Agenda

• Welcome and introductions• Update from state—Ken Yetman, DNR• Update on agriculture‐Dave Plummer, MSCD• Update on Montgomery County MS4 permit area—Meo Curtis, MCDEP

• Update from Phase 2 municipalities

WV3%

DE3%

DC1%

VA26%

MD20%NY

6%

PA41%

% Nutrient Loads by State ‐ Nitrogen

WV4%

DE2%

DC1%

VA45%MD

19%

NY5%

PA24%

% Nutrient Loads by State ‐ Phosphorus

Information from EPA TMDL Presentation December 8, 2009 Baltimore MD

WWTP25%

AG36%

Forest10%

Developed29%

% Nitrogen Sources in Maryland

WWTP20%

AG39%Forest

8%

Developed33%

% Phosphorus Sources in Maryland

Information from EPA TMDL Presentation December 8, 2009 Baltimore MD

•577 working farms in the county

•Montgomery County Agriculture contributes $243 million to county economy

•Montgomery County is #1 in berry and pumpkin acres planted state wide

•Over 12,000 horses reside in the county (#2 in state)

•93,000 acres in the Ag Reserve

•#15 in corn grain acres

•#13 in soybean acres

•#12 in wheat acres

•#12 in number of cattle

Data provided by The Montgomery County Department of Economic DevelopmentAgricultural Services Division and the USDA 2007 Census of Agriculture

Montgomery County Ag Statistics

Montgomery MAST Worksheet

Conservation Progress, as recorded in Conservation Tracker, 2000‐2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

#

Of

Plans

Year

Total Number of  New, Active Plans per Year

Total New, Current Plans

Conservation Progress, as recorded in Conservation Tracker, 2000‐2010

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Planner

Years

#

Of

Plans

Year

Total Number of Planner‐years and New, Active Plans

Total New, Current Plans

Total Planner Years

41,599

13,422

46,464

13,89814,906

15.4%

12.9%8.8%

5.5% 8.9%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Montgomery Prince George's Baltimore Anne Arundel Howard

Percentage of Total Cropland in Cover Crop2007 USDA Census Harvested Cropland 2009 MDA Cover Crop Acres

County2007 USDA Census Harvested Cropland 

2009 MDA Cover Crop Acres

Montgomery 41,599 6,404

Prince George's 13,422 1,730

Baltimore 46,464 4,100

Anne Arundel 13,898 758

Howard 14,906 1,334

41,599

33,084 31,362

46,46443,050

92,713

760,178

358,421

275,917

351,645

423,217

972,691

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Montgomery St. Mary's Somerset Baltimore Wicomico Carroll

2007

NASS

Acres

Harvested Acres 2007NASS Data

2009 Total Nitrogen Loads(lb/yr) From Crop

Nitrogen Loads vs. Harvested Crop Acres

N

Load lb/yr

N

Load lb/yr

18.27

10.83

8.80

7.57

9.8310.49

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Montgomery St. Mary's Somerset Baltimore Wicomico Carroll

Total Nitrogen Load per Harvested acre (lb/ac)

Total N Load per Harvested Acre

Data from 2005 Montgomery County DED – Ag Services Division Presentation

WILDLIFE NUTRIENTSTons Per Year Nitrogen and Phosphorus Montgomery County

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Deer and Geese

Tons NitrogenTons Phosphorus

1

Update on Montgomery County Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan

October 31, 2011Meosotis CurtisWatershed Management Division

2October 31, 2011

Presentation Overview

Background

Differences between Countywide Strategy and Maryland Assessment Scenario Tool (MAST)

Next Steps

2

3October 31, 2011

County Goal: Protect and Restore

4October 31, 2011

3

Revised Schedule for Phase II WIPs in Maryland ver. 10-13-11

5October 31, 2011

• September, 2011: Allocations provided to local teams. • November 1: Draft Statewide FY13 Milestones due to EPA • November 18: Local partners are strongly encouraged to

submit any draft information that is ready to the State. • December 15: Draft Phase II WIP due to EPA for their

preliminary review and comment. Local teams are encouraged to review this version of the Draft WIP.

Revised Schedule for Phase II WIPs in Maryland for 2012

• Early-January 2012: Final Statewide FY13 milestones submitted to EPA by the State. These will be informed by local milestone submittals.

• January 2: Local Teams offer revisions of MAST scenarios and WIP narratives to State.

• January 15: Start Public Review of Draft Phase II WIP. Local teams continue to provide revisions to the WIP as part of the public comment process.

• March 1: End Public Review of Draft Phase II WIP.

