DOCSLIB.ORG

Sediment and Total Suspended Solids TMDL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FINAL Total Maximum Daily Loads of Sediment/Total Suspended Solids for the Anacostia River Basin, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland and The District of Columbia FINAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore, MD 21230-1718 and District of Columbia Department of the Environment - Natural Resources Administration Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Division, Region III Watershed Protection Division 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 June 2007 EPA Submittal Date: June 22, 2007 EPA Approval Date: July 24, 2007 Anacostia River Sediment TMDL Document version: June 14, 2007 THIS PAGE DELIBERATELY LEFT BLANK Anacostia River Sediment TMDL Document version: June 14, 2007 FINAL Table of Contents List of Figures.................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ii List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 2.0 SETTING AND WATER QUALITY DESCRIPTION .................................... 3 2.1 Background and General Setting ............................................................ 3 2.1.1 Geology and soils ........................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Land use ......................................................................................... 6 2.2 Source Assessment.................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Historical Causes of Sedimentation in the Anacostia Watershed 9 2.2.2 Current Nonpoint Sources of Sediment in the Anacostia .......... 10 2.2.3 Current Point Sources of Sediment in the Anacostia................. 11 2.2.4 Re-suspension of bed sediment in the tidal river ........................ 13 2.2.5 Summary of Baseline Loads........................................................ 13 2.3 Water Quality Characterization............................................................ 13 2.3.1 Tidal waters ................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 Non-tidal waters ........................................................................... 18 2.4 Water Quality Impairment .................................................................... 21 2.4.1 Designated Uses and Water Quality Standards .......................... 21 2.4.2 Assessment of tidal waters ........................................................... 24 2.4.3 Assessment of non-tidal waters.................................................... 24 3.0 TARGETED WATER QUALITY GOAL ....................................................... 25 4.0 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND ALLOCATIONS..................... 26 4.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 26 4.2 Analysis Framework............................................................................... 27 4.2.1 Tidal analysis................................................................................ 28 4.2.2 Non-tidal analysis ....................................................................... 32 4.3 Scenario Descriptions and Results ........................................................ 33 4.3.1 Baseline Conditions Scenario for Tidal Anacostia..................... 33 4.3.2 TMDL Conditions Scenario for Tidal Anacostia ....................... 35 4.3.3 TMDL Conditions Scenario for Non-tidal Anacostia ................ 35 4.4 Critical Condition and Seasonality ....................................................... 36 4.5 TMDL Loading Caps and Allocations .................................................. 36 4.6 Margin of Safety...................................................................................... 38 4.7 Summary of Sediment/TSS TMDLs for the Anacostia Watershed.... 39 5.0 ASSURANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................ 46 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 51 Appendix A – ESTIMATOR Model Results for Northwest Branch and Northeast Branch Sediment Loads ................................................................................................ A1 Appendix B – Flow Duration Curve/Quantile Regression Analysis of Effects of Urban Hydrology ............................................................................................................B1 Appendix C – Application of the Reference Watershed Approach in the Anacostia River Watershed ............................................................................................................ C1 Appendix D – Technical Approach Used to Generate Maximum Daily Loads ........D1 Anacostia River Sediment TMDL Document version: June 14, 2007 i FINAL List of Figures Figure 1. Location map of the Anacostia River watershed................................................ 4 Figure 2. Anacostia River subwatersheds.......................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Land use in the Anacostia watershed (LDR, MDR, and HDR denote low-, medium-, and high-density residential) ...................................................................... 7 Figure 4. Tidal Anacostia River, with Monitoring Locations, and TAM/WASP Model Segmentation............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 5. Long-term Growing Season Medians of Water Quality Parameters in the Tidal Anacostia River......................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6. Long-term Growing Season Medians of Secchi Depth in the Tidal Anacostia River.......................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 7. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Tidal River .......................................... 18 Figure 8. Suspended Solids Data for NEB, 1995-2004, versus Flow Percentile............. 20 Figure 9. Suspended Solids Data for NWB, 1995-2004, versus Flow Percentile ........... 21 Figure 10. Annual precipitation at Reagan National Airport........................................... 26 Figure 11. Annual combined mean flow for Northeast and Northwest Branch tributaries ................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12. Schematic diagram of TAM/WASP modeling framework ............................ 30 Figure 13. 1995-1997 median growing season Secchi depth in tidal Anacostia River: predicted by calibrated model vs. observed.............................................................. 34 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Anacostia Watershed land use (acres) ............................................ 6 Table 2. Summary of sediment loads by source ................................................................ 9 Table 3. Municipal and Industrial NPDES Permit Holders in the Anacostia Watershed with sediment/solids discharge limits ....................................................................... 12 Table 4. Water Quality Data Sets Used in TMDL Development .................................... 14 Table 5. Designated Uses and Sediment-Related Water Quality Standards for the Anacostia Watershed ................................................................................................ 23 Table 6. Growing season Secchi depth medians, computed from routine monitoring data ................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 7. Sediment/TSS TMDL Loading Caps and Allocations for the Anacostia Watershed ................................................................................................................. 37 Table 8. Summary of Annual Sediment/TSS TMDLs for the Anacostia Watershed (tons/year) ................................................................................................................. 40 Table 9. Summary of Growing Season Sediment/TSS TMDLs for the Anacostia Watershed (tons/growing season)............................................................................. 41 Table 10. Summary of Annually-Based Maximum Daily Loads of Sediment/TSS for the Anacostia River Watershed (tons/day) .................................................................... 42 Table 11. Summary of Seasonally-Based Maximum Daily Loads of Sediment/TSS for the Anacostia River Watershed (tons/day during growing season)......................... 44 Table 12. Anacostia River restoration activities by Signatories of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement, and other assisting organizations..................... 49 Anacostia River Sediment TMDL Document version: June 14, 2007 ii FINAL List of Abbreviations ANS-PCER Academy of Natural Sciences - Patrick Center for Environmental Research ARCWP Anacostia River and Tributaries Comprehensive Watershed Plan AWRC Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee BARC Beltsville Agricultural Research Center BMPs Best Management Practices BOD Biochemical Oxygen
Recommended publications
  • New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C

