DOCSLIB.ORG

Bacteria TMDL Development for Lower Chickahominy River Watershed Located in Charles City, James City, and New Kent Counties, VA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bacteria TMDL Development for Lower Chickahominy River Watershed Located in Charles City, James City, and New Kent Counties, VA W&M ScholarWorks Reports 2-24-2017 Bacteria TMDL Development for Lower Chickahominy River Watershed Located in Charles City, James City, and New Kent Counties, VA Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, and the Environmental Monitoring Commons Recommended Citation Virginia Institute of Marine Science. (2017) Bacteria TMDL Development for Lower Chickahominy River Watershed Located in Charles City, James City, and New Kent Counties, VA. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.25773/v5-wasd-ts57 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]. Bacteria TMDL Development for Lower Chickahominy River Watershed Located in Charles City, James City, and New Kent Counties, VA Prepared for: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Submitted by: Virginia Institute of Marine Science Submitted: February 24, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... vi 1.INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Regulations Background ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Watershed Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Recreation Use Impairments ...................................................................................................... 5 2.TMDL ENDPOINT AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 88 2.1 Applicable Water Quality Standards ............................................................................................. 8 2.2 Selection of a TMDL Endpoint .................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Discussion of In-stream Water Quality ......................................................................................... 9 3.BACTERIA SOURCE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Point Sources ............................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 Nonpoint Sources ...................................................................................................................... 18 4 TMDL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 32 4.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Selection of A TMDL Endpoint ............................................................................................... 32 4.3 Model Development for Computing TMDL ................................................................................ 32 4.4 Consideration of Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation ..................................................... 36 4.5 Margin of Safety ........................................................................................................................ 36 4.6 TMDL Computation ................................................................................................................. 36 4.7 Summary of TMDL and Load Allocation ...................................................................................... 39 5 IMPLEMENTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .................................................................................... 42 5.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 42 5.2 Staged Implementation ............................................................................................................. 42 5.3 Reasonable Assurance for Implementation ................................................................................ 43 5.4 Public Participation .................................................................................................................. 46 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 46 i APPENDIX A. MODEL DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. A1 A.1 Model Development .................................................................................................................. A1 A.2 Allowable Load Calculation ................................................................................................... A10 A.3 Sensitivity Test on Single Maximum Criteria by Reducing 50% of the Anthropogenic Source …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….A14 A.4 Total Maximum Daily Load ................................................................................................... A14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1: The Impaired Waters in the Lower Chickahominy River Watershed ................................... viii Figure 1.1: Location of the Lower Chickahominy River Watershed ............................................................ 2 Figure 1.2: Landuse of the Lower Chickahominy River Watershed............................................................. 4 Figure 1.3: Landuse Distribution in the Lower Chickahominy River Watershed ........................................ 5 Figure 1.4: Segments in the Lower Chickahominy River Watershed Impaired for Bacteria ....................... 6 Figure 2.1: VA-DEQ Monitoring Stations in the Enterococci Impaired Waters ........................................ 10 Figure 2.2: VA-DEQ Monitoring Stations in the E. coli Impaired Waters ................................................. 11 Figure 3.1: Subwatershed Delineation in the Lower Chickahominy River Watershed .............................. 14 Figure 3.2: Locations of the Individual Permits with WLAs, and the James City County VDOT and MS4 Areas ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3.3: Cumulative Frequency Distributions of SSOs in the Lower Chickahominy River Watershed 22 Figure 4.1: Modeling Process for TMDL Development ............................................................................. 33 Figure 4.2: Time Series Comparison of Daily Stream Flow between Model Simulation and Observations from USGS Stream Gage 2042500 in 2010 ................................................................................................ 