V: W Atershed Planning

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

V: W Atershed Planning V: WATERSHED PLANNING WATERSHED V: Restoration and preservation policies for rivers, streams, tributaries, and wetlands begin with an identification of the existing conditions as issues and opportunities within watersheds, culminating in the development and implementation of effective solutions based on best management practices. ater quality throughout Prince George’s County has been impacted by the conversionW of forest land to agricultural use over the past three centuries and to increasingly urbanized land over the past few decades. This conversion has resulted in degradation of streams, decline in forest and wetland habitats, and decreased opportunities to benefit from the recreational and economic opportunities that healthy water resources provide. Prince George’s County encompasses approximately 300,000 acres or five percent of the land area of Maryland and lies within the Chesapeake Bay watershed—the largest estuary in the United States and the third largest in the world. On May 12, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that recognizes the Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure and calls on the federal government to lead a renewed effort to restore and protect the nation’s largest estuary and its watershed.1 WATERSHEDS The term watershed is often applied to geographical areas of different sizes and scales. In general, the definition of a watershed is a geographic area in which water, sediments, and dissolved materials drain from higher elevations to a common low-lying outlet or basin discharging at a point on a larger stream, lake, underlying aquifer, or estuary.2 The largest watershed management unit is called a basin, which is a large drainage area related to a lake, river, or estuary, such as the Chesapeake Bay. Within each basin is a group of subbasins that can extend over hundreds of square miles. Maryland contains 13 subbasins, 1 http://www.cbf.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=38823.0 2 http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/glossary.aspx Chapter V: Watershed Planning 55 Preliminary Water Resources Functional Master Plan HOWARD ten of which fall within the Chesapeake Bay basin and Watersheds COUNTY Prince George's County, Maryland ¯ correspond to ten tributary basins often referred to as Maryland’s “6-digit” watersheds as defined by the P A TU XE NT Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). R IV ER MONTGOMERY COUNTY ANNE Subbasins contain groups of watersheds, which typically range from 20 to 100 square miles in size Upper Patuxent Anacostia and are composed of groups of subwatersheds that DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA cover an area of approximately ten square miles or less. ARUNDEL Maryland DNR has defined 138 watersheds, which are often referred to as Maryland’s “8-digit” watersheds. Western Branch They collectively contain the approximately 1,100 subwatersheds referred to as “12-digit” watersheds.3 Middle Patuxent Any of these units may be referred to as watersheds, Oxon Creek Patuxent DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and depending on their size and location, contain a COUNTY number of land uses including forests, streams, and Wash Metro Area FAIRFAX Potomac other natural areas; agricultural and natural resource Middle Patuxent BROA D CREEK areas; urban, suburban, and rural communities; COUNTY Piscataway roadways and other transportation systems; commercial CALVERT C A M O T P O IS P CAT AWA Y CREEK development and industry; and schools, hospitals, CHARLES COUNTY COUNTY government offices and other public facilities. Water Lower Patuxent Lower Potomac Wash Metro Area resource issues including water supply, water quality, CHARLES COUNTY PA TU X and habitat for fish and wildlife are closely linked and E N Miles T R I V 0 5 10 E Legend R interdependent with human land uses. How land and Watershed Basin Main Watershed Oxon Creek Patuxent Anacostia Piscataway water resources are used have impacts on the entire bay Potomac Lower Patuxent Upper Patuxent watershed. Lower Potomac Wash Metro Area Middle Patuxent Western Branch Map 9: Watersheds IMPACTS OF LAND USE ON WATERSHEDS Prince George’s County’s landscape has changed dramatically over the past century along with other areas of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, particularly in and around the metropolitan Washington area. As we have spread across the watershed and built away from existing infrastructure, we are using more land than we need. Between 1970 and 2000, the watershed’s population increased by approximately eight percent. During this time, the average family size per household decreased but average home and lot sizes increased, and the amount of impervious surface area (roads, rooftops, parking lots, and other hardened or paved areas) increased by over 40 percent.4 This type of low density residential and commercial growth has extended to larger geographic areas within the county, resulting in more development outside existing municipalities, cities, and town centers. Expansion requires additional infrastructure in the form of more schools, roads, and shopping centers that increases pavement and roof areas. Open areas between developed areas have gradually filled with new development, which reduces the quantity, quality, and connectivity of forests, riparian buffers, wetlands, and agricultural lands. Forests and stream buffers provide critical 3 Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) User’s Guide 4 Ibid 56 Chapter V: Watershed Planning Preliminary Water Resources Functional Master Plan ecological services and act as buffers and filters within their watersheds; their loss causes increased pollution and degradation of land and water and, consequentially, quality of life for residents and visitors. Down-cutting: Population growth can result in economic benefits, but it can also have detrimental Downward