DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Resource Inventory and Assessment: Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge Sevier County, Arkansas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Resource Inventory and Assessment: Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge Sevier County, Arkansas Water Resource Inventory and Assessment: Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge Sevier County, Arkansas Lake at Pond Creek NWR U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, GA May 2018 Water Resource Inventory and Assessment: Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge Sevier County, Arkansas Adam M. Milewski University of Georgia, Department of Geology Water Resources & Remote Sensing Laboratory 210 Field Street, Geography-Geology Building #308 Athens, GA 30602 Todd C. Rasmussen University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Athens, GA 30602 Holly Hutcheson University of Georgia, Department of Geology Water Resources & Remote Sensing Laboratory 210 Field Street, Geography-Geology Building #308 Athens, GA 30602 John Faustini U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region 1875 Century Blvd. Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30345 May 2018 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Please cite this publication as: Milewski, A., Rasmussen, T., Hutcheson, H., and Faustini, J., 2018, Water Resource Inventory and Assessment: Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta, Georgia. 71 pp. + appendices. Cover Photo: Lake at Pond Creek NWR. Photo Credit: USFWS ii | P a g e Acknowledgments This work was completed through contract Cooperative Agreement Award No. F16AC00881 between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the University of Georgia. Multiple state and federal partners and non-governmental agencies compiled the information found in this report. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff (Janet Ertel, John Faustini, Grant Graves, Sue Wilder, and Michelle Moorman), as well as staff at the Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, provided significant input and reviews during this process. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. iii | P a g e Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Key Water Resources Issues of Concern .................................................................................. 2 1.3 Needs and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 3 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Document Organization ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Data Processing ........................................................................................................................... 5 3 Facility Information ............................................................................................................................ 6 4 Natural Setting .................................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Topography and Landforms .................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Geology & Hydrogeology ......................................................................................................... 12 4.3 Soils............................................................................................................................................. 16 4.4 Hydrologic Setting .................................................................................................................... 20 4.5 Region of Hydrologic Influence Climate ................................................................................. 22 5 Inventory Summary and Discussion ................................................................................................ 25 5.1 Water Resources ....................................................................................................................... 25 5.1.1 Rivers, Streams, and Creeks ............................................................................................... 25 5.1.2 Canals and Drainage Ditches .............................................................................................. 27 5.1.3 Lakes and Ponds.................................................................................................................. 28 5.1.4 Springs and Seeps ............................................................................................................... 28 5.1.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 29 5.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................ 31 5.2.1 Water Supply ...................................................................................................................... 31 5.2.2 Inventory Dams ................................................................................................................... 31 5.2.3 Reservoirs ........................................................................................................................... 37 5.2.4 Dikes and Levees ................................................................................................................ 38 5.2.5 Roads and Boat Ramps ....................................................................................................... 