DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCRN/NRTR—2011/488 ON THE COVER Potomac River near Paw Paw, West Virginia Photograph by: Tom Paradis, NPS. Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCRN/NRTR—2011/488 John Paul Schmit National Park Service Center for Urban Ecology 4598 MacArthur Blvd. NW Washington, DC 20007 September, 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. This report is available (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/nrpm/). Please cite this publication as: Schmit, J. P. 2011. Annual and seasonal trends in discharge of National Capital Region streams. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCRN/NRTR—2011/488. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. NPS 800/109866, September 2011 ii Contents Page Figures............................................................................................................................................. v Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... x Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Factors Influencing Discharge ................................................................................................. 1 Precipitation ........................................................................................................................ 1 Change in Land Use ............................................................................................................ 2 Direct Human Alterations to Streams ................................................................................. 3 Scope of this Report ................................................................................................................. 4 Methods........................................................................................................................................... 5 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................ 5 Discharge Data .................................................................................................................... 5 Precipitation data ................................................................................................................ 5 Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 6 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Precipitation ............................................................................................................................. 9 Discharge ............................................................................................................................... 13 Seasonal Pattern ................................................................................................................ 13 Annual Trends ................................................................................................................... 16 Seasonal Trends ................................................................................................................ 19 Antietam Creek .......................................................................................................... 20 Potomac at Cumberland ............................................................................................. 21 iii Contents (continued) Page Potomac at Paw Paw .................................................................................................. 22 Potomac at Hancock .................................................................................................. 23 South Quantico Creek ................................................................................................ 24 Difficult Run .............................................................................................................. 25 Rock Creek ................................................................................................................ 26 North East Branch of the Anacostia River ................................................................ 27 Piscataway Creek ....................................................................................................... 28 Potomac at Point of Rocks ......................................................................................... 29 Potomac at Little Falls ............................................................................................... 30 Monocacy River ......................................................................................................... 31 Shenandoah River ...................................................................................................... 32 North West Branch of the Anacostia River ............................................................... 33 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Precipitation ........................................................................................................................... 35 Discharge ............................................................................................................................... 35 Rural Streams .................................................................................................................... 36 Urban Streams ................................................................................................................... 36 Large Rivers ...................................................................................................................... 37 Northwest Branch of the Anacostia .................................................................................. 37 Limitations of this Study ....................................................................................................... 37 Implications ........................................................................................................................... 38 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 39 iv Figures Page Figure 1. Map of gaging stations used in this study. ...................................................................... 6 Figure 2. Mean precipitation for Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington DC. .......... 9 Figure 3. Annual Precipitation for Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. .............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 4. Seasonal change in precipitation in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia................................................................................................................ 12 Figure 5. Comparison of older and more recent precipitation in MD, VA, WV, and DC by season.......................................................................................................................... 13
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices
    Biodiversity Work Group Report: Appendices A: Initial List of Important Sites..................................................................................................... 2 B: An Annotated List of the Mammals of Albemarle County........................................................ 5 C: Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 18 An Annotated List of the Birds of Albemarle County.............................................................. 18 Bird Species Status Tables and Charts...................................................................................... 28 Species of Concern in Albemarle County............................................................................ 28 Trends in Observations of Species of Concern..................................................................... 30 D. Fish of Albemarle County........................................................................................................ 37 E. An Annotated Checklist of the Amphibians of Albemarle County.......................................... 41 F. An Annotated Checklist of the Reptiles of Albemarle County, Virginia................................. 45 G. Invertebrate Lists...................................................................................................................... 51 H. Flora of Albemarle County ...................................................................................................... 69 I. Rare
    [Show full text]
  • Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water
    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 2 26.08.01.00 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapter 01 General Authority: Environment Article, §§9-313—9-316, 9-319, 9-320, 9-325, 9-327, and 9-328, Annotated Code of Maryland 3 26.08.01.01 .01 Definitions. A. General. (1) The following definitions describe the meaning of terms used in the water quality and water pollution control regulations of the Department of the Environment (COMAR 26.08.01—26.08.04). (2) The terms "discharge", "discharge permit", "disposal system", "effluent limitation", "industrial user", "national pollutant discharge elimination system", "person", "pollutant", "pollution", "publicly owned treatment works", and "waters of this State" are defined in the Environment Article, §§1-101, 9-101, and 9-301, Annotated Code of Maryland. The definitions for these terms are provided below as a convenience, but persons affected by the Department's water quality and water pollution control regulations should be aware that these definitions are subject to amendment by the General Assembly. B. Terms Defined. (1) "Acute toxicity" means the capacity or potential of a substance to cause the onset of deleterious effects in living organisms over a short-term exposure as determined by the Department.