    New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C

    Final Report Potomac River Source Water ~s.ejgitllm~tsjjK.,..~IW1I~ for Marylan . Prepared by: Becker and O'Melia, LLC in association with Straughan Environmental Services, Inc. Becker and O'Melia, LLC WATER PROCESS RESEARCHERS AND CONSULTANTS POTOMAC SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS Introduction The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments required states to develop and implement source water assessment prograIlli to evaluate the safety of all public drinking water systems. A Source Water Assessment (SWA) is a process for evaluating the vulnerability to contamination ofthe source of a public drinking water supply. The assessment does not address the treatment processes, or the storage and distribution aspects of the water system, which are covered under separate provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is the lead state agency in this source water assessment effort. There are three main steps in the assessment process: (1) delineating the watershed drainage area that is likely to contribute to the drinking water supply, (2) identijYing potential contaminants within that area and (3) assessing the vulnerability, or susceptibility, of the system to those contaminants. Public notification is the final component of the source water assessment report process. The goal of the source water assessment program is to provide a framework for local stakeholders and governments in developing a Source Water Protection Plan. The source water assessments for Maryland water systems utilizing the Potomac River was undertaken as a joint effort by MDE, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Conunission (WSSC), and several consultants, including The Center for Watershep Ptotection, and Becker & O'Melia, the lead consultant.
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
  • Program Overview

