DOCSLIB.ORG

Restoration Plan for the Western Branch Watershed in Prince George’S County December 21, 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restoration Plan for the Western Branch Watershed in Prince George’S County December 21, 2018 Restoration Plan for the Western Branch Watershed in Prince George’s County December 21, 2018 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 7. USEPA 2. PGC DoE 8. PGC DoE 3. Prince George’s County 9. PGC DoE 4. Prince George’s County 10. PGC DoE 5. Clean Water Partnership 11. Clean Water Partnership 6. Clean Water Partnership 12. Tetra Tech, Inc. 13. PGC DoE Western Branch Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................. v 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 What is a Restoration Plan? ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Watershed Restoration Goals and Objectives .............................................................................. 2 1.3 Structure of the Plan ..................................................................................................................... 3 2 Watershed Characterization ............................................................................................... 4 2.1 Physical and Natural Features ...................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.2 Climate/Precipitation ........................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Topography/Elevation ......................................................................................................... 9 2.1.4 Soils .................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Land Use and Land Cover .......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Land Use Distribution ........................................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Imperviousness ................................................................................................................. 13 3 Water Quality Conditions .................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Water Quality Impairments ......................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Water Quality Trends .................................................................................................................. 15 3.2.1 Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus ................................................................................. 17 3.2.2 Total Suspended Solids .................................................................................................... 21 3.2.3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Dissolved Oxygen ..................................................... 24 3.2.4 Fecal Coliform Bacteria ..................................................................................................... 27 3.2.5 Analysis of Water Quality Data Gaps ................................................................................ 27 3.3 Biological Assessment ................................................................................................................ 29 3.1.1. Assessment Methodology ................................................................................................. 29 3.1.2. Biological Assessment Results ......................................................................................... 30 3.4 Trash Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 31 3.4.1 Trash Rating Protocol ....................................................................................................... 31 3.4.2 Results of Trash Assessment ........................................................................................... 33 4 Watershed Conditions ...................................................................................................... 34 4.1 Pollutant Sources ........................................................................................................................ 34 4.1.1 NPDES-Permitted Point Sources ...................................................................................... 34 4.1.2 Nonpoint and Other Sources ............................................................................................ 36 4.1.3 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ........................................................................ 39 4.2 Existing Stormwater BMPs ......................................................................................................... 41 4.3 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 44 4.3.1 Stream Biology and Impervious Cover ............................................................................. 44 4.3.2 Storm Drain Network ......................................................................................................... 44 5 Restoration Methodology Development .......................................................................... 48 5.1 Strategy for Developing the Restoration Plan ............................................................................ 48 5.2 Load Reduction Targets and Existing Gap ................................................................................. 50 5.3 Strategy Management Options and Their Load Reductions ...................................................... 52 5.3.1 Programmatic Initiatives .................................................................................................... 53 5.3.2 Structural BMPs ................................................................................................................ 53 5.3.3 BMP Siting Procedures ..................................................................................................... 60 6 Restoration Activity Identification ................................................................................... 63 6.1 Load Reductions from Structural BMPs...................................................................................... 63 6.1.1 Retrofit Existing BMPs ...................................................................................................... 63 6.1.2 Stream Restoration and Outfall Stabilization Projects ...................................................... 64 6.1.3 Environmental Site Design Practices ................................................................................ 