DOCSLIB.ORG

Sediment Fingerprinting to Delineate Sources of Sediment in the Agricultural and Forested Smith Creek Watershed, Virginia, USA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sediment Fingerprinting to Delineate Sources of Sediment in the Agricultural and Forested Smith Creek Watershed, Virginia, USA JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION Sediment Fingerprinting to Delineate Sources of Sediment in the Agricultural and Forested Smith Creek Watershed, Virginia, USA A.C. Gellis and L. Gorman Sanisaca Research Impact Statement: Sediment fingerprinting helps identify and apportion sediment sources, includ- ing sediment derived from top soil and eroding streambanks, which are often overlooked sources of sediment to streams. ABSTRACT: The sediment fingerprinting approach was used to apportion fine-grained sediment to cropland, pasture, forests, and streambanks in the agricultural and forested Smith Creek, watershed, Virginia. Smith Creek is a showcase study area in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, where management actions to reduce nutri- ents and sediment are being monitored. Analyses of suspended sediment at the downstream and upstream sam- pling sites indicated streambanks were the major source of sediment (76% downstream and 70% upstream). Current management strategies proposed to reduce sediment loadings for Smith Creek do not target stream- banks as a source of sediment, whereas the results of this study indicate that management strategies to reduce sediment loads in Smith Creek may be effective if directed toward managing streambank erosion. The results of this study also highlight the utility of sediment fingerprinting as a management tool to identify sediment sources. (KEYWORDS: sediment fingerprinting; bank erosion; Chesapeake Bay; sediment TMDL.) INTRODUCTION and other contaminants (Owens et al. 2001; Gerbers- dorf et al. 2011). Sediment is a major contributor to ecological Worldwide, sediment is an important pollutant degradation in Chesapeake Bay (Gellis and Brakebill degrading aquatic habitat and impacting infrastruc- 2013). Smith Creek, along with two other streams in ture, such as reservoirs (Strayer and Dudgeon 2010; the Chesapeake Bay watershed, was selected by the Liu et al. 2017). In the United States (U.S.), sediment U.S. Department of Agriculture as a “showcase” is one of the leading causes of stream impairment study area, meaning that if successfully restored, it (USEPA 2017). Fine sediment can reduce light pene- would become a model for restoration efforts in the tration and suppress primary production in algae and Chesapeake Bay watershed (Epes 2010; Jenner 2010; macrophytes (Yamada and Nakamura 2002; Izagirre USDA-NRCS 2017). Biological monitoring conducted et al. 2009; Jones et al. 2012). Deposited sediment by the Virginia Department of Environmental Qual- can bury channel substrate and degrade habitat for ity indicated Smith Creek was violating the state’s macroinvertebrates (Jones et al. 2012) and fish (Sear general standard for aquatic life use where the et al. 2016). In addition, fine sediment provides a stream should support the propagation and growth of transport vector for bound nutrients, heavy metals, a balanced indigenous population of aquatic life Paper No. JAWRA-17-0153-P of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). Received November 28, 2017; accepted July 19, 2018. © 2018 American Water Resources Association. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Discussions are open until six months from issue publication. Maryland-Delaware-DC Water Science Center (Gellis, Gorman Sanisaca), U.S. Geological Survey, Baltimore, Maryland, USA (Correspon- dence to Gellis: [email protected]). Citation: Gellis, A.C., and L. Gorman Sanisaca. 2018. “Sediment Fingerprinting to Delineate Sources of Sediment in the Agricultural and Forested Smith Creek Watershed, Virginia, USA.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752- 1688.12680. