DOCSLIB.ORG

DC Flood Insurance Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements ...................................................................... 1 1.3 Coordination .......................................................................................................... 2 2.0 AREA STUDIED .............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Scope of Study ....................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Community Description ....................................................................................... 5 2.3 Principal Flood Problems ..................................................................................... 7 2.4 Flood Protection Measures................................................................................. 12 3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS ........................................................................................ 13 3.1 Hydrologic Analyses. .......................................................................................... 14 3.2 Hydraulic Analyses ............................................................................................. 29 3.3 Vertical Datum .................................................................................................... 30 4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGMENT APPLICATIONS .................................................... 31 4.1 Floodplain Boundaries ....................................................................................... 31 4.2 Floodways ............................................................................................................ 32 5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION ...................................................................................... 37 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ............................................................................. 37 7.0 OTHER STUDIES .......................................................................................................... 38 8.0 LOCATION OF DATA .................................................................................................. 38 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES ..................................................................... 38 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS - (Continued) FIGURES Figure 1 – Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2 – Major Sources of Moisture to the District of Columbia 7 Figure 3 – Potomac River high water marks at Overlook 2, Great Falls National Park 10 Figure 4 – Frequency vs. Discharge curve for the Potomac River at Little Falls 16 Figure 5 – Water-surface elevation versus return period for Potomac River (Haines Point) Tidal Gage 18 Figure 6 - Frequency vs. Discharge curve for Watts Branch 21 Figure 7 - Drainage area vs. 1% annual chance discharge curve for Watts Branch 21 Figure 8 - Northeast Branch Anacostia River frequency curves for approximate FEMA study period of record and current period of record 24 Figure 9 - Drainage area vs. discharge curve for Rock Creek 27 Figure 10 - Comparison between CH2MHill discharge-frequency curve and curves for three periods of record for USGS gage Rock Creek at Sherrill Drive 27 Figure 11 – Floodway Schematic 33 TABLES Table 1 – Names of streams and rivers studied in whole or partially by detailed methods 4 Table 2 – Names of streams and rivers studied in whole or partially by approximate methods 4 Table 3 – Historical significant flood event summary for Washington D.C. 9 Table 4 – Comparison of effective and updated peak discharges, Potomac River at Little Falls 15 Table 5 – Highest Water-Surface Elevations Recorded at Potomac River (Haines Point) Tidal Gage 17 Table 6 – Summary of Stage-Frequency Analysis for Potomac River (Haines Point) Tidal Gage 17 Table 7 - Comparison of effective and updated discharges, Watts Branch 19 Table 8 - Effective FIS discharge estimates for regional watersheds similar to Watts Branch 20 Table 9 - Gages near confluence of Potomac and Anacostia Rivers used for comparison of Anacostia River effective and updated hydrology 23 Table 10 - Top ranked peak annual events in gage record 23 Table 11 - Rock Creek updated frequency analysis peak discharges 26 Table 12 - Summary of Discharges 28 Table 13 – Floodway Data Table – Broad Branch, Fenwick Branch, Oxon Run, Watts Branch 34-36 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS - (Continued) EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles Anacostia River Panels 01P – 04P Barnaby Run Panels 05P – 06P Broad Branch Panels 07P – 08P East Creek A Panel 09P East Creek B Panel 10P Fenwick Branch Panels 11P – 13P Tributary of Fenwick Branch Panels 14P – 16P Fort Dupont Creek Panel 17P Melvin Hazen Branch Panel 18P Creek Along Normanstone Drive Panels 19P – 21P Oxon Run Panels 22P – 26P Pinehurst Run Panels 27P – 29P Pope Branch Panels 30P – 32P Potomac River Panels 33P – 38P Rock Creek Panels 39P – 43P Watts Branch Panels 44P – 47P Exhibit 2 – Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Map v FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) revises and supersedes the FIS reports and/or Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in the geographic area of the District of Columbia, Washington D.C. (hereinafter referred to as D.C.), and aids in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study has developed flood risk data for various areas of the community that will be used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates. This information will also be used by D.C. to update existing floodplain regulations as part of the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and by local and regional planners to further promote sound land use and floodplain development. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the NFIP are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3. In some states or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than the minimum Federal requirements. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence and the state (or other jurisdictional agency) will be able to explain them. 1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements The sources of authority for this Flood Insurance Study are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for this study were performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under Contract No. HSFE03-04-X-0016. The study was completed in December 2005. The November 15, 1985 FIS was prepared by Sheladia Associates, Inc., (SAI), under Contract No. H-6816. This study was completed in April 1983. The base mapping for this study was obtained from the D.C.’s Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), which is responsible for implementing and managing the enterprise-wide geographic information system (GIS) for Washington D.C. These planimetrics were developed from aerial photography acquired in the spring of 1999, and originally published on June 10, 2002. The planimetrics used for this study was updated in December 2004. The data are in the Maryland State Plane Coordinate System and horizontally referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) and vertically to the North American 1 Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). OCTO is located at 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 9305 Washington, D.C. 20002. 1.3 Coordination The initial Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) meeting for the previous study was held in May 1979, and attended by representatives of FEMA, D.C., and the study contractor. The D.C. Department of Environmental Services (DES) served as the city coordinating agency for the previous study. Results of the hydrologic analyses were coordinated with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the DES. The results
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Restoration Plan for the Anacostia River Watershed in Prince George’s County December 30, 2015 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. USEPA 2. Tetra Tech, Inc. 8. USEPA 3. Prince George’s County 9. Montgomery Co DEP 4. VA Tech, Center for TMDL and 10. PGC DoE Watershed Studies 11. USEPA 5. Charles County, MD Dept of 12. PGC DoE Planning and Growth Management 13. USEPA 6. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services _Tom Liptan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 3 1.1.1 What is a TMDL? ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 What is a Restoration Plan? ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States National Museum Bulletin 282
    Cl>lAat;i<,<:>';i^;}Oit3Cl <a f^.S^ iVi^ 5' i ''*«0£Mi»«33'**^ SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION MUSEUM O F NATURAL HISTORY I NotUTus albater, new species, a female paratype, 63 mm. in standard length; UMMZ 102781, Missouri. (Courtesy Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan.) UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 282 A Revision of the Catfish Genus Noturus Rafinesque^ With an Analysis of Higher Groups in the Ictaluridae WILLIAM RALPH TAYLOR Associate Curator, Division of Fishes SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS CITY OF WASHINGTON 1969 IV Publications of the United States National Museum The scientific publications of the United States National Museum include two series, Proceedings of the United States National Museum and United States National Museum Bulletin. In these series are published original articles and monographs dealing with the collections and work of the Museum and setting forth newly acquired facts in the fields of anthropology, biology, geology, history, and technology. Copies of each publication are distributed to libraries and scientific organizations and to specialists and others interested in the various subjects. The Proceedings, begun in 1878, are intended for the publication, in separate form, of shorter papers. These are gathered in volumes, octavo in size, with the publication date of each paper recorded in the table of contents of the volume. In the Bulletin series, the first of which was issued in 1875, appear longer, separate publications consisting of monographs (occasionally in several parts) and volumes in which are collected works on related subjects. Bulletins are either octavo or quarto in size, depending on the needs of the presentation. Since 1902, papers relating to the botanical collections of the Museum have been published in the Bulletin series under the heading Contributions from the United States National Herbarium.
    [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]
  • Water Resources Research Center in the District of Columbia: Water
    DC WRRC Report. No. 36 UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Water Resources Research Center WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Water Supply Management In the District of Columbia: An Institutional Assessment by Daniel P. Beard, Principal Investigator February 1982 WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT IN TI-M DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT WRRC Report No. 36 by Or. Daniel Beard ERRATA The following errors should be corrected as follows: Page V-5, Line 11 - The diameter of the conduit from Great Falls is 9 ft. not 90 ft. Page V-6, Line 18 - The operation of the water department of the District is not under the Chief of Engineers. Page V-8, Figure 14 - The line of supply to the Federal Government in Virginia is through the D.C.-DES, not through Arlington County. Page VI-8 - Mr. Jean B. Levesque was the Administrator of the Water Resources Management Administration of the Department of Environmental Services. DISCLAIMER "Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute their endorsement or recommendation for use by the United States Government”. ABSTRACT This study defines the District of Columbia's water management structure, explains how it operates, delineates the issues it will have to deal with in the 1980's, and assesses how the District is prepared to deal with these issues. The study begins with a description of the Potomac River Basin and the physical environment water managers in the Washington Metropolitan have to deal with.