68 i Western Branch Restoration Plan 6.1.4 Load Reduction Scenarios ................................................................................................ 69 6.2 Restoration Strategy Costing ...................................................................................................... 70 6.2.1 Unit Cost Determination .................................................................................................... 70 6.2.2 Cost Analysis for Stream Restoration and Outfall Stabilization ........................................ 71 6.2.3 Cost Analysis for ESD BMPs ............................................................................................ 73 6.3 BMP Siting .................................................................................................................................. 76 6.3.1 Stream Restoration ........................................................................................................... 76 6.3.2 Outfall Repairs/Stabilization .............................................................................................. 76 6.3.3 BMP Siting Analysis .......................................................................................................... 78 6.3.4 Prioritizing BMP Locations ................................................................................................ 82 6.4 Additional Load Reduction Activities........................................................................................... 83 6.4.1 Programmatic Strategies .................................................................................................. 83 6.4.2 Additional County Programs ............................................................................................. 89 6.4.3 Wastewater Programs....................................................................................................... 90 6.4.4 Atmospheric Deposition Reductions ................................................................................. 91 7 Tracking and Adaptive Management ............................................................................... 92 7.1 Implementation Tracking ............................................................................................................ 92 7.2 Biological and Water Quality Monitoring ..................................................................................... 92 7.2.1 Biological Monitoring ........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie, Maryland 20716
    City of Bowie 15901 Excalibur Road Bowie, Maryland 20716 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Alfred D. Lott, ICMA-CM, CPM City Manager SUBJECT: City Transportation Priority List for 2021-2022 DATE: July 29, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________________ I. Background Each year, the City Council conducts an overview of the State’s Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP) and County Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the purposes of establishing the City’s Transportation Priority Listing. The City’s priorities are communicated to State and County officials as early input to the next year’s budget cycle. A typical project in the CTP will go through four distinct stages, as noted below. Not all activities for each project may be funded at the same time. Some projects are funded for the first activity, but then left dormant for various reasons. The levels of activity, or stages, a typical project goes through are: • Project Planning, which is a two-step process. The first part of Project Planning is the delineation of a project’s limits and identification of those agencies whose participation will be necessary in the project. The second step is to determine necessary improvements which may be required for construction of a project, such as identifying various activities like right- of-way acquisition or wetlands mitigation which must be carried out, and determining such design aspects of a project as the required number of lanes or whether noise barriers will be required; • Design and Engineering, which is where the actual details of such factors as how much fill may be needed, where the various utilities will be located (i.e., underground versus overhead), etc., are determined; • Right-of-Way Acquisition, which is where SHA actually negotiates with land owners to obtain whatever land is needed to construct the project; and • Construction, which is the final activity where the road or improvement is actually constructed.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince George's County 2021 CIP Letter
    401 9th Street, NW North Lobby, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 Tel: 202.482.7200 Fax: 202.482.7272 www.ncpc.gov April 13, 2020 IN REPLY REFER TO: NCPC File No. CP14 The Honorable Todd M. Turner Chair Prince George’s County Council 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 Dear Honorable Todd M. Turner: We have reviewed Prince George’s County's Proposed Capital Budget and Program Fiscal Years 2021-2026 (CIP) to determine the program's potential impact on federal properties or other federal interests in the National Capital Region. None of the capital projects appear to have any adverse impacts. The CIP is consistent with the planning principles and policies of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements (Comprehensive Plan). We appreciate that the second largest component of the capital program is designed to improve regional mobility. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies Related to Integrated Regional Transit, we particularly support the Bus Mass Transit/Metro Access, Southern Maryland Rapid Transit, Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure, Maryland Purple Line, and Addison Rd/Capitol Hts. Metro Corridor projects. Likewise, we support the incorporation of multiple trail development projects: Trail Development Fund, Collington Branch Stream Valley Park, Piscataway Creek Stream Valley Park, Paint Branch SVP – College Park Woods Trail, WB&A Trail Spur and Bowie Heritage Trail. The County’s CIP also embraces a commendable program of environmental improvements. Several projects support Capper-Cramton stream valleys and other regional watersheds including the Bear Branch Sub-Watershed, COE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] County Restoration, Flood Protection and Drainage Improvement, Patuxent River Park and Stream Restoration/SWM [Storm Water Management] Retrofit.
