DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessment of Channel Geometry Data Through May 2003 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessment of Channel Geometry Data Through May 2003 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia Prepared in cooperation with Canaan Valley Institute and the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Highways Division Assessment of Channel Geometry Data through May 2003 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia Open File Report 03-388 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Assessment of Channel Geometry Data through May 2003 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia By Kimberly F. Miller Open-File Report 03-388 In cooperation with the CANAAN VALLEY INSTITUTE AND THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Charleston, West Virginia 2003 U.S. Department of the Interior GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 11 Dunbar Street Box 25286 Charleston, WV 25301 Denver, CO 80225-0286 Cover photo Hemlock-shaded natural stream channel in West Virginia. Printed with permission from Dawn Newell, Charleston, WV. CONTENTS Abstract............................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose and Scope ..................................................................................................... 2 Description of Study Area .......................................................................................... 2 Assessment Methods and Criteria..................................................................................... 2 Assessment of Channel Geometry Data Through May 2003 ........................................... 15 Pennsylvania Stream Surveys..................................................................................... 16 Maryland Stream Surveys........................................................................................... 17 Upper Knapp Creek Watershed, West Virginia.......................................................... 20 Summary........................................................................................................................... 21 References Cited............................................................................................................... 22 FIGURES 1-2. Maps showing: 1. Location of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands physiographic provinces and sections in Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia................................. 3 2. U.S. Geological Survey Stream gaging stations in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands and adjacent areas, with potential for use in developing regional channel-geometry curves.................................................................. 8 3. Drainage-area size distribution of U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations within the indicated physiographic province in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands....................................................................................... 14 TABLES 1. Agencies and institutions contacted for Mid-Atlantic Highlands channel- geometry data, as a result of the web search for all data prior to May 2003....... 4 2. U. S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands and adjacent areas with potential for use in developing regional channel- geometry curves .................................................................................................. 9 3. U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations within the Mid-Atlantic Highlands identified as having drainage areas of less than one square mile..... 14 4. U. S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations in the Lowlands Section of the Piedmont Physiographic Province in Pennsylvania and Maryland where channel-geometry data was collected by White (2001)...................................... 16 5. U. S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations in the Piedmont Physiographic Province in Pennsylvania and Maryland where channel- geometry data was collected by Cinotto (2003).................................................. 17 in TABLES Continued 6. U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations in the Piedmont Physiographic Province in Pennsylvania and Maryland where channel- geometry data was collected by McCandless and Everett (2002)....................... 18 7. U. S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations in the Appalachian Plateaus and Valley and Ridge Physiographic Provinces of Pennsylvania and Maryland where channel-geometry data was collected by McCandless and Everett (2003)............................................................................................... 19 8. U. S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations in the Appalachian Plateaus and Valley and Ridge Physiographic Provinces of West Virginia where channel-geometry data was collected by Rocky Powell of Clear Creeks Consulting .......................................................................................................... 20 CONVERSION FACTORS _____Multiply_________By__________To Obtain____ < } square mile (mi) 2.590 square kilometer IV Assessment of Channel-Geometry Data through May 2003 in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia By Kimberly F. Miller ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Bankfull channel-geometry Stream-channel morphology is relations, also called regional curves, controlled by physical characteristics relate bankfull stream-channel within a basin that vary over time. The dimensions to watershed drainage area. morphology of the stream will tend This study describes available channel- toward equilibrium unless catastrophic geometry data from four published natural events occur or the basin is reports and one unpublished document disturbed by human activities. Often for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of stream channels are disturbed by events Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and such as these. In recent years the West Virginia. The assessment is limited principles of fluvial geomorphology to data available through May, 2003. have been used in the construction and Available data was assessed against restoration of stream channels. Stream specified criteria including streams channels designed to approximate having 10 years or more of annual-peak natural, stable conditions are more likely data, representing drainage areas of less to remain in equilibrium. These natural, than 250 square miles, with less than stable conditions are partially 20-percent urbanization, and without determined by measuring the streamflow regulation. The annual-peak relationships among selected basin, flow, data were