DOCSLIB.ORG

Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: Water Year 2016 Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: Water Year 2016 Update Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations: Water Year 2016 Update Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, December 13, 2017 Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 115 stations that are part of the Non-tidal monitoring network (NTN) (Moyer and others, 2017). Constituent loads are calculated with at least five years of monitoring data and trends are reported after at least ten years of data collection. Data collection began in 1985 at nine of these locations, referred to as River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations, where loads are delivered directly to tidal waters. These results are used to help assess efforts to decrease nutrient and sediment loads being delivered to the bay. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Web site (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/) that provides State, Federal, and local partners, as well as the general public, ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Results from two time periods are reported in this summary: a long-term time period (1985- 2016), and short-term time period (2007-2016). All annual results are based on a water year which extends from October 1 to September 30. The results are summarized for 1. loads delivered directly to the tidal waters for the most recent year (Water Year 2016); specifically, the combined load from the nine River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations, 2. trends in loads at the RIM stations over the long- and short-time periods, and 3. patterns in loads and trends at the 115 NTN monitoring stations in the bay watershed (that are part of the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) NTN) over the short-term period. What are the patterns in loads delivered to tidal waters from the RIM stations? The USGS combined the load results from the nine RIM stations shown in figure 1 to quantify the total nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads delivered from the watershed to tidal waters. Together, the nine RIM stations reflect loads delivered from 78 percent of its 64,000-square-mile watershed. River flow and loads to tidal waters Estimated annual-mean streamflow entering the Chesapeake Bay in 2016 was 71,600 cfs, about 19 percent (15,100 cfs) below the long-term (1937-2016) annual-mean streamflow of 78,476 cfs (fig. 2). In 2016, the combined loads from the nine RIM stations were as follows: o Total nitrogen (TN): 157 million pounds (Mlb), 50 Mlb less than the long-term average of 207 Mlb for 1985-2016 (fig. 3). o Total phosphorus (TP): 9.32 Mlb, 4.16 Mlb less than the long-term average of 13.48 Mlb for 1985-2016 (fig. 4). o Suspended sediment: 2.51 million tons (Mton), 2.25 Mton less than the long-term average of 4.76 (Mtons) for 1985-2016 (fig. 5). The Chesapeake Bay Program uses the RIM loads and estimates loads from the remaining unmonitored areas to compute a total nutrient and sediment load to the bay. What are the trends in loads delivered to tidal waters from the RIM stations? Trends in loads from the nine RIM stations are flow-normalized to integrate out the year-to-year variability in river flow; by doing so, changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads resulting from changing sources, delays associated with storage and transport of historical inputs, and (or) implemented management actions are identified. Changes in loads for nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment are provided for two time periods: 1985-2016 (long term) and 2007-2016 (short term) (table 1). Loads that are lower in the end year than the start year are classified as improving conditions, while loads that are higher in the end year than the start year are classified as degrading conditions. Loads are classified as having no trend if there is not a discernable difference between start and years. Changes in total nitrogen loads Long-term trends in total nitrogen loads indicate improving conditions at the majority of the stations, including the four largest rivers. The Choptank River is the only station whose data indicate degrading conditions. Data from the Appomattox and Pamunkey Rivers indicate no trend. Short-term trends in total nitrogen loads indicate improving conditions at 4 stations and degrading conditions at 5 stations. Changes in total phosphorus loads Long-term trends in total phosphorus loads indicate improving conditions at only 3 stations and degrading conditions at another 5 stations. Data from the Mattaponi River indicate no trend. Short-term trends in total phosphorus loads indicate improving conditions at only the Patuxent station, degrading conditions at 5 stations, and no trend at the 3 remaining stations. Changes in suspended-sediment loads Long-term trends in suspended-sediment loads indicate improving conditions at only 3 stations, degrading conditions at 4 stations, and no trend in conditions at 2 stations. Short-term trends in suspended-sediment loads indicate improving conditions at only the James station; degrading conditions at 4 stations, and no trend at the remaining 4 stations. [Improving or degrading trends classified as likelihood estimates greater than or equal to 67 percent] SUSQUEHANNA RIVER AT CONOWINGO, MD Improving Degrading Degrading Degrading Degrading No trend POTOMAC RIVER AT WASHINGTON, DC Improving Improving Improving Degrading Improving No Trend JAMES RIVER AT CARTERSVILLE, VA Improving Improving Improving No Trend Degrading Improving RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER NR FREDERICKSBURG, VA Improving Improving Degrading No Trend Degrading No Trend APPOMATTOX RIVER AT MATOACA, VA No Trend Degrading Degrading Degrading No Trend Degrading PAMUNKEY RIVER NEAR HANOVER, VA No trend Degrading Degrading No trend Degrading Degrading MATTAPONI