    [Show full text]
  • C U R R E N T S
    A N A C O S T I A Currents PUBLISHED BY THE ANACOSTIA WATERSHED RESTORATION COMMITTEE 2002 Dear Friends of the Report, the restoration effort has gained a new focus, as well as a comprehensive system for tracking Anacostia Watershed: restoration progress until 2010. The Annual Report, with its colorful and user friendly format, will also This is an exciting time for the help to increase public interest and involvement in the member governments and agencies restoration effort. of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC). In addition to fulfilling their AWRC-related obliga- The year began on a high note tions, the individual Anacostia jurisdictions are CATHERINE RAPPE, pursuing a variety of restoration and water quality 2002 AWRC CHAIR following the adoption by the leaders of the District of Colum- enhancement projects throughout the watershed. The bia, Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, and District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority took the State of Maryland of a new Anacostia Restoration a major step forward with the recent completion of its Agreement last December. Between this landmark CSO Long Term Control Plan. Meanwhile, District event and the release this fall of the 2001 Annual planners and resource specialists are coordinating with other agencies and organizations to implement a number of stream restoration and Low Impact Development (LID) projects. Montgomery County continues its active role in design and implementing numerous stormwater management, stream restoration, wetland creation and reforestation projects in its portion of the Anacostia watershed. Prince Georges County completed several stormwater retrofit and LID projects this year and recently secured a $1 million grant from EPA for LID demonstration projects throughout the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Dorchester Pope Family
    A HISTORY OF THE Dorchester Pope Family. 1634-1888. WITH SKETCHES OF OTHER POPES IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA, AND NOTES UPON SEVERAL INTERMARRYING FAMILIES, 0 CHARLES HENRY POPE, MllMBIUl N. E. HISTOalC GENIIALOGlCAl. SOCIETY. BOSTON~ MASS.: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, AT 79 FRANKLIN ST. 1888 PRESS OF L. BARTA & Co., BOSTON. BOSTON, MA88,,.... (~£P."/.,.. .w.;,.!' .. 190 L.. - f!cynduLdc ;-~,,__ a.ut ,,,,-Mrs. 0 ~. I - j)tt'"rrz-J (i'VU ;-k.Lf!· le a, ~ u1--(_,fl.,C./ cU!.,t,, u,_a,1,,~{a"-~ t L, Lt j-/ (y ~'--? L--y- a~ c/4-.t 7l~ ~~ -zup /r,//~//TJJUJ4y. a.&~ ,,l E kr1J-&1 1}U, ~L-U~ l 6-vl- ~-u _ r <,~ ?:~~L ~ I ~-{lu-,1 7~ _..l~ i allll :i1tft r~,~UL,vtA-, %tt. cz· -t~I;"'~::- /, ~ • I / CJf:z,-61 M, ~u_, PREFACE. IT was predicted of the Great Philanthropist, "He shall tum the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of children to their fathers." The writer seeks to contribute something toward the development of such mutual afiection between the members of the Pope Family. He has found his own heart tenderly drawn toward all whose names he has registered and whose biographies he has at­ tempted to write. The dead are his own, whose graves he has sought to strew with the tributes of love ; the living are his own, every one of whose careers he now watches with strong interest. He has given a large part of bis recreation hours and vacation time for eight years to the gathering of materials for the work ; written hundreds of letters ; examined a great many deeds and wills, town journals, church registers, and family records ; visited numerous persons and places, and pored over a large number of histories of towns and families ; and has gathered here the items and entries thus discovered.
