DOCSLIB.ORG

Nitrate Tmdl Development: the Muddy Creek/Dry River Case Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nitrate Tmdl Development: the Muddy Creek/Dry River Case Study NITRATE TMDL DEVELOPMENT: THE MUDDY CREEK/DRY RIVER CASE STUDY Teresa B. Culver Kathryn A. Neeley Shaw L. Yu Harry X. Zhang, Andrew L. Potts Troy R. Naperala Civil Engineering Department University of Virginia In 1972, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) estuaries, which includes approximately 475,000 established the regulatory concept of a Total Maximum kilometers (300,000 miles) of river and shoreline Daily Load (TMDL) as the maximum loading rate of a (USEPA, 2001). The USEPA suggests that states plan pollutant that a receiving water can assimilate without to complete the TMDL’s with a maximum planning resultant water quality impairments with respect to the time frame of 13 years (Perciasepe, 1997). Given that applicable water quality standards. The CWA specified there are typically hundreds of impaired waterbodies per that the watershed-level TMDL approach should be state, the effort required to meet these timelines is used to systematically manage both point and non-point enormous. Furthermore, in many states, court orders or source pollution. However, it was not until the 1990’s consent decrees now specify the rate at which TMDL’s after a series of legal actions that the TMDL program must be established (USEPA, 2001). In addition, active has been actively pursued at federal and state levels. and effective community involvement is expected in a The TMDL concept has now grown into a TMDL project, so modeling analysis should be made comprehensive surface water management approach. A intelligible to community members. thorough description and guidance for the TMDL program can be found at the U.S. Environmental There are many opportunities for researchers to Protection Agency web page (USEPA, 2001). contribute to the development of the state-of-the-art for TMDL analyses. In fact, in Virginia, universities have While the systems approach of the TMDL program may had a direct role in the TMDL program with university help to initiate an era of sustainable watershed representatives serving as the primary technical analysts management, the program presents many challenges for for ten of the first twenty TMDL’s in the state the water resource management community. For (VADEQ, 2001). As an example, this work briefly instance, computer modeling of watershed hydrology, presents the Muddy Creek/Dry River nitrate TMDL water quality, and load allocations is typically necessary case study and then discusses the relationship between to address required components of a TMDL, such as the University research efforts and the TMDL program. spatial and temporal variability. Although the science Full details of the nitrate TMDL study can be found in and tools of watershed modeling are expanding rapidly Culver et al. (2000a). (e.g., Vieux, 1991; Devantier & Feldman, 1993; Hornberger & Boyer, 1995; Sample et al., 2001), there THE MUDDY CREEK/DRY RIVER CASE STUDY is still a desperate need for practical tools and approaches to facilitate modeling of the diverse range of Background watersheds and water quality problems to be addressed by the TMDL program. Not only must the analyses be The Muddy Creek/Dry River watershed is located in accurate while coping with typically scarce data, but Rockingham County in northwestern Virginia (Figure they must also be completed rapidly. The USEPA 1). Sections of Muddy Creek, Dry River and North expects timely completion of about 40,000 TMDL's for River are designated for public drinking water use over 20,000 impaired river segments, lakes and because they are less than 8 kilometers (5 miles) 5 upstream of the intakes for water treatment plants on the Muddy Creek/Dry River Nitrate TMDL North River (VADEQ, 1998). The U.S. EPA water quality standard for nitrate, also adopted by Virginia, in Muddy Creek generally flows south to its confluence the portions of Muddy Creek, Dry River, and North with Dry River, which joins the North River River designated for drinking water is 10 mg/l nitrate- approximately 3.63 kilometers (2.25 miles) farther to nitrogen (VADEQ, 1998). This nitrate standard is the south (Figure 1). The North River discharges to the intended to be protective of human health, especially for South Fork of the Shenandoah River, a tributary of the infants who are especially susceptible to high levels of Potomac River that eventually flows into the nitrate intake and may develop methemoglobinemia Chesapeake Bay. The land area of the Muddy Creek (“blue-baby” disease), a potentially fatal blood disorder watershed is approximately 8,106 hectares (20,030 (USEPA, 1996; USEPA, 1998b). acres), with forest (34 percent) and agriculture (61 percent) as the primary land uses (Culver et al., 2000a). An 11.35 kilometers (7.04 mile) reach of Muddy Creek, The Upper Dry River watershed is approximately Dry River and the North River was added to the state 18,960 hectares (46,850 acres), with over 99 percent of 1998 303(d) list after a preliminary modeling study (Yu