DOCSLIB.ORG

Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Pope Branch Subwatershed Provisional Restoration Project Inventory August 2009 I. Background Located in southeast Washington, DC, Pope Branch is a first order tributary to the Anacostia River, approximately 1.6 miles in length. The entire stream lies within the Washington, DC city boundary, originating downstream of Fort Davis Drive SE and flowing in a northwesterly direction towards the Anacostia River. A portion of the stream, approximately 1,700 feet, is piped from the CSX railroad to an outfall at its confluence with the Anacostia River (COG, 2003). The Pope Branch subwatershed encompasses an approximately 248.5-acre area and is roughly bounded by Alabama Avenue SE to the east, Pennsylvania Avenue SE to the south, and Massachusetts Avenue SE to the north. The Pope Branch subwatershed is heavily urbanized. As a result, stormwater runoff from moderate storm events cause flashy and intense stream channel flows. The hydrologic alterations caused by urbanization and development have deteriorated the water quality of Pope Branch and degraded its natural habitat. In addition, watershed analyses have revealed that erosion of its stream banks during storm events is the primary cause of sedimentation within the Pope Branch subwatershed. There are several other current threats to both water quality and the health of the riparian buffer in the Pope Branch watershed. These include nonpoint source water pollution from stormwater runoff, a failing sewer line that traverses segments of Pope Branch, and lack of riparian cover along portions of the stream. As a result of this, Pope Branch does not support swimmable or secondary contact recreation uses. The potential for sewage line leaks into Pope Branch has produced a human health risk as well. In addition to the degraded water quality, the lower part of Pope Branch is piped, serving as a barrier to fish passage upstream and preventing potential recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of the riparian habitat. Recognizing both the severity and extent of environmental and ecological problems affecting the Anacostia River watershed and the need to better coordinate restoration efforts and resources, the three jurisdictions and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments entered into a Federal cost-sharing agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prepare a 10-year watershed restoration plan. The Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan will identify opportunities and approaches for restoring and protecting the 14 major subwatersheds and the tidal river reach within the Anacostia River basin. 1 Northwest Paint )"108 Branch Branch Little Paint Branch )"97 "198 Prince )"28 ) )"650 George's )"198 County )"182 Lower Indian G SE ut29 Creek E S t s 295 1 ÆÄ 3 Upper Beaverdam E K SE Creek 30th SE S n w la ir ¨¦§95 a F M Montgomery SE )"197 M S E Loud SE County )"895 M S E M SE 295 B r )" E 97 a S )" n c d h r 3 S M 201 N SE 3 N SE a " E s ¨¦§495 ) sa ch us P ett ope Nash SE s S Nash SE Bra E )"516 P nch o pe S O SE E )"320 )"193 Nash SE 787 )" 3 N 5 ash t T h SE e S x H E a 195 i s " g 3 Pope ) h SE 4 S Still Creek w t h E o E o S S d E h t S 8 E )"212 Middle 3 Brier Ditch District of "410 E ) E S S h s 8t i 3 v )"501 a Columbia D t r o F E 450 S )" a Upper m )"208 a b "202 a Hickey Run ) l Lower A ut29 Beaverdam )"295 ut50 Creek )"704 ut50 395¨¦§ )"214 )"332 ± Watts Branch ¨¦§295 Pope Fort Dupont Tributary ± 0123 Miles Branch Pope Branch Figure 1- Pope Branch Subwatershed Figure 2- Pope Branch Subwatershed Unit II. Restoration Inventory The following sections include stormwater retrofit, stream restoration, wetland restoration, fish blockage removal, riparian restoration, invasive plant management, and wildlife habitat improvement projects, land acquisition and other-related projects and actions for further evaluation by others. As previously noted, the restoration projects presented herein are conceptual or planning level only. It is recognized that more detailed drainage and site analyses are required, and that facility size and costs shown represent approximations. To facilitate reader understanding of the Pope Branch Subwatershed: Provisional Restoration Project Inventory, information has been organized into the following four sections: Section A - Impervious Features Summary Section B - Existing Stormwater Management Facilities Summary Section C - Candidate Restoration Project Summary Section D - Pope Branch Candidate Restoration Projects 2 A. Impervious Features Summary 3 Figure 3 - Summary: Pope Branch Impervious Features G y e l y t a t n s B a 1 s 3 s i 295 o ÆÄ r C e K l n d n w 30th la a ir R a F ta so ne in Ly Lura M nd y M al M e Lower Loud M M d N stia r h e h o 3 t ls c a c o 3 0 n An n 3 a r h t h B t N 4 N M 4 3 as t 3 s P h a t s op ch 7 1 