Chesapeake Environmental Protection Association

CEPA News and Newsletters

CEPA Presents

THE HEALTH OF THE BAY AND YOU

Featuring
J. Charles “Chuck” Fox
Special Asst. to the EPA Administrator for the Chesapeake Bay
and
Tom Horton
Environmentalist and Author

Friday, February 26, 2010 from 7 to 9 PM

Southern High School Auditorium, Harwood

Suggested Donation $10. Proceeds go to the Bay Restoration Fund.

For more info call 410-257-6947.

CEPA 2010 Annual Plan

Every year CEPA's Board of Trustees adopts an annual plan to guide our activities for the year. As the plan indicates, the primary goals for 2010 include the following:

• Greater involvement in Groundwater issues, which has been one of CEPA's major thrusts in the past.
• Advocate legislation that would allow limited greywater use in Maryland, and promote it's proper use.
• With a County grant, monitor groundwater quality near the PST/Waste Management Landfill.
• Push for the development of a plan to deal with the buildup of silt material behind the Susquehanna River dams.

Read the complete CEPA Annual Plan (PDF)

CEPA Comments on County General Development Plan

Anne Arundel County recently asked for comments on their General Development Plan of 2008. CEPA's believes that their "plan" provides a somewhat realistic evaluation of the factors involved, but the present situation relies on growth, and many infrastructure issues are being ignored.

CEPA believes that we are on an unsustainable path, and that, continuing as we are, in 2 or 3 decades, when growth dies down, we will have inferior facilities, and our environment and quality of life will decline.

Read our President's letter to Anne Arundel County (PDF).

CEPA Forum on Stream Restoration

On Friday evening, February 27, 2009 CEPA held a forum on stream restoration at the Southern High School in Harwood. The forum was moderated by Rich Romer, a CEPA Trustee, and the speakers were Ron Bowen, Anne Arundel County Director of Public Works, Erik Mikelsen, Executive Director of the South River Federation, and Dr. Margaret Palmer, Director of the University of Maryland's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory at Solomons.

Ron Bowen pointed out that most of Anne Arundel County was developed years ago before the damaging effects of stormwater were properly accounted for and managed. Only in recent years have we have learned how to deal with stormwater and do so properly with respect to new construction. But that leaves the damage from hundreds of years of development. The damage to historic streams from stormwater runoff from our older developments needs to be retrofitted with effective stormwater management systems.

Bowen stated that all major Anne Arundel County waterways are now classified as impaired. A number of individual streams have been restored, such as Howard's Branch, at the Edgewater Elementary School, and at Shipley's Choice. However, the cost of restoring all the streams that need it and of correcting all the runoff problems is far beyond what the County can afford in the near future. Bowen admitted that the situation presents a bleak picture.

Impervious areas in Anne Arundel County cover 17% of our land, and that amount of impervious surface is known to create problems with respect to water quality, particularly in reducing wildlife diversity. The County Council is considering legislation which would require enhanced nitrogen removal systems for new septic tanks in the County, which will reduce nitrogen flow into the Bay If we are to get our rivers off the impaired list, we also need to change our behavior with respect to fertilizing our lawns, using rain barrels and rain gardens, etc.

Even using proper stormwater management practices with new construction, Bowen estimates that after the County is built out, 95% of runoff pollution will come from existing development, emphasizing the need for retrofitting older stormwater management systems.

In order to understand the present status of our streams, Erik Michelsen talked about man's influences throughout our history. In 1608, before we altered the land, there were many beaver dams to slow streams down and allow the water to seep back into the ground. Early settlers constructed many mill dams, which also slowed down the streams, but which caused silt to accumulate behind the dams. As the dams were removed or allowed to deteriorate, the streams eroded a path through the silt, often several meters thick, and left steep banks without any vegetation. For many years, as development occurred, developers felt the best way to "restore" streams was to channel them to get water to rivers or bays as directly as possible. With no chance for the water to soak into the ground, this increased the amount of agricultural sediment and pollution from runoff which flowed directly into the rivers and bays.

Now we are aware of a number of techniques that slow down streams, using a series of pools, for example, which allow the water to soak in. Also, sand filters can be used between pools. The Wilelinor development at the intersection of Aris T. Allen and Southern Maryland Boulevards (MD Routes 665 and 2) is a good example of new restoration techniques. Mikelsen reported that the South River Federation plans some stream restoration work in Church Creek, with help from grants.

Some studies suggest that water quality is significantly affected when impervious surface in the watershed reaches about 10%. However, Margaret Palmer pointed out that there is no abrupt decrease in wildlife at that point. Some species can tolerate more and some less.

She explained that some past stream restoration projects attempted to recreate the conditions that used to be present. Often that is difficult, and often that is not the best way to restore streams. Enough conclusive studies have been made that the results of those studies should guide how restoration is done. That would definitely include such things as step pools and wetlands. Studies also indicate that restoration doesn't necessarily mean that biodiversity will rebound.

