DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States District Court Western District of Virginia Harrisonburg Division

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States District Court Western District of Virginia Harrisonburg Division IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HARRISONBURG DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, on ) behalf of UNITED STATES ) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; and ) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ) SECRETARY OF NATURAL ) RESOURCES, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-00082 ) v. ) ) E. I. du PONT de NEMOURS AND ) COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) CONSENT DECREE Case 5:16-cv-00082-MFU Document 2-1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 161 Pageid#: 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... - 1 - II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE .......................................................................................... - 3 - III. PARTIES BOUND ............................................................................................................. - 3 - IV. DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... - 4 - V. GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................................. - 6 - VI. PAYMENTS BY DUPONT ............................................................................................... - 7 - VII. TRUSTEE-SPONSORED NATURAL RESOURCE RESTORATION PROJECTS .............................................................................................................................. - 10 - VIII. FRONT ROYAL REGIONAL FISH HATCHERY PROJECT ............................... - 10 - IX. TRUSTEE APPROVAL OF DELIVERABLES ........................................................... - 12 - X. STIPULATED PENALTIES ............................................................................................ - 14 - XI. FORCE MAJEURE ......................................................................................................... - 18 - XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................................................................. - 20 - XIII. COVENANTS NOT TO SUE BY THE PLAINTIFFS .............................................. - 23 - XIV. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS BY THE PLAINTIFFS ............................................ - 24 - XV. COVENANTS BY DUPONT ......................................................................................... - 25 - XVI. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION.......................... - 27 - XVII. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE ............................................................... - 28 - XVIII. ACCESS TO PROPERTY......................................................................................... - 30 - i Case 5:16-cv-00082-MFU Document 2-1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 161 Pageid#: 21 XIX. ACCESS TO INFORMATION .................................................................................... - 31 - XX. RETENTION OF RECORDS ........................................................................................ - 33 - XXI. NOTICES AND SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................. - 34 - XXII. APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. - 36 - XXIII. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................... - 36 - XXIV. CONSENT DECREE MODIFICATIONS ............................................................... - 37 - XXV. TERMINATION .......................................................................................................... - 37 - XXVI. LODGING AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT .......................... - 38 - XXVII. SIGNATORIES/SERVICE ...................................................................................... - 38 - XXVIII. FINAL JUDGMENT ............................................................................................... - 39 - ii Case 5:16-cv-00082-MFU Document 2-1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 3 of 161 Pageid#: 22 I. BACKGROUND A. The United States of America (“United States”), on behalf of the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”), and the Commonwealth of Virginia, acting through its Secretary of Natural Resources (“Virginia”), (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), have filed a Complaint in this action against the defendant, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) pursuant to Section 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607, Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Law, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1321, and the Virginia State Water Control Law (“SWCL”), Va. Code § 62.1-44.5. B. The Complaint alleges that DuPont is a responsible or liable party under CERCLA, the CWA, and the SWCL for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, and costs of natural resource damage assessment and