RIVER NEAR BEULAHVILLE, VA Improving Degrading No Trend Degrading No Trend No Trend PATUXENT RIVER NEAR BOWIE, MD Improving Improving Improving Improving Improving Degrading CHOPTANK RIVER NEAR GREENSBORO, MD Degrading Degrading Degrading Degrading Improving Degrading What are the patterns in loads and trends across the nontidal monitoring network (2007- 16)? The USGS computes load and trend results from the NTN to display (1) the range in loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment; and (2) the trends in these loads. The majority of the NTN sites whose data were used for the analysis had data collected since 2007 (fig. 6 and table 2). To facilitate the comparison of loads and trends between sites, load results from each NTN station are normalized by the respective drainage area to present the results as per-acre loads (also known as yield). The total number of NTN stations analyzed for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and suspended-sediment load and trends varies because of the length of record and because of the presence or absence of targeted water-quality samples collected during stormflow conditions (see Chanat and others, 2015). Patterns in total nitrogen loads Average annual total nitrogen loads, 2007-2016, range from 1.19 to 30.0 pounds per acre (lb/acre; fig. 7) with a combined average load over this period of 6.97 lb/acre. Half of the NTN stations are improving; while, 31 percent are degrading and the remainder are showing no trends. o 43 of 86 (50 percent) stations have improving trends, with load reductions ranging from 0.13 to 6.46 lb/acre. o 27 of 86 (31 percent) stations have degrading trends, with load increases ranging from 0.03 to 0.79 lb/acre. o 16 of 86 (19 percent) show no trends. Patterns in total phosphorus loads Average annual total phosphorus loads, 2007-2016, range from 0.12 to 2.01 lb/acre (fig. 8) with a combined average load over this period of 0.48 lb/acre. Just over one-third of the NTN station are improving; while, a quarter are degrading and the remainder are showing no trends. o 25 of 66 (38 percent) stations have improving trends, with load reductions ranging from 0.02 to 0.53 lb/acre. o 17 of 66 (26 percent) stations have degrading trends, with load increases ranging from 0.01 to 0.59 lb/acre. o 24 of 66 (36 percent) have no trends. Patterns in suspended-sediment loads Average annual suspended-sediment loads, 2007-2016, range from 19 to 1,670 lb/acre (fig. 9) with a combined average load over this period of 401 lb/acre. Less than a quarter of the NTN stations are improving; while, 37 percent are degrading and the remainder are showing no trends. o 12 of 65 (20 percent) stations have improving trends, with load decreases ranging from 11.2 to 706 lb/acre. o 24 of 65 (37 percent) stations have degrading trends, with load increases ranging from 1.24 to 395 lb/acre. o 29 of 65 (43 percent) have no trends. The Chesapeake Nontidal Monitoring Network and Role of USGS The Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Water-Quality Monitoring Network is a partnership implemented among the States in the watershed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the USGS, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. A network of monitoring stations has been established and is sampled using standardized protocols and quality-assurance procedures designed to measure pollutant loads and changes in pollutant loads over time. The initial network formed around 1985 with coordinated monitoring at the nine RIM stations. In 2004, the CBP formalized the network, and a period of expansion followed. In 2010 and 2011, the network was further expanded to address the needs of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The network currently has 115 sites designed to measure changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2008 INTEGRATED REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND U.S. CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 305(b) AND 303(d) CLEAN WATER ACT (P.L. 97-117) District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division Government of the District of Columbia Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor PREFACE PREFACE The Water Quality Division of the District of Columbia's District Department of the Environment, Natural Resources Administration, prepared this report to satisfy the listing requirements of §303(d) and the reporting requirements of §305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). This report provides water quality information on the District of Columbia’s surface and ground waters that were assessed during 2008 and updates the water quality information required by law. Various programs in the Natural Resources Administration contributed to this report including the Fisheries and Wildlife Division and the Watershed Protection Division. Questions or comments regarding this report or requests for copies should be forwarded to the address below. The District of Columbia Government District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division 51 N St., NE Washington, D.C. 20002-3323 Attention: N. Shulterbrandt ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Albemarle County Combined Local TMDL Action Plan
    Albemarle County Combined Local TMDL Action Plan: Benthic TMDL for the Rivanna River and Bacteria TMDL for the Rivanna River Mainstem, North Fork Rivanna River, Preddy Creek and Tributaries, Meadow Creek, Mechums River, and Beaver Creek Watersheds For Special Condition (Part II.B) of the 2018-2023 VPDES General Permit for Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems VAR040074 prepared by: Albemarle County Environmental Services Division 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 (434) 296-5816 www.albemarle.org/water April 30, 2020 Table of Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1. TMDL Project Name and EPA Approval Dates (Parts II.B.3.a,b) ........................................................... 3 2. Pollutants Causing the Impairments ..................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Benthic TMDL Pollutant ............................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Bacteria TMDL Pollutant ........................................................................................................... 5 3. Wasteload Allocations and Corresponding Percent Reductions (Part II.B.3.c)..................................... 7 3.1 Sediment WLA
