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