Drainage Areas of Selected Streams in Virginia

Hayes, Donald C.; Wiegand, Ute

doi:10.3133/ofr20061308

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Geology from Dicken and others (2005) Land use from Homer and others (2015) Streams from U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Geodatabase (2013) Drainage area from Hayes and Wiegand (2006) …”

Section: B Geologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013

Hyer¹,

Denver²,

Langland³

et al. 2016

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment-visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS.For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://store.usgs.gov.Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. AcknowledgmentsFunding for this study was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area as part of the Priority Ecosystem Science (PES) Program. Sincere appreciation is extended to the many landowners in all four study watersheds who provided us with access to many of the study sites. Cooperation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, as well as the Soil and Water Conservation Service, was instrumental for better understanding each basin and for gaining access to study sites. Additional contributions of data and information were made by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Appreciation is extended to the Stormwater Planning Division of the Fairfax County Department of Public Works and Environmental Services for supporting elements of water-quality monitoring in Difficult Run that were incorporated into this report and for providing data on the implementation of best management practices throughout Difficult Run.We are indebted to the many USGS field technicians and hydrologists who have contributed to the collection of field samples and other technical content throughout the report. Technical reviews by Doug Burns of the USGS New York Water Science Center and Angie Crain of the USGS Indiana-Kentucky Water Science Center strengthened this report and are sincerely appreciated. AbstractDespite widespread and ongoing implementation of conservation practices throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, water quality continues to be degraded by excess sediment and nutrient inputs. While the Chesapeake Bay Program has developed and maintains a large-scale and long-term monitoring network to detect improvements in water quality throughout the watershed, fewer resources have been allocated for monitoring smaller watersheds, even though water-quality improvements that may result from the implementation of conservation practices are likely to be first detected at smaller watershed scales.In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey partnered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to initiate water-quality monitoring in four selected small watersheds that were targeted for increased implementation of con...

show abstract

Section: B Geologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013

Hyer¹,

Denver²,

Langland³

et al. 2016

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Basin characteristics were derived to characterize basinspecific details about the land use, elevation, and precipitation regime of the sites surveyed during this investigation. Digital representations of the basin boundaries in this study were delineated for the six Virginia sites as part of an update of USGS drainage-basin areas for streamflow-gaging stations in Virginia (Hayes and Wiegand, 2006). The same methodology was followed for the two Maryland sites that were re-surveyed as part of this study.…”

Section: Basin Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bankfull Regional Curves for Streams in the Non-Urban, Non-Tidal Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland

Krstolic¹,

Chaplin²

2007

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A response surface was created illustrating the threedimensional nature of relations among the variables. Percent urban area and square mile drainage area were compiled for stream-gaging stations associated with published peakflow characteristics (Austin and others, 2011b;Hayes and Wiegand 2006;Homer and others, 2004). These urban-area and drainage-area data were evaluated.…”

Section: Analytical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A ratio of land area occupied by the combined four urban land cover classes to the total basin drainage area was calculated to yield basin percent urban area. Basin drainage area values previously published by Hayes and Wiegand (2006) were used in the analysis. These values are also available as basin characteristics listed in table 6 of Austin and others (2011b).…”

Section: Site Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accurate basin square mile drainage area values are important because estimates of urban area annual peak flow per square mile may not be true if inaccurate explanatory values are used. One source of these estimates is U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1308, "Drainage areas of selected streams in Virginia" (Hayes and Wiegand, 2006). Hayes and Wiegand provide a list of drainage area values for selected Virginia basins.…”

Section: Urban Peak Flow Per Square Mile Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drainage Areas of Selected Streams in Virginia

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013

Spatial and temporal variation of stream chemistry associated with contrasting geology and land-use patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—Summary of results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013

Bankfull Regional Curves for Streams in the Non-Urban, Non-Tidal Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, Virginia and Maryland

Methods and equations for estimating peak streamflow per square mile in Virginia’s urban basins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About