the land forested, while the Lower Dry River watershed & Barnes 1998) suggested that violations of the nitrate is approximately 4,120 hectares (10,180 acres) with 30 standard could occur in the listed reach due to a percent forested and 62 percent agricultural lands combination of point and non-point sources. The state (Culver et al., 2000a). The intensive agriculture of this water monitoring program also found that three of 75 watershed helps to give Rockingham County the highest water samples in the listed reach of Muddy Creek poultry and dairy production levels in Virginia collected between September 1993 and October 1999 (VADEQ, 1997). To date fecal coliform TMDL’s have violated the nitrate water quality standard (Culver et al., been developed for both the Muddy Creek (Muddy 2000a). The highest concentration observed was 13.5 Creek TMDL Establishment Workgroup (MCTEW ) mg/L nitrate-nitrogen (Culver et al., 2000a). These 1999), and Dry River watersheds (Virginia Tech, 2000), violations of water quality standard within the reach and a nitrate TMDL was developed for the Muddy protected for drinking water use were measured at a Creek/Dry River area (Culver et al., 2000a). All three sampling location on Muddy Creek (Virginia State TMDL’s have been approved by the USEPA (VADEQ, Water Control Board monitoring station 1BMDD000.4), 2001). just above its confluence with the Dry River (Figure 1). No water quality violations were observed on the Dry The Muddy Creek/Dry River watershed was subdivided River or North River (Culver et al., 2000a). In addition into eleven subwatersheds. The Muddy Creek and Dry to the surface water, three recent studies (Shenandoah River watersheds contained eight and three Valley Soil and Water Conservation District 1995; Ross subwatersheds, respectively (Figure 2). The study area 1999; Culver et al., 2000b) have found elevated nitrate was divided to allow for spatial variation of nitrogen levels in the karst aquifer below the Muddy Creek/Dry loading throughout the watershed and to allow the River watershed. Through these studies, a total of 152 relative contribution of sources to each stream segment ground water samples were collected from private wells to be determined. Subwatershed delineation was based between 1994 and 2000. The average and standard on a topographic analysis of the region and past work deviation of the nitrate-nitrogen concentration in the completed by the Virginia Department of Conservation samples was 12.01±13.18 mg/L, with 51 percent of the and Recreation. In addition, nitrogen non-point source samples over the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L loads differed between the Muddy Creek and Dry River nitrate-nitrogen. watersheds due to variations in farm management practices. No subdivisions were imposed on the Upper TMDL development in the Muddy Creek has laid Dry River watershed due to its homogeneity; it is almost important groundwork for future TMDL development in completely forested. Virginia. Virginia’s first and second TMDL’s (VADEQ, 2001) to be approved by the USEPA were the The water quality/quantity model, Hydrologic Muddy Creek fecal coliform TMDL (MCTEW, 1999) Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) version 11.0 and the Muddy Creek/Dry River nitrate TMDL (Culver (Bicknell et al., 1997), was used to predict stream flow, et al., 2000a), respectively. Furthermore, the Muddy in-stream water quality and the significance of nitrogen Creek/Dry River nitrate TMDL was Virginia’s first sources. HSPF was selected because of its ability to TMDL to be approved with significant contributions simulate both nonpoint and point source loads, as well from both point and non-point sources. All other as the flow and transport of pollutants in each stream approved TMDL’s in Virginia have focused on fecal reach. In addition, HSPF is able to assess in-stream coliform impairments. water quality response to changes in flow, season, and load (Bicknell et al., 1997). While HSPF is a 6 component of the USEPA watershed model, Better from the point source was based on monitoring records Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint for its discharge permit, although the load from the plant Sources, or BASINS (USEPA, 1998), the nitrogen was highly variable in both flow and concentration and chemical cycle is not supported within the BASINS the monitoring record was sparse compared to the modeling framework. Thus HSPF was used outside of modeling requirements. The point sources, septic tanks the BASINS modeling system for the nitrate TMDL. and cattle in the stream were modeled as direct discharges along each stream reach. Although the The basis for the hydrological calibration was the septic tank load was assumed constant, the point source coliform bacteria TMDL for Muddy Creek (MCTEW, load and the loads from cattle in the stream varied over 1999). In the coliform bacteria study, BASINS time. (USEPA, 1998) was calibrated to the continuously recording U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies of Longitudinal Stream Profiles in Virginia and Maryland
