DOCSLIB.ORG

Maryland Synoptic Stream Chemistry Survey: a Comparison of Stream Chemistry Between Round 1 (1987) and Round 2 (2012)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maryland Synoptic Stream Chemistry Survey: a Comparison of Stream Chemistry Between Round 1 (1987) and Round 2 (2012) MARYLAND SYNOPTIC STREAM CHEMISTRY SURVEY: A COMPARISON OF STREAM CHEMISTRY BETWEEN ROUND 1 (1987) AND ROUND 2 (2012) Prepared for State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service 580 Taylor Avenue Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 Prepared by Lisa Methratta, Ginny Rogers, and Mark Southerland Versar, Inc. Ecological Sciences & Applications 9200 Rumsey Road, Suite 100 Columbia, MD 20145 April 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is the brainchild of Ron Klauda and others at Maryland DNR who saw an opportunity to investigate change in the acid/base chemistry of Maryland’s streams over 25 years. We are indebted to him and the hard work and dedication of the volunteers who collected data in Round 1 of the MSSCS (1987) and the MBSS field crews who collected data in Round 2 of the MSSCS (2012). We thank Keith Eshleman, Elgin Perry, Sujay Kaushal, and John Sherwell for their review and comments on the draft report. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................ix 1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................1 2 METHODS..........................................................................................................................................................5 3 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................9 3.1 COMPARISON OF MEAN VALUES BETWEEN ROUND 1 AND ROUND 2 ................................11 3.1.1 Acid Neutralizing Capacity (ANC)..........................................................................................11 3.1.2 pH ............................................................................................................................................18 3.1.3 Conductivity.............................................................................................................................23 3.1.4 Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)...........................................................................................28 3.1.5 Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)..........................................................................................33 3.2 COMPARISON OF THE % STREAM MILES IN EACH ANC CATEGORY IN ROUND 1 AND ROUND 2.....................................................................................................................................40 3.2.1 Overall Findings for Change in %Stream Miles in ANC Categories.......................................40 4 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................................46 5 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................................50 APPENDICES A TABLES OF ANC, pH, CONDUCTIVITY, DOC, DIC, , AND STREAM MILES BY ANC CATEGORIES BY PSU...................................................................................................................................52 B LAND USE CHANGE......................................................................................................................................78 C TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION AT 4 REGIONAL AIRPORTS .............................................86 I:\WPSHARED\DEPT 74\DNR13\MB22 025\15299-R.DOCX iv v LIST OF TABLES Table Number Page 1-1. Water quality parameters measured in the 1987 and 2012 MSSCS ................................................................4 2-1. Water quality parameters measured during both the 1987 and 2012 MSSCS surveys and the laboratory methods used to analyze each parameter.........................................................................................................5 3-1. MSSCS sites acidified by acid mine drainage (AMD). AD=atmospheric deposition. ............................. 3-10 3-2. 1987 Stream mile statistics for overall study area.........................................................................................40 3-3. 2012 Stream mile statistics for overall study area.........................................................................................40 3-4. 1987 Stream mile statistics for MSSCS regions............................................................................................43 3-5. 2012 Stream mile statistics for MSSCS regions............................................................................................43 3-6. 1987 Stream mile statistics for MSSCS subregions ......................................................................................45 3-7. 2012 Stream mile statistics for MSSCS subregions ......................................................................................45 vi vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Page 1-1. 2012 MSSCS sample sites in the Appalachian Region ...................................................................................2 1-2. 2012 MSSCS sites in the southern Coastal Plain ............................................................................................2 2-1. Map of the MSSCS subregions .......................................................................................................................8 3-1. Maps showing the ANC category for each site .............................................................................................11 3-2. Map of the Appalachian Region showing whether site ANC increased or decreased between 1987 and 2012........................................................................................................................................................12 3-3. Map of the Coastal Plain showing whether site ANC increased or decreased between 1987 and 2012. ......12 3-4. Acid neutralizing capacity in the study area..................................................................................................13 3-5. Acid neutralizing capacity in Appalachian Region and Southern Coastal Plain ...........................................15 3-6. Acid Neutralizing Capacity for the MSSCS regions Appalachian Plateau and Ridge and Valley................16 3-7. Maps showing the pH for each site ...............................................................................................................18 3-8. pH in the study area.......................................................................................................................................19 3-9. pH in MSSCS Regions..................................................................................................................................20 3-10. pH for the MSSCS subregions ......................................................................................................................21 3-11. Maps showing the conductivity category for each site..................................................................................23 3-12. Conductivity in the study area.......................................................................................................................24 3-13. Conductivity in the MSSCS regions..............................................................................................................25 3-14. Conductivity for the MSSCS subregions.......................................................................................................26 3-15. Maps showing the dissolved organic carbon or each site..............................................................................28 3-16. Dissolved Organic Carbon in the study area .................................................................................................29 3-17. Dissolved Organic Carbonin the MSSCS Regions........................................................................................30 3-18. Dissolved Organic Carbon for the MSSCS subregions.................................................................................31 3-19. Maps showing the dissolved organic carbon for each site ............................................................................33 3-20. Dissolved Inorganic Carbon in the study area...............................................................................................34 3-21. Dissolved Inorganic Carbon in the MSSCS Regions ....................................................................................35 3-22. Dissolved Inorganic Carbon for the MSSCS subregions ..............................................................................37 3-23. The percentage of stream miles in each of the four ANC categories for 1987 and 2012 ..............................41 3-24. The percentage of stream miles in the overall study area in each of the four ANC categories for 1987 and 2012. ..............................................................................................................................................42 3-25. The percentage of stream miles in each of the four ANC categories for 1987 and 2012 in the MSSCS regions ...........................................................................................................................................................42 3-26. The percentage of stream miles in each of the four ANC categories for 1987 and 2012 in the MSSCS subregions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Choptank Tributary Summary: a Summary of Trends in Tidal Water Quality and Associated Factors, 1985-2018
    Choptank Tributary Summary: A summary of trends in tidal water quality and associated factors, 1985-2018. June 7, 2021 Prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Partnership by the CBP Integrated Trends Analysis Team (ITAT) This tributary summary is a living document in draft form and has not gone through a formal peer review process. We are grateful for contributions to the development of these materials from the following individuals: Jeni Keisman, Rebecca Murphy, Olivia Devereux, Jimmy Webber, Qian Zhang, Meghan Petenbrink, Tom Butler, Zhaoying Wei, Jon Harcum, Renee Karrh, Mike Lane, and Elgin Perry. 1 Contents 1. Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Location ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Watershed Physiography .................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Land Use ................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Tidal Waters and Stations ................................................................................................................... 8 3. Tidal
    [Show full text]
  • Hughesville Revitalization Plan Chapter 4: Environmental Resources
    Hughesville Revitalization Plan Hughesville Sub-Area Plan Existing Conditions Report Chapter 4: Environmental Resources The region is rich with environmentally sensitive areas and natural resources. According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), there are two environmentally sensitive areas within the Hughesville Study Area, including National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) recognized wetlands and a potential greenway (refer to Map 7: Environmentally Sensitive Areas). There are also several environmentally sensitive features adjacent to Hughesville including Rural Legacy Areas, Wetlands of Special State Concern (WSSC), Maryland Environmental Trust Easements (MET), Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF) lands, DNR Lands, and Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) eligible areas. According to DNR data, the Hughesville Study Area is located within the Lower Potomac River and Patuxent River watersheds, specifically the Gilbert Swamp and Patuxent River Lower sub basins. Preservation Programs The Charles County MET Program and the Rural Legacy Program function as environment protection programs with an added benefit that they often preserve properties with historic significance. The following is a brief description of each program. Maryland Environmental Trust (MET) The Maryland Environmental Trust, an agency of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR), holds conservation easements on natural, agricultural, scenic, and historic properties and is the co-holder of numerous easements across the state with the Maryland Historical Trust. Rural Legacy Program DNR’s Rural Legacy Program was established in 1997. Part of the State’s Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Initiative, it is designed to conserve land by protecting areas rich in farms, forests, and natural and cultural resources. The Program achieves this by partnering with local governments, land trusts, and citizens in the purchase of conservation easements.
