HomeMy WebLinkAboutW&S Plan_2009 UpdateWATER AND SEWERAGE
PLAN
Washington County, Maryland
2009 Update
Prepared by the Washington County Planning Department
RESOLUTION NO. RS -2010-24
ADOPTION OF 2009 UPDATED
WATER AND SEWERAGE PLAN
FOR
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
(WS -10,001)
RECITALS
Section 9-503 of the Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland and COMAR
2G,03,oi,i70 requires the governing body of each county to have a waterandsewerage plan that deals
with water supply systems, sewerage systems, solid waste disposal systems, solid wasteacceptance
facilities, and the systematic collection of solid waste, including lifter, in order topmtecl theliealtn,
safety and welfare of the citizens of the county.
Section 9-503 of the Environment Articleof the Annotated Codeof Maryland also provides
that the plan be approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment and covers at least the
10 -year period next following adoption by the county governing body. The plan shalt be reviewed
by the county governingsbody at least every 3 years.
On May 15,1975, the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland (the
"Board") adopted a Water and Sewerage Plan (the "Plan") and on May 17,1994, the board adopted
text and map amendments to the Plan.
Since May 17,1994, numerousother individual text and map amendments have been made
to the Plan and the Board believes it lobe in the best interest of the citizens of Washington County
that the 2009 Updated Water and Sewerage Plan for Washington County, Maryland (the "2009
Updated Plan") be adopted which also includes updated material provided by other service
providing agencies and municipalitiesin Washington County as well nsinformation updated by the
Washington County Planning Department, Washington County Health Department, and the
Division of Environmental Management,
The principal elected official of each municipal corporation in Washington Countyhas been
notified of the 2009 Updated Plan Amendment.
A. joint public hearing was held on August 30, 2010 by the Board of County Commissioners
of Washington County, Maryland and the Washington County Planning Commission.
The Washington Coun ty Planning Commission has certified that the 2009 Updated Plan is
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland, that the attached 2009 Updated Water and
Sewerage Plan for Washington County, Maryland is hereby adopted.
Adopted and effective this 9th day of November, 2010,
ATTEST; BOARD OF COUNTY C91MISSIONERS
O W SS„„9 CEON �9OFY, MARYLAND
Vicki C, iumm, Clerk John F. Barr, President
Approved as to form and
and legal sufficiency:
John M. MartiranrJ ,2
County Attorney t
Mail to:
County Attorney's Office
100 W. Washington Street, Room 202
Hagerstown, MD 21740
1:UYxanmt+UlmwnaOvsslr,n.tmm�1\h11pN1 (UO3 rpLxl\uc..tu,w4ui oMX C
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9S06(A)(T)(il) OF THE ENVIRONMENT
ARTICLE OF THE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND, AND COMAR 26.03.01.02,
NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ALL MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS REGARDING
THE PREPARATION OF THE 2009 WATER AND SEWERAGE PLAN FOR
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND (THE "2009 PLAN"), AND SUCH OFFICIALS
OR ENTITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD WITH
RESPECT TO THE PREPARATION OF THE PLAN, THE 2009 PLAN IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE COUNTY ADOPTED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
ON AUGUST 27, 2002.
G�Arukis, Chair
Washington County Planning Commission
PREFACE
Washington County Water & Sewerage Plan 2009 Update
The attached document is the 2009 Update to the Washington County Water and
Sewerage Plan. The Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1994. The drafting of
this Update began in 2004 with the notification to all of the municipalities and service
providers affected by the Plan. The vast majority of the information contained in the
Plan is based on information provided by the municipalities and other service
providers.
The information presented in the plan is updated as of January 1, 2009 unless otherwise
noted. All requests involving information compiled after January 1, 2009 will be
addressed as necessary in subsequent individual amendments or as part of the next
comprehensive update.
The following is a synopsis of the content of the 2009 Plan Update:
• Includes all individual map and text amendments since the adoption of the
previous Update in 1994.
• The Plan contains updated information provided by the municipalities and
service providers. In those cases where service providers did not provide
updated information, information from the 1994 Plan and subsequent
amendments is carried over.
• Contains updated land use, population, and physical features information based
on the 2002 Washington County Comprehensive Plan for the County.
• Provides information and links in regard to the status of water quality in
Washington County, the Federal Clean Water Act, development of TMDLs,
Source Water Assessments and water quality plans.
• Filters information regarding locations of major facilities to address home land
security concerns.
• Incorporates the text of the Plan into an electronic format as well as providing
updated service area and priority designation mapping based on GIS
technologies. The new text provides internet links to up to date information by
regulatory authorities.
Lays groundwork for future updates by providing references to plans and
strategies for Enhanced Nutrient Removal, bubble permitting, nutrient trading,
maximum loading, as well as other options in order to address Chesapeake Bay
initiatives and to maximize service to meet the needs to serve the Urban and
Town Growth Areas.
• Includes reference to Washington County's sewer capacity management plan.
It is anticipated that another update to the Water & Sewerage Plan will occur in the near
future to address Water Resources Element requirements once studies are completed by
the County and municipalities and upon additional Comprehensive Plan updates.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I - GOALS AND ORGANIZATION........................................................... I-1
A. PURPOSE............................................................................................................... I-1
B. GOALS....................................................................................................................I-2
C. OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................... I-3
D. ORGANIZATION................................................................................................. I-4
E. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.......................................................1-7
1. Washington County (Unincorporated Areas).........................................................1-7
2. Town of Boonsboro................................................................................................ I-9
3. Town of Clear Spring.............................................................................................. I-9
4. Town of Funkstown.............................................................................................. I-10
5. City of Hagerstown..................................................................
6. Town of Hancock.....................................................................
7. Town of Keedysville.................................................................
8. Town of Smithsburg.................................................................
9. Town of Williamsport ..............................................................
CHAPTER II - BACKGROUND INFORMATION .........................
A. PHYSICAL FEATURES.........................................................
1. Topography..............................................................................
2. Sensitive Areas..........................................................................
3. Soil Characteristics....................................................................
4. Suitability for on -lot sub -surface disposal systems ....................
5. Surface Water Characteristics...................................................
6. Drainage Sheds..........................................................................
7. Water Quality...........................................................................
8. Potomac River Mainstem.........................................................
9. Antietam Creek........................................................................
10. Conococheague Creek..........................................................
11. Little Conococheague...........................................................
12. Licking Creek.......................................................................
13. Tonoloway Creek.................................................................
14. Little Tonoloway..................................................................
15. Sideling Hill Creek................................................................
16. Dargan Area Drainage..........................................................
17. Downsville Area Drainage ....................................................
18. Pinesburg Station Area Drainage ..........................................
19. Greenspring Area Drainage ..................................................
20. Timber Ridge Drainage Area ................................................
21. Tonoloway Ridge Drainage Area .........................................
22. Groundwater Characteristics and Aquifers ...........................
............ I-10
............ I-10
............ I-11
............ I-12
............ I-12
............. II -1
............. II -1
............. II -1
.............II -1
............. II -2
............. II -5
........... II -10
........... II -11
........... II -13
........... 11-14
........... II -15
........... 11-15
........... 11-16
........... 11-16
........... 11-16
........... II -17
........... II -17
..... II -17
........... 11-17
........... II -17
........... 11-17
........... 11-18
........... 11-18
........... II -20
23.
Groundwater Quality.......................................................................................11-23
24.
Well Construction............................................................................................
II -27
25.
Groundwater Quality Planning, Design and Management ...............................11-27
11-27
26.
Source Water Assessments................................................................................
11-30
27.
Water Quality Plans..........................................................................................
11-30
28.
TMDL...............................................................................................................11-31
B.
POPULATION ANALYSIS & PROJECTIONS...............................................II-32
C.
LAND USE & GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY..............................11-36
CHAPTER III - EXISTING AND PLANNED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS............III-1
A.
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER QUALITY..........III-1
1.
EXISTING WATER SERVICE AREAS:.............................................................III-1
2.
DEPARTMENT OF WATER QUALITY PLANS AND POLICIES TO
IMPROVE WATER SERVICE AND ADDRESS STATE POLICY, STRATEGIES
ANDPROCEDURES
..................................................................................................III-3
B.
CITY OF HAGERSTOWN.................................................................................III-4
1.
HAGERSTOWN WATER PRODUCTION AND............................................III-4
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM..........................................................................................III-4
2.
PLANNED WATER SERVICE AREA IMPROVEMENTS ..............................III
-5
C.
FUNKSTOWN.....................................................................................................III-6
D.
WILLIAMSPORT.................................................................................................III-7
E.
SMITHSBURG......................................................................................................III-7
F.
FORT RITCHIE...................................................................................................III-7
G.
BOONSBORO-KEEDYSVILLE..........................................................................III-8
H.
WEAVERTON.....................................................................................................III-9
I.
CLEAR SPRING................................................................................................III-10
J.
HANCOCK........................................................................................................III-10
K.
FAHRNEY KEEDY HOME AND VILLAGE (private system) .......................III
-11
L.
PROJECTED DEMANDS.................................................................................III-12
M.
WATER PROBLEM AREAS.............................................................................III-19
1.
WATER CONSERVATION.............................................................................
III -19
2.
IDENTIFICATION...........................................................................................III-20
N.
PROGRAM FOR CORRECTION...................................................................M-21
1.
Geohydrologic Study...........................................................................................III-21
2.
Data Collection....................................................................................................IH-21
3.
Feasibility Study..................................................................................................III-22
4.
Code of the Public Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland .....................III
-22
5.
Outreach & Education.........................................................................................
111-23
O.
POLICY FOR WATER LINE INSTALLATION IN AREAS WHERE SERVICE
IS NOT AVAILABLE.........................................................................................III-30
P.
SERVICE AREA REQUIREMENTS................................................................III-31
1.
Urban and Town Growth Area Service Areas ....................................................III
-31
2.
Rural Village Service Areas..................................................................................III-31
3.
Restricted Use Service Area.................................................................................IH-32
11
4.
Denied Access Facilities.......................................................................................III-32
Q.
PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ........................................111-33
1.
W-1 Priority (Existing Service or Under Construction) ......................................III
-33
2.
W-3 Priority (Programmed Service).....................................................................III-34
3.
W-5 Priority (Planned Service)............................................................................III-34
4.
NPS Designation (No Planned Service)..............................................................III-34
R.
WATER SERVICE PRIORITY AREA MAPS ..................................................III
-35
CHAPTERIV
......................................................................................................................IV-1
A.
EXISTING AND PLANNED SEWERAGE SYSTEMS.....................................IV-1
1.
WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER QUALITY..........IV-1
2.
JOHN "AL" NICODEMUS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ...........IV
-2
3.
CONOCOCHEAGUE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ...................IV
-2
4.
ANTIETAM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT....................................IV-3
5.
SANDY HOOK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT..............................IV-3
6.
C. Wm. WINEBRENNER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ..............IV
-4
7.
SMITHSBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT................................IV-4
8.
CONOCOCHEAGUE INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT FACILITY -..........IV
-5
B.
EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREAS...............................................................IV-5
1.
Service Area No. 1 — Halfway..............................................................................IV-5
2.
Service Area No. 4 — Sharpsburg/Keedysville......................................................IV-6
3.
Service Area No. 5 — Potomac (Tammany/Van Lear)..........................................IV-6
4.
Service Area No. 5-1 Cloverton/Green Lawn.......................................................IV-6
5.
Service Area No. 6— Fountainhead......................................................................IV-6
6.
Service Area No. 9- 1— Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar...........................................IV-7
7.
Service Area 12 — Rolling Hills.............................................................................IV-7
8.
Service Area No. 14 - Sharpsburg Pike..................................................................IV-7
9.
Sewer Area No. 15 — Maugansville/Orchard Hills...............................................IV-8
10.
Sewer Service Area No. 16 — St. James.............................................................IV,€
11.
Sewer Service Area No. 18 — Conococheague...................................................IV-8
12.
Sewer Service Area No. 19 — Sandy Hook........................................................IV-9
C.
PLANNED SEWERAGE SERVICE AREAS......................................................IV-9
1.
Maryland Enhanced Nutrient Removal Strategy...................................................IV-9
2.
Bubble Permit Strategy........................................................................................IV-10
3.
Nutrient Trading.................................................................................................IV-10
4.
Water Reuse.........................................................................................................IV-11
5.
ENR Upgrades.....................................................................................................IV-11
6.
System Interconnections and Interceptors...........................................................IV-11
7.
Maryland Guidance on Capacity Management....................................................IV-12
8.
Capacity Management Plan.................................................................................IV-12
D.
CITY OF HAGERSTOWN...............................................................................IV-12
E.
FUNKSTOWN...................................................................................................IV-14
F.
SMITHSBURG....................................................................................................IV-14
G.
MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION.........................................IV-14
iii
H.
BOONSBORO....................................................................................................IV-15
I.
CLEAR SPRING................................................................................................IV-15
J.
HANCOCK........................................................................................................IV-16
K.
FORT RITCHIE.................................................................................................IV-16
L.
WILLIAMSPORT...............................................................................................IV-17
M.
FAHRNEY KEEDY HOME AND VILLAGE (private system) .......................IV
-17
N.
PROJECTED DEMANDS.................................................................................IV-19
O.
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT..............................................................................IV-31
1.
Land Spreading....................................................................................................IV-31
2.
Sanitary Landfilling..............................................................................................IV-33
3.
Sludge Management Practices in Washington County........................................IV-34
P.
POLICY FOR SEWER LINE INSTALLATION IN AREAS WHERE SERVICE
ISNOT AVAILABLE.........................................................................................IV-37
Q.
POLICY ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE....................................IV-37
1.
Individual On -Lot Systems..................................................................................IV-37
2.
Community Systems...........................................................................................IV-38
R.
POLICY ON INTERIM TREATMENT PLANTS...........................................IV-39
S.
SERVICE AREA REQUIREMENTS................................................................IV-40
1.
Urban and Town Growth Area Service Areas....................................................IV-40
2.
Rural Village Service Areas..................................................................................IV-40
3.
Restricted Use Service Areas................................................................................IV-41
T.
PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS........................................IV-41
1.
S-1 Priority (Existing Service or Under Construction)........................................IV-42
2.
S-3 Priority (Programmed Service)......................................................................IV-42
3.
S-5 Priority (Planned Service)..............................................................................IV-43
4.
NPS Designation (No Planned Service)...............................................................IV-43
U.
SEWERAGE SERVICE PRIORITY AREA MAPS...........................................IV-44
CHAPTER V - ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ...............................
V-1
A.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................
V-1
B.
WATER FACILITIES............................................................................................
V-1
C.
SEWERAGE FACILITIES....................................................................................
V-2
D.
MANAGEMENT OF CONNECTION ALLOCATIONS ---------------------------------V-3
E.
COUNTY -WIDE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY .................................
V-4
APPENDIXA...........................................................................................................................1
DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................................1
APPENDIXB............................................................................................................:...............5
POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
COUNTY PLAN FOR WATER AND SEWERAGE.............................................5
APPENDIXC.........................................................................................................................16
LISTING OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS...............................................................16
iv
APPENDIXD.........................................................................................................................18
WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT POLICY ON INTERIM AND
PERMANENT COMMUNITY WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS............18
APPENDIXE.......................................................................................................................... 20
REVISED POLICY STATEMENT FOR CITY OF HAGERSTOWN WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CAPACITY ALLOCATION ....................:20
APPENDIXF..........................................................................................................................21
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN RELATING TO THE
HAGERSTOWN URBAN GROWTH AREA, WATER AND SEWER STUDY
PREPARED BY BCM ENGINEERS, INC.............................................................21
APPENDIXG.........................................................................................................................22
WATER SERVICE PRIORITY AREA MAPS.......................................................22
APPENDIXH......................................................................................................................... 26
SEWER SERVICE PRIORITY AREA MAPS........................................................26
V
LIST OF MAPS
MAP NO.
PAGE
I
Sensitive Areas
II -3
II
General Soils Map
II -4
III
Watershed Boundaries
II -12
IV
Stream Classifications
II -19
V
Hydrologic Unit Map
II -24
VI
Land Use Plan
II -39
VII
Priority Funding Areas
II -40
VIII
Index to Water Service Priority Area Maps
III -37
IX
Index to Sewerage Service Priority Area Maps
IV -46
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
PAGE
1
Population
H-34
2
Average Annual Growth Rates
11-35
3
Projected Water Supply Demands and Planned Capacity
III -15
4
Inventory of Existing Community Water Supplies
III -16
5
Inventory of Water Supply Problem Areas
1I1-17
6
Immediate, Five, and Ten Year Priorities for
III -26
Water Development
7
Projected Sewerage Demands and Planned Capacity
IV -21
8
Inventory of Existing Sewage Treatment Plants
IV -23
9
Inventory of (NPDES) Discharge Permits
IV -25
10
Inventory of Sewage Problem Areas
IV -26
11
Immediate, Five, and Ten Year Priorities for
IV -28
Sewerage Development
12
Inventory of Current Sewerage Sludge Generation
IV -36
And Utilization
vu
CHAPTER I - GOALS AND ORGANIZATION
A. PURPOSE
The State of Maryland's fundamental purpose in establishing regulations which
require the governing body of each County to develop an on -going plan for
water supply and sewage systems is to achieve a consistency with the County's
adopted Comprehensive Plan for guiding development. Inherent in this purpose
is the realization that the planning and implementation of water and sewerage
facilities constitute the most physically direct method of guiding development
within the County.
In virtually every instance growth is contingent upon the availability of the
necessary facilities to sustain the higher orders of development. The installation
of water distribution lines, sewage collection lines, and adequate transportation
net works serve as a magnet for the location of new residential projects,
employment centers and supportive commercial activities. Although the exact
timing and magnitude of the higher development forms will be determined in
part by much more regional economic conditions, the fact remains that their
location will directly manifest the development policies of Washington County
and its incorporated municipalities.
Consequently, it becomes well apparent that a Water and Sewerage Plan, in
order to be truly comprehensive, must go beyond merely the crisis oriented
approach of abating existing problems, and strive to contribute and reinforce the
overall planning objectives of the study area. While zoning establishes the
developmental guidelines for primarily private sector initiatives, the process of
implementing water and sewerage plans is a direct, more immediately public
effort to move from plan to reality.
This plan provides information in the form of maps, charts, and tables which
give a general overall picture of the current and projected status of water and
sewerage systems in Washington County. The plan is intended to provide the
basis for more detailed planning at the projected level. The general level of
information and the scale of mapping within the plan do not reflect such details
as the specific location of all water and sewer infrastructure, or the availability or
economic feasibility of service to particular parcels of land. For such
I-i
information, the applicable agencies and municipalities providing these services
must be contacted.
Plan maps within this document do not represent a commitment by the Board of
County Commissioners or by any agency or municipality to provide water and
sewer service by a specified time. Service priority designations shown on the
plan maps indicate the general time frame in which it can be reasonably expected
that these services will be provided and are based upon the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan for The County, and the current intentions of service providers
and of private land owners and developers to the extent that they are known.
The actual construction of facilities and extension of services will depend upon a
number of factors such as economic feasibility, availability of adequate capacity
based on capacity management plans, availability of funds, and initiative on the
part of private land owners and developers.
B. GOALS
It is the purpose of the Comprehensive Water and Sewerage Plan to provide for
the continued health and well-being of Washington Countians and our
downstream neighbors through extensive, thorough public and private sector
cooperation in the formation of long range plans for adequate water supply and
effective sewerage disposal and treatment for Washington County. To this end,
the following goals are hereby established.
1. To protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Washington
County by providing acceptable and adequate water supply and sanitary
sewerage facilities to all areas of the County.
2. To coordinate the policies and plans relative to land use and the provision
of water and sewerage facilities to assure a logical growth pattern in
Washington County.
3. To identify and analyze all sources of pollution within the County and
devise the means by which the adverse impact can be minimized or
eliminated.
4. To provide for the qualified management of water resources in the County
in cooperation with the municipalities of the County, in order to
effectively cope with water pollution and to conserve and/or improve the
quality of streams and groundwater within and adjacent to the County.
5. To establish plan priorities which can be directly related to the
programming and budgetary processes of Washington County, the City of
Hagerstown and other municipalities.
I-2
6. To provide for the periodic amendment of the Comprehensive Water and
Sewerage Plan as required by changes in need or conditions within the
County.
C. OBJECTIVES
In refinement of the overall goals for Washington County, the following itemizes
the objectives which specifically encompass the policy guidelines relative to
water and sewerage planning.
1. Develop a plan for water and sewerage facilities which is fiscally and
environmentally responsible and reasonable and at the same time provide
facilities which will eliminate the extraordinary problems of groundwater
pollution caused by existing development as well as following the
implementation policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the County.
2. On -lot septic disposal systems in Washington County have, in many
cases, proven inadequate in terms of implementing the goals of this plan.
As a result, a primary objective is to provide to the greatest extent
possible, alternatives to these systems without encouraging increases in
development density in those areas designated in the Plan for the County.
3. To seek the closest possible cooperation between all service providers in
the implementation, operation and management of applicable existing
and planned water and sewerage systems.
4. To encourage and guide residential growth to those areas which are
served or planned to be served with community water and sewerage
systems to provide opportunities for new and adequate housing at
reasonable costs for the citizens of Washington County consistent with the
plan for the County.
5. To assure a logical development pattern and continued ability of the
County and municipalities to provide the other necessary public facilities
and services in accordance with existing land use plans and controls.
6. Encourage development of an organizational framework which will result
in coordinated county and municipal planning, programming and
implementation of the plan.
7. Provide for adequate water supply, storage, treatment and distribution on
a regional basis.
8. Encourage resource conservation by particularly large water users
through cooperative recycling programs.
9. To manage the extension and expansion of existing water and sewer lines
and facilities to serve the land which is considered to be within the
I-3
designated urban and town growth areas and Priority Funding Areas in
accordance with capacity analysis.
10. To assure that the Water and Sewerage Plan and any amendments will
take into consideration the "seven visions" of the Maryland Economic
Growth, Resource Protection and Planning Act of 1992 as well as an
additional vision added to the State law in 1997 under the Smart Growth
Act related to adequate public facilities and Priority Funding Areas
D. ORGANIZATION
The following charts illustrate the existing organizational framework relative to
planning and implementing the public water and sewerage infrastructure within
the County and incorporated municipalities.
I-4
WASHINGTON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPT.
WASHINGTON COUNTY
DIV. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT/DEPT. OF
WATER QUALITY
* Sewerage system responsibility currently includes the Towns of Sharpsburg and
Keedysville (Service Area No. 4-1), Smithsburg (included in Service Area No. 12), and
other service areas within the County - Service Area No. 1 Halfway; No. 5 Potomac
(Tammany/Van Lear), No. 5-1 Cloverton/Greenlawn; No. 6 Fountainhead; No. 9-1
Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar; No. 12 Rolling Hills (Pangbom/Cavetown); No. 14
Sharpsburg Pike; No. 15 Maugansville/Orchard Hills; No. 16 St. James; No. 18
Conococheague; and No. 19 Sandy Hook).
Water Systems responsibility currently includes the Town of Sharpsburg and adjacent
areas (Service Area No. 4) and other service areas within the County (Service Area No. 9
Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar; No. 17 Elk Ridge; No. 19-1 Sandy Hook and No. 7 Mt.
Aetna).
I-5
QTY OF HAGERSTOWN
PLANNING
City Administrator i IMPLEMENTATION
Hagerstown Water Division'
'Water & Wastewater System responsibility includes both City and non-subdisict, unincorporated areas
of the County.
" Planning responsibilities (directly) only City. Substantial inpA to County Planning process.
TOWNS OF HANCOCK, CLEAR SPRING
WILLIAMSPORT, KEEDYSVILLE'
BOONSBORO, SMITHSBURG AND FUNKSTOWN
I MAYOR AND COUNCIL I
IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING
WATER AND SEWER
TOWN PLANNING - I COMMITTEE OR COUNCI.
COMMISSION
I TOWN I
1 The Washington County Department of Water Quality is responsible for the sewer system in Keedysville.
I-6
E. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
The following are brief descriptions of development review procedures within
Washington County unincorporated areas and within the limits of municipal
incorporations. For developments planned for unincorporated areas, the review
procedures of the Washington County Planning Commission are applicable.
However, where such developments are dependent upon municipal water or
sewerage service, the municipalities concerned should be consulted early in the
process. The following descriptions are intended to assist citizens and
prospective developers in becoming familiar with the organizational and
procedural relationships between approving authorities and water and sewer
service agencies.
1. Washington County (Unincorporated Areas)
Proposals for development within unincorporated areas are submitted for
review and approval to the Washington County Planning Commission.
The Commission meets on the first Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at
the County Administrative Annex, 80 W. Baltimore Street, Hagerstown,
Maryland.
Initial contact may be made with the Washington County Planning
Commission staff. At this stage the proposed development is reviewed
for conformance with the County Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Water and Sewerage Plan. Upon
request, the staff will arrange for a preliminary consultation at which the
developer can informally discuss the proposal with representatives from
the applicable review agencies including the Health Department and
water and sewer service providers.
In lieu of a preliminary consultation, the appropriate. water and sewer
authorities should be contacted individually. Developments which are
proposed for wells and septic systems should. be discussed with the
Division of Environmental Health of the Washington County Health
Department. Developments which are proposed for service by means of
the extension of existing community water and sewerage systems should
be discussed with the responsible municipality or with the Washington
County Department of Water Quality as applicable.
I-7
Any development which is proposed for an unincorporated area which is
intended for service by a new community water or sewerage system or by
an extension of Department of Water Quality facilities should be reviewed
by the Washington County Planning Commission staff to determine if the
proposal is consistent with the adopted plan for the County. The
Development proposed should than be brought to the attention of the
Washington County Department of Water Quality. Such development
shall first be included in the Washington County Water and Sewerage
Plan, than must be located within the boundaries of a Service Area.
Procedures for inclusion of an area within an established Service Area or
for the creation of a new Service Area are provided for in the Code of
Public Laws of Washington County, Maryland, Title 6— Water, Sewer and
Drainage Systems.
Formal application for development is made to the Washington County
Planning Commission in the form of a subdivision plat or site plan. Water
and sewerage system construction drawings are submitted along with the
application for final plat or site plan approval. Copies of submitted plats,
site plans, and construction drawings are circulated to the appropriate
agencies and municipalities for information, review and approval.
Approval of water and sewerage construction drawings by the
Washington County Department of Water Quality does not guarantee
availability of sewer and/or water service. Sewer and/or water service
availability is subject to the conformance with all rules, policies, and
regulations established by the County and in effect at the time application
for service is made and/or the availability of allocation approval which
shall be valid for a period of one year. Approval of final plat or site plan
submittals for County full service areas does constitute inclusion in the
County Capacity Management Plan, but not allocation approval.
Developments in areas served by the City of Hagerstown's Wastewater
Treatment Plant will be subject to the current policies, rules and
regulations in effect at the time of site plan and/or construction drawing
approval. The Washington County Health Department also issues an
approval for water and sewer service when the development is to be
served by a community system.
Upon receipt of correspondence from all applicable review agencies, the
plat or site plan is reviewed for approval by the Planning Commission at
the regular monthly meeting.
I-8
CONTACT: Washington County Planning Department 240-313-2430
Washington County Health Department 240-313-3400
Washington County Department of Water Quality 240-313-2600
2. Town of Boonsboro
For developments proposed within the municipal limits, a tentative sketch
plan may be submitted to the Town Planner in the Planning and Zoning
Department located at Town Hall. The tentative sketch plan procedure is
optional but strongly recommended as an early and informal method of
consulting with the Boonsboro Planning Commission.
Preliminary and final plat submittals are also made through the Town
Planner who circulates plat copies to the appropriate review and approval
agencies including the Boonsboro Municipal Utilities Commission for
availability of water and sewer services. Upon receipt and consideration
of the comments of the review and approval agencies, the Boonsboro
Planning Commission considers the plat at its regular monthly meeting at
Town Hall.
Proposed developments located outside the Town limits but within the
Town's service area which desire water or sewer service should contact
the Town Manager to discuss annexation procedures.
CONTACT: Town Manager 301-432-5141
Town Planner 301-432-5690
3. Town of Clear Spring
Water and sewer facilities are constructed within a development at the
developer's expense and dedicated to the Town of Clear Spring. Initial
proposals are made to the Mayor and Council which meets on the second
Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall. Proposed
developments located outside the Town limits but within the Town's
service area which desire water or sewer service should contact the Town
Clerk to discuss annexation procedures if applicable.
CONTACT: Town Clerk 301-842-2252
I9
4. Town of Funkstown
All areas within the corporate limits of Funkstown are considered
physically capable of being served by the Town water and sewer systems.
Proposed developments located outside the Town limits but within the
Town's service area which desire water or sewer service should contact
Public Works personnel to discuss annexation procedures if applicable.
CONTACT: Public Works Personnel 301-797-3228 or 301-791-0948
For proposed developments within the Town limits, application must be
made to the Funkstown Zoning Administrator who reviews plans for
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
Subdivision Ordinance. Town water and sewer personnel then review the
plans for placement of utilities. The Planning Commission considers the
application at its regular meeting on the first Tuesday of each month at
6:30 p.m. in the Town Hall.
CONTACT: Town Clerk 301-791-0948
5. City of Hagerstown
Proposals for large developments intended to be served by the City of
Hagerstown water and wastewater systems should be brought to the
attention of the City Planning Department. Developments proposed
within the municipal limits will receive guidance from the Planning
Department on the City of Hagerstown's development review process and
wastewater allocation process. Developments proposed for outside the
municipal limits will receive guidance on annexation procedures, if
applicable, as required in the City's Annexation Polity.
CONTACT: City Planning Department 301-739-8577, Ext. 138
City Water Division 301-739-8577. Ext. 680
City Wastewater Division 301-739-8577, Ext. 651
City Engineer 301-739-8577, Ext. 125
6. Town of Hancock
The Town Manager issues individual water and sewer connection permits
from the Town Office. Development proposals are submitted for review
I-10
to the Town Planning Commission which meets the first Wednesday of
each month at 7:00 p.m. on the Town Hall. The proposal must include the
proposed water and sewer layout and the number of people to be served.
Based upon this proposal, a tentative commitment is made by the Town to
serve the proposed development. Proposed developments located outside
the Town limits but within the Town's service area which desire water or
sewer service should contact the Town Manager to discuss annexation
procedures if applicable.
Water and sewer design is reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer
and the M.D.E. The Town Planning Commission recommends plat
approval to the Mayor and Council. With Mayor and Council approval,
the proposed development receives a firm commitment for water and
sewer service.
