DOCSLIB.ORG

An Ecological Assessment of the Potomac River Direct Drains Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Ecological Assessment of the Potomac River Direct Drains Watershed An Ecological Assessment of the Potomac River Direct Drains Watershed Report number - 02070004 - January 2005 Prepared by: Watershed Assessment Section Watershed Branch Division of Water and Waste Management West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 www.wvdep.org 2 An Ecological Assessment Of Table Of Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 7 Watersheds And Their Assessment................................................................................. 8 General Watershed Assessment Strategy ................................................................... 9 Probabilistic (Random) Sampling ................................................................................ 11 Watershed Assessment Methods................................................................................... 13 Biological Monitoring — Benthic Macroinvertebrates............................................ 13 West Virginia Stream Condition Index.................................................................... 17 Fecal Coliform Bacteria .......................................................................................... 19 Physicochemical Sampling ..................................................................................... 19 Habitat Assessment.................................................................................................. 21 Data Interpretation .................................................................................................. 23 The Potomac River Direct Drains Watershed............................................................... 26 Assessment Results ...................................................................................................... 33 General Overview ................................................................................................... 33 Benthic Macroinvertebrates..................................................................................... 33 Comparable Sites ............................................................................................... 33 Non-comparable Sites........................................................................................ 34 Fecal Coliform Bacteria .......................................................................................... 34 Physicochemical Water Quality............................................................................... 34 Physical Habitat....................................................................................................... 39 Results by sub-watershed ....................................................................................... 40 Back Creek Sub-watershed................................................................................ 40 Sleepy Creek Sub-watershed ............................................................................. 41 Opequon Creek Sub-watershed......................................................................... 42 Miscellaneous Streams ....................................................................................... 44 Implications ................................................................................................................. 47 References .................................................................................................................... 49 Glossary ....................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix A- Data Tables ............................................................................................. 57 The Potomac River Direct Drains Watershed 3 List Of Illustrations Figure 1. A generalized watershed............................................................................... 10 Figure 2. Common benthic macroinvertebrate organisms .......................................... 14 Figure 3. Benthos collection nets ................................................................................ 15 Figure 4. Illustration of embeddedness ....................................................................... 23 Figure 5. Stream with and without riparian buffer zone ............................................. 23 Figure 6. Example sub-watershed ............................................................................... 24 Figure 7. Example X-Y graph ..................................................................................... 25 Figure 8. West Virginia’s watersheds .......................................................................... 26 Figure 9. Limestone areas of the Potomac River Direct Drains watershed ................. 27 Figure 10. Ecoregions of the Potomac River Direct Drains watershed ....................... 28 Figure 11. Landuses in the Potomac River Direct Drains watershed .......................... 30 Figure 12. WVSCI scores at each sample site ............................................................. 