases in forested and rural land byapproximately900and1,300acresby2030,respectively.Smartgrowthdevelopmentpatterns reflected in the ideal scenario predict a net increase of approximately 750developed acres from conversion of forested land, or preservation of approximately1500acresofforestedandrurallandfromconversiontodevelopmentcomparedtothetrendscenario(i.e.,66percentoftheacresdevelopedinthefuturetrendscenarioarepreservedundertheidealscenario).

Using the MDE impervious factors and loading rates provided for the 2002 BMPloadingrates,onthesubwatershedscale,theideallandusepatterngeneratesapproximatelyafourpercentlowernutrientloadingfromdevelopmentacresduetothereductioninthenumberofacresdeveloped,butasmallnetincreaseinfuturesubwatershedwidenitrogen

Table 45. Results of Prince George’s County Pollutant Load Analysis Modeling for the Water Resources Plan

Run 3b: Impacts of Enhanced BMP Implementation

Western Branch Subwatershed Improved Land Management Methods

Scenario 2— Future Ideal with 2002 BMP Rates

Scenario 3— Future Ideal with

TribStrat Implementation Rates

Nutrient Reductions from Enhanced BMPs

Load Sources: Western Branch Western Branch Annual Lbs %

TerrestrialNitrogenLoad 341,888 248,961 92,927 27Total Nitrogen Load 688,711 595,784 92,927 13TerrestrialPhosphorusLoad 24,060 19,011 5,049 21Total Phosphorus Load 49,625 44,581 5,044 10


Tabl

e 46.

Res

ults

Of P

rince

Geo

rge’s

Cou

nty P

ollu

tant

Loa

d A

naly

sis M

odel

ing

for t

he W

ater

Res

ourc

es P

lan

Run

: 3

Des

crip

tion:

WR

E P

GC

o R

un 3

- Sa

me p

aram

eter

s as R

un 1

, app

lied

to 8

-Dig

it W

este

rn B

ranc

h Su

bwat

ersh

ed o

nly (

Patu

xent

).

Land

Use

Sum

mar

y

Wes

tern

Bra

nch

Subw

ater

shed

No

chan

ges i

n la

nd m

anag

emen

t

Initi

al C

ondi

tions

2007

Lan

d U

se

Scen

ario

1

Futu

re T

rend

Scen

ario

2

Futu

re Id

eal

Land

Use

Sum

mar

yW

este

rnB

ranc

hW

este

rnB

ranc

hW

este

rnB

ranc

hTo

talD

evelo

pmen

tAcr

es32

,120

34,3

4332

,868

Tota

lFor

estA

cres

19,7

5718

,869

19,0

10To

talR

ural

Acr

es7,

152

5,81

77,

152

Tota

lOth

erL

and

Use

Acr

es27

327

327

3To

tal A

cres

59,3

0259

,302

59,3

02To

talI

mpe

rvio

usA

rea(

acre

s)9,

860

10,9

9910

,550

Wat

ersh

edIm

perv

ious

17%

19%

18%

Nitr

ogen

lbs/y

ear

Wes

tern

Bra

nch

Subw

ater

shed

Initi

al C

ondi

tions

Scen

ario

1Sc

enar

io 2

Patu

xent

Wat

ersh

ed 2

002

BM

P Lo

ad R

ates

2007

Lan

d U

seFu

ture

Tre

ndFu

ture

Idea

lN

itrog

enL

oad

Sour

ces:

Wes

tern

Bra

nch

Wes

tern

Bra

nch

Wes

tern

Bra

nch

Terre

stria

lLoa

d33

6,45

533

5,06

434

1,88

8Se

ptic

Load

5,60

15,

883

5,88

3Po

intS

ourc

eLoa

d86

,663

340,

940

340,

940

Tota

l Nitr

ogen

Loa

d42

8,71

968

1,88

768

8,71

1

Phos

phor

uslb

s/yea

r

Wes

tern

Bra

nch

Subw

ater

shed

Initi

al C

ondi

tions

Scen

ario

1Sc

enar

io 2

Patu

xent

Wat

ersh

ed 2

002

BM

P Lo

ad R

ates

2007

Lan

d U

seFu

ture

Tre

ndFu

ture

Idea

lPh

osph

orus

Loa

dSo

urce

s:W

este

rnB

ranc

hW

este

rnB

ranc

hW

este

rnB

ranc

hTe

rrestr

ialL

oad

24,0

6023

,937

24,0

55Po

intS

ourc

eLoa

d29

,667

25,5

7025

,570

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus L

oad

53,7

2749

,507

49,6

25


andphosphorusloadsfromallterrestrialsources(i.e.,~2percentincreaseinNand<1percentincreaseinP).Theseresultsoccurbecausetheruralland(cropland)modeledforinitialconditionsusingMDE’s2002BMPloadingratesproducehigherloadsthanthereductionsresultingfromlandpreservationintheidealscenario.

Becausethe2002BMPloadingrateswereappliedovertheinitialconditionsandbothdevelopmentscenarios,themodelresultsdonotreflectanypotentialimprovementsinloadingratesthatcouldoccurfromimprovedfuturedevelopmentorlandmanagementpracticestoreducerunoffandnutrientloads.

This is shown in the resultsof an additionalmodel runprovidedbelow,whichwasconductedusingMDE’stributarystrategyimplementationloadingratesappliedtotheidealscenario,whichpredictedsignificantnutrientreductionsthatcouldbeachievedthrough enhanced BMP implementation. The application of MDE’s loading ratesreflectingaggressiveBMPapplicationpredictedannualnitrogenreductionsof93,000pounds,whichrepresents27percentofthewatershed’sterrestrialnitrogenloadand13percentofthewatershed’stotalnitrogenload,asshownbelow.Ofthe93,000poundsreduced,70percentwerefromdevelopedacresand30percentwerefromruralacres(primarily cropland).The application of MDE’s tributary strategy rates resulted inannual phosphorus reductions of 5,000pounds,which represents 21percent of thewatershed’s terrestrial phosphorus load, and ten percent of the watershed’s totalphosphorus load. Almost all of the phosphorus reductions resulted from enhancedBMPimplementationondevelopedacres(primarilyresidential).

Nitrogenloadsfromsepticsystemsarepredictedtoincreasebyfivepercentfromtheinitialconditionsto2030.NitrogenloadsfromtheWesternBranchWWTPareexpectedtoincreaseby293percent,withphosphorusloadsdecreasingby14percentfromtheinitialconditionsto2030.3Septicandpointsourceloadsareequivalentinbothfuturedevelopmentscenarios.Theplant’scurrentupgradetoENRtechnologywillreducetheloadsthatwouldhaveotherwiseoccurredfromtheincreasedfutureflowsresultingfromdevelopment.

CONCLUSIONSThis model run illustrates the impact of current land use conditions and futuredevelopmentonnutrientloadsintheWesternBranchsubwatershed.Thecomparisonof ideal scenario terrestrial loading rates calculated with MDE’s 2002 BMPimplementationloadingratesversusthetributarystrategyloadingratesillustratesthenutrientreductionsthatcanbeachievedthroughimprovedlandmanagement.HoweveritshouldbenotedthatfullimplementationofPrinceGeorge’sCounty’sportionofthe2003tributarystrategymaynotbetheultimateapproachadoptedaspartofMaryland’snutrientreductionstrategy,andtheresultsfromthismodeliterationdonotnecessarilyreflect the county’s most current watershed management programs. Evaluation ofalternatestrategiesfornutrientreductionsfromimprovedlandmanagementpracticesweremodeledandarediscussedaspartofRun5.

3 Based on projected 2030 loads as provided byWSSC and initial conditions estimated asdescribedinthePointSourceLoadInputsectionofthismemorandum.


Run 4—Base Conditions, Piscataway 8-Digit WatershedRun4wasconductedinthesamemannerasRun1usingthe2002BMPimplementationloadingrates for the initialconditionsandfuturetrendandidealscenarios,butwasconducted for the Piscataway subwatershed only. Piscataway is one of the 8-digitwatershedswithinthePotomacRiverbasin.

SUMMARY OF RUN 4 MODEL PREDICTIONS TheresultsofRun4areshowninTable47.Futuredevelopmentisprojectedtocauseincreasednitrogenandphosphorusloads,primarilyfromadditionalwastewatertreatmentandsepticloads.Theincreaseddensityassociatedwiththecounty’sSmartGrowthInitiativeasreflectedinthefutureidealscenarioresultsinfeweracresconvertedfromforestandruralusestodevelopment,comparedwiththecurrentdevelopmentpatternsreflectedinthefuturetrendscenario.Currentdevelopmentpatternsreflectedinthetrendscenariopredictanetincreaseofapproximately700developedacres,anddecreasesinforestedandruralland(cropland)byapproximately300and400acresby2030,respectively.Smartgrowthdevelopmentpatterns reflected in the ideal scenario predict a net increase of approximately 150developedacresfromconversionofforestedland,orpreservationofapproximately550acresofforestedandruralland(cropland)fromconversiontodevelopmentcomparedto the trendscenario (i.e.,79percentof theacresdevelopedunder the future trendscenarioarepreservedundertheidealscenario.LiketheresultsseenforthePotomacwatershedinRun1,theideallandusepatternresultsinasmallnetincreaseinfuturesubwatershedwidenitrogenloadsandasmalldecreaseinphosphorusloadsfromterrestrialsources(i.e.,<1percentincreaseinNand~1percentincreaseinP).Theseresultsoccurbecausealthoughtheloadsfromdevelopedlandsarelowerintheidealscenarioversusthetrendscenario,theruralland(cropland)modeledforinitialconditionsusingMDE’s2002BMPloadingratesproducehigherloadsthanthereductionsresultingfromlandpreservationintheidealscenario,andlessruralland(cropland)isconvertedintheidealscenariothaninthetrendscenario.AsshowninRun3,becausethe2002BMPloadingrateswereappliedovertheinitialconditionsandbothdevelopmentscenarios,themodelresultsdonotreflectanypotentialimprovementsinloadingratesthatcouldoccurfromimprovedfuturedevelopmentorlandmanagementpracticestoreducerunoffandnutrientloads,whichillustratestheneedforimprovedlandmanagementinadditiontoimproveddevelopmentpractices.Nitrogenloadsfromsepticsystemsarepredictedtoincreaseby63percentfromtheinitialconditionsto2030.NitrogenloadsfromthePiscatawayWWTPareexpectedtoincreaseby71percentwithphosphorusloadsmorethandoublingfromtheinitialconditionsto2030.4Septicandpointsourceloadsareequivalentinbothfuturedevelopmentscenarios.Theplant’scurrentupgradetoENRtechnologywillreducetheloadsthatwouldhaveotherwiseoccurredfromtheincreasedfutureflowsduetodevelopment.Septicandpointsourceloadsareequivalentinbothfuturedevelopmentscenarios.

ConclusionsThis model run illustrates the impact of current land use conditions and futuredevelopment on nutrient loads in the Piscataway subwatershed, as predicted usingMDE’s2002BMPimplementationloadingratesappliedoverinitialconditionsandfuturedevelopmentscenarios.4 Based on projected 2030 loads as provided byWSSC and initial conditions estimated as

describedinthePointSourceLoadInputsectionofthismemorandum.



Run: 4 Description: WRE PGCo Run 4—Same parameters as Run 1, applied to 8-Digit Piscataway Subwatershed only (Potomac).

LandUseSummary

Piscataway Subwatershed No changes in land management

Initial Conditions 2007 Land Use

Scenario 1 Future Trend

Scenario 2 Future Ideal

Land Use Summary Piscataway Piscataway Piscataway

TotalDevelopmentAcres 21,078 21,795 21,230TotalForestAcres 17,529 17,216 17,377TotalRuralAcres 4,202 3,798 4,202TotalOtherLandUseAcres 123 123 123Total Acres 42,933 42,933 42,933

Nitrogenlbs/year

Piscataway Subwatershed Potomac Watershed 2002 BMP Load Rates




Nitrogen Load Sources: Piscataway Piscataway Piscataway

TerrestrialLoad 268,213 266,067 267,560SepticLoad 12,183 19,899 19,899PointSourceLoad 191,776 328,763 328,763Total Nitrogen Load 472,172 614,729 616,222

Phosphoruslbs/year

Piscataway Subwatershed Potomac Watershed 2002 BMP Load Rates




Phosphorus Load Sources: Piscataway Piscataway PiscatawayTerrestrialLoad 26,683 26,362 26,081PointSourceLoad 6,941 14,794 14,794Total Phosphorus Load 33,624 41,156 40,875


Run 5—Enhanced BMP ImplementationForRun5,severalsuitesofBMPswereappliedasmodeliterationstodeterminetheimpactofimprovedlandmanagementpractices.Unlikethestate’sdefaultmethodologyandthepreviouslydescribedmodelruns,thisanalysisrequiresapplicationofwatershedtreatment methods such as those included in the WTM model, or application ofmodifiedloadingratestoreflectfutureimprovementsinlandmanagementtechniques.The latter method was included in one of the Run 5 iterations, which comparedestimatedloadsfromapplicationof2002BMPimplementationloadingratesintheinitialconditionsscenarioversusestimatedloadsfromapplicationoftributarystrategyloadingrates,aspresentedattheendofthisdiscussion.

ThesuiteofBMPsincludedinthetributarystrategyloadingrateswasdevelopedaspart of the state’s work toward nutrient reductions to achieve the Chesapeake BayProgram’s 2003 restoration goals and reflected in the full tributary strategyimplementationloadingratesdevelopedbytheBayProgramandincludedinMDE’sWaterResourcesPlanmodel.However,thedirectionofthebayprogramisevolving,withissuanceofabasinwideTMDLanticipatedfromEPAattheendof2010thatwillreplace the 2003 goals.Therefore, full implementation of Prince George’s County’sportionofthe2003tributarystrategymaynotbetheultimateapproachadoptedaspartofMaryland’snutrientreductionstrategy.Therefore,severalotheriterationsweredeveloped to evaluate the effectiveness of various land management practices, assummarizedbelow.

RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESAsuiteofBMPswasappliedtoselectacreagesofagriculturalandrurallanduses,andresultswerecomparedagainstRun1’sinitialconditionsresultstoidentifyanyresultingreductionstonutrientloads.AMay2009ChesapeakeBayProgrampublicationentitled“2011 Milestones for Reducing Nitrogen and Phosphorus” was used as a guide toestimatetheextentofBMPapplicationinthemodelruns.Thispublicationidentifiesshort-termgoals for thesevenChesapeakeBay jurisdictions (includingtheStateofMaryland)thatweresetbytheChesapeakeExecutiveCounciltoreducepollutiontothebay and accelerate thepaceof restorationof thebay and its tributaries.Wherepossible, thequantities ofBMPspresented in the 2011milestones for the State ofMaryland were extrapolated to Prince George’s County acreage to estimate BMPapplicationsinthecountythatwouldbeproportionaltothestate’srestorationgoals.ThisprocessresultedintheapplicationofBMPsattheleveldescribedbelowinTables49 and 50. Nitrogen and phosphorus reduction efficiencies compiled through aliteraturereviewweretabulatedandaveragevalueswereselectedforuseinthemodelruns,alsoshowninTable49.

