DOCSLIB.ORG

Evaluation of Nitrogen Nonpoint-Source Loadings Using High Resolution Land Use Data in a Gis: a Multiple Watershed Study for the State of Maryland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evaluation of Nitrogen Nonpoint-Source Loadings Using High Resolution Land Use Data in a Gis: a Multiple Watershed Study for the State of Maryland ABSTRACT Title of Document: EVALUATION OF NITROGEN NONPOINT-SOURCE LOADINGS USING HIGH RESOLUTION LAND USE DATA IN A GIS: A MULTIPLE WATERSHED STUDY FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND. Sarah N. Ahmed, Master of Science, 2008 Directed By: Dr. Glenn E. Moglen, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The performance of three monitoring perspectives, for the detection of watershed compliance with water quality standards, was evaluated. In order to compare performances 35 watershed nonpoint-source nitrogen loading cases were calculated within a GIS. Calculations showed that the probability of loads exceeding a criterion at the watershed outlet is more representative of upstream conditions than a nominal mean load comparison at the watershed outlet. Combined outlet compliance interpretations were found to isolate loading conditions that on average did not exceed the criterion; however, variations within loading distributions were large such that compliant conditions were threatened. The whole watershed perspective mapped the relationship between stream network structure, land cover/land use, and loadings. Comparisons between the perspectives suggested that both outlet perspectives usually are consistent with whole watershed conditions. Semivariograms were demonstrated to characterize spatial variability in loadings and predict the accuracy with which monitoring sites represent loads at upstream locations. EVALUATION OF NITROGEN NONPOINT-SOURCE LOADINGS USING HIGH RESOLUTION LAND USE DATA IN A GIS: A MULTIPLE WATERSHED STUDY FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND. By Sarah N. Ahmed Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science 2008 Advisory Committee: Professor Glenn E. Moglen, Advisor Professor Richard H. McCuen Professor Kaye L. Brubaker © Copyright by Sarah N. Ahmed 2008 To my grandpa Owen Schneider. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my professors whose guidance in solving hydrologic problems has influenced the final copy of this thesis. First, many thanks are due to Dr. Glenn E. Moglen for the months of consultation, support and encouragement that went into this thesis. Further, many thanks are due to Dr. Richard H. McCuen for the open encouragement and help in learning the statistical methods that are used in this thesis. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Kaye L. Brubaker for her thorough review of this document. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Adel Shirmohammadi, Dr. Hubert J. Montas, and Dr. Patricia Steinhilber for their early support in pursuing a Master’s of Science. I would like to thank my fellow classmates for their companionship and encouragement. Of my fellow classmates I would like especially to thank Jeff Blass, David Choy, Kristin Gilroy, Alfonso Mejia, Sandra Pavlovic, Karthik Ravirajan, and Dorianne Shivers. Finally, I would like to thank my family for the love and support that they gave me while writing this thesis. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................. vii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Problem Statement .............................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Nonpoint-source Pollution ........................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Current Monitoring Programs ...................................................................... 1 1.1.3 Land Use Characteristics ............................................................................. 2 1.1.4 Loading as a Function of Land Use ............................................................. 4 1.2 Research Need Statement ................................................................................... 6 1.3 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................... 6 1.4 Potential Implications of the Research ............................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Background/Literature Review ................................................................... 9 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Land Use Approaches to Nonpoint-source Pollution Assessment ..................... 9 2.2.1 Other Simple Nonpoint-source Models in a GIS ....................................... 11 2.3 Chesapeake Bay Program Office Loading Rates .............................................. 16 2.3.1 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Details and Assumptions .................. 16 2.3.2 Inherited Loading Rate Assumptions ......................................................... 18 2.4 Water Quality Standards ................................................................................... 19 2.4.1 Concentrations as Criteria .......................................................................... 19 2.4.2 Nitrogen Water Quality Indicators ............................................................. 20 2.4.3 Total Maximum Daily Loads as Criteria ................................................... 20 2.5 Variance in Context with Hydrologic Data ...................................................... 24 Chapter 3: Methods and Materials .............................................................................. 26 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 26 3.2 Basic Load Calculations ................................................................................... 