restoration actions that Plaintiffs have incurred or will incur at or in connection with the Waynesboro Facility (as defined below). C. This Consent Decree (the “Decree”) addresses the claims asserted in the Complaint against DuPont for Natural Resource Damages (as defined below). D. DOI and Virginia (collectively, the “Trustees” and, individually, a “Trustee”), under the authority of Section 107(f)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(f)(2), and 40 C.F.R. Part 300, serve as trustees for natural resources for the assessment and recovery of damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources under their trusteeship. E. Investigations conducted by the Trustees and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) have detected elevated mercury levels in sediments, soils, fish, and wildlife at the Waynesboro Facility, downstream from the Waynesboro Facility for about 24 miles of the South River to the South Fork of the Shenandoah River (the “South Fork”), near - 1 - Case 5:16-cv-00082-MFU Document 2-1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 4 of 161 Pageid#: 23 Port Republic, Virginia, and downstream for about 100 miles of the South Fork to Front Royal, Virginia. F. The Trustees and DuPont have engaged cooperatively in natural resource injury studies, damage assessments, and restoration planning related to the Site since 2005. The Trustees and DuPont entered into two funding agreements dated February 16, 2005 and June 15, 2010, by which DuPont agreed to provide funding for the performance of a natural resource assessment by the Trustees. Under these agreements, all Trustee assessment costs were paid in full through fiscal year 2015. G. The Trustees have undertaken various natural resource damage assessment activities at the Site and in the affected watershed, which informed a Resource Equivalency Analysis (“REA”) and Habitat Equivalency Analyses (“HEA”) that, in combination with other assessment techniques, were used to determine the costs of restoration needed to compensate for natural resource injury and recreational fishing loss due to the release of mercury from the Waynesboro Facility. H. The Trustees determined that the natural resources, including, but not limited to, sediment, fish, birds, mussels and amphibians, sustained ecological injuries attributable to the release of mercury at the Site, and that recreational fishing trips were lost as a result of the same. I. The Trustees have determined that the Front Royal Regional Fish Hatchery Project set forth herein is appropriately undertaken towards the restoration of the loss of recreational fishing. J. By entry into this Decree, DuPont does not admit the allegations in the Complaint and does not admit any liability to Plaintiffs arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the Complaint. - 2 - Case 5:16-cv-00082-MFU Document 2-1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 5 of 161 Pageid#: 24 K. Plaintiffs and DuPont agree, and this Court by entering this Decree finds, that this Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith; that settlement of this matter will avoid prolonged and complicated litigation among the Parties; and that this Decree is fair, reasonable and in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Sections 107 and 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607 and 9613(b); Section 311(n) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1321(n); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345 and 1367(a). The Court has personal jurisdiction over DuPont. Solely for the purposes of this Consent Decree and the underlying Complaint, DuPont waives all objections and defenses that it may have to the jurisdiction of the Court or to venue in this District. DuPont shall not challenge the terms of this Consent Decree or this Court’s jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Consent Decree. 2. Venue lies in the Western District of Virginia, Harrisonburg Division, pursuant to Section 113(b) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c). III. PARTIES BOUND 3. This Decree is binding upon the United States, Virginia, DuPont and their respective successors and assigns. Any change in ownership or corporate or other legal status of DuPont, including but not limited to any transfer of assets or real or personal property, shall in no way alter the status or responsibility of DuPont under this Decree. 4. DuPont shall be responsible for ensuring that its contractors and subcontractors perform any work required hereunder in accordance with the terms of this Decree. With regard - 3 - Case 5:16-cv-00082-MFU Document 2-1 Filed 12/15/16
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Shenandoah River Basin
