DOCSLIB.ORG

Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan Final Plan November 2014 Prepared for: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Prepared by: KCI Technologies, Inc. 1352 Marrows Road Suite 100 Newark, DE 19711 Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan Final Plan November 2014 Prepared for: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) Prepared by: KCI Technologies, Inc. 1352 Marrows Road Suite 100 Newark, DE 19711 KCI Job Order No. 17133560 Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan 2014 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Regulatory and Programmatic Environment ................................................................................ 7 1.3 Watershed Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 8 2 Watershed Characteristics.............................................................................................. 8 2.1 Watershed Delineation and Planning Segments .......................................................................... 8 2.2 Chester and Choptank ................................................................................................................. 11 2.2.1 Chester River ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.2 Choptank River .................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Land Use ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................ 13 2.3.2 Imperviousness ................................................................................................................... 13 2.4 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 23 2.4.1 Use Designations ................................................................................................................. 23 2.4.2 303(d) Impairments ............................................................................................................ 23 2.4.3 TMDLs ................................................................................................................................. 23 2.4.4 NPDES .................................................................................................................................. 24 2.5 Anticipated Growth ..................................................................................................................... 24 3 Causes and Sources of Impairment (a) .......................................................................... 25 3.1 Nutrients ..................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2 Bacteria ....................................................................................................................................... 28 3.3 Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 29 3.3.1 Wastewater ......................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.2 Urban .................................................................................................................................. 29 3.3.3 Agriculture........................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.4 Septic ................................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.5 Forest .................................................................................................................................. 29 3.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 29 4 Expected Load Reductions (b) ....................................................................................... 29 4.1 Nutrients ..................................................................................................................................... 29 4.2 Bacteria ....................................................................................................................................... 33 5 Management Measures (c) ........................................................................................... 33 5.1 Nutrients ..................................................................................................................................... 35 5.1.1 Wastewater ......................................................................................................................... 35 5.1.2 Urban .................................................................................................................................. 35 5.1.3 Agriculture........................................................................................................................... 38 5.1.4 Septic ................................................................................................................................... 43 5.1.5 Forest .................................................................................................................................. 44 5.2 Bacteria ....................................................................................................................................... 44 i DNREC Chester River and Choptank River Watershed Management Plan 2014 5.3 Offsetting Nutrient and Sediment Loads from Future Growth .................................................. 45 5.3.1 Statewide Stormwater Regulations .................................................................................... 45 5.3.2 Establish in-lieu fee for stormwater impacts ...................................................................... 45 5.3.3 Establish a statewide program that provides additional flexibility for offsets ................... 46 5.3.4 Adaptive management ........................................................................................................ 46 5.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 46 6 Technical and Financial Assistance Needs (d) ................................................................ 47 6.1 Wastewater ................................................................................................................................. 48 6.2 Urban .......................................................................................................................................... 48 6.3 Agriculture .................................................................................................................................. 