DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Quality Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Quality Management Plan CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MASTER PLAN Water Quality Management Supplement Adopted January 13, 2001 Water Quality Management Water Quality Management CITY OF ALEXANDRIA MASTER PLAN Executive Summary and Highlights The Chesapeake Bay – Alexandria’s downstream neighbor – is among the nation’s largest and most productive estuaries. However, carried along with the huge volumes of fresh water from the Bay’s 64,000 square mile watershed are sediments, fertilizers, pesticides, motor oil, and other pollut- ants generated by various land uses and human activities. In 1988, the Virginia General Assembly, recog- nizing that action had to be taken to preserve the Bay for future generations, enacted the Chesa- peake Bay Preservation Act. In 1992, the City of Alexandria adopted a Chesapeake Bay Preser- vation Ordinance (CBPO) to manage land devel- opment in a way that was more harmonious with the environment. The seal of the City of Alexandria highlights the City’s historical and However, this was only a first step. While the present day reliance on the Potomac City’s CBPO is the backbone of Alexandria’s wa- River. ter protection efforts, the Act also requires locali- ties to incorporate water quality protection into their comprehensive plans. This planning pro- cess is the “vision phase” of the Bay Act program and there are no predisposed outcomes. While CHAPTER CONTENTS the City’s CBPO sets out specific water quality ■ Introduction protection criteria, the planning process provides ■ Alexandria’s Water City officials and residents with an opportunity to Environment think strategically about the kind of environment ■ Pollution and Other they want to call home. Sources of Water Quality Decline The Water Quality Management Supplement ■ to the City of Alexandria Master Plan is the re- Water Quality sult of this strategic planning effort. To assist the Management Today City in its effort, the Chesapeake Bay Local As- ■ Policy Analysis and sistance Department provided the Northern Vir- Recommendations ginia Regional Commission with funding to serve as a technical resource. E-1 Water Quality Management While the outcomes are flexible, under the Chesa- peake Bay Preservation Area Designation and SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS Management Regulations, the City is required to investigate the following areas: The following is a summary of the important findings which are explained in more detail in (1) Constraints to Development Section V “Policy Analysis and Action Plan.” (2) Protection of Water Quality Section V also includes a table identifying time (3) Shoreline Protection and Erosion Control frame for completion, cost, and the City agency (4) Public and Private Access to Waterfront responsible for implementation. New actions, Areas and or those which are not ongoing City programs, (5) Redevelopment of Intensely Developed are shown in bold. Areas ■ SMALL AREA PLANS. Most detailed land A major effort in the planning process is to use planning is accomplished through the gather background information to ensure that City’s fourteen Small Area Plans. adequate data is available for making environ- mentally sound decisions. As a result, the bulk To provide a stronger link between each of this Chapter is devoted to pulling together in- SAP and this Supplement, the City will formation from diverse sources in order to paint a incorporate into each SAP: a discus- complete picture of the City’s environment. Sec- sion of the City’s long-range water qual- tions include: ity protection strategies; SAP-specific Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area (1) Introduction maps; and, SAP-specific analyses of (2) Alexandria’s Water Environment opportunities to protect and improve (3) Pollution and Other Sources of Water Qual- water quality and the environment ity Decline through planned development and re- (4) Water Quality Management Today development opportunities. This information then serves as the basis for Sec- ■ EXISTING CITY ORDINANCES. The tion V, “Policy Analysis and Action Plan.” Section City’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Or- V takes a strategic look at how Alexandria’s wa- dinance, Erosion and Sediment Control ter quality programs and regulations meet the Ordinance, and Floodplain Overlay District challenges laid out in Sections I through IV. and the Virginia Uniform Building Code al- ready provide a sound foundation for wa- ter quality management in Alexandria. The City will consider incorporating civil penalties into its CBPO as a way