DOCSLIB.ORG

Escherichia Coli Concentrations in Recreational Streams and Backcountry Drinking-Water Supplies in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, 2005–2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Escherichia Coli Concentrations in Recreational Streams and Backcountry Drinking-Water Supplies in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, 2005–2006 Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Escherichia coli Concentrations in Recreational Streams and Backcountry Drinking-Water Supplies in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, 2005–2006 Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5160 Cover. White Oak Run in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (photograph taken by Kenneth E. Hyer, U.S. Geological Survey). Escherichia coli Concentrations in Recreational Streams and Backcountry Drinking-Water Supplies in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, 2005–2006 By Kenneth E. Hyer Prepared in cooperation with the National Park Service Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5160 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 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. Suggested citation: Hyer, K.E., 2007, Escherichia coli concentrations in recreational streams and backcountry drinking-water supplies in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, 2005–2006: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007–5160, 18 p. (available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir2007-5160 ) iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2 Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................................2 Study Design and Sample Collection .........................................................................................................4 Selection and Sampling of Sites for the Evaluation of Recreational Activities on E. coli Concentrations .......................................................................................................4 Selection and Sampling of Drinking-Water Supply Sites ...............................................................6 Sampling of Wastewater-Treatment Plants .....................................................................................6 Analytical Technique for E. coli ..........................................................................................................7 Evaluating the Effect of Recreational Activities on E. coli Concentrations .........................................8 Low-Flow Conditions ............................................................................................................................8 Stormflow Conditions .........................................................................................................................10 Pinefield Hut Samples ........................................................................................................................12 E. coli Concentrations in Backcountry Drinking-Water Supplies ........................................................15 Water Quality of Wastewater-Treatment Plant Releases .....................................................................16 Summary and Conclusions .........................................................................................................................16 Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................................18 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................................18 Figures 1. Map showing Shenandoah National Park in Virginia .............................................................3 2. Map showing sampling sites in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 2005–2006 ...................................................................................................................5 3. Graph showing analytical results of sequential replicate Escherichia coli samples, plotted relative to a 1:1 line, from streams in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 2005–2006 ...................................................................................................................7 4–6. Box plots showing Escherichia coli concentrations in streamwater at: 4. Low-flow conditions at 10 sites in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 2005 ..................................................................................................................9 5. Low-flow conditions at 10 sites in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 2006 ................................................................................................................10 6. Low-flow and stormflow conditions in the control and recreational basins of Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 2005–2006 ................................................11 7. Generalized map of the Pinefield Hut site in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia .....................................................................................................................................12 8. Box plots showing Escherichia coli concentrations in streamwater at low-flow conditions at the Pinefield Hut site in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 2006 .......14 iv Tables 1. Sampling sites for evaluating the effects of recreational activities on Escherichia coli concentrations in surface waters of Shenandoah National Park in Virginia ..............................................................................................................................4 2. Sampling sites for the evaluation of drinking-water supplies in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia ..............................................................................................................6 3. Median Escherichia coli concentrations during low-flow and stormflow conditions and the number of samples collected at each stream site in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia ......................................................................................8 4. Sampling dates and Escherichia coli concentrations associated