DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Quality in the Potomac River Basin Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia, 1992–96

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Quality in the Potomac River Basin Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia, 1992–96 science for a changing world Water Quality in the Potomac River Basin Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia, 1992–96 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1166 A COORDINATED EFFORT Coordination among agencies and organizations is an integral part of the NAWQA Program. We thank the following agencies and organizations who contributed data used in this report. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments We also thank the following agencies and organizations for contributing advice and comments on study design and results. District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Resources for the Future Regulatory Affairs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District of Columbia Water Resources Research Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service University of the District of Columbia U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Conservation Service Johns Hopkins University U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Maryland Department of the Environment Chesapeake Bay Program Maryland Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Maryland Geological Survey U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maryland Water Resources Research Institute, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality University of Maryland Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Virginia Water Resources Research Institute, Virginia National Park Service Polytechnic Institute and State University Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, West Virginia Water Resources Institute, Division of Assessments and Standards West Virginia University Pennsylvania Environmental Resources Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University Data for this report were collected by many people, including John Battista, Bruce Bernard, Amy Derosier, Gary Fisher, James Gerhart, Liz Gno, Michael Hackney, Kalman Illyefalvi, Phyllis Illyefalvi, James Jeffries, Jon Kaye, Sarah Kelley, Stephen Maskol, Mastin Mount, Michael Shackelford, Gianni Venturi, and William Werkheiser. Cover photograph credits: Front: The Potomac River at Great Falls, Virginia, by James Gerhart, U.S. Geological Survey Back, left: The Potomac River at Washington, D.C., by James Gerhart, U.S. Geological Survey Back, right: Confluence of the Shenandoah (left) and Potomac Rivers at Harpers Ferry, W.Va., by James Gerhart, U.S. Geological Survey FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT (NAWQA) PROGRAM: Potomac River Study Unit, contact: District Chief Chief, NAWQA Program U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division Water Resources Division 8987 Yellow Brick Road 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, M.S. 413 Baltimore, MD 21237 Reston, VA 20192 Information on the NAWQA Program is also available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the NAWQA Home Page using the Universal Resources Locator (URL): http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/get?nawqa/ The Potomac River Basin Study Unit’s Home Page is at URL: http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/get?mdwater/pnawqa/ Water Quality in the Potomac River Basin, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, 1992–96 By Scott W. Ator, Joel D. Blomquist, John W. Brakebill, Janet M. Denis, Matthew J. Ferrari, Cherie V. Miller, and Humbert Zappia U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1166 CONTENTS National Water-Quality Assessment Program................................. 1 Summary of major issues and findings ............................................ 2 Environmental setting ......................................................................... 4 Hydrologic conditions...........................................................................5 Major issues and findings ................................................................... 6 Nutrients and pesticides in streams and ground water ............. 6 Nutrients ....................................................................................... 6 Pesticides.......................................................................................10 Organic contaminants and metals in streams..............................16 Streambed sediment ....................................................................17 Aquatic tissues..............................................................................18 Radon in ground water ...................................................................20 Recent water-quality trends and outlook .....................................21 Water-quality conditions in a national context................................22 Study design and data collection.......................................................26 Summary of compound detections and concentrations.................28 References..............................................................................................34 Glossary.................................................................................................37 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government 1998 Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25286 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Water Quality in the Potomac River Basin, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, 1992–96 by Scott W. Ator ... [et al.]