Together,thedatashowninTable49wereappliedinthissetofmodelrunstodeterminethe nutrient reductions that could be achieved from a suite of BMPs developed torepresentthestate’smostcurrentlyavailablebayrestorationstrategies.Thisapproachwasnotpreparedbasedoncounty-providedinformation,andaccurateassessmentsoftheimpactsofcountystrategiescanonlybeevaluatedthroughamuchmoredetailedanalysis.Therefore,whilethismodelingrunisnotintendedtoestimatefuturenutrientloadsfromanyspecificcountystrategy,theresultsprovideahypotheticalanalysisofpotential nutrient reductions achievable through various improved rural landmanagementapproaches.


Table 48: Application of BMPs to Agricultural and Rural Land Uses

Run 5: Affects of Rural and Agricultural BMPs

BMP Extent of Applicability in County2 N Load Reductions1

P Load Reductions1

Covercrops 32%ofcropland=7,800acres 35% 10%SoilConservationandWaterQualityPlans 9%ofagriculturalland=3,000acres 6% 10%

BarnyardRunoffControl Assumeappliedtoall198acres 75% 75%StreamProtectionwithandwithoutFencing 0.4%ofagriculturalland=130acres 45% 55%

LandRetirement 0.25%ofagriculturalland=60acres 50% 80%WetlandRestoration .03%ofcounty=85acres 40% 55%GrassBuffers 0.1%ofcounty=400acres 41% 57%ForestBuffers .08%ofcounty=250acres 65% 64%1.Thefollowingsourceswerereviewedtodeterminethenitrogenandphosphorusreductionefficienciesdisplayedin

thistable:

• MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources, 2005.AUser’sGuide toWatershedPlanning inMaryland.PreparedbyCenterforWatershedProtection.December2005.

• ChesapeakeBayProgram,1998.ChesapeakeBayWatershedModelApplicationandCalculationofNutrientand Sediment Loadings. Appendix H: Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in theChesapeakeBayProgram.August1998.

• ChesapeakeBayProgram,2006.NonpointSourceBestManagementPracticesthathavebeenPeer-ReviewedandCBP-ApprovedforPhase5.0oftheChesapeakeBayProgramWatershedModel.Revised1/18/06.

• UniversityofMaryland,2009.BMPEfficienciesforChesapeakeBayProgramTributaryStrategies.PreparedbyMid-AtlanticWaterProgram.

2.TheextentofBMPapplicationestimatedforthismodelingscenariowasdevelopedbasedonareviewofMaryland’sBMPcommitmentssummarizedintheMay2009ChesapeakeBayProgrampublicationentitled“2011MilestonesforReducingNitrogenandPhosphorus”comparedtoMarylandagriculturalacreageasreportedintheUSDA2008State Agricultural Overview for Maryland (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Ag_Overview/AgOverview_MD.pdf )andotherdata,asshowninTable49.


Tabl

e 49.

Dev

elop

men

t of R

ural

and

Agr

icul

tura

l BM

P A

pplic

atio

n R

ates

Sho

wn in

Tab

le 4

8

Mar

ylan

d St

atist

ics1

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s C

ount

y Sta

tistic

s2N

otes

MD

Tot

alA

cres

—6,

300,

000

MD

agric

ultu

rala

crea

ge—

2,05

0,00

0M

Dp

rincip

alcr

opac

reag

e—1,

463,

000

MD

tota

lfar

ms—

12,8

50

Ave

rage

farm

size

inac

res—

160

Cou

ntyT

otal

Acr

es—

300,

000

5%o

ftot

alsta

tela

ndar

ea

65%

Pat

uxen

t35

%in

Pot

omac

Rur

al/ag

ricul

tura

lacr

eage

—33

,000

23

,616

Cro

plan

d,

8,86

7Pa

sture

26

0R

ow,g

arde

ncr

ops

58B

each

es

198

Ag

bld

brd

train

M

aryl

and

2011

Mile

ston

e C

omm

itmen

ts3

Est

imat

ed4 %

of S

tate

wide

A

pplic

atio

n Pr

opor

tiona

l Cou

nty

App

licat

ion

Not

es

Cov

erC

rops

—46

0,00

0ac

/yr

460,

000/

1,40

0,00

0=

33%

23,6

16ac

crop

x3

3%=

7,8

00ac

70%

Pax

/30%

Pot

SC&

WQ

Plan

s—20

0,00

0ac

200,

000/

2,05

0,00

0=

9%33

,000

acru

ralx

9%

=3

,000

acA

pplie

dto

pas

ture

and

crop

land

Run

off/W

aste

Con

trolS

truct

ures

—

145

Live

stock

Was

teS

truct

ures

53

Pou

ltryW

aste

Stru

ctur

es

75R

unoff

Con

trolS

yste

ms

400

Poul

try

Are

aCon

cret

ePad

s

673/

12,0

85=

5%

198

acC

ount

yha

smin

imal

agric

ultu

ralf

eedi

ngac

reag

e,ap

plie

dto

all1

98ac

Stre

amP

rote

ctio

n—3,

000

ac3,

000-

acM

Dx

5%

=1

50-a

cCo

150

ac/3

3,00

0ru

rala

c=0

.4%

A

pplie

dto

150

accr

op&

pa

sture

G

rass

Buff

ers—

8,00

0ac

8,00

0-ac

MD

x5

%=

400

-acC

o40

0ac

/300

,000

tota

lac=

0.1

%A

pplie

dto

400

accr

op&

pa

sture

Fore

stBu

ffers

—5,

100

ac5,

100-

acM

Dx

5%

=2

55-a

cCo

255

ac/3

00,0

00to

tala

c=0

.08%

App

lied

to2

50ac

crop

&

pastu

reW

etlan

dR

esto

ratio

n—1,

700

ac1,

700-

acM

Dx

5%

=8

5-ac

Co

85ac

/300

,000

tota

lac=

0.0

3%C

onve

rted

85ac

crop

&p

astu

re

tow

etlan

dR

etire

Hig

hly

Ero

dibl

eLan

d—1,

500

ac1,

500-

acM

Dx

5%

=7

5-ac

Co

75ac

/33,

000

rura

l=0

.25%

agric

Con

verte

d75

accr

oplan

dto

fo

rest

1 Dat

afro

mU

SDA’

s200

8St

ate

Agr

icultu

ralO

verv

iew

forM

aryl

and

,http

://ww

w.na

ss.u

sda.g

ov/S

tatis

tics_

by_S

tate

/Ag_

Ove

rvie

w/A

gOve

rvie

w_M

D.p

df2 D

ataf

rom

200

7La

ndU

sed

atap

repa

red

fort

hisp

rojec

t,as

des

crib

edfo

rmod

elR

un1

3 Dat

afro

mM

ay2

009

Che

sape

akeB

ayP

rogr

amp

ublic

atio

nen

titled

“201

1M

ilesto

nesf

orR

educ

ing

Nitr

ogen

and

Phos

phor

us”

4 Esti

mat

esar

ever

yap

prox

imat

ebas

edo

nre

view

ofd

atar

efer

ence

dab

ove


SUMMARY OF RUN 5 RURAL AND AGRICULTURAL BMP MODEL PREDICTIONS

TheeffectsofthesuiteofruralandagriculturalBMPsthatwereappliedinthemodelare compared to the loads generated under Run 1’s initial conditions scenario (i.e.,2007landusewithMDE2002BMPimplementationloadingrates)inTable51.Thesuite of BMPs shown inTable 48 produced a net 12 percent reduction in annualnitrogen loads from rural and agricultural land uses.This equated to approximatelythreepercentreductioncomparedtoallterrestrialnitrogensources,andatwopercentreductionintotal loadsfromallsources.Inaddition,anetfivepercentreductioninannualphosphorusfromruralandagriculturallanduseswasestimated,whichequatedtoanapproximatelyonepercentreductionfromallterrestrialsourcesand<1percentreductioninannualphosphorusfromallsources.

Urban and Other Developed Land Best Management PracticesAsuiteofBMPswasappliedtoselectacreagesofurbanandotherdevelopedlanduses,and results were compared against Run 1’s initial conditions results to identify anyconsequentreductionstonutrientloads.Nitrogenandphosphorusreductionefficienciescompiledthroughaliteraturereviewweretabulatedandaveragevalueswereselectedfor use in the model runs, as shown inTable 51.The suite of BMPs applied wereselected based on availability of efficiency data to provide approximate nutrientreductions that could be achieved through a hypothetical suite of improved landmanagementapproaches,butarenotintendedtoprovidenutrientreductionsanticipatedfromanyspecificcountywatershedmanagementstrategy.

SUMMARY OF RUN 5 URBAN AND OTHER DEVELOPED LAND USE BMP MODEL PREDICTIONSTheeffectsofthesuiteofdevelopedlanduseBMPsthatwereappliedinthemodelarecomparedtotheloadsgeneratedunderRun1’sinitialconditionsscenario(i.e.,2007landusewithMDE2002BMPimplementationloadingrates)inTable53.Thesuiteof BMPs shown inTable 52 produced an approximately five percent reduction inannualnitrogenandphosphorusloadsfromdevelopedlanduses.Thisequatedtoanapproximately three percent reduction in nitrogen and a four percent reduction inphosphoruscomparedtoallterrestrialnitrogensources,andatwopercentreductioninnitrogenandthreepercent reduction inphosphoruscompared to totalannual loadsfromallsources.

Application of MDE’s Tributary Strategy Loading RatesA model run was conducted to compare the loads generated for the Initial Condition’s 2007 land use data using MDE’s Water Resources Plan 2002 BMP implementation load rates to their Water Resources Plan tributary strategy implementation load rates. The purpose of this run was to determine the net impact of the aggressive suite of BMPs reflected in the tributary strategy rates compared to the more moderate suites of BMPs described above. The BMPs included in the tributary strategy loading rates reflect the state’s 2003 plan for Chesapeake Bay restoration goals, but the direction of the bay program is evolving, and the state’s earlier strategy may be revised upon issuance of the basinwide TMDL in 2010. Therefore, the results of this run provide a hypothetical analysis of potential nutrient reductions based on the loading rates provided by MDE, and should not be used as an estimate of predicted reductions from any specific county watershed management strategy.


Table 51. Application of BMPs to Urban and Other Developed Land Uses

BMP Extent of Applicability ModeledN Load

Reductions1P Load

Reductions1

StreetSweeping,Mechanical 10%ofresidentialimpervioussurfaces=9,582acres 24% 24%StreetSweeping,RegenerativeAir 5% of other developed impervious surfaces (roads,

industrial,commercial,institutional=1,798acres18% 18%

ResidentialNutrientManagement

10% residential, 5% open urban & institutionalpervioussurfaces=10,706acres

17% 22%

UplandReforestation(fromturf ) 5%openurbanpervioussurfaces=397acres 95% 95%ImperviousCoverReduction 5%developedpervioussurfaces=7,295acres 90% 90%ImprovedStructuralControls 20%ofdevelopedimpervioussurfaces=29,180acres 18% 22%1Thefollowingsourceswerereviewedtodeterminethenitrogenandphosphorusreductionefficienciesdisplayedin

thistable:

• Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2005. A User’s Guide toWatershed Planning in Maryland.PreparedbyCenterforWatershedProtection.December2005.

• ChesapeakeBayProgram,1998.ChesapeakeBayWatershedModelApplicationandCalculationofNutrientand Sediment Loadings. Appendix H: Tracking Best Management Practice Nutrient Reductions in theChesapeakeBayProgram.August1998.

• ChesapeakeBayProgram,2006.NonpointSourceBestManagementPracticesthathavebeenPeer-ReviewedandCBP-ApprovedforPhase5.0oftheChesapeakeBayProgramWatershedModel.Revised1/18/06.

• UniversityofMaryland,2009.BMPEfficienciesforChesapeakeBayProgramTributaryStrategies.PreparedbyMid-AtlanticWaterProgram.


Reductions from Selected Suite of Rural BMPs Compared to Run 1 Results Potomac and Patuxent Watersheds

Run 1 Results for Initial Conditions

2007 Land Use

Run 5 Results for Rural BMPs

2007 Land Use


2007 Land Use


2007 Land Use

Nutrient Load Sources:

Total Nitrogen lbs/yr (2002 BMP

Load Rates)

Lbs Reduction

from BMPs%

Total Phosphorus lbs/yr (2002 BMP

Load Rates)

Lbs Reduction

from BMPs%

Development 1,244,829 NA NA 125,218 NA NAForest 148,602 NA NA 1,949 NA NARural 406,917 48,205 12% 29,694 1,587 5%Other 13,601 NA NA 794 NA NA

Total Terrestrial: 1,813,949 48,205 3% 157,655 1,587 1%Septic Load 197,107 NA NA NA NA NAPoint Source Load 392,577 NA NA 44,481 NA NATotal Nutrient Load 2,403,633 48,205 2% 202,136 1,587 1%


SUMMARY OF RUN 5 TRIBUTARY STRATEGY BMP MODEL PREDICTIONSTheeffectsofthesuiteofBMPsreflectedinMDE’stributarystrategyloadingratesarecomparedtotheloadsgeneratedunderRun1’sinitialconditionsscenario(i.e.,2007landusewithMDE2002BMP implementation loading rates) inTable53.The tributarystrategyimplementationloadingratesproducedanapproximately22percentreductioninannualnitrogenloadsfromallterrestrialsources,whichequatedtoanet16percentreduction in nitrogen loads from all sources. In addition, application of the tributarystrategyratesresultedinanestimated19percentreductioninannualphosphorusloadsfromallterrestrialsources,whichequatedtoanet15percentreductioninphosphorusloadsfromallsources.Thisincludedanetincreaseinestimatedphosphorusloadsfromrurallanduses(sincetheMDEtributarystrategyloadingratesforpastureareactuallygreaterthantheMDE2002BMPimplementationloadingratesforpasture),withthemajorityofreductionsresultingfromtheBMPsappliedtodevelopedlands.

ConclusionsTheRun5modelrunswereconductedtoprovidethecountywithestimatedimpactsresultingfromtheapplicationofmoderatetoaggressive landmanagementpracticesreflectedintheBMPsdescribedherein.Ineachcase,theBMPswereappliedtoinitialconditions data, so the results provide the estimated net effect of enhanced BMPapplication compared to the BMPs encompassed in MDE’s Water Resources Plan2002BMPimplementation loading ratesandarenotpredictionsof futurenutrientreductionsbasedonanyspecificcountywatershedmanagementstrategies.