CONTACT: Town Manager 301-678-5622
7. Town of Keedysville
For developments proposed within the municipal limits, a tentative sketch
plan may be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
tentative sketch plan procedure is optional but strongly recommended as
an early and informal method of consulting with the Keedysville Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Preliminary and final plat submittals are made through the Keedysville
Planning and Zoning Commission which circulates plat copies to the
appropriate review and approval agencies including the Keedysville
Water Board for availability of water and other municipal services.
Upon receipt and consideration of the comments of the review and
approval process, the Planning and Zoning Commission considers the plat
at its regular monthly meeting.
Development located outside the town limits but within the Town's
service area which desire water service should contact the Town Clerk to
discuss annexation procedures if applicable
Contacts: Planning & Zoning Commission and Town Clerk
301-432-5795
8. Town of Smithsburg -
Land development proposals are first discussed in concept with the
Smithsburg Planning Commission. The Commission meets on the second
Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall. The Commission
then refers the applicant to the Smithsburg Mayor and Council for a
determination on the provision of water and sewer services. The
applicant may then submit a preliminary plat to the Smithsburg Planning
Commission for developments within the corporate limits, or to the
Washington County Planning Commission for developments outside the
corporate limits. Proposed developments located outside the Town limits
but within the Town's service area which desire water or sewer service
should contact the Town Manager to discuss annexation procedures if
applicable.
CONTACT: Town Manager 301-824-7234
9. Town of Williamsport
Development proposals should be discussed initially in concept with the
Williamsport Planning Commission. The Commission meets on an "as
needed" basis. At the time of the initial meeting a tentative agreement will
be made on the allocation of sewer capacity for the proposed
development. This allocation is subtracted from the total allocation
granted to the Town of Williamsport by the Washington County
Department of Water Quality.
The developer will then meet to advise the Town Mayor and Council of
the proposed development. If the development is located within the
Town limits, a development plat is submitted to the Williamsport
Planning Commission for approval. Current Town policy requires
annexation for any development located outside the corporate limits that
will connect to the Town of Williamsport sewage collection system or
water distribution system.
CONTACT: Town Manager 301-223-7711
I-12
CHAPTER II - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In order to establish parameters for the planning of water and sewerage facilities,
it is necessary to determine the physical, social, economic, and land use factors which,
in part, dictate the needs and priorities for such systems. The following discussion of
background information attempts to summarize the relevant factors which have been
previously developed and analyzed through the preparation of the County's
Comprehensive Plan, Solid Waste Plan, and prior Water and Sewerage Plan.
A. PHYSICAL FEATURES
An analysis of the physical features of Washington County provides a
framework whereby planning and future engineering decisions can be made in
part based upon environmental characteristics.
1. Topography
The Physiographic characteristics of Washington County are formed
largely from the western slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the wide
Hagerstown Valley which is in turn a portion of the expansive Great
Limestone Valley network of the east; and the eastern ridge of the
Appalachian Mountain system. Elevations within the County range from
a high of 2,145 feet at the crest of Quirack Mountain of the Blue Ridge to a
low of approximately 300 feet near the Potomac River.
Topographic features are rather steep at the Blue Ridge, gently rolling
within the broad and shallow valley to Fairview Mountain, and with
sharp ridges and intervening small valleys or ravines differentiating the
westward portion of the County. Slopes are steepest along both the
eastern and western boundaries of the County and within the area
between Licking Creek and the Little Conococheague Creek.
Approximately 35% of the County's land area has slopes in excess of 15%
while the Hagerstown Valley portion of the County comprising slightly
more than half of the land area is essentially level or very gently rolling.
2. Sensitive Areas
The Planning Act of 1992 required that the Comprehensive Plan include a
"Sensitive Area Element". The adopted Sensitive Area Element may be
found in Chapter 7 of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the County and
addresses five areas of concern. The state required sensitive areas are:
floodplains, steep slopes, habitat of threatened and endangered species,
and stream buffers. The County added sensitive area, labeled as "Special
Planning Areas", includes the Edgemont and Smithsburg Reservoir
Watersheds, Appalachian Trail Corridor, and the Upper Beaver Creek
Basin and Trout Hatchery. Map I — Sensitive Areas, shows the identified
Sensitive Areas in Washington County. A more detailed description of
Sensitive Areas may be found in Chapter 7 of the 2002 Comprehensive
Plan for the County.
3. Soil Characteristics
In 2001, The United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service in cooperation with the Board of County
Commissioners of Washington County, Washington County Soil
Conservation District and the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station
issued a new Soil Survey of Washington County. The soil survey contains
information that affects land use planning. It contains predictions of soil
behavior for selected land uses. The survey also highlights soil limitations,
improvements needed to overcome limitations, and the impact of selected
land uses on the environment including septic system suitability.
Map II — General Soils Map shows the County divided into 14 groups of
associated soils called general mapping units. This map is useful in
planning the use and management of large areas. The location of each
individual soil type is shown on the detailed soils maps that are part of
the Soil Survey. Each map unit on the general soil map is a unique natural
landscape and has a distinctive pattern of soils, relief and drainage. Each
soil type in the county is described and information provided on specific
uses for each soil in the Soil Survey. The Soil Survey of Washington
County is available on the World Wide Web. The address is:
http://soildatamart nres.usda.gov/Manuscripts/MD043/0/MD Washington
The soil maps are also available as a digital spatial database that can be
used in a Geographic Information System or GIS.
11-2
i
II -4
I5 Oil
a
For the purpose of planning water and sewerage facilities an analysis of
the soils is fundamental. With both water supply and quality discussed
later in this Chapter, attention is directed here to the suitability of the soils
to accommodate (properly) on -lot subsurface disposal systems.
The most common on -site sewage disposal method used in areas where
central sewage systems are unavailable is the septic tank system.
Successful operation of the system depends upon the ability of the soil to
absorb and filter the liquid or effluent once it passes through the tile field.
The presence of a soil characteristic which impairs proper absorption and
filtering of the effluent will cause health hazards as well as public
nuisance situations. Soil characteristics affecting the operation of the tile
disposal field include permeability rates, depth to bedrock, depth to
seasonal high water table, slope, stoniness, and flood hazard,
4. Suitability for on -lot sub -surface disposal systems
It is important to have a basic understanding of the sewage decomposition
processes that take place within a septic system in order to fully
appreciate the serious health hazards which can potentially exist. A septic
tank is a watertight receptacle which receives sewage and is designed and
constructed to provide for sludge storage, sludge decomposition, and to
separate solids from the liquid through a period of detention before
allowing the liquid to be discharged to a subsurface absorption area.
The sewage is broken down through an oxygen -less process called
anaerobic decomposition in which anaerobic bacteria digest suspended
solids, liquefying much of the material and reducing the rest to inert
masses of sludge and scum. This primary treatment state removes solids
so that the effluent or clarified liquid which is discharged from the tank
does not clog the distribution system.
Septic tanks do not remove pathogenic organisms (harmful bacteria and
viruses). The removal of pathogens from the effluent is affected only by
percolation through the soil after the effluent is distributed through the
tile field. Therefore..., "septic tank effluents cannot be considered safe.
The liquid that is discharged from a tank is, in some respects, more
11-5
objectionable than that which goes in, it is septic and malodorous."2 The
bacteria are removed from the effluent by filtration and because the soil
presents an unfavorable environment for their existence.
In an efficient system, pathogens and other waste products are completely
removed from the effluent before it recharges the groundwater table. In
an inefficient and unsafe system, the effluent may drain rapidly into
solution channels and fractures in the bedrock and may reach the
groundwater table before complete purification occurs. The untreated
sewage will then flow with the groundwater to pollute wells and streams
with disease causing bacteria. "Studies in the Nittany Valley,
Pennsylvania, a hydrogeologic environment similar to that of the study
area (the Hagerstown Valley) show, on the basis of dye tracings, (Jacobson
and Langmuir, 1970) that the groundwater moves roughly 4,000 feet in 2
to 6 days."3
In another type of malfunctioning system, more obvious to the
homeowner, the effluent flows through the drainage bed until it reaches
an impermeable layer such as clay or a fragipan (a compact, brittle layer of
soil) or bedrock in which case it is forced to the surface where it becomes
an immediate health hazard. A third type of pollution hazard can
develop when too many septic systems are constructed within a given
area.
Permits issued for the repair of failing systems constitute a large share of
the installation process of the Health Department. Approximately 20
percent of the permits issued for the septic system installation are for
repairs. These repairs generally require the complete replacement of all
parts of the system except the septic tank itself, including the replacement
of drain tiles and distribution box and the relocation of the drain field or
seepage pit to another area. These kinds of repairs become necessary
when drain tiles are clogged or drain fields are saturated resulting in the
back up of effluent to the house or the appearance of effluent on the
surface of the ground. Such problems may be caused by poor initial
2 Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Manual of Septic Tank Practice,
1969, P. 29.
3 Nutter, Larry J. Hydrogeology of the Carbonate Rocks, Frederick and Hagerstown Valleys Maryland,
Maryland Geological Survey Department of Natural Resources, 1973.
IM
installation, by inadequate maintenance by the homeowner, or by overuse
resulting in saturation of the absorption area.
In an effort to minimize the risks of septic system failure and groundwater
contamination, the Washington County Health Department has
established standards and instituted procedures for the planning and
installation of new on -lot and sub -surface disposal systems. Prior to the
approval of such systems for use on building lots, percolation tests are
conducted to evaluate the renovative capabilities of on -site soils. Trenches
are excavated to ensure that a minimum filterable soil cover exists
between drain tiles and bedrock or groundwater. A reserve area is set
aside to allow for the use of alternate drain fields in the event that the first
field becomes saturated. The location of septic systems and reserve areas
are limited to a minimum distance from on -lot and adjacent well water
supplies. Where a number of on -lot sub -surface systems are planned for a
given area, a geohydrologic study is conducted for the entire area of the
proposed development in an effort to evaluate the cumulative effect such
systems might have on sub -surface geology and groundwater.
The above standards and procedures have their limitations however,
percolation and trench tests are limited to relatively small areas and
conclusions drawn from these tests must be generalized to the larger areas
of the absorption fields where they may or may not be valid. Even the
percolation (absorption) test is seen by some authorities as an incomplete
testing procedure: "The principal weaknesses of the absorption test are
that it is made in a short time and with clear water. It should be
recognized that two processes take place during the test —infiltration, or
entrance of the liquid into the soil, and percolation through the soil. The
infiltration rate is largely dependent upon the characteristics of the liquid,
while speed or percolation depends upon the soil characteristics.
When clear liquid is applied continuously to a soil, there is first a drop in
the infiltration rate for one to several days. As air escapes from the soil,
the rate rises to a maximum after a time measured in days, and thereafter
it slowly decreases to a small percentage of the original rate. The slow
decrease is caused by the following phenomena, which are dependent
upon soil characteristics migration of fine particles with water movement
to accumulate and clog pore spaces; ion exchange, which affects the
cohesive force between particles and deflocculates materials, and the
continued swelling or colloidal materials. Even with water as the liquid,
lI-7
there will be microbial growths that will dog soil pores and interfere with
infiltration and percolation. Obviously, substitution of septic sewage for
water will increase the number of fine particles and will encourage
microbial growth. Ion exchange and colloidal swelling will depend upon
the chemical activity of the soil. So far, no soil test or examination method
has been devised that will indicate the suitability of a soil for absorption of
sewage over a long period... In the absence of a more effective procedure
than the absorption test, precautions should be applied that will prevent
disposal -field failures or at least postpone them for a long period.
Important is resting, which permits air penetration, the establishment of
aerobic conditions in clogged areas, and digestion of solid accumulations.
With food no longer available, the bacteria will also die. This
housecleaning requires days, not the hours that will be provided by the
usual sewerage -flow variations of a residence.....4
As part of the continuing effort to improve on -lot testing reliability and to
guard against groundwater contamination by on -lot systems, a County-
wide Geohydrologic Study was conducted by the consulting firm of R. W.
Wright and Associates. This study was jointly funded by the Washington
County Board of County Commissioners and by a grant from the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency administered through the Maryland
Water Resources Administration. By means of on -site testing and
evaluation within three prototype study areas of the County, three remote
sensing techniques which are pinnacle -type weathering, bedrock
outcrops, and backhoe test pit probing were found to be valid in
determining shallow bedrock within prospective septic disposal areas.
Pinnacle -type weathering occurs in highly erodible limestone where the
spires or pinnacles represent the rock that are more resistant to
weathering, and is significant because the limestone bedrock can be
considered to be an extension of the water table and not all pinnacles
extend above the surface. Bedrock outcrops occur where the overlying
soil cover has been removed through erosion or tectonic uplift therefore
exposing the underlying bedrock or outcrop. Backhoe test pit probing
utilizes a backhoe or similar equipment to excavate a pit to a depth of
seven to ten feet below the original grade of the surface exposing the soil
profile, season water tables, rock formations, open voids or any other
"Ehlers, Victor M., C.E., and Steel, Ernest W., C.E., Municipal and Rural Sanitarian, Sixth Edition, McGraw-
Hill Co., 1966, (p. 126)
11-8
limiting zone that may hinder the downward movement or renovation of
the sewage effluent. However, the consultant report concluded that the
use of these methods "will require the continuation of the conventional
site investigation (slit trench evaluation)."
A further product of the study was the development of a comprehensive
County On -site Sewerage Disposal and Individual Water Supply Policy,
Washington County, Maryland dated May 1998 in accord with minimum
State requirements which includes (a) subsurface sewage disposal
planning requirements, (b) site investigatory procedures, (c) system
design criteria, (d) comprehensive inspection program, (e) legal
enforcement procedures, (f) designated enforcement personnel and
training program, (g) monitoring of the functionality of subsurface
disposal system, and (h) procedures for modifying design criteria. The
Washington County Health Department administers the Policy with
guidance from the companion Technical Manual.
The Policy also encouraged the use of innovative and alternative sewage
disposal methods in light of the County's limestone geology. Pursuant to
Health -Environmental Article, Subtitle 9-14 and a Memorandum of
Understanding, Washington County participated in the Innovative and
Alternative On -Site Sewage Disposal Grant Program. Subsequent
evaluation of this program resulted in the acceptance of certain innovative
and alternative systems as being conventional when percolation rates are
within specified limits.
Even the use of the traditional septic system is seen by some authorities as
a viable wastewater treatment alternative to a wastewater treatment
facility. A report by the Comptroller General of the United States
concludes that, "if properly designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained, septic systems
- should not fail
- can be as permanent as central treatment facilities (meaning a
wastewater treatment facility).
- are often more ecologically sound than sewers and central
facilities, and
11-9
- can provide a high degree of sewage treatment as good or better
than the effluent produced by conventional central treatment processes"
(meaning a wastewater treatment facility)5
The report emphasizes, however, that the key to good septic system
performance is a system for public supervision and management of septic
systems and recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency
establish minimum standards for such public management. The report
does not address septage disposal. A management system and criteria
which are uniquely suited to the Washington County natural -physical
environment in the form of the On -Site Sewage Disposal Ordinance is an
important product of the geohydrologic study mentioned above.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has determined that Onsite Sewage
Disposal Systems contribute on average 12.2 pounds of nitrogen a year to
both local and downstream water quality including the Chesapeake Bay
and other surface water systems. In recognition of this impact to water
quality, the Maryland Tributary Strategies has established a goal for 100%
of all new OSDS systems beginning in 2010 have enhanced denitrification
technology which will reduce the amount of nitrogen being discharge
from these systems. The Tributary Strategy also has established a goal to
upgrade all existing OSDS system with this technology as well. The
Maryland Bay Restoration Fund has established Bay Restoration Fee
which contributes to a grant fund which is utilized to upgrade these
existing with denitrification technology. The grant funds are available to
both local agencies for upgrade programs and to individual homeowners
to upgrade their system. Information on this program can be obtained
from the Maryland Department of the Environment on their website at:
www.mde.state.md.us.
5. Surface Water Characteristics
Washington County lies totally within the Potomac River Basin and is
drained by the Conococheague Creek in the western portion of the Great
Valley and by the Antietam Creek in the eastern section as both Creeks
s The Comptroller General of the United States, Report to the Congress, Community -Managed Septic Systems:
A Viable Alternative to Sewage Treatment Plants, United States General Accounting Office, November 3, 1978,
(p.i.)
11-10
flow southward into the Potomac River. The majority of the County lies
within the Upper Potomac River Sub -basin. The remainder, a small
section in southeastern Washington County, lies within the limits of the
middle Potomac River Sub -basin. The tributaries of the Potomac River
drain approximately 342 square miles in Washington County. The pattern
and intensity of surface water drainage is dictated by the County's
location in the Valley and Ridge physiographic province which is
characterized by long, ridge -like, parallel mountains and intervening
valleys. In the western, more mountainous area of the County, the
streams have rather flashy runoff as a result of the steeply sloping terrain
and rough topography. Moving eastward into the valleys, the relief is
gentle and slightly rolling; hence, the streams are less flashy and
meandering.
6. Drainage Sheds
Washington County is divided into nine major watersheds, as indicated
on Map III- Watershed Boundaries, in addition to those areas draining
directly into the Potomac River. The Antietam Watershed, which drains
approximately 187 square miles or about 40% of Washington County, is
by far the largest drainage area. The following table indicates the
drainage area of each major watershed in the County.
WASHINGTON COUNTY WATERSHED AREAS6
WATERSHED
DRAINAGE AREA (Sq. Mi.)
Washington
County
Total
Antietam Creek
187
292
Conococheague
65
563
Israel Creek
14
14
Licking Creek
27
214
Little Conococheague Creek
16
18
Little Tonoloway
16
26
St. James — Marsh Run
20
20
Sideling Hill Creek
9
104
Tonoloway
2
114
6 Source: Washington County, Plan for the County
11 2
7. Water Quality
Water quality of Washington County's surface water is monitored and
studied by the Maryland Department of the Environment in accordance
with the Federal Clean Water Act. This act requires MDE to develop water
quality standards for all surface waters in the State of Maryland; monitor
the waters of the State in accordance with these standards and after
identification prepare a list of waters not meeting water quality standards.
A water quality standard is the combination of its designated use and the
water quality criteria designed to protect that use. The list prepared by
MDE is referred to as the 303d list referencing the section of the Clean
Water it is prepared in compliance with. The 303d list can be found on the
MDE website at:
httt ://www mde maryland gov/PROGRAMS/WATER/TMDL/INTEGRATED303DREPO
RTS/Pages/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland°/20303°/20dlist/index aspx
For up to date information on the water quality status of the surface water
bodies in Washington County this website should be referenced.
"Historically, the 303(d) list has been a report of a jurisdiction's (i.e., State,
territory or authorized tribe's) impaired surface waters. An impairment is
identified when water quality monitoring data suggest that a water body
(river, lake, estuary or ocean) does not meet or is not expected to meet
water quality standards. When a water body is listed, the cause (pollutant)
and the priority of the impairment are identified. Waters scheduled for
total maximum daily load (TMDL) development in the next two years are
also identified in the list."
"In accordance with recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Guidance, Maryland's current List of Impaired Surface Waters [303(d)
List] is contained in an Integrated Report that describes five different
categories of water quality, including: Category 1 - waters attaining all
standards; Category 2 - waters attaining some standards; Category 3 -
waters with insufficient information to determine if water quality
standards are attained; Category 4 — impaired or threatened waters that
do not need or have already completed a TMDL; Category 5 [the historical
303(d) List] - impaired waters for which a TMDL is required."
11-13
"All impairing substances or pollutants identified in Category 5 of
Maryland's Integrated 303(d) List must generally be addressed by either a
water quality analysis (WQA) or a TMDL. A WQA is completed when
new water quality monitoring data suggest that a water body is meeting
water quality standards (i.e., belongs on Category 2 of the Integrated List).
TMDLs are completed when a water body continues to violate water
quality standards. A TMDL establishes the amount of pollution, plus a
margin of safety, that a water body can assimilate and still attain water
quality standards. Local jurisdictions or responsible parties determine
specifically where pollutant loading reductions will be made. In some
cases, listings can be removed with an explanation, which may include
application of inappropriate water quality criteria, delineation of
impairment and/or additional data [under the Good Cause Provision
(40CFR130.7)]. These listing changes may not require a WQA or TMDL.
Maryland is also pursuing alternative approaches to TMDLs that result in
more rapid implementation measures to address water body
impairments."
Quotes in the section are from:
http://www.mde.mau 1�Qov/PROGRAIvtS/WATER/TMDL/INTEGRATED303DREPO
RTS/Pa es/Programs/WaterPrograms/rMDL/Maryland%20303%20dlist/index aspx
The following sections list the main surface water bodies and drainage
areas in Washington County and provide general information on each (see
Map IV). For updated water quality status of these surface water bodies
the MDE website should be referenced at:
http://www mde marvland gov/PP\OGRAMS/WATER/TMDL/INTEGRATED303DREPO
RTS[Pages/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland%20303%20d1Ist/index aspx
8. Potomac River Mainstem
The mainstem of the Potomac River is 112.3 miles in length. It follows a
sinuous course through most of its length. Upstream reaches flow
through primarily forested land, while the land draining the lower
reaches is principally agricultural. Several small towns are located along
the River's banks.
In the Hancock area, the wastewater treatment plant for the town is
discharged into Tonoloway Creek a short distance above its mouth. At
Williamsport, the Nicodemus Wastewater Treatment Plant formerly
II -14
discharged into the Potomac but on November 1, 2001 this flow was
permanently diverted to the Conococheague Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Sandy Hook Wastewater Treatment Plant owned by the County
serves the Sandy Hook area and discharges into Martins Run just above
its mouth. Martins Run is in the Israel Creek Drainage Area.
In addition to the Maryland discharges, the West Virginia towns of
Shepherdstown, Bolivar, and Harpers Ferry, as well as other small
discharges have domestic waste discharges to the main stem of the
Potomac River on the other side of the Potomac River.
9. Antietam Creek
The Antietam Creek segment lies east of the center of Hagerstown,
Maryland having drainage areas in Maryland of 187.0 square miles.
Another 104.9 square miles of the Antietam Creek drainage is contained in
Pennsylvania. The principal cities in the watershed are Waynesboro,
Pennsylvania and Hagerstown, Maryland. Little Antietam Creek, Beaver
Creek, and Marsh Run are all classified as Class III (natural) trout waters
while the remaining surface waters are classified as Class IV (recreational)
trout waters.
The waters of Antietam Creek and its tributaries are used by several
industries and municipalities for cooling purposes and sewerage disposal.
Hagerstown and Funkstown sewerage treatment plants are located south
of Hagerstown about 11/2 miles apart and discharge directly into the
stream's main stem. The Antietam Wastewater Treatment plant owned by
the County discharges into the main stem of the Antietam just south of
Sharpsburg. This facility serves the Sharpsburg and Keedysville areas.
10. Conococheague Creek
The Conococheague Creek segment lies to the west of Hagerstown,
Maryland. The drainage area consists of 65.8 square miles with a main
stream length of 22.0 miles. The great majority of the stream's drainage,
497.6 square miles, is contained in Pennsylvania. Most of the segment is
agricultural or forest, except for the eastern edge which drains the western
urban fringe area surrounding Hagerstown. Few small towns are found.
in the segment, the largest being the greater part of Williamsport.
Conococheague Creek upstream of the Maryland/Pennsylvania line
receives a large variety of domestic and industrial wastes. The Towns of
Chambersburg and Mercersburg, Pennsylvania discharge sewage
treatment plant wastes into the stream The Conococheague Wastewater
Treatment Plant owned by the County discharges into the Conococheague
Creek at a point near Kemps Mill. This facility serves the Williamsport,
Halfway, Tammany, Van Lear, Cloverton, Greenlawn, and large portions
of the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area west of Hagerstown.
11. Little Conococheague
Little Conococheague Creek is located just west of Conococheague Creek.
Its total drainage area of 18.0 square miles, 16.7 square miles are contained
in Maryland. A large tract of land in the upper segment, the Indian
Springs Wildlife Management Area, is forested. The watershed is
generally sparsely populated with some farm land in the lower section.
Clear Spring, the only Town in the watershed, is located on Tom's Run,
which is the largest tributary.
12. Licking Creek
Licking Creek is located west of Little Conococheague Creek. Its largest
drainage area is mostly in Pennsylvania (185.5 square miles), and only
27.6 square miles are included in the Maryland segment. Most of this area
is forest. Part of the Indian Springs Wildlife Management Area is located
in the western segment of the drainage area. One small town (Pectonville)
lies on. the stream's western bank approximately two miles above the
stream's mouth.
13. Tonoloway Creek
The Tonoloway Creek drainage segment is located just east and northeast
of Hancock, Maryland. This segment is quite small consisting of only 2.1
square miles. The remainder of the watershed is in Pennsylvania and is
111.5 square miles in size. Several orchards are found in the segment, but
no towns and very few dwellings.
11-16
14. Little Tonoloway
The State of Maryland recently constructed a package wastewater
treatment plant to serve the Sideling Hill Interpretive Center located off of
I-68 on Sideling Hill Mountain. Discharge from this plant is into Munson
Spring Branch, a tributary of the Little Tonoloway.
15. Sideling Hill Creek
The Sideling Hill Creek segment includes 23.1 square miles. The total
drainage area includes an additional 80.5 square miles in Pennsylvania.
Sideling Hill Creek and all tributaries are classified as Class IV waters (to
be protected for use as recreational trout waters).
16. Dargan Area Drainage
The Dargan Area Drainage is located just above the Town of Harpers
Ferry between Antietam Creek and Israel Creek. It consists of 11.1 square
miles of drainage, and includes several small unnamed tributaries which
enter the Potomac River directly.
17. Downsville Area Drainage
The Downsville area segment lies to the west of Antietam Creek between
Williamsport and Shepherdstown, and contains many streams directly
tributary to the Potomac River. The area is 52.4 square miles in size. The
largest stream in the segment is St. James -Marsh Run whose headwaters
originate at St. James, a suburb of Hagerstown.
18. Pinesburg Station Area Drainage
Pinesburg Station Area Drainage is a small segment (6.3 square miles)
being at the southwest of the Conococheague Creek. It consists of a few
small unnamed tributaries.
19. Greenspring Area Drainage
This segment which drains 20.5 square miles is located between the
Conococheague Creek and Licking Creek watersheds. Fort Frederick
1I-17
State Park adjoining Big Pool, a large lake, on the C & O Canal, is found
near the Potomac River. -
20. Timber Ridge Drainage Area
The Timber Ridge segment (11.0 square miles) lies to the west of Licking
Creek. Ditch Run and several small tributaries drain this area.
21. Tonoloway Ridge Drainage Area
Tonoloway Ridge Area Drainage (20.8 square miles) is located west of
Tonoloway Creek and east of Sideling Hill Creek. Little Tonoloway Creek
contained almost entirely within Maryland is the largest stream in the
segment. Package wastewater treatment plant serves a campground along
the Potomac River on the east side of Tonoloway Ridge. Discharge is into
an unnamed tributary. The Town of Hancock, Maryland is found within
the Little Tonoloway drainage area, although the Town's wastewater
treatment plant discharges into Tonoloway Creek, another watershed.
CLASSIFICATION OF THE WATERS OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY
UNIT CODE
NAME
DESCRIPTION
Class II Waters Shellfish Harvesting
(NONE) -
None
None
Class III Waters -Natural Trout Waters
Beaver Creek
Mainstem only, in Antietam
Creek Watershed
Marsh Run
Mainstem only, in Antietam
Creek Watershed
Class IV Waters -Recreational Trout
Sideling Hill Creek and all Tributaries
Entire Sideling Hill Creek
Waters -
Watershed
Tonoloway Creek and all Tributaries
Entire Tonoloway Watershed
Licking Creek and all Tributaries
Entire Licking Creek
Watershed
Conococheague Creek and all
Entire Conococheague Creek
Tributaries
Watershed
m
AntietaCreek and Tributaries,
Entire Antietam Creek
Except Classified Above as Natural
Watershed Except Those
Trout Waters
Designated Natural Trout
Waters
Source: Water Resources Administration
1I-18
II -19
22. Groundwater Characteristics and Aquifers
Washington County is divided generally into four water provinces based
upon physiographic formations as illustrated on Map No. V - Generalized
Hydrologic Unit Map. The division includes the South Mountain -Elk
Ridge province averaging three miles in width along the eastern boundary
of the County; the Hagerstown Valley province extending approximately
18 miles in width to the base of Fairview and Powell Mountains; the
Hancock -Indian Springs province reaching westward from the Fairview
and Powell Mountains nearly 19 miles to the base of Sideling Hill
Mountain; and the Sideling Hill -Town Creek province extending to the
County line.
a. Within the South Mountain -Elk Ridge water province, only small
differences exist in the water -bearing capacities of the geologic
formations. According to compiled data, the mean yield from wells
is less than 10 gpm with a range from 1 to 60 gpm. The best yields
appear to be located in the Catoctin metabasalt formation in the
Cascade-Highfield-Fort Ritchie area. Springs in this water
province, although numerous, are generally small with discharges
ranging from less than 10 to 100 gpm. The chemical quality of
groundwater is considered suitable for most uses with spring water
lower in mineral content, but slightly more acidic than well water.
b. The Hagerstown Valley water province covering an area of
approximately 300 square miles is considered hydrogeoloically
complex because of the broken and folded characteristics of the
limestone and similar carbonate rocks such as dolomite. "In
consolidated carbonate rocks, most of the water is stored in joints,
bedding planes, irregular fractures, and solution openings and at
many places in the intergranular pores of the residuum (soil
derived from weathered rock).. .The number, size and degree of
interconnection of the joints, solution cavities and other secondary
openings of the carbonate rocks determine their capacity to
transmit water."7
' Nutter, Larry J., Ibid, p.13
II -20
The major direction of groundwater movement in the Hagerstown
Valley province is southward to the Potomac River. Although local
variations may exist in rock permeability, the water table contours
within the Hagerstown Valley closely parallel the topographic
patterns.
Groundwater recharge in this province occurs primarily by
precipitation filtering through the soil and subsoil. "Streams that
flow off South Mountain to the east... and Powell and, Fairview
Mountains to the west are major sources of recharge."e Surface
depressions and sags acts as efficient basins to collect rain water
and a sinkhole at Jugtown, Washington County is known to have
"captured" a perennial stream with a flow of 220 gallons per
minute.9
The quantity of groundwater available in the limestone and
dolomite aquifers of the Hagerstown Valley is quite large. As
Nutter has noted, "Carbonate rocks... are often excellent sources of
water because the interstices (fractures and solution cavities) are
large and hence yield freely nearly all the water being held against
gravity."10 Wells drilled in the Hagerstown Valley yield from 2 to
400 gpm with the Tomstown dolomite, Conococheague limestone,
and Stonehenge limestone evidencing respectively the highest
yields. Springs also occur throughout the Hagerstown Valley
water province and have a discharge range from 25-100 gpm to
2000-3000 gpm.
c. The third major water province in Washington County, the
Hancock -Indian Springs province, extends westward from the
Fairview -Powell Mountains to the eastern base of Sideling Hill.