    Program Overview

    WWeett WWaaddeerrss aanndd BBeeyyoonndd TThhee CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff OOuurr SSttaattee’’ss WWaatteerrss AA CCiittiizzeenn’’ss PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee 1 WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water and Waste Management, Nonpoint Section 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 The document was prepared by Tim Craddock, WV DEP’s Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator and is available electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF). To request your copy send e-mail to Tim Craddock at: [email protected]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Color photographs provided by: Alana Hartman, DEP’s Potomac Basin Coordinator; Abby Chappel, WV River Network; Sherry Evasic, Blue Heron Environmental Network; Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute; Suzanne Hubbard, The Mountain Institute; Renee Cain, Lower West Fork Watershed Association; Martin Christ, Friends of Deckers Creek; Bobby Bonnett, Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization; Diana Green, Davis Creek Watershed Association; James Grey, Morris Creek Watershed Association; Larry Orr, Kanawha Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Valerie Wilson, Science Teacher, Oak Hill Catholic Center; Brad Durst, WV Conservation Agency and Curtis Canada, Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association. WV Save Our Streams would like to recognize all the volunteer monitors, not only those directly associated with the program, but any others who have given their time and energy in an effort to protect our state’s streams and rivers. WV Save Our Streams would also like to recognize all of the agency and other partners who have provided assistance of any kind, to help guide volunteers through the myriad of processes involved with water quality issues. “Perception is not acquired by formal education, nor is it reserved for persons learned in the arts or sciences.
  • The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment

    The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment

    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2008 INTEGRATED REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND U.S. CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 305(b) AND 303(d) CLEAN WATER ACT (P.L. 97-117) District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division Government of the District of Columbia Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor PREFACE PREFACE The Water Quality Division of the District of Columbia's District Department of the Environment, Natural Resources Administration, prepared this report to satisfy the listing requirements of §303(d) and the reporting requirements of §305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). This report provides water quality information on the District of Columbia’s surface and ground waters that were assessed during 2008 and updates the water quality information required by law. Various programs in the Natural Resources Administration contributed to this report including the Fisheries and Wildlife Division and the Watershed Protection Division. Questions or comments regarding this report or requests for copies should be forwarded to the address below. The District of Columbia Government District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division 51 N St., NE Washington, D.C. 20002-3323 Attention: N. Shulterbrandt ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................
  • Road Log of the Geology of Frederick County, Virginia W

    Road Log of the Geology of Frederick County, Virginia W

    Vol. 17 MAY, 1971 No. 2 ROAD LOG OF THE GEOLOGY OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA W. E. Nunan The following road log is a guide to geologic The user of this road log should keep in mind features along or near main roads in Frederick that automobile odometers vary in accuracy. Dis- County, Virginia. Distances and cumulative mile- tances between stops and road intersections ages between places where interesting and repre- should be checked frequently, especially at junc- sentative-lithologies, formational contacts, struc- tions or stream crossings immediately preceding tural features, fossils, and geomorphic features stops. The Frederick County road map of the occur are noted. At least one exposure for nearly Virginia Department of Highways, and the U. S. each formation is included in the log. Brief dis- Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps cussions of the geological features observable at are recommended for use with this road log. the various stops is included in the text. Topographic maps covering Frederick County include Boyce, Capon Bridge, Capon Springs, A comprehensive report of the geology of the Glengary, Gore, Hayfield, Inwood, Middletown, Mountain Falls, Ridge, Stephens City, Stephen- County is presented in "Geology and Mineral Re- son, Wardensville, White Hall, and Winchester. sources of Frederick County" by Charles Butts The route of the road log (Figure 1) shows U. S. and R. S. Edmundson, Bulletin 80 of the Virginia and State Highways and those State Roads trav- Division of Mineral Resources. The publication eled or needed for reference at intersections. has a 1:62,500 scale geologic map in color, which Pertinent place names, streams, and railroad is available from the Division for $4.00 plus sales crossings are indicated.
  • Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River

    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River

    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River North Fork Watershed Project/Friends of Blackwater MAY 2009 This report was made possible by a generous donation from the MARPAT Foundation. DRAFT 2 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................... 7 PART I ‐ General Information about the North Branch Potomac Watershed ........................................................... 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Geography and Geology of the Watershed Area ................................................................................................. 9 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................
  • DC Flood Insurance Study

    DC Flood Insurance Study

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. REVISED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 110001V000A NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood insurance risk zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone(s) New Zone A1 – A30 AE V1 – V30 VE B X C X The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may revise and republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Initial FIS Effective Date: November 15, 1985 Revised FIS Date: September 27, 2010 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018

