DOCSLIB.ORG

The Distribution of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in the Fresh and Oligohaline Tidal Potomac River, 2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Distribution of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in the Fresh and Oligohaline Tidal Potomac River, 2005 By Nancy B. Rybicki, Erika M. Justiniano- Vélez, Edward R. Schenk, Julie M. Baldizar and Sarah E. Hunter Potomac River Open-File Report 2008–1218 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Rybicki, N.B., Justiniano- Vélez, E., Schenk, E.R., and Hunter, S.E., 2008, The Distribution of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in the Fresh and Oligohaline Tidal Potomac River, 2005. US Geological Survey, Reston VA, Open-File Report 2008-1218, 40 pgs. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. Cover: Summer 2005 aerial photo of Dogue Creek and the Potomac River showing extensive dark areas of submersed aquatic vegetation. Photograph from Virginia Institute of Marine Science, http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav/2005_SAV_Photo_Gallery/pages/126-13_sept13-05.htm ii Contents Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1 Methods .................................................................................................................. 2 Results .................................................................................................................... 3 Upper Tidal Potomac River (UTR).............................................................................. 3 Lower Tidal Potomac River (LTR).............................................................................. 5 Upper Oligohaline Potomac River Estuary (UOE) ......................................................... 6 References Cited....................................................................................................... 7 Figures 1. Study area showing harvest sites and the three river segments, UTR, upper tidal river, LTR, lower tidal river, and UOE, upper oligohaline estuary of the Potomac River and the locations of the Aquatic Plant Management harvest sites in the tidal Potomac River .............................................................................................................. 8 2. Percent cover of hydrilla in SAV beds located in the tidal Potomac River from Washington, DC to Dogue Creek, VA, 2005 ....................................................... 9 3. Percent cover of hydrilla in SAV beds located in the tidal Potomac River from Dogue Creek, VA to Quantico Creek, VA, 2005 .......................................................... 10 4. Percent cover of hydrilla in SAV beds located in the tidal Potomac River from Chopawamsic Creek, VA to the end of the river segment, 2005.......................... 11 5. Location of each field bed in a continuous shoreline survey of Washington, DC, 2005............................................................................................................ 12 6. Location of each field bed in a continuous shoreline survey from Washington, DC to Broad Creek, MD, 2005.................................................................................. 13 7. Location of each field bed in a continuous shoreline survey from Swan Creek, MD to Gunston Cove, VA, 2005 ............................................................................... 14 8. Location of each field bed in a continuous shoreline survey from Mason Neck, VA to Quantico Creek, VA, 2005.............................................................................. 15 9. Location of each field bed in a continuous shoreline survey near Quantico, VA, and Mallows Bay, MD 2005 .................................................................................. 16 10. Location of each field bed in a continuous shoreline survey from Wades Bay, MD to Potomac Creek, VA, 2005 .............................................................................. 17 iii 11. Location of each field bed in a continuous shoreline survey from Aquia Creek, VA to the end of the river segment, 2005.................................................................. 18 12. Distribution and density of submersed aquatic vegetation and the location of the Aquatic Plant Management harvest sites in the tidal Potomac River from Washington, DC to Broad Creek, MD, 2005......................................................................... 19 13. Distribution and density of submersed aquatic vegetation and the location of the Aquatic Plant Management harvest sites in the tidal Potomac River from Broad Creek, MD to Chopawamsic Creek, VA, 2005................................................... 20 14. Distribution and density of submersed aquatic vegetation and the location of the Aquatic Plant Management harvest sites in the tidal Potomac River from Chopawamsic Creek, VA to the downstream extent of the study, 2005 ............... 21 15. Percent of available habitat (area less than 2m in depth) that was vegetated in each river segment (UTR, LTR, and UOE) from 1985 to 2005..................................... 22 16. Area occupied by submersed aquatic vegetation for each river segment (UTR, LTR, and UOE) from 1985 to 2005................................................................................ 22 Tables 1. Percent canopy cover of each species and Shannon diversity index for field beds located in the tidal Potomac River, 2005...................................................................... 23 Conversion Factors Multiply By To obtain Length inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm) inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) mile, nautical (nmi) 1.852 kilometer (km) yard (yd) 0.9144 meter (m) Area acre 4,047 square meter (m2) acre 0.4047 hectare (ha) acre 0.4047 square hectometer (hm2) acre 0.004047 square kilometer (km2) hectare 10000 square meter (m2) hectare 0.01 square kilometer (km2) iv square foot (ft2) 929 square centimeter (cm2) square foot (ft2) 0.0929 square meter (m2) square inch (in2) 6.452 square centimeter (cm2) square mile (mi2) 259 hectare (ha) square mile (mi2) 2.59 square kilometer (km2) square meter (m2) 0.000001 square kilometer (km2) v The Distribution of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in the Fresh and Oligohaline Tidal Potomac River, 2005 By Nancy B. Rybicki, Erika M. Justiniano-Vélez, Edward R. Schenk, Julie M. Baldizar and Sarah E. Hunter Introduction Submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) is a critical component of the Potomac River ecosystem (Fig. 1). Though SAV provides important habitat for fauna and stabilizes bottom sediment, very dense beds may restrict recreational and commercial navigation. Exotic species of SAV are managed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Potomac Aquatic Plant Management Program (PAPMP). Selected beds of primarily exotic SAV species that limit navigation are harvested mechanically. The program began in 1986 when approximately 40 acres of plants were harvested from 18 sites (Fig.1, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 1987). Monitoring efforts are an effective means of quantifying the distribution and abundance of the exotic species, Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla) and other SAV species. These annual surveys provide a basis for identifying large-scale changes and trends throughout the ecosystem and allow managers to evaluate the effectiveness of resource management policies based on a reliable scientific foundation (Rybicki and Landwehr, 2007). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has monitored the distribution and composition of SAV beds in the fresh and oligohaline (salinity 0.5 to 5) tidal Potomac River since 1978 using transect sampling (1978 to 1981, 1985 to 1987, and 2002) and shoreline surveys (1983 to 2005). The Government of the District of Columbia has monitored the portion of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers within Washington DC since 1998 (Rottman, 1999; Ryan, 2005, 2006). The species of SAV observed in beds in the tidal Potomac River are incorporated into the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) annual report on SAV distribution in Chesapeake Bay. The VIMS report and methods are available at http://www.vims.edu/bio/sav (Orth et al., 2006). Additional publications concerning SAV distribution in the Potomac River can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/proj.bib/sav/wethome.htm. Methods The study area in the Potomac River was divided into three reaches: 1) upper tidal river (UTR) from Washington, DC to Dogue Creek, VA; 2) lower tidal river (LTR) from Dogue Creek, VA to Quantico, VA; and 3) upper oligohaline estuary (UOE) from Quantico, VA to the downriver side of Maryland Point, MD (Figs. 1 to 5). Observations of species composition in SAV beds were done by boat at approximately low tide (± 2 hrs) so that plants were visible from the water surface. Surveys were conducted between August and October 2005. We identified submersed plants to species level, recorded species composition of each bed, and estimated percent cover
Recommended publications
  • Nomination Form

