Anacostia River Study

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Cn
Cn
CD

'Q
C@
COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER
>

GB Mo.
991
Suite 300
M3
6110 Executive Boulevard VA.
A-53
1989 Rockville, Md. 20852-3903
(301) 984-1908 >
phase 1 4
z

Anacostia River Study
Phase 1

By
Michael J. Focazio, Ph.D.
Rolland S. Fulton, Ph.D.
James D. Cummins
H. Carlton Haywood

ICPRB Report 89-3
January 1989

This publication has been prepared by the Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River Basin. Funds for this publication were
provided by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources under
the terms of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Contract
#C107-89-031, and by ICPRB. The opinions expressed are those of
the authors and should not be construed as representing the
opinions or policies of the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, the signatory bodies or Commissioners of the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1

II. FISHERY RESOURCES ................................. 3

III. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY ............................. 11

III.1. Sedimentation ............................... 11

111.2. Toxic Substances ............................ 12

111.3. Fish Tissue Data ............................ 20

111.4. NPDES Facility Summary ...................... 23

IV. PHYSICAL HABITAT ................................... 29

IV.1. Fish Blockages ............................... 30

IV.2. Wetland Restoration .......................... 31

V. FISH DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS .......................... 37

VI. MODELING REVIEW .................................... 40

VI-1. IFIM ......................................... 41

VI.2. Related Studies .............................. 48

VII. SUMMARY ........................................... 50

LITERATURE CITED ....................................... 52

APPENDIX I

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Distribution of Largemouth Bass in the Anacostia River Basin
(source: ICPRB, 1989). Letters show location of water quality
monitoring stations. Circled numbers show location of fish survey
stations (ICPRB, 1989) .............................................. 4

Figure 2. Distribution of Redbreast Sunfish in the Anacostia River Basin
(source: ICPRB, 1989) ............................................... 5

Figure 3. Distribution of Bluegill Sunfish in the Anacostia River Basin
(source: ICPRB, 1989) ............................................... 6

Figure 4. Distribution of Brown Trout, and White Perch, in the Anacostia
River Basin (source: ICPRB. 1989) ................................... 7

Figure 5. Maximum water temperatures (Centigrade) from the water quality
monitoring stations in the Anacostia River Basin ................... 14

Figure 6. Median water temperatures (Centigrade) from the water quality
monitoring stations in the Anacostia River Basin ................... 15

Figure 7. Median total Coliform (X 103MPNI100ml) from the water quality
monitoring stations in the Anacostia River Basin ................... 18

Figure 8. Approximate past and present NPDES facilities in the Anacostia
River Basin. See Table 7 for facility descriptions ................. 28

Figure 9. Tennant index for the Northwest Branch ............................. 33

Figure 10. Tennant index for the Northeast Branch ............................. 34

Figure 11. Map of blockages to migratory fishes in the Anacostia River Basin
with potential spawning ranges (source: ICPRB, 1989) ............... 36

Figure 12. Overview of the analytical sequence performed in an application of
the IFIM (source: Bovee, 1982) ..................................... 42

Figure 13. Example of a periodicity table for Smallmouth Bass (source: Bovee,
1982) .............................................................. 43

Figure 14. Subdivision of a study reach for IFIM hydraulic modeling (source:
Bain et al., 1982) ................................................. 44

Figure 15. Habitat suitability functions for Rainbow Trout (source: Bovee,
1982) .............................................................. 45

Figure 16. Example weighted usable area versus discharge curves for three
study reaches (source: Bovee, 1982) ................................ 46

Figure 17. Checklist for a typical application of IFIM (source: Camp Dresser
& McKee, 1986) ..................................................... 47

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Habitat requirements for selected warm-water fishes ......... 8

Table 2. Habitat requirements for selected coal-water fishes ......... 9

Table 3. Habitat requirements for selected migratory fishes .......... 10

Table 4. Trace elements from two monitoring stations in Paint Branch
Branch ...................................................... 21

Table 5. Summary of fish tissue analysis at Bladensburg Road for
White Suckers, Redbreast Sunfish, and Carp ......... _ ........ 22

Table 6. Summary of NPDES permit violations for the U.S. Naval
Surface Weapons Lab ......................................... 25

Table 7. List of past and present NPDES minor facilities ............. 26

Table 7. List of past and present NPDES minor facilities (cont.) ..... 27

Table S. Inventory of potential migratory fish blockages ............. 35

I. INTRODUCTION

The Anacostia River Study is intended to identify water quality4
and physical'habitat factors that limit the distribution of . I
important fish species, and to create analytical tools that can
be used to evaluate pollution abatement methods for theiry
potential to improve fisheries habitat..' This report describes
the results of Phase I of the study, in which the effects of
current water quality and physical conditions-of the major
tributaries of the Anacostia basin upon selected fish species
are analyzed. ;Natural and anthropogenic limiting factors are
evaluated in terms of the fish species ranges and abundances.
Included in this report is a review of an instream flow
methodology that could be used as an analytical tool in
combination with appropriate water quality models for the
assessment of present and potential fisheries distributions and
habitat needs.

The Anacostia River Basin drains 169.9 square miles of land that
is composed of two physiographic provinces, the Piedmont Plateau
and the Coastal Plain. This creates diverse instream, conditions
that range from small turbulent gorges to slow moving tidal
areas and includes stretches of pool and riffle areas. The
geology, soils, hydrology/climate, and land use/cover have been
detailed in various other reports (e.g. CH2M Hill, 1982, COG,
1986, Century Engineering, 1985). The Maryland portion of the
basin is dominated by urban land uses with agricultural and
woodlands comprising the rest of the land. The only other
significant land use in the basin is active and abandoned
surface mining but this only accounts for a very small percent
of the total drainage basin area. The major'water quality '@ I
problems that have previously been found in th'e basin are due to
erosion and sedimentation and high leve ls of bacteria (e.g. J
Century Engineering, 1985, COG, 1986).,

The first section of the report describes the current
distribution of selected cool-water, warm-water and migratory
fishes in the area. The cool-water fish analyzed are Brown
Trout (Salmo trutta), and Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri). The
warm-water fish are Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides), and
Redbreast Sunfish (Lepomis auritus). Finally, the migratory
fish are White Perch (Morone americanus), and River Herring
(Alosa pseudoharengus & Alosa aestivalis). These fish were
selected because they are currently found in the basin and they
represent important fishes of the varying local environments in
the area, both ecologically and because of their desirable
recreational values. Information for this analysis was compiled
using existing data bases and previous studies (Dietmann and
Giraldi, 1973, Howden, 1948). Ongoing research databases were
also used (ICPRB, 1989). Included in this section is a summary
of habitat requirements for the selected species that was taken
from the literature. These requirements are divided into two
major components, water quality parameters and physical
characteristics of streams.

Available water quality data from monitoring stations on the
free flowing Anacostia and tributaries is summarized in the
second section so that a detailed overview the current
conditions is created. The locations of the monitoring stations
used f or this study are shown in Figure 1 (and this scheme is
carried out for all subsequent figures). Each letter
corresponds to a station whose data were extracted from the EPA
STORET database. Letter IGI actually represents the location of
three monitoring stations that were found in the same general
location. The scale of the map used for Figure 1 would not
allow distinctions to be made for those three station locations
(therefore the stations are referred to as IG11, IG21, IG31, and
IG41). This section updates the information provided in COG's
(1986) 'Baseline Water Quality Assessment of the Anacostia
Basin', and focuses on water quality parameters related to the
fish species targeted for the present report. Conclusions are
drawn about the relation of the fish distributions and water
quality in the basin.

The second section also includes a summary of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System facilities found in the
basin. This summarizes the known sources of anthropogenic point
source pollution to the receiving streams and is tied back to
the fish distribution information where appropriate.

An overview of the physical habitat of the area is found in the
third section. This section assesses the two main branches of
the Anacostia (i.e. the Northwest and Northeast Branches) by
application of an instream flow index. This is a
simplistic model of the instream flow conditions at those places
and is discussed in terms of the fish resources. The third
section also reports the blockages to fish movement within the
basin. Assessment of potential living resource enhancement by
removal/modification of barriers is included and ranked in terms
of potential benefit to migratory fishes. This identifies high
priority blockages whose removal will have greatest benefit for
migratory fish restoration and enhancement. Discussion of flood
and erosion control structures follows and concludes with
potentials for habitat enhancement by establishment of fringe
marshes in some of these areas.

The fish distribution patterns that were detailed in the first
section are analyzed in the fourth section with respect to the
possible relationships of water quality and other habitat
conditions found in this report. This summarizes the preceding
sections results.

The potential benefits of modeling efforts are addressed in the
last section as they relate to fishery resources and possible
land use change. Models were analyzed for their ability to
address the previously identified limiting water quality
parameters, the pertinant land uses in the basin, as well as the
geology, land cover, soils and physiography of the basin. The
data needs for the recommended model development are discussed.

II. FISHERY RES01URCES

Fisheries populations in the Anacostia River Basin have been
surveyed three times (Howden, 1948, Dietemann and Giraldi, 1973,
and ICPRB, 1989). Results indicate that many areas of the
Anacostia River are, and have been, in poor shape from a
fisheries standpoint, however, there are some encouraging
aspects. Thirty-one species were captured in 1948 and twenty-
five were captured in 1972, using the shore haulseining
technique. In 1987, forty-eight species were captured by the
same technique. The apparent change in species composition is
addressed in another report, but the increases in number of
species captured and in ranges of some species suggest that
modern pollution abatement programs may be showing signs ofl@
success (ICPRB, 1989).

In this report, we focus on several fish species that are
widespread or desirable in the Anacostia River basin, and are
representative of the different habitat types occurring in the
basin. The fish selected for analysis include representative
migratory anadromous, warmwater, and coolwater fishes. The
anadromous fish selected are White Perch (Morone americanus),
and River Herring (Alosa pseudoharengus and Alosa aestivalis).
The warmwater fish include Largemouth Bass (Micropterus
salmoides), Redbreast Sunfish (Levomis auritus), and Bluegill
(Leyomis macrochirus). The coolwater fish selected are Brown
Trout (5alma trutta) and Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri).

The current distribution of these species in the Anacostia River
Basin, obtained from CH2M Hill (1980) and ICPRB (1989), is
presented in Figures 1 through 4. 'Among the'most noteworthy
points are the restrictions to spawning of anadromous fish b
stream blockages to the tidal Anacostia, the 'restriction of.
reproducing populations of Brown Trout to upper Paint Branch,.5
and the absence of all the selected species from Sligo Creek.,
The fish fauna of Sligo Creek was found to be very depauperate,
with low densities and few species of fish present (ICPRB,
1989).

The habitat requirements, including both water quality and
physical parameters, of the selected fish species were
determined from the literature. These requirements are
summarized in Tables 1 through 3. In subsequent sections of
this report these habitat requirements will be interfaced with
information on existing environmental conditions in the
A.nacostia River Basin.

D 0

ao
Cc -

0 T

i If.

