One Basin, One Future

Potomac River Basin

Comprehensive Water Resources Plan

Prepared by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin -2018-

Cover Photo Jennings Randolph Dam. Used with permission from ©Robyn Phillips Photography, http://www.robynphillipsphotography.com. Additional photo attributions are listed in Photo Credits at the end of this document.

Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the United States government or the signatories or Commissioners to ICPRB

“The American shad is an important fish, both “The American shad is an important fish, both ecologically and economically for the Potomac ecologically and economically for the Potomac River. Decades of pollution, over-harvest and loss of River. Decades of pollution, over-harvest and loss of habitat led to population decline. ICPRB and its habitat led to population decline. ICPRB and its partners, particularly the US Fish and Wildlife partners, particularly the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a family of northern Virginia watermen, Service, a family of northern Virginia watermen, and thousands of local school children and and thousands of local school children and Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...... i List of Tables ...... iii List of Figures ...... iii List of Appendices ...... iv Abbreviations ...... v Dedication ...... vi Author’s Note ...... vi Acknowledgements ...... vi Advisory Committee Members ...... vii Commissioners ...... vii Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 4 Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) ...... 5 Partners ...... 5 Purpose ...... 6 Framework ...... 8 Benefits...... 9 Planning Process ...... 9 Stakeholder Involvement ...... 11 Advisory Committee...... 11 Broad Public Participation ...... 15 Federal Agencies ...... 15 History of Planning in the Potomac Basin ...... 16 Potomac Basin Description ...... 18 Physiography ...... 19 Hydrology ...... 22 Surface Waters ...... 22 Groundwater ...... 30 Summary ...... 32 Population ...... 32 Land Use ...... 33 Water Use ...... 34 Water Quality ...... 37 Aquatic Life ...... 38 Summary ...... 40 Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations ...... 41 Identifying the Challenges ...... 42 Developing Recommendations ...... 42 Ensure Sustainable Water Uses and Supplies ...... 43 Description of Challenges ...... 43 Recommendations ...... 45 Protect and Improve Water Quality ...... 48 Description of Challenges ...... 48

Table of Contents ii

Recommendations ...... 48 Manage Human Land Use for Sustainability ...... 51 Description of Challenges ...... 51 Recommendations ...... 52 Protect Ecological Health ...... 54 Description of Challenges ...... 54 Recommendations ...... 55 Synthesis ...... 57 Floods and Droughts ...... 57 Source Water Protection...... 59 Climate Change ...... 60 Water-Energy Nexus ...... 60 Implementation ...... 64 Roles and Responsibilities ...... 64 ICPRB ...... 64 Federal Government ...... 65 State Government ...... 65 Regional Government ...... 65 Municipal Government ...... 66 Non-Governmental Organizations ...... 66 Academic Institutions...... 66 Drinking Water Utilities ...... 67 Other Commercial Entities ...... 67 Individuals ...... 68 Potential Funding Sources ...... 69 Integration with Other Plans ...... 70 Strategy for Adaptive Implementation ...... 71 Milestones ...... 72 Ensure Sustainable Water Use and Supplies ...... 72 Protect and Improve Water Quality ...... 73 Manage Human Land Use for Sustainability ...... 73 Protect Ecological Health ...... 74 Measures of Success ...... 75 Ensure Sustainable Water Use and Supplies ...... 75 Protect and Improve Water Quality ...... 75 Manage Human Land Use for Sustainability ...... 75 Protect Ecological Health ...... 75 Review Process ...... 76 Communication Plan ...... 76 References ...... 77 Photo Credits ...... 82 Glossary ...... 83 Appendix A. Final Report of the Advisory Committee ...... 85 Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area ...... 86 Water Use and Supplies ...... 86

Table of Contents iii

Water Quality ...... 100 Human Land Use ...... 111 Ecological Health ...... 115 Water-Energy Nexus...... 120 Appendix C. List of Reviewed Plans ...... 126 Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input ...... 128 Purpose and Background ...... 128 Study Area ...... 128 Authority ...... 128 Study Process ...... 128 Table of Results ...... 129 Conclusions ...... 142 Recommendations for ICPRB ...... 143 Federal Agency Missions ...... 144

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Water resources challenge areas and recommendations...... 2 Table 2. Advisory committee meeting dates and agenda topics...... 13 Table 3. Average, minimum, and maximum daily flow for select USGS gages’ period of record (cfs)...... 25 Table 4. Mean annual average groundwater recharge estimate by HUC-8 (based on data from Wolock 2003)...... 32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Elevation in the Potomac basin. Data source: 30 meter resolution 1999 USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM)...... 19 Figure 2. Physiographic provinces in the Potomac River basin. Data source: Fenneman et al. 1946...... 20 Figure 3. Major rivers of the Potomac basin. Select reservoirs are also displayed on the map. Data source: National Hydrography Dataset...... 23 Figure 4. USGS stream gages in the Potomac basin by active status and length of record. Data source: USGS...... 24 Figure 5. Monthly distribution of temperature for the Potomac basin. Data source: 122 NWS temperature stations...... 26 Figure 6. Average annual precipitation in the Potomac basin. Data source: NWS Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center precipitation data from 214 stations (1971-2000)...... 27 Figure 7. Rainfall erosivity in the Potomac basin. Data source: Renard et al. 1997...... 28 Figure 8. Monthly mean precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, and flow at Potomac River gage at Little Falls Pump Station. Data sources: NWS, USGS, and Farnsworth and Thompson (1982)...... 28 Figure 9. Average annual water budget for the Potomac basin. Data sources: PRISM Climate Group 2004, Wolock 2003, and USGS...... 29 Figure 10. Current and historic USGS real-time wells in or near the Potomac River basin. Data source: USGS...... 30 Figure 11. Population by census block in the Potomac basin. Data source: U.S. 2010 Census...... 33

Table of Contents iv

Figure 12. Land use in the Potomac basin. Data source: 2011 NLCD data...... 33 Figure 13. State reported withdrawals. Data sources: ICPRB CO-OP consumptive use database above Little Falls and the MPRWA 2005 withdrawal database below Little Falls...... 35 Figure 14. Cumulative upstream consumptive use, Savage River to Little Falls based on state reported withdrawals...... 36 Figure 15. Tier II and Tier III streams and impaired streams. Data source: USEPA compilation of state impairment data (USEPA 2015)...... 38 Figure 16. Conceptual diagram of environmental factors that directly and indirectly affect biological community health in aquatic environments (adapted from USACE et al. 2014)...... 40 Figure 17. Process for developing recommendations...... 42 Figure 18. Sankey diagram of energy-water flows in the U.S. (reprinted from Bauer et al. 2014)...... 61 Figure 19. Power generation facilities by fuel type. Data source: EIA-923 Report 2015...... 62 Figure 20. State reported water withdrawals for power for the year 2005...... 63

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Final report of the advisory committee. Appendix B. Annotated bibliography by challenge area. Appendix C. List of reviewed plans. Appendix D. Federal perspective and input.

Abbreviations v

ABBREVIATIONS AWRA American Water Resources Association BIBI Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity CBP Chesapeake Bay Program CWA United States Clean Water Act CO-OP Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac DEM Digital Elevation Model DGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries DOEE District Department of Energy and Environment DWMAPS Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source Waters DWSPP Potomac Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership GIS Geographic Information Systems HUC-8 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code IBI Index of Biotic Integrity ICPRB Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management LFAA Low Flow Allocation Agreement MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MD DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources MGS Maryland Geological Survey MPRWA Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NWS National Weather Service MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments NLCD National Land Cover Database PA DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection PRFC Potomac River Fisheries Commission RUSLE Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TNC The Nature Conservancy U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDOE United States Department of Energy USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey VA DEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality WIP Watershed Implementation Plan WMA Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area WRDA Water Resources Development Act WRE Water Resources Element WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission WV DEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

Dedication vi

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to Herbert M. Sachs, an ICPRB Maryland Commissioner and Executive Director. He also served for decades with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Department of the Environment. He passed away in 2017.

During his nearly 30-year tenure of service to ICPRB, Sachs led the agency’s efforts in supporting the regional Chesapeake Bay Program; reallocation of water supplies, cooperative law enforcement, and water quality efforts at Jennings Randolph Reservoir; and establishment of the North Brach Potomac Task Force, a group of stakeholders and officials facilitated by ICPRB that gives stakeholders a voice in management decisions. He also was at the helm when ICPRB embarked on its successful effort to restore American shad to the Potomac River.

Throughout his tenure, Sachs pushed for keeping a long-term view of managing the river’s health, and consistently pushed the agency to consider comprehensive planning that would help ensure the many uses of the river for future generations.

AUTHOR’S NOTE

The authors are proud to have been a part of this collaborative process. It has been a pleasure and an honor. Completion of this document, however, is only a first step toward achieving our shared vision. Through ongoing implementation and adaptation, the vision can become a reality.

Heidi Moltz, Associate Director for Water Resources Jim Palmer, Senior Hydrogeologist Claire Buchanan, Director of Program Operations Carlton Haywood, Executive Director ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Development of this plan was a collaborative process that depended on the thoughtful contributions of many organizations and individuals. The authors wish to acknowledge the leadership and vision of the ICPRB Commissioners. In addition, ICPRB gratefully acknowledges the dedication of the advisory committee members that volunteered their time and attention for this purpose and Kristin Rowles and Mark Masters of Policy Works LLC who facilitated the advisory committee process. Policy Works LLC also authored Section 1.8.1 of the plan. The Commissioners and advisory committee members are listed below.

A number of experts participated in advisory committee meetings during the development of this plan including Nicholas DiPasquale (Chesapeake Bay Program Office), Anna Compton (USACE), Zachary Clement (USDOE), Ed Ambrogio (USEPA), and Susan Gray (MD DNR). This plan was made better by the feedback received during a graduate student seminar at George Mason University (GMU).

The authors appreciate the contributions of Curtis Dalpra and Renee Bourassa, ICPRB staff who provided the historical context of planning in the basin (Section 1.9), created the document format and layout, and offered thoughtful suggestions for improvements throughout the process. Karin Bencala, ICPRB staff, prepared the annotated bibliography in Appendix B. Preliminary geospatial contributions to this work by Michael Glassman, former ICPRB intern, are greatly appreciated.

Planning Assistance to States funding from USACE was utilized, in part, to develop Section 1.8.3 of this plan. Other sections of this plan were developed with ICPRB funds originating from the USEPA and ICPRB member jurisdictions.

Acknowledgements vii

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Hedrick Belin Potomac Conservancy Charles Bennett Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc. Willem Brakel American University Patrick Campbell West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Tolessa Deksissa University of the District of Columbia Tom Devilbiss Carroll County, Maryland Martin Gary Potomac River Fisheries Commission John Grace Maryland Department of the Environment Mark Guise Gettysburg Municipal Authority Nancy Hausrath City of Hagerstown, Maryland Tom Hilton Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Sara Jordan Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Adam McClain Adams County Conservation District, Pennsylvania Mishelle Noble Fairfax Water John Odenkirk Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Jennifer Orr Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Mark Peterson Loudoun Water Dusty Rood Rodgers Consulting, Inc. Donald Schwartz Bedford County, Pennsylvania Planning Commission Ed Snyder Shepherd University, West Virginia Roland Steiner Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Mark Symborski Montgomery County, Maryland John Wirts West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

COMMISSIONERS District of Columbia: Willem Brakel, Hamid Karimi, and Tiffany Potter; Alternates: Kimberly Jones, James Tsai, Annemargaret Connolly Maryland: Governor Lawrence Hogan, Honorable Aruna Miller, and Robert Lewis; Alternates: Virginia Kearney and Nancy Hausrath Pennsylvania: Kelly Heffner, Representative Dan Moul, and Ronald Stanley; Alternate: Jennifer Orr Virginia: David Paylor, Paul Holland, and Delegate Jackson Miller; Alternates: Scott Kudlas, Delegate J. Randall Minchew West Virginia: Harold Michael and Austin Caperton; Alternates: Phyllis Cole and John Wirts

Executive Summary 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This voluntary, Potomac basin comprehensive water uses and supplies, protect and improve water quality, resources plan was developed in close collaboration manage human land use for sustainability, and with basin stakeholders. The purpose of the plan is to protect ecological health) and associated build on existing state and local planning efforts to recommendations for action. In total, 15 identify surface water and groundwater resources recommendations were developed across four issues of interstate and/or basin-wide significance challenge areas (Table 1). and develop associated management recommendations. The basin-wide plan is expected to The scale of water resources challenges in the aid in statewide planning by providing an interstate Potomac basin is larger than any one organization. perspective for decision-making and to facilitate Addressing the issues will require working achievement of common goals. collaboratively in partnership with numerous organizations. As such, Section 4 of the plan provides Section 1 of this plan includes background additional details for implementation including information about the planning process and identification of roles and responsibilities, potential stakeholder involvement. Stakeholder participation in funding sources, and integration with other plans. the development of this plan included ongoing participation by an advisory committee, broad public The strategy for adaptive implementation is described participation, and contact with federal agencies about in Section 5 including short- and long-term milestones their goals and strategies for water resources for each challenge area, measures of success for each management in the basin. challenge area, a review process, and a communications plan. The milestones focus primarily A description of the Potomac basin including on ICPRB activities, acknowledging that physiography, hydrology, population, land use, water implementation will require partnership with basin use, water quality, and aquatic life is provided in stakeholders. Identified measures of success are the Section 2. Subsequent sections of the plan build on tangible, expected outcomes from implementation of the characteristics described in this assessment. the recommendations during the implementation period. Section 3 of the plan presents the four water resources challenge areas (ensure sustainable water

Executive Summary 2

Table 1. Water resources challenge areas and recommendations.

Challenge Area Recommendation

Report on basin-wide water uses, projected demands, and consumptive demands

Ensure Conduct additional studies on water uses that fall below state water reporting thresholds Sustainable Water Uses and Develop an inventory of roles, responsibilities, and areas of authority and discuss how Supplies effectively current programs and activities are being carried out

Pursue a range of complementary actions that would contribute to a more sustainable and resilient water supply Promote water quality information sharing

Educate citizens and professionals about water quality in the Potomac basin Protect and Improve Water Develop an inventory of roles, responsibilities, and areas of authority and discuss how Quality effectively current programs and activities are being carried out

Pursue a range of complementary actions that would contribute to protecting and improving water quality

Research timely land use related information for decision-making

Effectively disseminate scientific data and information compiled by ongoing research Manage Human Land Use for Develop an inventory of roles, responsibilities, and areas of authority and discuss how Sustainability effectively current programs and activities are being carried out

Pursue a range of complementary actions that would contribute to managing human land use for sustainability Share across jurisdictions data, analysis results, and information on successful restoration approaches

Coordinate across jurisdictions plans and programs that protect ecological value Protect Ecological Health Support and coordinate programs that identify, protect, conserve, restore, enhance, and connect natural areas, especially along waterways

Pursue a range of complementary actions that would contribute to protecting ecological health

Executive Summary3

VISION This plan provides a roadmap to achieving our shared vision that the Potomac River basin will serve as a national model for water resources management that fulfills human and ecological needs for current and future generations. The plan will focus on sustainable water resources management that provides the water quantity and quality needed for the protection and enhancement of public health, the environment, all sectors of the economy, and quality of life in the basin. The plan will be based on the best available science and data. The ICPRB will serve as the catalyst for the plan's implementationi through an adaptive process in collaboration with partner agencies, institutions, organizations, and the public.

Introduction 4

INTRODUCTION The Potomac River, its tributaries, and the occurred within political boundaries (e.g. states, associated groundwater resources are vital to the counties, municipalities). ICPRB developed this region. The river itself flows from the forested interstate, basin-wide comprehensive water headwaters, through the agricultural valleys, and resources plan in close coordination with diverse past the nation’s capital on its way to the basin stakeholders. Planning at the basin scale Chesapeake Bay. Steeped in human history, has the added benefit of holistically considering people have been dependent on the river for the entire hydrologic system. The plan is a centuries for their livelihood, recreation, roadmap for the voluntary, sustainable transportation, and drinking water. Not only the management of water resources at the people, but the basin’s diverse ecosystems are interstate, basin-wide scale. integrally linked to both surface water and groundwater. Because these systems do not align Section 1 lays the foundation for this plan and with political boundaries, proactive, provides background information about the comprehensive planning for the future of the Potomac basin. Section 2 contains a description basin’s water and associated land resources is of the Potomac basin. Section 3 describes the essential for responsible, sustainable water resources challenges and management of this precious resource. recommendations for action. Section 4 and Section 5 provide implementation details. To date, comprehensive water resources planning in the Potomac basin has primarily

Introduction 5

INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN (ICPRB)

The ICPRB mission is to “protect and enhance the waters and related resources of the Potomac River basin through science, regional cooperation, and education.” Established by an act of Congress in 1940 as a non-regulatory entity, ICPRB is one of the oldest river basin commissions in the country. The Commission includes appointed Commissioners from each basin jurisdiction (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the federal government).

ICPRB staff have strong scientific and stakeholder engagement skills with focus areas in water quantity, water quality, aquatic life, communication, and education. Being an interstate, multidisciplinary organization with a geographic responsibility spanning the entire Potomac basin, ICPRB is well- situated to coordinate this planning effort, but active participation by basin stakeholders is essential to the success of the basin-wide planning process.

PARTNERS

The myriad partners of this planning process were essential for the successful development of this plan. Successful ongoing implementation and future adaptation of this plan will be achieved through continued partner participation. The stakeholder involvement process utilized in the development of the plan is discussed in detail in Section 1.8. Roles and responsibilities of various partners in the plan’s implementation are provided in Section 4.1.

Introduction 6

PURPOSE The purpose of this plan is to identify and develop Since 2005, Virginia’s Local and Regional Water management recommendations for water resources Supply Planning Regulation has required issues of interstate and/or basin-wide significance. development of local or regional water plans to The plan recognizes and builds on existing state and “ensure that adequate and safe drinking water is local regulations and planning efforts. It provides available, encourage and protect all beneficial uses, basin-wide perspectives to decision-makers on encourage and promote alternative water sources, activities upstream of their jurisdiction and and promote conservation.” The Virginia State anticipated effects of jurisdictional activities Water Resources Plan was completed in 2015 to downstream. It aims to facilitate achievement of “ensure the availability of adequate and safe common goals, including protection of water drinking water to all citizens in the Commonwealth” supplies, drinking water sources, water quality, and as well as to “encourage, promote, and protect all aquatic life (see Section 1.6 for additional details on other beneficial uses of the Commonwealth’s water the benefits of the proposed plan). resources” (VA DEQ 2015).

Considerable water resources planning efforts are In Pennsylvania, Act 220 of 2002 resulted in a State underway in each basin jurisdiction. The impetuses Water Plan and Water Atlas that included an for the planning efforts are described in each states’ evaluation of regional water-related issues (PA DEP unique legislation. Existing state legislation requires 2009). The Statewide Water Resources Committee water resources planning: Maryland House Bill 1141, designated three Critical Water Planning Areas in West Virginia Senate Bill No. 641, Pennsylvania Act January 2011, one of which (the combined Marsh 220, and Virginia’s Title 9 Local and Regional Water and Rock creek watershed) forms the headwaters to Supply Planning Regulation. The state laws typically the Monocacy River in the Potomac basin. The require both state and local level efforts. To provide associated Critical Area Resource Plan for the Marsh context, a brief description of these activities and Rock creek watersheds was submitted to the follows. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) by ICPRB in 2012 (Moltz and Maryland House Bill 1141 of 2006 requires the state Palmer 2012). to develop a general water resources program and local governments (all counties and municipalities Article 26 of Senate Bill No. 641, the Water that exercise planning and zoning authority) to Resources Protection and Management Act of West develop Water Resources Elements (WREs) within Virginia, resulted in the West Virginia Water comprehensive plans. Maryland’s Wolman Report Resources Management Plan, an associated mapping provides additional explanation on the state’s need tool, and a closer look at water resources in West for comprehensive planning and sustainable water Virginia watersheds (WV DEP 2013). An expected resources management (Wolman 2008). outcome of the basin-wide plan is to contribute to these state planning efforts by providing a hydrologically-based geographic context.

The comprehensive plan is a roadmap for the voluntary, sustainable management of water resources at the interstate, basin-wide scale.

Introduction 7

PURPOSE The purpose of this plan is to identify and develop management recommendations for water resources issues of interstate and/or basin-wide significance. It aims to facilitate achievement of common goals, including protection of water supplies, drinking water sources, water quality, and aquatic life.

Introduction 8

FRAMEWORK The framework proposed for the Potomac basin planning process is an Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approach. The Global Water Partnership (GWP) defines IWRM as "a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (GWP 2000). The American Water Resources Association (AWRA) further describes it as “the coordinated planning, development, protection, and management of water, land, and related resources Basin plan as one piece of the puzzle in a manner that fosters sustainable economic essential to understanding the current and activity, improves or sustains environmental quality, anticipated future state of the basin. Adaptive ensures public health and safety, and provides for management is required for optimal implementation the sustainability of communities and ecosystems” of the plan, creating a living process rather than (AWRA 2011). Collaboration and participation development of a one-time strategy. As new ensure that the resulting plan fully embraces the scientific information is obtained or stakeholder basin stakeholders’ many diverse perspectives and perspectives change, the implementation approach strengthens the communication between basin should be modified as necessary. organizations. Rigorous scientific investigations are

Introduction 9

BENEFITS

Because of its holistic, participatory approach to water resources management, many agencies and organizations have embraced the IWRM method (USACE 2014). There are a number of ways the IWRM method can specifically assist Potomac River basin stakeholders:

1. Help states plan for anticipated impacts from upstream activities and prevent unintended downstream consequences (e.g. upstream water uses, consumptive uses, source water threats, etc.). Similarly, the plan provides an opportunity for each jurisdiction to see its water use in the context of neighboring jurisdictions. 2. Plan and act with a watershed perspective rather than the perspective of a political boundary to encourage the evaluation of potential interstate impacts. Existing management approaches for the Potomac basin are most often developed for politically defined areas. However, as everyone is affected by those upstream and affects those downstream, water resources management that looks beyond the political boundaries will benefit all. 3. Encourage interstate collaboration and communication among basin stakeholders. 4. Integrate existing data and research for basin-wide and interstate analyses. Extensive research has been conducted within the Potomac basin at different spatial scales and focusing on various issues. A basin- wide comprehensive plan can integrate existing knowledge to evaluate interstate issues and form the basis of decision making. 5. Increase cost efficiency by sharing data, coordinating plans, and partnering to achieve common goals, especially by coordinating with the requirements and schedules of each participating entities’ management plans.

PLANNING PROCESS

The planning process included five broad phases.  The first phase, scoping, included generating a Phase 1 - Scoping

concept paper (Moltz et al. 2011), developing an anticipated timeline, identifying possible funding Phase 2 – Water Resources Issues sources, developing an outline of known water Phase 3 – Recommendations resources issues, discussing with state agencies how best to integrate the basin-wide plan with Phase 4 – Document ongoing state planning efforts, and requesting Phase 5 – Adaptive Management feedback from stakeholders towards developing a Section 1 contributes to Phase 1 of the shared vision for the plan. planning process (detailed in Section 1.7).  Phase 2 included identification of water resources challenges of interstate and/or basin-wide significance. Text boxes appear in each major section to illustrate which  Phase 3 resulted in recommendations to address phase of the planning process is addressed in that section. identified issues by building on the results of the previous assessments and concurrent studies by ICPRB and other organizations.  Phase 4 included preparation of this document.  The final phase, Phase 5, of the planning process resulted in the development of a strategy for adaptive review and implementation.

Introduction 10

An advisory committee member perspective on the process to be presented in this box

Introduction 11

Stakeholder participation was included throughout this process (details provided in Section 1.8). Shared Vision Statement Developed STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT by the Advisory Committee Stakeholder participation in the development of this plan included ongoing participation by an advisory committee, broad public participation, and contact This plan provides a roadmap to achieving our with federal agencies about their goals and shared vision that the Potomac River basin will strategies for water resources management in the serve as a national model for water resource basin. These stakeholder involvement efforts are management that fulfills human and ecological discussed in turn in the sections below. needs for current and future generations. The plan will be based on the best available science and data and focus on sustainable water ADVISORY COMMITTEE resources management that provides the water To support the development of an implementable quantity and quality needed for the protection comprehensive plan, ICPRB created a participatory and enhancement of public health, the process to inform plan development. Stakeholder environment, all sectors of the economy, and engagement offers multiple benefits to water quality of life in the basin. The ICPRB will serve as resources planning. Input from stakeholders the catalyst for the plan's implementation provides a source of guidance in plan development through an adaptive process in collaboration toward shared priorities and workable strategies. with partner agencies, institutions, Stakeholder discussions are a valuable opportunity organizations, and the public. to mitigate potential conflicts during plan development instead of during plan implementation. Stakeholder involvement helps to create a broad organizations, recreational and commercial fisheries, sense of ownership in a plan and to build and academic research. The members were also commitments that will be needed for plan selected to represent the full geographic range of implementation and future plan revisions and the basin from the headwaters to the river’s mouth adaptation. at the Chesapeake Bay and across the jurisdictions of the river’s watershed, including Pennsylvania, West To ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement in Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of plan development, ICPRB established an advisory Columbia. A complete list of the advisory committee committee for the planning process. A brief members is provided in the Acknowledgements description of the advisory committee process is section of the plan. provided in this section. Full details are provided in Appendix A. The advisory committee was coordinated by an independent team of facilitators from Policy Works The advisory committee provided for in-depth LLC, which was engaged by ICPRB. The facilitation engagement by stakeholders in plan development team brought specific experience in water resources and review. The advisory committee membership planning and designed a process for the advisory was recruited by ICPRB with input from ICPRB committee to provide guidance on the following Commissioners. Members were selected to aspects of plan development: represent a broad range of perspectives in the Potomac River basin, including water resource  Shared Vision Statement management, water and wastewater utilities, local  Identification and Prioritization of Current government, agriculture, environmental and Future Water Issues

Introduction 12

 Technical Review of Water Issues committee members were asked to review technical  Identification of Strategies to Address materials and drafts of plan sections and to respond Water Issues to follow-up questions to gather more input on  Review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan important questions that were discussed in meetings. The facilitators sought to create a process of meetings and activities between meetings. The process was The work of the advisory committee had several designed to provide the following benefits: outputs that were used by ICPRB in developing the comprehensive plan. These outputs included:  Participation by all members through pathways that accommodate their  Shared vision statement (see text box at the individual styles of interaction beginning of this section)  Shared understanding by members of  List of water resource challenge areas to complex technical materials address in the comprehensive plan (see text  Productive meetings that make the best use box below Table 2) of members’ time  Prioritized strategies to address the  Conflict management to support challenge areas constructive resolution and identification of  Recommendations for format and common ground presentation of the comprehensive plan  Creation of a forum for open dialogue in an  Review comments on the draft atmosphere of trust comprehensive plan  Accomplishment of project tasks within the time and budget available

The advisory committee process was structured around a series of seven meetings between September 2016 and March 2018 (see Table 2). Five of the meetings were held in person at the ICPRB office in Rockville, and two were conducted as conference calls. At the meetings, the advisory committee heard technical presentations, interacted with expert panels, reviewed plan components, worked in small groups, and discussed important issues as a full group. The meeting activities were structured using facilitation techniques including nominal group technique and single text negotiation, and polling tools were used as needed to assess group responses. Between meetings, the facilitation team conducted one-on-one telephone interviews with advisory committee members at multiple points in the process to gather stakeholder input and to inform development of constructive meeting agendas. Outside of meetings, the advisory

Introduction 13

Table 2. Advisory committee meeting dates and agenda topics.

Meeting Date Agenda Topics

 Overview of ICPRB, Potomac River Basin, and Comprehensive Plan  Advisory Committee Operations September 26, 2016  Shared Vision Statement  Water Resources Challenges List

 Shared Vision Statement December 1, 2016  Water Resources Challenges List (conference call)  Technical Work Plan for Comprehensive Plan Development

 ICPRB Progress Report  Draft Table of Contents for Comprehensive Plan March 2, 2017  Federal Agency Involvement Panel  Energy/Water Planning Nexus Panel

 Review of Technical Information and Development and Prioritization of May 23, 2017 Recommendations for Water Quality Challenge Area and Water Use and Supply Challenge Area

 Draft Plan Section Review September 8, 2017 (conference call)  Review of Technical Information and Development and Prioritization of Recommendations for Ecological Health Challenge Area

 Comprehensive Plan Format and Presentation  Draft Plan Section Review November 8, 2017  Review of Technical Information and Development and Prioritization of Recommendations for Human Land Use Challenge Area  Discussion of Implementation Challenge Area

March 1, 2018  Draft Plan Review

Introduction 14

Through its work, the advisory committee provided a foundation for the development of this plan, and the input of the members was used from initial scoping to final edits of the plan. The recommended strategies in the plan reflect the input and priorities of the advisory committee members. The advisory committee provided detailed and extensive input on the plan content, but several over-arching themes in the committee’s discussions have influenced the plan at the broad level:

 Make the plan accessible and useful to a broad audience

 Prioritize implementability in selecting strategies for the plan and consider how to facilitate plan implementation

 Address the whole Potomac basin and increase efforts to address the concerns of upstream communities and small utilities in the basin

 Engage federal agencies and academic institutions as partners in planning and implementation

 Ensure that education and public awareness are priorities

 Keep the plan meaningful and realistic

 Develop an adaptive process for the plan that updates it based on new information, goals, priorities, and activities over time

 Share information across jurisdictions (state, regional, local) in the basin to support improved management and coordination

 Build public awareness of the plan to promote buy-in and support for implementation

Stakeholder involvement in plan development provided a grounding in real world conditions and workable solutions.

While the advisory committee was the primary instrument to stakeholder engagement in development of the comprehensive plan, it was not the only way by which ICPRB sought stakeholder input. Additionally, the following methods extended the opportunities for stakeholder involvement in the development of the comprehensive plan as discussed in more detail in Section 1.8.2:

 Communication via an electronic mailing list of approximately 200 stakeholders including updates on the planning process and requests for specific input and document reviews

 Public review of the draft comprehensive plan

 Workshop with George Mason University graduate students to discuss the comprehensive plan

 Regular opportunities for public comment at advisory committee meetings

 Regular updates through public communication outlets such as the comprehensive plan website and the ICPRB Facebook and Twitter accounts

Introduction 15

Through meaningful engagement with stakeholders via multiple methods, ICPRB Water Resource Challenge Areas provided a foundation for an effective and implementable comprehensive water Identified by the Advisory Committee resources plan. Stakeholder involvement in plan development was extensive and  Ensure Sustainable Water Uses and Supplies: provided a grounding in real world The diverse users of the basin’s water resources conditions and workable solutions. The have clean, reliable, and resilient water advisory committee members committed resources for current and future generations. substantial personal and organizational  Protect and Improve Water Quality: resources to this outcome, and their efforts The waters of the basin achieve or exceed water will have an impact through improved quality standards established under the Clean understanding and management of water Water Act. New and emerging threats are resources in the Potomac River basin. proactively addressed.  Protect Ecological Health: BROAD PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The propagation and growth of balanced, desirable populations of aquatic life is ensured. A broad stakeholder base was engaged in  Manage Human Land Use for Sustainability: the development of the comprehensive Human land use in the basin supports plan through an email distribution list, sustainable water resource management. workshops and presentations, and via  Support Plan Implementation: online and social media outlets. The basin-wide comprehensive plan is The email distribution list was developed supported by a strong foundation for as an initial step in the plan’s development. integrated, comprehensive, and coordinated The list consists of approximately 200 approaches for sustainable water resources individuals representing a wide range of management. interests. Emails to disseminate information and request feedback were distributed to the list at key points during the plan’s development.

In addition, ICPRB staff presented on the comprehensive plan to various groups to disseminate information and provide feedback. For example, staff participated in a graduate seminar at George Mason University (GMU) in early 2017 to encourage involvement in the comprehensive planning process. Approximately 30 graduate students attended. The seminar included ICPRB staff presentations on the plan and a technical overview of the basin. The graduate students then brainstormed potential recommendations for each of the plan’s challenge areas.

Information on the planning process and ways to get engaged were made available to interested parties and the general public via the ICPRB comprehensive plan website and the complementary advisory committee website. Regular updates were also disseminated through the ICPRB Facebook and Twitter accounts.

FEDERAL AGENCIES Multiple federal agencies have responsibilities that relate to the management and use of water resources in the Potomac basin. In collaboration with ICPRB, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has written a report on the restoration and protection actions in the Potomac basin of certain federal agencies and that report is included as Appendix D.

Introduction 16

HISTORY OF PLANNING IN THE POTOMAC BASIN

Historically, the Potomac River has been awash in studies. Stresses from rapid population growth and the federal focus on the “Nation’s River” has produced several bookshelves of reports on all aspects of the river. Some have been very helpful. Others have contributed to the intractable problem of dusty bookshelves. Some have been incredulous, such as the 1960s idea that a seawall built down the middle of the river could use the tides to carry pollution from Washington down to the bay (Barbour 1965). Some studies took a “big picture” approach, such as “The Potomac,” a 1967 report by Potomac Planning Task Force appointed by the American Institute of Architects under authorization of Interior Secretary Stewart Udall (Potomac Planning Task Force 1967). They assembled “A group of brilliant men widely known for their imaginative thinking, broad scholarship and dedication to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the American environment.” The report was comprehensive, and recommended that the riverside be reserved and developed for water-oriented recreation, with urban development concentrated at carefully selected locations, that a comprehensive ecological inventory be conducted, and that a development foundation capitalized with $50 million per year in federal dollars for the first five years, and also could accept private funds and hold land. These funds would be spent on features of the comprehensive plan.

“The irrevocable fact is that the creation of a desirable environment – clear air and water, quiet open spaces and a balanced community of living things around us – will require appropriate funding and a unity of effort”

-The Potomac, 1967

Introduction 17

Some aspects of the 1967 comprehensive plan were carried out, although the overarching federal management of the river environs never occurred. The plan never attained the “buy-in” it needed from the public and economic sectors.