. p. cm. -- (U.S. Geological Survey Circular : 1166) 1. Water Quality--Potomac River Basin. I. Ator, Scott W. II. Series. TD225.P74W35 1998 363.739’42’09752--dc21 98-4567 CIP ISBN 0-607-89112-2 NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM “Potomac NAWQA studies are contributing valuable EXPLANATION information on water quality/ Began in 1991 land use issues vital to Began in 1994 Began in 1997 effective management of the Not scheduled yet Chesapeake Bay ecosys- tem.” —Dr. Emery Cleaves, Knowledge of the quality of the Nation's streams and aquifers is important because Director, Maryland of the implications to human and aquatic health and because of the significant costs associated with decisions involving land and water management, conservation, and Geological Survey, regulation. In 1991, the U.S. Congress appropriated funds for the U.S. Geological Baltimore, Maryland Survey (USGS) to begin the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to help meet the continuing need for sound, scientific information on the areal extent of water-quality problems, how these problems are changing with time, and an under- “As one involved in sharing standing of the effects of human actions and natural factors on water quality condi- information with both the tions. public and other agencies The NAWQA Program is assessing the water-quality conditions of more than 50 of addressing water resources the Nation's largest river basins and aquifers, known as Study Units. Collectively, these Study Units cover about one-half of the United States and include sources of issues in the Shenandoah drinking water used by about 70 percent of the U.S. population. Comprehensive River Basin, the Potomac assessments of about one-third of the Study Units are ongoing at a given time. Each NAWQA study has been Study Unit is scheduled to be revisited every decade to evaluate changes in water- quite helpful. This particular quality conditions. NAWQA assessments rely heavily on existing information col- publication, summarizing a lected by the USGS and many other agencies as well as the use of nationally consis- considerable amount of tent study designs and methods of sampling and analysis. Such consistency simulta- neously provides information about the status and trends in water-quality conditions water quality data through in a particular stream or aquifer and, more importantly, provides the basis to make informative graphics and comparisons among watersheds and improve our understanding of the factors that excellent maps, should affect water-quality conditions regionally and nationally. serve as a convenient refer- This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 ence to others interested in and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the Potomac River Basin Study Unit knowing more about our and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. valuable water resources.” The information is primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Indeed, this report addresses many of the concerns raised by regulators, water-utility managers, industry representatives, and other scientists, engineers, pub- —Thomas Mizell, lic officials, and members of stakeholder groups who provided advice and input to the Virginia Department of USGS during this NAWQA Study-Unit investigation. Yet, the information contained Environmental Quality, here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water Harrisonburg, Virgina. in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live. Robert M. Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1166
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    Photo by King Montgomery. by Photo Table of Contents 7 Foreword 8 Fly Fishing Virginia 11 Flies to Use in Virginia 17 Top Virginia Fly Fishing Waters 19 Accotink Creek 21 Back Creek 25 Big Wilson Creek 29 Briery Creek Lake 33 Chesapeake Bay Islands Beasley. Beau by Photo 37 Conway River 41 Dragon Run 43 Gwynn Island 47 Holmes Run Beasley. Beau by Photo 51 Holston River, South Fork 53 Jackson River, Lower Section 59 Jackson River, Upper Section 63 James River, Lower Section 67 James River, Upper Section 71 Lake Brittle 75 Lynnhaven River, Bay, & Inlet 79 Maury River 4 Photo by Eric Evans. Eric by Photo 83 Mossy Creek 87 New River, Lower Section 91 New River, Upper Section 95 North Creek 97 Passage Creek 99 Piankatank River 101 Rapidan River, Lower Section Beasley. Beau by Photo 105 Rapidan River, Upper Section 109 Rappahannock River, Lower Section 113 Rappahannock River, Upper Section 117 Rivanna River 121 Rose River 125 Rudee Inlet 129 Shenandoah River, North Fork Photo by Beau Beasley. Beau by Photo 133 Shenandoah River, South Fork 137 South River 141 St. Mary’s River 145 Whitetop Laurel Creek Chris Newsome. by Photo 148 Private Waters 151 Resources 155 Conservation 156 Other No Nonsense Guides 158 Fly Fishing Knots 5 Arlington 81 66 Interstate South U.S. Highway River 95 State Highway 81 Other Roadway 64 64 Richmond Virginia Boat Launch 64 460 Fish Hatchery Roanoke Hampton 81 95 To Campground 77 58 Hermitage 254 To Grottoes To 340 Staunton ay rkw n Pa ema Hop 254 ver Ri 250 h ut So 340 340 1 Waynesboro To 2 Staunton 2 3 664 64 624 To Charlottesville 250 er iv R h ut 64 So 624 To 1 Constitution Park–Home of Charlottesville Virginia Fly Fishing Festival 2 Good Wading 3 Low water dam South River 136 South River outh River is one of the most underrated fisheries in the Old Dominion.
    [Show full text]
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans
    AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: BENEFITS OF TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS Leonard P. Gianessi Janet E. Carpenter April 2000 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy 1616 P Street, NW, First Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-328-5048 Fax: 202-328-5133 [email protected] Preparation of this report was supported financially with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. U.S. Soybean Production 3. Soybean Products 4. Soybean Physiology 5. Soybeans – Agronomic Factors 6. Soybean Genetic Improvements A. Introduction B. Reproductive Process C. Artificial Cross Breeding D. Mutation Breeding E. Transgenic Plants 7. Weed Competition – Soybeans 8. Weed Control in Soybeans: 1940’s – 1950’s 9. Herbicides – An Overview 10. Herbicide Use in Soybeans: 1960’s – 1995 A. Introduction B. Historical Overview 1. The Early 1960’s 2. Soil Applied Herbicides 3. Postemergence Herbicides 4. Sulfonylurea/Imidazolinone Herbicides 5. Burndown Herbicides C. Summary of Usage: 1995 11. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans A. Glyphosate – An Overview B. Performance of Roundup Ready Soybeans C. Herbicide Ratings D. Adoption Impacts: 1995 – 1998 1. Herbicide Costs 2. Soybean Yields 3. Returns 4. Other Aggregate Studies 5. Herbicide Treatments 6. Herbicide Use Amounts 7. Other Impacts 12. Summary and Conclusions 13. References Appendix 1: Soybean Processing – A Description 1. Introduction Soybeans and other crops have been improved genetically for many decades through traditional crop breeding – a technique that requires that species be sexually compatible. With the development of biotechnology methods, scientists have the ability to transfer single genes from one living organism into another, regardless of species or sexual compatibility. Varieties that are developed through the transfer of genes between species that are not sexually compatible are referred to as “transgenic.” Transgenic soybean plants have been developed with a gene from a soil bacteria that allows the use of an herbicide that would normally kill soybeans.
