Water Resources Functional Master Plan

Transcription

1 Sustaining the Bay Environmental Health Sustaining Our Water Resources Public Health Sustaining Our County Economic Health Water Resources Functional Master Plan FINAL PUBLIC MEETING March 18, 2009 The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George s County Planning Department

2 AGENDA 1. Where are we now in the process? Outreach Model Plan Recommendations

3 Sustaining the Bay Environmental Health Sustaining Our Water Resources Public Health Sustaining Our County Economic Health MODELING The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George s County Planning Department

4 Current Land Use Land use decisions impact water quality Current and future land trends used to model nutrient loads from non point source (NPS) runoff 2007 Maryland Department of Planning Land Use Data Established baseline for creation of 2030 land use projections P l f l d it Prevalence of low density, consumptive land uses, especially in the Developing Tier

5 2030 Land Use Scenarios Projected d2030 Land duse Population + Employment COG/County population and employment projections for 2030 provided bookend for growth Land Use Recognized General Plan Tiers, Centers and Corridors

6 2030 Land Use Scenarios Two types of land use scenarios: Trend and Ideal Explored variations in land use allocations to accommodate new growth Explored variations in levels of green field development, infill, and redevelopment TREND Status quo continue current land use trends Moderate infill and redevelopment targets Limited it land conservation goals IDEAL Emphasize higher density residential land uses and mixed use development Capitalize on the potential inherent in existing i and expanded dd transit corridors Ambitious land conservation goals

7 Scenario Drivers Green Infrastructure Recognize and protect valuable lands and their benefits to water quality Quantitative measure to gauge conservation efforts in future land use scenarios Infill and Redevelopment Infill represents new development that densifies an existing land use Redevelopment represents a conversion of one developed land use to another, typically y higher density and mixed use Greenfield Development Minimize impacts to Green Infrastructure through conservation subdivision

8 Watershed Level Analysis Two main watersheds in the County Potomac and Patuxent Two subwatersheds chosen for additional detail Western Branch and Piscataway

9 Land Use Summary Significantly fewer acres required to accommodate projected growth under the ideal scenarios Greater emphasis on mixed use, mediumandhigh densities requires less land

10 Non-Point Source Modeling Eti Estimates t of NPS nutrient ti tloads are important for Chesapeake Bay restoration Approximately 45% of Bay s nutrient load is from runoff WWTP point sources (19%) are being upgraded to limit of technology (ENR) Additional nutrient reductions require changes in land management and development practices Sources of Nitrogen Loads to the Bay Atmospheric 33% Septic 4% Chemical Fertilizer 26% Manure 18% Municipal & Industrial Wastewater 19% Chesapeake Bay Program

11 Non-Point Source Modeling NPS Modeling Estimates nutrient (N & P) loads based on changes in land use Uses MDE s land use specific loading rates for Patuxent & Potomac watersheds to estimate NPS (runoff) loads to County waterways Estimates nitrogen loads from septic systems Goals: 1. To evaluate impacts of development patterns on receiving water quality 2. To evaluate impacts of land management practices on receiving water quality 3. To assist in policy development 4. To provide mechanism for future assessment of County s water quality impacts

12 Non-Point Source Modeling NPS Modeling Modeling conducted for entire county = Patuxent + Potomac watersheds Three land use scenarios: Initial Conditions (2007 Land Use) Future Trend land use scenario Future Ideal land use scenario Initial goal is to determine whether smarter growth will affect water quality improvements

13 Preliminary Model Results Impacts of Development Patterns At Countywide Scale, Smarter Growth Alone Appears to Have Only Small Water Quality Impacts Terrestrial Nitrogen Loads per Land Use Category - Current vs. Future Development Scenarios ) Po ounds (Annual 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , ,000 0 Current 1.8M lbs N Curre ent Initial_Land_Use Trend Scenario 1.8M lbs N Trend Patuxent and Potomac Trend Ideal Scenario 1.8M lbs N Ideal Patuxent and Potomac Ideal Small differences seen in developed and rural loads Total Rural Load Total Forest Load Total Development Load Scenario Estimated Nitrogen Loads from Runoff Patuxent + Potomac Watersheds