49 6.4 Septic ........................................................................................................................................... 50 6.5 Forest .......................................................................................................................................... 51 6.6 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................................... 51 7 Public Participation / Education (e) .............................................................................. 52 8 Implementation Schedule and Milestones (f & g) ......................................................... 55 8.1 Loading Allocations and Milestone Targets ................................................................................ 55 8.2 Implementation Milestones ........................................................................................................ 56 8.3 Implementation Priorities ........................................................................................................... 58 9 Load Reduction Evaluation Criteria (h) .......................................................................... 59 9.1 Watershed Plan Tracker .............................................................................................................. 60 10 Monitoring (i) .............................................................................................................. 60 11 References ................................................................................................................... 62 List of Tables Table 1: TMDLs used for Pollutant Targets for Chester River and Choptank River Watersheds .................. 6 Table 2: Chester and Choptank Watershed Drainage Area and Stream Miles ........................................... 11 Table 3: 2010 Chester and Choptank Land Use .......................................................................................... 13 Table 4: Use Designations of the Chester River and Choptank River
Load more

Recommended publications
  • News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S
    News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S. Department of the Interior Maryland-Delaware-D.C. District [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road http://md.water.usgs.gov/ Baltimore, MD 21237 Release: Contact: Phone: Fax: January 4, 2002 Wendy S. McPherson (410) 238-4255 (410) 238-4210 Below Normal Rainfall and Warm Temperatures Lead to Record Low Water Levels in December Three months of above normal temperatures and four months of below normal rainfall have led to record low monthly streamflow and ground-water levels, according to hydrologists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Baltimore, Maryland. Streamflow was below normal at 94 percent of the real-time USGS gaging stations and 83 percent of the USGS observation wells across Maryland and Delaware in December. Record low streamflow levels for December were set at Winters Run and Pocomoke River. Streamflow levels at Deer Creek and Winters Run in Harford County have frequently set new record daily lows for the last four months (see real-time graphs at http://md.water.usgs.gov/realtime/). Streamflow was also significantly below normal at Antietam Creek, Choptank River, Conococheague Creek, Nassawango Creek, Patapsco River, Gunpowder River, Patuxent River, Piscataway Creek, Monocacy River, and Potomac River in Maryland, and Christina River, St. Jones River, and White Clay Creek in Delaware. The monthly streamflow in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. was 82 percent below normal in December and 54 percent below normal for 2001. Streamflow entering the Chesapeake Bay averaged 23.7 bgd (billion gallons per day), which is 54 percent below the long-term average for December.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Study
    FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND AND INCORPORATED AREAS Cecil County Community Community Name Number ↓ CECIL COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 240019 *CECILTON, TOWN OF 240020 CHARLESTOWN, TOWN OF 240021 CHESAPEAKE CITY, TOWN OF 240099 ELKTON, TOWN OF 240022 NORTH EAST, TOWN OF 240023 PERRYVILLE, TOWN OF 240024 PORT DEPOSIT, TOWN OF 240025 RISING SUN, TOWN OF 240158 *No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified Revised: May 4, 2015 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 24015CV000B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of the FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: July 8, 2013 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: May 4, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Simulation of Streamflow and Water Quality in the Brandywine Creek Subbasin of the Christina River Basin, Pennsylvania and Delaware, 1994-98
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW AND WATER QUALITY IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK SUBBASIN OF THE CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, 1994-98 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4279 In cooperation with the DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, and the PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW AND WATER QUALITY IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK SUBBASIN OF THE CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, 1994-98 by Lisa A. Senior and Edward H. Koerkle Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4279 In cooperation with the DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, and the PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 215 Limekiln Road Box 25286, Federal Center New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-2424 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 Email: [email protected] Telephone 1-888-ASK-USGS Internet address: http://pa.water.usgs.gov ii CONTENTS Page Abstract . 1 Introduction . 2 Purpose and scope . 4 Previous studies . 5 Acknowledgments . 5 Description of study area . 5 Physical setting . 5 Climate . 5 Geology . 6 Soils. 6 Hydrology . 6 Land use. 8 Water use . 8 Description of model . 8 Data for model input and calibration . 10 Model-input data .
