DOCSLIB.ORG

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

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. (2%). Impervious surfaces cover 9% of the Maryland potion of the Lower river basin. For the Maryland portion of the Potomac River basin, agriculture is the largest source of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings to the upper portion of the basin; stormwater is also a large source of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings, and wastewater is a large source of nitrogen loadings (Table 2). 3 Stormwater is the largest source of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings to the lower portion of the basin; agriculture is also large source of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings and forest lands are a large source of nitrogen loadings. Loadings sources from the other states are shown in Table 2. Table 1. Land Use in the Potomac River Basin. Dominant land use1, percent of the watershed in each State and percent impervious surfaces (MD only)2 within each watershed. All values are in percent (%). Abbreviations include: Ag (Agriculture), Dev (Developed), For (Forest). % of Basin Land Use by State % Impevious Watershed Dominant land use MD VA DC PA WV (MD only) Upper Potomac For (69), Ag (22) 17.8 7.1 0.0 21.5 53.6 1.0 Shenandoah For (56), Ag (34) 96.1 3.9 n/a Middle Potomac Ag (44), For (32), Dev (20) 55.4 34.2 0.1 10.3 6.8 Lower Potomac For (41), Dev (30), Ag (16) 41.5 56.3 2.2 9.1 Total Potomac For (55), Ag (27), Dev (14) 24.2 39.6 0.4 11.2 24.7 5.6 Basin Table 2. Loadings sources from the Potomac River Basin. Dominant loadings sources3 by Chesapeake Bay Program segment and State (only sources accounting for approximately 20% or larger are shown). Columns include TN (Total Nitrogen), TP (Total Phosphorus) and Sed (Sediment) loadings. All values are in percent (%). Loading information is available based on Chesapeake Bay Program segment. The loads from the upper portion of the Potomac River basin (including the Upper Potomac, Shenandoah, Middle Potomac and the upper portion of the Lower Potomac watersheds (Figure 1, Table 1) are summarized as the total loads for two segments: POTTF (Potomac Tidal Fresh) and ANATF (Anacostia Tidal Fresh). The loads from the lower portion of the Potomac River Basin (including most of the Lower Potomac watershed) are summarized as the total loads for four segments: PISTF (Piscataway Tidal Fresh), MATTF (Mattawoman Tidal Fresh), POTOH (Potomac Oligohaline) and POTMH (Potomac Mesohaline). Sources are Agriculture (Ag), Non Regulated Stormwater (Urban), Regulated Stormwater (Stormwater), Wastewater-CSO (CSO), Wastewater, and Forest. MD VA DC PA WV Watershed Segments Source % TN % TP % Sed % TN % TP % Sed % TN % TP % Sed % TN % TP % Sed % TN % TP % Sed load load load load load load load load load load load load load load load Ag 41 51 54 37 61 62 70 70 75 45 55 62 Urban 17 POTTF, Stormwater 25 26 33 19 18 62 ANATF Lower CSO 26 Upper, Wastewater 17 85 52 Shenandoah, Middle, part of Forest 29 PISTF, Ag 27 37 45 39 61 30 MATTF, Urban 23 POTOH, Lower Stormwater 17 33 26 29 Potomac POTMH Forest 23 17 25 17 Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 2 How healthy is the Potomac River? Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR) measures water and habitat quality at 36 non-tidal long- term monitoring stations and at 13 tidal long-term monitoring stations in the Potomac River (Figure 2). Current conditions are determined from the most recent three years of data; trends are determined from the 1999-2014 data. Maryland DNR also participates in the Non- tidal Network, a partnership with the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), the Chesapeake Bay Program, and the other states in the basin, to measure non-tidal water quality using the same sampling and analysis methods. Six of Maryland’s long-term non- tidal stations are also part of the Non-tidal Network (Figure 2, Table 3); three additional stations are only part of the Non-tidal Network. USGS completes the trends analysis for all Non-tidal Network stations. USGS combines river flow data and the nutrient and sediment data for the most recent 10-year period. The USGS method accounts for changes in river flow so that underlying changes in nutrient and sediment levels can be 4 Figure 2 Water quality sampling stations in the Potomac River basin. determined. Trends results from the Non- MD DNR sampling stations (non-tidal and tidal) and the Non-tidal tidal Network stations from the other states Network stations in the basin where trends were determined for 2014. are included below because of the consistency The River Input station for loadings trends is also shown. in monitoring and analysis methods. USGS and MDDNR also measure the nutrient and sediment loadings at the fall-line station located at Chain Bridge (River Input station on Figure 2) to determine trends in loadings at this station.4 Upper Potomac: This portion of the river includes from the headwaters down to the confluence with the Shenandoah River, and is all non-tidal. Measured nitrogen levels decreased at most of the stations in the upstream portion of the Upper Potomac, but increased at some stations in Conococheague Creek and Antietam Creek (Table 3, MDDNR