DOCSLIB.ORG

2018 Countywide Watershed Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2018 Countywide Watershed Assessment Prince George’s County Countywide Watershed Assessment for MS4 Permit (2014-2019) December 21, 2018 Prepared For Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared By Tetra Tech 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 Cover Photo Credits 1. Prince George’s County DoE 2. Prince George’s County DoE 3. Clean Water Partnership 4. M-NCPPC_Cassi Hayden Prince George’s County Countywide Watershed Assessment for MS4 Permit (2014–2019) Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................. iv 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Prince George’s County Impaired Waters .................................................................................... 4 1.1.1 Impaired Water Bodies ....................................................................................................... 4 1.1.2 Causes of Water Body Impairment ..................................................................................... 6 1.2 Prince George’s County Restoration Plans .................................................................................. 8 2 Current Water Quality Conditions .................................................................................... 10 2.1 Biological Assessment ................................................................................................................ 10 2.1.1 Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................. 10 2.1.2 Biological Assessment Results ......................................................................................... 11 2.2 Water Quality Monitoring Data .................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Trend Analysis .................................................................................................................. 14 2.2.2 Data Gaps ......................................................................................................................... 19 3 Visual Watershed Inspection ............................................................................................ 22 3.1 Stream Corridor Assessments .................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Photographic Trash Assessment ................................................................................................ 24 3.2.1 Trash Rating Protocol ....................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Results of Trash Assessment ........................................................................................... 25 3.3 IDDE Program Results ............................................................................................................... 29 4 Identifying and Ranking Water Quality Issues ................................................................ 34 4.1 Identifying Water Quality Issues (or Problems) .......................................................................... 34 4.2 Ranking Priorities ........................................................................................................................ 36 5 Water Quality Improvement Projects ............................................................................... 39 5.1 Watershed Restoration Practices ............................................................................................... 39 5.2 BMP Impacts on Water Quality Issues ....................................................................................... 40 5.3 BMP Site, Placement, and Design Constraints .......................................................................... 43 5.4 Identifying/Prioritizing BMPs for Each County Watershed ......................................................... 46 5.5 Prioritizing BMP Locations .......................................................................................................... 47 5.5.1 Land Ownership and Site Access ..................................................................................... 47 5.5.2 Location in the Watershed ................................................................................................ 48 5.5.3 Locations of Known Issues and Existing Treatment ......................................................... 49 6 Load Reduction Benchmarks and Deadlines .................................................................. 50 6.1 Load Reduction Benchmarks ...................................................................................................... 50 6.1.1 Chesapeake Bay TMDL .................................................................................................... 50 6.1.2 2014 Local TMDL Restoration Plans ................................................................................ 50 6.2 Current Implementation Rates and Benchmark Projections ...................................................... 51 6.3 Biological and Water Quality Responses to BMP Implementation ............................................. 53 6.3.1 Biological Results .............................................................................................................. 53 6.3.2 Water Quality Results ....................................................................................................... 56 6.4 Difficulties in Meeting Benchmarks ............................................................................................. 57 6.4.1 Required Load Reductions and Implementation ............................................................... 57 6.4.2 MDE TMDL Analysis ......................................................................................................... 58 6.4.3 Chesapeake Bay Program Evaluations ............................................................................ 59 6.4.4 2030 End Date .................................................................................................................. 59 6.4.5 Local Restoration Plan Revisions and Updates ................................................................ 60 6.5 Nonstormwater Programs to Reduce Loads .............................................................................. 60 6.5.1 County MS4 Programmatic Activities with Undetermined Load Reduction Potential ....... 60 6.5.2 Non-MS4 Technical Activities with Unknown Load Reduction Potential .......................... 62 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 64 i Prince George’s County Countywide Watershed Assessment for MS4 Permit (2014–2019) 7.1 Key Water Assessment Findings ................................................................................................ 64 7.2 Existing Water Quality Improvement Efforts ............................................................................... 64 7.3 Future Activities .......................................................................................................................... 