DOCSLIB.ORG

Upper Hazel River TMDL Implementation Plan 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upper Hazel River TMDL Implementation Plan 1 Upper Hazel River Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load Plan Technical Report Submitted to: Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Prepared by: Engineering Concepts, Inc. Submitted: June 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................3 FIGURES.........................................................................................................................................3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................4 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................5 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 5 Review of TMDL Study ............................................................................................................. 6 Public Participation..................................................................................................................... 6 Implementation Actions.............................................................................................................. 7 Measurable Goals and Milestones for Attaining Water Quality Standards................................ 8 Stakeholder’s Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................... 9 Integration with Other Watershed Plans................................................................................... 10 Potential Funding Sources ........................................................................................................ 10 2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................12 2.1 Background................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Project Methodology..................................................................................................... 13 3. STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ...........15 3.1 Designated Uses............................................................................................................ 16 4. REVIEW OF TMDL DEVELOPMENT STUDY.................................................................17 4.1 Watershed Description.................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Water Quality Assessment............................................................................................ 21 4.3 Bacteria Sources............................................................................................................ 21 4.4 Modeling Procedures.................................................................................................... 23 4.5 Allocation and Staged Implementation Reductions...................................................... 23 4.6 Implications of TMDL and Modeling Procedure on Implementation Plan Development 24 5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................................25 5.1 Process .......................................................................................................................... 25 5.2 Working Groups Summary........................................................................................... 26 5.2.1 Agricultural Working Group.................................................................................26 5.2.2 Residential Working Group.................................................................................. 27 5.2.3 Governmental Working Group ............................................................................. 28 5.3 Steering Committee Summary...................................................................................... 29 5.4 Final Public Meeting Summary .................................................................................... 30 6. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS.........................................................................................31 6.1 Assessment of Implementation Action Needs .............................................................. 31 6.1.1 Identification of Control Measures ....................................................................... 31 6.1.2 Quantification of Agricultural Control Measures................................................. 33 6.1.3 Quantification of Residential Control Measures................................................... 36 6.2 Assessment of Technical Assistance Needs ................................................................. 37 6.3 Cost Analysis................................................................................................................ 39 6.4 Benefit Analysis............................................................................................................ 41 Upper Hazel River TMDL Implementation Plan 1 6.4.1 Human Health....................................................................................................... 41 6.4.2 Economics............................................................................................................. 41 6.4.3 Livestock Herd Health .......................................................................................... 42 6.4.4 Aquatic Community Improved ............................................................................. 42 7. MEASUREABLE GOALS AND MILESTONES FOR ATTAINING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS....................................................................................................43 7.1 Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 46 8. STAKEHOLDER’S ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................48 9. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER WATERSHED PLANS ...................................................55 10. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES....................................................................................56 10.1 Federal Funding Sources............................................................................................... 56 10.2 Virginia Funding Sources ............................................................................................. 59 10.3 Regional Funding Sources ............................................................................................ 61 10.4 Private Funds................................................................................................................ 