Columbia American Plating-Carson Oil Source Control Decision, Feb

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum To: Rich Muza and Kristine Koch, US EPA Date: February 3, 2014 Through: Keith Johnson, NWR Cleanup and Site Assessment From: Mark Pugh, Project Manager Alex Liverman, Portland Harbor Stormwater Coordinator Subject: Revised Source Control Decision Former Columbia American Plating Site ECSI # 29 Responsible Party (RP): 3003 NW 35th LLC Operator: Carson Oil Company, Inc. RP Contact: Project Consultant: Martha Sharp Chris Wohlers 3125 NE 35th Avenue Wohlers Environmental Services, Inc. Portland, Oregon 97296 7440 SW Hunziker Street, Suite C 503-224-8500 Tigard, Oregon 97223 [email protected] 503.670.1344 (telephone) 503.670.1701 (fax) 1.0 INTRODUCTION This revised Source Control Decision (SCD) provides DEQ’s summary of a source control evaluation and source control measures that have been completed for the former Columbia American Plating site, located at 3003 NW 35th in Portland, Oregon (Figure 1). The revised SCD was prepared to address November 22, 2013 comments from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the draft SCD dated October 28, 2013. The evaluation was completed in accordance with the Joint Source Control Strategy (JSCS; DEQ and USEPA, 2005). The site is located approximately 3,000 feet south of a portion of the Willamette River within the area designated by EPA as the Portland Harbor Superfund Study Area. In December 2008, 3003 NW 35th LLC and DEQ signed a Consent Judgment that required site investigation and source control measures as needed, and completion of a source control evaluation. Based on DEQ’s preliminary evaluation of potentially complete pathways to Portland Harbor it was apparent that site stormwater discharge to the City of Portland stormwater conveyance lines, which then discharges to the Willamette River via City Outfall #18, was the primary pathway of concern at the site. Soil and groundwater at the site also were investigated. Stormwater source control measures completed by 3003 NW 35th LLC include removal of legacy sediment from historic operations from the on-site and adjacent City of Portland storm drain lines and upgrades to the on-site stormwater system in compliance with the 2012 NPDES 1200Z Industrial Stormwater general permit that covers current operations at the site. 3003 NW 35th LLC prepared and submitted a source control evaluation report upon completion of four stormwater sampling events to assess effectiveness following implementation of the source control measures (Wohlers 2013). The chief objectives of the stormwater source control evaluation are: A) to determine whether existing and potential stormwater contamination sources have been identified; and B) to determine whether Former Columbia American Plating Site DEQ Source Control Decision January 21, 2014 Page 2 of 21 additional characterization or source control measures are needed at the site. These determinations generally rest upon demonstrating that site-related information provides sufficient support to make the following findings: 1. Existing and potential facility-related contaminant sources have been identified and characterized. 2. Historical and on-going contaminant sources have been removed or are being controlled to the extent feasible. 3. Performance monitoring conducted after Source Control Measures (SCMs) were implemented supports the conclusion that the SCMs are effective. 4. Adequate measures are in place to ensure source control and good stormwater management measures occur in the future. Based on a review of the source control evaluation report and related documents, DEQ concludes that this site is not a significant ongoing source of contaminants to the Willamette River, and that source control measures implemented at the site are adequate to control potential future discharges. This determination is predicated on continued implementation of source control measures described in the facility’s stormwater pollution control plan and stormwater monitoring required by the NPDES 1200Z permit. DEQ will continue to review site monitoring and permit compliance to ensure the effectiveness of source control. A discussion of site conditions, monitoring results, source control measures, and the basis for DEQ’s SCD are presented below. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 2.1 Site Description Site property is located in the Guild’s Lake Industrial Sanctuary of northwest Portland, in the northwest corner of Section 24, Township 1 North (T1N), Range 1 East (R1E) (Figures 1 and 2). The site covers 1.25 acres and is comprised of tax lot 300 (property ID No. R117688) and Tax Lot 100 (Property ID No. R117690). Zoning is heavy industrial and unlikely to change in the future given the site’s location in the Guild’s Lake Industrial Sanctuary. Therefore, residential exposure scenarios are not applicable to the site. The site property is bounded on the north side by Carson Oil (ECSI # 1405), on the west side by Container Management Services (aka, Myers Container Corporation; see ECSI #4784), on the east side by NW 35th Avenue, and