DOCSLIB.ORG

Improving Water Reuse for a Healthier Potomac Watershed Improving Water Reuse for a Healthier Potomac Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PROJECT NO. 4790 Improving Water Reuse for a Healthier Potomac Watershed Improving Water Reuse for a Healthier Potomac Watershed Prepared by: Sujay Kaushal Shuiwang Duan University of Maryland College Park Erik Rosenfeldt Hazen and Sawyer Amelia Flanery Adil Godrej Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Luke Iwanowicz United States Geological Survey Diana Aga University at Buffalo, The State University of New York 2020 The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a nonprofit (501c3) organization which provides a unified source for One Water research and a strong presence in relationships with partner organizations, government and regulatory agencies, and Congress. The foundation conducts research in all areas of drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, and water reuse. The Water Research Foundation’s research portfolio is valued at over $700 million. The Foundation plays an important role in the translation and dissemination of applied research, technology demonstration, and education, through creation of research‐based educational tools and technology exchange opportunities. WRF serves as a leader and model for collaboration across the water industry and its materials are used to inform policymakers and the public on the science, economic value, and environmental benefits of using and recovering resources found in water, as well as the feasibility of implementing new technologies. For more information, contact: The Water Research Foundation 1199 North Fairfax Street, Suite 900 6666 West Quincy Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314‐1445 Denver, Colorado 80235‐3098 www.waterrf.org P 571.384.2100 P 303.347.6100 [email protected] ©Copyright 2020 by The Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy must be obtained from The Water Research Foundation. WRF ISBN: 987‐1‐60573‐508‐5 WRF Project Number: 4790 This report was prepared by the organization(s) named below as an account of work sponsored by The Water Research Foundation. Neither The Water Research Foundation, members of The Water Research Foundation, the organization(s) named below, nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe on privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. University of Maryland College Park, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and Hazen and Sawyer This publication was developed under Assistance Agreement No. 83582501 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It has not been formally reviewed by EPA. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the grantees and do not necessarily reflect those of the Agency. EPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication. This document was reviewed by a panel of independent experts selected by The Water Research Foundation. Mention of trade names or commercial products or services does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. Similarly, omission of products or trade names indicates nothing concerning The Water Research Foundation's or EPA’s positions regarding product effectiveness or applicability. ii The Water Research Foundation Acknowledgments Research Team Principal Investigators: Sujay Kaushal, Ph.D. Shuiwang Duan, Ph.D. University of Maryland College Park Project Team: Erik Rosenfeldt, Ph.D., P.E. (Project Team Lead) Paul Knowles, Ph.D., P.E., ENV SP, LEED GA Hazen and Sawyer Diana S. Aga, Ph.D. Ping He, Ph.D. University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Amelia Flanery, M.S. Adil Godrej, Ph.D., P.E. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Luke Iwanowicz, Ph.D. United States Geological Survey Sudhir Murthy, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE DC Water and Sewer Authority We would also like to acknowledge these additional stakeholders that supported the research team and PAC members during the October 2 Workshop. Lisa Ragain, MWCOG Justin Mattingly, PMP, U.S. EPA (Formerly WRF) Ann Spiesman, P.E., Washington Aqueduct Pam Kenel, P.E., Loudoun Water Greg Prelewicz, P.E., Fairfax Water Matt Ries, Ph.D., P.E., DC Water WRF Project Subcommittee or Other Contributors Susan T. Glassmeyer, Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bob Angelotti, P.E. Upper Occoquan Service Authority (UOSA) Leita S. Bennett, P.E. GHD Steven Bieber Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Water Research Foundation Staff John Albert, MPA Chief Research Officer Lola Olabode, MPH Research Program Manager Improving Water Reuse for a Healthier Potomac Watershed iii Abstract and Benefits Abstract: The objectives of this study were to determine the ecological and human health benefits associated with improving reuse in the Potomac River Watershed. To address this objective, extensive sampling campaigns were performed to 1) assess presence and sources of conventional (i.e., nutrients) and emerging (i.e., endocrine disrupting compounds, pesticides) pollutants into the River, and 2) define potential benefits from pollution management strategies in four sectors: agriculture BMPs, urban stormwater BMPs, enhanced nutrient reduction at water reclamation facilities, and advanced water treatment for potable reuse. The results of the study indicated that agricultural inputs of pollutants accounted for the greatest share of the sectors, and that nutrient management strategies were effective in co-managing many CECs (constituents of emerging concern). Additionally, Urban stormwater management strategies were less effective for nutrient control (particularly nitrogen), and CEC control. Water reclamation and reuse strategies were both effective for nutrient reduction, and reuse was particularly effective at controlling CECs, however their input of these pollutants into the Potomac was significantly smaller than agriculture and urban stormwater inputs. Finally, a multi-criteria decision analysis framework was utilized to assess relative effectiveness of the four strategies for cost effectively and equitably improving ecological and human health in the environment. The results of the assessment indicate agriculture runoff management strategies were the most impactful and least costly of the four alternatives. Most recently, members of our team have developed a method using suspect screening analysis (SSA) that relies on accurate mass measurements and mass spectral fragmentation patterns obtained using liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry to achieve a wide-scope detection of micropollutants. A total of 103 micropollutants were detected in the samples, many of which were not previously monitored in the original target analysis method; 23 of these additional compounds have detection frequency of at least 50%. These compounds belong to various classes such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs), and various pesticide and their metabolites. In the future, further work is necessary to investigate these complex mixtures of micropollutants and the impacts of management on their concentrations and loads. Overall, our work demonstrates the potential for co- managing multiple pollutants in surface waters through an improved and integrated understanding of targeting shared sources, transport, and transformation of multiple contaminants in the environment. Benefits: • Presents a comprehensive dataset of conventional and emerging pollutant concentrations throughout the Potomac Watershed, with over 45 locations along the Potomac and major tributaries sampled quarterly in 2017 to assess “hotspots”, “hot-moments” and land-use correlations with pollutant loads, and another 17 locations monitored monthly in 2018 to assess impacts of sector-specific BMPs on load reduction. • Provides an estimate of relative loading of point and non-point sources to the Potomac Watershed, describing a larger contribution of nutrients and CECs from agricultural practices when compared to the flow contribution to the Watershed. • Demonstrates the effectiveness of sector-specific BMPs for nutrient and CEC co-management. • Multi-criteria decision analysis performed to evaluate four nutrient and CEC co-management strategies indicates that implementation of agricultural BMPs was the most cost-effective and equitable strategy for improving ecological and human health in the Potomac. Keywords: Nutrient management, constituents of emerging concern, Potomac River, Chesapeake Bay, multi-criteria decision analysis, best management practices. iv The Water Research Foundation Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ iii Abstract and Benefits ................................................................................................................................... iv Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... viii Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... ix Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds