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1 JAWRA GELLIS AND GORMAN SANISACA (VADEQ 2009). The primary stressor on the aquatic beds) (Gellis and Walling 2011; Gellis et al. 2016). Dif- community was identified as sediment. In 2004, a ferentiating between these two broad categories (up- Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was developed land and channel sources) is important because for Smith Creek to reduce sediment loadings (VADEQ sediment-reduction management strategies differ by 2009). The successful mitigation of sediment-related source and require very different approaches — reduc- impairments requires knowledge of the contribution ing agricultural sources may involve soil conservation of sediment from its various sources. and tilling practices, whereas reducing channel sources Attempting to relate sediment to its sources is a of sediment may involve stream restoration, bank stabi- difficult task. Approaches for estimating sediment lization, and (or) grade control to arrest downcutting. sources include sediment budget studies (Gellis and The objective of this study was to identify the relative Walling 2011; Gellis et al. 2016), geographic informa- contributions of sediment from cropland, pasture, for- tion system (GIS) and photogrammetric analysis (Fer- est, and streambanks in the Smith Creek watershed nandez et al. 2003; Curtis et al. 2005; Roering et al. using the sediment fingerprinting approach. 2013; Hackney and Clayton 2015; Gellis et al. 2016), models (Aksoy and Cavvas 2005; USEPA 2008), and the use of geochemical tracers or fingerprints (Wall- ing 2005; Gellis and Walling 2011; Mukundan et al. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2012; Collins et al. 2017). Each of these approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. Sediment bud- get approaches often rely on field measurements, Study Area which can provide useful data on erosion and deposi- tion rates, but are labor intensive, and can be spa- Smith Creek drains the Valley and Ridge Province tially limited. Photogrammetry/GIS analysis and in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with land use in model analysis, although less intensive in terms of the area draining to the downstream station (in labor and time, may produce a wide range of results 2011) consisting of forest, 48%; pasture, 41%; devel- that need to be validated with data collected from the oped, 8%; and cropland, 3% (Figure 1) (Homer et al. watershed of interest. Ground-based and airborne 2015). The area draining to the downstream station lidar, as well as structure-from-motion photogramme- is underlain by dolostone and limestone (66%) and try with handheld cameras and unmanned aerial sys- sandstone and shale (34%) (Dicken et al. 2005). Ele- tems (drones), are being increasingly used to describe vations range from 270 m at the lower reaches to channel morphology and topographic change (Faux 890 m in the Massanutten Mountains on the eastern et al. 2009; Caroti et al. 2013; Roering et al. 2013; side of the watershed. In the area draining to the Caroti et al. 2015). The resultant scans, point clouds, upstream station, land use in 2011 was crop 2%; pas- and digital elevation maps can be overlain chronologi- ture 30%; forest 66%; and other 2% (Homer et al. cally to quantify the erosion and deposition of various 2015), and bedrock is 58% dolostone/limestone and channel sources. However, these techniques often 42% sandstone/shale (Dicken et al. 2005). Average require field validation and the representation of annual daily discharge recorded at the U.S. Geologi- morphological elements requires a high point density cal Survey (USGS) gage, 1961–2016, was 2.14 m3/s with large data processing demands. In addition, res- (USGS 2016). Precipitation in the watershed mea- olution and scale may restrict the applicability of sured at the Dale Enterprise rain station near Har- these techniques to quantify topsoil erosion and ulti- risonburg, Virginia, averaged 915 mm/yr with mately do not quantify the delivery of these sediment temperatures ranging from a July mean of 23°Ctoa sources out of the watershed. January mean of 0.44°C (University of North Caro- Sediment fingerprinting is an approach that has lina 2012). Most