~ ~

U. S. Army Corps Interstate Commission of Engineers on the Potomac River

Basin

Planning Assistance to States Jennings Randolph Lake

Scoping Study Phase II Report

APRIL 2020

Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District Laura Felter and Julia Fritz and Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Cherie Schultz, Claire Buchanan, and Gordon Michael Selckmann

Contents Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Study Authority ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Congressional Authorizations and Project Objectives.................................................................. 3

1.4 Study Area Management .............................................................................................................. 4

2 Scoping Studies ..................................................................................................................................... 7

3 Watershed Conditions Analysis ............................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Flood Management....................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1 Management Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 8

3.1.2 Current Relevance................................................................................................................. 8

3.1.3 Future Flood Control...........................................................................................................10

3.2 Water Quality Control.................................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Management Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................11

3.2.2 Current Relevance...............................................................................................................12

3.2.2.1 Improve pH .....................................................................................................................12

3.2.2.2 Manage Temperature .....................................................................................................13

3.2.2.3 Dilute downstream wastewater discharges ...................................................................14

3.2.2.4 Maintain a healthy downstream aquatic habitat ...........................................................15

3.2.3 Other Water Quality Conditions .........................................................................................16

3.2.3.1 Dissolved Oxygen ............................................................................................................16

3.2.3.2 Specific Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids ............................................................17

3.2.3.3 Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids.............................................................................17

3.2.4 Current Conditions for Aquatic Life ....................................................................................18

3.2.4.1 Physical Habitat and Biological Monitoring in the NBPR Mainstem...............................18

3.2.4.2 Aquatic Life Zones ...........................................................................................................19

3.3 Domestic/Industrial Water Supply..............................................................................................19

3.3.1 Management Goal and Objectives......................................................................................20

3.3.2 Current Relevance...............................................................................................................21

3.3.2.1 Climate Change and Rising Demands..............................................................................21

3.3.2.2 Preliminary Investigation ................................................................................................22

3.3.3 Potential Use of Drought Planning and Management Tools ..............................................22

3.3.3.1 Drought Contingency Plans.............................................................................................22

3.3.3.2 Deviation Plans................................................................................................................23

ii

3.3.3.3 Water Accounting Procedures ........................................................................................23

3.4 Recreation...................................................................................................................................24

3.4.1 Management Goal and Objectives......................................................................................24

3.4.2 Current Relevance...............................................................................................................24

3.4.2.1 Boating and Whitewater.................................................................................................25

3.4.2.2 Fishery.............................................................................................................................26

3.4.3 Future Enhancements.........................................................................................................26

3.5 Summary of Watershed Conditions Findings..............................................................................27

4 Quantitative Support Tools.................................................................................................................29

4.1 Existing Modeling Tools ..............................................................................................................29

4.1.1 Baltimore District Tools.......................................................................................................29

4.1.2 ICPRB Tools .........................................................................................................................31

4.1.2.1 CO-OP Operational Tools ................................................................................................31

4.1.2.2 CO-OP Planning Model....................................................................................................32

4.1.3 Collaborative Tools..............................................................................................................32

4.2 Regulation of Downstream Temperature...................................................................................33

4.2.1 Temperature Model Options ..............................................................................................33

4.2.1.1 Statistical models for temperature prediction ...............................................................33

4.2.1.2 Deterministic models for temperature prediction .........................................................34

4.2.1.3 Temperature modeling capabilities in HEC software packages......................................35

4.2.2 Data Support .......................................................................................................................35

5 Summary of Findings with Respect to JRL Dam Operations ...............................................................36

5.1 Flood ...........................................................................................................................................36

5.2 Water Quality..............................................................................................................................36

5.3 Instream Habitat .........................................................................................................................37

5.4 Water Supply...............................................................................................................................37

6 Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................37

7 References ..........................................................................................................................................38

iii

Abbreviations

µS/cm Micro Siemens per centimeter ac-ft Acre-feet AMD Acid mine drainage AVF Artificially varied flow BG Billion gallons CE-QUAL-W2 two-dimensional hydrodynamic and surface water quality model cfs Cubic feet per second CMIP5 Coupled Model Inter-Comparison Project Phase 5 CO-OP ICPRB’s Section for Cooperative Operations on the Potomac CWMS Corps Water Management System DCP Drought Contingency Plan DO Dissolved oxygen ER Engineering Regulations FEWS Flood Early Warning System FT Feet GSFLOW USGS groundwater-surface water modeling package HEC-FIA USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center Flood Impact Analysis model HEC-HMS USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-RAS USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System flow routing model HEC-ResSim USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center reservoir operations model HEC-WAT USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center Watershed Analysis Tool ICPRB Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin JRL Jennings Randolph Lake Lat Latitude LFFS Low Flow Forecast System LFPP Local Flood Protection Project LFAA Low Flow Allocation Agreement Long Longitude MARFC Mid-Atlantic River Forecast Center of the National Weather Service MDDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MG Million gallons MGD Million gallons per day mg/liter Milligrams per liter mi2 Square miles MMC Modeling, Mapping, and Consequences MODFLOW USGS groundwater flow model NBPAC North Branch Potomac Advisory Committee NBPR North Branch Potomac River NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NPDES Non-Point Discharge Elimination System NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit NWS National Weather Service PAS Planning Assistance to States PCD Project Construction Datum

iv

PRRISM Potomac Reservoir and River Simulation Model R2 Correlation coefficient SNTEMP Stream Network Temperature Model SSTEMP spreadsheet version of SNTEMP TMDL Total maximum daily load TSS Total suspended solids UPRC Upper Potomac River Commission USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WCP Water Control Plan WMA Washington Metropolitan Area WPWA Maryland Potomac Water Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act WSCA Water Supply Coordination Agreement WSSC Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission WVDNR West Virginia Department of Natural Resources WWTP Wastewater treatment plant ZCL TFA Zero Creel Limit Trout Fishing Area

v

Jennings Randolph Lake Scoping Study Phase II Report

Executive Summary

Jennings Randolph Dam, originally named Bloomington Dam, located on the North Branch Potomac River, was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1962. Construction of the dam was completed in July 1981 and Jennings Randolph Lake (JRL), behind the dam, was filled to its conservation pool of 1466’ in June 1982. The dam straddles the Maryland and West Virginia state borders and is located in Garrett County, MD, and Mineral County, WV. Jennings Randolph Lake extends approximately 5.5 miles upstream on the North Branch Potomac River and covers 915 acres at its normal or conservation pool. Releases from the dam are made to comply with and maximize benefits for several purposes for which the project was authorized. The purposes include flood risk management (originally termed flood control), water quality, water supply (domestic and industrial) and recreation. The reservoir storage behind Jennings Randolph Dam is allocated accordingly for its authorized purposes. Specifically, the water contained in the storage below the conservation pool of 1466 feet Project Construction Datum (PCD) is allocated for water supply and water quality purposes. Formal agreements were generated and signed to document the allocation of storage for water quality and water supply. Of the total conservation storage in Jennings Randolph Lake, 55.44% is allocated to water quality, and 44.56% is allocated to water supply. The management of releases for all of the project purposes often poses conflicts and a balanced approach which prioritizes release objectives based on time of year, flow conditions, water supply needs and other factors is necessary. The management of Jennings Randolph Lake for each of the authorized purposes is detailed and explained in the Jennings Randolph Lake Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation which was last updated in 1997.

The purpose of this report, and the study preceding it, is to determine if an update of the 1997 Reservoir Regulation Manual is appropriate at this time. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance for water control plans (Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-2-240) requires that water control manuals be revised as necessary to “conform to changing requirements resulting from developments in the project area and downstream, improvements in technology, improvements in understanding of ecological response and sustainability, new legislation and other relevant factors.” This report is also supported by ER 1110-2-1941 which requires “recurring reviews of project operations and conditions, and when appropriate, [to] adjust water control plans/manuals in response to changing watershed conditions.” This report reviews and evaluates each of the authorized purposes in terms of their original management goals and objectives, current relevance, and future application.

During the time that Jennings Randolph was being designed and through construction, the water quality conditions of the North Branch Potomac River were very poor. Many pollutants, including acid mine drainage and industrial and municipal use contributed to these poor conditions which made the river devoid of aquatic life and the underlying habitat needed for healthy fisheries. At this time, dilution was the only practical method of controlling the pollution. So in terms of water quality, Jennings Randolph Dam provided a way for the poor quality water upstream of the dam to be stored and mixed and then blended, using its selective withdrawal capability, to achieve better overall water quality both in the reservoir and downstream than would have otherwise occurred without the dam. Before the dam, acid slugs with especially poor quality water would form and flow downstream when rainstorms occurred, and could cause massive fish kills in the lower portion of the North Branch Potomac River. Storing the water in the reservoir also allowed for higher, more uniform releases to be made. Increasing, or augmenting, flow in the North Branch Potomac River through reservoir releases during low flow periods

1

maintained downstream water levels that were sufficient to dilute industrial and municipal pollution. With these benefits in mind, the USACE strategy was to release as much flow as possible for as long as possible which utilized a significant portion of the water quality storage. In some years, during the beginning of the operation of Jennings Randolph Lake, as much as 80% to 90% of the water quality storage would be used to provide the best possible water quality improvement.

Significant efforts to remediate pollution entering the North Branch Potomac River have been taken since the construction of Jennings Randolph Dam. Enactment of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and other legislation moved the focus from dilution to treatment of pollution at the source. Wastewater treatment plants were constructed, effluent standards were established and enforced to a large degree, acid mine drainage was remediated with lime dosers, and less environmentally damaging mining practices were required. The changes in the watershed conditions resulting from these efforts led to some minor modifications in the guidance used to release the water quality storage from Jennings Randolph and has allowed an expanded capability to maximize benefits to other purposes and objectives of the project such as recreation.

This report conducts an initial evaluation of the various purposes for which Jennings Randolph Lake is regulated and makes recommendations on additional data collection and analyses that can be conducted to better evaluate potential improvements in how the reservoir is regulated. This report concludes that while an update of the Jennings Randolph Lake Reservoir Regulation Manual should be conducted, it should be completed after additional information has been collected and studied. The available instream data and management tools currently used are insufficient to determine the role of Jennings Randolph Lake in the current ecosystem. Future updates should also consider recent developments such as industry changes in the region and any facility/feature changes at the Jennings Randolph dam. A more holistic and comprehensive vision is also required for how the watershed should be managed going forward. The following steps are recommended to be taken prior to the publication of an updated Jennings Randolph Lake Reservoir Regulation Manual:

Develop a Drought Contingency Plan as a standalone document Develop crisis response/spill plans Address information gaps and build a multi-agency consensus of North Branch Potomac River

management zones, assessment methodologies, management objectives, and a common baseline for maintaining ecological conditions

Develop an instream temperature and flow model linking Jennings Randolph Lake operational decisions to conditions in the river mainstem

Investigate the benefits and impacts of revised water accounting procedures.

2

1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Jennings Randolph Lake (JRL) scoping study is to determine if an update of the 1997 Water Control Plan (WCP) for JRL in the 1997 Reservoir Regulation Manual is appropriate at this time. The study is in response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance for water control plans/manuals, in particular, Engineering Regulations (ER) 1110-2-240 (USACE, 2016a) and 1110-2-1941 (USACE, 2018), which state:

1.) (ER 1110-2-240) Water control manuals "shall be revised as necessary to conform to changing requirements resulting from developments in the project area and downstream, improvements in technology, improvements in understanding of ecological response and sustainability, new legislation, and other relevant factors..."

and

2.) (ER 1110-2-1941) … water control managers will conduct recurring reviews of project operations and conditions, and, when appropriate, adjust water control plans/manuals in response to changing watershed conditions."

The USACE and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) have partnered in a multi-year scoping study to review historical data, identify and analyze current multi-agency data, and assess decision making strategies considering modern science and technology for future management.

1.2 Study Authority

USACE Baltimore District conducted this study under the Planning Assistance to States (PAS) program. The PAS program provides planning-level assistance to states, local governments, Native American Tribes, and other non-Federal entities for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and related resources of drainage basins, watersheds, or ecosystems located within the boundaries of that State, including plans to comprehensively address water resource challenges. The study is planning-level only; no detailed design or construction will result from this investigation. USACE and ICPRB cost shared this study through a 50% federally funded/ 50% non-federally funded letter of agreement, with ICPRB providing in kind services. The ICPRB was able to meet their in kind service requirements by researching and preparing the study's report with funds provided to them by the Commission’s Cooperative Water Supply Operations (CO-OP) section.

1.3 Congressional Authorizations and Project Objectives

In 1962, Jennings Randolph Lake (formerly the Bloomington Reservoir), was authorized by act of the 87th

United States Congress, second session (Public Law 87-874) and described in House Document No. 469. The project was completed in 1982. The original management plan for JRL defined four distinct objectives: (1) reduce downstream river stages during high flows and flooding, (2) improve downstream water quality via low flow augmentation, (3) supply water to Washington, D. C. and the local region, and (4) provide public recreation. Flood control, the primary authorized purpose of JRL and arguably the impetus of the project, has proven effective. The three other objectives were intended to improve JRL and the North Branch Potomac River over the long run as biological, drinking water, and recreational resources. The relative importance of these three objectives was not fixed and

3

"… because Jennings Randolph Lake is a multi-purpose project, priorities for reservoir regulation are occasionally adjusted. Flood control is always the highest priority; priorities for project purposes other than flood control are constantly reevaluated..." USACE 1997a 2.3.

The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1988, a USACE “Omnibus” authorization bill, instructed the Secretary of the Army to:

“…ensure that each water resources project referred to in [Section 6] is operated in such a manner as will protect and enhance recreation associated with such project. The Secretary is authorized to manage project lands at each such project in such manner as will improve opportunities for recreation at the project. Such activities shall be included as authorized project purposes of each project. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect the authority or discretion of the Secretary with respect to carrying out other authorized project purposes or to comply with other requirements or obligations of the Secretary which are legally binding as of the date of the enactment of this Act.”

Both Jennings Randolph Lake (Bloomington Dam) and the nearby Savage River Dam are listed in Section 6 of the bill.

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1995 (Public Law 103-316) authorized an update of the earlier 1973 Jennings Randolph Lake Master Plan. The update was to reflect changing demands of the North Branch Potomac River and its associated natural resources. The 1997 Master Plan Update and Integrated Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (USACE 1997a) and the 1997 Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation, North Branch Potomac River Basin, Appendix A Jennings Randolph Lake (USACE 1997b) were the outcomes.

In 1996, Public Law 104-176 granted the consent of the U.S. Congress for the states of Maryland and West Virginia and the USACE to enter into a compact to:

“…provide for joint natural resource management and enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to natural resources and boating at the Jennings Randolph Lake Project.”

Public Law 110–114, or the Water Resources and Development Act of 2007, Section 5019 (USACE, 2014a), further instructed the Secretary of the Army, Corps of Engineers, to allow use of JRL water quality storage for water supply purposes during droughts. Specifically, this Act states that:

“The Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin to provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at Federal facilities operated by the Corps of Engineers in the Potomac River basin for any period for which the Commission has determined that a drought warning or drought emergency exists.”

The current scoping study was initiated in part to allow a preliminary exploration of the possibility of implementing such an agreement by means of an update to the JRL WCP.