method). However, when changes in river flow are accounted for, the underling nitrogen levels in Conococheague Creek decreased and the nitrogen trend in Antietam Creek is not significant (at the stations that are also part of the Non-tidal Network, USGS method). Phosphorus levels also decreased at many of the stations throughout the Upper Potomac basin, even after changes in river flow are accounted for. Measured sediment levels decreased at some of the stations in the downstream portion of the Upper Potomac, but increased in Georges Creek. However, most stations do not have a significant sediment trend when changes in river flow are accounted for. While decreased nutrients indicate improvement overall, they do not necessarily indicate healthy stream habitat. Non-tidal river habitat is influenced by many issues beyond nutrient and sediment conditions (for example, acid Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 3 mine drainage, pollutants, impervious surfaces, etc.). Also, newer concerns include harmful algal blooms in this farthest upstream region of the Potomac River and the occurrence of invasive species such as Didymo. Shenandoah: Virginia measures water quality at six Non-tidal Network stations. Phosphorus levels decreased at the North Fork Shenandoah station when changes in river flow are accounted for. Middle Potomac: This portion of the river extends from the confluence of the Shenandoah downstream to the head of tide at Chain Bridge. The Monocacy River drains to this portion of the river. This portion of the river is all non-tidal. Measured nitrogen levels decreased in the Monocacy River and Seneca Creek and at one of the main river stations (though none of these stations are part of the Non-tidal Network so the effect of changes in river flow cannot be determined). Catoctin Creek nitrogen levels decreased when changes in river low are accounted for. Measured phosphorus levels decreased at most of the stations in the Middle Potomac, but the trends were not significant when the effect of changes in river flow is accounted for. There are no significant trends in sediment levels in the Middle Potomac. Lower Potomac: This portion of the river extends from the head of tide at Chain Bridge downstream to the mouth of the river at Point Lookout. Loadings and water quality are determined at the fall-line station at Chain Bridge (River Input station, Figure 2). Four additional stations are monitored in non-tidal areas, and thirteen stations are monitored by Maryland in tidal portions of the Lower Potomac basin. Non-tidal areas: Nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loadings have decreased at the fall-line station at Chain Bridge.4 Nitrogen levels in the water also decreased at this station when the effects of river flow are accounted for.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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,
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Study of Gunston Cove
    An Ecological Study of Gunston Cove 2016 FINAL REPORT August 2017 by R. Christian Jones Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Director Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University Kim de Mutsert Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Associate Director Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University Amy Fowler Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Faculty Fellow Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University to Department of Public Works and Environmental Services County of Fairfax, VA iii Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................... iv List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xiii The Ongoing Aquatic Monitoring Program for the Gunston Cove Area ................1 Introduction ..................................................................................................2 Methods........................................................................................................3 A. Profiles and Plankton: Sampling Day .........................................3 B. Profiles and Plankton: Followup Analysis ..................................7 C. Adult and Juvenile Fish ...............................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 5-1975 Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory Kenneth A. Moore Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gene M. Silberhorn Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Moore, K. A., & Silberhorn, G. M. (1975) Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 78. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V55H9H 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]. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY TIDAL MARSH INVENTORY Special Report No. 78 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Kenneth A. Moore G.M. Silberhorn , Project Leader VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., Director MAY 1975 Acknowledgments Funds for the publication and distribution of this report have been provided by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Grant No. 04-5-158-5001. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Gene M. Silberhorn. His invaluable guidance and assistance made this report possible. I wish also to thank Col. George Dawes, for his review of this report and his assistance in the field and Dr. William J. Hargis, Dr. Michael E. Bender, Mr. James Mercer, Mr. Thomas Barnard, Miss Christine Plummer and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Technical Report
