O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

AREC455 Presentation - Cecil County

  • Entre para ver os comentários

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

AREC455 Presentation - Cecil County

  1. 1. Cecil County, Maryland Land Use, Water Quality and the Chesapeake Bay Chyanne, Christian, Hana, Liana, Jinyi
  2. 2. Current Land Use
  3. 3. Top Land Use Goal Encourage conservation of agricultural land
  4. 4. Growth Management & Projections
  5. 5. Growth Forecasts Population growth has been rapid, will be rapid and remains a genuine threat to the community’s rural heritage
  6. 6. Why planning? Efficient and Orderly Growth!
  7. 7. ● Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan ● PFA & Zoning Components of Growth Management Program
  8. 8. Nutrient and Sediment Loads
  9. 9. Overview of Different Sectors
  10. 10. Cecil County - Total Nitrogen Loads Source Sector 2010 Progress 2017 Interim Strategy 2025 Final Strategy Final Target Percentage Change Between 2010 and 2025 Agriculture 1.001 0.807 0.750 0.614 25.07% Forest 0.260 0.270 0.273 0.261 5.00% Non-Tidal Atm 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.00% Septic 0.183 0.164 0.098 0.099 46.45% Stormwater 0.338 0.296 0.217 0.235 35.80% Wastewater 0.104 0.311 0.328 0.323 68.29% Total 1.923 1.884 1.704 1.569 11.39%
  11. 11. Cecil County - Total Phosphorus Loads Source Sector 2010 Progress 2017 Interim Strategy 2025 Final Strategy Final Target Percentage Change Between 2010 and 2025 Agriculture 0.069 0.054 0.050 0.055 27.54% Forest 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.00% Non-Tidal Atm 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.00% Septic 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00% Stormwater 0.016 0.015 0.010 0.010 37.50% Wastewater 0.013 0.016 0.018 0.020 38.46% Total 0.106 0.093 0.086 0.093 18.87%
  12. 12. Cecil County - Total Sediment Loads Source Sector 2010 Progress 2017 Interim Strategy 2025 Final Strategy Percentage Change Between 2010 and 2025 Agriculture 46.473 42.689 40.580 12.68% Forest 4.230 4.480 4.533 7.16% Non-Tidal Atm 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00% Septic 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00% Stormwater 14.918 13.364 8.050 46.04% Wastewater 0.118 0.810 2.157 1727.96% Total 65.739 61.342 55.320 15.85%
  13. 13. Strategies and Costs
  14. 14. Strategies for nutrient and sediment reduction Tributary Strategy Best Management Practices(BMP) Reforestation/Restoration TMDL/Nutrient Reduction Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal (EBPR)
  15. 15. Policies and Programs
  16. 16. Forest Conservation Cecil County’s Board of County Commissioners Retention of existing forestry No change! Changes must align with the Code of Maryland Natural Resource Policies Maintain the natural resources of Cecil County
  17. 17. Water Quality Control Maryland Department of Agriculture Implementation of licenses, approvals and permits to reduce the negative impact from land cultivation and other agricultural activities on water quality Farmers must abide because of soil erosion into the Bay
  18. 18. Consumer Confidence Maryland Department of Agriculture Animal Health Program Provide safe food Animal disease control Increased the enforcement of livestock inspection Food Quality Assurance Program Audits and inspections Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Good Handling Practices (GHP) Grade analysis of eggs Decrease their use of pesticides
  19. 19. Stormwater Maryland Department of the Environment Control the erosion and sediment runoff Use rain as resource The Stormwater Management Act of 2007 required BMP be used by all current and future development activities
  20. 20. Water Quality Trading
  21. 21. Current Platform
  22. 22. Potential in Cecil Reasons: Population growth and competition in land use Under TMDL, BMP, EBPR regulations, Costs are different Branosky, Evan. Cy Jones, and Mindy Selman. “Comparison Tables of State Nutrient Trading Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed”. World Resource Institute Fact Sheet. Version 1. May 2011. Web. 1 Dec 2015. http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/comparison_tables_of_state_chesapeake_bay_nutrient_trading_programs.pdf Target: existing permitted discharge + new growth
  23. 23. Opportunities for cost saving Bilateral Process Buyers: Farmers, agribusiness Sellers: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point sources http://www.mdnutrienttrading.com
  24. 24. Challenges Transaction cost Baseline Trading Ratio Data-CBWM More Info: Houtven, George Van, Ross Loomis, Justin Baker, Robert Beach, and Sara Casey. “Nutrient Credit Trading for the Chesapeake Bay, An Economic Study”. MAY 2012. Web. 2 Dec 2015. Section 10 <http://www.chesbay.us/Publications/nutrient-trading- 2012.pdf>
  25. 25. Sector Analysis
  26. 26. Cecil County Agricultural Sector Cecil county is a predominantly rural/agricultural area. Large dairy cow/beef cattle farms are common. 77% of nitrogen and 95% of phosphorus pollution in this area can be attributed to agriculture.
  27. 27. Northeast River Advanced WWTP(NERAWWTP) Upgrade MDE mandated that all large WWTPs be upgraded to Enhanced Nutrient Removal(ENR) by Dec. 2016 NERAWWTP is the only WWTP in Cecil County requiring an upgrade. Previous treatment level: Biological Nutrient Removal(BNR) Expected project cost: $40 million.
  28. 28. Biological versus Enhanced Nutrient Removal ENR utilizes a process known as a Membrane Bioreactor(MBR). Higher initial cost than alternatives, but benefits include: Higher water treatment level than alternatives Cost of future expansions is lower than other alternatives. Nutrient Reduction Levels Nutrient Biological Nutrient Removal Enhanced Nutrient Removal Nitrogen 8 mg/L to 10 mg/L ~3 mg/L Phosphorus 1 mg/L to 3 mg/L ~0.3 mg/L
  29. 29. Membrane Bioreactor
  30. 30. Questions?

×