portions of Smith Creek are mean- been increasingly utilized to assist managers in identi- dering, pool-riffle systems on gravel to sand beds fying sources of sediment in a watershed (Collins, with occasional bedrock outcrops. Varying thick- Walling, et al. 2010; Mukundan et al. 2012; Miller nesses of sediment in channel storage (on the channel et al. 2015; Collins et al. 2017). The sediment finger- bed) were observed at select reaches, most noticeably printing approach entails the identification of specific in pools. Fine sediment was also present within the sediment sources through the establishment of a mini- interstitial coarse substrate. mal set of physical and (or) chemical properties that uniquely define each source in the watershed. In gen- eral, sediment fingerprinting results can provide infor- The Sediment Fingerprinting Approach mation on the relative contribution of upland (soil erosion from various land use and land cover types) The sediment fingerprinting approach provides a vs. channel contributions (streambanks and channel direct method for quantifying watershed sources of JAWRA 2 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION SEDIMENT FINGERPRINTING TO DELINEATE SOURCES OF SEDIMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTED SMITH CREEK WATERSHED,VIRGINIA, USA 78° Watershed boundary draining to F17 35' the North Fork Shenandoah River F16 F9 F18 38°45' B20 C1 C7 38°45' B2 P1 P20 C8 C12 P15 B16 P8 B7 B5 Smith Creek B6B F8 Watershed B4 C6 F10 B17 F11 B3 78° B8 F19 40' 38°40' C19 B9 C2 C3 38°40' Watershed boundary draining to the USGS station B18 C13 P2 B10 P9 EXPLANATION P3 C9 Land-use Sample points P10 C15 class source type B19 P15 P17 C14 Other Bank P7 B11 38°35' P11 Cropland Crop P12 P16 C16 C10 Urban Forest 38°35' F14 B15 F3 Forest Pasture 78° F13 Pasture 45' P18 F12 C18 P4 F20 F5 C11 Watershed boundary F4 F2 draining to Fridley’s Gap P14 F7 B12 38°30' B13 P5 F6 P19 P13 B14 P6 F1 C20 C17 38°30' B21 C4 78° 40' C5 02 4 8 KILOMETERS 78° 45' Base from NAD 1983 USGS Albers Equal Area Conic Land use data from Fry , 2011 02 4 8 MILES FIGURE 1. Source sample locations land use in 2011 of Smith Creek, Virginia Watershed (letter and number indicate sample ID; with letter denoting source type).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan
    Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Smith Creek Planning Initiative Working Partners New Hanover County Planning City of Wilmington Planning City of Wilmington Stormwater Services New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District UNCW Coastal Land Trust North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program North Carolina Coastal Federation Cape Fear River Watch Watershed Management Advisory Board Members William Caster, New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Don Cooke, Progress Energy Carlton Fisher, Coastal Realty Company William F. Gage, Smith-Gage Architects Clark Hipp – Hipp + Best Architects John Jefferies – Jefferies & Faris Architects Brenda McDonald – First Mortgage Corporation Shelly Miller – New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District Laura Padgett – Wilmington City Council Larry Sneeden – ESP Associates Watershed Management Advisory Board Technical Committee Members Shawn Ralston, New Hanover County Planning Department Phil Prete, City of Wilmington Planning Department Shelly Miller, New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District Jennifer Butler, City of Wilmington Stormwater Services Nicole Miller, Airlie Gardens Environmental Education Program Matthew Collogan, Airlie Gardens Environmental Education Program Kristen Miguez, North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Mike Mallin, UNCW Center for Marine Sciences Nancy Preston, Coastal Land Trust Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Creek Watershed