26 3.2.1 Inferred Land Use from CBPO Phase 4 Land Cover ................................. 28 3.2.2 Loading Rates ............................................................................................ 33 3.2.3 Load Estimates ........................................................................................... 36 3.3 Probability Distribution Interpretation .............................................................. 39 3.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 39 3.3.2 GIS for Small Regions of Interest .............................................................. 40 3.4 Interpretation of Watershed Compliance with MDE/USEPA Standards ......... 57 3.4.1 Watershed Selection ................................................................................... 57 3.4.2 Load Criteria for Water Quality Compliance Interpretations .................... 62 3.4.3 Perspective One: Outlet Mean Load Comparison ..................................... 68 3.4.4 Perspective Two: Watershed Outlet Probability Comparison ................... 69 3.4.5 Perspective Three: Percent Stream Length Comparison ........................... 73 3.5 Monitoring and Management Considerations ................................................... 78 3.5.1 Compliance Maps ...................................................................................... 78 iv 3.5.2 Monitoring Site Range of Influence and Prediction Standard Error .......... 80 Chapter 4: Results and Discussion .............................................................................. 90 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 90 4.2 Modeled Loads versus MD/USEPA Reported Loads ....................................... 90 4.2.1 The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Two-Sample (KS-2) Test ............................... 91 4.3 The Two Watershed Outlet Perspectives .......................................................... 95 4.3.1 Perspective One: Outlet Mean Annual Load Compliance Interpretation .. 97 4.3.2 Perspective Two: Probability of Exceedance Outlet Compliance Interpretation ....................................................................................................... 99 4.4 The Stream Network Perspective .................................................................... 107 4.4.1 Perspective Three: Percent Compliant Stream Length Approach ........... 107 4.4.2 Compliance Maps .................................................................................... 110 4.5 Relationship Between Land Use Spatial Distributions and Compliance ........ 114 4.6 Evaluation of the Tributary Strategy Plan’s Reduction in Loads ................... 121 4.7 Monitoring Application .................................................................................. 123 4.7.1 Semivariogram Analyses ......................................................................... 123 4.7.2 Implications of Loading Variance ........................................................... 127 Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions ..................................................................... 129 5.1 Summary of the Research ............................................................................... 129 5.2 Significance of the Load Calculation Methodology ....................................... 131 5.3 Limitations and Future Work .........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Federation Corner" Column the Montgomery Sentinel - July 6, 2006
    "Federation Corner" column The Montgomery Sentinel - July 6, 2006 Proper maintenance of Lake Needwood long overdue by Wayne Goldstein MCCF President For several days last week, thousands of county residents were evacuated from their homes after county officials became alarmed at water seeping through Lake Needwood's dam. Although this emergency is over for now, this is the right time to look more closely at other problems at Lake Needwood. This July 20th will mark the 50th anniversary of the 1956 flooding that killed six county residents and sparked the drive to help prevent such future killing floods by building flood control dams on Rock Creek. The drive to build the dams, led by an activist citizens group known as the Rock Creek Watershed Association, also included a demand by the group to change zoning and soil conservation laws. These citizens wanted to prevent people from building in flood plains, wanted to limit additional impervious surfaces and resulting stormwater runoff, and wanted to minimize the amount of sediment washing into Upper Rock Creek, the lakes behind the dams, and the lower Rock Creek. Construction of the dams that created Lake Needwood and Lake Bernard Frank began in October 1964 and were completed within 2 years with federal funding through the PL-566 program. Lake Needwood was built to provide both flood control and recreational facilities. It is ironic that the biggest flood threat this time was the fear that the dam holding back Lake Needwood might fail. The 1988 dam inspection report states: "Overall, this is one of the best maintained PL-566 dams in state..." The first specific mention of seepage through the Lake Needwood dam was in 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment to the Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker Biker Trail
