DOCSLIB.ORG

Nanticoke River Watershed Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nanticoke River Watershed Management Plan Nanticoke 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 Nanticoke 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 Nanticoke River Watershed Management Plan 2014 Table of Contents List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... ii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Regulatory and Programmatic Environment ................................................................................ 3 1.3 Watershed Priorities ..................................................................................................................... 4 2 Watershed Characteristics.............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Watershed Delineation and Planning Segments .......................................................................... 5 2.2 Nanticoke River ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Middle Nanticoke River ......................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Upper Nanticoke River .......................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 9 2.3.1 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................. 9 2.3.2 Imperviousness ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Water Quality .............................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.1 Use Designations ................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.2 303(d) Impairments ............................................................................................................ 21 2.4.3 TMDLs ................................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.4 NPDES .................................................................................................................................. 22 2.5 Anticipated Growth ..................................................................................................................... 22 3 Causes and Sources of Impairment (a) .......................................................................... 23 3.1 Upper Nanticoke - Nanticoke & Broad Creek ............................................................................. 24 3.2 Middle Nanticoke - Marshyhope Creek ...................................................................................... 28 3.3 Middle Nanticoke - Not Marshyhope ......................................................................................... 29 3.3.1 Urban .................................................................................................................................. 32 3.3.2 Agriculture........................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.3 Septic ................................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.4 Forest .................................................................................................................................. 33 3.4 Bacteria ....................................................................................................................................... 33 3.5 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 34 4 Expected Load Reductions (b) ....................................................................................... 34 4.1 Upper Nanticoke - Nanticoke & Broad Creek ............................................................................. 34 4.2 Middle Nanticoke - Marshyhope Creek ...................................................................................... 35 4.3 Middle Nanticoke - Not Marshyhope ......................................................................................... 35 5 Management Measures (c) ........................................................................................... 39 5.1 Nutrients ..................................................................................................................................... 40 5.1.1 Wastewater ......................................................................................................................... 40 5.1.2 Urban .................................................................................................................................. 41 5.1.3 Agriculture........................................................................................................................... 45 5.1.4 Septic ................................................................................................................................... 51 5.1.5 Forest .................................................................................................................................. 52 i DNREC Nanticoke River Watershed Management Plan 2014 5.2 Bacteria ....................................................................................................................................... 52 5.3 Offsetting Nutrient and Sediment Loads from Future Growth .................................................. 53 5.3.1 Statewide Stormwater Regulations .................................................................................... 53 5.3.2 Establish in-lieu fee for stormwater impacts ...................................................................... 53 5.3.3 Establish a statewide program that provides additional flexibility for offsets ................... 54 5.3.4 Adaptive management ........................................................................................................ 54 5.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 54 6 Technical and Financial Assistance Needs (d) ................................................................ 55 6.1 Wastewater ................................................................................................................................. 56 6.2 Urban .......................................................................................................................................... 57 6.3 Agriculture .................................................................................................................................. 58 6.4 Septic ........................................................................................................................................... 59 6.5 Forest .......................................................................................................................................... 59 6.6 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................................... 59 7 Public Participation / Education (e) .............................................................................. 61 8 Implementation Schedule and Milestones (f & g) ......................................................... 64 8.1 Loading Allocations and Milestone Targets ................................................................................ 64 8.2 Implementation Milestones ........................................................................................................ 65 8.3 Implementation Priorities ........................................................................................................... 67 9 Load Reduction Evaluation Criteria (h) .......................................................................... 68 9.1 Watershed Plan Tracker .............................................................................................................. 69 10 Monitoring (i) .............................................................................................................. 70 11 References ................................................................................................................... 72 List of Tables Table 1: TMDLs used for Pollutant Targets for Upper Nanticoke River and Middle Nanticoke River Watersheds ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2: Nanticoke Watershed Drainage Area and Stream Miles ...............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanticoke Currents Summer 2017