Dr. Palmer feels the single most effective way to reduce runoff and pollution for a reasonable cost is to preserve forests and plant trees, particularly in the buffer areas adjacent to streams and the Bay. Often, large sums of money are spent on very effective stream restoration, but she feels the same amount of money would be far more effective if it were reallocated to preserving and planting trees.

CEPA Public Forum on Groundwater

NEW: Click to download the complete presentation, "Protecting Maryland's Water Supply" by the keynote speaker, Dr. Robert Summers (PDF)

On Friday, February 29, 2008, the CHESAPEAKE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (CEPA) held a forum on Ground Water at the South River High School Auditorium in Edgewater. The forum was moderated by CEPA Trustee Rich Romer, and the keynote speaker was Dr. Robert Summers, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Dr Summers started by explaining the differences in the hydrology and water usage in different parts of the state. Western Maryland has mostly fractured rock aquifers, and, due to the relatively low population density, the water is predominately used for thermoelectric and industrial purposes. Thermoelectric refers to cooling water for coal, oil, and nuclear power plants. The limited amount of water in fractured rock is running out. In Central Maryland, which includes Baltimore and north and west of Baltimore, the water is used mostly for public supply and thermoelectric purposes. Southern Maryland gets most of its water from several aquifers, and uses it primarily for public supply and domestic use. The water levels in the aquifers have been declining significantly over the last 30 years or more. And the recharge zones in the northern and western parts of the area are being paved over. On the Eastern Shore, water is used primarily for irrigation.

The Governors Bob Ehrlich and then Martin O’Malley appointed the Water Resources Advisory Committee on which Dr. Summers serves. The Committee has studied demands for water and made a number of recommendations for management of our water supply. In 2004, it issued its first report, recommending a comprehensive evaluation of existing aquifer and watershed water supplies. This involves adding stream gauges, observation wells, and other monitoring mechanisms to what already exists. For example, the number of observation wells should be increased from 141 to 240. Such a study has already been initiated in Southern Maryland, but has been hampered by lack of funding.

An interim report issued by the Advisory Committee in 2006 recommended conservation measures, wastewater recycling technologies, and studied desalination and water storage methods (reservoirs). These measures will be necessary with the population of Maryland expected to increase by more than one million (to 6.3 million) in the next 25 years.

In 2007, a bill passed the General Assembly (House Bill 1141) which requires that water resources be an element in the comprehensive development plans of local governments, i.e. Counties and municipalities. Along with other committee recommendations, this would cost an average of $7 million per year for the next 7 years. That funding is not in place at this time, and the Advisory Committee is trying to identify possible funding sources.

During the Question and Answer period, Mike Shay used the example of a particular golf course in Anne Arundel County which uses great amounts of water, and he asked Dr. Summers why that sort of thing is not controlled by water appropriation permits. Dr. Summers would like to see that sort of water usage controlled, but stated that there is public resistance to controlling something that historically was free for everybody.

Dr. M. Gordon Wolman, Professor of Environmental Engineering at Johns Hopkins University and Chairman of the Water Resources Advisory Committee, was the next speaker. He said that it is no longer possible for everybody to use the aquifers and tributaries without restrictions. He feels that the recommendations of the Advisory Committee are necessary for managing the water supply, but says that the two reports they have issued so far were met with “a deafening silence from the political world.”

Dr. Wolman feels that the legislation currently being considered, and the present state of mind in the Maryland General Assembly is such that no significant progress will be made this year. He feels that the major hurdle is to educate and persuade the legislature that the Advisory Committee’s recommendations must be put into effect. That would include the funding necessary to establish a structure for fees and permits and for ensuring that water resources are considered in local comprehensive plans.

One issue that apparently remains to be settled is the amount of water that can be withdrawn from our rivers without adversely affecting the environment or other uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. A compromise will probably be necessary.

Robert Shedlock, Associate District Chief & Supervisory Hydrologist, US Geological Survey went into greater detail on the types and characteristics of aquifers in different parts of Maryland. He spoke about USGS efforts to establish an Aquifer Information System, which would map the depths, thicknesses, etc. of all our aquifers, and model the soils with respect to, among other things, how easily water passes through them. The results should allow a determination of where wells can be dug, how deep, and how much water can be withdrawn without detriment. At present, the process is largely trial and error. With this data on hand, the permitting process could be controlled and managed. The system is being developed, but, again, adequate funding has been lacking. Shedlock stated that the earliest a working aquifer model could be available was 2013.

The speakers and several audience members mentioned the severe droughts in our region in 2002 and again in 2007 which resulted in water restrictions and/or development limitations in several Maryland locations. In addition to much better water allocation, several new water "sources" could be utilized:

• Enhanced conservation
• Expanded wastewater use
• Possible desalination
• Additional storage facilities

All agreed that water use based on the assumption of continued plentiful supply can no longer continue in much of our area.

This page was last updated May 12, 2010.