e us 3 3 B e Nash ra Nash tts nc P h op e O Hi ghw oo d Nash T Na e sh x 3 a 5 3 s t 4 h Pope t h pe Po is er v rpent h a Middle Ca t D 8 t 3 r o High F wood th 38 a Upper m a b la A Legend Streams Subcatchment Subwatershed Unit Waterbody Buildings ± Roads, Parking Lot, and Sidewalks 0500 1,000 2,000 Feet 4 Table 1. Pope Branch: Summary - Impervious Surfaces Category Acres Miles 1. Roads 44.9 8.5 a. State/Fed 0.0 0.1 b. Local 44.9 8.4 2. Parking Lots 0.6 a. Public/Institutional 0.0 b. Private 0.6 3.Roofs 25.8 a. Public/Institutional 0.0 b .Private 2.1 c. Single Family 23.7 3. Other 16.4 a. Sidewalks * 4.1 b. Single Family Driveways ^ 12.3 Total 87.7 Avg. % Imperviousness 33.5% # of Single Family Homes 882 Total Drainage area 262 ^ Driveways assumptions Average Driveway=0.014 Acres Width equal to four feet, with a sidewalk running the * Sidewalks assumptions length of one side of the road. Note: Drainage area and tributary area calculated using the USGS 30-meter digital elevation model (DEM) 5 B. Existing Stormwater Management Facilities Summary 6 Figure 4 - Summary: Pope Branch Existing Stormwater Management BMP Sites ! ! ! G !! y e l y t t a n s B a 1 Lower s 3 s i 295 o ÆÄ r Area: 77 ac C 30th K # of BMPs: 2 n w la ir a F ! ta so ! ne L in yn M da Luray M le M Loud M M N tia h d c h e s o r t l c s a n o 3 0 n n A a 3 r 3 h h t t B 4 4 3 N N 3 h t t s 7 3 1 3 Nash Nash Ma P ss op ac e O hu H se ig Po tts hw pe oo B d ran Nash ch T N as e h x 3 a 5 3 s t 4 h Po t pe h pe Po is v h a t r D ente 8 Carp t Middle 3 r o Hig F hwoo Area: 85 ac d th # of BMPs: 0 38 a m a b la A Upper Area: 112 ac # of BMPs: 0 Legend Subwatershed Unit ! Existing Stormwater BMP Stormwater Controlled Drainage Area ± Subcatchment 0500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet 7 Table 2. Pope Branch: Summary – Pope Branch Existing Stormwater Management BMPs No. of Percent of D.A. Controlled Type Facilities Total BMP's (ac.) 1. Dry Pond 2. ED Dry Pond 3. Wet Pond 4. ED Wet Pond 5. Wetland (non-ED and ED) 6. Infiltration (Trench or Basin) 7. Oil Grit Separator Water Quality Inlet (e.g. 8. Stormreceptor, Bay Saver, etc) Bioretention /Rain Garden 9. 2 100.0% 0.4 10. 'Green Street'* 11. Bioswale 12. Grass Swale w/ Check Dams 13. Porous Pavement 14. Sand Filter 15. Underground Pipe Storage 16. Cistern 17. Green Roof 18. Other Total 2 100.0% 0.4 May include a mix of LID techniques including, but not limited to: bioretention, * rain garden, bioswale, soil amendment, etc. 8 C. Candidate Restoration Project Summary 9 Table 3. Summary: Restoration Candidate Projects Impervious Number Estimated Acreage Length Acreage Candidate Project Type of Cost ($) Controlled (feet) (ac) Projects (ac) 1 Stormwater Retrofit 13 3,992,000 58.6 - 128.9 2 Stream Restoration 3 2,570,000 - 8,800 - 3 Wetland Creation/Restoration 1 50,000 - - 1 Fish Blockage 4 3 820,000 - 4350 - Removal/Modification Riparian Reforestation, 5 Meadow Creation, Street Tree 2 28,500 - - 5.7 and Invasive Management 6 Trash Reduction 2 5,800 - 528 - 7 Toxic Remediation - - - - - 8 Parkland Acquisition 2 201,000 2.0 Total 26 7,667,300 58.6 13,678 138 10 Table 4. Pope Branch Subwatershed: Provisional Restoration Project Inventory ‘Unit Costs’* No. Practice Approx. Unit Cost ($) Stormwater Retrofit Existing Stormwater Management 1 ~ $1,000-3,000/acre of drainage Pond/Wetland Retrofitting New Stormwater Management 2 ~$3,000-5,000/acre of drainage Pond/Wetland Construction LID-Bioretention (w/Underdrain 3 ~ $100,000/ impervious acre System) 4 LID-Curbside/Street Planter ~ $100,000/ impervious acre 5 LID-Tree Box Filter ~ $54,450 - $65,340/impervious acre 6 LID-Green Roof ~ $42/square foot LID-Single Family Home Rain 7 ~ $5,000 per individual garden Garden LID-Single Family Home Rain 8 ~ $200/barrel (Typically, two per house) Barrel 9 Sand Filter ~ $20,000 to $25,000 per impervious acre** 10 Underground Pipe Storage ~ $15,000 per impervious acre*** 11 Permeable Pavement ~ $4.00 per square foot 12 LID Bioswale ~ $100,000/impervious acre 13 Storm Filter ~ $80,000/acre Stream Restoration/Fish Passage/Wetland Creation 14 Stream Restoration ~ $300/LF 15 Concrete Stream Channel Removal ~ $1,000/LF 16 Stream ‘Day Lighting’ ~ $2,000/LF Regenerative Stormwater 17 ~ $370/ft Conveyance System Fish Passage/Riffle Grade Control 18 ~ $150,000 per one foot barrier height Structure 19 Wetland Creation ~50,000/Acre Riparian Reforestation/Meadow Creation/ Invasive Plant Management 20 Riparian Reforestation ~ $9,000/acre 21 Wildflower Meadow Creation ~ $5,000/acre 22 Invasive Plant Management ~ $5,000/acre Trash Reduction/Water Quality 23 Manual Trash Pickup ~ $300/100 LF 24 Fresh Creek Trash Netting System ~ $1,000/acre of drainage 25 Signage ~ $1600 26 End–of-Pipe Trash Catching System ~ $4,000/ acre of drainage 27 Street Sweeping**** ~ $50/curb mile/year 28 Storm Drain Trash Grate ~ $500/inlet Land Acquisition 29 Land Acquisition ~ $100,000/acre includes (where appropriate) design and construction/installation costs ** escalated to 2009 dollars from “Schueler, T.R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Restoration Plan for the Anacostia River Watershed in Prince George’s County December 30, 2015 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. Tetra Tech, Inc. 8. USEPA 3. Prince George’s County 9. Montgomery Co DEP 4. VA Tech, Center for TMDL and 10. PGC DoE Watershed Studies 11. USEPA 5. Charles County, MD Dept of 12. PGC DoE Planning and Growth Management 13. USEPA 6. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services _Tom Liptan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 3 1.1.1 What is a TMDL? ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 What is a Restoration Plan? ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2008 INTEGRATED REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND U.S. CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 305(b) AND 303(d) CLEAN WATER ACT (P.L. 97-117) District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division Government of the District of Columbia Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor PREFACE PREFACE The Water Quality Division of the District of Columbia's District Department of the Environment, Natural Resources Administration, prepared this report to satisfy the listing requirements of §303(d) and the reporting requirements of §305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). This report provides water quality information on the District of Columbia’s surface and ground waters that were assessed during 2008 and updates the water quality information required by law. Various programs in the Natural Resources Administration contributed to this report including the Fisheries and Wildlife Division and the Watershed Protection Division. Questions or comments regarding this report or requests for copies should be forwarded to the address below. The District of Columbia Government District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division 51 N St., NE Washington, D.C. 20002-3323 Attention: N. Shulterbrandt ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • C U R R E N T S
    A N A C O S T I A Currents PUBLISHED BY THE ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION COMMITTEE 2002 Dear Friends of the Report, the restoration effort has gained a new focus, as well as a comprehensive system for tracking Anacostia Watershed: restoration progress until 2010. The Annual Report, with its colorful and user friendly format, will also This is an exciting time for the help to increase public interest and involvement in the member governments and agencies restoration effort. of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC). In addition to fulfilling their AWRC-related obliga- The year began on a high note tions, the individual Anacostia jurisdictions are CATHERINE RAPPE, pursuing a variety of restoration and water quality 2002 AWRC CHAIR following the adoption by the leaders of the District of Colum- enhancement projects throughout the watershed. The bia, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, and District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority took the State of Maryland of a new Anacostia Restoration a major step forward with the recent completion of its Agreement last December. Between this landmark CSO Long Term Control Plan. Meanwhile, District event and the release this fall of the 2001 Annual planners and resource specialists are coordinating with other agencies and organizations to implement a number of stream restoration and Low Impact Development (LID) projects. Montgomery County continues its active role in design and implementing numerous stormwater management, stream restoration, wetland creation and reforestation projects in its portion of the Anacostia watershed. Prince Georges County completed several stormwater retrofit and LID projects this year and recently secured a $1 million grant from EPA for LID demonstration projects throughout the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Dorchester Pope Family