Reductions from Selected Suite of Developed BMPs Compared to Run 1 Results Potomac and Patuxent Watersheds

Run 1 Results for Initial

Conditions 2007 Land Use


2007 Land Use


2007 Land Use


2007 Land Use

Nutrient Load Sources:


Load Rates)

Lbs Reduction

from BMPs%

Total Phosphorus lbs/yr (2002 BMP

Load Rates)

Lbs Reduction

from BMPs%

Development 1,244,829 55,999 5% 125,218 6,539 5%Forest 148,602 NA NA 1,949 NA NARural 406,917 NA NA 29,694 NA NAOther 13,601 NA NA 794 NA NA

Total Terrestrial: 1,813,949 55,999 3% 157,655 6,539 4%SepticLoad 197,107 NA NA NA NA NAPointSourceLoad 392,577 NA NA 44,481 NA NATotal Nutrient Load 2,403,633 55,999 2% 202,136 6,539 3%



Reductions from MDE Water Resources Plan Tributary Strategy BMP Implementation Load Rates Compared to Run 1 Results Potomac and Patuxent Watersheds


2007 Land Use

Run 5 Results Trib Strat BMPs

2007 Land Use


2007 Land Use

Run 5 Results Trib Strat BMPs

2007 Land Use

Nitrogen Load Sources:


Load Rates)

Lbs Reduction

from BMPs

% Total Phosphorus lbs/yr (2002 BMP

Load Rates)

Lbs Reduction

from BMPs%

Development 1,244,829 279,741 22% 125,218 35,931 29%Forest 148,602 7,470 5% 1,949 197 10%Rural 406,917 108,576 27% 29,694 -6,341 -21%

Other 13,601 2,148 16% 794 0 0%Total Terrestrial: 1,813,949 397,935 22% 157,655 29,787 19%SepticLoad 197,107 NA NA NA NA NAPointSourceLoad 392,577 NA NA 44,481 NA NATotal Nutrient Load 2,403,633 397,935 17% 202,136 29,787 15%

Asnotedpreviously,thetributarystrategyBMPsincludedintheloadingratesappliedinthismodelrunmaybereviseduponissuanceofthebasinwideTMDL.By2010,baywideTMDLsfornutrientsandsedimentarescheduledforcompletion.Thesewill,ineffect,overlay and adjust localized TMDLs to assure restoration of local and downstreamconditionsinthelowerriverestuariesandthebay.ThepresenceofaTMDLisasignthatpollutioncontroleffortsmustoutweighadditionalpollutionimpactsfromfuturelandusechange,septictanks,andWWTPflowstopreventfurtherdegradationofthewaterbody.For the receiving waters in Prince George’s County without a nutrient TMDL, adetermination of the suitability of receiving waters cannot be made. However, forwaterbodieswithnutrientTMDLs,apreliminaryassessmentcanbemade.Thepollutionforecasts,althoughcapableofcomparingtherelativebenefitsofdifferentlanduseplans,are not precise enough to allow for a direct comparison to nutrientTMDLs. PrinceGeorge’sCountyrecognizes,though,thatwaterbodieswithnutrientTMDLscanonlybeconsidered suitable receiving waters if future nutrient impacts are offset.This WaterResourcesPlanincludesrecommendationsforpollutioncontroleffortstohelpachievethat goal. In addition, thisWater Resources Plan recommends refining the pollutionforecastinthefuturetoallowfordirectcomparisontonutrientTMDLsasinformationbecomesavailable.Inaddition,thetributarystrategyBMPeffectivenessisunderreviewbythebayprogram,andtheloadingratesusedintheearlierversionoftheChesapeakeBayWatershedModel(Phase4.3)arebeingrevisedinthecurrentversion(Phase5)toreflect lower efficiencydata thanpreviouslymodeled.Therefore the tributary strategyimplementationloadingratesprovidedbyMDEfortheWaterResourcesPlanprocessmay not provide accurate predictions of currently understood BMP effectiveness. Inorder todeveloppredictionsof reductions thatmaybeachieved throughcounty landmanagementdecisions,asetofmuchmorerigorousanalyseswithinspecificsubwatershedsshouldbeconductedusinglocallytestedloadingrateandBMPefficiencydata.


SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY MODELINGRun 1 (Base Conditions, Potomac, and Patuxent 6-DigitWatersheds) provides thenonpointsourceloadingdatarequiredfordevelopmentoftheWaterResourcesPlan.Byapplyingonesetofloadingratesacrosseachofthefuturelandusescenarios(trendscenarioandidealscenario),thisrunprovidedthechangeinterrestrialloadsresultingfromchangesinacreagecategorieswithoutevaluatingimpactsfromchangesinlandmanagement practices (such as increased BMP implementation), similar to themethodologydevelopedbythestatefortheWaterResourcesPlan.Thetrendscenariorepresented a continuation of existing land use patterns to accommodate futurepopulation growth, and the ideal scenario was developed to represent the county’ssmartgrowthvision,whichconsistsofmorecompactdevelopmentaroundtransportationcentersandgrowthcorridorstoaccommodatefuturegrowth.

TheresultsofRun1predictanetincreaseinfuture2030nutrientloadscomparedtotheinitialconditions.Thepredictedloadsincludedataforterrestrial,septic,andpointsources.Theanalysisofwastewaterpointsourceandsepticloadsindicatethatonapercapita basis, the annual nitrogen loads from populations served by septic systemsaverageapproximately3.1poundsperperson,versusapproximately0.6to1.1poundsperpersonforthepopulationsservedbywastewatertreatmentplants.Theanalysisofland use scenarios in Run 1 show that terrestrial loads are significant (averagingapproximately2.1poundsofnitrogenperpersonperyear),andthatthealternatelandusescenariosimpacttheamountofimperviouscoverageandnutrientloadinggeneratedfromdevelopment,butthesedifferencesaremaskedbythemagnitudeoftheexistingloadsthatcompriseaverylargepercentageofthefutureterrestrialloads.Theseresultsdemonstratetheneedforimprovedlandmanagementmethodstoreduceloadingratesfromexistinglandinadditiontoimproveddevelopmentpracticesthatresultinreducedrunoffandnutrientloads.

Thebenefitsofcompactdevelopmentaremanyandvaried,includingreducedrequirementsfor infrastructure investment and conservation of forests and viable agriculture lands.Althoughtheamountoflandrequiredtomeetnewdevelopmentto2030maybesmallinthecontextofthemanythousandsofacresdevelopedtodate,incrementalimprovementsareavaluablecomponentofaviable long-termdevelopmentplan.Findingsfromthelanduseanalysisemphasizetheneedforamultifacetedapproachthataddressesnotonlynew development, but redevelopment and existing development. Determination ofimpactsofdevelopmentpatternsonwaterresourcescanbeachievedthroughsmall-scaleanalysisusinglocallytestedloadingrateandBMPefficiencydatathatreflectthecounty’sstrategiesforwatershedmanagementwithintheareastobedeveloped.

TheresultsofRun2(SepticUpgrades,PotomacandPatuxent6-DigitWatersheds)show that a countywide program to upgrade half of the existing septic systems toachievedenitrificationandarequirementthatallnewsepticsystemsbedenitrifyingwouldonlygenerateasmall(approximatelytwopercent)reductioninthecountywidetotalnitrogenload.However,onapercapitabasis,thisanalysisshowsthattheannualloadsperpersoncouldbereducedbyapproximatelyone-thirdbyimplementingthistypeofstrategy,reducingtheestimatednitrogenloadsperpersonfromapproximately3.1poundsto2.1poundsperyear.Thisreducedpercapitaloadisstillapproximatelytwotofourtimeshigherthantheestimatedloadsperpersonforpopulationsservedbyadvancedwastewatertreatmentplants.


Additionalmodelrunswereconductedtoevaluatetheimpactsofdevelopmentonasmaller scale (i.e., for the Western Branch and Piscataway subwatersheds) and theimpactsofimprovedlandmanagementpracticesintheformofseveralsuitesofBMPsthatwereevaluated.Thepurposeofthesemodelrunswastoprovideinformationforthecounty’sassessmentoffuturelandmanagementprograms,buttheydonotprovideestimates of future nutrient loads or impacts of any specific county programs.TheWaterResourcesPlanprovidesastartingpointandatoolforongoingandfuturewaterquality impact assessments of the county’s watersheds. As additional data becomeavailabletheensuingwaterresourcesplansshouldcontinuetoupdateandrefineNPSanalysisappropriately.

Attachment 1 to Appendix I: Nonpoint Source Modeling for Prince George’s County 269 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

2002

BM

P Im

plem

enta

tion L

oadi

ng R

ates

Basin

1 Lo

adin

g Rat

es

Patu

xent

Abo

ve F

all

(lbs/a

cre/

year

)

Basin

2 Lo

adin

g Rat

es

Patu

xent

Belo

w Fa

ll (lb

s/acr

e/ye

ar)

Basin

3 Lo

adin

g Rat

es

Poto

mac

Belo

w Fa

ll (lb

s/acr

e/ye

ar)

Impe

rviou

sN

itrog

enPh

ospho

rus

Nitr

ogen

Phosp

horu

sN

itrog

enPh

ospho

rus

MD

PLa

ndU

seC

atego

ries

ImpP

ctPe

r-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

Per-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

Per-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

LULC

11(L

owD

ensit

yRes

iden

tial)

0.14

11.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

12(M

ediu

mD

ensit

yRe

siden

tial)

0.28

11.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

13(H

ighD

ensit

yRes

iden

tial)

0.41

11.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

14(C

omm

ercial

)0.7

211

.328.0

41.1

30.5

07.1

57.5

70.6

00.5

09.4

57.7

01.2

20.5

0LU

LC15

(Ind

ustri

al)0.5

311

.328.0

41.1

30.5

07.1

57.5

70.6

00.5

09.4

57.7

01.2

20.5

0LU

LC16

(Ins

titut

ional)

0.34

11.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

17(E

xtrac

tive)

0.02

11.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

18(O

pen

Urba

nLa

nd)

0.09

11.32

8.04

1.13

0.50

7.15

7.57

0.60

0.50

9.45

7.70

1.22

0.50

LULC

21(C

ropl

and)

0.00

23.07

0.00

1.17

0.00

13.10

0.00

0.68

0.00

16.11

0.00

0.84

0.00

LULC

22(P

astu

re)0.0

06.6

50.0

00.5

90.0

06.0

20.0

00.8

60.0

010

.680.0

02.0

30.0

0LU

LC23

(Orch

ards)

0.00

6.65

0.00

0.59

0.00

6.02

0.00

0.86

0.00

10.68

0.00

2.03

0.00

LULC

24(F

eedi

ngO

pera

tions

)0.0

227

.240.0

01.2

40.0

018

.840.0

01.0

00.0

022

.420.0

01.3

10.0

0LU

LC25

(Row

and

Gard

enC

rops

)0.0

023

.070.0

01.1

70.0

013

.100.0

00.6

80.0

016

.110.0

00.8

40.0

0LU

LC41

(Dec

iduo

usF

ores

t)0.0

01.7

80.0

00.0

20.0

01.2

70.0

00.0

20.0

01.2

80.0

00.0

20.0

0LU

LC42

(Eve

rgree

nFo

rest)

0.00

1.78

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.27

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.28

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

43(M

ixed

Fores

t)0.0

01.7

80.0

00.0

20.0

01.2

70.0

00.0

20.0

01.2

80.0

00.0

20.0

0LU

LC44

(Bru

sh)

0.00

1.78

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.27

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.28

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

50(W

ater)

0.00

10.28

0.00

0.57

0.00

9.68

0.00

0.57

0.00

9.75

0.00

0.57

0.00

LULC

60(W

etlan

ds)

0.00

1.78

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.27

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.28

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

71(B

each

es)

0.00

1.78

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.27

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.28

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

72(B

areR

ock)

1.00

11.32

0.00

1.13

0.00

7.15

0.00

0.60

0.00

9.45

0.00

1.22

0.00

LULC

73(B

areG

roun

d)0.0

96.6

50.0

00.5

90.0

06.0

20.0

00.8

60.0

010

.680.0

02.0

30.0

0LU

LC80

(Tra

nspo

rtatio

n)0.9

511

.328.0

41.1

30.5

07.1

57.5

70.6

00.5

09.4

57.7

01.2

20.5

0LU

LC19

1(Ru

ralR

esid

entia

l)0.0

411

.328.0

41.1

30.5

07.1

57.5

70.6

00.5

09.4

57.7

01.2

20.5

0LU

LC24

1(Fe

edin

gOpe

ratio

ns)

0.02

27.24

0.00

1.24

0.00

18.84

0.00

1.00

0.00

22.42

0.00

1.31

0.00

LULC

242(

Agric

ultur

alBu

ildin

gs)

0.02

6.65

0.00

0.59

0.00

6.02

0.00

0.86

0.00

10.68

0.00

2.03

0.00

ATTACHMENT 1DATA PROVIDED BY MARYLAND’S DEFAULT WATER RESOURCES PLAN SPREADSHEET

270 Attachment 1 to Appendix I: Nonpoint Source Modeling for Prince George’s CountyApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

DATA PROVIDED BY MARYLAND’S DEFAULT WATER RESOURCES PLAN SPREADSHEET (CONT’D)

Trib

utar

y Stra

tegy

Impl

emen

tatio

n Loa

ding

Rat

esBa

sin 1

Load

ing R

ates

Pa

tuxe

nt A

bove

Fall

(lb

s/acr

e/ye

ar)

Basin

2 Lo

adin

g Rat

es

Patu

xent

Belo

w Fa

ll (lb

s/acr

e/ye

ar)

Basin

3 Lo

adin

g Rat

es

Poto

mac

Belo

w Fa

ll (lb

s/acr

e/ye

ar)

Impe

rviou

sN

itrog

enPh

ospho

rus

Nitr

ogen

Phosp

horu

sN

itrog

enPh

ospho

rus

MD

PLa

ndU

seC

atego

ries

ImpP

ctPe

r-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

Per-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

Per-

viou

sIm

per-

viou

sPe

r-vi

ous

Impe

r-vi

ous

LULC

11(L

owD

ensit

yRes

iden

tial)

0.14

7.76

6.15

0.69

0.41

5.01

5.83

0.39

0.41

6.88

6.60

0.72

0.37

LULC

12(M

ediu

mD

ensit

yRe

siden

tial)

0.28

7.76

6.15

0.69

0.41

5.01

5.83

0.39

0.41

6.88

6.60

0.72

0.37

LULC

13(H

ighD

ensit

yRes

iden

tial)

0.41

7.76

6.15

0.69

0.41

5.01

5.83

0.39

0.41

6.88

6.60

0.72

0.37

LULC

14(C

omm

ercial

)0.7

27.7

66.1

50.6

90.4

15.0

15.8

30.3

90.4

16.8

86.6

00.7

20.3

7LU

LC15

(Ind

ustri

al)0.5

37.7

66.1

50.6

90.4

15.0

15.8

30.3

90.4

16.8

86.6

00.7

20.3

7LU

LC16

(Ins

titut

ional)