1.4 Study Area Management

JRL is a long, winding reservoir located on the North Branch Potomac River (NBPR) between Garrett County, MD and Mineral County, WV (Figure 1). The reservoir’s dam is a rolled earth and rock embankment that is 296 feet (ft) high and 2,130 ft long. It collects surface flows from a 263 square mile watershed, or about 20 percent of the North Branch Potomac River watershed. As originally constructed, the reservoir could hold approximately 148,200 acre-feet (ac-ft) (48.29 billion gallons) of water when filled to the top of the dam. The town of Kitzmiller is located immediately upstream of the lake. Several communities are located on the river bank downstream of the lake, including Bloomington, Luke, Westernport, McCoole, and Cumberland in Maryland and Piedmont, Keyser, and

4

Savage River l Reservoir

Keyser /McCoole

Jennings Randolph Lake Kitzmiller

WV

0 10

PA

20

Cumberland/ Ridgeley

N

A 40 Km

Ridgeley in West Virginia. Steep terrain and a narrow floodplain make the river prone to flooding in these towns and surrounding areas. The watershed has also been heavily impacted by historical deforestation, acid mine drainage (AMD), and municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. Jennings Randolph Lake is regulated in coordination with Savage River Dam. Savage River Dam is located on the Savage River, a tributary of the North Branch Potomac just upstream of Luke, MD, and is owned and operated by the Upper Potomac River Commission.

The USACE currently follows the operational rules and priorities established in the 1997 Reservoir Regulation Manual (USACE, 1997b) to address the four authorized purposes of JRL. The Manual was informed by the best available science of the time. It recognized flexibility was needed to meet the variety of situations that arise in regulating the lake, especially with regard to downstream water quality.

“Jennings Randolph Lake is a multiple purpose project serving many needs. It is a complex project requiring constant trade-offs among its sometimes competing purposes to sustain an optimum balance. Inflow quantity and quality are dynamic, changing annually, seasonally, and even daily. Priorities for reservoir regulation change accordingly and must be reevaluated constantly.” (USACE 1997b, 7-08)

5

Figure 1. Map of the North Branch Potomac River watershed. The North Branch Potomac River is the boundary separating Maryland and West Virginia. Jennings Randolph Lake is located between Kitzmiller, MD and Barnum, WV.

An example of this flexibility is the change over time in the minimum flow requirement for Luke, MD. The initial authorization for JRL calculated that the safe yield of the Savage and JRL system was 305 cubic feet per second (cfs) (197 millions of gallons per day (MGD)) at Luke, Maryland (USACE, 1983), based on the drought of record, which occurred in 1930-31. It was further estimated that the JRL conservation pool storage would provide up to 212 cfs (137 MGD) of this amount. The assumption of a constant release of 135 MGD was used in the “early-action” phase of the Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study (USACE, 1983), but in later phases of this study, it was determined that the 135 MGD constant release was inefficient. Therefore, the USACE developed a reservoir system simulation model that was based on the Potomac Reservoir and River Interactive Simulation Model (PRRISM) originally developed at Johns Hopkins University in the 1970’s. After further development by the USACE, and with assistance from ICPRB’s Section for Cooperative Water Supply Operations on the Potomac, this model (PRISM/COE) was used to develop reservoir regulation strategies to maximize the full potential of JRL within its authorization, with releases based on need rather than on a specified constant minimum flow (USACE, 1986, USACE, 1997b 3-05).

Another early management strategy focused on flow-based intervention methods to ensure acceptable water quality in the NBPR mainstem. Prior to domestic/industrial wastewater treatment and localized use of AMD mitigation in JRL tributaries, dam operations were used to dilute water quality problems below the dam by providing predictable flows in the mainstem as far as Cumberland, MD. As AMD and municipal/industrial discharges became more of a concern, federal and state agencies implemented regulatory action and improved local wastewater treatment. An unanticipated response to improved water quality and better flow management in the North Branch Potomac watershed has been the slow but significant return of invertebrate and vertebrate biota to the formerly desolate North Branch Potomac. By the early 1990’s Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR) was coordinating with USACE regarding dam operations when a trout rearing pen was installed in the vicinity of the stilling basin to grow and stock the formerly dead fishery. The long-term goal of creating a “world class” fishery caused an immediate and explosive interest in recreation and even attracted fishing outfitters to permanently establish a base on the river. The USACE 1997 Master Plan Update (USACE, 1997a) added official short- and long-term fish management objectives for the North Branch Potomac River and Jennings Randolph Lake as a result. The short-term goal was to maintain and improve the current fisheries, and the long-term goal was to establish a self-sustaining sport fishery (USACE, 1997a 4.7). Efforts towards this objective reflects both West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) and MDDNR interests.

The synergistic roles of the water quality and water supply authorized purposes prompted a reevaluation of the authorized purpose of recreation. The region’s improved water quality, now able to support water contact activities and fishing as well as boating, allowed for expanded language to include recreation (including but not limited to whitewater) as a specific project purpose in the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–676):

“Recreation Defined. -As used in this section, in addition to recreation on lands associated with the project, the term "recreation" includes (but shall not be limited to) downstream whitewater recreation which is dependent on project operations, recreational fishing, and boating on water at the project.”

6

More recently, the 2007 WRDA authorization calls on USACE to relax the water quality storage allotment in JRL during droughts and allow more volume for water supply. ICPRB’s 2017 water supply alternatives study (Schultz et al., 2017) includes results of a very preliminary investigation of the potential benefits of using Jennings Randolph water quality storage for water supply purposes during droughts.

2 Scoping Studies In Phase I of the scoping study, completed in 2017, USACE and ICPRB identified data sources, data gaps, and assembled stakeholder lists. A trend analysis performed for the study showed that pH levels in JRL and the NBPR watershed improved dramatically since the 1960s, when many streams and rivers in the region were “dead” from acid mine drainage. Now, the NBPR mainstem and most of its tributaries meet Maryland and West Virginia pH criteria.

In two technical reports, ICPRB provided detailed analyses of flow patterns in the NBPR mainstem and status and trends in water quality, aquatic habitat, and aquatic life conditions in the river’s watershed through 2018 (Buchanan and Selckmann, 2019; Selckmann and Buchanan, in preparation). Also discussed were the possible benefits of flow variability and artificially varied flow releases. Results from the two technical reports are summarized in this report, the Phase II Scoping Study. This report also reviews significant changes that have occurred in water supply needs and recreational opportunities since the 1997 documents (USACE, 1997a, 1997b). It discusses current JRL operational objectives, current and future stakeholder uses of JRL and the downstream river, and possible benefits from changing existing dam operation guidelines. It considers the tools and/or potential changes to the WCP that would improve responses to drought, including a drought contingency plan. The report completes the preliminary investigations into the need for an updated JRL WCP.

3 Watershed Conditions Analysis Uses of JRL water are specifically tied to the four authorized purposes of the dam and reservoir: flood control, water quality, water supply, and recreation. The reservoir volume above the JRL conservation pool level of 1,466 feet (PCD) to the top of its gated spillway is designated as space available for storage of flood waters and has been determined to be 34,488 acre-feet (11.240 billion gallons). The volume below the JRL conservation pool level to the lowest accessible lake level is 90,203 acre-feet (29.397 billion gallons). The conservation pool storage is allocated into two types of storage: 55.44 percent is designated as water quality storage, to be released by the USACE to support the project’s water quality and recreational purposes, and 44.56 percent is designated as water supply storage, reserved for use by the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area (WMA) cooperative water supply system to augment river flows in the event of drought. Conditions in the NBPR watershed have changed since the 1997 WCP update, inviting reexamination of how these storage volumes are managed through releases from the dam.

This report section is divided into four parts, each focused on an analysis of the watershed through the four reservoir regulation management objectives of Jennings Randolph. The priority and/or balance of the objectives in terms of dam operations and associated management goals are presented, and the current relevance of the objectives in sustaining the present-day lake and downstream river mainstem environments is discussed.

3.1 Flood Management

The major storms and floods experienced in the NBPR are summarized in Section 4-06 of USACE’s Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation (1997b). In 1936, the St. Patrick’s Day Flood devastated western Maryland townships close to the river’s mainstem. The significant flooding observed in Cumberland and

7

other towns prompted the federal government to fund its first of several Local Flood Protection Projects (LFPP). By 1959, LFPP’s in the form of levees, retaining walls, channel clearing, and channel deepening were completed in Wills Creek and the NBPR mainstem. Improvements in the mainstem allowed 93,000 cubic feet per second to flow past Cumberland on the NBPR mainstem (128 percent of the maximum 1936 flow). Construction of a concrete channel wall along Wills Creek allowed 50,000 cubic feet of water per second to flow past Cumberland on Wills Creek (131 percent of the maximum flow). In 1964, additional LFPPs constructed at Kitzmiller, MD, and Bayard, WV, improved channel ways and levees to protect the towns from floods up to 52,000 cfs and 5,200 cfs, respectively.

In conjunction with the many LFPPs, there are two dams that are part of the flood management in the North Branch Potomac River Basin. Bloomington Dam (now Jennings Randolph Dam) was built on the NBPR mainstem above Bloomington and is owned and operated by the USACE. Jennings Randolph Dam began construction in 1971 as a result of the Flood Control Act of 1962. Since its completion in 1982, its highest management priority has been flood risk reduction (formerly flood control). Savage River Dam, completed in 1952, is owned and operated by the Upper Potomac River Commission (UPRC) and provides drinking water to the region. The release rates from Savage are determined by USACE. During high water events, releases from both dams are decreased to help reduce downstream river levels and reduce flooding at the downstream townships of Luke, Westernport and Cumberland in Maryland, and Piedmont, Keyser, and Ridgeley in West Virginia.

3.1.1 Management Goals and Objectives

The stream gages and the corresponding National Weather Service (NWS) flood stages used to regulate JRL releases for flood risk management include Kitzmiller, at the head of JRL (9.0 ft); Luke, located below the NBPR and Savage River confluence (10.5 ft); and Cumberland, located about 41 miles downstream of the JRL dam (17.0 ft) (USACE, 1997b, Table 7-02). Reservoir releases from Jennings Randolph dam during high water events are based on observed and forecasted river levels at gages downstream of the dam to include Luke and Cumberland, MD, and during some circumstances, Paw Paw, WV and Hancock, MD. Flood stage at Pinto, MD was also considered historically until the gage was discontinued. These downstream gages have thresholds established to indicate various river level categories, to include action stage, and minor, moderate and major flood stages. River forecasts for these gages are issued by the NWS. During high water events these river gages and the associated NWS forecasts are monitored by USACE to make release decisions for Jennings Randolph and Savage River dams. In general, during precipitation events, releases from the dams are increased as flow into the reservoir increases until river levels at the downstream gages reach critical/action levels. If these critical levels are reached, and if those river levels are forecast to exceed flood stage, releases from the dam will be reduced to established minimum flows or reduced altogether. Releases are maintained at these minimum flows until the flood peak has passed downstream and river levels are falling. At that time, reservoir releases can be gradually increased to begin evacuation of the water stored during the precipitation event. These increased releases are typically maintained until all water stored during the high water event has been evacuated.

3.1.2 Current Relevance

The USACE recognizes that there are limitations to how much “control” dams can provide during high water events. As such it now uses “Flood Risk Reduction” instead of “Flood Control”. Dams cannot fully control floods but can provide significant benefits by reducing river levels that would have otherwise occurred if the dams weren’t there during flood events by storing water behind the dams. The NBPR mainstem above JRL exceeded flood stage at Kitzmiller in five high water events during water years 2004 – 2018 while the NBPR a few miles below JRL at Luke did not exceed flood levels. As Jennings Randolph

8

and Savage River dams control approximately 91% of the drainage area at Luke, their coordinated dam operations are effective in reducing river levels there and preventing stages greater than flood stage (10.5 ft). For the NBPR at Cumberland, Jennings Randolph and Savage River Dams control roughly 42 percent of the drainage area so greater than half of the flow volume at Cumberland comes from uncontrolled areas including the Georges Creek, New Creek, and Wills Creek watersheds. Due to these additional uncontrolled areas, Jennings Randolph and Savage River dams may not be as effective in reducing flood damages at Cumberland, but they have reduced the river levels there during several historic floods in the watershed including November 1985 (14.2 ft stage reduction), January 1996 (2 ft reduction), and September 1996 (5.4 ft reduction) (USACE, 1997b, Table 8-01).

An analysis of the flows in the NBPR mainstem was conducted by ICPRB in December 2019. The analysis involved calculating a suite of flow metrics from United States Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow records to quantitatively characterize the effect of JRL dam operations on the NBPR flow during water years 2004 – 2018, or October 1, 2003 – September 30, 2018 (Buchanan and Selckmann, 2019). Gage records for the NBPR at Steyer, Kitzmiller, Barnum, Luke, and Cumberland and for Savage River at Barton and Bloomington were downloaded from the USGS flow gage website. Stage and flow measurements at the gages were typically acquired and calculated at 15 or 30-minute intervals. All gage sites proved to have gaps in coverage during the 15-year study period, ranging from 4 days (Barnum) to 574 days (Barton). Most gaps occurred in the winter months (December - February), when ice formation is capable of interfering with flow measurements. Due to the gaps in coverage, the analysis was performed only on non-winter records (March – November).

Comparisons of the Kitzmiller and Barnum gage records best illustrate the immediate influence of dam operations on NBPR flows. Kitzmiller is located where the NBPR enters JRL (Latitude [Lat] 39.393889, Longitude [Long] -79.181694, 1,572 ft elevation) and Barnum is located 1.6 miles below JRL dam (Lat 39.445111, Long -79.110806, 1,151 ft elevation). Approximately 9.5 river miles separate the Kitzmiller and Barnum gages. Kitzmiller’s watershed is 225 square miles (mi2) and Barnum’s watershed is just 18% larger at 266 mi2. Due to their proximity and comparable size, flow metrics at the Kitzmiller and Barnum USGS gages would be similar if Jennings Randolph Lake had not been built.

Mean daily flow rates below JRL at Barnum are considerably lower than those at Kitzmiller during high water events. The average annual 1-day maximum flow rate falls from 23.71 cfs/mi2 at Kitzmiller to 12.99 cfs/mi2 at Barnum (a 45% reduction), and the average annual 3-day maximum flow rate falls from 15.72 cfs/mi2 to 11.05 cfs/mi2 (a 30% reduction). Rise and fall rates calculated on daily means are substantially slower at Barnum, even during high water events. Rise and fall rates calculated from instantaneous measurements collected every 15 or 30 minutes also tended to be slower at Barnum. Figure 2 illustrates the ranges of the measured flow rates at Kitzmiller and Barnum by day of year for water years 2004 – 2018. Flow rates are normalized to watershed size so as to be directly comparable. Peak rates at Barnum are always lower than peak rates at Kitzmiller. Reversals, or the number of times daily mean flows change from increasing to decreasing or vice versa during a specified period, increase sharply and appear to reflect dam operations.

JRL dam operations alter NBPR flow characteristics substantially and reduce peak water levels downstream. The objective of reducing flooding downstream of the dam was accomplished though the effectiveness is highly dependent on the proportion of the watershed that is controlled by the dam. This is evident in the reduction of flooding at Luke MD and presumably the neighboring towns during the most recent 15-year period (water years 2004 – 2018) while not as effective at Cumberland MD, due to other uncontrolled areas between the dam and Cumberland. That being said, JRL dam operations are still very necessary for reducing downstream flooding of communities along the NBPR.

9

10

19

28

37

46

ss

64

73

82

91

10

0

109

118

127

13

6

14

5

15

4

163

172

181

190

199

208

217

226

235

244

253

262

271

280

289

298

307

31

6

325

33

4

34

3

352

361

0 0 ... 0 ...

No

rmal

ized

Dis

char

ge (

cfs/

mi2

)

,_.

,_.

0

... 0 0

1

Figure 2. Ranges of measured flow rates at Kitzmiller (blue) and Barnum (orange) gages by day of year for water years 2004 – 2018. Flow rates are normalized to watershed size to make them directly comparable.

3.1.3 Future Flood Control

Changes in the flood risk reduction mission for Jennings Randolph Lake are not anticipated. As an authorized and highest priority mission, the storage of water during high water events is anticipated to continue. However, a future need for this management objective will be an evaluation of flood frequency and flood quantities, evaluations of the applicability of new NWS ensemble forecast products, as well as an assessment of any potential impacts due to climate change and other hydrologic considerations/changes within the watershed.