    [Show full text]
  • DC Flood Insurance Study
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
    Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY and MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT June 2018 Acknowledgements In November 2014, DiNatale Water Consultants and Alex Horne Associates were retained by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to develop a comprehensive reservoir water quality monitoring program. This proactive approach is a revision from historic water quality management by the Authority that tended to be more reactive in nature. The Authority embraced the use of sound science in order to develop an approach focused on reservoir management. Baseline data were needed for this scientific approach requiring a labor-intensive, monthly sampling program at all five system reservoirs. Using existing staff resources, the project kicked-off with training sessions on proper sampling techniques and use of sampling equipment. The results and recommendations contained within this report would not have been possible without the capable work of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff: • Andrea Terry, Water Resources Manager, Reservoir Water Quality and Management Assessment Project Manager • Bethany Houchens, Water Quality Specialist • Bill Mawyer, Executive Director • Lonnie Wood, Director of Finance and Administration • Jennifer Whitaker, Director of Engineering and Maintenance • David Tungate, Director of Operations • Dr. Bill Morris, Laboratory Director • Matt Bussell, Water Manager • Konrad Zeller, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor • Patricia Defibaugh, Lab Chemist • Debra Hoyt, Lab Chemist • Peter Jasiurkowski, Water Operator • Brian
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Minerals Of
    VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 89 MINERALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Richard S. Mitchell and William F. Giannini COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRG INIA 1988 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 89 MINERALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Richard S. Mitchell and William F. Giannini COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA 1 988 VIRGINIA DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES PUBLICATION 89 MINERALS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Richard S. Mitchell and William F. Giannini COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY DIVISION OF MINERAL RESOURCES Robert C. Milici, Commissioner of Mineral Resources and State Geologist CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 19BB DEPARTMENT OF MINES, MINERALS AND ENERGY RICHMOND, VIRGIMA O. Gene Dishner, Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGIMA DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASES AND SUPPLY RICHMOND Copyright 1988, Commonwealth of Virginia Portions of this publication may be quoted if credit is given to the Virginia Division of Mineral Resources. CONTENTS Page I I I 2 a J A Epidote 5 5 5 Halloysite through 8 9 9 9 Limonite through l0 Magnesite through muscovite l0 ll 1l Paragonite ll 12 l4 l4 Talc through temolite-acti 15 15 l5 Teolite group throug l6 References cited l6 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Location map of I 2. 2 A 4. 6 5. Goethite 6 6. Sawn goethite pseudomorph with unreplaced pyrite center .......... 7 7. 1 8. 8 9. 10. 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments Received
    PARKS & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (DRAFT RELEASE) LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Notes on List of Comments: ⁃ This document lists all comments received on the Draft 2018 Parks & Open Space Element update during the public comment period. ⁃ Comments are listed in the following order o Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions o Comments from Local & Regional Agencies o Comments from Interest Groups o Comments from Interested Individuals Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE National Capital Region 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W. IN REPLY REFER TO: Washington, D.C. 20242 May 14, 2018 Ms. Surina Singh National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 500N Washington, DC 20004 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Open Space Element Comments Dear Ms. Singh: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft update of the Parks and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements. The National Park Service (NPS) understands that the Element establishes policies to protect and enhance the many federal parks and open spaces within the National Capital Region and that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) uses these policies to guide agency actions, including review of projects and preparation of long-range plans. Preservation and management of parks and open space are key to the NPS mission. The National Capital Region of the NPS consists of 40 park units and encompasses approximately 63,000 acres within the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Our region includes a wide variety of park spaces that range from urban sites, such as the National Mall with all its monuments and Rock Creek Park to vast natural sites like Prince William Forest Park as well as a number of cultural sites like Antietam National Battlefield and Manassas National Battlefield Park.