34 Figure 4.3: Time Series Comparison of E. coli between Model Simulation and Observations in Mill Creek .................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 4.4: Time Series Comparison of Enterococci between Model Simulation and Observations at Two Stations in the Lower Chickahominy River. The Red Line Denotes the Single Sample Maximum of 104 cfu/100ml. ................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure A-1: Receiving Water Model Grid .................................................................................................. A3 Figure A-2: Time Series Comparison of the Daily Stream Flow between Model Simulation and Observed Data from USGS Gage 01484800 from 2010 to 2013. The X-axis is Days of the Year, and the Y-Axis is Flow in cfs................................................................................................................................................... A5 Figure A-3: 4-year Accumulated Daily Stream Flow Comparison between Model Simulation and USGS Observations ............................................................................................................................................... A5 Figure A-4: Comparison of the Modeled and Observed Bacteria Concentrations in Non-tidal Diascund Creek ........................................................................................................................................................... A6 Figure A-5: Comparison of the Modeled and Observed Bacteria Concentrations in Beaverdam Creek. (Data from All Stations are Merged Together.) .........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bacteria TMDL Development for Lower Chickahominy River Watershed Located in Charles City, James City, and New Kent Counties, VA
    Bacteria TMDL Development for Lower Chickahominy River Watershed Located in Charles City, James City, and New Kent Counties, VA Prepared for: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Submitted by: Virginia Institute of Marine Science Submitted: February 24, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... vi 1.INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Regulations Background ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Watershed Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Recreation Use Impairments .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Defining the Greater York River Indigenous Cultural Landscape
    Defining the Greater York River Indigenous Cultural Landscape Prepared by: Scott M. Strickland Julia A. King Martha McCartney with contributions from: The Pamunkey Indian Tribe The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe The Mattaponi Indian Tribe Prepared for: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay & Colonial National Historical Park The Chesapeake Conservancy Annapolis, Maryland The Pamunkey Indian Tribe Pamunkey Reservation, King William, Virginia The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe Adamstown, King William, Virginia The Mattaponi Indian Tribe Mattaponi Reservation, King William, Virginia St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland October 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of its management of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, the National Park Service (NPS) commissioned this project in an effort to identify and represent the York River Indigenous Cultural Landscape. The work was undertaken by St. Mary’s College of Maryland in close coordination with NPS. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept represents “the context of the American Indian peoples in the Chesapeake Bay and their interaction with the landscape.” Identifying ICLs is important for raising public awareness about the many tribal communities that have lived in the Chesapeake Bay region for thousands of years and continue to live in their ancestral homeland. ICLs are important for land conservation, public access to, and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. The three tribes, including the state- and Federally-recognized Pamunkey and Upper Mattaponi tribes and the state-recognized Mattaponi tribe, who are today centered in their ancestral homeland in the Pamunkey and Mattaponi river watersheds, were engaged as part of this project. The Pamunkey and Upper Mattaponi tribes participated in meetings and driving tours.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Character Technical Report
    Community Character Introduction James City County’s community character is often described as “historic,” “rural,” and “small town.” Key components include the natural topography; large wooded areas of tall deciduous forests; open vistas across ravines, wetlands, and water bodies; relatively low traffic volumes; scenic roads; and small scale, low-intensity development. Places such as Norge, Toano, Grove, Five Forks, and Jamestown bring to mind separate, identifiable areas of the County. However, this small town feel and sense of place has been challenged by the growth of the past 20 years, including an evolution to more urban and suburban landscapes. Modern development can change a locality’s character in a positive or negative way depending on the manner in which the growth occurs. Factors such as architectural style and massing, streetscape, buffers, scale, and accessibility can influence whether designs are distinctive and build the community’s character, or lack authenticity and are indistinguishable from those found anywhere else in the United States. Through its policies and Ordinances, the County continues to encourage new growth to locate inside the Primary Service Area (PSA), rather than outside the PSA in more rural areas. This is an important tool ensuring that development is in keeping with the existing community and preserves the elements of the County’s unique community character. The character of James City County is important to its citizens and business community members alike, and has contributed to the County’s attractiveness and growth through the years. As noted in the 2019 James City County Comprehensive Plan Survey (2019 Citizen Survey), preserving the nature of the area and its quality of life remains a high priority.