with the Pinefield Hut site in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 2006 ......................................13 5. Median Escherichia coli concentrations and the number of samples collected for the evaluation of drinking-water supplies in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, 2005–2006 .................................................................................................................15 6. Escherichia coli concentrations, physical properties, and wastewater organic- compound concentrations in samples from three wastewater-treatment plant outfalls in Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, and the endocrine-disrupting potential of each wastewater organic compound detected ...............................................17 Conversion Factors Multiply By To obtain Length foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) Volume gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) Flow cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F = (1.8 × °C) + 32 Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27). Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum. Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (µS/cm at 25 °C). Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (µg/L). E. coli concentrations are reported in units of colonies per 100 milliliters of water (col/100 mL). Escherichia coli Concentrations in Recreational Streams and Backcountry Drinking-Water Supplies in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, 2005–2006 By Kenneth E. Hyer Abstract The sampling results from drinking-water supplies throughout Shenandoah National Park indicated relatively Although fecal contamination of streams is a problem low E. coli concentrations in all springs that were sampled. of national scope, few investigations have been directed at Several of the streams that were sampled had slightly higher relatively pristine streams in forested basins in national parks. E. coli concentrations relative to the springs, but no E. coli With approximately 1.8 million visitors annually, Shenandoah concentrations exceeded the instantaneous water-quality National Park in Virginia is subject to extensive recreational standard. Although E. coli concentrations in all the drinking- use. The effects of these visitors and their recreational water supplies were relatively low, Shenandoah National Park activities on fecal indicator bacteria levels
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014
    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Joanne Throwe, Deputy Secretary Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 The Potomac River watershed includes area in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Washington D.C. For the purpose of this report, the basin is divided into four regions: the Upper Potomac, Shenandoah, Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac (Figure 1). Land use in the upper Potomac River watershed was estimated to be 69% forest and 22% agriculture (Figure 1, Table 1).1 The Upper Potomac watershed is largely within West Virginia (54%), with other portions in Pennsylvania (22%), Maryland (18%) and Virginia (7%). Impervious surfaces cover 1% of the Maryland potion of the Upper river basin (Table 1).2 Land use in the Shenandoah watershed was estimated to be 56% forest and 34% agriculture. The Shenandoah watershed is almost entirely in Virginia (96%), with a small area in West Virginia (4%). Land use in the Middle Potomac watershed was estimated to be 44% agriculture, 32% forest and 20% developed. The Middle Potomac watershed includes areas in Maryland (55%), Virginia (34%), Pennsylvania (13%) and Washington D.C. (0.1%). Impervious surfaces cover 7% of the Maryland potion of the Middle river basin. Land use in the Lower Potomac watershed was estimated to be 41% forest, 30% developed, and 16% agriculture. The Lower Potomac watershed includes Figure 1 Potomac River basin Top panel shows state boundaries and the individual watersheds. Bottom panel shows the land use throughout the basin for 2011.1 Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 1 areas in Virginia (56%), Maryland (42%) and Washington D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Study of Gunston Cove
    An Ecological Study of Gunston Cove 2016 FINAL REPORT August 2017 by R. Christian Jones Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Director Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University Kim de Mutsert Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Associate Director Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University Amy Fowler Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Science and Policy Faculty Fellow Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University to Department of Public Works and Environmental Services County of Fairfax, VA iii Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ............................................................................................... iv List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xiii The Ongoing Aquatic Monitoring Program for the Gunston Cove Area ................1 Introduction ..................................................................................................2 Methods........................................................................................................3 A. Profiles and Plankton: Sampling Day .........................................3 B. Profiles and Plankton: Followup Analysis ..................................7 C. Adult and Juvenile Fish ...............................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCRN/NRTR—2011/488 ON THE COVER Potomac River near Paw Paw, West Virginia Photograph by: Tom Paradis, NPS. Annual and Seasonal Trends in Discharge of National Capital Region Streams Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCRN/NRTR—2011/488 John Paul Schmit National Park Service Center for Urban Ecology 4598 MacArthur Blvd. NW Washington, DC 20007 September, 2011 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 5-1975 Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory Kenneth A. Moore Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gene M. Silberhorn Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Moore, K. A., & Silberhorn, G. M. (1975) Prince William County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 78. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V55H9H This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY TIDAL MARSH INVENTORY Special Report No. 78 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Kenneth A. Moore G.M. Silberhorn , Project Leader VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., Director MAY 1975 Acknowledgments Funds for the publication and distribution of this report have been provided by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Grant No. 04-5-158-5001. I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Gene M. Silberhorn. His invaluable guidance and assistance made this report possible. I wish also to thank Col. George Dawes, for his review of this report and his assistance in the field and Dr. William J. Hargis, Dr. Michael E. Bender, Mr. James Mercer, Mr. Thomas Barnard, Miss Christine Plummer and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2009/086 THIS PAGE: South Fork Quantico Creek ON THE COVER: Bridge over South Fork Quantico Creek NPS Photos Prince William Forest Park Geologic Resources Inventory Report Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/GRD/NRR—2009/086 Geologic Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 March 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Denver, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the NPS conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and is designed and published in a professional manner. Natural Resource Reports are the designated medium for disseminating high priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. Examples of the diverse array of reports published in this series include vital signs monitoring plans; "how to" resource management papers; proceedings of resource management workshops or conferences; annual reports of resource programs or divisions of the Natural Resource Program Center; resource action plans; fact sheets; and regularly-published newsletters. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations and data in this report are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan and Environmental Assessment Prince William County, Virginia
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan and Environmental Assessment Prince William County, Virginia PRINCE WILLIAM FOREST PARK COMPREHENSIVE TRAILS PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MARCH 2019 Environmental Assessment Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan and Environmental Assessment Contents Purpose and Need 1 Planning Issues and Concerns for Detail Analysis 1 Planning Issues and Concerns Dismissed from Further Analysis 2 Alternatives 10 Alternative A: No-Action 10 Alternative B: Action Alternative 10 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 12 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 19 Historic Structures 20 Impacts of Alternative A: No-Action 23 Impacts of Alternatives B: Action Alternative 24 Cultural Landscapes 27 Impacts of Alternative A: No-Action 28 Impacts of Alternatives B: Action Alternative 28 Visitor Use and Experience 29 Impacts of Alternative A: No-Action 32 Impacts of Alternatives B: Action Alternative 32 Consultation and Coordination 35 List of Preparers and Contributors 36 Figure 1: Project Area and Regional Context 3 Figure 2: Action B Action Alternative 15 Figure 3: Action B Action Alternative – New Parking Area and Public Access Roads 16 Figure 4: Action B Action Alternative – Cabin Camp Accessible Trail Areas 17 Figure 5: Area of Potential Effect 21 Figure 6: Photos of Trails and Cabin Camps in PRWI 31 Table 1: Anticipated Cumulative Projects In and Around the Project Site 19 Table of Contents i Environmental Assessment Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan This page is intentionally left blank Table of Contents ii Environmental Assessment Prince William Forest Park Comprehensive Trails Plan PURPOSE AND NEED The National Park Service (NPS) is developing a Comprehensive Trails Plan for Prince William Forest Park (the proposed project).
    [Show full text]
  • M a R Y L a N D V I R G I N
    300 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 3, Chapter 12 26 SEP 2021 77°20'W 77°W 76°40'W 76°20'W 39°N Annapolis Washington D.C. 12289 Alexandria PISCATAWAY CREEK 38°40'N MARYLAND 12288 MATTAWOMAN CREEK PATUXENT RIVER PORT TOBACCO RIVER NANJEMOY CREEK 12285 WICOMICO 12286 RIVER 38°20'N ST. CLEMENTS BAY UPPER MACHODOC CREEK 12287 MATTOX CREEK POTOMAC RIVER ST. MARYS RIVER POPES CREEK NOMINI BAY YEOCOMICO RIVER Point Lookout COAN RIVER 38°N RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Smith VIRGINIA Point 12233 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 3—Chapter 12 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 26 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 3, Chapter 12 ¢ 301 Chesapeake Bay, Potomac River (1) This chapter describes the Potomac River and the above the mouth; thence the controlling depth through numerous tributaries that empty into it; included are the dredged cuts is about 18 feet to Hains Point. The Coan, St. Marys, Yeocomico, Wicomico and Anacostia channels are maintained at or near project depths. For Rivers. Also described are the ports of Washington, DC, detailed channel information and minimum depths as and Alexandria and several smaller ports and landings on reported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), these waterways. use NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts. Surveys and (2) channel condition reports are available through a USACE COLREGS Demarcation Lines hydrographic survey website listed in Appendix A. (3) The lines established for Chesapeake Bay are (12) described in 33 CFR 80.510, chapter 2. Anchorages (13) Vessels bound up or down the river anchor anywhere (4) ENCs - US5VA22M, US5VA27M, US5MD41M, near the channel where the bottom is soft; vessels US5MD43M, US5MD44M, US4MD40M, US5MD40M sometimes anchor in Cornfield Harbor or St.