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 OF 15 9 VAC 25-720 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATION 9 VAC 25-720-50. Potomac – Shenandoah River Basin A. Total maximum daily load (TMDLs). TMDL # Stream Name TMDL Title City/ WBID Pollutant WLA Units County 1. Muddy Creek Nitrate TMDL Rockingham B21R Nitrate 49,389.00 LB/YR Development for Muddy Creek/Dry River, Virginia 2. Blacks Run TMDL Development for Rockingham B25R Sediment 32,844.00 LB/YR Blacks Run and Cooks Creek 3. Cooks Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B25R Sediment 69,301.00 LB/YR Blacks Run and Cooks Creek 4. Cooks Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B25R Phosphorus 0 LB/YR Blacks Run and Cooks Creek 5. Muddy Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B22R Sediment 286,939.00 LB/YR Muddy Creek and Holmans Creek, Virginia 6. Muddy Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B22R Phosphorus 38.00 LB/YR Muddy Creek and Holmans Creek, Virginia 7. Holmans Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham/ B45R Sediment 78,141.00 LB/YR Muddy Creek and Shenandoah Holmans Creek, Virginia 8. Mill Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B29R Sediment 276.00 LB/YR Mill Creek and Pleasant Run 9. Mill Creek TMDL Development for Rockingham B29R Phosphorus 138.00 LB/YR Mill Creek and Pleasant Run STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 2 OF 15 9 VAC 25-720 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATION 10. Pleasant Run TMDL Development for Rockingham B27R Sediment 0.00 LB/YR Mill Creek and Pleasant Run 11. Pleasant Run TMDL Development for Rockingham B27R Phosphorus 0.00 LB/YR Mill Creek and Pleasant Run 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies of Longitudinal Stream Profiles in Virginia and Maryland
    Studies of Longitudinal Stream Profiles in Virginia and Maryland By JOHN T. HACK SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY GEOLOGICAL. SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 294-B Preliminary results of a study of the form of small river valleys in relation to geology. Some factors controlling the longitudinal profiles of streams are described in q'uantitative terms UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1957 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. - Price 75 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Peg* AbstractL 45 Relation of particle size of material on the bed to stream IntroductionL 47 lengthL 68 Methods of study and definitions of factors measuredL 47 Mathematical expression of the longitudinal profile and Description of areas studied L 49 its relation to particle size of material on the bedL 69 Middle River basinL 50 Mathematical expression in previous work on longitudinal North River basinL 50 profilesL 74 Alluvial terrace areasL 50 Origin and composition of stream-bed materialL 74 Calfpasture River basinL 50 Franks Mill reach of the Middle RiverL 76 Tye River basin L 52 Eidson CreekL 81 Gillis FallsL 52 East Dry BranchL 82 Coastal Plain streamsL 53 North RiverL 84 Factors determining the slope of the stream channelL 53 Calfpasture ValleyL 84 Discharge and drainage areaL 54 Gillis FallsL 85 Size of material on the stream bedL 54 Ephemeral streams in areas of residuumL 85 Channel cross sectionL 61 Some factors controlling variations in size: conclusions_ _ _ 86 Summary of factors controlling channel slopeL 61 The longitudinal profile and the cycle of erosionL 87 Factors determining the position of the channel in space: the References cited L 94 shape of the long profileL 63 IndexL 95 Relation of stream length to drainage area L 63 ILLUSTRATIONS Pag e Page PLATE99.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status of Water Quality in the Rivers and Tributaries of the Shenandoah River Watershed
    The Status of Water Quality in the Rivers and Tributaries of the Shenandoah River Watershed Final Report (Third Edition) August, 2007 A paper prepared by Charles Vandervoort of the Friends of the Shenandoah River with the cooperation of the Volunteer Monitors of the Shenandoah River Watershed. Table of Contents Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................................................vii Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................................................................................xi Chapter 1: Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................................................1 Background..................................................................................................................................................................................1 Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • GAME FISH STREAMS and RECORDS of FISHES from the POTOMAC-SHENANDOAH RIVER SYSTEM of VIRGINIA