    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.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Photo by King Montgomery. by Photo Table of Contents 7 Foreword 8 Fly Fishing Virginia 11 Flies to Use in Virginia 17 Top Virginia Fly Fishing Waters 19 Accotink Creek 21 Back Creek 25 Big Wilson Creek 29 Briery Creek Lake 33 Chesapeake Bay Islands Beasley. Beau by Photo 37 Conway River 41 Dragon Run 43 Gwynn Island 47 Holmes Run Beasley. Beau by Photo 51 Holston River, South Fork 53 Jackson River, Lower Section 59 Jackson River, Upper Section 63 James River, Lower Section 67 James River, Upper Section 71 Lake Brittle 75 Lynnhaven River, Bay, & Inlet 79 Maury River 4 Photo by Eric Evans. Eric by Photo 83 Mossy Creek 87 New River, Lower Section 91 New River, Upper Section 95 North Creek 97 Passage Creek 99 Piankatank River 101 Rapidan River, Lower Section Beasley. Beau by Photo 105 Rapidan River, Upper Section 109 Rappahannock River, Lower Section 113 Rappahannock River, Upper Section 117 Rivanna River 121 Rose River 125 Rudee Inlet 129 Shenandoah River, North Fork Photo by Beau Beasley. Beau by Photo 133 Shenandoah River, South Fork 137 South River 141 St. Mary’s River 145 Whitetop Laurel Creek Chris Newsome. by Photo 148 Private Waters 151 Resources 155 Conservation 156 Other No Nonsense Guides 158 Fly Fishing Knots 5 Arlington 81 66 Interstate South U.S. Highway River 95 State Highway 81 Other Roadway 64 64 Richmond Virginia Boat Launch 64 460 Fish Hatchery Roanoke Hampton 81 95 To Campground 77 58 Hermitage 254 To Grottoes To 340 Staunton ay rkw n Pa ema Hop 254 ver Ri 250 h ut So 340 340 1 Waynesboro To 2 Staunton 2 3 664 64 624 To Charlottesville 250 er iv R h ut 64 So 624 To 1 Constitution Park–Home of Charlottesville Virginia Fly Fishing Festival 2 Good Wading 3 Low water dam South River 136 South River outh River is one of the most underrated fisheries in the Old Dominion.
  • Appendix M: Aquatic Biota Monitoring Table