With shale as the dominant rock type in this province, groundwater
recharge is low. Shale soils evidence a low to moderate moisture
holding capacity and a relatively high direct surface runoff results.
Hydrogeologic conditions, therefore, are unfavorable for large
capacity wells of any sustained yield. Springs occur in all of the
s Ibid, p.13
9 Ibid, p.13
t° lbid, p.32
formations in the Hancock -Indian Springs water province, and are
for the most part, gravity fed. Although sufficient amounts of
water may be available for modest` domestic and farm use, test
results indicate rather poor aquifers are present. The quality of
water in this province is generally satisfactory. However, both a
high iron content and a hardness factor prevail. One of the least
desirable water supply areas is along the Tonoloway Ridge west of
Hancock where hardness and nitrate content were significantly
high.
d. The Sideling Hill -Town Creek water province occupies the small
portion of Washington County between Sideling Hill and Sideling
Hill Creek. The best well in the province yields only 36 gpm which
indicates the absence of any significant groundwater supplies.
Also in the province hardness and iron content may necessitate
treatment of water supplies. Additionally, high sulfur and nitrate
contents have been found in certain wells in the Jennings
formation.
Map V generally illustrates the aquifer characteristics in
Washington County in terms of the following three Hydrologic
Units.
Hydrologic Unit I - Contains the most productive aquifers.
Average yields and specific capacities fall in the upper 25%.
Well yields range from 1 to 580 gpm. Thee is approximately
a 20% chance of getting a well yielding 50 gpm or more.
Hydrologic Unit II — Aquifers are of intermediate
productivity. There is approximately a 6% chance of getting
a well yield of 50 gpm or more.
Hydrologic Unit III — Contains the poorest aquifers within
the County. Well yields range from 1 to 200 gpm with only
a 2% chance of getting 50 gpm or more.
Note: The above referenced yields are tested yields, not
necessarily sustained yields which are generally
substantially lower.
11-22
23. Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality has been monitored in Washington County for
many years pursuant to requirements of various projects and regulatory
programs. Although ample groundwater quantity is apparent,
groundwater quality continues to be a problem due to the predominant
karst topography.
To understand the water quality in Washington County, one needs to
understand the geology and hydrology of this area. The majority of this
area is located over unconfined carbonate aquifers. According to Duigon
(2001), about 89% of the Hagerstown Valley is underlain by carbonate
rock. The hydrology of carbonate rock is unique because the dissolution of
bedrock has resulted in karst terrain. In karst terrain, water creates
solution channels in the rock through the solution process. This process
results in unusual surface and subsurface features. For example,
sinkholes, rock outcrops, sinking streams, caverns, and many fissures
often occur in the underlying rock. It has been well documented by the
United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Maryland Geological Survey
(MGS) and MDE that sinkholes and sinking streams are direct pathways
to the groundwater and springs (Duigon 2001).
Nearly half of the sources of water supply wells in Washington County
are in subsurface karst areas. The density of perennial streams can be
significantly less than in non-karst areas. Blocks of sparsely fractured rock
may occupy some of the areas between ground -water -carrying conduits.
Due to the large amount of subsurface karst, a vast majority of wells are
susceptible to surface water runoff and various land uses.
While karst aquifers may be subject to numerous types of contaminants,
one method of determining the pollution level of groundwater is to count
the coliform organisms. Total coliform bacteria are readily available in the
environment and are harmless, but their presence indicates the
groundwater may be contaminated by pathogenic organisms. Fecal
coliform bacteria, of which one type is E. coli, are found in the excreta of
warm blooded animals, and some strains cause disease. Simple and
inexpensive laboratory analyses are available for presence -absence testing
of fecal coliform bacteria. It is more difficult and expensive to test for other
pathogenic micro-organisms. However, these tests may be routinely used
depending on the need.
II -23
C x
.. a
� `j ✓`•` •'•�+�1+ r• .� ] A � 5 5 ICJ
L it
ma c
N
Vr;
0
35y3 § a SEE nn
gg 4yE@ �f
E ��r$ ��&b'� �Ss5�s��g�e�
,{„� g11 ELF �' FIM ul
Jam. o-+ Fi �i .� ��$�7 �@: $R°�°r°¢° �°,w@;.ece
l 3p
a % a y.s � K O'A
L u till
y tl O O
jjrIo O aG tFt�.G� l � �
o ua
U W C s
jtn
v
.byeeo€U.
pLy ° R
♦ .., ..: t- V V ci s v aK� C ro ? C C O C C c k o c
♦ lit
cd°S AAA J°&
Iii
II -24
All public water systems are required to perform routine monitoring,
including for acute contaminants such as fecal coliform. Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) has regulatory oversight of the
community and non -transient non -community (schools, businesses, etc.)
public water systems. MDE also supports the County Health Department
in an oversight capacity of the transient non -community water systems. In
addition, all new and existing wells serving public water systems must be
evaluated to determine whether the groundwater is under the direct
influence of surface water (GWUDI), which includes sampling for fecal
coliform in both dry and wet weather. All public wells confirmed to be
GWUDI must install treatment similar to that used by surface water
systems in order to protect public health.
Wet weather and dry weather testing allows both MDE and the County
Health Department to isolate wells which are found to be GWUDI. The
GWUDI sampling protocol calls for wells to be sampled for four
consecutive days following a rain event greater than a half an inch. Water
samples are examined for bacteriological counts and turbidity levels.
Additionally, wells are sampled when there has been no occurrence of
rain, hence dry weather samples. The bacteriological and turbidity results
are examined and a well is then considered to be under the direct
influence of surface water. These wells are highly susceptible to what
occurs on the surface of the ground regardless if it is weather related, land
use related or a combination thereof. As a result, the GWUDI public
water supplies are sampled more frequently for biological contaminants.
They are also monitored for turbidity as a parameter for the pathogenic
micro-organisms Giardia and Cnjptosporidium, which present a significant
health risk and are resistant to common disinfection technologies.
Sampling for iron or color can discount color -related turbidity. Systems
with GWUDI wells must have treatment in the form of chlorination, an
ultraviolet light, and one micrometer filtration. Additionally, they are
required to have a certified operator to maintain and monitor their
system. In addition to bacteria and turbidity, pH and temperature are
also measured for GWUDI sampling, in order to evaluate changes in
water quality that might indicate that ground water is influenced by
surface water.
The GWUDI systems and the Surface water systems are also subject to
more stringent regulations such as the Long -Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT2 Rule). The LT2 Rule targets drinking water
11-25
systems that rely on surface water as their water source. This rule
specifically is aimed at protecting drinking water from the threat of
protozoan pathogens such as Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia.
Under the LT2 Rule, many filtered systems will need to collect E. coil
samples at least once every 2 weeks for 12 months from every surface
water or GWUDI source. Additional information on the LT2 Rule may be
found at:
www.epa.ov/safewater/disinfection/lt2/regulations.htinl#prepub
Groundwater in karst areas often intercept enlarged openings, which are
directly connected to sinkholes, rock outcrops, and/or sinking streams.
These direct pathways do not provide a treatment zone to remove
pathogens present in the surface water before the water reaches a well.
Therefore, anything on the surface, such as fertilizers, pesticides, surface
water, or any other contaminants can wash into these features, which are
direct channels to the groundwater. When this occurs, potentially harmful
pathogens that could cause human illness, such as infectious Hepatitis,
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, Legionella, etc. The water carrying the
contaminants which may come from pesticides, application of fertilizers
or animal wastes and failing or improperly treated septic effluent can
carry pathogens which can travel long distances very quickly, possibly
intersecting many wells. Across the Hagerstown Valley, you can visibly
see in several areas the many sink holes, rock outcroppings, and sinking
streams.
The ground water in karst areas often flows at very high volumes and
velocities as well. One dye test study conducted by MDE in July of 1997
was noted in Duigon (2001). Results provided ground water velocities
based on time the dye was injected into a sinkhole until it was detected at
a spring more than two miles to the northeast. The dye test indicated that
the water traveled at a rate of approximately fifty feet per hour.
As stated above, nearly 89% of the Hagerstown Valley area is
predominately underlain by carbonate rock or karst terrain. The
remaining areas within the Hagerstown Valley are underlain by
predominately non -carbonate rocks such as sandstone and shale. This area
of non -carbonate rock runs mainly along the Conococheague Creek.
Outside of the Hagerstown Valley, in the Ridge Areas, the underlying
rock tends to be non -carbonate rocks such as shale, siltstone, and
sandstone formations.
11-26
Taken from Source Water Assessment Report, Washington County
Maryland April 2006
24. Well Construction
Deeper wells along with improved construction practices generally have a
lower incidence of bacteriological contamination in the non -carbonate
rock areas. Casing should be set in bedrock, indicating that where the
casing is set is a function of the depth to bedrock. However, in fractured
rock aquifers, the potential for contamination depends primarily on the
degree of hydraulic connection between the weathered zone and bedrock
portion of an aquifer and the well bore itself. The vulnerability of aquifers
to contamination from the surface, however, continues to be a risk even
for properly constructed wells.
The closer a well is to the on -site or neighboring septic system, the more
likely it is to be contaminated. Conversely, the greater the isolation
distance between well and septic system, the less likely the well is to be
contaminated.
In the non -carbonate rock areas improved well construction practices as
well as improved septic system planning, design, and enforcement
procedures that have been put into practice in recent years help in
lowering the incidence of bacteriological contamination. However, in
areas of karst terrain, while properly constructed wells can help in
preventing contamination from entering the water supply, another factor
that must be considered is the vulnerability of the source to surface water
contamination.
The greater the depth to the static water level, the less likely a well is to be
contaminated. Conversely, the shallower the static water level, the more
likely the well is to be contaminated.
Well casings extended well below the static water level will provide an
added degree of sanitary protection to the subject well.
25. Groundwater Quality Planning, Design and Management
11-27
Certain aquifer units in the County appear to be more sensitive to
groundwater contamination. Specifically, the Beekmantown (48%) and
Metamorphic Aquifer (36%) are much more likely to have wells which are
contaminated. This conclusion is relative to the average rate of
contamination across the three prototype areas (24%). For this reason,
special planning and other protective measures may be especially
warranted for these aquifer units.
Wells (and septic systems) are no more likely to be contaminated when
placed upon hydrogeologic and soils with limitations than are those
which are placed upon more ideal sites. This does not, however, refute
the fact that sites characterized by bedrock outcroppings or shallow and
rocky soils generally provide incomplete renovation of infiltrating sewage
effluent.
Improvements in planning and design standards for the following criteria
will result in improved groundwater quality."
a. Well depth.
b. Length of well casing.
c. Isolation distances.
d. Soils and hydrogeologic conditions.
e. Depth to static water level.
f. Wells drilled in the Beekmantown and Metamorphic Aquifer
Units.
Any groundwater quality management plan which succeeds in
significantly improving groundwater quality must be multi -faceted,
designed to address and regulate point and non -point sources of surficial
bacteriological contamination and to require appropriate well siting and
construction standards.
In 1990 and 1991, Washington County Health Department's Division of
Environmental Health conducted a survey in an attempt to assess the
quality of groundwater, specifically, any change which could be noted
" Editorial Note: Any changes to design standards for wells could only be made by, and with the cooperation
of, the Maryland Department of the Environment.
11-28
from the parameters presented in the 1981 study. In an attempt to do this,
a random sampling was conducted of 50 percent of the sites originally
used by R. E. Wright and Associates.
The results of the resurvey of the 1981 R.E. Wright and Associates, Inc.
report indicate that while there has been a seemingly minor decrease in
groundwater quality, especially in the shale aquifer unit, on the whole the
overall water quality in the County (within the parameters tested) has
remained relatively constant. Rates of contamination for these two studies
are also consistent with results of other sampling which has been done by
the Washington County Health Department. The hope for an increase in
groundwater quality due to a more stringent on -site water and sewer
regulation has not been seen; however, it should be noted that in the ten-
year period 1981 through 1991, 3,834 permits for the installation of new
septic systems were issued by the Washington County Health
Department. This growth has occurred during a period of increased
stringency for construction and sitting of on -site systems and it may well
be that the regulations imposed by the Washington County
Commissioners in 1983 has had the effect of stemming ground water
contamination at earlier levels.
Currently, studies continue on the ground water quality within the
County with the County Health Department modifying study methods
and attempting to assess the effect of external variables, e.g. seasonal,
agricultural activity, on water quality. Additionally, there are other
studies that have been conducted by the Maryland Geological Survey, one
of which focuses on sinkholes in Washington County. However, these
studies have not yet been put into publication at the time of this writing.
Much of the results are based on individual results such as new well
sampling results and transient non -community water supply sampling,
are not compiled, and can vary significantly from one property to another,
as it can from one day to another. Sampling is on -going based on the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as is the data gathered by MDE for non -transient
non -community water supplies and community water.
One study conducted by MDE investigated the source of bacterial
contamination of community drinking water systems near Boonsboro
using fluorescein or rhodamine dyes. Dye was inoculated into multiple
points, mainly sinkholes, around the Boonsboro area. The results of the
study indicated that several of the public water systems were influenced
11-29
by surface water and by septic systems. One system seemed unaffected by
either, and conclusions were unable to be drawn on other systems due to
an already high background of fluorescence. This study led to a State -
funded project in which Boonsboro's water distribution line will be
extended to public water systems and individual wells in an area of poor
water quality.
All of the historic and recent water quality data seems to yield the same
conclusions. A successful groundwater quality management plan will
need to be designed to regulate point and non -point sources of surface
bacteriological and chemical contaminants. Of course one of the foremost
facets of the plan will focus on appropriate well siting and construction
standards.
26. Source Water Assessments
The Maryland Department of the Environment began a program to assess
the vulnerability to contamination of all public drinking water sources in
1999. The program used three main tools for assessing drinking water
sources: source water delineation, contaminant surveys, and susceptibility
analysis to collect data on each water sources. The information gained
through these tools was then used to evaluate the susceptibility of a water
supply source to contaminants that may affect the safety of the drinking
water and prepare a final Source Water Assessment report for each public
drinking water source in Washington County. This information allows
water suppliers and MDE to work in partnership with other agencies to
develop source water protections programs. Copies of the Source Water
Assessments are on file at the Washington County Planning Department
and are available for public review upon request.
27. Water Quality Plans
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 made improved water
quality a national priority and authorized funding for the planning,
design and construction of sewerage facilities. The planning and
construction grants programs established by this Act have provided the
means by which the County and municipalities can meet many of the local
objectives for the development of wastewater facilities. Under Section
303(e) of the Water Pollution Control Act, the Water Resources
Administration of the State of Maryland prepared the Upper Potomac
11-30
River Basin Water Quality Management Plan in 1976. The Plan evaluates
existing water quality, sources of pollution, and recommends
management approaches for the Basin, which includes all of Washington
County. The scope of the Plan is much broader than the need for
sewerage facilities.
While the Basin Plan prepared under Section 303(e) deals primarily with
pollution which can be traced to point discharges to surface waters, the
Basin Plan prepared pursuant to Section 208 deals with non -point sources.
The 208 Plan, completed in 1979, identifies non -point sources of water
pollution and current management activities in the areas of storm water
runoff, sediment control, surface mining, residuals management, failing
septic systems, forestry operations, agriculture, and snow and ice controls.
Section 201 of the Water Pollution Control Act established a construction
grants program for public sewerage facilities. Until 1989, funds were
allocated by EPA to local areas on the basis of state-wide priorities in a
three step process. In step 1, Facilities Planning, the specific sewerage
requirements of a planning area designed by the State are investigated,
alternatives evaluated, and a particular solution recommended. The
Antietam Basin Facilities Plan for Hagerstown metropolitan area,
including the incorporated towns of Funkstown, Williamsport and
Smithsburg, was prepared with a Step 1 grant. The 201 Plan for
Boonsboro-Keedysville-Sharpsburg was originally prepared in 1981 and
updated in 1985. Steps 2 and 3 of the construction grant program funded
the preparation of detailed engineering plans and specifications and the
construction of facilities respectively. There was a tendency to consolidate
steps 2 and 3 into 'step 4.' EPA grants also funded facilities planning for
Clear Spring, Highfield-Cascade-PenMar, Hancock, and Sandy Hook.
28. TMDL
TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Load) are completed when a water body
continues to violate water quality standards. A TMDL establishes the
amount of pollution, plus a margin of safety, that a water body can
assimilate and still attain water quality standards. MDE prepares the
TMDL in accordance with the 303d list. For a complete and update to
date listing of completed TMDLs for water bodies in Washington County
and the current schedule for development of future TMDLs reference
should be made to the MDE website at:
11-31
httl2://www.mde.ma lry and.rov/PROGRAMS/WATERn-NML/INTEGRATED303DREPO
RTS/Pages/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/Maryland°/ 20303°/ 20dlist/index aspx
B. POPULATION ANALYSIS & PROJECTIONS
According to the US Census Bureau the population of Washington County in
2000 was 131,393 persons. Maryland Department of Planning estimated the
population of Washington County in 2008 at 145,384.
Chapter 3 of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington County provides
a detailed description of Washington County's demographics including
population and housing units.
Between 1940 and 1990 the population of Washington County grew by 52,555
people. This is an annual rate of approximately 0.76% per year. By the year 2000
the population grew by an additional 10,530 persons to 131,923 persons. This
represents an annual growth rate of approximately 0.86% per year for the 1990s.
The County estimates the population to increase to 149,835 by the year 2020 and
176,868 by 2050. These numbers are based on trends in new housing unit
permits issued throughout the County as well as extrapolation of group quarter
projections from the State. For projection purposes the County has used an
annual permit issuance rate of 600 per year. It also anticipates a decrease in the
average household size in accordance with State projections. (See Table No. 1)
The average annual growth rate between 1940 and 1990 and projected through
2020 shows a peak during the 1950s, and another smaller peak during the 1990s.
From 2000 to 2020 the average annual growth rate is projected to average less
than 0.7%. (See Table No. 2)
It is obvious that the projected growth rate for the County will not be distributed
evenly over the entire County. Some areas may experience higher growth rates
and other areas lower. Chapter 12 of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for
Washington County provides a detailed plan of how the community should
develop in the future and where it is anticipated that this growth will be
distributed.
The Land Use Plan illustrates how development consistent with the goals and
objectives for the County can be achieved. To be effective, a land use plan
should be based on the assumption that there will be growth and therefore
planning for it should be on an integrated, comprehensive manner.
11-32
In addition, the Land Use Plan must fit the community's needs by preserving its
unique character, protecting the environment and enhancing economic
opportunities. Recognition of the key role that public facilities play in
determining the pattern of development is a significant factor in the
development of the plan. Projections of population and housing growth, as well
as allocation of space for economic development, are all factors that played a
significant role in development of the Land Use Plan.
Housing unit projections were based on the analysis done previously for the
fiscal impact study by Tischler & Associates and the study for designation of
Priority Funding Areas. Land consumption calculations use methodology
employed in the Priority Funding Area study, as well as procedures and
assumptions developed to account for new land use scenarios. Taken together,
they were used to analyze the impact of potential residential growth.
Four primary housing unit projection scenarios were analyzed for potential
impact on available land area: current trends, State planning projection, County
composite (between current trends and State Planning), and "Wave" which
depicts substantial development above current trends. In addition, a fifth
scenario, "Super Wave", was reviewed to insure that adequate area for
residential development existed if massive amounts of new residents poured
over South Mountain. The County Composite scenario along with the Wave
scenario are the two cases that are basically used to analyze residential growth
impact. The Composite scenario is the primary scenario used for planning
purposes. The Composite scenario anticipates 9,925 residential units being
added to the housing stock in the County over the next 20 years while the Wave
scenario anticipates 14,888 housing units. Portions of these units have been
allocated to the urban and rural areas, including the municipalities, based on
historic development trends. With the institution of the policy areas it is
anticipated that the 80/20 urban versus rural development ratio should gradual
move toward a target ratio of 90/10 toward the end of the twenty-year horizon
period as existing lots in the rural area are used up and fewer new lots are plated
in the rural area. The Land Use Plan is designed to have enough capacity
available to address the needs of both the County composite projection and
Wave scenarios without major revisions to the policy areas.
11-33
6
ft
N
CC
I O
N
O
y�
C'
o
o
o
r
P
i
a
4
O
}
0'
0
fl
Q
R
�
rn
pp
di ! 1 O �y C• I 6 O
F- up!aqudo,�
00
,
00b
I
n
GG
W
1•
O
�
1 P
I
'n
fl(
w
i
CS
ioo
ll-34
O
O
N
B
d
�
h
V
a
'Jh
a
in
d
ooh
0
P
6
O.
N
OOOOOOOO ci o
ytiaa.aaJ ai afiuoa3tq uo2�ujndoj AJuaA
II
t
S
`+s
11-35
C. LAND USE & GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
A generalized land use analysis of Washington County indicates that the highest
orders of development are located in the Hagerstown Valley. In particular, the
City of Hagerstown and the surrounding adjacent communities evidence the
most intense residential, commercial, and industrial land use activities. With the
Hagerstown Metropolitan Area as the virtual hub of the County, small
incorporated towns and communities are situated along almost every primary
corridor emanating from the City. Considerable strip development has taken
place along those roadways between the Hagerstown Metropolitan Area and the
established communities.
Outside the Hagerstown Valley, land use patterns are manifested largely by
open space/agricultural uses and sporadic residential clusters.
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan for Washington County provides a detailed
analysis of current land use in Washington County. The 2002 Comprehensive
Plan also includes a Land Use Plan (Map VI - Land Use Plan). This Land Use
Plan as well as identifying growth and non -growth areas, recommends specific
land use policy for specific areas. In addition, it identifies through the use of
overlays, specific areas of the County that may need additional development
coordination or regulation because of environmental, cultural or economic
development sensitivity.
Thirteen (13) different land use policy classifications are blended together with
three (3) policy overlay classifications and six (6) special program areas to create
the Land Use Plan. Future land use decision locations should be based on how
well a land use fits into a policy area. Rezoning applications, comprehensive
rezoning proposals, Water and Sewerage Plan revisions as well as other land use
planning actions should take these policies into consideration.
The "Smart Growth Act of 1997" required the County to establish "Priority
Funding Areas" or "PFA's". They are areas where State funding would be
targeted to support State growth management policies. The criterion for
designation of PFA's is included in the "Smart Growth Act" with the counties
completing the designations. In many instances state policy and program
guidelines restrict funding to designated PFA's. In accordance with the "Smart
Growth Act", Washington County has adopted a PFA map designating County
Certified PFA's. Map VII - Priority Funding Areas. It is anticipated that in the
11-36
future, changes will be needed to the PFA map to better reflect development
patterns associated with the Land Use Plan and the Water and Sewerage Plan.
The Washington County 2002 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan re-establishes
the "Urban Growth Area" boundary around the City of Hagerstown and the
Towns of Williamsport and Funkstown. "Town Growth Area" boundaries are
also re-established around Boonsboro, Hancock and Smithsburg. A new Town
Growth Area has been designed for the Town of Clear Spring and mirrors the
area established by the comprehensive rezoning of the highway interchange
area.
The areas not inside a growth boundary constitute the non -growth or "rural"
areas. Development policy associated with the rural areas is primarily focused on
maintaining the rural -agricultural and historical heritage of the area. Within the
"rural area" are "rural villages" The formal designation of "Rural Villages" is an
outgrowth of Maryland's Smart Growth Act of 1997. By law, a designated Rural
Village is considered a "Priority Funding Area" (PFA). Many such villages have
existed in Washington County since colonial times while newer urban
settlements at junctions in roads or along creeks and railroads have evolved in
the recent past. Rural Villages are defined by something other than incorporation
or governing structure. They are definable on the landscape and contribute to
the unique character of Washington County. They usually include a small core of
a residential neighborhood associated with a retail establishment or an
institution such as a post office, elementary school, church or fire station. Most
are located in the rural areas some distance from other towns or facilities. A few
are close enough to an urban center to be associated with the Urban Growth Area
or a Town Growth Area. Many have vacant lots that are suitable for infill
development. The location of these Rural Villages is identified on the Priority
Funding area Map VII.
Major public investment by the County in public facilities and services to
encourage substantial new development should not be made in Rural Villages.
Priority should be given to correcting existing public health and safety problems
that result from failing septic systems or contaminated wells. In 2005 the
Washington County Commissioners adopted new Zoning designations for all of
the unincorporated rural areas of the county. These new zoning designations
were based on the policy area recommendations of the Land Use Plan and
significantly lowered the development density in these areas with new zoning
districts ranging in maximum residential development density from one
dwelling unit per acre up to one dwelling unit per thirty acres.
11-37
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan for Washington County provides the following
information including charts and graphs regarding land use that may be
considered relative to Water and Sewerage Planning.
• Land use categories and the acreage in each category.
• Listing of current zoning classifications in the County and the acreage
in each zoning district.
• Map showing community facilities and services within the County.
• Planned distribution of new housing units 2000-2020 within specific
policy areas based on growth scenarios.
• Vacant land analysis within specific policy areas.
• Acreage and planned consumption of land within specific policy areas
based on growth scenarios.
II -38
II -39
II -40
CHAPTER III - EXISTING AND PLANNED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
A. WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER QUALITY
The Washington County Department of Water Quality operates and maintains
several water distribution systems and water treatment plants within
Washington County. These systems serve the communities of Service Area No. 4
— Sharpsburg,, Service Area No. 7 — Mt. Aetna, Service Area No. 9 —
Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar, Service Area No. 17 - Elk Ridge and Service Area
No. 19-1 — Sandy Hook.
The Department of Water Quality originally constructed the water distribution
system, which serves the former Service Areas known as No. 15-1 — Martins
Crossroads/Cearfoss, and No. 18-1 — Conococheague, and the City of
Hagerstown provided operations, maintenance and billing including the
collection of debt fees which were forwarded to the County. Effective February
28, 2002, ownership of these water distribution systems was transferred to the
City of Hagerstown along with debt repayment responsibilities.
The following information will provide data on each of the existing water service
areas owned and operated by the Department of Water Quality.
1. EXISTING WATER SERVICE AREAS:
a. Sharpsburg Area — Service Area No. 4:
The Town of Sharpsburg is situated 12 miles south of Hagerstown.
The Department of Water Quality owns, operates and maintains
the water filtration plant and water distribution system, which
extends through the corporate boundaries of the Town of
Sharpsburg and to adjacent subdivisions. The water distribution
system also serves the Antietam Battlefield Visitors Center and
extends west of Maryland Route 34 to the end of the developed
area.
The water filtration plant is situated along the Potomac River,
which is the raw water source. The District processes and
chemically treats the raw water and adds fluoride prior to
distribution. The water system also includes a 200,000 gallon
elevated storage tank. The capacity of the filtration plant is 230,000
gpd. This water system presently serves approximately 643
residential and 61 commercial Equivalent Dwelling Units. This is
considered a Rural Village Service area.
The Department of Water Quality has upgraded the Sharpsburg
Water Treatment Plant with two new filtration package water
treatment plants and has provided additional storage at the
treatment plant facility.
b. Mt. Aetna Area — Service Area No. 7:
At the request of the Mt. Aetna Water Association, Inc. the
Department of Water Quality in 1994 took over ownership of the
Mt. Aetna Water System. Various improvements to the water
system have been completed to bring the water supply and
distribution system into compliance with State regulations. The
Department of Water Quality has constructed a new reservoir for
this water system. In addition, a new water source and
appurtenances is being planned for the system to supplement
water supply during low water table conditions. This water system
serves approximately 134 residential and 63 commercial Equivalent
Dwelling Units. This is considered a Rural Village Service area.
c. Highfield /Cascade Area — Service Area No. 9:
The Washington County Department of Water Quality began
operating the Highfield/Cascade Water System (previously know
as the Blue Ridge Water Company) October 1, 1978 following
revocation of the franchise by the Maryland Public Utilities
Commission and a subsequent Washington County Court Order
sought by the Maryland State Health Department. In 2006, the
Highfield/Cascade water distribution system was extended into the
Pen Mar area. The Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar area is located in
the northeast portion of Washington County. As of January 2009,
this water system presently serves 542 residential and 34
commercial Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's). This area is
considered a Rural Village Service area.
d. Elk Ridge Area - Service Area.No. 17:
In November 1987 the Washington County Department of Water
Quality assumed the operations and maintenance, and in April of
1989 assumed ownership of the Ridge Water Corporation, which
was privately owned by the citizens of the community known as
Elk Ridge located adjacent to Chestnut Grove Road in South
Washington County. As of January 2009, this water system supplies
38 residential Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's). The Department
of Water Quality has completed improvements to the system,
which generally includes installation of water meters, additional
storage, a new well, and equipment to improve the water quality.
This is considered a Rural Village Service area.
e. Sandy Hook Area — Service Area No. 19-1:
The Department of Water Quality placed the water supply and
distribution system for the Sandy Hook community into service in
March 1993. As of January 2009, this system serves 6 commercial
and 64 residential Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's). This is
considered a Rural Village System.
2. DEPARTMENT OF WATER QUALITY PLANS AND POLICIES TO
IMPROVE WATER SERVICE AND ADDRESS STATE POLICY,
STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURES
The Department of Water Quality is working on different plans and
strategies to address new State policies, strategies, and procedures being
implemented on water service providers. These actions are as follows:
a. Wellhead Protection Plan
The Department of Water Quality is working with other applicable
agencies in developing a Wellhead Protection Plan to address the
issues raised in the Source Water Assessments for the each of the
County's water systems. This plan will designate policies and
actions to be taken by the County to protect these sources from
potential contamination. The Washington County Board of County
Commissioners will be required to adopt this plan. It is the goal of
the Washington County Department of Water Quality to have this
ma ,
plan adopted by 2015. Upon its adoption, the Wellhead Protection
Plan will automatically become a part of the Water and Sewerage
Plan and all designated policies and actions will be considered a
part of this plan.
b. Water Reuse
Commercial applications in the County currently utilize public
water systems or wells for non -potable uses such as water-cooling
and lawn irrigation. The Department of Water Quality is
developing policies to replace theses water sources with high
quality wastewater treatment plant effluent. This policy will
promote water conservation of drinking water sources and
decrease water withdrawal . demands on well aquifers. The
Department of Water Quality will begin implementation of water
reuse practices once all State and local approvals are received and
cost effective users are identified. MDE is currently developing
new regulations that will cover the use of reclaimed wastewater for
lawn irrigation at individual residences.
