Baltimore Metropolitan Council

2700 Lighthouse Point East, Suite 310

Baltimore, Maryland 21224

AGENDA

The RTG’s proposed positions on 190 rezoning petitions were discussed at the group’s February 21st meeting. Gould Charshee submitted the RTG’s 190 comments letters to the Baltimore County Planning Board on March 4th. Gould and Bill Stack each presented statements at the Planning Board hearings in District 2 and District 3 in early March. County Council hearings will be held this summer, with a Council vote expected in August.

In mid-April, Gould Charshee received notification from MDE/SSA that they were developing a TMDL for fecal bacteria in the Prettyboy Reservoir watershed, and were on a slightly later schedule to do the same thing for the Liberty Reservoir watershed. Each watershed is on the State’s 303(d) list of "impaired waters" for bacterial contamination. The draft Prettyboy fecal bacteria TMDL is undergoing State-agency internal review at this time. MDE is proposing to brief the RTG on the draft document sometime in June.

Recent news reports of a nationwide evaluation of the presence of trace pharmaceutical compounds in major metropolitan public drinking water systems

In early March, news broke summarizing an extensive nationwide survey of public water systems by a special team of the Associated Press, acting in cooperation with the Environmental Working Group. Of 62 major American public water providers contacted in the study, only 28 had tested their finished drinking water for trace levels of pharmaceuticals, human hormones, or drug metabolites. Baltimore was among the 34 systems that hadn’t tested for drugs or drug residues. Officials in Philadelphia found traces of 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts in their treated drinking water, and 63 drugs or byproducts were found in the City’s watersheds. At the concentrations involved, the public health risks to consumers are believed to be low. RTG members should discuss whether local agencies should be doing more to evaluate this potential problem in the Baltimore region’s shared water system.

Update on the status of the Prettyboy Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS)

Several years of detailed field work in the Prettyboy watershed (which documented biota, stream water quality, habitat quality, and potential pollution sources) laid the foundation for the development of the WRAS, which encompasses portions of both Baltimore and Carroll counties. Steve Stewart of Baltimore County led the effort to complete both a Characterization Report and a WRAS document by January 2008. The status of the review by MDE of these reports and the proposed follow-up actions in the Prettyboy watershed by Baltimore County and others will be discussed.

Update on the status of the 2006-2007 Biennial Progress Report on the Reservoir Program

The 2005 Reservoir Agreement says that the RTG and the Watershed Protection Committee "shall prepare biennial progress reports that summarize trends and recent changes in reservoir water quality, emerging water quality issues of concern, and critical trends in reservoir watershed land use, among other topics." Bill Stack has been working during the winter to prepare a summary of recent in-lake and tributary water quality data and trends. Gould Charshee has begun to update the narrative information on the status of the many "commitments" contained in the 2005 Action Strategy.

The 2005 Reservoir Watershed Action Strategy says that the program participants will review and comment on the existing arrangements and procedures for notification of and response by emergency agencies to any spills or discharges of hazardous substances that occur in the reservoir watersheds. Gould has completed a series of interviews with local first responders (Baltimore County and Carroll County fire/ER officials), Baltimore City watershed staff, and MDE/ER staff. He recently has distributed to RTG members a first draft of the report on his findings.

The 2005 Action Strategy included a commitment that the RTG would work cooperatively to evaluate the existing reservoir/watershed monitoring programs and to determine what changes, if any, are needed in order for the monitoring programs to support certain stated objectives relating to reservoir protection and ongoing watershed evaluation. Acting on behalf of itself, Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Carroll County in May 2007 entered a contract with the US Geological Survey (USGS) to carry out this technical evaluation.

To date, USGS has concentrated on reviewing all previously published relevant reports, reviewing all past reservoir data sets (from the City), and drafting a very thorough retrospective evaluation of all the existing in-lake and "raw water" sampling and analysis activities of the City. The draft retrospective report (March 2008) identifies certain weaknesses in the existing data sets, explaining the kinds of trend analyses that we consequently are precluded from carrying out. A number of recommendations are made for alternative possible improvements that might be made in the City’s current sampling programs. At this point, the draft USGS report is being reviewed closely by a subcommittee of the RTG.

Jim George of MDE is responsible for working with local governments across Maryland to develop implementation plans for watersheds for which specific TMDLs have been adopted by the State and EPA. He believes that the RTG, because of its interjurisdictional nature and its mandate under the 2005 Reservoir Agreement, is well-suited to assist MDE with TMDL implementation planning and tracking in the Gunpowder watershed (Prettyboy and Loch Raven). This proposal was discussed at the October 22, 2007 meeting of the RTG. Subsequently, several members questioned whether this was a suitable responsibility for the RTG to undertake.

In February 2008, Dr. George sent a one-page "proposed framework" to Gould Charshee. This recently was forwarded to RTG members for their consideration. This proposal will be discussed briefly.

The 2005 Action for the Reservoir Watersheds says (3.2.6) "The (RTG) will investigate the feasibility of having local and state agencies adopt an alternative de-icing policy in the reservoir watersheds." To this end, Gould Charshee has surveyed the several county and state district roads offices that have maintenance responsibilities in the watersheds, to learn about their de-icing policies, agents, equipment and practices.

In recent months, MDE/WAT has invited the members of the RTG to submit a proposal for a locally-managed study of road de-icing practices in the reservoir watersheds and their effects on local streams that drain to the reservoirs. Several different RTG members have proposed some alternative approaches to this study, which are currently under review by MDE staff.

Discussions on the local development of new Water Resources Elements (WREs) of the local Comprehensive Plans, as they pertain to the metropolitan water and sewerage systems

Maryland House Bill 1141 (enacted in 2006) requires, among other things, that local governments include a WRE section in their respective Comprehensive Plans by October 2009. In its simplest terms, this means that each local government, in projecting new population growth and business/institutional-related growth, must demonstrate that such growth will not outstrip the ability of local surface and ground water resources to safely meet the increased demand for water, and will not overwhelm the assimilative capacities of the local waterways which will be receiving the additional treated wastewaters. MDE and State Planning are charged with helping local governments to comply with these new requirements.

State guidance to the locals on the development of an acceptable WRE has not clearly addressed what is to be done in a case like the Baltimore area, where drinking water resources in Baltimore and Carroll Counties are managed by Baltimore City and distributed (either treated or untreated) to portions of six jurisdictions. Similarly, sewage from three suburban jurisdictions (AA, Baltimore County and Howard County) flow into Baltimore City interceptors for conveyance to City-owned plants for treatment and discharge to Baltimore City waters (Patapsco WWTP) and Baltimore County waters (Back River WWTP). What legal mechanisms exist to ensure that new growth (on public W/S) in the suburban counties will not cause the City to overtax its available water sources nor cause it to overload its WWTPs and their respective receiving waters?

Very recently, Gould Charshee was asked by Baltimore County Planning to see if BMC could not serve as a convening party for a multi-jurisdictional discussion of how the local governments in the region can best meet the requirements of HB 1141.