DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Geological Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Geological Survey UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SELECTED TRACE-ELEMENT AND . ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN 0' STREAMBED SEDIMENTS OF THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN, AUGUST 1992 (~c~ By James M. Gerhart and INTRODUCTION l0 R L Joe/ D. Blomquist This report pre ellls th e re ult of a '-\'\o q s -lf d. lo; Background ABSTRACT urvey of contaminants in strea mbed edi­ melll in selected stream of th e Potomac This report describes the occur­ The U.S. Geo logica l Survey ( SGS) is implementing th e ational Water­ Ri ver Ba in. The report focuses on five rence and distribution of five selected Quality A ssessment ( AWQA) program elec ted contaminants, including two trace contaminants in streambed sediments to de cribe and xplain water-quality co n­ element - lead and mercury-and three at 22 strea m sites in the Potomac ditions and trend s of th e Nation' urface­ organic compound hl01·dane, total River Basin. Lead, mercury, and total wa ter and grou nd-water resources DDT (dichl orodiphenyltrichloroeth ane). DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloro­ (Gilliom and oth ers. 1995). One of the ethane) were detected at all sites, and fir. t area s to be studied as part or th e full­ Streambed-sediment samples were co ll ected and chlordane and total PCB's (polychlori­ sca le A WQA program i. th e Potomac composited from a variety of depositional settings nated biphenyls) were detected at Ri ver Basin. where water-quality within stream reaches that averaged 300 feet in length at each sampling site. most sites. At six sites, streambed­ sa mpling ac ti vities for th e study sediment concentrations of contami­ were begun in 1992. A major goal nants were detected at levels with the of th e Potomac Ri ver Bas in tu dy i potential to cause frequent adverse to describe th e cc urrencc and dis­ effects on aquatic organisms that live tribution of a wide vari ety of ph y. i­ in the sediments. Chlordane was ca l, chemica l, and bi ologica l wa ter­ detected at these high levels at sam­ quality charac teri . ti c of trea ms pling sites on the Anacostia Ri ver, the and ground wa ter in th e bas in. North Branch Potomac River, Bu ll Some of th e chemica l com- Run , and Accotink Creek; mercury pound of interes t in th e WQA was detected at these levels at sites program. in cluding many trace cle­ on the South River and the South ments and syntheti c organic com­ Fork Shenandoah River; and total pound . do not eas ily dis. ol e in PCB's were detected at these levels strea mwa ter. but in tead tend to at the site on the Sou th Fork Shenan­ accum ul ate in trcambed s diments doah Ri ver. The highest concentra­ and aq uati c biologica l ti ss ues. When th ese co mp unds accumulate tions of all five contaminants generally in ufficiently high co ncentrati ons occurred at sampling sites down­ in sediment or ti ue , they can ac t stream from areas with industrial as contam inant th at ca n adver. ely plants, urban centers, or orchard and affect th e hea lth of aqu ati c orga n- ag ri cultural activity. The occurrence i m . To addre th e occurrence of these contaminants in streambed and distribution of selec ted trace­ sediments of the Potomac River Basin element and orga nic contaminant · is of concern because the co ntami­ in strea ms in th e Potomac Ri ver nants (1) are environ mentally persis­ Ba in, a survey of contaminants in tent, (2) are avai lable fo r downstream streambed sediments and aquatic transport during high streamflow peri ­ b. ·ca l ti sues wa s conducted in ods, and (3) have the potential to cause adverse effects on the health of aquatic organisms and humans th rough bioaccumulation . MAY 2 8 1996 SR lfBRAR Y Figure 1. Streambed sediments were sam­ pled in August 1992 at 22 stream sites in the 14,670-square-mile Potomac River Basin. Physiographic Provi nces Appalachian Plateau Great Valley subprovince D Blu eRidge and total PCB ' (polyc h Iori nated Piedmont bi phenyls). Lead, mercury, • Triassic Lowlands subprovi nce chl ordane, and total PCB 's were 0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES selected becau e these com- D Coastal Plain 0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS pounds have been designated as 17 "toxics of concern" by the • Location and number of sampling site Chesapeake Bay Program (Che apeake Bay Program, 199 I a); total DDT wa elected becau e of nati onal concern regarding its environ­ (3) What are some of the importan t environ­ Potomac Ri ver Basin (fig. I). mental effect during the Ia t several mental implications of the occurrence of At each of the 22 sampling sites, decade . The report de cribes the re ult these contaminant s in streambed sed i­ fine-grained streambed sediment were of treambed- edi ment ampling at 22 men ts? coll ected and compo ited from a vari ety tream site throughout the Potomac of depositi onal setting within stream River Ba in in Augu t I 992, and addre - Streambed-Sediment Sampling reaches th at averaged about 300 feet in e the fo llowing questi ons about the and Analysis length . Samples were coll ected from the occurrence and di stribution of the five The sampling site that were selected top I inch of fine-grain ed sediments u ing contami nant in streambed sediments of for a sessin g the occurrence and di stribu­ a scoop in wadeabl e streams or a dredge the ba in : ti on of contaminants in streambed sedi ­ in deeper streams; sampling equipment ( 1) Which stream ite have streambed sedi ­ ments in the Potomac Ri ver Ba in cover a was con tructed fro m inert materi als. All ments with elevated concentrations of range of phy iographic ettings (fig. I), sites were sampled during low streamflow