The Potomac Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Plan has avoided some of these pitfalls. The plan has been developed not by an expert panel but through a long process of engaging stakeholders at every level. The project’s advisory committee of about 21 people includes federal, state, and local government representatives, utilities, agricultural and industry representatives, developers, academic institutions, and fisheries/wildlife professionals. A larger group of nearly 200 interested individuals is engaged via email.

Collaboratively developing the plan with basin stakeholders will help it be accepted and used as a way for the region’s many communities and agencies that produce water resources plans, especially smaller units with few resources. See Section 1.8 for a complete description of the stakeholder involvement process.

Potomac Basin Description 18

POTOMAC BASIN DESCRIPTION

Due to its sheer size, the Potomac basin is quite diverse - geographically, ecologically, hydrologically, economically, culturally, and socially. The 383-mile long Potomac River has a 14,670 square mile (sq. mi.) drainage area that includes portions of Virginia (5,723 sq. mi.), Maryland (3,818 sq. mi.), West Virginia (3,490 sq. mi.), and Pennsylvania (1,570 sq. mi.), and all of the District of Columbia (69 sq. mi.). Types of surface waters found in the basin include wetlands, streams, rivers, reservoirs, lakes, and the Potomac estuary. According to data from the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), approximately ten percent of the total basin area is federal land and managed separately from the states and District of Columbia. This section includes detailed information on the basin’s physiography, hydrology, population, land use, water use, water quality, and aquatic life.

Potomac Basin Description 19

PHYSIOGRAPHY

The terrain of the Potomac basin is highly varied, ranging from mountainous areas, to rolling hills, to low-lying plains. Elevation in the basin ranges from sea level to 4,862 feet (1,482 meters) (Figure 1). The highest point in the basin is Spruce Knob in Pendleton County, West Virginia.

Figure 1. Elevation in the Potomac basin. Data source: 30 meter resolution 1999 USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM).

Potomac Basin Description 20

Figure 2. Physiographic provinces in the Potomac River basin. Data source: Fenneman et al. 1946.

The Potomac basin intersects five major physiographic provinces including the Appalachian Plateau, Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain.

Potomac Basin Description 21

The Potomac basin intersects five major through the unconfined or partially confined system physiographic provinces including, from northwest of fractures, faults, and joints in the surrounding to southeast, the Appalachian Plateau, Valley and impermeable crystalline rock. Recharge to Ridge, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and the Coastal Plain groundwater is generally through the local (Figure 2). infiltration of precipitation. The boundary between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain is referred to as The Appalachian Plateau Province occupies the far the Fall Line (MGS 2015). northwestern part of the Potomac basin, consisting of both folded mountains and a westward tilting The Coastal Plain Province is the final province that plateau. Due to the steep slopes, soil characteristics, the Potomac River flows through before reaching and relatively cooler temperatures, this province is the Chesapeake Bay. This low-lying area is primarily forested with little agriculture (Wood et al. characterized by low-gradient, sandy-bottomed 1999). Relatively small amounts of groundwater streams (Wood et al. 1999). The Northern Atlantic exist in this province except under ideal hydrological Coastal Plain aquifer system consists of six regional and meteorological conditions (McCoy et al. 2015; aquifers composed of alternating layers of sand, MGS 2015). gravel, silt, and clay and extends from New Jersey to the North Carolina-South Carolina border (Trapp and To the east of the Appalachian Plateau lies the Valley Horn 1997). Groundwater is a primary source of and Ridge Province characterized by ridges of water supply in the Coastal Plain and comes from resistant layered sedimentary rocks and valleys of several aquifers, a shallow unconfined system and a less resistant layers of limestone, dolomite, and more productive, deeper, confined system. These shale (MGS 2015). The carbonate bedrock valleys are deeper, confined aquifers are comprised of a series characterized by highly productive aquifers and the of aquifers and confining units which are recharged occurrence of karst terrain (VA DEQ 2015). As a via infiltration from overlying aquifers and confining result of the underlying geology, springs and caves units and via outcroppings of the deeper aquifers can be common in this province (Wood et al. 1999). near the Fall Line (Masterson et al. 2015; MGS 2015). The largest and widest of the valleys, Great These aquifers are truly regional in extent, shared to Appalachian Valley, bisects the entire Potomac River varying degrees between the states from New Jersey basin. to North Carolina, including Maryland and Virginia in the Potomac basin. The Blue Ridge Province is a narrow mountain belt separating the Valley and Ridge Province from the Piedmont Province. Characterized by mostly forested slopes, high-gradient streams, and rugged terrain, the crystalline and sometimes sedimentary rocks of the province are covered by a thin layer of soil and weathered rock (Wood et al. 1999). The steep slopes and thin soils are responsible for high amounts of surface runoff and very little groundwater recharge (MGS 2015).

The Piedmont Province extends from the Blue Ridge on the west to the Fall Line on the east. A drive through the Piedmont reveals a landscape of rolling hills and open valleys. Aquifers in the Piedmont Province are composed of fractured rock overlain by soil and weathered rock. Groundwater moves

Potomac Basin Description 22

HYDROLOGY The surface and ground water hydrology of the and Virginia), Monocacy River, Seneca Creek, Rock Potomac basin is highly variable due to the climate, Creek, Anacostia River, Occoquan River, and landscape, geology, and the relatively free-flowing Wicomico River (Figure 3). The river is an estuary for (unimpounded) nature of the surface waters. its last 113 miles. The estuary formed after the last Surface and ground water resources are described in ice age as sea level rose and drowned the river’s Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2, respectively. channel on the Coastal Plain. The estuary broadens to roughly five miles at its mouth and has depths SURFACE WATERS over 60 feet in some reaches. The total volume is estimated to be over 1.865 trillion gallons. The The Potomac River starts at the Fairfax Stone in estuary experiences one to three foot tidal ranges, is West Virginia as the North Branch Potomac River. It freshwater for approximately 30 miles below head- forms the boundary between Grant, Mineral, and of-tide, and reaches salinities as high as 15 parts per Hampshire counties in West Virginia, and Garrett thousand at its mouth. and Allegany counties in Maryland, for 104 miles before it joins the South Branch Potomac River just There are approximately 16,450 miles of Strahler downstream from Green Spring, West Virginia1. The order 1-4 streams feeding into the Potomac first 19 miles of the South Branch Potomac River are mainstem and its major tributaries2. They range located in Highland County, Virginia, flowing the from fast moving mountain streams with frequent remainder of its 139 miles in West Virginia. After the cascades, riffles, and pools to slow moving coastal confluence of the North and South branches, the streams that may have been ditched to channel Potomac River continues for 274 miles as the border water. Connected directly or by groundwater to the between West Virginia and Virginia to the south and streams and rivers are 184,944 acres of freshwater Maryland to the north. Ultimately, the Potomac and coastal wetlands. Freshwater wetlands occur in River flows into the Chesapeake Bay at Point river floodplains and on low lands, near groundwater Lookout, Maryland. Major tributaries of the Potomac level. Saltwater wetlands fringe shores of the River are, in order downriver; Cacapon River, Potomac estuary where the ground is waterlogged3. Conocoheague Creek, Antietam Creek, Shenandoah River, Catoctin Creeks (one each in both Maryland

3 NLCD 2011 Land Cover (2011 Edition, amended 1 River miles were measured using the 2007 National 2014) - National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) Land Hydrologic Dataset. Use Land Cover 2 NHDPlus Version 1 Medium Resolution

Potomac Basin Description 23

The Potomac River and its tributaries are relatively the basin are Jennings Randolph, Occoquan, and unregulated compared to other major rivers in the Savage River (Figure 3). Jennings Randolph, Savage region. In total, there are 481 impoundments in the River, and Little Seneca reservoirs are part of the non-tidal Potomac basin according to the 2007 cooperative management of Potomac water supplies National Inventory of Dams; however, only a dozen and instream flows during times of drought, of these dams have storage capacities that are releasing water for downstream water utilities and greater than ten percent of the mean annual flow ensuring that the 100 million gallons per day (mgd) volume (USACE et al. 2014). The largest reservoirs in flow-by at Little Falls is maintained.

Figure 3. Major rivers of the Potomac basin. Select reservoirs are also displayed on the map. Data source: National Hydrography Dataset.

Potomac Basin Description 24

Figure 4. USGS stream gages in the Potomac basin by active status and length of record. Data source: USGS.

The Potomac basin is fortunate to have a network of tributaries is fairly consistent with a range of 0.74 to 236 USGS stream gages (Figure 4). The Point of 1.23 cubic feet per second per square mile (cfs/sq. Rocks gage (01638500), located on the mainstem mi.). Flows, however, are highly variable (Table 3). Potomac River at Point of Rocks in Frederick County, For example, the maximum observed flow at Point of Maryland, has one of the longest periods of record in Rocks on the Potomac River is almost three orders of the nation. Continuous daily data collection began at magnitude larger than the minimum observed flow. Point of Rocks in February 1895. The difference between maximum observed flow and minimum observed flow is at least four orders of Average annual flows for the Potomac River and magnitude for the Occoquan River and the Catoctin select major tributaries are provided in Table 3. The Creek gages. Of the fourteen gages listed in Table 3, largest tributaries downstream of the confluence of all but one have their high average flow month in the North and South branches, in terms of discharge, March. The low average flow month varies more, are the interstate Shenandoah and Monocacy rivers. seven are in August, four in September, two in July On average, discharge per unit area from the major and the remaining one is in October.

Potomac Basin Description 25

Table 3. Average, minimum, and maximum daily flow for select USGS gages’ period of record (cfs)*. Gages are arranged from upstream to downstream. No data = nd.

Avg Daily Min Daily Max Daily Period of Area USGS Gage Name Discharge Discharge Discharge Record (sq. mi.) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Cacapon River near Great Cacapon, WV 1922 to 2015 675 587 26 67,900 Conococheague Creek at Fairview, MD 1928 to 2015 494 609 25 26,700 Antietam Creek near Sharpsburg, MD 1897 to 2015 281 293 37 8,970 Shenandoah River at Millville, WV 1895 to 2015 3,041 2,757 194 192,000 Catoctin Creek near Middletown, MD 1947 to 2015 67 78 0.0 4,880 Catoctin Creek at Taylorstown, VA 1970 to 2015 90 102 0.1 9,530 Potomac River at Point of Rocks, MD 1895 to 2015 9,651 9,534 540 434,000 Monocacy River at Jug Bridge near 1929 to 2015 817 965 19 74,000 Frederick, MD Seneca Creek at Dawsonville, MD 1930 to 2015 101 117 1.8 9,900 Potomac River (Adjusted) near 1930 to 2015 11,560 11,867 601 426,000 Washington, DC† Rock Creek at Q Street, Washington, D.C. 1892 to 1933 76 56 1.2 2,710 Northeast Branch Anacostia River at 1938 to 2015 73 88 1.4 6,830 Riverdale, MD Occoquan River near Occoquan, VA 1913 to 1956 570 484 1.0 27,700 Freshwater tributaries to Wicomico River 1983 to 2015 248 78** nd nd * Compiled Apr 29, 2015 ** Extrapolated from Zekiah Swamp Run gage near Newtown, MD † Adjusted records include diversions for DC metro water supply.

The variability of streamflows in the Potomac basin is primarily a function of temperature, precipitation, evapotranspiration, and the relatively free-flowing (unimpounded) nature of the surface waters, each of which are discussed below.

Residents and visitors alike enjoy the four distinct seasons in the Potomac basin including fall colors, spring flowers, and winter and summer recreational activities. Due to its location in the north temperate zone, extreme temperatures are possible. Winters can be cold, with record daily lows reaching - 30 °F (-34 °C) in the mountains. Summers can be hot with record daily highs reaching 105 °F (41 °C) in the coastal areas of the basin. On a monthly basis, average temperatures in the basin range from 29 °F (-2 °C) in Autumn in the Shenandoah watershed. February to 73 °F (23 °C) in July (Figure 5).

Potomac Basin Description 26

Figure 5. Monthly distribution of temperature for the Potomac basin. Calculated as the average of the means, minimums, and maximums for each month; 1971-2000. Data source: 122 NWS temperature stations.

According to historic data from 84 National Weather Service (NWS) precipitation stations in and around the Potomac basin, rainfall averages approximately 42 inches per year. Spatial variability in precipitation across the basin is primarily driven by a large rain shadow, or dry area, on the Eastern side of the Appalachian mountain system (Figure 6).

The Potomac basin receives approximately 42 inches of rain per year.

Potomac Basin Description 27

Figure 6. Average annual precipitation in the Potomac basin. Data source: NWS Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center precipitation data from 214 stations (1971-2000).

There is also variability in the intensity and duration highest upstream of the Appalachian Mountains and of rainfall events across the basin. Rainfall erosivity is gradually decreases moving downstream on the a metric based on rainfall intensity and duration that mainstem Potomac River. Compared to other areas is calculated using many years of observed data. of the country, differences in the Potomac basin may Specifically, rainfall erosivity is the average annual be subtle (Renard et al. 1997); however, these sum of individual storm erosion index values, EI30, characteristics influence components of the where E is the total storm kinetic energy per unit hydrologic cycle such as rainfall runoff amounts and area and I30 is the maximum 30-minute rainfall the potential for erosion. intensity. In the Potomac basin, rainfall erosivity is

Potomac Basin Description 28

Figure 7. Rainfall erosivity in the Potomac basin. Data source: Renard et al. 1997.

Precipitation amounts in the Potomac basin are evapotranspiration causes flows during that period fairly consistent on a monthly basis; however, to be dependent on recent rainfall. On an average streamflows can decrease dramatically in the annual basis, more than half of the total available growing season due to high evapotranspiration water is lost to evapotranspiration (Figure 9). (USACE et al. 2014) (Figure 8). Summer

Potomac Basin Description 29

Figure 8. Monthly mean precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, and flow at Potomac River gage at Little Falls Pump Station. Data sources: NWS, USGS, and Farnsworth and Thompson (1982).

Figure 9. Average annual water budget for the Potomac basin. Data sources: PRISM Climate Group 2004, Wolock 2003, and USGS.

Potomac Basin Description 30

GROUNDWATER There are distinct physical characteristics of the vastly different physical properties of the groundwater resources and the associated recharge groundwater systems above and below the Fall Line features above and below the Fall Line. In the result in unique characteristics like recharge rates. Coastal Plain Province, groundwater is contained in a confined aquifer system. Recharge of these aquifers USGS monitors 17 wells in or near the Potomac basin primarily occurs by infiltration from overlying in real time (15 minute increments) to provide aquifers and through outcroppings near the Fall Line. measurement data on the groundwater level (Figure Above the Fall Line, groundwater aquifers consist of 10). Thirteen of these wells are currently active with fractured bedrock. Fractured bedrock aquifers USGS receiving near-continuous water level data consist of a thin layer of unconsolidated soil and from instrumentation installed in the wells. The weathered rock overlying the bedrock. These other four wells are no longer actively recording and unconsolidated materials are far more porous than transmitting real-time data. There are over 100 the bedrock and contain the largest volume of additional USGS groundwater wells in the Potomac groundwater in the fractured rock aquifer. basin that are not real time (i.e. measurements are Groundwater is transmitted to wells and streams collected at time intervals greater than every 15 through the fracture system within the bedrock but minutes). there is relatively little storage in the fractures. The

Potomac Basin Description 31

Figure 10. Current and historic USGS real-time wells in or near the Potomac River basin. Real-time wells record and transmit data every 15 minutes. Data source: USGS.

Groundwater recharge in the basin varies based on areas. The higher the number of digits in the precipitation, geology, soil type, and land use. hydrologic unit code, the smaller the area contained Average annual recharge estimates are provided in within it. On average, recharge in the basin ranges Table 4 for each 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC-8) from 5.1 inches per year to 8.8 inches per year. in the Potomac basin based on reported values from

Wolock (2003). Hydrologic units are a standardized way of classifying progressively smaller drainage

Potomac Basin Description 32

Table 4. Mean annual average groundwater recharge estimate by HUC-8 (based on data from Wolock 2003).

Minimum Maximum Average HUC-8 Name (inches) (inches) (inches) 02070001 South Branch Potomac 4.8 10.0 6.8 02070002 North Branch Potomac 4.9 12.0 8.8 02070003 Cacapon-Town 4.2 6.8 5.2 02070004 Conococheague-Opequon 4.5 9.6 6.7 02070005 South Fork Shenandoah 5.1 8.5 6.3 02070006 North Fork Shenandoah 4.4 6.0 5.2 02070007 Shenandoah 5.0 7.8 5.7 02070008 Middle Potomac-Catoctin 3.5 8.7 6.4 02070009 Monocacy 5.7 9.9 7.5 02070010 Middle Potomac-Anacostia-Occoquan 3.4 8.5 5.1 02070011 Lower Potomac 3.9 8.1 6.1

SUMMARY Due to the hydrologic and climactic conditions in the basin, water management requires careful preparation for summers and autumns with low water supply (i.e. low flow) and/or high demand. Balanced, well-functioning ecosystems are able to handle fluctuations in streamflow and groundwater availability and depend on natural hydrologic variability for survival. Anthropogenic impacts to natural hydrologic variability can have negative impacts on these systems. For example, increases in impervious cover result in higher flood stages and longer dry periods, which can stress aquatic organisms.

POPULATION

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Potomac basin is home to 6.17 million people (Figure 11). Eighty percent of the basin’s population lives in urban areas, with the vast majority of the urban dwellers (5.36 million people) living in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area (WMA). The remainder of the urban population live in cities scattered throughout the basin.

Potomac Basin Description 33

Figure 11. Population by census block in the Potomac basin. White census blocks indicate a population of zero. Data source: U.S. 2010 Census.

LAND USE The Potomac basin is heavily forested, with The ten Potomac basin U.S. Census counties and approximately 53 percent forest cover (shown in equivalents with the largest increase in impervious green in Figure 12). Agriculture is also a major land cover between 2006 and 2011 are (from highest to use, particularly in the Great Valley and Piedmont lowest): Harrisonburg, Virginia; Manassas Park, regions (Section 2.1), and covers 26 percent of the Virginia; Winchester, Virginia; Manassas, Virginia; basin (shown in yellow in Figure 12). Fourteen Prince William County, Virginia; Waynesboro, percent of the basin is developed (shown in orange Virginia; Staunton, Virginia; City of Alexandria, in Figure 12) and some regions of the basin, Virginia; Prince George's County, Maryland; and especially those surrounding the WMA, are Stafford County, Virginia. The change in experiencing rapid urbanization. imperviousness in this group over the five-year period ranged from 4 percent to less than 1.4 percent (USGS 2014).

Potomac Basin Description 34

Figure 12. Land use in the Potomac basin. Data source: 2011 NLCD data4.

WATER USE Given the distinct hydrologic and hydrogeologic groundwater. Water uses in each of these regions characteristics (as described in Section 2.2.2), the are discussed in this section. ratio of surface and ground water uses differ above and below the Fall Line. Specifically, water uses Water use data for the basin has been compiled as above the Fall Line are typically from surface water part of two recent ICPRB projects. The Middle sources given the relatively small amount of storage Potomac River Watershed Assessment (MPRWA) available in the groundwater systems. Conversely, (USACE et al. 2014) included a compilation of state the water uses below the Fall Line are typically from reported surface and ground water withdrawals for the Potomac basin for the year 2005. Development of the ICPRB consumptive use tool (Ducnuigeen et al.

4 NLCD land use categories were aggregated for simplification. The following land use classes were included in each category. Forest: Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, Mixed Forest, Shrub/scrub, and Herbaceous. Crops: Hay/Pasture and Crops. Developed: Developed Open Space, Developed Low Intensity, Developed Medium Intensity, Developed High Intensity, and Barren Land. Wetlands: Woody Wetlands and Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands.

Potomac Basin Description 35

2015) brought together state reported withdrawals (agriculture, commercial/industrial, and mining) for the Potomac basin above Little Falls. The make up the remaining 1 percent of withdrawals. common period of record between state data in the Eighty percent of the withdrawals were from consumptive use tool was 2005 through 2008. groundwater, the rest from surface water.

In total, 1,134 registered withdrawals occurred in Recent studies have demonstrated the vulnerability the Potomac basin upstream of Little Falls during the of current water supplies to drought and other types 2005 – 2008 time period (Figure 13). Approximately of shortages (like spills), given the relatively small 1,800 mgd were withdrawn on an average annual amount of water storage and alternative water basis during that time period. The vast majority, 85 sources (Ahmed et al. 2015). An alternatives study percent, were withdrawn by thermoelectric power was conducted in 2017 by the ICPRB Section for facilities followed by public water supply and Cooperative Water Supply (CO-OP) to evaluate industrial uses at 8 and 4 percent, respectively structural and non-structural options for dealing (Ahmed et al. 2015). Ninety-six percent of the with potential future shortages in the cooperative withdrawals above Little Falls were from surface system (Schultz et al. 2017). Another study to water sources. address potential shortfalls was the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Based on the MPRWA withdrawal database, there Redundancy Study (Black and Veatch 2016). Both of were 328 registered withdrawals in the basin below these studies were designed to address the Little Falls in 2005 with an average daily withdrawal vulnerabilities of the DC metro region. To date, there of 1,500 mgd (Figure 13). The power sector used 93 has been no systematic, comprehensive evaluation percent of the reported water followed by public of the vulnerabilities of the basin as a whole. water supply with 6 percent. The other use types

Potomac Basin Description 36

Figure 13. State reported withdrawals. Color indicates water use type and size indicates the magnitude of the withdrawal. Data sources: ICPRB CO-OP consumptive use database above Little Falls and the MPRWA 2005 withdrawal database below Little Falls.

Consumptive use is the portion of water that is cumulative consumptive use ranges from an withdrawn from a resource and not returned to the estimated 40 mgd at the confluence of the North same resource. Estimates of consumptive use are Branch and Savage River to 100 mgd at Little Falls on important because they indicate how much water is the Potomac River. Under average summer being used and is subsequently not available for conditions (June, July, and August), the value at Little downstream use. Figure 14 shows cumulative Falls increases to approximately 170 mgd. When upstream consumptive use at select locations on the compared with estimates of water availability, mainstem Potomac River from Savage River to Little geographic areas where demand approaches or Falls for both average annual and average summer exceeds supply can be identified. conditions. Under average annual conditions,

Potomac Basin Description 37

Figure 14. Cumulative upstream consumptive use, Savage River to Little Falls based on state reported withdrawals. The black dots on the map correspond to the black dots on the graph.

WATER QUALITY Sufficient quantities of clean water are essential to established by the USEPA in 2010. The TMDL sustaining the many human and ecosystem water identifies the pollution reductions for nitrogen, uses. The Potomac basin is home to high quality phosphorus, and sediment and sets pollution limits waters and, conversely, to waters that do not meet necessary for the Chesapeake Bay to meet established water quality standards. established water quality standards. State implementation plans were developed to specifically Tier II and Tier III designations are made under the identify how the pollution allocations would be met anti-degradation policy of the U.S. Clean Water Act in each jurisdiction. (CWA). Tier II and III waters meet or exceed water quality standards for their designated uses and are Basin states also submit an Integrated Report on considered pristine, high quality, and/or supporting water quality to the USEPA every two years, fulfilling wild native fish populations such as wild trout the state’s 303(d) and 305(b) requirements under fisheries. These streams are designated based on the CWA. Impaired streams are those waterways criteria established in each state. A total of 1,266 that do not meet the water quality standards miles of high quality, Tier II and Tier III, waters are established for the designated use under the CWA. present in the basin (Figure 15). Spatially, impaired streams occur throughout the basin, shown in red in Figure 15. Of the total The Chesapeake Bay watershed is well known for impaired streams in the basin, 32 percent are ongoing water quality problems and the substantial impaired for nutrients, 37 percent are impaired for efforts underway to try to improve the water quality pathogens, 26 percent are impaired for sediment, of the bay. The Potomac basin, being within the and 4 percent are impaired for metals (USEPA 2014). Chesapeake Bay watershed, is subject to the Almost all of the tidal Potomac River is currently Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), listed as impaired for one or more reasons5.

5 While the impaired segments fail to meet water quality standards for at least one pollutant, they vary in their attainment of water quality standards for other pollutants.

Potomac Basin Description 38

Impairments are classified into categories: 4a, habitat alteration or flow limitations); and 5, impaired but have a TMDL developed that impaired water bodies that may require a establishes pollutant loading limits designed to bring TMDL. Category 5 has historically been known as the the water body back in to compliance; 4b, impaired 303(d) List. Unimpaired reaches are the tidal but for which a technological remedy should correct embayments of Virginia's Aquia Creek and Potomac the impairment; 4c. impaired but not for a Creek (MDE 2017 and VA DEQ 2016). conventional pollutant (includes pollution caused by

Figure 15. Tier II and Tier III streams and impaired streams. Data source: USEPA compilation of state impairment data (USEPA 2015).

AQUATIC LIFE

In the context of this plan, aquatic life is the animal, plant, and microscopic organisms that live in water for part or all their life cycle. Balanced, desirable populations of aquatic life are the definitive sign of healthy, well-functioning ecosystems and sustainable water resources management. People derive valuable goods and services from Potomac waters when aquatic populations are vigorous, resilient, and effectively performing their ecological roles.

Aquatic life is a designated use in the water quality standards of the District of Columbia and the four states in the Potomac River basin. These jurisdictions recognize the importance of clean water in achieving and sustaining their aquatic life designated uses. Water quality standards are directly linked to desirable or ecologically important

Potomac Basin Description 39

biological communities6, and allowable limits (criteria) for dissolved oxygen, pH, and other parameters are set according to ranges tolerated by Aquatic Life those communities. Water quality conditions have improved in the basin overall since a nadir in the mid- th The term “aquatic life” rather than “living to late-20 century; however, most of the estuary resources” is used in this plan. The latter and significant numbers of Potomac non-tidal implies the living parts of an ecosystem can streams and rivers are still listed as impaired by the be exploited independently of each other, as jurisdictions (Figure 15). if they are inanimate quantities. Exploitation of aquatic populations—and especially animal To thrive, aquatic communities require sufficient populations—outside of the context of their physical habitat—living spaces with environmental ecological roles and needs has irrevocably conditions that stay within the inhabitants’ preferred damaged many natural systems and the goods and services they provide to people. bounds—and the option to move freely between Examples include single-species management habitats. For example, resident species move in and approaches and non-native species out of underwater grass beds or small tributaries to introductions. find food, or avoid predators or seasonally stressful This comprehensive plan attempts to conditions. Anadromous fish species migrate from consider aquatic life in the context of the Atlantic Ocean to the Potomac River and its tidal Potomac’s natural ecosystems. freshwater tributaries to spawn. Dams built across Potomac waterways for water supply or power generation impede natural movements of aquatic populations. Hardened shorelines, in-filling, channel alteration, and other efforts to confine or redirect paths of natural flow can break important aquatic life connections to floodplain, wetland, and riparian buffer habitats. Historic loads of top soil and sediment from earlier forest clear- cutting and agricultural practices have permanently changed the estuary’s bathymetry, filling in embayments, eliminating some deep water refugia, and shortening residence times in important nursery areas (e.g. Cummins et al. 2011).

Changes in physical stream habitat, coupled with increasing water consumption and impervious cover related to development in the watershed, have altered flow patterns in most Potomac streams and rivers. Flows have become generally flashier and more likely to flood or dry out (USACE et al. 2014). Flow alteration disrupts and overwhelms aquatic communities (Poff et al. 2010). Its influence on Potomac non-tidal stream macroinvertebrates seems to compound the impacts of poor water quality (Buchanan et al. 2013).

Biological forces also control aquatic populations, including predation pressure (e.g., fishing), competition for space and food, disease, genetics, extirpations, and introductions of non-native species (Figure 16). The relative

6 Pennsylvania assesses its rivers and lakes to determine if they are “clean and pure enough to support fish and other aquatic life.” West Virginia has “reasonable standards of purity and quality of the water [that are] consistent with … (2) the propagation and protection of animal, bird, fish, and other aquatic and plant life.” Maryland seeks to “…provide water quality for the designated uses of …(c) propagation of fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife.” Virginia designates all waters for “…the propagation and growth of a balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life, including game fish, which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; wildlife; and the production of edible and marketable natural resources, e.g. fish and shellfish.” Some District of Columbia waters are classified for the “…protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; [and] protection of human health related to consumption of fish and shellfish.”

Potomac Basin Description 40

importance of these controls rises when biological communities are already disturbed and weakened by other factors.

Figure 16. Conceptual diagram of environmental factors that directly and indirectly affect biological community health in aquatic environments (adapted from USACE et al. 2014).

SUMMARY

Human and natural systems are dependent on the water and associated land resources in the Potomac basin. Section 2 provides a description of the Potomac basin’s physiography, hydrology, population, land use, water use, water quality, and aquatic life. The characteristics of the five physiographic provinces vary dramatically. Further, the characteristics of these regions influence human land and water uses (as one example - the locations of agricultural activities). Population growth and land use change, particularly increases in impervious cover, can fundamentally alter these natural systems. In terms of hydrology, communities are dependent on surface waters for the majority of water use in the basin, including drinking water supply; however, streamflows are highly variable and can decrease dramatically in the summer and fall which coincides with peak demands for this resource. Conversely, flooding can threaten lives and damage property. Groundwater supplies are also essential to human and ecosystem needs; however, the aquifer characteristics are fundamentally different above and below the Fall Line.

Section 3 describes challenges to the sustainable management of water resources in the basin, many of which are driven by the basin characteristics discussed in this section.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 41

WATER RESOURCES CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The goal of the second phase of the comprehensive planning process is to identify challenges to water Phase 1 – Scoping resources sustainability in the basin. Section 3.1 and

Section 3.2 describe approaches used to develop the Phase 2 – Water Resources Issues list of challenges and recommendations. The challenges and recommendations are presented and Phase 3 – Recommendations

discussed by category in Section 3.3 through Section 3.6. Section 3.7 brings together the four challenge Phase 4 – Document areas by discussing cross-cutting topics including Phase 5 – Adaptive Management floods and droughts, source water protection, climate change, and the water-energy nexus.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 42

IDENTIFYING THE CHALLENGES An initial list of challenges to sustainable water and ensure identification of interstate and/or basin- resources management in the Potomac basin was wide challenges. identified utilizing a four-pronged approach. First, local, regional, and statewide plans across the basin The initial list of challenges was reviewed by the were reviewed since they presumably document the advisory committee, the ICPRB Commissioners, and existing priorities of basin jurisdictions. the email distribution list (see Section 1.8 for a Understanding that these plans may be outdated, a description of the stakeholder involvement process), web-based survey was conducted to gain additional resulting in the four broad challenge areas; namely, information from participating agencies where to ensure sustainable water use and supplies, possible. A geospatial review was also conducted to protect and improve water quality, manage human determine the geographic distribution of challenges land use for sustainability, and protect ecological health.

DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS The process to develop and evaluate planning meeting. Stakeholder discussions were held with recommendations is provided in Figure 17. First, the various groups regarding each topic area including goals were identified. Analyses were subsequently advisory committee members, an information conducted to evaluate progress to date in achieving request to the email distribution list, and at a George the goals. Then, areas needing additional work were Mason University (GMU) graduate student seminar. identified and formed the basis for the At subsequent advisory committee meetings, recommendations. The loop closes with the adaptive members discussed the recommendation process for management approach to plan implementation, re- each topic area, brainstormed additional evaluation, and update. recommendations, and prioritized recommendations. Goal statements for each challenge area were agreed to at the December 2016 advisory committee

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 43

Figure 17. Process for developing recommendations.

ENSURE SUSTAINABLE WATER USES AND SUPPLIES

DESCRIPTION OF CHALLENGES The availability and use of clean, reliable, and resilient water resources is essential to the human, Outcome: social, and economic health of the basin. As described in detail in the basin description section of The diverse users of the the plan (Section 2), water availability and use in the Potomac basin are generally well understood due to basin’s water resources the long-term surface and ground water monitoring sites and regulatory requirements for reporting have clean, reliable, and water uses. A preliminary annotated bibliography of resilient water resources research and studies conducted to evaluate water use and supplies in the basin is provided in Appendix for current and future B. Uncertainties arise, however, in areas of complex generations. physical conditions (e.g. karst geology), when attempting to project current conditions to the future (e.g. climate change), and in estimating data use and supplies in the basin are essential first steps where observed information is sparse or not to ensuring clean, reliable, and resilient water available. Clarifying these uncertainties and resources. developing an integrated understanding of water

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 44

“The North Branch Advisory Committee is an outstanding example of collaborative resource management. Evolving from a Task Force that formed in the early 1990’s, the group includes diverse stakeholders such as federal and state regulatory bodies, dam operation engineers, independent corporations, anglers, and non-regulatory intermediaries such as ICPRB. By gathering this level of stakeholder diversity in one room we have become extremely efficient at identifying and resolving stakeholder conflicts, ultimately ensuring that the North Branch Potomac River as a water resource is shared fairly and managed sustainably.”