A
-el% 1b0

00 0 j A I
I A

A
A

#A
A A

Figure 1. Distribution of Largemouth Bass in the Anacostia River Basin
(source: 1CPRB, 1989). Letters show location of water quality
monitoring stations. Circled numbers show location of fish survey
stations (ICPRB, 1989).

D 0-

N
rdA

.If

F
A D
.fee

or Al
Co o j
4'. A

A
,A A A
%

Figure 2. Distribution of Redbreast Sunfish in the Anacostia River Basin
(source: ICPRB, 1989).

E
(D
eto

G T Rl Q)
I%e 0 U
10 J#4i x w B
4f G

F
AD
#44#
-el %.

40# 0 j
C041 114@ A A[

A A

Figure 3. Distribution of Bluegill Sunfish in the Anacostia River Basin
(source: ICPRB, 1989).

Q T S

0 V

AS
,O-et

O/A F
.4

CO j A[
A

AM
A A A

Figure 4. Distribution of Brown Trout and White Perch in the
Anacostia River Basin (source: ICPRB, 1989).

Table 1. Habitat requirements for selected warm-water fishes.

Largemouth Bass Redbreast sunfish Bluegill
(Micropterus salmoides) Repomis auritus) (Lepomis macrochirus)

Water Ouality Parameters:

Water temperature Spawning: 16-18()C optimurni, Acute LD50 >37oC3 Prefer 28-33oC3
tolerate 15.5-260C2
Subadults-adults:
opt imum 25-280CI
tolerate 10-30oC2

Dissolved oxygen Spawning and larvae: Acute exposure to
,4.5 mgIll <3.6 mg/l reduces survival 3
CID Adults: >2.85 mg/14

pH Spawning and larvae: 6.5-101 Occur in waters ranging
4.8-8.43

Physical Parameters:

Substrate Spawning: Gravelly substrate Spawning: Variety of substra
to marl and soft mud in reeds, but fine gravel-sand preferre
bullrushes, or water liliesl

Flow Pool inhabitant, In Maryland Pool inhabitant, in Maryland
streams occurred at volume streams occurred at volume
flows 1.6-59.7 cfs5 flows 0.1-59.7 cfs5

I Jones, et a). (1988)
2 Coutant (1975)
3 Carlander (1977)
4 Cech, et al. (1979)
5 Tsai and Wiley (1983)

Table 2. Habitat requirements for selected cool-water fishes.

Brown Trout Rainbow Trout
(Salmo trutta) (Salmo gairdneri)

Water Quality Parameters:

Water temperature Spawning: 6.7-900 Spawning: 10-160CI
Subadults & adults: <240C1.2 Subadults & adults: <280C,
optimum @c2100#2

Dissolved oxygen .5 mg/ 13 5 mg/13

pH Spawning: prefer 7-8.24 Short term exposure to <5.5
inhibits reproduction and
larval survival. 5.6 Higher
levels likely required for
long term development.

Suspended Solids Sublethal stress at chronic
exposure to 2-4 g/l
(steelhead trout)7

Physical Parameters:

Substrate Spawning: Gravel areas of Spawning: Gravel areas of
streams, I prefer mean streamsi
sediment size 7-15 mm4.8

Flow Volume flow for spawning:
0.7-21.2 cfs4
Preferred flow velocities:
Feeding 18-27 cm/s
Spawning 31-47 cm/s4.8

Depth Preferred for feeding: 20-65 Cm
Preferred for spawning: 14-43 CM8

-A.,4
Gradient Preferred 0.2-2.3-.

1 Jones, et al. (1988) 5 Hulsman, et al. (1983)
2 Carlander (1969) 6 Weiner, et al. (1986)
3 Mills (1971) 7 Redding, et al. (1987)
4 Witzel & MacCrimmon (1983) 8 Shirvell & Dungey (1983)

Table 3. Habitat requirements for selected migratory fishes.

White Perch River Herring
(Morone americanus) I&Im pseudoharengus &
A. aestivalis)

Water Quality Parameters:

Water temperature Egg, larval stages: Spawning: Alewife 10-21oC2
optimum 12-2000 Blueback Herring 14-27oC2
tolerate 11-3000 Larvae: 16-2400
Young-of-the-year: >15.5oC2

Dissolved oxygen All stages: >5 mg/11,2 Young-of-the-year: >3.6 mg/12
Other life stages; >5 mg/11.2

pH Egg, larval stages: 6.5-8.51,2 Egg larval stages: 6.5-8.51
Young-of-the-year: 7_92

Suspended Solids Egg, larval stages: <70 mg/11 Egg, larval stages: <50 mg/11

Turbidity Egg, larval stages: <50 NTUI Egg, larval stages: <50 NTU

Physical Parameters:

Substrate Egg, larval stages: compact Egg, larval stages: Sand,
silt, sand, mud, clayl gravel with 75% siltl

Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force (1987)
2 Jones, et a]. (1988)

I I I - WATER QUALITY SUMMY

Water quality data were obtained from a variety of sources
including the EPA's STORET and Permit Compliance System (PCS),
the State of Maryland (Maryland Department of the Environment,
1986,1988), the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
(ICPRB, 1989), and the Washington Metropolitan Council of
Governments (1986). COG reported a 'baseline' water quality
assessment of the Anacostia River Basin in 1986 and the
information that follows updates much of that original work.

III.l. SEDIMENTATION

Century Engineering (1981) identified all sources (to 1981) of
sediment in the Anacostia basin and rated them according to
total contribution of sediment to the Anacostia River. By
application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (i.e. Computer
Prog am for Gross Erosion, Sediment Yield, and Sediment Storage
r
(SEDEL), USDA), abandoned and operating surface mines produced
Ilk 48% of the sediment (i.e. 22,852 tons/mi2/yr) and construction
sites produced 13% (i.e. 10,675 tons/mi2/yr). This is
,-interesting because these forms of land use accounted for only
2% and 1% respectively, of the drainage basin area. Most
surface mines were found in the areas of Little Paint Branch and
Indian Creek. Another interesting point of this study was that
sediment yield from the more urban areas was somewhat low (i.e.
urban lands accounted for 12%, or 276 tons/mi2/yr, of the
sediment yield while occupying 44% of the land area). However
the increases in runoff rates associated with these areas can
cause accelerated streambank erosion and contribute sediment by
this process to downstream areas. That report concluded that
sediment yields will change under projected future land uses
with general reductions in the highest yields, and some
increases where urban/suburban construction projects increase.
In particular, the large proportion of sediment that is
attributed to mining are priority areas for management
practices.

CH2MHill (1982) estimated the average annual sediment yields for
existing and "ultimate,, land use conditions for the Anacostia
basin. Results of this study, like the Century Engineering
(1981) report, show that future land use changes could I
accelerate sediment yield in sensitive areas if sound management
practices are not applied.@,

Sediment problems in the Anacostia basin have been shown to be a
major water quality problem by several other reports (e.g. MD
DNR, 1984, MDEP, 1984, Century Engineering, 1985). Ragan and
Rebuck (1973) state that the reduction in the observed number of
fish species in the Anacostia basin could probably be attributed

to erosion and sediment problems because the chemical
characteristics of the water were good. However COG (1986)
reported that erosion and sediment yield have decreased in
recent decades as a result of land use changes and
implementation of soil conservation and erosion practices,

Thus it is difficult to link sediment and erosion problems with,
fish distributions in the basin in any quantitative way at this
time.' However, there is evidence that poorly managed areas
degrade habitat but could possibly be avoided in the future. It
is important to note that certain streambed erosion control
practices have actually been implicated as being detrimental to
habitat quality in certain cases. This is discussed further in
a later section.

TEMPERATURE

There is a temperature water quality standard of less than or
equal to 32-@Iegrees anywhere, anytime in all Maryland streams
Paint Branch is one of the exceptions and has a standard of less
than 2G'@degrees. The 32 degree standard was very rarely
exceeded, however the 20 degree standard for Paint Branch was
exceeded in a Montgomery County station (i.e. station 50120 or
"D" on Figure 5) on different occasions (the maximum was
recorded as 22 degrees centigrade). Figure 5 also shows that
the standard has been exceeded in stations 1101' (i.e. 23 degrees)
and "N" (i.e. 26 degrees). Unfortunately, data records on
STORET for stations 0-01- and "N" end in 1982 and 1980
respectively, and station "D" has only one additional
observation since 1986.

There is a spatial pattern of maximum temperature distributions
in the basin as shown in Figure 5. Though it is difficult to
make comparisons between stations with different recording
histories, this map does have the virtue of providing a "quick
and dirty" overview. It is clear that stations in the lower
portion of the basin (Lower Seaverdam Creek, Lower Northwest and
Northeast Branches) have higher maximum temperatures than other
portions of the basin (i.e. temperatures there range from 26 to
32 degrees centigrade and from 22 to 26 elsewhere). The spatial
pattern of median temperatures is less clear, but Lower
Beaverdam Creek appears to be the warmest tributary (i.e. a
range of 14 to 16 degrees centigrade. Figure 6)

Maximum temperatures do not clearly differentiate the upper
Paint Branch, where reproducing brown trout populations occur,
from other tributaries in the upper basin. Temperatures in
upper Paint Branch are similar to those in upper Northwest
Branch, upper Beaverdam, and Indian Creeks. However, it should
be noted that the water quality monitoring stations on Paint
Branch are downstream of the highest quality trout habitat (CH2M.
Hill, 1980). Water temperatures may be somewhat cooler closer
to thesources of upstream springs. The high water temperatures
in the lower portion of the Anacostia basin noted above do make

these areas unsuitable for trout populations (Table 2).
Otherwise, fish distributions would not seem to be restricted by
water temperature. In particular, the depauperate fish fauna in
Sligo Creek cannot be attributed to extreme temperatures by the
available data from this tributary.

23A

D 2

E 2
2
F 3
3

d&*%

2 24
% 0 L
N 6 2
4

024

27 1 S
2 6
U
4f V
3
27 X W 3.2 AA AB 11:11
Y 29
27
-Z 9

'A F
AD 32 o 1 28

28
28
CO o Al
30 A 3

28 A
28A a AO
2

V A P
27

Figure 5. Maximum water temperatures (Centigrade) from the water quality
monitoring stations in the Anacostia River Basin.

12 A

D 2

F 13 10

112
io
10
L
0 MIO
:3
3

Q12
4P, T S13
/ **. 120 U
40P 4b. V
W 13 j AA 11@ CI.
AB
YA
z 12
C,
f
14 @A
0 12 14
AD
470is
Or 15
C, 0
Iji A 1
A 12 16 1
14 14
A 15
A AQ
13

A P
V is

Figure 6. Median water temperatures (Centigrade) from the water quality
monitoring stations in the Anacostia River Basin.

The Maryland standard for pH is between 6.5 and 8.5. A map was
made of the median pH values for each station for the present
study. The pH values were near neutral in all stations with no
obvious spatial pattern.

TURBIDITY and TSS

Maryland standard for turbidity is 50 JTU (monthly average) and
less than 150 JTU anytime, anywhere. COG (1986) reports that
there were several occasions of non-compliance and points out
that violations may be frequently unobserved because
measurements are typically made between storm events.

