DOCSLIB.ORG

Smith Mountain Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Smith Mountain Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program Smith Mountain Lake Water Quality Monitoring Program SMLA Ferrum College Prepared by Dr. Carolyn L. Thomas and Dr. David M. Johnson Life Sciences Division Ferrum College Sponsored by The Smith Mountain Lake Association Funded by American Electric Power Bedford County Franklin County Pittsylvania County Tri-county Lake Administrative Commission May 2004 SMLA WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 2003 CONTENTS CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... i FIGURES...........................................................................................................................iii TABLES ............................................................................................................................. v 2003 Officers ....................................................................................................................vii 2003 Directors...................................................................................................................vii 2003 Smith Mountain Lake Volunteer Monitors.............................................................viii 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Conclusions.......................................................................................................1 1.2 The Facts Supporting These Conclusions................................................................1 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 3. METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 4. RESULTS FROM TROPHIC STATUS MONITORING............................................ 8 4.1 Lake Stations............................................................................................................9 4.1.1 Variation of Trophic Parameters during the 2003 Sample Season ..................9 4.1.2 Variation of Trophic Parameters with Distance from the Dam .....................11 4.2 Tributary Stations...................................................................................................14 4.2.1 Variation of total phosphorus and nitrate during the sampling season..........14 4.2.2 Tributary Concentration of Total Phosphorus and Nitrate by Year...............16 4.2.3 Seasonal Average Nutrient Concentrations for each Tributary .....................16 4.3 Results for Sample Sites Below the Dam ..............................................................18 4.4 Summary of Section...............................................................................................19 5. BACTERIA IN SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE ........................................................... 21 5.1 Fecal Coliform Monitoring....................................................................................21 5.1.1 Results............................................................................................................23 5.2 Escherichia coli Monitoring...................................................................................27 5.2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................27 5.2.2 Methods..........................................................................................................28 CONTENTS i SMLA WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 2003 5.2.3 Results............................................................................................................28 5.3 Optical Brightener Method Evaluation..................................................................31 5.4 Bacterial Source Tracking......................................................................................32 5.4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................32 5.4.2 Sample Sites...................................................................................................33 5.4.3 Results............................................................................................................33 6. WATER QUALITY TRENDS................................................................................... 38 6.1 Water Quality Trends by Zone ..............................................................................38 6.2 Carlson’s Trophic State Index ...............................................................................48 7. QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE ................................................... 55 8. SAMPLING EFFICIENCY........................................................................................ 56 9. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 57 10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................ 60 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 61 APPENDIX....................................................................................................................... 62 CONTENTS ii SMLA WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 2003 FIGURES Figure 1. Average total phosphorus concentration for each sampling week in 2003........................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2. Average nitrate concentration for each sampling week in 2003............... 10 Figure 3. Average chlorophyll-a concentration for each sampling week in 2003. .. 11 Figure 4. Average Secchi depth for each sampling week in 2003. .......................... 11 Figure 5. Variation of total phosphorus concentration with distance from the dam............................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6. Variation of nitrate concentration with distance from dam. ..................... 13 Figure 7. Variation of chlorophyll-a concentration with distance from the dam..... 14 Figure 8. Variation of Secchi depth with distance from the dam............................. 14 Figure 9. Average total phosphorus concentration at tributary stations per week. .. 15 Figure 10. Average nitrate concentration at tributary stations per week.................... 16 Figure 11. Seasonal average total phosphorus concentration for each tributary........ 17 Figure 12. Seasonal average nitrate concentration for each tributary. ....................... 18 Figure 13. Fecal coliforms vs. week sampled on Smith Mountain Lake in 2003...... 24 Figure 14. Mean fecal coliform count vs. site type on Smith Mountain Lake 2003 (7 marina sites, 5 non-marina sites, and 2 headwater sites)...................... 24 Figure 15. Mean fecal coliform count vs. sample site on Smith Mountain Lake 2003........................................................................................................... 25 Figure 16. Sum of fecal coliform counts for Smith Mountain Lake in 2003 at each site for all sample dates............................................................................. 25 Figure 17. Mean fecal coliform counts per site type and year sampled for Smith Mountain Lake.......................................................................................... 27 Figure 18. Total coliform and Escherichia coli colonies per site sampled at Smith Mountain Lake in 2003 using the Coliblue™ method for the August 6th sample date................................................................................................ 30 Figure 19. Escherichia coli average colonies per site sampled at Smith Mountain Lake in 2003 using the Coliblue™ method. ............................................. 