    A HISTORY OF THE Dorchester Pope Family. 1634-1888. WITH SKETCHES OF OTHER POPES IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA, AND NOTES UPON SEVERAL INTERMARRYING FAMILIES, 0 CHARLES HENRY POPE, MllMBIUl N. E. HISTOalC GENIIALOGlCAl. SOCIETY. BOSTON~ MASS.: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, AT 79 FRANKLIN ST. 1888 PRESS OF L. BARTA & Co., BOSTON. BOSTON, MA88,,.... (~£P."/.,.. .w.;,.!' .. 190 L.. - f!cynduLdc ;-~,,__ a.ut ,,,,-Mrs. 0 ~. I - j)tt'"rrz-J (i'VU ;-k.Lf!· le a, ~ u1--(_,fl.,C./ cU!.,t,, u,_a,1,,~{a"-~ t L, Lt j-/ (y ~'--? L--y- a~ c/4-.t 7l~ ~~ -zup /r,//~//TJJUJ4y. a.&~ ,,l E kr1J-&1 1}U, ~L-U~ l 6-vl- ~-u _ r <,~ ?:~~L ~ I ~-{lu-,1 7~ _..l~ i allll :i1tft r~,~UL,vtA-, %tt. cz· -t~I;"'~::- /, ~ • I / CJf:z,-61 M, ~u_, PREFACE. IT was predicted of the Great Philanthropist, "He shall tum the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of children to their fathers." The writer seeks to contribute something toward the development of such mutual afiection between the members of the Pope Family. He has found his own heart tenderly drawn toward all whose names he has registered and whose biographies he has at­ tempted to write. The dead are his own, whose graves he has sought to strew with the tributes of love ; the living are his own, every one of whose careers he now watches with strong interest. He has given a large part of bis recreation hours and vacation time for eight years to the gathering of materials for the work ; written hundreds of letters ; examined a great many deeds and wills, town journals, church registers, and family records ; visited numerous persons and places, and pored over a large number of histories of towns and families ; and has gathered here the items and entries thus discovered.
    [Show full text]
  • DC Flood Insurance Study
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia River Trash Reduction Plan
    CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE The goal is to achieve significant and measurable reductions of trash discharged to the Anacostia River by 2013. A five year schedule of activities was developed that will reasonably lead to a Trash Free Anacostia River. It will also make significant reductions in the amount of trash in Rock Creek and the Potomac. General Activities There are recommendations that are for the whole Anacostia Basin. They should be done as soon as possible. The legislative solutions if enacted quickly will alter the alternatives and costs of the program and save the ratepayers significant amounts of money. Activities such as developing a coordinated litter inspection and enforcement program should begin immediately. Basin Schedules The five year schedule outlined below is developed following the concept of beginning work on the tributaries which are easiest to clean up using the easiest actions to accomplish. The more complicated and expensive actions are placed later in the schedule. Existing programs such as the Hickey Run BMP are compatible as currently planned. DPW will need to acquire more street sweepers, as the area and frequency of sweeping increases. Additionally, because the application of inlet screens has not been proven in the climatic conditions of Washington, DC, they should be used for the smaller basins where the costs will be less. Year 1 - 2009 Ft DuPont A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep Streets C. Curb Cuts D. Clean up debris E. Fence F. Repair outfall Ft Davis 1 A. Screen catch basins B. Sweep Streets C. Curb Cuts D. Clean trash rack Ft Davis 2 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments Received
    PARKS & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (DRAFT RELEASE) LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Notes on List of Comments: ⁃ This document lists all comments received on the Draft 2018 Parks & Open Space Element update during the public comment period. ⁃ Comments are listed in the following order o Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions o Comments from Local & Regional Agencies o Comments from Interest Groups o Comments from Interested Individuals Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE National Capital Region 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W. IN REPLY REFER TO: Washington, D.C. 20242 May 14, 2018 Ms. Surina Singh National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 500N Washington, DC 20004 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Open Space Element Comments Dear Ms. Singh: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft update of the Parks and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements. The National Park Service (NPS) understands that the Element establishes policies to protect and enhance the many federal parks and open spaces within the National Capital Region and that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) uses these policies to guide agency actions, including review of projects and preparation of long-range plans. Preservation and management of parks and open space are key to the NPS mission. The National Capital Region of the NPS consists of 40 park units and encompasses approximately 63,000 acres within the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Our region includes a wide variety of park spaces that range from urban sites, such as the National Mall with all its monuments and Rock Creek Park to vast natural sites like Prince William Forest Park as well as a number of cultural sites like Antietam National Battlefield and Manassas National Battlefield Park.