0.34

7.76

6.15

0.69

0.41

5.01

5.83

0.39

0.41

6.88

6.60

0.72

0.37

LULC

17(E

xtrac

tive)

0.02

7.76

6.15

0.69

0.41

5.01

5.83

0.39

0.41

6.88

6.60

0.72

0.37

LULC

18(O

pen

Urba

nLa

nd)

0.09

7.76

6.15

0.69

0.41

5.01

5.83

0.39

0.41

6.88

6.60

0.72

0.37

LULC

21(C

ropl

and)

0.00

15.22

0.00

1.25

0.00

7.74

0.00

0.65

0.00

10.04

0.00

0.78

0.00

LULC

22(P

astu

re)0.0

04.3

10.0

00.1

60.0

06.3

00.0

01.0

10.0

016

.870.0

03.7

90.0

0LU

LC23

(Orch

ards)

0.00

4.31

0.00

0.16

0.00

6.30

0.00

1.01

0.00

16.87

0.00

3.79

0.00

LULC

24(F

eedi

ngO

pera

tions

)0.0

217

.750.0

01.1

00.0

011

.940.0

00.8

50.0

014

.160.0

01.0

70.0

0LU

LC25

(Row

and

Gard

enC

rops

)0.0

015

.220.0

01.2

50.0

07.7

40.0

00.6

50.0

010

.040.0

00.7

80.0

0LU

LC41

(Dec

iduo

usF

ores

t)0.0

01.6

80.0

00.0

20.0

01.2

10.0

00.0

10.0

01.2

10.0

00.0

20.0

0LU

LC42

(Eve

rgree

nFo

rest)

0.00

1.68

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.21

0.00

0.01

0.00

1.21

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

43(M

ixed

Fores

t)0.0

01.6

80.0

00.0

20.0

01.2

10.0

00.0

10.0

01.2

10.0

00.0

20.0

0LU

LC44

(Bru

sh)

0.00

1.68

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.21

0.00

0.01

0.00

1.21

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

50(W

ater)

0.00

8.65

0.00

0.57

0.00

8.17

0.00

0.57

0.00

8.19

0.00

0.57

0.00

LULC

60(W

etlan

ds)

0.00

1.68

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.21

0.00

0.01

0.00

1.21

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

71(B

each

es)

0.00

1.68

0.00

0.02

0.00

1.21

0.00

0.01

0.00

1.21

0.00

0.02

0.00

LULC

72(B

areR

ock)

1.00

7.76

0.00

0.69

0.00

5.01

0.00

0.39

0.00

6.88

0.00

0.72

0.00

LULC

73(B

areG

roun

d)0.0

94.3

10.0

00.1

60.0

06.3

00.0

01.0

10.0

016

.870.0

03.7

90.0

0LU

LC80

(Tra

nspo

rtatio

n)0.9

57.7

66.1

50.6

90.4

15.0

15.8

30.3

90.4

16.8

86.6

00.7

20.3

7LU

LC19

1(Ru

ralR

esid

entia

l)0.0

47.7

66.1

50.6

90.4

15.0

15.8

30.3

90.4

16.8

86.6

00.7

20.3

7LU

LC24

1(Fe

edin

gOpe

ratio

ns)

0.02

17.75

0.00

1.10

0.00

11.94

0.00

0.85

0.00

14.16

0.00

1.07

0.00

LULC

242(

Agric

ultur

alBu

ildin

gs)

0.02

4.31

0.00

0.16

0.00

6.30

0.00

1.01

0.00

16.87

0.00

3.79

0.00


MARYLAND DEPT. OF PLANNING LAND USE/LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONSThelanduse/landcoverclassificationschemedescribedbelowhasbeenusedtoidentifythe predominant usage of land that could be interpreted from high altitude aerialphotographyandsatelliteimagery.TheLU_CODEfield,ineachcountylanduseshapefile,containsthe2or3digitintegernumbersidentifiedbelow.

In general, only land uses greater than ten acres in size have been identified.Transportation features suchas roads,highways, rail lines andutility lineshavenotbeenincludedinthisGISdatabase.TransportationfeaturesarebetterrepresentedbythepointandlinefilesavailablefromtheMarylandStateHighwayAdministration.

10 UrbanBuilt-Up

11 Low-density residential—Detached single-family/duplexdwellingunits, yardsand associated areas. Areas of more than 90 percent single-family/duplexdwellingunits,withlotsizesoflessthanfiveacresbutatleastone-halfacre(.2dwellingunits/acreto2dwellingunits/acre).

12 Medium-density residential—Detached single-family/duplex, attached single-unit row housing, yards, and associated areas. Areas of more than 90 percentsingle-family/duplexunitsandattachedsingle-unitrowhousing,withlotsizesoflessthanone-halfacrebutatleastone-eighthacre(2dwellingunits/acreto8dwellingunits/acre).

13 High-densityresidential—Attachedsingle-unitrowhousing,gardenapartments,high-rise apartments/condominiums,mobilehomeand trailerparks.Areasofmorethan90percenthigh-densityresidentialunits,withmorethan8dwellingunitsperacre.

14 Commercial—Retailandwholesaleservices.Areasusedprimarilyforthesaleofproductsandservices,includingassociatedyardsandparkingareas.

15 Industrial—Manufacturingandindustrialparks,includingassociatedwarehouses,storageyards,researchlaboratories,andparkingareas.

16 Institutional—Elementary and secondary schools, middle schools, junior andseniorhighschools,publicandprivatecollegesanduniversities,militaryinstallations(built-upareasonly, includingbuildingsandstorage, training,andsimilarareas),churches, medical and health facilities, correctional facilities, and governmentofficesandfacilitiesthatareclearlyseparablefromthesurroundinglandcover.

17 Extractive—Surfaceminingoperations,includingsandandgravelpits,quarries,coalsurfacemines,anddeepcoalmines.Statusofactivity(activevs.abandoned)isnotdistinguished.

18 Openurbanland—Urbanareaswhoseusedoesnotrequirestructures,orurbanareas where non-conforming uses characterized by open land have becomeisolated.Includedaregolfcourses,parks,recreationareas(exceptareasassociatedwithschoolsorother institutions), cemeteries,andentrappedagriculturalandundevelopedlandwithinurbanareas.

191 Large lot subdivision (agriculture)—Residential subdivisionswith lot sizes of lessthan20acresbutatleast5acres,withadominantlandcoverofopenfieldsorpasture.


192 Large lot subdivision (forest)—Residential subdivisions with lot sizes of lessthan 20 acres but at least 5 acres, with a dominant land cover of deciduous,evergreenormixedforest.

20 Agriculture

21 Cropland—Fieldcropsandforagecrops.

22 Pasture—Landusedforpasture,bothpermanentandrotated;grass.

23 Orchards/vineyards/horticulture—Areas of intensively managed commercialbushandtreecrops,includingareasusedforfruitproduction,vineyards,sodandseedfarms,nurseries,andgreenhouses.

24 Feedingoperations—Cattlefeedlots,holdinglotsforanimals,hogfeedinglots,poultryhouses,andcommercialfishingareas(includingoysterbeds).

241 Feedingoperations—Cattlefeedlots,holdinglotsforanimals,hogfeedinglots,poultryhouses.

242 Agriculturalbuildingbreedingandtrainingfacilities,storagefacilities,built-upareasassociatedwithafarmstead,smallfarmponds,commercialfishingareas.

25 Row and garden crops—Intensively managed truck and vegetable farms andassociatedareas.

40 Forest

41 Deciduousforest—Forestedareasinwhichthetreescharacteristicallylosetheirleavesattheendofthegrowingseason.Includedaresuchspeciesasoak,hickory,aspen,sycamore,birch,yellowpoplar,elm,maple,andcypress.

42 Evergreen forest—Forested areas in which the trees are characterized bypersistentfoliagethroughouttheyear.Includedaresuchspeciesaswhitepine,pondpine,hemlock,southernwhitecedar,andredpine.

43 Mixedforest—Forestedareasinwhichneitherdeciduousnorevergreenspeciesdominate,butinwhichthereisacombinationofbothtypes.

44 Brush—Areasthatdonotproducetimberorotherwoodproductsbutmayhavecut-overtimberstands,abandonedagriculturefields,orpasture.Theseareasarecharacterizedbyvegetationtypessuchassumac,vines,rose,brambles,andtreeseedlings.

50 Water—Rivers,waterways,reservoirs,ponds,bays,estuaries,andocean.

60 Wetlands—Forested or non-forested wetlands, including tidal flats, tidal andnontidalmarshes,anduplandswampsandwetareas.

70 Barrenland

71 Beaches—Extensive shoreline areasof sandandgravel accumulation,withnovegetativecoverorotherlanduse.

72 Bare exposed rock—Areas of bedrock exposure, scarps, and other naturalaccumulationsofrockwithoutvegetativecover.

73 Bareground—Areasofexposedgroundcausednaturally,byconstruction,orbyotherculturalprocesses.

80 Transportation—MiscellaneousTransportationfeaturesnotelsewhereclassified.


PLAM Variances from MDE MethodologyPLAMwas created toprovidea tool forPrinceGeorge’sCounty thatwouldallowgreaterflexibilityforfuturemodelingofterrestrialnutrientloadsascomparedwiththeMDE spreadsheet provided for the WRE. However, the structure and function ofPLAMasappliedinthisexercisearebasedontheMDEspreadsheetinformataswellas input factors. There were a few variances from the MDE model which wereincorporatedduetoinherentcountyinformation(e.g.,countylandusecategories)orformatofcountydata(e.g.,dataonemploymentuseofsepticsystems),orafewotherreasonsassummarizedbelow.

Land Use Categories and Loading RatesTo conduct thenonpoint source loading analysis, nitrogen andphosphorus loadingrates (poundsperacreperyear)wereapplied to the landusecategoriesused in theinitialandfuturelandusescenariosdescribedintheLoadingRateDataInputssection.Generally, the MDE “2002 BMP implementation” and full “Tributary StrategyImplementation” nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates and percent of imperviouscovers provided by MDE for the Water Resources Plan’s pollutant load analysisspreadsheetwereusedforthePlanningDepartment’sanalysis.The“baseline”conditionsintheMDEspreadsheetwouldhavecompared initialconditions landusetofuture2030landusebasedonthefulltributarystrategyimplementationloadingrates.InthePlanningDepartment’sanalysis,thebaselinemodelingrun(Run1)wasrunloadingratesbasedonMDE’s2002BMPimplementationrateinstead,inordertoobtainloadestimatesthatwouldmorelikelyreflectthecurrentconditionsforthecounty.Howeverthemethodologywasthesame,inthattheapplicationofconsistentratesacrosstheinitial and future conditions illustrated the effect of land use change on terrestrialloadingrates.

ThefollowingmodificationstotheMDE2002BMPandTributaryStrategyloadingratesweremadetoreflectnewlandusecategoriescontainedinthestate’s2007landusedataset, new mixed-use categories discussed, and knowledge of local conditions inPrinceGeorge’sCounty:

� 129—Mixed-Use Residential (Prince George’s County Land Use Code): TheperviousversusimperviousloadingratesarethesameforeachofthedevelopedlandusesintheMDEmodel,butthetotalloadingrateiscalculatedbyapplyingthepercentofimperviousareafromeachLUCtodeterminetherelativeweightoftheperviousversusimperviousportionsoftheload.Therefore,creationofanewloadingrate requiresdeterminationof theappropriatepercent impervious tobeappliedtothedevelopedLUCloadingrates.Theloadingrateforthe129—UrbanMixed-UseResidentialcategorywascreatedusinganimperviousfactortoreflectthefollowinglanduseallocations:20percentLUC13ResidentialHigh;50percentLUC14Commercial;and20percentLUC18UrbanOpenLand.Inaddition,a10 percent undeveloped area was included as LUC 44 Brush. In reality, thedevelopmentmixmaymorecloselyapproximate50percentresidentialversus20percent commercial use, but the purpose in creation of this category was thegeneration of an impervious profile that would be expected with this type ofdevelopment(i.e.,>=45percent).

� 129s—MixedUseResidential—SmartGrowth:Thisloadingrateforthissuburbanmixed-useresidentialcategorywascalculatedusingthesameapproachasdescribed


aboveforLUC129,usinganimperviousfactortoreflectthefollowinglanduseallocations:20percentLUCResidentialMedium;22percentLUC13ResidentialHigh;10percentLUC14Commercial;8percentLUC16Institutional;10percentLUC81Roads;and10percentLUC18UrbanOpenLand.Inaddition,20percentundevelopedas18percentLUC44Brushand2percentLUC60Wetlandswasincluded.Inreality,10percentOpenUrbanLandand20percentUndevelopedAreamaynotbeachievable,butthemixofopenurban,brushandwetlandLUCswasusedtoreflectloadingratesrepresentingmorenaturallandscapinganticipatedwith future smart growth development, as opposed to managed turf and othermanaged landscaping reflected in the MDE 2002 open urban loading rates.Thereforethegoalwastoprovidealoadingratethatreflectslessmanagedopenspace without changing the open urban rates provided by MDE. The overallimperviouspercentassociatedwiththisLUCisapproximately35percent.

� 149—Mixed Use Commercial (Prince George’s County Land Use Code):ThisLUCwascreatedusingthesameimperviousfactorandloadingratesasLUC14Commercial to reflect mixed commercial use including retail, office, and othernonresidentialuses.

� 191—LargeLotSubdivision (agriculture):Loading rates and impervious factorare the same as the Rural Residential land use category provided in the state’sdefaultspreadsheet.

� 192—Large Lot Subdivision (Forest): Impervious factor is the same as RuralResidential.However,perviousloadingratesadjustedtoreflect90percentForested(LUC41)and10percentdevelopedasResidentialLow(LUC11).

� 72—BareExposedRockand73—BareGround:Imperviousloadingrateschangedtomatchperviousloadingratestocorrectthestate-issuedimperviousrateof0.0forthesetwoLUCs.

Inaddition,somecountylandusecategorieswereusedinPLAMinlieuofthestateprovidedlandusecategories,assummarizedbelow.

� 81 Roads—SameasLUC80Transportationloadingrates,butwith100percentimpervious.Assumesthisis100percentpavement,notright-of-way.

� 101Rural(Agriculture)—LoadingratesandimpervioussameasLUC191,RuralResidential.

� 102Rural (Forest)—Impervious sameasLUC191. Adjustedpervious loadingratestoreflect90percentForested(LUC41),10percentdevelopedasLUC11-ResidentialLow.SameasLUC192.

� 111Rural—LoadingratesandimpervioussameasLUC191,RuralResidential.Countydefinitionof111=density5to20acressameas191.