30 Figure 20. Percent of Escherichia coli colonies per total coliforms per site sampled at Smith Mountain Lake in 2003 using the Coliblue™ method. 31 Figure 21. Percent of Escherichia coli colonies per fecal coliform colony per site sampled at Smith Mountain Lake in 2003 using the Biolog™ method.... 31 Figure 22. Percent of bacteria isolates from four potential sources in Franklin County tributaries in 2003 ........................................................................ 36 FIGURES iii SMLA WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM 2003 Figure 23. Percent of bacteria isolates from four potential sources in Bedford County tributaries...................................................................................... 36 Figure 24. Percent of bacteria isolates from four potential sources in Pittsylvania County....................................................................................................... 37 Figure 25. Percent of bacteria isolates from four potential sources from all sample sites in 2003. ............................................................................................. 37 Figure 26. Average annual total phosphorus concentration by year and zone in Smith Mountain Lake. .............................................................................. 40 Figure 26. Average annual total phosphorus concentration by year and zone in Smith Mountain Lake (cont.).................................................................... 41 Figure 27. Average annual chlorophyll-a concentration by year and zone in Smith Mountain Lake.......................................................................................... 42 Figure 27. Average annual chlorophyll-a concentration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of the Trophic Support Capacity of Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia, for Piscivorous Fish
    ANALYSIS OF THE TROPHIC SUPPORT CAPACITY OF SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE, VIRGINIA, FOR PISCIVOROUS FISH Michael J. Cyterski Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences John J. Ney, Chair Donald J. Orth Brian R. Murphy Clint W. Coakley James M. Berkson June, 1999 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Striped Bass, Clupeids, Production, Bioenergetics, Hydroacoustics Copyright 1999, Michael J. Cyterski ANALYSIS OF THE TROPHIC SUPPORT CAPACITY OF SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE, VIRGINIA, FOR PISCIVOROUS FISH Michael J. Cyterski (ABSTRACT) This investigation examined the adequacy of the forage base to meet current demand of piscivores in Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia. Surplus production, or the maximum sustainable supply, of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) were determined using data on the biomass, growth, and mortality of each species. Mean hydroacoustic alewife biomass from 1993-1998 was 37 kg/ha and mean gizzard shad cove rotenone biomass from 1990-1997 was 112 kg/ha. Mean annual alewife surplus production was determined to be 73 kg/ha and mean annual gizzard shad surplus production totaled 146 kg/ha. Bioenergetics modeling and population density estimates were utilized to derive the annual food consumption (realized demand) of the two most popular sport fish in the system, striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). The striped bass population consumed 46 kg/ha of alewife and 27 kg/ha of gizzard shad annually. Largemouth bass ate 9 kg/ha of alewife and 15 kg/ha of gizzard shad annually.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackwater River Waterbodies Improved High Sediment Loadings Led to Violations of the General Standard for Aquatic Life Use in Virginia’S Blackwater River
    NONPOINT SOURCE SUCCESS STORY Agricultural Best Management PracticesVirginia Improve Aquatic Life in the Blackwater River Waterbodies Improved High sediment loadings led to violations of the general standard for aquatic life use in Virginia’s Blackwater River. As a result, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) added two segments of the Lower Blackwater River to the 2008 Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Landowners installed agricultural best management practices (BMPs); these decreased edge-of-field sediment loading and helped improve water quality. Because of this improvement, DEQ removed two segments of the Blackwater River from Virginia’s 2014 list of impaired waters for biological impairment. Problem The Blackwater River watershed is in Franklin County, Virginia, in the Roanoke River Basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 03010101). The watershed lies north of Rocky Mount, Virginia, approximately 15 miles south of Roanoke, Virginia. The Blackwater River flows southeastward and empties into Smith Mountain Lake (Figure 1). The Upper Blackwater River watershed (70,303 acres) is 69% forest, 18% pasture and hay- land, 7% cropland and less than 1% urban. The Lower Blackwater River watershed (20,504 acres) is 58% forest, 33% agricultural, 8% urban and 2% water. Biological sampling conducted at monitoring sta- tion 4ABWR029.51 in 2004 showed Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) scores of 60.7 in the spring and 50.1 in the fall. The VSCI score is a macroinver- Figure 1. The Blackwater River is in southwest Virginia. tebrate and fish community index, a composite mea- sure of the number and types of pollution-sensitive these segments was excessive sedimentation.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Adoption Resolutions
    Appendix A: Adoption Resolutions Appendix A: Adoption Resolutions Placeholder for Adoption Resolutions CVPDC Hazard Mitigation Plan 2020 Update A-1 Appendix B: FEMA Crosswalk Appendix B: FEMA Crosswalk REGULATION CHECKLIST CROSSWALK REFERENCE # ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS A1. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it was Section 3: Planning prepared and who was involved in the process for each jurisdiction? Process (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring communities local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation Section 3.6: Coordination activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate development as with other Agencies, well as other interests to be involved in the planning process? Entities, and Plans (Requirement §201.6(b)(2)) A3. Does the Plan document how the public was involved in the Section 3.7: Public planning process during the drafting stage? (Requirement §201.6(b)(1)) Involvement 5.3: Planning Capabilities, A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing 6.0: Mitigation, 7.2: Plan plans, studies, reports, and technical information (Requirement Integration and §201.6(b)(3)) Implementation A5. Is there discussion of how the community(ies) will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process (Requirement 7.4: Public Involvement §201.6(c)(4)(iii)) A6. Is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the 7.3: Evaluating and plan current (monitoring, evaluating and updating the mitigation plan Updating within a 5-year cycle)? (Requirement 201.6(c)(4)(i)) ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT B1. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and extent 4.0: Hazard Identification of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? (Requirement and Risk Assessment §201.6(c)(2)(i)) B2.