B. CITY OF HAGERSTOWN
1. HAGERSTOWN WATER PRODUCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The City of Hagerstown Water Department has a service population of
approximately 88,000. The service population is located within the
corporate limits of the City of Hagerstown, in unincorporated areas and in
adjoining municipalities. The Hagerstown system is the sole provider of
potable water to the towns of Funkstown, Smithsburg and Williamsport.
These towns purchase their water from Hagerstown but are fully
responsible for the operation and maintenance of their distribution
systems to include water lines, pumps, storage, etc. The Hagerstown
water system also serves numerous industrial and institutional customers
to include Mack Truck, Citi Corp, the Maryland Correctional Institute,
Washington County Hospital, etc.
The Hagerstown Water System is served by the R.C. Willson Water
Treatment Plant on the Potomac River. The Potomac River provides a
reliable and adequate source of drinking water for the Hagerstown water
1-4
service area. The R.C. Willson Plant has a design capacity of 20 MGD and
currently has a permitted water allocation of 15 MGD.
Hagerstown also owns and operates the Edgemont Reservoir and the
W.M. Breichner Water Treatment Plant. This Breichner Plant was
completed and dedicated in 1997 and is operated during emergencies and
when system demand exceeds the distribution system limitations. In
November 2006, Hagerstown began operating the Breichner Plant 2 days
per week and supplies the Smithsburg zone.
2. PLANNED WATER SERVICE AREA IMPROVEMENTS
The City of Hagerstown developed a prioritized Capital Improvement
Program which includes, but is not limited to, major upgrades to the
Willson and Breichner Treatment Plants, replacement of the two 24 -inch
transmission mains, replacement of distribution mains throughout the
Hagerstown water service area, improvements to the existing storage and
pumping facilities, addition of new storage and pumping facilities,
improvements to the Edgemont Reservoir, upgrade and/or replacement of
large and small meters, etc.
Planned improvements to the Hagerstown Water System (as they appear
in the Capital Improvement Program) are identified in Table 6A of this
Plan. Projects not identified on Table 6A are as follows:
a. Western Maryland Parkway:
Extend 16" waterline north from the intersection of Underpass Way
and Railway Lane to Western Maryland Parkway at the County
Detention Center — this will complete a major interconnection
between the 24 -inch transmission mains.
b. Southern transmission Mains (also the East End Tank Project:
Install a 16 -inch transmission main along the southern portion of
the water system to meet demand to the east .and to facilitate a
proposed water tank site near I-70 and Route 40.
III -5
c. Eastern Transmission Main:
Install a 16 -inch water main from the Londontowne-Brightwood
area to Jefferson Boulevard and Eastern Boulevard to the north to
deliver water to the northeastern portion of the system.
d. Robinwood Drive:
Extend a 12 -inch waterline from Route 64 to Hagerstown
Community College to complete a major loop to the Dual Highway
and a proposed elevated storage tank near the same.
e. Oak Ridge Industrial Area — Oakmont Drive:
Oakmont Drive area is presently being served by a 12 -inch
waterline. Provisions should be included to extend the water
system along East Oakridge Drive to Roadway Express. This line
should be interconnected with the mains in the Ravenswood
Lutheran Home area.
f. Paramount Loop and Tank:
The distribution system should be looped with a 12 -inch main from
West Longmeadow Road to Marsh Pike in the vicinity of Avalon
Manor to eliminate a long stretch of single source piping. A tank
should be located in the Avalon Manor area to increase supply
capabilities.
Project summary is updated annually in response to promulgated
regulations, customer demand, service area expansion; raw water quality,
etc.
C. FUNKSTOWN
The Town of Funkstown purchases water from the City of Hagerstown. The
town owns operates and maintains the water distribution lines within the town.
The Town falls within the Urban Growth Area. identified in the 2002
Comprehensive Plan for Washington County
D. WILLIAMSPORT
The Town of Williamsport purchases water from the City of Hagerstown. The
town owns operates and maintains a finished water storage tank and water
distribution lines within the town. The Town falls within the Urban Growth Area
identified in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for Washington County.
E. SMITHSBURG
The Town purchases water from the City of Hagerstown. The Town does not
currently operate water supply and treatment facilities as it purchases all of its
water directly from the nearby City of Hagerstown system.
The Town has a designated Growth Area according to the 2002 Comprehensive Plan
for Washington County.
The Town of Smithsburg currently operates and maintains a water pumping
station, water distribution lines, and finished water storage facilities. Purchased
water is pumped from the nearby City of Hagerstown storage tank near the
Town, to the Town of Smithsburg Water Boosting Station and then through the
distribution mains, to the finished water storage facilities. Original storage
capacity of 0.36 MG is provided by two (2) ground storage tanks/reservoirs. The
Town's Water Boosting Station was recently upgraded with two (2) 500 gallon
per minute (gpm) pumps and an emergency generator.
In 2009 the Town completed a major project involving construction of a 0.36 MG
ground water storage tank to supplement the previous 0.36 MG storage capacity
to provide sufficient fire and emergency reserve storage for the next planning
period. This new tank brings the total Town storage capacity to 0.72 MG.
The Town has completed an engineering study to determine the cost of replacing
the existing 8" transmission line with a 16" line. The Town is currently seeking
funding for this project.
F. FORT RITCHIE
The Fort Ritchie system is permitted as a 250,000 gallon per day system and
serves properties within the boundaries of the former Fort Ritchie Army base
along with Camp Louise summer camp. Water for this system is provided by a
spring that requires treatment to feed the system and seven wells that feed two
III -7
reservoirs having a total capacity of 1,300,000 gallons. As a result of a
groundwater study and report made by the Army Environmental Hygiene
Administration, well number three was permanently closed in early 1992.
It is expected that the system will be transferred to Washington County upon
redevelopment of the property by the Pen Mar Development Corporation.
According to the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for Washington County, Fort Ritchie
is located in the Lakeside Corporate Center/Cascade Area Special Planning Area.
This Special Planning Area is viewed as a growth area for development
purposes. This area was developed with a view toward fostering economic
development of the former military base facility and revitalization of the
surrounding area
G. BOONSBORO-KEEDYSVILLE
The Boonsboro-Keedysville water system is supplied by two active springs and
two wells—Keedysville Spring located outside the Town of Keedysville,
Warrenfeltz Spring located within the Town of Boonsboro, Well #8 and Shafer
Park Well both located inside the Town of Boonsboro. The water is treated with
chlorine disinfection by the Town of Boonsboro at each location. Excess water is
stored in a 1.4 million gallon reservoir located east of Boonsboro. The Town of
Keedysville purchases water from the Town of Boonsboro, but owns and
operates its own distribution system. By agreement, the Keedysville water
system is operated by the Town of Boonsboro Department of Public Works. The
Towns of Boonsboro and Keedysville have a Board that jointly oversees the
water system. Much of the maintenance of the Keedysville system is performed
on a cost reimbursement basis by the Town of Boonsboro.
To address the impact of growth on the water supply, the Boonsboro Utilities
Commission adopted a policy requiring each developer (except minor
subdivisions of 5 or less units) to provide a minimum new water supply of
108,800 gpd (70 gpm) in the form of a new well to be connected to the existing
distribution system.
Also, to address the impact of growth of the Town of Boonsboro, the Mayor and
Council has adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan which provides policies
and implementation actions related to growth and the impacts it has on water
and sewer infrastructure. -
In an effort to upgrade and improve the Town of Keedysville's aging water
infrastructure to accommodate new growth and improve fire flow, the Town
plans to replace the 12 -inch water main that will extend along Main Street from
Wyand Drive to a point north of Keedy Road along with a water booster
pumping station to transfer water to the Boonsboro reservoir. A future elevated
water storage tank in Keedysvffle is also planned. Funding for the project may
come from a number of sources including loans from the Maryland Department
of the Environment and U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development.
As a result of testing by the Washington County Health Department and the
Maryland Department of the Environment which found serious water quality
problems with wells in an area located west of the Town of Boonsboro in the
vicinity of US Route 40A and Mill Point Road. The Boonsboro Utilities
Commission agreed to design and construct an extension of 8 -inch water main
along Alternate Route 40 from its current termination in the vicinity of Bast -
Stouffer Funeral Home to Mill Point Road and along Scenic View Court and Mill
Point Road. The project involved the extension of service connections from the
main to approximately sixty-one properties which are included in the Town
Growth Area Boundary
H. WEAVERTON
The Pleasant Valley Elementary School, two churches, one business and
approximately twelve residences in southern Washington County are served by
the water system for the City of Brunswick in Frederick County. Service is
provided via the transmission main leading from the Yourtee Springs to the City
of Brunswick. This is considered a Denied Access water main and water system.
The City of Brunswick utilizes Yourtee Springs to provide a portion of the
potable water for use within the City. Additionally, service has been provided to
a number of properties along transmission mains in both Frederick and
Washington Counties. Since the City does not consider itself a Utility Company,
steps have been taken to prevent additional connections to water mains outside
the municipal boundary. The Mayor and council adopted Ordinance 430 on
August 9, 2005 to be able to further restrict new or expanded connections to these
water mains. The City of Brunswick considers the Yourtee Springs water main a
Denied Access main for areas outside of the municipal boundary.
The City is currently making improvements at the spring to conform with Clean
Water Act requirements. These improvements involve enclosing the spring in a
building and placing a liner in the clay slope to divert rainwater away from the
spring. Additionally, a covered water storage facility is anticipated for the site in
the future.
I. CLEAR SPRING
The Town of Clear Spring and a few residences outside of Town are supplied by
wells with an above ground storage tank.
The 2002 Comprehensive Plan for Washington County recognizes Clear Spring
as a Town Growth Area.
The Town of Clear Spring's water supply system is owned by the Town, but
operated, under contract by the Washington County Water Quality Department.
There is an existing transmission line located outside of the PFA With the
exception of existing customers that are currently connected to this line, no new
development outside of the PFA can be allowed to hook up to this line. This line
is considered a Denied access facility
Denied access water facility means designated components or sections of the
distribution system to which access is prohibited. Exceptions may be permitted
on a case -by -case basis only through amendment of the Water and Sewerage
Plan. Exceptions may be granted for remediation of public health hazards or for
residential or commercial properties, that were improved and occupied as of the
date of issuance of the construction permit for the facility and that are contiguous
to the facility.
J. HANCOCK
The Hancock water system provides water for approximately 1926 people who
are mostly located within the municipal limits. The principal source is two wells
with three storage tanks providing a total storage capacity of 1.4 million gallons.
A modular water treatment plant provides treatment.
The Town has a designated Growth Area according to. the 2002 Comprehensive
Plan for Washington County.
III -10
K. FAHRNEY KEEDY HOME AND VILLAGE (private system)
The Fahrney Keedy Home and Village is located approximately 2 miles north of
the Town of Boonsboro on the east side of MD Route 66. It is a privately owned
retirement and assisted living facility located on a single lot consisting of a main
building with central support facilities, 90 nursing rooms, 12 assisted living
rooms, and 12 apartments. Also on the property are 37 individual 2 and 3
bedroom cottages.
The existing privately owned water system operated by Maryland
Environmental Services includes one active well, a second well under temporary
repair and a third one, which is awaiting MDE approval for use pending
installation of a water treatment plant. Water from the active well is pumped to
the maintenance building where sodium hypochlorite solution, which is
produced on site, is added for disinfection and stored in two clear wells (10,000
gallons each) adjacent to the building. The system demand activates high service
pumps (two units) to pump the water from the clear wells to a 2000 -gallon
capacity hydro pneumatic tank. The distribution system is not designed to
provide emergency water needs for fire suppression. A static tank provides
emergency water storage. The average water demand for 2006 was 28,530
gallons per day.
The ground water source for the Fahrney Keedy system has been classified by
the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) as ground water under the
direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) and requires advanced treatment to
remove harmful bacteria and viruses. Furthermore, only one well is available for
continuous use at the present time since the other two wells are unusable due to
the GWUDI condition.
The Home has applied for a State Revolving Loan to finance the proposed
improvements and approval is likely to be received soon. The Maryland
Environmental Service (MES) is providing engineering services for the project.
The proposed treatment system will consist of two membrane trains capable of
treating 50,000 gallons per day each with 100% redundancy. Raw water from the
wells will pass through the membranes and disinfected prior to distribution via
the existing high service pumps and hydro pneumatic tank.
The estimated cost of the improvements is $ 1.25 Million.
L. PROJECTED DEMANDS
Projected water supply demands for existing water service areas are shown in
Table No. 3. Note that present year per capita water consumption in each service
area was used as a factor in determining future supply requirements (See Note
#9). As a result, Table No. 3 reflects projected water supply demands for the
future assuming present consumption rates remain the same. It is anticipated
that some service area consumption rates will decrease in the future due to
system improvements. It is assumed that present water consumption rates will
not appreciably increase due to current conservation trends, especially for hot
water.
Notes for Table No. 3
(1) Water Service Area — The area served, or potentially served, by a single
distribution system under control of a single utility, or, in a very large
system, sub -areas as delineated by the County.
(2) Population Served — From service providing agencies. Projections for
2015, 2020 and 2030 based on projected growth trends provided by the
service providing agency.
(3) Domestic Corporation — (Million Gallons per Day) — Water consumed for
domestic or residential purposes.
(4) Other Consumption — (Million Gallons per Day) — Water consumed for
other than domestic purposes such as industrial, commercial, and
institutional uses.
(5) Total Consumption — (Million Gallons per Day) — The sum of Domestic
and Other Consumption. Figures provided by agency or municipality
concerned.
(6) System Capacity — (Million Gallons per Day) — Based upon 'design
capacity' information supplied by the service providing agency. Unless
indicated otherwise, projected SYSTEM CAPACITY for future years will
be considered the same as for the present year.
(7) Domestic Per Capita Consumption (Gallons Per Capita per Day) -
Determined by dividing DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION (3) by
POPULATION SERVED (2). This is a more realistic figure for water use
per person than TOTAL PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION (8), but it may
include 'unaccounted for' losses.
(8) Total Per Capita Consumption - (Gallons Per Capita per Day) -
Determined by dividing TOTAL CONSUMPTION (5), by POPULATION
SERVED (2). This is an overall figure for water use per person which
includes water use by businesses, industry, institutions, and 'accounted
for' losses.
III -13
(9) Total Consumption - (Million Gallons per Day) - A projected figure
determined by multiplying the projected POPULATION SERVED (2) by
TOTAL PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION (8).
00
0
r
r
m
o
at
C
(Cl`%W kxd4'J WmJ`+'iS
C
00
O
0
0
0
0
C
m
o
m ry
(CFJW) mm4�+mioJ RPl
00
00
N
o
m 0
o
0
o
O
1p
00
00
0
6 0
0
0
0
0
N
r o N O r O m
00
0100N001000
O
r
O 0
N
o
N
O
10 10010(000 m N N N 0
N m 0< m r m
00
m
0
m
m
O
O
O
N
r
m y
N O
r
O
N
m
V
PflAs lfln2,tJ0d
" N m b O
r
N
N
lV
N
V
o
(O£4V)1�eJ urays/�
M
O
m
O
r
o
0
0
O
0
o
O
0
0000
N
a
N
O
M
0
O
CON -
O
M
N
O
O
N
r
0
O
0
0
O
m N
00
00
000000
0
O
m o m m m o w m
m a V O o r N
E
0
m
m
100
0
v
0 o
r
o m
O m
o
r
m
.-
m
pa laS w.wrdod
pi of - o vi
o
r
N
a
m m
U
O
010
0
c
o
z
kK.JYV)Am�flRS
m
o
o
0
0
0
O
o
0
0
0
0
Ja
c
a
min
mm
mN
ao0m0
o m
O
2 0
((F,%N) w[Wurrswj �elpl
m
h
m
O
m
o
r
ry
o
o
m
0
o
0
o
0
m
0
aN
00
00
000000
m O
N
W010' -t0 V
00
ON
-00010'-0(0
p 2
Pa^m5 po9Qlbmd
VI m O N m
v,n coammm
no
am
O
O
rr.-m
V
0
N m
O
r
W
N Cl m �U m
J W
t J
C
«
(OdJd`J) Rlpl
m
a
d
D
U
fa
U
(OdJd`J) p4sauo0
m
O
i0`.%N) Al dvo
o
o
uoi
m
o
n
o
m
r
m
0 j
Waysl�S
'
m
0'-10N10•00001
UQ
°
o
0
0
0
0
o
o 0
0
o
o,
W
"LU
0
m
O
N
m
0 ry
0
r
m
N-
(LrW
a
z
00
00
0
0 0
0
0
0
K
(o€W)uonthnopU gyp
U
m
o
(O.3N)wud+msoJ p!4sai�
N
m
o
o m 10 0 0 0 V
m
o
O
N
O
o
m O
m
r
O
a m 0 N 0 0
m
0
0
m
a
0
V m
OI
m
0
xbd
m r O ry N, m m
m
a
m
m
m
r m
r
m I
���
mr Ntv
mr
[
metro
U
a
m
[j
Q
N
p ha
W
Z
o
o e'0
m
m
p
o
c
m
m
a
Y
U
O
m Y m 0 J
m
90
C
01
0 m
9
T
m L
C
B
e
p
2 LL> f9 J
OI a
p
Y
m
m
L C
N
I
i-
F
2
ti0
O
m
N�
U
m¢
i
W W
m
m
um.
IlI-15
E "
E N
oO -C
N
m
n
§1
L m J
m
y N
O = m J
m p n
L
0 m_
t.o- p
p m m
o a N
m c @
m= m a) a)
(0a)
m E m a
N
NO
p N ry q
o % N U CU
0w N
O Q m C m
v c E O
�o N
ok 3'a a
N p2 d m
C m O a)to=
E
m m o E E
N C W O N m
0+co
0 m E C
0 5@m Q N
0 v o i
Ca
- ' E @
m
1� 0 o oc m
u i E v o
3
p
L @@
J T o T E S
i e m m m m
U W Cr a F
w
J
0.
0.
N
LU
W
W�
�0
QU
W
0
0
Z
Z
<
m
N
n
a
O O
a
0
a
0
a
m
6
a
N
O
Y
m
O
N
N
N
Y
W
a
W
O
a,N
O
a
a
Y
0
0
N
N
m
Mm
N
m
N
Y
a
n
a
N0N
NY
N
n
0
0
Y
m
wam
N•
mn
o0
�.,
a
n
of
r
n
m
N
"0
0
0
po
m
m
°O 6600
0000
o
0
o o
°o
0
0
o
o
0000
o
°O
°o
0
o
0
0
0
Op
'
N
N
W
o0
o
0
666
n
N
O
.Y
n
<4
OYI666
N Y
N
00
op
0
a
O
m
N
NNm
N
N
n
m
m
NII
00
LL
LL
000
000
O
o
o
00
O
0m
o
0
o
0
m
o
m
O
O
0
O
o
o
oo'o
0a
0
0
W
°o
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
W
0
0
o
0
O
w
F
w
F
mWm
ooN
00a
O
N
o
O
Y
0' 0
o
o
O
V
O
V
m
a
r
oo
m
6
O
0
O
ON
ori0
O
'
N
^
o
m
o
O
O
0
0
0
m
Q
3
Q
3
IV m
n
On
N
m
'
0
m
CO
W
CO
W
m
CO
ZW
UI
0QW
KZ
�p
C
Yw
NZ
ZW
Z�
fuW
W
ZW
g
2
0
j
OQW
o
C
3F
�Q
WO
rco
mmw'mW
OQ
rc°
0t
F0
F0
y�U
QU'
00
3F
aW
3F
6
WQ
J
J
y0
as
Za
Za
Krq
WO
00
00
mFQ
ON
y0
y0
tt0
zz
4
000
a
6
ON
Q5Qi
Q'
aWF
OW
QF
�m
ow
2J
OW
KN
Km
Q
W�
TO
30
ow
ow
ttFw
ON
po
w
WW
ao
Y
O
F
0LL
FF
oz
2
f
f
J
LLD
2
E
IQZ
OJ
a0.
F
I
w
0
OJ
0
m
<0
0
a
0
°o
0
o
F)
0
0
0
N
o
000
o
a
CO
0
0
0
0>
>Q
0
0
000
000
0
0
00
COO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00N
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
Wqm
nnm
a
a
a
m
am
NO
a
0
N
m
m
N
a
N
a
0
m
noa
0
0
n
a
m
m
0
n
0
CO
0
F'
0
ON
N
m W W
W
3
W
3
W
33
W
3
a
0
3
0
W
3
a
3
W
3
W
3
mm m a
333
a
3
a
3
a
3
d
3
a
3
a
3
a '-<'L
3
LL
a
;33
3
a;
1
2
rc
W
5
Z
m
F
I
z
N
a
a
>
J
s
G
m
m
rt
>
W
N
3
d
W
0
O
i
a
.p
F
0
0
W
0
0
0
Ya
<
W
Q
I
N
Y
W
y
0
0
y
22
p
m
O
W
J
w
i
0
Z
O
J
0
a
J
0
0
m
J
W
J
W
03
W
Q
y
W
C
I
0
Q
Q
2
KW
0
o
6
Co
y}
2
0
Q
W
0
F
N
W
J
0.
0
Q
I
0
Q
0
I
K
=
F
z
f
>,F
O
0
LL
m
m
r
LL
0
O
w
U.
Z
0
LL
_
3
0
Q
0
0
0
0
W
Y
W
0
I
0
F
Q
m
0
FW
GZ
J
O
N
J
Y
m
z
=
ga
0
3
m
p
0
m
0
0
J
Z
y
Q
al
L
Z
w
$
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
a
0
0
a
4a
W
z
a
OF
-
;
m
W
W
J
W
0.
I
N
N
Z
0
0
0
LL
F
N
O
't
0
N
O
0
F)
0
N
0
CO
0
0
0
m
n
0
0
a
a
0
Y
a
m
0
a
0
N
r
0
N
o
N
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
O
0
N
0
N
O
0
0
N
0
0
0
O
0
N
0
N
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
N
0
O
0
0
0
NNNNNNNN
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0,
N
0
N
0
N
0
NNNNNNN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
IIl
0
CO
N E
N O N
C
CO
C
CO
C
CO
C
CO
N
0
-
O
2
O
O
O
U
a
O
=Q..0
a
U
a
N
a
O
O
O
LU
a
J
E
D -_ C
N
5.&2
J N
J
N
N
�O ..
3
`l m
O N
01
ma
0 N
ma
O
O
U
tow
hotow
,n
.o
A
o
10 Co
Y
N y
CO N
60
(Ott
C
m>..
Nn
Z
2w
0 o
.0
m
.il a
2w
n a
N
E
a Np
0
U j
d
OW
a CO
2w
a N
y
a N
a
a U
Of
O .a
O
CO
O
a CO
U
a (O
a N
O>..
T j0
_
f6 V'
T �O
{O
T ry
100
T ry
CO
T ZO
T
CO
C J
ml0 J
C J
C J
C J
C J
[O
O
Z
J
J
?
2
>O0O
0
OS
c K U
U c
OS
OS
O=
J
4J
O
w
> O
L
C
OW
U 0
C a
N
CO O N f N
01 U
N O T
W
'^ W
O c ONl"
N N O
0 N
O Q C .. N
E
O
C a
m
n
Ems_
0C0)
N E
-5
Eo6
3
c d T
o
,Wjmv0
10
CD
aCO.waC<
c ttE22E
as
o
s N E
a
a
N
J
O W 0 N
�c
U)) t V
C C d>
N
w U o
It) >-
d
o v 3
ai
m W t �° c
a
0>C an d
p
y c
vi
0 E
O a
m
3
0E
m m
W y
R=
J o
m
o
3 v N
Co
III
3 m
CO
3 m d m c
CO .o
fl0
�0-
m m o
ai
m m ® a
o
°1 ai
c 0
to
•Q
W
G N o c
c
N J
v
Z Q
C
COO N
?i ..0.
O O U_
>
O N lO
N Q
i0
N t U
N .3
c
..0. O
U
N
C
Ol .. t
O .rO`. C
R 0 E y
E
(6 a C E
0
p
1g'
E
c yaJ
c E
a c aci E 3
m m
Q °: "� 3
O N CO
O
O s O
`"wE0Nca?coacox
CO
a:0
�cn wU
U
a3 Qr
c
k3Oz
_
Q
U'= oC!
�'c F
_ _ QE 2
W
W
Q Z
m
No
Z O
W
W
CO
_
Q
6
1
U
0J0
N
t0
CO
O
z
z
Z
U
Z
0
h -
0
0
J
a
o
a
v
v
0
0
0
a
w
°
3 w
c
Q
O
Ol
m
a
C9
-
N
(0
c
=
a.
a
c
-o
a
CO
`
N
N
E
=
O
(n U
.C
N0
00
CU
J
a:~
U
J
w 0
Qc
III -17
•C
()
C
(0
O
CO
C
CO
O
C
C
C
C
H
O
O
O
O
U
d
d
d
2
Vl
'S 2
w
Q C)
o O)
U 4)
) (0
S in
) 0)
D- N
) CI'
O
U
m o
w n
u) a)
Co rn
O
m
CO mCU
R
R m
w
U
y U
U
U
Q
2 N
2 N
o
N
�I
6 C00
a 100
C00
CO
C0O
-o CO
CO
t) CO
CO U
co U
CO U
CO U
a A
a N
a N
J N
dv
= v
='v
='v
='v
W
w
m
� m
m
w
K
a
C
C
C
G
C
>-
d }
.0
0
o
O
O a
O I<
C
t6
J 0
C3
=
s
is
m w
O
O
O
O
a w
a w
U
U
U
U
Z Q.
w
.emu
...
LL
a
'O
-o
Q
O
C
C
C
C
O_
O_
O_
O_
o
w.
H
m
w
Q Z
O
o a
0U
OJ
O
U
0
O
F
5
d
O
a
W
a
am
U
=
-o
o
_
a
CO
3
CO
fl
p
m
CO
o
CO
C)
K
o.
O
m
>
O
w
CD
111-18
M. WATER PROBLEM AREAS
1. WATER CONSERVATION
a. Compliance with the Maryland Water Conservation Plumbing
Fixtures Act ("MWCPFA")
Water Conservation fixtures as referred to in COMAR
09.20.01.02.h(1) requires water closets to use 1.6 gallons or less and
urinals 1 gallon or less. Current County plumbing code 2006
International Plumbing Code section 604.4 complies with this
requirement. COMAR also requires that all fixtures currently
available for sale and installation in Washington County comply
with MWCPFA.
Other water conservation efforts are noted below.
b. Hagerstown
By far the largest water provider in Washington County, the
Hagerstown Water Department does not have a formal program of
educating its customers about water conservation, but utilizes an
increasing block rate in the residential rate structure to promote
conservation. The City's ongoing program of water line
rehabilitation and leak protection does qualify as a conservation
effort. Also, the Department advises that encouraging the customer
to rehabilitate private water lines is accomplished through billing
for water used, even when high consumption is the result of
leakage. This promotes correction and conservation rather than
waste.
c. Washington County Department of Water Quality
The Department of Water Quality provides a potable water supply
to the incorporated municipality of Sharpsburg (Service Area No.
4), Mt. Aetna (Service Area No. 7), Elk Ridge (Service Area No. 17),
Sandy Hook (Service Area No. 19-1), and the
Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar Area (Service Area No. 9). Presently,
the Department of Water Quality does not have a formal
III -19
conservation plan. During low water emergencies, the Department
employs the news media to advise consumers of a ban on all non-
essential water uses such as watering lawns and washing cars. The
Department also utilizes hand delivered notices during times of an
emergency. The Department of Water Quality has an ongoing
program of water line rehabilitation and leak detection, which does
qualify as a conservation effort. By billing for actual water usage,
the Department of Water Quality encourages customers to conserve
water and to rehabilitate private water lines when high
consumption is the result of leakage.
d. Boonsboro
The Utilities Commission has adopted a low -flow plumbing
fixtures ordinance which requires low -flow toilets and other water
saving devices in all new construction.
The Commission has encouraged active conservation through an
aggressive public information campaign on water conservation
with the help of the University of Maryland Extension Service.
e. Clear Spring, Funkstown, Hancock, Williamsport and
Smithsburg
The other small towns in Washington County have indicated that
they do not have formal or continuing programs on water
conservation. All have indicated that in the event of a need to
conserve or any other need to advise customers regarding water
use, they have or would use media campaigns on local radio
stations and newspapers.
2. IDENTIFICATION
It can be reasonably assumed that the pollution of groundwater is a direct
result of the introduction of contamination from numerous non -point
sources in the County. Washington County's topography, underlain by
karst limestone, contributes not only to the introduction of contaminants
to the groundwater, but also to their rapid and unpredictable
dissemination. Extensions to and improvements in public water systems
will partially alleviate the problem.
M-20
Table No. 5 lists Water Problem Areas in terms of water quality problems
and water quantity problems. First, water quality problems have been
identified by the Washington County Health Department. The areas listed
in Table No. 5 do not represent all water quality problem areas in
Washington County, only those judged by the Health Department as
being the most serious and in the most need of immediate attention.
Secondly, water quantity problems have been identified by municipalities
and service providers.
N. PROGRAM FOR CORRECTION
A multi -faceted approach is proposed for the solution of water quality problems
in Washington County. The approach for water quality problems will follow the
headings listed below:
1. Geohydrologic Study
This initial study had been conducted by R. E. Wright Associates and
funded jointly by the Washington County Board of County
Commissioners and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1981.
Specific aquifer units and water problem areas were evaluated by the
study and the results published and presented to the County
Commissioners.
In an effort to supplement and update the R. E. Wright Study, the
Washington County Health Department, in conjunction with the
Washington County Department of Water Quality, has initiated a
groundwater sampling program that has resulted in the collection of well
samples from across the County. The results are available to County and
State agencies for consideration in planning and policy formulation. New
problem areas may be identified and added to Table 5 in the future as a
result of this program.
2. Data Collection
The Washington County Health Department will compile all relevant data
including recent water sample reports for the problem areas listed. Data
collection work will be performed on a county- wide basis as well as in
targeted problem areas. In each case, the Health Department will
III -21
determine the need for conducting a house -to -house water sampling
survey for the affected area. When available data indicates that a listed
area is no longer a problem, the area will be removed from the list. Where
available data indicates a current and potentially hazardous water quality
problem, the Health Department will present its findings to the Board of
County Commissioners, sitting as the Board of Health.
In an effort to address problems of groundwater quality for individual
homeowners, several approaches will be applied. First, and already in
effect, is the attempt to guarantee adequate potable water for new
subdivision proposals by the drilling of test wells as the site with the
intent of ensuring that water quality meets all applicable requirements.