    [Show full text]
  • WSSC Update on Consent Decree Projects
    Presentation to the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Water Quality Advisory Group Consent Decree Projects in Montgomery County October 21, 2013 Discussion Points Sewer Repair, Rehabilitation & Replacement (SR3)Program Overview Basins in Montgomery County Consent Decree Project Overview Lateral Contracts Roads Contracts ESA Contracts Expectations During Construction Activities Questions SR3 Program Overview Background Federal Consent Decree between the United States, the State of Maryland, Citizen Groups and WSSC Priority 1 Assets must be completed by December 7, 2015 Large scale program to improve collection system performance and restore condition Reduce sewer overflows and backups Basins in Montgomery County •Cabin John •Dulles Interceptor •Little Falls •Muddy Branch •Monocacy •Northwest Branch •Paint Branch •Patuxent North •Rock Creek •Rock Run •Seneca Creek •Sligo Creek •Watts Branch Consent Decree Projects Overview Laterals Repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of sewer house connections (laterals) and the installation of cleanouts and mainline lateral connection seals. Lateral repairs will involve work between the main line sewer and the property line. Roads Repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of aging and defective sewers using Cured-In-Place Pipe (CIPP), pipe bursting, and open cut excavation. Work also includes chemical grout injection, internal spot repairs, external point repairs, manhole grouting and lining, and cleaning and inspection of sewers. Work occurs in neighborhoods and populated areas. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Sanitary sewer system rehabilitation utilizing mainly trenchless methods. Some repair work will require open cut methods. Work consists of the rehabilitating sewer mainline, lateral, and manhole systems. Work will be associated with stream restoration activities and the construction of temporary access roads in ESA.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena
    Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena Time Path Path Number of Estimated June 2006 Local/ Length Width Persons Damage Location Date Standard (Miles) (Yards) Killed Injured Property Crops Character of Storm ATLANTIC OCEAN ANZ531 Chesapeake Bay Pooles Is To Sandy Pt Md Millers Island to01 1902EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (EG34) Tolchester Beach 1918EST ANZ532 Chesapeake Bay Sandy Pt To N Beach Md 5 SE Annapolis01 2109EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG35) Wind gust measured at Thomas Point Light. A trough of low pressure was draped across the Mid Atlantic on June 1. This feature combined with high moisture content and instability in the atmosphere to promote scattered strong to severe thunderstorms. The thunderstorms first developed across the higher terrain of the Appalachian Mountains, then moved east across the Washington/Baltimore corridor. ANZ534 Chesapeake Bay Drum Pt To Smith Pt Va Solomons Island02 1754EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG38) 1812EST ANZ536 Tidal Potomac Indian Hd To Cobb Is Md Dahlgren02 1756EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG50) Wind gust was measured at Cuckold Creek. ANZ533 Chesapeake Bay N Beach To Drum Pt Md Cove Pt02 1800EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG37) 1820EST ANZ532 Chesapeake Bay Sandy Pt To N Beach Md 5 SE Annapolis02 1858EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG39) 1901EST ANZ537 Tidal Potomac Cobb Is Md To Smith Pt Va Piney Pt to04 1554EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG38) Lewisetta 1700EST ANZ534 Chesapeake Bay Drum Pt To Smith Pt Va Patuxent River Nas to04 1605EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG38) Smith Island 1700EST ANZ535 Tidal Potomac Key Bridge To Indian Hd Md Rnld Reagan Natl Arpt09 1453EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (EG34) ANZ533 Chesapeake Bay N Beach To Drum Pt Md Cove Pt09 1630EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG37) 1700EST ANZ535 Tidal Potomac Key Bridge To Indian Hd Md Rnld Reagan Natl Arpt09 1751EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG36) Daytime heating combined with an unstable lower atmosphere and favorable amounts of moisture contributed to scattered afternoon and evening thunderstorms.