    MCPB Item No. Date: 11/30/17 November 23, 2017 MEMORANDUM TO: Montgomery County Planning Board VIA: Michael F. Riley, Director Mitra Pedoeem, Deputy Director Michael Ma, Chief, Park Development Division (PDD) Patricia McManus, Design Sec on Supervisor, (PDD) FROM: Aaron Feldman, Landscape Architect (PDD), 301-650-2887 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker Biker Trail STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve modifi ca ons to the 2013 Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker-Biker Trail, specifi cally: 1) Relocate the proposed trailhead and parking lot from Muncaster Mill Road to Meadowside Lane. 2) Relocate the proposed bridge from near the Meadowside Nature Center to just south of the Intercounty Connector (ICC). PROJECT SUMMARY In March of 2017, during the detailed design phase of the project, the Norbeck Manor Homeowners Associa on contacted staff with concerns about the proposed loca on of a trailhead and parking lot intended to serve the North Branch Trail. Staff a ended a Homeowners Associa on mee ng, reviewed the concerns, studied alterna ves and presented them at a subsequent public mee ng for feedback. In light of strong community support for reloca ng the trailhead and parking lot from the loca on shown in the approved 2013 Facility Plan, staff is returning to the Planning Board for approval of the new loca on and other minor modifi ca ons to the overall plan. ExisƟ ng CondiƟ ons Located within both Rock Creek Regional Park and the North Branch Stream Valley Park, the North Branch Hiker-Biker Trail is a 2.2 mile-long segment of a con nuous regional trail system that will eventually extend from the District of Columbia northward to Olney.
    [Show full text]
  • F/.{Egis Ative Attorney
    AGENDA ITEM #4 November 1, 2011 Public Hearing MEMORANDUM October 28, 2011 TO: County Council 1 . FROM: Jeffirey L. Zyontz,f/.{egIs atIve Attorney SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Redistricting Commission Report Bill 31-11, Council Districts - Boundaries On October 4, the Redistricting Commission presented its report to Council, and Bill 31-11, affirming the Commission's plan, was introduced. This public hearing will be on both the Commission redistricting plan and Bill 31-11. A Council worksession is scheduled for November 8, 2011. Charter Requirements The Charter requires the 5 Council Districts to be compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population. l Staff believes that the Commission proposed redistricts meet those standards. This conclusion should not be taken to mean that the Commission's plan is the only way to meet Charter standards. The Council can approve different district boundaries that also are compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population. Compactness for the purpose of redistricting is a judgment that Federal Courts have left to legislatures. It is not a mathematical standard. Mathematically, the most compact district would be a perfect circle. The least compact district would be a district one block wide for its entire length. The Commission used 2010 precincts to construct their proposed districts. That decision ensured that proposed districts are never narrower than the width of a precinct at any point. 1 Charter § 103: Montgomery County shall be divided into five Council districts for the purpose of nominating and electing five members of the Council. Each district shall be compact in form and be composed of adjoining territory.
    [Show full text]
  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Lakes with an Asterisk * Do Not Have Depth Information and Appear with Improvised Contour Lines County Information Is for Reference Only
    IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Lakes with an asterisk * do not have depth information and appear with improvised contour lines County information is for reference only. Your lake will not be split up by county. The whole lake will be shown unless specified next to name eg (Northern Section) (Near Follette) etc. LAKE NAME COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY Great Lakes GL Lake Erie Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Port of Toledo) Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Western Basin) Great Lakes GL Lake Huron Great Lakes GL Lake Huron (w West Lake Erie) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (Northeast) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (South) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (w Lake Erie and Lake Huron) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Rochester Area) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Stoney Pt to Wolf Island) Great Lakes GL Lake Superior Great Lakes GL Lake Superior (w Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) Great Lakes GL Lake St Clair Great Lakes GL (MI) Great Lakes Cedar Creek Reservoir AL Deerwood Lake Franklin AL Dog River Shelby AL Gantt Lake Mobile AL Goat Rock Lake * Covington AL (GA) Guntersville Lake Lee Harris (GA) AL Highland Lake * Marshall Jackson AL Inland Lake * Blount AL Jordan Lake Blount AL Lake Gantt * Elmore AL Lake Jackson * Covington AL (FL) Lake Martin Covington Walton (FL) AL Lake Mitchell Coosa Elmore Tallapoosa AL Lake Tuscaloosa Chilton Coosa AL Lake Wedowee (RL Harris Reservoir) Tuscaloosa AL Lay Lake Clay Randolph AL Lewis Smith Lake * Shelby Talladega Chilton Coosa AL Logan Martin Lake Cullman Walker Winston AL Mobile Bay Saint Clair Talladega AL Ono Island Baldwin Mobile AL Open Pond * Baldwin AL Orange Beach East Covington AL Bon Secour River and Oyster Bay Baldwin AL Perdido Bay Baldwin AL (FL) Pickwick Lake Baldwin Escambia (FL) AL (TN) (MS) Pickwick Lake (Northern Section, Pickwick Dam to Waterloo) Colbert Lauderdale Tishomingo (MS) Hardin (TN) AL (TN) (MS) Shelby Lakes Colbert Lauderdale Tishomingo (MS) Hardin (TN) AL Tallapoosa River at Fort Toulouse * Baldwin AL Walter F.