    Studies of Longitudinal Stream Profiles in Virginia and Maryland By JOHN T. HACK SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL. SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 294-B Preliminary results of a study of the form of small river valleys in relation to geology. Some factors controlling the longitudinal profiles of streams are described in q'uantitative terms UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1957 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 75 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Peg* AbstractL 45 Relation of particle size of material on the bed to stream IntroductionL 47 lengthL 68 Methods of study and definitions of factors measuredL 47 Mathematical expression of the longitudinal profile and Description of areas studied L 49 its relation to particle size of material on the bedL 69 Middle River basinL 50 Mathematical expression in previous work on longitudinal North River basinL 50 profilesL 74 Alluvial terrace areasL 50 Origin and composition of stream-bed materialL 74 Calfpasture River basinL 50 Franks Mill reach of the Middle RiverL 76 Tye River basin L 52 Eidson CreekL 81 Gillis FallsL 52 East Dry BranchL 82 Coastal Plain streamsL 53 North RiverL 84 Factors determining the slope of the stream channelL 53 Calfpasture ValleyL 84 Discharge and drainage areaL 54 Gillis FallsL 85 Size of material on the stream bedL 54 Ephemeral streams in areas of residuumL 85 Channel cross sectionL 61 Some factors controlling variations in size: conclusions_ _ _ 86 Summary of factors controlling channel slopeL 61 The longitudinal profile and the cycle of erosionL 87 Factors determining the position of the channel in space: the References cited L 94 shape of the long profileL 63 IndexL 95 Relation of stream length to drainage area L 63 ILLUSTRATIONS Pag e Page PLATE99.
    [Show full text]
  • GAME FISH STREAMS and RECORDS of FISHES from the POTOMAC-SHENANDOAH RIVER SYSTEM of VIRGINIA
    ) • GAME FISH STREAMS AND RECORDS OF FISHES FROM THE POTOMAC-SHENANDOAH RIVER SYSTEM Of VIRGINIA Robert D. Ross Associate Professor of Biology Technical Bulletin 140 April 1959 Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, Virginia ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is grateful to Eugene S. Surber, Robert G. Martin and Jack M. Hoffman who directed the survey and gave their help and encouragement. A great deal of credit for the success of the Survey is due to all game wardens who rendered invaluable assistance. Special thanks are due to many sportsmen and assistant game wardens who helped the field crew. Personnel of the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, who helped in the work from time to time were William Fadley, William Hawley, Max Carpenter and Dixie L. Shumate. The Virginia Academy of Science gener- ously donated funds for the purchase of alcohol in which the fish collection was preserved. GAME FISH STREAMS AND RECORDS OF FISHES FROM THE SHENANDOAH-POTOMAC RIVER SYSTEMS OF VIRGINIA Robert D. Ross Associate Professor of Biology Virginia Polytechnic Institute INTRODUCTION From June 15 to September 15, 1956, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, Division of Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia, undertook a survey of a major part of the Shenandoah-Potomac River watershed in Virginia. This work was done as Federal Aid Project No. F-8-R-3, in cooperation with Vir- ginia Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, under the direction of Robert G. Martin, Dingell-Johnson Coordinator, and Jack M. Hoffman, Leader. Robert D. Ross, Crew Leader, and David W. Robinson and Charles H. Hanson worked in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility
    GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST APPENDIX D – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ELIGIBILITY APPENDIX D – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION The 1993 Forest Plan Revision included an extensive review and evaluation of the rivers of the George Washington National Forest. Appendix D of the 1993 Forest Plan was reviewed. The information and determinations documented in Appendix D remain valid with minor changes in conditions. Public comments did identify some additional rivers for consideration. These included Trout Run, Waites Run, Stony Creek (North of Bayse), German River, Benson Run, Stuart Run (with Buck Lick and Bolshers Run), Mill Creek (Maury River), Wilson Creek, Mill Creek (Cowpasture River), Jim Dave Run, Potts Creek, Little Back Creek, Crow Run (with Little Crow Run), and Big Mary’s. A review of these streams identified no nationally or regionally outstandingly remarkable values in recreation, scenery, wildlife, geology, botany or heritage resources. Under the fisheries resource we did identify that Potts Creek and Mill Creek provide habitat for the James spinymussel. However, in both of these cases, the location of the mussel is downstream of National Forest System lands. I. INTRODUCTION This appendix contains evaluations of 14 rivers located in or close to the George Washington National Forest. These evaluations determine which of the 14 rivers have qualities that make them eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System. The evaluations also determine whether the eligible rivers should receive wild, scenic, or recreational river classification. A determination locally that a river is eligible does not necessarily mean that it will meet suitability criteria when, in the final stages, it is evaluated from a national perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature Conservancy's Watershed Approach To
    THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S WATERSHED APPROACH TO COMPENSATION PLANNING FOR THE VIRGINIA AQUATIC RESTORATION TRUST FUND December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S CONSERVATION BY DESIGN .... 2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation By Design ..................................................... 3 Element I: Geographic service area delineation ............................................................ 4 Elements ii, iii and iv: Threats Assessment ................................................................... 8 Elements v and vi: Aquatic resource goals / objectives and a prioritization strategy.. 10 Element xii. Satisfying Criteria for Use of Preservation ............................................. 13 Element viii. A description of any public and private stakeholder involvement in the plan ................................................................................................................................ 13 Element ix. Long-term protection and management strategies ................................... 15 Element x. Monitoring and Evaluating Progress .......................................................... 15 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17 PART II. OVERVIEW OF ECOREGIONAL PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS BY DEQ/CORPS SERVICE AREAS .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Architectural Survey of Rockingham County, Virginia
    HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA Mannheim (082-0005) FINAL REPORT Prepared by E.H.T. Traceries, Inc. for The Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Rockingham County, Virginia Department of Planning RFP No. 1999/2000-09 December 2000 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA Final Report Prepared by E.H.T. Traceries, Inc. for The Virginia Department of Historic Resources and Rockingham County, Virginia Department of Planning RFP No. 1999/2000-09 (Contact: William L. Vaughn and Rhonda G. Henderson, Department of Planning 540/564-3030) December 2000 Architectural Survey Report of Rockingham County, Virginia E.H.T. Traceries, Inc., December 2000 Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................................iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ vi MAPS ........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Watershed Map (PDF)
    Interstate Virginia Watersheds Central Shenandoah PDC Water Features USGS Standardized Hydrologic Unit System (HUC) 0 50 100 Miles Sources: USGS, NRCS, CSPDC, and Commonwealth of VA Topographically Nested Hierarchy Defined Set of Drainage Areas based on Surface Feature Size For planning purposes only. : (May, 2011) Virginia Hydrologic Regions Virginia Hydrologic Sub-regions HUC 2 HUC 4 Region Name Frederick Subregion Name Frederick Winchester Winchester Clarke Clarke Mid Atlantic Region Loudoun Big Sandy-Guyandotte Kentucky-Licking Loudoun §¨¦495 Chowan-Roanoke Lower Chesapeake §¨¦495 Warren ¨¦§66 Arlington Warren ¨¦§66 Arlington Fairfax City Fairfax City Ohio Region Shenandoah Alexandria Shenandoah Alexandria Fairfax Cumberland Pee Dee Fairfax Fauquier Manassas City Fauquier Manassas City South Atlantic-Gulf Region Rappahannock Prince William Rappahannock Prince William Rockingham Page Delaware Potomac Rockingham Page Tennessee Region Culpeper Kanawha Upper Tennessee Culpeper Stafford Stafford Harrisonburg Madison Harrisonburg Madison Virginia Localities / Jurisdictions Highland Highland Fredericksburg King George Virginia Localities / Jurisdictions Fredericksburg King George Greene Orange Greene Orange Spotsylvania Spotsylvania Augusta Staunton Westmoreland Augusta Staunton Westmoreland Waynesboro ¨¦§95 Waynesboro ¨¦§95 Bath Albemarle Charlottesville Louisa Caroline Bath Albemarle Charlottesville Louisa Caroline Essex Richmond Essex Richmond ¨¦§64 Northumberland ¨¦§64 Northumberland Rockbridge Rockbridge 64 64 Alleghany ¨¦§ Fluvanna
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Areas of Selected Streams in Virginia
    Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Drainage Areas of Selected Streams in Virginia Open-File Report 2006–1308 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Drainage Areas of Selected Streams in Virginia By Donald C. Hayes and Ute Wiegand Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Open-File Report 2006–1308 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk A. Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Hayes, D.C., and Wiegand, Ute, 2006, Drainage areas of selected streams in Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 2006–1308, 51 p., available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/ofr2006-1308 iii Contents