CH2MHi11 (1984) showed that TSS was highly correlated with storm
flows in the Anacostia. After comparing several studies of TSS
during storm flows in the Ahacostia and Potomac river systems,
COG (1986) reported that the Anacostia carries sediment
concentrations that are roughly equivalent to the nearby Potomac
tributaries but the TSS concentrations are much higher than in
the Potomac itself. Both turbidity and TSS data were not as
abundant as the other water quality data for the basin, however
analyses of the available data showed no obvious spatial pattern
within the basin.

BACTERIA

Maryland's Fecal Coliform standard is 200 MPN. In the present
study both fecal and total coliform. were analyzed and the
results show that the standard is exceeded in most stations.
Figure 7 shows the median values of total coliform for each
station analyzed in the basin. Several observations can be
made. Much lower coliform, counts are found in the stations
above (i.e. northwest) of the fall line (this roughly
corresponds to those stations in Montgomery County). In that
area, coliform. counts range from 1000 to 8000 MPN/100ml. Below
the fall line, the values are in general, an order of magnitude
higher than other stations. Again, this type of comparison must
be done with caution due to the inconsistent period of record
between stations (period of record can be found for each station
from Appendix I). Fecal coliform data (not shown) exhibit
patterns similar to total coliform. Median values exceed
Maryland's fecal coliform standard at almost all stations@l As
with total coliform, fecal coliform. levels tend to be
substatially lower in stations on Paint Branch and Northwest
Branch than in other areas of the Anacostia River basin.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN

The Maryland standard for dissolved oxygen is a daily average of
greater than or equal to 5 mg/l and a daily minimum
,concentration of greater than 4 mg/l. This study could not
conclude that there are any dissolved oxygen problems despite
the fact that high temperatures are of some concern in certain-
locations.@,

2 B

f C9

cc
14
et 12

N
C.

T 5 S23

V
x W 1 AA AB
Y M 2 ,Se

Z 23

@c
F
'A
43 0 2
A D 16

14 39
CO A A I
'6,N A C3 18
A
23 A '23 AO

AP
9

Figure 7. Median total Coliform (X 103MPN/100ml) from the water quality
monitoring stations in the Anacostia River Basin.

111.2- TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Data were analyzed from two monitoring stations for several
trace elements. These stations were upstream (i.e station
#50113 or Ij' on our maps) and downstream (i.e. station #50110
or IN' on our maps) of the'U.S. Naval Surface-Weapons Center -
which is one of the largest NPDES permitted facilities in the
basin. Mean and maximum values of Copper, Lead and Nickel were
much greater downstream from the facility than upstream.,1,COW
(1986) suggested that this facility may be a source of these /
elements. Data analyzed since 1986 (see Table 4) V-1ow that the
downstream station continues to have higher levelg these
elements. For example, median Copper concentrati@@s- were 4.2
ppm upstream and 21.3 ppm downstream, median Lead concentrations
were 3.6 ppm upstream and 6.3 ppm downstream, and median Nickel
concentrations were 8.7 ppm upstream and 29.9 ppm, downstream.
Since the 1986 report Copper was monitored 20 more times at the
upstream station and 19 times at the downstream station
(according to STORET), Lead was monitored 41 more times at the
upstream location and 40 more times at the downstream location,
but Nickel was only monitored one more time at the upstream
location and no more times at the downstream location.
A comparison with federal water quality criteria for aquaticli
life shows that trace element concentrations at both of thO
monitoring stations are disturbingly high)(Table 4).
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver and
Zinc have at some time exceeded these criteria, and in fact the
MEAN values of most of them are higher than the 24 hour and/or
maximum exposure concentrations. This suggests that there may)
be other sources of these elements (e.g. natural sources) in the
area of the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Lab other than the lab
itself. Therefore, conclusions cannot be drawn at this time
about the source of Ehe high concentrations of these elements in
'this area.

A comparison of data values of elements since 1986 shows that
all elements have lower mean concentration values in 1988.
However, the maximum values of Arsenic and Chromium have
increased since the 1986 report in the downstream station (i.e.
Arsenic maximum increased from 1.00 ppm to 1.40 ppm, and
Chromium maximum increased from 46 ppm to 50 ppm). This is
particularily alarming with respect to Arsenic because it has
only 2 more observations since 1986.

Trace elements were analyzed in several other locations within
the Anacostia River Basin in a report on the status and trends
of toxic parameters in the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB, 1989).
That study showed that increasing trends were detected in the
Northwest Branch for Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, and Nickel. No
other trends were detected within the basin (however, this may
be due in part to limited available data). The high levels of
these elements in the Northwest Branch further raises the

question about the source of these naturally occurring
substances.

The ICPRB toxics report (ICPRB, 1989) searched for many toxic
substances other than the metals previously mentioned. However,
the limited amount of data on other substances restricted that
analysis in the Anacostia River Basin. Of the stations analyzed
in that report, Cyanide and Phenols were detected at stations
'ACI and 'AD', on the Northwest and Northeast Branches
respectively. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough available data
at those stations to establish a trend analysis.

111.3. FISH TISSUE DATA

COG (1986) reported fish tissue data for White Suckers and
Redbreast Sunfish from a station at Bladensburg Road. That
information was given for 1990 and 1983 and has been
supplemented in Table 5 with data for Redbreast Sunfish from
1994 and 198S and includea data fQr Carp frQm 1985. Thc rQQd
and Drug Administration defines action levels as limits at or
above which the FDA will take legal action to remove adulterated
products from the market (FDA, 1986). These levels were found
for PCB, DDE, Chlordane, Dieldrin, and Mercury and are given in
Table S. It is important to note that the data in Table 5 are
samples taken from whole fish, whereas the action levels are for
edible portions of the fish. Furthermore, the act 'Ion levels are
composite samples and thus represent 'average, values, while the
data in Table 5 are taken from a few individuals of specific
species. The Carp data from 1985 were taken from only one
observation, the White Sucker data for 1983 were from two
observations, and the Redbreast Sunfish data from 1983, 1984,
and 1985 were from three, four, and five observations
respectively. Therefore, direct comparisons of the measured
tissue data and the action levels cannot be made, the action
levels can only be used as a relative guide to the data of Table
5.

Table 4. Trace elements from two monitoring stations in Paint Branch

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

Station 50113 (J) Station 50110 (N)

--to 1986-- --to 1988-- --to 1986-- --to 1988--

ELEMENT MAX MEAN MAX MEAN MAX MEAN MAX MEAN I

Arsenic 0.90 0.33 7 0.90 0.26 9 1.00 0.41 7 1.40 0.32 9
Barium 140 52.7 11 140 48.3 12 160 57.5 12 160 57.5 12
Cadmium 40 3.2 34 40 2.0 77 20 2.8 39 20 1.9 80
Chromium 50 4.7 28 50 4.8 43 46 5.9 31 50 5.6 46
Copper 34 4.8 27 34 4.2 47 752 32.9 28 752 21.3 47
Flouride 0.18 0.10 9 0.18 0.08 11 0.26 0.11 12 0.26 0.11 12
-iron 1150 182 29 1000 177 32
Lead 28 5.5 36 28 3.6 77 141 10.7 40 141 6.3 80
Mercury 0.10 0.05 3 0.10 0.04 4
Nickel 19 9.4 12 19 8.7 13 284 29.9 13 284 29.9 13
Selenium 0.50 0.21 11 0.50 0.19 12 0.60 0.26 11 0.60 0.24 12
Silver 2 0.45 11 2 0.42 12 5 1.0 12 5 1.0 12
Zinc 107 15.0 37 107 9.9 77 111 16.6 41 111 11.5 79

WATER qUALITY CRITERIA FROM MMIERAL REGISTER -
Vol. 45, No. 231

ELMIENT AQUATIC LIFE HUMAN HEALTH WELFARE
Max 24Hr Max Max

Arsenic 440
Barium 1000
Cadmium .025 10
Chromium 21 .029 170
Copper 7.1 5.6 1000
Flouride
Iron 1000 300
Lead 170 3.8 50
Mercury .0017 .0006 .145
Nickel 1800 96 100
Selenium 260 35 10
Silver 4.1 .12 50
Zinc 47 5000

Note: All units are in ug/1 except Flouride (mg/1).

Table 5. Summary of Fish Tissue Analysis at Bladensburg Road
for White Suckers, Redbreast Sunfish, and Carp (ppm).

1980 1983 1983 1984 1985 1985

Suckers Suckers Redbrst Redbrst Redbrst Carp

ORGANIC
COMPOUNDa

PCB (1260) .45 .245 .208
DDE .03 .026 .012 <.07 <.07 <.07
DDD .02 .117 .08 <.04 <.04 04
Chlordane .15 .176 .934 .08 .06 .39
Dieldrin .007 .017 .017 .042 <.007 <.007
Decthal trace
HCB .002 <.002 <.002
BHC (Alpha) <.002 <.002 .006 <.002 <.002

METALS

Arsenic <.05 .12 .13 .11 .31 .35
Cadmium .20 .30 .60 .09 .36 .37
Chromium .13 1.70 <.50 <.50 .50 <.50
Copper .75 1.04 1.24 6.81 1.09 1.67
Lead 1.00 2.90 4.20 1.40 .90 1.90
Mercury .159 .027 .041 .054 .046 .025
Zinc 13.8 18.3 30.0 7.35 6.99 71.0

FDA Action Levels

PCB 2.0
DDE 5.0
Chlordane 0.3
Dieldrin 0.3
Mercury 1.0

111.4. NPDES FACILITY SUMMARY

There are several minor' (i.e. < 1 MGD) facilities in the
basin. In order to obtain information on these sites three
sources were used; EPA STORET (i.e. WQAB), EPA PCS, and the
State of Maryland Department of the Environment. A comparison
of these sources showed that the information was not consistent
in certain respects (e.g. there were facilities listed in one
data base that were not in the others). Also, the EPA data
bases provided limits information on only a select few locations
and, information on any minor discharger is scarce. Therefore a
summary of the permitted facilities in the basin was compiled
from the files at the MDOE (see Table 7). Note that this Table
may not contain every permitted facility in the basin but does
provide a good picture of the types of discharges inthe area.
Also, some of the permits have expired and therefore some of the
facilities may not be discharging to surface waters anymore.
Therefore the compilation is an historical overview.
Figure 8 shows the approximate locations of these facilities.

Two major (i.e. discharge of > I MGD) facilities that were
permitted under NPDES are the Mineral Pigments Corporation
(Figure 8, Facility #21) and the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Lab
(Figure 8, Facility #22). The Mineral Pigment Corporation is
given a SIC code of 'Inorganic Pigments, and discharges from
outfalls into an Indian Creek tributary. The Navy Surface
Weapons Lab has a SIC code of 'Ammunition, Exc. for Small Arm'
and discharges from outfalls into Paint Branch.

An EPA Permit Compliance System retrieval was used to obtain
permit limitation and violations summaries for these facilities.
The Mineral Pigment Corporation had seven parameters listed for
its outfall; pH, total suspended solids, Barium, Hexavalent
Chromium, Total Chromium, Lead, and Zinc. The limitations for
each parameter are summarized below for the outfall.