    Nomination Form

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: Woodlawn Cultural Landscape Historic District Other names/site number: DHR File No.: 029-5181 Name of related multiple property listing: N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: Bounded by Old Mill Rd, Mt Vernon Memorial Hwy, Fort Belvoir, and Dogue Creek City or town: Alexandria State: VA County: Fairfax Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: X ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional
  • Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria

    Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria

    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1979 Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Lynne C. Morgan Virginia Institute of Marine Science Nancy M. Sturm Virginia Institute of Marine Science Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science Carl H. Hobbs III Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Owen, D. W., Morgan, L. C., Sturm, N. M., Byrne, R. J., & Hobbs, C. H. (1979) Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria. Special Report tn Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 166. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/ V5K134 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report COUNTIES OF FAIRFAX AND ARLINGTON, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric·Administration, Grant Nos. 04-7-158-44041 and 04-8-M01-309 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 166 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1979 Shoreline Situation Report COUNTIES OF FAIRFAX AND ARLINGTON, CITY OF AL.EXANDRIA Prepared by: Dennis W.
  • Potomac River. Days, Sundays, and National Holidays

    Potomac River. Days, Sundays, and National Holidays

    § 334.230 33 CFR Ch. II (7–1–12 Edition) (4) Day and night firing over the of the Naval Support Facility Dahl- range will be conducted intermittently gren, a distance of about 4,080 yards; by one or more vessels, depending on thence north along the Potomac shore weather and operating schedules. When of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahl- firing is in progress, adequate patrol by gren to Baber Point; and thence west naval craft will be conducted to pre- along the Upper Machodoc Creek shore vent vessels from entering or remain- of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahl- ing within the danger zone. gren to Howland Point at latitude (5) This section shall be enforced by 38°19′0.5″, longitude 77°03′23″; thence the Commandant, Fifth Naval District, northeast to latitude 38°19′18″, lon- U. S. Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia, gitude 77°02′29″, a point on the Naval and such agencies as he may designate. Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren [13 FR 6918, Nov. 24, 1948, as amended at 22 shore about 350 yards southeast of the FR 6965, Dec. 4, 1957. Redesignated at 50 FR base of the Navy recreational pier. Haz- 42696, Oct. 22, 1985] ardous operations are normally con- ducted in this zone daily except Satur- § 334.230 Potomac River. days, Sundays, and national holidays. (a) Naval Surface Warfare Center, (iii) Upper zone. Beginning at Mathias Dahlgren, VA—(1) The areas. Portions of Point, Va.; thence north to Light 5; the Upper Machodoc Creek and Poto- thence north-northeast to Light 6; mac River near Dahlgren, VA as de- thence east-southeast to Lighted Buoy scribed below: 2, thence east-southeast to a point on (i) Lower zone.
  • 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.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Table of Contents Page # GENERAL INFORMATION Charles County Symbols......................................................................................................................47 Attractions.................................................................................................................................................48 Parks.............................................................................................................................................................51 Charles County Symbols Seal The Charles County seal is designed from the escutcheon of the first Lord Baltimore’s seal. The county was established in 1658. Flower The wild carrot, also called Queen Anne’s Lace, is commonly found along roads and through fields. Queen Anne’s Lace is a biennial with 1 to 3 foot stems and lacy flowers that do not blossom until their second year. Tree The Dogwood tree produces beautiful flowers each Spring. These flowers are usually small and have four or five petals. The berries that appear in the Fall are commonly eaten by birds in the winter. Bird The Great Blue Heron is