� 112ResidentialLowMedium—Adjustedimpervioustoreflect50percentLUC11ResidentialLow,50percentLUC12ResidentialMedium.Loadingratessameasotherresidential.

� 123ResidentialMediumHigh—Adjustedimpervioustoreflect50percentLUC12ResidentialMedium,50percentLUC13ResidentialHigh.Loadingratessameasotherresidential.


� 241Feedingoperations2—Impervious increasedto10percent tobeconsistentwithMDPassumptions;accountsforagriculturalbuildingrooftops.

� 242 Agricultural building breeding and training—Impervious increased to 10percenttobeconsistentwithMDPassumptions;accountsforagriculturalbuildingrooftops.

New loading rate data sets were also created for some model runs to reflect theapplicationofvariousBMPs.Descriptionsofthesemodelruns,includinganexplanationofhowtheseBMPswereapplied,areprovidedintheModelRunssection.

Septic DataThesepticdatainputsweredevelopedperMDEmethodologyexceptforthenumberofnon-residentialsepticinputs.AsdescribedintheSepticSystemDataInputssection,themethodofestimatingnonresidentialsepticloadsprovidedbyMDEintheWaterResourcesPlanmodelisbasedonestimatednonresidentialsepticflowpernonresidentialacre.Becausethecounty’sGISsystemusedforfuture landuseprojectionsdoesnotdelineatenonresidentialacresinnon-seweredareas,thismethodwasnotapplicableforfuture loadestimates.Therefore, thecounty’savailabledatareflectingthenumberofemployeesoutsidethesewerenvelopewereusedwithaconversionfactortoestimatenitrogenloadsbasedonfactorsprovidedintheMDEWaterResourcesPlanmodelaswellasdataprovidedbyWSSC,asdescribedinmoredetail intheLoadRateDataInputssection.

Appendix II: WSSC Wastewater Capacity Projections 277 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

APPENDIX II: W

SSC WASTEW

ATER CAPACITY PROJECTIONS

278 Appendix II: WSSC Wastewater Capacity ProjectionsApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan


Table 1: Estimated Current and Future Point Source Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads

Major Wastewater Treatment Plants

Discharge Location/

Subwatershed

2005 2030 Chesapeake Bay Program Limit

TN (lbs/yr)

TP (lbs/yr)

TN (lbs/yr)

TP (lbs/yr)

TN (lbs/yr)

TP (lbs/yr)

ParkwayWWTP1PatuxentRiver/

UpperPatuxent

63,557 3,890 82,800 6,210 91,370 6,850

BowieWWTP2


UpperPatuxent

34,525 1,225 40,201 3,015 40,201 3,015

Western BranchWWTP1

Western Branch/WesternBranch

86,663 29,677 340,940 25,570 372,600 27,945

Marlboro MeadowsWWTP1


WesternBranch

12,490 1,038 --- --- --- ---

Total Patuxent Point Source Load 197,235 35,830 463,941 34,795 504,171 37,810PotomacBelowFallWatershedPiscatawayWWTP1 Potomac River/

Piscataway191,776 6,941 328,763 14,794 365,300 16,440

Beltsville USDAEastWWTP2

UnnamedTributaryofBeaverdam Creek/Anacostia

3,566 1,710 7,553 566 7,553 566

Total Potomac Point Source Load 195,342 8,651 336,316 15,360 372,853 17,006TotalSixMajorWWTPswithDischarges

inPrinceGeorge’sCounty392,577 44,481 800,257 50,155 877,024 54,816

Blue PlainsWWTP*

PotomacRiver(DC) 669,550 13,896 645,349 29,041 NA NA

NitrogenandPhosphorusLoadDataSources:1WashingtonSuburbanSanitaryCommission. Notes:TheMarlboroMeadowsWWTPwillnotbeoperating in

2030.FlowswillbedirectedtotheWesternBranchWWTP(asreflectedintheloadsdatapresentedinthistable).*TheBluePlainsWWTPtreatsflowfromPrinceGeorge’sCountysewershedsbutdoesnotdischargeintoPrinceGeorge’sCountywatersheds.ThereforeBluePlainsloadswerenotincludedintheNPSnutrientmodelingrunswhichwereconductedtoestimatenutrientloadstocountywatersheds.

2LoadsforBowieandBeltsvilleUSDAWWTPsfor2005and2030(assumedequaltotheMarylandENRtotalloadcaps) taken from Maryland’s Tributary Strategy Statewide Implementation Plan, 2008. The Town of Bowieanticipatesflowslowerthanthe3.3mgdplantcapacityin2030,whichwouldbeexpectedtoproduceloadslowerthantheENRcapsiftheplantisachievingENRperformance.ThehigherENRcapsthereforeprovideaconservativeestimateofBowieWWTPpointsourceloadsinlieuofplant-specificdata,butshouldberevisitedaftertheplant’sENRupgradesarebroughtintoservice,oruponanyrevisionstothetermsoftheplant’sNPDESpermit.

Asshownabove,theloadsfromthesixmajorwastewatertreatmentplantsinPrinceGeorge’sCountyareprojectedtobeneartheirultimatenutrientloadcapacitiesintheyear2030.

NA=notapplicable


JOINT PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY PRELIMINARY WATER RESOURCES FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN Feb. 23, 2010 ATTACHMENT 10

Sanitary Sewer Overflows Documented in 2009

Type Munic./Facility Duration Zip Gals. (Est.) Cause Receiving WatersDays Hours Min

SSO WSSC 0 1 19 20737 5 unknown Northwest BranchSSO WSSC 0 6 54 20744 288813 Excess flow Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 4 48 20744 1900 Excess flow Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 4 44 20774 1419 Grease Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 1 22 30 unknownSSO WSSC 0 2 51 20607 100 unknown Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 1 45 20607 7350 Precipitation Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 2 25 20744 69700 Precipitation Broad CreekSSO Bowie, City of 0 2 0 20715 30000 Pipe break UnknownSSO Bowie, City of 0 2 0 20715 30000 Construction error UnknownSSO WSSC 0 7 33 20740 250 Roots Northeast BranchSSO WSSC 0 3 59 20744 24 UnknownSSO WSSC 0 2 22 20707 80 Grease Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 3 14 20715 10 unknown HorsepenSSO WSSC 0 0 15 20707 4200 Other Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 1 15 20735 5 unknown Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 5 23 20743 1614 Grease Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 2 14 20743 134 unknown Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 3 22 20772 5 Roots Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 3 20 20782 200 Debris Northwest BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 9 20901 1548 Grease Sligo CreekSSO Bowie, City of 20715 2000 operator error UnknownSSO WSSC 0 0 10 21705 2000SSO WSSC 0 2 29 20737 297 2976 Northeast BranchSSO Bowie, City of 20715 3000 Mechanical Failure UnknownSSO WSSC 0 4 44 20607 28 Debris MattawomanSSO WSSC 0 4 6 20607 130872 Excess Flow Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 8 25 20747 2021 Debris Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 6 20774 126 Roots Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 10 20782 1 Debris Sligo CreekSSO WSSC 5 unknownSSO WSSC 0 1 5 20782 65 unknown Sligo CreekSSO WSSC Mechanical Failure UnknownSSO WSSC 20854SSO WSSC 0 2 37 20785 943 Grease Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC Pipe breakSSO WSSC 1 0 16 20735 146 Defective material Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 1 39 20744 1 Damaged by others Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 1 43 20706 31 Grease Northeast BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 59 20735 179 Grease Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 1 unknown Unknown

Table 2


JOINT PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY PRELIMINARY WATER RESOURCES FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN, Feb. 23, 2010, Attach. 10 cont'd)

SSO WSSC 0 3 0 20743 90 Grease Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 5 20747 125 Grease Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 2 17 20785 205 Debris Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 1 20613 1 Roots MattawomanSSO WSSC 0 3 42 20705 4 unknown Northeast BranchSSO WSSC 0 12 35 20744 755 Force main failure Piscataway CreekSSO WSSCSSO U.S.D.A. Beltsville 0 0 45 1000 Rainfall UnknownSSO WSSC 0 4 24 20770 100 Roots Northeast BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 59 20785 358 Grease Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC 0 4 47 20743 57 Damaged by others Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC 0 4 21 20715 15 Debris HorsepenSSO WSSC 0 1 10 20735 70 Grease Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 3 5 20720 924 Grease HorsepenSSO WSSC 0 6 52 20735 82 Grease Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 3 13 20772 1 Damaged by others Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 5 20 20783 677 Other Northwest BranchSSO WSSC 0 4 38 20753 1389 Grease Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 2 38 20706 158 Grease Northeast BranchSSO WSSC 0 0 5 20708 999 Other Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 1 40 20735 501 unknown Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 6 53 20746 826 Defective material Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 2 59 20743 89 Grease Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 7 59 20708 2594 Grease Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 2 6 20744 252 Grease Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 5 59 20710 500 unknown Northeast BranchSSO WSSC 0 6 57 20706 40 Roots Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 3 33 20710 35 Tampering Northeast CreekSSO USDA 20705 8000 abandoned pipe leak Beaver Dam CreekSSO WSSC 0 2 51 20744 855 Grease Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 4 12 20910 6300 Grease Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 13 45 20707 11570 Tampering Patuxent RiverSSO NASA 0 0 45 20771 30 Blockage Beaverdam Creek SSO WSSC 0 1 10 20707 1 unknown Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 2 20 20785 70 Grease Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC 0 5 5 20607 30500 Debris Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 5 32 20607 50 Damaged by others UnknownSSO WSSC 0 3 8 20773 188 Grease Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 3 12 20781 576 Debris Anacostia RiverSSO WSSC 0 3 2 20744 909 unknown Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 0 45 20745 270 Debris Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 4 43 20747 850 Grease Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 4 43 20747 850 Grease Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 18 0 300 Clarifiers cracked UnknownSSO WSSC 0 2 3 20721 123 unknown Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 1 53 20735 5 Debris Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 7 40 20708 920 unknown Northeast Branch

Table 2 (cont’d)


JOINT PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY PRELIMINARY WATER RESOURCES FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN, Feb. 23, 2010, Attach. 10 cont'd)

SSO WSSC 0 5 45 20743 4 Defective material Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 3 43 20774 2232 Debris Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 45 20782 330 Grease Anacostia RiverSSO WSSC 0 18 14 20743 5469 Debris Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC 0 3 4 20782 1842 Grease Sligo CreekSSO WSSC 0 8 5 20744 485 Defective material Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 10 53 20782 19584 Other Sligo CreekSSO WSSC 0 0 30 20846 30 Grease Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 3 34 20707 10710 Grease Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 28 30 20745 1000 Force main failure Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 2 9 20735 129 Roots & Grease Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 14 55 20744 895 Roots Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 1 58 20747 2069 Grease Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 7 10 20737 430 Roots Northeast BranchSSO WSSC 0 5 11 20705 311 Debris Northeast BranchSSO WSSC 0 5 12 20747 15600 Grease Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 5 20705 624 Grease Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 4 55 20721 1476 Grease Western BranchSSO WSSC 0 12 10 20781 5111 Debris Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC 0 2 42 20742 30 Debris Paint BranchSSO WSSC 0 8 3 20781 966 Grease Anacostia RiverSSO WSSC 0 8 45 20735 525 Other Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 11 10 20807 670 Other Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 5 17 20745 1584 Grease Broad CreekSSO WSSC 0 6 6 20707 37 Debris Patuxent RiverSSO WSSC 0 14 42 20743 4410 Debris Beaverdam BranchSSO WSSC 0 1 53 20748 1 Unknown Oxon RunSSO WSSC 0 2 33 20744 77 Unknown Piscataway CreekSSO WSSC 0 8 49 20772 1588 Workmanship failure Western BranchDisclaimer: Data on this spreadsheet was generated using the MDE website. In no event shall MDE, nor its employees, officers or agents become

liable to users of the data provided herein for any loss arising from the use, operation or modification of the data.

Table 2 (cont’d)

Appendix III: WSSC 2006 Water Production Projections 287 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

APPENDIX III: W

SSC 2006 WATER PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYWSSC’saveragewaterproductionisexpectedtoincreasebyaboutonepercentperyear,reaching224milliongallonsperday(mgd)intheyear2030.Theselatestprojectionsare slightly lower than the previous projections done in 2001 (Water ProductionsProjections,WSSC,PlanningGroup,April2001).

Theactualwaterproductionof171.9mgdin2005wasthesecondhighestinWSSChistory,behind1994.Afterdecliningandflatwaterproductionsfrom1994to2003,recentyearshaveshownsteadyincreases.Per(household)unitwaterproductionhasremainedflatoverthepastfiveyearsaftersignificantdecreasesduringthepreceding15years.Ifperunitproductioncontinuestoholdsteady,totalproductionwillcontinuetoincreaseasnewunitsareadded.

Theratioappliedtoprojectedaverageproductiontoobtaina futureyear’sprojectedmaximumdayproductionhasbeenrecalculatedby includingthemostrecentactualdata.Theresultingratioof1.48isaveryslight(lessthanonepercent)decreasefromthe previous ratio. As has been the case since 1994, the calculation of this ratioincorporatesa20percentprobabilitythatitwillbeexceededbytheactualratioinanygivenyear.

Water supply to other jurisdictions (wholesale) recently increased (due to supplyinterruptionsfromalternatesources)to3.92mgd(2.3percentofcurrentproduction),and outstanding commitments are about 12.4 mgd (seven percent of our currentproduction). Such supplies and potential requests for additional supplies presentpossibilitiesforadditionalfutureincreasesinourproductionrequirements.

288 Appendix III: WSSC 2006 Water Production ProjectionsApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

INTRODUCTIONThis report provides the latest WSSC water production projections and providesbackground information on how the projections were developed. In subsequentplanningefforts,thesewaterproductionprojectionswillbeusedtoanalyzetheadequacyof theexistingwater systemtomeet futureneedsand todetermine the timingandsizingofneededimprovements.

Thedevelopmentofwaterproductionprojectionsinvolvesthesemajorsteps:

� Developmentofperunitwaterproductionfactors.

� Theallocationofunitsprovidedbydemographicgrowthforecaststowatersystempressurezones.

� The calculation of annual average water production (by pressure zones), thegroupingofpressureszones,andthecalculationofgroupandsystemtotals.

� Thecalculationofmaximumdayratiosforthesystemandpressurezonegroups.

� Theaccountingforsuppliestootherjurisdictions.

PER UNIT WATER PRODUCTION FACTORSThis is a critical step in the development of water production projections. Per unitproduction factors are multiplied by the number of forecasted units to calculateprojectedwaterproduction.ThesefactorsreflectwhetherWSSCcustomersareusingmoreorlesswaterperunitandwhatthoseusepatternsareexpectedtobeinthefuture.

Theunitsforwhichperunitproductiondataaredevelopedare:singlefamilyhouseholds,multifamily households, and employees. These types of units are included in theCooperativeGrowthForecastsprovidedbytheMetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernmentsandTheMaryland-NationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission.