on the south by Lake Road, which is unpaved. Carson Oil is the current operator at the subject site, with similar petroleum distribution-related activities occurring at both 3003 and 3125 NW 35th properties. The site is located within a 38-acre sub-basin in the east-central portion of the Outfall #18 stormwater basin (Figure 3). Stormwater flows north in the City of Portland stormwater lines along NW 35th, with contribution from numerous other stormwater laterals and lines, and ultimately discharges into the river at outfall #18 at river mile 8.8. Overland flow of stormwater from the site to the Willamette River does not occur. Because the site provides no ecological habitat, DEQ did not require an ecological risk assessment for terrestrial animals. The potential for ecological risk due to the site stormwater discharge to the Willamette River was evaluated as discussed below. Former Columbia American Plating Site DEQ Source Control Decision January 21, 2014 Page 3 of 21 2.2 Site Features A building occupies the majority of the northern Tax Lot 100, while Tax Lot 300 is vacant (Figure 2). With the exception of landscaping in the northeast, the site is covered by pavement, buildings or other hardscape. During historical operations the southwest site area was unpaved and used for drum and equipment storage (Figure 4). Plating operations were conducted inside on the main concrete floor of the building. A smaller office and basement area were located on the east side of the building. 2.2.1 Stormwater System The historical storm drain line configuration and 2009 sample locations are shown on Figure 5. During initial site development in 1958, the eastern part of the building was constructed and a single storm drain line running west to east beneath the building was installed to manage stormwater. This line was subsequently cut and plugged in the mid-1980s, likely when the building was expanded and another storm drain line, the north and south catch basins, and the sump were installed. The sump was 8 feet deep and the catch basins were 2.5 feet deep. The sump also received roof runoff. Sump water was pumped to a 4-foot deep storm drain lateral that connected to the City line in NW 35th Avenue. The northern catch basin is located in a loading dock area and was plugged sometime prior to 1993, under orders from the City of Portland, to prevent site runoff from directly entering the City storm sewer. Accumulated stormwater in the loading dock area was then collected and treated in a former site wastewater treatment system located along the north side of the building, before being discharged to the sanitary sewer. Treated wastewater was also reportedly pumped to the sump and ultimately discharged to the storm drain line. In the mid-1990s the southern storm drain line reportedly collapsed, causing stormwater to accumulate in low lying areas, which was collected and used in site processes or discharged to the sanitary sewer. Upon termination of site operations in May 2003, there was no active stormwater management. During a November 30, 2004 site visit, DEQ observed the loading dock area to be filled with an estimated volume of about 1,000 gallons of accumulated rain water. The water had a slight petroleum sheen, and a partially submerged transformer housing was observed. The site stormwater system was upgraded in 2010 (Figure 2). The sump was abandoned and the original north catch basin was replaced. Two surface water catch basins and several onsite building roof drains collect precipitation/surface water at the subject site. Catch basins CB-S and CB-N are located on the eastern portion of the site and collect surface level water/precipitation that flows over the asphaltic site surface to discharge to the two catch basins. Roof surface precipitation is collected in three roof drains and discharges directly to the onsite oil-water separator. The two catch basins have an interior sump that allows solids to settle in the bottom of the catch basin and each catch basin is fitted with a non-woven polypropylene fabric filter with an attached oil/grease absorbent bag designed to reduce the discharge of oil and grease, suspended solids and associated pollutants. In addition, each catch basin is equipped with a Flo-Stop valve that includes a ball valve that closes if petroleum is present in the surface water inflow stream, preventing liquid flow out of the catch basin and release of accumulated petroleum product in the event of a petroleum release. Former Columbia American Plating Site DEQ Source Control Decision January 21, 2014 Page 4 of 21 The two catch basins are cleaned once per year and the filters are replaced as needed based on observations associated with monthly site stormwater system inspections. Stormwater discharged from the two catch basins and from the three roof drains enters a treatment system that initially includes a 1700-gallon capacity coalescing plate oil water separator designed to remove residual oil from the discharged water.
Recommended publications
  • Floodplain Geomorphic Processes and Environmental Impacts of Human Alteration Along Coastal Plain Rivers, Usa