65 8 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................. 66 Appendix A: Stream Concepts Considered in the Assessment ........................................ A-1 Appendix B: Water Quality Plots and Tables ...................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: Visual Inspection Photograph Comparisons ................................................ C-1 Appendix D: Watershed Maps for the Prioritized BMP Locations ..................................... D-1 Appendix E: Biological Degradation and BMP Implementation ........................................ E-1 Figures Figure 1-1. Locations of 8-digit watersheds in Prince George's County. ...................................................... 2 Figure 1-2. Watershed area in Prince George's County. .............................................................................. 3 Figure 2-1. Number of stream sites sampled by biological assessment round. ......................................... 11 Figure 2-2. Percent degradation per watershed by biological assessment round. ..................................... 12 Figure 2-3. Biological assessment ratings by monitoring location. ............................................................. 13 Figure 2-4. Biological assessment results (percent degraded) by major watershed. ................................. 13 Figure 2-5. Locations of water quality monitoring stations. ......................................................................... 15 Figure 2-6. Plot of TP over time in the Western Branch watershed............................................................ 16 Figure 2-7. Plot of TN over time in the Potomac River watershed.............................................................. 16 Figure 2-8. Locations without water quality monitoring stations. ................................................................ 21 Figure 3-1. Locations of SCA erosion points (with severity) and head cuts. .............................................. 23 Figure 3-2. Streams illustrating different amounts of trash and corresponding trash scores. .................... 25 Figure 3-3. Trash score distribution throughout the County. .....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Restoration Plan for the Anacostia River Watershed in Prince George’s County December 30, 2015 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. USEPA 2. Tetra Tech, Inc. 8. USEPA 3. Prince George’s County 9. Montgomery Co DEP 4. VA Tech, Center for TMDL and 10. PGC DoE Watershed Studies 11. USEPA 5. Charles County, MD Dept of 12. PGC DoE Planning and Growth Management 13. USEPA 6. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services _Tom Liptan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 3 1.1.1 What is a TMDL? ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 What is a Restoration Plan? ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Page # GENERAL INFORMATION Charles County Symbols......................................................................................................................47 Attractions.................................................................................................................................................48 Parks.............................................................................................................................................................51 Charles County Symbols Seal The Charles County seal is designed from the escutcheon of the first Lord Baltimore’s seal. The county was established in 1658. Flower The wild carrot, also called Queen Anne’s Lace, is commonly found along roads and through fields. Queen Anne’s Lace is a biennial with 1 to 3 foot stems and lacy flowers that do not blossom until their second year. Tree The Dogwood tree produces beautiful flowers each Spring. These flowers are usually small and have four or five petals. The berries that appear in the Fall are commonly eaten by birds in the winter. Bird The Great Blue Heron is the nation’s tallest bird. The bird is abundant along rivers and creeks and is a superb fisherman. Page 47 Attractions Our Past Preserved.... La Plata Train Station This historic building recalls the railroad’s impact on Charles County during the growth boom of the late 1800's. Port Tobacco Courthouse Settled in 1634, Port Tobacco was once Maryland’s second largest seaport and was listed on early World Maps. This settlement was originally the site of the Indian Village of Potopaco. Port Tobacco was the first county seat, but after the river began silting up and after a shift of occupations from tobacco farming to other trades and industry people moved to the town of La Plata where the new railroad was being built. The county seat was eventually moved to La Plata. The first Charles County Courthouse was completed in 1729, and a second one in 1819.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards
    Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards EPA Approval Date: July 11, 2018 Table of Contents Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards ............................................ 3 Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria Considered with Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Re-evaluation of Maryland’s Restoration Variances ...................................................................... 5 Other Future Water Quality Standards Work ................................................................................. 6 Water Quality Standards Amendments ........................................................................................... 8 Designated Uses ........................................................................................................................... 8 Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Antidegradation.......................................................................................................................... 24 2 Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that States review their water quality standards every three years (Triennial Review) and revise the standards as necessary. A water quality standard consists of three separate but related
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1975 Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia Carl H. Hobbs III Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gary F. Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Peter Rosen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Monitoring Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Hobbs, C. H., Anderson, G. F., Owen, D. W., & Rosen, P. (1975) Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5PB01 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report ST AFFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 13 Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 Shoreline Situation Report ST AFFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 13 Prepared by: Carl H.
