DOCSLIB.ORG

Conococheague Creek Non-Tidal Bacteria TMDL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conococheague Creek Non-Tidal Bacteria TMDL REVISED FINAL Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Bacteria for the Conococheague Creek Basin in Washington County, Maryland REVISED FINAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230-1718 Submitted to: Water Protection Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 December 2014 EPA Submittal Date: June 16, 2008 EPA Approval Date: May 7, 2009 Conococheague Creek TMDL Fecal Bacteria Document version: December 11, 2014 REVISED FINAL This page deliberately left blank. Conococheague Creek TMDL Fecal Bacteria Document version: December 11, 2014 REVISED FINAL Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SETTING AND WATER QUALITY DESCRIPTION ................................................ 3 2.1 General Setting ...................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Water Quality Characterization ........................................................................ 12 2.3 Water Quality Impairment ................................................................................ 16 2.4 Source Assessment .............................................................................................. 22 3.0 TARGETED WATER QUALITY GOAL.................................................................... 33 4.0 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND SOURCE ALLOCATION .................. 34 4.1 Overview .............................................................................................................. 34 4.2 Analytical Framework ........................................................................................ 35 4.3 Estimating Baseline Loads ................................................................................. 36 4.4 Critical Condition and Seasonality.................................................................... 39 4.5 Margin of Safety .................................................................................................. 43 4.6 Scenario Descriptions ......................................................................................... 43 4.7 TMDL Loading Caps .......................................................................................... 48 4.8 TMDL Allocations .............................................................................................. 52 4.9 Summary .............................................................................................................. 55 5.0 ASSURANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................... 59 6.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................... 61 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 62 Appendix A – Bacteria Data ......................................................................................... A1 Appendix B - Flow Duration Curve Analysis to Define Strata ................................... B1 Appendix C – BST Report ............................................................................................ C1 Appendix D – Estimating Maximum Daily Loads ...................................................... D1 Conococheague Creek TMDL Fecal Bacteria Document version: December 11, 2014 REVISED FINAL List of Figures Figure 2.1.1: Location Map of the Conococheague Creek Watershed .......................................... 4 Figure 2.1.2: Location Map of the MD 8-digit Conococheague Creek Watershed ....................... 5 Figure 2.1.3: General Soil Associations in the Conococheague Creek Watershed ....................... 6 Figure 2.1.4: Land Use of the Conococheague Creek Watershed ................................................. 9 Figure 2.1.5: Population Density in the Conococheague Creek Watershed ................................ 11 Figure 2.2.1: Monitoring Stations and Subwatersheds in the MD 8-digit Conococheague Creek Watershed ............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2.3.1: Conceptual Diagram of Flow Duration Zones ....................................................... 18 Figure 2.4.2: Sanitary Sewer Overflow Areas in the MD 8-digit Conococheague Creek Watershed ............................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 2.4.3: Permitted Point Sources Discharging Fecal Bacteria in the MD 8-digit Conococheague Creek Watershed ........................................................................................ 28 Figure 4.2.1: Diagram of the Non-tidal Bacteria TMDL Analysis Framework .......................... 36 Figure A-1: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station CON0217 ............. A10 Figure A-2: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station CON0180 ............. A10 Figure A-3: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station RKD0006 ............. A11 Figure A-4: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station TMS0006 ............. A11 Figure A-5: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station RUS0005 .............. A12 Figure A-6: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station CON0051 ............. A12 Figure A-7: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station MEA0009 ............. A13 Figure A-8: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station UWR0000 ............ A13 Figure A-9: E. coli Concentration vs. Time for MDE Monitoring Station CON0005 ............. A14 Figure B-1: Flow Duration Curve for USGS Gage 01614500 ..................................................... B1 Figure B-2: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station CON0217 (Annual Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B4 Figure B-3: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station CON0217 (Seasonal Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B4 Figure B-4: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station CON0180 (Annual Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B5 Figure B-5: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station CON0180 (Seasonal Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B5 Figure B-6: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station RKD0006 (Annual Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B6 Figure B-7: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station RKD0006 (Seasonal Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B6 Figure B-8: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station TMS0006 (Annual Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B7 Figure B-9: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station TMS0006 (Seasonal Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B7 Figure B-10: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station RUS0005 (Annual Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B8 Figure B-11: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station RUS0005 (Seasonal Condition) ............................................................................................................. B8 Figure B-12: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station CON0051 (Annual Condition) ............................................................................................................................. B9 Conococheague Creek TMDL Fecal Bacteria Document version: December 11, 2014 i REVISED FINAL Figure B-13: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station CON0051 (Seasonal Condition) ............................................................................................................. B9 Figure B-14: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring Station MEA0009 (Annual Condition) ........................................................................................................................... B10 Figure B-15: E. coli Concentration vs. Flow Duration for Monitoring
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]
  • 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]
  • Report of Investigations 71 (Pdf, 4.8
    Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 71 A STRATEGY FOR A STREAM-GAGING NETWORK IN MARYLAND by Emery T. Cleaves, State Geologist and Director, Maryland Geological Survey and Edward J. Doheny, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared for the Maryland Water Monitoring Council in cooperation with the Stream-Gage Committee 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Sarah Taylor-Rogers Secretary Stanley K. Arthur Deputy Secretary MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 General DNR Public Information Number: 1-877-620-8DNR http://www.dnr.state.md.us MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2300 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 554-5500 http://mgs.dnr.md.gov The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical or mental disability. COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER ROBERT W. RIDKY JAMES B. STRIBLING CONTENTS Page Executive summary.........................................................................................................................................................1 Why stream gages?.........................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Gambrill State Park
    Introduction A West Gambrill State Park is located along the eastern edge of the Blue Ridge b Physiographic Province. The Blue Ridge Mountains stretch from northern Georgia to southern Pennsylvania. The Blue Ridge is made up of folded Eas x t rocks that are broken in places by faults. In Maryland, the Blue Ridge b consists of two separate ridges-Catoctin Mountain, locally known as A B C Braddock Mountain on the east, and South Mountain to the west. The Blue Figure 1. Rocks of Gambrill State Park. A, Catoctin Formation. Green- Ridge is bordered on the east by the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The ish metamorphosed basalts. B, Loudoun Formation. Volcanic ash Piedmont is underlain by metamorphic rocks that were formed when the containing pebbles of lava (at A). C, Weverton Formation. Cross- 9 W Appalachian Mountains were uplifted more than 250 million years ago bedded sandstone (b=bedding, x=cross-bedding) . ever C ton Form (hereafter Ma). What we see from Catoctin Mountain today is the result of to weathering and erosion. As a result of this durability, the Weverton ation millions of years of erosion of those mountains. Formation represents the main ridge-forming layer on both Catoctin and Bedrock Layers South mountains of the Blue Ridge of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Nearly all of the rocks present in the park are assignable to three These ridges are erosional features left standing high after the softer or more geologic rock units, called formations. These are the Catoctin, the Loudoun, soluble rocks on either side were worn down by weathering and erosion.
    [Show full text]
  • Points of Interest History Local Bike Shops
    WASHINGTON COUNTY, MD COUNTY, WASHINGTON A S C L HAG LI N CR CER HIGH W H MER MAGNOLIA IA VI E. MAGNOLIA A R GA VIE IR IR FA MAGNOL VE.. LINDSAY STREET AVE WELCOME TO WASHINGTON COUNTY WOOD BEL STREET ALLEY LANE Y CYPRESS EAST There’s no place in Maryland that’s better for bicycling IRVIN TERRACE WAYNE STREET WA RK POINTS OF INTEREST PA VENUE than Washington County. Whether you are a leisure cyclist A A A VE. VENUE VENUE VENUE HOLLEYMEAD A TERRACE A CT A MAGNOLI WILLOWBROOK WAY IR STREET VIN Y EAST CHARTRIDGE STREET seeking a near wilderness experience, a day rider looking for BROOKSIDE GLENWOOD ~NOT BUILT~ TERRACE WA VE. T A ROAD LAUREL MEALEY FORT FREDERICK STATE PARK WEST ON BOULEVARD AVENUE YSPRING LANE new roads and places to explore, or a tourist in search of a TTHEW THE DA COUR HILLCREST HILLCREST Y WIN HAMPT PL. BENJAMIN IR MA This stone fort provides a glimpse of the dangers and CIRCLE FR EAST VENUE KASINOF WEST VIN VILLAGE PL good weekend trip, Washington County has something for ROAD A DRIVE VIEW IR VENUE RUN HILL A CLAIR A NI hardships faced by the early settlers. Named in honor of VA BEL IRVIN EAST STREET WEST A you. Its historic towns, pleasant countryside, and miles of VENUE ON BOULEVARD SAINT DRIVE VENUE Frederick Calvert, the last Lord Baltimore, and garrisoned in HILLCR A PENNSYL EASTIRVIN quiet back roads invite you to simply relax and enjoy yourself. PARK EST COLUMBIA HAMILT LANE VALLEYBROOK RIDA AVENUE 1756, Fort Frederick gave shelter and protection to settlers PARK VENUE ON ROAD MC KEE A A VENUE VIEW on the frontier during the French and Indian War.