    [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]
  • Annual NPDES MS4 Report 2015
    Annual NPDES MS4 Report This page is intentionally left blank Prepared for: Maryland Department of the Environment Water Management Administration 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Prince George’s County, Department of the Environment 1801 McCormick Drive, Suite 500, Largo, MD 20774 Phone: (301) 883- 5943 Fax: (301) 883- 9218 6/30/2015 This page is intentionally left blank National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 2015 Annual Report This page is intentionally left blank Prepared for Maryland Department of the Environment Water Management Administration 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Prepared by Prince George’s County Government Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division 1801 McCormick Drive, Suite 500 Largo, Maryland 20774 This page is intentionally left blank Annual NPDES MS4 Report 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Prince George’s County Department of the Environment, Stormwater Management Division, prepares the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Annual Report on behalf of Prince George’s County. The status of the County’s NPDES programs is based upon information solicited from County agencies that administer jurisdiction-wide water quality programs and accomplishments achieved in partnership with State and Federal agencies and non-profit organizations. Primary administrative and technical personnel responsible for compliance with the NPDES MS4 Permit are referenced under Permit
    [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]
  • Table of Contents I
    Table of Contents I. Introduction Introduction Goals and Objectives Benefits of Green Space Green Space, Greenways, & Trail Types II. Regional Green Space and Greenways Framework Vision for Green Space in Metropolitan Washington Existing Green Space Network Green Space Opportunities and Challenges Regional Greenway Projects Accotink Greenway Anacostia Greenway Fort Circle Greenway Metropolitan Branch Trail and Prince George’s Connector Monocacy River Greenway Northwest Branch Greenway Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Prince William County Potomac Heritage Trail Fairfax County Fairfax Heritage Trail and Potomac Heritage Trail Loudoun County Potomac Heritage Trail Prince George’s County Potomac River Greenway and Potomac Heritage Trail Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Trail Community Greenway Access III. Implementation Strategy Overview of the Implementation Process Funding Opportunities Federal Funding State Funding Local Funding Private Funding Community Funding Acquisition and Development Alternatives Federal and State Agencies County and Local Governments Non-Governmental Organizations Private Landowners Management Agreements Management Techniques Safety and Security Maintenance Multi-Use Conflicts Liability Technical Assistance Community Outreach Techniques Confronting Opposition to Greenways Public Outreach Strategies IV. Greenway Resources and Contacts Bibliographical Resources Local Contacts Appendix List of Metropolitan Washington Proposed Greenways Introduction Green Space Past and Present From the National Mall to the region’s stream valley parks and outlying farmland, metropolitan Washington is characterized by natural beauty and green space. In 1791, Pierre L’Enfant laid out the District of Columbia between the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers with 17 park reservations, open space for memorials, civic art, institutions, and broad park-like streets and avenues creating a network of green space. This network was expanded in the late 1800s with the designation of Potomac Park, Rock Creek Park and Anacostia Park.
    [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]
  • SHA's Historic Bridge Inventory 1809-1947 Introduction
    SHA’s Historic Bridge Inventory 1809-1947 Introduction In 1995, the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) joined with the Maryland Historical Trust (MD SHPO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to inventory Maryland’s state, county and city highway bridges as part of SHA’s cultural resources initiative. Through that process, 855 bridges constructed between 1809 and 1947 were identified as historic resources. Based on the National Register of Historic Places’ Criteria for Evaluation, 415 bridges were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The eligibility determination for each bridge was completed on July 27, 2001 based on consultation between SHA and the MD SHPO. The reader should be aware that the bridges listed below represent the results of data collection for a specific activity at SHA. They are intended to be used for general planning purposes and general information purposes only. For a number of reasons it may be necessary to change an eligibility determination for an historic bridge; and SHA continues to consult with MD SHPO regarding these decisions. Final determinations of eligibility can be found in the records of MD SHPO. The bridge list is arranged first by county and then alphabetically by town. Each bridge is named, and while many names are the route number, e.g., US 40 over the Patapsco River, others have formal names, e.g., Blue Bridge, which is MD 942 over the North Branch of the Potomac River. The location of each bridge identifies the body of water or railroad that the bridge crosses. Each bridge has a number; the county bridges are identified by the alpha-numeric system, while the SHA bridges are noted numerically.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Maryland