or vertical impacts on natural resources if not planned for carefully to control the use of, and erosion is a geological avoid degradation to, water resources. Increasing populations require more domestic process that deepens the drinking water from available surface and groundwaters while increasing the amount of channel of a stream or valley wastewater and stormwater pollutants (point and nonpoint source) that are discharged into the receiving waters. In addition, during and after the development process, the by removing material from natural cycle of water is disrupted by alteration of the topography and the addition of the stream’s bed or the impervious surfaces that result in reduced water infiltration through soils to groundwater valley’s floor. How fast down- and increased quantities and velocities of runoff carrying sediments and pollutants to cutting occurs depends on streams. Stream flows are maintained through groundwater infiltration when rain falls the stream’s base level, which on forested or naturally vegetated areas. After development, the increase in impervious surfaces, decrease of soil functionality, and decrease in available groundwater mean that is the lowest point to which stream flows receive more surface runoff and associated pollutants at generally higher the stream can erode. temperatures. Sedimentation: The primary impacts to the hydrologic system from changes due to development include: The deposition of soil, sand, Changes in stream flow—increased runoff volumes, increased peak discharges, and minerals washed from greater runoff velocities, increased flooding, and lower dry weather stream flows. land into water, usually Changes in stream geometry—stream widening and down-cutting, loss of after rain. They pile up riparian tree cover, sedimentation in the channel, increased flood elevations, and disconnection of streams from adjacent wetlands and floodplains. in reservoirs, rivers and harbors, destroying fish and Degradation of aquatic habitat—degradation of habitat structure, loss of pool- riffle structure, reduced stream base flows, increased temperatures, and reduced wildlife habitat, and clouding abundance and diversity of aquatic biota. the water so that sunlight Water quality impacts—reduced dissolved oxygen and increases in nutrient cannot reach aquatic plants. enrichment, microbial contamination, hydrocarbons (oils and grease), toxic materials (pesticides, metals, and organic contaminants), sedimentation, increased Pool: temperatures, and trash/debris. A region of deeper slower- Impairment of drinking water supplies and increased cost of treatment. moving water with fine bed materials. Declining values of fisheries, waterfront properties, and loss of recreational uses (boating, fishing, swimming, etc.). Ripple: LOCAL WATER QUALITY ISSUES A region with coarse bed Degradation of the Chesapeake Bay has been recognized for decades, with excessive materials and shallow, fast nutrient loading identified as a critical problem. Major sources of nutrients include moving water sometimes urban, suburban, and agricultural runoff, failing septic systems and sewage treatment associated with whitewater. facilities, and atmospheric deposition from vehicles, power plants, and other sources. The pool-riffle is important Excess nutrients cause algal blooms that reduce the amount of sunlight available to submerged aquatic vegetation. Decomposition of the algae depletes bottom waters of in the cycling of nutrients oxygen, which causes “dead zones” and harms aquatic living resources such as blue in a stream. crabs and oysters. Other water quality issues affecting the bay include water pollution from sediments and chemicals, over-harvesting of aquatic resources, invasive plant and animal species, climate change, sea level rise, and tidal and nontidal
Recommended publications
  • MDE-Water Pollution
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 1 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapters 01-10 ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 2 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 01 General ......................................................................................................................................... 2 .01 Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 3 .02 Principles of Water Pollution Control....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L Natural Resources Technical Report May 2020
    APPENDIX L NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2020 and NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Study Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Alternatives Evaluated .................................................................................................................. 4 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................................................9 2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Regulatory Context and Methods ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Environmental Effects ......................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Potomac River Watershed December 31, 2014
    Watershed Existing Condition Report for the Potomac River Watershed December 31, 2014 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 8. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 2. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 9. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 3. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 10. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 4. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 11. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 5. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 12. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 6. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 13. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden Potomac River Watershed Existing Conditions Report Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Problem Identification and Basis for Listing ........................................................................ 5 1.2.3 TMDL Identified Sources ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • M a R Y L a N D V I R G I N