    Floodplain Geomorphic Processes and Environmental Impacts of Human Alteration Along Coastal Plain Rivers, Usa

    WETLANDS, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 413–429 ’ 2009, The Society of Wetland Scientists FLOODPLAIN GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ALTERATION ALONG COASTAL PLAIN RIVERS, USA Cliff R. Hupp1, Aaron R. Pierce2, and Gregory B. Noe1 1U.S. Geological Survey 430 National Center, Reston, Virginia, USA 20192 E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Biological Sciences, Nicholls State University Thibodaux, Louisiana, USA 70310 Abstract: Human alterations along stream channels and within catchments have affected fluvial geomorphic processes worldwide. Typically these alterations reduce the ecosystem services that functioning floodplains provide; in this paper we are concerned with the sediment and associated material trapping service. Similarly, these alterations may negatively impact the natural ecology of floodplains through reductions in suitable habitats, biodiversity, and nutrient cycling. Dams, stream channelization, and levee/canal construction are common human alterations along Coastal Plain fluvial systems. We use three case studies to illustrate these alterations and their impacts on floodplain geomorphic and ecological processes. They include: 1) dams along the lower Roanoke River, North Carolina, 2) stream channelization in west Tennessee, and 3) multiple impacts including canal and artificial levee construction in the central Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. Human alterations typically shift affected streams away from natural dynamic equilibrium where net sediment deposition is, approximately, in balance with net
  • Legacy Sediment and PA’S Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies an Innovative BMP Proposal

    Legacy Sediment and PA’S Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies an Innovative BMP Proposal

    Legacy Sediment and PA’s Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies An Innovative BMP Proposal Pennsylvania Tributary Strategy Steering Committee Legacy Sediment Workgroup 2007 Jeffrey Hartranft Bureau of Waterways Engineering Presentation Outline • PA’s Tributary Strategy – A Timeline and Brief History • Linking Policy and Science- Defining Legacy Sediment • The Science • Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Phase 5.0 • Innovative New BMP and Innovative Uses of Existing BMP’s • Future Considerations and ?’s PA’s Tributary Strategies – A Brief History • 2004 (December) Draft - PA Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy Unveiled- “Working Document” • 2005 Public meetings across PA-Strategy Feedback • 2006 PA Creates Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy Steering Committee - Stakeholders Specific Workgroups Organized 1) Point Source Workgroup 2) Agriculture Workgroup 3) Stormwater and Development Workgroup 4) Trading Workgroup 5) Legacy Sediment Workgroup – February 2006 PA Legacy Sediment Workgroup PA DEP PA Fish and Boat Commission PA Department of Transportation PA Farm Bureau PA State Association of Township Supervisors US Environmental Protection Agency US Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Commission Chesapeake Bay Foundation Academia (Franklin and Marshall College, Lafayette College, PSU) Consultants (Landstudies Inc., Aquatic Resources Restoration Co.) Legacy Sediment Definition Generic Definition Legacy Sediment - Sediment that was eroded from upland areas after the arrival of early Colonial settlers and during centuries of intensive land uses; that deposited in valley bottoms along stream corridors, burying pre-settlement streams, floodplains, wetlands, and valley bottoms; and that altered and continues to impair the hydrologic, biologic, aquatic, riparian, and water quality functions of pre-settlement and modern environments. Legacy sediment often accumulated behind ubiquitous low-head mill dams and in their slackwater environments, resulting in thick accumulations of fine-grained sediment that contain significant amounts of nutrients.
  • Legacy Sediment: Definitions and Processes of Episodically Produced