62 LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................63 GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................64 APPENDIX A................................................................................................................................68 Agricultural Working Group September 16, 2008 Meeting Summary..........................................69 Agricultural Working Group November 18, 2008 Meeting Summary..........................................71 Agricultural Working Group January 12, 2009 Meeting Summary ..............................................73 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................76 Residential Working Group September 16, 2008 Meeting Summary ...........................................77 Residential Working Group November 18, 2008 Meeting Summary ...........................................79 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................81 Government Working Group January 12, 2009 Meeting Summary..............................................82 APPENDIX D................................................................................................................................86 Steering Committee March 30, 2009 Meeting Summary ..............................................................89 APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................................92 Public Meeting April 23, 2009 Summary......................................................................................93 APPENDIX F.................................................................................................................................95 Agricultural Working Group Report to Steering Committee ........................................................96 Government Working Group Report to Steering Committee......................................................100 Residential Working Group Report to Steering Committee........................................................103 APPENDIX G..............................................................................................................................106 Upper Hazel River TMDL Implementation Plan 2 TABLES Table 4.1. Active VPDES permitted point sources in the Upper Hazel River watershed. ........... 22 Table 4.2. Sources of bacteria in the impaired watersheds........................................................... 23 Table 4.3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • People, Land, and Water of the Upper Thornton River Watershed: a Model for Countywide Watershed Management Planning
    People, land, and water of the Upper Thornton River Watershed: A model for countywide watershed management planning Final Report to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation RappFLOW Grant #2005-0001-039 Prepared by Beverly Hunter, Project Director [email protected] Phone: 540 937-4038 This report is available in pdf format from www.rappflow.org November 29, 2006 12/18/2006 1 Introduction Rappahannock Friends and Lovers of Our Watershed (RappFLOW) is a group of volunteers founded in the summer of 2002. We work with many partner organizations as well as local leaders, landowners, and other stakeholders to help preserve, protect and restore the watersheds and water quality in Rappahanock County, Virginia. In this report, we provide highlights of the results, lessons learned and progress made from March 2005 through November 2006 in the project “People, land, and water of the Upper Thornton River Watershed: A model for countywide watershed management planning.” This project was funded in part by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, the County of Rappahannock, nonprofit organizations, and private donors. Several state agencies provided technical assistance and training. Rappahannock County is a rural, scenic county with a population of about 7,000 at the headwaters of the Rappahannock River Basin. Seven hundred and fifty-five (755) stream miles in 1,010 stream segments (National Hydrology Database 2005), many on steep slopes, crisscross our land area of about 267 square miles. The northwestern boundary is in the Blue Ridge Mountains, in Shenandoah National Park. The Rappahannock River forms the northeastern boundary with Fauquier County.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 18, 2020
    Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 18, 2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office Most Effective Basins Funding In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Appropriations Conference Report, an increase to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Budget was provided in the amount of $6 million for “state-based implementation in the most effective basins.” This document describes the methodology EPA followed to establish the most effective use of these funds and the best locations for these practices to be implemented to make the greatest progress toward achieving water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. The most effective basins to reduce the effects of excess nutrient loading to the Bay were determined considering two factors: cost effectiveness and load effectiveness. Cost effectiveness was considered as a factor to assure these additional funds result in state-based implementation of practices that achieve the greatest benefit to water quality overall. It was evaluated by looking at what the jurisdictions have reported in their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as the focus of their upcoming efforts, and by looking at the average cost per pound of reduction for BMP implementation by sector. Past analyses of cost per pound of reduction have shown that reducing nitrogen is less costly by far than reducing phosphorus1. Based on that fact, EPA determined that the focus of this evaluation would be to target nitrogen reductions in the watershed. Evaluating the load reduction targets in all the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs shows that the agricultural sector is targeted for 86 percent of the overall reductions identified to meet the 2025 targets collectively set by the jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund Projects Catalog 2012
    CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION FUND PROJECTS CATALOG 2012 CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION FUND SUPPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND RESTORATION PROJECTS FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROJECTS CATALOG 2012 PROJECTS CATALOG 2012 Issue I The Division of Legislative Services of the Virginia General Assembly publishes this catalogue. The information contained in these pages is current as of May 2012. Thank you to all of our partners and to all grantees of the Foundation who have provided text and materials for this catalogue. This catalogue was developed for all agencies, organizations, and individuals interested in environmental education and restoration projects on the bay and its rivers. General Assembly Division of Legislative Services Compiled and Edited by Theresa Schmid Research Associate iv TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION FUND HISTORY II. CHESAPEAKE BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE III. SUMMARY OF CBRF ACTIVITIES IV. APPLYING FOR A GRANT A. CRITERIA B. APPLICATION PROCEDURES GRANT ACTIVITIES FROM 2000-2012 V. GRANT PROJECTS LIST A. 2000 INDEX B. 2001 INDEX C. 2002 INDEX D. 2003 INDEX E. 2004 INDEX F. 2005 INDEX G. 2006 INDEX H. 2007 INDEX I. 2008 INDEX J. 2009 INDEX K. 2010 INDEX L. 2011 INDEX M. 2012 INDEX VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROJECTS A. SCHOOLS B. ORGANIZATIONS - EDUCATIONAL FOR: 1. YOUTH 2. COMMUNITY v VII. RESTORATION/CONSERVATION PROJECTS A. MONITORING B. EASEMENTS VIII. FINANCIAL SUMMARIES IX. INDEX vi I. HISTORY In 1992, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation, co-patroned by Senator Frederick Quayle and Delegate Harvey Morgan, which established the Chesapeake Bay preservation license plate. The design included drawings of bay grass, oysters and crabs, and read “Friends of the Chesapeake." The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) began issuing the specialty plates in December 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Loads of Acidity Database Tables