    300 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 3, Chapter 12 26 SEP 2021 77°20'W 77°W 76°40'W 76°20'W 39°N Annapolis Washington D.C. 12289 Alexandria PISCATAWAY CREEK 38°40'N MARYLAND 12288 MATTAWOMAN CREEK PATUXENT RIVER PORT TOBACCO RIVER NANJEMOY CREEK 12285 WICOMICO 12286 RIVER 38°20'N ST. CLEMENTS BAY UPPER MACHODOC CREEK 12287 MATTOX CREEK POTOMAC RIVER ST. MARYS RIVER POPES CREEK NOMINI BAY YEOCOMICO RIVER Point Lookout COAN RIVER 38°N RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Smith VIRGINIA Point 12233 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 3—Chapter 12 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 26 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 3, Chapter 12 ¢ 301 Chesapeake Bay, Potomac River (1) This chapter describes the Potomac River and the above the mouth; thence the controlling depth through numerous tributaries that empty into it; included are the dredged cuts is about 18 feet to Hains Point. The Coan, St. Marys, Yeocomico, Wicomico and Anacostia channels are maintained at or near project depths. For Rivers. Also described are the ports of Washington, DC, detailed channel information and minimum depths as and Alexandria and several smaller ports and landings on reported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), these waterways. use NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts. Surveys and (2) channel condition reports are available through a USACE COLREGS Demarcation Lines hydrographic survey website listed in Appendix A. (3) The lines established for Chesapeake Bay are (12) described in 33 CFR 80.510, chapter 2. Anchorages (13) Vessels bound up or down the river anchor anywhere (4) ENCs - US5VA22M, US5VA27M, US5MD41M, near the channel where the bottom is soft; vessels US5MD43M, US5MD44M, US4MD40M, US5MD40M sometimes anchor in Cornfield Harbor or St.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Countywide Watershed Assessment
    Prince George’s County Countywide Watershed Assessment for MS4 Permit (2014-2019) December 21, 2018 Prepared For Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared By Tetra Tech 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 Cover Photo Credits 1. Prince George’s County DoE 2. Prince George’s County DoE 3. Clean Water Partnership 4. M-NCPPC_Cassi Hayden Prince George’s County Countywide Watershed Assessment for MS4 Permit (2014–2019) Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................. iv 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Prince George’s County Impaired Waters .................................................................................... 4 1.1.1 Impaired Water Bodies ....................................................................................................... 4 1.1.2 Causes of Water Body Impairment ..................................................................................... 6 1.2 Prince George’s County Restoration Plans .................................................................................. 8 2 Current Water Quality Conditions .................................................................................... 10 2.1 Biological Assessment ................................................................................................................ 10 2.1.1 Assessment
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Mitigation Plan
    s Prince George’s County and The City of Laurel Maryland Hazard Mitigation Plan 222000111000 UUUpppdddaaattteee s Table of Contents Foreword and Resolutions of Adoption Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Authority ...............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Planning Area........................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Geography, Climate, and Population ....................................................................1-5 1.5 Planning Committee Membership.........................................................................1-6 1.6 Acknowledgments.................................................................................................1-9 1.7 Key Terms & Acronyms .......................................................................................1-9 1.8 References ...........................................................................................................1-10 1.9 2010 Update........................................................................................................1-11 Chapter 2. Mitigation Planning 2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 The Mitigation Planning Process ..........................................................................2-1 2.3
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 12-1992 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation In The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991 R J. Orth Judith F. Nowak Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gary Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science Kevin P. Kiley Virginia Institute of Marine Science Jennifer R. Whiting Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Orth, R. J., Nowak, J. F., Anderson, G., Kiley, K. P., & Whiting, J. R. (1992) Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation In The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/m2-031r-g688 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 11° oo' 76° 00' 75°00' 39° oo' 38° oo' 37° 0 10 20 30 oo' NAUTICAL MILES 11° oo' 75° oo· \/\rfl:S ~~ JJ~.i OG+ \~q I C,.3 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991 by Robert J. Orth, Judith F. Nowak, Gary F. Anderson, Kevin P. Kiley, and Jennifer R. Whiting Virginia Institute of Marine Science School of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Grant X00346503) National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (Grant No. NAl 70Z0359-0l) Virginia Institute of Marine Science/School of Marine Science Maryland Department of Natural Resources (C272-92-005) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Database Design and Data Dictionary