38 5.2.6 Pipelines .............................................................................................................................. 39 5.3 Water Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 40 5.3.1 Surface Water Quantity ....................................................................................................... 44 5.3.2 Surface Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 47 5.3.3 Groundwater Quantity ......................................................................................................... 50 5.3.4 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................................... 52 5.3.5 Aquatic Habitat and Biota ................................................................................................... 54 5.4 Water Quantity and Timing..................................................................................................... 56 5.5 Water Laws ................................................................................................................................ 58 5.5.1 Federal and State Water Regulations .................................................................................. 58 5.5.2 Water Quality Standards ..................................................................................................... 58 5.5.3 Groundwater Regulations .................................................................................................... 58 5.5.4 Impaired Waters and TMDLs ............................................................................................. 59 5.5.5 NPDES Permits ................................................................................................................... 60 5.6 Water Law/Water Rights ......................................................................................................... 63 University of Georgia - WRRS iv | Page e 5.6.1 State Water Law Overview ................................................................................................. 63 5.6.2 Aspects of State Water Law that May Affect the Refuge ................................................... 65 6 Assessment ......................................................................................................................................... 66 6.1 Threats ....................................................................................................................................... 66 6.2 Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 66 7 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................ 68 Appendix A Expanded Data Records Tables ................................................................................... 72 Appendix B Water Quality and Quantity Stations ......................................................................... 74 Surface Water Quantity ....................................................................................................................... 78 Surface Water Quality .........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 Area Lodging Guide
    VISITMCCURTAINCOUNTY.COM Hwy 259 Ti mb il erwolf Tra Golf Cours Lu e Road ci River Bend an Road C Sorrel edar Creek il Carson ra oad T Creek Area R a k at ee f r k Moun C u odge L Lakeview L Broken Bow r tai n L e Gap Road F ns ork o b e e Rive s v iv t e Dr Reservoir m ail Deer Creek Trail te Coyot r C i r S r T Stevens e T a e t k a Gap Area L u kf Hochatown H T Overlook R 259A ve O Ste ns Gap Creek Beaver Lodge Nature Trails N Radio Tower Beacon 259A River Bend Power Area House Big Oak Hwy Nature Trails 259 Mou H nta in T Fo rk R R iver Beavers Bend O Gr 259A N a State Park v Reregulation Dam el R 4.3 Miles oad Public Presbyterian Use Area Falls Hwy ile Hwy 1 M 7 Steel iles 70 3 Junction 259 5 M d a Oak Hill o R Broken g i Bow a r 70 BUS C N 70 . Craig Road NW Texas Ave. C e n t r H a l T A v R e BUS . O Hwy N Broken 70 259 t t MLK Dr. Bow d e SE Washington St. e 10th St. a e e o r C r t e t 9th St. R n S S t e e y y r 8th St. m a v v a a a i i l r r w 70 w A D 7th St.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridgeway Baptist Church Delight United (SBC) Corner of Peachtree & Hearn Methodist Church Y
    THE NASHVILLE H News-LEADER H H Preserving Southwest Arkansas’s Heritage While Leading Through the 21st Century H Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2016 u Vol. 14, Issue 13 u 24 pages, 2 sections u 75¢ Leader New physician opens ofice; Board family practice to be focus www.swarkansasnews.com By Terrica Hendrix owned a bakery and a French intellectually and would be a News-Leader staff restaurant, was from Michigan.” career where I could ofer as- OPINION 4A Howard Memorial Hospital’s Wilkins’ maternal grand- sistance to others. Growing up newest physician, Dr. Ngozi A. parents are originally from in Nigeria, health disparities Disappointment Wilkins, is “Every Woman.” Arkansas. She was reared with were often apparent. Out of She is a wife, mother and a two younger sisters and one pocket costs for health care were for Razorback physician. brother. “I grew up knowing cost prohibitive for some, and fan after loss Dr. Wilkins recently opened that education was not an op- to receive care, payment was to Aggies. her family medicine clinic on tion; it was a necessity. My par- needed. Those who could not HMH’s medical campus. ents always exposed us to the aford medical services were not She was raised in Nigeria, languages, arts and music; and able to get treated and would West Africa, on the campus of we often visited various univer- have to raise funds to pay for Band seeks “I igured medicine would the University of Ibadan, “one of sities across the United States.” care. I also experienced the loss instruments be a good ield as it would the oldest and most prestigious Wilkins said that her love of a cousin to typhoid fever keep me challenged intellec- Nigerian universities, where my for the sciences - especially bi- and another to malaria [both regardless tually and would be a career father was a Professor of Psy- ology - at an early age is what preventable diseases] and my chology,” she said.