̶ Mike Selckmann, Aquatic Biologist

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 45

Principles of this challenge area:

 Surface and ground water are linked as are water quantity and quality.  Managing water resources requires balancing diverse, sometimes competing interests. WATER USE AND  Ensuring sustainable water resources has associated AVAILABILITY FACTS costs and benefits.  High quality, long-term continuous measurements (e.g. streamflow, groundwater levels, and precipitation) are critical for effective management.  The Potomac River is the second  Protecting source waters is desirable to ensure largest source of fresh water to the adequate, economical drinking water supplies. Chesapeake Bay. The Susquehanna River is the number one source of RECOMMENDATIONS fresh water. Additional work is needed to fully evaluate progress thus far  Over 90% of the water use above towards attaining the goal for this challenge area. Therefore, the the Fall Line is from surface water, four implementation recommendations under this challenge while only 20% of water use below area primarily focus on further evaluating basin-wide conditions. the Fall Line is from surface water. REPORT ON BASIN-WIDE WATER USES, PROJECTED  For the 2008-2011 time period, DEMANDS, AND CONSUMPTIVE DEMANDS average annual estimated Effective water use planning requires consideration of upstream consumptive use upstream of Little uses, regardless of political boundaries, to achieve multiple Falls is approximately 100 mgd interstate objectives including maintaining adequate surface (Ducnuigeen et al. 2015). Average and ground water supplies for diverse users during times of annual flow at Little Falls during drought and meeting flow-by requirements throughout the basin including the Potomac flow-by at Little Falls dam. To this that same period was 5,811 mgd. end, a first step in planning for sustainable water uses in the  Flows in the Potomac basin are basin is to develop a clear understanding of the current and highly variable. Maximum and anticipated future locations, amounts, and uses of surface and minimum observed flows at Point ground water. ICPRB developed a basin-wide database of of Rocks differ by almost three withdrawals and consumptive use (Ducnuigeen et al. 2015). The orders of magnitude. database was used to estimate current and future withdrawals  The USGS Point of Rocks gage has and consumptive use for the basin above Little Falls as part of one of the longest periods of the 2015 demand study (Ahmed et al. 2015). With modification, record in the nation, beginning in the database can be expanded and used as a resource for understanding surface and ground water use in a more spatially 1895. explicit way in the basin, including the Coastal Plain, as part of a  Surface waters in the Potomac basin-wide assessment. basin are the source of drinking water for approximately 4.8 CONDUCT ADDITIONAL STUDIES ON WATER USES THAT million people, 77% of the basin FALL BELOW STATE WATER REPORTING THRESHOLDS population (based on 2010 U.S. Each of the basin jurisdictions require water use reporting for Census and USGS data). withdrawals that meet specific criteria (Palmer and Moltz 2013); however, there is a lack of understanding about water use that

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 46

falls below state reporting thresholds. This volume of water can represent a significant portion of total water use in some of the basin’s interstate watersheds. For example, it’s estimated that 46 percent of the water use in the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds of Adams County, DEFINIITONS Pennsylvania – headwaters of the interstate Monocacy watershed - is unreported (Moltz and Palmer 2012). Additional evaluation of unreported withdrawals will supplement planning efforts for ensuring sustainable water use and supplies in watersheds throughout the basin. Potomac flow-by: The For a summary of water use reporting requirements for each state, see environmental flow-by for the Potomac River at Little Falls dam the section on State Data in Palmer and Moltz (2013). is 100 mgd (155 cfs) as defined in a 1981 MD DNR study and DEVELOP AN INVENTORY OF ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND subsequently incorporated into AREAS OF AUTHORITY AND DISCUSS HOW EFFECTIVELY CURRENT the Low Flow Allocation PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ARE BEING CARRIED OUT Agreement. There are many organizations and individuals acting in support of the comprehensive plan’s overall vision, either explicitly or implicitly. There are likely so many ongoing programs and activities that it is difficult to Consumptive use: The amount of water associated with a keep track of who is doing what (see Appendix B to get a sense of the withdrawal for water supplies myriad organizations at work with respect to water use and supplies in (domestic, industrial, and the basin). To this end, this recommendation includes the following three agricultural uses) from a given parts: 1) develop an inventory of roles, responsibilities, authorities; 2) resource that is not returned to define specific water criteria for which to compare progress related to the same resource and is thus current programs and activities; and 3) define subsequent planning unavailable to other users or aquatic communities. efforts to evaluate progress and gaps in activities (Figure 17).

PURSUE A RANGE OF COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO A MORE SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT WATER SUPPLY There are a number of activities that could contribute to a more sustainable and resilient water supply including an evaluation of the potential impact of climate change, an examination of the efficacy of existing agreements (e.g. the Low Flow Allocation Agreement and the Water Supply Coordination Agreement), basin-wide examination of alternate water supply options including localized areas of water stress, and protection of groundwater from contamination and overuse. Where possible, ICPRB and/or basin stakeholders should encourage the completion of these and other complementary tasks.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 47 “In 2014, the Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE) was contacted by residents in the Hillcrest neighborhood in southeast DC who had concerns about erosion in a stream in their neighborhood. The stormwater from the steeply sloped areas surrounding the park was causing over 100 tons of sediment to erode from the stream banks and wash down to the Anacostia River. The ensuing Alger Park project consisted of the installation of 56 riffle/cascade structures, 3,448 wetland plants, 1,160 native shrubs, 389 herbaceous native plants, 382 native trees, and 59 pounds of native seed. In addition to minimizing bank erosion, the project will also provide valuable wetland, in-stream, and riparian habitat for native terrestrial and aquatic life within Alger Park.”

-Josh Burch, Dept. of Energy and Environment of the District of Columbia

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 48

PROTECT AND IMPROVE WATER QUALITY

DESCRIPTION OF CHALLENGES The Potomac River is the second largest contributor of Outcome: fresh water to the Chesapeake Bay. The health and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is a problem of national significance as the bay is a “national treasure”. The waters of the basin For this reason, basin-wide water quality is an important part of Bay restoration. The Bay, however, is a long way achieve or exceed water from home for many basin residents. Local water quality quality standards problems throughout the basin can also have interstate impacts. As described in detail in the basin description established under the section of the plan (Section 2), water quality issues are Clean Water Act. New common in the Potomac basin and in the larger Chesapeake Bay watershed. Although water quality and emerging threats are conditions have improved from those documented in the past, continued efforts are essential to achieving the proactively addressed. goals set forth in the CWA. These issues do not stop at political boundaries and, therefore, can be most effectively addressed through coordinated interstate planning and collaboration. Further, the basin is facing a number of new and emerging threats including, but not limited to, disinfection by-product precursors, toxic and non-toxic algae, hormones, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. Proactively addressing these, and other, emerging issues is an important step to protecting human and ecosystem health and ensuring sufficient quantities of high quality water for the basin’s many users.

A preliminary annotated bibliography of research and studies conducted to evaluate water quality in the basin is provided in Appendix B.

Principles of this challenge area:

 Water quality directly impacts the amount of water available for human and ecosystem uses.  Instream water quality is affected by instream and upland processes, conditions, and activities.  Water quality is evaluated and managed within the existing multi-level regulatory framework.  High quality, long-term water quality measurements are critical for effective management.  Protecting source waters is desirable to ensure adequate, economical drinking water supplies.

RECOMMENDATIONS As water quality management efforts fall within the national, state, and local regulatory framework and are within the purview of those organizations, recommended actions in this plan focus on promoting information sharing and education as well as fully assessing current activities and roles.

PROMOTE WATER QUALITY INFORMATION SHARING A myriad of individuals and organizations collect and/or analyze water quality data in the basin. Given the robust foundation of available data, making that data available to managers and others for decision-making is a critical component of promoting sound actions. A number of tools are available including the USEPA Region 3 long-term

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 49

trends data viewer (Smith and Buchanan 2017), the ICPRB water quality data inventory, and the USEPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool to name a few. Promoting information sharing through tools such as these assists decision-makers in accessing data without being limited to local jurisdictional boundaries. In addition to water quality WATER QUALITY FACTS monitoring data, information sharing such as BMP success stories, water quality improvements over time, and resources for available information is recommended to assist basin-wide and interstate efforts to protect and improve water quality.  1,266 miles of high quality, Tier II, and EDUCATE CITIZENS AND PROFESSIONALS ABOUT Tier III waters are present in the basin, WATER QUALITY IN THE POTOMAC BASIN 7.7% of all perennial streams in the Education is an essential part of changing behavior and basin (USEPA 2015). affecting changes in water quality. Water quality education  3,270 miles of designated impaired may take numerous forms including: 1) assisting basin waters are present in the basin stakeholders with obtaining and interpreting water quality (approximately 20% of basin streams). data; 2) convening water quality experts in a workshop forum 37% are impaired for pathogens, 32% to share data, assess completeness and gaps, and provide are impaired for nutrients, 26% are recommendations and priorities; and 3) developing web impaired for sediment, and 4% are page(s) as a source of available information. impaired for metals (USEPA 2015). DEVELOP AN INVENTORY OF ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES,  The maximum nitrate in the Potomac AND AREAS OF AUTHORITY AND DISCUSS HOW River at Little Falls was 2 milligram per EFFECTIVELY CURRENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES liter (mg/L) from 2012-2016 and the ARE BEING CARRIED OUT minimum dissolved oxygen was 6.5 There are many organizations and individuals acting in mg/L from 2014-2016 at the same support of the comprehensive plan’s overall vision, either location. explicitly or implicitly. There are likely so many ongoing programs and activities that it is difficult to keep track of who is doing what (see Appendix B to get a sense of the myriad organizations at work with respect to water quality in the basin). To this end, this recommendation includes the following three parts: 1) develop an inventory of roles, responsibilities, authorities; 2) define specific water criteria for which to compare progress related to current programs and activities; and 3) define subsequent planning efforts to evaluate progress and gaps in activities (Figure 17).

PURSUE A RANGE OF COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO PROTECTING AND IMPROVING WATER QUALITY There are a number of activities that could enhance protection and improvement of water quality including identifying common water quality goals for the Potomac River mainstem, establishing potential roles and actions by entity that would best work toward goal, commenting on proposed major infrastructure projects with potential basin-wide impacts, addressing areas of uncertainty to assist states in resource management, and monitoring and providing data on interstate waters. Where possible, ICPRB and/or basin stakeholders should encourage the completion of these and other complementary tasks.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 50

“At Fox Haven Organic Farm, we have established 198-acres of riparian buffers. It is very rewarding now for me to look back over the past twenty-one years and realize that the acreages that we have established in new trees and riparian buffers will hold many positive benefits for people and wildlife for many years to come.”

̶ Dick Bittner, Farm Manager, Fox Haven Organic Farm

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 51

MANAGE HUMAN LAND USE FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Land use is primarily managed at the local level in the Potomac basin, so implementation of land use related recommendations are likely to be most effective at the local level. The focus of this section of the Outcome: plan will be on issues of interstate and/or basin-wide significance.

DESCRIPTION OF CHALLENGES Human land use in the Human land uses can have profound local impacts on water quality, basin supports water quantity, and ecological health (Hughes et al. 2014a). sustainable water Numerous studies and activities in the basin related to the impacts of human land use activities on water resources are documented in resource management. Appendix B.

Land uses that “harden” the land surface (e.g. roads, parking lots, and buildings) decrease the amount of rain that infiltrates the soil. As a result, the amount of water that runs off over the land’s surface is increased. Decreasing infiltration reduces the amount of groundwater available to plants, streams, and water wells for human use. Increasing surface runoff exacerbates erosion and associated instream sediment and nutrient problems. The MPRWA (USACE et al. 2014) found that significant streamflow alteration can be associated with very low amounts of impervious cover, less than two percent. However, all impervious cover may not be equal in its ability to alter stream flows. ICPRB conducted a study that supported the MPRWA findings of hydrologic impacts to streamflows at low levels and identified watershed traits (e.g. high slopes, small drainage areas) that exacerbated the effects of impervious cover on stream flows (Moltz et al. 2017).

Agricultural land uses in the basin also have the potential to impact water resources sustainability. The Potomac basin has a rich agricultural history. As of 2011, 26 percent of the basin is comprised of agricultural land uses (Section 2.4). Agricultural activities provide many economic, aesthetic, wildlife, and social/cultural benefits. There can, however, be negative environmental impacts from agriculture including water quality degradation from sediments, nutrients, and pesticides (CBP 2018). Development in agricultural areas alters the flow regime, reduces open spaces, and potentially threatens local heritage. Some areas of the basin have taken measurable steps to preserve agricultural areas. For example, Montgomery and Carroll counties in Maryland have 93,000 acre and 60,000 acre agricultural reserves, respectively. Similar programs are underway in areas around the basin.

Principles of this challenge area:

 Human land uses can promote economic development, support thriving communities, and enhance social and cultural values.  Human land use activities in the basin can impact water quality, quantity, and ecological health.  Land use decision-making has human health implications, both positive and negative.  Land use decision-making primarily occurs at the local level in the Potomac basin.

From a basin-wide perspective, the cumulative impacts of human land use activities are significant. Strategically planned human land uses that maintain hydrologic and forest connectivity, promote holistic rehabilitation and mitigation with a watershed view of upland processes, and include comprehensive monitoring can reduce negative impacts (Hughes et al. 2014a and 2014b, Harman et al. 2012). Collaboration is essential to ensuring that upstream and downstream community and ecosystem needs are met.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 52

RECOMMENDATIONS As land use decision-making is primarily a local activity, recommended actions in this plan focus on research and dissemination of information.

RESEARCH TIMELY LAND USE RELATED INFORMATION FOR DECISION-MAKING A major challenge in managing land uses with sustainable water resources management in mind is pulling together timely information from various sources and filling in gaps where needed. As a first step in this process, the following activities are recommended:

 Compile scientific data and information on the complex relationships associated with human land use (natural resources, development, impervious cover, stormwater management, etc.).  Identify creative, effective use of local, regulatory, programmatic, and financial tools to achieve goals.  Develop guidance on getting “bang for your buck” out of preservation/conservation areas; improved ecosystem services in protected areas.

EFFECTIVELY DISSEMINATE SCIENTIFIC DATA AND INFORMATION COMPILED BY ONGOING RESEARCH Informed decision-making at the local level requires effective dissemination of scientific data to decision-makers. Dissemination of data and information may take different forms in different areas of the basin. For example, in the D.C. metropolitan area, MWCOG may serve as an excellent resource to help disseminate information to local governments. In more rural regions, local contacts may be developed to disseminate information like compiled lists of best practices to local decision-makers.

DEVELOP AN INVENTORY OF ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND AREAS OF AUTHORITY AND DISCUSS HOW EFFECTIVELY CURRENT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ARE BEING CARRIED OUT There are many organizations and individuals acting in support of the comprehensive plan’s overall vision, either explicitly or implicitly. There are likely so many ongoing programs and activities that it is difficult to keep track of who is doing what (see Appendix B to get a sense of the myriad organizations at work with respect to land use in the basin). To this end, this recommendation includes the following three parts: 1) develop an inventory of roles, responsibilities, authorities; 2) define specific water criteria for which to compare progress related to current programs and activities; and 3) define subsequent planning efforts to evaluate progress and gaps in activities (Figure 17).

PURSUE A RANGE OF COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO MANAGING HUMAN LAND USE FOR SUSTAINABILITY There are a number of activities that could assist in effectively managing human land use for sustainability including application of a watershed approach for mitigation and restoration; tracking, promoting, and increasing riparian buffer protection in the basin. Where possible, ICPRB and/or basin stakeholders should encourage the completion of these and other complementary tasks.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 53 “The American shad is an important fish, both ecologically and economically for the Potomac River. Decades of pollution, over-harvest and loss of habitat led to population decline. ICPRB and its partners, particularly the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a family of northern Virginia watermen, and thousands of local school children and teachers, worked hard to restore the American shad to the Potomac River. Thankfully, shad populations are once again strong and growing. The recovery has a ripple effect on other species, from rockfish, bald eagles and crabs in the estuary to cod and bottlenose dolphins in the ocean, creating stronger, more resilient ecosystems for the river, the bay and the eastern seaboard.”

̶ Jim Cummins, Retired Aquatic Biologist

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 54

PROTECT ECOLOGICAL HEALTH

Ecological health is expected to improve as strategies that address challenges in the water quantity, water quality, and human land use sections are implemented. Water resources challenges of interstate or basin-wide Outcome: significance that are related to ecological health but not covered in other sections are discussed in this section of the plan. The propagation and growth of balanced, DESCRIPTION OF CHALLENGES desirable populations of “Ecological” refers to the network of relationships of living organisms to one another and to their physical aquatic life are ensured. environment. Healthy ecological systems, or ecosystems, are resilient, relatively stable, and able to adapt and self- manage when environmental conditions change. Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia recognize aquatic life as the definitive indicator of the ecological health of their waters. They list aquatic life as a designated use in their water quality standards (WQS), and use indicators and biocriteria to identify and report impairment of that use. For these reasons, the ecological health of aquatic ecosystems is an important challenge area in managing water resources. Several distinct aquatic ecosystems with different assemblages of animals and plants are found in the Potomac River basin. These include the estuary (from the river’s confluence with Chesapeake Bay at Point Lookout to head- of-tide just above D.C.), large rivers (including the North Branch Potomac, South Branch Potomac, Shenandoah, and Monocacy), smaller rivers, streams, reservoirs, and wetlands. The complex network of relationships in aquatic ecosystems is disrupted by strong anthropogenic pressures, which include eutrophication, chemical contaminants, overexploitation of species, non-native species introductions, and loss of habitat and habitat connectivity. Climate change and the related rise in sea level also disrupt aquatic ecosystems. These pressures in turn exacerbate a biological community’s susceptibility to other natural stressors such as disease and parasitism. As aquatic conditions degrade, undesirable shifts in species abundance occur, signs of physiological stress appear, ecosystem functions become less complex and less resilient, and amounts of unused nutrients and materials build up. The Potomac River basin experienced degrading trends in ecological health during the 20th century (e.g. Mason and Flynn [ed.] 1976, Flynn and Mason [ed.] 1978, Lippson et al. 1979, Buchanan [ed.] 1999, Jaworski et al. 2007). These degrading trends have leveled off and begun to reverse in some areas of the Potomac basin (e.g. Baldizar and Rybicki 2007, Cummins 2016, de Mutsert et al. 2017). A preliminary annotated bibliography of research and studies conducted to evaluate aquatic life in the basin is provided in Appendix B. Principles of this challenge area:  A well-functioning ecosystem is an adaptable, self-managing network of relationships of living organisms to one another and to their physical environment.  In-stream and watershed processes, conditions, and activities affect aquatic ecological health. The health of aquatic ecosystems, in turn, significantly impacts human quality of life, health, economics, and aesthetics.  Long-term monitoring and interdisciplinary, holistic approaches are critical for effective management of aquatic ecosystems.  Management actions should maintain or improve existing aquatic ecosystems (anti-degradation).  Well-managed ecosystems should provide a range of goods and services to current and future generations (sustainable).  Improved ecological health is expected to be an outcome of the strategies that address the challenges in other categories.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 55

RECOMMENDATIONS Management of aquatic life falls within the purview of national, state, and local regulatory agencies. Actions recommended in this plan focus on promoting coordination and information sharing as well as fully assessing current activities and roles. Three relatively broad recommendations on ecological health were selected as high priorities and are discussed individually in the sections below. Activities that complement or facilitate implementation of these three recommendations were introduced and discussed by the advisory committee and stakeholders. They are underlined below.

SHARE ACROSS JURISDICTIONS DATA, ANALYSIS RESULTS, AND INFORMATION ON SUCCESSFUL RESTORATION APPROACHES This recommendation aims to increase the usefulness of existing and future monitoring data through data exchanges. Using comparable sampling and analytical methods will further enhances these data’s worth and should be encouraged. Ongoing efforts to compile biological monitoring data into regional databases need support. High quality, readily accessible regional databases ultimately help resource managers coordinate and evaluate restoration and protection efforts across jurisdictional boundaries. An example is stream macroinvertebrate data collected by state and county governments in the Chesapeake watershed for water quality assessments. When raw data were combined in a common database, it enabled development of an index of biotic integrity that addresses CBP regional information needs (Buchanan et al. 2011, Smith et al. 2017). The index has facilitated large-scale studies of how stream communities respond to flow alteration (Buchanan et al. 2013, USACE 2014) and different land uses (Maloney et al. In prep.).

COORDINATE ACROSS JURISDICTIONS PLANS AND PROGRAMS THAT PROTECT ECOLOGICAL VALUE This recommendation is intended to foster consistency in the ways aquatic communities are evaluated. Aquatic communities are oblivious to jurisdictional boundaries, yet they are managed by separate state and local entities ECOLOGICAL HEALTH FACTS that can, at times, work at cross purposes. Building a regional consensus on what constitutes high ecological value is an important step in coordinating jurisdictional plans and programs that protect ecological value. Aquatic communities in least-disturbed “reference” environments are viewed as healthy, and managers typically use these  Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are still not communities to build specific metrics and tools to assess low enough to prevent nuisance summer ecological health at other locations. Common tools are algal blooms. Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) and Biological Condition  Only about 45% of streams in the Potomac Gradients (BCGs) (e.g. Herlihy et al. 2008, Martinez-Crego watershed have “Chessie BIBI” scores for et al. 2010, Hawkins et al. 2010, Davies and Jackson 2006, bottom-dwelling macroinvertebrates that USEPA 2016, Cicchetti et al. 2017). Regional IBIs applicable to Potomac waters exist for tidal rank Fair, Good, or Excellent. phytoplankton (Lacouture et al. 2006) and non-tidal  A fish passageway at the Potomac Little Falls stream macroinvertebrates (Smith et al. 2017). BCGs are dam and long-term stocking efforts have descriptive models of ecosystem response to stress and restored American shad to healthy, have been developed for parts of the Potomac basin. sustainable levels. They are the basis for establishing tiers of aquatic life use  Overall, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (TALUs) used in water quality assessments (e.g. PA DEP 2012). Reference environments can also be used to in the Potomac estuary has recovered to establish the water quality and quantity levels that about ¼ of its historic area. improve and maintain ecological health.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 56

SUPPORT AND COORDINATE PROGRAMS THAT IDENTIFY, PROTECT, CONSERVE, RESTORE, ENHANCE, AND CONNECT NATURAL AREAS, ESPECIALLY ALONG WATERWAYS This recommendation is intended to promote ecosystem resiliency. The outcomes are primarily water quality conditions and natural flow regimes that sustain biological diversity and health. The recommendation encompasses riparian corridors and floodplains as well as surface waters. There are several major components. One involves the consideration of ecologically valuable waters in all land and water use planning. All four states in the Potomac watershed have identified habitats and waters with high ecological value. However, the protected status of these waters and their associated anti-degradation policies are not always reflected at the local planning level. Local jurisdictions need to update master plans and government regulations to ensure ecological protections and meet state guidelines. A second component involves improving coordination between multiple, diverse restoration efforts to maximize and sustain recovery of aquatic habitats and biological communities. These efforts directly involve actions taken to meet total maximum daily loads (TMDL); construct stormwater retention systems; manage invasive species; set aside and protect forest, wetlands, and stream buffer lands; and allocate water resources to meet aquatic life needs. Coordinated restoration efforts avoid duplicative or cross-purpose actions. A third component involves long-term planning to anticipate and prepare for the impacts of climate change and sea level rise. The goal is to sustain, as the environment changes, the ecosystem resiliency that has been recovered. Other activities that can reinforce ecosystem resiliency were suggested. They include:  support and coordinate programs that promote native aquatic species;  restore and protect functioning wetlands for the purpose of improving ecological health, and not to substitute for wetland areas removed for development;  restore and protect oyster reefs for the purpose of improving ecological health of tidal waters; and  maintain thriving recreational fisheries as a way of encouraging outdoor experiences and fostering environmental stewardship.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 57

PURSUE A RANGE OF COMPLEMENTARY ACTIONS THAT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO PROTECTING ECOLOGICAL HEALTH Actions involving stressor identification and refugia protection were also suggested by the Advisory Committee or stakeholders, and they complement the recommendations above. Stressor identification is an important prerequisite to developing TMDLs for biologically impaired waters. Identifying the factors causing harmful algae blooms and excess filamentous algae and the factors negatively impacting macroinvertebrate and fish communities guides the development of a TMDL. Further identifying factors harming fish health and leading to intersex fish and fish kills may eventually change land use practices and how pesticides, herbicides, and pharmaceutical products are used. The protection of refugia, or areas where the biological communities are minimally disturbed, is the focus of multiple private and state conservation programs. Some programs prioritize, acquire, and protect lands with high ecological value. Others identify rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values and lobby to protect river segments as critical fish habitat. SYNTHESIS

This plan’s four challenge areas (ensuring sustainable water uses and supplies, protecting and improving water quality, managing human land use for sustainability, and protecting ecological health) are linked in many ways. Improving any one area provides benefits for other areas. For example, if all other areas are managed proactively, improved ecological health is an expected outcome. Similarly, if land use is managed sustainably, water quality and ecological health may be improved. This section discusses cross-cutting themes that transcend any one challenge area; namely, floods and droughts, source water protection, climate change, and the water-energy nexus.

FLOODS AND DROUGHTS Due to its geography, the Potomac basin can to record low flows in the 1960s and 70s. The experience floods throughout the year (as they are guiding principles behind the cooperative agreement not dependent on snowmelt) and droughts typically were established as part of the Low Flow Allocation occur in the summer and fall with high Agreement (LFAA) of 1978 and the Water Supply evapotranspiration and low precipitation (USACE et Coordination Agreement of 1982. al. 2014) (Figure 8). Climate change has the potential to make these events more frequent and more In addition to the ICPRB CO-OP, a series of hazard severe in the region (Ahmed et al. 2013). management plans have been developed in the basin to minimize the negative effects of flooding, Floods and droughts are issues of interstate concern. droughts, and other natural hazards. Previous Damaging floodwaters can travel downstream, studies have identified geographic areas of concern. impacting communities and ecosystems. Flooding For example, USACE (2004) identified Martinsburg, can threaten lives and cause significant damage to West Virginia; Frederick, Maryland; and Alexandria, buildings and other infrastructure. Droughts require Virginia, as areas of particular interest. Flood risk careful consideration and management of management activities recommended in the 2004 cumulative upstream water needs. Several efforts study included environmental flow protection, flood are underway to plan for the potential effects of protection and management, hydrologic and floods and droughts, described below. floodplain function restoration, and water supply and sustainable watershed management. The three major WMA water suppliers (Washington Aqueduct Division of USACE, Washington Suburban As a threat to life and property, planning and Sanitary Commission - WSSC, and Fairfax Water) rely mitigation are needed in some areas to reduce flood on the cooperative management of Potomac River risk. For this reason, Maryland, the District of supplies during times of drought. ICPRB CO-OP was Columbia, and Virginia coordinate and collaborate formed in 1979 to coordinate this effort in response through Silver Jacket Interagency Teams. An

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 58

example interagency project is flood inundation populations, and 2) promote coastal resilient mapping for the Potomac River in the District of communities to ensure a sustainable and robust Columbia area. coastal landscape system, considering future sea level rise and climate change scenarios.” The study The North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study concluded that the District of Columbia is a high-risk (USACE 2015b) is another recent effort to manage area that warrants additional analysis to address flood risk in the region. Specifically, the study aimed coastal flood risk. to “1) reduce flood risk to vulnerable coastal

Occoquan reservoir during 1960’s drought.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 59

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION The availability of clean drinking water is a concern that unites all basin stakeholders. With millions of people dependent on the Potomac River and its tributaries for drinking water (and the rest dependent on the associated groundwater resources), protection of surface and ground source waters is essential. Threats to drinking water supplies include cross-cutting issues described under the other challenge areas like sustainable water use, water quality impairments, and altered hydrologic conditions resulting from urbanization in addition to vandalism, inadvertent contamination (e.g. spills), and terrorism. Interstate coordination of source water protection activities is ongoing through the Potomac Drinking Water Source Water Protection Partnership (DWSPP), coordinated by ICPRB. DWSPP is a partnership of water suppliers and government agencies working to ensure clean drinking water in the basin.

Efforts have been made to prioritize source water protection areas across the basin (Weidner 2009); identify source area issues for suppliers across the basin (USEPA); and conduct source water assessments, including one for the District of Columbia whose assessment area covers 11,500 sq. mi. of the Potomac Basin (Vann et al. 2004). In partnership with the WMA water utilities, the MWCOG, USEPA Region 3, and various state agencies, efforts are underway to update the region's source water assessments to ensure that accurate information is available to inform source water protection activities to protect regional water supplies. The update will include specific activities like mapping federal and state data of potential sources of contamination, assessing risk, and prioritizing concerns. Tools available to support these and other source water protection efforts include USEPA’s Drinking Water Mapping Application to Protect Source Waters (DWMAPS) and a Potomac-specific version of the WaterSuite application. MWCOG has been a critical proponent of tailoring WaterSuite to the Potomac suppliers’ needs.

A number of recent spills in and around the Potomac basin including the 2014 Elk River chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia (outside the basin), and the 2015 North Branch Potomac latex spill in Westernport, Maryland, have underscored the need for effective spill response and prevention efforts in the basin. Although there are ongoing activities in the basin (e.g. regional exercises, after action meetings, and interstate notification procedures), lessons learned from recent events have highlighted ways in which current coordination can be enhanced. Examples of future action items include improved information sharing capabilities, sources of chemical information, and emergency response monitoring needs. Lessons learned from the Elk River spill (outside the basin) are available online.

Source water protection is linked with each of the other challenge areas discussed in this plan because the practices for protecting source waters achieve multiple watershed benefits. In addition, clean water supplies for drinking water are also supported by regulations and

Oil spill in the Anacostia River, early 1990s. policies affecting land use and pollution.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 60

CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is a transboundary issue that has the potential to affect all jurisdictions in the Potomac basin. In Maryland alone, temperature is expected to rise 2.7 to 5 °C in the summer months and 2.2 to 3.9 °C in the winter months. In general, precipitation is increasing as temperatures rise; however, specific projections for the region are mixed. Climate change may also lead to increased frequency and intensity of extreme events (i.e. floods and droughts) (Ahmed et al. 2013). In fact, the Mid-Atlantic region is already experiencing the effects with 12-20 percent increases in the number of major weather events (Williamson et al. 2008). By working together and leveraging resources, basin resilience can be strengthened.

Adaptive management will be a key to managing water resources in a changing climate. Since forecasting climate change includes a large component of uncertainty, adaptive planning efforts will be required. That is, as climate change science and associated prediction tools improve and the community’s tolerance to risk changes, the plan for managing water resources under the expected conditions will likely require revision.

ICPRB CO-OP assisted the WMA water utilities in understanding potential impacts of climate change on water availability and use. Specifically, ICPRB CO-OP prepared a climate change module as part of the 2010 demand study that evaluated the resiliency of the water supply system under multiple climate change scenarios (Ahmed et al. 2013). The 2015 ICPRB CO-OP demand study (Ahmed et al. 2015) built on the previous efforts by including a sensitivity analysis of a range of precipitation and temperature changes in the basin based on values obtained in the previous study. Implementing the recommendations from these studies may provide an integral resource for understanding expected future land and water uses, population growth, and the effects of potential climate change scenarios on water resources availability and use.

By working together and leveraging resources, basin resilience to climate change can be strengthened.

WATER-ENERGY NEXUS Water and energy systems are interdependent. Energy extraction and production and electrical generation require water, sometimes large quantities of water. The usability of water resources can be negatively impacted during these processes. Energy is required again in the treatment and final release of the wastewater generated during the energy production process. Production of drinking water, on the other hand, requires energy for multiple purposes including withdrawing the water from its source, treating it, distributing it to the consumer, and treating and discharging the wastewater. The development of energy and water resources have traditionally considered the other only as a necessary ingredient. Improving the efficiency of each has typically been accomplished with little consideration of the impact on the other. In recent years, however, the critical interconnections have been investigated (Appendix B).

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 61

One such study that developed recommendations for maximizing efficiencies at the water-energy nexus was Bauer et al. (2014). The report identifies six strategic pillars:

 "Optimize the freshwater efficiency of energy production, electricity generation, and end use systems  Optimize the energy efficiency of water management, treatment, distribution, and end use systems  Enhance the reliability and resilience of energy and water systems  Increase safe and productive use of nontraditional water sources  Promote responsible energy operations with respect to water quality, ecosystem, and seismic impacts  Exploit productive synergies among water and energy systems.”

To illustrate the interconnectedness of water and energy, USDOE produced a Sankey diagram (Figure 18) showing the magnitude of the water and energy flow in the United States from sources to sinks (Bauer et al. 2014). Units used are quadrillion BTUs (Quads) for energy and billion gallons per day for water. USDOE is currently working on similar Sankey diagrams for each state and possibly one for the Potomac basin (personal communication, USDOE, 2017).

Figure 18. Sankey diagram of energy-water flows in the U.S. (reprinted from Bauer et al. 2014). Quads are quadrillion BTUs.

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 62

Power plants by fuel type in the Potomac basin are shown in Figure 19. The relationship between these power generation facilities and water resources varies significantly. Not all power generation processes have water impacts (e.g. solar and wind) while others like thermoelectric generation may have significant water impacts for cooling. Many thermoelectric power plants have closed loop systems in the Potomac basin. Those thermoelectric plants that are not already closed loop systems are expected to make the conversion from once-through systems. Closed loop systems require smaller water withdrawals but, overall, have higher consumptive use.

Figure 19. Power generation facilities by fuel type. Data source: EIA-923 Report 2015.

State reported water withdrawals for power generation in the Potomac basin as of 2005 are shown in Figure 20. Power plants withdraw more water than any other use type (at 68 percent of the basin total), but have only the second largest consumptive use (at 12 percent of the basin total) (2005 data, Kenny et al. 2009).

Water Resources Challenges and Recommendations 63

Figure 20. State reported water withdrawals for power for the year 2005.

An example of a regional water-energy challenge is the increase in data centers, especially in northern Virginia. These facilities are large users of both energy and water. A recent study by the USDOE found that on-site water consumption is estimated at 1.8 liters (0.46 gallons) per kilowatt hour (kWh) of total data center site energy use. Nationally, data centers that have 15 megawatts (MW) of capacity consume between 80 and 130 million gallons annually (Shehabi et al. 2016).

Promoting sustainable water resources management in the Potomac basin requires consideration of the interconnections between water and energy. This is an evolving field and should be incorporated as appropriate in future iterations of the comprehensive plan (see Section 5.3 for a discussion of the adaptive review process).

Implementation 64

IMPLEMENTATION

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

All governmental agencies, water resources related sectors, private and non-profit organizations, and individuals have a role to play in the plan’s implementation. A general description of each is provided in the sections below.