    [Show full text]
  • Chickahominy River Recreational Access Study
    Chickahominy River Recreational Access Study Prepared by the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission October 31, 2007 Town of Ashland Counties of Charles City Chesterfield Goochland Hanover Henrico New Kent Powhatan City of Richmond Richmond Regional Planning District Commission 9211 Forest Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Richmond, Virginia 23235 Phone: 804.323.2033 Fax: 804.323.2025 www.richmondregional.org For the hearing impaired, call the Virginia Relay Center at 1.800.828.1120. Richmond Regional Planning District Commission Planning district commissions make government more efficient and effective through coordinated planning and program analysis. Virginia's General Assembly created planning districts in 1968 under the authority of the Virginia Area Development Act - revised as the Regional Cooperation Act in 1995 - “to promote orderly and efficient development of the physical, social and economic elements of the districts.” Through planning district commissions, now 21 in number, local governments solve mutual problems which cross boundary lines and obtain expertise from professional staffs and advice on making the most of scarce taxpayer dollars through intergovernmental cooperation. Members Town of Ashland Hanover County New Kent County Faye O. Prichard Amy M. Cheeley Brenda L. Snyder John E. Gordon, Jr. Stran L. Trout Charles City County Elizabeth W. Moorhouse Powhatan County Michael L. Holmes Robert R. Setliff Robert R. Cosby Chesterfield County Russel E. Holland Henrico County David T. Williams Renny B. Humphrey Thomas M. Branin R.M. “Dickie” King James B. Donati, Jr. City of Richmond Sherman W. Litton Richard W. Glover Kathy C. Graziano Kelly E. Miller Jerilynn T. Grigsby John C. Grier George A. Roarty David A.
    [Show full text]
  • CHESAPEAKE BAY LOWLANDS ECOREGIONAL PLAN Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean
    CHESAPEAKE BAY LOWLANDS ECOREGIONAL PLAN Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean The Chesapeake Bay Lowlands Plan is a first iteration. The draft report that was distributed in hardcopy for review on 6/27/2002 is included on the CD. No updates were made to that version. CSS is now developing a standard template for ecoregional plans, which we have applied to the CBY ecoregional plan report. Some of the CBY results have been edited or updated for this version. Click on index in the navigation plane to browse the report sections. Note: The Bibliography (still slightly incomplete) contains the references cited in all report sections except for the Marine references, which have their own bibliography. What is the purpose of the report template? The purpose of creating a standard template for ecoregional plans in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic is twofold: — to compile concise descriptions of methodologies developed and used for ecoregional planning in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. These descriptions are meant to meet the needs of planning team members who need authoritative text to include in future plan documents, of science staff who need to respond to questions of methodology, and of program and state directors looking for material for general audience publications. — to create a modular resource whose pieces can be selected, incorporated in various formats, linked to in other documents, and updated easily. How does the template work? Methods are separated from results in this format, and the bulk of our work has gone into the standard methods sections. We have tried to make each methods section stand alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Culvert Assessment in the Lower James River Basin of Virginia
