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 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 ..................................................................................................... 6 1.2.2 Problem Identification.......................................................................................................... 8 1.2.3 Previous Studies ................................................................................................................. 9 2 Watershed Characterization ............................................................................................... 11 2.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Soils ............................................................................................................................................ 12 2.4 Land Use and Land Cover .......................................................................................................... 12 2.4.1 Land Use Distribution ........................................................................................................ 12 2.4.2 Percent Imperviousness ................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Water Quality and Stream Biology .............................................................................................. 18 2.6 Pollutant Sources ........................................................................................................................ 18 2.6.1 NPDES-Permitted Facilities .............................................................................................. 18 2.6.2 Nonpoint Sources .............................................................................................................. 21 3 Restoration Plan Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 22 3.1 Watershed Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 22 3.2 Watershed Treatment Model (WTM) Modeling .......................................................................... 23 Table 3-1. Calibrated average concentrations in WTM by land cover type.......................................... 25 3.3 Implementation Model Load Reductions .................................................................................... 28 4 Current Management Activities ......................................................................................... 30 4.1 Existing BMPs ............................................................................................................................. 30 4.2 Programmatic Practices .............................................................................................................. 33 4.2.1 Stormwater-Specific Programs ......................................................................................... 34 4.2.2 Tree Planting and Landscape Revitalization Programs .................................................... 38 4.2.3 Tree Planting Demonstrations. The Sustainable Initiatives Division recently began a tree planting demonstration program to increase tree canopy and promote tree care. Public Education Programs ............................................................................................... 39 4.2.4 Mass Transit and Alternative Transportation Programs ................................................... 42 4.3 Estimated Load Reductions ........................................................................................................ 43 4.3.1 BMP Pollutant Load Reduction Removal Efficiencies ...................................................... 43 4.3.2 Load Reduction from Current BMPs and Load Reduction Gap ........................................ 46 5 Strategy Development ........................................................................................................ 49 5.1 Systematic and Iterative Evaluation Procedure .......................................................................... 49 5.1.1 Programmatic Initiatives .................................................................................................... 52 5.1.2 BMP Identification and Selection ...................................................................................... 55 5.2 Subwatershed Prioritization ........................................................................................................ 64 6 Implementation Discussion ............................................................................................... 68 6.1 Proposed Management Activities ............................................................................................... 68 6.1.1 Restoration Plan Programmatic Initiatives ........................................................................ 69 6.1.2 Restoration Plan BMPs ..................................................................................................... 75 6.1.3 Estimated Load Reductions .............................................................................................. 76 6.1.4 Additional Measures.......................................................................................................... 81 6.2 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................ 83 i Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan 6.2.1 Programmatic Initiatives .................................................................................................... 83 6.2.2 BMP Implementation ......................................................................................................... 85 6.2.3 Final Costs ........................................................................................................................ 88 6.3 Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................... 89 6.4 Implementation Schedule ........................................................................................................... 91 6.5 Technical Assistance .................................................................................................................. 95 6.6 Public Outreach and Involvement ............................................................................................... 99 6.6.1 Outreach to Support Implementation Activities ................................................................. 99 6.6.2 Public Involvement to Support Implementation Activities ............................................... 102 7 Tracking and Adaptive Management ............................................................................... 106 7.1 Implementation Tracking .......................................................................................................... 106 7.2 Monitoring Approach ................................................................................................................. 107 7.2.1 Biological Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 107 7.2.2 Water Quality Monitoring ................................................................................................ 109 7.3 Adaptive Management Approach ............................................................................................. 110 8 References ......................................................................................................................... 114 Appendix A: BMP Examples .................................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Impervious Area to be Treated and Load Reductions by Land Use and Subwatershed ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards
    Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards EPA Approval Date: July 11, 2018 Table of Contents Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards ............................................ 3 Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria Considered with Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Re-evaluation of Maryland’s Restoration Variances ...................................................................... 5 Other Future Water Quality Standards Work ................................................................................. 6 Water Quality Standards Amendments ........................................................................................... 8 Designated Uses ........................................................................................................................... 8 Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Antidegradation.......................................................................................................................... 24 2 Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that States review their water quality standards every three years (Triennial Review) and revise the standards as necessary. A water quality standard consists of three separate but related
    [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]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [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]
  • Report of Investigations 71 (Pdf, 4.8
    Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 71 A STRATEGY FOR A STREAM-GAGING NETWORK IN MARYLAND by Emery T. Cleaves, State Geologist and Director, Maryland Geological Survey and Edward J. Doheny, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared for the Maryland Water Monitoring Council in cooperation with the Stream-Gage Committee 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Sarah Taylor-Rogers Secretary Stanley K. Arthur Deputy Secretary MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 General DNR Public Information Number: 1-877-620-8DNR http://www.dnr.state.md.us MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2300 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 554-5500 http://mgs.dnr.md.gov The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical or mental disability. COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER ROBERT W. RIDKY JAMES B. STRIBLING CONTENTS Page Executive summary.........................................................................................................................................................1 Why stream gages?.........................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4
    [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]
  • A Summary of Peak Stages Discharges in Maryland, Delaware
    I : ' '; Ji" ' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY · Water Resources Division A SUMMARY OF PEAK STAGES AND DISCHARGES IN MARYLAND, DELAWARE, AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FLOOD OF JUNE 1972 by Kenneth R. Taylor Open-File Report Parkville, Maryland 1972 A SUJ1D11ary of Peak Stages and Discharges in Maryland, Delaware, and District of Columbia for Flood of June 1972 by Kenneth R. Taylor • Intense rainfall associated with tropical storm Agnes caused devastating flooding in several states along the Atlantic Seaboard during late June 1972. Storm-related deaths were widespread from Florida to New York, and public and private property damage has been estllna.ted in the billions of dollars. The purpose of this report is to make available to the public as quickly as possible peak-stage and peak-discharge data for streams and rivers in Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Detailed analyses of precipitation, flood damages, stage hydrographs, discharge hydrographs, and frequency relations will be presented in a subsequent report. Although the center of the storm passed just offshore from Maryland and Delaware, the most intense rainfall occurred in the Washington, D. c., area and in a band across the central part of Maryland (figure 1). Precipitation totals exceeding 10 inches during the June 21-23 period • were recorded in Baltimore, Carroll, Cecil, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Counties, Md., and in the District of Columbia. Storm totals of more than 14 inches were recorded in Baltimore and Carroll Counties. At most stations more than 75 percent of the storm rainfall'occurred on the afternoon and night of June 21 and the morning of June 22 (figure 2).
    [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]
  • Watersheds.Pdf
    Watershed Code Watershed Name 02130705 Aberdeen Proving Ground 02140205 Anacostia River 02140502 Antietam Creek 02130102 Assawoman Bay 02130703 Atkisson Reservoir 02130101 Atlantic Ocean 02130604 Back Creek 02130901 Back River 02130903 Baltimore Harbor 02130207 Big Annemessex River 02130606 Big Elk Creek 02130803 Bird River 02130902 Bodkin Creek 02130602 Bohemia River 02140104 Breton Bay 02131108 Brighton Dam 02120205 Broad Creek 02130701 Bush River 02130704 Bynum Run 02140207 Cabin John Creek 05020204 Casselman River 02140305 Catoctin Creek 02130106 Chincoteague Bay 02130607 Christina River 02050301 Conewago Creek 02140504 Conococheague Creek 02120204 Conowingo Dam Susq R 02130507 Corsica River 05020203 Deep Creek Lake 02120202 Deer Creek 02130204 Dividing Creek 02140304 Double Pipe Creek 02130501 Eastern Bay 02141002 Evitts Creek 02140511 Fifteen Mile Creek 02130307 Fishing Bay 02130609 Furnace Bay 02141004 Georges Creek 02140107 Gilbert Swamp 02130801 Gunpowder River 02130905 Gwynns Falls 02130401 Honga River 02130103 Isle of Wight Bay 02130904 Jones Falls 02130511 Kent Island Bay 02130504 Kent Narrows 02120201 L Susquehanna River 02130506 Langford Creek 02130907 Liberty Reservoir 02140506 Licking Creek 02130402 Little Choptank 02140505 Little Conococheague 02130605 Little Elk Creek 02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 02131105 Little Patuxent River 02140509 Little Tonoloway Creek 05020202 Little Youghiogheny R 02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay 02130505 Lower Chester River 02130403 Lower Choptank 02130601 Lower
    [Show full text]