    [Show full text]
  • MC-002-2017, MC Boat Houses
    MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK & PLANNING COMMISSION Montgomery County Department of Parks Enterprise Division Audit of Black Hill and Lake Needwood Boat Houses Report Number: MC-002-2017 August 31, 2016 Distribution: Executive Committee Casey Anderson Elizabeth Hewlett Patricia Barney Audit Committee Norman Dreyfuss Karen Tobat Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Adrian Gardner John Nissel Mike Riley Christy Turnbull Joseph Zimmerman Office of Internal Audit Renee Kenney Robert Feeley Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Office of Internal Audit 7833 Walker Drive, Suite 425 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Audit of Black Hill and Lake Needwood Boat Houses Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Background………………………………………………………………....1 B. Scope, Objective and Methodology of the Audit………….……………2 C. Major Audit Concerns….…………………………………………….…….3 D. Overall Conclusions…………………………….…………………….……4 II. DETAILED COMMENTARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS None Enterprise Division Audit of Black Hill and Lake Needwood Boat Houses MC-002-2017 I. EXECUTI VE SUMMARY A. Background Black Hill Boat House is located in Black Hill Regional Park on the 505 acre Little Seneca Lake in Boyds, Maryland. Lake Needwood Boat House is located in Rock Creek Regional Park on the 75 acre Lake Needwood in Rockville, Maryland. They are managed by the Enterprise Division under the Deputy Director of Operations within the Montgomery County Department of Parks. Both boat houses have kayaks, canoes, rowboats and pedal boats available for rent, along with a pontoon boat for tours. Fishing is also allowed at each lake. Page 1 Enterprise Division Audit of Black Hill and Lake Needwood Boat Houses MC-002-2017 B. Scope, Objective, and Methodology of the Audit Objective: The purpose of this audit was to perform a review of both Black Hill and Lake Needwood Boat Houses to evaluate and assess the adequacy of the design and operational effectiveness of their internal controls and determine if Commission policies and procedures are being followed.
    [Show full text]
  • ASDSO Membership
    Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Report July 2006 - June 2007 Association of State Dam Safety Officials 450 Old Vine St. Lexington, KY 40507 The Association of State Dam Safety Officials 2007 Annual Report documents progress toward the financial and strategic planning goals set for this fiscal year. The fiscal year cycle takes into account activities from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. The report follows the format of ASDSO’s Strategic Plan. Respectfully submitted, 2006-07 ASDSO Board of Directors James W. Gallagher, P.E. (President), New Hampshire Robert B. Finucane, P.E., Vermont Kenneth E. Smith, P.E. (Past President), Indiana David A. Gutierrez, P.E., California Mark B. Ogden, P.E. (President-Elect), Ohio John H. Moyle, P.E., New Jersey Steven M. Bradley, P.E.(Treasurer), South Carolina Stephen Partney, P.E., Florida; replaced in mid-term by James MacLellan, Mississippi Robert K. Martinez, P.E. (Secretary), Nevada Randy Bass., P.E., Affiliate Member Advisory Committee Chair James L. Alexander, P.E., Missouri Staff Jason Boyle, P.E., North Dakota; replaced in mid-term by Doug Johnson, Washington Lori C. Spragens, Executive Director Jack Byers, P.E., Colorado Susan A. Sorrell, Membership & Meetings Director Max Fowler, P.E., North Carolina Sarah M. Mayfield, Information Specialist Maureen C. Hogle, Promotions and Marketing Members of the 2006-07 Board (L to R) Randy Bass (Affiliate Member Advisory Committee Chair), Jim Alexander (MO), Max Fowler (NC), David Gutierrez (CA), Mark Ogden (OH)(President-Elect), Steve Partney (FL)(replaced in mid-term by James MacLellan [MS]), Bob Finucane (VT), Ken Smith (IN)(Past President), John Moyle (NJ), Jim Gallagher (NH)(President), Jason Boyle (ND)(replaced in mid-term by Doug Johnson [WA]), Steve Bradley (SC)(Treasurer), Jack Byers (CO), and Rob Martinez (NV)(Secretary).
    [Show full text]
  • MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER SUPPLY and SEWERAGE SYSTEMS PLAN 2017 - 2026 PLAN: County Executive Draft – March 2017
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS PLAN 2017 - 2026 PLAN: County Executive Draft – March 2017 CHAPTER 4: SEWERAGE SYSTEMS Table of Contents Table of Figures: ............................................................................................................................... 4-3 Table of Tables: ................................................................................................................................ 4-4 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: ......................................................................................... 4-5 I. THE WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY DISTRICT: ..................................................... 4-10 I.A. Government Responsibilities: ......................................................................................... 4-11 I.B. Programs and Policies: ................................................................................................... 4-11 I.B.1. Facility Planning, Project Development and Project Approval Processes: ................. 4-11 I.B.2. Wastewater Flow Analysis: ........................................................................................ 4-12 I.B.3. Sanitary Sewer Overflows: ........................................................................................ 4-17 I.B.4. Sewer Sizing Policies: ............................................................................................... 4-23 I.B.5. Pressure Sewer Systems: ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]