to strengthen local enforcement. ■ TARGETS OF OPPORTUNITY URBAN RETROFIT PROGRAM. The Department of Transportation and Environmental Service’s Targets of Opportunity Urban Retrofit Program is an important public-pri- vate partnership which has resulted in sig- nificant water quality benefits by control- ling pollution from already developed ar- Although urban, Alexandria is still an important eas of the City. This program will continue part of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. E-2 Water Quality Management to be used to improve water quality and this effort and ensure that citizens un- help the State to meet its nutrient pollution derstand the important role that the up- reduction obligations under the federal grade plays in the protection of Chesa- Chesapeake Bay Program. peake Bay water quality. The City will continue to meet and exceed the require- ■ WETLANDS. Wetlands are an important, ments of its permit to operate a combined but disappearing, resource in the City. sewer system. The City will continue its efforts to minimize the number and volume The City will support efforts, similar to of combined sewer overflows. The City will the Targets of Opportunity Urban Ret- continue its sanitary sewer inspection and rofit Program, that promote the resto- maintenance program in an effort to elimi- ration of degraded wetlands and nate sanitary sewer overflows. streams. In addition, while healthy wet- lands should generally be left alone, when ■ WATER QUALITY MONITORING. The impacts do occur the City will try to miti- four primary pollutants of concern in the gate the impacts through wetland cre- City include fecal coliform bacteria, nutri- ation or enhancement, improvements to ents, petroleum products (oil), and thermal riparian areas, or through the use of (heat) pollution. Current efforts by the creative Best Management Practices to City to control these pollutants need to treat stormwater. The City will investi- be expanded and there is a need to bet- gate opportunities to use wetlands as ter characterize City water quality. an educational tool for both students and adults. Specifically, current water quality monitor- ing efforts are not adequate to detect pol- ■ HABITAT PROTECTION. Wildlife habitat lution pulses associated with dumping and protection is a major challenge in Alexan- stormwater runoff. The City will initiate a dria. The City will better identify, char- program to expand the scope of exist- acterize, and map remaining significant ing water quality monitoring efforts. The natural habitat areas that will assist the City will also pursue public-private part- City with its effort to preserve and pro- nerships and volunteers to assist in tect these areas. When possible, exist- monitoring water quality in the City. ing stream valleys need to remain in a natu- ral condition. ■ POLLUTION PREVENTION. Pollution prevention is the most cost-effective way Remaining wildlife habitat areas are frag- to protect water quality. Existing City pro- mented and ways to connect remaining grams include its street sweeping program, habitat areas need to be explored. If cur- leaf collection program, hazardous waste rent efforts by VDOT to reduce the impact and used oil collection program, sanitary of streets on wildlife corridors are success- sewer line inspection and maintenance pro- ful, the City will pursue developing simi- gram, school-age water and environmen- lar standards for new or reconstructed tal education programs, and best manage- City roads. ment practices manual for automotive re- lated industries. ■ WASTEWATER TREATMENT. The Alex- andria Sanitation Authority’s effort to up- While the City has undertaken important grade Alexandria’s Wastewater Treatment pollution prevention efforts, an expanded Facility is probably the single most impor- and comprehensive approach to pollution tant, and costly, environmental protection prevention is needed. Before the year effort in Alexandria. The City will support 2007, the City will need to demonstrate, E-3 Water Quality Management under new federal Clean Water Act require- The City’s web page will be used as a ments, that it is minimizing pollution through means of advertising environmental public education and outreach programs. programs and for exchanging envi- ronmental information. Areas specifically identified as requir- ing attention and public outreach by the ■ USED OIL AND ANTIFREEZE RECY- City include the following. CLING. There is a need for additional par- ticipation in used oil and antifreeze pro- – The City will coordinate with fuel oil grams. The City will increase advertis- companies to increase public aware- ing of collection sites as a way to en- ness of the threat of aging above tice businesses to join the program. ground and underground storage tanks. ■ OPEN SPACE AND VEGETATION. An – The City will continue to work with important way to reduce nonpoint source the Virginia Department of Environ- pollution is to increase the amount of open mental Quality to prevent under- space left in vegetation. The City’s open ground storage tank releases. space requirements do not currently con- – The