    Smith Creek Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Showcase Watershed 43 percent of this intensively farmed watershed is agricultural land with significant amounts of cropland (5,713 acres) and hayland (13,105 acres). Supporting State Goals NRCS is partnering with more than 20 groups and organizations in the watershed to improve water quality and support the current Smith Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan. Best management practices to address resource concerns include installing riparian buffers, cover crops, rotational Overview Smith Creek Profile grazing and alternative watering systems; constructing waste storage In 2010, USDA’s Natural Resources The Shenandoah Valley is home to 75 facilities; excluding livestock from Conservation Service (NRCS) percent of Virginia’s poultry operations streams; and implementing nutrient established three showcase water- and approximately 46 percent of its management practices. sheds to demonstrate what can be dairies. This concentration of animal accomplished when people and groups farms has contributed to nitrogen, Smith Creek is the only small come together to solve natural resource phosphorus, sediment and bacteria agricultural watershed in Virginia where problems in a targeted area. pollution in local streams, the the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers, is monitoring progress as BMPs are The goal of the project was to reduce and the Chesapeake Bay. installed. USGS collects river samples nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment from the Smith Creek watershed contributions from soil erosion, over- The Smith Creek Watershed covers application of nutrients, poor pasture 67,335 acres and includes four sub- management and uncontrolled animal watersheds: Dry Fork, Mountain Run, access to streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Map 2.1 Overall Map Move
    WILMINGTON/NEW HANOVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE GREENWAY PLAN Northside Park Robert Strange Greensboro Park Park Optimist Johnnie Mercers Park Pier Legion Stadium Masonboro Island Coastal Resreve Snows Cut Park 2-5 | CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP 2.1 OVERALL MAP MOVE. PLAY. CONNECT. WILMINGTON/NEW HANOVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE GREENWAY PLAN This map displays some highlights from comments collected during steering committee meetings that took place in early 2012. GE Wilmington employs more than 2,000 people in its Castle Hayne facility1. The University of North Carolina at Wilmington employs over 1,800 faculty and staff, teaching over 2 The Riverwalk is a scenic 13,000 students each year . boardwalk along the east bank of the Cape Fear River in downtown Wilmington. It provides a place to stroll along the water minutes from the buildings, restaurants, and Middle Sound Loop Rd. is a shops forming the heart of popular on-road recreation downtown. destination. The Forest Hills Loop is a popular walking and jogging destination just east of downtown. The loop is approximately three miles in length and passes by the Wilmington “The Loop” around Wrightsville Beach YMCA and Beaumont Park. is a popular walking and jogging destination near the ocean. The Loop is formed by a concrete sidewalk varying in width from 5’ to 10’ and passes by scenic views of the sound, as well as New Hanover Regional Medical by the shops and restaurants forming Center is a major economic driver the commercial district along Lumina in the region, with more than 4,000 Avenue. employees3. The shopping center at the junction of College Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Non Minimum Roads by Watershed Condition Class
    Non Minimum Roads by Watershed Condition Class USFS_COND Not Associated with a Watershed RTE_NO ROUTE_NAME Length HUC12_NAME FH561.1 VA.623 1.49 FH561.2 VA.623 2.864371 FH598 VA.818&VA.682 0.020837 FH554 VA.625 1.678439 444C MILAM 0.013939 265 DRY RIVER WORK CENTER 0.019088 265A DRY RIVER WORK CENTER 0.049903 4040 TENN 0.227884 49030 SUGAR CAMP 0.463635 4041 VALLEY 0.076535 FH580 VA.663 2.7653 FH WV589 CO15, CO15/3 0.354756 USFS_COND Functioning at Risk RTE_NO ROUTE_NAME Length HUC12_NAME 765B SNAKE DEN SPUR 0.212038 Elk Creek-James River 35 PETITES GAP 0.03242 Otter Creek-James River 35 PETITES GAP 3.982893 Elk Creek-James River 361C CIGAR RIDGE 1.10046 