DOCSLIB.ORG

The Status of Water Quality in the Rivers and Tributaries of the Shenandoah River Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Status of Water Quality in the Rivers and Tributaries of the Shenandoah River Watershed The Status of Water Quality in the Rivers and Tributaries of the Shenandoah River Watershed Final Report (Third Edition) August, 2007 A paper prepared by Charles Vandervoort of the Friends of the Shenandoah River with the cooperation of the Volunteer Monitors of the Shenandoah River Watershed. Table of Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................................................vii Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................................................................................xi Chapter 1: Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................................1 Background..................................................................................................................................................................................1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................................................3 Water Quality Criteria .................................................................................................................................................................3 Findings........................................................................................................................................................................................3 Chapter 2: Overview of Water Quality in Rivers, Tributaries, and STPs in the Counties of the Shenandoah River Watershed.....................................................................................................................................................5 A: Water Quality by County in 2006 .........................................................................................................................................5 B: Water Quality in 1997 compared with 2006........................................................................................................................6 Chapter 3: The Trends in Water Quality...........................................................................................................................................9 A: Trend for Nitrogen in Rivers and in Tributaries ...................................................................................................................9 Trend for Nitrogen in Rivers................................................................................................................................................9 Trend for Nitrogen in Tributaries......................................................................................................................................12 B: Trend for Turbidity in Rivers and in Tributaries.................................................................................................................12 Trend for Turbidity in Rivers .............................................................................................................................................12 Trend of Turbidity in Tributaries.......................................................................................................................................13 C: Water Quality in Each Section of the River, and by Year...................................................................................................14 Average Nitrogen Levels by River Section.........................................................................................................................15 Average Turbidity Levels by River Section ........................................................................................................................16 Average Ammonia Levels by River Section .......................................................................................................................18 Average pH Levels by River Section...................................................................................................................................19 Average Phosphorus Levels by River Section....................................................................................................................19 Average Dissolved Oxygen Levels by River Section ..........................................................................................................21 Chapter 4: Most and Least Impaired Sites of the River and Tributaries, 2006 ............................................................................23 A: River Sites ..............................................................................................................................................................................23 B: Tributary Sites .......................................................................................................................................................................25 C: Past History Of Nitrogen And Turbidity For Most Impaired Sites....................................................................................26 D: Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) .........................................................................................................................................26 Chapter 5: Reasons for the High Pollution and the Growing Trend in Pollution ......................................................................29 A: Non-point source pollution.................................................................................................................................................29 B: Point-source pollution .........................................................................................................................................................29 C: Land use changes and population growth..........................................................................................................................29 Some photos illustrating the issues above .......................................................................................................................30 Some of the reasons...........................................................................................................................................................30 Stream Restoration – it works! ..........................................................................................................................................31 Photos taken during aerial surveys in 2004 and 2007 ....................................................................................................34 Chapter 6: Prospects for stopping and reversing degradation of the river...................................................................................39 A: Areas where progress is being made....................................................................................................................................39 B: Areas where progress is slow................................................................................................................................................40 iii Chapter 7: Mercury Contamination in the South River and South Fork of the Shenandoah River ..........................................43 Chapter 8: Fish Kills in the Shenandoah Watershed .....................................................................................................................45 Chapter 9: Appendices.....................................................................................................................................................................47 A: Methodology.........................................................................................................................................................................47 Selection of the Sampling Sites .........................................................................................................................................47 B: Statistical Considerations.....................................................................................................................................................48 Simple versus weighted averages.......................................................................................................................................48 Frequency of monitoring...................................................................................................................................................48 Interdependence.................................................................................................................................................................49 C: Water Quality Parameters Measured by the FOSR and Supporting Organizations, and Suggested Standards..............49 Nutrients .............................................................................................................................................................................49 Dissolved Oxygen, Acidity, and Turbidity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan
    UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Prepared by Updated June 2012 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan (This page intentionally left blank) June 2011 Page 2 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Historical Background .................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Drought Response Stage Declaration, Implementation and Response Measures.......................... 8 Drought Declaration .................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Response Stages and Response Measures ..................................................................... 10 4.0 Drought Response Stage Termination .......................................................................................... 11 5.0 Plan Revisions ............................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A Locality Drought Watch, Warning and Emergency Indicators Appendix B Drought Watch Responses and Water Conservation Measures Appendix C Drought Warning Responses
    [Show full text]
  • Putting Drinking Water First to Address Nutrient Pollution
    Putting Drinking Water First to Address Nutrient Pollution “Nutrient pollution remains one of the greatest challenges to our Nation’s water quality and presents a growing threat to public health and local economies — contributing to toxic harmful algal blooms, contamination of drinking water sources, and costly impacts on recreation, tourism, and fisheries.” 1 — Joel Beauvais, Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA, September 22, 2016 Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 the United States has made great progress in cleaning up industrial chemicals and sewage pollution, but has failed to significantly reduce run-off of nutrient pollution into our nation’s rivers, lakes, and bays. Nutrient pollution refers to nitrogen and phosphorus, which are essential life elements that have enabled agriculture production in the United States to thrive, but at a huge cost to water quality. The agriculture industry, the largest water polluter in the country, is largely exempt from Clean Water Act protections/programs. When it rains, nutrient-rich fertilizer and animal waste pour into nearby streams and rivers, contributing to toxic algal outbreaks Sources of Excess Nutrients and dead zones downstream. This pollution also seeps into groundwater. Urban storm water runoff, wastewater treatment AGRICULTURE Fertilizer runoff plant discharges, failing septic tanks, and fossil fuel emissions (nitrogen and are other sources of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.2 phosphorus) and Pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus is one of the most animal waste pervasive water quality problems in the U.S.3 and there is increasing concern about their impact on drinking water. INDUSTRY Chemical discharge Nutrients and Water Quality and waste Excess nutrients can cause algae to grow faster than aquatic ecosystems can process, resulting in algal outbreaks that are URBAN LIFE Sewage and green, red, or brown, and appear like paint or thick scum on waste runoff the surface of water.