PARAMETER LIMITATION (OUTFALIs 003-A)

pH Minimum 6, Maximum 9
TSS Average Quantity 16.7 lbs/day
Maximum Quantity 33 lbs/day
Barium Maximum Concentration 120 ug/l
Hexavalent Chromium Average Concentration 0.15 ug/l
Maximum Concentration 0.30 ug/1
Total Chromium Average Quantity 2.39 lbs/day
Maximum Quantity 5.7 lbs/day
Lead Average Quantity 2.76 lbs/day
Maximum Quantity 6.62 lbs/day
Zinc Average Quantity 1.7 lbs/day
Maximum Quantity 3.3 lbs/day

It is important to note that the permit limitations can also be
a function of the process that is creating the discharge. For
example at this facility the zinc effluent limit is increased to
1.78 lbs/day monthly average and 3.53 lbs/day daily maximum when
the two outfalls are discharging simultaneously during zinc
phosphate production. Unfortunately the PCS data base contained
no information on violations at the Mineral Pigment Corporation.
As of October 1988, all process wastes from this facility are
discharged to a sanitary sewer controlled by WSSC and are
therefore no longer discharged directly to the tributary.

The U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Lab has four different parameters
listed in its permit: temperature, pH, total suspended solids,
and oil and grease. An example of the limitations for a single
outfall follow and is representative of the type of limitations
for the other outfalls at the facility.

PARAMETER LIMITATION (OUTFALL 002A)

Temperature Maximum 22.2 degrees Celsius
pH Minimum 6.0, Maximum 8.5
T.S.S. Average Quantity 20 lbs/day,
Maximum Quantity 40 lbs/day
Average Concentration 28 mg/l
Maximum Concentration 56 mg/l
Oil and Grease Average Quantity 18 lbs/day,
maximum Quantity 38 lbs/day
Average Concentration 25 mg/l
Maximum Concentration 50 mg/l

Table 4 showed that the mean concentrations of Copper, Lead and
Nickel were much greater at a monitoring station downstream of
the U.S. Naval Surface Weapon Lab than they were just upstream
of it' suggesting that the lab may be a source of these
elements. Curiously, the effluent permit does not specifically!
include those elements.'

A violations summary for the past four years was created for the
U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Lab from the Permit Compliance System
data base. This summary reports the number of violations for
the given parameter for that year and the maximum violation (as
a percentage deviation from the permitted value). The number of
violations includes all violations from all outfalls (Table 6).

Table 6. Summary of NPDES permit violations for the U.S. Naval
Surface Weapons Lab (In, is the number of violations for all
outfalls that year, 'Max.' is the maximum violation, in percent
of permit limit).

PAP-aMTER -1985- -1986- -1987- -1988-
n Max. n Max. n Max. n Max.

TSS
Ave. Conc. 4 700 4 272 None None
Max. Conc. 4 521 15 3060 5 260 3 840

.,pH -
Minimum None 2 13 2 10 1 -10
Maximum None None None None

Oil and Grease
Ave. Conc. None 6 660 3 147 1 50
Max. Conc. None 7 1400 5 139 1 36

Tenwerature
Maximum. None 11 13 1 1 None

Table 7. List of past and present NPDES minor facilities.

MAP NAME RECEIVING WATER PARAMETERS.

1 Amerada Hess Corp. Beaver Dam Creek Oil and Grease

2 AMOCO Service Station Northwest Branch Benzene,
(storm sever) Toluene,
Xylene

3 Beltsville Agri. Res. Center Groundwater Heated water

4 Bonifant Rubble Fill Groundwater Landfill
leachate

5 Capitol Wire and Fence Unnamed Tributary Condensate
Company, Inc. to Anacostia water

6 Contee Sand and Gravel Paint Branch Total Suspended
Company, Inc. Solids,
Turbidity

7 D and D Service Station Unnamed Tributary Benzene,
to Anacostia Toluene,
Xylene

8 Harry Diamond Labs Paint Branch Oil and Grease,
PH

9 Holy Cross Hospital Sligo Creek Total Suspended
Solids,
Turbidity,
PH

10 Ilbau America Inc. Unnamed Tributary Total Suspended
to Sligo Creek Solids,
Oil and Grease,
Turbidity

11 Laurel Sand and Gravel Inc. Indian Creek Total Suspended
Solids,
Turbidity,
PH

12 Metro Subway Tunnels Unnamed Tributary Total Suspended
to Northwest Branch Solids,
Turbidity,
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons,
PH

Table 7. List of past and present NPDES minor facilities
(continued from previous page).

MAP NAME RECEIVING WATER PARAMETERS

13 Metro Subway Tunnels Unnamed Tributary Total Suspended
to Northwest Branch Solids,
Turbidity,
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons,
@PH

14 Nazario Construction Co. Inc. Indian Creek Total Suspended
Solids,
Oil and Grease
pH

15 Pressure Science Inc. Unnamed Tributary Oil and Grease
to Indian Creek

16 Seat Pleasant Amoco Cabin Branch Total Suspended
Solids,
BOD,
oil and Grease

17 Smith, A.H. Associated LTD. Indian Creek Total Suspended
Solids,
Turbidity

is Univ. of MD Fire and Rescue Paint Branch Oil and Grease
Benzene,
Toluene,
Xylene,
pH

19 U.S. Metal Forms and Tubes Indian Creek Total Suspended
Inc. Solids,
Oil and Grease
pH

20 Wheaton Tail Tunnels Unnamed Tributary Total Suspended
to Sligo Creek Turbidity,
pH

19
21
15

10 2
20

0le 18 17

12 e,

C,*

F18ure 8, Approximate past and present NPDES facilities in the Anacostia
River Basin. See Table 7 for facility descriptions.

IV. PHYSICAL HABITAT

Instream flow requirements refer to flow regimes in stream
channels that are needed to sustain instream, values at an
acceptable level (Loar and Sale, 1981). Methods have been
developed to assess the instream flow requirements for many
stream uses, such as for recreation, aesthetics, aquatic biota,
and maintenance of water quality. Of these uses, the instream
flow needs of aquatic biota have been the most difficult
requirements to develop.

Among the most commonly used approaches for assessing habitat
quality for aquatic biota are those based on historical records
for stream discharge. The best tested and most widely used of
these is the Tennant or Montana method. In the Tennant method,
the health of the aquatic habitat is related to percentages of
the mean annual flow rate (MAF) occurring at the site of
interest: 10% of-MAF is a minimum instantaneous flow
recommended to sustain short-term survival habitat for most
aquatic biota; 30% of MAF is a base flow recommended to sustain
good habitat; 60-100% of MAF is a base flow recommended to
provide optimum habitat; and a flushing flow of 200% of MAP is
recommended to maintain high quality habitat (Loar and Sale,
1981; Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1986).

Long-term records of daily flows are available for two U.S.
Geological Survey gages on the Northeast Branch Anacostia River
at Riverdale (Station AC) and on the Northwest Branch Anacostia
River at Hyattsville (Station AD). These records were used to
calculate minimum and maximum daily flows as a percentage of MAF
for the water years 1961 through 1987. Figures 9 and 10 show
that minimum daily flows are usually near or below 10% of MAF,
indicative of a severely degraded habitat by the Tennant method.
Maximum daily discharges are roughly 1000% of MAF, well in
excess of recommended levels.

Flow rates may be less variable in some of the smaller
tributaries that drain the less urbanized areas.
For example, upper Paint Branch, which is fed by flowing springs
and which is in a relatively undeveloped area, may have lower
and more stable discharge rates that support more favorable
habitat. This supposition is supported by limited measurements
taken in November 1979 at several stations on Good Hope
Tributary of Paint Branch. Flow rates ranged from 0.1 to 4.2
cfs (Galli, 1983), which is well within the preferred range for
Brown Trout (Table 2).

Volume flows recorded at the USGS gauge stations would appear to
be unfavorable for Brown Trout, and suboptimal for Bluegill and
Redbreast Sunfish. Mean flow rates at both stations are above
the range preferred by Brown Trout for spawning (Tables 1 and
2). Maximum discharge rates at both stations greatly exceed the

range for which Bluegill and Redbreast Sunfish were found to
occur in Maryland streams, but mean flow rates were often in
their range of occurrence (Tables 1 and 2).

The Tennant method for stream habitat evaluation, like other
discharge methods, has the advantages of being quick,
inexpensive, and easy to use. It is the best tested of the
discharge methods, and has been recommended as the best minimum
instream flow estimation method for Virginia (Camp, Dresser, and
McKee, 1986). However, it is a very oversimplified index, which
omits consideration of many important aspects of stream habitat
and water quality. More detailed methods for stream habitat
evaluation, which may potentially be applied to the Anacostia
River Basin, are discussed later in this report.

IV.1. FISH BLOCKAGES

Table 8 lists an inventory of potential migratory fish blockages
in the Anacostia basin that was compiled during another ICPRB
study (ICPRB, 1989). The approximate locations of these
blockages are presented in Figure 11. The two 'Final Blockages,
(i.e. Northwest Branch (f) and Northeast Branch (a)) are the
first complete blockages encountered by migrating fish. These
are labelled 'Final, because they do not allow passage beyond
those points. The 'Partial Blockages, will restrict passage to
certain fishes and at specific flow rates. Other blockages are
termed 'Potential Future Blockage' to indicate that these
structures will play an important role in fish migration if the
'Final Blockages, are removed.

An assessment of the priority for removal of blockages was made
considering the potential benefit to increased access of
upstream habitat and the amount of work required for the
removals. The two 'Final Blockages' would at first seem to be
of high priority (i.e. they are the farthest downstream of all
blockages). However the benefits of removing the blockage on
the Northwest Branch may not be as great as removing some
blockages on the Northeast Branch. This is due to the fact that
the Northwest Branch has many other 'Potential Future Blockages'
(i.e. a, b, c, d, and e). These blockages would also require
removal in order to open access to the upper Northwest Branch.
In addition, Sligo Creek has many potential blockages.

Removal of the 'Final Blockage' on the Northeast Branch and the)
,three other blockages on Paint Branch and Little Paint Branch
(i.e. (a) and (b) on Paint Branch and (a) on Little Paint
Branch) would provide the most access to the headwaters of
important tributaries in the basin with the least amount of work
required.@ This would open up larger amounts of area within the
Coastal Plain regions of the basin. Therefore in terms of
priorities, removal and or modifications of the blockages on the
Northeast Branch should be first. It must be noted that

providing access to upstream waters does not necessarily require
total removal of some of these structures.

This could be supplemented by a careful plan of
removal/modification of other blockages elsewhere in the basin.
The plan must include considerations of the original intention
of the targetted structure (i.e. some were intended for flood
and/or erosion control such as velocity dissipators). It is our
belief that a carefully considered plan could open up a great
deal of upstream habitat while at the same time important
structures could be modified so that their original purpose is
maintained. IV.2. WETLAND RESTORATION

Wetland vegetation can have a number of beneficial effects on
stream water and habitat quality.. Of particular importance to
this study, it can be used to retard streambank erosion, cast
-shade that moderates water temperatures, and provide food and
cover for fish and other aquatic organisms.