Hereitisimportanttodistinguishbetweenwaterproductionandwaterconsumption.Waterproductionistheamountofwaterleavingthetreatmentplantsandenteringthedistributionsystem.Waterconsumptionistheamountofwaterbeingmeasuredasitleavesthedistributionsystem.Thedifferencebetweenthetwoisthewaterleavingthedistribution system without being measured. This water is sometimes calledunaccounted-forwater.Theratioofproductiondividedbyconsumptionisreferredtohereastheproductionfactor.

Since production is the amount of water that must flow through the distributionsystem, water production is usually more relevant than water consumption for thepurposesofwatersystemanalysisandplanning.Toobtainperunitproductiondata,perunitconsumptioniscalculatedfromcustomerservicedataandthenmultipliedbytheproductionfactor.

Oneproblemwhen comparingproductiondatawith consumptiondata is a lackofsynchronization.SincethehundredsofthousandsofcustomermetersintheWSSCsystemarereadondifferentschedules,thereisnosingletimeintervalforwhichtotalsystem consumption is available. To minimize the inaccuracies from asynchronousmeter readings, a year’s worth of consumption is averaged and compared with thecorrespondingproductiondata.Forthisreport,consumptiondatafromJanuary2005toDecember2005wasused.


Theterm“DAC”referstodailyaverageconsumption.Figure1showsapiechartof2005DACfortheentiresystem,dividedbyunittype.

Figure 1: Daily average consumption.

Theproductionfactor(productiondividedbyconsumption)fortheyearwascalculatedat1.196.Thisiswithintherangeofproductionfactorscalculatedovertheprevioustenyears,asshowninFigure2.(Note:sincethiscalculationwasnotdoneusingall“known”wateruses,only“metered”wateruses, it shouldnotbeconsideredacompletewaterauditappropriateforallpurposes).

Figure 2: Production factors.


Theperunitproductionfactorsforallexistingunitswerecalculated(ingallonsperday)to be: single family—218; multifamily—194; and employees—56. Graphs showingthesenumbersinthecontextofhistoricaltrendsoverthepast20yearsareshowninFigures3,4,and5.Thetrendsforsinglefamilyandmultifamilyshowthefactorshavebeenconsistentoverthemostrecentfiveyearsaftersteadydecreasesoverthefirst15years.The factor for employees is more variable, probably because water use is lessstronglyafunctionofthenumberofemployeesandthenumberofemployeesmustbederivedfromdemographicdataratherthanWSSC’scustomerservicedata.

Figure 3: Single-family unit production.

Figure 4: Multifamily unit production.


Figure 5: Employees per-unit production.

From1994to2003actualwaterproductiondeclinedorremainedflatduetodecreasingper unit production offsetting increases in the number of units served. Since 2003,productionhasincreasedmoderately,resultinginatotalproductionof171.9mgdin2005,thesecondhighestinWSSChistory.Giventherecent(flat)trendsinperunitproduction,itisexpectedthattotalproductionwillincreaseasnewunitscontinuetobeadded. Because of factors such as weather and economics, the increase in actualproductionwilllikelybesomewhaterratic.

Inanefforttopredicttheperunitproductionforfutureunits,aperunitanalysiswasdoneonlyforunitsbuiltsince1994.Theresults(ingpd)were:singlefamily—228andmultifamily—181;therewasnosuchanalysisforemployees.Interestingly,forsingle-familyunits,theusageforthenewerunitsisgreaterthanusageforallexistingunits,whileformultifamilyunits,thisusagefornewerunitsislowerthantheusageforallexistingunits.

Forprojectingfutureaverageproduction,thefactorsdevelopedfromthenewerunitswill be applied to units forecasted after 2005, while the factors developed from allexistingunitswillbeappliedtounitsincludedintheforecastfor2005,asshowninthefollowingtable.

Table 1: Recommend Per-Unit Production Factors (in gpd)Single-Family Multifamily Employment

Forunitsexistingasof2005 218 194 56

Forunitsaddedafter2005 228 181 56


GROWTH AND AVERAGE PRODUCTION FORECASTSRound7.0GrowthForecastshavebeenprovidedbytheM-NCPPCforbothPrinceGeorge’sandMontgomeryCounties.Thisdataincludessingle-familyandmultifamilyhouseholds,employees,andpopulationinfive-yearincrementsthrough2030.(Althoughpopulationdataisnotusedinthecalculationofprojectedwaterproduction,itisoftenusefuldatawithregardtothewatersystem).

Thedemographicdata isprovidedbygeographicunitscalledCOGAnalysisZones(CAZs).Ingeneral,thesegeographicunitshavenorelationshiptothewatersystemboundaries,sothedemographicdatamustbeallocatedtowatersystempressurezones.Inpastanalyses,theallocationprocessinvolvedtediousandtime-consumingmanualcalculations.Today,WSSC’sGeographicalInformationSystem(GIS)automatesthisprocessandvastlyincreasesthespeedatwhichtheseallocationsaremade.

Table2showsthenumberofunitsallocatedtotheWSSCwaterpressurezones,asusedforwaterproductionprojections,andpopulation.Foreachfive-yearincrement,thetableshowsunitsforeachcountyandthetotal.Basedonthesenumbersandoverallpopulation projections, as of 2005, WSSC served 90 percent of the MontgomeryCounty population, 95 percent of the Prince George’s County population, and 93percentofthebicountypopulation.

By applying the per unit production factors, the demographic data is converted toaveragewaterproductiondataandthenallocatedtowatersystempressurezones.Theresultingwaterproductionprojections,bypressurezone,areshowninTable3.Inthistable,“wholesale”representssuppliestootherjurisdictions,whicharediscussedinmoredetaillater.Thewholesalenumberincludedfor2005representstheaverageactualusagefor that yearwhile thenumber included for the remainingyears represents the lastthreemonths,whenusageincreasednoticeably.

Althoughanalysisoftheimpactoftheseprojectionsonspecificprojectsisbeyondthescopeofthisreport(andwillbeconductedonaproject-by-projectbasis,asneeded),somecomparisonof thisdatawithpastprojections is appropriate. Ingeneral, thesewater production projections represent a slight decrease in system totals from theprevious projections done in 2001. For the year 2005, the decrease is 4.3 mgd (2percent);for2020thedecreaseis0.8mgd(0.4percent).Thebreakdownofthesystemtotalsbetweenthemajorzonegroups(twoineachcounty)isveryconsistentwiththepreviousprojections.

Theyear2005projectionof174.6mgdisslightlygreaterthanthe2005actualproductionof171.9mgd(adifferenceof2.7mgdor1.6percent)becausetherearemoreunitsfromthedemographicdataallocatedwithinthewaterserviceboundariesthanarecontainedinourcustomerservicedata.Thispossiblyisduetoexistingunitscurrentlyusingwellsandotherfactors.Sinceunitsusingwellsmayconverttopublicwater,noadjustmentforthisdifferencehasbeenmade.


Table 2: Projected Units Served (3/20/2006)

Year County Single Family Multifamily Employees Population

2005 Montgomery 215851 102380 428079 850770

PrinceGeorge’s 195861 98357 350971 812859

Totals 411712 200738 779050 1663629

2010 Montgomery 222909 114896 461860 899299

PrinceGeorge’s 201549 105736 382000 832710

Totals 424459 220631 843860 1732009

2015 Montgomery 229849 124968 490478 931463

PrinceGeorge’s 205983 113824 415584 853101

Totals 435832 238792 906062 1784565

2020 Montgomery 234262 135606 516289 960543

PrinceGeorge’s 210361 121074 451873 873648

Totals 444624 256680 968162 1834190

2025 Montgomery 236243 149510 541189 995052

PrinceGeorge’s 215570 129575 491698 907794

Totals 451813 279085 1032888 1902846

2030 Montgomery 237027 164718 561822 1031925

PrinceGeorge’s 226348 135661 534741 950098

Totals 463375 300379 1096563 1982024


Table 3: Projected Average Water Production

Group Zone 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

mchigh 560A 6.29 6.41 6.61 6.80 6.88 6.92

660A 35.90 37.69 39.77 41.79 44.05 45.84

685A 2.12 2.20 2.24 2.27 2.32 2.35

760A 1.13 1.34 1.54 1.70 1.82 2.02

836A 0.71 1.48 2.18 2.55 2.79 2.96

960A 0.79 0.81 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.91

46.93 49.93 53.19 56.01 58.76 61.00

mcmain 350A 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48

495A 44.97 47.80 49.79 51.60 53.45 55.52

552A 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.66

46.09 48.92 50.92 52.73 54.58 56.65

pghigh 280A 1.66 1.86 2.10 2.32 2.72 3.07

290B 3.64 3.89 4.28 4.73 5.07 5.41

317A 7.44 8.31 8.74 9.09 9.71 10.15

328A 0.52 0.61 0.70 0.77 0.81 0.90

355B 1.43 1.48 1.51 1.57 1.64 1.82

385B 7.04 7.80 8.35 8.84 9.46 10.66

450A 16.30 16.49 16.95 17.56 18.45 19.34

40.44 42.62 44.88 47.86 51.33 38.04

pgmain 320A 31.26 32.68 33.98 35.14 36.44 37.91

350E 3.58 3.81 4.00 4.17 4.25 4.49

415A 6.84 7.11 7.56 8.08 8.46 9.04

41.68 43.60 45.54 47.39 49.15 51.43

Wholesale 1.92 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62

System Totals 174.6 186.5 195.9 204.6 214.0 224.0

Based on Round 7.0 Growth Forecasts and Per-Unit Production: 20-Mar-06 through 2005 SF-218 MF-194 Emp-56; after 2005 SF-228 MF-181 Emp-56


MAXIMUM DAY PROJECTIONSFormanywatersystemanalysesandplanningtasks,itisnecessarytousethehighestanticipateddailyflowintothedistributionsystem.Thisvalueiscalculatedbymultiplyingtheprojectedaverageproductionbytheratioofthehighestdailytoaverageflow,asderivedfromhistoricaldata.Thisratioiscalledthemaximumdayratio.

Table 4 shows historical water production data including the actual systemwidemaximum day ratios experienced for the period 1985 through 2005. A statisticalanalysisofhistoricalmaximumdayratioscanprovidetheprobabilityofanyselectedratiobeingexceededduringasingleyear.Astatisticalanalysiscanalsoyieldadesignmaximumdayratioresultingfromaselectedexceedanceprobability.Thisisthemethodusedtodeterminethemaximumdayratiosformaximumdayproductionprojections.

Table 4: Historical Maximum Day Ratios

Year Average Production

Maximum Day Production Ratio Date of

Maximum Day

1985 148.6 197.4 1.33 8-Sep

1986 160.8 226.7 1.41 11-Jun

1987 163.3 238.8 1.46 23-Jul

1988 169.9 267.3 1.57 8-Jul

1989 165.3 227.6 1.38 11-Sep

1990 166.9 235.2 1.41 30-Jun

1991 171.0 255.9 1.50 20-Jul

1992 162.5 220.4 1.36 20-Jul

1993 167.0 242.7 1.45 11-Jul

1994 173.5 230.6 1.33 14-Jun

1995 167.1 233.9 1.40 4-Aug

1996 161.3 198.9 1.23 12-Mar

1997 164.7 245.8 1.49 15-Jul

1998 166.6 219.8 1.32 30-Aug

1999 168.2 263.4 1.57 8-Jun

2000 162.0 200.8 1.24 11-Jun

2001 167.4 253.2 1.51 11-Sep

2002 164.8 221.8 1.35 13-Aug

2003 164.3 206.5 1.26 21-Jan

2004 168.1 210.4 1.25 29-Aug

2005 171.9 226.2 1.32 26-Jun


Theimplicationsofusingdifferentexceedanceprobabilitieswereaddressedinthe1992“PeakWaterConsumptionManagementStudy”byO’BrienandGere.Insummary,itconcludedthatincreasingtheexceedanceprobabilityresultedinatrade-offbetweenreducedwatersystemcostandtheincreasedpossibilityoflimitationsonoutdoorwateruseduringdrysummers.WSSCmanagementdirectedthata20percentexceedanceprobabilitybeusedtocalculatetheprojectedmaximumdayratio.Inotherswords,itwasdecidedtoplanthewatersystembasedonproductionprojectionsthat,onaverage,willbeexceededonceinfiveyears,withtheexpectationthatoutdoorwateruseorotherlimitationswillthenbeimplemented.

Themaximumdayratiosforthefourpressurezonegroupswouldnormallybecalculatedaspartofthiseffort.Unfortunately,asignificantgapinthedataneededtocalculatetheseratioswascreatedwhenProject80flowintoPrinceGeorge’sCountywasinitiated,butnotrecorded,inNovember2000.ThisdatagapwasclosedinNovember2004,butitmaybeseveralmoreyearsbeforeastatisticallysignificantdatasamplewillbeavailableagain.Intheabsenceofavailablenewdata,itisrecommendedthattheresultsfromtheprevious2001reportcontinuetobeused.(Theratiosforthedifferentzonesandthesystemrationeednotoccuronthesameday,soitismathematicallypermissibleforallzoneratiostobegreaterthanthesystemratio.)

Table 5: Calculated Maximum Day Ratios for Projections

Zones Maximum Day Ratio

System 1.48

MCHigh* 1.51

MCMain* 1.73

PGHigh* 1.56

PGMain* 1.53

*From 2001 report, see preceding paragraph.

Thisnewsystemmaximumdayratiorepresentsaveryslightdecreasefromthepreviousratioof1.49,calculatedin2001.

Figure 6 provides a graph of the projected average and maximum day productionthrough2030andhistoricalaverageandmaximumdayproductionsince1980.


Figu

re 6

: Hist

oric

al a

nd p

roje

cted

wat

er p

rodu

ctio

n.


SUPPLIES TO OTHER JURISDICTIONSTheWSSChaswatersysteminterconnectionswithseveralotherjurisdictions.Someoftheseinterconnectionsaresubjecttoformalagreementswhileothersoperatebasedoninformalunderstandings.Someofthesesupplyarrangementsareusedasaneverydaysupply,someareforemergenciesonlyandsomeareusedtomeettheotherjurisdiction’speak demands. In cases where the interconnections are used to meet the otherjurisdiction’speakdemands,thecosttotheWSSCmayexceedtherevenuerecoveredfromtheper-galloncostofthewaterusedandothercompensationshouldbearranged.

Table 6: Supplies to Other Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Allowable Withdrawal (mgd)

Average Withdrawal*

(mgd)

WSSC Pressure Zone

CityofBowie Notspecified–emergencyonly

Notcurrentlymetered Hg350E

CharlesCounty 1.4 0.001 Hg328A

HowardCounty 5.0 3.07 Hg415A

CityofRockville 6.0 Negligible Hg660A

DC-WASA Notspecified 0.01 Hg495A

*Based on meter readings from March 2005 to February 2006.