    [Show full text]
  • Mediamix a Quick Take on New Releases
    C M Y K M8 SOURCE 05-27-07 DC EE M8 CMYK M8 Sunday, May 27, 2007 x The Washington Post RoadTrip Go Tribal in Maryland WHERE: Waldorf. StartStartStart hereherehere Learn about Native American WHY: Hiking on tribal grounds, bows for beginners and powwowing with history, beliefs and tribal life PENN. H ST. with live performances outside the Piscataway. 15TH STREET AVE. PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE the National Museum of ST. the American Indian. The 17TH INDEPENDENCE AVE. 1 HOW FAR: About 70 miles from start to finish, or 2 ⁄2 hours by car from 9TH STREET Indian Summer Showcase, an Washington. evening concert series, is held 395 4TH ST. 295 twice a month from June he Piscataway Indian Festival and Pow-Wow is a true family affair. through September (the first Y one is Saturday). Next weekend, about 300 Native Americans from near (Maryland, 395 A W K R Virginia) and far (Central America, Hawaii) will gather at the Amer- A D.C. P 95 . 495 T M ican Indian Cultural Center in Waldorf to catch up as well as dance, sing, eat E 5 4 M and celebrate. In all, nearly 3,000 folks are expected to attend — extended . W . family, indeed. G Hosted by the Cedarville Band of the Piscataway tribe, the 25th annual 1 The Alexandria Archaeology 295 Museum displays stone tools event is a modern, more social take on the private gatherings the Piscata- CAMERON STREET and other artifacts from the way and other Native American tribes have been practicing for ages. “To- aits native peoples who lived in the George Catlin’s portr Alexandria day’s powwows are extensions of the tribal powwows that existed for hun- ve KING Alexandria area between 500 dreds of years,” says Natalie Proctor, tribal chairwoman of the Cedarville documented vanishing Nati ST.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals
    To: Principal Staff Committee Members and Representatives of Chesapeake Bay “Headwater” States From: W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr., Chair Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee Subject: Summary of Decisions Regarding Nutrient and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Restoration Goals For the past twenty years, the Chesapeake Bay partners have been committed to achieving and maintaining water quality conditions necessary to support living resources throughout the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. In the past month, Chesapeake Bay Program partners (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Commission) have expanded our efforts by working with the headwater states of Delaware, West Virginia and New York to adopt new cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment. Using the best scientific information available, Bay Program partners have agreed to allocations that are intended to meet the needs of the plants and animals that call the Chesapeake home. The allocations will serve as a basis for each state’s tributary strategies that, when completed by April 2004, will describe local implementation actions necessary to meet the Chesapeake 2000 nutrient and sediment loading goals by 2010. This memorandum summarizes the important, comprehensive agreements made by Bay watershed partners with regard to cap load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments, as well as new baywide and local SAV restoration goals. Nutrient Allocations Excessive nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries promote undesirable algal growth, and thereby, prohibit light from reaching underwater bay grasses (submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV) and depress the dissolved oxygen levels of the deeper waters of the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of Worcester County (PDF)
    Contents Worcester’s Original Locals ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Native American Names ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 From Colony To Free State ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 A Divided Land: Civil War .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Storm Surges & Modern Times ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Our Historic Towns .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Berlin ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Ocean City .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Ocean Pines
    [Show full text]
  • Zekiah Swamp IBA Date of Site Account: May 2016
    Important Bird Areas Zekiah Swamp IBA Date of site account: May 2016 County: Charles Status: Recognized Area: 15,088 acres (6,106 ha) Priority: State Red-headed Woodpecker Site Description Zekiah Swamp IBA encompasses 15,088 acres of forest and wetlands in Charles County along Zekiah Swamp Run, a 48-mile network of braided streams in eastern Charles County. The site extends from Poplar Hill Rd just south of Cedarville State Forest to Allen’s Fresh Run and the mouth of the Wicomico River. The major habitat types are deciduous floodplain forest of considerable diversity and upland oak-hickory forest, together accounting for 75% of the area. A number of shrub and emergent herbaceous wetlands, with numerous standing dead trees, have also formed as a result of beaver activity. Scattered patches of loblolly pine account for just less than 3% of the area. About 435 acres of the IBA are owned and managed by the Maryland DNR as the Zekiah Swamp Natural Environment Area (NEA), while the remaining land is privately owned. The northern half of the site lies within the Zekiah Rural Legacy Area. The boundary of this IBA is based on green infrastructure hubs from Maryland’s Green Infrastructure map. Birds Zekiah Swamp IBA is a site of statewide importance for bird conservation. Bird Blitz surveys in 2009 yielded counts exceeding the IBA threshold for one at-risk species (Prothonotary Warbler), and population estimates exceeding IBA thresholds for three additional at-risk species (Wood Thrush, Kentucky Warbler, and Red-Headed Woodpecker). The Prothonotary Warbler is a specialist of floodplain forests and nests in tree cavities.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Investigations 71 (Pdf, 4.8
    Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 71 A STRATEGY FOR A STREAM-GAGING NETWORK IN MARYLAND by Emery T. Cleaves, State Geologist and Director, Maryland Geological Survey and Edward J. Doheny, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared for the Maryland Water Monitoring Council in cooperation with the Stream-Gage Committee 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Sarah Taylor-Rogers Secretary Stanley K. Arthur Deputy Secretary MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 General DNR Public Information Number: 1-877-620-8DNR http://www.dnr.state.md.us MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2300 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 554-5500 http://mgs.dnr.md.gov The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical or mental disability. COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER ROBERT W. RIDKY JAMES B. STRIBLING CONTENTS Page Executive summary.........................................................................................................................................................1 Why stream gages?.........................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Savage River State Forest Is a Natural Area with Hunting Is Permitted Throughout the Forest
    DIRECTIONS Take Exit 22 off I-68, turn left and go south on Chestnut Ridge WELCOME Please Play Safe! HUNTING Savage River Reservoir Road. At the stop sign, turn left onto New Germany Road. Savage River State Forest is a natural area with Hunting is permitted throughout the forest. The Savage River Reservoir provides fishing and Continue for two miles. Turn right onto Headquarters Lane certain hazards such as overhanging branches, Boundaries are marked with yellow paint. No paddling opportunities. Boat launches are located and continue to the forest office on the right. rocky and slippery trails, and venomous hunting allowed where there are safety zone signs or at Big Run State Park, Dry Run Road and near the snakes. Bottles of water and sturdy shoes are where posted by private landowners. Hunters should breast of the dam. No gasoline motors are permitted. Approximately 3 hours from Washington, D.C./Baltimore, 2 hours from Pittsburgh. recommended while exploring, as well as blaze consult the Maryland Hunting Guide — available at Anglers can catch Catfish, Trout, Bass and Tiger orange clothing during hunting seasons. Some of dnr.maryland.gov/huntersguide — for exact season Muskie. Depending on the season, visitors may More information is available at dnr.maryland.gov/ the forest trails are gravel roads, which are open dates and bag limits. see grouse, great blue herons, king fishers, minks publiclands/western/savageriverforest.asp or by contacting to motor vehicles at various times. Remember, and eagles as well. Swimming in the Reservoir is the forest office. you are responsible for having the necessary Several access roads are available to hunters with prohibited.
    [Show full text]
  • Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River
    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River North Fork Watershed Project/Friends of Blackwater MAY 2009 This report was made possible by a generous donation from the MARPAT Foundation. DRAFT 2 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................... 7 PART I ‐ General Information about the North Branch Potomac Watershed ........................................................... 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Geography and Geology of the Watershed Area ................................................................................................. 9 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Discoveries in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia
    Knapp, W.M., R.F.C. Naczi, W.D. Longbottom, C.A. Davis, W.A. McAvoy, C.T. Frye, J.W. Harrison, and P. Stango, III. 2011. Floristic discoveries in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Phytoneuron 2011-64: 1–26. Published 15 December 2011. ISSN 2153 733X FLORISTIC DISCOVERIES IN DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA WESLEY M. KNAPP 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 [email protected] ROBERT F. C. NACZI The New York Botanical Garden Bronx, New York 10458-5126 WAYNE D. LONGBOTTOM P.O. Box 634 Preston, Maryland 21655 CHARLES A. DAVIS 1510 Bellona Ave. Lutherville, Maryland 21093 WILLIAM A. MCAVOY Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 4876 Hay Point, Landing Rd. Smyrna, Delaware 19977 CHRISTOPHER T. FRYE Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 JASON W. HARRISON Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Service Wye Mills, Maryland 21679 PETER STANGO III Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1 Author for correspondence ABSTRACT Over the past decade studies in the field and herbaria have yielded significant advancements in the knowledge of the floras of Delaware, Maryland, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia. We here discuss fifty-two species newly discovered or rediscovered or whose range or nativity is clarified. Eighteen are additions to the flora of Delaware ( Carex lucorum var. lucorum, Carex oklahomensis, Cyperus difformis, Cyperus flavicomus, Elymus macgregorii, Glossostigma cleistanthum, Houstonia pusilla, Juncus validus var. validus, Lotus tenuis, Melothria pendula var. pendula, Parapholis incurva, Phyllanthus caroliniensis subsp.
    [Show full text]