35 Figure 13. Back Ck. WVSCI scores vs. RBP habitat scores ...............................................36 Figure 14. Sleepy Ck. WVSCI scores vs. RBP habitat scores.............................................36 Figure 15. Opequon Ck. WVSCI scores vs. RBP habitat scores.........................................37 Figure 16. Miscellaneous streams WVSCI scores vs. RBP habitat scores...........................37 Figure 17. Fecal coliform bacteria levels .................................................................... 38 Figure 18. Back Creek................................................................................................. 40 Figure 19. Sleepy Creek .............................................................................................. 41 Figure 20. Opequon Creek.......................................................................................... 43 Figure 21. Miscellaneous streams................................................................................ 45 Figure 22. Karst........................................................................................................... 46 4 An Ecological Assessment Of List Of Tables Table 1. Water quality parameters ............................................................................... 20 Table 2. Scoring for rapid habitat assessment ............................................................. 22 Table 3. 2002 303(d) list streams .......................................................................................32 Table 4. Streams on both the 303(d) list and the WVDNR high quality streams list ..............32 Table 5. Streams on the proposed special waters list .................................................32 Table 6. Sampling summary ........................................................................................ 34 Table 7. Sites with nitrite+nitrate nitrogen > 1.0 mg/l ................................................39 Table 8. Back Creek sub-watershed ..................................................................................40 Table 9. Sleepy Creek sub-watershed ................................................................................41 Table 10. Opequon Creek sub-watershed .........................................................................42 Table 11. Miscellaneous streams ........................................................................................44 Table 12. Miscellaneous streams sub-watershed landuse area percentages .........................45 Table 13. Major sub-watershed landuses ...........................................................................46 Table A-1. Sites Sampled ............................................................................................ 58 Table A-2. Physical characteristics of 100 meter stream reach .................................... 60 Table A-3. Observed sediment characteristics............................................................. 62 Table A-4. Substrate composition in benthic collection area ...................................... 64 Table A-5. Macrobenthic community metrics and WVSCI scores .............................. 66 Table A-6. Numbers of each taxon found at each sample site ....................................68 Table A-7. Water quality parameters measured in the field, and fecal coliform bacteria.................................................................................................................... 81 Table A-8. Additional water quality parameters taken from a subset of all streams sampled ................................................................................................................... 83 Table A-9. Additional water quality parameters taken from a subset of all streams sampled ................................................................................................................... 84 Table A-10. Rapid Habitat Assessment Scores ............................................................ 86 The Potomac River Direct Drains Watershed 5 Summary In June of 1998, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection conducted an assessment of the Potomac River Direct Drains watershed, located in the eastern panhandle of the state. The watershed includes all West Virginia tributaries to the river between the South Branch and Shenandoah River exclusive of those two
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flood History 1. According to Records
    Flood History 1. According to records from the NOAA Event Records database, the months when the most flooding occurs are March, with five (5) reported floods from 1950 to present, September, with four (4) reported floods, and January and February both with three (3) reported floods. There have been 29 flood events in Jefferson County since 1993, 18 of which were river floods, 11 that were considered flash flood events. 2. The worst hazard events experienced in Jefferson County were incidents of flooding resulting from heavy rains and snow melt. The earliest flood on record occurred in 1870 when the Shenandoah River was recorded at 12.9 feet above flood stage in the community of Millville. The following are brief descriptions of historical floods that have occurred in Jefferson County. a. October 1962 – Flooding of the Shenandoah River at Millville resulted in estimated damages to over 40 homes and mobile homes. The river crested at 32.45 feet. b. April 22, 1992 – Both the Shenandoah and the Potomac Rivers crested above flood stage after 4.5 inches of rainfall. A car and a mobile home were destroyed by the high waters. c. March 25-28, 1993 – Flash flooding occurred after snow melted throughout the county. Several people were evacuated and approximately $5,000 in damages to public facilities was reported. d. January 19-21, 1996 – A three-day period of flooding resulted from snow melting after the Blizzard of 1996. Several roads were closed and many structures were affected or damaged by the high water. This flooding resulted in approximately $593,000 in damages to public and private facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail National Park Service Potomac Heritage District of Columbia/Maryland/Pennsylvania/Virginia U.S
    Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail National Park Service Potomac Heritage District of Columbia/Maryland/Pennsylvania/Virginia U.S. Department of the Interior Parks and Regional Trails Charlestown k To Breezewood To Chambersburg e e r C 522 k l MICHAUX l e i 11IE e R 81 k E r H e E STATE C AK Allegheny L I g e L l A r i NF n g k R ADAMS i a T BUCHANAN C e CLEVELAND FOREST l l n r i i e e T a STATE FOREST r k k r d 70 a e c C COUNTY T i r i FRANKLIN e AKRON NEW YORK S y o e r e L t r v NJ a C Pittsburgh a CITY a BUCHANAN o IC t c INDIANA e N w E s C COUNTY C TRENTON S OH S STATE FOREST u Harrisburg BEDFORD o u d 26 l T e g PA i l COLUMBUS o t a M t e Dayton n i COUNTY FULTON h Philadelphia o L c T Baltimore o Chesapeake MD COUNTY CINCINNATI c Wayne o NF and Ohio WashingtonDOVER D.C. n Canal NHP ANNAPOLIS o WASHINGTON, D.C. Ohi o WV DE k C Shenandoah e George NP GeorgeCAPTAIN JOHN SMITH e FRANKFORT Washington CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL r Harpers Washington C NF L HISTORIC TRAIL Charleston A Ferry Memorial n N IO NHP PKWY PENNSYLVANIA Jefferson T w AVA o KY NF N T MARYLAND Richmond POTOMAC HERITAGE 68 Y NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL Hancock N W NORFOLK IA K To Cumberland ABINGDON H P C INDIAN SPRINGS WILDLIFE A L ge ELIZABETHTON PA id BELLE GROVE MANAGEMENT AREA P R WINSTON- TN Cherokee A BILLMEYER WILDLIFE NF e 68 Great Smoky lu SALEMNC WILDLIFE ail B Raleigh North MANAGEMENT Tr WASHINGTON Mountains NP l Ch Pisgah MANAGEMENT AREA i es OVERMOUNTAIN VICTORY a ap NF MorgantonNATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL AREA R e COUNTY a Nantahala CHARLOTTE CHATTANOOGA k Chattahochee
    [Show full text]
  • UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan
    UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Prepared by Updated June 2012 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan (This page intentionally left blank) June 2011 Page 2 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Historical Background .................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Drought Response Stage Declaration, Implementation and Response Measures.......................... 8 Drought Declaration .................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Response Stages and Response Measures ..................................................................... 10 4.0 Drought Response Stage Termination .......................................................................................... 11 5.0 Plan Revisions ............................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A Locality Drought Watch, Warning and Emergency Indicators Appendix B Drought Watch Responses and Water Conservation Measures Appendix C Drought Warning Responses
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Cacapon Settlement: 1749-1800 31
    THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 31 5 THE CACAPON SETTLEMENT: 1749-1800 The existence of a settlement of Brethren families in the Cacapon River Valley of eastern Hampshire County in present day West Virginia has been unknown and uninvestigated until the present time. That a congregation of Brethren existed there in colonial times cannot now be denied, for sufficient evidence has been accumulated to reveal its presence at least by the 1760s and perhaps earlier. Because at this early date, Brethren churches and ministers did not keep records, details of this church cannot be recovered. At most, contemporary researchers can attempt to identify the families which have the highest probability of being of Brethren affiliation. Even this is difficult due to lack of time and resources. The research program for many of these families is incomplete, and this chapter is offered tentatively as a basis for additional research. Some attempted identifications will likely be incorrect. As work went forward on the Brethren settlements in the western and southern parts of old Hampshire County, it became clear that many families in the South Branch, Beaver Run and Pine churches had relatives who had lived in the Cacapon River Valley. Numerous families had moved from that valley to the western part of the county, and intermarriages were also evident. Land records revealed a large number of family names which were common on the South Branch, Patterson Creek, Beaver Run and Mill Creek areas. In many instances, the names appeared first on the Cacapon and later in the western part of the county.