DRINKING WATER AVAILABILITY AND CAPACITYWater Supply Reliability Forecast for Washington Metropolitan Area, Year 2025

Produced by: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin

The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) is charged withenhancing,protecting, andconserving thewater and land resourcesof thePotomacRiverbasin.Amongitsconcernsareensuringadequatefuturewatersuppliesforthegrowing Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, through its work with utilities ondroughtplanning.TheseplanningeffortshelpfulfilltheintentofHB1141bytakingintoaccounttheavailabilityofwaterforwastedisposalandsafedrinking.

ICPRBrecognizestheimportanceofgroundwaterforsupplyingdrinkingwaterandensuringasteadywaterflowintothebasin’sriversandstreams.Ithasevaluatedpublicdrinkingwateravailability,andintheWaterSupplyReliabilityForecastforWashingtonMetropolitan Area, Year 2025 study, it concluded that current water resources aresufficienttomeetdemandforecastfortheregion,includingtheareaofPrinceGeorge’sCounty served byWSSC, to the year 2025, and as projected to 2045. ICPRB hasestablishedthePotomacDrinkingWaterSourceProtectionPartnership,consistingofwatersuppliersandgovernmentagencies,andisworkingtomeetthebasicneedforanamplesupplyofsafedrinkingwater.MonitoringofthePotomacRivercontinuouslymeasuresthewater level inordertopredictriverflowandimprovetheefficiencyofwatersupplyreleasesfromNorthBranchreservoirsincaseofdrought.Thesereservoirshelpmaintainwaterquality inaddition toprovidingdrought relief,balancing thoseneedswiththeincreasinginterestinrecreationalboatingandfishingactivities.Studiesofthecompetinginterestsareusedtodevelopreservoiroperationplansthatbalancethe relative importanceof competingneeds.TheMiddlePotomacRiverWatershedAssessment,oneoftheprojectsofICPRB,helpsdefineenvironmentallysustainableflowsthatmaintainthePotomacRiver’svalueasanaturalandculturalresource,aswellasservetheenvironmentalneedsoftheregionalpopulationbase.

ICPRBprovidesassistancetoMarylandandtheotherstatesinthePotomacbasinontheirtotalmaximumdailyloadprograms,whichdeterminesandmaintainspollutantlevelsbelowamaximumamountenteringrivers,streams,lakes,orestuaries.Inordertoregulatedischargesfromwastewatertreatmentplantsaswellasnonpointsourcesofpollutants,computermodelsseektomanagepollutantloadssothattheydonotreducewaterqualitystandardstobelowrequiredlevels.ICPRBhasusedcomputersimulationmodels,forexample,toassisttheAnacostiaRiverwatershedcommunity,whichincludesasubstantialpartofPrinceGeorge’sCounty’sDevelopedTier,inaddressingproblemssuch as low summer dissolved oxygen level, high sedimentation rates, high fecalcoliformlevels,andfishconsumptionadvisoriescausedbyhighlevelsoftoxicchemicals.

Appendix IV: Land Conservation Programs 301 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

THE PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM AND THE HISTORIC AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION PROGRAM1

Thepurposeoftheseprogramsistopreserveandprotectthevaluablescenic,agricultural,andenvironmentallyfragilelandsofPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Theareadesignatedasthe Rural Tier contains most of this land in the county. In order to preserve theaestheticallyvaluableenvironmentandretainlandfortheproductionoffoodandfiberfor the citizens of Prince George’s County, the County Council and the CountyExecutivehaveestablishedthePrinceGeorge’sRuralLandPreservationProgram.2

The Prince George’s Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program is avoluntary program that focuses on the purchasing of development rights fromagriculturallandowners.Thisprogrampermitsanyownerofagriculturallandthatmeetstheprogram’sminimumqualifyingcriteriatoapplytoselltheirdevelopmentrights.Ifthedevelopmentrightsonthepropertyarepurchasedbytheprogram,aneasementisplacedonthepropertyrestrictinganyfuturedevelopmentinperpetuity,exceptwhatispermittedundertheprograms’childlotexclusionprovisions.

The Historic Agricultural Resource Preservation Program (HARPP)isacountyPDRinitiativeadministeredbytheM-NCPPCDepartmentofParksandRecreationandthePrinceGeorge’sCountySoilConservationDistricttopreserveagriculturalareas and activities that are assessed by historic resource professionals to be vitalaspectsofPrinceGeorge’sCounty’shistory.AhistoricagriculturalresourcepreservationeasementisplacedonthepropertyandisconveyedtotheCommissionforthepurposeofacquiring,preserving,restoring,orrehabilitatinghistoricproperties.Inexchange,thelandownerreceivesagrantfromthecountyincompensationforlimitingfuturedevelopmentusesofthepropertytoagriculturalandcommercialusesrelatedtoagriculture.

1 http://egov.co.pg.md.us/lis/data/z%20TERRY/tdm/B2007024%20DR-2.doc2 http://www.pgscd.org/Ag%20Land.htm

APPENDIX IV: LAND CONSERVATION PROGRAM

S

302 Appendix IV: Land Conservation ProgramsApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

THE MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION3

TheMarylandAgriculturalLandPreservationProgram(MALPF),inexistencesince1977,isoneofthemostsuccessfulprogramsofitskindinthecountry.ItsprimarypurposeistopreservesufficientagriculturallandtomaintainaviablelocalbaseoffoodandfiberproductionforthepresentandfuturecitizensofMaryland.MALPFprovidesauniqueopportunitytoassurethatagriculturallandwillremaininthecountythroughpermanentpreservationbythepurchaseofagriculturalpreservationeasementsonproperties.

MALPF’sprogram,locallymanagedbythecounty’sSoilConservationDistrict(SCD)iscloselytiedtostatestatute.Everyyear,differentaspectsoftheprogramaresubjecttopublicdiscussionandrevisionduringthelegislativesession.4PrinceGeorge’sCountyiscurrentlyintheprocesstoreceiveagriculturalcertificationwhichwillprovideadditionalmoniesfromthecountyagriculturalrealestatetransfertaxtobeutilizedinthecountyforMALPFeasementpurchases.Todate,PrinceGeorge’sCountytransfertaxeshavebeenusedtopurchaseagriculturaleasementsstatewide.

RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM5

TheRuralLegacyProgramwasestablishedbyanactoftheMarylandGeneralAssemblyin1997.TheprogramencourageslocalgovernmentsandprivatelandtruststoidentifyRuralLegacyareasandtocompetitivelyapplyforfundstocomplementexistinglandpreservation efforts or to develop new ones. Easements or fee estate purchases aresought from willing landowners in order to protect areas vulnerable to sprawldevelopment that can weaken an area’s natural resources, thereby jeopardizing theeconomic value of farming, forestry, recreation, and tourism. Through the use ofeasementsandfeeestates,theprogramenhancesagriculture,naturalresources,forestry,andenvironmentalprotection.ThepurposeoftheRuralLegacyProgramistoprotectandconservestrategicnaturalresources,largecontiguoustractsofland,andotherareasfromsprawldevelopment.RuralLegacylandexistsuniquelyalongthePatuxentRivercorridorcurrentlyprotectingmanyacresofriparianbuffer.TheM-NCPPCDepartmentofParksandRecreationadministersthislandpreservationprograminmultiplestreamvalleyparksandisresponsibleforthemajorityofstreambufferprotectioninthecounty.

TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTSAlthough a strategic recommendation of the General Plan, this land conservationprogramhasnotbeenadoptedbyPrinceGeorge’sCounty.Inanefforttoutilizeafullcomplementoflandprotectionstrategies,thecountywillcontinuetoexploremethodstomakethisprogramwork.TDRprogramscanrepresentmanygoalsbutresearchhasshown that successful programs have straightforward and clearly defined goals.Traditionally,TDR programs arise in response to a specific goal, such as farmlandpreservation,habitatconservation,orregionalwaterqualitymanagement.

A common technicality of creating interest in a TDR program is balancing theincentivesforbothsendingandreceivingarealandowners.Also,aninitialinvestigation

3 www.malpf.info/4 CountyCR82:www.mncppc.org/county/CR_82_2006.pdf5 www.dnr.state.md.us/rurallegacy/


Map 1 (Appendix 1): County preservation areas.


onhowmuchadeveloperiswillingtopayforaddeddensitywouldhelpproviderurallandowners with a better idea if selling their development rights is comparable tosellingtheirlandfordevelopment.ThisiscrucialforobtaininginitialsupportforTDRprogramsamongrurallandowners.

CreatingaTDRprogramthatissimpletounderstand,hasastreamlinedapplicationprocess,andisfinanciallyfeasiblewillbenecessaryforlong-termsuccessoftheprogram.TDRprogramsareamixofvoluntaryparticipationandregulatoryenforcement,andfindingabalancebetweenthesetwoforcesisimperativetosustainingahealthymarket.Ifaprogramistoofinanciallyburdensome,eitherforthegovernmenttoadministerorforthedevelopertoparticipatein,thentheprogramwilllikelyfail.

Consistency within the decision-making process is also key to a successful TDRprogram.Receivingdensitybonusesviathepurchaseofdevelopmentrightsshouldbethe only way a developer can receive additional density. Offering alternatives forgrantingdensity,suchaspermitting“up-zoning”orbyprovidingdensitybonusesforaffordablehousing,willunderminethelegitimacyofaTDRprogram.Simplyput,whywoulddevelopersbuysomethingtheycouldgetforfree?Therefore,itisimportanttoofferonetypeofdensity“currency”;inthiscase,purchasingdevelopmentrights.

PRIORITY PRESERVATION AREASThePriorityPreservationArea(PPA)inPrinceGeorge’sCountyencompassesalargeportionoftheRuralTierinSubregions1,5,and6.Thisareaisbeingpreservedforthepurpose of maintaining a stable land base appropriate for agricultural, forestry, andmineralextractionuses,aswellasforprotectionofwildlifeandhabitat,andthescenicandhistoricvistasthatcharacterizeitsruralcharacter.ThePPAisdefinedasanareathatislargeenoughtosupportprofitableagriculturalandforestryenterprises,thatmayormaynotcontainproductiveagriculturalorforestsoils,andthatisgovernedbylocalpoliciesestablishedforthepurposeofpreventingdevelopmentfromencroachingorcompromisingtheseresources.ThePPAisincludedinthelandmassthatconstitutes80percentoftheundevelopedlandinthecountyandthatistargetedforpreservationthrougheasementsandzoning.

InSubregion1,publiclyownedpropertiesandlargefederalresearchfacilitiessuchastheBeltsvilleAgriculturalResearchCenterandthePatuxentResearchRefugeareintheRuralTierandwouldbepartof thePPA,as in theSubregionIplan,currentlybeingupdated.InSubregion5,thePPAamountsto8,950acres,or69percentoftheRuralTierinthatsubregion.Thereisanother39,000acres,or58percentoftheRuralTier,inSubregion6thatisalsoincluded.LandswithinthePPAarebeingpreservedusing a number of funding tools, including the purchase of development rights oragriculturaleasementsandothertypesofeasements.Conservationsubdivisions,atypeof development that is compatible with the PPA, can be included in the PPA if amajorityoftheacreageispreservedaswoodlandoropenspace.

STATE LAND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS TheStateofMarylandprovidessupportandresourcestocounties,communities,andmunicipalitiestoassistintheidentificationandpreservationofsensitiveanduniquenaturallands.


Maryland Environmental Trust6—TheMarylandEnvironmentalTrust(MET)isastatewidelandtrustgovernedbyacitizenboardoftrustees.ItwascreatedbytheGeneral Assembly in 1967.The goal is the preservation of open land, such asfarmland,forestland,andsignificantnaturalresources.Theprimarytooltoachievethis is the conservationeasements, a voluntaryagreementbetweena landownerandMET.

Aconservationeasementisatoolforlandownerstoprotectnaturalresourcesandpreservescenicopenspace.Thelandownerwhogivesaneasementlimitstherighttodevelop and subdivide the land,nowand in the future, but still remains theowner.Theorganization accepting the easement agrees tomonitor it forever toensurecompliancewithitsterms.Nopublicaccessisrequiredbyaconservationeasement.

Program Open Space7—EstablishedundertheDepartmentofNaturalResources(DNR)in1969,ProgramOpenSpace(POS)symbolizesMaryland’s long-termcommitment to conserving our natural resources while providing exceptionaloutdoorrecreationopportunitiesforourcitizens.POSStatesidefundsareusedfortheacquisitionofparklands,forests,wildlifehabitat,natural,scenic,andculturalresourcesforpublicuse.Toimprovethestrategicuseoftheselimitedfunds,DNRdevelopedanewPOSTargetingLandConservationSystem,whichisbasedfirstonprotectingtargetedecologicalareas,themostecologicallyvaluablelandsinthestate.POSalsohasfundsthatitdistributestolocalgovernments(POSLocalside)forconservingrecreationalopenspace.These funds, inadditiontoothercountyandmunicipalconservationefforts,areusedforpreservation.

Today there are more than 5,000 individual county and municipal parks andconservation areas that exist because of the program. Almost all of the landpurchasedbytheMarylandDNRinthelast40yearswasfundedatleastinpartthroughPOS.

FEDERAL LAND CONSERVATION PROGRAMSThefederalgovernmentsupportsstateand localefforts toprotectnatural landsandresources and ensures that preservation strategies are achieved in despite strongdevelopmentpressures.

The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program8 (CREP)isavoluntary,incentive-basedfederalprogramthatpaysfarmersandfarmlandownersattractiveincentivesforputting their leastproductive lands into conservationpractices thatbenefitwildlife,improvewaterquality,andconservesoil.

UnderCREP,farmersplaceaportionoftheirfarmundera10-or15-yearcontractthatrequiresthelandtobeputintotheconservationcoverthefarmerchooses.Farmerscanestablish forest, native warm-season grasses, or cool-season grasses. In return, thefarmerreceivescost-share,annualrentalpayments,andgenerousbonuspayments.

Generally,agriculturalland(croplandorpasture)adjacenttoperennialorintermittentwaterways, certainhighly erodible landswithin1,000 feet of awaterway, andprior

6 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/met/ce.html7 http://www.dnr.state.md.us/land/pos/index.asp8 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CRP/


convertedwetlandsqualifyfortheprogram.LocalDNRforestersandwildlifebiologistscan also help enroll participants. Participants can also enter the CREP program inconjunctionwithRuralLegacy,MALPF,ordonatedeasementprogramssuchasMET.

Used in conjunction with nutrient management and sediment and erosion controlpractices,streamsideforestscanbenefitpropertyownersandtheirstreamsthrough:

� Providingadependableincometotheowner.

� Removingnutrientsandsedimentfromshallowgroundwaterandsurfacewater.

� Reducingpesticideandherbicidespraydriftandrunofftostreams.