14 Preliminary Model Results Impacts of Development Patterns At Countywide Scale, Smarter Growth thalone Appears to Have Only Small Water Quality Impacts However: The model s loading rates and large geographical scale provide a qualitative, planning level level analysis (not very sensitive) The initial modeling runs provide a starting point for future refinement Improvements in growth management must be paired with stormwater management strategies to achieve water quality benefits not reflected in initial results

15 Preliminary Model Results Water Quality Benefits Require Smarter Growth + Better Land Management ds (Annual) Poun 2,000,000 1,800,000 1,600, ,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , ,000 Terrestrial Nitrogen Loads per Land Use Category - Current vs. Future Development Scenarios 1.82M lbs 1.79M lbs 1.79M lbs 1.73M lbs 2% reduction 2% reduction 5% reduction 0 Current Land + Education + Riparian + Education, Riparian Management 1 (fertilizers) 2 Buffers 3 Buffers, 4 Street Sweeping, Improved Ideal Scenario + BMPs SW Controls 94,000 lb annual N reduction Total Rural Load Total Forest Load Total Development Load

16 Preliminary Model Results Septic Upgrades Achieve Additional Improvements Terrestrial Nitrogen Loads per Land Use Category - Current vs. Future Development Scenarios 2,500,000 2,000, M lbs 2.02M lbs 2.03M lbs 1.93M lbs 2% reduction 2% reduction 6.5 % reduction 130,000 lb annual N reduction (6.5%) l) Po ounds (Annua 1,500,000 1,000, ,000 Total Septic Load Total Rural Load Total Forest Load Total Development Load 0 + Education, Riparian Buffers, Street Sweeping, Current Land + Education + Riparian Improved SW Controls + Management 1 (fertilizers) 2 Buffers 3 Septic 4 Upgrades Ideal Scenario + BMPs + Septic Upgrades

17 Preliminary Model Results Similar Results are Seen for Phosphorus ds (Annual) Poun 180, , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Terrestrial Phosphorus Loads per Land Use Category - Current vs. Future Development Scenarios 156k lbs 153k lbs 150k lbs 146k lbs 2% reduction 3.5% reduction 6% reduction 0 + Education, Riparian Current Land + Education + Riparian Buffers, Street Management 1 (fertilizers) 2 Buffers 3 Sweeping, 4 Improved Ideal Scenario + BMPs SW Controls 9,800 lb annual N reduction Total Rural Load Total Forest Load Total Development Load

18 Additional Modeling Additional Modeling Additional modeling to be conducted to evaluate impacts of 1. Impervious reductions and disconnection 2. Agricultural management practices/bmps Sheet Flow Significant reductions can be achieved through better land use management amount TBD

19 Preliminary Model Conclusions On a countywide basis, model dldoes not predict significant nutrient reductions from smarter growth alone Significant water quality improvements can be achieved through better land management practices paired with smart growth Whether improved land management practices will provide enough nutrient reduction remains to be seen WRE project has provided a starting point and a tool for ongoing and future water quality impact assessments

20 Recommendations Land and Watershed Planning Drinking Water and Wastewater Stormwater Legislation, Funding, Permitting and Enforcement Coordination Implementation

21 Water Resources Functional Master Plan Cycle of Smart Growth Communities Sustainable Impacts Natural Waters and Landscape Natural Resources Wise Use of Resources Economic Development Smart Growth

22 Preliminary Target Dates for the Water Resources Functional Master Plan PRE-PLANNING PLANNING PROCESS Coordination and research On-going Get MDP approval of process August 2007/On-going Consultant Notice to Proceed July 2008 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Planning Board Initiation/GCG-PPP September 25, 2008 District Council review Initiation/GCG-PPP (CR- 1 month October 14, ) First Open Public Meeting November 20, 2008 Final Public Meeting March 18, 2009 Plan Development/Plan Writing December 2008 April 2009 APPROVAL PROCESS Permission to print 8 months after Initiation July 2009 Joint Public Hearing 90 days from permission to print November 2009 Close of public record December 2009 Planning Board Adoption Three months from joint public hearing March 2010 Transmit adopted plan April 2010