Table 5. Low-Flow MOVE.1 Equations for Selected Short-Term, Continuous-Record Streamgaging Stations. Short-Term Continuous-Recor
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 .............................................................................................................................................. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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 -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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). -
Estimating Mean Long-Term Hydrologic Budget Components For
urren : C t R gy e o s l e o r a r d c Sanford et al., Hydrol Current Res 2015, 6:1 y h H Hydrology DOI: 10.4172/2157-7587.1000191 Current Research ISSN: 2157-7587 Research Article Open Access Estimating Mean Long-term Hydrologic Budget Components for Watersheds and Counties: An Application to the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA Ward E Sanford1*, David L Nelms2, Jason P Pope2 and David L Selnick3 1Mail Stop 431, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 20171, USA 2U.S. Geological Survey, Richmond, Virginia, USA 3U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA Abstract Mean long-term hydrologic budget components, such as recharge and base flow, are often difficult to estimate because they can vary substantially in space and time. Mean long-term fluxes were calculated in this study for precipitation, surface runoff, infiltration, total evapotranspiration (ET), riparian ET, recharge, base flow (or groundwater discharge) and net total outflow using long-term estimates of mean ET and precipitation and the assumption that the relative change in storage over that 30-year period is small compared to the total ET or precipitation. Fluxes of these components were first estimated on a number of real-time-gaged watersheds across Virginia. Specific conductance was used to distinguish and separate surface runoff from base flow. Specific-conductance (SC) data were collected every 15 minutes at 75 real-time gages for approximately 18 months between March 2007 and August 2008. Precipitation was estimated for 1971-2000 using PRISM climate data. Precipitation and temperature from the PRISM data were used to develop a regression-based relation to estimate total ET. -
2015 MS4 Permit Year 2 Annual Report
GENERAL PERMIT FOR SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS PERMIT NUMBER: VAR040053 Permit Year 2 Annual Report Reporting Period: July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015 City of Winchester, Virginia Rouss City Hall Public Services Department 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 October 1, 2015 City of Winchester, Virginia Permit Year 2 Annual Report Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Background Information ......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Status of Permit Condition Compliance .................................................................................. 2 2.1. Assessment of BMP Appropriateness .................................................................................... 2 2.2. Required MS4 Program Plan Updates ................................................................................... 2 2.3. Measureable Goals Progress ................................................................................................. 3 3.0 Results of Collected Data ..................................................................................................... 18 4.0 Future Stormwater Activities ................................................................................................ 18 5.0 Changes in BMPs and Measurable Goals ............................................................................ 18 5.1. Changes in BMPs/Program Elements .................................................................................. 19 5.2. Changes in Measureable -
M a R Y L a N D V I R G I N
300 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 3, Chapter 12 26 SEP 2021 77°20'W 77°W 76°40'W 76°20'W 39°N Annapolis Washington D.C. 12289 Alexandria PISCATAWAY CREEK 38°40'N MARYLAND 12288 MATTAWOMAN CREEK PATUXENT RIVER PORT TOBACCO RIVER NANJEMOY CREEK 12285 WICOMICO 12286 RIVER 38°20'N ST. CLEMENTS BAY UPPER MACHODOC CREEK 12287 MATTOX CREEK POTOMAC RIVER ST. MARYS RIVER POPES CREEK NOMINI BAY YEOCOMICO RIVER Point Lookout COAN RIVER 38°N RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Smith VIRGINIA Point 12233 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 3—Chapter 12 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 26 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 3, Chapter 12 ¢ 301 Chesapeake Bay, Potomac River (1) This chapter describes the Potomac River and the above the mouth; thence the controlling depth through numerous tributaries that empty into it; included are the dredged cuts is about 18 feet to Hains Point. The Coan, St. Marys, Yeocomico, Wicomico and Anacostia channels are maintained at or near project depths. For Rivers. Also described are the ports of Washington, DC, detailed channel information and minimum depths as and Alexandria and several smaller ports and landings on reported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), these waterways. use NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts. Surveys and (2) channel condition reports are available through a USACE COLREGS Demarcation Lines hydrographic survey website listed in Appendix A. (3) The lines established for Chesapeake Bay are (12) described in 33 CFR 80.510, chapter 2. Anchorages (13) Vessels bound up or down the river anchor anywhere (4) ENCs - US5VA22M, US5VA27M, US5MD41M, near the channel where the bottom is soft; vessels US5MD43M, US5MD44M, US4MD40M, US5MD40M sometimes anchor in Cornfield Harbor or St.