    [Show full text]
  • Hagerstown Multi-Use Sports and Events Facility - Concept Design Report Hagerstown, Maryland
    May 18, 2021 The Honorable Emily Keller Mayor, City of Hagerstown One East Franklin Street Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 RE: Hagerstown Multi-Use Sports and Events Facility - Concept Design Report Hagerstown, Maryland Dear Mayor Keller, The Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) is pleased to present the attached concept design report (the “Report”) for the Hagerstown Multi-Use Sports and Events Facility. The effort was undertaken pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Hagerstown and MSA dated October 1, 2019. The concept design and due diligence effort included: • Design and engineering services including geotechnical, environmental and utility location and capacity analysis. • Real estate / land acquisition analysis. • Cost estimating services. MSA engaged the following consultants to provide services toward the effort: • Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP (RK&K), in partnership with Populous, provided design and engineering services. • O’Connor Construction Management Incorporated (OCMI) provided cost estimating services. The Report is comprised of the following documents: • Hagerstown Multi-Use Sports and Events Facility Concept Design Report by RK&K dated January 2021. • Hagerstown Multi-Use Sports and Events Facility Project – Concept 1 Program Level Cost Estimate by OCMI dated January 2021. • Hagerstown Multi-Use Sports and Events Facility Project – Concept 4 Program Level Cost Estimate by OCMI dated January 2021. The methodology used to complete the effort was as follows: • RK&K and Populous developed four potential project execution concepts based on the facility program and characteristics of the selected site. o The consultants and MSA deemed Concept 1 to have the highest likely cost of construction. o Concept 4 was deemed by the consultants and MSA to have the lowest likely cost of construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Conococheague Creek
    CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, HAER No. MD-123 CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK AQUEDUCT (Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Aqueduct No. 5) Milepost 99.80 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Park Williamsport flttfe MD Washington County Maryland Po, 2r PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Department of the Interior P.O. Box 37127 Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 mb HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD 3- CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK AQUEDUCT (Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Aqueduct No. 5) HAER NO. MD-123 Location: Milepost 99.80, in Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Park, Williamsport, Washington County, Maryland. Date of Construction: 1833-34 Builder: Michael Byrne and Company Frederick, Maryland Present Owner Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Present Use: Bike and foot path / Significance The Conococheague Creek Aqueduct was the fifth of eleven masonry aqueduct constructed along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. It was the last and most ornate of the system1s five multiple span aqueducts Historian: Lee R. Maddex Institute for the History of Technology and Industrial Archaeology West Virginia University Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 Project Information: This recording project is part of the Historic American Engineering Record(HAER), a long-range program to document historically significant engineering and industrial works in the United States. The HAER program is administered by the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record division(HABS/HAER) of the National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. The Conococheague Creek Aqueduct CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK AQUEDUCT HAER No. MD-123 (Page 2) Recording project was cosponsored during the summer of 1996 by HABS/HAER under the general direction of Blaine Cliver, Chief, and by the Institute for the History of Technology and Industrial Archaeology (IHTIA), Emory L.