    [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]
  • River Watch Spring 2010
    The Newsletter of Potomac RiveRkeepeR, Inc. Volume 7, Issue 1, Winter 2010 495 HOT Lanes Construction Polluting In This Issue Accotink Creek Agricultural Pollution in W. Virginia page 2 s snow pummeled northern Virginia, APotomac Riverkeeper took action against a major polluter in Fairfax Stormwater Regulations Stalled County, VA. page 3 As you might know, a portion of the I- 495 High Occupancy Toll (“HOT”) Lanes From the Board construction site is severely damaging page 4 Accotink Creek, the Potomac River, and the Chesapeake Bay. Sediment pollution News in Brief is leaving the site and has entered page 5 Accotink Creek and its tributaries on numerous occasions. Potomac Riverkeeper’s 10th Anniversary Potomac Riverkeeper and two individuals page 6 sought to end this problem by notifying Fluor-Lane LLC, the HOT Lanes developers, of our intent to sue under the Clean Water Upcoming Events Act (CWA) if Fluor-Lane continues to violate page 7 Virginia law and allow the pollution to enter Accotink Creek. Coverage of our Mattawoman WWTP Permit action ran in The Washington Post. page 8 Flour-Lane has not stopped polluting despite numerous complaints from the public and inspections from state Polluted water is leaving the HOT Lanes Get the DIRT Out agencies. If Fluor-Lane does not stop the construction site and entering Accotink Creek. Photo by Kris Unger. As you just read, some developers allow polluted sludge pollution and comply with the law, legal to run into our rivers and streams, leaving taxpayers action may be one of the few remaining the stream. He also made site visits and with a hefty clean up bill.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM
    ACTION: Original DATE: 08/20/2020 9:51 AM TO BE RESCINDED 3745-100-10 Applicable chemicals and chemical categories. [Comment: For dates of non-regulatory government publications, publications of recognized organizations and associations, federal rules, and federal statutory provisions referenced in this rule, see paragraph (FF) of rule 3745-100-01 of the Administrative Code titled "Referenced materials."] The requirements of this chapter apply to the following chemicals and chemical categories. This rule contains three listings. Paragraph (A) of this rule is an alphabetical order listing of those chemicals that have an associated "Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)" registry number. Paragraph (B) of this rule contains a CAS registry number order list of the same chemicals listed in paragraph (A) of this rule. Paragraph (C) of this rule contains the chemical categories for which reporting is required. These chemical categories are listed in alphabetical order and do not have CAS registry numbers. (A) Alphabetical listing: Chemical Name CAS Number abamectin (avermectin B1) 71751-41-2 acephate (acetylphosphoramidothioic acid o,s-dimethyl ester) 30560-19-1 acetaldehyde 75-07-0 acetamide 60-35-5 acetonitrile 75-05-8 acetophenone 98-86-2 2-acetylaminofluorene 53-96-3 acifluorfen, sodium salt [5-(2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy)-2- 62476-59-9 nitrobenzoic acid, sodium salt] acrolein 107-02-8 acrylamide 79-06-1 acrylic acid 79-10-7 acrylonitrile 107-13-1 [ stylesheet: rule.xsl 2.14, authoring tool: RAS XMetaL R2_0F1, (dv: 0, p: 185720, pa:
    [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]
  • Fish Consumption Advisories Available for 2010
    Fish Consumption Advisories Available for 2010 The West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) has updated the West Virginia Sport Fish Consumption Advisory for 2010. West Virginia DHHR, through an interagency agreement, partners with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Division of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop consumption advisories for fish caught in West Virginia. Fish consumption advisories are reviewed annually and help West Virginia anglers make educated choices about eating the fish they catch. Certain West Virginia sport fish have been found to have low levels of chemicals like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, selenium and dioxin. To protect the good health of West Virginians, the West Virginia DHHR offers an advisory for how often these fish can be safely eaten. An advisory is advice, and should not be viewed as law or regulation. It is intended to help anglers and their families make educated choices about: where to fish, what types of fish to eat, how to limit the amount and frequency of fish eaten, and how to prepare and cook fish to reduce contaminants. This advisory covers only sport fish caught in West Virginia waters. Safety regulations and advisories for fish in the market place are the responsibility of the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For more information you can contact the FDA at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm110591.htm The following updated 2010 advisory recommendation is the result of reviewing new and recent fish tissue data. Data collected from lakes and rivers in West Virginia show that a general statewide advisory of sport‐caught fish is appropriate.
    [Show full text]