3.2 Water Quality Control

Water quality, another authorized purpose of Jennings Randolph Lake was incorporated into the design of the project with the intent to 1) provide a large storage sink in which to precipitate AMD contaminants and heavy metals from upstream tributary sources; 2) capitalize on the capacity of reservoirs to buffer against low pH and other AMD contaminants; 3) manage downstream water temperature; and 4) use the volume allocated to water quality storage in JRL to increase downstream water levels during low flow periods and dilute downstream pollutants, improve aquatic habitat, and flush built-up sediment. The water quality storage is typically used during moderate or low flow periods to maintain and improve downstream water quality conditions. The reservoir volume originally allocated to the water quality purpose was 51,005 ac-ft. This volume was reduced slightly after a sedimentation survey completed in 2013 to 50,009 ac-ft based on an equal distribution of the total storage lost due to sedimentation. A selective withdrawal system was also incorporated into the JRL design to optimize downstream water quality. This system allows water to be pulled from different lake depths and be

10

blended along with adjustable outflow rates through the outlet gates to provide more uniform quality releases and/or targeted water temperatures.

3.2.1 Management Goals and Objectives

In practical terms, the goal for water quality control is to meet the middle range of water quality standards established by the State of Maryland for Jennings Randolph in-lake and downstream use. Table 7-04 in USACE’s Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation (1997b) lists the applicable water quality criteria at that time for Maryland’s 1 – P designated use category, which includes water contact recreation, protection of aquatic life, and public water supply. Those criteria are: 1) fecal coliform and other pathogenic or harmful organisms could not constitute a public health hazard as determined by Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE); 2) dissolved oxygen could not be less than 5 milligrams/liter (mg/l); 3) maximum temperatures outside an identified mixing zone could not be higher than 90oF (32oC); 4) pH must be between 6.5 and 8.5; and 5) turbidity could not exceed levels detrimental to aquatic life. Turbidity in surface water resulting from any discharge could not exceed 150 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) at any time or 50 NTUs as a monthly average.

Water quality releases at the dam are intended to accomplish six objectives listed in Appendix A of the Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation (USACE 1997b, 7-08):

• Achieve uniformity in water quality releases • Augment North Branch Potomac flows during low flow seasons • Improve pH • Manage water temperature • Dilute wastewater discharges from downstream municipal and industrial users • Maintain a healthy downstream aquatic habitat

Achieving uniform releases and augmenting low flows are done to improve pH, manage water temperatures, dilute pollutants, and maintain a healthy aquatic habitat by flushing out settled organic particles.

Current guidance in the 1997 Reservoir Regulation Manual indicates that the water quality storage within the reservoir should be regulated to “use as much of the available water quality storage as needed every year to produce the greatest possible improvement in water quality, both in-lake and downstream” (USACE, 1997b 7-08). In addition, releases can be made in conjunction with Savage River Dam to provide additional downstream water quality benefits. The daily reservoir regulation decisions can also include water quality and biological considerations:

“After the initial estimate of the outflow rate is made, a revised rate of outflow is determined based on evaluations of overall water quality conditions in the lake and downstream. Historic water quality trends and values are reviewed; current physical, chemical and biological conditions both within the lake and downstream are measured; and future water quality conditions are projected. The projected conditions are then used to adjust outflow rates and intake levels in order to maintain acceptable quality within the lake and downstream.

Real-time measurements are obtained at water quality monitors located upstream (Kitzmiller), in the lake, and downstream (Barnum, Luke, and Pinto). These data are measured hourly and transmitted by DCP’s [Data Collection Platforms]. Weekly water quality data are also collected by project personnel. Data from the various sources are then evaluated and prioritized by water quality parameters.” (USACE, 1997b 7-08 d (3))

11

The parameters listed by in the 1997 Reservoir Regulation Manual in order of normal priority for consideration are pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, iron, manganese, turbidity, and suspended solids. Other parameters such as alkalinity and nutrients are also considered. Various monitoring agencies collect water quality at monitoring stations above, in, and below the lake, which can be considered in lake management and dam operations.

Flows at Luke are presently allowed to vary but are typically kept above 120 cfs (USACE 1997b 3-05). If the lake is thermally or chemically stratified, releases from different depths in the lake are blended either to improve downstream water quality or to avoid discharging harmful temperatures or pollutant levels. Artificially varied flows (AVFs) are scheduled during low flow periods to flush organic solids that settle to the river bottom where they could otherwise smother aquatic habitats.

3.2.2 Current Relevance

Prior to 1997, about 80 to 90 percent of the water quality storage was released during a normal year to augment flows at Luke, MD during moderate and low flow periods (USACE, 1997b 7-08 c (2)). In recent years, with improved watershed conditions, USACE has begun questioning the need to release large amounts of the available water quality storage to improve downstream water quality (J. Fritz, personal communication). While beginning to be more conservative on use of the water quality storage, USACE continues the practice of low-flow augmentation. Comparisons of Kitzmiller and Barnum low flow metrics for water years 2004 to 2018 demonstrate the effect of JRL operations on low flows. The average annual 1-day minimum increases 4.1-fold from 0.14 cfs/mi2 above JRL at Kitzmiller to 0.57 cfs/mi2 below the lake at Barnum; the average annual 3-day minimum increases 3.9-fold from 0.15 cfs/mi2 to 0.59 cfs/mi2, and the August median increases 2.4-fold from 0.36 cfs/mi2 to 0.89 cfs/mi2; and the baseflow index is 4.1-fold higher at Barnum, rising from 0.08 to 0.33 (Buchanan and Selckmann, 2019). Figure 2 illustrates the day-to-day differences in the range of flow measurements experienced during the summer low flow period over water years 2004 to 2018.

3.2.2.1 Improve pH pH improved dramatically in the mainstem after Jennings Randolph Lake was constructed. The decreasing acidity (increasing pH) seen watershed-wide is due largely to efforts by Maryland and West Virginia agencies and the Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCO) as well as enactment of the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. Lime dosers installed on North Branch tributaries above and below Jennings Randolph remediated acid draining from abandoned mines; onsite reclamation efforts were initiated at abandoned mine sites; Mount Storm Reservoir above Jennings Randolph was treated with lime; and regulations on active mine discharges were tightened (USACE, 1997a 3.3.1). Some of the region-wide improvement in pH can be attributed to acid reductions in precipitation, a result of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and subsequent regulation. pH of the region’s waters has increased in most of the NBPR mainstem and in many tributaries to levels that meet Maryland’s water quality standards (Buchanan and Selckmann, 2019). Higher pH levels tend to lower in-stream concentrations of toxic metals such as copper, zinc, cadmium, iron, and aluminum.

Four methods were identified in the Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation that presumably control pH in the lake and downstream (USACE, 1997b 7-08 d 3 (a)):

• Store low pH inflow as long as possible in the lake. Take advantage of the natural in-lake buffering capacity. Bleed off low pH water whenever high flows and high pH are occurring downstream.

• If lake is chemically stratified, release a blended outflow. Withdraw water from different lake levels using the selective withdrawal system.

12

• Increase outflow rate, and outflow pH if possible, when acid slugs develop along downstream reach of North Branch Potomac River.

• Regulate Jennings Randolph Lake in conjunction with Savage River Dam to achieve water quality standards and flow targets at Luke. Volume of water released from Savage River Dam should account for between 10 and 30 percent of total flow at Luke.

Comparisons of the available pH data measured approximately monthly above and below JRL since 2000 suggest the lake itself may slightly decrease downstream pH overall (Buchanan and Selckmann 2019). Median pH was 7.6 above JRL at Kitzmiller and 7.4 below JRL at Barnum/Bloomington. This may be attributable to other sources of pH between Kitzmiller and the lake but data is not available for these additional contributing areas. Downstream of Barnum/Bloomington, the long-term median pH rises to 7.7 at Keyser/McCoole and then remains relatively unchanged, and all of the major tributaries have median pH values between 7.6 and 7.8 at their confluences with the NBPR mainstem. In 217 comparisons of pH values at Barnum/Bloomington and Keyser/McCoole collected on the same or next day, 92.6% were lower (more acidic) at Barnum/Bloomington, suggesting low-flow augmentation from JRL tends to lower downstream pH, not raise it. Although dissolution of acid mine runoff was a design consideration of JRL, the ongoing watershed-wide recovery appears to negate the need for pH-specific dam operation protocols at JRL. In light of the pH improvement in the watershed, the management objective of and need for using Jennings Randolph Lake and dam releases to improve downstream pH and the dam operations relating to this objective should be reevaluated.

3.2.2.2 Manage Temperature Low-flow augmentation and cold water releases from JRL during summer and fall have a substantial effect on downstream water temperature (Buchanan and Selckmann 2019). Long-term temperature records immediately downstream of JRL at Barnum and Bloomington were on average 5oC cooler than upstream of JRL at Kitzmiller during summer and 5oC warmer in winter. As a result of the releases, the NBPR mainstem currently meets Maryland trout stocking guidelines of 4 – 20oC for a greater proportion of the year. At Barnum and Bloomington, the guidelines were met almost 100% of the time from April to December for the 22 years between 1996 and 2017. The effect is augmented by Savage River releases which also meet the stocking guidelines throughout summer and fall. The cooling effect of low-flow augmentation in summer is still significant at Keyser/McCoole but dissipates by the time the river reaches Pinto. High frequency temperature readings from loggers deployed at various times since 2013 support the long-term monitoring results. The ecological outcome of JRL cold water releases in summer and warm water releases in winter is longer periods of active feeding and growth in fish in a large section of the NBPR mainstem. The releases also keep temperature refugia in NBPR tributaries connected, permitting migration and expanding the ranges of cold-water taxa which ultimately enhances fish survival and reproduction. Many smaller tributaries meet the Maryland guidelines because their contributions from ground water are larger, elevations somewhat higher, and forest cover greater.

Temperature control was not originally targeted as part of the water quality authorized purpose of the Jennings Randolph Lake and dam. However, it is a USACE management objective identified in the Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation, Appendix A (USACE, 1997b 7-08) and is intended to improve downstream habitat for cold-water fisheries. The target maximum temperature in the stilling basin below the dam is 13oC (55.4oF), with +/- 0.5oC tolerance. Methods for controlling outflow temperature are (USACE 1997b 7-08 d 3 (b)):

• If the lake is thermally stratified, release a blended outflow. Withdraw water from different lake levels using the selective withdrawal system. Use a mass balance equation to determine appropriate rates and levels.

13

• Conserve cold water whenever possible during the warmer seasons. • Avoid large changes in outflow temperature over short periods. Provide as uniform a

temperature as possible.

An investigation performed by USACE in 2015 showed that cold water releases from Jennings Randolph are able to add cooling effects to the river down to Keyser/McCoole, but the effects of the cold water releases diminish greatly beyond Keyser/McCoole. After the 2015 investigation and subsequent testing, a procedure was put in place to try to maximize the cold water release impact during periods of low flow along with high air temperatures. Under this new procedure, when the flow at Luke was below 300 cfs, and air temperature was forecast to be above 90oF, the outflow from Jennings Randolph would be increased by 25 to 50 cfs to try to buffer/cool water temperatures during the warmest part of the day. This procedure was implemented successfully over the summers of 2017 and 2018.

JRL dam operations to control downstream temperatures have been very successful in improving aquatic habitats for cold-water fish, including brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). The USACE management objective of reducing downstream temperatures in summer and fall could be incorporated into the water quality authorized purpose of JRL dam operations in an updated WCP because the need to address other water quality objectives is lessening. Cooler downstream temperatures will become more important in the future with projected, climate-related increases in temperature. Warming in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and neighboring northeast is predicted to increase more rapidly than average global values (Dupigny-Giroux et al., 2018).

3.2.2.3 Dilute downstream wastewater discharges The coordinated low-flow augmentation releases from Savage River and JRL dilute to some extent pollutants discharged to the NBPR below Bloomington MD (Buchanan and Selckmann, 2019). Concentrations of multiple water quality parameters increase significantly as the river travels 7.5 miles from Bloomington to Keyser, MD and McCoole, WV (Keyser/McCoole). Data collected since 2000 indicate specific conductivity and total dissolved solids—independent measures of the total amount of salts, minerals, metals, cations and anions dissolved in water—increase on average 41.1% and 43.1%, respectively, in this reach. Turbidity, which measures light scattered by particles of all sizes, increases 276% while total suspended solids (TSS), which measures the weight of particles greater than 0.7-1.0 microns, increases 62%. The larger percent increase in turbidity is caused by relatively high concentrations of very small particles. Averages of other water quality parameters for the same period also increase in this 7.5 mile river reach, including total alkalinity (111%), total phosphorus (205%), and sulfate (17%).

A known historic point source for many of these water quality constituents is the Westernport Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Operated by the UPRC, the plant processes municipal waste from surrounding towns as well as industrial waste from the Verso Luke Mill (formerly WESTVACO).

Another source of wastewater is the Verso Luke Mill itself. Its State discharge permit (05DP0300) allows a daily temperature maximum of 95oF (35oC) in non-contact cooling water. Total suspended solids in mill effluent (fly ash and bottom ash transport water, steam condensate, uncontaminated storm water, filter backwash, and lime kiln scrubber) is limited to a daily maximum of 4,300 pounds per day and a monthly average of 950 pounds per day. pH must stay between 6.5 and 8.5.

Non-point sources also enter this 7.5 mile reach. Water quality measurements near the mouth of George’s Creek indicate the creek is a major source of at least specific conductivity, total dissolved solids, turbidity, TSS, and alkalinity. Uncontained and unregulated runoff from the CSX rail line and industrial activities on the Maryland or West Virginia riverbanks are other non-point sources.

14

Low-flow augmentation from the JRL and Savage River reservoirs has less of a dilution effect on wastewater entering the NBPR at Cumberland, about 27 miles downstream of Keyser/McCoole. Cumberland is a changing metropolitan area with a growing population and a recent history of industrial and manufacturing plant closures. JRL and Savage flows constitute roughly 54% of the average NBPR flow passing Cumberland. Spills of untreated sewage are one notable source of pollution entering the NBPR at Cumberland. During the particularly rainy period of June 2018 to May 2019, 64 of 72 spills reported in the NBPR watershed were from pump stations, wastewater treatment plants, and combined sewer overflows in the Wills Creek sub-watershed, which empties into NBPR at Cumberland (PotomacSpills LISTSERVE, 2016-2019). The spills totaled over 83 million gallons (MG).

The Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation of JRL (USACE 1997b) has no specific procedures to control downstream wastewater other than to maintain a minimum discharge of 120 cfs, bleed off high conductivity water at appropriate times, and use the selective withdrawal capacity to ensure adequate downstream water quality. Federal and state policies increasingly are requiring treatment of pollutants at their source rather than relying upon the assimilation capacity of surface waters. The Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), or “pollution diet,” established in December 2010 identifies specific reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment needed in the NBPR watershed to meet water quality standards in the Bay by 2025. However, these policies and their associated pollution control efforts have not yet resolved pollution problems in the NBPR watershed and mainstem.

The June 2019 closure of the Verso paper mill at Luke MD should significantly reduce pollutant loads from the Westernport WWTP. However, high pollution loads from Georges Creek and other non-point sources still impact the NBPR mainstem. Large sewage spills and combined sewer overflows affecting the NBPR mainstem downstream at Cumberland are a recurring problem, but low-flow augmentation from the JRL and Savage River reservoirs is not likely to resolve these problems. Modern environmental management plans focus much of the effort on addressing the problem areas (in this case Cumberland), and less on dilution sources (JRL). Although low-flow augmentation from the two reservoirs may still be needed to dilute non-point source pollution between Bloomington and Keyser/McCoole, the JRL management objective of diluting downstream wastewater with its water quality storage allotment could be reevaluated.