ICPRB Section 1.2 provides an introduction to the ICPRB organization. The ICPRB Strategic Plan, adopted in 2015, describes ICPRB’s role in the basin as complementing:

“the ongoing work of the states and Federal government in the Potomac River Basin, in areas where the Commission has the mandate, expertise, comparative advantage and financial resources. The Compact specifically gives the ICPRB powers with regard to water and associated land resources in several areas, including:  collecting, analyzing and distributing technical and other data; and conducting studies and sponsoring research;  cooperating with state, Federal, local governmental and nongovernmental agencies to promote uniform laws rules or regulations;  disseminating information and recommendations to the public;  cooperating with, assisting and providing liaison among public and nonpublic agencies and organizations in formulating and coordinating plans, programs and cooperative action;  reviewing and commenting on the plans and programs of public or private agencies and organizations; and  revising and recommending reasonable minimum standards for treatment of sewage and other wastes and for water quality in streams.”

The ICPRB role in the plan’s implementation is focused on these areas with the primary goals of acting as a catalyst in the plan’s development and implementation as well as one implementer of the plan’s recommendations.

Implementation 65

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Multiple federal agencies have responsibilities that relate to the management and use of water resources in the Potomac basin and which vary depending on the federal laws that each agency carries out. Federal agencies, variously, enforce laws, collect and provide to the public important data, conduct research, and provide technical and financial assistance to states, local governments and private parties. The USACE report in Appendix D documents the breadth of federal authorities, expertise, and resources that federal agencies bring to water management efforts in the Potomac basin. That report concludes with three recommendations for ICPRB (and this plan):

1. Continue to follow and be engaged in the Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 3 Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) process. The restoration of the Bay is the largest water quality and ecological restoration effort in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic. The Potomac basin accounts for about 25% of the Bay watershed and so the federal and state programs intended to restore the Bay will benefit the Potomac and, similarly, Potomac restoration efforts will benefit the Bay. 2. Continue to follow and request assistance from USACE to clip out the Potomac watershed from the larger Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan, currently in development by the USACE (USACE 2015a). The databases that USACE is developing for their Plan will include useful data for the Potomac. 3. Consider adopting goals, objectives, timeframes, indicators, monitoring plans/methods, data repositories, and tracking efforts into the ICPRB Comprehensive Plan to dovetail with other large scale federal and state programs. The authorities, expertise, and resources that the federal agencies have make them important, and oftentimes essential, partners in restoration and protection of the basin.

STATE GOVERNMENT State agencies with responsibility and authority for water resources may work to support plan implementation by:

 Supplying data and information to improve water resources management  Supporting education and outreach efforts to improve water resources stewardship  Funding cooperative efforts when possible to address the identified challenge areas  Coordinating efforts among state agencies responsible for water resources related programs, regulations, and oversight  Coordinating across state lines to promote and implement comprehensive watershed management

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT There are a variety of regional organizations related to water and land resources. Each organization has a unique function and may find ways to support common goals and activities. Two examples are the Potomac River Fisheries Commission (PRFC) which regulates the fisheries of the main stem of the tidal Potomac River, and MWCOG which currently is focused on regional infrastructure, economic competitiveness, and transportation in the WMA. Actions that regional entities may be involved in include:

 Coordinating with states and other regional entities  Collecting, analyzing, and supplying information and data to improve water resources management at the basin, regional, and sub-watershed scales  Leading and supporting watershed-based water resources planning and management at the local and regional level  Enhancing communication and cooperation within and between related organizations

Implementation 66

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT Many of the challenges defined in this plan not only affect basin-wide or interstate resources, but also impact municipalities in the basin. In addition, a number of these issues fall within the authority of municipal government (e.g. land use planning and zoning). Municipalities are encouraged to play a role in this plan’s implementation by taking action when possible on affecting change and addressing local impacts related to these issues. Further, the plan may serve as a supporting resource when seeking implementation funding.

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS NGOs play an essential role in protecting the basin’s resources through research, community engagement, communication, education, and policy and partnership development. NGOs can participate in the plan’s development within the framework of their existing activities by promoting partnerships and working with partners towards achieving the common vision for the basin. Examples of NGOs in the basin include the Potomac Conservancy, The Nature Conservancy, the Isaak Walton League, Trout Unlimited, and the Montgomery Countryside Alliance. Children learn to fish the Potomac with the Union Sportsmen’s Alliance

ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS Numerous universities in the Potomac basin and around the region promote development of new, highly qualified water resources professionals. Some examples include George Mason University’s Department of Environmental Science and Policy; the University of the District of Columbia’s College of Agriculture, Urban Sustainability, and Environmental Sciences; the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Maryland; and West Virginia University’s College of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Design. Professional and volunteer mentors foster stewardship in the basin’s youth through classroom and field experiences. A basin- wide emphasis on science and education will serve to underscore the importance of these efforts for all. Students learning about herring.

Implementation 67

DRINKING WATER UTILITIES Drinking water utilities are responsible for providing safe, clean water to the basin’s residents, visitors, and businesses. This task is essential for commerce and public health. The success of the drinking water utilities depends on proactive planning and management as well as emergency response preparation and activation activities. In addition, they are dependent on the decisions and actions of the myriad stakeholders throughout the basin, especially those upstream.

OTHER COMMERCIAL ENTITIES Many businesses require water to cultivate food or produce materials. In the Potomac River basin, these include agriculture, fishing (and recently aqua-culture), forestry, mining, and manufacturing. Agriculture is an important economic and cultural component of the basin’s past, present, and future. Environmental stewardship on behalf of the agricultural community is one part of sustainable water resources management. Potomac seafood harvests were the envy of the East Coast historically, and commercial and recreational fisheries are still important economic drivers in the region. The deleterious economic and ecological impacts of overfishing were one reason the Chesapeake Bay Program was established in 1984. Sustainable fisheries have consistently been a major programmatic goal of the Bay restoration since then. Over half of the basin is covered in forests. Those forests play a significant role in maintaining healthy ecosystems, protecting water quality, and enhancing public health to name a few. Forest management plays a critical role in the implementation of this plan. Mines, and more recently fracking, have yielded abundant fossil fuels and ore, but mining practices severely damaged streams and rivers in the western part of the basin. Similarly, outfalls from manufacturing and power generating plants—many of which rely on clean water—have negatively impacted local downstream water resources. These commercial entities are encouraged to participate in the implementation of this plan and to proactively engage in the protection and maintenance of the basin’s water resources by:

 Taking advantage of management practices expertise and/or implementation funding when possible  Serving as a role model for their community in conserving and protecting natural resources and applying sustainable management practices  Engaging and educating basin stakeholders, when possible, on the importance of environmental sustainability and the goods and services derived from healthy ecosystems  Promoting public awareness and access to forest and agricultural reserves

Implementation 68

INDIVIDUALS Each person of the basin has many opportunities to make positive impacts on the resources. Individuals are encouraged to participate in the plan’s implementation through:

 Considering the water resources consequences of actions and choices  Applying sustainable practices at home when possible  Supporting no or low-impact development and maintaining “green spaces”  Participating in local decision-making and volunteering in local efforts  Learning about water resources, sharing that knowledge with others, and leading by example

Implementation 69

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES The scale of water resources issues in the Potomac basin is larger than any one organization. As such, addressing the issues requires working Federal Funding Sources (by topic) collaboratively in partnership with numerous organizations. As each organization has issues and geographic areas of particular interest, matching  Source water protection mutual interests on specific issues to leverage  Disaster funding opportunities for funding resources will be key. Funding opportunities water and wastewater utilities for implementation activities are available at various  Watershed protection levels of government, the private sector, and  Water Finance Clearinghouse through non-profit organizations. Each of these are  Funding in the Chesapeake Bay discussed in more detail in this section. Piecing watershed together applicable funding sources for any particular effort will require case-by-case evaluation. As such, this is not an exhaustive list and does not State Funding Sources (by topic) indicate a commitment of funding by any organization discussed.  West Virginia water and wastewater funding sources Federal funding options are available through numerous water-related agencies and include, but  Funding sources for West Virginia are not limited to, the USDA (e.g. the Conservation watershed groups Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve  Maryland watershed restoration Enhancement Program, and the Environmental assistance directory Quality Incentives Program), the USACE (e.g.  DOEE grants and other funding Planning Assistance to States), and the USEPA (e.g.  PA DEP grant and loan programs Section 319 Funds and Clean Water State Revolving Fund). carry out their USEPA-approved water quality management planning activities. Additional regional funding programs that promote Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts are documented by Local-level implementation of this plan’s the Chesapeake Bay Program and include the recommendations as well as complementary Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund, the National activities is encouraged. Local funding opportunities Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) are numerous and should be identified based on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Education and Training locations and needs of specific projects. grants, and the Chesapeake Bay Trust among others. Private sector funding has made significant Funding from state programs may assist in state- contributions to water resources sustainability and specific implementation activities. Each jurisdiction may be a viable option for projects in the basin. As has a unique set of funding opportunities. In Virginia, examples, water is a priority area for the Coca-Cola for example, funding programs are available for Foundation as is sustainability for the Walmart forest and agricultural activities through the Virginia Foundation. Water utility companies sometimes Conservation Assistance Program and Virginia Forest offer grants like the Environmental Grant Program of Stewardship Program just to name two. West Pennsylvania American Water as do power Virginia Department of Environmental Protection companies such as the Dominion Energy Charitable (WV DEP) has watershed planning funding to help Foundation.

Implementation 70

Non-profit organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Virginia Environmental Endowment are a potential source of implementation funding. In other watersheds, non- profits have contributed substantial resources to promote water resources sustainability including the William Penn Foundation’s commitment of $17 million to protect clean water in the Delaware Watershed, the Joyce Foundation’s commitment in the Great Lakes region, and the Schuylkill Action Network’s River Restoration Fund.

INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PLANS

This basin-wide water resources plan builds on and provides support for state, regional, and local water resources plans in the basin by drawing attention to the pervasive issues in the basin, providing opportunities to leverage funding, and offering a broad, hydrologically based perspective.

Fifty-five state, regional, county, and local plans were reviewed as part of the development of this plan (Appendix C). As such, this plan is aligned with priority issues that have been identified at various levels of government and are interstate and/or basin-wide in nature.

This effort also complements plans that extend beyond the borders of the Potomac basin such as the Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Water Resources and Protection Plan (USACE 2015a) and the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (USACE 2015b).

Watershed-based plans like TMDL Implementation Plans are also working towards common goals (e.g. the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans). By planning for the implementation of on-the-ground measures to improve water quality, numerous synergistic benefits can be achieved.

Strategy for Adaptive Implementation 71

STRATEGY FOR ADAPTIVE IMPLEMENTATION

This basin-wide plan is a 15-year plan that will be will be reviewed every five years to evaluate Phase 1 – Scoping implementation progress and identify actions Phase 2 – Water Resources Issues over the next five-year period. As part of that review, ICPRB will evaluate progress in Phase 3 – Recommendations collaboration with other stakeholders utilizing Phase 4 – Document the milestones and measures of success described in the plan. The first update will take place in 2023. The first complete review of the Phase 5 – Adaptive Management comprehensive plan will occur in 2033.

Strategy for Adaptive Implementation 72

MILESTONES

The purpose of this section is to identify measurable milestones to determine whether recommendations are being implemented as planned. The milestones discussed in this section focus primarily on ICPRB activities; however, achievement of the goals set forth in this plan requires collaboration and partnership with numerous organizations.

Short- and long-range milestones for this challenge area are described. Short-term milestones are activities that will be accomplished within two years of adopting this plan. Within three to five years, the long-term milestones will be achieved. All milestones are expected to be achieved over the five-year period (2019-2023). Upon successful implementation of these milestones, the planning process should be re-initiated to identify the most appropriate follow-up actions. An asterisk (*) at the beginning of the milestone indicates that once initiated, the activity will continue for the duration of implementation.

ENSURE SUSTAINABLE WATER USE AND SUPPLIES Short-Term (Years 1 and 2) Milestones, 2019-2020

 ICPRB will develop a scope of work for a report on basin-wide water uses, projected demands, and consumptive demands. The scope of work will include a detailed timeline to ensure timely completion of the report in accordance with this plan. The time period of the water use analysis will depend on the time periods for which consistent data is available throughout the basin.

Strategy for Adaptive Implementation 73

 ICPRB will collect readily available data sets (e.g. land use, census urban areas, water utility service areas, etc.) to estimate basin-wide unreported water uses.  ICPRB will convene a workshop to develop a spreadsheet inventory of roles, responsibilities, and areas of authority.  *ICPRB will collaborate with basin stakeholders to promote continued operation and maintenance of long-term USGS gages and other essential monitoring efforts.  ICPRB will review the Potomac River Low Flow Allocation Agreement.

Long-Term (Years 3 through 5) Milestones, 2021-2023

 ICPRB CO-OP Section will conduct the demand study for the Washington Metropolitan Area in 2020 and every five years thereafter as required by the Water Supply Coordination Agreement.  Basin jurisdictions will provide historic and current reported water use data to ICPRB staff for assessment as part of developing a report on basin-wide water uses, projected demands, and consumptive demands.  ICPRB staff will develop a report on basin-wide water uses, projected demands, and consumptive demands. The report will be distributed to basin jurisdictions and other stakeholders for review and comment.  ICPRB will estimate and prepare a report on basin-wide unreported water uses. The report will be distributed to basin jurisdictions and other stakeholders for review and comment.

PROTECT AND IMPROVE WATER QUALITY Short-Term (Years 1 and 2) Milestones, 2019-2020

 ICPRB will develop a plan to merge the water quality data inventory and the long-term trends data for viewing and dissemination.  ICPRB will convene water quality experts in a workshop forum to share data, assess completeness and gaps, and document the discussion.  ICPRB will convene a workshop (either in conjunction with or independent from previously described workshop of water quality experts) to develop a spreadsheet inventory of roles, responsibilities, areas of authority.  *ICPRB will develop and maintain a series of web pages to serve as a resource for water quality decision- makers and the general public.  *ICPRB will collaborate with basin stakeholders to promote continued operation and maintenance of long-term USGS gages and other essential monitoring efforts.

Long-Term (Years 3 through 5) Milestones, 2021-2023

 ICPRB will execute the plan to merge the water quality data inventory and the long-term trends data.  ICPRB will evaluate and implement additional next steps as deemed appropriate based on the results of the workshops described in the short-term milestones.

MANAGE HUMAN LAND USE FOR SUSTAINABILITY Short-Term (Years 1 and 2) Milestones, 2019-2020

 ICPRB will develop a method for compiling data and information associated with human land use.

Strategy for Adaptive Implementation 74

 ICPRB will document local regulatory and programmatic approaches to managing human land use currently underway in the basin.  ICPRB will conduct a literature review of creative, effective uses of land use management tools (regulatory, programmatic, and financial) to achieve goals.  ICPRB will develop relationships with organizations to effectively disseminate land use related information to stakeholders.

Long-Term (Years 3 through 5) Milestones, 2021-2023

 ICPRB will implement the method developed in the short-term for compiling data and information, described above.  ICPRB will utilize the documented existing approaches to managing human land use and the results of the literature review in order to propose potential creative, effective uses of local, regulatory, programmatic, and financial tools to achieve goals in the Potomac basin.  As it becomes available, ICPRB will disseminate land use related information to stakeholders in a timely manner.

PROTECT ECOLOGICAL HEALTH Short-Term (Years 1 and 2) Milestones, 2019-2020

 ICPRB will perform Phase II of the Jennings-Randolph Lake Water Control Plan Scoping Study, which seeks to develop protections for downstream ecological value and recreational fisheries through better, model-based coordination of the various human uses of the North Branch Potomac River.  ICPRB will identify water chemistry conditions that increase the likelihood streams will form nuisance filamentous algal blooms, and will complete a study of the negative impacts of filamentous algae blooms on aquatic life in the Potomac’s Cacapon River.  ICPRB will build consensus on a “2008 baseline” to measure stream macroinvertebrate health in the Chesapeake watershed.

Long-Term (Years 3 through 5) Milestones, 2021-2023

 ICPRB will continue to work with agency and volunteer monitoring programs and the Chesapeake Bay Program Data Center to compile biological monitoring data in basin-wide databases.  ICPRB will continue to develop computer programs to evaluate habitat, water quality, and biological data in consistent ways, and will encourage data and information exchanges.  ICPRB will continue to seek consensus on what is high ecological value, identify habitats and waters in the basin with high ecological value (references), and use reference-based approaches to develop metrics and tools for evaluating ecological health.  ICPRB will continue to coordinate the North Branch Potomac River Advisory Committee meetings.  As it becomes available, ICPRB will disseminate ecological health related information to stakeholders in a timely manner.

Strategy for Adaptive Implementation 75

MEASURES OF SUCCESS

The tangible products of implementing recommendations under each challenge area are provided in the sections below.

ENSURE SUSTAINABLE WATER USE AND SUPPLIES

 ICPRB report containing estimates of unreported water use by sub-watershed (e.g. HUC-8 or similar) and by sector in the basin.  ICPRB report on water uses, projected demands, and consumptive demands in the basin.  A spreadsheet inventory of roles, responsibilities, and areas of authority.  A CO-OP demand study in 2020 and every five years after.

PROTECT AND IMPROVE WATER QUALITY

 Basin-wide, publicly available online repository of monitoring site locations and associated metadata as well as long-term trend information, where available.  Publicly available ICPRB web pages to disseminate water quality resources.  A spreadsheet inventory of roles, responsibilities, and areas of authority.  A written assessment of activity completeness and gaps as well as recommendations and priorities for future activities.

MANAGE HUMAN LAND USE FOR SUSTAINABILITY  ICPRB report of data and information associated with human land use in the basin.  ICPRB report compiling potential creative, effective uses of local, regulatory, programmatic, and financial tools to achieve land use goals in the Potomac basin.

PROTECT ECOLOGICAL HEALTH  ICPRB report on shared uses of the North Branch Potomac River.  ICPRB report on water chemistry conditions that increase the likelihood of nuisance filamentous algal blooms.  ICPRB report on the Chesapeake Bay Program “2008 Baseline” for evaluating and reporting stream health across the watershed.  ICPRB journal article about the negative biological impacts of filamentous algal blooms in the Potomac’s Cacapon River.  ICPRB journal article describing a method to forecast likely phytoplankton condition and algal bloom frequencies in Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries.  USGS and ICPRB journal article relating stream macroinvertebrate condition to land uses in the Chesapeake watershed.  PA DEP and ICPRB journal article describing a multi-metric index to evaluate the biological condition of large rivers in the Mid-Atlantic region.  Accessible biological databases and data documentation.  User-friendly computer programs to calculate biological metrics and indices.  Maps and information on ICPRB website about aquatic life in the Potomac River basin.

Strategy for Adaptive Implementation 76

REVIEW PROCESS

This plan is a 15-year plan that will be will be reviewed every five years to evaluate implementation progress and identify actions over the next five-year period.

Every five years, ICPRB will evaluate implementation progress utilizing the milestones and measures of success sections of the plan (Section 5.1 and Section 5.2, respectively). The product of this evaluation will be updated milestones and measures of success sections for implementation during the next five-year period. The first five- year update will take place in 2023.

The full plan will be reviewed every 15 years. The review process will engage ICPRB staff and Commissioners, the advisory committee, and a broad stakeholder base. All major sections of the plan will be reviewed and revised as needed. The result of this process will be the release of a new version of the comprehensive plan. The first complete review of the comprehensive plan will occur in 2033.

COMMUNICATION PLAN

This section describes efforts to reach people with the information contained in this plan and efforts to promote ongoing support for these efforts as the plan evolves. The strategies to successfully reach and engage people are:

 Public release of the plan in June 2018: Posting of interactive web report. Release noted on ICPRB Reporter, web, social media. Push for “shares” on other sites. Consider a paid “boost” to social media effort. This process will be continued when milestones in the effort are reached.  Targeted presentations: Plan advisory group and staff input to determine targeted presentations. Includes MWCOG committees, state and federal planning groups, universities,  Technical staff: Submit articles about the plan to professional and academic journals.  Reach out directly to AWRA, Bay Program, Utilities, and Potomac Conservancy to promote the plan, with ICPRB help.  Press release to area papers, radio, and TV (Kojo-WAMU, Bay Journal, Sea Grant, Washington Post-Darryl Fears, WTOP, Water Citizen, etc.).  DWSPP: Presentations to members and smaller water utilities and managers.  Annual update on the plan to other agencies and public through methods described above.

References 77

REFERENCES

Adams County. 2011. Riparian forest buffer protection: A guide for municipal officials and citizens of Adams County, Pennsylvania. 21p. http://www.adamscounty.us/Dept/Planning/Documents/Studies- Publications/RiparianBufferProtectionGuide.pdf, accessed 5/19/2015. Ahmed, S.A., K.R. Bencala, and C.L. Schultz. 2013. 2010 Washington Metropolitan Area water supply reliability study, part 2: Potential impacts of climate change. ICPRB Report No. 13-07. http://www.potomacriver.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/ICPRB13-071.pdf, accessed 5/20/2015. Ahmed, S.N., K.R. Bencala, and C.L. Schultz. 2015. 2015 Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Study: Demand and resource availability forecast for the year 2040. AWRA. 2011. AWRA policy statement on Integrated Water Resources Management in the U.S. http://www.awra.org/policy/policy-statements-IWRM.html, accessed 4/27/2015. Baldizar, J. and N. B. Rybicki. 2007. Restoration Potential of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Tidal Pocomoke River (Chesapeake Bay, USA). Ecological Restoration 25(2):138-139. Barbour, H.O. 1965. The Potomac, a river that can and will clean itself. 1v. Nov 5 1965. A783484. Bauer D., M. Philbrick, and B. Vallario. 2014. The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities. USDOE. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f17/Water%20Energy%20Nexus%20Full%20Report%20July%202014. pdf, accessed 12/20/2017. Black and Veatch. 2016. National Capital Region (NCR) Water Supply and Distribution System Redundancy Study, Final Report. B&V Project No. 188286 prepared for Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Buchanan, C. [ed.]. 1999. Tidal Potomac Integrative Analysis Project: A Series of Reports on the Water Quality and Living Resources Responses to Management Actions to Reduce Nutrients in the Potomac River Estuary. ICPRB. 378 p. www.potomacriver.org, accessed 1/24/2018. Buchanan, C., H. L. N. Moltz, H. C. Haywood, J. B. Palmer, and A. N. Griggs. 2013. A test of the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) method for determining environmental flows in the Potomac River basin, USA. Freshwater Biology 58:2632-2647. Buchanan, C., K. Foreman, J. Johnson, and A. Griggs. 2011. Development of a Basin-wide Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Final Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program. ICPRB Report 11–1. CBP. 2018. Agriculture. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/agriculture, accessed 1/25/2018. Cicchetti, G., M.C. Pelletier, K.J. Rocha, P. Bradley, D.L. Santavy, M.E. Pryor, S.K. Jackson, S.P. Davies, C.F. Deacutis, and E.J. Shumchenia. 2017. Implementing the Biological Condition Gradient Framework for Management of Estuaries and Coasts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett RI. EPA/600/R-15/287. Cummins, J. 2016. The return of American Shad to the Potomac River: 20 years of restoration. Final report. ICPRB Report No. 16-5. https://www.potomacriver.org/focus-areas/aquatic-life/american-shad/, accessed 1/24/2018. Davies, S.P., and S.K. Jackson. 2006. The Biological Condition Gradient: A descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16:1251–1266. deMutsert, K., A. Sills, C. J. C. Schlick, and R. C. Jones. 2017. Successes of restoration and its effect on the fish community in a freshwater tidal embayment of the Potomac River, USA. Water 9(6) 421. doi:10.3390/w9060421. Ducnuigeen, J., S.N. Ahmed, K.R. Bencala, H.L.N. Moltz, A. Nagel, and C.L. Schultz. 2015. Geospatial analysis tool for estimating watershed-scale consumptive use: Potomac River basin case study. Chapter In Advances in Watershed Science and Assessment. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. T. Younos and T.E. Parece (eds.). 141-169.

References 78

Farnsworth, R.K. and E.S. Thompson. 1982. Mean monthly, seasonal, and annual pan evaporation for the United States. NOAA Technical Report NWS 34, Washington DC. Fenneman, A., M. Nevin, and D.W. Johnson. 1946. Physiographic divisions of the U.S. USGS, Washington, DC. Flynn, K. C. and W. T. Mason [ed.]. 1978. The Freshwater Potomac: aquatic communities and environmental stresses. ICPRB. 194 p. Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, and C. Miller. 2012. A function-based framework for stream assessment and restoration projects. USEPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, DC. EPA 843-K-12-006. Hawkins, C. P., J. R. Olson, and R. A. Hill. 2010. The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2010, 29(1):312–343. Herlihy, A. T., S. G. Paulsen, J. van Sickle, J. L. Stoddard, C. P. Hawkins, and L. L. Yuan. 2008. Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2008, 27(4):860–877. Hughes, R.M., S. Dunman, K.G. Maas-Hebner, J.A. Yeakley, C. Schreck, M. Harte, N. Molina, C.C. Shock, V.W. Kaczynski, and J. Schaeffer. 2014a. A review of urban water body challenges and approaches: (1) Rehabilitation and remediation. Fisheries 39(1):18-29. Hughes, R.M., S. Dunman, K.G. Maas-Hebner, J.A. Yeakley, M. Harte, N. Molina, C.C. Shock, and V.W. Kaczynski. 2014b. A review of urban water body challenges and approaches: (2) Mitigating effects of future urbanization. Fisheries 39(1):30-40. Jaworski, N., et al. 2007. The Potomac River Basin and its Estuary: Landscape Loadings and Water Quality Trends, 1895 – 2005. Self-published. www.potomacriver.org, accessed 1/24/2018. Krstolic, J.L. 2015. Data collection and simulation of ecological habitat and recreational habitat in the Shenandoah River, Virginia. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5005. 30p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155005, accessed 11/24/2015. Lippson, A. J., et al. 1979. Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary. Johns Hopkins University Press. 280 p.+ 9 maps. Maloney, K., Z. M. Smith, C. Buchanan, A. Nagel, and J. A. Young. (in prep.) Predicting stream biological conditions for small headwater streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Martínez-Crego, B., T. Alcoverro and J. Romero. 2010. Biotic indices for assessing the status of coastal waters: a review of strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12, 1013–1028. Mason, W. T. and K. C. Flynn [ed.]. 1976. The Potomac Estuary: biological resources trends and options. ICPRB. 140 p. Masterson, J.P., J.P. Pope, J. Monti, M.R. Nardi, J.S. Finkelstein, and K.J. McCoy. 2015. Hydrogeology and hydrologic conditions of the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system from Long Island, New York, to North Carolina (ver. 1.1, September 2015). USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5133. 76p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20135133, accessed 11/24/2015. McCoy, K.J., R.M. Yager, D.L. Nelms, D.E. Ladd, J. Monti, and M.D. Kozar. 2015. Hydrologic budget and conditions of Permian, Pennsylvanian, and Mississippian aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province (ver. 1.1, October 2015). USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5106. 77p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155106, accessed 11/24/2015. MDE. 2017. Draft 2016 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality. http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/TMDL/Integrated303dReports/Pages/2016IR.aspx, accessed 1/18/2018. MGS. 2015. Maryland geology. MD DNR. http://www.mgs.md.gov/geology/index.html, accessed 5/4/2015.

References 79

Moltz, H., J. Palmer, and Z. Smith. 2017. Streamflow Alteration from Impervious Cover: Are All Watersheds Created Equal? Journal of the American Water Resources Association. (Under Review) Moltz, H. 2012. IWRM in the Potomac basin. In Integrated water resources management from local and international perspectives. AWRA National Capital Region Section, January 13, Rockville, MD. Moltz, H. and J. Palmer. 2012. Critical Area Resource Plan for the Marsh and Rock creek watersheds of Adams County, Pennsylvania. Prepared by ICPRB for PA DEP. ICPRB-12-2. 295p. http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/TechnicalDocuments/MarshRockCks/DRAFT_CARP_082812.pdf, accessed 5/22/2015. Moltz, H. and J. Palmer. 2015. The effect of impervious cover on streamflow under various watershed conditions in the Potomac basin: Phase 1. ICPRB Report No. 15-5. 39p. http://www.potomacriver.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/ICP15-5_Moltz.pdf, accessed 11/29/2015. Moltz, H., C. Haywood, and J. Hoffman. 2011. Integrated water resources management in the Potomac River basin. In Integrated water resources management: The emperor’s new clothes or indispensable process? AWRA Summer Specialty Conference, June 27-29, Snowbird, UT. Moltz, H., J. Palmer, and K. Bencala. 2014. Development of a Potomac basin water quality data inventory. ICPRB Report No. 14-2. 14p. Montgomery County, Maryland. 2013. Biological condition gradient: a headwater stream catchment in the northern Piedmont region, Montgomery County, Maryland. Preliminary report of technical expert workshop. Nelms, D.L., T. Messinger, and K.J. McCoy. 2015. Annual and average estimates of water-budget components based on hydrograph separation and PRISM precipitation for gaged basins in the Appalachian Plateaus Region, 1900–2011. USGS Data Series 944. 10p. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds944, accessed 11/24/2015. PA DEP. 2009. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania state water plan principles. 82p. http://www.pawaterplan.dep.state.pa.us/docs/Publications/3010-BK-DEP4222.pdf, accessed 5/20/2015. Palmer, J. and H.L.N. Moltz. 2013. Draft: Potomac basin water withdrawals: Evaluation of state water withdrawal data collection and recommendations for aligning efforts. ICPRB Report No. 13-8. 66p. Potomac Planning Task Force. 1967. The Potomac: The Report of the Potomac Planning Task Force. A report on its imperiled future and a guide for its orderly development. Prepared for the Department of the Interior. PRISM Climate Group. 2004. Oregon State University. http://prism.oregonstate.edu, accessed 7/7/2015. Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, G.A. Weesies, D.K. McCool, and D.C. Yoder. 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). USDA, Agricultural Handbook No. 703. 404p. Schueler, T.R. 2000. The Importance of Imperviousness. Reprinted In The Practice of Watershed Protection. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Schultz, C.L., S.N. Ahmed, H.L.N. Moltz, and A. Seck. 2017. Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Alternatives: Meeting the Challenges of Growth and Climate Change. ICPRB Report No. 17-3. 114p. Schultz, C. and J. Palmer. 2008. Seasonal steady-state ground water/stream flow model of the upper Monocacy River basin. 46p. ICPRB, Rockville, MD. http://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ICPRB08- 4.pdf, accessed 5/20/2015. Schultz, C., D. Tipton, and J. Palmer. 2004. Annual and seasonal water budgets for the Monocacy/Catoctin drainage area. ICPRB Report 04-04. 84p. Shehabi, A., S.J. Smith, N. Horner, I. Azevedo, R. Brown, J. Koomey, E. Masanet, D. Sartor, M. Herrlin, W. Lintner. 2016. United States Data Center Energy Usage Report. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California. LBNL-1005775. 56p.

References 80

Smith, Z., C. Buchanan, and A. Nagel. 2017. Refinement of the basin-wide Index of Biotic Integrity for non-tidal streams and wadeable rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. ICPRB Report No. 17-2. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ChessieBIBI_Report_Final_5-25-2017.pdf, accessed 1/24/2018. Smith, Z. and C. Buchanan. 2017. Long-term water quality trends data viewer. (in prep.) Trapp, H. Jr. and M.A. Horn. 1997. Ground water atlas of the United States, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia HA 730-L. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_l/L-text3.html, accessed 11/19/2015. USACE, TNC, and ICPRB. 2014. Middle Potomac River watershed assessment: Potomac River sustainable flow and water resources analysis. Final Report. 140p and 10 appendices. USACE. 2004. Middle Potomac watershed, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia - Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) analysis. 43p. Baltimore, MD. USACE. 2014. Building strong collaborative relationships for a sustainable water resources future: Understanding integrated water resources management. http://www.building-collaboration-for- water.org/Documents/IWRMReportJAN2014.pdf, accessed 4/27/2015. USACE. 2015a. Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Water Resources and Restoration Plan, DC, DE. MD, NY, PA, VA, and WV. http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Chesapeake-Bay-Comprehensive-Plan/, accessed 12/06/2017. USACE. 2015b. North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study: Resilient Adaptation to Increasing Risk. http://www.nad.usace.army.mil/compstudy, accessed 6/4/2015. USEPA. 2009. Technical guidance on implementing the stormwater runoff requirements for federal projects under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. Page 61. EPA, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/documents/epa_swm_guidance.pdf, accessed 7/7/2015. USEPA. 2014. Scoring spreadsheet for recovery potential screening. Version 12/20/2014. www.epa.gov/recoverypotential/, accessed 5/17/2015. USEPA. 2015. National Geospatial Datasets, ATTAINS program data of 303(d) Listed Impaired Waters. http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/rad_303d_20150501_shp.zip, accessed 6/8/2015. USEPA. 2016. A Practitioner’s Guide to the Biological Condition Gradient: A Framework to Describe Incremental Change in Aquatic Ecosystems. EPA-842-R-16-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. USGS. 2000. Land subsidence in the United States. USGS Fact Sheet-165-00. USGS. 2014. NLCD 2001-2006 percent developed imperviousness change pixels (2011 Edition). USGS, Sioux Falls, SD. http://www.mrlc.gov, accessed 5/6/2015. VA DEQ. 2014. Physiographic provinces of Virginia. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/programs/water/watersupplywaterquantity/groundwaterprotectionsteeringcommitt ee/physiographicprovincesofvirginia.aspx, accessed 5/20/2015. VA DEQ. 2015. Commonwealth of Virginia: State water resources plan. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterSupplyPlanning/StateWaterPlan. aspx, accessed 5/21/2015. VA DEQ. 2016. Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report 2014. http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityAssessments/201430 5(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx, accessed 1/18/2018. Vann, D.T., R. Mandel, J.M. Miller, E. Hagen, A. Buda, and D. Cordalis. 2004. The DC source water assessment. ICPRB, Rockville, MD.