    [Show full text]
  • MDE-Water Pollution
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 1 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapters 01-10 ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 2 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 01 General ......................................................................................................................................... 2 .01 Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 3 .02 Principles of Water Pollution Control....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River Basin Assessment Overview
    Sources: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality PL01 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation Potomac River Basin Virginia Geographic Information Network PL03 PL04 United States Geological Survey PL05 Winchester PL02 Monitoring Stations PL12 Clarke PL16 Ambient (120) Frederick Loudoun PL15 PL11 PL20 Ambient/Biological (60) PL19 PL14 PL23 PL08 PL21 Ambient/Fish Tissue (4) PL10 PL18 PL17 *# 495 Biological (20) Warren PL07 PL13 PL22 ¨¦§ PL09 PL24 draft; clb 060320 PL06 PL42 Falls ChurchArlington jk Citizen Monitoring (35) PL45 395 PL25 ¨¦§ 66 k ¨¦§ PL43 Other Non-Agency Monitoring (14) PL31 PL30 PL26 Alexandria PL44 PL46 WX Federal (23) PL32 Manassas Park Fairfax PL35 PL34 Manassas PL29 PL27 PL28 Fish Tissue (15) Fauquier PL47 PL33 PL41 ^ Trend (47) Rappahannock PL36 Prince William PL48 PL38 ! PL49 A VDH-BEACH (1) PL40 PL37 PL51 PL50 VPDES Dischargers PL52 PL39 @A PL53 Industrial PL55 PL56 @A Municipal Culpeper PL54 PL57 Interstate PL59 Stafford PL58 Watersheds PL63 Madison PL60 Impaired Rivers and Streams PL62 PL61 Fredericksburg PL64 Impaired Reservoirs or Estuaries King George PL65 Orange 95 ¨¦§ PL66 Spotsylvania PL67 PL74 PL69 Westmoreland PL70 « Albemarle PL68 Caroline PL71 Miles Louisa Essex 0 5 10 20 30 Richmond PL72 PL73 Northumberland Hanover King and Queen Fluvanna Goochland King William Frederick Clarke Sources: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Loudoun Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation Rappahannock River Basin
    [Show full text]
  • II. Background
    II. Background This chapter provides background information that was used as a basis for formulating the Preliminary Subregion 5 Master Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment. Section A, Planning Context and Process, describes the location of the study area, the purposes of this master plan, prior plans and initiatives, and the public process used to prepare this master plan. Section B, Existing Conditions, contains profiles of Subregion 5 including the area’s history, demographic, economic, environmental, transportation and land use information. Section C, Key Issues, summarizes the key planning issues that are addressed in this master plan. A. Planning Context and Process Master Plan Study Area Boundaries The master plan study area includes land in south and southwest Prince George’s County generally bounded by the Potomac River, Tinkers Creek, Andrews Air Force Base, Piscataway Creek, the CSX (Popes Creek) railroad line, Mattawoman Creek, and the Charles County line. The subregion is approximately 74 square miles of land, equivalent to 15 percent of the total land area of Prince George’s County (See Map II-1, page 2). Within these boundaries are established and new residential neighborhoods, medical services, schools, commercial and industrial businesses, large retail centers, a regional park, two general aviation airports, a national park, environmental education centers, sand and gravel mining operations, a golf course, agriculture, and large forested areas. (See discussion of communities in section B. 6. and in Chapter IV, Land Use—Development Pattern.) For this master plan, Subregion 5 encompasses the following three communities (See Map II-2, page 3) in Planning Areas 81A, 81B, 83, 84, and 85A1.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie, Maryland 20716
    City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie, Maryland 20716 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Alfred D. Lott, ICMA-CM, CPM City Manager SUBJECT: City Transportation Priority List for 2021-2022 DATE: July 29, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________________ I. Background Each year, the City Council conducts an overview of the State’s Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) and County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the purposes of establishing the City’s Transportation Priority Listing. The City’s priorities are communicated to State and County officials as early input to the next year’s budget cycle. A typical project in the CTP will go through four distinct stages, as noted below. Not all activities for each project may be funded at the same time. Some projects are funded for the first activity, but then left dormant for various reasons. The levels of activity, or stages, a typical project goes through are: • Project Planning, which is a two-step process. The first part of Project Planning is the delineation of a project’s limits and identification of those agencies whose participation will be necessary in the project. The second step is to determine necessary improvements which may be required for construction of a project, such as identifying various activities like right- of-way acquisition or wetlands mitigation which must be carried out, and determining such design aspects of a project as the required number of lanes or whether noise barriers will be required; • Design and Engineering, which is where the actual details of such factors as how much fill may be needed, where the various utilities will be located (i.e., underground versus overhead), etc., are determined; • Right-of-Way Acquisition, which is where SHA actually negotiates with land owners to obtain whatever land is needed to construct the project; and • Construction, which is the final activity where the road or improvement is actually constructed.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L Natural Resources Technical Report May 2020
    APPENDIX L NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2020 and NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Study Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Alternatives Evaluated .................................................................................................................. 4 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................................................9 2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Regulatory Context and Methods ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Environmental Effects ......................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]