3.2.2.4 Maintain a healthy downstream aquatic habitat AVF releases are a specific form of low-flow augmentation used by USACE in JRL operations intended to flush settled organic solids downstream past Cumberland.

"When the outflows from Jennings Randolph Lake and Savage River Dam are maintained at low uniform rates for an extended period, suspended organic solids settle and accumulate on the river bed. Such accumulations tend to deplete dissolved oxygen in the water, smother benthic organisms, and generally lower the quality of the aquatic habitat. The accumulations are a particular problem between Westernport and Cumberland, due in part to the high organic load contained in the effluent from the Westernport wastewater treatment plant (which treats process water from the WESTVACO Paper Mill in Luke)."

“To help minimize the adverse effects during extended low flow periods, outflows from the reservoirs are occasionally varied at higher rate. Artificially Varied Flow, or AVF, is a regulation tool for removing accumulated organic sediments, thus improving the downstream aquatic environment…” (USACE, 1997b 7-08 e (1)).

AVFs were not an original objective of the JRL WCP but were added to the water control plan in the 1997 Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation, Appendix A (USACE 1997b) for water quality enhancement. AVF releases were added to the plan after the completion of a brief study which included

15

test AVF releases and collection and analysis of conductivity and dissolved oxygen levels during the releases.

The 1997 Master Manual calls for AVFs to be made:

“…periodically from June through November, depending upon weather and river conditions. If day-to-day releases have been maintained at a constant flow (less than 600 cfs) for long periods (at least 3 weeks) and no significant runoff has occurred, organic sediment accumulations are examined at Keyser, Pinto, Cumberland, and Oldtown. Should the examinations indicate that accumulations are building, then an AVF is scheduled. Generally, releases from JRL and Savage River Dam producing a combined flow rate of 1,200 cfs at Luke for 24-48 hours are effective in removing the accumulated organic sediments [to locations downstream]. No AVF is made, however, if it is expected to adversely affect other water quality or environmental parameters.”

Examinations of organic sediment accumulations in the mainstem have not been formally documented, but organic sediments are assumed to build up in the mainstem below Luke during summer low flow periods. USACE currently schedules two AVF releases a year in August and September. The AVFs artificially increase flows over a continuous period of 24-36 hours. In a typical AVF event, USACE has a target of 1,000 cfs for a duration of 30 hours. In years where USACE feels flows must be conserved to accomplish another need, the release duration (as occurred in 2017, 2018) or the flow quantity (as occurred in 2011, 2017, 2018) is adjusted or the AVF is cancelled. The target duration, frequency, and intensity has been anecdotally confirmed by operators at the JRL and Savage River reservoirs to remove downstream sediment buildup. However, there is no empirical data quantifying sediment buildup and sediment transport in relation to flow.

3.2.3 Other Water Quality Conditions

This section summarizes the findings for other water quality parameters analyzed in Buchanan and Selckmann (2019).

3.2.3.1 Dissolved Oxygen Although a few dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements in the analysis dataset (8 of a total 6,545 between 1996 and 2017) failed the Maryland and West Virginia DO criteria, no NBPR waters are listed as impaired for low oxygen. Pair-wise comparisons of DO in the NBPR mainstem above the dam and below the dam show no significant differences, indicating the dam has little or no influence on downstream DO once the river has reached Barnum or Bloomington. Analysis of DO depth profiles in JRL from 2011 – 2017 suggest deep waters in the lake presently do not become oxygen depleted during summer stratification. While attention to DO normally would be expected when releases are made from below an established thermocline, JRL does not appear to have excess algal growth sufficient to deplete oxygen concentrations in its deepest, coldest waters in summer. If nutrients are added to the lake to increase lake productivity as suggested (USACE, 1997a 5.2.2), DO in bottom waters may begin to decline in summer.

A dissolved oxygen issue in the stilling basin for Jennings Randolph did come to light in the early 1990’s. In August 1989, MD Department of Natural Resources installed net pens for fish rearing operations. In May 1990, fish kills were observed in the fish rearing pens when high releases were made from Jennings Randolph. This was traced to high levels of gas supersaturation in the stilling basin coinciding with high releases from the dam. Through various evaluations, it was discovered that saturation levels were being reached when releases from the dam approach 1,000 cfs, and reach 115% saturation at 2,500 cfs. Gas bubble diseases can occur on fish when they are exposed to supersaturation levels (levels exceeding 110%) for extended periods of time. As a result, an operational modification was initiated in which releases from Jennings Randolph would be maintained at or below 2,000 cfs with an upper limit of 2,500

16

to the greatest extent possible. The net pens were removed from the stilling basin in spring 2007 due to other impacts unrelated to the regulation of Jennings Randolph Lake but the gas supersaturation condition remains.

3.2.3.2 Specific Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids Specific conductivity and total dissolved solids are closely related water quality parameters and they reflect the quantity of electrically charged molecules and particles in the water, including salts and metals. Rock and soil weathering is the usual source of conductivity in streams and rivers, and data from relatively undisturbed NBPR tributaries suggest an average concentration of 200 micro Siemens per centimeter (µS/cm) is an appropriate background level for the watershed. Active mining, AMD remediation with lime dosers, urban development, and industry are anthropogenic sources.

Specific conductivity entering JRL sometimes reaches concentrations greater than 1,000 µS/cm while immediately below the dam, concentrations rarely exceed 500 µS/cm (Buchanan and Selckmann, 2019). Since 2000, the median concentration has been 442 µS/cm above JRL at Kitzmiller and 343 µS/cm below JRL at Barnum/Bloomington. A similar pattern is seen in total dissolved solids, with typically higher concentrations entering the lake (284 mg/liter) than leaving the lake (218 mg/liter). The results suggest JRL serves as a sink to some extent for the ions comprising conductivity.

Specific conductivity and total dissolved solid concentrations have increased (degraded) overall in the NBPR watershed from mid-20th century lows and appear to be an emerging issue. Upward trends in conductivity and total dissolved solids are particularly obvious upstream of JRL, and in the George’s Creek, Wills Creek and Evitts Creek subwatersheds. In the NBPR mainstem, concentrations of both parameters increase sharply as the river passes Luke, Piedmont, and Westernport and then decline slightly with distance downstream. Increasing flows normally correspond to lower concentrations of the two parameters, indicating rainwater and runoff dilute surface water concentrations. Maryland and West Virginia presently do not have water quality standards for surface water conductivity, however both states consider concentrations over 500 µS/cm to be detrimental to aquatic life. High concentrations also can cause taste and odor problems in drinking water. Specific conductivity now frequently exceeds 500 µS/cm in multiple subwatersheds and the NBPR mainstem.

3.2.3.3 Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids Turbidity measures light scattered by particles of all sizes while TSS is the weight of particles greater than 0.7-1.0 microns. The two are usually closely related except when concentrations of very small particles are proportionately greater than concentrations of larger particles. Long exposures to high levels of both parameters are known to be detrimental to aquatic life (e.g., Newcombe and Macdonald, 1991).

JRL appears to be a weak sink for particles (Buchanan and Selckmann 2019). Comparisons of concentrations at Kitzmiller and Barnum/Bloomington show turbidity drops about 15% and TSS about 25%. Turbidity and TSS concentrations upstream of JRL and in JRL are relatively low compared to elsewhere in the NBPR watershed. In the mainstem, both increase sharply as the river passes Luke, Piedmont and Westernport. The Verso paper mill in Luke, while within their State permit requirements, was a known source of TSS and turbidity before closing in June 2019. Turbidity in the mainstem declines with distance downstream after Keyser/McCoole while TSS remain high. Turbidity and TSS in the subwatersheds downstream of JRL are overall lower than in the mainstem, except in Georges Creek. At individual sites, however, both parameters can be many folds higher and have the potential to impede or harm aquatic life.

The relationship between TSS and daily mean flow in the NBPR mainstem immediately above JRL is positive, significant (p < 0.001), and fairly strong with a correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.38. Below JRL, the

17

relationship is still positive and significant but considerably weaker (R2 = 0.07), indicating flow explains much less of the variability in TSS. The TSS-flow relationship is similarly significant but weak below the Savage River dam despite sediment inputs from Aaron Run (R2 = 0.10). By trapping suspended solids, the two dams are moderating the relationship between TSS and flow, and high flows entering the Luke-Piedmont-Westernport stretch of the mainstem carry proportionally lower TSS concentrations than high flows above the dams. This enhances the ability of high flow waters released from the dams to dilute TSS and turbidity entering the Luke-Piedmont-Westernport stretch. Sources in this stretch are surface runoff, direct discharges (i.e., Verso paper mill, Westernport WWTP) and Georges Creek.

3.2.4 Current Conditions for Aquatic Life

Maintaining good habitat conditions for aquatic life uses in the NBPR mainstem was not an original authorized purpose of JRL, but it became a joint management objective of USACE, West Virginia, and Maryland once NBPR water quality improved. By the early 1990’s, water quality conditions in JRL and in the NBPR watershed had recovered to a point where aquatic life was returning to areas previously described as “sterile.” Comparatively high percentages of stream macroinvertebrate communities in the NBPR watershed have scored fair-to-excellent with the Chessie BIBI method since the mid-1990s (Smith et al., 2017): 53% of samples in the subwatershed above JRL, 95% in Savage, 51% in Georges Creek; 56% in New Creek; and 70% in the small streams that drain directly into the NBPR mainstem between JRL and Cumberland. MDDNR has begun to collect macroinvertebrate data and plans to continue collecting this data for the next few years. However, currently there is not sufficient data to analyze. Trout introduced to the system as fry are sometimes capable of occupying habitats as far downstream as Black Oak. Upstream of Luke there is evidence of natural trout reproduction, a biological indicator of good stream health. JRL cold-water releases normally extend cool waters to Keyser/McCoole, supporting both stocked and naturally reproducing trout populations in the mainstem. In theory, the greater downstream extent of cool water lengthens the trout growing season in the mainstem and connects adjacent NBPR tributaries that can be cut off from the mainstem and from each other during hot summer months. The overall larger system of cool water habitat can increase resiliency and reproductive opportunity in fish and macroinvertebrate populations.

With the cooperation of MDDNR and WVDNR, the USACE developed a fish management plan as part of its 1997 Master Plan update and environmental impact statement. The short-term objective was to maintain and improve the current fisheries and the long-term objective was to establish a self-sustaining sport fishery (USACE, 1997a, 4.7). The plan focused primarily on MDDNR and WVDNR stocking programs in JRL, which was not as productive as similar reservoirs and lakes. However, JRL’s selective withdrawals intended to augment summer low flows and improve downstream water quality were also used after the 1980s to maintain outflow temperatures of about 13oC for as long as possible. This was to allow “a cold water fishery to develop in the North Branch between the dam and Luke” and to “alleviate diseases in the trout-rearing pens in the stilling basin” (USACE, 1997b 7-08 d(3)(b)). AVFs performed during summer low flow periods, intended to flush organic sediments accumulating at the base of the reservoir and downstream of Luke, also extended the cooler temperatures favored by trout further downstream.

3.2.4.1 Physical Habitat and Biological Monitoring in the NBPR Mainstem The downstream extension of cool-water conditions resulting from JRL cold-water releases are being documented and could be used in models to further refine management of downstream temperatures. There is little evidence that AVFs improve physical habitat conditions in the mainstem. Anecdotal observations by dam operators and local historians report sediments moving when flows are elevated. However, USACE, MDDNR, and WVDNR have no way of documenting AVFs effectiveness because actual habitat data are not collected in the NBPR mainstem. Similarly, the agencies have no way of confirming the biological benefits of either cold-water releases or AVFs because there is no robust biological

18

monitoring program in the NBPR mainstem. Any link between JRL dam operations and biological status in the mainstem is presently hypothetical. Empirical data are needed on sediment transport rates and the river bottom’s embeddedness in the mainstem before responses to AVFs can be confirmed. Empirical data for mainstem biota are needed before the biological benefits of JRL cold-water releases and AVFs can truly be evaluated.

USACE needs to identify partners to design and develop monitoring plans that collect the data necessary to confirm the effectiveness of its operational procedures. Currently, there is no standard methodology for evaluating physical habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates in shallow rivers with substantial boulder cover, like the NBPR mainstem below JRL. There is no formal assessment plan that coordinates Maryland monitoring programs with USACE dam operations. Although both WVDNR and MDDNR stock trout in NBPR waters, WVDNR only has jurisdiction over West Virginia tributaries and, due to a cooperative agreement of joint management of the reservoir, portions of the JRL fishery. This leaves MDDNR and MDE responsible for assessments of the mainstem North Branch Potomac and its Maryland tributaries. At this time, MDDNR conducts sport fish population assessments and infrequent mainstem macroinvertebrate surveys. USACE, USGS, and MDDNR have coordinated efforts to collect high frequency temperature data at multiple locations in the mainstem.

3.2.4.2 Aquatic Life Zones The NBPR watershed can be divided into eight aquatic life zones that are defined by physical structures such as dams and reservoirs and physiological barriers created by seasonal temperatures and ambient water chemistry (Selckmann and Buchanan, in preparation). Each zone has somewhat different data needs depending on their location relative to the JRL and Savage reservoirs. Seven conterminous zones can potentially support habitation by cold water macroinvertebrates and fish. The zones comprise a system of cold water streams in the watershed connected by the NBPR mainstem (Figure 3). Zones 1 (“Upstream”) and 2 (“Savage”) are upstream of the two reservoirs and outside the influence of USACE operations. However, flows and conditions in these zones affect USACE decision making. Zone 3 is a captured tailwater zone existing between the two reservoirs and a low dam crossing the mainstem at Luke paper mill. Fish passage is an issue in this zone. Zone 4 (“Georges Creek”) and 6 (“New Creek”) are significant tributaries to the cold water system below Luke, MD. They have very different water quality conditions. Zone 5 is the downstream extent of JRL’s influence on mainstem temperatures. Zone 7 is a transition zone and supports either cold-water or warm-water taxa depending on USACE dam operations, precipitation, air temperature, and drought status. Zone 8 in the downstream portion of the NBPR watershed is in a sense another transition zone. There are cold headwater streams in Zone 8, however they are thermally isolated from the conterminous cold water system during summer and thus are seasonally-isolated. Warm-water species tend to dominate in Zone 8 waters.

Currently in USACE’s operation manuals there are no specific habitat or biological targets for the NBPR mainstem below JRL. Phrases such as “support a sustainable fishery” and “accumulated organic solids” could be better characterized and quantified in a future WCP. Actual, quantifiable targets for different management zones could be identified in collaboration with Maryland and West Virginia as well as groups like Trout Unlimited.

3.3 Domestic/Industrial Water Supply

Domestic and industrial water supply is one of the original authorized purposes of the Jennings Randolph Lake and dam. The USACE first proposed a reservoir on the Potomac River North Branch in 1961, and the JRL project was authorized the following year (USACE, 1983). The authorization required that a non-Federal sponsor fund the cost of the water supply portion of the project. The state of

19

N

A 10 20Km

Bayard

N

A

I

• T-

• Town

D Cold Water Drainage

c::J State Boundary

-- Rivers/Streams

D Warm Waler Drainage

c::J stateBoundary

- Rivera/Streams

Figure 3. North Branch Potomac River cold water (upper) and warm water (lower) systems. Seven zones are identified in the upper graph. Zone 8 encompasses all the warm water (lower) systems.