    [Show full text]
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Background Research
    BACKGROUND RESEARCH PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Several archaeological investigations have been completed in the project vicinity, most of them associated with the building of SR 1 (Table 1). Figures 3-7 show the locations of these studies and the known archaeological sites in the APE. Table 1: Previous Archaeological Studies in the APE DESCRIPTION REFERENCE Phase I Archaeological Survey, Routes 4, 7, 273 Thomas 1980 Archaeological Planning Survey of the SR 1 Corridor Custer and Bachman 1986 Phase I and II Archaeological Studies, Route 7 South Corridor Catts et al. 1988 Archaeological Testing and Historical Investigations of “The Place at Catts et a. 1989 Christeen” Phase I Archaeological Survey of the SR 1 Canal Section, Red Lion Hodny et al. 1989 Creek to Scott Run Phase II Archaeological Testing of the Lewden Green Site, 7NC-E-9 Custer et al. 1990 Phase I Survey of Waterline Near Route 13/72 Intersection Mellin and Baumgardt 1990 Management plan for Delaware’s historic archaeological resources De Cunzo and Catts 1990 Cultural Resource Planning Study for the proposed Route 301 Corridor, Kellogg 1992 New Castle County Phase II Archaeological Investigations, SR 1 Canal Section Kellogg et al. 1994 Paleoenvironmental Studies of the SR 1 Corridor Kellogg and Custer 1994 Phase III Archaeological Excavations of the Wrangle Hill Site (7NC-G- Custer et al. 1995 105) Phase III Archaeological Excavations of the Snapp Site (7NC-G-101) Custer and Silber 1995 Phase I and II Testing at Scott Run and the Route 13/72 Interchange, and Doms et al. 1995 Phase III Mitigation of the Woodville Grave Site Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations in the SR 1 Corridor, Scott Bedell et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Leipsic River Watershed Proposed Tmdls
    Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Leipsic River Watershed Proposed TMDLs Arden Claymont Wilmington Bellefonte Newark New Castle Delaware City Odessa Middletown Smyrna Clayton 13 Leipsic Kenton Cheswold Dupont Manor Hartly Dover Little Creek Bowers Frederica Houston Harrington Slaughter Beach Greenwood Ellendale Milton Lewes Bridgeville Rehoboth Beach Millsboro Bethel Dagsboro Bethany Beach Frankford South Bethany Selbyville Fenwick Island DNRE007 August 2006 PREFACE The draft Proposed TMDLs for the Leipsic River watershed were reviewed during a public workshop held on 11 May, 2006. All comments received at the workshop and during the May 1 through 31 comment period were considered by DNREC. This report has been updated to address public comments by Mid-Atlantic Environmental Law Center (Sections 1.1, 2.0, 4.0, 4.2, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5). i CONTENTS Section Page PREFACE...............................................................................................................................................................i CONTENTS .........................................................................................................................................................ii FIGURES..............................................................................................................................................................iii TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................iv
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of Maryland's Coastal Bays and Atlantic Ocean Finfish
    Investigation of Maryland’s Coastal Bays and Atlantic Ocean Finfish Stocks 2014 Final Report Prepared by: Linda Barker, Steve Doctor, Carrie Kennedy, Gary Tyler, Craig Weedon, and Angel Willey Federal Aid Project No. F-50-R-23 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Federal Assistance Region 5 Annual Report___X_____ Final Report (5-Year)_______ Proposal________ Grantee: Maryland Department of Natural Resources – Fisheries Service Grant No.: F-50-R Segment No.: 23 Title: Investigation of Maryland’s Coastal Bays and Atlantic Ocean Finfish Stocks Period Covered: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 Prepared By: Carrie Kennedy, Principal Investigator, Manager Coastal Program Date Approved By: Tom O’Connell, Director, Fisheries Service Date Approved By: Anissa Walker, Appointing Authority Date Date Submitted: May 30, 2015 ____________ Statutory Funding Authority: Sport Fish Restoration X CFDA #15.605 State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Cooperative Management Act CFDA #15.634 Acknowledgements The Coastal Bays Fisheries Investigation has been sampling fishes in the Coastal Bays for 42 years. Although the survey began in 1972, it did not have dedicated funding until 1989. Consistent funding allowed staff to specifically dedicate time and make improvements to the sampling protocol that resulted in significant beneficial contributions to the fisheries of the Coastal Bays. We would like to thank the past and present staff that dedicated their careers to the Coastal Bays Fisheries Investigation for having the knowledge, initiative, and dedication to get it started and maintained. Additionally, staff of the Coastal Fisheries Program would like to thank all of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Fisheries Service employees who assisted with the operations, field work, and annual reports over the years whether it was for a day or a few months.