    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018

    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
  • Comments Received

    Comments Received

    PARKS & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (DRAFT RELEASE) LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED Notes on List of Comments: ⁃ This document lists all comments received on the Draft 2018 Parks & Open Space Element update during the public comment period. ⁃ Comments are listed in the following order o Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions o Comments from Local & Regional Agencies o Comments from Interest Groups o Comments from Interested Individuals Comments from Federal Agencies & Institutions United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE National Capital Region 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W. IN REPLY REFER TO: Washington, D.C. 20242 May 14, 2018 Ms. Surina Singh National Capital Planning Commission 401 9th Street, NW, Suite 500N Washington, DC 20004 RE: Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Open Space Element Comments Dear Ms. Singh: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft update of the Parks and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements. The National Park Service (NPS) understands that the Element establishes policies to protect and enhance the many federal parks and open spaces within the National Capital Region and that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) uses these policies to guide agency actions, including review of projects and preparation of long-range plans. Preservation and management of parks and open space are key to the NPS mission. The National Capital Region of the NPS consists of 40 park units and encompasses approximately 63,000 acres within the District of Columbia (DC), Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Our region includes a wide variety of park spaces that range from urban sites, such as the National Mall with all its monuments and Rock Creek Park to vast natural sites like Prince William Forest Park as well as a number of cultural sites like Antietam National Battlefield and Manassas National Battlefield Park.
  • 'CHEMICAL COCKTAILS' of TRACE METALS USING SENSORS in URBAN STREAMS Carol Mo

    'CHEMICAL COCKTAILS' of TRACE METALS USING SENSORS in URBAN STREAMS Carol Mo

    ABSTRACT Title of thesis: TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS Carol Morel, Masters of Geology, 2020 Thesis directed by: Professor Sujay Kaushal Department of Geology Understanding transport mechanisms and temporal patterns in metals concentrations and fluxes in urban streams are important for developing best management practices and restoration strategies to improve water quality. In some cases, in situ sensors can be used to estimate unknown concentrations and fluxes of trace metals or to interpolate between sampling events. Continuous sensor data from the United States Geological Survey were analyzed to determine statistically significant relationships between lead, copper, zinc, cadmium and mercury with turbidity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and discharge for the Hickey Run, Watts Branch, and Rock Creek watersheds in the Washington, D.C. region. At Rock Creek, there were significant negative linear relationships between Hg and Pb and specific conductance (p<0.05). Watershed monitoring approaches using continuous sensor data have the potential to characterize the frequency, magnitude, and composition of pulses in concentrations and loads of trace metals, which could improve management and restoration of urban streams. TRACKING TRANSPORT OF ‘CHEMICAL COCKTAILS’ OF TRACE METALS USING SENSORS IN URBAN STREAMS by Carol Jisnely Morel Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Geology 2020 Advisory Committee: Professor Sujay Kaushal, Chair Dr. Kenneth Belt Dr. Shuiwang Duan Professor Karen Prestegaard Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without data collection and sharing by the USGS.
  • Benthic Tmdls for the Goose Creek Watershed

    Benthic Tmdls for the Goose Creek Watershed

    Benthic TMDLs for the Goose Creek Watershed Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin March 1, 2004 Revised April 27, 2004 ICPRB Report 04-5 This report has been prepared by the staff of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Support was provided by the Virginia Department of Environment Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the United States or any of its agencies, the several states, or the Commissioners of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Benthic TMDLs for the Goose Creek Watershed Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin March 1, 2004 Revised April 27, 2004 __________________________________________ Benthic TMDLs For the Goose Creek Watershed TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................I LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................IV LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................
  • Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Historic Resource Study Great Smoky Mountains National Park

    Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Historic Resource Study Great Smoky Mountains National Park

    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Service National Park Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Historic Resource Study Resource Historic Park National Mountains Smoky Great Historic Resource Study | Volume 1 April 2016 VOL Historic Resource Study | Volume 1 1 As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historic places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. GRSM 133/134404/A April 2016 GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 FRONT MATTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................