DOCSLIB.ORG

Statewide Analysis of Brook Trout (Salvelinus Fontinalis ) Population Status and Reach-Scale Conservation Priorities in West Virginia Watersheds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports 2008 Statewide analysis of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis ) population status and reach-scale conservation priorities in West Virginia Watersheds Jason W. Clingerman West Virginia University Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Clingerman, Jason W., "Statewide analysis of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis ) population status and reach-scale conservation priorities in West Virginia Watersheds" (2008). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 2606. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/2606 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Statewide Analysis of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Population Status and Reach-Scale Conservation Priorities in West Virginia Watersheds Jason W. Clingerman A Thesis Submitted to the Davis College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Sciences at West Virginia University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Wildlife and Fisheries Resources J. Todd Petty, Ph.D., Chair Patricia M. Mazik, Ph.D. Mike Shingleton, M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Program of the Division of Forestry and Natural Resources Morgantown, West Virginia 2008 Keywords: Brook Trout, GIS, Landscape, Predictive Modeling, Classification Trees, Restoration, Ecology Abstract Statewide Analysis of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Population Status and Reach-Scale Conservation Priorities in West Virginia watersheds Jason W. Clingerman The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) was formed to implement range-wide strategies that sustain healthy, fishable brook trout populations. Hudy et al. (2006) recently completed a comprehensive analysis of eastern brook trout distributions representing a critical first step towards fully integrating brook trout conservation efforts in this region. This study was designed to supplement and complement existing data on brook trout distributions and status within West Virginia. We examined recently obtained data for the entire state to update the EBTJV distributional map published in Hudy et al. (2006). We then used fish sample data along with GIS-acquired landscape data to create models to predict and extrapolate brook trout distributions and population types within the historical distribution of brook trout within West Virginia. We also used these data to identify critical reach scale priorities for brook trout protection, restoration and enhancement. iii Executive Summary Introduction Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Appalachians have a long history of decline and range reduction from physical, chemical, and biological alterations of habitat due to anthropogenic perturbations (Marschall and Crowder 1996, Yarnell 1998, Boward et al. 1999). In the Appalachians, many contributing impacts have combined to cause reduction in brook trout populations and distribution (Marschall and Crowder 1996). Habitat fragmentation (Belford and Gould 1989, Gibson et al. 2005, Poplar-Jeffers 2005), sedimentation (Curry and MacNeill 2004), increased water temperature (Johnson and Jones 2000, Curry et al. 2002), agriculture and forestry practices (King 1938, Curry et al. 2002, Nislow and Lowe 2003, Baldigo et al. 2005), acid rain (Baker et al. 1996, Van Sickle et al. 1996, Baldigo and Murdoch 1997, Driscoll et al. 2001, Baldigo et al. 2005), acid mine drainage, urbanization, poor riparian habitat/management, and the introduction of exotics (King 1938, Larson and Moore 1983, Waters 1983, Larson et al. 1995, Southerland et al. 2005) have all contributed to declines in native brook trout across their native range. Recently, studies by Hudy et al. (2005), and Theiling (2006) analyzed eastern brook trout populations at the “subwatershed” scale. A subwatershed was a 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). These large watersheds (average size = 86.3 km2) provided coarse-scale population status for the entire region, but lacked the resolution necessary to provide detailed information about brook trout population status. Dunning et al. (1992) emphasized the development of intermediate or landscape scale studies. They define a landscape as a mosaic of habitat patches in which a particular patch (focal patch) is embedded. Landscapes would be of different sizes for different organisms, but would iv be of a size between an organism’s normal home range and the species’ regional distribution (Dunning et al. 1992). This scale of study links local microscale studies with large regional or global assessments. A study of this scale focusing on brook trout could give managers essential information on the viability and status of populations across this landscape scale. For the brook trout this could enable further development of management and restoration strategies as well as pinpoint strategic areas to implement these methods for maximum recovery of the landscape- scale population. In order to more effectively address recovery of brook trout populations, we must address the differences in brook trout populations across the landscape scale. Petty et al. (2005) studied spatio-temporal variation in the distribution of brook trout within the upper Shavers Fork, a 12- digit HUC located in east-central West Virginia found that throughout the study watershed, population structure differed from reach to reach. They found that small, alkaline tributaries were nonsubstitutable, source habitats (Schlosser and Angermeier 1995) that acted as spawning areas where abundances of juvenile brook trout were high and seasonally stable. They found that large adult brook trout were substantially more mobile and utilized the larger stream habitats during spring and summer but moved back into small streams to spawn. Understanding these processes and identifying population types across the landscape are critical steps to fully understand brook trout population dynamics and for restoration at a landscape scale. Given the above concerns, we designed this study to supplement and complement existing data on brook trout distributions and status within West Virginia. We decided to use landscape-scale variables to assess and predict brook trout status at the local (reach) scale. We assessed brook trout population types, presence/absence, densities, and conservation priorities. v Methods First, we examined recently obtained data for 265 sites from across the entire state to update the EBTJV distributional map published in Hudy et al. (2005). We then used this fish sample data along with GIS-acquired landscape data (landcover, geology, drainage area, elevation) to create models to predict and extrapolate brook trout distributions and population types within the historical distribution of brook trout within West Virginia. We also analyzed landscape data to detect thresholds important in determining brook trout presence/absence. Lastly, we also used these data to identify critical reach scale priorities for brook trout protection, restoration and enhancement. Results EBTJV Status Update We found that the majority of the time, the EBTJV status was correct, but were able to reclassify 9 of the 29 subwatersheds we sampled that were previously deemed extirpated. For the remaining 20 subwatersheds, we confirmed that brook trout were indeed extirpated. From this sampling, we conclude that of the original 454 subwatersheds believed to have supported brook trout populations historically, brook trout are now extirpated from 281, present at highly reduced levels in 144, present in reduced levels in 19, and intact in only 5 subwatersheds. We used the results of this study to produce a final updated map of brook trout population status at the 12-digit HUC scale throughout the state of West Virginia. Brook Trout Population Status We found that we were able to correctly classify brook trout presence/absence in approximately 75% of independently sampled streams. Cross-validated models predicting brook trout population types and densities were also effective. The model predicting population types vi had a 61% average cross-validated misclassification rate, but had a cross-validated error rate of less than 1 (0.973) which indicates the model improved up choosing population types at random. The density models had explained 18.8 – 94% of the variation in the data; the average variance explained was 47.1%. Threshold Analysis We analyzed landscape data and found the following threshold ranges important in determining brook trout presence/absence: > 80 – 92% forest, < 2 – 12% agriculture, < 5 – 7% developed, < 45 km2 drainage area, > 400 – 700 m minimum elevation, and < 4% mining intensity. Brook Trout Conservation Priorities We found that 15% of the study area was assigned a protection priority, 3% was assigned a restoration priority and <1% of the study area was classified as a reintroduction priority. We also assessed the
Recommended publications
  • Barry Mackintosh Park History Program National Park Service