    ) • GAME FISH STREAMS AND RECORDS OF FISHES FROM THE POTOMAC-SHENANDOAH RIVER SYSTEM Of VIRGINIA Robert D. Ross Associate Professor of Biology Technical Bulletin 140 April 1959 Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, Virginia ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is grateful to Eugene S. Surber, Robert G. Martin and Jack M. Hoffman who directed the survey and gave their help and encouragement. A great deal of credit for the success of the Survey is due to all game wardens who rendered invaluable assistance. Special thanks are due to many sportsmen and assistant game wardens who helped the field crew. Personnel of the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, who helped in the work from time to time were William Fadley, William Hawley, Max Carpenter and Dixie L. Shumate. The Virginia Academy of Science gener- ously donated funds for the purchase of alcohol in which the fish collection was preserved. GAME FISH STREAMS AND RECORDS OF FISHES FROM THE SHENANDOAH-POTOMAC RIVER SYSTEMS OF VIRGINIA Robert D. Ross Associate Professor of Biology Virginia Polytechnic Institute INTRODUCTION From June 15 to September 15, 1956, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, Division of Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia, undertook a survey of a major part of the Shenandoah-Potomac River watershed in Virginia. This work was done as Federal Aid Project No. F-8-R-3, in cooperation with Vir- ginia Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, under the direction of Robert G. Martin, Dingell-Johnson Coordinator, and Jack M. Hoffman, Leader. Robert D. Ross, Crew Leader, and David W. Robinson and Charles H. Hanson worked in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Shenandoah River PCB TMDL
    FINAL REPORT Development of Shenandoah River PCB TMDL U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 629 Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 September, 2001 Development of Shenandoah River PCB TMDL Executive Summary Several segments of the Shenandoah River are identified on Virginia’s 1998 303(d) TMDL Priority List and Report as impaired due to fish consumption advisories issued by the Virginia Department of Health. The Shenandoah River is listed on West Virginia’s 1998 Section 303(d) TMDL Priority List and Report due to fish consumption advisories as well. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for waters not meeting water quality standards. The objective of the Shenandoah River PCB TMDL is to achieve water quality standards for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the waterbody. The TMDL development process quantitatively assesses the impairment factors so that states can establish water quality-based controls to reduce pollution from both point and nonpoint sources, and to restore and protect the quality of their water resources. Virginia water quality criteria for PCBs is based on individual Aroclors concentrations although the in- stream field data are measured as total PCBs. A total PCBs criteria was calculated to allow a basis of comparison to the in-stream total PCBs concentration. The calculated Virginia total PCBs water quality criteria of 0.55 ng/L was estimated based on a weight percent of each homolog group of the manufactured Aroclors 1221, 1232, 1016, 1242, 1248,1254, 1260 (GE, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Watershed Map (PDF)
    Interstate Virginia Watersheds Central Shenandoah PDC Water Features USGS Standardized Hydrologic Unit System (HUC) 0 50 100 Miles Sources: USGS, NRCS, CSPDC, and Commonwealth of VA Topographically Nested Hierarchy Defined Set of Drainage Areas based on Surface Feature Size For planning purposes only. : (May, 2011) Virginia Hydrologic Regions Virginia Hydrologic Sub-regions HUC 2 HUC 4 Region Name Frederick Subregion Name Frederick Winchester Winchester Clarke Clarke Mid Atlantic Region Loudoun Big Sandy-Guyandotte Kentucky-Licking Loudoun §¨¦495 Chowan-Roanoke Lower Chesapeake §¨¦495 Warren ¨¦§66 Arlington Warren ¨¦§66 Arlington Fairfax City Fairfax City Ohio Region Shenandoah Alexandria Shenandoah Alexandria Fairfax Cumberland Pee Dee Fairfax Fauquier Manassas City Fauquier Manassas City South Atlantic-Gulf Region Rappahannock Prince William Rappahannock Prince William Rockingham Page Delaware Potomac Rockingham Page Tennessee Region Culpeper Kanawha Upper Tennessee Culpeper Stafford Stafford Harrisonburg Madison Harrisonburg Madison Virginia Localities / Jurisdictions Highland Highland Fredericksburg King George Virginia Localities / Jurisdictions Fredericksburg King George Greene Orange Greene Orange Spotsylvania Spotsylvania Augusta Staunton Westmoreland Augusta Staunton Westmoreland Waynesboro ¨¦§95 Waynesboro ¨¦§95 Bath Albemarle Charlottesville Louisa Caroline Bath Albemarle Charlottesville Louisa Caroline Essex Richmond Essex Richmond ¨¦§64 Northumberland ¨¦§64 Northumberland Rockbridge Rockbridge 64 64 Alleghany ¨¦§ Fluvanna
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Areas of Selected Streams in Virginia
    Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Drainage Areas of Selected Streams in Virginia Open-File Report 2006–1308 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Drainage Areas of Selected Streams in Virginia By Donald C. Hayes and Ute Wiegand Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Open-File Report 2006–1308 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk A. Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Hayes, D.C., and Wiegand, Ute, 2006, Drainage areas of selected streams in Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 2006–1308, 51 p., available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/ofr2006-1308 iii Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrate Improved Water Quality in Middle River