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2E – Four Mile
    City of Alexandria, Virginia Geologic Atlas of the City of Alexandria, Virginia and Vicinity – Plate 2E NW E GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION E’ SE FEET NORTHWEST FEET Claremont FOUR MILE RUN 200 GT-112 200 191 Tcg by Anthony H. Fleming, 2015 173 Kpl Barcroft Kpb Park 150 151 150 Kpcv 89 Kpcc Kpcs 100 100 Qc Lucky BEVERLEY HILLS Reservoir Qs Run Charles Kpcg Qaf SHIRLEY HWY Barrett Woods Qa QUAKER LANE MOUNT IDA J-1 60 School 63 GT-42 55 GT-85 GT-185 Shirlington GT-62 50 Qa 48 50 47 POTOMAC YARDS 50 GT-68 GT-67 Qto Qcf Qt 45 44 Qt Arlandria Qcf 39 38 Qa 39 38 Four Mile Rte 1 GT-4 Qcf 30 31 32 Hume Lynhaven 30 Kpcc 30 28 s Qt 25 Run Park GT-136 Qcf Spring GT-117 OCi Kpcv Qto 20 17 15 F-3 Kpcv 16 af 11 Qto af Qa af Qto Kpcs Kpcc Kpcc Kpch Qs Qt 3 SL 0 Qe SL -3 -7 ? Qal Qto-c Kpcc org -25 95% sand org Qto-c -38 -50 Kpch? -50 Kpcc Kpcc 58% total sand (96/164) -68 OCI Kpcs -100 Ogu -100 35% sand Kpcv? -120 Kpcc -150 -149 -150 OCs Kpcs? -200 -195 -200 RCSZ -250 -250 -300 -300 SEE PLATE 5 FOR EXPLANATION OF MAP UNITS VERTICAL EXAGGERATION 20X 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 FEET EXPLANATION OF CROSS SECTION SYMBOLS: WATER WELL GEOTECHNICAL BORING SITES WATER LEVELS REPORTED IN WELLS OTHER SYMBOLS J-60 WELL ID NUMBER AND SURFACE ELEVATION GT-27 ID NUMBER AND HIGHEST AND GEOTECHNICAL BORINGS 250 222 (SOURCE: J-JOHNSTON; D-DARTON; F-FROELICH) SURFACE ELEVATION 47 SURFACE EXPOSURE.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeological Overview and Assessment Blow-Me-Down Farm
    ARCHEOLOGICAL OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT BLOW-ME-DOWN FARM SAINT-GAUDENS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE CORNISH, NEW HAMPSHIRE FINAL Prepared for: National Park Service Northeast Regional Archeology Program 115 John Street Lowell, MA 01852 Prepared by: James Lee, M.A., Principal Investigator Eryn Boyce, M.A., Historian JULY 2017 This page intentionally left blank. This page intentionally left blank. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The following technical report describes and interprets the results of an archeological overview and assessment carried out at Blow-Me-Down Farm, part of the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site in the Town of Cornish, Sullivan County, New Hampshire. The primary goals of this AOA were to: review existing archeological data; generate new archeological data through shovel testing and background research; catalog and assess known and potential archeological resources on this property; and make recommendations concerning the need and design of future studies (National Park Service 1997:25). The Blow-Me-Down Farm occupies a 42.6-acre parcel located between the Connecticut River to the west, New Hampshire Route 12A to the east and Blow-Me-Down Brook to the south. The property, which has a history extending back into the 18th century, served in the late 19th century as the summer home of Charles Beaman, a significant figure in the development of the Cornish Art Colony. The farm was purchased by the National Park Service in 2010 as a complementary property to the adjacent Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing element of the Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site Historic District in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
    Native Vascular Flora City of Alexandria, Virginia Photo by Gary P. Fleming December 2015 Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia December 2015 By Roderick H. Simmons City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Natural Resources Division 2900-A Business Center Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [email protected] Suggested citation: Simmons, R.H. 2015. Native vascular flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Alexandria, Virginia. 104 pp. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Botanical Studies in Alexandria .............................................................................. 5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pohick Creek Watershed Management Plan Are Included in This Section