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Impact Statement for the Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for the Endangered American Burying Beetle
    Final Environmental Impact Statement For the Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan for the Endangered American Burying Beetle for American Electric Power in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas Volume II: Appendices September 2018 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southwest Region Albuquerque, NM Costs to Develop and Produce this EIS: Lead Agency $29,254 Applicant (Contractor) $341,531 Total Costs $370,785 Appendix A Acronyms and Glossary Appendix A Acronyms and Glossary ACRONYMS °F Fahrenheit ABB American burying beetle AEP American Electric Power Company AMM avoidance and minimization measures APE Area of Potential Effects APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee APP Avian Protection Plan Applicant American Electric Power Company ATV all-terrain vehicles BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP best management practices CE Common Era CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corps Army Corps of Engineers CPA Conservation Priority Areas CWA Clean Water Act DNL day-night average sound level EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMF electric magnetic fields EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FR Federal Register GHG greenhouse gases HCP American Electric Power Habitat Conservation Plan for American Burying Beetle in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas ITP Incidental Take Permit MDL multi-district litigation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHD National Hydrography Dataset NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWR National Wildlife Refuge OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration ROD Record of Decision ROW right-of-way American Electric Power Habitat Conservation Plan September 2018 A-1 Environmental Impact Statement U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes Collected in Oklahoma and Arkansas in 1927'
    PUB. UNIV. OKLA: BIOL. SURV. VOV. I. NO. 3: APRIL, 1929. Fishes Collected in Oklahoma and Arkansas in 1927' Carl L. Hubbs, University of Mkkigan A. I. Ortenburger, University of Oklaltomu I. INTRODUCTION This is the third report of the current fish survey of Okla- homa. It treats the collections obtained during the summer of 1927, when the field party from the Museum of Zoology of the Uni- versity of Oklahoma, again led by A. I. Ortenburger, visited southeastern Oklahoma, western Arkansas, and northeastern Okla- homa. The streams which were seined lie in the Red River, Ouachita and Arkansas drainage systems. One new species, Notropis greenei, was obtained in both Okla- homa and Arkansas; we have it also from Missouri. This species was listed several times from Missouri and Arkansas by Meek, who first confused it with N. boops and later referred it to N. xmnocc- phazus. Although only this one undescribed species was obtained in the 1927 survey, a number of other discoveries, of interest from zoo- geographical and systematic standpoints, were made. Twenty-one of the species obtained in Oklahoma have not previously been at- tributed to that state: a considerable addition to the list of slightly more than one hundred already recorded. These new records tes- tify to the extreme richness of the fish fauna of eastern Oklahoma. The abundance of species there is further indicated by the fact that most of the species, ahout twenty-five in number, reported from Oklahoma by earlier collectors but not yet obtained during the course of the present survey, were also obtained in that part of the State.
    [Show full text]
  • RV Sites in the United States Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile
    RV sites in the United States This GPS POI file is available here: https://poidirectory.com/poifiles/united_states/accommodation/RV_MH-US.html Location Map 110-Mile Park Map 35 Mile Camp Map 370 Lakeside Park Map 5 Star RV Map 566 Piney Creek Horse Camp Map 7 Oaks RV Park Map 8th and Bridge RV Map A AAA RV Map A and A Mesa Verde RV Map A H Hogue Map A H Stephens Historic Park Map A J Jolly County Park Map A Mountain Top RV Map A-Bar-A RV/CG Map A. W. Jack Morgan County Par Map A.W. Marion State Park Map Abbeville RV Park Map Abbott Map Abbott Creek (Abbott Butte) Map Abilene State Park Map Abita Springs RV Resort (Oce Map Abram Rutt City Park Map Acadia National Parks Map Acadiana Park Map Ace RV Park Map Ackerman Map Ackley Creek Co Park Map Ackley Lake State Park Map Acorn East Map Acorn Valley Map Acorn West Map Ada Lake Map Adam County Fairgrounds Map Adams City CG Map Adams County Regional Park Map Adams Fork Map Page 1 Location Map Adams Grove Map Adelaide Map Adirondack Gateway Campgroun Map Admiralty RV and Resort Map Adolph Thomae Jr. County Par Map Adrian City CG Map Aerie Crag Map Aeroplane Mesa Map Afton Canyon Map Afton Landing Map Agate Beach Map Agnew Meadows Map Agricenter RV Park Map Agua Caliente County Park Map Agua Piedra Map Aguirre Spring Map Ahart Map Ahtanum State Forest Map Aiken State Park Map Aikens Creek West Map Ainsworth State Park Map Airplane Flat Map Airport Flat Map Airport Lake Park Map Airport Park Map Aitkin Co Campground Map Ajax Country Livin' I-49 RV Map Ajo Arena Map Ajo Community Golf Course Map
    [Show full text]
  • STATE PARKS, RECREATION, and TRAVEL COMMISSION Degray Lake Resort State Park, 2027 State Park Entrance Road, Bismarck, AR 71929 August 16 -17, 2018
    STATE PARKS, RECREATION, AND TRAVEL COMMISSION DeGray Lake Resort State Park, 2027 State Park Entrance Road, Bismarck, AR 71929 August 16 -17, 2018 Commissioners present Jim Shamburger, chair – Aug 16, 17 Ron Gossage – Aug 16, 17 Kalene Griffith, vice chair – Aug 16 Shash Goyal – Aug 16 Austin Albers – Aug 16, 17 Eric Jackson – Aug 16, 17 Bill Barnes – Aug 16, 17 Bob Knight – Aug 16, 17 Jeff Baskin – Aug 16, 17 Montine McNulty – Aug 16, 17 Danny Ford – Aug 16, 17 Mike Wilson – Aug 16, 17 John Gill – Aug 16 Commissioners absent Weston Lewey Ness Sechrest Cindy Smith Randy Wolfinbarger Department Staff present Kane Webb, Executive Director Mike Farringer, Region 4 Supervisor Cynthia Dunlap, Administration Director Marcel Hanzlik, Region 3 Supervisor Jim Dailey, Tourism Director Kayla Hardage, Welcome Center Administrator Grady Spann, State Parks Director Joe Jacobs, Marketing and Revenue Manager Angela Allen, Administrative Analyst Kirk Jordan, Tourism Photographer Becky Bariola, Region 5 Supervisor Shea Lewis, State Parks Deputy Director Joy Barlogie, Tourism Development Manager Harrison Maddox, Digital Content Specialist Susan Brewczynski, Tourism Director Assistant Kristine Puckett, Tourism Deputy Director LaJeana Carroll, State Parks Executive Assistant Kris Richardson, ADPT Executive Assistant Casey Crocker, Multimedia Specialist Randy Roberson, Planning & Development Manager Leah DiPietro, Communications Manager Pete Salmon, Exhibits Coordinator Kelly Farrell, Program Services Manager Tom Stolarz, Region 1 Supervisor Mike Wilson,
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Ecology and Habitat Preference of the Leopard Darter, Percina Pantherina
    REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY AND HABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE LEOPARD DARTER, PERCINA PANTHERINA By PAUL WILLIAM /~AMES Bachelor of Science University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas 1981 ·4::er of Science ...1.issouri State University 3pringfield, Missouri 1983 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the·Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 1989 . - ~· ,• ) "' Oklahoma State Univ. Lihra1 REPRODUCTIVE ECOLOGY AND HABITAT PREFERENCE OF THE LEOPARD DARTER, PERCINA PANTHERINA Thesis Approved: ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. o. Eugene Maughan, for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and for his encouragement throughout my graduate program. I would also like to thank the members of my graduate committee, Dr. William A. Drew, Dr. Anthony A. Echelle, Dr. Rudolph J. Miller, and Dr. Alexander v. Zale, for their professional and personal advice throughout the course of the study. I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the u. s. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit for providing financial and technical support for the study. I am especially grateful to Mr. Frank James of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation's McCurtain County Wilderness Area for his friendship and hospitality during extended field trips. A sincere thanks goes to Rick Horton, Steve O'Donnell, and Todd Phillips for their help in the field and laboratory. A special thanks goes to Stuart Leon for helping with the development of many of the field and data analysis techniques used in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Population and Conservation Biology of The
    POPULATION AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY OF THE THREATENED LEOPARD DARTER By CONRAD STEFAN TOEPFER Bachelor of Science Centre College Danville, Kentucky 1990 Master of Science Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1992 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY July, 1997 p::t q '1 D 1 t,1,r >P POPULATION AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY OF THE THREATENED LEOPARD DARTER Thesis Approved: dJ~?t~ Thesis Adviser ~· Dean of the Graduate College ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my adviser, Dr. William L. Fisher, for his encouragement and assistance on this project. He allowed me to flourish, and I will always value his contribution to my future. I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Tony Echelle, Dr. Stan Fox, Dr. Don Turton, and Dr. Emily Stanley, for their advice during the course of my research. I would like to thank the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, U.S. Fish and Widlife Service, and the Oklahoma Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit for their financial support of the study. I would like to extend special thanks to Ken Collins at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services Office for his assistance in obtaining additional funding and special permits and for his general advice and insights concerning leopard darters. I appreciate a number of students and family members that helped with field work. I extend my thanks to Rex iii Anderson, Mike Sams, Mike Miller, Jason Ballew, and Tracy Brotherton.