    Barry Mackintosh Park History Program National Park Service

    GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY Barry Mackintosh Park History Program National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 1996 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 I. THE MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY • • • 7 II. THE CAPPER-CRAMTON ACT 21 III. EXPANDING THE PARKWAY, 1931-1952 • 33 IV. EXPANDING THE PARKWAY, 1952-1970 57 V. THE UNFINISHED PARKWAY. 87 VI. ARLINGTON HOUSE .•• . • 117 VII. THEODORE ROOSEVELT ISLAND . • 133 VIII. OTHER ADDITIONS AND SUBTRACTIONS • . • • . 147 Fort Hunt •.. • • . • • . • • . 147 Jones Point . • • . • • . • . • • . • • . • • • . 150 Dyke Marsh and Daingerfield Island . • • • . • • . • 153 Arlington Memorial Bridge, Memorial Drive, and Columbia Island • . • • • • • • . • • • • . • . • 164 The Nevius Tract • • . • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • 176 Merrywood and the Riverfront Above Chain Bridge • • • . 184 Fort Marcy . • • • • . • • • • . • • . • • • . 187 The Langley Tract and Turkey Run Farm • • • • . • • • 188 Glen Echo Park and Clara Barton National Historic site • 190 GWMP Loses Ground • • • . • • • • .. • . • • . • • • 197 INTRODUCTION The George Washington Memorial Parkway is among the most complex and unusual units of the national park system. The GWMP encompasses some 7,428 acres in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. For reasons that will later be explained, a small part of this acreage is not administered by its superintendent, and a greater amount of land formerly within GWMP now lies within another national park unit. Some of the GWMP acreage the superintendent administers is commonly known by other names, like Great Falls Park in Virginia and Glen Echo Park in Maryland. While most national park units may be characterized as predominantly natural, historical, or recreational, GWMP comprises such a diverse array of natural, historic, and recreational resources that it defies any such categorization. Further complicating matters, GWMP's superintendent also administers four other areas classed as discrete national park units-Arlington House, The Robert E.
  • 02070001 South Branch Potomac 01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin, WV 01606000 N F South Br Potomac R at Cabins, WV 01606500 So