    [Show full text]
  • 36-01 Concerning: Council Districts Boundaries Revised: 12-4-01 Draft No. 2 Introduced: November 6 2001 Enacted: December 11
    '" I Bill No. 36-01 Concerning: Council Districts Boundaries Revised: 12-4-01 Draft No._2_ Introduced: November 6 2001 Enacted: December 11. 2001 Executive: Deca!lber 19, 2001 Effective: March 12, 2002 Sunset Date: None Ch. -3.,L, Laws of Mont. Co. 2001 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND By: Councilmember Leggett AN ACT to revise the boundaries of Council districts. By amending Montgomery County Code Chapter 16, Elections Section 16-2 Boldface Heading or defined term. Underlinina Added to existing law by original bill. [Single boldface brackets] Deleted from existing law by original bill. no, 1hlA I 1nrlArlininn Added by amendment. [[Double boldface brackets]] Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment. * * * Existing law unaffected by bill. The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act: BILL No. 36-01 I Sec. 1. Section 16-2 is amended as follows: 2 16-2. Boundaries of Council districts. 3 The boundaries of the 5 Council districts required under Section 103 of the 4 · County Charter are as follows. 5 [(a) District 1. The southern boundary ofDistrict 1 begins at the junction of 6 the boundary lines of Montgomery County (Maryland), the District of 7 Columbia and Fairfax County (Virginia); thence northwesterly along 8 the boundary line of Montgomery County and Fairfax County to a point 9 on a line of prolongation from Muddy Branch; thence north along said IO line of prolongation, crossing the Potomac River and circumscribing 11 Watkins Island to Muddy Branch; thence meandering northerly
    [Show full text]
  • County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland
    Bill No. 31-11 Concerning: Council Districts Boundaries Revised: 9/30/2011 Draft No._2_ Introduced: October 4,2011 Enacted: November 29. 2011 Executive: December 7,2011 Effective: March 7,2012 Sunset Date: .....,:....:.N=on:-:e'-:----::--_~-:--_ Ch. --1L. Laws of Mont. Co. 2011 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND By: Council President Ervin AN ACT to revise the boundaries of Council districts. By amending Montgomery County Code Chapter 16, Elections Section 16-2 Boldface Heading or defined term. Underlining Added to existing law by original bill. [Single boldface brackets] Deleted from existing law by original bill. Double underlining Added by amendment. [[Double boldface brackets]] Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment. * * * Existing law unaffected by bill. The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act: BILL No. 31-11 1 Sec. 1. Section 16-2 is amended as follows: 2 16-2. Boundaries of Council districts. 3 The boundaries of the 5 Council districts required under Section 103 ofthe 4 County Charter are as follows. 5 [District 1: The southern boundary of District 1 begins at the junction of the 6 .boundary lines of Montgomery County (Maryland), the District of Columbia, and 7 Fairfax County (Virginia); then northwesterly along the boundary line of 8 Montgomery County and Fairfax County to a point on a line of prolongation from 9 Muddy Branch; then north along said line of prolongation, crossing the Potomac 10 River and circumscribing around the northwestern end of Watkins Island to
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Plains and Flood Plain Delineation Studies
    Floodplain Discussion City Council City of Takoma Park What is a Flooding It all depends who you ask. • Wet Shoes • An Inconvenience • Property Damage • Catastrophic Loss of Property or Loss of Life • Montgomery County Code Article III. Floodplain District Requirements. Sec. 19- 36. Definitions. • Flood: A temporary inundation of normally dry land areas. What is a Floodplain (Sec. 19-36. Definitions.) Floodplain: (a) A relatively flat or low land area adjoining a river, stream, pond, stormwater management structure, or watercourse subject to partial or complete inundation; or (b) An area subject to unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface water as a result of an upstream dam failure. Floodplain district: Any area specified in Executive regulations that is subject to inundation in a 100-year storm. This includes any waterway with a drainage area of 30 acres or larger. 100-year flood: A flood that has a one percent chance of being equalled (sic) or exceeded in a given year. Unless otherwise stated, this calculation is based on the contributing watershed being completely under existing zoning. When is a Permit Required? Sec. 19-37. When a floodplain district permit is required. • A permit is required for most land disturbing activities within a floodplain district or for temporary or permanent construction involving placement of a structure, regardless of size of the disturbed area. • Minor land disturbing activities that disturb less than 5,000 square feet; are promptly stabilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation; and, do not substantially block or impede the flow of water or change the cross section are exempt.