• March 30: State Submits Final Phase II WIP to EPA designed to meet basin-specific allocations.

• March 30 – June 30: Local teams may continue to refine MAST scenarios, WIP narratives and local FY13 Milestones by providing comments on EPA’s proposed TMDL. Local teams are encouraged to conduct reviews of the revised plans by the public and by local elected officials.

• July 2: Local submittal of final, locally approved* MAST scenarios, FY13 Milestones and local WIP Narratives to MDE. MDE will publish all plans on the State webpage.

• Early July: If necessary, EPA publishes intent to revise the TMDL based on the WIPs. State and local teams are encouraged to comment on any proposed TMDL revisions that are available for public review in view of refined local plans.

• July: EPA finalizes potential amendment of Phase II WIP as necessary and if consistent with public comments on any proposed changes to the Bay TMDL.

6October 31, 2011

4

Wasteload Allocations, aka Target Loads revised WIP

Phase 2

Source: MDE web site 10/28/2011

7October 31, 2011

Montgomery County Target Loads

8October 31, 2011

Nitrogen

5

Montgomery County Target Loads

9October 31, 2011

Phosphorus

10October 31, 2011

Countywide Strategy:Pollutant Reductions

WIP Phase 2 2017 2020Total Nitrogen 11.65% 16.64%

Total Phosphorus 21.28% 30.40%

Submitted to MDE: February 16, 2011

Posted by MDE: September 30, 2011

6

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

COUNTYWIDE STRATEGY AND MAST

11October 31, 2011

Some Challenges

MS4 permit area (acres)Land cover (impervious vs pervious)Pollutant Loadings and Total LoadsBMP assumptions

Acres with some controlTypeReduction Efficiency

12October 31, 2011

7

13October 31, 2011

Strategy: MS4 Permit Area

MDE comparison: MS4 permit area

14October 31, 2011

8

15October 31, 2011

Countywide StrategyImpervious Cover Tracking

(1) Exclusions include: Certain zoning codes, parklands, forests, municipalities with own stormwater management programs, state and federal properties, and state and federal maintained roads

Description Area in AcresTotal  324,552

Total Area of Impervious Surface 35,965County Subject to Stormwater Permit (1) 138,649

Impervious Cover Subject to Stormwater Permit 

25,119

Adequately Treated Impervious Cover 3,661

Inadequately Treated Impervious Cover 21,458

20% of Inadequately Treated Impervious Cover

4,292

County MS4 acresStrategy MAST138,649 113,328

Impervious acres 25,119 25,624Pervious acres 113,530 87,703

Pollutant LoadingsWTM Category Detailed Description TN lb/acTP lb/ac

Residential LDR (4 du/acre) Hi 10.20 1.63

LDR (4 du/acre) Lo 6.12 0.82

Municipal/Institutional Muni/Insti- Intensive 7.19 0.88Muni/Insti- Extensive 3.39 0.41

Commercial Commercial- Hot 38.52 3.85Commercial- Not 12.84 1.28

Roadway Roadway 17.75 2.32Industrial Industrial-Hot 31.10 3.11

Industrial-Not 9.85 1.24Forest Forest 2.5 0.2Rural Rural 4.6 0.7

Open Water Open Water 12.8 0.5Active Construction Active Construction 4.47 0.89

CBP Category TN TP

(lb/acre) (lb/acre)

Urban Impervious 10.85 2.04

Pervious 9.43 0.57

Forest 3.16 0.13

9

Total Pollutant LoadsArea Acres TN lbs/yr TP lbs/yr

Strategy Subject to Stormwater Permit

138,649 838,489 114,123

MAST Subject to Stormwater Permit (2009 baseline? with 2010 land use) delivered

113,328 858,364 39,607

WIP allocation from MDE web page (2009 baseline)

948,441 45,610

Area with some control

SOURCE AREA ACRESCountywide Strategy Total County 30,641

Impervious 8,877MAST Total County 36,922

Impervious 8,348

18October 31, 2011

10

MAST: Control by BMP typeMAST BMP Name Percent of Acres by BMP

Submitted

Stormwater Management by ERA 1985 to 2002 MD

17.562

Wet Ponds and Wetlands 3.926

Dry Detention Ponds and Hydrodynamic Structures

3.361

MS4 Permit‐Required Stormwater Retrofit 3.01

Stormwater Management by Era 2002 to 2010 MD

2.376

Dry Extended Detention Ponds 1.293

Urban Infiltration Practices‐no sand/veg no underdrain

0.702

Urban Filtering Practices 0.35

TOTAL PERCENT WITH CONTROL 32.58

19October 31, 2011

20October 31, 2011

BMP Performance Code Structure Type 1

Code 0: Pretreatment BMPs2Not intended to provide runoff reduction or significant pollutant removal