    Legacy Sediment: Definitions and Processes of Episodically Produced

    Anthropocene 2 (2013) 16–26 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Anthropocene jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ancene Legacy sediment: Definitions and processes of episodically produced anthropogenic sediment L. Allan James * Geography Department, University of South Carolina, 709 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: Extensive anthropogenic terrestrial sedimentary deposits are well recognized in the geologic literature Received 6 February 2013 and are increasingly being referred to as legacy sediment (LS). Definitions of LS are reviewed and a broad Received in revised form 2 April 2013 but explicit definition is recommended based on episodically produced anthropogenic sediment. The Accepted 2 April 2013 phrase is being used in a variety of ways, but primarily in North America to describe post-settlement alluvium overlying older surfaces. The role of humans may be implied by current usage, but this is not Keywords: always clear. The definition of LS should include alluvium and colluvium resulting to a substantial degree Legacy sediment from a range of human-induced disturbances; e.g., vegetation clearance, logging, agriculture, mining, Post-settlement alluvium grazing, or urbanization. Moreover, LS should apply to sediment resulting from anthropogenic episodes Human environmental impacts Geomorphology on other continents and to sediment deposited by earlier episodes of human activities. Rivers Given a broad definition of LS, various types of LS deposits are described followed by a qualitative description of processes governing deposition, preservation, and recruitment. LS is deposited and preserved where sediment delivery (DS) exceeds sediment transport capacity (TC).
  • Mud Creek Watershed Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study

    Mud Creek Watershed Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study

    Mud Creek Watershed Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study Task 1: Literature Review and Data Search Suffolk County Executive Hon. Steven Bellone Suffolk County Department of Economic Development and Planning 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Joanne Minieri Deputy County Executive and Commissioner Division of Planning and Environment Sarah Lansdale, AICP Director Prepared by: Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. 570 Expressway Drive South, Ste. 2F Medford, NY 11763 (T) 631-727-2400 H2M, Inc. Inter-Fluve, Inc. 570 Broad Hollow Road 301 S. Livingston Street, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Madison, WI 53703 (T) 631-756-8000 (T) 608-271-6355 February 26, 2013 Funding for this report was provided under the Suffolk County Water Quality Protection and Restoration Program pursuant to Capital Project # 8710.110 Mud Creek Watershed Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study Literature Review and Data Search Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Site History and Management Practices ................................................................................. 1 3 Site Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 1 3.1 Topography ...................................................................................................................... 1 3.2 Existing Structures and Infrastructure .............................................................................
  • Estimating Volume of Sediment, Nutrient Content

    Estimating Volume of Sediment, Nutrient Content

    ESTIMATING VOLUME, NUTRIENT CONTENT, AND RATES OF STREAM BANK EROSION OF LEGACY SEDIMENT IN THE PIEDMONT AND VALLEY AND RIDGE PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES, SOUTHEASTERN AND CENTRAL PA A Report to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Submitted January, 2007, and Revised September 13, 2007, by Robert Walter, Ph. D., Dorothy Merritts, Ph. D., and Mike Rahnis, M. Sc. Executive Summary (p. 3) I. Introduction: Sediment and Nutrient Loads to the Chesapeake Bay (p. 7) A. Sediment and nutrient load reduction goals for the Chesapeake Bay (p. 7) B. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (p. 7) C. Legacy sediment: A newly recognized source of sediment and nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay (p. 8) II. Scope and Objectives of this Report (p. 9) A. Scope of this Report (p. 9) B. Objectives of this Report (p. 10) III. Background: Sources and Yields of Sediment to the Chesapeake Bay and the Significance of Legacy Sediment (p. 11) A. Sediment from upland sources (p. 12) B. Sediment sinks and sources in the stream corridor, and processes of bank erosion (p. 12) C. Geomorphology and temporal variability of sediment sources to streams (p. 13) D. Physiography and spatial variability of sediment loads to the Bay (p. 14) E. Legacy sediment as an explanation for anomalously high sediment loads from the Piedmont (p. 14) IV. Legacy Sediment: Definition, Origin, and Historic Accumulation (p. 15) A. Definition and origin of legacy sediment (p. 15) B. Dams, races, mills, and reservoir sedimentation (p. 16) C. Characteristics of streams with legacy sediment (p. 18) D. Causes of remobilization of legacy sediment and processes of erosion (p.
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College Of