    Report to the Chesapeake Bay Trust GIT Contract 13671 March 1-December 1, 2016 2017 Culvert Assessment in the Lower James River Basin of Virginia Road-Stream Crossing Assessments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed of Pennsylvania Virginia Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office 11110 Kimages Road Charles City, VA 23030 M. Lisa Moss Northeast Fishery Center 308 Washington Avenue FebruaryLamar, PA 21, 16846 2017 Tom Kehler June 2018 VA updated report 2.2 Scope #2: Culvert Assessments for Fish Passage in Priority Watersheds Table of Contents Culvert Assessment in the Lower James River Basin of Virginia Background ..................................................................................................... 1 Project Purpose and Prioritization .................................................................... 2 Field Data Collection ........................................................................................ 7 Findings ........................................................................................................... 8 Alosine Prioritization and Crossing Type ................................................... 8 NAACC Scoring Systems ........................................................................ 10 Tidal Sites ............................................................................................... 18 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 19 References ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Anna PLUS JAMES, POTOMAC & BAY TIDES Part III Y Western Virginia Sport Show Adventure Feb
    25TH ANNIVERSARY SPECIAL EDITION Annual ATV Preview: From Arctic Cat to Yamaha! 4097'%0)2(%63*):)2878-()',%68783962%1)287;,%8·72);# October 2005 ()')1&)6 W2 Adventure Hunts u Waterfowl Hunt // December 6 r Wor oo ld d Whistling Wings, VA t O u f v Goose Hunt // December 27 O Magnum Fields, MD w Upland Bird Hunt // January 4 ods& ds Summerleas Farm, VA W W Want to go? See pg. 37 for details! aters aters& W 8LI6IKMSR·W8ST7SYVGI*SV*MWLMRK ,YRXMRK%HZIRXYVI7MRGIW W a terfowling Q&A Wood Ducks BONUS WITH Early Season Opens Oct 6 FRESHWATER BIG GAME KAINE & Winter Tactics Going After KILGORE For Big Fish Hogasaurus! Who Is The Sportsman’s DESTINATION FILE: DEER HUNTING Candidate? Winter Set Yourself Gear Haven Apart When Check Bird The Woods Blue Hunt Get Busy Marble SMALL SHOOTING Oil? GAME The Guns Of Put Some Deer Season Day Deer Hunting Rabbits on Caring For In The SALTWATER theWater Your Trophy Pot! Battle The Elements with Don Jones For Winter Tautog & Chuck Dent Outdoor Shows CALENDAR u Maryland Bass Expo January 8-11, Timonium MD OUTDOORS v Fishing Expo Destination File January 16-18, Richmond TO URNAMENT RESULTS w Nation’s Sportsmen’s Show 2 January 23-25, Chantilly TOURNAMENTS OUTDOOR DIRECTORY W ’s African x Fredericksburg Outdoor Expo Feb. 20-22, Fredericksburg Lake Anna PLUS JAMES, POTOMAC & BAY TIDES Part III y Western Virginia Sport Show Adventure Feb. 27 - March 1, Fishersville Cup Results www.woodsandwatersmagazine.com *SVQETWZMHISW FSSOWKSXS[[[[SSHWERH[EXIVWQEKE^MRIGSQ PLUS: CALENDAR OF EVENTS /// TIDE CHARTS /// TOURNAMENT RESULTS /// WHAT’S NEW? SALTWATER SPECIAL ISSUE What’s The VDGIF Doing About The Shenandoah? Wo o d s & July 2004 Wa t e r s r Wor oo ld magazine d September 2005 t O u or Wor f 1987-2007 o ld O d t O Join Us In Celebrating u f O 20 Years Of Adventure..
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Situation Report James City County, VA
    Shoreline Situation Report JAMES CITY COUNTY , VIRGINIA Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. Gl 34869 and Gl 38973 to the Wetlands/Edges Program, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 15 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 81 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINJ= SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 Shoreline Situation Report JAMES CITY COUNTY , VIRGINIA Prepared by: Carl H. Hobbs Gary L. Anderson Martha A. Patton Peter Rosen Project Supervisors: Robert J. Byrne John M. Zeigler Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. Gl 34869 and Gl 38973 to the Wetlands/Edges Program, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 15 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 81 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE William J. Hargis Jr., Director Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE PAGE CHAPrER 1 : INTRODUCTION FIGURE A: Shoreland components 5 1 . 1 Purposes and goals 2 FIGURE B: Marsh types 5 1.2 Acknowledgements 2 FIGURE 2 : Sycamore Landing aerial view 13 FIGURE 3: Ground view of bluffs at Sycamore Landing 13 FIGURE 4: Chickahominy Haven aerial view 13 CHAP.rER 2: APPROACH USED AND ELEMENTS CONSIDERED 3 FIGURE 5 : Agricultural area near mouth of Chickahominy River 13 2 .