    [Show full text]
  • Franklin County Health Assessment (CHNA)
    Page | 1 Table of Contents Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................. 5 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 6 Project Management Team ................................................................................................... 6 Community Health Assessment Team (CHAT) ........................................................................ 6 CHAT Members ................................................................................................................ 7 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 8 Method ............................................................................................................................ 8 Findings ........................................................................................................................... 8 Response ......................................................................................................................... 9 Target Population ................................................................................................................ 10 Service Area ........................................................................................................................ 10 Community Health Improvement Process ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Conditions
    NATURAL CONDITIONS This section of the Comprehensive Plan Update discusses the natural conditions and physical characteristics for the County. Air quality, climate, soils, slope or topography, water, floodplains, and geology are important factors in the physical development of a locality and can directly and indirectly affect economic growth and development. Land use, housing, and transportation planning are directly influenced by physical factors since, for example, intensive land use tends to proceed along patterns which first consume land which is the most problem free: smooth, low slope topography; good soil characteristics; away from floodplains; and good depth to bedrock. Franklin County, seventh in size among Virginia counties, is located in the south- central part of Virginia. The County is bounded on the north by Roanoke and Bedford Counties, on the east by Pittsylvania County, on the south by Henry and Patrick Counties, and on the west by Floyd County. The Blue Ridge Mountains border the County on the north and west, and the Roanoke River and Smith Mountain Lake bound the County in the northeast. In the southwest is Philpott Lake and in the southeast is Turkeycock Mountain/Wildlife Management Area. Geological Structure and Mineral Resources Franklin County is situated in two major physiographic provinces. Approximately two-thirds of the County is in the Piedmont Province, while the remaining land area, the County's western section, is in the Blue Ridge Province. The Piedmont Province is a maturely dissected upland underlain by a vast complex of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks which are predominantly of the Precambrian Age. The Blue Ridge Province is a remnant of a former highland which is formed by complexly folded and faulted Precambrian and Cambrian rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Our Guide
    Welcome to the Outdoor Recreation Guide– your personal guide to outdoor adventure in and around the Roanoke Region of Virginia. Over 30 hand- picked recommendations ensure you find the perfect adventure. Don’t just sit there – Get Outside! Outdoor Recreation Highlights in the Roanoke Region of Virginia • The most visited National Park in the U.S. – the Blue Ridge Parkway • The longest footpath in the U.S. – the Appalachian Trail • The 2nd largest municipal park in the U.S. – Carvins Cove Natural Reserve • Four State Parks – Douthat, Smith Mountain Lake, Claytor Lake, & New River Trail • Smith Mountain Lake and Lake Moomaw are ideal for boating and fishing • Over 140 miles of trails that exist as part of the region’s extensive greenway system • Two major rivers, the James and the New Find more events, adventures, CONTENTS attractions, and people Overview Map………………. I - - - - - - - - - - - Hiking Adventures………… II Visit the Roanoke Outside Biking Adventures………… III Facebook group to see what’s going on with the Water Adventures…………. IV local outdoor community - - - - - - - - - - - Outdoor Attractions……….. V Tweet a question and Outfitters & Guides………... VI get answers from the local community by Outdoor Stores…………….. VII sending a message to @Roanoke_Outside and including #roaout in your message Hiking Adventure McAfee Knob is the most photographed site along the Appalachian Trail which crosses 14 states on its 2,178 mile journey from Georgia to Maine. The Knob has an almost 270 degree panorama of the Catawba Valley and North Mountain to the west, Tinker Cliffs to the north and the Roanoke Valley to the east. Hopefully, you will get to meet a thru-hiker - a person hiking the entire trail from Georgia to Maine.