further assessed, to minimize and channel-geometry characteristics. effects of land-use changes. Bankfull discharge is considered to A streamflow gaging network was be the streamflow magnitude that is most determined for stations that could be effective in forming average used to develop regional curves in the morphological characteristics of Mid-Atlantic Highlands. There is a lack channels (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). of information available for gages with Bankfull channel-geometry relations drainage areas less than one square mile. relate bankfull stream-channel This poses a problem since many dimensions to watershed drainage area. restoration projects that need regional Once these relations are determined, curve information are on small streams. they are plotted to form a curve. Such a curve may be applied to other streams with similar environmental settings within the defined region. This relation is known as a regional curve. Regional relations between bankfull discharge and stream-gaging networks for use in the resultant channel-geometry or calibrating regional channel geometry morphological characteristics, including curves within the study area. bankfull cross-sectional area, width, and average depth at stream riffle sections, Description of the Study Area are important tools for designing and restoring stable stream channels. Studies The study area discussed in this have shown that bankfull channel- report consists of the Mid-Atlantic geometry characteristics of cross- Highlands (Corey Anderson, Canaan sectional area, width, and average depth Valley Institute, written commun., 2003) are highly correlated with drainage area and includes most of Pennsylvania, (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). western areas of Maryland and Virginia, and all of West Virginia (fig. 1). The The primary purpose for Mid-Atlantic Highlands includes areas in developing regional curves is to aid in the Appalachian Plateaus, Coastal Plain, identifying bankfull stage and dimension Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge, and in an ungaged watershed and to help Piedmont Physiographic Provinces estimate the bankfull dimensions and (Fenneman 1938). discharge for natural channel designs. Although, channel-geometry relations or ASSESSMENT METHODS curves can be determined for individual AND CRITERIA projects, a more economical and possibly more representative approach is Methods used to assess available to develop curves representing regional channel-geometry data include a search conditions. These regional curves should of the world-wide web, verbal and have broad applications in the areas they written requests for information, and represent. review of historical data from USGS gaging stations. A web
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 ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Public Comments to State Water Control Board Adequacy of NWP 12 to Ensure Compliance with State Standards
    Summary of Public Comments to State Water Control Board Adequacy of NWP 12 to Ensure Compliance with State Standards Prepared by Wild Virginia Dominion Pipeline Monitoring Coalition (DPMC) August 15, 2018 Table of Contents Executive Summary . 7 I. Overall Body of Comments and Organization of the Online Records . 10 II. Waterbodies Discussed . 12 Mountain Valley Pipeline New River Basin Kimballton Branch . 14 (tributary to Stony Creek) Stony Creek . 15 (aka Big Stony Creek - tributary to New River) Little Stony Creek . 15 (tributary to New River) Doe Creek . 16 (tributary to New River) Greenbriar Branch . 17 (tributary to Sinking Creek) Unnamed Tributary to Grass Run . 17 (tributary to Grass Run) Sinking Creek . 18 (tributary to New River) James River Basin Craig Creek . 19 (tributary to James River) Roanoke River Basin Bottom Creek, Mill Creek, and Tributaries . 20 (tributary to South Fork Roanoke River) South Fork Roanoke River . 22 (tributary to Roanoke River) Mill Creek (Montogomery Co.) . 23 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) Bottom Spring . 24 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) Salmon Spring . 24 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) 2 Bradshaw Creek . 25 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) Flatwoods Branch . 25 (tributary to North Fork Roanoke River) North Fork Roanoke River . 25 (tributary to Roanoke River) North Fork Blackwater River . 26 (tributary to Blackwater River) Green Creek . 27 (tributary to South Fork Blackwater River) Teels Creek . 27 (tributary to Little Creek) Little Creek . 28 (tributary to Blackwater River) Blackwater River . 28 (tributary to Roanoke River - Smith Mtn. Lake) Pigg River . 29 (tributary to Roanoke River - Leesville Lake) Roanoke River .
    [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]
  • Signal Knob Northern Massanutten Mountain Catback Mountain Browns Run Southern Massanutten Mountain Five Areas of Around 45,000 Acres on the Lee the West
    Sherman Bamford To: [email protected] <[email protected] cc: Sherman Bamford <[email protected]> > Subject: NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage draft multi-species habitat conservation plan comments - attachments 2 12/13/2011 03:32 PM Sherman Bamford Forests Committee Chair Virginia Chapter – Sierra Club P.O. Box 3102 Roanoke, Va. 24015 [email protected] (540) 343-6359 December 13, 2011 Regional Director, Midwest Region Attn: Lisa Mandell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990 Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 Email: [email protected] Dear Ms. Mandell: On behalf of the Virginia Chapter of Sierra Club, the following are attachments to our previously submitted comments on the the NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage (“NiSource”) draft multi-species habitat conservation plan (“HCP”) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (“Service”) draft environmental impact statement (“EIS”). Draft of Virginia Mountain Treasures For descriptions and maps only. The final version was published in 2008. Some content may have changed between 2007 and 2008. Sherman Bamford Sherman Bamford PO Box 3102 Roanoke, Va. 24015-1102 (540) 343-6359 [email protected] Virginia’s Mountain Treasures ART WORK DRAWING The Unprotected Wildlands of the George Washington National Forest A report by the Wilderness Society Cover Art: First Printing: Copyright by The Wilderness Society 1615 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202)-843-9453 Wilderness Support Center 835 East Second Avenue Durango, CO 81302 (970) 247-8788 Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society works to protect America’s wilderness and to develop a nation- wide network of wild lands through public education, scientific analysis, and advocacy.