    Watershed Management Area Restoration Strategies 5.0 Watershed Management Area Restoration Strategies The Pohick Creek Watershed is divided into ten smaller watershed management areas (WMAs) based on terrain. Summaries of Pohick Creek’s ten WMAs are listed in the following WMA sections, including field reconnaissance findings, existing and future land use, stream conditions and stormwater infrastructure. For Fairfax County planning and management purposes the WMAs have been further subdivided into smaller subwatersheds. These areas, typically 100 – 300 acres, were used as the basic units for modeling and other evaluations. Each WMA was examined at the subwatershed level in order to capture as much data as possible. The subwatershed conditions were reviewed and problem areas were highlighted. Projects were proposed in problematic subwatersheds. The full Pohick Creek Draft Watershed Workbook, which contains detailed watershed characterizations, can be found in the Technical Appendices. Pohick Creek has four major named tributaries (see Map 3-1.1 in Chapter 3). In the northern portions of the watershed two main tributaries converge into Pohick Creek stream. The Rabbit Branch tributary begins in the highly developed areas of George Mason University and Fairfax City, while Sideburn Branch tributary begins in the highly developed area southwest of George Mason University. The confluence of these two headwater tributaries forms the Pohick Creek main stem. The Middle Run tributary drains Huntsman Lake and moderately-developed residential areas. The South Run tributary drains Burke Lake and Lake Mercer, as well as the low-density southwestern portion of the watershed. The restoration strategies proposed to be implemented within the next ten years (0 – 10-year plan) consist of 90 structural projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act
    COMMONWEALTHof VIRGINIA DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Permit No.: VA0088587 Effective Date: April 1, 2015 Expiration Date: March 31, 2020 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACT Pursuant to the Clean Water Act as amended and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, the following owner is authorized to discharge in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in this state permit. Permittee: Fairfax County Facility Name: Fairfax County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System County Location: Fairfax County is 413.15 square miles in area and is bordered by the Potomac River to the East, the city of Alexandria and the county of Arlington to the North, the county of Loudoun to the West, and the county of Prince William to the South. The owner is authorized to discharge from municipal-owned storm sewer outfalls to the surface waters in the following watersheds: Watersheds: Stormwater from Fairfax County discharges into twenty-two 6lh order hydrologic units: Horsepen Run (PL18), Sugarland Run (PL21), Difficult Run (PL22), Potomac River- Nichols Run-Scott Run (PL23), Potomac River-Pimmit Run (PL24), Potomac River- Fourmile Run (PL25), Cameron Run (PL26), Dogue Creek (PL27), Potomac River-Little Hunting Creek (PL28), Pohick Creek (PL29), Accotink Creek (PL30),(Upper Bull Run (PL42), Middle Bull Run (PL44), Cub Run (PL45), Lower Bull Run (PL46), Occoquan River/Occoquan Reservoir (PL47), Occoquan River-Belmont Bay (PL48), Potomac River- Occoquan Bay (PL50) There are 15 major streams: Accotink Creek, Bull Run, Cameron Run (Hunting Creek), Cub Run, Difficult Run, Dogue Creek, Four Mile Run, Horsepen Run, Little Hunting Creek, Little Rocky Run, Occoquan Receiving Streams: River, Pimmit run, Pohick creek, Popes Head Creek, Sugarland Run, and various other minor streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Conditions in the United States a Profile from the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress
    United States Office of Water (4503F) EPA841-F-00-006 Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 June 2000 Agency Water Quality Conditions in the United States A Profile from the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress States, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions report that, in 1998, about 40% of U.S. streams, lakes, and estuaries that were assessed were not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming. About 32% of U.S. waters were assessed for this national inventory of water quality. Leading pollutants in impaired waters include siltation, bacteria, nutrients, and metals. Runoff from agricultural lands and urban areas are the primary sources of these pollu- tants. Although the United States has made significant progress in cleaning up polluted waters over the past 30 years, much remains to be done