    Appendix M: Aquatic Biota Monitoring Table

    NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX M: AQUATIC BIOTA MONITORING TABLE Final – May 2020 Aquatic Habitat, BIBI, and FIBI Scores and Rankings for Monitoring Sites within the Vicinity of the I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study Corridor Aquatic Habitat BIBI FIBI MDE 12-digit Watershed Site Waterway Source Site I.D. Year Narrative Narrative Narrative Name Coordinates Method Score Score Score Ranking Ranking Ranking Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2008 -- -- -- 19.1 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2009 -- -- -- 15.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2010 -- -- -- 30.5 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2011 -- -- -- 29.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2012 -- -- -- 13.3 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2013 -- -- -- 12.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2014 -- -- -- 38 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2015 -- -- -- 27.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2016 -- -- -- 27.4 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1
  • Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water

    Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water

    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 2 26.08.01.00 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapter 01 General Authority: Environment Article, §§9-313—9-316, 9-319, 9-320, 9-325, 9-327, and 9-328, Annotated Code of Maryland 3 26.08.01.01 .01 Definitions. A. General. (1) The following definitions describe the meaning of terms used in the water quality and water pollution control regulations of the Department of the Environment (COMAR 26.08.01—26.08.04). (2) The terms "discharge", "discharge permit", "disposal system", "effluent limitation", "industrial user", "national pollutant discharge elimination system", "person", "pollutant", "pollution", "publicly owned treatment works", and "waters of this State" are defined in the Environment Article, §§1-101, 9-101, and 9-301, Annotated Code of Maryland. The definitions for these terms are provided below as a convenience, but persons affected by the Department's water quality and water pollution control regulations should be aware that these definitions are subject to amendment by the General Assembly. B. Terms Defined. (1) "Acute toxicity" means the capacity or potential of a substance to cause the onset of deleterious effects in living organisms over a short-term exposure as determined by the Department.
  • News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S

    News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S

    News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S. Department of the Interior Maryland-Delaware-D.C. District [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road http://md.water.usgs.gov/ Baltimore, MD 21237 Release: Contact: Phone: Fax: January 4, 2002 Wendy S. McPherson (410) 238-4255 (410) 238-4210 Below Normal Rainfall and Warm Temperatures Lead to Record Low Water Levels in December Three months of above normal temperatures and four months of below normal rainfall have led to record low monthly streamflow and ground-water levels, according to hydrologists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Baltimore, Maryland. Streamflow was below normal at 94 percent of the real-time USGS gaging stations and 83 percent of the USGS observation wells across Maryland and Delaware in December. Record low streamflow levels for December were set at Winters Run and Pocomoke River. Streamflow levels at Deer Creek and Winters Run in Harford County have frequently set new record daily lows for the last four months (see real-time graphs at http://md.water.usgs.gov/realtime/). Streamflow was also significantly below normal at Antietam Creek, Choptank River, Conococheague Creek, Nassawango Creek, Patapsco River, Gunpowder River, Patuxent River, Piscataway Creek, Monocacy River, and Potomac River in Maryland, and Christina River, St. Jones River, and White Clay Creek in Delaware. The monthly streamflow in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. was 82 percent below normal in December and 54 percent below normal for 2001. Streamflow entering the Chesapeake Bay averaged 23.7 bgd (billion gallons per day), which is 54 percent below the long-term average for December.
  • Part 2 Markings Colonial -1865, Which, While Not Comprehen- Sive, Has the Advantage of Including Postal Markings As by Len Mcmaster Well As Early Postmasters6