    [Show full text]
  • 'CHEMICAL COCKTAILS' of TRACE METALS USING SENSORS in URBAN STREAMS Carol Mo
    ABSTRACT Title of thesis: TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS Carol Morel, Masters of Geology, 2020 Thesis directed by: Professor Sujay Kaushal Department of Geology Understanding transport mechanisms and temporal patterns in metals concentrations and fluxes in urban streams are important for developing best management practices and restoration strategies to improve water quality. In some cases, in situ sensors can be used to estimate unknown concentrations and fluxes of trace metals or to interpolate between sampling events. Continuous sensor data from the United States Geological Survey were analyzed to determine statistically significant relationships between lead, copper, zinc, cadmium and mercury with turbidity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and discharge for the Hickey Run, Watts Branch, and Rock Creek watersheds in the Washington, D.C. region. At Rock Creek, there were significant negative linear relationships between Hg and Pb and specific conductance (p<0.05). Watershed monitoring approaches using continuous sensor data have the potential to characterize the frequency, magnitude, and composition of pulses in concentrations and loads of trace metals, which could improve management and restoration of urban streams. TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS by Carol Jisnely Morel Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Geology 2020 Advisory Committee: Professor Sujay Kaushal, Chair Dr. Kenneth Belt Dr. Shuiwang Duan Professor Karen Prestegaard Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without data collection and sharing by the USGS.
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia Washington, D.C
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IMPLEMENTATION PLAN for VARIOUS TMDLS in MARYLAND October 9, 2020
    IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND October 9, 2020 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION VARIOUS TMDLS IN MARYLAND F7. Gwynns Falls Watershed ............................................ 78 TABLE OF CONTENTS F8. Jones Falls Watershed ............................................... 85 F9. Liberty Reservoir Watershed...................................... 94 Table of Contents ............................................................................... i F10. Loch Raven and Prettyboy Reservoirs Watersheds .. 102 Implementation Plan for Various TMDLS in Maryland .................... 1 F11. Lower Monocacy River Watershed ........................... 116 A. Water Quality Standards and Designated Uses ....................... 1 F12. Patuxent River Lower Watershed ............................. 125 B. Watershed Assessment Coordination ...................................... 3 F13. Magothy River Watershed ........................................ 134 C. Visual Inspections Targeting MDOT SHA ROW ....................... 4 F14. Mattawoman Creek Watershed ................................. 141 D. Benchmarks and Detailed Costs .............................................. 5 F15. Piscataway Creek Watershed ................................... 150 E. Pollution Reduction Strategies ................................................. 7 F16. Rock Creek Watershed ............................................. 158 E.1. MDOT SHA TMDL Responsibilities .............................. 7 F17. Triadelphia
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV – MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans
    Part IV MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans Part IV MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION IMPERVIOUS RESTORATION AND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION COORDINATED TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2010a; MDE, 2011a). The allocated trash baseline for MDOT SHA is to IV. MDOT SHA WATERSHED be reduced by 100 percent (this does not mean that trash within the watershed will be reduced to zero). The allocation is divided into TMDL IMPLEMENTATION separate requirements for each County. PLANS PCBs are to be reduced in certain subwatersheds of the Anacostia River watershed. The Anacostia River Northeast Branch subwatershed requires a 98.6 percent reduction and the Anacostia River Northwest A. ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED Branch subwatershed requires a 98.1% reduction. The Anacostia River Tidal subwatershed requires a 99.9% reduction. A.1. Watershed Description A.3. MDOT SHA Visual Inventory of ROW The Anacostia River watershed encompasses 145 square miles across both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland and an The MS4 permit requires MDOT SHA perform visual assessments. additional 31 square miles in Washington, DC. The watershed Part III, Coordinated TMDL Implementation Plan describes the terminates in Washington, D.C. where the Anacostia River flows into MDOT SHA visual assessment process. For each BMP type, the Potomac River, which ultimately conveys water to the Chesapeake implementation teams have performed preliminary evaluations for each Bay. The watershed is divided into 15 subwatersheds: Briers Mill Run, grid and/or major state route corridor within the watershed as part of Fort Dupont Tributary, Hickey Run, Indian Creek, Little Paint Branch, desktop and field evaluations.
    [Show full text]