References 81

Weidner, E. 2009. Potomac watershed priority lands strategy: Conserving lands to benefit drinking water quality. Duke University. 44p. http://www.potomacdwspp.org/Meetings/Jul22-2009/Weidner_Report.pdf, accessed 5/20/2015. Williamson, S., C. Horin, M. Ruth, R.F. Weston, K. Ross, and D. Irani. 2008. Climate change impacts on Maryland and the cost of inaction: A review and assessment by the Center for Integrated Environmental Research at the University of Maryland. 24p. Maryland Commission on Climate Change. http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Chapter3.pdf, accessed 5/20/2015. Wolman, M.G. 2008. Water for Maryland’s future: What we must do today. Final report of the Advisory Committee on the management and protection of the state’s water resources. http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/wolmanreport_vol1.pdf, accessed 9/20/2015. Wolock, D.M. 2003. Estimated mean annual natural ground-water recharge in the conterminous U.S. USGS Open- File Report 03-311 USGS, Reston, VA. Wood, A.J., J.M. Omernik, and D.D. Brown. 1999. Level III and IV ecoregions of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/reg3_eco.htm, accessed 5/4/15. WV DEP. 2013. West Virginia water resources management plan. http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/wateruse/WVWaterPlan/Pages/default.aspx, accessed 1/24/2018.

Photo Credits 82

PHOTO CREDITS Credit for photos was given as much as possible. However, the author or origination of a photo was not always known. If you are aware of a photo attribution that is not listed here, please contact ICPRB.

Jennings Randolph Dam by Robyn Phillips Photography, http://www.robynphillipsphotography.com...... cover Sachs Covered Bridge, Adams County, Pa., Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 1 Potomac Dam, Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 3 Seneca, Photo by John Wirts ...... 4 Photo by John Wirts ...... 5 Kayaker, Great Falls, Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 7 Folly Lick Branch fall, Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 8 Great Falls of the Potomac, Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 10 Kayakers in the Potomac south of Washington, D.C., Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 12 A section of the Washington Aqueduct completed in 1859, Library of Congress ...... 16 Harpers Ferry Water Works, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 17 Folly Lick Branch autumn woods, Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 18 Little Seneca Lake in autumn, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 21 Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 22 Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 25 Black Hills Regional Park, Boyds, Md., Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 30 Kayaking the Potomac in front of the Washington Memorial, Photo by Theresa Posthuma ...... 32 Reservoir at Little Seneca Lake, Photo by Hunter Herrman ...... 35 Fall pastures, Murley Branch Creek, Flintstone, Md., Photo by Nancy Hausrath ...... 41 Cows in the stream, Photo by Rebecca Wolf ...... 42 Mike Selckmann at Point of Rocks, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 44 Hillcrest Neighborhood Stream, Photo by Josh Burch ...... 47 Fox Haven Farm, Photo by Dick Bittner ...... 50 Jim Cummins and American Shad, Photo by Dave Harp ...... 53 Anglers at the Reservoir at Little Seneca Lake, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 56 Occoquan Reservoir during 1960’s drought ...... 58 Oil spill in the Anacostia River, early 1990’s ...... 59 Great Falls of the Potomac in winter, Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 64 Children fishing at Jones Point Park, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 66 Students learning about herring ...... 66 Harpers Ferry Water Works, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 67 Gil Net Floats, Fishing for American Shad, Photo by Dave Harp...... 67 Jim Cummins shares his love of American shad with the next generation, Photo by Sean Duffy ...... 68 Potomac sunset at Little Orleans, Photo by Nancy Hausrath ...... 70 Scotts Run, Photo by Jim Palmer ...... 71 Route 15 bridge at Point of Rocks, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 72 Mike Selckmann at Point of Rocks, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 74 Comprehensive plan meeting, Photo by Renee Bourassa ...... 76

Glossary 83

GLOSSARY

Aquatic life – Animal, plant, and microscopic organisms that live in water for part or all of their life cycles. Some species have economic value and support commercial and recreational fisheries.

Biocriteria – Narrative and numeric descriptions of the biological “qualities that must be present to support a desired condition in a waterbody and serve as the standard against which assessment results are compared” (USEPA website).

Climate Change & Sea Level Rise – Ongoing long-term changes in weather patterns and coastal topography. These changes will reshape the Potomac coast line and restructure Potomac aquatic communities. Well-functioning, resilient communities will be able to adapt and survive these threats if stream corridors and estuarine shorelines are adequately protected and allowed to change.

Contaminants – Chemicals that can pollute or poison when present in high concentrations. Concentrations that affect wildlife also affect humans since wildlife and human health requirements for safe drinking water are often similar. These substances include herbicides, pesticides, mercury, and PCBs. Animals living in aquatic environments can “bioaccumulate” some of the toxic or cancer-forming pollutants, making them unsafe to eat.

Designated Uses – Specific goals and expectations codified in a jurisdiction’s water quality standards for how a waterbody is used, e.g. the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife; recreation; public drinking water supply; and agricultural, industrial, navigational, and other purposes (USEPA website).

Diagnostic / Decision tools – Analytical, problem-solving, computer-based programs that support processes that lead to resource management based on scientific evidence. Examples applicable to the Potomac watershed include USEPA’s CADDIS tool (identifies the major stressors degrading a stream or river), USEPA’s Recovery Potential Screening tool (scores a watershed’s potential to recover from degradation), and NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Oyster Decision Support tool (identifies where oyster restoration efforts in tidal waters would be most effective).

Disease & Parasitism – Structural or functional disorders in living organisms that often are caused by contaminants or pathogens, and are more likely to occur in organisms stressed by degraded or altered habitats.

Ecosystem Management – Interdisciplinary, holistic approaches to managing ecosystems that consider multiple uses, including aquatic life uses, and consequences.

Ecosystem Models – Numeric representations of ecological systems. Equations are used to describe the network of relationships of living organisms to one another and to their physical environment. Models can be scaled to an individual population or an entire ecosystem. They allow analysts to explore the potential outcomes of different management decisions.

Eutrophication – A process where excess amounts of nutrients from runoff, groundwater, and point-source discharges cause algae blooms. Algae blooms can result in very low oxygen levels (hypoxia) that harm or kill fish, shellfish, and aquatic invertebrates and plants. Algae blooms are frequently dominated by toxin-producing species that can inhibit growth in plants and other algae and damage or kill exposed animals and people. Eutrophication has long been a problem for aquatic life. It is increasingly a problem for drinking water and recreation uses.

Habitat – The natural living spaces of an animal, plant, or other organism where environmental conditions stay within normal or preferred bounds (e.g. temperature, light).

Glossary 84

Habitat Connectivity – In aquatic systems, man-made stream blockages and inter-basin transfers of water. The Potomac is presently one of the least dam-regulated river systems in the eastern United States. Most of the 481 registered impoundments are small and run-of-river, comparable in function to beaver dams. Fish passages at some of the 153 “significant impoundments” are successfully used by migratory fish. Over 50,000 stream and river road crossings are also found in the basin. Most involve culverts which, as they age and erode, can block upstream passage for fish.

Index, or Indices – Several indicators, or metrics, that have been scored on a common scale and then combined into an index score. Indices are calculated from monitoring data and are typically more sensitive and robust than individual indicators.

Indicators – Measurements collected by monitoring programs that tell us something about a biological population or its habitat. Examples of indicators used in Potomac management include the American shad young-of-year numbers (MD DNR), annual fish harvests (PRFC), chlorophyll a concentration, daily precipitation totals, and streamflow statistics.

Non-Native Species – A species that is not endemic (native) to the area. Non-native species can disrupt the structure and function of an existing biological community, especially if that community is experiencing other stressors. In some cases, the native and non-native species can adjust to each other and rebalance into a new biological community. The recent arrival of snakeheads seemed to threaten the ecological health of the Potomac River at first. Their populations have stabilized to some extent. Large mouth bass, the underwater grass Hydrilla, and the Asiatic clam Corbicula are all non-native species introduced decades ago that have assimilated into Potomac aquatic ecosystems. Their ongoing impacts on Potomac ecosystems are not certain.

Overexploitation – Occurs when a shared resource, such as fish or shellfish, is exploited by many individuals acting in their own self-interest and contrary to the resource’s ability to sustain itself. The resource eventually collapses. This is often referred to as the “tragedy of the commons.” Self-regulation by educated, responsible users is hard to achieve but is often the most successful approach for avoiding overexploitation.

Source Waters – Surface water (streams, rivers, and lakes) or groundwater (aquifers) can serve as sources of drinking water, referred to as source water. Source water provides water for public drinking water supplies and private water wells. Public utilities treat most water used for public drinking water supplies. Protecting source water from contamination can reduce treatment costs. Protecting source water also reduces risks to public health from exposures to contaminated water (USEPA website).

Water Quality Standards – Water quality standards are provisions of state, territorial, authorized tribal or federal law approved by EPA that describe the desired condition of a waterbody or the level of protection or mandate how the desired condition will be expressed or established for such waters in the future. These standards form a legal basis for controlling pollution entering the waters of the U.S. from a variety of sources (e.g. industrial facilities, wastewater treatment plants, and storm sewers) (USEPA website).

Appendix A. Final Report of the Advisory Committee 85

APPENDIX A. FINAL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The advisory committee final report, prepared by Kristin Rowles and Mark Masters of Policy Works LLC, is available here.

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 86

APPENDIX B. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY BY CHALLENGE AREA

WATER USE AND SUPPLIES

Federal Agencies USACE Institute for Water Resources o Anacostia Watershed Restoration http://www.anacostia.net/Restoration_Plan/download/Restoration_Overview.pdf “This landmark plan is the product of unprecedented regional, multijurisdictional cooperation—a two- year, $2.8 million investment in identifying specific projects that can collectively turn the river and its surrounding watershed around.” o Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan http://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Portals/63/docs/Civil%20Works/CBCP/Final_Chesapeake_Bay_905_b_% 20Report_2015_Feb.pdf?ver=2016-08-10-093155-190 “The purposes of this reconnaissance phase are: (a) to determine whether there is a federal interest in implementing a project or projects within USACE mission areas for restoring, preserving and protecting the Chesapeake Bay aquatic ecosystem; (b) scope one or more project management plan(s) (PMP) focused on restoring, preserving and protecting the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and (c) negotiate a cost- sharing agreement(s) (CSA) between USACE and non-federal sponsor(s) (NFS) to cost-share the feasibility phase.” USGS o Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405 Maupin, M.A., Kenny, J.F., Hutson, S.S., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L., and Linsey, K.S., 2014 https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/ “Water use in the United States in 2010 was estimated to be about 355 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d), which was 13 percent less than in 2005.” o Private Domestic-Well Characteristics and the Distribution of Domestic Withdrawals among Aquifers in the Virginia Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5250 Pope, J.P., McFarland, E.R., and Banks, R.B., 2008 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5250/ “A comprehensive analysis of private domestic wells and self-supplied domestic ground-water withdrawals in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of Virginia indicates that the magnitudes of these withdrawals and their effects on local and regional ground-water flow are larger and more important than previous reports have stated.” o Statistical classification of hydrogeologic regions in the fractured rock area of Maryland and parts of the District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5043 Fleming, B.J., LaMotte, A.E., and Sekellick, A.J., 2013 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5043/ “Hydrogeologic regions in the fractured rock area of Maryland were classified using geographic information system tools with principal components and cluster analyses.” o A science plan for a comprehensive regional assessment of the Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system in Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1205 Shedlock, R.J., Bolton, D.W., Cleaves, E.T., Gerhart, J.M., and Nardi, M.R., 2007 https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1205/pdf/FINAL%20OFR%202007-1205.508.pdf “In response to a recommendation in 2004 by the Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State's Water Resources, the Maryland Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey have developed a science plan for a comprehensive assessment that will provide new scientific information and new data management and analysis tools for the State to use in allocating ground water in the Coastal Plain.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 87

o Water volume and sediment accumulation in Lake Linganore, Frederick County, Maryland, 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5174 Sekellick, A.J., and Banks, W.S.L., 2010 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5174/pdf/sir2010-5174.pdf “To assist in understanding sediment and phosphorus loadings and the management of water resources, a bathymetric survey was conducted at Lake Linganore in Frederick County, Maryland in June 2009 by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Frederick and Frederick County, Maryland.” o Selected low-flow frequency statistics for continuous-record streamgage locations in Maryland, 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010–1310 Doheny, E.J., and Banks, W.S.L., 2010 https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1310/pdf/ofr2010-1310.508.pdf “This report presents low-flow frequency statistics for 114 continuous-record streamgage locations in Maryland.” o Changes in Streamflow and Water Quality in Selected Nontidal Basins in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985-2004: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5178 Langland, M.J., Raffensperger, J.P., Moyer, D.L., Landwehr, J.M., and Schwarz, G.E., 2006 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5178/pdf/cover.pdf “As part of an annual evaluation of water-quality conditions by the Chesapeake Bay Program, water- quality and streamflow data from 32 sites in nontidal parts of the Chesapeake Bay watershed were analyzed to document annual nutrient and sediment trends for 1985 through 2004.” o Estimated flood frequency and corresponding water-surface elevations at the confluence of the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia Edward J. Doheny and Gary T. Fisher - Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service https://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/ofr-00-461/report_nofig.html “This report presents updated flood-frequency analyses for the U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations on the Potomac River at Shepherdstown, West Virginia, Shenandoah River at Millville, West Virginia, and Potomac River at Point of Rocks, Maryland.” o Enhanced hydrologic and geomorphic monitoring in Ten Mile Creek, Montgomery County, Maryland https://md.water.usgs.gov/projects/sw/tenmilecreek.html In progress. “Additional development extending into the Ten Mile Creek watershed is planned over the next several years… This planned development in the Ten Mile Creek watershed presents an opportunity to monitor the surface-water hydrology and stream geomorphology before, during, and after the development to assess watershed responses over time.” o Methods for Estimating Drought Streamflow Probabilities for Virginia Streams https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5145/pdf/sir2014-5145.pdf “Maximum likelihood logistic regression model equations used to estimate drought flow probabilities for Virginia streams are presented for 259 hydrologic basins in Virginia.” o Methods and Equations for Estimating Peak Streamflow Per Square Mile in Virginia’s Urban Basins https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5090/pdf/sir2014-5090.pdf “Models are presented that describe Virginia urban area annual peak streamflow per square mile based on basin percent urban area and basin drainage area.” o Assessment of hydrogeologic terrains, well-construction characteristics, groundwater hydraulics, and water-quality and microbial data for determination of surface-water-influenced groundwater supplies in West Virginia https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20165048 “In January 2014, a storage tank leaked, spilling a large quantity of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol into the Elk River in West Virginia and contaminating the water supply for more than 300,000 people. In response, the West Virginia Legislature passed Senate Bill 373, which requires the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (WVDHHR) to assess the susceptibility and vulnerability of public surface-water-influenced groundwater supply sources (SWIGS) and surface-water intakes statewide. In response to this mandate for reassessing SWIGS statewide, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the WVDHHR, Bureau of Public Health, Office of Environmental Health

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 88

Services, compiled available data and summarized the results of previous groundwater studies to provide the WVDHHR with data that could be used as part of the process for assessing and determining SWIGS.” o Hydrologic budget and conditions of Permian, Pennsylvanian, and Mississippian aquifers in the Appalachian Plateaus physiographic province https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5106/sir20155106.pdf “In response to challenges to groundwater availability posed by historic land-use practices, expanding development of hydrocarbon resources, and drought, the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Resources Program began a regional assessment of the Appalachian Plateaus aquifers in 2013 that incorporated a hydrologic landscape approach to estimate all components of the hydrologic system: surface runoff, base flow from groundwater, and interaction with atmospheric water (precipitation and evapotranspiration).” Study area includes small portion of Potomac basin. o Estimation of traveltime and longitudinal dispersion in streams in West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5182 Wiley, J.B., and Messinger, Terence, 2013 http://doi.dx.org/10.3133/sir20135182; https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5182/pdf/sir2013-5182.pdf “The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with West Virginia Bureau for Public Health, Office of Environmental Health Services, compiled and evaluated traveltime and longitudinal dispersion data representative of many West Virginia waterways.” o Comparison of base flows to selected streamflow statistics representative of 1930–2002 in West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5121 Wiley, J.B., 2012 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5121/ “Base flows were compared with published streamflow statistics to assess climate variability and to determine the published statistics that can be substituted for annual and seasonal base flows of unregulated streams in West Virginia.” o Estimation of selected seasonal streamflow statistics representative of 1930-2002 in West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5185 Wiley, J.B., and Atkins, J.T., Jr., 2010 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5185/support/sir2010-5185.pdf “Regional equations and procedures were developed for estimating seasonal 1-day 10-year, 7-day 10- year, and 30-day 5-year hydrologically based low-flow frequency values for unregulated streams in West Virginia.” o Estimation of flood-frequency discharges for rural, unregulated streams in West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5033 Wiley, J.B., and Atkins, J.T., Jr., 2010 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5033/pdf/sir2010-5033.pdf “Flood-frequency discharges were determined for 290 streamgage stations having a minimum of 9 years of record in West Virginia and surrounding states through the 2006 or 2007 water year.” o Hydrogeologic factors affecting base-flow yields in the Jefferson County area, West Virginia, October- November 2007: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5145 Evaldi, R.D., Paybins, K.S., and Kozar, M.D., 2009 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5145/pdf/sir2009-5145.pdf “Base-flow yields at approximately the annual 75-percent-duration flow were determined for watersheds in the Jefferson County area, WV, from stream-discharge measurements made during October 31 to November 2, 2007.” o Water-Use Estimates for West Virginia, 2004 https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1038/pdf/ofr2007-1038.pdf “This study estimates the quantity of surface water and ground water used within West Virginia.” o Fracture Trace Map and Single-Well Aquifer Test Results in a Carbonate Aquifer in Jefferson County, West Virginia https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1407/ “These data contain information on the results of single-well aquifer tests, lineament analysis, and a bedrock geologic map compilation for Jefferson County, West Virginia.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 89

o Fracture trace map and single-well aquifer test results in a carbonate aquifer in Berkeley County, West Virginia https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1040/ “These data contain information on the results of single-well aquifer tests, lineament analysis, and a bedrock geologic map compilation for the low-lying carbonate and shale areas of eastern Berkeley County, West Virginia.” o Correlations of daily flows at streamgages in and near West Virginia, 1930–2011, and streamflow characteristics relevant to the use of index streamgages (ver. 1.1, August 2014): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5061 Messinger, Terence, and Paybins, K.S., 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145061; https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5061/support/sir2014-5061.pdf “Correlation of flows at pairs of streamgages were evaluated using a Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient to better identify gages that can be used as index gages to estimate daily flow at ungaged stream sites in West Virginia.” o Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Flow in the Opequon Creek Watershed area, Virginia and West Virginia https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5153/pdf/sir2009-5153.pdf “… the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, developed a numerical steady-state simulation of ground-water flow for the 1,013-square-kilometer Opequon Creek watershed area. The model was based on data aggregated for several recently completed and ongoing USGS hydrogeologic investigations conducted in Jefferson, Berkeley, and Morgan Counties in West Virginia and Clarke, Frederick, and Warren Counties in Virginia.” o Estimating Selected Streamflow Statistics Representative of 1930–2002 in West Virginia https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5105/ “Regional equations and procedures were developed for estimating 1-, 3-, 7-, 14-, and 30-day 2-year; 1-, 3-, 7-, 14-, and 30-day 5-year; and 1-, 3-, 7-, 14-, and 30-day 10-year hydrologically based low-flow frequency values for unregulated streams in West Virginia.” o Hydrogeology, Aquifer Geochemistry, and Ground-Water Quality in Morgan County, West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5198 Boughton, C.J., and McCoy, K.J., 2006 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5198/pdf/sir20065198_web.pdf “Private and public wells throughout Morgan County, W. Va., were tested to determine aquifer hydraulic, geochemical, and water-quality characteristics.” o Low-Flow Analysis and Selected Flow Statistics Representative of 1930–2002 for Streamflow-Gaging Stations In or Near West Virginia https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5002/pdf/SIR2006_5002.pdf “Comparisons of selected streamflow statistics are made between values computed for the five identified time periods and values computed for the 1930–2002 interval for 15 streamflow-gaging stations.” o Development and Analysis of Regional Curves for Streams in the Non-Urban Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5076/sir05_5076.pdf “Bankfull stream characteristics were assessed for stream reaches at 41 streamflow-gaging stations in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.” o Base-Flow Yields of Watersheds in the Berkeley County Area, West Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 216 Evaldi, R.D., and Paybins, K.S., 2006 https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2006/216/ “Base-flow yields at approximately 50 percent of the annual mean ground-water recharge rate were estimated for watersheds in the Berkeley County area, W.Va.” o Channel Gains and Losses in the Opequon Creek Watershed of West Virginia, July 25–28, 2005 https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/ds179/pdf/ds179.pdf

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 90

“Discharge measurements were made during July 25–28, 2005, in streams and springs and at a wastewater-treatment plant outfall in the Opequon Creek watershed of West Virginia to describe surface- water resources during low-flow.” o Water Resources Data, Virginia, Water Year 2005, Volume 2: Ground water and ground-water-quality records VA DEQ and USGS https://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/wdr-va-05-2/ “Water-resources data for the 2005 water year for Virginia consist of records of water levels and water quality of ground-water wells.” o Virginia Coastal Plain Hydrogeologic Framework, (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1731, 2006) https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/2006/1731/PP1731.pdf “A refined descriptive hydrogeologic framework of the Coastal Plain of eastern Virginia provides a new perspective on the regional ground-water system by incorporating recent understanding gained by discovery of the Chesapeake Bay impact crater and determination of other geological relations.” o StreamStats . Maryland - https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/maryland.html  Incorporation of Water-Use Summaries into the StreamStats Web Application for Maryland Kernell G. Ries III, Marilee A. Horn, Mark R. Nardi, and Steven Tessler https://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/sir-2010-5111/NEW_FINAL_sir2010-5111.508.pdf “The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Maryland Department of the Environment, has extended the area of implementation and added functionality to an existing map-based Web application named StreamStats to provide an improved tool for planning and managing the water resources in the BRAC-affected areas.”  Low-flow characteristics of streams in Maryland and Delaware: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 94-4020 Carpenter, David H., Hayes, Donald C., 1996 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri944020 “Equations and transfer methods are developed to estimate low-flow characteristics at ungaged stream sites in Maryland and Delaware for average 7-, 14-, and 30-consecutive-day low-flow discharges for recurrence intervals of 2, 10, and 20 years.” . Pennsylvania - https://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/pennsylvania.html  Regression equations for estimating flood flows at selected recurrence inter•vals for ungaged streams in Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5102 Roland, M.A., and Stuckey, M.H., 2008 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5102/ “Regression equations were developed for estimating flood flows at selected recurrence intervals for ungaged streams in Pennsylvania with drainage areas less than 2,000 square miles.”  Low-flow, base-flow, and mean-flow regression equations for Pennsylvania streams: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5130 Stuckey, M.H., 2006 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5130/ “Streamflow characteristics are commonly predicted by use of regression equations when a nearby streamflow-gaging station is not available.” . Virginia  Low-flow characteristics of Virginia streams: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5143 Austin, S.H., Krstolic, J.L., and Wiegand, Ute, 2011 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5143/ “Low-flow annual non-exceedance probabilities (ANEP), called probability-percent chance (P- percent chance) flow estimates, regional regression equations, and transfer methods are provided describing the low-flow characteristics of Virginia streams.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 91

 Peak-flow characteristics of Virginia streams: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5144 Austin, S.H., Krstolic, J.L., and Wiegand, Ute, 2011 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5144/ “Peak-flow annual exceedance probabilities, also called probability-percent chance flow estimates, and regional regression equations are provided describing the peak-flow characteristics of Virginia streams.”

Interstate Commission ICPRB o 2010 Washington Metropolitan Area water supply reliability study, part 2: Potential impacts of climate change Ahmed, S.A., K.R. Bencala, and C.L. Schultz. 2013. http://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ICPRB13-071.pdf o 2015 Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Study: Demand and resource availability forecast for the year 2040 Ahmed, S.N., K.R. Bencala, and C.L. Schultz. 2015. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ICP15-04a_Ahmed.pdf o Cooperative water supply operations for the Metropolitan Washington Area Bencala, K.R., H.L.N. Moltz, and J.B. Palmer. 2013. Prepared by ICPRB for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ICP13-4_Bencala.pdf o West Virginia consumptive use projections for 2020, 2030, and 2040 Bencala, K.R., H.L.N. Moltz, and J.B. Palmer. 2013. Prepared by ICPRB for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ICP13-2_Bencala.pdf o A test of the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) method for determining environmental flows C. Buchanan, H.L.N. Moltz, H.C. Haywood, J.B. Palmer, and A. Griggs. 2013. Journal of Freshwater Biology 58:2632-2647 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fwb.12240/abstract “The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) method described in Poff et al. (2010) was applied to streams and small rivers in a large central region of the Potomac River basin in the U.S.A.” o Geospatial analysis tool for estimating watershed-scale consumptive use: Potomac River basin case study Ducnuigeen, J., S.N. Ahmed, K.R. Bencala, H.L.N. Moltz, A. Nagel, and C.L. Schultz. 2015. Chapter In Advances in Watershed Science and Assessment. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. T. Younos and T.E. Parece (eds.). 141-169. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-14212-8_6 “The objective of this chapter is to present a case study model developed for the Potomac River Basin in the United States. The model consists of a basin-wide analysis and mapping tool that incorporates monthly water use data from multiple political jurisdictions, estimates consumptive water use, displays raw and summary information in an interactive geospatial format, and shares information with stakeholders via an interactive web-based mapping tool.” o Non-consumptive uses in West Virginia Moltz, H.L.N., K.R. Bencala, and J.B. Palmer. 2013. Prepared by ICPRB for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ICP13-6_Moltz.pdf

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 92

o Water resources sustainability and safe yield in West Virginia Moltz, H.L.N., J.B. Palmer. 2013, and K.R. Bencala. Prepared by ICPRB for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ICP13-3_Moltz.pdf o Potomac Basin water withdrawals: Evaluation of state water withdrawal data collection and recommendations for aligning efforts Palmer, J.B. and H.L.N. Moltz. 2013. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ICP13-8_Palmer.pdf o Impacts of anthropogenic activities on low flows in West Virginia Palmer, J.B., H.L.N. Moltz, and K.R. Bencala. 2013. Prepared by ICPRB for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ICP13-5_Moltz.pdf o Water conservation measures in West Virginia Palmer, J.B., K.R. Bencala, and H.L.N. Moltz. 2013. Prepared by ICPRB for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ICP13-1_Moltz.pdf o Seasonal steady-state ground water/stream flow model of the upper Monocacy River basin Schultz, C. and J. Palmer. 2008. http://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ICPRB08-4.pdf o Annual and seasonal water budgets for the Monocacy/Catoctin drainage area Schultz, C., D. Tipton, and J. Palmer. 2004. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ICPRB04-41.pdf “The objective of this study is to assess the quantity of water available in the fractured bedrock aquifers underlying a pilot study area in the upper portion of the Potomac River basin, within the framework of the watershed water budget approach.” o Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Alternatives: Meeting the Challenges of Growth and Climate Change Schultz, C.L., S.N. Ahmed, H.L.N. Moltz, and A. Seck. 2017. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ICP17-3_Schultz.pdf “This study, by the Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac (CO-OP) of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB), was conducted to assist the suppliers in the selection of new resources and operational measures to address the need for additional water supplies by 2040, as identified in a recent planning report (Ahmed et al., 2015).” o Improvement in HSPF’s low flow predictions by implementation of a power law groundwater storage- discharge relationships Schultz, C.L., S.N. Ahmed, R. Mandel, and H.L.N. Moltz. 2013. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 000(0):1-19. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Abstract_JAWRA- 12-0254.pdf “We have enhanced the ability of a widely used watershed model, Hydrologic Simulation Program — FORTRAN (HSPF), to predict low flows by reconfiguring the algorithm that simulates groundwater discharge.” o Middle Potomac River watershed assessment: Potomac River sustainable flow and water resources analysis USACE, TNC, and ICPRB. 2014. https://www.potomacriver.org/focus-areas/water-quality/middle-potomac-sustainable-flow-and-water- resources-analysis/middle-potomac-river-watershed-assessment-products/ “The assessment consists of five distinct components: (1) a large river environmental flow needs assessment, (2) a projection of future water uses, (3) a stream and wadeable rivers environmental flow needs assessment using the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) method, (4) a stakeholder

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 93

engagement process, and (5) development of a concept or scope for a strategic comprehensive plan for watershed management.” o Annual drought exercise reports https://www.potomacriver.org/focus-areas/water-resources-and-drinking-water/cooperative-water- supply-operations-on-the-potomac/drought-monitoring-and-operations/drought-exercises/ o Evaluation of Travilah Quarry for water supply storage (2015) https://www.potomacriver.org/focus-areas/water-resources-and-drinking-water/cooperative-water- supply-operations-on-the-potomac/long-term-planning/travilah-quarry/ “Black & Veatch was retained by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin to perform the feasibility study of potential prerequisites for use of the Travilah Quarry as a raw water supply storage facility, to supplement the existing water supply for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and the Washington Aqueduct.”

State Agencies Virginia - Department of Environmental Quality o State Water Resources Plan http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterSupplyPlanning/StateW aterResourcesPlan.aspx Local and regional information on “existing water use and sources of supply, future projections of population and water demand, anticipated water supply deficits, potential sources of future water supply, and current efforts to use water efficiently.” o Annual Water Resources Report http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterSupplyPlanning/AWRR_092915.pdf o Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Advisory Committee http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/EasternVirginiaGroundwater ManagementAdvisoryCommittee.aspx The committee is charged with “assisting the State Water Commission and the Department of Environmental Quality in developing, revising, and implementing a management strategy for groundwater in the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area.” o Groundwater Resources of the Blue Ridge Province, Virginia http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/GroundwaterCharacterization/Virginia%20DEQ%20O WS%20Technical%20Bulletin%2012- 01%20Groundwater%20Resources%20of%20the%20Blue%20Ridge%20Province,%20Virginia.pdf “A comprehensive regional description presents hydrogeologic and geochemical characteristics and the water-bearing potential of major rock types in the Blue Ridge Geologic Belt of Virginia.” o Water Use in the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia 1982-2010 http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/GroundwaterCharacterization/Virginia%20DEQ%20O WS%20Technical%20Bulletin%2012- 02%20Water%20Use%20in%20the%20Shenandoah%20Valley,%20Virginia%201982-2010.pdf “Three decades of reported surface water and groundwater use data were analyzed to identify areas of concentrated withdrawals and to create categorized water use trends for the Shenandoah Valley.” Includes a comprehensive list of similar studies conducted at the local, county, and regional levels. o County Ground Water Reports from the late 70s/early 80s describe the hydrogeology, aquifers, water quality and availability http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/GroundwaterCharacterization /ReportsPublications.aspx o Well database http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/GroundwaterCharacterization /WellDatabase.aspx o Spring database

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 94

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/GroundwaterCharacterization /SpringDatabase.aspx o Current surface withdrawal permits http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterWithdrawalPermittinga ndCompliance/CurrentIssuedSurfaceWithdrawalPermits.aspx o Current groundwater withdrawal permits http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterWithdrawalPermittinga ndCompliance/CurrentIssuedGroundwaterWithdrawalPermits.aspx o Virginia Drought Assessment and Response Plan (2008) http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterResources/vadroughtresponseplan.pdf Outlines how drought status will be determined and voluntary or compulsory water use reductions. o Expanding Water Reclamation and Reuse in Virginia (2011) http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/VirginiaPollutionAbatement/Final_Report_on_Expand ing_Water_R-R_in_VA_11-2011.pdf Examines “opportunities to expand the reuse of wastewater (also referred to as water reclamation and reuse) with the goal of conservation and reducing nutrient pollution in the Commonwealth’s surface waters.” o Presentation on water reuse program (2015) http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/GroundwaterPermitting/EVGMAC/Presentations/Pres entationforEVGMAC12-2015.pdf o Wellhead Protection Plan (2005) http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/GroundwaterProtectionSteeringCommittee/wellhead plan.pdf?ver=2014-03-07-182359-110 Outlines basic requirements for wellhead protection (drinking water). - Department of Health o Aquifer Susceptibility in Virginia, 1998-2000 (2003) http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/14/2016/04/wrir03_4278.pdf “The fundamental premise of the study was that the identification of young waters (less than 50 years) by multiple environmental tracers could be used as a guide for classifying aquifers in terms of susceptibility to contamination from near-sur- face sources.” o Aquifer Susceptibility in Virginia: Data on Chemical and Isotopic Composition, Recharge Temperature, and Apparent Age of Water from Wells and Springs, 1998-2000 (2003) http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/14/2016/04/ofr03_246.pdf “The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), conducted the Virginia Aquifer Susceptibility (VAS) study between 1998 and 2000 to determine the susceptibility to contamination from near-surface sources of the regional aquifers in Virginia that serve as public water supplies (Harlow and others, 1999).” Maryland - Department of the Environment o Source water protection . Source Water Protection Program (1999) http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/ document/water/swap-new.pdf Details Maryland’s source water assessment program to meet USEPA 1997 guidance related to the 1996 update to the Safe Drinking Water Act. . Source water assessment reports by county http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Source_Water_Assessment_Program/Page s/by_county.aspx o Groundwater . Groundwater Protection Program - Annual Report to the Maryland General Assembly (2013) http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Source_Water_Assessment_Program/Docu ments/FINAL_GWR%20report_1__2013%20_3_.pdf

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 95

Covers Maryland’s groundwater resources, state efforts to manage and protect them, monitoring efforts, water quality issues and improvement efforts, and permit programs . Application for Water Allocation: Guidance Document for Public Water Systems Providing Groundwater to Municipal Corporations or Priority Funding Areas in Carroll, Frederick, and Washington Counties http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Documents/Brinkley%20Guidance%20Doc_ June%202014_10222014%20(3).pdf “The goal of this guidance is to provide a systematic methodology for determining whether additional groundwater can be allocated to a water system in a justifiable and sustainable manner that does not negatively impact the water resource or the current or future rights of other property owners to use groundwater associated with their properties.” o Water Resources . An Evaluation of the Water Resources in the Catoctin Creek Watershed http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/ document/Catoctin-Final.pdf “The purpose of the watershed assessment is to evaluate the available water supply within a watershed as it relates to existing water demands, and to assess the potential for existing resources to meet future water demands.” . Capacity Development Report to Governor – 2014 http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Source_Water_Assessment_Program/Docu ments/MD%202014%20Capacity%20Development%20Governor%20%20Report.pdf “This triennial report on the efficacy of Maryland’s capacity development strategy for public drinking water systems has been prepared for the Governor’s office in accordance with Section 1420 (c)(3) of the SDWA.” . Guidance for Preparing Water Supply Capacity Management Plans http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Documents/WaterSupplyCapacityPlansGui dance2013.pdf “This Guide will explain how to: calculate available/allocable capacity, establish a system to track allocation commitments; and report certain information to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).” . 2008 Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State's Water Resources http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Pages/wolman_fullreport.aspx “The Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State’s Water Resources was charged with assessing the condition of the State’s water resources management program, recommending steps to assure that the program will provide for the long- term use and protection of Maryland’s water resources, and recommending a strategy and appropriate funding for sustainable management of these resources… the Committee urges the State to develop and fund a more robust, comprehensive, fully-integrated State water resources management program, and that it begin this effort by increasing staffing, making critical improvements to the monitoring program, providing for scientific assessments, and beginning the long-range planning necessary to ensure a sustainable water supply for Maryland’s future.” . 2006 Interim Report of the Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State's Water Resources http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/ document/WRAC-Interim%20Report_July%202006.pdf . 2004 Report of the Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State's Water Resources http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/ document/Water%20Res%20Committe%20Report-28%20May%202004-Rv%2018%20Aug-sec.pdf . A Science Plan for a Comprehensive Assessment of Water Supply in the Region Underlain by Fractured Rock in Maryland (2012) https://md.water.usgs.gov/publications/sir-2012-5160/sir2012-5160.pdf

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 96

“… a science plan for a comprehensive assessment that will provide new scientific information, new data analysis, and new tools for the State to better manage water resources in the fractured rock region of Maryland.” . A Science Plan for a Comprehensive Regional Assessment of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System in Maryland (2007) http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/water_supply/Documents/Coastal%20Plain%20Science% 20Plan.pdf “… a science plan for a comprehensive assessment that will provide new scientific information and new data management and analysis tools for the State to use in allocating ground water in the Coastal Plain.” o Drought . Drought Monitoring and Response Plan (2000) http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/waterconservation/Documents/droughtreport.pdf Outlines how drought monitoring will be done, status levels, and voluntary and required actions. . Drought Information http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/droughtinformation/Pages/index.aspx Information on drought status, activities, and ways to address drought. . Maryland Statewide Water Conservation Advisory Committee Final Report (2000) http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/waterconservation/Documents/droughtreport.pdf Summarizes work of an advisory committee making recommendations on water conservation and drought monitoring and response. o Spill response –The Water Supply Program has an emergency response plan for drinking water events. The Land Program has an oil spill prevention program that requires facilities to be prepared for spills. - Department of Planning o The Water Resources Element: Planning for Water Supply and Wastewater and Stormwater Management http://www.mdp.state.md.us/pdf/OurWork/mg26.pdf “The water resources element of the comprehensive plan should answer the following questions for a county or municipality: • Is there adequate water supply to meet current and future needs? • Is there adequate wastewater and septic supply to meet current and future needs? • What, if any, impact will meeting these needs have on water resources?” For example, Hagerstown’s WRE- https://planning.maryland.gov/PDF/OurWork/CompPlans/Washington/Hagerstown/10_WRE_Draft_Hage rstown.pdf o Water and Sewer Plans by county http://www.mdp.state.md.us/OurWork/WaterandSewage.shtml “… each county and Baltimore City is required to prepare, adopt, and annually maintain, a 10-year forecasted Water and Sewerage Plan to demonstrate how safe and adequate water and sewerage facilities will be provided to support planned redevelopment and new growth, outlined in their adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan.” - Emergency Management Administration o 2016 Maryland Hazard Mitigation Plan http://mema.maryland.gov/community/Documents/2016%20Maryland%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan %20final%202.pdf “Identify utilities and other facilities, that could contaminate the Potomac River and other major drinking water sources statewide, if impacted by disaster (i.e., chemical spill due to flood) and work with them to ensure appropriate risk reduction measures are in place.