th ese contaminant s? tream izes (table I), and land u es. conditions when no fine-grained sedi ­ (2) What i the re lation between elevated con ­ Drain age areas for the 22 sites generall y ments were in suspension in the water centrations of these contam inant in range from about 20 to I 2,000 square column. Each ample was sieved into treambed ed iments and potenti al mile (tabl e I), and incl ude parts of the 7 subsamples in the field fo r laboratory up. tream contam inant sources? physiographic provinces and subprovince analy i . and parts of th e fo ur States in the 2 Contaminants in Streambed Sediments Table 1. Streambed-sediment sampling sites in the Potomac River Basin, August 1992 Drainage Sampling area, in site square number Station number Station name miles 1 01595000 North Branch Potomac River at Steyer, Md. 73.0 2 01596500 Savage River near Barton, Md. 49.1 3 01600000 North Branch Potomac River at Pinto, Md. 596 4 01603000 North Branch Potomac River at Cumberland, Md. 875 5 01608000 South Fork South Branch Potomac River near Moorefield, W. Va. 283 6 01611500 Cacapon River near Great Cacapon, W. Va. 677 7 01614500 Conococheague Creek at Fairview, Md. 494 8 01616500 Opequon Creek near Martinsburg, W. Va. 272 9 01617800 Marsh Run at Grimes, Md. 18.9 10 01618000 Potomac River at Sheperdstown, W. Va. 5,936 11 01625000 Middle River near Grottoes, Va. 375 12 01627500 South River near Harriston, Va. 212 13 01631020 South Fork Shenandoah River below Cabin Run at Front Royal, Va. 1,647 14 01634000 North Fork Shenandoah River near Strasburg, Va. 768 15 01636500 Shenandoah River at Millville, W.Va. 3,040 16 01639000 Monocacy River at Bridgeport, Md. 173 17 01644000 Goose Creek near Leesburg, Va. 332 18 01651010 Anacostia River near Bladensburg, Md. 130 19 01652589 Potomac River below Oxon Creek at Alexandria, Va. 11 ,880 20 01654000 Accotink Creek near Annandale, Va. 23.5 21 01657000 Bull Run near Manassas, Va. 147 22 01661050 St. Clement Creek near Clements Md. 18.5 amples for trace-e lement ana lys i Nati onal Wat er-Quality Laborat ory in for a va ri ety of 1 urposes (tabl e 2). The were sieved through a 63 -micrometer Arvada, olo. Ch lord ane. total Dl T. and uses f many of th ese cont aminants ha e nylon filter, digested to complete di sso lu­ total P B's were determined by dual ca p­ been regul ated r bann cl in the last sever­ ti on. and analyz d fo r 45 trace e l eme nt ~ . illary-column gas chroma tography with al decade because of an incrca ·eel a1 arc­ Lead wa.· determined by inducti ely cou­ eleCll·o n-ca pture detection (Foreman and ne. of th e ad erse effect th ey can have pl ed pia ma-atomic em iss ion . pec trome­ oth er . 1995). on animal and human health. ome of try (Briggs, 1990). and mercury was th eir adver e effect on human hea lth are determined by cold apor-a tomic abso rp ­ li. ted in table 2. ti on ·pectrophotometry (O'Leary and oth ­ OCCURRENCE AND The unit of streambed-sediment con­ ers. 1990). Samp les for rganic-com­ DISTRIBUTION OF centration u. ed in thi report are part per pound analys is were sieved through a 2- SELECTED CONTAMINANTS million (ppm) fo r trace element s and parts millimeter stain less-s teel sieve and ana­ per bi llion (ppb) for organi compounds.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MDE-Water Pollution
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 1 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapters 01-10 ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 2 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 01 General ......................................................................................................................................... 2 .01 Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 3 .02 Principles of Water Pollution Control....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L Natural Resources Technical Report May 2020
    APPENDIX L NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2020 and NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Corridors ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Study Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Alternatives Evaluated .................................................................................................................. 4 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...............................................................9 2.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Regulatory Context and Methods ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 Environmental Effects ......................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds.Pdf
    Watershed Code Watershed Name 02130705 Aberdeen Proving Ground 02140205 Anacostia River 02140502 Antietam Creek 02130102 Assawoman Bay 02130703 Atkisson Reservoir 02130101 Atlantic Ocean 02130604 Back Creek 02130901 Back River 02130903 Baltimore Harbor 02130207 Big Annemessex River 02130606 Big Elk Creek 02130803 Bird River 02130902 Bodkin Creek 02130602 Bohemia River 02140104 Breton Bay 02131108 Brighton Dam 02120205 Broad Creek 02130701 Bush River 02130704 Bynum Run 02140207 Cabin John Creek 05020204 Casselman River 02140305 Catoctin Creek 02130106 Chincoteague Bay 02130607 Christina River 02050301 Conewago Creek 02140504 Conococheague Creek 02120204 Conowingo Dam Susq R 02130507 Corsica River 05020203 Deep Creek Lake 02120202 Deer Creek 02130204 Dividing Creek 02140304 Double Pipe Creek 02130501 Eastern Bay 02141002 Evitts Creek 02140511 Fifteen Mile Creek 02130307 Fishing Bay 02130609 Furnace Bay 02141004 Georges Creek 02140107 Gilbert Swamp 02130801 Gunpowder River 02130905 Gwynns Falls 02130401 Honga River 02130103 Isle of Wight Bay 02130904 Jones Falls 02130511 Kent Island Bay 02130504 Kent Narrows 02120201 L Susquehanna River 02130506 Langford Creek 02130907 Liberty Reservoir 02140506 Licking Creek 02130402 Little Choptank 02140505 Little Conococheague 02130605 Little Elk Creek 02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 02131105 Little Patuxent River 02140509 Little Tonoloway Creek 05020202 Little Youghiogheny R 02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay 02130505 Lower Chester River 02130403 Lower Choptank 02130601 Lower