    [Show full text]
  • 'CHEMICAL COCKTAILS' of TRACE METALS USING SENSORS in URBAN STREAMS Carol Mo
    ABSTRACT Title of thesis: TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS Carol Morel, Masters of Geology, 2020 Thesis directed by: Professor Sujay Kaushal Department of Geology Understanding transport mechanisms and temporal patterns in metals concentrations and fluxes in urban streams are important for developing best management practices and restoration strategies to improve water quality. In some cases, in situ sensors can be used to estimate unknown concentrations and fluxes of trace metals or to interpolate between sampling events. Continuous sensor data from the United States Geological Survey were analyzed to determine statistically significant relationships between lead, copper, zinc, cadmium and mercury with turbidity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and discharge for the Hickey Run, Watts Branch, and Rock Creek watersheds in the Washington, D.C. region. At Rock Creek, there were significant negative linear relationships between Hg and Pb and specific conductance (p<0.05). Watershed monitoring approaches using continuous sensor data have the potential to characterize the frequency, magnitude, and composition of pulses in concentrations and loads of trace metals, which could improve management and restoration of urban streams. TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS by Carol Jisnely Morel Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Geology 2020 Advisory Committee: Professor Sujay Kaushal, Chair Dr. Kenneth Belt Dr. Shuiwang Duan Professor Karen Prestegaard Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without data collection and sharing by the USGS.
    [Show full text]
  • Living in Our Watershed
    Living in Our Watershed Correlates of Biological Condition in Streams and Rivers of the Rivanna Basin—Winter 2003/04 through Fall 2005 StreamWatch monitors and assesses Rivanna Basin streams and rivers to help the community maintain and restore healthy waterways. / / / StreamWatch is a partnership composed of Albemarle and Fluvanna counties, The Nature Conservancy, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, Rivanna Conservation Society, and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. We have various roles in the conservation, utilization, and management of Rivanna Basin aquatic resources. StreamWatch serves our diverse missions by providing scientifically accurate information about the condition of the stream and river system. We believe this report to be a fact-based, scientific appraisal of conditions in the Rivanna watershed and stream system, and of factors driving those conditions. We believe good information fosters better community decision-making, and we hope the following objective report serves the enterprises of resource management, conservation, and community education so that the bounties of our streams and rivers may be enjoyed for generations to come. / / / This report is dedicated to the generous, talented, and stalwart volunteers of the StreamWatch program. StreamWatch Steering Committee Scott Clark, Albemarle County • Rochelle Garwood, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission • Angus Murdoch, Rivanna Conservation Society • Alyson Sappington, Thomas Jefferson Soil
    [Show full text]
  • Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 18, 2020
    Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 18, 2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office Most Effective Basins Funding In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Appropriations Conference Report, an increase to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Budget was provided in the amount of $6 million for “state-based implementation in the most effective basins.” This document describes the methodology EPA followed to establish the most effective use of these funds and the best locations for these practices to be implemented to make the greatest progress toward achieving water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. The most effective basins to reduce the effects of excess nutrient loading to the Bay were determined considering two factors: cost effectiveness and load effectiveness. Cost effectiveness was considered as a factor to assure these additional funds result in state-based implementation of practices that achieve the greatest benefit to water quality overall. It was evaluated by looking at what the jurisdictions have reported in their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as the focus of their upcoming efforts, and by looking at the average cost per pound of reduction for BMP implementation by sector. Past analyses of cost per pound of reduction have shown that reducing nitrogen is less costly by far than reducing phosphorus1. Based on that fact, EPA determined that the focus of this evaluation would be to target nitrogen reductions in the watershed. Evaluating the load reduction targets in all the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs shows that the agricultural sector is targeted for 86 percent of the overall reductions identified to meet the 2025 targets collectively set by the jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]