Mill Creek-Cowpasture River 39 PEDLAR RIVER 6.768137 Lynchburg Reservoir-Pedlar River 39 PEDLAR RIVER 5.554507 Browns Creek-Pedlar River 1037 BROAD RUN 0.747509 Skidmore Fork-North River 104E PATTERSON R-O-W 0.193824 Upper South River 10800 HAZELNUT 0.625286 Trout Creek-Craig Creek 10800A HAZELNUT SPUR A 0.331626 Trout Creek-Craig Creek P7 PATTERSON SPECIAL USE 0.295912 Mill Creek-Craig Creek 225A BLACKS RUN 2.506454 Black Run-Dry River 39E THIRTEEN CROSSINGS 3.42817 Browns Creek-Pedlar River 1283 CAL CLARK 0.172632 Upper South River 1283 CAL CLARK 1.313025 Irish Creek FH589 VA.636 3.465131 Upper Johns Creek FH563 VA.615 8.545137 Hunting Camp Creek FH575 VA.641 2.385472 Tract Fork 1584A SPICK AND SPAN SPUR 0.306516 Buffalo Branch-Middle River 151R STONEY SWAMP SALE 0.322371 Rough Run-South Fork South Branch Potomac River 151R STONEY SWAMP SALE 0.458325 Hawes Run-South Fork South Branch
    [Show full text]
  • Table 5-4B: List of Virginia Non-Shellfish NPS TMDL Implementation Planning Projects Through 2019
    Table 5-4b: List of Virginia Non-Shellfish NPS TMDL Implementation Planning Projects through 2019 EPA Hydrologic Impairment TMDL IP NAME Approval Impaired Water Unit Cause Year Basin: Atlantic Ocean Coastal Mill Creek, Northampton County NS Mill Creek AO21 Dissolved Oxygen, Mill Creek, Northampton County NS Mill Creek AO21 pH Basin: Albemarle Sound Coastal North Landing Watershed (including Milldam, Middle, West NS West Neck Creek - Middle AS14 Bacteria Neck and Nanney Creeks) North Landing Watershed (including Milldam, Middle, West NS Milldam Creek - Lower AS17 Bacteria Neck and Nanney Creeks) Basin: Big Sandy River Knox Creek and Pawpaw Creek 2013 Knox Creek BS04 Bacteria, 2013 Knox Creek BS04 Sediment 2013 Guess Fork BS05 Bacteria, 2013 Guess Fork BS05 Sediment 2013 Pawpaw Creek BS06 Bacteria, 2013 Pawpaw Creek BS06 Sediment 2013 Knox Creek BS07 Bacteria, 2013 Knox Creek BS07 Sediment Basin: Chesapeake Bay-Small Coastal Piankatank River, Gwynns Island, Milford Haven 2014 Carvers Creek CB10 Bacteria Basin: Chowan River Chowan River Watershed Submitted Nottoway River CU01 Bacteria Submitted Big Hounds Creek CU03 Bacteria Submitted Nottoway River CU04 Bacteria Submitted Carys Creek CU05 Bacteria Submitted Lazaretto Creek CU05 Bacteria Submitted Mallorys Creek CU05 Bacteria Submitted Little Nottoway River CU06 Bacteria Submitted Whetstone Creek CU06 Bacteria Submitted Little Nottoway River CU07 Bacteria Submitted Beaver Pond Creek CU11 Bacteria Submitted Raccoon Creek CU35 Bacteria Three Creek, Mill Swamp, Darden Mill Run 2014 Maclins
    [Show full text]
  • Class G Tables of Geographic Cutter Numbers: Maps -- by Region Or
    G3862 SOUTHERN STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G3862 FEATURES, ETC. .C55 Clayton Aquifer .C6 Coasts .E8 Eutaw Aquifer .G8 Gulf Intracoastal Waterway .L6 Louisville and Nashville Railroad 525 G3867 SOUTHEASTERN STATES. REGIONS, NATURAL G3867 FEATURES, ETC. .C5 Chattahoochee River .C8 Cumberland Gap National Historical Park .C85 Cumberland Mountains .F55 Floridan Aquifer .G8 Gulf Islands National Seashore .H5 Hiwassee River .J4 Jefferson National Forest .L5 Little Tennessee River .O8 Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail 526 G3872 SOUTHEAST ATLANTIC STATES. REGIONS, G3872 NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. .B6 Blue Ridge Mountains .C5 Chattooga River .C52 Chattooga River [wild & scenic river] .C6 Coasts .E4 Ellicott Rock Wilderness Area .N4 New River .S3 Sandhills 527 G3882 VIRGINIA. REGIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, ETC. G3882 .A3 Accotink, Lake .A43 Alexanders Island .A44 Alexandria Canal .A46 Amelia Wildlife Management Area .A5 Anna, Lake .A62 Appomattox River .A64 Arlington Boulevard .A66 Arlington Estate .A68 Arlington House, the Robert E. Lee Memorial .A7 Arlington National Cemetery .A8 Ash-Lawn Highland .A85 Assawoman Island .A89 Asylum Creek .B3 Back Bay [VA & NC] .B33 Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge .B35 Baker Island .B37 Barbours Creek Wilderness .B38 Barboursville Basin [geologic basin] .B39 Barcroft, Lake .B395 Battery Cove .B4 Beach Creek .B43 Bear Creek Lake State Park .B44 Beech Forest .B454 Belle Isle [Lancaster County] .B455 Belle Isle [Richmond] .B458 Berkeley Island .B46 Berkeley Plantation .B53 Big Bethel Reservoir .B542 Big Island [Amherst County] .B543 Big Island [Bedford County] .B544 Big Island [Fluvanna County] .B545 Big Island [Gloucester County] .B547 Big Island [New Kent County] .B548 Big Island [Virginia Beach] .B55 Blackwater River .B56 Bluestone River [VA & WV] .B57 Bolling Island .B6 Booker T.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Fish Species at Risk