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River Watershed December 31, 2014
    Watershed Existing Condition Report for the Potomac River Watershed December 31, 2014 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 8. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 2. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 9. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 3. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 10. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 4. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 11. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 5. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 12. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 6. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 13. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden Potomac River Watershed Existing Conditions Report Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Problem Identification and Basis for Listing ........................................................................ 5 1.2.3 TMDL Identified Sources ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Countywide Watershed Assessment
    Prince George’s County Countywide Watershed Assessment for MS4 Permit (2014-2019) December 21, 2018 Prepared For Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared By Tetra Tech 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 Cover Photo Credits 1. Prince George’s County DoE 2. Prince George’s County DoE 3. Clean Water Partnership 4. M-NCPPC_Cassi Hayden Prince George’s County Countywide Watershed Assessment for MS4 Permit (2014–2019) Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................. iv 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Prince George’s County Impaired Waters .................................................................................... 4 1.1.1 Impaired Water Bodies ....................................................................................................... 4 1.1.2 Causes of Water Body Impairment ..................................................................................... 6 1.2 Prince George’s County Restoration Plans .................................................................................. 8 2 Current Water Quality Conditions .................................................................................... 10 2.1 Biological Assessment ................................................................................................................ 10 2.1.1 Assessment
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Mitigation Plan
    s Prince George’s County and The City of Laurel Maryland Hazard Mitigation Plan 222000111000 UUUpppdddaaattteee s Table of Contents Foreword and Resolutions of Adoption Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Authority ...............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Planning Area........................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Geography, Climate, and Population ....................................................................1-5 1.5 Planning Committee Membership.........................................................................1-6 1.6 Acknowledgments.................................................................................................1-9 1.7 Key Terms & Acronyms .......................................................................................1-9 1.8 References ...........................................................................................................1-10 1.9 2010 Update........................................................................................................1-11 Chapter 2. Mitigation Planning 2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 The Mitigation Planning Process ..........................................................................2-1 2.3
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 12-1992 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation In The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991 R J. Orth Judith F. Nowak Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gary Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science Kevin P. Kiley Virginia Institute of Marine Science Jennifer R. Whiting Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Orth, R. J., Nowak, J. F., Anderson, G., Kiley, K. P., & Whiting, J. R. (1992) Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation In The Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/m2-031r-g688 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]. 11° oo' 76° 00' 75°00' 39° oo' 38° oo' 37° 0 10 20 30 oo' NAUTICAL MILES 11° oo' 75° oo· \/\rfl:S ~~ JJ~.i OG+ \~q I C,.3 Distribution of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and Tributaries and Chincoteague Bay - 1991 by Robert J. Orth, Judith F. Nowak, Gary F. Anderson, Kevin P. Kiley, and Jennifer R. Whiting Virginia Institute of Marine Science School of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Grant X00346503) National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (Grant No. NAl 70Z0359-0l) Virginia Institute of Marine Science/School of Marine Science Maryland Department of Natural Resources (C272-92-005) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • V: W Atershed Planning