    OPED Piece for the NEWS LEADER Robert Whitescarver Published 5/25/2018 We can finally celebrate some long-awaited good news about Middle River. Twenty-three miles of the river in Augusta County were recently taken off Virginia’s “Dirty Waters List.” The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality delisted the segment of the river near Frank’s Mill and extending near New Hope because it now meets state standards for both E. coli and sediment. The amazing improvements on the Middle River benefit everyone in Augusta who fishes, paddles, and swims its waters. This is thanks to a coordinated effort. All of us have been working to remove this river, and many others, from the dirty waters list for decades. It takes everyone— from improving sewage treatment, to farmers planting cover crops and fencing cows out of streams, to rain barrels and storm water retention. This segment includes Augusta County Service Authority’s largest waste water treatment plant. The Middle River Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant operates at the world’s leading edge of technology, not only killing bacteria but removing nutrients as well. Our farmers have led the Commonwealth in fencing cows out of streams. Virginia banned phosphorus in lawn fertilizer. Landowners help fund practices that reduce polluted runoff from urban areas through storm water utility fees. And our children stock restored streams with trout through Trout in Classroom programs. These efforts and many more are the reasons this section of Middle River has been restored. Congratulations! We did it! Thank you for doing your part! A plan, backed up by sound science, and people working together can achieve great things.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphology of the Shenandoah Valleyt Virginia and West Virginia and Origin of the Residual Ore Deposits
    .GlDLocrr !hl'l •• •u ''·~~tilES lit?oup Geomorphology of the Shenandoah ValleyT Virginia and West Virginia and Origin of the Residual Ore Deposits GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 484 / (1~, \l( 'g ~ ~~~. <'. I Geomorphology of the Shenandoah Valley Virginia and West Virginia and Origin of the Residual Ore Deposits By JOHN T. HACK GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROfESSIONAL PAPER 484 A geomorphological study in which it is assumed that the erosion a~d downrr.vasting of the central Appalachians were continuous and uninterrupted by periods of baseleveling UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES D:EPARTM~NT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows: Hack, John Tilton, 1913- Geomorphology of the Shenandoah Valley, Virginia and' West Vir- ginia, and origin of the residual ore deposits. Washington, U.S. Gov~. Print. Off., 1965. iv, 83 p. illus., maps (3 fold. col. in pocket) diagrs., profiles, tables. 29 em. (U.S. Geological Survey. Professional paper 484) Bibliography: p. 77-79. · 1. Geology-Shenandoah Valley. 2. Physical geography-Shenan­ doah Valley. 3. Ore-deposits-Shenandoah Valley. I. Title. II. Title: Shenandoah Valley, Virginia and West Virginia. III. Title: Origin of the residual ore deposits. (Series) For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office · · Washington, b.c. 20402- · · CONTENTS Page Page The regolith _______________________________________ _ Abstract-------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Wide Annual Baseflow Analysis for the Fractured Bedrock Unit in the Potomac River Basin
    BASIN-WIDE ANNUAL BASEFLOW ANALYSIS FOR THE FRACTURED BEDROCK UNIT IN THE POTOMAC RIVER BASIN Nebiyu Tiruneh, Ph.D. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin June 2007 ICPRB Report No. 07-6 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK i Table of Contents Tables.................................................................................................................................. ii Figures................................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary...........................................................................................................iii Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 Objective of the Study .................................................................................................... 2 Description of Main Basin Characteristics ......................................................................... 3 Topography..................................................................................................................... 3 Geology........................................................................................................................... 4 Hydrogeomorphology..................................................................................................... 6 Soil Type......................................................................................................................... 8 Landuse/Landcover......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]