Though no extensive wetland mapping projects have been
accomplished for non-tidal areas, field observations have shown
that the heavy urbanization in the Anacostia River basin has
resulted in large losses of riparian vegetation. Opportunities
for wetland creation in the Anacostia River basin are limited
because much of the watershed has already been allocated to
other uses. Of these specific uses, flood control projects have
most often conflicted with wildlife concerns. Flood control
projects have channelized the streams, which removes vegetation
and cover and creates thermal problems. Water temperatures as
high as 350C have been measured in channelized areas (ICPRB,
1989), which would be deleterious to all fish (Tables 1, 2 and
3). Flood control projects have also armored the banks of
streams, which can reduce availability of high quality habitat,
although designs involving the use of large boulders with
sufficient space between them do allow some refuges for fish and
other aquatic organisms.

Some of the flood control projects have left large amounts of
riparian areas covered with concrete. Obviously these areas
would not be suitable for wetland restoration without major
modifications of the existing structures. The areas with the
highest potential benefits from wetlands restoration are in some
of the flood and erosion control stretches. The primary areas
of concern are the mainstem Anacostia River above the
Bladensburg Marina, the Northwest Branch up to the East-West
High@7ay, and the Northeast Branch downstream of Riverdale Road.
Channelization in these places has required extensive areas of
rip-rap to be installed to minimize streambank erosion. The
amount of streambank vegetation is minimal or absent along these
banks. These areas would benefit from the increased shading and
habitat resulting from the establishment of fringe marshes.
Species such as Sagittaria latifolia (Duck Potato or Big-leaved

Arrowhead), Scirpus-validus (Softstem Bullrush), and Zizania
aquatica (Wild Rice) are among those plants that could improve
conditions in these areas. These are among the list of species
recommended for planting on the tidal Potomac and Anacostia
Rivers by the Baltimore District, Corps of Engineers. These
species are common locally, are tolerant to regular or continued
flooding, are easily established as pioneer plants, and are
reasonably resistant to water movements likely to be encountered
on the Anacostia River. Wild Rice was once widespread on the
Anacostia River, and has been successfully established on the
tidal Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in a joint ICPRB-National
Park Service project.

NORTHWEST BRANCH ANACOSTIA RIVER AT HYATTSVILLE, STATION A-
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DISCHARGES AS A PERCENTAGE OF MEAN DISCHA
WATER YEARS 1961 THROUGH 1987

GL, (k

ED
0

LLJ
CLD
2-
3: 10
U

LLJ

LL 10
0

A'60 1964 1968 1972 1976 i9so 1984

YEAR

Figure 9. Tennant index for the Northwest Branch.

NORTHEAST BRANCH ANACOSTIA RIVER AT RIVERDALE, STATION A-
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DISCHARGES AS A PERCENTAGE OF MEAN DISCH
WATER YEARS 1961 THROUGH 1987

Gk
0- d \b\
d
<
U
En

(D
0

LLJ
CD
CC

r
U
U)

z
<X
LLJ

LL 10
0

&B-0- 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1954

YEAR

Figure 10. Tennant index for the Northeast Branch.

Table 8. Inventory of potential migratory fish blockages
(source: ICPRB, 1989).

Est ima
Tributary Location General Description l1eig

S I Igo Creek A. 700' downstream from Piney Branch Road Uncapped pipe I
B. 1500' upstream from Carroll Avenue Uncapped pipe I
C. 250' upstream from Carroll Avenue Uncapped pipe I
0. 1000' upstream from Riggs Road Concrete cap 2
E. At Riggs Road Concrete channel with apron F
F. Four drop structures which step down to Concrete steel, and rip-rap dams T
the conf luence with the N.W. Branch.

H.W. Branch A. 2000' upstream from 495 Concrete cap I
B. 200' upstream from East-West Highway Concrete cap
C. At the confluence with Sligo Creek Gabion dam I
D. 700' downstream from Queens Chapel Road Gablon dam I
E. 1000' upstream from 38th Street Gabion dam I
F. 100' upstream from 38th Street Metal weir
G. At Route 11 Concrete apron F

Paint Branch A. Bridge at inner loop of 1-495 Bridge culvert
8. 1000' upstream from the conhuence with Metal weir
Indian Creek

Lower Paint Branch A. 3000' downstream from Se)lman Road Two concrete dams

Indian Creek A. 1000' upstream from Branchville Road Sand A gravel settling ponds F
8. 3000' upstream from the confluence with Concrete cap
Paint Branch

Brier Ditch A. At Kenilworth Avenue Bridge culvert

N.E. Branch A. Behind M11CPPC building on Kenilworth Avenue Metal weir
0. 3000' upstream from East-West Highway Gablon dam
C. 500' downstream from Riverdale Road Rip-rap chute F

Lower Beaverdam Creek A. 2000' upstream fran Landover Road at the Concrete splash
conHuence of small concrete stream
0. At Landover Road Bridge culvert
C. At Kenilworth Avenue Concrete spillway

F I@erat OWxampiMp 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . .

M N M.

Vel
0 rr

0
X aeave
a rda,

"N
X ...
X
X

ch
c b Bic@ec

C
''!!fl ?Otanzial Spawning Range of white Perch

?Ctential Soawning Range of R-ver Herr-,ng Ip

F4nal Blockage 00,

0 Partial Blockage

Docencial, Future Blockages

Figure 11. Map of blockages to migratory fishes in the Anacostia River Basin
with potential spawning ranges (source: ICPRB. 1989).
See Table -for description of blockages.

V. FISH DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS

The present distribution of fishes in the Anacostia can be
partially explained by available information on fish habitat
requirements and environmental conditions in the basin. The two
environmental variables that would appear most limiting to Trout
population are water temperature and volume flows. As discussed
previously, maximum temperatures ift the lower portion of the
basin are unfavorable for trout, but water temper4ture alone
does not distinguish Paint Branch from the other up@er
tributaries in which reproducing Trout populations' do not occur.
Rainbow Trout are stocked in the upper Northwest Branch, which
supports a put-and-take fishery but not Trout reproduction.
Based on available water temperature data, Upper Beaverdam and
Indian Creeks could also potentially support a put-and-take
Trout fishery.

Volume flows and variability in discharge rates measured at the
two USGS gage sites in the lower basin would also be unfavorable
for Trout, as well as for other fish. Although data are
lacking, there are likely to be lower rates and variability in
discharge in the upper tributaries, as mentioned previously for
Paint Branch, which would make these areas more favorable
habitat for Trout and other fish.

,In the absence of more detailed habitat information, we can only
speculate on the causes for the limitation of Brown Trout to
Paint Branch. High degrees of sedimentation may prevent
spawning in some tributaries, particularly Little Paint Branch
and Indian Creek which receive a great deal of sediment from
surface mines.

Although the water quality at monitoring stations on Paint
Branch is not substantially different from other tributaries in
the upper Anacostia River Basin, it should again be noted that
these areas are relatively poor Trout habitat (CH2M Hill, 1980;
Galli, 1983). The most detailed habitat analysis of the highest
quality Trout habitat on Paint Branch was conducted by CH2M Hill
(1980). They utilized a model developed by Binns and Eiserman
(1979) which predicts Trout standing crop based on
semiquantitative measurements of water quality, flow patterns,
and habitat structure. Although the utility of this model has
been questioned (Bowlby and Roff, 1986), it would be useful to
gather such habitat and flow data in other portions of the
Anacostia River basin that would potentially support trout
populations.

Bowlby and Roff (1986) found a negative relationship between
microbial biomass and trout biomass in Ontario streams. The
violations of Maryland fecal coliform standards in much of the
Anacostia River Basin are indicators of high microbial biomass,

as well as generally poor water quality. Coliform, levels are
relatively low at monitoring stations on Paint Branch, as noted
previously, and are likely to be even lower in the spring-fed
headwaters. Bowlby and Roff (1986), in fact, hypothesize that
low microbial biomass is a surrogate measure of localized
groundwater discharge, which, in turn has beneficial effects on
microhabitat for Trout eggs and larvae. Groundwater discharge
maintains cool temperatures and stable minimum flowrates and may
have other beneficial effects on Trout populations. Thus, a
stronger influence from groundwater discharge in upper Pain
Branch than in the other tributaries probably is a major factor
in,its. suitability as Trout habitat.

Finally, the present distribution of Trout in the Anacostia
River Basin could reflect the historical stocking record. Brown
Trout)have been stocked only in Paint Branch. It is probable
that high water temperatures and poor water quality in Lower
Paint Branch and Little Paint Branch have prevented dispersal
of Brown Trout to other tributaries, such as the Northwest
Branch or Upper Beaverdam Creek.

In the lower Anacostia River Basin, the most depauperate fish
faunas were found in Lower Beaverdam Creek and Sligo Creek. Of
the targeted species, only Bluegill were found in Lower
Beaverdam Creek. Lower Beaverdam. Creek is one of the more
heavily developed portions of the river basin, with a
considerable amount of industrial and commercial activity in
close proximity to the creek (COG, 1986). Coliform levels are
relatively high in most of Lower Beaverdam Creek (Figure 7),
indicating generally poor water quality. Water temperatures in
Lower Beaverdam are also among the highest in the Anacostia
basin, although the maximum measured temperatures should be
tolerable to warmwater fishes. Habitat for fish is also likely
to be poor on Lower Beaverdam Creek, due to the presence of a
large amount of trash and debris that has been dumped in the
creek. On November 12-13, 1988 there was a major joint effort
of the Maryland National Guard, Maryland's Departments of
Natural Resources and Environment, Prince George's County
Department of Environmental Resources, Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin and Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission to remove some of the large and heavy debris,
including rusted automobiles, dry rotted tires, and gasoline
tanks. It is hoped that these cleanup efforts will contribute
to improvements in water and habitat quality in Lower Beaverdam
Creek.

The paucity of fish in Sligo Creek is not readily explained by
available information on water and habitat quality. Coliform.
levels are relatively low for much of the length of Sligo Creek
(Figure 7), and water temperatures are favorable for warmwater
fishes (Figures 5 and 6). One possible explanation for the poor
fish populations in Sligo Creek is toxic substances. Sligo Creek
is one of the most heavily urbanized areas in the Anacostia
River basin, and the Sligo Creek Parkway runs adjacent to the

creek for much of its length. As discussed previously, there is
substantial information on toxic substances only for two
stations on Paint Branch, both of which show alarmingly high
concentrations of trace metals. It would be desirable to gather
further information on toxic substances in Sligo Creek and other
areas in the basin.

An alternative explanation for the depauperate fish fauna in
Sligo Creek is that the areas has not recovered from recent
disturbances. Periodic flooding has been cited as one of the
major problems in Sligo Creek (COG, 1986). Unusually high
stormwater discharges may wash fish populations downstream, and
stream blockages may prevent subsequent upstream migration.
Figure 11 shows there are a number of obstructions to fish
movement in Lower Sligo Creek. If this is the problem,
introductions of warmwater fish to Sligo Creek could temporarily
restore desirable fish populations, but a permanent solution
would-require removal of blockages to-fish movement.