    Black Creek Innis Lake Stonywood Luther Marsh Twenty Five Hill Luther Dam Caledon East Hamilton Island Melville Hill Star Grand River Fraxa Junction Melville Pond Mono Road Melville Clare Morrow's Hill McLeodville Distribution of Fish Monck 136 Windmill Island ¤£ The Horse Shoe North Bog Garafraxa Woods Warnock Lake Caledon Hills Luther Marsh Conservation Area Tarbert East Bay McCallum's Pond Silver Creek Luther Lake Caledon Lake Little Credit River Species at Risk Prairie Island Amaranth Station Caledon Village Big Island The Maples Cressview Lakes Mud Lake Stonehouse Island Wilcox Conservation Area Alton Caledon Creek Caledon Mountain Kilmanagh Grand River Bethel Creek The Pinnacle South Bog Grand Valley Grand River Derrynane WaldemaWr illow Brook Charles Sauriol Conservation Area Mainland's IslandLuther Marsh Green Lake Conservation Authority Boyne Creek Four Mile Creek Credit River Alton Branch (Map 1 of 4) Damascus 25 Sligo ¤£ Coulterville Mount View Cataract Sligo Hill Peepabun Forks of the Credit Provincial Park Little Credit River Claude RiverstownSmoky Creek Four Mile Creek Brimstone Devils Pulpit Inglewood Gordonville Forks of the Credit 10 Reading Dufferin Lake ¤£ Victoria Credit River (Erin Branch) Kenilworth Binkham Arthur North Airfield Green Park Marsville Belfountain Boston Mills Smoky Hollow The Grange Ferndale Prices Corner Hereward Belwood Lake Conservation Area Cheltenham Petherton Hillsburgh Credit River (Erin Branch) Arthur East Airfield Credit River Smoky Creek Mitchell's Creek Credit River (Erin Branch)
    [Show full text]
  • Cruising Itineraries from Solomons Island, MD
    June 2007 Cruising Itineraries from Solomons Island, MD Just inside the mouth of the Patuxent River, Solomons Island, Maryland is not only one of the top cruising destinations on the Chesapeake Bay, but truly the gateway to cruising the Middle Bay. Whether you’re looking for a daysail or full week’s cruising, we recommend several itineraries to consider in your planning. Most are very “do-able” in a mid-size cruising sailboat with 4-6’ draft. Naturally, your boat, crew skills/interests and the weather all play significant roles in your cruise planning, so flexibility is key. Plan ahead, use up-to- date charts and weather information, and call ahead for local conditions and marina reservations where possible. Items of Note: Solomons location: N 38º 19.58’ W 076º 27.62’ Reference Charts: Solomons, Patuxent River: Chart 12264 Southern Potomac River: Chart 12285 Crisfield, Smith, Tangier: Chart 12228 Reedville, Rappahannock: Chart 12235 Herring Bay, Knapps Narrows: Chart 12266 Choptank: Chart 12263 South River, Eastern Bay: Chart 12270 Annapolis: Chart 12282 Weather links: http://www.sailsi.com/weather.htm Note: Distances: listed in nautical miles, and are approximate on navigable path Chartlets: used for illustration purposes, and not to be used for navigation 1 June 2007 Daysails* from Solomons Island, MD 1 Lighthouse Tour: Drum Point, Cove Point, Hooper Island Lighthouses, return (28 nm) 2 To Hooper Island Lighthouse, return (22 nm) 3 To Point No Point Lighthouse, return (32 nm) 4 To Cove Point Lighthouse, return (15 nm) 5 Up Patuxent River to Broomes Island, return (19 nm) 6 Up Patuxent River to Vera’s, St Leonard Creek, return (18 nm) 7 Race: Whatever boat is nearby! Broomes Vera’s Island Cove Point Lighthouse Hooper Island Lighthouse Point No Point Lighthouse * All distances approximate, round trip from Solomons 2 Chart used for illustration purposes; not to be used for navigation.