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Africans and African Americans on Jamestown Island and at Green Spring, 1619-1803
    A Study of the Africans and African Americans on Jamestown Island and at Green Spring, 1619-1803 by Martha W. McCartney with contributions by Lorena S. Walsh data collection provided by Ywone Edwards-Ingram Andrew J. Butts Beresford Callum National Park Service | Colonial Williamsburg Foundation A Study of the Africans and African Americans on Jamestown Island and at Green Spring, 1619-1803 by Martha W. McCartney with contributions by Lorena S. Walsh data collection provided by Ywone Edwards-Ingram Andrew J. Butts Beresford Callum Prepared for: Colonial National Historical Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Cooperative Agreement CA-4000-2-1017 Prepared by: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Marley R. Brown III Principal Investigator Williamsburg, Virginia 2003 Table of Contents Page Acknowledgments ..........................................................................................................................iii Notes on Geographical and Architectural Conventions ..................................................................... v Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Research Design ............................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 3. Assessment of Contemporary Literature, BY LORENA S. WALSH .................................................... 5 Chapter 4. Evolution and Change: A Chronological Discussion ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the York-James Peninsula, Virginia
    Geology and Ground- Water Resources of the York-James Peninsula, Virginia GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1361 Prepared in cooperation with the Division of Geology, Virginia Department of Conservation and Development Geology and Ground- Water Resources of the York-James Peninsula, Virginia By D. J. CEDERSTROM GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1361 Prepared in cooperation with the Division of Geology, Virginia Department of Conservation and Development UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1957 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fred A. Seaton, Secretary 'I r GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price $1.75 (paper cover) CONTENTS Abstract__________________.___________-___.--_--- __ 1 Introduction and acknowledgments_____________________ ____ 4 Historical sketch_________________________________________________ 7 Geography_________________________________________________ _ 8 Area and population________________________ _______ _ g Industry_________________________________ __________ _ g Climate____________________________________________________ g Geologic formations and their water-bearing character._________________ 9 Stratigraphy of the Coastal Plain in Virginia____________________ 10 Basement rocks_________________________________ _____ 13 Basement rock surface________________________________ 13 Granitic rock___________________________________________ 14 Triassic system________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • James City County Tidal Marsh Inventory
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 9-1980 James City 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. (1980) James City County Tidal Marsh Inventory. Special Reports in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 188. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V54H8T 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]. JAMES CITY' COUNTY TIDAL MARSH INVENTORY Special Report No.188 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering · Kenneth A. Moore VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE . SCHOOL OF MARINE SCIENCE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY Gloucester Point,Virginia 23062 SEPTEMBER 1980 JAMES CITY COUNTY TIDAL MARSH INVENTORY ,special Report No.188 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Kenneth A. Moore Gene M. Silberhorn, Project Leader VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE SCHOOL OF MARINE SCtENCE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., Director SEPTEMBER 1980 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funds for the publication and distribution of this report have been provided by the State of Virginia and the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Grant Number 04-6-158-44037. I wish to thank Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthesis of Nutrient and Sediment Data for Watersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin
    SYNTHESIS OF NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT DATA FOR WATERSHEDS WITHIN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY DRAINAGE BASIN by Michael J. Langland, Patricia L. Lietman, and Scott Hoffman U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4233 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 1995 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center District Chief Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Box 25286, MS 517 840 Market Street Denver Federal Center Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-1586 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract.................................................................. .1 Introduction ............................................................... .1 Purpose and scope ...................................................... .2 Approach ............................................................ .2 Description of study area ................................................. .2 Data sources .......................................................... .4 Acknowledgments ...................................................... .4 Description of database ....................................................... .6 Water-quality data set ................................................... .6 Hydrologic condition data set.............................................. .6 Load data set ........................................................
    [Show full text]