    Part 2 Markings Colonial -1865, Which, While Not Comprehen- Sive, Has the Advantage of Including Postal Markings As by Len Mcmaster Well As Early Postmasters6

    38 Whole Number 242 Hampshire County West Virginia Post Offices Part 2 Markings Colonial -1865, which, while not comprehen- sive, has the advantage of including postal markings as By Len McMaster well as early postmasters6. Previously I discussed a little of the history of Hamp- Thus I have attempted to identify the approximate shire County, described the source of the data and the location and dates of operation of the post offices es- conventions used in the listings, and began the listing of tablished in Hampshire County, explaining, where pos- the post offices from Augusta through Green Valley sible, the discrepancies or possible confusion that ex- Depot. The introduction is repeated here. ists in the other listings. Because of the length of the material, it has been broken up into three parts. This Introduction part will include the balance of the Hampshire county Several people have previously cataloged the Hamp- post office descriptions starting with Hainesville, and shire County West Virginia post offices, generally as the third part will include descriptions of the post of- part of a larger effort to list all the post offices of West fices in Mineral County today that were established in Virginia. Examples include Helbock’s United States Post Hampshire County before Mineral County was split off, Offices1 and Small’s The Post Offices of West Vir- and tables of all the post offices established in Hamp- ginia, 1792-19772. Confusing this study is that Hamp- shire County. shire County was initially split off from Virginia with Individual Post Office Location the establishment of many early post offices appearing in studies of Virginia post offices such as Abelson’s and History of Name Changes 3 Virginia Postmasters and Post Offices, 1789-1832 Hainesville (Haines Store) and Hall’s “Virginia Post Offices, 1798-1859”4; and that Hampshire County was itself eventually split into all or Hainesville was located near the crossroads of Old parts of five West Virginia counties, including its present Martinsburg Road (County Route 45/9) and Kedron day boundaries.
  • Water Resources Compared

    Water Resources Compared

    Water Resources Overview The goals of the Water Resources Chapter are listed below: - Protect the water supply from pollution and encroachment of developments. - Provide an adequate and safe drinking water supply to serve the existing and future residents of the City of Frederick. - Provide an adequate capacity of wastewater treatment with effluent meeting all necessary regulatory requirements for existing and future residents of the City. - Restore and protect water quality and contribute toward meeting the water qualityby striving to meet or exceed regulatory requirements. for water quality. This will require addressinginclude current water quality impacts as well as future impacts from land development and population growth. - Develop adequate stormwater management. - Protect the habitat value of the local and regional rivers and streams. - Efficiently use public dollars for infrastructure that ensures sustainable, safe, and adequate supply of water for all residents. The City is committed to ensuring water and wastewater (sewer) capacity for both existing and new developments andwhile minimizing the negative impacts of stormwater runoff. In 2002, the City established the Water and Sewer Allocation System to make certain that adequate treatment capacity for potable water and wastewater is in place for new growth prior to approval. In 2012, Ordinance G-12-13 was adopted which updated the allocation process and combined it with it the Impact Fees payable for water and sewer service. The City adopted an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) in 2007 that allows development to proceed only after it has been demonstrated that sufficient infrastructure exists or will be created in the water and wastewater systems.
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014

    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014

    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
  • River Watch Spring 2010