    Critical Loads of Acidity Literature Database Citation Table Pub Terr. Authors Pub Date Title Citation Method Name Study Area ID Aqua. 52 Adams, M.B., Burger, 2000 Impact of harvesting and Forest Ecology and T empirical: Fernow Experimental J.A., Jenkins, A.B., and atmospheric pollution on nutrient Management 138: 301-319 experimental Forest Zelazny, L. depletion of eastern US hardwood forests. 15 Adams, M.B., Nichols, September Screening Procedure to Evaluate USDA Forest Service, A & T empirical Boundary Waters Canoe, D.S., Feder, C.A., 1991 Effects of Air Pollution on Eastern Northeastern Forest Dolly Sods, Great Gulf, Jensen, K.F., and Region Wildernesses Cited as Class Experiment Station; General Hercules-Glade, Otter Parrott, H. I Air Quality Areas. Technical Report NE-151 Creek, Presidential Range-Dry River, and Rainbow Lakes Wilderness Areas, and Southern Vermont 49 Backx, M. A. December Calculating Critical Loads of Sulfur thesis for the Department of A PnET-BGC Hubbard Brook E.F., NH 2004 and Nitrogen for Hubbard Brook Civil and Environmental Experimental Forest and Loch Vale Engineering, Syracuse Watershed using a Dynamic University Biogeochemical Model (PnET- BGC). 21 Binkley, D., Giardina, 1997 Status of Air Quality and Related Regional Review Colorado A & T Vegetation-Type Colorado, Arizona, and C., I. Dockersmith, Values in Class I National Parks Plateau Executive Summary: Guideline Utah National Parks and Morse, D., Scruggs, M., and Monuments of the Colorado http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air Monuments and Tonnessen, K. Plateau /pubs/ColoPlat.Review/index.h tml 23 Bouwman, A.F., Van 2002 A Global Analysis of Acidification Water, Air, and Soil Pollution T STOCHEM Alaska Vuuren, D.P., Derwent, and Eutrophication of Terrestrial 141:349-382 R.G.
    [Show full text]
  • Shenandoah National Park Fisheries Monitoring Protocol
    SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK FISHERIES MONITORING PROTOCOL Prepared by: James B. Atkinson Shenandoah National Park 3655 US Highway 211 E. Luray, VA 22835 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 3 OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................................... 5 PROTOCOL DESIGN................................................................................................................................. 5 SAMPLING STRATEGY AND METHODS............................................................................................. 8 NUMBER OF PERSONNEL REQUIRED............................................................................................................ 8 PERSONNEL TRAINING ................................................................................................................................8 PERSONNEL SAFETY.................................................................................................................................... 9 SAMPLING CONDITIONS AND TIMES .......................................................................................................... 11 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.............................................................................................................................. 11 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • District Sustainability Award Nominee Presentation Form U.S. Department
    District Sustainability Award Nominee Presentation Form CERTIFICATIONS District’s Certifications The signatures of the district superintendent on the next page certify that each of the statements below concerning the district’s eligibility and compliance with the following requirements is true and correct to the best of the superintendent’s knowledge. 1. The district has been evaluated and selected from among districts within the Nominating Authority’s jurisdiction, based on high achievement in the three ED-GRS Pillars: 1) reduced environmental impact and costs; 2) improved health and wellness; and 3) effective environmental and sustainability education. 2. The district is providing the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) access to information necessary to investigate a civil rights complaint or to conduct a district wide compliance review. 3. OCR has not issued a violation letter of findings to the school district concluding that the nominated school district has violated one or more of the civil rights statutes. A violation letter of findings will not be considered outstanding if OCR has accepted a corrective action plan to remedy the violation. 4. The U.S. Department of Justice does not have a pending suit alleging that the school district has violated one or more of the civil rights statutes or the Constitution’s equal protection clause. 5. There are no findings of violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in a U.S. Department of Education monitoring report that apply to the school district in question; or if there are such findings, the state or school district has corrected, or agreed to correct, the findings.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena - December 2018
    Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena - December 2018 Location Date/Time Deaths & Property & Event Type and Details Injuries Crop Dmg DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNTY --- 1.3 SW WALTER REED [38.97, -77.05], 0.7 SW WALTER REED [38.97, -77.04], 0.5 WSW WALTER REED [38.98, -77.04], 0.6 WSW WALTER REED [38.98, -77.04], 1.0 SW WALTER REED [38.97, -77.05], 1.4 SW WALTER REED [38.97, -77.05] 12/15/18 20:25 EST 0 Flood (due to Heavy Rain) 12/16/18 07:30 EST 0 Source: River/Stream Gage The stream gage on Rock Creek at Sherrill Drive/DC exceeded the 7 foot flood stage during the indicated period. Water reached several portions of the Valley Trail between Picnic Areas 7 and 10 in Rock Creek Park, and completely covered the Rolling Meadows Trailbridge. The peak level of 8.02 feet occurred at 3:45 AM on the 16th. A potent upper-level low and associated area of surface low pressure approached the region from southwest on the 15th. Strong forcing for ascent and ample moisture transport in advance of the upper level low led to a prolonged period of rain across the region. Eventually low pressure transferred to the coast before precipitation wound down on the 16th. Widespread rainfall totals of 2-4 inches were observed across the area. (DC-Z001) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 12/17/18 00:47 EST 0 Coastal Flood 12/18/18 08:30 EST 0 An influx of freshwater due to heavy rain led to increased water level anomalies and coastal flooding along the Potomac River.