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Control Board Page 1 O F16 9 Vac 25-260-350 and 400 Water Quality Standards
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 O F16 9 VAC 25-260-350 AND 400 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 9 VAC 25-260-350 Designation of nutrient enriched waters. A. The following state waters are hereby designated as "nutrient enriched waters": * 1. Smith Mountain Lake and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 2. Lake Chesdin from its dam upstream to where the Route 360 bridge (Goodes Bridge) crosses the Appomattox River, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter between the dam and the Route 360 bridge; 3. South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 4. New River and its tributaries, except Peak Creek above Interstate 81, from Claytor Dam upstream to Big Reed Island Creek (Claytor Lake); 5. Peak Creek from its headwaters to its mouth (confluence with Claytor Lake), including all tributaries to their headwaters; 6. Aquia Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 7. Fourmile Run from its headwaters to the state line; 8. Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 9. Little Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 10. Gunston Cove from its headwaters to the state line; 11. Belmont and Occoquan Bays from their headwaters to the state line; 12. Potomac Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 13. Neabsco Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 14. Williams Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with Upper Machodoc Creek; 15. Tidal freshwater Rappahannock River from the fall line to Buoy 44, near Leedstown, Virginia, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter the tidal freshwater Rappahannock River; 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Overview
    WWeett WWaaddeerrss aanndd BBeeyyoonndd TThhee CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff OOuurr SSttaattee’’ss WWaatteerrss AA CCiittiizzeenn’’ss PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee 1 WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water and Waste Management, Nonpoint Section 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 The document was prepared by Tim Craddock, WV DEP’s Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator and is available electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF). To request your copy send e-mail to Tim Craddock at: [email protected]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Color photographs provided by: Alana Hartman, DEP’s Potomac Basin Coordinator; Abby Chappel, WV River Network; Sherry Evasic, Blue Heron Environmental Network; Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute; Suzanne Hubbard, The Mountain Institute; Renee Cain, Lower West Fork Watershed Association; Martin Christ, Friends of Deckers Creek; Bobby Bonnett, Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization; Diana Green, Davis Creek Watershed Association; James Grey, Morris Creek Watershed Association; Larry Orr, Kanawha Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Valerie Wilson, Science Teacher, Oak Hill Catholic Center; Brad Durst, WV Conservation Agency and Curtis Canada, Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association. WV Save Our Streams would like to recognize all the volunteer monitors, not only those directly associated with the program, but any others who have given their time and energy in an effort to protect our state’s streams and rivers. WV Save Our Streams would also like to recognize all of the agency and other partners who have provided assistance of any kind, to help guide volunteers through the myriad of processes involved with water quality issues. “Perception is not acquired by formal education, nor is it reserved for persons learned in the arts or sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • River Watch Summer 2006
    Vol. 3 Summer 2006 River Watch 1 River Watch Volume 3 Summer 2006 Governor Visits New Shenandoah Riverkeeper Jeff Kelble had been the Shenandoah Riverkeeper for two weeks when Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine, US Senator Russ Potts, and Secretary of Natural Resource Preston Bryant flew from Richmond to hold a meeting at his bed and breakfast. The Governor wanted to be briefed on the status of the ongoing fish kills on the Shenandoah River, and he wanted to hear from citizens who had personally been affected by the rivers problems. Evi- dently Jeffs story rang true: man runs fishing guide service on the Shenandoah, businessman buys old house in Shenandoah Valley and renovates for two years to open B&B to cater to fishermen, fish kills occur, mans dreams dashed. Jeff has served on the Virginia Fish Kill Task Force since its inception, originally as a fishing guide but now as the Shenandoah Riverkeeper. The Fish Kill Task Force is composed of State environment and game Governor Kaine discusses Shenandoah fish health. officials, Shenandoah Valley non-profit conservation groups, federal fish pathology experts, federal water chemistry experts, university scientists and Jeff. Out of the task force has come several studies to determine why Shenandoah fish were forming lesions and dying. The studies have been underway since April and the task force is scheduled to run out of money at the end of the summer. This is why the Governors help is needed. Jeff reports that the meeting was strong and that the Governor had very good answers to his three questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Log of the Geology of Frederick County, Virginia W