the nation’s tallest bird. The bird is abundant along rivers and creeks and is a superb fisherman. Page 47 Attractions Our Past Preserved.... La Plata Train Station This historic building recalls the railroad’s impact on Charles County during the growth boom of the late 1800's. Port Tobacco Courthouse Settled in 1634, Port Tobacco was once Maryland’s second largest seaport and was listed on early World Maps. This settlement was originally the site of the Indian Village of Potopaco. Port Tobacco was the first county seat, but after the river began silting up and after a shift of occupations from tobacco farming to other trades and industry people moved to the town of La Plata where the new railroad was being built. The county seat was eventually moved to La Plata. The first Charles County Courthouse was completed in 1729, and a second one in 1819.
  • Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act

    Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act

    COMMONWEALTHof VIRGINIA DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Permit No.: VA0088587 Effective Date: April 1, 2015 Expiration Date: March 31, 2020 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACT Pursuant to the Clean Water Act as amended and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, the following owner is authorized to discharge in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in this state permit. Permittee: Fairfax County Facility Name: Fairfax County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System County Location: Fairfax County is 413.15 square miles in area and is bordered by the Potomac River to the East, the city of Alexandria and the county of Arlington to the North, the county of Loudoun to the West, and the county of Prince William to the South. The owner is authorized to discharge from municipal-owned storm sewer outfalls to the surface waters in the following watersheds: Watersheds: Stormwater from Fairfax County discharges into twenty-two 6lh order hydrologic units: Horsepen Run (PL18), Sugarland Run (PL21), Difficult Run (PL22), Potomac River- Nichols Run-Scott Run (PL23), Potomac River-Pimmit Run (PL24), Potomac River- Fourmile Run (PL25), Cameron Run (PL26), Dogue Creek (PL27), Potomac River-Little Hunting Creek (PL28), Pohick Creek (PL29), Accotink Creek (PL30),(Upper Bull Run (PL42), Middle Bull Run (PL44), Cub Run (PL45), Lower Bull Run (PL46), Occoquan River/Occoquan Reservoir (PL47), Occoquan River-Belmont Bay (PL48), Potomac River- Occoquan Bay (PL50) There are 15 major streams: Accotink Creek, Bull Run, Cameron Run (Hunting Creek), Cub Run, Difficult Run, Dogue Creek, Four Mile Run, Horsepen Run, Little Hunting Creek, Little Rocky Run, Occoquan Receiving Streams: River, Pimmit run, Pohick creek, Popes Head Creek, Sugarland Run, and various other minor streams.
  • The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment

    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...........................................................
  • 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.
  • Potomac River Basin Assessment Overview

    Potomac River Basin Assessment Overview

    Sources: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality PL01 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation Potomac River Basin Virginia Geographic Information Network PL03 PL04 United States Geological Survey PL05 Winchester PL02 Monitoring Stations PL12 Clarke PL16 Ambient (120) Frederick Loudoun PL15 PL11 PL20 Ambient/Biological (60) PL19 PL14 PL23 PL08 PL21 Ambient/Fish Tissue (4) PL10 PL18 PL17 *# 495 Biological (20) Warren PL07 PL13 PL22 ¨¦§ PL09 PL24 draft; clb 060320 PL06 PL42 Falls ChurchArlington jk Citizen Monitoring (35) PL45 395 PL25 ¨¦§ 66 k ¨¦§ PL43 Other Non-Agency Monitoring (14) PL31 PL30 PL26 Alexandria PL44 PL46 WX Federal (23) PL32 Manassas Park Fairfax PL35 PL34 Manassas PL29 PL27 PL28 Fish Tissue (15) Fauquier PL47 PL33 PL41 ^ Trend (47) Rappahannock PL36 Prince William PL48 PL38 ! PL49 A VDH-BEACH (1) PL40 PL37 PL51 PL50 VPDES Dischargers PL52 PL39 @A PL53 Industrial PL55 PL56 @A Municipal Culpeper PL54 PL57 Interstate PL59 Stafford PL58 Watersheds PL63 Madison PL60 Impaired Rivers and Streams PL62 PL61 Fredericksburg PL64 Impaired Reservoirs or Estuaries King George PL65 Orange 95 ¨¦§ PL66 Spotsylvania PL67 PL74 PL69 Westmoreland PL70 « Albemarle PL68 Caroline PL71 Miles Louisa Essex 0 5 10 20 30 Richmond PL72 PL73 Northumberland Hanover King and Queen Fluvanna Goochland King William Frederick Clarke Sources: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Loudoun Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation Rappahannock River Basin
  • Belle Haven, Dogue Creek and Four Mile Run