    The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College Of

    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Agricultural Sciences BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLING OF NITROGEN THROUGH A LANDSCAPE RICH IN LEGACY SEDIMENTS A Thesis in Soil Science by Julie N. Weitzman © 2011 Julie N. Weitzman Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science May 2011 The thesis of Julie N. Weitzman was reviewed and approved* by the following: Jason P. Kaye Assistant Professor of Soil Biogeochemistry Thesis Adviser Michael N. Gooseff Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering Richard C. Stehouwer Associate Professor of Environmental Soil Science David M. Sylvia Professor of Soil Microbiology Head of the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. ii ABSTRACT Sedimentation rates, anoxic conditions, and eutrophication have all increased in the Chesapeake Bay since the time of European settlement. Legacy sediments, deposited during the historic, post-settlement period marked by deforestation, land clearing, and plowing of uplands and valley slopes, act as a significant non-point source of nitrogen to the Bay. At Big Spring Run in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, these legacy sediments now overlay a buried hydric soil, which affects the contemporary transfer of nitrogen from uplands to streams. Recent research suggests that nitrogen transfer to streams is also affected by soil drying and rewetting. Climate change models predict that the variability and magnitude of precipitation events will increase over time. Such changes could lead to extended periods of droughts, followed by increased precipitation. These dry-rewet cycles can alter the structure and activity of soil microbial communities, impacting nutrient retention and release.
  • Effects of Legacy Sediment Removal on Nutrients and Sediment in Big Spring Run, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 2009–15

    Effects of Legacy Sediment Removal on Nutrients and Sediment in Big Spring Run, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 2009–15

    Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and in collaboration with Franklin and Marshall College and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Effects of Legacy Sediment Removal on Nutrients and Sediment in Big Spring Run, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 2009–15 Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5031 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Effects of Legacy Sediment Removal on Nutrients and Sediment in Big Spring Run, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, 2009–15 By Michael J. Langland, Joseph W. Duris, Tammy M. Zimmerman, and Jeffrey J. Chaplin Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and in collaboration with Franklin and Marshall College and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5031 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
  • Stream Bank Legacy Sediment Contributions

    Stream Bank Legacy Sediment Contributions

    STREAM BANK LEGACY SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSPENDED SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT EXPORTS FROM A MID-ATLANTIC, PIEDMONT WATERSHED by Grant Jiang A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Water Science and Policy Summer 2019 © 2019 Grant Jiang All Rights Reserved STREAM BANK LEGACY SEDIMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSPENDED SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT EXPORTS FROM A MID-ATLANTIC, PIEDMONT WATERSHED by Grant Jiang Approved: __________________________________________________________ Shreeram P. Inamdar, Ph.D. Professor in charge of thesis on behalf of the Advisory Committee Approved: __________________________________________________________ Shreeram P. Inamdar, Ph.D. Director of the Graduate Program in Water Science and Policy Approved: __________________________________________________________ Mark W. Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Approved: __________________________________________________________ Douglas J. Doren, Ph.D. Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Shreeram Inamdar for the support, guidance, and advice he has provided over the course of my Master’s degree. I would further like to thank Dr. Jinjun Kan and Dr. Carmine Balascio for their technical expertise and contributions to this project. This project would not have been possible without material support from the Fair Hill Natural Resources Management Area staff, the Delaware Environmental Observing System, the University of Delaware Soils Testing Lab, and the University of Maryland Central Appalachian Stable Isotopes Facility; nor without financial support from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA-NIFA 2017- 67019-26330). Lastly, a heartfelt thank you to my laboratory group (Alyssa Lutgen, Katie Mattern, Nathan Sienkiewicz, Daniel Warner, and Evan Lewis) and my friends for their support.
  • Sediment Production in a Coastal Watershed: Legacy, Land Use, Recovery, and Rehabilitation1