    TRANSFORM 66 OUTSIDE the Beltway I-66 CORRIDOR 66 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Multimodal Solutions - 495 to Haymarket Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment 193 Town of Natural Resources TechnicalTown of Report Middleburg Herndon LOUDOUN FAUQUIER 50 267 Washington Dulles McLean International Airport 309 28 286 Tysons Corner West Falls Church 7 Chantilly Dunn Loring FALLS 123 CHURCH 29 Vienna LOUDOUN Fair Lakes 50 FAIRFAX CO. 66 15 FAIRFAX CITY Centreville 286 29 236 Manassas National Battlefield Park Haymarket Fairfax Station Springfield 66 Gainesville 234 28 MANASSAS PARK PRINCE WILLIAM 29 FAUQUIER 234 123 286 215 Ft. Belvoir MANASSAS MAY 12, 2015 Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment Natural Resources Technical Report Draft – May 12, 2015 I-66 Corridor Improvements Project – Natural Resources Technical Report May 12, 2015 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 – Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Difficult Run Bacteria TMDL Action Plan PERMIT NUMBER VAR040064 Submitted To
    Difficult Run Bacteria TMDL Action Plan PERMIT NUMBER VAR040064 Submitted to DEQ: Approved 2016 Updated June 2020 CITY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA - DIFFICULT RUN E.COLI TMDL ACTION PLAN INTRODUCTION The City of Fairfax has updated this Difficult Run Bacteria (E. coli) TMDL Action Plan to address the Special Condition for approved local TMDLs (Part II.B) in the City’s MS4 Permit. The original action plan was approved by DEQ in 2016. The City’s approach for updating this Action Plan is based on the requirements listed in the current MS4 General Permit and DEQ’s Draft Local TMDL Action Plan Guidance Document that was released on November 21, 2016. Each of the sections in this Action Plan will address one or more of the required action plan content items as listed on pages 6-8 of DEQ’s Draft Local TMDL Action Plan Guidance Document. TMDL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. The name(s) of the Final TMDL report(s); 2. The pollutant(s) causing the impairment(s); 3. The WLA(s) assigned to the MS4 as aggregate or individual WLAs. [This section of the Action Plan directly addresses Part II.B.3.a-c. of the MS4 Permit and DEQ Guidance Document Action Plan Content Items 1-3] The City of Fairfax was assigned an aggregated Waste Load Allocation (WLA) under the approved TMDL report entitled Bacteria TMDL for the Difficult Run Watershed, dated April 25, 2008. The impaired segment of Difficult Run (Segment ID: VAN-A11R-01) begins at the confluence of Captain Hickory Run with Difficult Run and extends 2.93 miles downstream to its confluence with the Potomac River.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2009/086 THIS PAGE: South Fork Quantico Creek ON THE COVER: Bridge over South Fork Quantico Creek NPS Photos Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2009/086 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 March 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Denver, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan and Environmental Assessment Prince William County, Virginia
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan and Environmental Assessment Prince William County, Virginia PRINCE WILLIAM FOREST PARK COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 Environmental Assessment Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan and Environmental Assessment Contents Purpose and Need 1 Planning Issues and Concerns for Detail Analysis 1 Planning Issues and Concerns Dismissed from Further Analysis 2 Alternatives 10 Alternative A: No-Action 10 Alternative B: Action Alternative 10 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 12 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 19 Historic Structures 20 Impacts of Alternative A: No-Action 23 Impacts of Alternatives B: Action Alternative 24 Cultural Landscapes 27 Impacts of Alternative A: No-Action 28 Impacts of Alternatives B: Action Alternative 28 Visitor Use and Experience 29 Impacts of Alternative A: No-Action 32 Impacts of Alternatives B: Action Alternative 32 Consultation and Coordination 35 List of Preparers and Contributors 36 Figure 1: Project Area and Regional Context 3 Figure 2: Action B Action Alternative 15 Figure 3: Action B Action Alternative – New Parking Area and Public Access Roads 16 Figure 4: Action B Action Alternative – Cabin Camp Accessible Trail Areas 17 Figure 5: Area of Potential Effect 21 Figure 6: Photos of Trails and Cabin Camps in PRWI 31 Table 1: Anticipated Cumulative Projects In and Around the Project Site 19 Table of Contents i Environmental Assessment Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan This page is intentionally left blank Table of Contents ii Environmental Assessment Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan PURPOSE AND NEED The National Park Service (NPS) is developing a Comprehensive Trails Plan for Prince William Forest Park (the proposed project).