to restore and protect the nation’s waters. Findings States also found that 96% of assessed Great Lakes shoreline miles are impaired, primarily due to pollut- Recent water quality data find that more than ants in fish tissue at levels that exceed standards to 291,000 miles of assessed rivers and streams do not protect human health. States assessed 90% of Great meet water quality standards. Across all types of water- Lakes shoreline miles. bodies, states, territories, tribes, and other jurisdictions report that poor water quality affects aquatic life, fish Wetlands are being lost in the contiguous United consumption, swimming, and drinking water. In their States at a rate of about 100,000 acres per year. Eleven 1998 reports, states assessed 840,000 miles of rivers states and tribes listed sources of recent wetland loss; and 17.4 million acres of lakes, including 150,000 conversion for agricultural uses, road construction, and more river miles and 600,000 more lake acres than residential development are leading reasons for loss.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Water Quality Report
    2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT CITY OF NEWARK: SOUTH WELL FIELD TREATMENT PLANT AIR STRIPPER BUILDING Annual Water Quality Report The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Newark meets or exceeds the water quality requires public water suppliers to provide standards of the Delaware Division of Public consumer confidence reports (CCR) to their Health Office of Drinking Water and the customers . These reports are also known as Environmental Protection Agency. The tables on annual water quality reports. The below report pages 4-6 of this report list those substances summarizes information regarding the sources found in our finished water during calendar year used (i.e. rivers, reservoirs, or aquifers), any 2020. detected contaminants, compliance and educational efforts. How the Water is Treated The City’s 317 million gallon reservoir provides a Drinking water, including bottled water, may At the Curtis Water Treatment Plant (CWTP), reliable source of raw water which can be treated reasonably be expected to contain at least small water from the White Clay Creek is clarified with and ready for drinking in times of heavy rain or amounts of some substances. The presence of alum and polymer and then filtered to remove drought. In an effort to keep sediment these substances does not necessarily indicate impurities. Chlorine is added to kill harmful accumulation in our water mains to a minimum, that water poses a health risk. In order to ensure bacteria and viruses. Finally, fluoride is added to we flush the entire system yearly. that tap water is safe to drink, the EPA prescribes the water to protect your teeth.
    [Show full text]
  • A Direct Route to George Washington's Home
    Office of Historic Alexandria City of Alexandria, Virginia Out of the Attic A direct route to George Washington’s home Alexandria Times, February 12, 2015 Image: Great Hunting Creek. Photo, Office of Historic Alexandria. his week, we continue our discussion of the man-made changes to Great Hunting Creek T and Cameron Run. With the construction of the Richmond Highway causeway across the creek in 1809 and then the building of a streetcar rail bridge across the wide mouth of the waterway at the turn of the 20th century, impediments to proper drainage were well in place by 1900. But within 30 years, a major new construction project would replace the elevated rail bridge with a permanent land form, further restricting the ebb and flow of natural currents and drainage flow far upstream. At the time the streetcar rail bridge was under construction, an Alexandria business group first proposed a new roadway to link the nation’s capital with the tourist haven, Mount Vernon, 15 miles away. As projected, the new highway would cross the Potomac River near Arlington House, as well as at Great Hunting Creek on suspension bridges high above the waterways, named the “Memorial Bridges” in honor of the Civil War dead and to reflect the reunification of the Union and Confederate states. In the rural wilderness of Fairfax County, south of Alexandria, the highway would include 13 rest areas, each featuring a large pavilion reflecting one of the original colonies, with landscaping, architecture and exhibits appropriate to the earliest states. By the late 1920s, Congress finally authorized construction of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, in honor of the upcoming 200th birthday of the nation’s first president in 1932 as promoted by Alexandria businessmen, albeit without the more lavish plans espoused nearly three decades earlier.
