DOCSLIB.ORG

Watershed Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Watershed Management Plan CITY OF FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA Watershed Management Plan City of Falls Church Department of Public Works Prepared with assistance from Adopted February 27, 2012 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. CITY OF FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA Watershed Management Plan Adopted February 27, 2012 City of Falls Church Department of Public Works 300 Park Avenue | Falls Church, Virginia 22046 www.fallschurchva.gov Prepared with assistance from AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 14428 Albemarle Point Place | Chantilly, Virginia 20151 www.amec.com (703) 488-3700 City of Falls Church Watershed Management Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The City of Falls Church Watershed Management Plan was developed with the assistance and guidance of the City of Falls Church Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC). The following individuals and organizations contributed their time, knowledge, and energy in developing this final plan: Member Association/Organization Nader Baroukh ..................................................... City Council Melissa Teates ...................................................... Village Preservation and Improvement Society Charles Wallace ................................................... Business Maureen Budetti................................................... Academia Vigdis Jacobsen ................................................... Cherry Hill/Winter Hill Heidi Schooner..................................................... Gresham Place Dennis Szymanski ................................................ Hillwood Avenue Richard Strong ..................................................... Sherrow Avenue David Thirkill....................................................... Steeple’s Court Michael Bear ........................................................ Bishop’s Court John Maier ........................................................... At-Large Jason Douglas ...................................................... At-Large Bob Young ........................................................... Development Community Bill Schellstede .................................................... Environmental Service Council Gerard Mene ........................................................ Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Paul Cannon ......................................................... Chamber of Commerce Barry Buschow..................................................... Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority (Board) Karle Mohle ......................................................... Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority (Staff) Rob Meeks ........................................................... Planning Commission The City of Falls Church Watershed Management Plan project team consisted of the following individuals: William Hicks ...................................................... Director of Public Works, City of Falls Church Jason Widstrom .................................................... Civil Engineer, City of Falls Church Kathy Allan .......................................................... Environmental Programs Specialist, City of Falls Church David Bulova ....................................................... Project Manager, AMEC Troy Biggs ........................................................... Senior Water Resources Engineer, AMEC Jean Haggerty....................................................... Senior Planner, AMEC Policy of Non-Discrimination on the Basis of Disability The City of Falls Church does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its employment practices or in the admission to, access to, or operations of its services, programs, or activities. Cindy Mester, 300 Park Avenue, Falls Church, Virginia 22046 has been designated to coordinate compliance with the ADA non- discrimination requirement. Acknowledgements City of Falls Church Watershed Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1. Introduction and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Watershed Management Plan Goals and Process ............................................................ 1-1 1.2 Description of Watersheds and Summary of Major Issues .............................................. 1-3 1.3 Watershed Management Organizational Structure .......................................................... 1-5 1.4 Previous Studies and Plans .............................................................................................. 1-6 2. Summary of Watershed Conditions .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Watershed Monitoring and Modeling Data ..................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Impacts of Impervious Surface Cover ............................................................................. 2-7 2.3 City of Falls Church Stream Assessment ......................................................................... 2-9 2.4 Recommendations and Monitoring Options .................................................................. 2-15 3. Regulatory Drivers and Analysis of City Policies and Ordinances 3.1 Major State and Federal Regulatory Drivers ................