VI. MODELING REVIEW

Camp, Dresser and McKee (1986) evaluated 20 instream flow
methods that focused on aquatic life protection requirements.
The study concluded that the Tennant Method was the best minimum
instream flow estimation for state wide application. A major
factor in this decision was the popularity of the method and its
ease of use (the Tennant Method was applied to the Anacostia
Basin in the present study). The second recommendation was the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Instream Flow Incremental
Method. This method was recommended for studies where more
detailed information than a broad state-wide index is required
on the aquatic life of a river reach. Therefore this method was
researched and will be summarized next in regards to its
structure and possible application to the Anacostia River basin.

VI.l. INSTREAM FLOW INCREMENTAL METHOD

The incremental method allows for evaluation of the factors
affecting different life stages of a species. The method
integrates both micro and macro habitat concepts. Fish and
macroinvertebrates respond to the microhabitat conditions that
are associated with the macrohabitat. Macrohabitat is dependent
on the geology, elevation, slope, and water supply. Microhabitat
includes channel geometry, substrate and cover. Microhabitat
measurements are typically made in locations that reflect
changes in macrohabitat. The decision variable generated in
IFIM is total habitat area for fish or food organism. Habitat
in IFIM includes physical channel characteristics, streamflow,
and water quality. IFIM helps to evaluate the habitat
suitablility of a stream by a step by step methodology and can
be used to assess the effects of future land use changes on the
habitat suitablility. The result is a quantification of the
amount of potential habitat available for each life history
state of a species as a function of streamflow. Modeling of
water quality parameters and hydraulic processes can be done by
simplified methods as suggested in Camp, Dresser and McKee
(1986) or by more sophisticated engineering/scientific models
such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC series or the EPA's
Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF). This will be
discussed in later sections.

Figure 12 is a block diagram for the overview of the analytical
sequence performed in an IFIM application. The shaded areas
show where individual water quality, hydraulic and/or hydrologic
models may be necessary.

Periodicity tables must be created for each targete d species so
that necessary microhabitat conditions in the stream are
evaluated at the time they are needed. An example of a
periodicity table that was constructed for smallmouth bass is

shown in Figure 13. IFIX was originally developed for western
streams, however the fishery habitat requirements created as
part of the present report could be used as the basis for these
periodicity tables in the Anacostia.

A computer program that is an integral part of the IFIM is the
Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM). Processed field
data are entered into the PHABSIM program and it generates data
that describe the reach as a series of small cells (Figure 14).
Velocity, depth, substrate and cover are assumed homogeneous
within each cell. Various computer models for simulating changes
in water quality, temperature, flow and channel morphology can
be linked with PHABSIM (this is discussed in more detail in
following sections). A Suitablility Index (SI) for velocity,
depth, substrate and cover in each cell is determined by the use
of SI curves for each life stage (Figure 15). A user selected
aggregation technique is used to estimate the composite
suitablity for that combination of variables (FWS, 1982).
A Weighted Usable Area (WUA) is then derived for each cell for
each life stage and flow. Simulations can be produced for
selected unmeasured flows for existing and proposed activites
and their effect on the distribution of microhabitat variables.
When WUA values are plotted for each flow, a flow/microhabitat
function is produced for each reach (see Figure 16). Water
quality simulations can be integrated into this process for the
same specified flows. Total habitat is a complete expression of
the functional relationship between WUA., water quality, and
streamflow. This is expressed as the product of the WUA times
the length of stream with suitable water quality for a specified
flow for each life stage of the targeted species. This provides
the linkage with water quality assessments

Camp, Dresser and McKee (1986) provide a checklist of activities
to accomplish for an application of IFIM. The types of data
required for this type of study can be extracted from this list
(Figure 17). Data needs for the water quality/hydrology models
will be discussed later. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Loar
and Sale, 1981) compared several types of instream flow
assessment techniques and lists data requirements of each
method. That study also cites IFIM as the most comprehensive of
all the instream flow methodologies for fish resources and more
detailed data requirements can be found in that report.

chem i ca I
sed iment,
y I e I d thermal yield

Ic
I
&
M

RRIM

ZUBMENBEEff

DCLermine physical 6. Determine total habitat
m i c rohal) i La L ava i i ab I e as a runction or dischar
WiLh and WiLholit. project and without project
T
Determine habitat avalla
time with and wiLlIOUL pr

Ba. Compare habitat a. Describe Ob. Compare
available over time available impact as change Ut i I I zed tit i I i zed
with and WiLhOUL in available or with and
I)Foj(!CL uLiliZed project
habitaL

Figure 12. Overview of the analytical sequence performed in an application 0
the IFIM (source: Bovee, 1982). chem
FtIle r1a I

species: Smallmouth Ilass System: Rock Creek

Microhabi tat Month

Usage J F M A M J J A s a N o

Adults
Summer resting E

Winter resting E

Spawning

Incubation and nest
protection

Fry

Juvenile

Feeding
Aquatic source
Adult --------

Juvenile --------

F ry

Terrestrial source
Adu I t ------

Jwvenile

Figure 13. Example of a periodicity table for Smallmouth Bass (source: Bovee,
1982).

3 tudy R e a c *t FLOW

Tr3n38Ct3
Placed

Vertical3
Established

Cells Defined

Reach as Madailed
t:y Ccrnvuter

Figure 14. Subdivision of a study reach for IFIM hydraulic modeling (source:
Bain et al., 1982).

<
(VI
z
m M r r
!A SUITABILITY (S,,) SUITABILITY IISJ SUITABILITY (S,l SUITABILITY
b N b, to N
0 M OD

ct
lu
rt

rr SUTABILITY 1
SUITABILITY (Sd) SUITABILITY (Sd) SUITABILITY (Sdl
b i4 in tob o tn bo b 0 N d@

0
rt
Cn
0 C3

p
0

cr W
0 SUITABILITY (Sol SUITABILITY (Sj SUITABILITY
SUITABILITY (S,)
1,, 6 b INJ th ID 0 1%) :4 tn bu F3 'a
0
r_
to

cn
0

CMD

0
ACULT
IC

FIRY

.......... SPAWNING

AOUL7
to
JUVENILE
FRY
5 .......... VAWNING

ACULT

JUVENILE

PRY

--------- SPAWNING

--- -------
39

SO too ISO

SEGMENT CISCHAAGE IN VfS

Figure 16. Example weighted usable area versus discharge curves for three
study reaches (source: Bovee, 1982).

Study objectives have been identified and stated.

.Project area has been reconnoitered.

Length of mainstem to be included in study has been determined.

Environmental conditions affected by proposed action have been
identified (check those which apply):

Watershed

Channel structure

Water qua I I ty

Temperature

Flow regime

Initial contacts with professional personnel have been made.

Tributaries to be included in study have been identified, if
applicable.

Topographic maps of area have been obtained.
Geologic maps of area have been obtain'ed, if available.

Streamflow records for area have been obtained.

Arrangements have been made to develop synthetic hydrographs
for ungaged streams.

Equilibrium conditions of watershed and channel have been
evaluated.

Arrangements have been made to model future channel structure,
if necessary.

Existing water quality characteri sties have been evaluated and
screening equations applied to determine future water quality
status.

Arrangements have been made to model future water quality, If
necessary.

Longitudinal distribution of species has been deter-nined.

Evaluation species have been selected.

Pertinent details of tar-get species have been c-.:noiled (life
history, food habits, water quality tolerances, and micro-
habitat usage).

Periodicity charts flor target species have been prepared and
referenced to stream segments (see Chapter 3).

Disolay and inter@retation requirements have been dete-mined
and ac;uisition of biological data, if requireti, Mas been
Included In study design (see Chapter 5).

Figure 17. Checklist for a typical application of IFIM (source: Camp Dresser
McKee, 1986).

IV.2. RELATED STUDIES

The Potomac River flow-by study by the Maryland DNR (MD DNRI
1981) applied IFIM in a section of the Potomac River. That
study reports that the methodology proved to be a useful tool
for analyzing relative changes in habitat availablity at various
flows. However the study listed several limitations encountered
with the model such as hampered data collection due to the
complexity of the size of the stretch of the Potomac River
analyzed, and the model does not establish a direct relationship
of habitat availability to changes in water quality.
As previously mentioned, water quality concerns are addressed in
the IFIM, however the simulation of water quality changes due to
land use must be done with external models.

The University of North Carolina (Medina, 1982), developed a
comprehensive approach to integrate the impact of water quality
for instream flow strategies. Through a network of sub-models,
this approach allows the user to int erpret results in terms of
the frequency of occurence of water quality violations in a
stream reach as well as the duration of the violations. The
models used in this method are the storage/treatment and
receiving water quality frequency and duration model (STO/TRT
RECEIVING), RFREQ for rainfall frequency analysis, RATING which
converts streamflow stage data to discharge, the Synoptic
Rainfall Data Analysis Program (SYNOP), the Distributed Routing
Rainfall-Runoff Model Version II (DR3M) and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model (STORM).
The rainfall models of the UVC methodology are used to select
rainfall time series that are of statistical importance to the
particular drainage basin. These time series are then used with
DR3M which utilizes a network of discrete overland flow and
streamflow segments to produce runoff time series. STORM is used
to generate the pollutant loadings in the drainage basin.
STO/TRT RECEIVING combines the point and non-point loads and
simulates mixing with receiving stream upstream loads to obtain
water quality concentrations in time and space, cumulative water
quality frequency curves and frequency distributions.

The Anacostia River Water Quality Facility Plan was completed by
Saitherwaite and Associates (1988) for the Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission. That report utilized information from a
project being.done by another contractor (for Maryland Water
Resource Authority) that included modeling efforts for the
assessment of future land use condition flood plains and
mitigation strategies. The Soil Conservation Service model TR20
(U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1987) and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers HEC2 (Hydrologic Engineering Center, 1979) were
utilized in the latter study and thus a large amount of data on
existing and proposed land use, soils and channel cross sections
were aquired and digitized. The WSSC study assessed the future
land use of the basin (for Prince George County) as it might

f f ect water quality. The Washington Council of Governments
Simple Method' (Schueler, 1987) was used to estimate stormwater
pollutant export potential under existing and future land use
conditions (parameters analyzed were: Phosphorus, Nitrogen, COD,
BOD, Zinc, Lead, and Copper), and HEC2 runs were made to locate
areas with potential erosive, velocities.

The Montgomery County portion of the Anacostia basin was also
studied and modeled. CH2M Hill etc. (1982) applied the Hydrocomp
Simulation Program on this portion of the basin to simulate
existing and future water quality conditions due to planned
future land use changes. Several water surface profiles were
also created with HEC-2.

SUMMALRY

This study assessed water quality in the Anacostia River basin
by analyzing data from water quality monitoring stations from
different jurisdictions in the basin. The data were recorded as
part of the corresponding jurisdictions periodic water quality
monitoring program. The present and potential distributions of
selected cool-water, warm-water and migratory fishes were also
determined and relationships with water quality and instream
blockages were assessed.