Maryland, concerned about ensuring adequate water supplies for Maryland localities and for the WMA, formed the Maryland Potomac Water Authority (MPWA) in 1969. The MPWA agreed to purchase the minimum amount of storage which met the required non-Federal cost-share for the project, allowing construction of the JRL dam to commence in 1971. In 1982, water suppliers in the WMA purchased the MPWA storage and the remaining available water supply storage in JRL as a shared resource in a cooperative regional water supply system, as described below.

3.3.1 Management Goal and Objectives

A portion of the conservation storage in JRL is reserved for municipal water supply needs of the WMA. JRL’s water supply storage is released upon request by ICPRB’s Section for CO-OP, on behalf of the three major WMA water suppliers (“CO-OP suppliers”): Fairfax County Water Authority (“Fairfax Water”), the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (“WSSC”) and the Washington Aqueduct, a Division of the

20

USACE. These releases from water supply storage are used to provide low flow augmentation to help meet WMA water supply and environmental needs during droughts. The WMA provided the required non-Federal cost-share for the JRL project through a set of agreements signed in July of 1982 by the USACE, Fairfax Water, the WSSC, and the District of Columbia, which obligated the suppliers to provide a portion of the project construction costs and of the annual project operations and maintenance costs.

Originally, the storage volume below the conservation pool level was determined to be 94,700 ac-ft (30,860 million gallons, MG) (USACE, 1997b). After subtracting approximately 2,700 ac-ft to account for dead storage and anticipated sediment accumulation over a 100-year period (USACE, 1986), usable conservation pool storage was given as 92,000 ac-ft (29,978 MG), with 40,995 ac-ft (13,358 MG) allocated to water supply storage and 51,005 ac-ft (16,620 MG) allocated to water quality storage (Future Storage Agreement, 1982, Exhibit A).

In 2013, the USACE, Baltimore District Office had a new hydrographic survey of JRL conducted by a contractor, Bowen Engineering & Surveying. The 2013 hydrographic survey culminated in a letter from the USACE that formalized the redistribution of the water supply and water quality storage accounts through a revised Exhibit A (USACE, 2014b). The water storage agreements between the USACE and the CO-OP suppliers contain clauses that address potential future changes in reservoir storage space due to sedimentation. These clauses state that whenever necessary, there shall be an equitable redistribution of storage space among purposes served by the project including municipal and industrial water supply. The revised Exhibit A contains a table with the following revised values:

• Total usable conservation pool storage: 90,203 ac-ft (29,397 MG) • Water supply storage: 40,194 ac-ft (13,099 MG) • Water quality storage: 50,009 ac-ft (16,298 MG)

These new storage distributions maintain the original proportions of conservation pool storage: 55.44 percent for water quality and 44.56 percent for water supply.

3.3.2 Current Relevance

USACE policy calls for water control plans to be adjusted in response to changing watershed conditions, and that in particular, strategies be developed to respond to drought (USACE, 2018). In the Potomac River watershed, changing conditions with an impact on water supply include climate change, rising water demands due to population growth, and the recent Federal law calling for use of water quality storage for water supply during drought emergencies (see Section 1.1).

3.3.2.1 Climate Change and Rising Demands

The USACE anticipates challenges in the 21st century related to water supply, including increasing water demand from river systems regulated by USACE reservoirs, and possible increases in the occurrence and severity of drought due to climate change (USACE, 2015). Changing temperatures will have an impact on many processes which affect water needs and water management, including the intensity and duration of precipitation events, evapotranspiration, land use and land cover, and agricultural practices. The USACE’s climate preparedness and resilience policy, established in 2011, requires the integration of climate preparedness and resilience planning and actions into all USACE activities (USACE, 2018).

In 2017, ICPRB completed a study of the relative abilities of potential structural and operational water supply alternatives to help the WMA water supply system meet the future challenges of population growth and climate change (Schultz et al., 2017). The evaluations were conducted for three future climate scenarios for each of two different planning years, 2040 and 2085. The climate scenarios were informed by past modeling results and over 200 climate projections from the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), downscaled to the Potomac River basin by the USGS. In the three

21

climate scenarios for 2040, changes in long-term average basin-wide summertime stream flows were +2 percent (median scenario), -7 percent (moderately severe scenario) and -19 percent (severe scenario), corresponding to an increase in average temperature of 3.2 degrees F (1.8 degrees C), and changes in average precipitation of +6.3, +2.4, and -2.9 percent. Year 2040 WMA water demands, increasing due to the combined effects of population growth and rising temperatures, were estimated in this study to be 545 million gallons per day (MGD) annually, and 666 MGD in the peak summer demand month of July, an increase of 12 percent over the period, 2015 to 2040.

ICPRB’s 2017 study evaluated four structural and six operational alternatives and concluded that a suite of measures would need to be in place in the future. The study recommended two strategies for phased implementation of alternatives to ensure the reliability of the WMA water supply system in 2040 under the moderately severe climate change scenario. Both of the recommended strategies include use of JRL water quality storage for water supply purposes during drought as an alternative, as described below.

3.3.2.2 Preliminary Investigation ICPRB’s 2017 water supply alternatives study included a preliminary investigation of the potential benefits of using Jennings Randolph water quality storage for water supply purposes during droughts. The following assumptions were used in CO-OP’s long-term planning model, the PRRISM to simulate this alternative:

• A lump volume of 2.0 billion gallons (BG) is transferred from the Jennings Randolph water quality account to its water supply account when storage in the water supply account falls below a specified trigger;

• The trigger for the transfer is water supply storage at 2.6 BG, which is approximately 20% of its capacity when conservation storage is full; and

• The transfer does not take place if water quality storage is below 5.0 BG.

Results from this study indicated that under the assumptions listed above, use of Jennings Randolph water quality storage for water supply purposes during droughts could increase the ability of the WMA system to meet summertime demands by approximately 30 MGD. Because of time constraints it was not possible to test a range of triggers and transfer values and determine their effects on system performance. Other means of using water quality storage during droughts, including changes in the USACE’s water accounting procedures, were also beyond the scope of the study, and need to be explored in the future.

3.3.3 Potential Use of Drought Planning and Management Tools

3.3.3.1 Drought Contingency Plans The USACE’s preferred tool to inform response to drought conditions is the Drought Contingency Plan (DCP). USACE policy and guidance for the preparation of DCPs is contained in ER 1110-2-1941 (USACE, 2018). This regulation states that DCPs should be developed “on a regional, basin-wide, and project basis as an integral part of water control management activities, giving due consideration to the severity and duration of potential future droughts”, and “provide a basic reference for water management decisions and responses to water shortage induced by a climatological drought.”

According to ER 1110-2-1941, a DCP “must include the specific operational actions necessary to support operations during drought conditions.” It is to include a plan for coordination with local, state and Federal agencies, metrics to identify the onset and end of drought, and a framework specifying procedures and operations to be used during drought, and in particular, to be used during periods when it may not be possible to meet all authorized purposes.

22

Because of the potential impact of climate change on drought, the USACE recently conducted a study of existing DCPs in order to “assess the state of drought contingency planning and develop methods to update DCPs to account for changing climate” (USACE, 2015). This study identified and reviewed a total of 142 DCPs covering 301 projects and evaluated them to determine whether or not existing plans are robust enough for future conditions. The information summarized in this study is meant to “serve as a guide for developing a strategy to update existing DCPs nationwide.” The study found that seven areas were consistently covered in the DCPs: “water law, water supply and water users, surplus water available during a drought, drought history, drought monitoring and drought level determination, drought issues and drought action, and drought coordination.” The study concluded that since all available DCPs were completed by 2000 and none included projections or information about the potential impact of climate change, all current plans should undergo updates.

As a follow-up to its 2015 study on climate change and drought, the USACE is developing analysis tools to support evaluations of DCPs for robustness under future climate conditions, and has initiated a number of pilot studies, some for projects whose purposes include water supply.

3.3.3.2 Deviation Plans A deviation, defined in ER 1110-2-240 (USACE, 2016a), is “an operation that is not in accordance with the approved water control plan or manual or operations as prescribed by the approved water control plans or manual.” Deviation plans must be reviewed and approved by Division commanders and supported by a risk and uncertainty analysis.

According to ER 1110-2-1941, a deviation is a less preferred method of response to drought conditions. This document states that “The goal of the drought contingency plan is to predetermine a set of metrics or triggers that identify a drought or return to normal regulation and a framework of operational decisions to respond accordingly without resorting to use of the deviation process” and “Using the deviation process is an option but should be the exception and not the preferred practice during drought conditions.”

3.3.3.3 Water Accounting Procedures Water accounting rules guide the tracking of reservoir storage amounts in the JRL water quality and water supply accounts when water supply requests are made and therefore have an impact on available water supplies during drought. Accounting rules have been developed by the USACE, Baltimore District office and are documented to some degree in the JRL WCP (USACE, 1997b). As discussed above in Section 3.3.1, JRL conservation pool storage is divided into two accounts: a water quality account (55.44 percent of storage at full conservation pool) and a water supply account (44.56 percent of storage at full conservation pool). The Baltimore District office uses accounting rules to apportion inflows and outflows to these two accounts.

In general, the amount of water supply storage is tracked once a request has been made by ICPRB. Releases from water supply storage are subtracted from the total water supply storage and a consummate storage is also subtracted from the water quality storage. Conversely, as the lake refills after all or a portion of the water supply storage is used, the amount of storage available for water supply use is added or regained at a rate proportional to the rate of filling.

Exhibit H of the Jennings Randolph Lake Master Manual (USACE, 1997b) describes the accounting process for water supply storage when a water supply release is requested. As part of the accounting process, it describes the use of minimum flow requirements for apportioning the flow that comes from water supply versus water quality storage. The minimum permissible releases from JRL and Savage River Dam are 50 cfs and 20 cfs, respectively. The authorizing document for JRL mentions a minimum release at Luke of 93 cfs (60 MGD), though the Baltimore District office normally uses a minimum

23

release of 120 cfs (78 MGD) at Luke. Examples given in Exhibit H of the JRL Master Manual assume that on a day in which a water supply release is requested, the amount of water debited from the water quality storage account is close to the minimum release of 93 cfs. This procedure also notes that “The District Engineer has determined that the water quality storage in Jennings Randolph Lake may be used to make up environmental flow by of 100 MGD in the Potomac Estuary.”

3.4 Recreation

Recreation is another authorized purpose of JRL described in the 1997 WCP (USACE 1997b). JRL releases allow for recreational uses both in-lake and downstream directly and indirectly while managing the releases for other project purposes. Examples of recreational use include in-lake boating and swimming, downstream wade and drift boat fishing, and whitewater rafting. Cold water releases from the lake during summer and fall promote and support a thriving recreational fishery. Proximal to the lake and river, areas for camping and picnicking near the lake and along the tailwater attract spectators and non-river users to the region as well.

3.4.1 Management Goal and Objectives

The construction of Jennings Randolph dam by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the installment of lime doser projects resulted in improved water quality in a watershed once characterized by AMD pollution and degraded water quality. Water quality in JRL and the NBPR improved to levels that now support a renowned recreational fishery and water contact recreation area. USACE recognized the possibility of a healthy fishery in the 1997 WCP update:

“The improved water quality lends itself to fisheries development, and the lake has been stocked with a variety of fish species since 1983. Both Maryland and West Virginia continue to stock the lake with smallmouth bass, walleye, channel catfish, and rainbow, golden, brown and lake trout.” (USACE 1997a, pg. 3-4)”

The WCP update identified short- and long-term fish management plans for the North Branch Potomac River and Jennings Randolph Lake. The short-term goal was to maintain and improve the current fisheries, and the long-term goal was to establish a self-sustaining sport fishery (USACE 1997a 4.7). Given the current conditions and health of the fishery, the definition of “improve” and “self-sustaining” could be refined to a more focused global objective. Current ambiguous language could be interpreted through a biological lens (i.e. the fishery experiences adequate water quality and habitat to support ecological equilibrium) or an economic lens (i.e. the value of the fishery is economically solvent and artificial manipulation of the fishery such as stocking can be maintained as long as there is user interest). West Virginia DNR and Maryland DNR interest in maintaining the North Branch Potomac as an economic and biological resource has been supported by ongoing JRL projects (USACE 1997a, 3.3.2). Beginning in the 1990s, the Maryland and West Virginia DNRs outlined a desire to see a “…stocking program, invertebrate forage farming, nutrients added to the lake, and an expanded walleye season” to help increase lake productivity (USACE 1997a 5.2.2).

3.4.2 Current Relevance

The industrial uses of the NBPR prior to the 1980’s led to a public perception of the North Branch as a dead river. Soon after the implementation of lime dosers within the tributaries of the reservoir, water quality began to improve and peaked interest in many new stakeholder groups. By the mid 1990’s stakeholders included industry, state and federal agencies, boating outfitters and angling outfitters. The need for stakeholder cooperation in managing this shared resource prompted development of the North Branch Task Force. Developed through a 1993 agreement by Governor William Donald Schaefer of Maryland, Governor Gaston C. Caperton of West Virginia, and Chairperson Phyllis M. Cole of the ICPRB,

24

the task force was formed for the improvement of water quality and recreational opportunities on the North Branch of the Potomac River. The North Branch Potomac River Advisory Committee (NBPAC) was formed in 2005 by the agencies who are responsible for the operations and maintenance of Jennings Randolph and Savage River dams. The goal of the committee was to provide a forum for public input regarding regulation of the reservoirs and releases from the projects for their authorized purposes but for recreation in particular. The National Park Service, through its Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program assisted in forming the committee and facilitating numerous meetings of the committee. The result of these efforts was a list of recommendations on which consensus was reached by the committee and which provide acceptable flow management objectives that can be used in making reservoir release decisions by the project owners to serve downstream fishing, boating, and environmental purposes during normal flow conditions. The ICPRB took over the leadership of the NBPAC in 2008 to further technical investigations and incorporate stakeholder objectives. Subsequent meetings of the NBPAC have established desirable flow ranges for wade and float fishing and whitewater releases. The diverse stakeholder representation in the Committee helps USACE release decision-makers maximize the use and quality of downstream resources while maintaining the project purposes of flood control, water quality improvement, and drinking water storage. As stakeholder groups are dynamic, changing relative to the local economy of the western Maryland and eastern panhandle of West Virginia, decisions related to recreational flows, biological integrity of the fishery, and engineering objectives must regularly be discussed and adjusted.

3.4.2.1 Boating and Whitewater Recreational boating has been one of the longest standing user/stakeholder groups. Companies such as River and Trail outfitters (1976) and Historical River Tours (1983) operated in the North Branch Potomac prior to the river restoration and reservoir construction. Recreational boaters can be divided into three groups: 1) whitewater outfitters, 2) angling outfitters, and 3) private/individual boaters, all of which desire specific flow ranges for their recreational needs. Meetings of the NBPAC discuss and outline ideal flows for each user group. Based on the list of recommendations that came of out the initial NBPAC meetings, some events are scheduled in advance to meet specific recreational interests. During other times of the year release decisions can be made with the ideal flow ranges in mind as long as it doesn’t conflict with the other authorized purposes. Due to the wide variance in ideal flow ranges for each type of recreational interest, it is very difficult to meet the desires of all stakeholders.

Elevated flows for whitewater events (typically four each year in the spring) and AVFs (typically two each year in the late summer/early fall) target approximately 1,000 cfs and allow boaters the opportunity and ability to navigate rafts down river as well as experience the formation of recreationally exciting class-3 hydraulic features. The targeted 1,000 cfs for the whitewater releases was decided based on the original discussions of the NBPAC. At times, outfitters have expressed a desire for higher flows of 1,500 cfs and greater to promote formation of more exciting hydraulic features. However, the use of the high flow events by the majority of whitewater event users, non-outfitter individuals, some of which may be under-equipped or under-trained, must be considered for the top end of the flow releases. The availability of water for these higher releases and current hydrologic conditions must also be considered. As there are fewer than six professional whitewater boating outfitters, none of which rely solely on the North Branch or Savage Rivers for their operations (1-10% of business), significant consideration must be given to the private/individual recreational users in defining top end flows (Hansen et al., 2010).