    [Show full text]
  • What Offshore Wind Means for Maryland
    What Offshore Wind Means for Maryland Environmental, Economic and Public Health Benefits Across the State What Offshore Wind Means for Maryland Environmental, Economic and Public Health Benefits Across the State Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center Elizabeth Ridlington and Rob Kerth, Frontier Group Tommy Landers, Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center Spring 2012 Acknowledgments Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center thanks Jenn Aiosa of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Steve Bunker of The Nature Conservancy, Tom Carlson of the Chesa- peake Climate Action Network, and Andrew Gohn of the Maryland Energy Administra- tion for their insightful review of this document. We gratefully acknowledge the help of Tiffany Trembuell in finding photos. Thanks also to Tony Dutzik and Jordan Schneider of Frontier Group for their editorial assistance. Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center thanks the Town Creek Foundation, the Rauch Foundation, the Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund, The Fund for Change, and the Bancroft Foundation for making this report possible. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. Copyright 2012 Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting our air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center or for ad- ditional copies of this report, please visit www.environmentmarylandcenter.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspen Hill Master Plan
    APPROVED AND ADOPTED ASPEN HILL MASTER PLAN April 1994 An Amendment to the Master Plan for Aspen Hill, December 1970, as amended; The Master Plan for the Upper Rock Creek, July 1985, as amended; The Olney Master Plan, June 1980, as amended; The Eastern Montgomery County Master Plan, November 1981, as amended; The Master Plan for the Communities of Kensington-Wheaton, May 1989, as amended; The Gaithersburg Vicinity Master Plan, January 1985, as amended; the Master Plan of Bikeways, May 1978, as amended; The Master Plan for Historic Preservation, September 1979, as amended; and The Master Plan of Highways within Montgomery County, as amended. THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION 8787 Georgia Avenue 147 41 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Silver Spring, MD 20910 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 i ~ _, ' - - :-·:, :T:Lf~!rC ... ·· ·· "··· · ;}}y11~··'.Mcl!Ylari&Na{i~,a1·cta:p1ta1::J:!MJfa~[·if~ning... c991ni1ss1on•· · Plan for tMAspeflH!u :lanIJ!pgifea ····.•• •• \ , !'. __ -,.·- PLAN~I,l'lG.: .. The Mafylanstfy~tfonal ·capuir .. AGENCY:>·.· ... · 8781 Georgi~*venue ··. ... ..· ·silver Sprihg,tMD 2091 o~·S760 J ,.· •• ~-:_.• -- • ., , , u ,, u Thi:~ai-r1a11ct~Naij&ri~F~~p1t~ .. ·Park·anct:.Plartn1~i}~~I,IffiiisSi()rl:.~ncqUiliges.Jn~·1nio1vemer1t)lrta:r,articipati:Qn of individ uals~th :diSia.biljtJest~hdits faciliUe.§l;:~t;~;8.CCessib1e. li'or assfslance \Vitll Sptjcia1 ne~ds (Le., la.rge print . materials, assistlve Hsterting;deViees, sigp. l~'iigUage i:nterpret~Jion; etc.), ple.atse:'.¢ont:?d the Commuriity Relatfo.ns .· . Cffice,