    [Show full text]
  • Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (Wwb)
    WOODROW WILSON MEMORIAL BRIDGE (WWB) Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services (BIMS) Second Supplement to Ownership Agreement Commonwealth Transportation Board Briefing Branco Vlacich th Division Administrator December, 10 2019 Maintenance Division Virginia Department of Transportation Ownership Agreement • Initial Ownership Agreement Signed June 15th, 2001 • Maryland and Virginia jointly own and share responsibility for the Bridge. Maryland owns and is also responsible for the Non-Bridge portion of the Project located in Maryland. Virginia owns and is also responsible for the Non-Bridge portion of the Project in Virginia Virginia Department of Transportation First Supplement • First Supplement to Ownership Agreement was signed September 17th, 2009 • First Supplement addressed Operation, Inspection, Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge using a Turn-key Asset Management Services Contract • First Supplement will expire on April 14th, 2020 Virginia Department of Transportation • VDOT will be requesting next month CTB’s approval for the Commissioner to enter into a Second Supplement to the Agreement with the State of Maryland covering Ownership, Operation, Inspection and Maintenance of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (WWB) • The Second Supplement addresses operation, maintenance, inspection and repair services for the WWB • Previous contract performance method used was the Turn-key Asset Management Services Contract • New contract performance method to be used is the Bundled Interstate Maintenance Services Contract
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Residential Indoor Air Quality Concerns1
    Designation: D7297 – 06 Standard Practice for Evaluating Residential Indoor Air Quality Concerns1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation D7297; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. 1. Scope 2. Referenced Documents 1.1 This standard practice describes procedures for evaluat- 2.1 ASTM Standards:2 ing indoor air quality (IAQ) concerns in residential buildings. D1356 Terminology Relating to Sampling and Analysis of 1.2 The practice primarily addresses IAQ concerns encoun- Atmospheres tered in single-family detached and attached (for example, D1357 Practice for Planning the Sampling of the Ambient townhouse or duplex design) residential buildings. Limited Atmosphere guidance is also included for low- and high-rise multifamily D4861 Practice for Sampling and Selection of Analytical dwellings. Techniques for Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls 1.3 The IAQ evaluation procedures are comprised of inter- in Air views with the homeowner or resident(s) (including telephone D4947 Test Method for Chlordane and Heptachlor Residues interviews and face-to-face meetings) and on-site investiga- in Indoor Air tions (including walk-through, assessment, and measure- D5197 Test Method for Determination of Formaldehyde ments). For practicality in application, these procedures are and Other Carbonyl Compounds in Air (Active Sampler dividing into three separate phases. Methodology) 1.4 The procedures described in this standard practice are D5438 Practice for Collection of Floor Dust for Chemical aimed at identifying potential causes contributing to the IAQ Analysis concern.
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington County, Virginia (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ARLINGTON COUNTY, 515520 UNINCORPORATED AREAS PRELIMINARY 9/18/2020 REVISED: TBD FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 51013CV000B Version Number 2.6.4.6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 13 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 13 2.2 Floodways 17 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 18 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 19 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 19 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 19 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 21 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 21 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 22 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 22 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones 22 SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED 22 4.1 Basin Description 22 4.2 Principal Flood Problems 23 4.3 Non-Levee Flood Protection Measures 24 4.4 Levees 24 SECTION 5.0 – ENGINEERING METHODS 27 5.1 Hydrologic Analyses 27 5.2 Hydraulic Analyses 32 5.3 Coastal Analyses 37 5.3.1 Total Stillwater Elevations 38 5.3.2 Waves 38 5.3.3 Coastal Erosion 38 5.3.4 Wave Hazard Analyses 38 5.4 Alluvial Fan Analyses 39 SECTION 6.0 – MAPPING METHODS 39 6.1 Vertical and Horizontal Control 39 6.2 Base Map 40 6.3 Floodplain and Floodway Delineation 41 6.4 Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping 51 6.5 FIRM
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Wilson Bridge
    Department of Energy Project Management Workshop Woodrow 2018 “Managing Uncertainty” Wilson Bridge Project Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project a mega-project success story James T. Ruddell, PE, CCM, F.ASCE, FCMAA Vice President, WSP USA 1 Outline Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project Part 1: Project Overview Part 2: BR-3 Re-bidding Challenge & Lessons Learned Part 3: Proactive Construction Management 2 Project Overview Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project The Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project is located in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area. 3 Project Overview Woodrow 7.5-mile corridor on I-95/Capital Beltway Wilson Bridge from Telegraph Rd. in VA to MD 210 Project Telegraph US Route 1 River Crossing I-295 MD-210 Road 4 Project Overview Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project 5 Why This Project Was Important Woodrow Wilson Bridge Safety . Project nearly twice the accident rate of similar highways in VA and MD Traffic Volume. seven hours of congestion daily and frequent several-mile backups Service Life. Wear and tear on the 40-year old bridge required its replacment in the near term Commerce. At least 1.3% ($58 Billion) of trucked GDP crossed the Bridge in 1993. 6 Project Overview Woodrow Wilson Four Project Sponsors Bridge Project 7 7 Project Overview: Governance Woodrow Wilson Bridge . Joint Ownership Agreement Project – Old bridge owned by FHWA, bascule operated by DC, and bridge maintained by MD and VA – New bridge jointly owned, operated and maintained by MD and VA . MD and VA each had a PM. Strong GEC was “trusted advisor” to both MD and VA . Project Financial
    [Show full text]