    [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]
  • News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S
    News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S. Department of the Interior Maryland-Delaware-D.C. District [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road http://md.water.usgs.gov/ Baltimore, MD 21237 Release: Contact: Phone: Fax: January 4, 2002 Wendy S. McPherson (410) 238-4255 (410) 238-4210 Below Normal Rainfall and Warm Temperatures Lead to Record Low Water Levels in December Three months of above normal temperatures and four months of below normal rainfall have led to record low monthly streamflow and ground-water levels, according to hydrologists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Baltimore, Maryland. Streamflow was below normal at 94 percent of the real-time USGS gaging stations and 83 percent of the USGS observation wells across Maryland and Delaware in December. Record low streamflow levels for December were set at Winters Run and Pocomoke River. Streamflow levels at Deer Creek and Winters Run in Harford County have frequently set new record daily lows for the last four months (see real-time graphs at http://md.water.usgs.gov/realtime/). Streamflow was also significantly below normal at Antietam Creek, Choptank River, Conococheague Creek, Nassawango Creek, Patapsco River, Gunpowder River, Patuxent River, Piscataway Creek, Monocacy River, and Potomac River in Maryland, and Christina River, St. Jones River, and White Clay Creek in Delaware. The monthly streamflow in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. was 82 percent below normal in December and 54 percent below normal for 2001. Streamflow entering the Chesapeake Bay averaged 23.7 bgd (billion gallons per day), which is 54 percent below the long-term average for December.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!
    American Council of Engineering Companies of Metropolitan Washington Water & Wastewater Business Opportunities Networking Luncheon Presented by Matthew Doyle, Branch Chief, Wastewater Design and Construction Division Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You! A Fairfax County, VA, publication August 20, 2019 Introduction • Matt Doyle, PE, CCM • Working as a Civil Engineer at Fairfax County, DPWES • BSCE West Virginia University • MSCE Johns Hopkins University • 25 years in the industry (Mid‐Atlantic Only) • Adjunct Hydraulics Professor at GMU • Director GMU‐EFID (Student Organization) Presentation Objectives • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization (Staff) • Snapshot of our Current Projects • New Opportunities To work with DPWES • Use of Technologies and Trends • Helpful Hyperlinks Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Wastewater Collection System • 3,400 Miles of Sanitary Sewer (Average Age 60 years old) • 61 Pumping Stations (flow ranges are from 25 GPM to 25 MGD) • 90 Flow Meters (Mostly billing meters) • 135 Grinder pumps • Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant • Noman M. Cole Pollution Control Plant, Lorton • 67 MGD • Laboratory • Reclaimed Water Reuse System • 6.6 MGD • 2 Pump Stations • 0.750 MG Storage Tank • Level 1 Compliance • Convanta, Golf Course and Ball Fields Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization • Wastewater Management Program (Three Areas) – Planning & Monitoring: • Financial,
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Study of Gunston Cove
    An Ecological Study of Gunston Cove 2016 FINAL REPORT August 2017 by R. Christian Jones Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Director Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University Kim de Mutsert Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Associate Director Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University Amy Fowler Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Faculty Fellow Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University to Department of Public Works and Environmental Services County of Fairfax, VA iii Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................... iv List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xiii The Ongoing Aquatic Monitoring Program for the Gunston Cove Area ................1 Introduction ..................................................................................................2 Methods........................................................................................................3 A. Profiles and Plankton: Sampling Day .........................................3 B. Profiles and Plankton: Followup Analysis ..................................7 C. Adult and Juvenile Fish ...............................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Water Resource and Related Data in Loudoun County, VA