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Little Sandy National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Little Sandy National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment January 2017 Vision Statement Vision Statement Little Sandy National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) will preserve, restore, and enhance the ecological integrity of the Oak Woods and Prairies and Piney Woods bottomland forests, oxbow lakes, and shrub swamps within the Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion of east Texas. The Refuge will also serve as a resilient source of evolving habitats and ecosystem processes, even as structure and composition are altered due to climate change. The Refuge will continue to provide quality habitats for a variety of native plants and wildlife; with emphasis on migratory birds and threatened and endangered species, for the benefit of present and future generations. American Alligator by David Weaver Little Sandy NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment v-1 Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... i Vision Statement ...................................................................................................................................... v-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need for the CCP ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Environmental Flow Requirements for Freshwater Mussels of Greatest Conservation Need in the Mountain Fork, Kiamichi and Little Rivers, Oklahoma
    FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Federal Aid Grant No. F11AF00030 (T-59-R-1) Evaluation of Environmental Flow Requirements for Freshwater Mussels of Greatest Conservation Need in the Mountain Fork, Kiamichi and Little Rivers, Oklahoma Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation June 1, 2011 through May 30, 2014 FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Evaluation of Environmental Flow Requirements For Freshwater Mussels of Greatest Conservation Need In the Mountain Fork, Kiamichi and Little Rivers, Oklahoma Submitted to: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1801 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK By Caryn C. Vaughn, PhD Kiza K. Gates, PhD Carla L. Atkinson, PhD Oklahoma Biological Survey 111 E. Chesapeake Street University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 FINAL PERFORMANCE REPORT STATE: Oklahoma PROJECT NO: F11AF00030 (T-59-R-1) GRANT PROGRAM: State Wildlife Grant PROJECT TITLE: Evaluation of Environmental Flow Requirements for Freshwater Mussels of Greatest Conservation Need in the Mountain Fork, Kiamichi and Little Rivers, Oklahoma. GRANT PERIOD: June 1, 2011 through May 30, 2014. SUMMARY: The Kiamichi and Little Rivers in southeastern Oklahoma are home to a rich aquatic fauna, including four federally listed endangered species. Mussel populations in these rivers have suffered in recent years due to a lack of instream flows caused by drought and water management. Mussel populations are further threatened by proposed plans to sell water from these rivers to metropolitan areas. Thus, there is a critical need to understand the environmental flow requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas
    Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1970-A Prepared in cooperation with the Arkansas State Highway Commission Floods of May 1968 in South Arkansas By R. C. GILSTRAP FLOODS OF 1968 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1970-A Prepared in cooperation with the Arkansas State Highway Commission u. s. s. s. WATER RESOURCES DIVISION ROLL A, MO. RECEIVED APR 101972 AM PM 7|8|9|10|ll|12[li2i3i4i5|6 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1972 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V. E. McKelvey, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. GS 76-185107 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1 (paper cover) Stock Number 2401-1214 CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................................................................................... Al Introduction.................................................................. ....................................................... 1 Acknowledgments................................................................................................................ 3 Definitions of terms and abbreviations...... .......... ........................................................... 3 Precipitation.................. .................................................................................................... 4 Floods..............................................................
    [Show full text]