    Sediment Production in a Coastal Watershed: Legacy, Land Use, Recovery, and Rehabilitation1

    Sediment Production in a Coastal Watershed: Legacy, Land Use, Recovery, 1 and Rehabilitation Elizabeth T. Keppeler2 Abstract Sediment production has been measured for nearly half a century at the Caspar Creek Experimental Watersheds. Examination of this sediment record provides insights into the relative magnitudes and durations of sediment production from management practices including road construction, selection harvest and tractor skidding, and later road- decommissioning. The 424-ha South Fork was harvested under standards that applied before passage of the 1973 Forest Practice Act. Regression analysis of annual suspended sediment loads on peak flows indicates that sediment production roughly doubled, with a return to pre- treatment levels about 11 years after harvest ended. However, sediment production again increased in the 1990s as road crossings deteriorated in response to large storms. Road crossings decommissioned in 1998 eroded a volume equivalent to more than half of the total yield in 1999 and enlarged another 20 percent over the last decade. Suspended sediment yields since decommissioning were reduced only for small storms. Recent assessment of 1970’s era roads and skid trails found 443 remaining stream and swale crossings. Stream crossing have eroded an average volume of 10 m3. Stream diversions are common, and many sites have the potential for future diversion. Diversions along incised roads and skid trails contribute to episodic sediment inputs. Mainstem sediment loads are elevated relative to those at tributary gages located above the decommissioned riparian haul road, indicating that sediment yields at the weir are enhanced along the mainstem itself. Since turbidity monitoring began in 1996, South Fork mainstem turbidities have exceeded ecosystem thresholds of concern a higher percentage of time than those in the North Fork.
  • Characteristics Group Summary March 20, 2006 14:16:01

    Characteristics Group Summary March 20, 2006 14:16:01

    Characteristics Group Summary March 20, 2006 14:16:01 11113300 New Hampshire Dept. of Environmental Services Group ID Group Name Field Activity Medium Intent Community Result Group Habitat BEACH1 Beach Sampling 6/3/85- Sample Water N 12/31/04 BEACH2 Beach Sampling 01/01/05 - Sample Water N RIVER1 River sampling 7/89 - 10/89 Sample Water N RIVER2 River sampling 10/89 - 03/91 Sample Water N RIVER3 River sampling 4/91 - 6/2/92 Sample Water N RIVER4 River sampling 6/3/92- 4/30/93 Sample Water N RIVER5 River sampling 5/01/93 - 4/98 Sample Water N RIVER6 River sampling 5/98 - 12/03 Sample Water N RIVER7 VRAP data 8/27/98 - 9/16/98 Sample Water N RIVER8 River sampling 01/04 - Sample Water N UNHLLMP UNH LLMP 01/01/79 - Sample Water N Page 1 of 200 Characteristics Group Summary March 20, 2006 14:16:01 1111REG1 USEPA, Region I Group ID Group Name Field Activity Medium Intent Community Result Group Habitat BACT001 Routine Bacteria Study Sample Biological Taxon Abundance Bacteria/Virus Multi-Taxon Population Census N BACT002 Toxicity Testing Sample Biological Taxon Abundance Mammals Multi-Taxon Population Census N BASICWQ Basic Water Quality Sampling Field Msr/Obs Water N CHARL98 Baseline Water Quality Study Sample Water N CONT001 Continuous Monitoring Data Data Logger Water N Page 2 of 200 Characteristics Group Summary March 20, 2006 14:16:01 1117MBR US EPA Region 7 Group ID Group Name Field Activity Medium Intent Community Result Group Habitat AAQUAVEG aquatic veg group trial Sample Biological Taxon Abundance Aquatic Vegetation Multi-Taxon Population
  • Sediment Contributions from Floodplains and Legacy Sediments To