Two other alternatives currently being used by the Washington County
Health Department in conjunction with the Maryland Department of
Environment and the Washington County Planning Commission are (1)
the use of public water supplies as an alternative to individual private
wells for developments in the Rural -Agricultural area. Such systems
would be restrictive as to conform with growth and development policies
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and (2) the incorporation of
continuous on -site disinfection systems onto individual private supplies.
Both of these alternatives, offering definite and obvious benefits, also
involve considerable coordination between agencies for both development
and implementation.
3. Feasibility Study
For each problem area so identified to the Board of County
Commissioners by the Health Department, the Board will take such action
as it deems appropriate. Such action may include the funding of a
feasibility study to determine possible abatement measures and the
feasibility of a community water system for the affected area. The Board
will be assisted in this effort by the Washington County Department of
Water Quality and by the Washington County Planning Commission.
4. Code of the Public Local Laws of Washington County, Maryland
As long-term measure, the law for utility operations in Washington
County will be evaluated for possible amendment as needed to facilitate
the future management of community water systems by the Washington
County Department of Water Quality, its successors or assigns. Planned
III -22
measures or changes will be listed, not as intentions, but when specific
action has been taken, such as the actual appropriation of funds for a
project, the undertaking or completion of the project itself, or a wholesale
change in utility operations in the County.
5. Outreach & Education
A significant number of residences rely on well water from the karst or
limestone formations in the County. Due to the karst geology of the area,
wells in this region are at a much higher risk of being susceptible to runoff
from surface water contaminants at both point and non -point sources.
These direct pathways do not provide a treatment zone to remove
pathogens present in the surface water before the water reaches a well.
Therefore, anything on the surface, such as bacteria, viruses, fertilizers,
pesticides, or any other contaminants can wash into these geologic
features, which provide direct channels or conduits into the groundwater
supply.
It is important to maintain the sanitary integrity of these private water
supplies where ever possible. Some measures include replacing old well
caps with a newer two-piece insect -proof cap or installing water -tight well
caps in areas subject to flooding. Additionally, older wells may be
rehabilitated by extending (or re-sleeving) the casing deeper into the
bedrock and grouting the well to deeper depths, and extending the casing
for wells in pits to above grade. Home owners can inspect their property
for potential sources of contaminants such as leaking oil tanks, taking care
not to apply fertilizers or pesticides around well heads, etc.
Periodic water testing for coliform bacteria can provide a good indicator
of the sanitary integrity of the system. All positive bacteria results should
be investigated to determine a possible cause for contamination.
Contaminated sources should then be disinfected and flushed as a means
to help correct the problem. The County Health Department is taking
steps to help ensure the health of individuals and ensure the safety of the
water supply by requiring additional testing of wells in sensitive areas.
The development of areas in and around Boonsboro and Cearfoss, which
are supplied by wells, are required to complete Ground Water Under the
Direct Influence (GWUDI) sampling prior to placing those wells into
service. Sources which do not meet the minimum regulatory standards are
required to have enhanced treatment systems in place. In some areas, the
III=23
best possible well construction will not be sufficient to prevent
contaminants from entering the water supply. The GWUDI testing was
adopted from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for
public water systems. Ideally, extending public water to these and other
areas of the county is important though not always feasible due to cost
prohibitions and available infrastructure. Therefore, testing and ensuring
adequate treatment is in place is of the utmost importance for all private
water supplies. As is ensuring new wells and on -site septic areas are sited
appropriately. Any concerns citizens have about private water supplies
and on -site septic areas should be addressed with the County Health
Department for assistance and guidance.
Under Maryland's Source Water Assessment Program several GWUDI
(Ground Water Under The Direct Influence of Surface Water) community,
non -transient non -community, and transient non -community systems
have been identified. Due to facility closures, relocation, and availability
of public facilities this list of water supplies is ever changing. Proper
identification, monitoring, and treatment of these supplies are of utmost
importance. Identification of these vulnerable supplies have resulted in
extensive source water assessment studies, and dye studies conducted by
the Washington County Health Department and Maryland Department of
the Environment, concluding that in addition to septic systems, sinkholes
and streams influence some wells that are currently used as potable
sources. The Hauver's spring dye trace in Smithsburg resulted in the
Town's connection to the Hagerstown community water supply and
abandonment of the spring. The dye trace study performed along the
Alternate Route 40 corridor resulted in the expansion of the Boonsboro
distribution area to serve affected public and private wells, many of which
were determined to be GWUDI
III -24
Notes for Table No. 6
(1) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY, MUNICIPALITY, OR DEVELOPER -
Responsibilities include project initiation and management, but not
necessarily financing.
(2) WATER SERVICE AREA — That area served, or potentially served, by a
single distribution system under control of a single utility, or, in a very
large system, sub -areas as delineated by the County.
(3) LOCATION — In accordance with the Maryland Grid System.
(4) GRANTS ELIGIBLE — Dollars amounts indicate funds for which the
project may be eligible from sources shown in parentheses. Source
abbreviations represent agencies and programs as follows:
EPA
- Environmental Protection Agency
EDA
- Economic Development Administration
UDAG
- Urban Development Action Grant
CDBG
- Community Development Block Grant
FmHA
Farmers Home Administration
ARC
- Appalachian Regional Commission
MDE
- Maryland Department of the Environment
The local cost for any project may be assumed to be the total cost estimate
less any amount shown as grants eligible.
III -25
2
[
[
[
�\
\
/
\
\
\
C.
U)
CCCCCCC
\
[
[
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V>Lfl0C)
La,
Co
ED
CI {/\}{\{_
/{}{&
\$
\\/|f!{{))!
{§
-
{
3
}(|
m.;\!!f(r#
§ !f§#;;
)!
:�.
_
!
-
-®
]C
a,-0;
}
®`
{°l;;;!!®f
[!«!lam,lf{�
\
o.�
-;
{
;
/
•§t;,r
-_
2!;
`
-
-
fl1 1#=;`_
`
#-
_ -
|!{/
{
{
/]l.;,l,
k\{§{\\E®`°
�
z
1,��.to
o42
),!
!
)
:t;/!)]f#§�{lf:!(
i
7
2
f
!!&\
(5a2.ESwS2a
!!!0aC->VN;a
°
Co\
!
!
!
/
}
\
Co
Co
\
\
\
}
CO
»
!
Co
!#!!!!o
f
\
\
/
/
/}G}O\)/!\!}!\i
)
:/{it\t§!)!§{§t)
!
;
!
!!!!!!a,
!
!
!
f
f
f
0
o
N
`
LL
Z
U -
E
v
rn
rn
E
E
E
E
E
U
u
a
a
a
o
0
0
0
>
`
>
>
2
°'
>
00)0
0
D
-LL
U.
LL
>
>
>
Co
`o,
`o
o
=
n
9
D
D
p
9
o
v
rn
v
oo
>
Q
Z
o
>
0
0
o
0
>
`
v
m
0
E
o
o0.0.0.C
`0
0
0
0
n
O
LL
E
li.
rn
rn
0
..
..
o
W
o
'E—
=
00)
0)
N
0)
Z
LL
�
LL
¢
O
j
co
Co
co
a:_
w
w
w
W
❑
O
O
❑���zZZ
CO
S
0
U E
0
o
o T
?
S.
0
0
0
0
0¢ �)
C.4<
0¢
ry
s
8O
o
Z2
Z
12
12
F W
N
a
m
n
N
N
O r
`o
900
«
E
v
a¢
'v E
v
�.
c€ e
E E c 3 3
3
m 0
;"
w
�
L°
v
m
`
N E E
5 0'` v
c
'u
m � o>>
v
o a c C
'c
� H
'^ c E
.N
E
E
`
v
a
U
I
@ b 'G >`
>
m
ry E m
o
o .p `u
u
E
v
oo
J
3
n
2
a o v .�
c
_
o.� m
m a
E E v
>
a
E (0
>
o
o
y
„
c
o
d
0
m
z
m
❑
y o a E
h
x
a c a 10
nn o
v
'vvv
m
u
r 3 m
o E
c=
o
v E a
c 'G - v
v
o
N
c
=
_
.v.
n
c
c
c
F
°
m v E'
2 5
m
cE E n
`o
-
CO
0
o._
$
-
a
y o o
U .
rc m m
E a .x >C
m
o u
c 4'+ o
a
m
-
"
m
v
t
v
o
8
0`
" a`
v m N
v
E
a r E
;
a
'a
3
v
v
v
(Y
u
>
a
3 z" 3 `0
3 w
o. -v.
w❑ m a. 'c
U
a rc¢ N
3
3
rc
-
5
E
0)
Or
W
N
¢
r
g
z
a
I
HUH
LL
>
N
0))
N
W
1
0
F
'C
T
v
o
a
a
a
a
¢-a v
=
v
m
3
v
m
3
m
3
^!
v
3
Tvo
x
E
m
t
'400000
r
aoE3
3
N
v
v
N V W
5
W
y
U
U
U
U
U
a 0
E
n
0
�.
o
a
K
K
v
N
v
N
v
N
v
v
N
v
N
F
F
F
IL
IL
IL
IL
LL
00
.III -27
m
o
'
v ca
o
f
E
E
w
c
m
9
V
O
O
O
C
C
_
a
C
C
W
flft j"
E p
C€
T
E
c
m
n
U O
m
OI
O
J
J
C
C
N
N C
'L
m
CT
n
o
f
E
a
a
u
C
m
C
a
n
E
E
m
c
c
E
°
a
y
.o
w
. 5
rn
. E
c
-
-
c
c
u
�_
m '
a m '°-'.
U
0-
580
m
0
0
00
0 2
2
E
U
00
F
U
m
a
a
¢p
¢
<<
m w
Q
c
¢
<C
W
o
w0
pd
o
0
0
0
0
go
�
U E¢
¢¢
0
0
0
0
0
o
o¢
ma
Z
Z
Z
vor
m
o
o
voi
m
o
'c`
m
`
M
e
c
w
3 Z
0
c
e
co
vd a
u m w
c r
=
c
C i
2
N
N
° m
N
O m
Q
O
°
ry
d
i^
{ya d
O
W
C
ryv
5 C O
ai
e
3
T H C
.n
N$
o y
c f
`m
'> K U
ry
m m co
w 'n
d
w
T E
o
c
9
o
c o c
,c
Y c.
2 � 'c v
N Ti
E E
m
m
o
?,
r
0
°
ry o
Y«
A G
m
3
= 5 a 2
m
o o n
e
`o
e¢¢
i
0520O o
p
v
.. o
V
w,
m
2
o
O 0)
o-
c
U
E
-'o v
0
:_ U
N o
}
d
."
N
3
IL Y
.J «
L V W
=_I
lL C
lL y
J
O
y N
a
C C
O
y C d V
L
'C M O Y
N W
O
N
y
y
K o
0)
o w
E
°i
VO
`E
v`
o .k
m
v
c
w
v
v
a E
ry o
ei e
o w
n o
K
t G
u e 3
v
E
y
o—
a
iK«
K-
H
N
'I)
n
CC
d.
a
o
a
a
a
N
a
a
N
o
a
N
0
°
n
0
a
0
°
n
E
a
=
O
o
�
T
a
u
�
T
°e
'
V
'C
Y
Y
o
e
0
0
0
o
ry
a
N
u
LL
m
m
m
m
m
0
m
m
2
Y
Y
m
`o
a
a
s
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
E
d
o
u
•0
w
w
a
a
a
a
o°
o
0
>
c
N
N
U
T
T
>,
H
m
v
v
°
°0
01
n n
o
m
0
0
0
v
2
a2o
;E
m
m
m
m
m
ti
O
Y
Y
Y
m
F3
`0
0
0
`o
`o
.
`o
IL
(ILL
H
H
`SEE
€
I
Y
F
F
O
5
U
F
F
U
E
\
/
\
\
\
\
\\
CoE
/
\
\
\
\
\
\
C
a-
c,
{
!
10
\
\/}0\
�
C.
)
_}
k
\
0
to
n-
\
0
am
!
$
3
2
E
!
\§
/
!)\!/k
El
8
5_
_
/
\
\
\
\
\
\{(
0\
o
Ha
O. POLICY FOR WATER LINE INSTALLATION IN AREAS WHERE SERVICE
IS NOT AVAILABLE
All new development shall be served by an adequate water supply and
distribution system which provides sufficient water and service pressure for
domestic consumption and fire protection pursuant to Article VII of the adopted
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance of Washington County.
In order to prevent street and other damage encountered in providing public
water service to developed areas, and to provide for efficient and effective
connection to public water service, the following policy is presented for water
line installation in areas where water service is not available at the time of street
and residential construction but will be made available at some future time:
1. Requests for such installation will only be accepted where interim systems
are permitted by the Water and Sewerage Plan.
2. Each application for a water construction permit must be accompanied by
a letter from the County Health Officer requesting that such installation be
permitted.
3. Building permits, subdivision plats, and well approvals shall include a
provision requiring the connection of the premises to community water
within twelve (12) months of announced availability.
4. Water lines shall be designed and installed in accordance with all
applicable governing specifications.
5. The connection of the "dry" system shall be plugged with a visible and
readily inspectable plug at the future point of connection to the existing
system.
6. New commercial and industrial development in adopted Urban or Town
Growth areas where public water is not currently available shall comply
with Article VIII of the adopted Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance of
Washington County regarding interim fire protection systems.
III -30
P. SERVICE AREA REQUIREMENTS
The following shall be applicable to each respective designated service area.
Criteria for creation and amendment of service areas are outline in Appendix B.
1. Urban and Town Growth Area Service Areas
The provision of community water and sewer facilities within the
designated Growth Areas of Washington County is encouraged. Growth
Areas were established by the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the County.
These areas are designated as Planned Service (W-5 and S-5).
Development proposals which involve the extension of water and sewer
lines within the boundaries of the Growth Areas will be considered to be
consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the County,
and will therefore not require an individual amendment to the Water and
Sewerage Plan in order to proceed with the review and approval process.
Specific arrangements between the developer and the appropriate service
providing agencies including verification of sufficient capacity shall be
finalized prior to the development receiving approval. An appropriate
Service Priority Classification of Programmed Service (W-3 and S-3) will
then be assigned to the property as part of the triennial update of this
plan. Determinations as to whether or not a property is considered to be
within the influence of a Growth Area will be made by the Washington
County Planning Commission.
2. Rural Village Service Areas
Existing or planned community water and sewer facilities located within
areas considered as Rural Villages by the Comprehensive Plan or
Washington County Zoning Ordinance may be designated as a Rural
Village Service Area. While primarily designed to serve the existing
development in the village, a service area established in these villages may
allow for in -fill development on existing lots of record and limited
growth. Proposals for new subdivision lots and development within
existing Rural Village Service Areas will require Planning Commission
review and approval to determine if the proposal is consistent with
policies of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with Rural Villages and the
Washington County Zoning Ordinance.
III -31
3. Restricted Use Service Area
Community Water and/or sewer service areas associated with facilities
that are located outside of a designated Growth Area and not within a
Rural Village may be considered as Restricted Use service areas. These
service areas are created to correct documented public health problems
generally associated with contaminated wells or failing septic systems.
The use of the facilities within these service areas is limited to the
following conditions:
a. To provide service to existing uses or new uses on existing lots of
record which are directly adjacent to the right-of-way containing
the water or sewer line.
b. To provide service, where sufficient capacity is available, to new
subdivision lots that can be served by the line without extension.
Density shall be no greater than what could occur without public
facilities.
c. To provide service to areas where the Health Department
determines that access is necessary to solve an existing Health
related problem and the County Commissioners agree to permit
access to the line.
d. To provide service to properties where a written agreement with
the service providing agency, executed prior to the restricted access
designation, obligated the service providing agency to permit
access to the particular line to provide service to a specific property
or a specific use or provide a specific number of taps.
4. Denied Access Facilities
In those locations where there are existing water and/or sewer facilities
and no service area has been established, these facilities shall be
considered Denied Access. Denied access facilities means designated
components or sections of the collection or distribution system to which
access is prohibited. Exceptions may be permitted on a case by case basis
only through amendment of the Water and Sewerage Plan. Exceptions
may be granted for remediation of public health hazards, or for residential
or commercial properties that were improved and occupied as of the date
IlI-32
of issuance of the construction permit for the facility and that are
contiguous to the facility.
Q. PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements shall be applicable to each respective designated
priority classification within established service areas:
1. W-1 Priority (Existing Service or Under Construction)
a. Individual water systems shall not be permitted, except as follows:
If an existing community water facility is inadequate or is not
available,12 an interim individual water system may be used subject
to the following conditions:
(1) Such interim systems are adjudged by the local health
department to be adequate, safe, and in compliance with
pertinent State and local regulations.
(2) Permits for such interim systems shall bear a notice
regarding the interim nature of the permit and stating that
connection to a future community system shall be made
within 1 year or less after such system becomes available.
(3) Provisions shall be made, whenever possible to locate such
systems so as to permit connection to the public facilities in a
most economical and convenient manner.
b. Extensions of existing community water systems shall be permitted
and encouraged.
13 The adequacy or availability of community water service to a particular parcel of land is a judgment which
must be made in each case through consultation among the responsible agencies and cannot be made on the basis
of this Plan alone.
M-33
2. W-3 Priority (Programmed Service)
a. Individual water systems may be permitted on an interim basis
provided that:
(1) Such interim systems are adjudged by the local health
department to be adequate, safe, and in compliance with
pertinent State and local regulations.
(2) Permits for such interim systems shall bear a notice
regarding the interim nature of the permit and stating that
connection to a future community system shall be made
within 1 year or less after such system becomes available.
(3) Provisions shall be made, whenever possible, to locate such
systems so as to permit connection to the public facilities in a
most economical and convenient manner.
b. Extensions of existing community water or sewerage systems shall
be permitted and encouraged.
3. W-5 Priority (Planned Service)
a. Individual water systems shall be permitted.
b. Extensions of existing community water systems shall not be
permitted, except as provided by Policy for Water Line Installation
in Areas Where Service is Not Available.
c. New, permanent community water systems shall not be permitted.
4. NPS Designation (No Planned Service)
This designation is not applied within established service areas:
a. Individual water systems shall be permitted.
b. Extensions of existing community water systems shall not be
permitted.
III -34
c. New, permanent community water supply systems shall not be
permitted.
In all cases where interim or permanent community water systems are
permitted, they shall be subject to the standards and regulations of the
applicable State and Federal agencies. Adequate documentation that the
State and Federal standards can be complied with shall be evidenced prior
to County Plan amendment consideration. All interim or permanent
community water systems, or multi -use water supply systems in
Washington County, excluding municipal systems, shall be approved by
and when applicable dedicated to the appropriate agency for ownership,
and/or operation, and maintenance in accordance with established County
and State standards and procedures.
R. WATER SERVICE PRIORITY AREA MAPS
Map VIII is an Index Map to the Water Service Priority Area Maps which are
included in Appendix G of this plan and show existing and planned service areas
that have priority designations of W-1, W-3. or W-5. The name of the service
providing agency is indicated in those areas having existing service and in
planned areas where the service providing agency has been determined
While every effort was made to insure accuracy in the preparation of these maps,
errors may have resulted from the transfer of information from maps at different
scales. The classifications of parcels of land as having either existing service or
programmed service was based upon the location of existing service lines and
upon the best estimates for future service by the service providing agencies. The
delineation of the boundary for the W-5 (Planned Service) classification is based
on the land use policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington
County. W-5 priority classifications within the Urban and Town Growth Area
service area are based on the established growth area boundaries.
Determinations as to whether or not a particular parcel of land is considered to
be within the influence of a Growth Area shall be made by the Washington
County Planning Commission and when applicable, the Planning Commission of
the affected incorporated municipality.
Because of these inherent accuracy limitations, these maps should be used for
general planning purposes only. For certainty as to the exact location of all
existing facilities or to the status of particular parcels of land, the Washington
County Planning Department and the service providing agencies should be
III -35
contacted. Changes to these maps which may be required by errors or
inaccuracies may be made in accordance with the administrative procedures set
forth in Appendix B of this Plan.
III -36
6!
} (
2) \
/
I___
�
\
)
�
a �{
' \
`
^
k\}
JC
v_rr_
/
f
!$;
.
.
` �:.
�\
'
/�f
g
-
|
:
.
bd %
C?
�
)�
.
!If■tJ
.
\U\
,>\
.
/
\may
�!! 9
CHAPTER IV
A. EXISTING AND PLANNED SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
1. WASHINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WATER QUALITY
By resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County on July 1, 1995, the Washington County Sanitary District was
abolished and the Washington County Department of Water Quality,
originally known as the Washington County Water and Sewer
Department, was created. The Washington County Department of Water
Quality, operating under the Washington County Division of
Environmental Management within the Washington County Government
structure, owns, operates and maintains wastewater collections systems,
wastewater treatment plants and appurtenances throughout Washington
County. The Department of Water Quality has jurisdiction to serve any
areas in Washington County, which are not incorporated or served by an
incorporated municipality with public wastewater facilities.
A listing of the wastewater treatment plants, the service area for which
treatment is provided, the treatment plant capacity, the average daily
flows, and the discharge parameters are described as follows:
Wastewater
Capacity as
Average
Discharge
Treatment Plant
Service Areas
of Jan. 1,
Daily flow
parameters*
2009
for2008
Halfway
Potomac (Tammany/Van Lear)
Cloverton/Greenlawn
Conococheague
Town of Williamsport
4.1 MGD
2.897 MGD
20 mg/L BOD
Conococheague
10 mg/L SS
St. James
Sharpsburg Pike
Interconnection with the city of Hagerstown
30 mg/L Boo
Antietam
Sharpsburg/Keedysville
0.163 MGD
0.107 MGD
30 m SS
30 mgfL BOD
sandy Hook
sandy Hook
0.030 MGD
0.007 MGD
30 mg/L SS
2.1 m NH3
Smithsburg
Town of Smithsburg
0.333 MGD
0.291 MGD
10 mg/L Boo
Rolling Hills- Cavetown
30 mSS
10 mg/L BOD
Winebrenner
Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar
0.600 MGD
MGD
10 mg/L 55
3.3 m NH3
*Monthly Average of
IV -1
BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
SS = Suspended Solids
NH3 = Ammonia Nitrogen
Note that some parameters are seasonal with the most stringent limit listed. NPDES permits for
these facilities should be consulted for the most current and detailed information on permit
parameters.
2. JOHN "AL" NICODEMUS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The decommissioned John "Al" Nicodemus Wastewater Treatment Plant
(formerly called Halfway) is located along the Potomac River on
Lockwood Road at the edge of the corporate boundary of Williamsport,
Maryland. The Plant was a secondary treatment facility and the plant's
process included primary clarification, high rate trickling filters,
secondary clarification, disinfection and a solids handling facility. The
plant discharged into the Potomac River.
The plant was decommissioned on November 1, 2001 when the flow from
this facility was transferred to the Conococheague WwTP. Due to
Maryland BNR initiatives, the Department of Water Quality determined
that it was more cost effective to upgrade the Conococheague WwTP to
handle the flow from both facilities than to upgrade each facility
individually. In addition to transferring the flow, septage, raw sewage
from holding tanks and chemical toilet waste was transferred to the
Conococheague Industrial Pretreatment Facility on November 1, 2001.
In February of 2006, this facility was transferred to a private company
through a long-term lease arrangement.
3. CONOCOCHEAGUE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Conococheague Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in
Williamsport. The treatment process includes off line influent
equalization; mechanical bar screens; grit removal; MLE BNR processes
(activated sludge); secondary clarification; tertiary filtration; and UV
disinfection. The BNR process is designed to remove nitrogen to a yearly
average of 8 mg/L. Solids Handling is by belt filter press with capabilities
of lime addition for bulking or stabilization. Sludge generated at other
WwTP facilities throughout Washington County are processed at this
facility. The plant also incorporates advanced odor control systems to
address air quality issues. The Conococheague WwTP currently processes
IV -2
wastewater received through conventional gravity and low
pressure/grinder pump collection systems.
The Department of Water Quality will be upgrading the Conococheague
Wastewater Treatment Plant with Enhanced Nutrient Removal
Capabilities (ENR). This upgrade will include an expansion to 6.5 MGD.
This expansion is to accommodate build out of the Hagerstown Urban
Growth Area and Economic Development projects. Additional
information regarding this upgrade and the applicable polices, strategies
and regulations is located under Department of Water Quality Plans and
Polices to Address Sewer Service Needs and State Policies, Strategies and
Procedures.
4. ANTIETAM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Antietam Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in Sharpsburg.
Wastewater received in this facility is from a grinder pump pressure
collection system.
The WwTP utilizes a multi -channel oxidation ditch process (activated
sludge), secondary clarification and UV disinfection to process the
wastewater. Odor control measures are also utilized at this facility. Sludge
generated at this WwTP are transported and processed at the
Conococheague WwTP. Effluent is discharged into the Antietam Creek.
The Department of Water Quality has future plans to upgrade the
Antietam Wastewater Treatment Plant with Enhanced Nutrient Removal
Capabilities. This upgrade will include an expansion to 0.275 MGD, which
is anticipated to serve future additional projected wastewater flows.
Additional information regarding this upgrade and the applicable polices,
strategies and regulations is located under Department of Water Quality
Plans and Polices to Address Sewer Service Needs and State Policies,
Strategies and Procedures.
5. SANDY HOOK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Sandy Hook WwTP is located in the south Washington County
community of Sandy Hook. Wastewater received at this WwTP is from a
low pressure/grinder pump collection system.
IV -3
The Department of Water Quality upgraded the WwTP process to an
extended aeration facility with nutrient removal capabilities. The process
includes extended aeration, secondary clarification, UV disinfection, odor
control and UV disinfection. The Sandy Hook WwTP site limits any
enlargement or expansion projects. Sludge generated at this WwTP is
transported to and processed at the Conococheague WwTP. Effluent is
discharged into Martins Run.
6. C. Wm. WINEBRENNER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The C. William Winebrenner Wastewater Treatment Plant (formerly Ft.
Ritchie Wastewater Treatment Plant) is located in the northeast
Washington County Community of Highfield/Cascade. Wastewater into
this facility is from conventional gravity and septic tank effluent pump
(STEP) collection systems.
The WwTP utilizes primary clarifiers, Rotating Biological Contactors
(RBCs) for secondary biological treatment, secondary clarifiers,
chlorination for disinfection and sulfur dioxide for disinfection. Sludge
generated on -site can either be dried on site in the sand drying beds or
transported and processed at the Conococheague WwTP. Effluent is
discharged into Falls Creek.
The Department of Water Quality will be upgrading the Winebrenner
Wastewater Treatment Plant with Enhanced Nutrient Removal
Capabilities. This upgrade will include an expansion to 0.600 MGD, which
is anticipated to serve future additional projected wastewater flows.
Additional information regarding this upgrade and the applicable polices,
strategies and regulations is located under Department of Water Quality
Plans and Polices to Address Sewer Service Needs and State Policies,
Strategies and Procedures.
7. SMITHSBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Smithsburg WwTP is located in Smithsburg.
The WwTP utilizes Sequence Batch Reactors (activated sludge process),
tertiary filters and UV disinfection. Sludge generated at this WwTP is
transported and processed at the Conococheague WwTP. Wastewater into
1V_4
this facility is primarily from conventional gravity sewage collection
systems. Effluent is discharged into the Little Grove Creek.
The Department of Water Quality will be upgrading . the Smithsburg
Wastewater Treatment Plant with Enhanced Nutrient Removal
Capabilities. This upgrade will include an expansion to 0.600 MGD, which
is anticipated to serve future additional projected wastewater flows.
Additional information regarding this upgrade and the applicable polices,
strategies and regulations is located under Department of Water Quality
Plans and Polices to Address Sewer Service Needs and State Policies,
Strategies and Procedures.
8. CONOCOCHEAGUE INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT FACILITY
New Federal and State regulations governing Centralized Waste
Treatment (Pretreatment) Facilities have prevented local governments
from being able to provide pretreatment services for categorically
classified waste streams. Therefore, the County transferred this facility to
a private company through a long-term lease arrangement and no longer
directly provides these services.
B. EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREAS
The Department of Water Quality currently provides service in twelve (12)
sanitary sewer service areas described as follows:
1. Service Area No. 1 — Halfway
The Halfway area is situated approximately three (3) miles south of
Hagerstown and three (3) miles north of Williamsport. This service area is
within the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area. The Halfway area consists of
primarily conventional gravity collection system with a small amount of
grinder pumps. Wastewater from this service area is treated at the
Conococheague Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Halfway Service Area as of January 2009 served a total of 3,604
residential and 1,119 commercial Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs).
The Department of Water Quality will be completing Inflow and
Infiltration (I&I) correction work on the Halfway Wastewater Collection
IV -5
System in 2009. Additional I&I projects will be completed as areas
requiring repair are identified. This work is part of an ongoing effort by
the Department of Water Quality to improve collection system operations.
2. Service Area No. 4 — Sharpsburg/Keedysville
A low pressure/grinder pump sewer collection system with two
conventional pumping stations serves the Sharpsburg/Keedysville service
area and surrounding subdivisions. This service area, as of January 2006
served approximately 967 residential and 65 commercial Equivalent
Dwelling Units (EDUs). Wastewater from this service area is treated at the
Antietam Wastewater Treatment Plant.
This is considered a Rural Village Service Area.
3. Service Area No. 5 — Potomac (Tammany/Van Lear)
The Potomac Service Area is situated south of the Halfway area and north
of the Town of Williamsport's corporate limits. This service area is located
within the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area. The collection system is a
conventional gravity system. Wastewater from this service area is treated
at the Conococheague WwTP. Sewer Service as of January 2009 was
provided to 1,148 residential and 352 commercial Equivalent Dwelling
Units (EDUs).
4. Service Area No. 5-1 Cloverton/Green Lawn
The Cloverton/Greenlawn service area is located adjacent to the Town of
Williamsport's corporate boundaries. This service area is located within
the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area. The collection system is a small
diameter gravity sewer system with two conventional pumping stations.
Wastewater and solids from the septic tanks on this collections system are
treated at the Conococheague Wastewater Treatment Plant. Sewer service
as of January 2009 was provided to 169 residential and 1 commercial
Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs).
5. Service Area No. 6 — Founainhead
The Fountainhead service area serves the Fountainhead Development and
surrounding area located north of the City of Hagerstown's city limits.
IV -6
This service area is located with the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area. The
collection system is a conventional gravity system. Wastewater from this
service area flows into the City of Hagerstown Collection System and is
treated at the City of Hagerstown Wastewater Treatment Plant. Sewer
service as of January 2009 was provided to 1,078 residential and 199
commercial Equivalent Dwelling Units.