    Summary of Water Resource and Related Data in Loudoun County, VA Prepared by: Loudoun County Department of Building & Development Water Resources Team September, 2008 Loudoun County - Water Resources Data Summary 1 Groundwater Data .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Loudoun County Groundwater, Well, and Pollution Sources ......................................................................................................... 3 1.2 USGS Groundwater Wells ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 County Hydrogeologic Studies ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 USGS NAWQA Wells ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 WRMP Monitoring Wells................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Water Quality Data from LCSA and VADH Public Water Supplies ............................................................................................. 3 1.7 Luck Stone Special Exception Water Quality Reports ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 5-1975 Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory Kenneth A. Moore Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gene M. Silberhorn Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Moore, K. A., & Silberhorn, G. M. (1975) Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 78. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V55H9H This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY TIDAL MARSH INVENTORY Special Report No. 78 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Kenneth A. Moore G.M. Silberhorn , Project Leader VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., Director MAY 1975 Acknowledgments Funds for the publication and distribution of this report have been provided by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Grant No. 04-5-158-5001. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Gene M. Silberhorn. His invaluable guidance and assistance made this report possible. I wish also to thank Col. George Dawes, for his review of this report and his assistance in the field and Dr. William J. Hargis, Dr. Michael E. Bender, Mr. James Mercer, Mr. Thomas Barnard, Miss Christine Plummer and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Technical Report
    TRANSFORM 66 OUTSIDE the Beltway I-66 CORRIDOR 66 IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Multimodal Solutions - 495 to Haymarket Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment 193 Town of Natural Resources TechnicalTown of Report Middleburg Herndon LOUDOUN FAUQUIER 50 267 Washington Dulles McLean International Airport 309 28 286 Tysons Corner West Falls Church 7 Chantilly Dunn Loring FALLS 123 CHURCH 29 Vienna LOUDOUN Fair Lakes 50 FAIRFAX CO. 66 15 FAIRFAX CITY Centreville 286 29 236 Manassas National Battlefield Park Haymarket Fairfax Station Springfield 66 Gainesville 234 28 MANASSAS PARK PRINCE WILLIAM 29 FAUQUIER 234 123 286 215 Ft. Belvoir MANASSAS MAY 12, 2015 Tier 2 Draft Environmental Assessment Natural Resources Technical Report Draft – May 12, 2015 I-66 Corridor Improvements Project – Natural Resources Technical Report May 12, 2015 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 – Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Difficult Run Bacteria TMDL Action Plan PERMIT NUMBER VAR040064 Submitted To
    Difficult Run Bacteria TMDL Action Plan PERMIT NUMBER VAR040064 Submitted to DEQ: Approved 2016 Updated June 2020 CITY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA - DIFFICULT RUN E.COLI TMDL ACTION PLAN INTRODUCTION The City of Fairfax has updated this Difficult Run Bacteria (E. coli) TMDL Action Plan to address the Special Condition for approved local TMDLs (Part II.B) in the City’s MS4 Permit. The original action plan was approved by DEQ in 2016. The City’s approach for updating this Action Plan is based on the requirements listed in the current MS4 General Permit and DEQ’s Draft Local TMDL Action Plan Guidance Document that was released on November 21, 2016. Each of the sections in this Action Plan will address one or more of the required action plan content items as listed on pages 6-8 of DEQ’s Draft Local TMDL Action Plan Guidance Document. TMDL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. The name(s) of the Final TMDL report(s); 2. The pollutant(s) causing the impairment(s); 3. The WLA(s) assigned to the MS4 as aggregate or individual WLAs. [This section of the Action Plan directly addresses Part II.B.3.a-c. of the MS4 Permit and DEQ Guidance Document Action Plan Content Items 1-3] The City of Fairfax was assigned an aggregated Waste Load Allocation (WLA) under the approved TMDL report entitled Bacteria TMDL for the Difficult Run Watershed, dated April 25, 2008. The impaired segment of Difficult Run (Segment ID: VAN-A11R-01) begins at the confluence of Captain Hickory Run with Difficult Run and extends 2.93 miles downstream to its confluence with the Potomac River.
    [Show full text]