    [Show full text]
  • DC Source Water Assessment
    The District of Columbia Source Water Assessment Environmental Health Administration Bureau of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division The District of Columbia Source Water Assessment Prepared For: Environmental Health Administration Department of Health Government of the District of Columbia Anthony A. Williams, Mayor Prepared By: David T. Vann, Ross Mandel, Jason M. Miller Erik Hagen, Anthony Buda and Daniel Cordalis Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin TABLE OF CONTENTS, LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Table of Contents i List of Appendices iii List of Tables iii List of Figures iii Acknowledgements v Executive Summary E-1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 The Components of the Source Water Assessment 1-1 1.3 The Use of the CBP Watershed Model in the SWA 1-2 2.0 The Watershed and Drinking Water 2.1 Source Water Delineation 2-1 2.2 General Description of Source Water 2-2 2.2.1 Physiography 2.2.2 Topography 2-3 2.3 Basin Geology 2-3 2.4 Land Use 2-5 2.5 Population 2-5 2.6 General Hydrology 2-5 2.6.1 Streamflow Regulation 2-6 2.6.2 Flow Characteristics 2-6 2.7 The Drinking Water System 2-6 2.7.1 Other Greater Metro Water Systems 2-7 2.7.2 System Operations 2-7 3.0 Time of Travel Analysis 3.1 Time of Travel Analysis 3-1 3.1.1 Methods 3-1 3.1.2 Verification of Spill Model Approach Using Hydraulic Equations 3-4 4.0 Susceptibility Analysis 4.1 Potential Point Source Pollution Sites and Contaminant Inventory 4-1 4.1.1 Sources of Contaminants 4-1 4.1.2 Data Sources 4-1 4.2 Geographic Information Systems 4-2 4.2.1 Search and
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • North Fork of the Shenandoah River Watershed Assessment Virginia and West Virginia
    North Fork of the Shenandoah River Watershed Assessment Virginia and West Virginia June 2008 Rapid watershed assessments provide initial estimates of where conservation investments would best address the concerns of landowners, conservation districts, and other community organizations and stakeholders. These assessments help landowners and local leaders set priorities and determine the best actions to achieve their goals. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Richmond, Virginia "The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720- 6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer." North Fork of the Shenandoah River Watershed Assessment Virginia and West Virginia Frederick, Page, Rockingham, Shenandoah and Warren Counties, Virginia and Hardy County, West Virginia Abstract This watershed assessment involved the collection of data and information for the purpose of developing a watershed profile, including a description of the natural resource conditions and trends, issues, concerns and problems along with recommendations for local action.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Watersheds USGS Hydrologic Unit River Systems for Use with Science Sols – 4.8, 6.7, ES9, Bio9
    Virginia Watersheds USGS Hydrologic Unit River Systems For use with Science SOLs – 4.8, 6.7, ES9, Bio9 Chesapeake Bay and Mid- James Drainage: Sandy River Atlantic Region: James River Stinking River Rivanna River Turkeycock River Eastern Shore Drainage: Maury River Pocomoke River Cowpasture River Yadkin Drainage: Machipongo River Jackson River Ararat River Chincoteague River Buffalo River Piney River Ohio Region Potomac Drainage: Appomattox River Potomac River Chickahominy River New River Drainage: Shenandoah River Lynch River Knob Fork Occoquan River Roach River Laurel Fork North River Rockfish River Little River Middle River Tye River Muskrat Branch Little Wicomico River Pedlar River New River Dry River Nansemond River Tract Fork Hardware River Wolfpen Branch York Drainiage: Bullpasture River South River Big Sandy Drainage: South Anna River South Atlantic Region Cranes Nest River Po River Levisa Fork River Pamunkey River Chowan Drainage: McClure River North Anna River Warwick Branch Pound River Ni River South Meherrin River Russell Fork New Found River Nottoway River Tug River Mattaponi River North Meherrin River Little River Middle Meherrin River Tennessee Region Meherrin River Rappahannock Drainage: Little Nottoway River Holston Drainage: Western Branch Chowan River Big Moccasin Creek Corrotoman River Blackwater Swamp Holston River Ware River Blackwater River Possum Creek Thorton River Assomoosick Swamp Walker Creek Robinson River Whitetop Laurel Creek Rappahannock River Roanoke Drainage: Rapidan River Banister River Clinch Drainage: Portobago Creek Big Otter River Clinch River Pankatank River Blackwater River Guest River North Fork Thorton River Dan River Little River Massaponax River Falling River Powell River Hazel River North Mayo River Great Wicomico River Pigg River Roanoke River __________________________________ ________________________________________ Watershed information is for the following "Where Does Water Run?" Aquatic Guide pg.
    [Show full text]