    Vol. 17 MAY, 1971 No. 2 ROAD LOG OF THE GEOLOGY OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA W. E. Nunan The following road log is a guide to geologic The user of this road log should keep in mind features along or near main roads in Frederick that automobile odometers vary in accuracy. Dis- County, Virginia. Distances and cumulative mile- tances between stops and road intersections ages between places where interesting and repre- should be checked frequently, especially at junc- sentative-lithologies, formational contacts, struc- tions or stream crossings immediately preceding tural features, fossils, and geomorphic features stops. The Frederick County road map of the occur are noted. At least one exposure for nearly Virginia Department of Highways, and the U. S. each formation is included in the log. Brief dis- Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps cussions of the geological features observable at are recommended for use with this road log. the various stops is included in the text. Topographic maps covering Frederick County include Boyce, Capon Bridge, Capon Springs, A comprehensive report of the geology of the Glengary, Gore, Hayfield, Inwood, Middletown, Mountain Falls, Ridge, Stephens City, Stephen- County is presented in "Geology and Mineral Re- son, Wardensville, White Hall, and Winchester. sources of Frederick County" by Charles Butts The route of the road log (Figure 1) shows U. S. and R. S. Edmundson, Bulletin 80 of the Virginia and State Highways and those State Roads trav- Division of Mineral Resources. The publication eled or needed for reference at intersections. has a 1:62,500 scale geologic map in color, which Pertinent place names, streams, and railroad is available from the Division for $4.00 plus sales crossings are indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Development of Shenandoah River
    SDMS DocID 2109708 Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) for the Shenandoah River, Virginia and West Virginia I. Introduction The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for those water bodies identified as impaired by the state where technology-based and other controls did not provide for attainment of water quality standards. A TMDL is a determination of the amount of a pollutant from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources, including a margin of safety, that may be discharged to a water qualit>'-limited water body. This document will set forth the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rationale for establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of PGBs for the Shenandoah River. EPA's rationale is based on the determination that the TMDL meets the following 8 regulatory conditions pursuant to 40 CFR §130. 1) The TMDL is designed to implement applicable water quality standards. 2) The TMDL includes a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and load allocations. 3) The TMDL considers the impacts of background pollutant contributions. 4) The TMDL considers critical environmental conditions. 5) The TMDL considers seasonal environmental variations. 6) The TMDL includes a margin of safety. 7) The TMDL has been subject to public participation. 8) There is reasonable assurance that the TMDL can be met. II. Background The Shenandoah River drains 1,957,690 acres of land. The watershed can be broken down into several land-uses. Forest and agricultural lands make-up roughly 1,800,000 acres of watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia Trail Inventory
    West Virginia Trail Inventory Trail report summarized by county, prepared by the West Virginia GIS Technical Center updated 9/24/2014 County Name Trail Name Management Area Managing Organization Length Source (mi.) Date Barbour American Discovery American Discovery Trail 33.7 2009 Trail Society Barbour Brickhouse Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.55 2013 Barbour Brickhouse Spur Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.03 2013 Barbour Conflicted Desire Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 2.73 2013 Barbour Conflicted Desire Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.03 2013 Shortcut Barbour Double Bypass Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 1.46 2013 Barbour Double Bypass Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.02 2013 Connector Barbour Double Dip Trail Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.2 2013 Barbour Hospital Loop Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.29 2013 Barbour Indian Burial Ground Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.72 2013 Barbour Kid's Trail Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.72 2013 Barbour Lower Alum Cave Trail Audra State Park WV Division of Natural 0.4 2011 Resources Barbour Lower Alum Cave Trail Audra State Park WV Division of Natural 0.07 2011 Access Resources Barbour Prologue Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.63 2013 Barbour River Trail Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 1.26 2013 Barbour Rock Cliff Trail Audra State Park WV Division of Natural 0.21 2011 Resources Barbour Rock Pinch Trail Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 1.51 2013 Barbour Short course Bypass Nobusiness Hill Little Moe's Trolls 0.1 2013 Barbour
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Consumption Advisories Available for 2010
    Fish Consumption Advisories Available for 2010 The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) has updated the West Virginia Sport Fish Consumption Advisory for 2010. West Virginia DHHR, through an interagency agreement, partners with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Division of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop consumption advisories for fish caught in West Virginia. Fish consumption advisories are reviewed annually and help West Virginia anglers make educated choices about eating the fish they catch. Certain West Virginia sport fish have been found to have low levels of chemicals like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, selenium and dioxin. To protect the good health of West Virginians, the West Virginia DHHR offers an advisory for how often these fish can be safely eaten. An advisory is advice, and should not be viewed as law or regulation. It is intended to help anglers and their families make educated choices about: where to fish, what types of fish to eat, how to limit the amount and frequency of fish eaten, and how to prepare and cook fish to reduce contaminants. This advisory covers only sport fish caught in West Virginia waters. Safety regulations and advisories for fish in the market place are the responsibility of the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For more information you can contact the FDA at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm110591.htm The following updated 2010 advisory recommendation is the result of reviewing new and recent fish tissue data. Data collected from lakes and rivers in West Virginia show that a general statewide advisory of sport‐caught fish is appropriate.
    [Show full text]