Anglers also require specific flow ranges to safely and effectively recreate on the NBPR. Discussions of the NBPAC have defined two flow categories for angling in the mainstem NBPR. A flow of 400 cfs allows adequate drift boat navigation of the mainstem while providing flows conducive to fish movement and

25

feeding. At 400 cfs however, wadable fishing is prohibitive as the complex rocky substrate and channelized flow makes for dangerous foot travel. Flows between 200-300 cfs are defined as navigable by foot and adequate for fish movement and feeding. Unlike the boating community, most angler outfitters that are operating in the North Branch Potomac are based out of western Maryland counties and collect a significant amount of their income from the North Branch and Savage Rivers collectively. Angler defined flows are safe for private/individual anglers and boaters, a significant proportion of river users.

3.4.2.2 Fishery The North Branch Potomac and Savage Rivers below the reservoirs represents large, low gradient, cold-water river fishery akin to those experienced in the western US and is unlike the small high gradient creeks of the Appalachians. These features, along with four distinct trout species, make the North Branch Potomac a significant Mid-Atlantic angling destination.

Cold water releases from JRL Dam have significantly benefited downstream aquatic habitat and cold-water fish populations. Native brook trout, as well as naturalized brown trout, have been successfully reproducing in the JRL tailwater area since 1990 (A. Klotz, Western Region District 1 Fisheries Manager, MDDNR, personal communication). Anecdotal reports of cutthroat/rainbow trout hybrids have also been reported suggesting hybridization and successful reproduction between these two populations as well. By 1994, AMD remediation efforts in the watershed improved water quality in the North Branch upstream of JRL Dam, further enhancing water quality in the tailwater area. At this time, special regulations were implemented on two stream sections downstream of the dam to enhance wild trout populations. A catch and release trout fishing area 0.8 miles in length was established 0.4 miles downstream of the JRL dam. A second catch and release trout fishing area, approximately four miles in length, was located about 2.5 miles downstream of the JRL dam. Both areas are limited to artificial flies or artificial lures and adult hatchery trout are not stocked in either area. Put and take trout management has continued in the 1.25 mile stream segment between the catch and release areas. Native brook trout, most likely augmented by seasonal migrations from tributary populations, comprise only a small segment of the overall wild trout population in the North Branch (A. Klotz, Western Region District 1 Fisheries Manager, MDDNR, personal communication) making this trout fishing area one of Maryland’s top trout fishing destinations. The economic impact of the NBPR’s fisheries to the local economy was recently estimated at nearly $3 million per year (Hanson et al. 2010). The wild and naturalized trout fishery is the major contributor.

The North Branch Potomac Advisory Committee continues to pursue a flow regime that protects the fishery and discuss emerging issues as they arise. Examples of recreational flow adjustments that have been made to better suit the development of the trout fishery include reduced flows during seasonal spawning, protection of autumn terrestrial leaf packs, and gradual ramping of flows to allow for instream biota to locate high flow refugia. A flow and temperature model for the critical summer period may be necessary to achieve this objective. The USACE and MDDNR Fishing and Boating Service currently are relating instream flow with JRL release water temperature to provide guidance in protecting the tailwater trout fishery. A Yellow Springs Instruments water temperature continuous monitor was deployed in the NBPR within the zero creel limit trout fishing area (ZCL TFA) at the Rt. 220 Bridge (Keyser) to measure real-time river temperatures and aids in the efforts to maintain river temperatures < 25 ° C within the ZCL TFA at the Keyser Bridge.

3.4.3 Future Enhancements

At the time of this report, USACE was completing a JRL Master Plan that specifically outlines alternative recreation pathways for JRL and the downstream tailwaters (USACE, 2019). Currently recreational

26

vehicle and traditional camping is limited to specific areas near the reservoir, in particular, the Barnum Whitewater Area, a property leased from the USACE and operated by the Mineral County Parks and Recreation Department. Improvements in lodging, access points, trails, and boat ramps will all increase the number of users and potentially change how the region is used recreationally. In addition to new recreational goals, plans for a proposed hydroelectric facility is also under discussion and could add a new stakeholder to the North Branch Potomac community. The dynamic nature of North Branch stakeholders underlines the significance of having groups like the NBPAC meet regularly to discuss flow management goals and recommendations.

3.5 Summary of Watershed Conditions Findings

The NBPR watershed has a legacy of unique environmental, economic, and political challenges. Historically the NBPR was heavily degraded due to industrial and mining uses and prior to construction of JRL, towns on the river’s banks frequently experienced severe flooding. Due to coordinated efforts by many agencies implementing best management practices throughout the NBPR basin and the development of JRL, many of these issues have dramatically improved. As the watershed continues to improve, resource managers are identifying and responding to emerging issues.

JRL dam operations substantially alter NBPR flow characteristics and reduce peak water levels downstream which allows USACE to accomplish its primary objective of reducing flooding. Flood risk reduction decisions at Jennings Randolph Lake have provided flood risk benefits to communities like Luke, MD and the neighboring towns downstream to Cumberland. Cumberland is still susceptible to significant flooding given the correct conditions (i.e. 1931 rapid winter snow melt and heavy spring rains) and given the greater proportion of uncontrolled drainage area that lies downstream of Jennings Randolph to Cumberland. However due to management of the JRL, the flood risks are greatly reduced.

Pollution management philosophy is shifting away from dilution of pollution inputs downstream of their sources and towards resolving pollution inputs at their sources. Due to the implementation of best management practices and methods for improving water quality within the North Branch Potomac watershed, the need for Jennings Randolph to influence downstream pH, DO, or conductivity is greatly diminished with the exception of emergency response situations such as chemical spills or pollutant slugs. Although JRL is still useful in neutralizing a high volume slug of a pollutant entering the reservoir, and the approach is still in USACE’s management tool box, the influence of JRL releases on downstream point-source discharges is diminishing as point- and non-point source regulations are tightened and circumstances change. Ongoing treatment of acid mine drainage, regulation of active mine operations, and acid rain abatement are primarily responsible for the NBPR watershed’s improving pH. Enforcement of Non-Point Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and waste system upgrades are resolving some of the downstream point-source discharge pollutants and low DO is not a problem. Increasing trends in conductivity are an emerging watershed-wide issue that cannot be addressed by JRL alone. More recently, dam operations at Jennings Randolph Lake have been most successful in modifying river temperatures downstream of the lake, which has lengthened aquatic life periods of active feeding and growth and extended their habitats in the mainstem. The outcome of these combined efforts is a NBPR system that now supports healthy aquatic ecosystems, which in turn enables more recreational uses of the river and stimulates local economies. “The benefits from [improved] water quality are best demonstrated by the highly successful trout fishery in the river below the dam, an area that was totally devoid of aquatic life before the dam was constructed” (USACE, 1997a, 3.3.1). USACE may now be able to operate the dam in ways that can achieve additional management objectives.

The original authorized purpose to improve in-lake and downstream pH has been achieved, primarily through mitigation upstream of the reservoir, and water quality downstream of JRL typically meets

27

Maryland water quality standards. The lake and river should continue to meet Maryland standards if mine discharges and municipal/industrial discharges are adequately treated and maintained. Due to federal legislation such as the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and regulatory bodies in both Maryland (MDE mining program) and West Virginia (Abandoned Mine and Reclamation, Division of Mining and Reclamation), it is unlikely that historical pH and heavy metal contamination will be a future concern.

One exception to the stability of the North Branch relates to the Georges Creek abandoned mine blow out. In this case, an abandoned mine in a single break-through event sterilized a tributary to the North Branch and it is still recovering decades later. The rapid onset of failure in this example underlines the importance of maintenance and continued funding for AMD mitigation projects but also elucidates the need for a mainstem response plan. Abandoned mine plans and monitoring of existing mining operations is outside of the scope of responsibility of USACE; however, storage within JRL is the primary tool USACE has to fulfill the authorized purpose of preserving in-lake and downstream water quality. A catastrophic event contained in the reservoir or release of storage to dilute AMD events below the dam are actionable responses to catastrophic mining failures in the North Branch Potomac.

There is a dearth of monitoring data in the NBPR to inform USACE management decisions with respect to aquatic life uses in the mainstem river (A. Klotz, Western Region District 1 Fisheries Manager, MDDNR). MDDNR and WVDNR are responsible for sport fish population assessments and stocking in the mainstem and less so for stream macroinvertebrate surveys. MD DNR has recently started to collect this macroinvertebrate data but it will take time to collect enough data to complete analyses. USACE in its operation of JRL has a limited scope of responsibility with regard to monitoring the aquatic life and habitat conditions of the mainstem. This lack of data and information for the NBPR mainstem is possibly the result of restoration and resource management efforts targeting smaller (Strahler order 3 or less) streams under the assumption that acceptable stream health of the tributaries will also lead to acceptable health in the mainstem. The interagency gap in data collection in the NBPR mainstem, however, precludes quantitative and holistic assessments of the success or failures of JRL operational decisions. Without quantitative assessments in place, there is little evidence available that operations such as AVFs or targeted temperature releases are having the intended effects. Before any new management goals or operational guidelines can be proposed, a scientifically sound baseline of the condition of the mainstem NBPR, as well a method to monitor in the future, should be developed.

Maintaining downstream habitat conditions for aquatic life uses was not part of the original authorized water quality purpose of JRL, but healthy aquatic communities became a USACE management objective once water quality improved (circa 1997/1999). Specific language exists, but there has never been a formal habitat survey (or monitoring program) to assess the condition of the mainstem North Branch Potomac River below JRL. The lack of certain assessments to inform JRL management decisions on the mainstem North Branch reveals a potential missing factor in the current USACE decision tree. For example, USACE specifically identifies settled organic solids as a habitat parameter that requires USACE intervention and justifies artificially ramping up summer flows (AVFs) to promote downstream sediment transport. However, no measures of river embeddedness or downstream transport are made in the mainstem.

The best available metric that currently exists to assess the health of the North Branch Potomac mainstem is the thorough fisheries stock surveys conducted by MDDNR. Along with the ability to monitor stocked sport fish populations, MDDNR has been able to observe natural reproduction and multiple year-classes of brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout. As these populations have been documented within the NBPR since trout population surveys began in the early 1990’s, one can assume that USACE reservoir management decisions, AMD best management practices (BMPs), and land

28

conservation efforts have all benefited the river. Without higher resolution data, however, it is difficult to specify what or how much any factor played a significant role.

Preliminary data exists to support low flow augmentation as an effective strategy to create temperature refugia in the summer months as far down as Keyser, WV. Beyond this point, the effects of temperature pulses become confounded by river morphology, lack of riparian cover, and low stream gradient. There are not adequate data available to support or refute augmented flow as an effective means of sediment transport or reducing DO stress. Focused habitat and water quality assessments are needed to define baseline conditions for the North Branch Potomac before the effectiveness of AVFs can be determined.

Water supply and water quality are two separate authorized purposes of JRL and two distinct storage volumes, but they are inextricably intertwined because of their effects on operational objectives. Increases or decreases in water quality release rates impact downstream river flow at WMA intakes. The volume of water supply and water quality storage in the reservoir affects the ability of the USACE to meet goals for in-lake recreation. Because of these interactions, increasing the USACE’s operational flexibility during low flow periods could potentially benefit both water supply and water quality purposes.

Preliminary analyses by ICPRB have indicated that it may be possible to develop operating policies which provide for use of water quality storage for water supply purposes during drought emergencies, as called for in Public Law 110–114, without significantly affecting the USACE’s long term goals for water quality control. For example, in the WMA’s drought of record (1930), low flow conditions persisted in November and December, and a policy that allowed use of water quality storage for water supply purposes during late fall and early winter might increase the reliability of the WMA water supply system without having an impact on the USACE’s ability to meet downstream water quality and recreational goals the following year. Such strategies could be explored during development of a DCP. Similarly, seasonal approaches to changing the USACE’s water accounting rules might be found which provide benefits to both water supply and water quality purposes.

4 Quantitative Support Tools 4.1 Existing Modeling Tools

Both the USACE’s Baltimore District Office and ICPRB’s CO-OP Section rely on quantitative tools to support their respective water management decisions. The USACE uses its newly developed Potomac River model as an operational tool to assist in determining release rates from JRL flood storage and water quality storage. The calibration of this Potomac River model to date has been focused on high flow events. CO-OP uses its Low Flow Forecast System (LFFS) in combination with several spreadsheet and scripting tools for operational support during times of drought. In addition, CO-OP also conducts long-term planning studies using its PRRISM model.

4.1.1 Baltimore District Tools

The USACE’s Potomac River model was developed as part of the Modeling, Mapping, and Consequences (MMC) Corps Water Management System (CWMS) National Implementation Program. The primary intent of the MMC CWMS model development is to provide fully modeled watersheds within CWMS where USACE has reservoir management responsibilities. The suite of software models included in the CWMS are Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), Hydrologic Engineering Center Reservoir Operations (HEC-ResSim), Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), and Hydrologic Engineering Center Flood Impact Analysis (HEC-FIA). Now that CWMS models have been developed for the Baltimore District watersheds, the goal is to operate the models on

29

a routine basis in real-time to provide release decision support to Water Managers. The CWMS models are typically run for shorter time frames with an hourly time step but can also be used for longer term analyses. During flooding, models can produce results aggregated for briefing tools for executive use.

The Potomac River Model has the capability to provide a reliable forecast as long as good quality data is available for input to the model. The Potomac River model can be run independently from the other Baltimore District watershed models, as the model’s extents include the NBPR watershed downstream to the NWS Middle Atlantic River Forecast Center (MARFC) forecast point in Alexandria, VA. It will be important to maintain the current density of rainfall and river gages throughout the Potomac watershed as they provide excellent data to assist in calibration of the model.

The Potomac River model was calibrated and verified with several historic events. Tropical Storm Lee, in September of 2011, was a rain event selected for calibration since it was a large, high flow event that occurred recently. Hurricane Juan, in November of 1985, was selected for calibration as it resulted in the record pool at Jennings Randolph Lake. And January 1996 was selected as it was included rain on top of snow, causing a large snowmelt event.

The HEC-HMS model, which simulated hydrology and runoff within the watershed, was developed with 104 reaches and 182 subbasins. Model performance during calibration was evaluated by comparing computed results against observed results at numerous gaged locations. Hydrologic model parameters were altered to minimize the differences between computed and observed hydrograph shape, peak flow rate, and discharge volume at all available stream gages as well as observed stages at the available reservoir level gaging stations. Three forecast alternatives were created: one representing summer conditions, another representing winter conditions without snowmelt, and a final alternative representing winter conditions with snowmelt.

The HEC-ResSim model which simulates reservoir release decisions, included three reservoirs: Mount Storm (privately owned & operated), Jennings Randolph Lake (USACE project), and Savage River Dam (Section 7 project). Flows from the HEC-HMS model output were entered as input data for the HEC-ResSim model. An operations rule set was developed for each reservoir project to simulate, as closely as possible, real-time decision making.

Flow hydrographs computed in HEC-HMS were also used as inflows to the Potomac River watershed HEC-RAS model at the upstream end of various river reaches, and at lateral inflows from contributing sub-basins. Cross sections along the river reaches were manually digitized into the model. Cross sections, running perpendicular to the river flow, were extended far enough into the overbanks to capture the full extent of the inundation that occurs during a maximum precipitation event along with a simulated failure of the Jennings Randolph dam. (This scenario was developed as part of the Jennings Randolph Dam Semi-Qualitative Risk Assessment Study). Cross section spacing varied within the watershed depending on the steepness of the terrain and river channel. Lateral structures were used in the model in conjunction with storage areas to model levees and tributaries. Levees were modeled by placing lateral structures along the crest of the levee, with a storage area behind it representing the leveed area. Lateral structures and storage areas were also used to represent tributaries along the modeled reach of the main river. In situations where flow could pass from one storage area to another, storage area connections were implemented to represent the high ground in-between the two storage areas. Inline structures were used throughout the model to represent low head dams and also were used to improve model stability at locations of dramatic elevation change such as Great Falls on the Potomac River. A total of seven inline structures were added to represent low head dams, and two were added to improve the stability of the model.