    [Show full text]
  • Chopawamsic Creek
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 3-2011 Marine Corps Base, Quantico Shoreline Protection Plan Shoreline Studies Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Shoreline Studies Program, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. (2011) Marine Corps Base, Quantico Shoreline Protection Plan. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V51436 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Marine Corps Base, Quantico Shoreline Protection Plan Shoreline Studies Program Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia March 2011 Marine Corps Base, Quantico Shoreline Protection Plan Shoreline Studies Program Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia Final Report March 2011 Table of Contents 7.1.2 Upland and Shore Zone Characteristics ...................................9 7.1.3 Nearshore Characteristics ..............................................9 7.2 Design Considerations and Recommendations ....................................9 Table of Contents....................................................................... i 8 Reach 4: North of the Marina
    [Show full text]
  • A Water-Quality Study of the Tidal Potomac River and Estuary an Overview
    A WATER-QUALITY STUDY OF THE TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER AND ESTUARY AN OVERVIEW * *- » -/ ,,*¥ if** v. < , ' ^ J V T * ' V-^^VX » «>* (>.> V A WATER-QUALITY STUDY OF THE TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER AND ESTUARY AN OVERVIEW Edited by Edward Callender, Virginia Carter, D. C. Hahl, Kerie Hitt, and Barbara I. Schultz U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2233 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 This interdisciplinary effort emphasized studies FOREWORD of the transport of the major nutrient species and of suspended sediment. The movement of these sub­ Tidal rivers and estuaries are very important stances through five major reaches or control volumes features of the Coastal Zone because of their immense of the tidal Potomac River and Estuary was determined biological productivity and their proximity to centers of during 1980 and 1981. This effort provided a commerce and population. Most of the shellfish and framework on which to assemble a variety of investiga­ much of the local finfish consumed by man are harvest­ tions: ed from estuaries and tidal rivers. Many of the world's (1) The generation and deposition of sediments, largest shipping ports are located within estuaries. nutrients, and trace metals from the Holocene to the Many estuaries originate as river valleys drowned by present was determined by sampling surficial bottom rising sea level and are geologically ephemeral features, sediments and analyzing their characteristics and distri­ destined eventually to fill with sediments.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Ash Threatens Mallows
    MAY 2016, VOLUME 13, ISSUE 1 RIVER WATCH® The Offi cial Newsletter of POTOMAC RIVERKEEPER NETWORK COAL ASH THREATENS MALLOWS BAY Dominion Coal Ash Plan Threatens Potomac ground to leach pollution into nearby waterways and possibly pAGE 2 River and Mallows Bay National Marine Sanctuary residents’ drinking water wells for the foreseeable future. LETTER FROM THE Last October, Potomac Riverkeeper (PRK) was thrilled to learn Despite overwhelming opposition from the state of Maryland, PRESIDENT about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Potomac River Fisheries Commission, Potomac Riverkeeper (NOAA) proposal to create a National Marine Sanctuary at Network, Maryland Watermen’s Association and over 450 Mallows Bay, on the Potomac River in Charles County, Mary- individuals and organizations, Virginia approved the permit pAGE 3 land. The Bay contains one of the largest assemblages of his- in January 2016. In response, PRK and the State of Maryland BAD ACTOR VS. UNIN- toric shipwrecks in North America, known as the “Ghost Fleet”, fi led separate appeals in state court, challenging the state’s TENTIONAL FAILURES and provides valuable habitat for striped bass, blue crabs, os- failure to require strict pollution limits based on the best tech- prey and bald eagles. The State of nology available. PRK pointed out Maryland, elected offi cials and advo- the shocking disparity between Vir- pAGE 4 cacy groups, including PRK, strongly ginia’s lax permit and North Carolina DOMINION OIL SPILL, supported the nomination. Unfor- permits – one example is Virginia’s WEAK STATE & FEDERAL tunately, our excitement was soon permit limit for arsenic of 220 parts RESPONSE tainted by the news that Dominion per billion, twenty times higher Power was seeking permission from than the limit set in North Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • TNW Report.Pdf
    ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL DETERMINATION OF TRADITIONALLY NAVIGABLE WATERS IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA AND A COMPREHENSIVE METHODOLOGY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE TRADITIONAL NAVIGABILITY OF WATERWAYS IN THE UNITED STATES Goose Creek Canal, Loudoun County Virginia William P. Barse, Ph.D. and Boyd Sipe July 2007 5300 Wellington Branch Drive • Suite 100 • Gainesville, VA 20155 • Phone 703.679.5600 • Fax 703.679.5601 www.wetlandstudies.com A Division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. ABSTRACT This document presents the results of an archival and documentary study on the Traditional Navigability of Waterways in Northern Virginia. The study area is depicted in Attachment 1 of this report and is roughly bounded by the Potomac River on the north and east, the Opequon Creek watershed on the west and the Rappahannock River watershed on the south. The study was conducted by Thunderbird Archeology, a division of Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. of Gainesville, Virginia. The purposes of this work are threefold. The primary purpose is to assist consultants and regulators in completing Section III of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Approved Jurisdictional Form. In order to accomplish this goal, a working definition of what constitutes Traditional Navigable Waterways was prepared. This definition will aid in the determination of Waters of the United States jurisdiction for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers within the study area. Secondly, using specific archeological and historical information, the paper demonstrates that certain rivers and streams can be identifiable as Traditional Navigable Waterways. It is also possible to consider the use of streams for recreation, e.g.
    [Show full text]