Maintain and implement the State of Maryland Drought Monitoring and Response Plan, which outlines the methods and steps the State will take to monitor and respond to drought conditions when they occur.

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 97

The Maryland Department of the Environment will continue to implement the Drought Public Information Initiative, which disseminates public information provides education on appropriate water conservation activities for public and media.” Pennsylvania - Department of Environmental Protection o State Water Plan (2002) http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-76835/3010-BK-DEP4222.pdf “The plan consists of inventories of water availability, an assessment of current and future water use demands and trends, assessments of resource management alternatives and proposed methods of implementing recommended actions. It also analyzes problems and needs associated with specific water resource usage such as navigation, stormwater management and flood control.” o Pennsylvania’s Watershed Regions – Potomac http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Watershed%20Management/WatershedPortalFiles/StateWaterPlan/0 8-potomac_region.pdf o Marsh and Rock Creek Water Plan http://www.potomacriver.org/pacarp/DRAFT_CARP_061512.pdf o Source water protection . Pennsylvania Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Technical Guidance (2000) http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-47521/383-5000-001.pdf “The Source Water Assessment and Protection Program (SWAPP) is required to be submitted to USEPA for approval and describes how Pennsylvania assesses all drinking water sources serving public water systems for the potential for contamination.” . Source water assessments by county http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection-10045 o Drought Management in Pennsylvania http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-115813/0420-FS-DEP4705.pdf West Virginia - Department of Environmental Protection o Groundwater Biennial Report to the 2014 Legislature http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/Programs/gw/Documents/2014/FinalReport14.pdf “The purpose of this report is to provide a concise, yet thorough, overview of the programs charged with the responsibility of protecting and ensuring the continued viability of groundwater resources in West Virginia and to express the challenges faced, and the goals accomplished as the agencies, programs, and committees work together to protect and restore West Virginia’s water resources.” o West Virginia Water Resources Management Plan (2013) http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/wateruse/WVWaterPlan/Documents/WV_WRMP.pdf Provides an overview of water resources, water use, water budget, future water use, availability, and critical planning areas. o West Virginia Water Resources Management Plan Mapping Tool http://tagis.dep.wv.gov/WVWaterPlan/ “This site provides access to Large Quantity water user reports as well as other GIS data layers pertinent to water resource management in the state of West Virginia.”  Instruction Manual http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/wateruse/WVWaterPlan/Documents/WebsiteInstructions.pdf o West Virginia’s Watersheds – A closer look (2013) http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/wateruse/WVWaterPlan/Documents/WatershedACloserLookNovember20 13.pdf “Water resources and demands specific to each watershed are presented, as well as a brief summary of sources and suspected (have not been field verified) interbasin transfers.” o Annual Progress Report to the WV Joint Legislative Oversight Commission on State Water Resources (2016)

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 98

http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/wateruse/Documents/2016%20Annual%20Report%20Brian%20Carr.pdf Contains 2015 large quantity user data; lists studies underway (consumptive use, time of travel).  Previous years’ reports http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/wateruse/Pages/WaterReourcesManagementActProgressReports.asp x - Department of Health and Human Resources o Source water protection assessments and plans http://www.wvdhhr.org/oehs/eed/swap/search.cfm o Source water mapping tools/downloads: . Source water protection areas GIS download https://www.wvdhhr.org/oehs/eed/swap/GISTA_Downloads.asp . Flow Distance Above Public Water Supplies http://tagis.dep.wv.gov/pswicheck/

Local Agencies Bedford County, PA, Planning Commission o Comprehensive Plan https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1tk61j1rf60ts5/FINAL%20Comprehensive%20Plan%20w_appendices.pdf?n =316657790 Discusses water resources and water supply; makes reference to a Bedford County Water Supply Plan. Montgomery County, MD Planning o Water Resources Functional Plan (2010) http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/environment/water_resources_plan/documents/WaterResourcesf unctionalplan_web.pdf “The Plan provides information on County water and sewer service capacity in light of planned growth to 2030, summarizes an estimate of nutrient loadings on watersheds for existing and future conditions, and identifies the policies and recommendations to amend the General Plan that are needed to maintain adequate drinking water supply and wastewater treatment capacity to 2030, and meet water quality regulatory requirements as the County continues to grow.” Includes section on water supply. o 2017 Draft Water and Sewer Plan https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/water/supply/county-water-plan.html#2017draft Carroll County, MD, Department of Planning o Water Resources Element http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/compplanning/Functional/WRE.aspx o Water and Sewer Plan – 2014 plan http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/compplanning/Functional/WaterSewer/

Regional Agencies Eastern Panhandle Regional Planning & Development Council o Source water protection plans http://www.region9wv.com/plans---studies.html o 2017 Hazard Mitigation Plan (2016) https://www.dropbox.com/s/jlykhsqa69819cq/2017%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf?dl=0 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments o Metropolitan Washington Water Supply and Drought Awareness Response Plan: Potomac River System (2000)

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 99

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2000/6/20/metropolitan-washington-water-supply-and-drought- awareness-response-plan-potomac-river-system/ “This document provides a plan of action that would be implemented during drought conditions for the purpose of coordinated regional response.”

Universities Shepherd University o Determination of Water Quantity and Quality in Surface Waters of the Karst System of Jefferson County, West Virginia http://www.blueridgewatershed.org/images/Copy%20of%20Water%20Quality%20and%20Quantity%20Je fferson%20Vila%20Final.pdf “The purpose of this study was to assess: 1) Water quality, by measuring nutrients and other ions, and bacterial contamination, and 2) Water quantity, by measuring discharge at springs and mainstem sites in the county.”

Non-Profits TNC - West Virginia . Watershed Assessment https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/westvirginia/wv-fall-winter- 2016-newsletter-1.pdf “Due to its importance, the Conservancy completed an assessment in the Potomac Headwaters region of West Virginia to identify healthy waters and targets for protection and restoration. This year, these findings were added to an online tool, and the Conservancy collaborated with a variety of partners to assist in the utilization of this tool and to show how to incorporate the results into state-wide water prioritization.” Tool can be accessed at http://www.watershedmapwv.tnc.org/# Water Environment Research Foundation o Quantifying Reduction in Human and Ecological Health Associated with EDCs and Nutrients with Water Reuse and Conservation Practices in the Potomac Watershed http://www.werf.org/c/Potomac_River_Grant/Potomac_River_Grant.aspx “As the region pursues measures to both expand available water resources and improve water quality, it is absolutely necessary to prioritize actions in an effort to maximize benefit to human and ecological health within the context of sustainable implementation balancing water quality, water supply, economic, and social costs and benefits.”

Utilities Utilities have information on demand, consumptive use, source water protection, spill response, and resiliency.

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 100

WATER QUALITY

Federal Agencies USGS o Anthropogenic organic compounds in source and finished groundwater of community water systems in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, Potomac River Basin, Maryland and Virginia, 2003–04: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5064 Banks, W.S.L., and Reyes, B., 2009 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5064/pdf/sir2009-5064.pdf “A source- and finished-water-quality assessment of groundwater was conducted in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of Maryland and Virginia in the Potomac River Basin during 2003–04 as part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water-Quality Assessment Program.” o Natural and human influences on water quality in a shallow regional unconsolidated aquifer, Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5190 Ator, S.W., 2008 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5190/pdf/SIR2008-5190.pdf “Data collected from more than 400 wells in the surficial unconfined aquifer in the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain (New York through North Carolina) were compiled and analyzed to improve understanding of multiple natural and human influences on water quality in such shallow regional aquifers.” o Summary of ground-water-quality data in the Anacostia River Watershed, Washington, D.C., September– December 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006–1392 Klohe, C.A., and Debrewer, L.M., 2007 https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1392/pdf/ofr-2006-1392.pdf “Samples were analyzed for a variety of constituents including major ions, nutrients, volatile organic compounds, semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides and degradates, oil and grease, phenols, total polychlorinated biphenyls, and other selected constituents.” o Water quality in the Anacostia River, Maryland and Rock Creek, Washington, D.C.: Continuous and discrete monitoring with simulations to estimate concentrations and yields of nutrients, suspended sediment, and bacteria: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1034 Miller, C.V., Chanat, J.G., and Bell, J.M., 2013 https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1034/pdf/ofr2013-1034.pdf “Concentrations and loading estimates for nutrients, suspended sediment, and E.coli bacteria were summarized for three water-quality monitoring stations on the Anacostia River in Maryland and one station on Rock Creek in Washington, D.C.” o Summary and interpretation of discrete and continuous water-quality monitoring data, Mattawoman Creek, Charles County, Maryland, 2000–11: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012– 5265 Chanat, J.G., Miller, C.V., Bell, J.M., Majedi, B.F., and Brower, D.P., 2013 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5265/pdf/sir2012-5265.pdf “Data were analyzed for the purpose of describing ambient water quality, identifying potential contaminant sources, and quantifying nutrient and sediment loads to the tidal freshwater Mattawoman estuary.” o Contributions of phosphorus from groundwater to streams in the Piedmont, Blue Ridge, and Valley and Ridge Physiographic Provinces, Eastern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5176 Denver, J.M., Cravotta, C.A., III, Ator, S.W., and Lindsey, B.D., 2010 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5176/support/sir2010-5176.pdf “Water-quality data collected from 1991 through 2007 in paired networks of groundwater and streams in different hydrogeologic and land-use settings of the Piedmont, Blue Ridge, and Valley and Ridge Physiographic Provinces in the eastern United States were compiled and analyzed to evaluate the sources, fate, and transport of phosphorus.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 101

o Water quality in the Upper Anacostia River, Maryland: Continuous and discrete monitoring with simulations to estimate concentrations and yields, 2003–05: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5142 Miller, C.V., Gutiérrez-Magness, A.L., Feit Majedi, B.L., and Foster, G.D., 2007 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5142/pdf/SIR-2007-5142.508.pdf “Samples were collected for suspended sediment, nutrients, and trace metals; data were used to calculate loads of selected chemical parameters, and to evaluate the sources and transport processes of contaminants… Annual yields (loads per square area in kilograms per year per square kilometer) were estimated for suspended sediment, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus using the U.S. Geological Survey models ESTIMATOR and LOADEST.” o Water quality, sediment quality, and stream-channel classification of Rock Creek, Washington, D.C., 1999- 2000 A.L. Anderson,, C.V. Miller, L.D. Olsen, E.J. Doheny, and D.J. Phelan, 2002 http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024067/wri02-4067.pdf “The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service, investigated water quality and sediment quality in Rock Creek over a 2-year period (1998-2000), and performed a stream-channel classification to determine the distribution of bottom sediment in Rock Creek.” o Water-Quality Assessment of the Potomac River Basin: Water-Quality and Selected Spatial Data, 1992-96 A.L. Derosier, J.W. Brakebill, J.M. Denis, and S.K. Kelley https://md.water.usgs.gov/pnawqa/datarpt/html.html “Data are presented from 138 ground-water wells and 125 stream sites. Ground-water measurements compiled in this report include chemical, physical, and water-level data. Streamwater measurements compiled include chemical, physical, streamflow, bed-sediment contaminants, aquatic-tissue contaminants, fish community, and selected stream habitat data.” o Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the Anacostia River Watershed https://md.water.usgs.gov/projects/gw/index.html In progress. “The purpose of this project is to improve the understanding of the hydrogeologic framework, groundwater flow system, and water quality in the Anacostia River watershed in the District of Columbia.” o Monitoring for Water Quality at Sligo Creek near Takoma Park, Montgomery County, Maryland https://md.water.usgs.gov/projects/qw/sligo_creek/index.html In progress. “Data collected for this study will be used to document current water-quality conditions at Sligo Creek and improvements to water quality as different pollution-control initiatives are implemented.” o Data Collection for Trace Metals and Bacteria at Three USGS Sampling Stations in Washington, D.C. https://md.water.usgs.gov/projects/qw/dc_ntn_qw/index.html In progress. “The U.S. Geological Survey is currently monitoring nutrients, suspended-sediment, and selected continuous water-quality parameters (temperature, conductance, and turbidity) within the District of Columbia in conjunction with the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Nontidal Monitoring Network (NTN).” o Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov In progress. “Quantify nutrient and sediment loads in the nontidal rivers of the Chesapeake Bay watershed… Estimate changes over time (trends) in sediment and nutrient loads, in a manner that compensates for any concurrent trend in stream discharge.” o Baseline groundwater quality in national park units within the Marcellus and Utica Shale gas plays, New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, 2011 https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr20121150 “Groundwater samples were collected from 15 production wells and 1 spring at 9 national park units in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia in July and August 2011 and analyzed to characterize the quality of these water supplies.” o Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2016/5093/sir20165093.pdf

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 102

“The objective of this study was to investigate spatial and temporal variations in water chemistry and suspended sediment in these four relatively small watersheds that represent a range of land-use patterns and underlying geology to (1) characterize current water-quality conditions in these watersheds, and (2) identify the dominant sources, sinks, and transport processes in each watershed.” o Water-quality synoptic sampling, July 1999: North Fork Shenandoah River, Virginia Krstolic, J.L. and Hayes, D.C., 2004 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20045153 “A study was conducted of water-quality conditions that may affect aquatic life during periods of low streamflow on the North Fork Shenandoah River, Va.” o Streamflow, water quality, and aquatic macroinvertebrates of selected streams in Fairfax County, Virginia, 2007 - 12: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014 - 5073; Jastram, J.D., 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145073 “A cooperative monitoring effort between the U.S. Survey and Fairfax County, Virginia, was initiated in 2007 to assess the condition of county streams and document watershed-scale responses to the implementation of BMPs.” o Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed - Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010 - 2013. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016 - 5093 Hyer, K.E., Denver, J.M., Langland, M.J., Webber, J.S., Bohlke, J.K., Hively, W.D., and Clune, J.W.. 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20165093 “The objective of this study was to investigate spatial and temporal variations in water chemistry and suspended sediment in these four relatively small watersheds that represent a range of land-use patterns and underlying geology to (1) characterize current water-quality conditions in these watersheds, and (2) identify the dominant sources, sinks, and transport processes in each watershed.” o Storms, channel changes, and a sediment budget for an urban-suburban stream, Difficult Run, Virginia, USA. Geomorphology 278: 128 – 148. A.C. Gellis, M.K. Myers, G.B. Noe, C.R. Hupp, E.R. Schenk, L. Myers. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.10.031 “We documented the effects of two large storms, Tropical Storm Lee (September 2011), a 100-year event, and Super Storm Sandy (October 2012) a 5-year event, on channel erosion and deposition. Variability in erosion and deposition rates for all geomorphic features, temporally and spatially, are important conclusions of this study.” o Recent and historic sediment dynamics along Difficult Run, a suburban Virginia Piedmont stream. Geomorphology 180 - 181: 156 – 169 Hupp, C.R., G.B. Noe, E.R. Schenk, and A.J. Benthem. 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.10.007 “Our objectives, with special reference to human alterations to the landscape, include the documentation and estimation of floodplain sediment trapping (present and historic) and bank erosion along an urbanized Piedmont stream, the construction of a preliminary sediment balance, and the estimation of legacy sediment and recent development impacts.” o Effects of distributed and centralized stormwater best management practices and land cover on urban stream hydrology at the catchment scale Loperfido, J.V., et al. 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.007 “Here, stream hydrologic data (March, 2011–September, 2012) are evaluated in four catchments located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: one utilizing distributed stormwater BMPs, two utilizing centralized stormwater BMPs, and a forested catchment serving as a reference.” o Quantitative characterization of stream turbidity-discharge behavior using event loop shape modeling and power law parameter decorrelation; Water Resources Res., 50, 7766 - 7779 Mather, A. L., and R. L. Johnson 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015417

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 103

“Here we examine methods to quantitatively characterize event responses by modeling the shape of turbidity-discharge hysteresis loops.” o Mercury Loads in the South River and Simulation of Mercury Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the South River, South Fork Shenandoah River, and Shenandoah River: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5076/ “Due to elevated levels of methylmercury in fish, three streams in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia have been placed on the State's 303d list of contaminated waters. These streams, the South River, the South Fork Shenandoah River, and parts of the Shenandoah River, are downstream from the city of Waynesboro, where mercury waste was discharged from 1929–1950 at an industrial site.” o Groundwater quality in West Virginia, 1993–2008: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report 2012–5186 Chambers, D.B., Kozar, M.D., White, J.S., and Paybins, K.S., 2012 https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5186/ “The USGS West Virginia Water Science Center sampled 300 wells, of which 80 percent were public- supply wells, over a 10-year period, 1999–2008” o A Reconnaissance for Emerging Contaminants in the South Branch Potomac River, Cacapon River, and Williams River Basins, West Virginia, April-October 2004 https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1393/pdf/ofr20061393.pdf “Several sampling strategies were used to identify emerging contaminants, including potential EDCs, and their possible sources in these river basins and at an out-of-basin reference site.” o Relation of Chlorofluorocarbon Ground-Water Age Dates to Water Quality in Aquifers of West Virginia https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5221/pdf/SIR2006-5221.pdf “As part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network (AGN) programs in West Virginia from 1997 to 2005, 80 samples from the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, 27 samples from the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province, and 5 samples from the Ohio River alluvial aquifers were collected to estimate ground-water ages in aquifers of West Virginia.” o Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: Water Year 2014 Update Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, February 3, 2016 https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/data/NTN%20Load%20and%20Trend%20Summary%202014.pdf “Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network (NTN)… The results are summarized for 1. loads delivered directly to the tidal waters; specifically, the River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations, 2. trends in loads at the RIM stations, and 3. patterns in loads at each monitoring station in the bay watershed (that are part of the Chesapeake Bay Program [CBP] NTN).”

State Agencies Virginia - Department of Environmental Quality o 2014 Final Water Quality Report http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityAssessment s/2014305(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx o Water quality data http://www.deq.virginia.gov/ConnectWithDEQ/VEGIS.aspx o South River/South Fork Shenandoah River Mercury Information http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityMonitoring/ FishTissueMonitoring/ShenandoahMercury.aspx o 2016 Reduction of Toxics in State Waters Report

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 104

http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterQualityMonitoring/TOX/2016_Toxics_Reductio n_in_State_Waters_Report.pdf “The primary objective of the TRISW Report is to document the Commonwealth’s progress toward reducing toxics in state waters and consequently improving water quality.” o Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Plan http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/NonpointSource/NPSPlan/VA2014NPS- EPA_Submitted09302014.pdf “This plan describes the elements of this networked program, and it identifies short and long term program goals. It also serves as an update of the nonpoint source elements of the Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Waters Clean-Up Plan developed pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Waters Clean-up and Oversight Act.” o Nonpoint Source Annual Reports http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/NonpointSourcePollution Management/NonpointSourceAnnualReports.aspx o 2014 NPS Assessment and Prioritization study http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/NonpointSource/CH5-NPS-14_draft.pdf “… determination of potential loadings of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment (hereafter referred to as NPS pollutants) by hydrologic unit by general land use classes. The evaluation of hydrologic units by aquatic species health represents water quality measures not necessarily related to the potential NPS pollutant loads.” o TMDL Implementation Plans http://deq.state.va.us/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/T MDLImplementationPlans.aspx o TMDLs http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/TMDL.aspx o TMDL Implementation Projects http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/TMDL/TMDLImplementat ion/TMDLImplementationProjects.aspx Chesapeake Bay and Virginia Waters Clean-Up Plan http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/ChesapeakeBay/CBVAwaters%20cleanup%20plan.pdf “… plan for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay and Virginia's waters designated as impaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Subsequently the plan also addresses the protection of water resources not yet impaired by pollution.” o Annual Water Quality Monitoring Plan http://deq.state.va.us/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityMonitoring/Annua lWaterQualityMonitoringPlan.aspx “The MonPlan summarizes the water quality monitoring activities conducted during each calendar year, from 1 January to 31 December.” o Final 2014 305(b)/303(d) Water Quality Assessment Integrated Report http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityAssessment s/2014305(b)303(d)IntegratedReport.aspx o Draft Shenandoah River Monitoring Plan http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/WaterQualityAssessments/ShenAlgae/Shenandoah_A lgal_Mon_Plan.pdf “The preliminary monitoring plan outlines the agency’s strategy for collecting data for the development of algal field methods.” - Department of Conservation and Recreation o Resource Management Plan Program http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil-and-water/document/rmp-program-highlights.pdf “The RMP program is a voluntary participation program that promotes the use of conservation practices to maximize water quality protection. Each plan is written to include, at minimum, those BMPs that have

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 105

proved most effective at reducing runoff pollution to local waters, while encouraging farmers to take conservation to the next level.” Maryland - Department of the Environment o Water Quality Mapping Center http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/TMDL/Integrated303dReports/Pages/WaterQualityMappingC enter.aspx o Integrated Report (IR) Water Quality Assessment Maps http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/TMDL/Integrated303dReports/Pages/ImpairmentMaps.aspx “The map links below provide the user with surface water quality assessment information found in the Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality.” o State of Maryland’s Comprehensive Water Monitoring Strategy http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/researchcenter/environmentaldata/documents/www.mde.state.md. us/assets/document/maryland_monitoring_strategy2009.pdf “This Strategy identifies the programs, processes and procedures that have been institutionalized to ensure State monitoring activities continue to meet defined programmatic goals and management objectives. It is comprehensive in addressing monitoring for all water body types, including rivers and streams, lakes, tidal waters, ground water and wetlands.” o TMDL Data Center http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/TMDL/DataCenter/Pages/index.aspx o Maryland's 2014 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/TMDL/Integrated303dReports/Pages/2014IR.aspx o MDE Fish and Shellfish Contaminant Monitoring Program http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Marylander/fishandshellfish/Pages/fishconsumptionadvisory.aspx o TMDLs http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/TMDL/Pages/index.aspx o Water Quality Data Portal https://www.waterqualitydata.us/ National Water Quality Monitoring Council product MDE uses to make data available. Data includes: . “The physical conditions in the environment at the time of a site visit. . The chemical and bacteriological make-up of the water sampled . Chemical analyses of fish tissue collected . Biological Taxon Abundance data, including population census, frequency class, group summaries, and individual results . Toxicity data . Habitat Assessment scores and their related metric scores . Biological Index scores and their related metric scores” - Department of Natural Resources o Eyes on the Bay http://eyesonthebay.dnr.maryland.gov o Maryland's Environmental Resources and Land Information Network http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/MERLIN/ “MERLIN Online allows a user to produce a custom "map" for any location in Maryland, including their choice of base map and theme data layers.” . Interactive map http://gisapps.dnr.state.md.us/MERLIN/index.html . Stream Health interactive map http://geodata.md.gov/sggatlas/index.html?sggWebmap=83c1553112794d0d81db4f4304345357&sg gTheme=streamHealth&extent=-79.1489%2c38.0633%2c-75.0922%2c39.874&extentBBox=- 8853669.574390102%2c4523960.556984726%2c- 8316775.88771505%2c4912260.660673402&extentSR=102100 o Maryland Water Monitoring Council Water Monitoring Site Mapper

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 106

http://maryland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b788336339df416fbe1402a4c2f30 720 Purpose: . “Provide users with a comprehensive map of Maryland waterway monitoring sites. . Allows users to map stations based on type of sampling (biological, chemical, physical, restoration related) or year collected. . This site does not store monitoring data but provides users with contact information about each site in case they would like to know more or possibly acquire the data. . This site will also accept basic information about monitoring program so others can see where data are collected.” Pennsylvania - Department of Environmental Protection o 2016 Draft Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/View/Collection-13014 o Water Quality Network http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/CleanWater/WaterQuality/Pages/Water-Quality-Network.aspx “The Pennsylvania Water Quality Network (WQN) is a statewide, fixed station water quality sampling system operated by the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Bureau of Point and Non-Point Source Management (PNSM).” o TMDLs http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/TMDL/ West Virginia - Department of Environmental Protection o Chesapeake Bay Program http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Pages/ChesapeakeBay.aspx o Water Quality Data Reporting Tool http://apps.dep.wv.gov/dwwm/wqdata/ o Watershed Assessment Branch, 2015 Field Sampling Standard Operating Procedures http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/SOP%20Doc/2015WABSOP/2015% 20WAB%20Field%20Sampling%20SOP.pdf “The purpose of the Watershed Assessment Branch (WAB) is to collect waterbody (e.g. streams, rivers, and lakes) data in order to determine their quality in West Virginia according to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA).” o West Virginia’s Water Quality Monitoring Strategy (2007) http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/2007_WV_Monitoring_Strategy.pd f “West Virginia has a comprehensive strategy for monitoring the streams and rivers of the state. The Watershed Assessment Branch utilizes a tiered approach, collecting data from: • long-term monitoring stations on large streams and rivers, Ambient Sampling • long-term monitoring on smaller streams – LiTMuS sites (new in 2007) • deployed water quality meters – collecting ‘continuous’ data • targeted sites within watersheds on a rotating basin schedule • randomly selected sites • and sites chosen to further define stream impairment in support of TMDL development.” o 2014 West Virginia Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/IR/Documents/IR_2014_Documents/2014FinalIRDocuments/E PAApprovedWebDocumentOnly.pdf o TMDLs http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/TMDL/Pages/default.aspx - Department of Agriculture

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 107

o Water Quality Program http://www.agriculture.wv.gov/divisions/regulatoryandenvironmental/Moorefield/Pages/Water-Quality- Program.aspx “The Water Quality sampling programs consists of sampling and analyzing water samples from seventeen (17) streams in West Virginia’s eight county Eastern Panhandle.”

Local Agencies Montgomery County, MD Planning o Environmental Resources Inventory, Potomac Subregion http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/community/plan_areas/potomac/related_reports/environ_invent ory_pot/toc_pot_environ.shtm o Environmental Resources Inventory, Upper Rock Creek Watershed http://www.montgomeryplanning.org/community/plan_areas/georgia_avenue/related_reports/environ_ upperrc/toc_environ_upperrc.shtm o Request monitoring data https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/water/streams/data.html

Regional Agencies Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory o http://www.owml.vt.edu/index.html “Since its founding, the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Program (OWMP) has been successful in building a hydrologic and water quality data acquisition and analysis system that has formed the basis of regional watershed management decision-making for nearly 30 years.”

Universities - University of Maryland o Increased river alkalinization in the Eastern U.S. Kaushal, S.S., G.E. Likens, R. Utz, M.L. Pace, M. Grese, and M. Yepsen. 2013. Environmental Science & Technology http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401046s?journalCode=esthag o Keith N. Eshleman, Professor, Appalachian Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, email correspondence: “For several decades we have been conducting water quality research in the Upper Potomac River Basin-- particularly in two major PRB tributaries (Savage River and Fifteenmile Creek)--to understand the major drivers of water quality trends. Early on we documented the role of watershed disturbance as a mechanism for increasing nitrate-N loads (particularly in forested portions of the basin that were regularly defoliated). More recently, my colleagues and I undertook a systematic analysis of trends/drivers of nitrate-N loads throughout the basin using our own data and publicly available data from USGS and published two papers (one in 2013, the other last year: see attachments) that describe how dramatic reductions in atmospheric N deposition beginning around 1996 and continuing to present have contributed to improving water quality (i.e., nearly ubiquitous declines of 30-70% in nitrate-N loads/concentrations across the basin). Since the N deposition reductions have been attributed largely to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and subsequent federal NOx emission control programs, our conclusions provide an interesting example of cross-media interactions at the river basin scale.” . Surface Water Quality Is Improving due to Declining Atmospheric N Deposition http://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/Eshleman_EST.pdf “We evaluated long-term surface water nitrate and atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition trends for a group of nine predominantly forested Appalachian Mountain watersheds during a recent multidecadal period (1986−2009) in which regional NOx emissions have been progressively reduced.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 108

. Declining nitrate-N yields in the Upper Potomac River Basin: What is really driving progress under the Chesapeake Bay restoration? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016305234 “While the conventional wisdom is that implementation of best management practices (BMP’s) and wastewater treatment have turned the tide against nutrient pollution, we examined long-term (1986- present) nitrate-N trends in streams and major tributaries of the Upper Potomac River Basin (UPRB) and found that: 1) dramatic reductions in annual discharge-weighted mean nitrate-N concentrations and yields across the UPRB can be almost universally attributed to reductions in atmospheric N deposition as opposed to on-the-ground management actions such as implementation of BMP’s; 2) observed water quality changes generally comport with a modified kinetic N saturation model (MKNSM); 3) the MKNSM can separate the nitrate-N yield that is responsive to atmospheric deposition from a “non-responsive” yield; and 4) N saturation from atmospheric N deposition appears to be an inherently reversible process across most of the landscape.” - Shepherd University o Assessment of Escherichia coli and Chemical Data in the Surface Waters of Jefferson County, West Virginia https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228513340_Assessment_of_Escherichia_coli_and_Chemical_ Data_in_the_Surface_Waters_of_Jefferson_County_West_Virginia “Two streams in the Potomac and Shenandoah drainages of Jefferson County, West Virginia, were sampled for levels of Escherichia coli and nutrients from November 2008 to February 2009.” - George Mason University – Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center o Diel and seasonal patterns in water quality continuously monitored at a fixed site on the tidal freshwater Potomac River Jones, R.C., Graziano, A.P. 2013. Inland Waters, v. 3, n. 4 https://www.fba.org.uk/journals/index.php/IW/article/viewFile/604/375 “We analyzed data from a continuous water quality monitor on the tidal Occoquan River, a tributary of the tidal Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), and pH were collected at 15 minute intervals from April through early November of 2010. Results of time series analysis indicate that, on a short-term basis, conductivity manifested an underlying semidiel pattern, presumably driven by tidal excursion. In comparison, DO, pH, and temperature exhibited a diel pattern correlated with the daily light and temperature cycle. Longer-term patterns were related to longer-term climatic factors such as a dry summer with low freshwater inputs, seasonal progressions of light and temperature, and a river discharge spike in early October. Examination of multiday patterns in DO and pH using 15 minute data during a climatically stable period illustrated both diel and semidiel patterns. Patterns in a period of strong hydrological forcing revealed a disruption of diel and semidiel patterns for several days with a general restoration of patterns thereafter. Both diel and seasonal data suggest that abundant submerged aquatic vegetation in the study area was the main primary producer component driving diel and seasonal DO and pH patterns.” o Stream condition in Piedmont streams with restored riparian buffers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed Orzetti, L.L., R.C. Jones, and R.F. Murphy. 2010.. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 473-485. o Surface Water Concentrations and Loading Budgets of Pharmaceuticals and Other Domestic-Use Chemicals in an Urban Watershed (Washington, DC, USA) Shala, L. and G.D. Foster (2010) Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 58, 551-561. o Hydrogeochemistry and transport of organic contaminants in an urban watershed of Chesapeake Bay (USA) Foster, G.D., E.C. Roberts, B. Gruessner, and D.J. Velinsky. 2000. Applied Geochemistry 15:901-915. doi: 10.1016/S0883-2927(99)00107-9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292799001079 “Stream water samples were collected in the two main free-flowing branches of the Anacostia River watershed above the head of tide over a one year time period.” o Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect communities Jones, R.C., and C. Clark. 1987. Water Resources Bulletin 23:1047-1055.