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Control Board Page 1 O F16 9 Vac 25-260-350 and 400 Water Quality Standards
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 O F16 9 VAC 25-260-350 AND 400 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 9 VAC 25-260-350 Designation of nutrient enriched waters. A. The following state waters are hereby designated as "nutrient enriched waters": * 1. Smith Mountain Lake and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 2. Lake Chesdin from its dam upstream to where the Route 360 bridge (Goodes Bridge) crosses the Appomattox River, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter between the dam and the Route 360 bridge; 3. South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 4. New River and its tributaries, except Peak Creek above Interstate 81, from Claytor Dam upstream to Big Reed Island Creek (Claytor Lake); 5. Peak Creek from its headwaters to its mouth (confluence with Claytor Lake), including all tributaries to their headwaters; 6. Aquia Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 7. Fourmile Run from its headwaters to the state line; 8. Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 9. Little Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 10. Gunston Cove from its headwaters to the state line; 11. Belmont and Occoquan Bays from their headwaters to the state line; 12. Potomac Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 13. Neabsco Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 14. Williams Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with Upper Machodoc Creek; 15. Tidal freshwater Rappahannock River from the fall line to Buoy 44, near Leedstown, Virginia, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter the tidal freshwater Rappahannock River; 16.
    [Show full text]
  • River Watch Summer 2006
    Vol. 3 Summer 2006 River Watch 1 River Watch Volume 3 Summer 2006 Governor Visits New Shenandoah Riverkeeper Jeff Kelble had been the Shenandoah Riverkeeper for two weeks when Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine, US Senator Russ Potts, and Secretary of Natural Resource Preston Bryant flew from Richmond to hold a meeting at his bed and breakfast. The Governor wanted to be briefed on the status of the ongoing fish kills on the Shenandoah River, and he wanted to hear from citizens who had personally been affected by the rivers problems. Evi- dently Jeffs story rang true: man runs fishing guide service on the Shenandoah, businessman buys old house in Shenandoah Valley and renovates for two years to open B&B to cater to fishermen, fish kills occur, mans dreams dashed. Jeff has served on the Virginia Fish Kill Task Force since its inception, originally as a fishing guide but now as the Shenandoah Riverkeeper. The Fish Kill Task Force is composed of State environment and game Governor Kaine discusses Shenandoah fish health. officials, Shenandoah Valley non-profit conservation groups, federal fish pathology experts, federal water chemistry experts, university scientists and Jeff. Out of the task force has come several studies to determine why Shenandoah fish were forming lesions and dying. The studies have been underway since April and the task force is scheduled to run out of money at the end of the summer. This is why the Governors help is needed. Jeff reports that the meeting was strong and that the Governor had very good answers to his three questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Development of Shenandoah River
    SDMS DocID 2109708 Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) for the Shenandoah River, Virginia and West Virginia I. Introduction The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for those water bodies identified as impaired by the state where technology-based and other controls did not provide for attainment of water quality standards. A TMDL is a determination of the amount of a pollutant from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources, including a margin of safety, that may be discharged to a water qualit>'-limited water body. This document will set forth the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rationale for establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of PGBs for the Shenandoah River. EPA's rationale is based on the determination that the TMDL meets the following 8 regulatory conditions pursuant to 40 CFR §130. 1) The TMDL is designed to implement applicable water quality standards. 2) The TMDL includes a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and load allocations. 3) The TMDL considers the impacts of background pollutant contributions. 4) The TMDL considers critical environmental conditions. 5) The TMDL considers seasonal environmental variations. 6) The TMDL includes a margin of safety. 7) The TMDL has been subject to public participation. 8) There is reasonable assurance that the TMDL can be met. II. Background The Shenandoah River drains 1,957,690 acres of land. The watershed can be broken down into several land-uses. Forest and agricultural lands make-up roughly 1,800,000 acres of watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Based Limited Sources - Category 4B and 5E Waters