6. Service Area No. 9-1 — Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar
The Highfield/Cascade/Pen Mar service area is located in the northeastern
section of Washington County. This area is a Rural Village community.
The collection system is a combination of a small diameter gravity sewer
system and a septic tank effluent pump pressure system with two
conventional pumping stations. Wastewater from this area is treated at the
Winebrenner Wastewater Treatment Plant. As of January 2009, sewer
service is provided to 528 residential and 34 commercial Equivalent
Dwelling Units and the former Fort Ritchie Military Base.
7. Service Area 12 — Rolling Hills
The Rolling Hills service area generally includes the Cavetown Area
adjacent to the Town of Smithsburg and the Pangborn area adjacent to the
City of Hagerstown. The collection system is primarily a low
pressure/grinder pump system and has one conventional pumping
station. Wastewater flow from the Cavetown area is treated at the
Smithsburg Wastewater Treatment Plant, and flow from the Pangborn
area is conveyed by the City of Hagerstown's Sewer Collection System to
the City of Hagerstown's Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment. As of
January 2009, sewer service is provided to 267 residential and 44
commercial Equivalent Dwelling Units.
8. Service Area No. 14 - Sharpsburg Pike
The Sharpsburg Pike Service Area serves the general vicinity of the
Sharpsburg Pike exit of 1-70 on Maryland Route 65. This service area is
located within the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area. The collection system
is a conventional gravity system with two pump stations. Wastewater
from this area is treated at the Conococheague Wastewater Treatment
Plant. As of January 2009, sewer service is provided to 264 residential and
357 commercial Equivalent Dwelling Units.
IV -7
9. Sewer Area No. 15 — Maugansville/Orchard Hills
The Maugansville/Orchard Hills Service Area generally serves the areas
located along Maryland Route 11 from the Fountainhead Service area to
the Pennsylvania State Line and the Maugansville area including the
adjacent subdivisions. This service area is located within the Hagerstown
Urban Growth Area. The collection system is a conventional gravity
system. Wastewater from this area is conveyed to the City of Hagerstown
Sewer Collection system and treated at the City of Hagerstown's
Wastewater Treatment Plant. As of January 2009, sewer service was
provided to 2,328 residential and 709 commercial Equivalent Dwelling
Units.
10. Sewer Service Area No. 16 — St. James
The St. James Sewer Service Area generally includes the developments
located along Maryland Route 65 from the intersection with Rench Road
to Roxbury Road and the areas along College Road from Route 65 to St.
James School. This Service Area is primarily located in the Hagerstown
Urban Growth Area. The collection system is a conventional gravity sewer
system. Wastewater from this area is treated at the Conococheague
Wastewater Treatment Plant. As of January 2009, sewer service was
provided to 453 residential and 125 commercial Equivalent Dwelling
Units.
11. Sewer Service Area No. 18 — Conococheague
The Conococheague Service Area generally serves the Maryland Route 63
corridor from Town of Williamsport's corporate boundary, bordered to
the West by Walnut Point Road, bordered to the East by Interstate 81,
bordered to the northeast by the subdivision known as Cedar Lawn, and
bordered to the northwest and running concurrent with the Hagerstown
Urban Growth Area and the former GST industrial site. The collection
system is primarily conventional gravity with some grinder pump units.
Wastewater from this area is treated at the Conococheague Wastewater
Treatment Plant. As of January 2009, sewer service is provided to 431
residential and 407 commercial Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs).
l
12. Sewer Service Area No. 19 — Sandy Hook
The Sandy Hook Service Area serves the rural village of Sandy Hook. The
collection system is a grinder pump system with the wastewater being
treated at the Sandy Hook Wastewater Treatment Plant. As of January
2009, sewer service is provided to 64 residential and 6 commercial
Equivalent Dwelling Units.
C. PLANNED SEWERAGE SERVICE AREAS
The Department of Water Quality actively pursues wastewater projects to
address health and water quality issues in the County. As these projects are
developed, they are included in the County's Capital Improvement Plan and
incorporated into the Water and Sewerage Plan.
Department of Water Quality Plans and Policies
The Department of Water Quality is working on plans and strategies to address
the new State policies, guidance, strategies, and procedures being imposed on
wastewater service providers. Development, completion, and implementation of
these plans and strategies will be dependent on State policy adoption and when
the County will need to utilize them to meet the requirements of State
requirements. This initiative and associated Department strategies are described
as follows.
1. Maryland Enhanced Nutrient Removal Strategy
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has developed an
Enhanced Nutrient Removal Strategy to reduce the amount of nitrogen
and phosphorus loading entering the Chesapeake Bay from Wastewater
treatment plants. This policy establishes nitrogen and phosphorus loading
allocations for all wastewater treatment plants in the State. These loading
allocations can only be increased for a wastewater treatment plant by
transferring, offsetting or decreasing the loading from another source or
through the use of spray irrigation. The Department is working on
multiple strategies to increase loading allocations where additional
loading is demanded to address growth and EDC initiatives. These
strategies include but are not limited to the following, and will be
implemented upon approval by MDE and as required to meet the nutrient
loading strategy of the State and the local loading requirements.
IV -9
2. Bubble Permit Strategy
This strategy also known as watershed Permitting consolidates the
nutrient loading allocations for multiple wastewater treatment plants into
one NPDES permit, resulting in a cumulative loading from all the facilities
under this permit, which are treated as one water quality loading
parameter for each nutrient included in the permit. This strategy is
subject to Federal and State NPDES permitting regulations.
3. Nutrient Trading
This strategy allows the County and its Department of Water Quality to
acquire loading allocation for nutrients from a point or non -point source
and transfer it to a wastewater treatment plant or to an Economic
Development (ED Nutrient Loading bank. The ED Nutrient Loading bank
would be a reserve of loading allocation that could be used at a
wastewater treatment plant to accommodate future economic
development in Washington County. Acquisition of this loading through
trading could include but is not limited to purchasing of loading from
point sources, reallocation from industrial sites and associated nutrient
loading, paying for restoration of wetlands, installation of forest buffer,
etc. An additional trading opportunity that the Department will pursue as
necessary is the upgrading of existing on site disposal systems with
Enhanced Nutrient Removal technology. The Department of Water
Quality's trading policy will be in accordance with applicable State
Nutrient Trading policies, strategies and regulations. In addition, the
Maryland Tributary Strategy targets specific load reductions for various
point and non -point sources, some of which were previously discussed in
this paragraph. The Department of Water Quality is working to maximize
potential reductions identified in the Strategy in concert with other ENR
initiatives in order to minimize nutrient discharges from sources other
than wastewater treatment facilities, and maximize potential available
loading at these facilities through voluntary reduction assistance at the
other sources identified. It is anticipated that a local "nutrient reduction
strategy team" will be required in the future to manage local initiatives
required by State mandates. This team, when created, and the subsequent
proceedings of the team will be considered as part of the County Water
and Sewerage Plan.
IV -10
4. Water Reuse
Commercial applications in the County currently utilize public water
systems or wells to for non -potable uses such as water-cooling and lawn
irrigation. The Department of Water Quality is developing policies to
replace theses water sources with high quality wastewater treatment plant
effluent. This policy would decrease the amount of nutrients entering the
receiving stream and thereby offset wastewater treatment plant loading
allocation for other uses. The Department of Water Quality will begin
implementation of water reuse practices once all State and local approvals
are received and cost effective users are identified.
5. ENR Upgrades
The Department of Water Quality will upgrade the Conococheague;
Winebrenner; Antietam and Smithsburg Wastewater Treatment Plants
with Enhanced Nutrient Removal technology. By upgrading the two
minors (Antietam and Smithsburg), additional flow capacity can be
recognized for increasing the capacity at the Conococheague and
Smithsburg Facilities. Request for Proposals to obtain Engineering
Services for the planning, design and construction management of these
upgrades has been issued with award of this contract in mid 2006. These
projects are included in the County's FY 10 Capitol Improvement Plan; the
proposed schedules in the plan are contingent upon State agency approval
and grant funding availability.
6. System Interconnections and Interceptors
In order to serve areas of the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area outside the
City of Hagerstown and not within the drainage basin of the
Conococheague Wastewater Treatment Facility, the Department of Water
Quality will investigate and install interceptors and/or upon agreement
with the City of Hagerstown interconnectors to serve these areas. An
example of this would be the Newgate Interconnector Project, which
connects the City of Hagerstown collection system at Pump Station No.
13 with the Conococheague collection system. The Hagerstown Urban
Growth Area Water and Sewer Study prepared by BCM in 1992 is a
planning document which outlines the general locations and concepts of
this strategy.
IV -11
7. Maryland Guidance on Capacity Management
The Maryland Department of the Environment has developed and issued
guidance to water and sewer providers. The purpose of this guidance is to
ensure that providers properly monitor and track their system capacities
to avoid allocating out more capacity than their systems can handle.
8. Capacity Management Plan
The Department of Water Quality has a capacity management plan for
each of its wastewater facilities. This plan accounts for the all sources of
allocation needs such as new developments, commercial allocation
increases, and existing service area infill growth. The plan establishes
yearly the amount of connections which will be allowed on the system to
maintain an adequate growth plan for the facility. New developments are
added into the appropriate plan at the time of site plan approval.
Inclusion into the capacity management plan and site plan approval does
not guarantee the developer allocation at the facility. Allocation at the
facility is applied for at the time of building permit application and once
approved is only valid for one year from the issuance date. The allocation
is approved based on prior appropriation in the Capacity Management
Plan. Once allocation is included into the capacity management plan it is
prorated according to the current policy over the appropriate years, so
that future growth from a development can be accounted for up front. If
allocation for a particular category is not used in the current year, it will
be carried over each year in the plan. Any agreements with developers
with designated allocation schedules are also included in the plan.
D. CITY OF HAGERSTOWN
Hagerstown Wastewater Treatment Plant and Collection System
The City of Hagerstown's wastewater collection and treatment system serves
approximately 40,000 persons and numerous commercial and industrial
customers within the city. Outside the corporate limits, approximately 19,000
people are served from area's known as Joint Service Area USA) customers. JSA
customer's wastewater is processed at the Hagerstown Wastewater Facility, but
the collection systems are maintained by Washington County's Department of
Water Quality. Service is also provided to industrial, commercial, residential
IV -12
and institutional customers located within Washington County. All of these
service areas are located within the Urban Growth Area.
The Hagerstown Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in the southern part of
the City along the Antietam Creek. It provides secondary treatment to both
domestic and industrial waste. The plants present capacity is 8 MGD (million
gallons per day). On September 21, 2004, a resolution was adopted to amend the
County Water and Sewer Plan to allow the facility to expand capacity from 8
MGD to 10.5 MGD by the year 2010. The expansion is contingent on the City
meeting nitrogen and phosphorous reductions goals based on Maryland's
Enhanced Nutrient Removal Strategy.
The treatment process includes mechanical bar screens; grit removal; primary
clarifiers; BNR process; pure oxygen activated sludge process; secondary
clarification and ozone disinfection. The plant also has capabilities of blending
primary effluent with secondary effluent during periods of high flows caused by
inflow and infiltration. The blended flow is then disinfected prior to discharge to
the receiving stream. The BNR process is designed to biologically remove
nitrogen to yearly averages of 8mg/l and total phosphorous to monthly averages
of 2 mg/1. Chemical addition is also available to reduce phosphorous levels
when the biological process becomes overloaded. Solids removal is handled by a
subcontractor who is currently working under contract for the City of
Hagerstown. The sludge process includes chemical addition; belt filter press and
heat drying (Pelletizing). The final solids are then used as fertilizer by various
local or national farmers. The Wastewater Treatment Plant and Pelletizer also
include odor control systems to address air quality issues. The Hagerstown
Wastewater Treatment facility currently processes wastewater received through
conventional gravity; high volume pump stations and low pressure grinder
pump collection systems.
The City of Hagerstown is currently upgrading the Hagerstown Wastewater
Treatment Plant with Enhanced Nutrient Removal capabilities; the City is also be
upgrading head works equipment; pure oxygen process equipment and
evaluating alternative disinfection methods for use at the facility. Upgrades to
ENR designed to meet permit limits of 3 mg/L of Nitrogen and 0.2 mg/L of
Phosphorus. Construction is scheduled to be completed by January 2011. The
Pelletizing facility continuously evaluates process and equipment upgrades to
keep the plant operating efficiently and within compliance regulations.
IV -13
The City of Hagerstown Collection System is• comprised of approximately 140
miles of pipe and 27 pumping/lift stations. The City of Hagerstown has
completed a Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Survey and Capacity Management
Operation and Maintenance Study (CMOM). With the completion of these
elements, the City has developed a plan for reducing inflow and infiltration with
the system, this plan will include upgrades, repairs and replacement of collection
system infrastructure.
E. FUNKSTOWN
The Town of Funkstown operates a wastewater collection and treatment system
which serves approximately 1,100 residents, the Funkstown Elementary School
east of town, and a business along Alternate Route 40. The Town is located in
the Urban Growth Area established by the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for
Washington County.
In 2008 the Town completed a major project involving construction of a new SBR
type sewage treatment plant to replace the leaking lagoon system. (See Table 14)
This new plant increased the Town's treatment capacity from 0.15 MGD to 0.20
MGD, thereby providing adequate capacity for existing flows and a small
portion for future growth.
F. SMITHSBURG
The Town of Smithsburg and its surrounding Growth Area are served by a
wastewater treatment system that is owned and operated by the Washington
County Department of Water Quality.
The Town has established a plan to locate and make all necessary repairs to the
collection system. The Town is currently televising the entire system one section
at a time. The Town has also started an annual inspection program of all
manholes. The Town has installed no -flow dishes in all manholes to help reduce
the amount of inflow.
G. MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
The present treatment facility is operated by the Maryland Environmental
Service and has a rated capacity of 1.6 MGD. MCI is utilizing an Eimco 4 Stage
Bardenpho advanced waste water treatment plant serving approximately 6,600
IV -14
persons. The collection system only serves the prison and has no plans to
expand.
H. BOONSBORO
The Town of Boonsboro provides public sewerage to a population of about 3,400
people residing within the town limits.
The Town recently upgraded its wastewater treatment which increased the
design capacity to 0.56 mgd. The two driving forces for the plant upgrade were
population growth from increased development and more stringent effluent
nutrient regulations. The plant upgrades included sequencing batch reactors
with ability to achieve enhanced nutrient removal.
The Boonsboro Town Growth Area Study, adopted in 1986 by the Town and the
County, identifies an area surrounding Boonsboro where growth and extension
of public utilities is encouraged. Service priority designations for property
within the Growth Area will be assigned once development proposals are
reviewed and approved by the County and Town. The Boonsboro Utilities
Commission is willing to make extensions of the sewer system within the
Growth Area but only for annexed properties. It remains the Town's policy that
public sewerage will not be extended beyond corporate boundaries.
I. CLEAR SPRING
The Town of Clear Spring's wastewater collection and treatment system serves a
population of approximately 663 people mostly located within the town limits.
By contractual agreement, the Washington County Department of Water Quality
provides operation and maintenance of the system.
The Town's treatment facility consists of a 0.2 mgd capacity oxidation ditch
wastewater treatment plant.
In 1991, at the request of the Mayor and Council, an engineering study of the
Clear Spring waste water treatment plant was completed by a private consultant.
The study concluded that: "The Clear Spring treatment plant has been operated
at a high level of efficiency during the study period (July 1, 1989 to May 31, 1991).
The plant treatment capacity is limited by the low concentration of the waste
sludge from the existing settling tank which results in reduced hydraulic
detention time in the aerobic sludge digester. The plant is capable of handling
IV -15
up to 200,000 gallons per day from both a hydraulic and organic loading
perspective. The plant influent flow cannot be increased to the full 200,000
gallons per day level until the sludge digestion capacity is increased by addition
sludge thickeners or additional digestion capacity."
The Town of Clear Spring is identified in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the
County as a "Town Growth Area".
J. HANCOCK
The Town of Hancock owns and operates a wastewater collection and treatment
system which serves a population of about 1,926 people mostly located within
the Town limits. The Town has a designated growth area according to the 2002
Comprehensive Plan for Washington County. Treatment is afforded by 12.8 acre
aerated lagoon from which the treated effluent is discharged to the Tonoloway
Creek. The lagoon has a maximum design capacity of 0.38 mgd and has an
average daily flow of 0.24.
K. FORT RITCHIE
Fort Ritchie, a former US Military installation located in Cascade, Maryland, was
closed in 1998 as a result of the .1995 Base Realignment and Closure program, or
BRAC. The PenMar Development Corporation (PMDC) was established as a
public instrumentality of the State of Maryland in May 1997. Its purpose is to
oversee the development of Fort Ritchie from a U.S. Army base to civilian uses.
On Oct. 4, 2006, the U.S. Army transferred ownership of 500 of the 591 acres of
Fort Ritchie to PMDC. The following day, PMDC sold it to Corporate Office
Properties Trust (COPT). In 2007, the U.S. Army transferred the remaining 91
acres of Fort Ritchie to PMDC; with PMDC immediately transferring same to
COPT. PMDC is to remain active in overseeing the development of the project by
COPT for seven years.
COPT is a fully integrated, self -managed real estate investment trust (REIT) that
focuses on the acquisition, development, ownership, management and leasing of
suburban office properties primarily in select Mid -Atlantic submarkets. Re-
development of Fort Ritchie is planned to occur over a 20 year time period and
will involve preservation and re -use of many existing building including those
that have been identified as historic. The re -development will also involve the
construction of many new structures. At completion, Fort Ritchie will have 1.7
million square feet of office and retail space, including approximately 850,000
IV -16.
square feet in a restricted business campus. The community will include a
historic district, a community area with recreational amenities, and several
residential neighborhoods offering 673 homes including condominiums,
townhomes, and single family homes.
Wastewater treatment for Ft Ritchie is provided at the Winebrenner wastewater
treatment plant operated by the Washington County Department of Water
Quality. This Plant also serves the Highfield, Cascade, and Pen Mar Service area.
A description of this system can be found outlined in the Water Quality
Department's section of this chapter.
COPT owns and operates the wastewater collection system serving Fort Ritchie
COPT will replace/repair/upgrade the entire collection system to accommodate
existing facility renovation and reuse, new commercial, retail and residential
development. It is expected that COPT will turn ownership of the collection
system over to the County upon completion of the upgrades required to meet
County standards and redevelopment needs.
COPT is committed to Environmental Stewardship and will build all new
facilities to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification
standards. This effort will result in decreased overall water consumption by 30-
50% per bldg, and likewise, wastewater generation.
L. WILLIAMSPORT
Wastewater treatment for the Town of Williamsport is provided by the
Washington County Department of Water Quality at its Conococheague
wastewater treatment plant. The town owns and operates the collection system
within the Town boundaries serving a population of approximately 2000
persons. The Town of Williamsport falls within the Urban Growth area
established by the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for Washington County.
M. FAHRNEY KEEDY HOME AND VILLAGE (private system)
The Fahrney Keedy Home and Village is located approximately 2 miles north of
the Town of Boonsboro on the east side of MD Route 66. It is a privately owned
retirement and assisted living facility located on a single lot consisting of a main
building with central support facilities, 90 nursing rooms, 12 assisted living
IV -17
rooms, and 12 apartments. Also on the property are 37 individual 2 and 3
bedroom cottages.
The existing privately owned wastewater treatment facility operated by
Maryland Environmental Services is designed to treat an average daily flow of
50,000 gallons and is located on the Home's property at the corner of Rt. 66 and
Mountain View Drive. The treatment units are located inside a ranch style
dwelling. Odor control equipment and a diesel powered standby unit are located
behind the building.
The treatment train consists of a 10,000 gallon capacity flow equalization tank, a
sludge holding tank, one 12 foot diameter primary settling tank, three fixed film
geo-form reactors filled with plastic media rotating partially submerged in a steel
tank, two final settling tanks followed by an ultra violet disinfection system and
a post aeration tank. The final effluent is discharged to a tributary to the Little
Beaver Creek just west of the Rt.66 crossing.
The plant as it exists today was upgraded in 1999/2000 to meet NPDES permit
limits for BOD and Ammonia. Wastewater from the Fahrney Keedy collection
system enters the flow equalization tank by gravity flow where it is aerated and
pumped to a flow distribution box on top of the primary settling tank. After
primary settling, the flow then enters the geo-form reactor basin where bacteria
consume nutrients to reduce BOD. The wastewater then enters the final settling
tanks to remove remaining suspended solids and the clarified effluent is
disinfected by ultra violet radiation and aerated in a small chamber to increase
dissolved oxygen to comply with the permit compliance limits.
The NPDES 2005 permit revision further lowered the compliance limit for
Ammonia, which triggered the need for additional upgrades to the facility.
The Home has applied for a loan under the USDA Rural Development Program
to fund the upgrade of the facility. The proposed upgrade will replace the
existing geo-form reactors with a Sequential Batch Reactor (SBR) while retaining
most of the remaining unit processes to comply with the stringent ammonia
limits. The existing building will be expanded to accommodate the SBR and
other ancillary equipment such as blowers, controls, and denitrification filter/s.
The capacity of the facility will remain unchanged at 50,000 gallons per day after
the upgrades are completed. The new limits are effective March 1, 2008.
The estimated cost of the upgrade is $ 2.4 Million.
IV -1&
N. PROJECTED DEMANDS
Projected demands for existing service areas are shown in Table No. 7. Future
demand projections presented in this table are based upon future population
projections for each area and a figure for TOTAL PER CAPITA FLOW in gallons
per capita per day
IV -19
NOTES FOR TABLE 7
(1) SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT — The facility which serves specific service areas
within the County and municipalities.
(2) POPULATION SERVED — From agency or municipality. Interpolated for 2015-
2030
(3) DOMESTIC FLOW (Million Gallons per Day) — Sewage flows from domestic or
residential sources. Figures provided by the agency or municipality.
(4) INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL FLOW (Million Gallons per Day) - Sewage flows
from industrial and commercial uses. Figures provided by the agency or
municipality.
(5) INFILTRATION/INFLOW (Million Gallons per Day) — Infiltration is
groundwater entering a sewer system and service connections through such
means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. Inflow is
water discharged into a sewer system from such sources as roof leaders, drains,
cooling water discharges, manhole covers, catch basins, surface runoff, and street
washers. Figures provided by the agency or municipality.
(6) TOTAL FLOW (Million Gallons per Day) — Based upon information supplied by
the service providing agency.
(7) DOMESTIC PER CAPITA FLOW (Gallons Per Capita per Day) — Determined by
dividing DOMESTIC FLOW by POPULATION SERVED.
(8) TOTAL PER CAPITA FLOW (Gallons Per Capita per Day) - Determined by
dividing TOTAL FLOW by POPULATION SERVED.
(9) TOTAL FLOW (Million Gallons per Day) - These projected figures are
determined by multiplying TOTAL PER CAPITAL FLOW for the present year by
POPULATION SERVED for the planning year.
(10) SYSTEM CAPACITY (Million Gallons per Day) —based on information supplied
by the service providing agency.
IV -20
(p�W) Alpedeo wa1sAS
000
N
0
0
m
o
o
N
n
c
o
'
o
o
d
m
a
N000
o
M
^0
m
v
(0`JW) Mold leloyM
s
001-
N
O
Z
0
O
O
Z
Z
Z
0
O
O
O
O
O
N
pamoS uuilelnd0d
NU)0
b
g
N
0
0
M
O
0000
M
N
N
O
Y
N
N
Z
0
Z
Z
(0`JW) Al WaisAS
;o
o
N
o
00000
oo
�
a o-----
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
m
¢
o
0
rn
¢
¢
`'
o
m
(a`JW) mold Ielo1
m
p
r
(P�1
O
N
C
N
1Nv
O
Z
0
O
0
Z
Z
z
Yo
v
o
d
o
o
d
o
O
o
p
N
panJaS uo!lendod
fO
r
N
N
P
N
O
O
O
N
N
N
Z
Z
b
N
N
Q
Q
0;;
00
O
N
O
a
g
(aew) Alloedea wa;sAS
o
m
o
N
0
0
0
0
W
2
c
m w
0
o
m
00
1100
n
n
m
o
¢
o
r
o¢¢
¢
Q
a o
(0oW) Mold lelol
e
J
N
O
o
O
0
0
a
o
OOO
m
O
❑
Q
N
N
paMaS uolle!nd0d
m
1\
b
V
m
M
M
N
O
W Q
m
g o
(adodoo) (8101
m
r
-
m W
U
Co
~WQJ
n
(ad3d0)oflsowoa
Qd3d`J)o!lsawod
(doW) Alpedeo walsAs
0
---
(aevl)MOIJlelol
z
U
W
z
z
w
0
S
-
(QoW)Moflupuo!leill!!UI
0
a
4'JW) MOld lelwaww03fleulsnPUl
4
M
(aojW) uOlldwnsuo3 o!isawoa
o
E
panicsuopendodu
S88;;—;;:—;;
--:cl
v
c
o
O
t
F
c
a,
af.
zz„
c
x
E
So
wv¢
>.
u
'-
c
to
E
mJ-
so
ox
11
N
U
S�
S
N¢
0
li
O
S
U'N
f
•
IV-21
NOTES FOR TABLE NO.8
(1) TREATMENT TYPE is described more fully in the text of this Plan. Both
TREATMENT TYPE and STP DESIGN CAPACITY information has been
extracted from the applicable Facilities Plans.
(2) RECEIVING WATERS — The stream or river into which the treated effluent is
discharged.
IV -22
Y
Y
N
N
Y
O
Y
w'
(p
O
p
N
U
N
J
N
C-)
a)
(�
J
U
U
Z'
O
0
O
Q
N
L
N
Y
C
O
≥
N
N
N
a
c
y
0
N@
N
N
O
y
o
r y
>%
No
000
J
m
U
N
j
c
m
J
J
U
U
3
d U
E
E
U
E
3
U
2
0
o
E
m
m>
m
N
m
3
J
0
0
Ol
O
-
J
°n
O
0,
J
°p
>0)
u)
O
J
.O
:fl
'O
`J
V
C`
O
d
CC
IC
C
O
O
N
N
�«
.C
C
C
O
cG
C
C d
Q
Qia
Q
F-F"'F-
U -F
-m
J
�F-F-F-ZDU=U
U
Q�
Z)m(9
d
Z
Z
JU
�
❑
O
N
M
O
O
O
O
O
(O
O
'c1-000)
r
O
r
O
M
O
CL
C
O)
O
r
M
M.C')(0000
(O
4
N
W
O
O
N
r0000
N
M
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
(O
O
Q
O
F—
y
W
O
p
•—
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
V'
O
O
O
O
Cl
Z
o
0
W
w
F-
F-
Q
Z
0
O
0
0
0
O
(�
C0
O)
J N
Z
o
O
O-
°!-
V
m
m
CCC
m
m
0
Q '
d
N
c
U
m`
N
0)
CCC
222
O
N
a
F
F-
_
>
CO
Q
O
m
L
L
L
U
O
V y
C O
C N
%
C
C
U
C
O
C
O
C
U
U
U
y
C
O
tq
(0
U
J a
rn
Q
c
o
m
m
m
o
c
c
>
w
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
U
'`-
LL
O
O
O
a
E
C
2O
�O
I C
O
N
N
C
O
C
N
'O
'O
U
O
>
-O >
0
d
.≥
V
O
o
L
L
L O
d
d
N
N
O
,=
t6
U
J
>-
F-
V
Q
-O
L
ca
U
U
�-
LL
Q
Q
Q
'O
U
"O
U
N
m
N -
N
Q
'O
CC)
-
-o
o)
O
'O
'O
C
-
C
C
W
J
-O
v
C
O
T
-O
O
N
a
C
C
O
a
C
N
-O
N
'O
N
G
O
O
O
cG
O
O
m
m
'..C
(n w
4-
o
O
(/i
G
0
C
y
m
o
.O
0
'N
i?
>
m
y
(0 .� .C
≥ (�
m
Z
w
x
m
m
3
u
c m
m
m
v
x
O
}g
o
m
m
m
x '�
'�(
'�(
'�(
`m
d
d
Z
m
iii
:o
R
o
a
a m
U m (�
>
O(nW
Wa:
w0
�KQQ
iia
F -W
W
WQQQmQQO�(n
M a0
C
(0
d
o
0
C
p)
L
0
E
a)
E
d
0a
aci
c
mI-
F-
F-
�'
y
CE
E
m
3
c
L
0
O
i
C
o
O
o
0)
N
C_
U
Y
C'
C
C
N
O
C
d
C
Co
0
h
N
O
V
L
C
N
N
3
fl
=
c
N
o
c
o
m
-
m
L
c
m
J
U
o
m
Q
-(°o
s
•J+
O
O+
OIL
(6
J
O
O
+
+♦
N
(Ep
IV -23
a,
J
d
O N
N
"-'
N
C `J
=
Q Y
O
O
.Li
Y
U)
U
N
� U
�'
d
=
m
E
a,>
c m
c
U)
CD
cC
Q
U
Q
U
U
C7 o
o
0
0
0
U)
•N
O
0
0
O
U)
C
0-
F -
U)
N
U)
L
O)
O)
U
0
U
c
_�
U=
U
U
N
N
w a
U
U
'O
a
0-
a
d
d
U)
H
O
U) U
C
U
'O
C
U
O
m
v
a
=
cC
o
cr
a
L -U
Cf]
(n
O
V)
p.
w
- U
a
(n
-o
00
m `o
=S
,g
C
C
O U)
U U'
U U
X
G
U
C
d
a
N
d
C
U
E
N
d
d
U)
°)
U
2r
N
-
U
U
N
y
T
=
d
_
)
a
U)
LL
Q
N
L
O
-g
O
J
It
(n
O
li
2
(n
IV -24
IV -25
o
-o
3
U
a
Q
tU
Z
to
O
�
o
_
N
a
C
o
w
o
n
V
�
-)
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
o
d
E
d
d
d
d
a)
d
a)
wa
U)
a
a
5
a
a
aoa
�
s
o-
a
a-
o
a
is
a
zT
:s
o-
tom-
:T
tT
v
>o
C
«)
o_
`
U)
U)
U)
CO
Co
U)
Co
m
CO
CO
CO
Cl)
U)
co
co
to
co
t)
m
to
Co
to
to
to
to
to
a.