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds.Pdf
    Watershed Code Watershed Name 02130705 Aberdeen Proving Ground 02140205 Anacostia River 02140502 Antietam Creek 02130102 Assawoman Bay 02130703 Atkisson Reservoir 02130101 Atlantic Ocean 02130604 Back Creek 02130901 Back River 02130903 Baltimore Harbor 02130207 Big Annemessex River 02130606 Big Elk Creek 02130803 Bird River 02130902 Bodkin Creek 02130602 Bohemia River 02140104 Breton Bay 02131108 Brighton Dam 02120205 Broad Creek 02130701 Bush River 02130704 Bynum Run 02140207 Cabin John Creek 05020204 Casselman River 02140305 Catoctin Creek 02130106 Chincoteague Bay 02130607 Christina River 02050301 Conewago Creek 02140504 Conococheague Creek 02120204 Conowingo Dam Susq R 02130507 Corsica River 05020203 Deep Creek Lake 02120202 Deer Creek 02130204 Dividing Creek 02140304 Double Pipe Creek 02130501 Eastern Bay 02141002 Evitts Creek 02140511 Fifteen Mile Creek 02130307 Fishing Bay 02130609 Furnace Bay 02141004 Georges Creek 02140107 Gilbert Swamp 02130801 Gunpowder River 02130905 Gwynns Falls 02130401 Honga River 02130103 Isle of Wight Bay 02130904 Jones Falls 02130511 Kent Island Bay 02130504 Kent Narrows 02120201 L Susquehanna River 02130506 Langford Creek 02130907 Liberty Reservoir 02140506 Licking Creek 02130402 Little Choptank 02140505 Little Conococheague 02130605 Little Elk Creek 02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 02131105 Little Patuxent River 02140509 Little Tonoloway Creek 05020202 Little Youghiogheny R 02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay 02130505 Lower Chester River 02130403 Lower Choptank 02130601 Lower
    [Show full text]
  • Lancaster County Incremental Deliveredhammer a Creekgricultural Lititz Run Lancasterload of Nitro Gcountyen Per HUC12 Middle Creek
    PENNSYLVANIA Lancaster County Incremental DeliveredHammer A Creekgricultural Lititz Run LancasterLoad of Nitro gCountyen per HUC12 Middle Creek Priority Watersheds Cocalico Creek/Conestoga River Little Cocalico Creek/Cocalico Creek Millers Run/Little Conestoga Creek Little Muddy Creek Upper Chickies Creek Lower Chickies Creek Muddy Creek Little Chickies Creek Upper Conestoga River Conoy Creek Middle Conestoga River Donegal Creek Headwaters Pequea Creek Hartman Run/Susquehanna River City of Lancaster Muddy Run/Mill Creek Cabin Creek/Susquehanna River Eshlemen Run/Pequea Creek West Branch Little Conestoga Creek/ Little Conestoga Creek Pine Creek Locally Generated Green Branch/Susquehanna River Valley Creek/ East Branch Ag Nitrogen Pollution Octoraro Creek Lower Conestoga River (pounds/acre/year) Climbers Run/Pequea Creek Muddy Run/ 35.00–45.00 East Branch 25.00–34.99 Fishing Creek/Susquehanna River Octoraro Creek Legend 10.00–24.99 West Branch Big Beaver Creek Octoraro Creek 5.00–9.99 Incremental Delivered Load NMap (l Createdbs/a byc rThee /Chesapeakeyr) Bay Foundation Data from USGS SPARROW Model (2011) Conowingo Creek 0.00–4.99 0.00 - 4.99 cida.usgs.gov/sparrow Tweed Creek/Octoraro Creek 5.00 - 9.99 10.00 - 24.99 25.00 - 34.99 35.00 - 45.00 Map Created by The Chesapeake Bay Foundation Data from USGS SPARROW Model (2011) http://cida.usgs.gov/sparrow PENNSYLVANIA York County Incremental Delivered Agricultural YorkLoad Countyof Nitrogen per HUC12 Priority Watersheds Hartman Run/Susquehanna River York City Cabin Creek Green Branch/Susquehanna
    [Show full text]
  • National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory Joseph
    National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 2008 Joseph Poffenberger Farmstead Antietam National Battlefield Table of Contents Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Concurrence Status Geographic Information and Location Map Management Information National Register Information Chronology & Physical History Analysis & Evaluation of Integrity Condition Treatment Bibliography & Supplemental Information Joseph Poffenberger Farmstead Antietam National Battlefield Inventory Unit Summary & Site Plan Inventory Summary The Cultural Landscapes Inventory Overview: CLI General Information: Purpose and Goals of the CLI The Cultural Landscapes Inventory (CLI), a comprehensive inventory of all cultural landscapes in the national park system, is one of the most ambitious initiatives of the National Park Service (NPS) Park Cultural Landscapes Program. The CLI is an evaluated inventory of all landscapes having historical significance that are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or are otherwise managed as cultural resources through a public planning process and in which the NPS has or plans to acquire any legal interest. The CLI identifies and documents each landscape’s location, size, physical development, condition, landscape characteristics, character-defining features, as well as other valuable information useful to park management. Cultural landscapes become approved CLIs when concurrence with the findings is obtained from the park superintendent and all required data fields are entered into a national
    [Show full text]
  • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN for VARIOUS TMDLS in MARYLAND October 9, 2020
    IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND October 9, 2020 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND F7. Gwynns Falls Watershed ............................................ 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS F8. Jones Falls Watershed ............................................... 85 F9. Liberty Reservoir Watershed...................................... 94 Table of Contents ............................................................................... i F10. Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs Watersheds .. 102 Implementation Plan for Various TMDLS in Maryland .................... 1 F11. Lower Monocacy River Watershed ........................... 116 A. Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses ....................... 1 F12. Patuxent River Lower Watershed ............................. 125 B. Watershed Assessment Coordination ...................................... 3 F13. Magothy River Watershed ........................................ 134 C. Visual Inspections Targeting MDOT SHA ROW ....................... 4 F14. Mattawoman Creek Watershed ................................. 141 D. Benchmarks and Detailed Costs .............................................. 5 F15. Piscataway Creek Watershed ................................... 150 E. Pollution Reduction Strategies ................................................. 7 F16. Rock Creek Watershed ............................................. 158 E.1. MDOT SHA TMDL Responsibilities .............................. 7 F17. Triadelphia
    [Show full text]
  • Prediction Comparison of Nutrient Loadings in the Chesapeake Bay
    Overview of the functional linear concurrent modeling (FLCM) approach (continuous-time modeling) of stream nutrient loading from forest in the CBW using MODIS and met data. Analyses of FLCM, HSPF (EOS and delivered) load predictions Why forest predictions will benefit from remote sensing information. Assumed: › The CB model 5.3 model assumes only atmospheric deposition (AD) as an input load, with a median total Nitrogen load to be 3.1 kg/ha/yr . › Linear response to an increase in Atm. Deposition. Issues: › the rate of N export can increase at a rate higher than the rate of deposition increase › The rate of N export increases during disturbances events Objective: To develop ecological meaningful, landscapes-scale and near-continuous (monthly) time models to predict Nitrate loads from forest using remote sensing, meteorological, and GIS data. Forested Watersheds > 80% and WQ available MODIS and In-Situ Nitrate data : 2001-Present. LOADEST: daily Nitrate-N loads (Q, concentration). MODIS : reflectance NDVI and NDII (Basic vegetation Index) estimated for each image. FLCM Development Watersheds Watershed % FOREST Area (sq-mi) Deep Run (MD)* 93.9 6.3 Kettle Creek (PA) 91.03 668.75 Sinnemahoning Creek 89.34 813.75 – Drifwood (PA) Cowpasture River (VA) 87.93 1242.75 Blacklick Run (MD)* 87.5 2.5 Cedar Creek (VA) 87.45 292.75 Jackson River (VA) 87.19 1678.25 Upper Big Run (MD)* 85.71 0.6 Pine Creek (PA) 83.38 2536.75 Verification Watersheds Potomac River at 75.4 4073 Hancock (MD) Catoctin Creek (MD) 52.44 184.5 Conococheague Creek 42.17 1383.75 (MD) Antietam Creek (MD) 31.08 751.25 Monocacy River (MD) 22.27 478.25 Explained 81% of the variation in monthly stream water nitrate loads for nine mostly forested watersheds over eight years of monitoring data.
    [Show full text]