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 109

o Relationships among Escherichia coli (E. coli), Total Suspended Solids and Flow for Three Northern Virginia Subwatersheds: Rabbit Branch, Upper Accotink Creek, and Daniels Run Marissa Washington. 2013. Master’s Research Project Report. http://digilib.gmu.edu/jspui/bitstream/handle/1920/8513/Marissa%20Washington%20MS%20Project%2 0Report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y “Three sites located in Fairfax, Virginia residential areas were chosen to monitor Escherichia coli concentrations between May 18th and July 19th, 2013 and to examine the relationship of E. coli to stream flow, total suspended solids (TSS) and impervious cover.” o The influence of past and future urbanization on watershed nitrogen export and hydrology dynamics in two mid-Atlantic watersheds in Fairfax, Virginia Ryan Albert. 2007. PhD Dissertation. http://digilib.gmu.edu/xmlui/handle/1920/6638 “This study examines urban land use change and its impact on watershed hydrology and nutrient loading in the Accotink and Pohick watersheds in Fairfax County, Virginia.”

Non-Profits Potomac Conservancy o Disruption – New Pollutants in the Potomac and Beyond - EDC conference (2011) https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52260563e4b0e56a47d7efa6/t/5523e0bbe4b0c8f3afe0aef8/1428 414738432/ForumProceedingsEDC.pdf Cacapon Institute o Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monitoring for Sleepy Creek Watershed Association, Phase II Final report http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/Publications/Sleepy%20Creek%20Fecal%20Coliform%20Monitorin g%20Phase%20II%20Final%20Report.pdf “Supplemental monitoring for the Sleepy Creek 319 Watershed Based Plan.” o Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monitoring for the Warm Springs Watershed Association Final Report with Data. June 2014. http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/Publications/WARM%20SPRINGS%20Fecal%20Coliform%20Bacteri a%20Monitoring%20Project%20Final%20Report%20with%20Data%20Appendix.pdf “The results of this study support the listing of this stream as impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. The drivers for elevated fecal coliform bacteria counts at the sampled sites remain unclear.” o Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monitoring for the Warm Springs Watershed Association Supplemental Monitoring Report. December 2014 http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/Publications/WARM%20SPRINGS%20Fecal%20Coliform%20Bacteri a%20Supplemental%20Monitoring%20Project%20Report.pdf o Fecal Coliform Bacteria Monitoring for the Sleepy Creek Watershed Incremental 319 Project Final Report. 2011. http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/Publications/Sleepy%20Creek%20319%20Fecal%20Coliform%20Ba cteria%20Monitoring%20Project%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf “The Sleepy Creek 319 Watershed Based Plan Development Team asked Cacapon Institute (CI) to conduct ‘plan implementation monitoring’ for fecal coliform bacteria.” o Final report to Canaan Valley Institute on Results of Land Use Analysis for Water Quality Study Sites in the Cacapon River’s Lost and North River Watersheds http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/Publications/CVI%20GIS%20Report%20September%202003.pdf “In September 2000, Canaan Valley Institute provided financial support for Cacapon Institute to complete development and verification of GIS land use data for water quality study sites in the Lost and North rivers of the Cacapon watershed, and for production of a report describing land use influences on water quality observed in streams.” o Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on Water Quality Studies in the Cacapon River’s Lost and North River Watersheds in West Virginia (2002)

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 110

http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/Publications/Final%20FWS%20Report%202002.pdf “The report will provide a summary of data collected during Cacapon Institute’s multi-year study of land use influences on nutrient and bacteria concentrations in the Lost and North River subwatersheds in the Cacapon River Basin of West Virginia; these watersheds have varying densities of integrated poultry agriculture.” o Land Use and Water Quality in the Lost River Watershed, WV http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/Publications/LostRiverWatershed.PDF “… Cacapon Institute chose twelve sites in the Lost River for a study to determine the nutrient and fecal bacterial characteristics of Potomac Headwater streams in relation to land use, with an emphasis on agricultural impacts in general and, specifically, poultry agriculture.” o Summary Report on Water Quality Studies in the Lost River, North River and South Branch of the Potomac River Watersheds of West Virginia-June 1999 http://www.cacaponinstitute.org/PDF/Publications/interim%20report%20for%20web.PDF “The purpose of this interim report is to provide an overview of data from Cacapon Institute's multiyear study of land use influences on nutrient and bacteria concentrations in the Lost, North and South Branch of the Potomac river watersheds, three West Virginia basins with varying densities of integrated poultry agriculture.” West Virginia Rivers Coalition o Citizen’s Directory of Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Programs http://wvrivers.org/2017/04/new-water-monitoring-directory/ Potomac Riverkeeper Network http://www.potomacriverkeepernetwork.org/assessment/

Consulting Firms - Downstream Strategies o The Benefits of Acid Mine Drainage Remediation on the North Branch Potomac River (2010) http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/amd-remediation- nbp_downstreamstrategies.pdf “This study calculates the local economic benefits generated in these Maryland counties stemming from acid mine drainage remediation on the North Branch, so that policy makers can make informed decisions about future funding to ensure that this remediation continues.” o Poultry Litter in the Potomac Headwaters: How Can We Reach a Long-term Balance? (1999) http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/NutrientBalanceInPotomacHead waters.pdf “This report asks: Given the quantity of nutrients generated by the concentrated poultry industry in the Potomac headwaters of West Virginia, how can we ensure a long-term nutrient balance?”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 111

HUMAN LAND USE

Federal Agencies - USGS o Influences of upland and riparian land use patterns on stream biotic integrity (2003), C.D. Snyder, J.A. Young, R. Villella and D.P. Lemarié http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/hooper/Snyderetal2003LandscapeEcol_LandusePatterns%26StreamIntegrity.pdf “We explored land use, fish assemblage structure, and stream habitat associations in 20 catchments in Opequon Creek watershed, West Virginia. The purpose was to determine the relative importance of urban and agriculture land use on stream biotic integrity, and to evaluate the spatial scale (i.e., whole- catchment vs riparian buffer) at which land use effects were most pronounced.”

Interstate Commission ICPRB o Middle Potomac River watershed assessment: Potomac River sustainable flow and water resources analysis USACE, TNC, and ICPRB. 2014. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MPRWA_FinalReport_April20141.pdf “The plots of both observed and simulated flows suggest that significant alteration in flow metrics from a baseline condition is most often linked to increases in impervious surface and urbanization, and the concomitant loss of forest, in the Middle Potomac study area.” o The effect of impervious cover on streamflow under various watershed conditions in the Potomac basin: Phase 1 Moltz, H. and J. Palmer. 2015. https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ICP15-5_Moltz.pdf o Streamflow Alteration from Impervious Cover: Are All Watersheds Created Equal? Moltz, H., J. Palmer, and Z. Smith. 2017. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. (Under Review) o The Potomac River Basin and its Estuary: landscape loadings and water quality trends, 1895–2005 Jaworski, N.A., B. Romano, C. Buchanan, and C.L. Jaworski. 2007. http://www.umces.edu/president/Potomac “The principal goal of our treatise is to provide a broad, 110-year perspective of the water quality of the Potomac River Basin and its Estuary through a historical analysis of landscape loadings and resulting water quality trends from 1895 to 2005.” o Effects of Land Use Change on Trends in Stream Flow (1987) Roland Steiner https://www.potomacriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ICP87-9_Steiner.pdf “The two major issues addressed in this task are: (1) the relative consumptive loss of water with differences in land use, and (2) changes in the runoff hydrograph with differences in land use.”

State Agencies Virginia - Department of Conservation and Recreation o Resource Management Plans http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil-and-water/rmp “The Virginia Resource Management Planning program provides a voluntary way to promote the use of conservation practices that improve farming operations and water quality. Resource management plans can help farm owners and operators take advantage of all the conservation measures at their disposal.” o Conservation Planning

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 112

http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil-and-water/conservation-planning Maryland - Department of Natural Resources o Maryland Rural Legacy Program http://dnr.maryland.gov/land/Pages/RuralLegacy/home.aspx “Maryland’s Rural Legacy Program provides funding to preserve large, contiguous tracts of land and to enhance natural resource, agricultural, forestry and environmental protection while supporting a sustainable land base for natural resource based industries. The program creates public-private partnerships and allows those who know the landscape best – land trusts and local governments – to determine the best way to protect the landscapes that are critical to our economy, environment and quality of life.” o Maryland Environmental Trust http://dnr.maryland.gov/met/Pages/default.aspx “Maryland Environmental Trust works with landowners, local communities, and citizen land trusts to protect Maryland's most treasured landscapes and natural resources as a legacy for future generations. We accomplish this work by providing direct assistance, information and innovative tools to ensure the ongoing stewardship and public concern for the natural, historic, and scenic resources of the state.” o Program Open Space http://dnr.maryland.gov/land/Pages/ProgramOpenSpace/Program-Open-Space-Stateside-Targeting.aspx “Program Open Space Stateside preserves natural areas for public recreation and watershed and wildlife protection across Maryland through the purchase of fee-simple and easement acquisitions.” - Department of Planning o Land Preservation http://www.mdp.state.md.us/OurWork/envr-planning/land-preservation.shtml “The Maryland Department of Planning (Planning) works with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Natural Resources) and the Maryland Department of Agriculture (Agriculture) to support land preservation, including guidance for Priority Preservation Areas, which are identified in local comprehensive plans, and for local Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plans.” o Transfer of Development Rights http://www.mdp.state.md.us/OurWork/envr-planning/transfer-dev-rights.shtml “Through TDR programs, which are voluntary, developers buy development rights from owners of rural land within designated sending areas, which county governments have identified for preservation. A perpetual conservation easement is then placed on the property. Developers can use their purchased development rights to build more residences, increase commercial square footage or gain other marketable features in receiving areas, which are located in areas where development and infrastructure are planned and desired.” o Water Resources http://www.mdp.state.md.us/OurWork/envr-planning/water-resources.shtml “Planning provides guidance, review, and technical assistance to local jurisdictions when they prepare and update Water and Sewerage Plans to ensure consistency with local comprehensive plans and state growth policies.

Maryland’s Stormwater Management Act of 2007 requires Environmental Site Design (ESD) to be used to the “maximum extent practicable” to manage stormwater associated with new development and redevelopment. Planning is conducting research and outreach to show how infill and redevelopment can be achieved while implementing ESD requirements.” Pennsylvania - Department of Environmental Protection o Division of Planning and Conservation http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/PlanningConservation/Pages/default.aspx

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 113

“The Conservation District Support Section provides financial assistance to conservation districts through the distribution of annual funding through the Conservation District Fund Allocation Program (CDFAP), and assistance to DEP Conservation District Field Representatives who deliver administrative and technical assistance to county conservation districts.”

Local Agencies Montgomery County, MD, Planning o Agricultural Reserve http://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/agricultural-reserve/ “Montgomery County is home to a surprising number of rural areas. The forward-thinking 1964 General Plan focused growth in defined corridors emanating from the population centers in and around the Capital Beltway. Between those corridors, the General Plan called for wedges of low-density residential uses, open space and protected farmland.” Carroll County, MD, Department of Land and Resource Management o Agriculture Land Preservation Program http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/agpres/brochure.pdf?x=1516292308979 “To preserve the county’s best agricultural land by compensating landowners for voluntarily, and in perpetuity, forgoing land development through a Deed of Conservation Easement recorded in the Carroll County Land Records.” o Land Trust http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/agpres/brochure.pdf?x=1516292308979 “To promote the preservation of farmland and open space in Carroll County through public education and donations of conservation easements that restrict the development of land and the purchase of easements when grant funds are available.” o Priority Preservation Area Element http://ccgovernment.carr.org/ccg/compplanning/Functional/PPAE.aspx “The Priority Preservation Area Element identifies areas of agricultural and forestry resource land that would support agricultural production and timber harvesting for the present and future. An estimated 92,909 acres of land are delineated within the Agricultural Land Priority Preservation Area. Within this defined area, the County's goal is to permanently preserve 64,589 acres of undeveloped land for agricultural production.” Adams County Conservation District o Adams County Comprehensive Plan (1991), Chapter 3 - Growth Management Plan http://www.adamscounty.us/Dept/Planning/Documents/County%20Plans/AC%20Comp%20Plan/Chapter 3-Growth_Mgmnt_Plan.pdf “The Land Use Plan is concerned with the proposed location, intensity, and amount of different uses. It strives to be in harmony with trends affecting economic development in the county and its region, while minoring the values, needs, and expectations of county residents.”

Universities University of Maryland o Land use and climate variability amplify contaminant pulses Kaushal, Sujay S., et al. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 91.25 (2010): 221-222. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO250001/pdf “Together, land use and climate change may interact in unexpected ways to alter the amplitude, frequency, and duration of contaminant pulses in streams and rivers (i.e., large contaminant loads that are transported over relatively short time scales).” Appalachian Laboratory – University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 114

o Altered Ecological Flows Blur Boundaries in Urbanizing Watersheds https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art10/main.html “We describe patterns of land-use change within the Potomac River basin and demonstrate how these changes have blurred traditional ecosystem boundaries by increasing the movement of people, materials, and energy into and within the basin. We argue that this expansion of ecological commerce requires new science, monitoring, and management strategies focused on large rivers and suggest that traditional geopolitical and economic boundaries for environmental decision making be appropriately revised.” Virginia Tech o Regional Effects of Land Use Change on Water Supply in the Potomac River Basin https://owl.cwp.org/mdocs-posts/stagge-2011-land-use-change-water-supply/ “Land use change between 1985 and 1997 is responsible for a 0.1%–1.1% decrease in low flows, quantified here by the 30Q20 (Table 2). This suggests that land use change could produce more severe droughts. However, by 2005, this effect became smaller, probably as a result of reforestation in the western portion of the basin.” o Impact of the spatial distribution of imperviousness on the hydrologic response of an urbanizing basin http://amazon.nws.noaa.gov/articles/HRL_Pubs_PDF_May12_2009/Alfonso%20Mejia/Impact%20of%20t he%20spatial%20distribution%20of%20imperviousness%20on%20the%20hydrologic%20response%20of% 20an%20urbanizing%20basin.pdf “An event-based model is used to investigate the impact of the spatial distribution of imperviousness on the hydrologic response of a basin characterized by an urban land use.” o Relationships Between Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Surface Water Quality Trends in Virginia (Master’s Thesis) https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/33253 “This research examines the relationships between land use and surface water quality trends in Virginia.” Old Dominion University o Relationships Between Benthic Community Condition, Water Quality, Sediment Quality, Nutrient Loads, and Land Use Patterns in Chesapeake Bay http://www.sci.odu.edu/chesapeakebay/reports/benthic/Dauer_2000_Estuaries.pdf “Associations between benthic condition and anthropogenic inputs and activities in the watershed were also studied by correlation analysis.”

Non-Profits Potomac Conservancy https://potomac.org/lands “Through our Land Protection program, Potomac Conservancy works one-on-one with private landowners to conserve forested, agricultural, streamside, and open space lands in the northern Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and the South Branch River Valley of West Virginia. We also provide resources for land management and cost-share programs to ensure working lands are both productive and river friendly.” Potomac Watershed Partnership http://www.potomacpartnership.org/mission/ “The Potomac Watershed Partnership (PWP) is a collaborative effort among federal, state, and local partners to restore the health of the land and waters of the Potomac River Basin, thereby enhancing the quality of life and overall health of the Chesapeake Bay.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 115

ECOLOGICAL HEALTH

Federal Agencies EPA o Improving Water Reuse for a Much Healthier Potomac Watershed https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/10501 “This research combines a suite of state-of-the-art techniques to actively identify contaminant hot spots (emerging contaminants and related biological activity, advanced geochemical indicators), assess the impact of those hot spots on human and ecological health endpoints (including drinking water sources and sensitive ecological areas), and quantify the impact of reuse and management solutions on these endpoints.” o CBP, Healthy Watersheds http://www.chesapeakebay.net/managementstrategies/strategy/healthy_watersheds “Sustain state-identified healthy waters and watersheds recognized for their high quality and/or high ecological value.” o CBP, Resource Lands Assessment http://www.chesapeakebay.net/what/programs/resource_lands_assessment “The Resource Lands Assessment (RLA) provides a regional, multi-state look at the most important remaining resource lands in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) models and expert knowledge help assess the value of resource lands within the watershed to: provide guidance to state and local governments in their land protection strategies, serve as a resource for the land trust community, suggest conservation focus areas to complement watershed restoration plans and identify areas important to the forest products industry.” USGS o South Fork Shenandoah River Habitat-Flow Modeling to Determine Ecological and Recreational Characteristics during Low-Flow Periods Krstolic, J.L. and Ramey, R.C., 2012 http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5081/ “Physical habitat simulation modeling was conducted to examine flow as a major determinant of physical habitat availability and recreation suitability using field-collected hydraulic habitat variables such as water depth, water velocity, and substrate characteristics.” o Physical Habitat Characteristics on the North and South Forks of the Shenandoah River, VA in 2002-2007 Krstolic, J.L. and Hayes, D.C., 2010 http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/ds539_MesoHabitat.xml “The layers within this geodataset describe physical habitat characteristics in the North and South Fork Shenandoah rivers. They represent conditions during summer low-flow periods when canoeing was possible.” o Physical habitat classification and instream flow modeling to determine habitat availability during low- flow periods, North Fork Shenandoah River, Virginia Krstolic, J.L., Hayes, D.C., and Ruhl P.M., 2006 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20065025 “To meet the need for comprehensive information on hydrology, water supply, and instream-flow requirements of the Shenandoah River basin, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission conducted a cooperative investigation of habitat availability during low-flow periods on the North Fork Shenandoah River.” o A demonstration of the instream flow incremental methodology, Shenandoah River, Virginia Zappia, H., and Hayes, D.C., 1998 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/wri984157 “The Instream Flow Incremental Method (IFIM) process attempts to integrate concepts of water-supply planning, analytical hydraulic engineering models, and empirically derived habitat versus flow functions to

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 116

address water-use and instream-flow issues and questions concerning life-stage specific effects on selected species and the general well being of aquatic biological populations.” o Data Collection and Simulation of Ecological Habitat and Recreational Habitat in the Shenandoah River, Virginia http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5005/ “This report presents updates to methods, describes additional data collected, documents modeling results, and discusses implications from an updated habitat-flow model that can be used to predict ecological habitat for fish and recreational habitat for canoeing on the main stem Shenandoah River in Virginia.”

State Agencies Virginia - Department of Environmental Quality o Biological monitoring http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterQualityInformationTMDLs/WaterQualityMonitoring/ BiologicalMonitoring.aspx “DEQ's Freshwater Biological Monitoring Program uses the benthic macroinvertebrate community to assess the ecological health of freshwater streams and rivers.” - Department of Game and Inland Fisheries o Using benthic macroinvertebrates to identify causes of fish kills in the Shenandoah River (2006 and 2007) https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/Shenandoah-MacroInvert-Final-Report-VT-2008.pdf “The overall purpose of these studies was to determine what the macroinvertebrate assemblage indicated about the biological condition of the Shenandoah River watershed in relation to the fish kills that have been occurring since 2004.” Maryland - Department of the Environment o Biological Stressor Identification Studies http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/water/TMDL/Pages/bsid_studies.aspx - Department of Natural Resources o Maryland Biological Stream Survey’s Sentinel Site Network: A Multi-purpose Monitoring Program http://dnr.maryland.gov/streams/Publications/2010SentinelSiteReport.pdf “The major goal of this report is to describe the temporal variability in conditions at 27 SSN streams based on 10 years of annual sampling, 2000 through 2009. The secondary goal of this report is to present biological indicators as parts in a tool box of assessment parameters that could be used to track climate change effects on Maryland’s non-tidal streams, and to conduct exploratory analyses of SSN data from the 10-year baseline of stream conditions against which future climate influences can be assessed.” o A Multi-Year Update (2011 – 2014) to Maryland Biological Stream Survey’s Sentinel Site Network http://dnr.maryland.gov/streams/Publications/2014SentinelSiteReportWEB.pdf “The major goal of this report is to describe the temporal variability in conditions at 29 SSN streams based on 15 years of annual sampling, 2000 through 2014. The secondary goals of this report are to present biological indicators as assessment parameters that could be used to track climate change effects on Maryland’s non-tidal streams, and to conduct exploratory analyses of SSN data from the 15-year baseline of stream conditions against which future climate influences can be assessed.” o Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) Round 3 (2007-2009) Population Estimates http://dnr.maryland.gov/streams/Publications/MBSSR3FishPopEst.pdf “While the MBSS monitors Maryland streams every year in support of multiple objectives, each statewide round of sampling focuses on random sites that provide probability-based estimates of conditions and resources with known confidence.” o New Biological Indicators To Better Assess The Condition Of Maryland Streams; Volume 16 (2005) http://dnr.maryland.gov/streams/Publications/ea-05-13_new_ibi.pdf

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 117

“New fish IBIs were developed for four geographical and stream type strata: the Coastal Plain, Eastern Piedmont, warmwater Highlands, and coldwater Highlands streams; new benthic macroinvertebrate IBIs were developed for three geographical strata: the Coastal Plain, Eastern Piedmont, and Highlands streams. The addition of one new fish IBI and one new benthic macroinvertebrate IBI reduced the natural variability of these assemblages in each stratum.” o Do Road Salts Cause Environmental Impacts? http://dnr.maryland.gov/streams/Publications/RoadSalt2013.pdf “Hundreds of reports and scientific papers have examined potential environmental problems associated with the use of salt to de-ice roads…This document is a brief review and summary of some of that literature. Our document also describes results from the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) data that are relevant to this topic.”

West Virginia - Department of Environmental Protection o Ecological Assessments http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Pages/EcologicalAssessments.aspx “The West Virginia DEP assesses three major aspects of watershed health when it performs an ecological assessment; water quality, habitat condition, and benthic macroinvertebrate community status.” o Biological Monitoring http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/bio_fish/Pages/Bio_Fish.aspx o Ecological Assessments (old) o http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wtr_reports . An Ecological Assessment of the Potomac River Direct Drains Watershed http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/EcologicalAssessments/EcoAss ess_PotDD_2005.pdf “Water quality, benthic macroinvertebrate community health, and habitat condition were evaluated at 67 sites.” . An Ecological Assessment of the West Virginia Portions of the Shenandoah River Watershed – 1996 . http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/EcologicalAssessments/EcoAss ess_Shenand_1996.pdf . An Ecological Assessment of the South Branch of the Potomac River Watershed http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/wqmonitoring/Documents/EcologicalAssessments/EcoAss ess_SoBrPot_1996.pdf “To evaluate the health of the South Branch of the Potomac River Watershed, assessment teams visited 115 sites, most of which were on tributaries near their mouths, during August and September 1996. The assessment teams recorded qualitative observations of human impacts and land uses, streamside and instream habitat conditions, and obvious indicators of water quality.” - Department of Natural Resources o Assessing the Exposure of Microcystin Cyanotoxin to Smallmouth Bass via Diet Items in the South Branch of the Potomac River (presentation slides and recording) http://sd.fisheries.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Fish_Health_Keplinger.mp4

Local Agencies Montgomery County, MD Planning o Habitat Assessment Monitoring Plan: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/water/streams/monitoring.html Data Requests: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/water/streams/data.html o Stream Conditions Index https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/water/streams/watershed-health.html

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 118

“The Stream Conditions Index measures the aquatic biological community and ranks the stream according to four categories (like a report card).”

Universities George Mason University o Long-term study of Gunston Cove https://cos.gmu.edu/perec/our-research/gunston-cove-study/ “The rapid development of Fairfax county led to concerns about the effect of urban runoff, coming from the Accotink and Pohick watershed. Futhermore, there was concern about the effects of the run off from the Potomac Wastewater Treatment Plant.” o Watershed Publications https://cos.gmu.edu/perec/our-research/watershed-research/ . Stream condition in Piedmont streams with restored riparian buffers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed Orzetti, L.L., R.C. Jones, and R.F. Murphy. 2010. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 46: 473-485. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00414.x/abstract

Non-Profits Potomac Conservancy o Growing Native program https://potomac.org/growing-native/ Mid-Atlantic Invasive Plant Council http://www.maipc.org “The council coordinates regional efforts to gather and share information on the identification, management and prevention of invasive species, provide training and volunteer opportunities and to identify research needs.” Mid-Atlantic Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species http://www.midatlanticpanel.org “We help state, federal, and local agencies, non-profits, and private landowners in the Mid-Atlantic states tackle aquatic invasive species (AIS) issues by: identifying and prioritizing regional issues, coordinating local AIS programs, and assisting the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force in coordinating federal programs that promote effective methods of preventing and managing AIS introductions.” Potomac Highlands Cooperative Weed and Pest Management Area http://www.phcwpma.org “The Potomac Highlands Cooperative Weed and Pest Management Area (CWPMA) is a partnership between federal, state, and local agencies, community associations, non-profit organizations, and private land owners aimed at coordinating efforts and programs for addressing the threat of invasive species.” TNC o Taking on Maryland’s Invasive Species https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/maryland_dc/explore/marylan d-invasive-species-taking-on-the-invaders-of-maryland.xml “The Nature Conservancy actively works to prevent the spread of invasive plants on our preserves in Maryland through restoration and removal.” Ducks Unlimited o Potomac Watershed Targeting Tool

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 119

http://glaro.ducks.org/ “Recognizing that certain projects in particular regions would benefit the resource the greatest, Ducks Unlimited initiated a "Watershed Targeting System" to help guide habitat delivery so that individual projects provide the biggest bang for the "duck." Available conservation dollars are limited; therefore, it is important that habitat delivery is improving local habitat on a landscape scale.” Potomac Watershed Partnership http://www.potomacpartnership.org “The Potomac Watershed Partnership integrates forestry program efforts to focus on the targeted watersheds in Maryland, the Monocacy, Antietam, and Catoctin drainages. Stewardship, fire, and urban programs are coordinated to improve watershed condition, and additional resources are available to encourage greater implementation and technical assistance for watershed-friendly practices.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 120

WATER-ENERGY NEXUS

Federal Agencies EPA o Water-Energy Nexus in Disasters, webinar series https://securitynotes.asdwa.org/2014/03/18/water-and-energy-nexus-in-disasters-webinar-series-2/ o USEPA hosted a meeting with WMA water utilities in 2015 to discuss energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources. o AWWA summary of meeting between utilities and USEPA http://www.awwa.org/portals/0/files/legreg/documents/2015_01_energyefficiencyevent.pdf . Fairfax Water presentation: summarizes energy management plan, use, costs, potential savings, solar projects . WSSC presentation: energy efficiency and renewable energy . Upper Occoquan Service Authority: energy use reduction . Maryland Energy Administration: organization’s goals (reduce consumption, increase use of renewables, reduce costs, etc), benefits of combined heat and power projects . DC Water: Blue Plains resource recovery program, carbon footprint, consumption, solar projects

State Agencies Virginia - Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy o Virginia Energy Plan (2014) https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/de/2014_VirginiaEnergyPlan2.shtml “The 2014 Virginia Energy Plan has been constructed to provide a comprehensive view of where Virginia has been and currently is in terms of its energy assets, and it charts a path forward for energy policy in the Commonwealth.” o Energy in the New Virginia Economy, Update to the 2014 Virginia Energy Plan (2016) https://www.dmme.virginia.gov/de/2014_VirginiaEnergyPlan2.shtml - Department of Environmental Quality o Renewable Energy http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/RenewableEnergy.aspx “DEQ has developed regulations for the construction and operation of renewable energy projects of 100 megawatts and less.” o Renewable energy projects (map) https://drive.google.com/open?id=1XZyl-JGFb2B9uAbuXCXfxUrb31k&usp=sharing o State Water Plan (2015) http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterSupplyPlanning/StateW aterResourcesPlan.aspx Includes data on water use by power sector o Annual Water Resources Report http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSupplyWaterQuantity/WaterSupplyPlanning/Annua lWaterWithdrawalReporting.aspx Details water use including for power generation Maryland - Department of Natural Resources o Power Plant Research Program . A Bibliography of the Maryland Power Plant Research Program http://pprp.info/bibliography/tocbiblio.htm “This bibliography is a compilation of over 700 reports of electric power related studies conducted by the Power Plant Research Program since 1971.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 121

. Power Plant Cumulative Environmental Impact Report http://www.pprp.info/ceir18/HTML/Report-18-Chapter-1.html “The intent of the CEIR is to assemble and summarize information regarding the impacts of electric power generation and transmission on Maryland's natural resources, cultural foundation, and economic situation.” . Electricity in Maryland - Fact Book 2014 http://esm.versar.com/pprp/factbook/factbook.htm “It is intended to provide current information on power generation in the State, for the use of State agencies, industrial and residential electricity consumers, and the interested public.” . SmartDG+: A Screening Tool for 1-10 MW Distributed Generation and Renewable Energy Projects http://pprp.info/SmartDG/Index.htm “It is intended to help developers and officials identify promising areas for the location of new wind, solar, and CHP (combined heat and power) projects in Maryland.” . Power Plant Locations In and Around Maryland (map) http://pprp.info/powerplants/powerplantinformation.htm - Department of the Environment o Marcellus Shale Issue Papers http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Land/mining/marcellus/Documents/Issue_Papers_Combined.pdf “The issue papers describe the Department’s current thinking with respect to key issues from the 2015 proposal. Each issue paper includes an overview of the requirements included in the 2015 proposal and the Department’s tentative suggestions for revising those requirements.” o Proposed Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulations (2016) http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/LAND/mining/marcellus/Documents/261901_Proposed_111416.pdf o Marcellus Shale Safe Drilling Initiative http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Land/mining/marcellus/Pages/initiative.aspx “This initiative will assist State policymakers and regulators in determining whether and how gas production from the Marcellus shale in Maryland can be accomplished without unacceptable risks of adverse impacts to public health, safety, the environment and natural resources. The Order requires the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), in consultation with an advisory commission made up of a broad array of stakeholders, to undertake a study of drilling for natural gas from the Marcellus Shale in Western Maryland.” Pennsylvania - Department of Environmental Protection o Oil and Gas Reports http://www.dep.pa.gov/DataandTools/Reports/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Reports/Pages/default.aspx “The report links on this page provide oil and gas production information, permits issued, drilling commence date (SPUD date), county data, operator specific data, as well as inspections, violations and enforcement actions.” o Marcellus Shale development permit applications http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Energy/OilandGasPrograms/OilandGasMgmt/Oil-and-Gas-Related- Topics/Pages/Water.aspx o Oil and Gas Surface Regulations (2016) http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Energy/OilandGasPrograms/OilandGasMgmt/Public- Resources/Pages/Oil-and-Gas-Surface-Regulations.aspx West Virginia - Office of Energy o Energy Plan 2018-2022 http://www.wvcommerce.org/energy/energyplan/energy-plan-document.aspx

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 122

“The State of West Virginia's 2018-2022 State Energy Plan will provide analysis and make policy recommendations to guide the state in reliably meeting its future energy needs in a cost-effective and sustainable manner while fostering an innovative clean energy economy.”

Regional Agencies WV Planning and Development Councils o Region VIII . Draft FY 2017 Regional Development Plan Update http://www.regioneight.org/documents/2017Update-Draft.pdf o Region IX . Eastern Panhandle Natural Gas Expansion Study https://www.dropbox.com/s/o31cbb7wwfrpywl/Feasibility%20Study.pdf?dl=0

Universities University of Maryland - Water Resources Research Center . Water and Energy in Maryland 2010 Symposium http://blog.umd.edu/mwrrc/maryland-water-symposium/water-and-energy-in-maryland-2010/  Presentation: Hal Cardwell, IWR http://blog.umd.edu/mwrrc/files/2016/10/CardwellH_WaterEnergyNexusWhyCare-10k5xz4.pdf  Presentation: Peter Dunbar, MD DNR Power Plant Research http://blog.umd.edu/mwrrc/files/2016/10/DunbarP_WaterAndElectricity-1cesa5l.pdf - Appalachian Research Initiative for Environmental Science o Predicting release and aquatic effects of total dissolved solids from Appalachian USA coal mines Daniels, W., Zipper, C., and Orndorff, Z. Int J Coal Sci Technol (2014) 1(2):152–162 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-014-0031-4 “Appalachian USA coal mines have been implicated as major stressors to aquatic life in headwater streams via discharge of total dissolved solids (TDS). This paper summarizes column leaching studies of spoils (n > 50) and refuse and TDS effects on local water quality and biotic response.” o Long-Term Trends of Specific Conductance in Waters Discharged by Coal-Mine Valley Fills in Central Appalachia, USA Evans, D., Zipper, C., Donovan, P., and Daniels, W. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). 50(6):1449-1460, December 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264772998_Long- Term_Trends_of_Specific_Conductance_in_Waters_Discharged_by_Coal- Mine_Valley_Fills_in_Central_Appalachia_USA “Coal surface mining causes release of dissolved sulfate, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and other ions to surface waters in central Appalachia, USA, through practices that include mine rock disposal in valley fills (VFs).” o Scenario analysis predicts context-dependent stream response to land use change in a heavily mined central Appalachian watershed Merriam, E., Petty, J.T., Strager, M.P., Maxwell, A.E., and Ziemkiewicz, P. Freshwater Science 32:12-46- 1259. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1899/13-003.1 “Scenario analysis has the potential to improve management of aquatic systems throughout the Mountaintop Removal–Valley Fill mining (MTR–VF) region of central Appalachia.” o Ecological Function of Constructed Perennial Stream Channels on Reclaimed Surface Coal Mines

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 123

Petty, T., Gingerich G., Anderson, J. and Ziemkiewicz, P Hydrobiologia 720:39-51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10750-013-1619-1 “We compared the ecological functions of five reference stream channels to five constructed channels (age ranging from 3 to 20 years) on reclaimed mines in southern West Virginia. Variables included stream flow, habitat, water chemistry, riparian vegetation, organic matter (OM) processing, and invertebrate and amphibian communities.”