Analyses showed that most of the commonly recorded water quality
parameters (e.g. dissolved oxygen, temperature) are not an
obvious problem in the basin. However it is important to note
that the data used to make these analyses were recorded at
different intervals of time and data sets may or may not be
consistent between jurisdictions. In addition, there was
relatively little information available on toxic substances.
Therefore it would be premature to conclude that water quality
is not a factor in fish distributions. There are documented
cases of sedimentation problems in the basin and, coliform
levels are quite high in many of the streams. Also, it is quite
possible that water quality problems in the basin are crucially
linked to specific episodic pollution events. These types of
occurences could easily be missed in a regular water quality
monitoring schedule.

Tangible results of f ishery habitat enhancement could be
realized through several management actions. This report
stressed three general practices that may prove the most
beneficial. It was shown that relatively small parcels of land
have been implicated as the source of a large percentage of the
sediment problem in the basin. The persistent sedimentation and
related habitat degredation problems in the basin could be
lessened by reclamation of surface mines. Secondly, extensive
flood and erosion control practices have left large areas of
riparian habitat severely degraded. This study points out that
introduction of fringe marshes in selected areas, particularily
where streambank rip-rap has been applied, could enhance habitat
quality in several ways. Finally, removal and or modification
of instream blockages to migratory fish could open upstream
waters in several locations within the basin.

Several instream flow methodologies were scrutinized for their
potential application to the Anacostia basin and its unique
living resource problems. It seems that the IFIM would be the
best currently available tool to assess the instream flow needs
of the living resources in the basin. The IFIM has been shown
to be the most comprehensive methodology in regards to the
factors affecting instream flow

needs of living resources. The method has the added benefit of
allowing the user to incorporate the most appropriate water
quality and hydraulic models into the methodology. It is
concluded that the IFIM has the most potential, of those models
assessed, to explain the current distribution of fish species in
terms of instream flow requirements, and also to serve as a tool
for future planning decisions.

The IFIM does have some drawbacks such as the large amount of
field work and data required. Additional information required
for the IFIM includes additional species specific habitat data,
(beyond that available for this report), stream profiles and
cross sections, synthetic hydrographs, and storm water quality
sampling.

The data needs and modeling capabilities for IFIM will vary
depending on the size of the watershed to be studied.
A pilot project to implement the IFIM on a single tributary
within the Anacostia basin is recommended before proceeding to
implement IFIM on the entire Anacostia. Experience gained from
this pilot project would help provide insight into the IFIM
methodology, and facilitate future applications of the method to
other parts of the Anacostia basin. This would eventually lead
to the most efficient and practical application of the
methodology to the entire drainage basin.

LITERATURE CITED

Binns, N.A. ad F.M. Eiserman, 1979. Quantification of Fluvial
Trout Habitat in Wyoming. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 108:215-228.

Bowlby, J.N. and J.C. Roff, 1986. Trout Biomass and Habitat
Relationships in Southern Ontario Streams. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 115:503-514.

Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1986. Minimum Instream Flow Study.
Report for the State Water Control Board, Commonwealth of
Virginia.

Carlander, D., 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology,
Volume 1. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Carlander, D., 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology,
Volume 2. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Cech, J.J. Jr., C.G. Campagna, and S.J. Mitchell, 1979.
Respiratory Responses of Largemouth Bass (Microtperus Salmoides)
to Environmental Changes in Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 108:166-171.

Century Engineering, Inc., 1985. Anacostia Technical Watershed
Study Sediment Source Task Report.

Chesapeake Bay Living Resources Task Force, 1987. Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, Annapolis MD.

CH2M Hill, 1980. Paint Branch: Recommendations for the
Preservation of a Unique Trout Resource. Report to the Maryland
National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

CH2M Hill, 1982. Anacostia Technical Watershed Study. Report to
the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

COG, 1986. Baseline Water Quality Assessment of the Anacostia
River. Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.

Coutant, C.C., 1975. Responses of Bass to Natural and
Artificial Temperature Regimes. In Black Bass Biology and
Management, R.H. Stroud and H. Clepper, eds., Sport Fishery
Institute, Washington., D.C.

Dietmann, Allan J. and Albert Giraldi, 1973. Resource
Identification Study for the Anacostia River, Volume IV, 1948 v.
1972 Fish Distributions. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources Publication.

Food and Drug Administration, 1986. Action Levels for Poisonous
or Deleterious Substances in Human Food and Animal Feed. Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Wash. D.C

Galli, J., 1983. A compendum of the Water Resources for Paint
Branch, Montgomery County Maryland. Montgomery County Planning
Board, Maryland National Capital Park and Planniing Commission.

Howden, Henry F., 1948. An ecological Study of the Distributions
of Fish in the Anacostia River Tributaries in Maryland.
M.S. thesis (Unpublished, Dept. of zoology, University of
Maryland).

Hulsman, P.F., P.M. Powles, and J.M. Gunn, 1983. Mortality of
Walleye eggs and Rainbow Trout Yolk-sac in Low pH Waters
of the LaCloche Mountain Area, Ontario. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
112:680-688.

Hydrolic Engineering Center, 1979. HEC-2 Water Surface
Profile Program Users Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
California.

Interstate Commission on the Ptomac River Basin, 1986. Potomac
River Basin Water Quality Status and Trend Assessment 1973-1984.
ICPRB Publication.

Interstate Commission of the Potomac River Basin, 1989. 1988
Survey and Inventory of the Fishes in the Anacostia River Basin,
Maryland. Report to the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources.

Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, 1989. Status
and Trends of Toxic Water Quality Parameters in the Potomac
River Basin.

Jones, P.W., H.J. Spein, N.H. Butkowski, R. O'Reilly, L.
Gillingham, and E. Smoller, 1988. Chesapeake Bay Fisheries
Status, Trends, Priorities, and Data Needs. Maryland Department
of Natural Resources and Virginia Marine Resources Commission.

Loar, J.m. and M.J. Sale, 1981. Analysis of Environmental Issues
Related to Small Scale Hydroelectric Development V. Instream
Flow Needs for Fishery Resources. Environmental Sciences
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Publ. No. 1829, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1981. Potomac River
Flow By Study.

Maryland Department of the Environment, 1986. Maryland Water
Quality Inventory 1983-1985.
MDOEP Publication.

Maryland Department of the Environment, 1988. Maryland Water
Quality Inventory 1985-1987.
MDOEP Publication.

Medina, M.A., Jr., 1982. Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling
for Instream Flow Strategies. Water Resources Research
Institiute of Univ. of N.C. Report #183.

Mills, D., 1971. Salmon and Trout: A Resource, its Ecology,
Conservation and Management. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 1985. A Study
of Toxic Hazards to Urban Recreational Fishermen and Crabbers.

Ragan, R.M., E.C. Rebuck, 1.973. Resource Identification Study
for the Anacostia River Basin. Report for the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources.

Redding, J.M., C.B. Schreck, and F.H. Everest, 1987.
Physiological Effects on Coho Salmon and Steelhead of Exposure
to Suspended Solids. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 116:737-744.

Saitherwaite and Associates, 1988. Anacostia Water Quality
Facility Plan. Prepared for the Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission.

Tsai, C.R. and M.L. Wiley, 1983. Instream Flow Requirements for
Fish and Fisheries in Maryland. Technical Report No.69. Maryland
Water Resources Research Center, University of Maryland, College
Park, MD.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1987. Draft of Technical Release
20, Computer Programs for Project Hydrology Formulation.

Weiner, G.S., C.B. Schreck, and H.W. Li, 1986. Effects of Low pH
on Reproduction of Rainbow Trout. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
115:75-82.

Witzel, L.D. and H.R. MacCrimmon, 1983. Redd Site Selection by
Brook Trout and Brown Trout in Southwestern Ontario Streams.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 112:760-771.

APPENDIX I
Summaries Of Water Quality Data For Selected Parameters.

In left colum are station ID codes, collecting agency code, and period of record.
Each station has two ID codes: the code in parentheses is used in Figures 5-7 'and
the second code is the one used by the collecting agency. Agencies are Prince
Georges County Health Department (PGHD), Montgomery County (MONT), and Maryland
Office of Environmental Pro rams. The riiht column shows median, maximum, minimum,
and number of observations lor total coli oms (T.COL.), dissolved oxygen (DO), pH
(pH), temperature (TEMP.), total suspended solids (TSS), and turbidity (TURB.).

T.COL. DO H TEMP. TSS TURB.
mpn/100ml M9/1 3U C Mg/1 JTU.
Station (A) 50090 Med:j 2,250 10.25 7.1 12. NA 4-8
Agenc MONT Max 110,000 15.4 8.7 23. NA 270.
Recor 1 710125 - 801204 Min. 230 5.8 3.5 0. NA 2.0
Nbr. 14 142 131 136 NA 39
Station (B) 50100 Med:@ 2,400 10.2 7.2 11. NA 4.3
Agency MONT Max 110,000 15.0 8.6 22. NA 900.
Recordl 710125 - 801204 Min. 230 - 6.8 3.8 0. NA 1.4
Nbr. 13 140 129 137 KA 38
Station (C) 50080 Med.1 2,400 10.2 7.3 13. NA 5.2
Agenc MONT Max. 110,000 15.2 8.7 23. NA 220.
Recor 710125 - 880428 Min. 230 6.1 3.5 0. NA 1.3
Nbr. 16 156 147 151 NA 40

Station (D) 50120 Med 930 10.2 7.1 12. 2.25 4.
Agenc MONT Max 240,000 14.4 9.2 22. 4.0 110.
Recor 710114 - 880907 Kin. 93 7.1 6.0 0. 0.5 1.
Nbr:1 20 149 142 150 2 43

Station (E) 50070 Med. 7,800 10.1 7.1 12. NA 7.7
Agency MONT Max. 240,000 15.3 8.9 23. NA 200.
Record 710125 - 801204 Min. 2,400 6.3 3.1 0. NA 2.2
Nbr.@ 14 143 131 137 NA 39
Station (F) 50060 Med:@ 2,400 10.0 7.2 13. 0.75 6.5
Agency MONT Max 110,000 15.2 8.8 23. 1.0 260.
Recordl 710125 - 880907 Min. 240 6.2 2.9 0. 0.5 2.8
Nbr. 16 159 151 156 2 39

Station (Gi) 59010 Med. 4,765 11.2 7.0 8.5 10.0 3.1
Agenc MONT Max. 11,000 14.8 9.4 33.0 10.0 12.
Recor 731116 - 801201 Min. 150 6.6 5.9 0.0 10.0 1.
Nbr.@ 4 47 47 43 1 13

Station (G2) 59020 Med. 4,865 10.7 6.9 8. 14.0 2.2
Agency MONT Max. 11,000 14.8 8.4 30. 14.0 12.0
Record 731116 - 840802 Min. 150 6.0 5.7 0. 14.0 0.6
Nbr.@ 4 45 46 42 1 13