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Mountain Lake Association Water Quality Monitoring Program
    Smith Mountain Lake Association Water Quality Monitoring Program 1995 Report Carolyn L. Thomas and David M. Johnson Ferrum College Ferrum, Virginia 24088 In Cooperation with The Smith Mountain Lake Association Moneta, Virginia 24121 December 1995 SMLA Water Quality Monitoring Program 1995 CONTENTS CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... i FIGURES...........................................................................................................................iii TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iv 1995 Officers ...................................................................................................................... v 1995 Directors..................................................................................................................... v 1995 Smith Mountain Lake Volunteer Monitors............................................................... vi 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3 3. METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 4. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Official Statement Relating to the Issuance Of
    In the opinion of Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLP, New York, New York, Bond Counsel to the City, under existing statutes and court decisions and assuming compliance with certain tax covenants described herein, interest on the Bonds (i) is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes pursuant to Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) and (ii) is not treated as a preference item in calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed on individuals and corporations under the Code; such interest, however, is included in the adjusted current earnings of certain corporations for purposes of calculating the alternative minimum tax imposed on such corporations. In addition, in the opinion of Bond Counsel to the City, under the existing statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia, interest on the Bonds is not includable in computing the Virginia income tax. See “TAX MATTERS” herein. RATINGS: NEW ISSUE — Fitch: AA+ BOOK-ENTRY ONLY Moody’s: Aa2 Standard & Poor’s: AA+ (See “RATINGS” herein) Official Statement Relating To The Issuance Of $115,190,000 City Of Lynchburg, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement and Refunding Bonds, Series 2014 Dated: Date of Delivery Due: As Shown On Inside Cover This Official Statement has been prepared by the City of Lynchburg to provide information on the Bonds. Selected information is presented on this cover page for the convenience of the reader. To make an informed decision regarding the Bonds, a prospective investor should read this Official Statement in its entirety. Purpose The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance the costs of various public improvement projects of and for the City, to pay the outstanding principal of a general obligation note issued to finance the costs of various public improvement projects of and for the City, and to refund and defease certain outstanding general obligation bonds of the City (see “INTRODUCTION” and “PLAN OF REFUNDING” herein).
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project What Is the Smith Mountain Project?
    Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project What is the Smith Mountain Project? The Smith Mountain Project is a federally- licensed hydroelectric facility consisting of Smith Mountain Dam two (2) dams and two (2) lakes. Leesville Dam What is the Smith Mountain Project? The Project is unique in that it recycles water between the two lakes in a process Smith Mountain Dam known as “pumped storage.” Leesville Dam What is the Smith Mountain Project? Water from the upper reservoir (Smith Mountain Lake) passes through turbines at Smith Mountain Dam to generate electricity, then is released into the lower reservoir (Leesville Lake). Water can be pumped back into Smith Mountain Lake for re-use, or passed through turbines at Leesville Dam to generate more electricity before being released downstream. What is the Smith Mountain Project? Pumped-storage allows the Smith Mountain Project to generate 636 megawatts of electricity – approximately 10-times more energy than a conventional run-of-the-river hydro facility. The primary purpose of the Project is to generate electricity. This is known as the “Project Use.” The Project also benefits the local community by providing opportunities for: • public recreation • scenic enjoyment • fish & wildlife habitat • economic development What is the Smith Mountain Project? The Smith Mountain Project includes • more than 25,000 acres of water • more than 600 miles of shoreline • more than 13,000 individual parcels of land adjacent to the Project boundary Appalachian Power is responsible for managing various operational
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Mountain Lake State Park 1235 State Park Road Huddleston, Virginia 24104-9547