    2020 Water Quality Based Limited Sources - Category 4B and 5E Waters VPDES First Compliance Permit Stream Name Parameter(s) Outfall Source Cat Listing Date Details Potomac River & Shenandoah River Basins VA0022322 Middle River X-trib Ammonia-N 001 ACSA - Mt Sidney STP 4B 2018 10/31/2020 10/31/20 compliance schedule for Ammonia-N VA0024422 East Hawksbill Creek UT Ammonia-N (Jan-May), 001 Shenandoah National Park - 4B 2016 11/1/2019 11/1/19 compliance schedule for Ammonia-N (Jan- Ammonia N (Jun-Dec) Skyland STP May), Ammonia-N (Jun-Dec) VA0026514 Williams Creek TSS, TKN, TN, TP, 001 Dahlgren District WWTP 4B 2014 12/31/2024 Facility is under a Consent Order for TSS, TKN, TN, Enterococcus TP, and Enterococcus VA0067938 Unnamed tributary to TSS, BOD5, Ammonia, DO 001 Piedmont Behavioral Health 4B 2020 3/15/2020 Facility is under a Consent Order for TSS, BOD5, Limestone Branch Center Ammonia, and DO. Plant upgrade scheduled for 2/28/2020. VA0067938 Unnamed tributary to TSS, BOD5, Ammonia, DO 002 Piedmont Behavioral Health 4B 2020 3/15/2020 Facility is under a Consent Order for TSS, BOD5, Limestone Branch Center Ammonia, and DO. Plant upgrade scheduled for 2/28/2020. VA0070106 Pine Hill Creek, UT TKN, TSS, DO 001 Purkins Corner Wastewater 4B 2020 10/31/2022 Facility is under a Consent Order for TKN, TSS, and Treatment Plant DO VA0089338 Rappahannock River TP, E. Coli 001 Hopyard Farm Wastewater 4B 2020 11/30/2023 Facility is under a Consent Order for TP and E. Coli Treatment Facility VA0089630 Accokeek Creek, UT TP 001 Walk Residence Wastewater 4B 2020 9/30/2023 Facility is under a Consent Order for TP Treatment Plant VA0090590 Back Creek UT Whole Effluent Toxicity 006 UNIMIN Corporation 4B 2018 6/30/2020 6/30/20 compliance schedule for Whole Effluent Toxicity VA0091995 Lake Anne (Colvin Run, UT)Zinc 001 Reston Lake Anne Air 4B 2020 5/8/2021 Facility has compliance schedule for zinc in permit Conditioning Corporation effective 05/08/2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena
    Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena Time Path Path Number of Estimated June 2006 Local/ Length Width Persons Damage Location Date Standard (Miles) (Yards) Killed Injured Property Crops Character of Storm ATLANTIC OCEAN ANZ531 Chesapeake Bay Pooles Is To Sandy Pt Md Millers Island to01 1902EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (EG34) Tolchester Beach 1918EST ANZ532 Chesapeake Bay Sandy Pt To N Beach Md 5 SE Annapolis01 2109EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG35) Wind gust measured at Thomas Point Light. A trough of low pressure was draped across the Mid Atlantic on June 1. This feature combined with high moisture content and instability in the atmosphere to promote scattered strong to severe thunderstorms. The thunderstorms first developed across the higher terrain of the Appalachian Mountains, then moved east across the Washington/Baltimore corridor. ANZ534 Chesapeake Bay Drum Pt To Smith Pt Va Solomons Island02 1754EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG38) 1812EST ANZ536 Tidal Potomac Indian Hd To Cobb Is Md Dahlgren02 1756EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG50) Wind gust was measured at Cuckold Creek. ANZ533 Chesapeake Bay N Beach To Drum Pt Md Cove Pt02 1800EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG37) 1820EST ANZ532 Chesapeake Bay Sandy Pt To N Beach Md 5 SE Annapolis02 1858EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG39) 1901EST ANZ537 Tidal Potomac Cobb Is Md To Smith Pt Va Piney Pt to04 1554EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG38) Lewisetta 1700EST ANZ534 Chesapeake Bay Drum Pt To Smith Pt Va Patuxent River Nas to04 1605EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG38) Smith Island 1700EST ANZ535 Tidal Potomac Key Bridge To Indian Hd Md Rnld Reagan Natl Arpt09 1453EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (EG34) ANZ533 Chesapeake Bay N Beach To Drum Pt Md Cove Pt09 1630EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG37) 1700EST ANZ535 Tidal Potomac Key Bridge To Indian Hd Md Rnld Reagan Natl Arpt09 1751EST 0 0 Marine Tstm Wind (MG36) Daytime heating combined with an unstable lower atmosphere and favorable amounts of moisture contributed to scattered afternoon and evening thunderstorms.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Investigations 71 (Pdf, 4.8
    Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 71 A STRATEGY FOR A STREAM-GAGING NETWORK IN MARYLAND by Emery T. Cleaves, State Geologist and Director, Maryland Geological Survey and Edward J. Doheny, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared for the Maryland Water Monitoring Council in cooperation with the Stream-Gage Committee 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Sarah Taylor-Rogers Secretary Stanley K. Arthur Deputy Secretary MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 General DNR Public Information Number: 1-877-620-8DNR http://www.dnr.state.md.us MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2300 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 554-5500 http://mgs.dnr.md.gov The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical or mental disability. COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER ROBERT W. RIDKY JAMES B. STRIBLING CONTENTS Page Executive summary.........................................................................................................................................................1 Why stream gages?.........................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • South Fork Shenandoah River Habitat-Flow Modeling to Determine Ecological and Recreational Characteristics During Low-Flow Periods
    Prepared in cooperation with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, Central Shenandoah Valley Planning District Commission, and Virginia Commonwealth University South Fork Shenandoah River Habitat-Flow Modeling to Determine Ecological and Recreational Characteristics during Low-Flow Periods Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5081 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Bedrock Run between Newport and Alma, South Fork Shenandoah River, Virginia All photographs in this report are courtesy of the author, Jennifer Krstolic, U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Water Science Center South Fork Shenandoah River Habitat-Flow Modeling to Determine Ecological and Recreational Characteristics during Low-Flow Periods By Jennifer L. Krstolic and R. Clay Ramey Prepared in cooperation with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission, Central Shenandoah Valley Planning District Commission, and Virginia Commonwealth University Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5081 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Shenandoah River Basin
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 OF 15 9 VAC 25-720 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATION 9 VAC 25-720-50. Potomac – Shenandoah River Basin A. Total maximum daily load (TMDLs). TMDL # Stream Name TMDL Title City/ WBID Pollutant WLA Units County 1. Muddy Creek Nitrate TMDL Rockingham B21R Nitrate 49,389.00 LB/YR Development for Muddy Creek/Dry River, Virginia 2. Blacks Run TMDL Development for Rockingham B25R Sediment 32,844.00 LB/YR Blacks Run and Cooks Creek 3. Cooks Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B25R Sediment 69,301.00 LB/YR Blacks Run and Cooks Creek 4. Cooks Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B25R Phosphorus 0 LB/YR Blacks Run and Cooks Creek 5. Muddy Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B22R Sediment 286,939.00 LB/YR Muddy Creek and Holmans Creek, Virginia 6. Muddy Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B22R Phosphorus 38.00 LB/YR Muddy Creek and Holmans Creek, Virginia 7. Holmans Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham/ B45R Sediment 78,141.00 LB/YR Muddy Creek and Shenandoah Holmans Creek, Virginia 8. Mill Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B29R Sediment 276.00 LB/YR Mill Creek and Pleasant Run 9. Mill Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B29R Phosphorus 138.00 LB/YR Mill Creek and Pleasant Run STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 2 OF 15 9 VAC 25-720 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATION 10. Pleasant Run TMDL Development for Rockingham B27R Sediment 0.00 LB/YR Mill Creek and Pleasant Run 11. Pleasant Run TMDL Development for Rockingham B27R Phosphorus 0.00 LB/YR Mill Creek and Pleasant Run 12.
    [Show full text]
  • The Floods of March 1936 Part 3
    If 700 do not need this report after it has served your purpose, please retnrn ft to the Geological Survey, using the official mailing label at the end UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR* THE FLOODS OF MARCH 1936 PART 3. POTOMAC, JAMES, AND UPPER OHIO RIVERS Prepared in cooperation with the FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 800 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 800 THE FLOODS OF MARCH 1936 PART 3. POTOMAC, JAMES, AND UPPER OHIO RIVERS NATHAN C. GROVER, Chief Hydraulic Engineer With a section on the WEATHER ASSOCIATED WITH THE FLOODS OF MARCH 1936 By STEPHEN LICHTBLAU, U. S. Weather Bureau Prepared in cooperation with the FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1937 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. -------- Price 45 cents CONTENTS Abstract............................................................ i Introduction........................................................ 2 Authorization....................................................... 5 Administration and personnel........................................ 5 Acknowledgments..................................................... 6 General features of the storms...................................... 8 Weather associated with the floods of March 1936, by Stephen Lichtblau......................................................... 12 Floods of the Potomac,
    [Show full text]