� Providingimportanthabitatforaquaticlife,birds,andsmallgame.

� Supportingrecreationalhuntingandfishingopportunities.

Land and Water Conservation Fund9—(LWCF) creates parks and open space,protects wilderness, wetlands and refuges, preserves wildlife habitat, and enhancesrecreationalopportunitiesfromtwocomplementaryprograms:afederalprogramandastatematchinggrantsprogram.Thefederalprogramprovidesfundstopurchaselandandwaterresourcesfornationalparks,forests,wildliferefuges,andotherpubliclands,whilethestatematchinggrantsprogramprovidesfederalfundstostatestoassistintheacquisitionofmoreurbanopen space and creationof local recreation facilities.ThesuccessoftheLWCFhashelpedcreateparksforpeopletoenjoyin98percentofthecountiesintheU.S.andhasprovidedprotectionformorethanfivemillionacresoflandandwaterareasacrossthecountry.

TheMarylandStateHighwayAdministration(SHA)askedtheLWCFtocoordinateaNaturalResourcesWorkGroupwiththeMarylandDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandtheU.S.FishandWildlifeService.Theworkgroupisutilizingagreeninfrastructureapproachtostrategicallyprioritizeconservationandrestorationprojectsthatprovideenvironmentalbenefitstothecommunitiesaffectedbyaplannedroadimprovement.

The 2008 Farm Bill10 received wide support from agriculture, nutrition, andconservation groups because it brings meaningful change to current farm policy,protectsfarmers,andincreasesfundingandsupportforconservationprogramsthroughitsConservationReserveProgram.The2008FarmBillincludesaU.S.DepartmentofAgricultureprogram,theSpecialtyCropResearchInitiative,whichhasmadeavailablemorethan$28milliontoprovidesolutionstoproblemssuchasplantbreeding,pests,anddiseasesthatpertaintospecialtyandothercrops.TheprogramswithintheFarmBill bolster industries that thrive on undeveloped land and help preserve its futureproductivity.

9 http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=10566&folder_id=19110http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/farmbill2008?navid=FARMBILL2008

Glossary of Acronyms 307 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

AACE ArmyCorpsofEngineers

ARP AnacostiaRestorationPlan

AWRC AnacostiaWatershedRestorationCommittee

AWRP AnacostiaWatershedRestorationPartnership

BBCS BasinConditionScore

BMP BestManagementPractice

BNR BiologicalNutrientRemoval

CC2K Chesapeake2000BayAgreement

CAZ AnalysisZones(CouncilofGovernments)

CBP ChesapeakeBayProgram

CBPC ChesapeakeBayandWaterResourcesPolicyCommittee

CCC CivilianConservationCorps

CFMGP ComprehensiveFloodManagementGrantProgram

CFN CommunityForestryNetwork

CNMP ComprehensiveNutrientManagementPlan

COG CouncilofGovernments

COMAR CodeofMarylandRegulations

CREP ConservationReserveEnhancementProgram

CRW CommunityRatingSystem

CSD ConservationSubdivisionDesign

CSO CombinedSewerOverflow

CTP ConsolidatedTransportationProgram

CWA CleanWaterAct

CWP CenterforWatershedProtection

308 Glossary of AcronymsApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

DDAC DailyAverageConsumption

DER DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources

DNR DepartmentofNaturalResources

DOQQ DigitalOrthophotoQuarterQuad

DPW&T DepartmentofPublicWorksandTransportation

DU DwellingUnits/DesignatedUses

DWSPP DrinkingWaterSourceProtectionPartnership

EEDU EquivalentDwellingUnit

EID Eco-IndustrialDesign

ENR EnhancedNutrientRemoval

EPA EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(orUSEPA)

ESD EnvironmentalSiteDesign

FFEMA FederalEmergencyManagementAgency

FSE FoodServiceEstablishments

FY FiscalYear

GGFA GrossFloorArea

GHG GreenhouseGas

GIS GeographicInformationSystems

GPD GallonsPerDay

HH20 Water

HARPP HistoricAgriculturalResourcePreservationProgram

HB MarylandHousebill

HNI HighwayNeedsInventory


IIAN IntegrationandApplicationNetwork(attheUniversityofMaryland CenterforEnvironmentalSciences)

IBI IndexofBioticIntegrity

ICLEI InternationalCouncilforLocalEnvironmentalInitiatives

ICPRB InterstateCommissiononthePotomacRiverBasin

IPM Integratedpestmanagement

LLbs Pounds

LCI LivableCommunitiesInitiative

LEED LeadershipinEnergyandEnvironmentalDesign

LU LandUse(inAppendixItables)

LUC LandUseCategory

LULC LandUseLandCover

LWCF LandandWaterConservationFund

MMALPF MarylandAgriculturalLandPreservationFoundation

MBSS MarylandBiologicalStreamSurvey

MCC MarylandConservationCorps

MDA MarylandDepartmentofAgriculture

MDE MarylandDepartmentoftheEnvironment

MDNR MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources

MDOT MarylandDepartmentofTransportation

MDP MarylandDepartmentofPlanning

MEP MaximumExtentPracticable

MG26 ModelsandGuidelines#26

Mg Milligram

MGD MillionGallonsPerDay

MGS MarylandGeologicalSurvey

M-NCPPCTheMaryland-NationalCapitalParkandPlanningCommission

MS4 MunicipalSeparateStormSewerSystem

MWCOG MetropolitanWashingtonCouncilofGovernments


NN Nitrogen

NA NotAvailable

NFIP NationalFloodInsuranceProtection

NPDES NationalPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem

NPS NonpointSource

NRCS NationalResourceConservationService

NRI NaturalResourceInventory

OO Oxygen

O-S OpenSpaceZoning

OSDS On-SiteSewageDisposalSystems

PP Phosphorous

PCB PolychlorinatedBiphenyls

PDR PurchaseofDevelopmentRights

PFA PriorityFundingArea

pH MeasureoftheAcidityorBasicity

PLAM PollutantLoadAnalysisModel

POS ProgramOpenSpace

PPA PriorityPreservationArea

PRC PatuxentRiverCommission

PRK PotomacRiverkeeper,Inc.

PWP PotomacWatershedPartnership

RR-A ResidentialAgriculturalZoning


SSB MarylandSenateBill

SCA StreamCorridorAssessments

SCD SoilConservationDistrict

SCS SoilConservationService

SCWQP SoilConservationandWaterQualityPlan

SHA StateHighwayAdministration

SPLOST SpecialPurposeLocal-OptionSalesTax

SSO SanitarySewerOverflows

SWPPP StormwaterPollutionPreventionPlan

TTAZ TrafficAnalysisZone

TBL TripleBottomLine;alsoknownas3BL

TCP TreeConservationPlan

TDR TransferOfDevelopmentRights

TMDL TotalMaximumDailyLoads

TN TotalNitrogen

TOD Transit-OrientedDevelopment

TP TotalPhosphorous

TSS TotalSuspendedSolids

UUSCES UniversityofMarylandCenterforEnvironmentalSciences

USDA U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture

USEPA U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(orEPA)

USGS U.S.GeologicalSurvey

VVCP VoluntaryCleanupPrograms

VMT VehicleMilesTraveled


WWCO WoodlandandWildlifeHabitatConservationOrdinance

WFP WaterFiltrationPlant

WHPA WellheadProtectionArea

WHPP WellheadProtectionProgram

WLA WasteLoadAllocation

WMA WaterManagementAdministration

WRAS WatershedRestorationActionStrategy

WRD WaterResourcesDiscipline

WRE WaterResourcesElement

WSP WaterSupplyProgram

WSSC WashingtonSuburbanSanitaryCommission

WTM WaterTreatmentModel

WWTP WastewaterTreatmentPlant

Other303d EPAListofImpairedWaters

3BL TripleBottomLine;alsoknownasTBL

M-NCPPC Resolution and Certificate 313 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

M-NCPPC RESOLUTION AND CERTIFICATE

M-NCPPC No. 10-22

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, by virtue of Article 28 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, is authorized and empowered, from time to time, to make and adopt, amend, extend and add to a General Plan for Physical Development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District; and

WHEREAS, the Prince George’s County Planning Board of The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, held a duly advertised joint public hearing with the Prince George’s County Council, sitting as the District Council, on February 23, 2010 on the Preliminary Water Resources Functional Master Plan, being also an amendment to the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan; 2009 Approved Master Plan of Transportation; 2008 Approved Public Safety Facilities Master Plan;1983 Adopted and Approved Public School Sites Functional Master Plan; 1994 Bladensburg, New Carrollton and Vicinity (PA 69) Approved Master Plan; 1994 Melwood/Westphalia Approved Master Plan; 1994 Planning Area 68 Approved Master Plan; 1997 College Park Metro-Riverdale Transit District Development Plan; 2000 Brentwood Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plans and Design Guidelines; 2000 Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Addison Road Metro Town Center and Vicinity; 2000 The Heights and Vicinity Approved Master Plan; 2001 Anacostia Trails Heritage Area Management Plan; 2001 Greenbelt Metro Sector Plan; 2004 Riverdale Park Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plans and Design Guideline; 2004 Approved Gateway Arts District Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2004 Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Morgan Boulevard and Largo Town Center Metro Areas; 2005 Approved Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Tuxedo Road/Arbor Street/Cheverly Metro Area; 2005 Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan; 2006 Master Plan for Bowie and Vicinity and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Areas 71A, 71B, 74A, 74B; 2006 Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the East Glenn Dale Area for portions of Planning Area 70; 2006 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Henson Creek-South Potomac Planning Area; 2006 Approved West Hyattsville Transit District Development Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Transit District Overlay Zone; 2007 Approved Bladensburg Town Center Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2007 Adopted Westphalia Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2008 Adopted Capitol Heights Transit District Development Plan and Transit District Overlay Zoning

314 M-NCPPC Resolution and Certificate Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Map Amendment; 2008 Adopted Branch Avenue Corridor Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2009 Adopted Port Towns Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2009 Adopted Landover Gateway Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2009 adopted Marlboro Pike Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2009 Adopted Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2009 Adopted Subregion 6 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; 2010 Adopted Glenn Dale-Seabrook-Lanham and Vicinity Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment; and

WHEREAS, the Prince George’s County Planning Board, after said public hearing and due deliberation and consideration of the public hearing testimony, on April 22, 2010, adopted the master plan with revisions, as described in Prince George’s County Planning Board Resolution PGCPB No. 10-44, and transmitted the plan to the District Council on April 26, 2010; and

WHEREAS, the Prince George’s County Council, sitting as the District Council for the portion of the Maryland-Washington Regional District lying within Prince George’s County, held work sessions on June 1, 2010 and June 15, 2010, to consider hearing testimony; and

WHEREAS, upon consideration of the testimony received through the hearing process, the District Council on June 22, 2010, determined that the adopted plan should be approved as the functional master plan for water resources for Prince George’s County, Maryland, subject to the modifications and revisions set forth in Resolution CR-059-2010; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission does hereby adopt said Water Resources Functional Master Plan, together with the General Plan for Physical Development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District within Prince George’s County as approved by the Prince George’s County District Council in the attached Resolution CR-059-2010; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of said amendment shall be certified by The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission and filed with the each Clerk of the Circuit Court of Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties, as required by law.

* * * * * *

M-NCPPC Resolution and Certificate 315 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 10-22 adopted by The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission on motion of Commissioner Wells-Harley, seconded by Commissioner Cavitt, with Commissioners Parker, Carrier, Alfandre, Cavitt, Presley, Vaughns, and Wells-Harley voting in favor of the motion, with no Commissioner voting against, with Commissioners Clark, Dreyfuss, and Squire being absent during the vote, at its regular meeting held on Wednesday, September 8, 2010, in Riverdale, Maryland.

Reviewed and Attested ToFor Legal Sufficiency

________________________

Andree Green Checkley/George Johnson

___________________

Patricia Colihan Barney Executive Director

316 M-NCPPC Resolution and Certificate Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Acknowledgments 317 Approved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

FernPiret,Ph.D.,PlanningDirector

AlbertG.Dobbins,III,AICP,DeputyPlanningDirector

JohnFunk,Chief,CountywidePlanningDivision

IvyLewis,Chief,CommunityPlanningSouthDivision

VanessaAkinsMosley,Chief,CommunityPlanningNorthDivision

C.J.Lammers,Supervisor,EnvironmentalPlanning

Oversight Team

TeresaD.Daniell,InterimGeneralManager,WSSC

HaithamA.Hijazi,Director, DPW&T

PaulMeyer,DirectorofEnvironmentalHealth,PrinceGeorge’sCountyHealthDepartment

CharlesWilson,Director,DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources

Project Management Team

ProjectFacilitator: MariaMartin,Supervisor,SpecialProjects,CountywidePlanningDivision

ProjectManager:KarenBuxbaum,PlannerCoordinator,SpecialProjects,CountywidePlanningDivision

Core Team

ReyDeGuzman,DepartmentofPublicWorksandTransportation

DebraWeller,DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources

Dr.RolandSteiner,WashingtonSuburbanSanitaryCommission

FrankL.Wise,R.S.,PrinceGeorge’sCountyHealthDepartment,DivisionofEnvironmentalHealth

MarkSymborski,MontgomeryCounty,M-NCPPC

StewartSmith,PrinceGeorge’sCountySoilsConservationDistrict

Consultants

AECOM

EDAW

PEERandAssociates

ACKNOWLEDGM

ENTS

318 AcknowledgmentsApproved Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Resource Team

MarkBurt,SpecialProjects,CountywidePlanningDivision

KateFritz,SpecialProjects,CountywidePlanningDivision

FatimahHasan,SpecialProjects,CountywidePlanningDivision

DawnHawkins-Nixon,DepartmentofEnvironmentalResources

RobertGelner,InformationManagementDivision

GlenBurton,TransportationPlanning,CountywidePlanningDivision

DanJanousek,TransportationPlanning,CountywidePlanningDivision

AldeaDouglas,CommunityPlanningNorthDivision

LindsaySmith,CommunityPlanningSouthDivision

GaryThomas,CommunityPlanningNorthDivision

LauraConnelly,ParkPlanningandDevelopment,DepartmentofParksandRecreation

JoeValenza,Research,CountywidePlanningDivision

SusanKelley,AdministrativeManager,OfficeandPublicationsServices

DeeMcChesney,PublicationsandGraphics,OfficeandPublicationsServices

RogerJames,PublicationsandGraphics,OfficeandPublicationsServices

RalphBarrett,Supervisor,OfficeandPublicationsServices

LaTashaHarrison,Clerk,OfficeandPublicationsServices

JamesJohnson,OfficeandPublicationsServices

State and Federal Agencies

UnitedStatesArmyCorpsofEngineers

MarylandDepartmentofPlanning

MarylandDepartmentofEnvironment

MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources

MarylandDepartmentofNaturalResources,MDGeologicalSurvey

approved water resources functional master plan

Documents