    02070001 South Branch Potomac 01605500 South Branch Potomac River at Franklin, WV 01606000 N F South Br Potomac R at Cabins, WV 01606500 So

    Appendix D Active Stream Flow Gauging Stations In West Virginia Active Stream Flow Gauging Stations In West Virginia 02070001 South Branch Potomac 01605500 South Branch Potomac River At Franklin, WV 01606000 N F South Br Potomac R At Cabins, WV 01606500 So. Branch Potomac River Nr Petersburg, WV 01606900 South Mill Creek Near Mozer, WV 01607300 Brushy Fork Near Sugar Grove, WV 01607500 So Fk So Br Potomac R At Brandywine, WV 01608000 So Fk South Branch Potomac R Nr Moorefield, WV 01608070 South Branch Potomac River Near Moorefield, WV 01608500 South Branch Potomac River Near Springfield, WV 02070002 North Branch Potomac 01595200 Stony River Near Mount Storm,WV 01595800 North Branch Potomac River At Barnum, WV 01598500 North Branch Potomac River At Luke, Md 01600000 North Branch Potomac River At Pinto, Md 01604500 Patterson Creek Near Headsville, WV 01605002 Painter Run Near Fort Ashby, WV 02070003 Cacapon-Town 01610400 Waites Run Near Wardensville, WV 01611500 Cacapon River Near Great Cacapon, WV 02070004 Conococheague-Opequon 01613020 Unnamed Trib To Warm Spr Run Nr Berkeley Spr, WV 01614000 Back Creek Near Jones Springs, WV 01616500 Opequon Creek Near Martinsburg, WV 02070007 Shenandoah 01636500 Shenandoah River At Millville, WV 05020001 Tygart Valley 03050000 Tygart Valley River Near Dailey, WV 03050500 Tygart Valley River Near Elkins, WV 03051000 Tygart Valley River At Belington, WV 03052000 Middle Fork River At Audra, WV 03052450 Buckhannon R At Buckhannon, WV 03052500 Sand Run Near Buckhannon, WV 03053500 Buckhannon River At Hall, WV 03054500 Tygart Valley River At Philippi, WV Page D 1 of D 5 Active Stream Flow Gauging Stations In West Virginia 03055500 Tygart Lake Nr Grafton, WV 03056000 Tygart Valley R At Tygart Dam Nr Grafton, WV 03056250 Three Fork Creek Nr Grafton, WV 03057000 Tygart Valley River At Colfax, WV 05020002 West Fork 03057300 West Fork River At Walkersville, WV 03057900 Stonewall Jackson Lake Near Weston, WV 03058000 West Fork R Bl Stonewall Jackson Dam Nr Weston 03058020 West Fork River At Weston, WV 03058500 W.F.
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014

    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014

    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
  • The Cacapon Settlement: 1749-1800 31

    The Cacapon Settlement: 1749-1800 31

    THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 5 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 The existence of a settlement of Brethren families in the Cacapon River Valley of eastern Hampshire County in present day West Virginia has been unknown and uninvestigated until the present time. That a congregation of Brethren existed there in colonial times cannot now be denied, for sufficient evidence has been accumulated to reveal its presence at least by the 1760s and perhaps earlier. Because at this early date, Brethren churches and ministers did not keep records, details of this church cannot be recovered. At most, contemporary researchers can attempt to identify the families which have the highest probability of being of Brethren affiliation. Even this is difficult due to lack of time and resources. The research program for many of these families is incomplete, and this chapter is offered tentatively as a basis for additional research. Some attempted identifications will likely be incorrect. As work went forward on the Brethren settlements in the western and southern parts of old Hampshire County, it became clear that many families in the South Branch, Beaver Run and Pine churches had relatives who had lived in the Cacapon River Valley. Numerous families had moved from that valley to the western part of the county, and intermarriages were also evident. Land records revealed a large number of family names which were common on the South Branch, Patterson Creek, Beaver Run and Mill Creek areas. In many instances, the names appeared first on the Cacapon and later in the western part of the county.
  • Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014

    Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014

    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Joanne Throwe, Deputy Secretary Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 The Potomac River watershed includes area in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Washington D.C. For the purpose of this report, the basin is divided into four regions: the Upper Potomac, Shenandoah, Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac (Figure 1). Land use in the upper Potomac River watershed was estimated to be 69% forest and 22% agriculture (Figure 1, Table 1).1 The Upper Potomac watershed is largely within West Virginia (54%), with other portions in Pennsylvania (22%), Maryland (18%) and Virginia (7%). Impervious surfaces cover 1% of the Maryland potion of the Upper river basin (Table 1).2 Land use in the Shenandoah watershed was estimated to be 56% forest and 34% agriculture. The Shenandoah watershed is almost entirely in Virginia (96%), with a small area in West Virginia (4%). Land use in the Middle Potomac watershed was estimated to be 44% agriculture, 32% forest and 20% developed. The Middle Potomac watershed includes areas in Maryland (55%), Virginia (34%), Pennsylvania (13%) and Washington D.C. (0.1%). Impervious surfaces cover 7% of the Maryland potion of the Middle river basin. Land use in the Lower Potomac watershed was estimated to be 41% forest, 30% developed, and 16% agriculture. The Lower Potomac watershed includes Figure 1 Potomac River basin Top panel shows state boundaries and the individual watersheds. Bottom panel shows the land use throughout the basin for 2011.1 Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 1 areas in Virginia (56%), Maryland (42%) and Washington D.C.
  • Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!

    Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!

    American Council of Engineering Companies of Metropolitan Washington Water & Wastewater Business Opportunities Networking Luncheon Presented by Matthew Doyle, Branch Chief, Wastewater Design and Construction Division Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You! A Fairfax County, VA, publication August 20, 2019 Introduction • Matt Doyle, PE, CCM • Working as a Civil Engineer at Fairfax County, DPWES • BSCE West Virginia University • MSCE Johns Hopkins University • 25 years in the industry (Mid‐Atlantic Only) • Adjunct Hydraulics Professor at GMU • Director GMU‐EFID (Student Organization) Presentation Objectives • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization (Staff) • Snapshot of our Current Projects • New Opportunities To work with DPWES • Use of Technologies and Trends • Helpful Hyperlinks Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Wastewater Collection System • 3,400 Miles of Sanitary Sewer (Average Age 60 years old) • 61 Pumping Stations (flow ranges are from 25 GPM to 25 MGD) • 90 Flow Meters (Mostly billing meters) • 135 Grinder pumps • Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant • Noman M. Cole Pollution Control Plant, Lorton • 67 MGD • Laboratory • Reclaimed Water Reuse System • 6.6 MGD • 2 Pump Stations • 0.750 MG Storage Tank • Level 1 Compliance • Convanta, Golf Course and Ball Fields Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization • Wastewater Management Program (Three Areas) – Planning & Monitoring: • Financial,
  • West Virginia Trail Inventory

    West Virginia Trail Inventory

    West Virginia Trail Inventory Trail report summarized by county, prepared by the West Virginia GIS Technical Center updated 9/24/2014 County Name Trail Name Management Area Managing Organization Length Source (mi.) Date Barbour American Discovery American Discovery Trail 33.7 2009 Trail Society Barbour Brickhouse Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.55 2013 Barbour Brickhouse Spur Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.03 2013 Barbour Conflicted Desire Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 2.73 2013 Barbour Conflicted Desire Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.03 2013 Shortcut Barbour Double Bypass Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 1.46 2013 Barbour Double Bypass Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.02 2013 Connector Barbour Double Dip Trail Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.2 2013 Barbour Hospital Loop Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.29 2013 Barbour Indian Burial Ground Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.72 2013 Barbour Kid's Trail Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.72 2013 Barbour Lower Alum Cave Trail Audra State Park WV Division of Natural 0.4 2011 Resources Barbour Lower Alum Cave Trail Audra State Park WV Division of Natural 0.07 2011 Access Resources Barbour Prologue Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.63 2013 Barbour River Trail Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 1.26 2013 Barbour Rock Cliff Trail Audra State Park WV Division of Natural 0.21 2011 Resources Barbour Rock Pinch Trail Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 1.51 2013 Barbour Short course Bypass Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.1 2013 Barbour