Non-Profits Piedmont Environmental Council o Energy Matters https://www.pecva.org/our-mission/energy-solutions “PEC works toward energy solutions that emphasize efficiency first, use appropriate technologies for the 21st Century and respect the scenic and historic character of the Piedmont. “ West Virginia Rivers Coalition o Citizen's Guide to Fracking Permits in WV http://downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/citizens-guide-to-fracking.pdf “This guide describes five permits required by the State of West Virginia and explains opportunities for citizens to get involved during the permitting process.” The Nature Conservancy - VA Chapter . Natural Gas Pipeline Proposals in Virginia https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/virginia/P ages/Natural_Gas_Pipeline_Proposals_VA.aspx“The Nature Conservancy is deeply engaged in efforts to avoid and minimize the impacts that natural gas pipeline construction could have on the forests and rivers of the Central Appalachian Mountains, tidewater Virginia, the Albemarle Sound and the coastal plain of North Carolina. Each of these regions harbor globally significant natural resources that are longstanding conservation priorities for the Conservancy.” . Our approach to natural gas pipeline proposals in Virginia http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/virginia/how-we-work/virginia- pipeline-q-and-a.xml - WV Chapter  Energy development . “funding and developing threat assessments, including predictive mapping of habitat impacts from wind energy, natural gas and coal . advising decisions makers, with an emphasis on national forest managers to inform energy development decisions on public lands . working with industry to develop practices that can reduce impacts from energy development” http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/westvirginia/howwework/inde x.htm - PA Chapter . Pennsylvania Energy Impacts Assessment (no year) http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/pennsylvania/pa-energy- executive-summary.pdf “Assessment Goal: Develop credible energy development projections and assess how they might affect high priority conservation areas across Pennsylvania. Marcellus natural gas, wind, wood biomass, and associated electric and gas transmission lines were chosen as the focus since these energy types have the most potential to cause land-use change in the state over the next two decades. The conservation impacts focus is on forest, freshwater, and rare species habitats. The assessment does not address other potential environmental impacts, including water withdrawal, water quality, air quality and migratory pathways for

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 124

birds and bats. The assessment also does not address a range of other social, economic, and climate characteristics of these energy types.” . Report 1: Marcellus Shale Natural Gas and Wind (2010) http://www.nature.org/media/pa/pa_energy_assessment_report.pdf . Report 2 excerpt: Natural Gas Pipelines (2011) http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/pennsylvania/ng- pipelines.pdf - Central Appalachians Program . Assessing Future Energy Development across the Appalachians applcc.org/plan-design/gis-planning/gis-tools-resources/assessing-future-energy-development- 1/assessing-future-energy-development “The Nature Conservancy - with support from the Appalachian LCC - has completed a study to assist policy makers, land management agencies, and industry in assessing potential future energy development and how that may overlap with biological and ecological values.” . Assessing Future Energy Development across the Appalachian Landscape Conservation Cooperative http://applcc.org/plan-design/gis-planning/gis-tools-resources/assessing-future-energy-development- 1/assessing-future-energy-development-across-the-appalachian-lcc/view “The research combined multiple layers of data on energy development trends and important natural resource and ecosystem services to give a comprehensive picture of what future energy development could look like in the Appalachians. It also shows where likely energy development areas will intersect with other significant values like intact forests, important streams, and vital ecological services such as drinking water supplies.” . Reducing Ecological Impacts of Shale Development: Recommended Practices for the Appalachians (infographic) http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/centralappalachians/explore/shale- development-practices-in-central-appalachians.xml . Landscape Environmental Energy Planning http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/areas/centralappalachians/leep- summary.pdf “LEEP (Landscape Environmental Energy Planning): A GIS-based tool that goes beyond constraints mapping to generate and evaluate infrastructure layouts in terms of environmental impacts and development costs”

Consulting Firms Downstream Strategies o Prospects for Large-scale Solar on Degraded Land in West Virginia (2017) http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/utility-scale-solar-report_2-21- 17.pdf “As solar markets have exploded and the new low-carbon economy has improved its footing, West Virginia’s economy has crumbled. West Virginia’s miners and the once-prosperous companies that employ them have fallen on hard times. West Virginia’s small towns and rural communities are dotted with degraded lands, including former mines, hazardous waste sites, landfills, Superfund sites, and Brownfield sites. This report examines the opportunities for large-scale solar development on these sites. The authors explore the environmental and economic impacts of this type of development in the Mountain State.” o Expanding Economic Opportunities for West Virginia under the Clean Power Plan (2016) http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/expanding-econ-opps-clean-power- plan_final_7-21-16.pdf “This analysis presents two compliance scenarios and policy recommendations that illustrate how an “all-of- the-above” energy strategy would help West Virginia comply with the Clean Power Plan while advancing economic development goals through an expanded energy economy.”

Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography by Challenge Area 125

o Water Resource Reporting and Water Footprint from Marcellus Shale Development in West Virginia and Pennsylvania (2013) http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/marcellus_wv_pa.pdf “In recent years, West Virginia and Pennsylvania have improved their regulation and oversight of water use and pollution from Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction. Both states now require recordkeeping and public reporting of key water quality and quantity information. In this report, we use these databases to document water withdrawals, fluid injections, and waste recovery and disposal, including the transport of waste to neighboring states.” o A Windfall for Coal Country? Exploring the Barriers to Wind Development in Appalachia (2012) http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/documents/reports_publication/DS_wind-technical-report-final.pdf “This report identifies barriers to wind development in Appalachia and suggests methods for overcoming these barriers.”

Utilities WSSC o Energy Service Evaluations for W/WW Facilities http://www.jmt.com/project-portfolio/energy-service-evaluations-for-www-facilities/ “The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) owns and operates numerous water treatment and distribution facilities throughout the DC Metro area. WSSC enlisted an Energy Service Company (ESCO) to develop and energy conservation program to improve energy efficiency in their facilities.” DC Water o Bailey Bioenergy Facility https://www.dcwater.com/bailey-bioenergy-facility “It efficiently produces clean, green renewable power by "pressure cooking" the solids left over at the end of the wastewater treatment process.” o Driving Net-Zero at DC Water https://www.cdmsmith.com/en/Client%20Solutions/Projects/DC%20Water%20Driving%20Net-Zero “Looking to lower operating costs, reduce its carbon footprint and improve energy efficiency, DC Water implemented a series of innovative projects, including thermal hydrolysis technology.”

Appendix C. List of Reviewed Plans 126

APPENDIX C. LIST OF REVIEWED PLANS

Fifty-five plans were reviewed to develop the preliminary list of water resources challenges in the Potomac basin (Table B-1).

Table B-1. List of state, region, county, and local plans reviewed during the development of the basin-wide comprehensive water resources plan.

Coverage Plan Pennsylvania State Virginia West Virginia Carroll County, Hampsted, Manchester, Mt. Airy, New Windsor, Sykesville, Union Bridge, and Westminster, MD SE Adams County, Germany and Union Townships, Littlestown Borough, PA Region NW Adams County, PA Mt. Pleasant Township and Bonneauville Borough, PA Fulton County, PA, 8 Townships, and 1 Borough Region 8 Planning and Development Council, WV Allegany County MD Charles County, MD Frederick County, MD Garrett County, MD Montgomery County, MD Prince Georges County, MD St. Mary's County, MD Washington County, MD Somerset County, PA County Franklin County, PA City of Winchester, VA Clarke County VA Frederick County, VA Loudoun County, VA Warren County VA Shenandoah County VA Prince William County, VA Arlington County, VA Fairfax County, VA

Appendix C. List of Reviewed Plans 127

Coverage Plan Fauquier County, VA King George County, VA Westmoreland County, VA Northumberland County, VA Page County, VA Stafford County, VA Rockingham County, VA Augusta County, VA Highland County, VA Berkeley County. WV Jefferson County, WV Morgan County, WV Hampshire County, WV Hardy County, WV Grant County, WV Pendleton County, WV Cumberland Township, PA Hamiltonban Township, PA City of Harrisonburg, VA City of Alexandria, VA City of Falls Church, VA Local City of Manassas, VA City of Manassas Park, VA City of Staunton, VA City of Fairfax, VA City of Waynesboro, VA Washington, DC

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 128

APPENDIX D. FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE AND INPUT

This appendix was prepared by the USACE Baltimore District for this Comprehensive Plan. See Authority and Study Process sections below for further explanation.

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to build on existing state and local planning efforts to identify surface water and groundwater resources issues of interstate and/or basin‐wide significance and develop associated management recommendations. The basin‐wide plan aids in statewide planning by providing additional information for decision‐making (e.g. activities upstream of the jurisdiction and anticipated effects of jurisdictional activities downstream) and may facilitate achievement of common goals including protection of water supplies, drinking water sources, water quality, and ecological resources. In general, the plan is expected to include background information about the basin and the planning.

STUDY AREA

The Potomac River basin stretches across parts of four states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia) as well as the District of Columbia. The nearly 15,000 square mile watershed is the fourth largest river along the Atlantic Coast. The land of the Potomac basin varies across five geological provinces with diverse ecosystems that support more than six million residents. A basin wide Comprehensive Plan is being pursued to focus on sustainable water resources management to protect and enhance public health, the environment, all sectors of the economy and quality of life.

AUTHORITY

This summary report was produced as part of Fiscal Year 2017 Planning Assistance to States (PAS) program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Baltimore District, Planning Division. PAS projects are authorized by Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for assistance in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and related resources. The program can encompass many types of studies dealing with water resources issues including water supply/demand, water conservation, water quality, environmental/conservation, wetlands evaluation/restoration, dam safety, flood damage reduction, coastal zone protection and harbor planning. Efforts under this program are cost shared on a 50% federal – 50% non-federal basis. The sponsor has the option to contribute via kind or in-kind. In this case, the study sponsor provided 50% in-kind for its share of the study cost.

STUDY PROCESS

The ICPRB has a congressional mandate to consider water resources on a watershed basis, rather than along political boundaries. In support of this mandate, the ICPRB is developing a voluntary, basin-wide, Comprehensive Water Resources Plan. The Plan builds on existing planning efforts to identify water resources issues of interstate and/or basin-wide significance and develop associated management recommendations. The Plan's four topic areas are provided below along with their associated long-term goals.

A. Ensure sustainable water uses and supplies: The diverse users of the basin’s water resources have clean, reliable, and resilient water resources for current and future generations.

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 129

B. Protect and improve water quality: The waters of the basin achieve or exceed water quality standards established under the Clean Water Act. New and emerging threats are proactively addressed. C. Protect ecological health: The propagation and growth of balanced, desirable populations of aquatic life is ensured. D. Manage human land use for sustainability: Human land use in the basin supports sustainable water resource management. (source: input form)

As the Federal chair on the ICPRB commission, and as part of this project, USACE is responsible for coordination and input from federal agencies to the Plan. USACE sent letters request water resources related information to the following agencies:  Dept of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service  Dept of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service  Dept of Commerce, NOAA  Dept of Defense, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  Environmental Protection Agency – Headquarters and Region III  Dept of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency Region III  Dept of Interior, Bureau of Land Management  Dept of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service  Dept of Interior, National Park Service  Dept of Interior, U.S. Geologic Survey

Based on the feedback received from the federal agencies, the following sections provide a summary of the restoration and protection actions implemented throughout the Potomac River basin. The input provided does not represent the full list of federal agencies working throughout the basin.

TABLE OF RESULTS

U.S. FOREST SERVICE RESPONDENTS CONTACT INFORMATION: Name: Sally Claggett Title: Program Coordinator Organization: U.S. Forest Service Department: State and Private Forestry Address: 410 Severn Ave, Ste 209 City, State, Zip: Annapolis, MD 21403

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 130

A. Ensure sustainable water uses and supplies

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year)

Conduct analysis of relative importance of Original 2011 Forests to Faucets forests to drinking water and the risk to National forests/drinking water Update 2018

B. Protect and improve water quality

The Forest Service (USFS) works with state and local partners to reduce nonpoint source pollution by 1) promoting forest restoration and conservation, 2) promoting the consideration of trees in zoning and ordinances, and 3) improving habitat for fisheries.

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year) Promote riparian forest buffer conservation and restoration, forest conservation, and Chesapeake forestry urban tree canopy expansion to improve Chesapeake na initiatives water quality watershed --Management Strategies for each of these initiatives Monongehela and George Washington Potomac National Forests National forests protect and manage forests na headwaters for water quality

USFS program to help states protect priority Forest Legacy National na parcels

Urban and Promote tree canopy expansion through National na Community Forestry partnerships

C. Protect ecological health

The USFS restores and protects priority forests, as well as promotes native species and reducing invasive species.

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year)

Restore and protect aquatic habitat primarily National Fisheries programs na on National Forests Forests

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 131

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year)

On all forests, promote native forest species Forest Health National na and initiate pest eradication campaigns

Promote riparian forest buffer conservation and restoration, forest conservation, and Chesapeake Bay urban tree canopy expansion to improve Chesapeake na initiatives water quality watershed --Management Strategies for each of these initiatives USFS Research Research branch of USFS works on some Baltimore Field public health issues in the city that is National na Station applicable across the country Regional Grant program to encourage restoration or competitive Landscape Scale na conservation of forests for public good grant Restoration Grants program

D. Manage human land use for sustainability

The USFS works through the Chesapeake Forestry program, promoting planning, creation, and protection of riparian buffers, as well as other interconnected green infrastructure elements throughout the basin. The USFS also promotes best practices in forestry.

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) Year) Chesapeake Bay Promote riparian forest buffer conservation Chesapeake initiative for Riparian and restoration na Forest Buffers watershed --Management Strategies for RFB (USFS lead)

Promotes best practices on private forest land, National na Forest Stewardship includes tree planting on ag land Program

Promote urban tree canopy expansion and GI National and Urban and Chesapeake na Community Forestry --Management Strategies for UTC (USFS lead) watershed Program Regional Grant program to encourage restoration or competitive Landscape Scale na Restoration Grants conservation of forests grant program

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 132

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE A. Ensure sustainable water uses and supplies

Timeframe Projects -Programs Description Location (County, State) (Year) Washington, MD Frederick, MD Prince George’s, MD National Capital Washington, DC Region Network Jefferson, WV Monthly monitoring ongoing (NCRN) Water Loudoun, VA Quantity Monitoring Arlington, VA Alexandria, VA Fairfax, VA Prince William, VA Appalachian Highland Network (APHN) Monthly monitoring Various, VA Ongoing Water Quantity Monitoring Mid-Atlantic Network (MIDN) Water Monthly monitoring Adams County, PA; VA Ongoing Quantity Monitoring Allegany, Washington, Montgomery, Frederick, Prince George’s Counties, MD; Loudoun, NCRN Air & Climate Fairfax, Arlington, Annual precipitation reporting Ongoing Monitoring Alexandria, Prince William, Stafford Counties, VA; Washington, DC; Jefferson County, WV

MIDN Weather & Annual precipitation reporting Adams, PA; Various, VA Ongoing Climate Monitoring

APHN Weather & Annual precipitation reporting Various, VA Ongoing Climate Monitoring

Washington, Frederick, and Prince George’s , MD; Washington, DC; Water conservation Monthly monitoring Jefferson, WV; Ongoing Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, and Prince William, VA Allegany, MD Groundwater-surface Washington, MD water interaction Monthly monitoring Frederick, MD Ongoing studies Jefferson, WV

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 133

Timeframe Projects -Programs Description Location (County, State) (Year) Loudoun, VA

Washington, Frederick, and Prince George’s, MD; Water infiltration Washington, DC; Monthly monitoring Ongoing BMPs Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Prince William, and Westmoreland, VA State of the Parks Reports, Natural Resource Condition Assessments , and Resource Stewardship Park Planning Strategies summarize the Parks in watershed Ongoing Documents monitoring data and translate it into management plans for the parks in the watershed

B. Protect and improve water quality

The National Park Service (NPS) has many initiatives already ongoing in the Potomac River basin, which align with this topic area.

Location (County, Timeframe Projects -Programs Description State) (Year) Washington, Frederick, and Prince George’s, MD; Washington, DC; NCRN Water Quality Monthly monitoring Jefferson, WV; Ongoing Monitoring Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, and Prince William, VA Northeast Coastal & Monthly monitoring Barrier Network Westmoreland, VA Ongoing (NCBN) Estuarine Nutrient Monitoring MIDN Water Quality & Quantity Ongoing Adams, PA; Various, VA Monitoring

APHN Water Quality Monthly monitoring Various, VA Ongoing Monitoring

Pertinent curriculum modules Bridging the include Watershed Watchdogs, Throughout watershed Ongoing Watershed Don’t Get Sedimental, and Talkin’ Trash throughout the watershed;

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 134

Location (County, Timeframe Projects -Programs Description State) (Year) Battle to Save Water Quality at MONO; Mine over Matter at PRWI; Urban Pools at NAMA; Water Power at HAFE Washington, Frederick, and Prince George’s, Maintain native MD; Washington, DC; Monthly monitoring Ongoing grasslands Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Prince William, and Westmoreland, VA State of the Parks Reports, Natural Resource Condition Assessments , and Resource Stewardship Park Planning Strategies summarize the Throughout watershed Ongoing Documents monitoring data and translate it into management plans for the parks in the watershed

C. Protect ecological health

The NPS has many initiatives already ongoing in the Potomac River basin which align with this topic area.

Projects – Location Timeframe Description Programs (County, State) (Year) Chesapeake Large Landscape Potomac Watershed Ongoing Conservation wide Partnership Aquatic Annual Various, VA Ongoing Macroinvertebrates Monitoring Benthic Annual monitoring Adams, PA; VA Ongoing Macroinvertebrates Monitoring Annual monitoring at SHEN VA Ongoing Fish Monitoring Every 10 years Allegany, Washington, Ongoing Montgomery, Frederick,

Prince George’s Counties, MD; Loudoun, Biological Stream Fairfax, Arlington, Survey Alexandria, Prince William, Stafford Counties, VA;

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 135

Projects – Location Timeframe Description Programs (County, State) (Year) Washington, DC; Jefferson County, WV

Salt Marsh Nekton & Annually Westmoreland, VA; Ongoing Vegetation Monitoring Annually Adams, PA; Ongoing Westmoreland, VA; Forest Vegetation Charles County, MD Annually Allegany, Washington, Ongoing Montgomery, Frederick,

Prince George’s Counties, MD; Loudoun, Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince Forest Vegetation William, Stafford Counties, VA; Washington, DC; Jefferson County, WV Annually Various, VA Ongoing Exploited Plants Monitoring Coastal Every 10 years Westmoreland, VA Ongoing Geomorphology: Ocean Shoreline Position Monitoring Annually Westmoreland, VA; Ongoing Charles County, MD Marsh birds Monitoring Annually Allegany, Washington, Ongoing Montgomery, Frederick,

Prince George’s Counties, MD; Loudoun, Fairfax, Arlington, Alexandria, Prince Forest Birds William, Stafford Monitoring Counties, VA; Washington, DC; Jefferson County, WV Grassland Birds Annually Washington, Frederick Ongoing Monitoring Counties, MD; Prince William County, VA Annually Allegany, Washington, Ongoing Montgomery, Frederick,

Prince George’s

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 136

Projects – Location Timeframe Description Programs (County, State) (Year) Counties, MD; Loudoun,

Fairfax, Arlington, Amphibians Alexandria, Prince Monitoring William, Stafford Counties, VA; Washington, DC; Jefferson County, WV State of the Parks Reports, Natural Resource Condition Assessments , and Resource Stewardship Park Planning Strategies summarize the Throughout watershed Ongoing Documents monitoring data and translate it into management plans for the parks in the watershed Pertinent curriculum modules include Exotic invaders and Water Canaries throughout the watershed; Bridging the Herring Highway at ROCR; Potomac Throughout watershed Ongoing Watershed Gorge at CHOH & GWMP; and Native Plant Restoration with Prince George’s County Public Schools

Biodiversity Youth Throughout watershed Ongoing Ambassadors

D. Manage human land use for sustainability

Projects – Timeframe Description Location (County, State) Programs (Year) Every 10 years Allegany, Washington, Montgomery, Frederick,

and Prince George’s Remote Sensing & Counties, MD; Loudoun, Landscape Pattern Fairfax, Arlington, Ongoing Monitoring Alexandria, Prince William, Stafford Counties, VA; Washington, DC; Jefferson County, WV Landscape Change Every 10 years Westmoreland, VA; Monitoring Charles County, MD Ongoing

Landscape Change Every 10 years Various, VA Ongoing Monitoring

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 137

Projects – Timeframe Description Location (County, State) Programs (Year) Visitor Use Impacts Annually Westmoreland, VA; Monitoring Charles County, MD Ongoing

Washington, Frederick, and Prince George’s , MD;

Washington, DC; Jefferson, Ongoing Climate Friendly Parks WV; Alexandria, Arlington, Plans Fairfax, and Prince William, VA

Bridging the Pertinent curriculum modules include Prince George’s County, Ongoing Watershed Native Plant Restoration MD

State of the Parks Reports, Natural Resource Condition Assessments , Park Planning and Resource Stewardship Strategies Throughout watershed Ongoing Documents summarize the monitoring data and translate it into management plans for the parks in the watershed Development of an outdoor Native Meadow classroom within native meadow and Fairfax, VA Ongoing Classroom shade gardens Youth Conservation Most recent projects including Corps and Chesapeake addressing restoring Anacostia River Parks in the Watershed As funded Youth Corps Projects vegetation, Reach out to families and help them develop hiking and camping skills that Camping 101 Shenandoah Park Ongoing build a deeper appreciation for the natural world Teacher-Ranger- Across the watershed Parks in the Watershed Ongoing Teacher Program

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESPONDENTS CONTACT INFORMATION: Name: Jacqui Seiple Title: Geographer, Project Manager Organization: USACE Department: Planning Division Address: 10 S. Howard Street City, State, Zip: Baltimore, MD 21030

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 138

A. Ensure sustainable water uses and supplies

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year) Water supply for Washington Metropolitan Washington Washington Area (155 mg/d from two treatment plants in Ongoing Aqueduct D.C the District of Columbia) Own and operate for flood risk management, Jennings Randolph Garret water quality, low flow augmentation, water Ongoing Lake County, MD supply, recreation

Savage Rover Northwest Operate to maintain flow Ongoing Reservoir MD

Provide assistance, within authority, when Emergency natural disasters or other emergencies occur Ongoing Management (flooding, hurricanes, drought, etc)

B. Protect and improve water quality

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year) Providing technical assistance to states as needed, including in the area of Across the Technical Services As needed environmental infrastructure and stormwater watershed management

Marsh restoration within Potomac watershed Contract Dyke Marsh Fairfax, VA and associated water quality improvements award in 2017

Feasibility Study - Stream restoration in Prince Anacostia Watershed Anacostia and resulting downstream sediment George’s Ongoing Restoration reductions County, MD

C. Protect ecological health

Projects – Location Timeframe Description (County, Programs State) (Year) Study to identify environmental restoration Chesapeake Bay Bay Study end actions in the Bay watershed and to Comprehensive Plan watershed FY19 synchronize agency efforts

Marsh restoration within Potomac watershed Contract Dyke Marsh Fairfax, VA and associated water quality improvements award in 2017

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 139

Projects – Location Timeframe Description (County, Programs State) (Year) Feasibility Study - Aquatic ecosystem Prince Anacostia Watershed Study end restoration (stream restoration) in Anacostia George’s Restoration FY18 sub-watersheds County, MD Design, build authority - ecosystem Section 510 restoration, environmental infrastructure, As needed stormwater management

D. Manage human land use for sustainability

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) Year) Providing technical assistance to states as needed, including floodplain management Across the Technical Services services, mapping, vulnerability studies, As needed watershed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, data evaluation tools Study to investigate flooding problems in the District of Columbia metro area (North Started DC Coastal Metro DC Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study area this year warranting further analysis) Interagency flood risk management team Maryland, Silver Jackets (recently completed flood inundation mapping Ongoing Washington, D.C. for areas along the Potomac)

U.S. GEOLOGIC SURVEY RESPONDENTS CONTACT INFORMATION: Name: Scott Phillips Title: USGS Chesapeake Bay Coordinator Organization: U.S. Geological Survey Department: Address: 5522 Research Park Drive City, State, Zip: Baltimore, MD 21228

A. Ensure sustainable water uses and supplies

USGS conducts water supply, quantity and use studies in areas throughout the Potomac Watershed. Projects are carried out by the USGS MD-DC, VA-WV, and PA Water Science Centers.

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 140

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year) The goals of this program to look at water availability and use for human and ecosystem Water Availability and All states in Ongoing Use Science needs. watershed

This Program’s goals are collection, analysis, and research of streamflow and groundwater, Groundwater and as well as the development of and application All states in Streamflow Ongoing of integrating groundwater and surface-water watershed Information Program models.

Projects in MD-DC, All states in VA-WV, and PA Water Water supply, quantity and use studies. Ongoing watershed Science Centers.

B. Protect and improve water quality

The USGS Chesapeake Science Theme 2: Characterize and explain changes in water quality and its effect on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. Theme 2 has the following objectives:

 Characterize status and trends in nutrient, sediment, and streamflow  Explain water-quality changes in response to human actions  Collaborate to integrate hydrology and water quality with freshwater and estuarine ecosystem assessments

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year) The goals of the National Water Quality Program are met by monitoring and understanding the factors affecting nutrient and sediment transport in major National Water environmental settings, forecasting potential Entire Ongoing Quality Program change(s) in water-quality conditions within watershed the Bay watershed, and application of regional SPARROW models.

Groundwater and USGS Chesapeake Bay studies are further Entire Streamflow collaborating with the Federal Priority Ongoing watershed Information Program Streamgages effort by maintaining streamflow

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 141

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year) measurements at sites that are part of the Chesapeake Bay Program nontidal water- quality network.

The goals of this program are met by explain the factors affecting the conditions water Entire Environments quality—and using an adaptive management Ongoing watershed approach to inform decision making for conservation and restoration.

C. Protect ecological health

The USGS Chesapeake Science Theme 1: Provide science to support restoration and conservation of fish, wildlife, and critical habitats. Theme 1 has the following objectives:

 Enhance science to support the management of freshwater fisheries and aquatic habitats.  Characterize sources and effects of environmental stresses toxic chemicals on fish and wildlife.  Improve understanding of coastal ecosystem structure, function, and resiliency to manage water birds.

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year) The goals of this program are met by addressing the factors affecting the conditions of major aspects of the Chesapeake Bay Environments PA, VA, WV, ecosystem—fish, wildlife, habitats, and water Ongoing Program MD quality—and using an adaptive management approach to inform decision making for conservation and restoration. The Program mission is met through freshwater species research, with a focus on cold-water fisheries (brook trout as a sentinel indicator species). During 2018, there will be a significant pivot towards the study of multiple PA, VA, WV, Fisheries Ongoing fish species from the headwaters to the tidal MD freshwater zone, including analyses of occurrence and distribution, as well as the major factors, drivers, and stressors that affect fisheries, habitat, and their health.

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 142

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) (Year) The goal of the program is being addressed through study of the sources and effects of PA, VA, WV, Contaminants Biology Ongoing endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) on MD fish and wildlife in the Bay watershed The goal of the program is met through study of the occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants that are impacting fish and birds Toxic Substances PA, VA, WV, Ongoing Hydrology (in close collaboration with EDC project MD above).

D. Manage human land use for sustainability

The USGS Chesapeake Science Theme 3: Assess and forecast effects of climate and land change on ecosystem conditions. The Theme 3 has the following objectives:

 Improve the understanding of climate and land changes on streams and freshwater fisheries  Assess the effects of climate change and development on wetlands, ecosystem conditions and their resiliency  Characterize and forecast land change and provide implications for conservation

Location Timeframe Projects -Programs Description (County, State) Year) The program mission is met by research to understand and forecast the impact of human activities on the land surface, including the impact on water quality and habitat in the Bay Entire Land Change Science Ongoing watershed, and development and watershed enhancement of land-change forecasting models and decision-support tools for resource managers.

CONCLUSIONS

There is quite a bit of diversity among the federal agencies considered in this assessment. This stems from the variation in agency mission areas and agency cultures that grow up to support the mission. For example, the USFS and NPS are primarily resource management agencies charged with the management of large areas. USACE on the other hand, has significant water resources infrastructure development and operations missions. FEMA is primarily a disaster preparedness and management agency. NOAA and the USGS are primarily science agencies. EPA and the FWS have significant environmental protection and regulatory missions. It is also important to recognize that a multitude of Congressional committees and subcommittees oversee the operations and budgets of the various

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 143

agencies. As the tables above show, there are five House and three Senate committees that authorize agency programs, and three House and three Senate appropriations subcommittees that provide budget authority for the federal water agencies. (Source: federal agency assessment Jan 2010).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ICPRB

1. Continue to follow and be engaged in the Chesapeake Bay Program Phase 3 WIP process 2. Continue to follow and request assistance from USACE to clip out the Potomac watershed from the larger Chesapeake Bay Comprehensive Plan 3. Consider adopting goals, objectives, timeframes, indicators, monitoring plans/methods, data repositories, and tracking efforts into the ICPRB Comprehensive Plan to dovetail with other large scale federal and state programs. Promotes the sharing of information and collaboration

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 144

FEDERAL AGENCY MISSIONS

This section provides a description of federal stakeholders. Additional information, including summaries for federal funding directed toward the Chesapeake Bay restoration can be found at: http://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/funding

Under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resources Conservation Service funds conservation easement programs and provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and other private landowners to support the implementation of conservation practices on working lands. The U.S. Forest Service provides technical assistance and project funds to promote the establishment and retention of forests on non-Forest Service lands (through the Forest Stewardship Program), in urban areas (through the Urban and Community Forestry Program) and on conservation easements on forest land (through the Forest Legacy Program). It also provides for the management of National Forests. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Agricultural Research Service, Economic Research Service, Farm Service Agency, National Institute of Food and Agriculture and Office of the Chief Economist provide additional watershed support.

FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all hazards.

Under the U.S. Department of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funds scientific research in the fields of tidal and coastal fisheries and aquatic habitats (including oyster reefs) and syntheses and analyses to predict and describe ecosystem processes. The agency also funds the development of environmental science education programs, the delivery of advice and technical assistance to decision-makers, the maintenance of the Chesapeake Bay Interpretive Buoy System (CBIBS) and the preparation of coastal communities in protecting natural and manmade infrastructure.

The U.S. Department of Defense funds regional operations and maintenance that support the prevention of stormwater runoff, upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, water quality monitoring, land conservation, natural resources planning and management, and environmental outreach and stewardship. Under the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers supports small- and large-scale studies and design and construction projects that benefit habitats and fisheries.

The Corps largest mission on the Potomac River began with construction of Jennings Randolph Lake (formerly Bloomington Reservoir) in 1971. This was the last major dam completed by the Baltimore District and provides flood protection, water supply, water quality control and recreational access. Additional flood control projects have been established in Lock Haven, the Wyoming Valley, and Scranton PA, Moorefield, WV, and Petersburg, WV. Source: A History of the Baltimore District

More than two-thirds of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funds are directed toward state governments, local governments and other partners to help them meet the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Additional funding from the agency supports the operation of the Chesapeake Bay Program office; the coordination of data collection and scientific research, monitoring and modeling; reporting on the quality of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem; and outreach to enhance environmental stewardship.

While the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation do support restoration in the watershed, their activities did not meet the definitional limits of this crosscut and were not reported. More information about

Appendix D. Federal Perspective and Input 145

federal funding to support restoration in the watershed can be found in the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Spending Crosscut.

Under the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Geological Survey funds the generation of scientific information about fish, wildlife and their relation to water quality, habitat and land conditions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funds strategic conservation to connect people with nature and create sustainable watershed capable of supporting fish, wildlife and plants. The National Park Service funds the protection of habitat, the creation of public access and the promotion of tourism.

The USACE Federal Agency Assessment Report (2010) focuses on how the federal governmental programs and resources can support states, tribes, non-governmental organization and other regional water resource entities with integrated water resources management. The report identified 117 water resources programs among 12 federal water agencies. Each of the programs provides water resources (e.g. planning, funding, technical assistance, engineering design and construction) toward the attainment of water resources objectives (e.g. assuring adequate water supplies, achieving water quality standards, managing flood hazards, balancing competing water demands, etc.). In addition, agencies develop and maintain a wide range of analytic methods, models, and databases to carry out their missions and execute their program responsibilities. (page 14 Federal Agency Assessment)

The Federal Support Toolbox for integrated water resources management serves as a hub of information about authorities, programs, policies, methods, best practices, lessons learned, collaborations, and data to support IWRM.

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 50 West Gude Drive, Suite 450 Rockville, Maryland 20850 https://www.potomacriver.org