    Smith Mountain Lake State Park 1235 State Park Road Huddleston, Virginia 24104-9547 SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE STATE PARK MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2020 UPDATE Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Planning and Recreation Resources 600 E Main Street, 24th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 Smith Mountain Lake State Park MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2020 UPDATE Presented for review at a public meeting on September 30, 2019, then recommended for adoption by the Board of Conservation and Recreation on January 6, 2020, and then reviewed for 30 days by the Virginia General Assembly. Adopted: ________/S/_________________ March 2, 2020 Clyde E. Cristman, Director Date Department of Conservation and Recreation SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE STATE PARK MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2020 UPDATE Park Purpose Statement “The purpose of Smith Mountain Lake State Park is to provide premiere outdoor recreational and educational opportunities associated with Virginia’s largest lake, while interpreting the natural, historical, and cultural resources of the west piedmont region of Virginia.” Introduction The Smith Mountain Lake State Park Master Plan Executive Summary is an update to the official unabridged master plan document adopted in 2003 by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Board. This 2020 executive summary represents the most recent ten year review mandated in §10.1-200.1 of the Code of Virginia. Smith Mountain Lake State Park is on the 20,600-acre Smith Mountain Lake that was created in 1960 when Appalachian Power Company (now American Electric Power) built a dam on the Roanoke River in Smith Mountain Gap. Construction of the dam was completed in 1966, and a year later Appalachian Power donated the first parcel of land to the Commonwealth for the establishment of the state park.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pros & Cons
    Table of Contents Introduction: Welcome to Smith Mountain Lake! Chapter 1: Waterfront, Water Access, or Near the Lake Chapter 2: Vacation and Retirement Homes Chapter 3: Price Ranges at Smith Mountain Lake Chapter 4: Community Living vs. Private Property Chapter 5: Main Channel vs. Back of Cove Chapter 6: Franklin, Bedford, or Pittsylvania County Chapter 7: Ready-to-Move vs. Fixer-Upper Chapter 8: The House or the Lot: Which Matters More? Chapter 9: Should You Buy or Build? The Pros & Cons Chapter 10: A Quick Guide to Recreation at Smith Mountain Lake Debbie Shelton | 540.797.3177 | [email protected] Introduction: Welcome to Smith Mountain Lake! The pristine and breathtaking Smith Mountain Lake, the “Jewel of the Blue Ridge Mountains,” is nestled in the Blue Ridge Mountains of southwestern Virginia. This 20,600-acre, 40-mile long lake was created in 1966 by a hydro-electric power dam at the base of Smith Mountain. Two rivers, the Roanoke and the Blackwater, feed into Smith Mountain Lake and keeps its waters fresh and clean. Desirable Real Estate, Affordable Living Smith Mountain Lake, known locally as SML, is the most popular lake in Virginia. With 500 miles of shoreline, a swimming season that lasts from May through September, exceptional recreational activities and water sports, and friendly communities all around, SML is a fantastic place to live, play, and vacation. This region features some of the most affordable lakefront and water access living in the country. At SML, you’ll find something for every budget. About This Guide The search for the perfect property at Smith Mountain Lake can be daunting.
    [Show full text]
  • Leesville Lake 2019 Water Quality Monitoring
    Leesville Lake 2019 Water Quality Monitoring Prepared for: Leesville Lake Association Prepared by: Dr. Thomas Shahady University of Lynchburg Ethan Batchelor University of Lynchburg February 2019 Funds Supplied by: American Electric Power & Leesville Lake Association 2019 ‐ Leesville Lake Water Quality Monitoring Report (Page Left Intentionally Blank) 2 Leesville Lake Water Quality Monitoring Report ‐ 2019 Table of Contents Page List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...4 List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..5 List of Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………..7 Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………..…8 Section 1: Current Conditions (2019)……………………………………………………..10 1.1 General 1.2 Methods 1.3 Water Quality: Current Test Results (2019) 1.3.1 Temporal Analysis by Station 1.3.1.1 Dam (Lacustrine) 1.3.1.2 Leesville Lake Marina 1.3.1.3 Tri County Marina 1.3.1.4 Mile Marker 6 (Transition) 1.3.1.5 Mile Marker 9 1.3.1.6 Toler Bridge (Riverine) 1.3.1.7 Pigg River 1.3.1.8 Smith Mountain Lake Tail waters Section 2: Lake Wide Trends……………………………………………………….……49 2.1 Analysis of Trophic State 2.2 Statistical Analysis 2.3 Pigg River Study Section 3: Management Implications………………………………………………….…65 References Appendix A: Background of Water Quality Program Appendix B: Water Parameter Testing Details Appendix C: Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) Appendix D: Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) Checklist Appendix E: Initial Pigg River Water Quality Study Appendix F: Collected Data 2019 3 2019 ‐ Leesville Lake Water Quality Monitoring
    [Show full text]