    V: WATERSHED PLANNING WATERSHED V: Restoration and preservation policies for rivers, streams, tributaries, and wetlands begin with an identification of the existing conditions as issues and opportunities within watersheds, culminating in the development and implementation of effective solutions based on best management practices. ater quality throughout Prince George’s County has been impacted by the conversionW of forest land to agricultural use over the past three centuries and to increasingly urbanized land over the past few decades. This conversion has resulted in degradation of streams, decline in forest and wetland habitats, and decreased opportunities to benefit from the recreational and economic opportunities that healthy water resources provide. Prince George’s County encompasses approximately 300,000 acres or five percent of the land area of Maryland and lies within the Chesapeake Bay watershed—the largest estuary in the United States and the third largest in the world. On May 12, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that recognizes the Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure and calls on the federal government to lead a renewed effort to restore and protect the nation’s largest estuary and its watershed.1 WATERSHEDS The term watershed is often applied to geographical areas of different sizes and scales. In general, the definition of a watershed is a geographic area in which water, sediments, and dissolved materials drain from higher elevations to a common low-lying outlet or basin discharging at a point on a larger stream, lake, underlying aquifer, or estuary.2 The largest watershed management unit is called a basin, which is a large drainage area related to a lake, river, or estuary, such as the Chesapeake Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Database Design and Data Dictionary
    Water Quality Database Database Design and Data Dictionary Prepared For: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Chesapeake Bay Program Office January 2004 BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................6 WATER QUALITY DATA.............................................................................................................................6 THE RELATIONAL CONCEPT ..................................................................................................................6 THE RELATIONAL DATABASE STRUCTURE ...................................................................................7 WATER QUALITY DATABASE STRUCTURE..........................................................8 PRIMARY TABLES ..........................................................................................................................................8 WQ_CRUISES ..................................................................................................................................................8 WQ_EVENT.......................................................................................................................................................8 WQ_DATA..........................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Prince George's Mitigation Plan
    s Prince George’s County and The City of Laurel Maryland Hazard Mitigation Plan 222000111000 UUUpppdddaaattteee s Table of Contents Foreword and Resolutions of Adoption Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Authority ...............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Planning Area........................................................................................................1-1 1.4 Geography, Climate, and Population ....................................................................1-5 1.5 Planning Committee Membership.........................................................................1-6 1.6 Acknowledgments.................................................................................................1-9 1.7 Key Terms & Acronyms .......................................................................................1-9 1.8 References ...........................................................................................................1-10 1.9 2010 Update........................................................................................................1-11 Chapter 2. Mitigation Planning 2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 The Mitigation Planning Process ..........................................................................2-1 2.3
    [Show full text]
  • MDE Urban QAPP 1-3-17 (2).Pdf
    Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 3 1.1 - Title and Approval Page – See page i. ................................................................................. 3 1.2 - Table of Contents – See page ii. ......................................................................................... 3 1.3 - Distribution List ................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 - Project Organization ........................................................................................................... 3 1.5 - Problem Definition/Background ......................................................................................... 7 1.6 - Project/Task Description and Schedule ............................................................................ 10 1.7 - Quality Objectives and Criteria for Acceptance of Data ................................................... 10 1.8 - Special Training Requirements/Certification .................................................................... 11 1.9 - Documents and Records ................................................................................................... 12 2.0 DATA SOURCES AND ACQUISITION ....................................................................................... 12 2.1 - Data Acquisition ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]