    [Show full text]
  • SR V18 Index.Pdf (969.3Kb)
    Index to Volume 18 Rachael Garrity A Biedma, 115 A Girls Life Before the War, 81 Bimini, 119 Adams, President John, I 0, 13-14 Blacksburg, Va., 25, 30, 57, 80, 82-85, 91 Alabama, IOI Blue Ridge Mountains, 82 Alien and Sedition Acts, I 0 Boston, Barbara, 112 Alonso de Chavez, 115 Botetourt County, Va., 25, 27, 29, 54, 63, Alonso de Santa Cruz, 111-113 65, 79 Allegheny Mountains, 82 Bouleware, Jane Grace Preston, 78 American Declaration of Independence, 9 Boulware, Aubin Lee, 78 American Indians, 4, 52-54, 58, 66, 82, Bradenton, Fla., I 06 100, 105, 107-108 Brady, Mathew, 84 American Revolution, 58, 72, 73 Braham, John, 34 Apafalaya, I 0 I Brain, Jeffrey, I 05 Appalachia, I 0 I, I 04 Breckenridge, Robert, 40 Appalachian Mountains, 3, 20, 55 Brissot, Jacques Pierre, 16 Appalachian Trail, 110 Bristol, Tenn.Na., 99, I 09, 124 Arkansas, I 05 Bristol News, 126-127 Augusta County, Va., 25-27, 30, 33, 35, British North America, 55 37-38,40,43-44,52,54, 71 Brown, John, 91, 135 Avenel House Plantation, 81 Brown, John Mason, 135 Brown, John Meredith, 135 B Brunswick County, Va., 40 Bahaman Channel, 118-119 Buchanan, Colonel John, 27, 30, 35, 41, Baird (Beard), John, 40-41 52-53 Baldwin, Caroline (Cary) Marx, 78 Buchanan, Va., 27, 38, 52-53 Bank of the United States, 6 Bullett, Captain, 62-65 Bardstown, Ky., 3, 17 Bullpasture River, 54 Barreis, David, I 05 Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, 110 Barrens, The, Ky., 13, 17 Burke County, N.C., I 03 Bassett, Colonel, 65 Burwell, Letitia M., 81-83, 86, 90 Batson, Mordecai, 60 Bussell Island, Tenn., 123 Battle
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Migration from Augusta County, Virginia, to Kentucky, 1777-1800
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1987 "Peopling the Western Country": A Study of Migration from Augusta County, Virginia, to Kentucky, 1777-1800 Wendy Sacket College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Sacket, Wendy, ""Peopling the Western Country": A Study of Migration from Augusta County, Virginia, to Kentucky, 1777-1800" (1987). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625418. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-ypv2-mw79 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "PEOPLING THE WESTERN COUNTRY": A STUDY OF MIGRATION FROM AUGUSTA COUNTY, VIRGINIA, TO KENTUCKY, 1777-1800 A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of History The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Wendy Ellen Sacket 1987 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Author Approved, December, 1987 John/Se1by *JU Thad Tate ies Whittenburg i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................. iv LIST OF T A B L E S ...............................................v LIST OF MAPS . ............................................. vi ABSTRACT................................................... v i i CHAPTER I. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE, PURPOSE, AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY .
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    William2 Gay of the Little Calfpasture 1 PREFACE This is an excerpt from a much longer report which represents my current thinking on the many Scotch- Irish families surnamed Gay who pioneered in the Valley of Virginia (the Shenandoah) in the 1740s. This excerpt is focused on William2 Gay (a.k.a. William-A Gay), one of the two such Williams (the other I call William-B) who settled on the Little Calfpasture River in the present county of Rockbridge. In order to call my subject William2 Gay (implying that his parents were the first immigrants to America of his line), I must logically provide some account of those parents, and this I have done below, although it must be noted that they remain rather shadowy figures—theoretical constructs based largely on onomastic analysis of the child-naming patterns in the families of their putative descendants. The children of this first couple, whom I hypothesize were named John1 and Agnes, were, in probable order of birth: William, James, John, Robert, Samuel, and Eleanor. Of these, besides William, the only one for whom I have included material here from my plenary report is Eleanor, and that only because her inclusion crucially impacts the structure of this family, and also uniquely brings into play evidence of its origins in Ulster—northern Ireland—probably either in the counties of Donegal or Londonderry. The main line of this report, as well as the plenary report from which it is excerpted, consists of a series of linked family sketches, in descendancy order. Each sketch covers one man, or one woman, their spouse or spouses, and their set or sets of children.