    [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]
  • Delaware Offshore Geologic Inventory 2001 to 2008
    Executive Summary Episodic large storms and trends in long-term shoreline change continue to erode Delaware's beaches. To combat the erosion, beach nourishment is the preferred method for maintaining the Atlantic shoreline of Delaware for the purpose of protecting structures and infrastructure. State, local, and federal governments have contributed to the protection against coastal erosion. There were a number of government-sponsored beach fills between 1957 and 2005, and those amounted to emplacing 9,491,799 cubic yards at a cost of $23,960,001 (DNREC, 2005 spreadsheet). Most of the sand used for these projects came from upland sites and several areas offshore Delaware. As those sites become depleted, new sources of sand must be found. Over the past 18 years, the Delaware Geological Survey (DGS) has compiled a geologic database titled the Delaware Offshore Geologic Inventory (DOGI). This database contains information on the location of potential sand resources from state and federal waters for use in beach nourishment. The DGS has worked in partnership with the US Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to determine the offshore geologic framework and to identify new sources of beach- quality sand. Also included in the DOGI are vibracores (cores) that were taken from offshore Delaware. The DGS maintains the state’s offshore core repository. This report represents a compilation of data that has been collected for the DOGI from 2001 to 2007 in partnership with MMS. During this time period, a total of 61 cores were collected in the Atlantic waters offshore Delaware for the purpose of determining potential borrow areas that could be used for beach nourishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Guard, DHS § 162.65
    Coast Guard, DHS § 162.65 (2) No vessels having a height of more with moorings and lines which are suf- than 35 feet with reference to the plane ficient and proper. of mean high water shall enter or pass (c) Right-of-way. All vessels pro- through the area whenever visibility is ceeding with the current shall have the less than one mile. right-of-way over those proceeding against the current. Large vessels or § 162.30 Channel of Tuckerton Creek, tows must not overtake and attempt to N.J.; navigation. pass other large vessels or tows in the (a) Power boats or other vessels pro- waterway. All small pleasure craft pelled by machinery shall not proceed shall relinquish the right-of-way to deeper draft vessels, which have a lim- at any time within the limits of these ited maneuvering ability due to their waters at a greater speed than 8 stat- draft and size. ute miles per hour. (d) Stopping in waterway. Vessels will not be permitted to stop or anchor in § 162.35 Channel of Christina River, Del.; navigation. the ship channel. (e) Water skiing. Water skiing in the (a) That vessels of over 20 tons capac- waterway is prohibited between Reedy ity, propelled by machinery, shall not Point and Welch Point. proceed at any time within the limits (f) Sailboats. Transiting the canal by of these waters at a greater speed than vessels under sail is not permitted be- 8 statute miles per hour. tween Reedy Point and Welch Point. NOTE: The Corps of Engineers also has reg- § 162.40 Inland waterway from Dela- ulations dealing with this section in 33 CFR ware River to Chesapeake Bay, Del.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Piedmont Forests
    Spring 2009 Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities Robert Coxe Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities-Spring 2009 Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the contributions and help from the following people for this edition of the Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities. Karen Bennett, Greg Moore and Janet Dennis of the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Bill McAvoy of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program Dr. John Kartesz of the Biota of North America Program Dr. Keith Clancy and Pete Bowman, Ecologists, formerly of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program Ery Largay and Leslie Sneddon of Natureserve All people unmentioned who made countless contributions to this document. -Take me to the vegetation community keys- Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities-Spring 2009 Introduction The Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities is intended to provide a Delaware flavor to the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). All common names of communities, except for those not in the NVCS, follow the NVCS. This document is designed for the web and CD only, but desired sections can be printed by users. In this matter, paper and therefore trees can be preserved and impacts to the communities discussed within can be minimized. In spirit of saving these communities please only print those community descriptions that you will use or print none at all. The State of Delaware covers 1,524,863.4 acres of which 1,231,393.6 acres are terrestrial and 293,469.8 acres are water (Table 1). Currently 130 vegetation communities are known to occur in Delaware. Some of the largest vegetation communities/land covers in the state include: Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Bays
    Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays Prepared by: Maryland Department of the Environment Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Division Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Wetland Program Development Grant CD 983378-01-1 December 2004 Table of Contents Priority Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 2 TARGETING........................................................................................................................................... 8 Wetlands and wetland loss......................................................................................................................10 Existing management plan goals ............................................................................................................32 Existing targeting efforts.........................................................................................................................36 Additional targeting considerations ........................................................................................................41 GIS data sources .....................................................................................................................................54 Summary of restoration targeting information - existing recommendations..........................................56 MDE restoration
    [Show full text]