0
a
a.
a
a
a
000
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
0) 6)
(U
to
o)
tU
CU
o)
CI)
tU
tU
tU
tU
tU
tU
.fl
..a 0) 0)
U)
U)
CO
U)
U)
U)
U)
CO
CO
U)
Cl)
CO
CO
O
O
O
U)
N
U)
N
CO
U)
N
U)
(U
CO
N
CO
N
U)
N
CO
N
U)
U)
d
CO
N
CO
N
N
>
to R)
t
a
-a
d
a
a
-o
'a
a
a
a
o
a
a
a
W
to
O
O to ca
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
t)t)
a
U
co
to
to
to
to
to
Co
DC
C)
>-
C
NINO
m
O
0 n'
J
CO
CO
U)
U)
CO
U)
Cl)
U)
U)
CO
U)
CO
CO
U)
U)
CO
CO
Lu
m
E
E
E
E
666
6666666666
W C)
O
a)
d
a)
to
a)
to
a)
)
C)
a)
C)
C)
C)
�J Q
N
V)
V)
C
U)
p_
T
(n
T
CO
T
T
T
T
U
ULLta
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
aW
iw
O
J
rn
0
0
d
O
a
_----
O
Wm
(D
t0
-Q
_
Lto
W
C
Co
a
n
>-
-C
C
N
z
a
to
a)
to
ti>
-
o
a)
to
0)
Vi
DC
O)
UO
O
Q
al
U
f6
=
to
O
O)cr
-_-O
U
[/)
U>
O
U—
DC
F—
-C
m
C)
DC
>-
0
Of
IV -26
NOTES FOR TABLE NO.11
(1) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY, MUNICIPALITY, OR DEVELOPER - Responsibilities
may include project initiation and management but no necessarily financing.
(2) SEWER SERVICE AREA — That area served, or potentially served, by a system of
sanitary sewers connected to a treatment plant, or, in a very large system, sub-
areas as delineated by the County.
(3) GRANTS ELIGIBLE — Dollar amounts indicate funds for which the project may
be eligible from sources shown in parentheses. Source abbreviations represent
agencies and programs as follows:
EPA — Environmental Protection Agency
MDE — Department of the Environment
EDA — Economic Development Administration
UDAG — Urban Development Action Grant
CDBG — Community Development Block Grant
FmHA — Farmers Home Administration
ARC — Appalachian Regional Commission
HUD — Housing and Urban Development Grant
SRL — State Revolving Loan Fund
The local cost for any project may be assumed to be the total cost estimate less
any amount shown for grants eligible.
IV -27
F-
2
LL
a
C
C
a
a
C
a
C
IL
LL
a
V;
ft
— LL
O w
IE
ir
Jc
as
F
K
W
>-
z
W
F-
a
z
LU
LL
W
Q
a
W
`o
`G
v
`
a,
c
a
-a
o
2
m
9
U
E
o
y�
« o
COO)
N>
n
`
=
C
a
C
a
a
a
-
a
a
'a
a
'
L
U
41
"' N
O O
E 2
v
_
N
U
L '-
S �
N
V
C
0
=
0
o
0
0
O
0
O
=
~
O
O
w
O
O
O
S
a
o
o `0
o.
0
c
=
m n
o
IS
w
.
v
v
=
m
o
v
o
w
=
rn
o
w
0
o
U
a,c
v
c
C
C
=
`
`
-
U
v
S
yc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cIS
'"
oc
U
U
=0
2
m
o
U
J
U
p
Ua
v
0
0
E
0
U
U
o.
m
m
S
Q
J
fL
J
a
Q
Q
W
p
W
p
W
p
W
U
W
p
W
p
W
p
W
p
W
p
W
p
W
p
Z
N
N
Z
Z
Wrn
rn
rn
v
N
lU
u
(n
v
N
U1
N
v
41
V1
l9
v
!n
u
N
0
0
0
0
0
N
Z
a
W
N N
Yi
_
63
9-
W
H
N
°
E
v
m
a
K
a
K
m
m
o
m
a
m
m
c
E
'C
u
E
i
Z
Z
Z
Z
`o v
v
o
,<
E
v
.2
v
w
w
w
w
cm
o
_
a
a
a
a
o
E
O
v
v
v
m
or '°
E
v
p
v
T
a
e
_
o
v
o
e
m
rn
T
rn
a
v
v
c
E z
n
a
=
01
=
v
U
_
_
_
@
m
m
ft'E
C
v
c
N
y
a
rn
it
a
a
v
D u
e
t'
a
a
v
m N
D
v a
U
0o
=
....
00
c
P.
a
a°
m
m
m
"
4
m
d
m
m `
O
m
G
NE
O a=
a
q
-
p C
—c
a
T
O
6 T
O
T
U O
T
O
aN
N
01
y
y
v .a
m
°-
'n a
`u
y
E
E
a c
c c
c c
c c
Y
a
_
O F
= E
C
_
m
a
3
f l
X
m
m
-
v
t
a` w
as
w Ca=
s
m
w1 -w
1-w
-
-z
0
c o
o
o
x
v
a
N
l0
W 9
N N
N
C
O
jp O
N c
OI O
O
N C N
k'a
w
in
in
y N
in o
W� E
m
o
�
v
m'?
0
n'
o�
v�
E
o
v'
c
m E
N E
E a
LL
2
w
'�
0
'°
N oym
a c
i
o
r
E
3a=Y
d E
0 E
�
xN
—
m
0
c
¢
'E
a
aoaa=
oa= c
y
a
o
v
0>30
`
v
p >30>30>30>30
v
v
v
v"
,O
v
>,0
w
>30>30>30>30
v
m
m
a
z,
a
O
a
o >30>30>30
u
v"
m
.
O v
C OO
C W
C n«
N
C A
N
N
N
T m
N
C
C N"
C N
N
C N
c N
C 0C
N
a r N
O
82828
¶828282828282898289828
O Q
v
O Q
Q
O Q
Q
O Q
Q
O Q
O Q
O Q
O Q
O Q
O Q
O ¶8982828?
Q
Q
O Q
Q
a a g
a
C r
..
C d
d
C«
C a
U
a
U
a
Q
d
Q ..
d
Q
a
U
d
U
N
U
(0
Q
U
U
a
y-�'=
j
a o
O 02
3x30'3
N
O a'9
O N
30.
O N
O
3
O N
3m3
O N
O N
O«
3
«
3i3a,3T3'3
C
O N
C
O N
C
O FI
O 10.0
C (0
O
3
O N
rn 0
O
-C C
L 0
«O
L O
L O;C
O
O
L O,C
O
L O
L
O
O
O
O
3
3
3
3
G
3
3
3
3
L
3
3
3
3
3 0
3 0
3
L
3
L
3
L
3
IV -28
0
N
W
p
p
o
N
N
W
a
s
N
(V
N
a
a
0
2
C
1
a
m
0
a
❑
G)
C�
a
=1
m
W
001
C
a
0
m
C
v
0
0V
»..
C
._
_
b
y
o
C�
v
o
c
b
b
a
oc
c
c
c
'v
`o
y
U
w
N
m
T
J
j
m
C'l
a)
w
w
C
w
C
C
C
J
C
C
W
2
w
G
.=
0
C
C
y
o>
C
o>
O
`"
C
O>
i
C
o>
0
n
0
a
0
n
0
0
a
0
n>≥≥
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
n
J
0
0
a
J
0
aa
>>
0
D!
a
r
r
p
r
O
n
J>
J
J>
cv
cv
w
v
E
N
N
N
0
E
CE
E
CE
E
0
v
v
d
—
m
m
w
w
a)
v
w
m
m
m
—
❑
a
a
a
0000
-)
00000
0000
a
a
s
c0
C
C
0
0
0
0
U-
o
U
p
c
''
0
U
U
C
0
U
0
U
0
O
0
U
0
00000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
00
00
U
U
c
o
0
o
U
U
U
O
m
m
m
a
N
N
N
o
❑
a
a
a
9
QJ
v
O
v
c
=
Q
Do
Q
Q
Q
Q
LO L
CO
LL
LL
0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
U W
C
.o
❑
❑
❑
C
❑
o
1
N
0
1n
0 v
p
0
q
O
0
O
O
0
0
0
g
q
q
0
�+
3
3
3
�
3
F5
0
pp
q
p
o
o
0____-a.----
g
q
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
m
o
m
W
000
m
h
N
O
N
u
o
o
E
55555
CCC
C
C
c
0
0
00
W
p
CJK
_
rK
i
vNi
19
f9
f9
M
NM
NN
VN
f9
M
J=
=>
.
>
=J
"-se
M^
xi»
W
E
•
m
C
90
N
n
-
>
2
w
>m
Q
n
m
c
m
c
0
u<
n
m
n
v
c
S
a;
C
o
a)
N=«
u
�`
m
o
0
a
o
.@
C
≤i
fl
C
A
c
m
m
d
'o
m
._
n
`m
0
o
'�
w
>
K
K
jz
m
o
o
a)
a)
umTi
v
a
v
E
a
E
m
y
°'
E
u
o?
CO
o
CE=
O>
88
0«
b
m
❑
m
E>
v
E
co
m
L°
a
v
rn
a❑
w¢
a
n@
vA
@
o
d
=
.L
V
0
o
c
CO
v
v
o
v
U
n
'o
E
v
o❑
E
5
.y
.
c
s
0
v
@
0-0
n
ai
E
v
m
to
n
`o
°-'
E
n
C
w
>
>>
a
o
S
o
o
I
.N
E
°=
E
a
2
m
H
w
>.
j
E
c
E
a
`m
'""'
$
m
p
0 o
$
c
E
E'
W
o
0
0
0
0 o
o
,my
C'5<
i
n
e
_)n
w'
rn
a
m
o'
m
H
sc
9
m
u
v v
in
y
A
C
LL
C)0)0,
W
m
`v
a) O
c
on
v
`w 2
n
n
N
m �as
va0
E
m
w
m
m
m
v
Orn
T
9
'
a
�O
m
a—OI
—O
•v
'^
'"
s E
3
a
La
s
a)
m
>
3 n
E
a
N
s a
E
o
U
J
LL
s
LL
s
0.
6
W
%
ro N
t/I
o
-�
U>
aim
a
W
W
v
K n
N
N
Z
W N
a
W❑
a)0
U
v
N ._
6
n
J
K
m
K C
R
vl
O3
C a1 m
c 0) a m
a
m
N 0 N
`v C¢
3
a
O
o
O
O
0
O
0
O
0.
n
Y
ss
d
a
a
a
a
a
a
s
0
0
0
v¢❑ N o
«
m
C
O
C
G
C
N
0
C
C
0
V
x> a) E v
Q 0 A.
L
0
o
00
C
0
o
O
O
g
ry
m
m
m
m
Q y N
J
LL
�
(n
0
(D
0
m
0
m
0
61
0
4]
0
m
o
m
W
U
N
U
x
It
N
U
aTa'
3
Q)
O
O
O
O
2
OO
2
2
=1
Y
Y
`
3
o
0`
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
o
00
m o F
V
o
c
n
a
a
c
c
s
c
N
N
u'
0
0
`y
C
C
O
o
0
o
0
0
•..
m
0
N
0
N m
:5.2-0
O)
m
J
LL
E
N
00000
00
N
al
x
It
`0
5.2 .5
x
`o
to
`o
`o
o
`o
`o
`o
o
S
t
C
CC
0
❑
o
C
F
U
~
lo-
F
F
F
o
F
F
F
F
F
IV -29
CD
or
E
CO
{
/
i
_
)
12
It
Ct
\\\\\\\\\�}\
\
\\
\
/{)C-
{
2
-
CO
)
f
{
f
)
} §`
\
/
{
0-(
-
-
-
-
\
WOE
5
fi
0-
5.2
\
:\-
{
}
00{)
(
(
E
0)
00
,
,
2
q
f {
17-s
O. SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
Sludge is defined as the solid residuals of sewage treatment. Primary or raw
sludge is obtained in the primary state of a treatment plant by collecting solids
that have settled. Sludge is stabilized after the organic matter has been
decomposed into a relatively stable material. A common method of stabilization
in anaerobic digestion.
Sludge management is an integral part of the sewage treatment and disposal
process. The disposal of treatment plant sludge is regulated by the Maryland
Department of the Environment in accordance with the Code of Maryland
Regulations 10.03.48. Sludge disposal sites are approved after an analysis of such
factors as the site surface drainage, soil type, depth to bedrock and sludge
composition.
On November 25, 1992, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted the
National Sewerage Sludge Use and Disposal Regulation (Chapter 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 503). The rule addresses three general categories of use
and disposal practices for . sludge that is; (1) land -applied, distributed, or
marketed; (2) disposed of at dedicated sites or in sludge -only landfills; and (3)
incinerated in sludge -only incinerators. The new rule includes standards that
apply to generators, processors, beneficial users, or disposers of sludge or septic
wastes. The rule sets standards in two areas. First, it sets standards for 10 heavy
metals, pathogens, and total hydrocarbon emissions from incinerators. Second, it
sets standards for managing sewage sludge use and disposal. The prescribed
management practices have been designed to limit human and ecological
exposure to any contaminants and ensure that sewage sludge is used on the land
or disposed of in ways that are protective of human health and the environment.
Several methods of sludge disposal are described in the Upper Potomac River
Basin Water Quality Management Plan. The methods include land spreading,
incineration, ocean disposal, sanitary landfilling, and composting. The key
methods of sludge disposal in Washington County are land spreading and
landfill.
1. Land Spreading
Land spreading refers to the process of sludge application to lands used
for farming, forestry, or recreational purposes. Sewage sludge is generally
not as easily handled nor as high in nutrient content as commercial
IV -31
fertilizers. However, it does greatly enhance soil physical fertility when
applied to marginal lands.
Sludge may contain pathogenic bacteria or viral organisms. They may
also contain heavy metals which could pose a threat to public health
through transmission of toxic levels in crops grown on treated land or
through leaching into groundwater. For these reasons, sludge must be
stabilized prior to land spreading to reduce public health hazards and to
prevent nuisance odor conditions.
In order to ensure that harmful contaminants do not enter the human food
chain, sludge application rates are controlled and crops grown on sludge
treated land are restricted based upon recommendations by the University
of Maryland.
The University of Maryland warns that "sewage sludge should not be
considered an innocuous or harmless product. The implications of the
uptake by plants of heavy metals and persistent organics from sludge,
their intake by grazing animals, and their ingestion by humans are not
entirely understood. Therefore, the University of Maryland cannot
predict the long term effects of sewage sludge on the environment and
does not accept responsibility for any such effects."13
The Upper Potomac River Water Quality Management Plan described
further implications of land spreading. "When contemplating instituting a
land spreading program, municipalities must consider the availability of
land, the time frame within which that land can be leased or otherwise
controlled and potential alternative sites. Should public pressure or
public health considerations cause termination of land spreading
activities, municipalities must be prepared to undertake interim sludge
disposal operations until more acceptable permanent solutions can be
devised. Similarly, it must be recognized that land for sludge spreading
may have a finite useful lifetime. Thus, additional land should be
available nearby. Gaining access to large tracts of land is always difficult
near urban areas. Hence, land spreading of sludge may not be a realistic
U From Sewage Procedures for Approval, Division of Solid Waste Control, January 25, 1977.
IV -32
alternative for most large metropolitan areas, especially on a long-term
basis.
"When land is to be leased, or sludge is to sold to private landowners,
municipal officials will have to deal with problems of general acceptance.
The extra time and costs associated with transporting and spreading
sludge, a natural reluctance to work with sewage sludge, and the limited
nutrient value compared to commercial fertilizers may make it difficult to
sell sludge to farmers. Where sludge spreading is an attractive sludge
disposal alternative, wastewater officials will need to have the flexibility
to offer additional incentives. These would be most effective in the form
of indirect subsidies such as free delivery of bulk lots of processed sludge
and low cost rental of spreading devices. Municipalities should also
consider the possibilities for nutrient enrichment of sludge to enhance
their value to the farmer. This could be contracted out to a private
fertilizer concern.'14
2. Sanitary Landfilling
Sanitary landfill of sludge containing no free moisture, either separately or
along with mixed municipal solid waste, is an environmentally acceptable
method for disposal of sludge. The sludge must be stabilized as described
for land spreading in order to prevent nuisance odors and reduce hazards
to those working in the area.
The relative benefits of sanitary landfill disposal are discussed in the
Upper Potomac River Water Quality Management Plan as follows:
"Many of the considerations that must be taken into account in evaluating
the land spreading option such as protection of groundwater are pertinent
to the discussion of sanitary landfills. Typically, however, sanitary
landfills have less problems with surface runoff, and uptake by crops is
generally not a prime consideration. Further, sanitary landfill obviously
requires less land than land spreading.
"Upper Potomac River Basin Water Quality Management Plan, Maryland Water Resources Administration,
September 2, 1976 (Section 12).
1V-33
The trade-off required to obtain this added protection and decreased land
requirement is the loss of most of the advantages of resource recovery
realized in land spreading. Landfill offers little more than the use of a
solid material to fill natural depressions or replace soils or gravel that can
be used elsewhere. Areas where landfill has been practiced can be
reclaimed for recreational or other purposes."
3. Sludge Management Practices in Washington County
Table No. 12 provides an inventory of current sewerage sludge generation
and how it is utilized. All municipal and non -municipal treatment plants
that generate sludge and have a sludge utilization permit are listed.
Sewerage treatment plants for the Towns of Boonsboro, Hancock and
Funkstown utilize lagoons and therefore produce no sludge.
The majority of the sludge produced in Washington County is disposed of
in the Washington County sanitary landfill. The remainder of the sludge
is disposed of by land spreading. Non -municipal treatment facilities
which transport sludge to large plants generally do not have the facilities
to adequately de -water the sludge. De -watering is provided at the
receiving treatment plant and is either disposed of at the Washington
County sanitary landfill or land spread. All sludge transported to the
Conococheague Wastewater Treatment Plant is disposed of at the landfill.
Some non -municipal, package treatment plants produce insignificant
amounts of sludge and are required to have permits for disposal.
The method for utilizing or disposing of sludge generated by proposed
sewerage treatment plants is discussed in the narrative for each new
project addressed in this Plan.
The City of Hagerstown utilizes a sludge pellitization plant. The plant is
operated and maintained by Synagro Technologies, Inc. under a
operations agreement with the City of Hagerstown. The following is a
general explanation of the sludge pelletization process. -
Sludge produced by the treatment plant is collected and thickened by a
dissolved air flotation thickener and is then pumped to an aerated sludge
holding tank. Sludge is delivered to the pellitization plant for processing.
Currently the plant operates twenty four (24) hours per day
approximately four (4) days per week. Once the sludge is conditioned
IV -34
with a polymer additive, the conditioned sludge is pressed in a belt press
and placed in a rotary kiln where it is heat dried. Sludge pellets are
produced in the kiln and then deposited in a silo for storage. The pellets
are then used as fertilizer by local and national farmers.
IV -35
N
O
Z
W
J
m
F-
0
Z
5
Q
F
Z
N
O rn
U �
Z N
0
F- z N
o
m
Q
o
Z E
Z
O
N �
J �
H m
Q
W
0
0
J
N
w
C7
o
J w
N
O Z�'p
00O
OM
OO
MO
-Mt
OO
N
o
a z
fn
c-
m
r
•-
N
0 J
w 0
F W
Z Y
o
O
O
O
O
o
O
rn
o
0
o
0
O
m
Q
r
U) Q
J
0
0 F- 0
0cc
O
I
0
0
0
0
V
0
0
0
N
Jj a
to
c6
c
a�
C)
Q
0�
~ W d
W F-
M
O
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
r
0
O
7 5
Q Q
0
w
J 9
M
m
M
rnM
M`—
r
M
F-[L
m
oD
N
O
O W
V
OJ
(D
D)
m
r
a:)
r
r
F- z
w
C7
.22
C-) _
y
O
c
f6
c
N
J
-
>
U
m
O
O
m
Oc
N
N
=
~
O
a
C
a)
C
m
a)
L
to
cu
2i
o
U
to=
0)
F -
E
C
C
C
D
O
0
o
C
E
f0
Q.
J
y
Cn
O
U
D
C
y
C
N
O
N
N
a)
J
0
O
(6
N
O
c
0
U
O
N
I
t
0)
N
O
V
N
+.
QmmUUU-cr)
I
.
F
cnrn
E
(0
0)
O
d
a)
(6
c .6
O 0
E O
CM
o c
cm
j O
W
N
-C C
E
o .0
-2<
EOO
t
CU N
N Q1 O
O N
a ca co
)
N
(0
Ca a
5
W
U
O
co
IV -36
P. POLICY FOR SEWER LINE INSTALLATION IN AREAS WHERE SERVICE
IS NOT AVAILABLE
All new subdivisions shall be served by adequate sewerage disposal systems
pursuant to Article VI of the adopted Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for
Washington County.
In order to prevent street and other damage encountered in providing public
sewer service to developed areas, and to provide for efficient and effective
connection to public sewer service, the following policy is presented for sewer
line installation in areas where public sewerage service is not available at the
time of street and residential construction, but will be made available at some
future time:
1. Requests for such installation will only be accepted where interim systems
are permitted and public sewer service is programmed by the Water and
Sewerage Plan (S-1, S-3, S-5).
2. Each application for a sewer construction permit must be accompanied by
a letter from the county Health Officer requesting that such installation be
permitted.
3. Building permits, subdivision plats, and septic tank approvals shall
include a provision requiring the connection of the premises to
community sewerage within twelve (12) months of announced
availability.
4. Sewer lines shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable
municipal or Commission specifications.
5. The connection of a "dry" system shall be plugged with a visible and
readily inspected plug at the future point of connection to the existing
system.
Q. POLICY ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
1. Individual On -Lot Systems
When a community sewage system is not available or until such time that
a community sewerage system has been made available, an on -site sewage
IV -37
disposal system may be permitted on an interim basis. Such systems must
be properly designed in accordance with C.O.M.A.R. 26.04.02
A number of alternatives to the standard septic system for on -lot sewage
disposal have been identified and shown to be operationally sound under
appropriate circumstances. Such systems include improved septic tank -
tile field systems, mound systems, and systems with toilet sewage
separated from wash water (composting toilets, incinerating toilets, and
liquid recycling toilets). The high cost of central sewerage systems and
the fact that on -lot systems are currently failing in some areas is sufficient
justification to experiment with alternative techniques. to
Alternative on -lot systems should be preferred in rural areas where there
are existing sewage disposal problems and where they are found to be
economically and environmentally sound methods of correcting such
problems in these areas should incorporate measures to assure adequate
maintenance of new facilities and to reduce sewage generation.
2. Community Systems
Every effort should be made to investigate the reliability and desirability
of community sewerage systems which could serve as appropriate
alternatives to conventional central sewerage systems. Such systems may
be used as corrective measures to solve existing sewage disposal problems
and as interim or permanent measure to serve new development under
appropriate circumstances.
Within growth areas, pressure sewers and vacuum sewers may be more
appropriate and cost-effective than conventional gravity sewers to
provide permanent service to a given development. Such measures as dry
sewers should be evaluated as an appropriate interim measure until sewer
lines are extended to a given development.
Within the Rural/Agricultural Area, community sewerage system
alternatives acceptable to all approving state and county agencies should
15 Upper Potomac River Basin Water Quality Management Plan, Maryland Water Resources Administration,
September 2, 1976 (Section 12).
IV -38
be considered for development proposals utilizing innovative planning
techniques such as clustering of rural housing to preserve agricultural
land the rural character. Some alternative systems which are appropriate
for on -lot disposal may lend themselves to the clustering approach. The
use of package treatment plants may also be considered to serve cluster
developments and rural villages within the Rural/Agricultural area. The
appropriateness of such development and its associated sewerage system
shall be determined by the Planning Commission based on the policies of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington County. The use of
such facilities shall be approved by all appropriate state and local
authorities as well as meeting all applicable health and water quality
requirements.
R. POLICY ON INTERIM TREATMENT PLANTS16
1. An interim treatment plant is acceptable as long as it is an interim step in a
regional long-range sewerage treatment plant with a specific date by
which permahent facilities will be provided. No permit will be granted
for an interim treatment plant which is planned to be in operation longer
than five years.
2. The State will issue a permit for such a plant only if it has been included
by the County as part of an approved 10 -year Water and Sewer Plan, and
adequate measures have been taken by the County to assure that growth
will be limited to the capacity of such treatment plant. The State will
approve only a limited number of such plants and only where they are
compatible with appropriate regional plans for such sewerage service.
3. Any such plant must meet all applicable health and water quality
requirements.
4. Privately finance interim treatment plants must be publicly owned and
operated.
is See the Washington County Department Water Quality's POLICY ON ITERIM AND PERMANENT
COMMUNITY WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS IN Appendix D of this Plan.
IV -39
5. When such a plant is proposed for a sewer system from which raw
sewerage overflows are presently occurring or threatened, the State may
require the capacity of the plant to be enlarged to provide capacity to
alleviate or prevent the overflows, where practicable. Financing
arrangements for such enlargements must be approved by the
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.'
S. SERVICE AREA REQUIREMENTS
The following shall be applicable to each respective designated service area.
Criteria for creation and amendment of service areas are outlined in Appendix B.
1. Urban and Town Growth Area Service Areas
The provision of community water and sewer facilities within the
designated Growth Areas of Washington County is encouraged. The
Growth Areas established by the 2002 Comprehensive Plan for the County
are designated as Planned Service (W-5 and S-5). Development proposals
which involve the extension of water and sewer lines within the
boundaries of the Growth Areas will be considered to be consistent with
the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the County and will therefore
not require an individual amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan in
order to proceed with the development review and approval process.
Specific arrangements between the developer and the appropriate service
providing agencies including verification of sufficient capacity shall be
finalized prior to the development receiving approval. An appropriate
Service Priority Classification of Programmed Service (W-3 and S-3) will
then be assigned to the property as part of the triennial update of this
plan. Determinations as to whether or not a property is considered to be
within the influence of a Growth Area will be made by the Washington
County Planning Commission.
2. Rural Village Service Areas
Existing or planned community water and sewer facilities located within
areas considered as Rural Villages by the Comprehensive Plan or
Washington County Zoning Ordinance may be designated as a Rural
Village Service Area. While primarily designed to serve the existing
development in the village, a service area established around these
villages could allow for in -fill development on existing lots of record and
IV -40
limited growth. Development proposals for new subdivision lots and
development within existing Rural Village Service Areas will require
Planning Commission review and approval to determine if the proposal is
consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with Rural
Villages and the Washington County Zoning Ordinance.
3. Restricted Use Service Areas
Community Water and/or sewer service areas associated with facilities
that are located outside of a designated Growth Area and not within a
Rural Village may be considered as Restricted Use service areas. These
service areas are created to correct documented public health problems
generally associated with contaminated wells or failing septic systems.
The use of the facilities within these service areas is limited to the
following conditions:
a. To provide service to existing uses or new uses on existing lots of
record which are directly adjacent to the right-of-way containing
the water or sewer line.
b. To provide service, where sufficient capacity is available, to new
subdivision lots that can be served by the line without extension.
Density shall be no greater than what could occur without public
facilities.
c. To provide service to areas where the Health Department
determines that access is necessary to solve an existing Health
related problem and the County Commissioners agree to permit
access to the line.
d. To provide service to properties where a written agreement with
the service providing agency, executed prior to the restricted access
designation, obligated, the service providing agency to permit
access to the particular line to provide service to a specific property
for a specific use or provide a specific number of taps.
T. PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
The following requirements shall be applicable to each respective designated
priority classification within established service areas:
IV -41
1. S-1 Priority (Existing Service or Under Construction)
a. Individual on -lot disposal systems including approved alternate
on -lot sewerage treatment systems shall on -lot sewerage treatment
systems shall not be permitted, except as follows:
If an existing community sewerage facility is inadequate or is not
available,17 an interim individual sewerage system may be used
subject to the following conditions:
(1) Such interim systems are adjudged by the local health
department to be adequate, safe, and in compliance with
pertinent State and local regulations, including minimum lot
ownership as set forth in Regulation 10.03.28.02 and .03;
(2) Permits for such interim systems shall bear a notice
regarding the interim nature of the permit and stating
that connection to a future community system shall be
made within one (1) year or less after such system
becomes available;
(3) Provisions shall be made, whenever possible, to locate
such systems so as to permit connection to the public
facilities in a most economical and convenient manner.
b. Extensions of existing community sewerage systems shall be
permitted and encouraged.
2. S-3 Priority (Programmed Service)
a. Individual on -lot disposal systems including approved alternate
on -lot sewage treatment systems may be permitted on an interim
basis provided that:
11 The adequacy or availability of community sewerage service to a particular parcel of land is a judgment which
must be made in each case through consultation among the responsible agencies and cannot be made on the basis
of this Plan alone.
IV -42
(1) Such interim systems are adjudged by the local health
department to be adequate, safe, and in compliance with
pertinent State and local regulations, including minimum lot
ownership as set forth in Regulation 10.02.28.02 and 0.3;
(2) Permits for such interim systems shall bear a notice
regarding the interim nature of the permit and stating that
connection to a future community system shall be made
within one (1) year or less after such system becomes
available;
(3) Provisions shall be made, whenever possible, to locate such
systems so as to permit connection to the public facilities in a
most economical and convenient manner;
b. Extensions of existing community sewerage systems shall be
permitted and encouraged.
3. S-5 Priority (Planned Service)
a. Individual on -lot disposal systems including approved alternate
on -lot sewerage treatment systems shall be permitted.
b. Extensions of existing community sewerage systems shall not be
permitted, except as provided by Policy for Sewer Line Installation
in Areas Where Service is Not Available.
c. New, permanent community sewerage systems shall not be
permitted.
4. NPS Designation (No Planned Service)
This designation is not applied within established service areas.
a. Individual on -lot disposal systems including approved alternate
on -lot sewerage treatment systems shall be permitted;
b. Extensions of existing community sewerage systems shall not be
permitted;
IV -43
c. - New, permanent community sewerage systems shall not be
permitted.
In all cases where interim or permanent community sewerage systems are
permitted, they shall be subject to the standards and regulations of the
applicable State and Federal agencies. Adequate documentation that the
State and Federal standards and regulations can be complied with shall be
evidenced prior to County Plan amendment consideration. ALL
INTERIM OR PERMANENT COMMUNITY SEWERAGE SYSTEMS, OR
MULTI -USE SEWERAGE SYSTEMS SHALL BE APPROVED BY AND
WHEN APPLICABLE DEDICATED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY
FOR OWNERSHIP AND/OR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED COUNTY AND STATE
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES.
U. SEWERAGE SERVICE PRIORITY AREA MAPS
Map IX is an Index Map to the Sewerage Service Priority Area Maps which are
included in Appendix H of this plan and show service areas having priority
designations of S-1, S-3. or S-5. The name of the service providing agency is
indicated in those areas having existing service and in planned areas where the
service providing agency has been determined
While every effort was made to insure accuracy in the preparation of these maps,
errors may have resulted from the transfer of information from maps at different
scales. The classifications of parcels of land as having either existing service or
programmed service was based upon the location of existing service lines and
upon the best estimates for future service by the service providing agencies. The
delineation of the boundary for the S-5 (Planned Service) classification is based
on the land use policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington
County. S-5 priority classifications within the Urban and Town Growth Area
service area are based on the established growth area boundaries.