    [Show full text]
  • RAPPFLOW Currents 2005
    Rappahannock Friends and Lovers of Our Watershed Preserving, protecting, conserving, and restoring the watersheds of Rappahannock County RappFLOW is a grassroots group of citizen volunteers RappFLOW—The Journey So Far representing the varied interests of people who live By Janet Davis and Beverly Hunter in and around Rappahannock County, Virginia. In summer 2002, interested citizens and representatives from local and regional groups founded RappFLOW. Our mission is to help preserve, protect, conserve To learn more about and restore water resources and Rappahannock County’s watersheds. RappFLOW, go to our Web site: Our first phase of work in 2003 and 2004 was funded in www.RappFLOW.org part by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and more Watershed: The than $31,000 in matching, in-kind support from local orga- specific land area that Or e-mail us: nizations and volunteers. Phase I established a foundation drains water into a [email protected] for future watershed protection efforts through broad com- river system or other munity involvement; education and outreach; an atmo- body of water. For sphere of inclusiveness and openness; strong ties with experts more on watersheds, Go with the Flow! in government, business, and nonprofit organizations; and go to page 7. identification of high-priority watershed protection issues. IN THIS ISSUE: RappFLOW planned, promoted, conducted, and reported on five public educa- tion events on air and water quality in Shenandoah National Park; riparian buffers; RappFLOW—The Journey So erosion, sedimentation, and stream protection; sustainable forestry; the effect of Far . .1 agriculture on water quality; and pollution-mitigation strategies. Attendance Why Watershed Protection increased at each public event, from 75 participants at the first to 300 at the Now? .
    [Show full text]
  • Easygrants ID: 18695 NFWF/Legacy Grant Project ID: 0603.09.018695
    Easygrants ID: 18695 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF/Legacy Grant Project ID: 0603.09.018695 Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants 2009 - Submit Final Programmatic Report (Activities) Grantee Organization: Trout Unlimited, Inc. Project Title: Thornton River Dam Removal (VA) Project Period 09/01/2009 - 12/31/2010 Award Amount $72,933.00 Matching Contributions $18,460.00 Project Location Description (from Proposal) The project site is approximately 1 km downstream of the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork of the Thornton River on the main stem Thornton River, in Sperryville, VA. Project Summary (from Proposal) Removed an aging four foot high, 80 foot long dam on the Thornton River that blocks fish migration. Project allowed four species of diadromous fish that formerly migrated into the Rappahannock watershed to access 93 kilometers of high quality upstream habitat. Summary of Accomplishments Trout Unlimited has met all objectives stated for the Thornton River Dam Removal Project. In December 2009, the dam was removed from the Thornton River by contractors using heavy equipment. The old dam material was buried offsite in the floodplain and incorporated into the two constructed floodplains that were made. Two large rock vanes using quarry stone were constructed as designed spanning the river channel and both active floodplains. Woody debris was incorporated into the rock vanes, which were tied into the floodplain elevation. The old mill raceway located between the dam and the old Fletcher’s Mill was blocked with large rock and material to eliminate the threat of a channel avulsion. A constructed wetland was created on the east margin on the upstream constructed floodplain.
    [Show full text]