    Water Quality Database Database Design and Data Dictionary Prepared For: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office January 2004 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................6 WATER QUALITY DATA.............................................................................................................................6 THE RELATIONAL CONCEPT ..................................................................................................................6 THE RELATIONAL DATABASE STRUCTURE ...................................................................................7 WATER QUALITY DATABASE STRUCTURE..........................................................8 PRIMARY TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................8 WQ_CRUISES ..................................................................................................................................................8 WQ_EVENT.......................................................................................................................................................8 WQ_DATA..........................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Prince George's Mitigation Plan
    s Prince George’s County and The City of Laurel Maryland Hazard Mitigation Plan 222000111000 UUUpppdddaaattteee s Table of Contents Foreword and Resolutions of Adoption Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Authority ...............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Planning Area........................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Geography, Climate, and Population ....................................................................1-5 1.5 Planning Committee Membership.........................................................................1-6 1.6 Acknowledgments.................................................................................................1-9 1.7 Key Terms & Acronyms .......................................................................................1-9 1.8 References ...........................................................................................................1-10 1.9 2010 Update........................................................................................................1-11 Chapter 2. Mitigation Planning 2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 The Mitigation Planning Process ..........................................................................2-1 2.3
    [Show full text]
  • United States Geological Survey
    UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SELECTED TRACE-ELEMENT AND . ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN 0' STREAMBED SEDIMENTS OF THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, AUGUST 1992 (~c~ By James M. Gerhart and INTRODUCTION l0 R L Joe/ D. Blomquist This report pre ellls th e re ult of a '-\'\o q s -lf d. lo; Background ABSTRACT urvey of contaminants in strea mbed edi­ melll in selected stream of th e Potomac This report describes the occur­ The U.S. Geo logica l Survey ( SGS) is implementing th e ational Water­ Ri ver Ba in. The report focuses on five rence and distribution of five selected Quality A ssessment ( AWQA) program elec ted contaminants, including two trace contaminants in streambed sediments to de cribe and xplain water-quality co n­ element - lead and mercury-and three at 22 strea m sites in the Potomac ditions and trend s of th e Nation' urface­ organic compound hl01·dane, total River Basin. Lead, mercury, and total wa ter and grou nd-water resources DDT (dichl orodiphenyltrichloroeth ane). DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloro­ (Gilliom and oth ers. 1995). One of the ethane) were detected at all sites, and fir. t area s to be studied as part or th e full­ Streambed-sediment samples were co ll ected and chlordane and total PCB's (polychlori­ sca le A WQA program i. th e Potomac composited from a variety of depositional settings nated biphenyls) were detected at Ri ver Basin. where water-quality within stream reaches that averaged 300 feet in length at each sampling site. most sites. At six sites, streambed­ sa mpling ac ti vities for th e study sediment concentrations of contami­ were begun in 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • MDE Urban QAPP 1-3-17 (2).Pdf
    Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 3 1.1 - Title and Approval Page – See page i. ................................................................................. 3 1.2 - Table of Contents – See page ii. ......................................................................................... 3 1.3 - Distribution List ................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 - Project Organization ........................................................................................................... 3 1.5 - Problem Definition/Background ......................................................................................... 7 1.6 - Project/Task Description and Schedule ............................................................................ 10 1.7 - Quality Objectives and Criteria for Acceptance of Data ................................................... 10 1.8 - Special Training Requirements/Certification .................................................................... 11 1.9 - Documents and Records ................................................................................................... 12 2.0 DATA SOURCES AND ACQUISITION ....................................................................................... 12 2.1 - Data Acquisition ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]