Determinations as to whether or not a particular parcel of land is considered to
be within the influence of a Growth Area shall be made by the Washington
County Planning Commission and when applicable, the Planning Commission of
the affected incorporated municipality.
Because of these inherent accuracy limitations, these maps should be used for
general planning purposes only. For certainty as to the exact location of all
existing facilities or to the status of particular parcels of land, the Washington
IV -44
County Planning Department and the service providing agencies should be
contacted. Changes to these maps which may be required by errors or
inaccuracies may be made in accordance with the administrative procedures set
forth in Appendix B of this Plan.
IV -45
IV «
CHAPTER V - ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. INTRODUCTION
The key to the on -going success of providing adequate water and sewerage
facilities in Washington County is the positive, cooperative action between the
County and the government bodies of the incorporated municipalities —
particularly the City of Hagerstown. Because of the significant role planned for
the water and sewerage facilities of the City of Hagerstown in the realization of
this Plan, it is paramount that an equitable, clearly defined management
structure between the City and County be established. At the basis of the
eventual management agreement should be the fundamental purpose to
adequately and effectively serve those residents and those areas where water and
sewerage facilities are needed.
In this pursuit, it is important to recognize that we no longer live in an era where
governmental responsibilities abruptly terminate at corporate boundaries. Both
subtle and overt municipal interrelationships demand a high degree of
communication and cooperation between governments in an effort to achieve the
best possible communities. To further this objective, it only seems realistic that
limitations resulting from either statutory restrictions or long standing
precedents must be actively resolved. With this in mind, the following
ownership and operational structures are strongly recommended.
B. WATER FACILITIES
As previously discussed, the City of Hagerstown supplies water to
approximately 38,000 residents outside its corporate boundaries. Since the
majority of these residents reside in the County, the City does not have the
necessary voice in terms of plumbing codes, guaranteed users, or comprehensive
service area formations. Nevertheless, the City has embarked upon an
aggressive program to increase plant capacity to meet the water needs largely
brought upon by the growing demands in the County. However, it is rather
inequitable for the Water Department to ask the City to bear the total bonded
indebtedness for improvements which will proportionately serve more residents
outside of the City. Furthermore, the County without having any direct role in
the implementation of water facilities other than through zoning and subdivision
provisions cannot achieve a thorough coordination of development activities.
V-1
In an effort to achieve a high level of cooperation between the City and County
and proportionate obligations for bonded indebtedness, it is recommended that
future distribution systems be financed by the County and constructed, operated,
and maintained by the City. Additionally, supply and transmission expenditures
should be proportionately financed by City and County as well as outstanding
indebtedness on existing transmission. More specifically, the County's
involvement would be essentially for appropriate funding responsibility. Design
and construction would be performed by the City with County review and
approval. Rates would be jointly established by the City and County to cover
bonded indebtedness and operation and maintenance costs. The actual
operation, maintenance, billing and collection functions would be performed by
the City. Ownership of the system should eventually be under a unified agency
so that the system would remain more comprehensive rather than fragmented.
To further the degree of cooperation and mutual decision -making the
Hagerstown Board of Water Commissioners should have County representation.
For those portions of the County outside the Hagerstown service area, and
adjacent to the other incorporated municipalities, the County should cooperate
with the towns in extending water service based upon adopted plans and
policies.
C. SEWERAGE FACILITIES
The City of Hagerstown's sewerage facilities are essential to effective plan
implementation. The strategic location of the City's sewerage treatment plant
enables the County to achieve most economically a concentrated development
pattern around the northern and eastern quadrants of the City while correcting
significant environmental concerns and health hazards. Obviously, this
achievement requires a high degree of cooperation between the City and County
in a manner which equitably addresses the needs of all residents. Furthermore, it
should be well apparent that the Environmental Protection Agency is becoming
increasingly more involved not only in establishing design criteria but also in
determining rate schedules and operation and maintenance procedures.
Consequently, local governments — both the County and the City —should not
become too preoccupied with the concern for complete and ultimate control in
the sense that it hinders adequate service to its residents.
To this end, it is recommended that the County shall be responsible for the
feasibility studies, designs, rights -of -way acquisition, construction, and financing
of the proposed interceptor and collector systems in those areas planned to be
serviced by the Hagerstown sewerage treatment plant. The City shall have the
V-2
benefit of review, inspection, and approval of all phases of the planning, design,
and construction of the proposed systems in order to assure consistency with the
engineering and construction standards of the City.
Although the County shall retain ownership of its portion of the system,
operation and maintenance responsibilities shall be accomplished by the City
through a management agreement mechanism. Obviously, such a management
agreement must be established in a manner to assure that all portions of the
system both in the County as well as in the City receive thorough, efficient, and
prompt operation and maintenance service. One method to be considered would
be for the County to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of its
portion of the system and to perform this function by subcontracting the services
of the City's Water Pollution Control Department. Theoretically, in the event the
Water Pollution Control Department personnel would be unable to respond to a
specific service need, because of scheduling or other prior commitments, the
County would have the alternative of seeking assistance elsewhere. Regardless
of the final contractual agreement for operation and maintenance responsibilities,
both parties should cooperatively attempt to assure a high degree of service so as
to maintain the integrity of the complete system.
The County shall be responsible for establishing its rates based upon its financial
obligations; conveyance to and treatment by the Hagerstown facility; the City's
operation, maintenance, and administrative services; and other equitably related
costs. The City's administrative services shall also include billings and
collections which would be further refined in the management agreement with
the County having auditing privileges. To further the degree of cooperation and
mutual decision making, the Hagerstown Sewer Board should have County
representation.
For those portions of the County outside the Hagerstown service area, and
adjacent to other incorporated municipalities, the County should consider
similar arrangements in extending sewerage service based upon adopted plans
and policies.
D. MANAGEMENT OF CONNECTION ALLOCATIONS
This plan proposes an aggressive program of immediately providing sewerage
facilities to considerably large portions of the County. However, it is not
V-3
intended that the availability of sewerage facilities be solely a commodity which
can be secured and controlled by the private sector. Consequently, efforts shall
be made to allocate and assess connections based upon both prevailing zoning
and the entire service area. Sanitary Sewerage Connection Permits, Industrial
Waste Permits and any Benefit Charges should be carefully administered to
assure equitable development opportunities. Additionally, users should be
required to connect to the system within one year from application approval so
that permits do not become a speculative resource.
E. COUNTY -WIDE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
Recommendations have been made in this plan to evaluate the feasibility of
community water systems in water problem areas throughout the County.
Recommendations have also been made to consider the use of enhanced on -site
disposal systems and alternative community sewerage systems to serve areas of
failing septic systems. Key to both recommendations will be the efficient
management and operation of such systems by a public agency.
Participation by the Washington County Department of Water Quality in the
management and operation of water and sewerage systems is presently limited
to areas within established service areas. As the number and necessity of such
systems increase, so increases the administrative complexity and cost of
managing an increased number of relatively small, geographically unrelated,
service areas and/or facilities.
The costs of providing water and sewerage service to some area of the County
may be prohibitively expensive to consumers in those areas. It is often the case
that those areas with the greatest need may also be the most expensive to serve
or have a population which the lowest income levels. For this reason, a County-
wide approach which provides for wider distribution of costs by means of a
uniform schedule may facilitate service to many areas of need, as well as provide
a cooperative approach to the many issues facing public utilities as they strive to
comply with mandated initiatives.
In 2004, the Washington County Water and Sewer Infrastructure Commission
was legislated to evaluate needs such as this, as well as the overall water and
sewer needs of Washington County into the foreseeable future. This included
any potential benefits of County -wide agencies. Their final report was presented
to the Delegation in June of 2006 and is incorporated into this document by
reference.
V-4
APPENDIX A
DEFINITIONS
The terms defined below are used throughout this plan. Definitions are consistent with
those in Maryland Agency Regulation 10.17.01 except where indicated (*) as peculiarly
applicable to Washington County.
1. "Approving authority" means one or more officials, agents, or agencies of local
government designated by the local governing body or specified by other
provisions of Article 43, 387C to take certain actions as a part of implementing
these regulations.
2. "Board" means The Board of County Commissioners for Washington County.
3. "Community sewerage system" means any system, whether publicly or privately
owned, serving two or more individual lots, for the collection and disposal of
sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, including various devices for the
treatment of the sewage and industrial wastes.
4. "Community water supply system" means a source of water and a distribution
system, including treatment and storage facilities, whether publicly or privately
owned, serving two or more individual lots.
5. "County plan" means a plan for the provision of adequate water supply systems
and sewerage systems, whether publicly or privately owned, throughout the
County including its incorporated municipalities and all amendments and
revisions to it.
6. "Department" means the Maryland Department of the Environment.
7. "Service Area Designation" means a designation of Urban/Town Growth Area,
Rural Village, or Restricted Use, assigned to a service area to assure that
development associated with the provision of water or sewer facilities is
consistent with the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington
County and where applicable, the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
municipality.
1
8. "Sewerage service area" is that area served, or potentially served, by a system of
sanitary sewers connected to a treatment plant, or, in a very large system, sub-
areas as delineated by the County.
9. "Water service area" means that area served, or potentially served, by a single
distribution system under control of a single utility, or, in a very large system,
sub -areas as delineated by the County.
10. "Service Priority Classification" is a classification assigned to a service area
indicating the current implementation phase for provision of water or sewer
service by means of a community system. The first phase being Planned Service,
followed by Programmed Service, then Existing/Under construction.
11. "Existing or under construction" means the service priority classification which is
assigned within a service area that is currently served or where actual work is
progressing or where a notice to proceed with a contract for this work has been
let as of the effective date of the plan. The symbol for this classification shall be
W-1, S-1.
12. "Programmed Service Priority" is a classification assigned to property within a
service area indicating that the necessary approvals have been obtained to
proceed with the provision of public water and/or sewage service. Such
approvals may include where applicable, establishment of a Dept of Water
Quality Service Area, approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plat or Site Plan and
inclusion of any capital projects in the municipality's Capital Improvements
Program. The symbol for this classification shall be W-3, S-3.
13. "Planned Service Priority" is a classification assigned to property within a service
area indicating that the provision of public water and sewage service is
considered to be consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for
Washington County. The symbol for this classification shall be W-5, S-5.
14. "No Planned Service" is a designation assigned to property that is not located
within a water or sewer service area indicating that community water and sewer
service is not planned for the area.
15. "Marina" means a dock, wharf, or basin providing mooring for boats which
contain on -board toilet facilities, operated under public or private ownership,
either free or on a fee basis, for the convenience of the public or club
membership.
PA
16. "Individual water supply system" means a single system of piping, pumps,
tanks, or other facilities utilizing a source of ground or surface water to supply
only a single lot.
17. "Individual sewerage system" means a single system of sewers and piping,
treatment tanks or other facilities serving only a single lot and disposing of
sewage or individual wastes of a liquid nature, in whole or in part, on or in the
soil of the property, into any waters of this State or by other methods.
18. "Multi -use sewerage system" means a single system serving a single lot, whether
owned or operated by an individual or group of individuals under private or
collective ownership and serving a group of individuals for the collection and
disposal of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, including various
devices for the treatment of sewage and industrial wastes having a treatment
capacity in excess of 5,000 GPD.
19. "Multi -use water supply system" means a single system of piping pumps, tanks,
or other facilities utilizing a source of ground or surface water to supply a group
of individuals on a single lot and having a capacity in excess of 1,500 GPD.
20. "Non -point source" means pollution originating from land run-off where no
specific outfall can be identified.
21. "Interim Plant" means a sewage or water treatment plant that is designed to
temporarily serve all of, or a portion of a designated service area established in
the Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan.
22. "Major Facilities" mean the principal components of a community or multi -use
water or sewerage system. The characteristics of various systems may differ in
size, capacity and method of conveyance and treatment of water or wastewater.
However, generally, the term is meant to exclude house connections, smaller
water distribution lines, and sewer laterals designed as part of a residential
development.
Examples of major facilities include:
a. Interceptors, trunk and outfall sewer lines; and water transmission, feeder
mains and storage facilities.
3
b. Community or multi -use wells or impoundments, water storage or
treatment facilities.
c. Sewage treatment plants (permanent or interim).
d. Pumping stations or water filtration plants.
APPENDIX B
POLICIES, PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENT
TO THE COUNTY PLAN FOR WATER AND SEWERAGE
I. GENERAL POLICIES
A. An application for amendment to the Water and Sewerage Plan shall be
initiated whenever any person, firm, private agency, public agency, or
municipal corporation wishes to:
1. Create major new water and sewer facilities.
2. Change the location, type, size or capacity of existing or planned
facilities.
3. Establish new water or sewerage service areas or change the
boundaries of existing service areas.
4. Change the priority classification of an area for water or sewerage
service.
B. It shall be the responsibility of the Washington County Planning
Department to coordinate the review of amendments to the Water and
Sewerage Plan in cooperation with the staffs of the service providing
agencies, the Washington County Health Department and the effected
municipality when applicable. Amendments proposed within a
municipality or served by a municipality's system must be proposed by
that municipality or be accompanied by a letter from the Mayor or a
designated municipal official that the municipality has been notified that
the amendment application is being submitted. Criteria for amendment of
service area/priority classifications and eligibility for priority
classifications are outlined in Section II. Applications for amendments to
the County Water and Sewerage Plan shall be considered via four
different methods:
5
Triennial Review and Update. State Law Title 9, Subtitle 5 of the
Environmental Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires
the governing body of the County, after reasonable opportunity for
public hearing, to review the Water and Sewerage Plan at least once
every three years. Requests for Individual amendments to the
Water and Sewerage Plan may be considered at that time.
Procedures for the Triennial Review and Update are listed in
Section III.
2. Individual Amendment: Applications for individual amendments
to the Water and Sewerage Plan may be accepted by the Planning
Department at any time. Public hearings to consider individual
applications shall be held at least semi-annually (twice a year).
Procedures for the review of Individual Amendment applications
and requirements for information to be include in the application
are listed in Section VIII. Modifications in facilities design by
public agencies should be reported at the Triennial Review, rather
than by Individual Application.
3. Administrative Amendment. The Water and Sewerage Plan may
be amended to correct errors, omissions, or inaccuracies which may
be discovered from time to time in the Plan text or Plan maps. Such
amendments shall be initiated by the Planning Department based
upon a request and presentation of more accurate information by
the service providing agency. Procedures for Administrative
Amendments are provided in Section V.
4. Special Amendment. The County Commissioners may at their
discretion initiate amendments to the Water and Sewerage Plan
outside of the semi-annual review sequence when necessary; (1) To
allow service to an existing structure when a potential health
hazard has been declared by the Health Department, (2) to allow
requests submitted by a government agency for capital projects to
proceed. Procedures for special amendments are provided in
Section VI.
3
II. CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENT OF SERVICE AREA AND SERVICE
PRIORITY CLASSIFICATIONS
A. Existing Service Areas
The Water and Sewerage plan shall define the areas planned to be served
by community water and sewerage systems within the next twenty years.
In order to assure conformance with the policies of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the County and if applicable, the effected
municipality, one of the following designations shall be assigned to all
service areas: Urban and Town Growth Area, Rural Village or Restricted.
A description of these designations is given in Chapter Three for water
service areas and Chapter Four for sewer service areas. Potential service
areas established in '201 Facilities Plans' may be taken into consideration,
however, the service area designated by the Water and Sewerage Plan
shall not be dictated by '201' Plan boundaries and may in fact be larger or
smaller. Within the boundaries of defined service areas an assignment of
a priority classification of W-5 and S-5 will be given to indicate that
extension of water and sewer lines is possible and desirable and that
provision of service is considered consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Priority classifications from W-3 and S-3 to W-1 and S-1 will be
assigned at such time as plans to provide service are initiated, either in
response to a request from private developer or by the service providing
agency. The assigned classification will be based upon the project
schedule and satisfactory compliance with eligibility requirements
described in paragraph C of this section. A designation of NPS (No
Planned Service) shall be assigned to all lands located outside of existing
service areas. This designation shall mean that these lands are not
included within a service area and not planned to be served in the future.
B. Planned New Service Areas
Proposals by property owners to establish new service areas or to extend
collection or transmission facilities beyond the boundaries of existing
service areas shall be submitted to the Planning Department in the form of
a development proposal. Proposals which involve the establishment of a
new Washington County Department Of Water Quality service area or the
enlargement of an existing service area shall be included in the Water and
Sewerage plan prior to creation of the service area.
7
The development proposal shall be submitted with an application for
establishment of new service area boundaries and shall be consistent with
the policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington County.
The proposal shall describe the facilities proposed and define the drainage
area which could potentially be served if the proposed facilities were
established. A Preliminary Consultation shall be held and the
development project area shall be identified, with a description of the
proposed land use, density and location of the development. The
application shall contain all of the required information outlined in
Section VIII. In the process of considering proposals to establish new
service areas or expansions of existing service .areas, the County
Commissioners upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission
shall also determine the appropriate designation for the service area in
order to assure compatibility with the Policies of the Comprehensive Plan
as well as providing for the most environmentally sound method of water
supply and sewerage disposal within all areas of the County.
C. Service Priority Classification
The criteria listed below shall apply to requests for amendment of priority
classifications for water and sewerage service where major water and/or
sewerage facilities are proposed by property owners. It is the intent of
these procedures that, within service areas established by the Water and
Sewerage Plan, satisfactory compliance by developers with the established
criteria should result in appropriate changes to the service priority
classification. Once a priority classification of S-5 or W-5 has been
obtained, it may not be necessary to initiate an individual amendment
request for a higher classification or wait for the Triennial Review of the
Plan before proceeding with the development of facilities. A letter of
intent to the appropriate State agency issued by the County
Commissioners will satisfy interim approval with formal amendment of
the classification being made at the Triennial Review, provided all criteria
have been satisfied. It is the responsibility of the developer to satisfy the
criteria in each step of the process.
1. Eligibility for S -5/W-5 (Planned Service) Classification:
(a) The provision of service has been determined to be
consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan for
the County and if applicable, the appropriate municipality.
F3
(b) The method of service has been determined satisfactory and
has received written acknowledgment by the appropriate
public agencies such as the Health Department, Department
of Water Quality, and municipalities. Agency
acknowledgment will be for the method of service in concept
and not in design.
(c) A Preliminary Consultation has been held with the Planning
Commission.
(d) If necessary, the Planning Commission has determined that
the property is located within an Urban or Town Growth
Area and has determined an appropriate service area
designation, i.e. Urban/Town Growth Area, Rural Village, or
Restricted service.
2. Eligibility for S -3/W-3 (Programmed Service) Classification:
(a) All of the requirements for S -5/W-5 have been met.
(b) Arrangements have been made with the appropriate agency
for acceptance of facilities, operating and maintenance
responsibility, allocation of capacity, and/or connections to
the public system.
(c) When the proposed development is located within an area
that is under the jurisdiction of the Washington County
Department of Water Quality, the developer shall have
obtained approval of the establishment of a Dept of Water
Quality Service Area or expansion of an existing WCDWQ
Service Area pursuant to WCDWQ Policy and Procedures.
(d) Adequate capacity shall be existing or be programmed by
the service providing agency responsible for the system that
will serve the site. Any capital costs to be incurred by public
agencies should be included in the Capital Improvements
Program of the appropriate jurisdiction.
(e) Preliminary plat and/or site plan approval has been obtained
from the Planning Commission and other appropriate public
agencies responsible for approval of plans, or future
operating maintenance costs of sanitary facilities.
(f) A discharge permit, where appropriate, has been approved
by appropriate State agencies.
(g) A hydrogeologic study, where appropriate, supports the
establishment of a community water system which will not
be detrimental to adjoining wells.
3. Eligibility for S -1/W-1 (Service Existing or Under Construction)
Classification:
(a) All requirements for S -3/W-3 have been met and,
(b) Facilities are under construction or completed.
III. PROCEDURES FOR THE TRIENNIAL REVIEW AND UPDATE
In the Triennial review year, the Planning Department shall notify the
appropriate service providing agencies and municipalities that the Water and
Sewerage Plan is being reviewed and updated. The service providing agencies,
municipalities and Health Department will be asked to provide information to be
included in the draft updated plan. This may include changes to text, maps,
tables, charts, or other information to be included in the draft updated plan. This
may include changes to text, maps, tables, charts, or other information within the
Plan to reflect changes that have occurred since the previous update or new
proposals expected to occur within the planning period. Applications for
individual amendments by property owners will also be considered during the
Triennial Update.
The Planning Department will prepare a Draft Updated Plan to be submitted to
the Planning Commission for their review and comments.
Copies of the Draft Updated Plan will be made available to the Public and to the
Municipalities and service providing agencies.
10
Public Hearing(s) by the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning shall
be scheduled.
The principle elected official of each municipal corporation that is affected shall
be notified of the Plan Update at least 14 days prior to the public hearing.
The Planning Department shall publish notice of the time and place of the public
hearing, with a summary of the update in at least one newspaper of general
circulation, once each week for two successive weeks with the first notification
appearing at least 14 days prior to the hearing.
Following the public hearing the Planning Commission shall review any
testimony presented.
The Planning Commission shall certify that the Updated Plan as presented or
modified is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan.
Following the Planning Commission's certification, the Board of County
Commissioners shall adopt the updated plan.
Following the adoption of the updated plan by the County Commissioners, the
Plan shall then be sent to the Maryland Department of the Environment for its
review and final approval. The State has at least 90 days and may extend its
review period.
W. PROCEDURE FOR INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT APPLICATION REVIEW
Applications for individual amendments to the Water and Sewerage Plan shall
be considered at public hearings by the Board of County Commissioners and the
Planning Commission at least twice a year.
Requests for proposed amendments to the Water and Sewerage Plan may be
submitted to the Washington County Planning Department, County
Administration Building, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.
Requests for proposed amendments will be processed in at least two cycles a
year. Closing dates, application fees, and procedures for public hearings for
amendment requests are treated the same as re -zoning applications and shall be
available at the Washington County Planning Department and on the
Washington County website at:
http://www.washco-md.net/planning/comp rezoning.shtm
11
Requests for amendments must contain all of the applicable information listed in
Section VIII. Incomplete applications or applications that do not meet the
applicable criteria listed in Section II will not be accepted.
V. PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS
Administrative amendments need not be formally adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners via the public hearing process. Such amendments are to
correct errors and are for informational purposes. Such amendments do not
represent changes in policy or future plans. Administrative amendments should
generally be limited to existing conditions which fall within the following
categories:
1. To correct omitted or inaccurate locations of existing facilities on the Plan
maps.
2. To correct erroneous service priority classifications which indicate no
service provided when in fact service is being provided to a particular
area.
3. To correct erroneous date on existing population served, flow and
capacity data on existing facilities, and similar information which is a
matter of record.
Once an administrative amendment is made by the Planning Commission, copies
of amended maps or text will be forwarded to all applicable agencies to replace
maps or text which have been found to be in error.
VI. PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL AMENDMENTS
Special amendments outside of the triennial review sequence may only initiated
by the Board of County Commissioners upon the request of the Washington
County Health Department or a Municipality or Service providing agency.
Special amendments should be limited to: a) allowing service to an existing
structure when a potential health hazard has been declared by the Health
Department, b) allowing requests submitted y government agency for capital
projects to proceed.
12
Special Amendments shall be considered, following public notification, at a joint
public hearing held by the Planning Commission and County Commissioners.
VII. FEES
A fee schedule established by the County Commissioners is to be applied to all
applicants, other than municipalities or public agencies, requesting individual
amendments to the Water and Sewerage Plan.
VIII. DATA TO BE INCLUDED IN APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
COUNTY PLAN
The following data, as applicable, shall be included in an application for
amendment of the Water and Sewerage Plan for the creation of a new service
area, expansion of an existing service and the establishment of a priority
classification of S-5 or W-5 or higher.
Applications for amendment shall address the interrelationship of water supply
and waste water disposal.
Applications for the establishment of new service areas or the creation of new or
improved major facilities must include the following as appropriate to the
project:
1. Proposed type, capacity, size and location of facilities (new or proposed
for use) and map.
2. Name and location of development or service area (boundary, drainage
area, acreage and map).
3. Number of people (existing in drainage or service area, density of
development).
4. Number of people to be served in drainage or service area by planned
staged development.
5. Design, average and peak flows.
6. Degree and type of treatment given.
13
7. Sludge disposal plans.
8. Transmission facilities (size of pipe).
9. Effluent disposal plans (spray irrigation, discharge to stream, etc.).
10. Classification of stream receiving discharge.
11. Operation and maintenance costs.
12. Proposed means of financing improvement.
13. Description of ground and surface water resources within the service or
development area, including the quantity and quality of these resources.
14. Sources of pollution or contamination of groundwater resources within
the development or service area.
15. Source and amount of water to be withdrawn.
16. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan.
17. Relationship to Water and Sewer Plan.
18. Reason for change.
19. Alternatives and the rationale used in determining the means of providing
water supply.
20. Rationale for selecting a particular design and alternatives for any
proposed treatment facility, pumping station or interceptor.
Applications which would extend collection or transmission facilities beyond the
boundaries of existing ten-year service areas should include:
1. Location of the proposed development or service area (boundaries,
acreage, map) and relationship to existing service area and facilities.
2. Number of people existing in development or service area.
14
3. Number of people to be served in development or service area by planned
staged development.
4. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan.
5. Relationship to Water and Sewerage Plan.
All maps included in applications for amendment which delineate the
boundaries of the service area, or show the location of facilities shall be based on
the official County or municipal zoning map utilizing a tax map base at a scale
that will show the property subject to the amendment as well as the surrounding
area.
15
APPENDIX C
LISTING OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS
• Consolidated General Service Agreement for the Provision of Sanitary
Sewer Service By and Between the City of Hagerstown, MD and the Board
of County Commissioners of Washington County dated 9/16/1997
• Joint Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland
Amending the Consolidated General Service Agreement for the Provision
of Sanitary Sewer Service Amendment No. 1
• Joint Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland
Amending the Consolidated General Service Agreement for the Provision
of Sanitary Sewer Service Amendment No. 2
• Joint Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland
Amending the Consolidated General Service Agreement for the Provision
of Sanitary Sewer Service Amendment No. 3
• Joint Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland
Amending the Consolidated General Service Agreement for the Provision
of Sanitary Sewer Service Amendment No. 4
• Joint Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland
Amending the Consolidated General Service Agreement for the Provision
of Sanitary Sewer Service Amendment No. 6
• Joint Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Hagerstown, Maryland
Amending the Consolidated General Service, Agreement for the Provision
of Sanitary Sewer Service Amendment No. 7
16
• Flow Transfer Agreement By and Between the City of Hagerstown,
Maryland and the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County
• Flow Transfer Agreement By and Between the City of Hagerstown,
Mayor and the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County -
Flow Transfer Agreement By and Between the City of Hagerstown,
Maryland and the Board of County Commissioners of Washington
County — for the Transfer of Flows from the City of Hagerstown's
Wastewater System to Washington County's Wastewater System in an
amount equivalent to that approved for the new Washington County
Hospital.
Copies of the above listed agreements are available from the Washington County
Department of Water Quality.
17
APPENDIX D
WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT POLICY ON INTERIM AND
PERMANENT COMMUNITY WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
The Washington County Government (County) through its Department of Water
Quality shall own and operate all interim and permanent water and sewerage facilities
within the County, except those within an incorporated area or an approved existing
system, under the following conditions:
1. The County shall be the sole judge as to whether a community water or
sewerage facility can be approved and accepted for ownership and
operation by the Department of Water Quality within the framework of
the Washington County Code of Public Local Laws. It shall be the sole
right to determine the conditions of approval and acceptance necessary to
satisfy said law.
2. The County shall have the sole right to determine what facilities are
interim or permanent; as when the installed facilities shall be modified,
enlarged or abandoned; and whom, may use said installed facilities.
However, in making such decisions, the County shall be governed by all
applicable County and State regulations and requirements.
3. All applications for community water or sewerage facilities shall be filed
with the Washington County Planning Commission. All such
applications must include an engineering report prepared by a Maryland
registered professional engineer with sufficient experience in sanitary
work satisfactory to the County. This report must include estimated
construction and operation costs, together with all necessary design and
technical data required by the State for effluent discharges and/or water
appropriation permits.
4. The Department of Water Quality will approve no community water or
sewerage system for ownership, operation or maintenance unless such
ownership, operation or maintenance jurisdiction encompasses the entire
system, including treatment, collection, distribution, storage, etc. except
as may be covered by special agreement with applicant at the discretion of
the County.
5. Construction plans and specifications for all interim and permanent
community water and sewerage systems must be prepared in accordance
with State requirements but must be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Water Quality prior to submittal to the State for a
construction permit. All construction shall be in compliance with
applicable Department of Water Quality Construction Standards.
6. Interim and permanent sewerage and water facilities shall be designed
and constructed at no cost to the Department of Water Quality.
Construction costs to be borne by others include inspection during
construction deemed necessary by the Department of Water Quality to
protect its ownership and operational interest in the project.
7. The Department of Water Quality will accept no water or sewerage facility
for ownership, operation and maintenance until a mutually acceptable
agreement or contract between the County and the applicant has been
consummated and put into effect.
8. The effective date of this policy or its predecessors is April 17, 1976 and it
shall apply to all applications submitted subsequent to that date.
19
APPENDIX E
REVISED POLICY STATEMENT FOR CITY OF HAGERSTOWN WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CAPACITY ALLOCATION
On file with the Washington County Planning Department.
20
APPENDIX F
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAGERSTOWN RELATING TO THE
HAGERSTOWN URBAN GROWTH AREA, WATER AND SEWER STUDY
PREPARED BY BCM ENGINEERS, INC.
On file with the Washington County Planning Department.
21
N
p.
j , sJ y
v lIjefI9!dfJslIiIys`J!
100000I HU U# 11113
H 1 Al;
N,
N
N
If fl
.
C
S9
�
R
1:.1
i1J1!j!t1*f'IIH
, 3
p ' n
c'5
5
�
{IWfli
...`. ."
a y 5
0
S a
1SI hI .0
I�
18!111!!
it
Lfl
i I N
H.
E
—
^ u
Hy
aYy w a
d! t kasaastL �
ari�
ail ''j� `- t \4
pb7T .1::
i-I L 7 Ii S'ji'wn
I we i
N
N
9
N