30

The HEC-FIA model is used to estimate economic impacts and benefits as a result of flood risk management projects. To estimate damages, HEC-FIA uses a point-based structure inventory. Hydraulic stage data was used to determine the flood depths at each structure, and structure depth-damage curves was used to estimate damages. The structure inventory for the Potomac River watershed HEC-FIA model was developed from nationwide parcel data obtained from Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIP) sources and building footprints obtained from Microsoft.

4.1.2 ICPRB Tools

ICPRB’s CO-OP Section has responsibilities related to WMA water supply, as discussed above. CO-OP Section staff use quantitative models to assist in drought operations and drought planning. 4.1.2.1 CO-OP Operational Tools CO-OP’s goal during drought is to ensure that flow in the Potomac River is sufficient each day to meet WMA demands and the 100 MGD minimum flow-by at Little Falls dam near Washington, DC. Real-time flow values at Little Falls are available from the USGS (Station Number 01646500). When releases from upstream reservoirs are required to meet WMA needs, CO-OP relies on flow and demand forecasts because of the significant amount of time it takes releases to reach the WMA as well as the significant impact of WMA Potomac River withdrawals on flow at Little Falls. Releases from the North Branch Potomac reservoirs under low flow conditions are estimated to take approximately nine days to reach Little Falls, so when CO-OP requests a release from JRL water supply storage, release rates are based on medium-range forecasts of Potomac River flow. Water supply releases from Little Seneca Reservoir and “load-shifts” between Fairfax Water’s Potomac River and Occoquan Reservoir intakes take approximately one day to have an impact on flow at Little Falls, so these operational requests are based on short-term river flow forecasts. WSSC’s load-shifts between its Potomac River and Patuxent intakes are not based on forecasts at this time, but rather on current day flow at Little Falls and current day demand. This is because WSSC is able to implement a change in its Potomac River withdrawal rate quickly, and because of the proximity of its intake to Little Falls, such an operational change has a fairly immediate impact.

CO-OP makes use of a real-time LFFS to support operational decisions during droughts. The LFFS is based on the FEWS (Flood Early Warning System) by Deltares, a water management research institute located in the Netherlands. FEWS is the same software platform that has been adopted by the NWS for stream flow forecasting at NWS river forecast centers. CO-OP’s FEWS system has been configured to automatically download and process USGS stream flow data and NWS meteorological observations and forecasts. These data sets are then used as input to CO-OP’s version of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Watershed Model, which is used to generate Potomac River flow forecasts. CO-OP displays and compares river flow forecasts from the LFFS with other forecasts in a suite of Microsoft Excel spreadsheet tools. However, CO-OP is now transitioning from its Excel tools to a set of Shiny apps written in the R scripting language.

Accurate forecasts of Potomac River flows at Little Falls also require accurate forecasts of the WMA’s demand, since the WMA’s Potomac River intakes are all located just upstream of Little Falls. Management of recent water withdrawal data is handled by CO-OP’s Data Portal, a password-protected website constructed using the Drupal content management system. The Data Portal automates the recording of updates to each suppliers’ withdrawal data, which are sent by the suppliers via email, ideally on a daily basis, or twice daily during actual drought. The Data Portal also computes and makes available via a text file WMA withdrawal forecasts, which extend 14 days into the future. This text file can be accessed and downloaded by other CO-OP tools or by other basin stakeholders.

31

4.1.2.2 CO-OP Planning Model CO-OP conducts regular water supply planning studies on behalf of the WMA’s major water suppliers, Fairfax Water, WSSC, and the Washington Aqueduct. These studies include a forecast of WMA water demands and supplies at least 20 years out into the future, and an evaluation of whether the current system can meet future needs. The most recent of these studies was completed in 2015 (Ahmed et al., 2015). Two agreements signed by the suppliers require that such studies be conducted every five years beginning in 1990: the Low Flow Allocation Agreement (LFAA) of 1978, as amended by Modification 1, and the Water Supply Coordination Agreement (WSCA) of 1982. In addition, CO-OP sometimes conducts special planning studies, such ICPRB’s 2017 study on water supply alternatives (Schultz et al., 2017).

In recent years CO-OP has conducted its planning studies using PRRISM, a model of the WMA water supply system constructed in the software platform, ExtendSim version 8 (Imagine That, Inc). PRRISM simulates, at the daily time step, the use of the Potomac River and system reservoirs during droughts to meet demands and the minimum flow-by target for the Potomac River at Little Falls dam near Washington, DC. PRRISM models the processes that govern water supply and demand in the system, including:

• Natural flows in the Potomac River • WMA reservoir inflows, storage, and releases • Consumptive demands upstream of the WMA • Daily withdrawals by WMA suppliers • Transfers of treated water • Flow forecasts and operational decisions

Reservoirs represented in PRRISM include JRL, Savage, Little Seneca, Occoquan, and Patuxent, and also potential future raw water storage facilities such as Travilah Quarry in Montgomery County, Maryland, and the Luck Stone quarries in Loudoun County, Virginia. CO-OP’s methods for estimating daily reservoir inflows over the historic record (10 Oct 1929 to present), are documented in a series of reports available at ICPRB’s website (Hagen and Steiner, 1998; Hagen et al., 1998a, 1998b; Hagen et al., 1999).

More details on assumptions and inputs used in PRRISM are given in Ahmed et al. (2015) and Schultz et al., (2017).

4.1.3 Collaborative Tools

Both the USACE and ICPRB rely on quantitative tools to support their respective roles in making JRL storage and release management decisions. The Baltimore District’s Potomac River model includes real-time simulation of watershed runoff and other processes (HEC-HMS), reservoir operations (HEC-ResSim), and channel flow routing (HEC-RAS). It was calibrated using data from historic high flow events, and is used primarily to make flow decisions (and to help develop communications materials) related to potential flood conditions. However, it can be modified to be run for average and low flow conditions as well. ICPRB’s tools were developed with a focus on simulation of processes important during times of low flows in the Potomac River and are used to assist in long-term and real-time decisions related to drought. ICPRB has a long-term planning model for simulation of reservoir and system operations (PRRISM) to assess WMA system reliability, a set of operational tools to provide and evaluate flow forecasts (LFFS), and a website to process recent WMA demands and provide real-time demand forecasts (Data Portal).

Currently the USACE quantitative tools are primarily used to provide information during high flow periods and ICPRB’s tools are focused on drought. There may be benefits to further development of these tools to achieve a higher degree of overlap in model predictions. This would help provide

32

validation and build confidence in the predictive capabilities of these tools. Alternatively, a single model might be developed to serve the needs of both organizations. For example, using the Potomac River model as a starting point, the following changes might enhance the usefulness of the model for the USACE, provide an alternative planning tool for CO-OP, and help foster collaboration between the two groups:

• Add the remaining WMA system reservoirs (Little Seneca, Occoquan, and Patuxent), • Refine the calibration to ensure the model’s low flow performance, • Add simulation of CO-OP water supply releases, and • Make use of CO-OP’s real-time demand models to simulate WMA water withdrawals.

4.2 Regulation of Downstream Temperature

4.2.1 Temperature Model Options

A sport trout fishery has developed downstream of JRL dam, as discussed previously in this report. Water temperature is one of the key environmental parameters which determines the health of this fishery. Water temperature in turn depends on factors including air temperature, solar radiation, elevation, latitude and longitude, watershed land use, riparian cover, and groundwater inflow. Predictive models can help improve our understanding of the vulnerability and viability of this fishery in the face of changes in climate and in watershed land use. Such models can also illuminate the extent to which JRL management decisions may be able to enhance the health of the fishery, or at least mitigate the effects of future watershed changes. Finally, a predictive model could be incorporated into the new CWMS.

There are two general approaches to predicting instream water temperature from environmental variables: the statistical approach and the deterministic approach. Statistical models have less data requirements than deterministic models. On the other hand, deterministic models are better able to predict changes in stream temperature regimes that may occur due to anthropogenic effects.

4.2.1.1 Statistical models for temperature prediction

Water temperature models based on statistical relationships between stream temperature and environmental variables require less data and are relatively simple to develop. The statistical approach to water temperature modeling was reviewed by Benyahya et al. (2007). The simplest statistical models are regression models that assume a linear relationship between water temperature and a single predictor variable, air temperature. These models are most successful at predicting water temperature at the annual, monthly, or weekly time step, where the correlations between water and air temperature are usually highest. Sometimes additional predictor variables are used, the most common being flow. Some researchers assume a nonlinear relationship between water temperature and air temperature which is sometimes referred to as the logistic function (Mohseni et al., 1998; Mohseni and Stefan, 1999). This S-shaped function better captures the flatter response of water temperature to change in air temperature at lower air temperatures, due to the effects of freezing, and at higher air temperatures, due to the effects of evaporative cooling.

Statistical approaches have been used at the regional scale to assess the potential impact of future climate change on coldwater fisheries. Flebe et al. (2006) used quantile regression to predict change in distribution due to climate change of native brook trout and introduced rainbow and brown trout in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Lyons et al. (2010) developed statistical models for the distribution patterns of 50 fish species in Wisconsin and predicted changes due to global warming. The statistical relationship between air and stream temperatures was used in a study by Jones et al. (2013) to estimate the economic impact of the loss of suitable habitat due to climate change for freshwater fisheries

33

throughout the United States. A study by Isaak et al. (2015) sought to identify “climate refugia” for bull trout and cutthroat trout in the Northern Rocky Mountains, that is, cold water habitats for these two species that may withstand climate change. These researchers used temperature models which had been developed from spatial stream network models (Isaak et al., 2017) to predict mean August stream temperatures from projected increases in air temperatures due to climate change and other factors. Snyder et al. (2015) developed a statistical model relating air temperature to stream temperature in Shenandoah National Park that takes into account the moderating effects of groundwater inflow, which is particularly important for headwater streams, and used the model to predict future brook trout habitat under climate change.

4.2.1.2 Deterministic models for temperature prediction

Deterministic instream temperature models simulate the physical processes that govern heat transfer. Their data requirements are significant, and include meteorological inputs, inputs related to channel geometry, stream inflows and outflows, and environmental setting.

A widely used deterministic model is the Stream Network Temperature Model (SNTEMP), developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). SNTEMP predicts mean daily and maximum daily water temperature based on inputs including stream width and gradient, riparian vegetation, topography, elevation and latitude, time of year, air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation, mean daily stream flows, and also flow rates and temperatures of surface water diversions and return flows, and groundwater inflows. SNTEMP was used by Bartholow (1991) to evaluate management options for keeping water temperatures below 23.3oC to support self-sustaining populations of brown trout and rainbow trout in the Poudre River in north central Colorado. Gaffield et al. (2007) used a spreadsheet version of SNTEMP called SSTEMP to evaluate the impact of future land use changes and groundwater extraction on temperatures in five small streams in Wisconsin, where groundwater discharge into the streams was estimated using the USGS’s groundwater flow model, MODFLOW. They found that SNTEMP is less successful in simulating temperatures in streams with extensive wetland areas.

Hunt et al. (2013) coupled SNTEMP to the USGS’s groundwater-surface water modeling package, GSFLOW, to predict temperatures in several streams in the Trout Lake watershed in Wisconsin under future climate change.

A deterministic water temperature model has been incorporated into the most recent versions of the widely used modeling software package, CE-QUAL-W2. CE-QUAL-W2 is a two-dimensional hydrodynamic and surface water quality model that has undergone continuous development beginning in 1975. Information about the model and its latest version, release 4.1, are available at a website hosted by Portland State University (https://www.cee.pdx.edu/w2/). CE-QUAL-W2 can simulate the variation as a function of depth of flow and of environmental parameters which include nutrients, DO, algae, sediment, and temperature. It has been applied to rivers, estuaries, lakes, reservoirs and river basin systems. Norton and Bradford (2009) compared the performance of SNTEMP and CE-QUAL-W2 in simulating water temperatures in the Speed River in southern Ontario, Canada, in a study of stream temperature management strategies, including potential modification of discharge from upstream dams. They found that both models performed well, but that CE-QUAL-W2 “performed more consistently spatially and temporally.” Gelda and Effler (2007) constructed a CE-QUAL-W2 model to simulate stratified temperature and turbidity in the Schoharie Reservoir in southern New York. They used the model, along with an optimization framework, to assess the benefits of a multi-level intake structure in helping to meet state regulatory standards for temperature in a downstream reach which supports a salmonid fishery. The USACE has developed CE-QUAL-W2 models for the lower Snake and lower Columbia rivers to support an adaptive management implementation plan for the Federal

34

Columbia River Power System (USACE, 2013). This model has been used to help identify the location and use of thermal refugia for adult salmon and steelheads. Buccola et al. (2013; 2016) used CE-QUAL-W2 to simulate flows and temperatures in lakes and river reaches in the Middle Fork Willamette and South Santiam rivers in Oregon. The model was used to evaluate the ability of potential modifications of dam operations and structures to improve habitat and temperature conditions for endangered chinook salmon and steelheads. A CE-QUAL-W2 model has been under development since 2007 for California’s Folsom Reservoir, which discharges into the American River. It was used as part of an operational tool to automate selection of multi-level withdrawal ports to meet downstream temperature targets which support the health of chinook salmon and steelhead fisheries (Martinez et al., 2014; Cardno, 2017).

4.2.1.3 Temperature modeling capabilities in HEC software packages

The USACE’s Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) has developed a software package to support real-time operations of USACE projects, the CWMS. The CWMS consists of several components, which include: HEC-HMS - which simulates hydrologic processes in the watershed land surfaces and smaller streams, HEC-ResSim - which simulates reservoir operations, and HEC-RAS - which simulates stream flow. A companion planning tool, HEC-WAT (Watershed Analysis Tool), is also available and makes use of these same software components.

HEC is in the process of incorporating deterministic temperature and other water quality models into its operational and planning tools, in partnership with the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center’s Environmental Laboratory. HEC-RAS now includes a water temperature model (USACE, 2016b). HEC-ResSim will soon also be capable of simulating water temperatures, representing reservoirs as 1D vertically stratified water bodies (https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/waterquality/hec-ressim.aspx, accessed 2019-03-29 by C. Schultz). At a later date, the HEC also plans to complete the integration of a temperature model into its HEC-HMS component.

4.2.2 Data Support

The following table lists stations with high frequency temperature measurements that have been collected recently in the NBPR. Three additional stations were monitored in the summer of 2019 by ICPRB and those data are being processed.

Stations with high frequency temperature measurements. MDE, MDDNR (DNR), USGS.