    Nanticoke June | 2017 currents CONSERVING THE NATUR AL, CULTURAL, AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES OF THE NANTICOKE RI VER Homeowners Workshops Golden Nanticoke Creek Freaks Workshop Learn about rain gardens, Was there a fungus among The NWA offers educators an rain barrels, pollinator- us? Find out what caused a opportunity to learn about friendly gardening practices, golden sheen on the our local waterways and lawn fertilization, converting Nanticoke in May. learn activities they can lawns to meadows, and conduct with their students See pages 2 & 3 . more. inside and outside. See page 6. See page 5. C+ Grade for the Nanticoke Report Card The Nanticoke’s grades slipped a bit this year. Increased rainfall and higher levels of phosphorus are damaging the waterways. Learn more about the issues and what you can do. See page 7. Unusual Golden Sheen on the Nanticoke River Photo Credit: Tom Darby Written by Mike Pretl & Judith Stribling May 22 dawned as a normal though periodically rainy day for NWA’s Creekwatchers. Every other Monday from late March through early November – rain or shine -- our trained volunteers visit 36 sites on the river and its major tributaries, from Delaware down to Nanticoke. These citizen scientists collect water samples and partner labs analyze for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and bacteria. Creekwatchers also measure dissolved oxygen, salinity, water temperature, water clarity, and total water depth directly. Lastly, Creekwatchers note and record on data sheets the temperature and weather conditions as well as any unusual phenomenon of the water or its surrounding habitat. That morning, our river waters displayed nothing abnormal, only an occasional, slight film of brownish algae, to be expected in the spring months.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Nick Walker, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Kim De Mutsert, Andy Dolloff, Vivek Prasad, A
    Nick Walker, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Kim De Mutsert, Andy Dolloff, Vivek Prasad, A. Alonso Aguirre Joint Meeting of the American Eel Interest Group and the Sturgeon Interest Group December 12th, 2019 Why eels? Found in more habitats than another fish. Ideal for studies across a wide geographic area. Everyone talks about interconnectedness of ecosystems – eels live it. Connections with humans throughout history, opportunities for citizen science. A fish that can bring people back to nature. Adapted from Tsukamoto (2014). Fig. 1. American Eel sampling events Objectives Objective was to build a model of the subwatersheds of the Chesapeake Bay using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM); then add eel data, dams and land use. Goal was to create color‐coded maps of where eels are doing well and areas that might be prioritized for conservation. This study is follow‐up to our previous work on American Eel demographics in the Chesapeake Bay. Methods –Data collection Eel data from VA DGIF, MD DNR, USFWS et al. Elevation data from ASTER DEM (plus river data from USGS small scale maps). Dam data from The Nature Conservancy. Land use from Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium. Sources limited by 2019 government shutdown. Methods Delineating streams and watersheds in ArcGIS: Load ASTER tiles (30x30m resolution; 20 tiles for study area). Fill, Flow direction and Flow Accumulation on each tile. Raster calculator: SetNull(“bay_flowac” < 27778,1) This sets minimum threshold to 25 km2 (or 25*106)/(302) Stream Link, Stream Order and Stream to Feature on each tile. Watersheds split along mainstem every 50 km.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's Wildland Preservation System “The Best of the Best”
    Maryland’s Wildland Preservation System “The“The Best Best ofof thethe Best” Best” What is a Wildland? Natural Resources Article §5‐1201(d): “Wildlands” means limited areas of [State‐owned] land or water which have •Retained their wilderness character, although not necessarily completely natural and undisturbed, or •Have rare or vanishing species of plant or animal life, or • Similar features of interest worthy of preservation for use of present and future residents of the State. •This may include unique ecological, geological, scenic, and contemplative recreational areas on State lands. Why Protect Wildlands? •They are Maryland’s “Last Great Places” •They represent much of the richness & diversity of Maryland’s Natural Heritage •Once lost, they can not be replaced •In using and conserving our State’s natural resources, the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight What is Permitted? • Activities which are consistent with the protection of the wildland character of the area, such as hiking, canoeing, kayaking, rafting, hunting, fishing, & trapping • Activities necessary to protect the area from fire, animals, insects, disease, & erosion (evaluated on a case‐by case basis) What is Prohibited? Activities which are inconsistent with the protection of the wildland character of the area: permanent roads structures installations commercial enterprises introduction of non‐native wildlife mineral extraction Candidate Wildlands •23 areas •21,890 acres •9 new •13,128 acres •14 expansions Map can be found online at: http://dnr.maryland.gov/land/stewardship/pdfs/wildland_map.pdf
    [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]
  • Town of Little Creek, Delaware Comprehensive Plan
    TownTown ofof LittleLittle Creek,Creek, DelawareDelaware ComprehensiveComprehensive PlanPlan July 2006 Prepared by The Town of Little Creek Planning Commission With assistance from the Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination Little Creek, Delaware Comprehensive Plan Adopted by the Little Creek Planning Commission In December 2005; and by the Little Creek Town Council July 2006 Prepared by: The Town of Little Creek Planning Commission With assistance from the: Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination August 28, 2006 The Honorable Harry E. Marvel, Sr. Mayor, Town of Little Creek P.O. Box 298 Little Creek, DE 19961 RE: Certification of the Town of Little Creek Comprehensive Plan Dear Mayor Marvel: I am pleased to inform the Town that as of August 7, 2006 per the recommendation of the Office of State Planning Coordination, the comprehensive plan for the Town of Little Creek is hereby certified provided no major changes are enacted. The certification signifies that the comprehensive plan is currently in compliance with State Strategies. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Town of Little Creek for working with the State to incorporate our recommendations into the plan before adoption. My staff and I look forward to working with the Town to accomplish the goals set forth in your plan. Congratulations on your certification! Sincerely, Constance C. Holland Director Town of Little Creek Comprehensive Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS TOWN, COUNTY, AND STATE OFFICIALS....................................................................................
    [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]
  • Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals
    To: Principal Staff Committee Members and Representatives of Chesapeake Bay “Headwater” States From: W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Chair Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee Subject: Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals For the past twenty years, the Chesapeake Bay partners have been committed to achieving and maintaining water quality conditions necessary to support living resources throughout the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. In the past month, Chesapeake Bay Program partners (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission) have expanded our efforts by working with the headwater states of Delaware, West Virginia and New York to adopt new cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Using the best scientific information available, Bay Program partners have agreed to allocations that are intended to meet the needs of the plants and animals that call the Chesapeake home. The allocations will serve as a basis for each state’s tributary strategies that, when completed by April 2004, will describe local implementation actions necessary to meet the Chesapeake 2000 nutrient and sediment loading goals by 2010. This memorandum summarizes the important, comprehensive agreements made by Bay watershed partners with regard to cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments, as well as new baywide and local SAV restoration goals. Nutrient Allocations Excessive nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries promote undesirable algal growth, and thereby, prohibit light from reaching underwater bay grasses (submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV) and depress the dissolved oxygen levels of the deeper waters of the Bay.
    [Show full text]