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    The south end of the proposed trail will connect to the existing Lakeside Trail located on the east side of Lake Frank within Rock Creek Regional Park and will include the removal of an existing road and parking lots. The trail will continue north to connect with Muncaster Mill Road and cross at the Emory Lane intersection. The trail will then utilize the Emory Lane Bikeway and the Inter-County Connector (ICC) Bikeway (MD 200) to the ICC bridge over the North Branch of Rock Creek. Just west of the ICC bridge, the proposed trail will go under the ICC bridge and connect to a future hard surface trail which will be constructed by the developer of the Preserve at Rock Creek and will be dedicated with parkland to the Department of Parks. The developer-built trail will terminate at Bowie Mill Local Park and is part of the approved site plan for the development. Project Funding The facility planning study was funded with $360,000 from the Fiscal Year 2011 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) in the Hard Surface Trail Design and Construction Project. Facility planning represents thirty percent complete construction documents, including a proposed design, cost estimate and determination of regulatory feasibility. A consulting team led by Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. was hired in June 2011 to prepare the facility plan. This team is currently under contract for a second phase of work for final design and construction documents (for an additional fee of $125,375). This work would be initiated if the project is approved by the Planning Board.
    [Show full text]
  • DOWNLOAD Maryland Integrated Report 2012
    Maryland’s Final Draft 2012 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality Submitted in Accordance with Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act Maryland Dept. of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd Baltimore, MD 21230 Martin O’Malley, Governor Dr. Robert Summers, Secretary Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor Kathy M. Kinsey, Deputy Secretary David A. Costello, Deputy Secretary Submittal Date: July 23, 2012 EPA Approval Date: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report, developed by the Environmental Assessment and Standards Program (EASP) of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) would not have been possible without the contributions from countless others. Much of the data collected by EASP was supplied by other Science Services Administration programs including: Field Services, TMDL Technical Development, and Water Quality Protection and Restoration Programs. In addition, special thanks go to Maryland Department of Natural Resources staff that not only supplied large amounts of data but also assisted with water quality assessments. Finally, EASP would like to thank all those who provided data for this report. To view a full list of individuals and organizations that provided data during the data solicitation period please see Table 3. FINAL DRAFT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    [Show full text]
  • Montgomery County Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Assessment
    Montgomery County Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource Assessment Updated August 2014 Final Version 1 Executive Summary The Montgomery County Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) has prepared the Montgomery County Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR) Assessment for Montgomery County, Maryland in its efforts to circumvent further damage followed by a natural or manmade disaster. The purpose of the CIKR Assessment is to respond to all disasters and emergencies and ensure the safety and protection of its citizens. The plan also establishes the policies, plans, guidelines and procedures that will allow for the preservation, maintenance or reconstitution of the County’s ability to carry out its responsibilities under all circumstances that may disrupt normal governmental operations. The CIKR Assessment will assist the County leadership in its protection of citizens, property, and businesses; and the restoration of County operations. It is the policy of Montgomery County Government to provide essential services to the citizens of this County with regard to any manmade or natural disaster. Therefore in accordance with US Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) guidance, this assessment was developed so that the County can continue to serve and protect its citizens during a disaster. With the disruption of essential services such as public health, transportation, police, fire and rescue, County Executive and Council, and other critical municipalities; the CIKR Assessment will enable the County to restore these crucial entities safely and effectively. The CIKR Assessment will map out the County’s critical infrastructure, its key resources and ensuring backup systems for the essential functions.
    [Show full text]