Sub-watershed Agency Identification Lat/Long Start End Freq. Count Georges MDE MDE_EASP-GEOR-201-D 39.58256, 8/8/2013 11/24/2014 Hourly 9,563

(Koontz Run) -78.99127 12 am 9 am Mainstem DNR North Branch Potomac 39.44499 5/13/2019 ongoing 15-min TBD

River (near Keyser) -78.97260 12:30 am Mainstem MDE MDE_EASP-PRUN-401-D 39.389265, 8/8/2013 11/24/2014 Hourly 9,886

(NBP0689, Kitzmiller) -79.17948 12 am 9 am Mainstem USGS NBPR @ Barnum 39.445111, 10/01/2012 ongoing Hourly TBD

(01595800) -79.110806 1 am Savage DNR Lower Savage River 39.48616, 5/13/2019 ongoing 15-min TBD

(near Aaron Run) -79.08295 12:30 am Savage MDE MDE_EASP-SAVA-102-D 39.646804, 10/9/2013 11/24/2014 Hourly 8,402

(Blue Lick) -79.06725 10 am 9 am Savage MDE MDE_EASP-SAVA-103-D 39.52902, 8/14/2013 11/24/2014 Hourly 8,526

(Pine Swamp Run) -79.125414 6 pm 9 am Savage MDE MDE_EASP-SAVA-203-D 39.64297, 8/9/2013 10/21/2014 Hourly 9,051

(Mud Lick) -79.02176 10 am 9 am

35

Savage

Savage

Savage

Upstream

Upstream

Upstream

MDE

USGS

USGS

MDE

MDE

MDE

MDE_EASP-SAVA-302-D (Savage @ Mt. Aetna Rd) Savage @ Barton (01596500) Savage @ Bloomington (01597500) MDE_EASP-PRUN-201-D (Short Run) MDE_EASP-PRUN-202-D (Laurel Run) MDE_EASP-PRUN-301-D (Nydegger Run)

39.643194, -79.020028 39.570056, -79.101944 39.502750, -79.123972 39.37607 -79.20747 39.34881, -79.28555 39.297528, -79.350167

9/10/2013 1 pm 10/01/2012 1 am 10/01/2012 1 am 8/8/2013 1 pm 8/8/2013 2 pm 8/8/2013 2 pm

10/21/2014 9 am ongoing

ongoing

11/24/2014 9 am 11/24/2014 9 am 10/21/2014 9 am

Hourly

Hourly

Hourly

Hourly

Hourly

Hourly

8,280

TBD

TBD

8,290

8,572

8,997

5 Summary of Findings with Respect to JRL Dam Operations 5.1 Flood

• Dam operations at JRL reservoir continue to substantially reduce peak flows and augment (increase) low flows experienced in the NBPR mainstem downstream of the reservoir.

• The dam’s flood management strategies have successfully reduced flooding in Bloomington, Luke, Westernport, and McCoole MD and in Piedmont and Keyser WV and downstream to Cumberland, MD, since the dam was built.

5.2 Water Quality

• Low-flow augmentation strategies have, to an undetermined degree, diluted downstream acid mine drainage, primarily from Georges Creek, and industrial and municipal discharges.

• With a few isolated exceptions, the NBPR mainstem and its several tributaries have maintained pH values greater than 6.5 and dissolved oxygen greater than 5 mg/liter over the last two decades. Interventions in the watershed (e.g., lime dosers, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act) and air (e.g., Clean Air Act) are largely responsible for the improvement.

• The ability of JRL low-flow augmentation to dilute pollutants such as TSS, turbidity, and nutrients in the river mainstem between Luke and Keyser/McCoole and farther downstream at Cumberland is presumed but has not been adequately quantified. The future need for Jennings Randolph releases for dilution may be diminishing as a result of several factors such as AMD treatment, industrial changes in the watershed and as the region’s sewage spills and combined sewer overflows are addressed.

• The effectiveness of JRL AVFs, in flushing settled organic solids from the Luke, MD area is also presumed and has not been adequately documented.

• A rising trend in specific conductivity and total dissolved solids is occurring in the mainstem and watershed. These trends should be considered an emerging threat to the area’s aquatic life. Conductivity frequently exceeds 500 µS/cm and total dissolved solids 350 mg/liter. Like pH, the problem cannot be resolved with JRL low-flow augmentation.

• JRL’s selective withdrawal system effectively modifies downstream temperatures in the river mainstem. Temperatures in the mainstem below JRL meet Maryland trout stocking guidelines (4 – 20oC) almost 100% of the time in summer. The cooling effect of JRL releases has been documented downstream to Keyser/McCoole and may extend further at times. The fully

36

optimized potential of JRL operations to extend cold temperatures downstream is not known. In addition, climate change effects should also be evaluated.

• Sufficient high frequency water temperature data (hourly, 15-minute) have been collected recently and could support new temperature models for the river mainstem and key tributaries below JRL.

5.3 Instream Habitat

• It is hypothesized that some of the recent success in establishing a trophy trout fishery in the NPBR below JRL can be attributed to thermal connectivity in summer due to JRL cold-water releases. The releases keep the mainstem and tributaries connected in summer, allowing cold-water fish and other taxa to migrate if water quality, temperatures, or other environmental factors become stressful. They also expand the summer and winter growing seasons for trout.

• There is insufficient physical habitat data below JRL to link instream habitat conditions to JRL operations and specifically AVFs. Currently there is no quantifiable instream habitat or biological objective in USACE’s operational language that can be directly related to JRL operations.

• JRL objectives in the reservoir’s WCP such as “support a sustainable fishery” could be refined to more clearly explain how the objective will be achieved, e.g., “optimize the thermal connectivity in the river system for cold-water taxa.”

• The increasing importance of fishing and recreation to the local economy, and Maryland and West Virginia support for these activities, should be considered in updating the Master Manual.

5.4 Water Supply

• Changing conditions with an impact on water supply include climate change, rising water demands, and the WRDA 2007, which instructed the Secretary of the Army to allow use of JRL water quality storage for water supply purposes during droughts.

• Recent USACE policy and guidance calls for the development nationwide of new Drought Contingency Plans. Preliminary analyses have indicated that it may be possible to develop operating policies which provide for use of water quality storage for water supply purposes during drought emergencies, as called for in Public Law 110–114, without significantly affecting the USACE’s goals for water quality control. In addition, seasonal approaches to changing the USACE’s water accounting rules might be found which provide benefits to both water supply and water quality purposes.

6 Recommendations An update of the JRL Water Control Plan is recommended after additional information has been collected and studied. The available instream data and the management tools used now are insufficient to determine the contemporary role of JRL dam operations in the river’s ecosystem. For example, development of a temperature model would help explore possible scenarios and identify management limitations. Future updates should also consider recent developments such as industry changes in the region and any facility/feature changes at the Jennings Randolph dam. A more holistic and comprehensive vision is also required for how the watershed should be managed going forward.

The following steps are further recommended that can be taken prior to updating the Water Control Plan:

37

• Develop a Drought Contingency Plan as a stand-alone document

• Develop crisis response / spill plans

• Address information gaps and build a multi-agency consensus of North Branch Potomac River management zones, assessment methodologies, management objectives, and a common baseline for mainstem ecological condition (develop a watershed management strategy)

• Develop an instream temperature and flow model linking JRL operational decisions to conditions in the river mainstem (incorporate targets into models)

• Investigate the benefits and impacts of revised water accounting procedures

7 References Ahmed, S.N., K.R. Bencala, and C.L. Schultz. 2015. 2015 Washington Metropolitan Area water supply study, Demand and resource availability forecast for the year 2040. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB report 15-04, Rockville, Maryland.

Bartholow, J.M., 1991. A modeling assessment of the thermal regime for an urban sport fishery. Environmental Management, 15(6), p.833.

Benyahya, L., Caissie, D., St-Hilaire, A., Ouarda, T.B. and Bobée, B., 2007. A review of statistical water temperature models. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 32(3), pp.179-192.

Buccola, N.L., Stonewall, A.J., Sullivan, A.B., Kim, Y. and Rounds, S.A., 2013. Development of CE-QUAL-W2 models for the Middle Fork Willamette and South Santiam Rivers, Oregon (No. 2013-1186). US Geological Survey.

Buccola, N.L., Risley, J.C. and Rounds, S.A., 2016. Simulating future water temperatures in the North Santiam River, Oregon. Journal of Hydrology, 535, pp.318-330.

Buchanan, C. and G. M. Selckmann. 2019. The Influence of Jennings Randolph Lake Dam Operations on River Flow and Water Quality in North Branch Potomac River: A Technical Report Supporting Preparation of a Comprehensive Scoping Plan for Updating the Jennings Randolph Lake Water Control Plan. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB report 19-4, Rockville, Maryland.

Cardno, 2017. Technical Memorandum 5, Folsom Reservoir CE-QUAL-W2 Temperature Model. Cardno for the Placer County Water Agency, November 2017.

Dupigny-Giroux, L. A., Mecray, E. L., Lemcke-Stampone, M. D., Hodgkins, G. A., Lentz, E. E., Mills, K. E., Caldwell, C., 2018. Northeast. In D. R. Reidmiller, C. W. Avery, D. R. Easterling, K. E. Kunkel, K. L. M. Lewis, T. K. Maycock, & B. C. Stewart (Eds.), Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II (pp. 669-742): U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA.

Flebbe, P.A., Roghair, L.D. and Bruggink, J.L., 2006. Spatial modeling to project southern Appalachian trout distribution in a warmer climate. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 135(5), pp.1371-1382.

Future Storage Agreement. 1982. Agreement between the United States of America and the District of Columbia, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and the Fairfax County Water Authority for Future Water Supply Storage Space in the Bloomington Reservoir, Maryland and West Virginia, July 22, 1982.

38

Gaffield, S.J., Rayne, T.W., Wang, L. and Bradbury, K.R., 2007. Impacts of Land Use and Groundwater Flow on the Temperature of Wisconsin Trout Streams Final Report. Ann Arbor, 1001, p.48109.

Gelda, R.K. and Effler, S.W., 2007. Simulation of operations and water quality performance of reservoir multilevel intake configurations. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 133(1), pp.78-86.

Hagen, E. R., and R.C. Steiner. 1998. Occoquan Reservoir Watershed: “Natural” Daily Inflow Development. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB report 98-3, Rockville, Maryland.

Hagen, E.R., R.C. Steiner, and J.L. Ducnuigeen. 1998a. Patuxent Reservoirs: “Natural” Daily Inflow Development. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB report 98-4a, Rockville, Maryland.

Hagen, E.R., R.C. Steiner, and J.L. Ducnuigeen. 1998b. Jennings Randolph Reservoir Watershed: “Natural” Daily Inflow Development. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB report 98-5, Rockville, Maryland.

Hagen, E. R., and R.C. Steiner. 1999. Little Seneca Reservoir “Natural” Daily Inflow Development. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB report 99-3, Rockville, Maryland.

Hansen, E., A. Collins, S. Zegre, and A. Hereford. 2010. The benefits of acid mine drainage remediation on the North Branch Potomac River. Report prepared by Downstream Strategies, Morgantown, WV for the Maryland State Water Quality Advisory Committee. Available online at http://www.downstreamstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/amd-remediation-nbp_downstreamstrategies.pdf.

Hunt, R.J, Walker, J.F., Selbig, W.R., WestenBroek, S.M., Regan, R.S., 2013. Simulation of climate-change effects on streamflow, lake water budgets, and stream temperature using GSFLOW and SNTEMP, Trout Lake Watershed, Wisconsin. USGS SIR, 2013-5159.

Isaak, D.J., Young, M.K., Nagel, D.E., Horan, D.L. and Groce, M.C., 2015. The cold-water climate shield: delineating refugia for preserving salmonid fishes through the 21st century. Global Change Biology, 21(7), pp.2540-2553.

Isaak, D.J., Wenger, S.J., Peterson, E.E., Ver Hoef, J.M., Nagel, D.E., Luce, C.H., Hostetler, S.W., Dunham, J.B., Roper, B.B., Wollrab, S.P. and Chandler, G.L., 2017. The NorWeST summer stream temperature model and scenarios for the western US: A crowd-sourced database and new geospatial tools foster a user community and predict broad climate warming of rivers and streams. Water Resources Research, 53(11), pp.9181-9205. (https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/55586)

Jones, R., Travers, C., Rodgers, C., Lazar, B., English, E., Lipton, J., Vogel, J., Strzepek, K. and Martinich, J., 2013. Climate change impacts on freshwater recreational fishing in the United States. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(6), pp.731-758.

Lyons, J., Stewart, J.S. and Mitro, M., 2010. Predicted effects of climate warming on the distribution of 50 stream fishes in Wisconsin, USA. Journal of Fish Biology, 77(8), pp.1867-1898.

Martinez, V.I., Wells, S.A. and Addley, R.C., 2014. Meeting temperature requirements for fisheries downstream of Folsom Reservoir, California. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2014 (pp. 1081-1092).

Mohseni, O., Stefan, H.G. and Erickson, T.R., 1998. A nonlinear regression model for weekly stream temperatures. Water Resources Research, 34(10), pp.2685-2692.

39

Mohseni, O., and Stefan, H.G., 1999. Stream temperature/air temperature relationship: a physical interpretation, Journal of Hydrology, 218: 128-141.

Newcombe, C. P., and D. D. Macdonald. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11(1):72-82.

Norton, G.E. and Bradford, A., 2009. Comparison of two stream temperature models and evaluation of potential management alternatives for the Speed River, Southern Ontario. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), pp.866-878.

PotomacSpills LISTSERVE, messages retrieved: 2016-2019. Website address: www.groups.io. Administered by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin on behalf of the Potomac River Basin Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership.

Schultz, C.L., Ahmed, S.N., Moltz, H.L.N., and Seck, A. 2017. Washington Metropolitan Area Water Supply Alternatives: Meeting the Challenges of Growth and Climate Change. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB report 17-3, Rockville, Maryland.

Selckmann, G. M. and C. Buchanan. In preparation. Review of Habitat and Biological Condition of the North Branch Potomac River with Considerations on the Influence of Jennings Randolph Lake Dam Operations: A Technical Report Supporting Preparation of a Comprehensive Scoping Plan for Updating the Jennings Randolph Lake Water Control Plan.

Smith, Z., C. Buchanan, and A. Nagel. 2017. Refinement of the Basin-Wide Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB Report 17-2, Rockville, MD.

Snyder, C.D., Hitt, N.P. and Young, J.A., 2015. Accounting for groundwater in stream fish thermal habitat responses to climate change. Ecological Applications, 25(5), pp.1397-1419.

USACE. 1983. Metropolitan Washington Area Water Supply Study, Appendix H – BLOOMINGTON LAKE REFORMULATION STUDY. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

USACE. 1986. Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation in the North Branch Potomac River Basin. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Baltimore District, September.

USACE. 1997a. Jennings Randolph Lake 1997 Master Plan Update and Integrated Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Baltimore District, October.

USACE. 1997b. Master Manual for Reservoir Regulation, North Branch Potomac River Basin, Appendix -A, Jennings Randolph Lake, West Virginia and Maryland. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Baltimore District, July.

USACE, 2013. Location and Use of Adult Salmon Thermal Refugia in the Lower Columbia and Lower Snake Rivers. Federal Columbia River Power System, Amendment 1 of the Supplemental FCRPS BiOp, February 2013.

USACE. 2014a. Implementation Guidance for Section 4001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 – River Basin Commissions. Sec. 5019. Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia as amended by Section 4001 of WRRDA 2014.

USACE. 2014b. Letter from J. R. Jordan, III, Colonel, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Baltimore District to C. Haywood, Executive Director, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, May 15, 2014.

40

USACE. 2015. USACE Drought Contingency Planning in the Context of Climate Change, by A. Pinson, A. Jordan, B. Baker, K. White, R. Vermeeren, K. Fagot. Civil Works Technical Report, CWTS Report 15-15, US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC. September 2015.

USACE. 2016a. Regulation No. 1110-2-240. Engineering and Design Water Control Management, May 2016.

USACE, 2016b. HEC-RAS River Analysis System User’s Manual, Version 5.0. USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, February 2016.

USACE. 2018. Regulation No. 1110-2-1941, Engineering and Design DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS, 02 February 2018 (superseding ER 1110-2-1941, 15 September 1981).

USACE, 2019. Jennings Randolph Lake Master Plan, Garrett County, MD – Mineral County, WV. Prepared by John Gallup & Associates.

41