    Sediment Contributions from Floodplains and Legacy Sediments To

    Geomorphology 235 (2015) 88–105 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geomorphology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Sediment contributions from floodplains and legacy sediments to Piedmont streams of Baltimore County, Maryland Mitchell Donovan a,⁎, Andrew Miller a, Matthew Baker a, Allen Gellis b a University of Maryland-Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, 5522 Research Park Drive, Baltimore, MD 21228, USA article info abstract Article history: Disparity between watershed erosion rates and downstream sediment delivery has remained an important Received 25 July 2014 theme in geomorphology for many decades, with the role of floodplains in sediment storage as a common Received in revised form 19 January 2015 focus. In the Piedmont Province of the eastern USA, upland deforestation and agricultural land use following Accepted 23 January 2015 European settlement led to accumulation of thick packages of overbank sediment in valley bottoms, Available online 3 February 2015 commonly referred to as legacy deposits. Previous authors have argued that legacy deposits represent a poten- Keywords: tially important source of modern sediment loads following remobilization by lateral migration and progressive Fluvial channel widening. This paper seeks to quantify (1) rates of sediment remobilization from Baltimore County Change detection floodplains by channel migration and bank erosion, (2) proportions of streambank sediment derived from legacy Bank erosion deposits, and (3) potential contribution of net streambank erosion and legacy sediments to downstream Legacy sediment sediment yield within the Mid-Atlantic Piedmont. Floodplain We calculated measurable gross erosion and deposition rates within the fluvial corridor along 40 valley segments from 18 watersheds with drainage areas between 0.18 and 155 km2 in Baltimore County, Maryland.
  • Questions for the Panel: • How Should Legacy Sediment Be Defined in The

    Questions for the Panel: • How Should Legacy Sediment Be Defined in The

    Questions for the Panel: How should legacy sediment be defined in the context of Chesapeake Bay management? What is the importance of legacy sediments compared to other sediment sources? To what extent do legacy sediments provide an important source of nutrient contributions in comparison with other sources? Prepared by D. Merritts, R. Walter, and M. Rahnis, based on collaborations with many partners. Historic sediment is increasingly important. (Mill dam and mill at Risser Mill, Big Chickies) 1. Historic sediment is ubiquitous in Mid-Atlantic region. 2. Low-order (1st, 2nd, 3rd) streams comprise 89% of Chesapeake Bay watershed area. 3. Low-order streams heavily milled and impacted by STORED historic sediment. BASE LEVEL RISE 4. Banks higher immediately upstream of dams and other grade control structures. 5. Bank erosion rates greatest after dam breaching. BASE LEVEL FALL 6. Much bank erosion occurs during winter months from freeze-thaw (Wolman, 1959; Merritts et al, 2013). More than 1,000 mill dams in 19th C. Atlases of York, Lancaster & Chester Counties [Note: These dams are not in the NID database.] Location of mill dam From Walter and Merritts, 2008 19th c. Milldams in Cumberland County PA Web data link developed by Michael Rahnis, Franklin and Marshall College Bank erosion rates greatest after dam breaching Measured by repeat surveying and erosion pins; Merritts et al, 2013 (PA sites) /m/m/yr 3 …..erosion continues for decades. Sediment production, m production, Sediment Time from dam breach, yr Negative power function fit to positive data (n = 26). From: Merritts et al, 2013 (GSA Eng. Geo.) A new and better way to do this.