    [Show full text]
  • M a R Y L a N D V I R G I N
    300 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 3, Chapter 12 26 SEP 2021 77°20'W 77°W 76°40'W 76°20'W 39°N Annapolis Washington D.C. 12289 Alexandria PISCATAWAY CREEK 38°40'N MARYLAND 12288 MATTAWOMAN CREEK PATUXENT RIVER PORT TOBACCO RIVER NANJEMOY CREEK 12285 WICOMICO 12286 RIVER 38°20'N ST. CLEMENTS BAY UPPER MACHODOC CREEK 12287 MATTOX CREEK POTOMAC RIVER ST. MARYS RIVER POPES CREEK NOMINI BAY YEOCOMICO RIVER Point Lookout COAN RIVER 38°N RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Smith VIRGINIA Point 12233 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 3—Chapter 12 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 26 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 3, Chapter 12 ¢ 301 Chesapeake Bay, Potomac River (1) This chapter describes the Potomac River and the above the mouth; thence the controlling depth through numerous tributaries that empty into it; included are the dredged cuts is about 18 feet to Hains Point. The Coan, St. Marys, Yeocomico, Wicomico and Anacostia channels are maintained at or near project depths. For Rivers. Also described are the ports of Washington, DC, detailed channel information and minimum depths as and Alexandria and several smaller ports and landings on reported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), these waterways. use NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts. Surveys and (2) channel condition reports are available through a USACE COLREGS Demarcation Lines hydrographic survey website listed in Appendix A. (3) The lines established for Chesapeake Bay are (12) described in 33 CFR 80.510, chapter 2. Anchorages (13) Vessels bound up or down the river anchor anywhere (4) ENCs - US5VA22M, US5VA27M, US5MD41M, near the channel where the bottom is soft; vessels US5MD43M, US5MD44M, US4MD40M, US5MD40M sometimes anchor in Cornfield Harbor or St.
    [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]
  • Brian L. Benham, Phd Dept
    Brian L. Benham, PhD Dept. Biological Systems Engineering; Virginia Tech 209 Seitz Hall, 155 Ag Quad Lane, Blacksburg, VA 20461 Office: 540-231-5705; Cell: 540.230.7763; Email: [email protected] Professional Preparation Subject Year Texas A&M Ag Engineering B.S. 1986 Texas A&M Ag Engineering M.S. 1990 University of Tennessee Ag Engineering Ph.D. 1995 Appointments 2014 to present Professor and Extension Specialist (75% Extension/25% Research), Dept. Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. 2007 – 2014 Associate Professor and Extension Specialist (75% Extension/25% Research), Dept. Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA. 2001 – 2007 Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist (75% Extension/25% Research), Dept. Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA. 1996 – 2001 Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist (50% Extension/50% Research), Dept. Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Stationed at South Central Research and Extension Center, Clay Center, NE 1993-1996 Project Chief and Hydrologist, United States Geological Survey Tennessee District, Knoxville, TN Awards 2014 Virginia Cooperative Extension Program Excellence Award for achieving excellence in "Program Evaluation" 2014 Virginia Tech Alumni Association Award for Excellence in Extension (Specialist) 2013 ASABE Technical Journals Outstanding Reviewer; Soil and Water Division 2012 Gamma Sigma Delta (Agriculture Honor Society) Faculty Extension Award 2011 USDA-NIFA Project of Excellence Integrated
    [Show full text]