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Analysis of City Policies and Ordinances ........................................................................ 3-2 3.3 Policy and Ordinance Recommendations ...................................................................... 3-19 4. City Watershed Management Programs ....................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Summary of Watershed Management Programs ............................................................. 4-1 4.2 Program Recommendations ............................................................................................. 4-5 5. Watershed Management Strategies 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Watershed Management Techniques ............................................................................... 5-1 5.3 Problem/Opportunity Identification and Initial Prioritization.......................................... 5-6 5.4 Project Rankings ............................................................................................................ 5-22 5.5 Project Data Sheets ........................................................................................................ 5-28 6. Funding Options ........................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Overview of Current Program Costs and Revenue .......................................................... 6-1 6.2 Revenue Needs ................................................................................................................ 6-3 6.3 Funding Methods and Revenue Generating Capacity ...................................................... 6-5 6.4 Funding Recommendations ........................................................................................... 6-12 Appendices A. Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... A-1 B. Stream Reach Field Investigation Sheets ..................................................................................... B-1 C. Monitoring and Assessment Options ........................................................................................... C-1 D. Virginia DCR Review of the City’s Floodplain Overlay District ................................................ D-1 E. Center for Watershed Protection Codes and Ordinances Worksheet ........................................... E-1 F. City-Wide List of Problem Areas ................................................................................................. F-1 G. Project Investigation Forms ......................................................................................................... G-1 H. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Compliance Scenarios .......................................................................... H-1 Table of Contents TOC-1 City of Falls Church Watershed Management Plan Table of Contents TOC-2 City of Falls Church Watershed Management Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Falls Church is divided into two local watersheds, Tripp’s Run and Four Mile Run, both of which are important to the character and quality of life of the City and ultimately affect the health of the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. This Watershed Management Plan is the result of a nearly two year long citizen-led process designed to create a roadmap for (1) reducing flooding to improve safety and protect property, (2) restoring and maintaining a healthy local aquatic ecosystem, and (3) cost-effectively complying with state and federal water quality and stormwater management regulations. The plan builds on previous watershed studies and supports the City Council Vision and Long-Term Strategic Plan objective to “Adopt and implement best practices in watershed management to improve community water quality.” Key Decision Making Factors Three key factors provided focus for the development of this plan and for prioritizing strategies and recommendations. These factors include: (1) new state and federal mandates that will require significant additional investment in stormwater infrastructure; (2) deficient existing City infrastructure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Watershed Management Carroll University – Fall 2013
    ENV455 – Watershed Management Carroll University – Fall 2013 Professor: Dr. Jason G. Freund Lecture: Tuesday and Thursday 8:00 to 9:50, Maxon 103 Office: Rankin 304C Office Hours: Monday 2:00 to 3:30, Thursday 1:00 to Phone: (262) 524-7146 3:00, Friday 10:40 to 12:00; other hours by dropping in or E-mail: [email protected] make an appointment to be sure I will be in my office. I. Course Description From the Carroll University catalog: This course examines the interaction of abiotic, biotic, and social components in the management of a drainage basin's terrestrial and aquatic resources. Through the examination of global watershed management literature and related case studies, students will actively engage in the development of a watershed management plan. Class projects will focus on selected Wisconsin, upper Midwest, and Great Lakes watersheds. (Fa) Prerequisites: ENV 201 (not yet enforced), plus junior or senior standing. ENV 267 recommended. Watershed Management ENV 455 is a required course for Environmental Science