Station (G3) 59030 Med: 2,765 11.0 7.0 8. 5.0 2 6
Agency MONT Max 24,000 13.8 8.2 28. 5.0 8:2
Recordi 731116 - 840802 Min. 73 6.0 6.2 0. 5.0 1.4
Nbr. 4 47 48 44 1 13

Station (G4) 59040 Med. 1,365 8.25 6.55 5. NA 16.0
Agency MONT Max. 11,000 12.5 7.2 23. NA 125 0
Recordl 731116 - 801201 Min. 230 0.4 5.6 0. NA 1:5
Nbr.1 4 30 30 30 NA 9

A-1

APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

T-COL. DO H TEMP. TSS TURB.
mpn/100ml MR/1 U C MR/1 JTU
Stationj (H) A-ZO Med 15,000 10.22 6.86 9.75 NA NA
Agenc@l PGHD Max: 43,000 15.0 8.08 23. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 801202 Min. 930 4.9 5.4 0. NA NA
Nbr.1 16 59 59 60 NA NA
Stationj (I) A-11 Med:j 4,300 11.03 6.9 12. NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max 75,000 15.0 10.36 28. NA NA
RecoM 731218 - 810106 Min. 750 7.6 6. 0. NA NA
Nbr. 16 58 59 59 NA NA

Stationj (J) 50113 Med 1,675 NA NA NA NA NA
Agency
dl MONT Max 110,000 NA NA NA NA NA
Recor 800709 - 870302 Min. 4 NA NA NA NA NA
Nbr:l 76 NA NA NA NA NA

Station (K) A-14 Med. 4,300 10. 6.59 10. NA NA
Agenc@ PGHD Max. 240,000 15.0 8.1 22. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 810106 Min. 150 4.8 5.15 0. NA NA
Nbr.@ 16 60 59 61 NA NA
Station (L) A-15 Med.@ 12,150 9.4 6.5 10. NA NA
Agen% PGHD Max. 1,100,000 15.0 8.55 24. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 801202 Min. 93 3. 5.49 0. NA NA
Nbr. 16 55 56 58 NA NA

Stationj (M) A-17 Med. 19,500 10.03 6.8 10. NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max. 240,000 15.0 7.7 23. NA NA
RecoM 731218 - 801202 Min. 430 4.86 5.6 0. NA NA
Nbr.@ 16 58 58 59 NA NA
Station (N) A-10 Med:j 5,900 11.73 7.2 10. NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max 15,000 15.4 10.62 26. NA NA
Recor@l 731218 - 801202 Min. 93 7.2 6.2 0. NA NA
Nbr. 16 56 58 59 NA NA

Station (0) 58030 Med. 2,400 10.35 7.0 13. 0.1 4.75
Agenc MONT Max. 240,000 14.7 8.2 23. 0.11 370.0
Reco%l 700128 - 820125 Min. 430 7.4 6.4 0. 0.11 1.1
Nbr.1 21 142 112 119 1 46
Itationj (P) 50050 Med:@ 4,600 10.0 7.3 13. NA 7.05
Agen% MONT Max 240,000 15.3 8.6 24. NA 200.
Recor 710125 - 801204 Min. 430 6.8 2.7 0. NA 2.1
Nbr. 13 140 131 136 NA 38

Station (Q) 50030 Med. 2,400 10.0 7.2 12. 17. 2.45
Agen% MONT Max. 24,000 15.4 10.1 24. 26. 130.0
Recor 710114 - 871215 Min. 91 5.8 1.5 0. 8. 0.5
Nbr.@ 15 148 146 149 2 36

Station (R) 50037 Med. 4,600 10.0 7.2 14.0 4.0 4.8
Agency MONT Max. 240,000 15.6 8.7 27.2 96.0 200.
Record 710618 - 880907 Min. 240 7.0 2.6 0.0 0.5 1.2
Nbr. 51 140 179 184 39 38

Stationj (S) A-12 Med. 23,000 10.3 7. 13. NA NA
Agen%l PGHD Max. 1,100,000 15.0 9.61 28. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 801008 Min. 290 6. 4.8 0. NA NA
Nbr.@ 16 55 54 57 NA NA

A-2

APPE14DIX 1 (Continued)

T.COL. DO H TEMP. TSS TURB.
/100ml mg/l 3U C mg/l JTU

Station (T) 50020 Med. 4,600 10.3 7.4 12. NA 2.95
Agen% MONT Max. 24,000 16.1 9.7 25. NA 150.
Recor 710114 - 840621 Min. 150 6.8 2.1 0. NA 1.2
Nbr.@ 13 133 127 131 NA 36

Station (U) A-16 M:d: 43,000 11.8 7.1 10.5 NA NA
Agenc PGHD M x 2,400,000 15.0 8.5 26. NA NA
Recor@l 731218 - 801202 Min. 43 6. 4.7 0. NA NA
Nbr. 16 57 57 58 NA NA

Station (U) 50040 Med NA 11.35 7.55 7.5 NA NA
Agenc@ MONT Max NA 12.4 9.0 21.0 NA NA
Recor 1 710125 - 710609 Min. NA 9.0 6.9 0.0 NA NA
Nbr:l NA 18 16 18 NA NA
Station] (V) A-9 - - Med:@ 9,300 11.16 7-2 10. NA NA
Agencdj PGHD Max 2,400,000 15.0 9.3 30. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 800806 Min. 390 6.4 5 0. NA NA
Nbr. 16 55 54 57 NA NA
Station (W) A-5 Med:j 43,000 10.99 7.3 13.0 NA NA
Agency PGHD Max 2,400,000 15.0 8.86 28.0 NA NA
Recordl 731218 - 801006 Min. 1,200 5.9 5.2 0.0 NA NA
Nbr. 15 58 58 59 NA NA
Station M 50010 Med:j 2,400 10.0 7.4 13.0 4.0 2.75
Agenc@ MONT Max 46,000 15.2 11.7 27.2 40.0 160.
Recor 710114 - 880907 Min. 230 6.9 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.2
Nbr. 49 151 190 194 38 36

Station (Y) A-18 Med. 26,000 11.0 7.435 11.5 NA NA
Agen% PGHD Max. 1,100,000 15.0 8.82 27. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 810106 Min. 750 5.8 5.4 0. NA NA
Nbr.@ 16 61 60 62 NA NA

Station (Z) A-6 Med. 23,000 10.8 7.445 12.0 NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max. 2,400,000 15.0 9.17 29.0 NA NA
RecoM 731218 - 801202 Min. 750 1.52 5.4 0.0 NA NA
Nbr.@ 16 60 60 61 NA NA

Station (AA) A-13 Med. 12,000 11.6 7.25 11. NA NA
Agen% PQHD Max. 240,000 15.0 9.7 32. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 801203 Min. 640 4.9 5.1 0. NA NA
Nbr.@ 15 57 55 59 NA NA

Station (AB) A-8 Med. 23,000 9.75 7.1 11. NA NA
Agenc@ PGHD Max. 2,400,000 15.0 9.05 29. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 801203 Min. 1,200 6.4 4.8 0. NA NA
Nbr.@ 16 58 56 59 NA NA
Station (AC) A-7 Med:j 16,150 11-18 7.3 12. NA NA
Agen% PGHD Max 1,100,000 15.0 9.8 31. NA NA
Recor 731218 - 801203 Min. 1,500 4.2 5.1 0. NA NA
Nbr. 16 57 54 58 NA NA

Station (AD) A-4 Med. 43,000 11.45 7.5 13.5 NA NA
Agencdy PGHD Max. 460,000 15.0 8.85 32.0 NA NA
Recor 731218 - 801203 Min. 2,300 6.52 4.9 0.0 NA NA
Nbr.@ 16 60 59 62 NA NA

A-3

APPENDIX 1 (Continued)

T.COL. DO 3H TEMP. TSS TURB.
mpn/100ml mg/l U C mg/l JTU
Stationj (AF) B-10 Med:@ 1,900 9.5 7.2 13.75 NA NA
Agen%l PGHD Max 93,000 15.0 9.09 28. NA NA
Recor 730228 - 810120 Min. 0 5.6 3.46 0. NA NA
Nbr. 34 67 66 64 NA NA
Stationj (AG) B-3 Med:j 13,500 9.72 7.4 15. NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max 2,400,000 15.0 9.2 28. NA NA
Recor@j 730123 - 810120 Min. 210 3.9 5.9 0. NA NA
Nbr. 28 60 59 62 NA NA

Stationj (AH) B-8 Med. 39,000 10.06 7.35 15. NA NA
Agency
dl PGHD Max. 11,000,000 15.0 9.21 27.5 NA NA
Recor 730123 - 801217 Min. 930 3.9 6.2 0. NA NA
Nbr.1 27 59 58 61 NA NA
Stationj (AI) B-9 Med:j 19,000 9.2 7.3 14. NA NA
Agency PGHD Max 2,400,000 15.0 9.5 32. -NA NA-
R 730123 - 801217 Min. 750 5.6 6.0 0. NA NA
Nbr. 28 59 58 61 NA NA
Stationj (AJ) B-2 Med:@ 18,000 10.2 7.6 15.5 NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max 1,100,000 15.0 10.97 30. NA NA
Recor@l 730123 - 801217 Min. 930 3.4 6.0 0. NA NA
Nbr. 28 59 59 60 NA NA
Stationj (AK) ANA0082 Med.1 9,300 10.5 7.1 12.0 8. 15.0
Agen%j OEP Max. 2,400,000 15.2 8.7 31.0 42. 127.
Recor 800408 - 870602 Min. 0 4.99 6.0 0.6 1. - 7.2
Nbr. 63 80 76 81 17 17
Stationj (AL) B-1 Med:j 9,300 9.45 7.3 14. NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max 2,400,000 15.0 9.35 28. NA NA
Recorydl 730123 - 801217 Min. 0 5.0 3.46 0. NA NA
Nbr. 62 126 125 125 NA NA

Stationj (AM) B-4 Med. 23,000 9.5 7.485 13.5 NA NA
Agenc PGHD Mix. 2,400,000 15.0 9.71 28. NA NA
Recoryl 730123 - 810120 Min. 930 5.3 6.0 0. NA NA
Nbr.@ 28 60 60 62 NA NA
llalionj (AN) B-5 Med. 9,300 11.8 7.7 14.5 NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max. 2,400,000 15.0 9.7 28. NA NA
Reco% 730123 - 801217 Min. 230 4.0 6.0 0. NA NA
Nbr.@ 28 60 60 62 NA NA

Station (AO) B-6 Med. 12,150 10.2 7.4 12.5 NA NA
Agenc PGHD Max. 2,400,000 15.0 9.4 26. NA NA
Reco%l 730123 - 801217 Min. 150 5.0 5.9 0. NA NA
Nbr.1 28 59 58 61 NA NA
Stationj (AP) B-7 Med:j 9,300 10.02 7.3 14.5 NA NA
Agen%l PGHD Max 2,400,000 15.0 9.04 27. NA NA
Recor 730123 - 801217 Min. 75 4.4 6.1 0. NA NA
Nbr. 28 59 58 60 NA NA

A-4

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
---, I
@@ .
,, 3 6668 14102 7328 r" I