  • District 1 Fishing Guide

    TROUT STOCKING – Rivers and Streams Code No. Stockings ............Period Code No. Stockings ............Period Code No. Stockings ............Period Trout Stocking River or Stream: County SR = state Route Q One .................................... 1st week of March One ......................................................... February CR Varies .............................................................Varies Code: Area CR = county Route FR = USFS Road One ............................................................January BW M One each month ................February-May One every two weeks ...........March-May Tygart Lake (Tailwaters) Tygart Valley River: W Two ......................................................... February MJ One each month ..................January-April Taylor M-F: below Tygart Dam in Grafton City Park. One ............................................................January One each week ..........................March-May Y One ...................................................................April BA BW: Lower – from Wheeling Hospital upstream to I-470; X After April 1 or area is open to public One ............................................................... March F Once/week .....Columbus Day week & next week Wheeling Creek: Marshall and Ohio Middle – from Ohio County line upstream along CR 5 to 1 mile below Burches Run Lake; Upper – from Pennsylvania line 3 miles downstream along CR 15 and 15/1 to mouth of Wolf Run. Whiteday Creek: Marion and Monongalia BW: Lower – from 0.5 mile above CR 73 bridge upstream for 2 miles along CR 73/1; Trout Stocking Upper – from CR 79/12 bridge upstream 1 mile to 0.25 mile below the CR 33/7 bridge. River or Stream: County SR = state Route Code: Area CR = county Route FR = USFS Road BW: from Bruceton Mills upstream to Clifton Mills along CR 8; also at CR 4/2 State Line Bridge near Big Sandy Creek: Preston the Pennsylvania state line. W-F: from Davis upstream 4 miles along the Camp 70 Road; also a 3-mile section at the SR 32 Blackwater River: Tucker bridge.
  • Planning Assistance to States Jennings Randolph Lake Scoping Study Phase II Report

    Planning Assistance to States Jennings Randolph Lake Scoping Study Phase II Report

    ~ ~ 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 ...........................................................................................................
  • Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams

    Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCRN/NRTR—2011/488 ON THE COVER Potomac River near Paw Paw, West Virginia Photograph by: Tom Paradis, NPS. Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCRN/NRTR—2011/488 John Paul Schmit National Park Service Center for Urban Ecology 4598 MacArthur Blvd. NW Washington, DC 20007 September, 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia

    Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia

    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
  • Public Access Points Within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill

    Public Access Points Within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill

    Public Access Points within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill Public Access Point Boat Ramp Fishing Swimming Restrooms Hiking/Trekking Location 2900 Virginia Ave NW, Thompson's Boat Center X X X X Washington, DC 20037 3244 K St NW, Washington, DC Georgetown Waterfront Park X X 20007 George Washington Memorial Theodore Roosevelt Island X X X Pkwy N, Arlington, VA 22209 West Basin Dr SW, Washington, West Potomac Park X X DC 20024 Capital Crescent Trail, Washington Canoe Club X Washington, DC 20007 600 Water St SW, Washington, DC Ganglplank Marina X X X X 20024 George Washington Memorial Columbia Island Marina X X X Parkway, Arlington, VA 22202 99 Potomac Ave. SE. Washington, Diamond Teague Park X X DC 20003 335 Water Street Washington, DC The Yards Park X 20003 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, Anacostia Boat House X Washington, DC 20003 700-1000 Water St SW, Washington Marina X X X X Washington, DC 20024 Anacostia Park, Section E Anacostia Marina X X X Washington, DC 20003 2001-2099 1st St SW, Washington, Buzzard's Point Marina X X X DC 20003 2038-2068 2nd St SW, James Creek Marina X X X Washington, DC 20593 Anacostia Dr, Washington, DC Anacostia Park X X X 20019 Heritage Island Trail, Washington, Heritage Island X DC 20002 Kingman Island Trail, Washington, Kingman Island X DC 20002 Mt Vernon Trail, Arlington, VA Gravelly Point X X 22202 George Washington Memorial Roaches Run X X X X Pkwy, Arlington, VA 22202 1550 Anacostia Ave NE, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens/Park X X X Washington, DC 20019 Capital Crescent Trail, Jack's Boat House X X Washington, DC 20007 Daingerfield Island X X X X 1 Marina Dr, Alexandria, VA 22314 67-101 Dale St, Alexandria, VA Four Mile Run Park/Trail X X X 22305 4601 Annapolis Rd.