majors and an important elective for majors in Biology and Environmental Science minors. This course will expose students to a wide range of issues associated with the management of natural resources. We will use the watershed as the management unit – as many state and federal agencies have moved their emphasis to the watershed scale – though other geographic scales could easily be substituted. This course aims to provide experiences related to the management of both terrestrial and aquatic resources and provide students with an appreciation of the interaction among aquatic and terrestrial environments. Maybe most importantly, students will understand the decision-making process and how societal norms and policies influence the management of natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Resources and Their Management
    3 Freshwater resources and their management Coordinating Lead Authors: Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz (Poland), Luis José Mata (Venezuela) Lead Authors: Nigel Arnell (UK), Petra Döll (Germany), Pavel Kabat (The Netherlands), Blanca Jiménez (Mexico), Kathleen Miller (USA), Taikan Oki (Japan), Zekai Senç (Turkey), Igor Shiklomanov (Russia) Contributing Authors: Jun Asanuma (Japan), Richard Betts (UK), Stewart Cohen (Canada), Christopher Milly (USA), Mark Nearing (USA), Christel Prudhomme (UK), Roger Pulwarty (Trinidad and Tobago), Roland Schulze (South Africa), Renoj Thayyen (India), Nick van de Giesen (The Netherlands), Henk van Schaik (The Netherlands), Tom Wilbanks (USA), Robert Wilby (UK) Review Editors: Alfred Becker (Germany), James Bruce (Canada) This chapter should be cited as: Kundzewicz, Z.W., L.J. Mata, N.W. Arnell, P. Döll, P. Kabat, B. Jiménez, K.A. Miller, T. Oki, Z. Senç and I.A. Shiklomanov, 2007: Freshwater resources and their management. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 173-210. Freshwater resources and their management Chapter 3 Table of Contents .....................................................175 3.5.2 How will climate change affect flood Executive summary damages?...............................................................196 .......................................................175
    [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]
  • Kingdom of Cambodia
    Forests & Water/REF/12 KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA Nation Religion King I I I I I I Country Report on Forest and Watershed Management Prepared by Teang Sokhom Deputy Chief of GIS/RS and Watershed Management Unit Department of Forestry and Wildlife Contact Address: # 40, Norodom Blvd. Phnom Penh CAMBODIA TEL/FAX: 855-23-214614 Mobil phone: 855-12-840725 Email: [email protected] 1 CONTENT Page I. Background 2 II. Deforestation 2 III. Forest Management 3 3.1 Forest Land allocation 4 3.2 Forest Concession Management 4 3.2.1 Concession level forest inventory (long term, 25-30 years) 5 3.2.2 Compartment level forest inventory (medium term, 5 years) 5 3.2.3 Coupe harvesting plan (Annual term, 1 year) 6 3.3 National Protected Areas 6 3.4 Protected Forest 6 3.5 Forest Plantation 7 3.6 Forest Community 8 IV. Watershed Management 8 4.1 Data for Watershed Management 9 4.1.1 Data available 9 4.1.2 Data not yet available 9 4.2 Watershed's Issues 10 4.3 Watershed Management Activities 10 4.4 Future Plan 10 4.5 Constrain Faced 10 4.6 Proposal 11 Annex 12 2 I. Background The multiple demands on the land, natural and water resources of the Cambodia increasingly strain its watershed. The integrity of watersheds is, however, vital to sustainable natural resources management. Of particular interest in this regard are water regime and water quality of the river system which depend to a large extent on the conditions of the landscape in the head waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Status Report on Watershed Management in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam
    Working Paper 08 Country Status Report on Watershed Management in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam As Background Information for the Policy Dialogue on Watershed Management 28 – 30 September 2004 prepared by Min Bunnara (Cambodia) Sengkham Inthiravongsy (Lao PDR) Vanchai Viranan (Thailand) Pham Thi Thuy Co (Vietnam) And Others Vientiane, September 2004 (Edition: Christoph Backhaus, Jeremy Broadhead and Timo Menniken, September 2004) MRC-GTZ Cooperation Programme Agriculture, Irrigation and Forestry Programme Watershed Management Component Table of Content Part I Summary The Status of Watershed Management in Cambodia 1. Enabling regulations 05 2. Institutional framework 05 3. Consistency in planning processes 06 4. Implementation experiences 06 5. Capacity building 07 6. Impact monitoring 08 7. Financial mechanisms and incentives 09 8. Conclusions 09 The Status of Watershed Management in Lao PDR 1. Enabling regulations 11 2. Institutional framework 11 3. Consistency in planning processes 12 4. Implementation experiences 13 5. Capacity building 14 6. Impact monitoring 14 7. Financial mechanisms and incentives 15 8. Conclusions 15 The Status of Watershed Management in Thailand 1. Enabling regulations 17 2. Institutional framework 18 3. Consistency in planning processes 18 4. Implementation experiences 19 5. Capacity building 19 6. Impact monitoring 20 7. Financial mechanisms and incentives 20 8. Conclusions 21 The Status of Watershed Management in Vietnam 1. Enabling regulations 23 2. Institutional framework 23 3. Consistency in planning processes 24 4. Implementation experiences 25 5. Capacity building 26 6. Impact monitoring 26 7. Financial mechanisms and incentives 27 8. Conclusions 27 2 Part II Extended Version The Status of Watershed Management in Cambodia 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 West Fontana Channel Bioswale Improvements
    Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 West Fontana Channel Bioswale Improvements County of San Bernardino Flood Control Engineering Division 825 E. Third Street, Rm. 140 San Bernardino, CA 92415 Release Date: August 18, 2016 Deadline Date: September 8, 2016 (Rev 1/30/2015) San Bernardino County Request for Proposal No. PWG117-FLOOD-2154 Flood Control District West Fontana Channel Bioswale Page 2 of 48 Improvements TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ............................................................................................................................................... 3 B. PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 C. TERM OF AGREEMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 3 D. QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3 E. CORRESPONDENCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 F. ADMONITION TO PROPOSERS ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Incorporating Wetlands Into Watershed Planning
    EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement: Incorporating Wetlands into Watershed Planning February 2013 Photograph Sources All photographs are in the public domain. Clockwise starting in the upper left: 1. R. Hagerty. 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. Wetland sunrise; water and reeds in foreground with plant growth in background. (Wisconsin) 2. R. Hagerty. 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A close-up view of a whooping crane photographed at the International Crane Foundation in Baraboo, Wisconsin. Endangered species. 3. J. Hollingsworth and K. Hollingsworth. 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hooded Merganser brood, Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Michigan. 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Thirty-acre wetland restoration in Rice County, Minnesota. 5. D. Becker. 2010. U.S. Geological Survey. Floodwaters at Moorhead, Minnesota. 6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Three men using equipment to take core samples at Roxanna Marsh, Grand Calumet River, in Hammond, Indiana, as part of a wetland restoration effort and damage assessment process. EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement Contents Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... vii 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 What Is the Purpose of This Supplement? ........................................................................ 1 1.2 Why Include
    [Show full text]
  • Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I FINAL REPORT
    ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Project Report No. 593 Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I FINAL REPORT by Andrew J. Erickson, Jessica L. Kozarek, Kathryn A. Kramarczuk, and Laura Lewis St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, 2 Third Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 Prepared for University of Minnesota Water Resources Center, Minnesota Stormwater Research Council December 2020 Minneapolis, Minnesota Cite as: Erickson, AJ, Kozarek, JL, Kramarczuk, KA, and Lewis, L. (2020). “Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase 1 Final Report.” Project Report No. 593, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. December 2020. Biofiltration Media Optimization – Phase I Final Report – December 2020 This project was supported by the Minnesota Stormwater Research and Technology Transfer Program administered by the University of Minnesota Water Resources Center through an appropriation from the Clean Water Fund established by Minnesota Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment and from the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council with financial contributions from: ● Capitol Region Watershed District ● Comfort Lake-Forest Lake Watershed District ● Mississippi Watershed Management Organization ● Nine Mile Creek Watershed District ● Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District ● South Washington Watershed District ● City of Edina ● City of Minnetonka ● City of Woodbury, and ● Wenck Associates ● Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition For more information about the Center and the Council, visit: https://www.wrc.umn.edu/projects/storm-waste-water For more information about the Minnesota Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, visit: https://www.legacy.mn.gov/about-funds Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Water Resources Center or the Minnesota Stormwater Research Council.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide
    United States Office of Research EPA/600/R-04/121 Environmental Protection and Development September 2004 Agency Washington DC 20460 Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide: Volume 1 General Considerations EPA/600/R-04/121 September 2004 Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Guide Volume 1 General Considerations By Michael L. Clar, P.E. Ecosite, Inc. Ellicott City, Maryland, 21042 Billy J. Barfield, P.E., Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma Thomas P. O’Connor Urban Watershed Management Branch Water Supply and Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory Edison, NJ 08837 Order No. 1C-R059-NTSX Project Officer Thomas P. O’Connor Urban Watershed Management Branch Water Supply and Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory Edison, NJ 08837 NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY CINCINNATI, OH 45268 Notice The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development partially funded and collaborated in the research described here under Order Number 1C-R059- NTSX to Ecosite, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii Foreword The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.5 Bioretention
    4.5. Bioretention (rain gardens) Bioretention Bioretention areas typically are landscaping features adapted to treat storm water runoff. Bioretention systems are also known as Mesic Prairie Depressions, Rain Gardens, Infiltration Basins, Infiltration Swales, bioretention basins, bioretention channels, tree box filters, planter boxes, or streetscapes, to name a few. Bioretention areas typically consist of a flow regulating structure, a pretreatment element, an engineered soil mix planting bed, vegetation, and an outflow regulating structure. Bioretention systems provide both water quality and quantity storm water management opportunities. Bioretention systems are flexible, adaptable and versatile storm water management facilities that are effective for new development as well as highly urban re-development situations. Bioretention can readily adapt to a site by modifying the conventional “mounded landscape” philosophy to that of a shallow landscape “cup” depression. Such landscape depression storage and treatment areas fit readily into: parking lot islands; small pockets of open areas; residential, commercial and industrial campus landscaping; and, urban and suburban green spaces and corridors. Bioretention works by routing storm water runoff into shallow, landscaped depressions. These landscaped depressions are designed to hold and remove many of the pollutants in a manner similar to natural ecosystems. During storms, runoff ponds above the mulch and Engineered Soil Mix in the system. Runoff from larger storms is generally diverted past the facility to the storm drain system. The runoff remaining in the bioretention facility filters through the Engineered Soil Mix. The filtered runoff can either be designed to enhance groundwater infiltration or can be collected in an underdrain and discharged per local storm water management requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Njcat Technology Verification
    NJCAT TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION BioPod™ Biofilter with StormMix Media™ Oldcastle Precast Inc. May 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii 1. Description of Technology ...................................................................................................... 1 2. Laboratory TestingTes ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Test Setup ......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Test Sediment ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Removal Efficiency Testing ............................................................................................. 8 2.4 Sediment Mass Loading Capacity Testing ....................................................................... 9 2.5 Scour Testing.................................................................................................................... 9 3. Performance Claims ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Evaluation Report
    Stormwater Evaluation Report Prepared for City of Davis September 2017 011-10-17-55 REPORT | SEPTEMBER 2017 Stormwater Evaluation Report ———— Prepared for City of Davis Project No. 011-10-17-55 9/5/17 Project Manager: Kristen Whatley, PE 9/5/17 QA/QC Review: Doug Moore, PE W E S T Y O S T A S S O C I A T E S Carlsbad 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 795-0365 Davis 2020 Research Park Drive, Suite 100 Davis, CA 95618 (530) 756-5905 Eugene 1650 W 11th Ave. Suite 1-A Eugene, OR 97402 (541) 431-1280 Irvine 6 Venture, Suite 290 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 517-9060 Pleasanton 6800 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 150 Pleasanton, CA 94566 (925) 426-2580 Portland 4949 Meadows Road, Suite 125 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 (503) 451-4500 Sacramento 2725 Riverside Boulevard, Suite 5 Sacramento, CA 95818 (916) 504-4915 Santa Rosa 2235 Mercury Way, Suite 105 Santa Rosa, CA 95407 (707) 543-8506 Sunnyvale 1250 Oakmead Parkway, Suite 210 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 (408) 451-8453 Walnut Creek 1777 Botelho Drive, Suite 240 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 949-5800 W E S T Y O S T A S S O C I A T E S Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Available Workhour Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 1
    [Show full text]