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Tmdls for the Goose Creek Watershed
    Benthic TMDLs for the Goose Creek Watershed Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin March 1, 2004 Revised April 27, 2004 ICPRB Report 04-5 This report has been prepared by the staff of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Support was provided by the Virginia Department of Environment Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the United States or any of its agencies, the several states, or the Commissioners of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Benthic TMDLs for the Goose Creek Watershed Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin March 1, 2004 Revised April 27, 2004 __________________________________________ Benthic TMDLs For the Goose Creek Watershed TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................I LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................IV LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
    VOL. XIV, PP, 47-86 JUNE 19, 1901 PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON SIXTH LIST OF ADDITIONS TO THE FLORA OF WASHINGTON, D. C. AND VICINITY. BY EDWARD S. STEELE. WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW SPECIES AND VARIETIES BY EDWARD L. GREENE, ALVAH A. EATON, AND THE AUTHOR. The following list is based upon a course of collecting prose cuted outside of my routine work for five years beginning with 1896. The general purpose has been merely to record names of new and less familiar plants, with stations; but advantage has been taken of the opportunity to publish a few descriptions of new local material and to record some observations. Professor Greene has kindly furnished for publication here a name and character for a new violet which I was so fortunate as to discover. Mr. Alvah A. Eaton describes two new forms of Isoetes, which are not, however, my own discoveries. I propose a segregate from the Lycopus virginicus of authors, a well-marked species long since noticed, but apparently never properly named. In an extended note on Vernonia glauca I hope to have set that species in a somewhat clearer light. Other notes are scattered through the list. I am indebted to several gentlemen for the revision of my determinations, particularly to Mr. L. H. Dewey, who studied all my earlier collections of grasses. The dichotomous Pani- JO BIOL. Soc. WASH. VOL. XIV, 1901. (47) 48 Steele Additions to the Flora, of Washington. cums I have of late left wholly to the skill and kindness of Mr. E.
    [Show full text]
  • Mills and Mill Sites in Fairfax County, Virginia and Washington, Dc
    Grist Mills of Fairfax County and Washington, DC MILLS AND MILL SITES IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND WASHINGTON, DC Marjorie Lundegard Friends of Colvin Run Mill August 10, 2009 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most of the research for this catalogue of mills of Fairfax County was obtained from the owners, staff members, or neighbors of these mills. I want to thank all these persons who helped in the assembling of the history of these mills. Resource information was also acquired from: the library at the National Park at Great Falls, Virginia; the book, COLVIN RUN MILL, by Ross D. Nether ton; brochures from the Fairfax County Park Authority; and from the staff and Friends of Peirce Mill in the District of Columbia. Significant information on the mill sites in Fairfax County was obtained from the Historic American Building Survey (HABS/HAER) reports that were made in 1936 and are available from the Library of Congress. I want to give special thanks to my husband, Robert Lundegard, who encouraged me to complete this survey. He also did the word processing to assemble the reports and pictures in book form. He designed the attractive cover page and many other features of the book. It is hoped that you will receive as much enjoyment from the reading of the booklet as I had in preparing it for publication. 0 Grist Mills of Fairfax County and Washington, DC Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 0 GRIST MILLS of FAIRFAX COUNTY and WASHINGTON, DC .............................................................
    [Show full text]