    Bulletin No. 231 Series F, Geography, 39 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOK GAZETTEER OF MARYLAND BY HENRY. QA.NISTETT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1904 0 tf y LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D. C., March 9, 1904. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for publication as a bulletin, a gazetteer of Maryland. Very respectfully, HENRY GANNETT,. Geographer. Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT, Director United States Geological Survey. 3 A GAZETTEER OF MARYLAND. By HENRY GANNETT. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE. Maryland is one of the Eastern States, bordering on the Atlantic Ocean, about midway between the northern and southern boundaries of the country. It lies between latitudes 37° 53' and 39° 44', and between longitudes 75° 04 and 79° 33'. Its neighbors are Pennsyl­ vania on the north, West Virginia and Virginia on the west and south, and Delaware on the east. Its north boundary is Mason and Dixon's line, and its east boundary is, in part, a nearly north-south line separating it from Delaware and Pennsylvania, and, in part, the Atlantic Ocean. On the south the boundary is an irregular line across the peninsula separating Chesapeake Bay from the Atlantic Ocean; then across Chesapeake Bay to the southern point of the entrance to Potomac River; thence following the low-water line on the south bank of the Potoniac to the head of the north branch of that river, at a point known as Fairfax Stone, excepting the area of the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • SHA IR and TMDL Plan (Part 4)
    Part IV SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Part IV SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plan DRAFT IMPERVIOUS RESTORATION AND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION COORDINATED TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN PCBs are to be reduced in certain subwatersheds of the Anacostia IV. SHA WATERSHED TMDL River. The Anacostia River Northeast Branch subwatershed requires a 98.6% reduction and the Anacostia River Northwest Branch IMPLEMENTATION PLANS subwatershed requires a 98.1% reduction. The Anacostia River Tidal subwatershed is included in the Tidal Potomac PCB TMDL. However, PCB reduction requirements for this portion of the Anacostia A. ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED watershed have not been determined. Instead of publishing a reduction percentage, the MDE Data Center said "see report." Because of the A.1. Watershed Description way the reductions are listed in the tables in the TMDL report, with totals added together either by tributary or by segments or jurisdiction, The Anacostia River watershed encompasses 145 square miles across it is not possible to determine a load reduction for these waterbodies both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland, and an so that SHA's requirement could be calculated. additional 31 square miles in Washington, DC. The watershed terminates in Washington, D.C., where the Anacostia River flows into the Potomac River, which ultimately conveys water to the Chesapeake A.3. SHA Visual Inventory of ROW Bay. The watershed is divided into 15 subwatersheds: Briers Mill Run, The stormwater implementation teams are currently evaluating grids in Fort Dupont Tributary, Hickey Run, Indian Creek, Little Paint Branch, the watershed and will continue to do so until all are completed and Lower Beaverdam Creek, Northeast Branch, Northwest Branch, Paint accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • Areawide Infrastructure Ch Beg.Indd
    Approved Master Plan & Sectional Map Amendment a BOWIE nd VICINITY Areawide Infrastructure To support the preferred development patterns envisioned for the county, the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan sets forth a number of critical infrastructure and public facility visions, goals, and policies that must be refl ected in each master or small area plan as those plans are updated. To be comprehensive and effective, the master plan must ensure that the level and type of infrastructure and public facilities are available, or will be provided, to accommodate the planned development pattern. A goal of the Bowie and Vicinity Master Plan and SMA is to maintain, protect and enhance the environmental infrastructure, transportation systems, public facilities, and parks and recreation systems for residents, customers, and workers in the planning area. Pedestrians, joggers and cyclists can cross MD 197 on a footbridge from the Bowie Town Center. Environmental Infrastructure Vision: The environmental infrastructure is an Infrastructure Plan and contain special wildlife habitat interconnected system of public and private lands and areas of special concern for water quality preservation. that contain signifi cant areas of woodlands, wetlands, They are areas that should receive special consideration wildlife habitat, and other sensitive areas with minimal when land development activities are proposed in the intrusions from land development, light and noise vicinity and when land is being considered for public pollution. acquisition. The plan does not recommend the addition of any SCAs of local signifi cance. The areas that contain Background: The designated green infrastructure substantial resources have been designated as having network is based on the network developed for the countywide signifi cance.
    [Show full text]