    Belle Haven, Dogue Creek and Four Mile Run

    1 Introduction to Watersheds A watershed is an area of land that drains all of its water to a specific lake or river. As rainwater and melting snow run downhill, they carry sediment and other materials into our streams, lakes, wetlands and groundwater. The boundary of a watershed is defined by the watershed divide, which is the ridge of highest elevation surrounding a given stream or network of streams. A drop of rainwater falling outside of this boundary will enter a different watershed and will flow to a different body of water. Figure 1-1: Diagram of a watershed Streams and rivers may flow through many different types of land use in their paths to the ocean. In the above illustration from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, water flows from agricultural lands to residential areas to industrial zones as it moves downstream. Each land use presents unique impacts and challenges on water quality. The size of a watershed can be subjective; it depends on the scale that is being considered. The image to the left depicts the extent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, "the big picture" that is linked to our local concerns. This watershed covers 64,000 square miles and crosses into six states: New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. One of the watersheds that comprise the Chesapeake Bay watershed is the Potomac River watershed. Fairfax County, as shown on the map, occupies approximately 400 square miles of the Potomac River watershed. This area contains 30 smaller watersheds. Think of watersheds as being "nested" within each successively larger one.
  • A GUIDE to MCB QUANTICO WATERFOWL HUNTING Sixth Edition (2020)

    A GUIDE to MCB QUANTICO WATERFOWL HUNTING Sixth Edition (2020)

    A GUIDE TO MCB QUANTICO WATERFOWL HUNTING Sixth Edition (2020) Edited and Updated by Kenneth Erwin Fall 2020 Guide to MCB Quantico Waterfowl Hunting (2020) Table of Contents Introduction 3 Jump-Shooting 4 Chopawamsic Creek 4 Chopawamsic Creek Map 4 Blind 1 6 Blind 2 6 Blind 3 7 Blind 4 8 Blind 11 8 Blind A 9 Blind C 9 Quantico Creek 10 Blind 5 10 Blind 6 11 Blind 7 11 Blind 8 11 Blind E 12 Blind F 12 Blind Hospital Point 12 Potomac River 13 Potomac River Map 13 Blind D 14 Blind 9 14 Blind 10 15 MCAF Shoreline Restricted Area Map 16 Lunga Reservoir 17 Blind 12 17 Blind 13 17 Blind 14 18 Blind 15 18 Lunga Reservoir Map 19 Smith Lake 20 Blind 16 20 Blind 17 20 Smith Lake Map 20 Dalton Pond 21 Dalton Pond Blind 21 2 Guide to MCB Quantico Waterfowl Hunting (2020) INTRODUCTION This guide provides information about and directions to waterfowl blinds located aboard Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico. It also provides locations of the different boat launch points, information about the different waterways, and restrictions and safety concerns associated with the hunting areas. This guide is not an all-encompassing document but is a tool to assist you in getting safely to your hunting area. This document does not supersede MCB hunting regulations. For the purpose of this guide, the waterfowl blinds will be associated with the water feature where they are located. All directions will use the Game Check Station as the start point.
  • Summary of Water Resource and Related Data in Loudoun County, VA

    Summary of Water Resource and Related Data in Loudoun County, VA

    Summary of Water Resource and Related Data in Loudoun County, VA Prepared by: Loudoun County Department of Building & Development Water Resources Team September, 2008 Loudoun County - Water Resources Data Summary 1 Groundwater Data .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Loudoun County Groundwater, Well, and Pollution Sources ......................................................................................................... 3 1.2 USGS Groundwater Wells ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 County Hydrogeologic Studies ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 USGS NAWQA Wells ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 WRMP Monitoring Wells................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Water Quality Data from LCSA and VADH Public Water Supplies ............................................................................................. 3 1.7 Luck Stone Special Exception Water Quality Reports ...................................................................................................................