    River Watch Spring 2010

    The Newsletter of Potomac RiveRkeepeR, Inc. Volume 7, Issue 1, Winter 2010 495 HOT Lanes Construction Polluting In This Issue Accotink Creek Agricultural Pollution in W. Virginia page 2 s snow pummeled northern Virginia, APotomac Riverkeeper took action against a major polluter in Fairfax Stormwater Regulations Stalled County, VA. page 3 As you might know, a portion of the I- 495 High Occupancy Toll (“HOT”) Lanes From the Board construction site is severely damaging page 4 Accotink Creek, the Potomac River, and the Chesapeake Bay. Sediment pollution News in Brief is leaving the site and has entered page 5 Accotink Creek and its tributaries on numerous occasions. Potomac Riverkeeper’s 10th Anniversary Potomac Riverkeeper and two individuals page 6 sought to end this problem by notifying Fluor-Lane LLC, the HOT Lanes developers, of our intent to sue under the Clean Water Upcoming Events Act (CWA) if Fluor-Lane continues to violate page 7 Virginia law and allow the pollution to enter Accotink Creek. Coverage of our Mattawoman WWTP Permit action ran in The Washington Post. page 8 Flour-Lane has not stopped polluting despite numerous complaints from the public and inspections from state Polluted water is leaving the HOT Lanes Get the DIRT Out agencies. If Fluor-Lane does not stop the construction site and entering Accotink Creek. Photo by Kris Unger. As you just read, some developers allow polluted sludge pollution and comply with the law, legal to run into our rivers and streams, leaving taxpayers action may be one of the few remaining the stream. He also made site visits and with a hefty clean up bill.
  • Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014

    Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014

    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Joanne Throwe, Deputy Secretary Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 The Potomac River watershed includes area in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Washington D.C. For the purpose of this report, the basin is divided into four regions: the Upper Potomac, Shenandoah, Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac (Figure 1). Land use in the upper Potomac River watershed was estimated to be 69% forest and 22% agriculture (Figure 1, Table 1).1 The Upper Potomac watershed is largely within West Virginia (54%), with other portions in Pennsylvania (22%), Maryland (18%) and Virginia (7%). Impervious surfaces cover 1% of the Maryland potion of the Upper river basin (Table 1).2 Land use in the Shenandoah watershed was estimated to be 56% forest and 34% agriculture. The Shenandoah watershed is almost entirely in Virginia (96%), with a small area in West Virginia (4%). Land use in the Middle Potomac watershed was estimated to be 44% agriculture, 32% forest and 20% developed. The Middle Potomac watershed includes areas in Maryland (55%), Virginia (34%), Pennsylvania (13%) and Washington D.C. (0.1%). Impervious surfaces cover 7% of the Maryland potion of the Middle river basin. Land use in the Lower Potomac watershed was estimated to be 41% forest, 30% developed, and 16% agriculture. The Lower Potomac watershed includes Figure 1 Potomac River basin Top panel shows state boundaries and the individual watersheds. Bottom panel shows the land use throughout the basin for 2011.1 Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 1 areas in Virginia (56%), Maryland (42%) and Washington D.C.
  • Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!

    Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!

    American Council of Engineering Companies of Metropolitan Washington Water & Wastewater Business Opportunities Networking Luncheon Presented by Matthew Doyle, Branch Chief, Wastewater Design and Construction Division Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You! A Fairfax County, VA, publication August 20, 2019 Introduction • Matt Doyle, PE, CCM • Working as a Civil Engineer at Fairfax County, DPWES • BSCE West Virginia University • MSCE Johns Hopkins University • 25 years in the industry (Mid‐Atlantic Only) • Adjunct Hydraulics Professor at GMU • Director GMU‐EFID (Student Organization) Presentation Objectives • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization (Staff) • Snapshot of our Current Projects • New Opportunities To work with DPWES • Use of Technologies and Trends • Helpful Hyperlinks Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Wastewater Collection System • 3,400 Miles of Sanitary Sewer (Average Age 60 years old) • 61 Pumping Stations (flow ranges are from 25 GPM to 25 MGD) • 90 Flow Meters (Mostly billing meters) • 135 Grinder pumps • Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant • Noman M. Cole Pollution Control Plant, Lorton • 67 MGD • Laboratory • Reclaimed Water Reuse System • 6.6 MGD • 2 Pump Stations • 0.750 MG Storage Tank • Level 1 Compliance • Convanta, Golf Course and Ball Fields Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization • Wastewater Management Program (Three Areas) – Planning & Monitoring: • Financial,
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report

    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