Baysaver (BAYSAV), Interceptor (INT), Vortechnics (VORTEC), Oil/grit separator (SEP), Stormcepter (STC), Flowsplitter (FS), Plunge Pool (PP), V2B1 (V2B1), Vegetated Pool (VP), Aquaswirl (AQSW)

Code 1: Non-performing BMPsDetention or other practices with no runoff reduction and no long term pollutant removal

Control Structure underground (CS), Pond-dry quantity control (PDQN), Underground detention (UG), Underground with stone bottom (UGINF), Pond-dry quantity control and extended detention (PDQNED)

Code 2: Under-performing BMPsLow runoff reduction and low pollutant removal

Pond-dry quantity control and sand filter base (PDQNSF), Pond-infiltration basin quality control (PDIB), Pond-infiltration basin with extended detention (PDIBED), Pond-infiltration basin quantity control (PDIBQN), Stormfilter (STFIL), Aquafilter (AQFIL)

Code 3: Effective BMPs3Low runoff reduction but moderate to high pollutant removal

Pond-wet quantity control and extended detention (PDWTED), Pond-wet quantity control and extended detention (PDWTQNED), Pond-infiltration basin quantity control and extended detention (PDIBQNED), Sand filter (SF), Sand filter quantity control (SFQN), Oil/grit separator and sand filter (SEPSF), Sand filter underground (SFU), Pond-wetland (PDWD), Pond-wetland with extended detention (PDWDED), Pond-wetland quantity control and extended detention (PDWTQN), Pond-wet quality and quantity control (PDWT),

Code 4: ESD BMPsHigh runoff reduction and moderate to high pollutant removal

Dry swale (DS), Bioretention quality control (BR), Bioretention quantity control (BRQN), Infiltration trench quality control (INF), Infiltrator (INFIL), Infiltration trench quality and quantity control (INFQN), Infiltration trench quality control underground (INFU), Infiltration trench quality and quantity control buried non-surface fed (INFUQN), Level Spreader (LS), Peat sand filter (PSF), and Vegetated Swale (VS).

1 Structure type codes as reported in MCDEP 2005-062 Stand-alone practices are given Code 2 pollutant removal efficiency.3 Structure may not always achieve these rates due to poor design, installation and maintenance, and may be down-graded to under-performing based on inspection

reports and hydrologic assessment of practice.

Countywide Strategy: BMPs

11

BMP Efficiency Assumptions

21October 31, 2011

Performance Code Description TN (%) TP (%)

1 Non-performing BMPs 0 0

2 Underperforming BMPs 5 5

3 Effective BMPs 40 50

4 ESD Practices 65 65

CBP Structural BMPs TN TP

Dry Detention Ponds 5% 10Hydrodynamic Structures 5% 10% Dry Extended Detention Ponds 20% 20% Wet Ponds and Wetlands 20% 45% Infiltration Practices 80% 85% Filtering Practices 40% 60%

Stormwater Management by Era

Development Between 1985 - 2002 17% 30% Urban BMP Retrofit 25% 35% Development Between 2002 and 2010 30% 40% Development After 2010 50% 60%

Other BMPs

Impervious Urban Surface Reduction Forest Conservation Urban Forest Buffers

Countywide Strategy: MEP retrofits by 2015

4,302 impervious acres with stormwater retrofits

Approximately 3,800 acres of traditional structural stormwater retrofits (approximately 250 projects, mostly stormwater ponds)Approximately 500 acres of ESD projects

22October 31, 2011

Countywide Strategy by 2015

Total Restoration

Potential (acres)

Impervious Treated (acres)

Implementation Rate

Completed and High Priority Projects 2,004.31 2,004.31 100.00%

Low Priority Projects 988.27 988.27 100.00%

Other Potential Projects 2,468.29 794.42 32.18%

Private ESD Retrofits 2,875.59 277.04 9.63%

Public ESD Retrofits 2,613.68 237.87 9.10%

Riparian Reforestation 181.57 0 0.00%

12

Next Steps by 11/18

MDE guidance for WIP document: no more than 10 pages for local sectionAssumptions to relate Countywide Strategy BMPs to MAST BMPs

2017 and 2020 implementationCompiling plans with Phase 2 municipalities

23October 31, 2011

Questions?

StoneflySculpin