    [Show full text]
  • Non Minimum Roads by Watershed Condition Class
    Non Minimum Roads by Watershed Condition Class USFS_COND Not Associated with a Watershed RTE_NO ROUTE_NAME Length HUC12_NAME FH561.1 VA.623 1.49 FH561.2 VA.623 2.864371 FH598 VA.818&VA.682 0.020837 FH554 VA.625 1.678439 444C MILAM 0.013939 265 DRY RIVER WORK CENTER 0.019088 265A DRY RIVER WORK CENTER 0.049903 4040 TENN 0.227884 49030 SUGAR CAMP 0.463635 4041 VALLEY 0.076535 FH580 VA.663 2.7653 FH WV589 CO15, CO15/3 0.354756 USFS_COND Functioning at Risk RTE_NO ROUTE_NAME Length HUC12_NAME 765B SNAKE DEN SPUR 0.212038 Elk Creek-James River 35 PETITES GAP 0.03242 Otter Creek-James River 35 PETITES GAP 3.982893 Elk Creek-James River 361C CIGAR RIDGE 1.10046 Mill Creek-Cowpasture River 39 PEDLAR RIVER 6.768137 Lynchburg Reservoir-Pedlar River 39 PEDLAR RIVER 5.554507 Browns Creek-Pedlar River 1037 BROAD RUN 0.747509 Skidmore Fork-North River 104E PATTERSON R-O-W 0.193824 Upper South River 10800 HAZELNUT 0.625286 Trout Creek-Craig Creek 10800A HAZELNUT SPUR A 0.331626 Trout Creek-Craig Creek P7 PATTERSON SPECIAL USE 0.295912 Mill Creek-Craig Creek 225A BLACKS RUN 2.506454 Black Run-Dry River 39E THIRTEEN CROSSINGS 3.42817 Browns Creek-Pedlar River 1283 CAL CLARK 0.172632 Upper South River 1283 CAL CLARK 1.313025 Irish Creek FH589 VA.636 3.465131 Upper Johns Creek FH563 VA.615 8.545137 Hunting Camp Creek FH575 VA.641 2.385472 Tract Fork 1584A SPICK AND SPAN SPUR 0.306516 Buffalo Branch-Middle River 151R STONEY SWAMP SALE 0.322371 Rough Run-South Fork South Branch Potomac River 151R STONEY SWAMP SALE 0.458325 Hawes Run-South Fork South Branch
    [Show full text]
  • Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 18, 2020
    Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale May 18, 2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office Most Effective Basins Funding In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Appropriations Conference Report, an increase to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Budget was provided in the amount of $6 million for “state-based implementation in the most effective basins.” This document describes the methodology EPA followed to establish the most effective use of these funds and the best locations for these practices to be implemented to make the greatest progress toward achieving water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. The most effective basins to reduce the effects of excess nutrient loading to the Bay were determined considering two factors: cost effectiveness and load effectiveness. Cost effectiveness was considered as a factor to assure these additional funds result in state-based implementation of practices that achieve the greatest benefit to water quality overall. It was evaluated by looking at what the jurisdictions have reported in their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as the focus of their upcoming efforts, and by looking at the average cost per pound of reduction for BMP implementation by sector. Past analyses of cost per pound of reduction have shown that reducing nitrogen is less costly by far than reducing phosphorus1. Based on that fact, EPA determined that the focus of this evaluation would be to target nitrogen reductions in the watershed. Evaluating the load reduction targets in all the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs shows that the agricultural sector is targeted for 86 percent of the overall reductions identified to meet the 2025 targets collectively set by the jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • August 24, 2020 at 5:30 P.M
    AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HELD IN THE ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE BUILDING AT 150 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA ON MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2020 AT 5:30 P.M. *** Please take notice, that the scheduled 4:30 p.m. Work Session was cancelled. *** BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: D. E. LYONS R. W. DAY L.E. AYERS D.B. MCDANIEL (Participated Remotely) A.J. “JAY” LEWIS, II. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: SPENCER H. SUTER COUNTY ATTORNEY: VICKIE L. HUFFMAN *** CALLED TO ORDER: Chairman Lyons called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Administrative Assistant to the County Administrator Brandy Whitten conducted a roll call of the Board members. All Board members were present, with Supervisor McDaniel participating remotely. Supervisor Lewis offered an invocation for anyone who wished to participate. The Board then led in the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Lyons advised of the following announcements: “While the room will be open to the public, due to the size of the meeting room and social distancing requirements, no more than 30 attendees will be allowed into the room at one time. Per the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia Executive Order 63, all persons over the age of ten, that do not have a precluding medical condition, are asked to wear a face covering. We will hold citizen comment near the beginning of the meeting. Also, there are several public hearings this evening. We will do our best to take citizen comment remotely. There are two options for citizens to offer comment remotely: 1) To join the Rockbridge County Board of Supervisor’s Zoom webinar The link is available on the County website to copy into the address line on your browser.
    [Show full text]