DOCSLIB.ORG

Southern Ohio River Tributaries Adams, Brown, and Scioto Counties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Southern Ohio River Tributaries Adams, Brown, and Scioto Counties Biological and Water Quality Study of Southern Ohio River Tributaries Adams, Brown, and Scioto Counties Mackletree Run RM 0.4, in Shawnee State Forest Ohio EPA Technical Report AMS/2016‐EAGLE‐2 Division of Surface Water Assessment and Modeling Section August 2020 (Revised April 2021) TMDL DEVELOPMENT | AMS/2016‐EAGLE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Southern Ohio River Tributaries August 2020 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Southern Ohio River Tributaries Adams, Brown, and Scioto Counties, Ohio (Sample Years 2013‐2017) August 2020 Ohio EPA Report DSW/AMS 2016‐EAGLE‐2 Prepared by: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700 P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216‐1049 Division of Surface Water Southwest District Office 401 E. Fifth St. Dayton, Ohio 45402 Ecological Assessment Section Groveport Field Office 4675 Homer Ohio Lane Groveport, Ohio 43125 Mike DeWine, Governor State of Ohio Laurie A. Stevenson, Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency AMS/2016‐EAGLE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Southern Ohio River Tributaries August 2020 Table of Contents List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview: Southern Ohio River Tributaries (Straight, Eagle and Turkey Creeks) .............................................................................. 9 Study Area Description ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Land Use........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Census Data ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Wastewater Discharge Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Aquatic Life Use Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Water Chemistry Results ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Nutrients ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Organics ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 2013/2015 Supplemental Project Field Chemistry Data .................................................................................................................. 33 2017 Sampling ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Sediment Chemistry Results ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Physical Habitat Results ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 Fish Community Results ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 Macroinvertebrate Community Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 56 Aquatic Life Use Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................................. 65 White Oak Basin ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Straight Creek Basin ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 Eagle Creek Basin ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 76 Miscellaneous Ohio River Tributaries in the Interior Plateau Ecoregion .................................................................................. 77 Miscellaneous Ohio River Tributaries in the Western Allegheny Plateau Ecoregion ........................................................... 77 Aquatic Life Trends .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 77 Recreation Use Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................ 79 Public Water Supply Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 81 Waynoka Regional Water and Sewer District .............................................................................................................................................. 82 Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 84 Beneficial Use Designations ................................................................................................................................................................................. 84 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Organic Enrichment and Bacteria ..................................................................................................................................................................... 85 Eagle Creek Basin - Honey Creek ....................................................................................................................................................................... 86 Straight Creek Basin - Sycamore Run .............................................................................................................................................................. 86 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90 References ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 AMS/2016‐EAGLE‐2 Biological and Water Quality Study of the Southern Ohio River Tributaries August 2020 Tables Table 1 — Aquatic life use (ALU) attainment status for sampling locations in the SORT study area, 2013-2017. Recommended ALU status is noted with (R). The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Modified Index of well- being (MIwb), and Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) and macroinvertebrate narrative scores are based on the performance of the biological community. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) is based on the ability of the stream habitat to support a biological community. The table is organized by assessment unit (12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC-12)). Sites with ALU changes recommended are evaluated using the biocriteria for the recommended use, not the current use. For an explanation regarding recommended Aquatic Life Use designations, refer to Beneficial Use Designations and Recommendations within this report. ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2 — Sampling stations for the SORT study area, 2013-2017. ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SPRINGS of ARLINGTON Celebrating the Restoration of the Historical Donaldson Spring at Potomac Overlook Regional Park, May 1, 1988
    SPRINGS OF ARLINGTON Celebrating the restoration of the historical Donaldson Spring at Potomac Overlook Regional Park, May 1, 1988. By Eleanor Lee Templeman What a lovely word, not only to name the most beautiful season, but to indicate water rising, or springing, from the earth! There is a certain magic in water flowing from the depths of dry soil. The surrounding dampness encourages the growth of ferns and wild flowers. Water is essential for the life of man, flora and fauna. The world's great deserts would have remained uninhabited without the oasis. From prehistoric times, springs have played an important role in the lives of humans. The Donaldson Spring in Potomac Overlook Regional Park was the site of an Indian hunting and fishing camp. There is evidence that it was also their burial ground. Pioneer families chose their home sites adjacent to springs, and many constructed stone springhouses over them. Here in the cool water were stored milk, butter and other perishables. Each spring has its individual tradition. The one which we honor today symbolizes the linking of two of the earliest local families, the Donaldsons and the Marceys, who intermarried as was the custom in rural communities. Throughout Virginia, all the most important plantation homes were estab­ lished adjacent to this important water supply. The abundance of springs on the hillside above the Potomac at Mount Vernon decided the house location and supplied water to the estate from the settlement of the first of the Washington family in the 1700s until a very recent date. Mount Vernon's former Director, Cecil Wall, since his retirement a few years ago, comes weekly to a flowing spring in the woods to fill his jug with the pure sweet water, refusing to drink from the municipal supply.
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia Section 303(D) List and Supplements
    West Virginia Section 303(d) List and Supplements uunnamednnamed ttributaryributary ooff Elk-twoElk-two MMileile CCreekreek iinn KKanawhaanawha CCountyounty PPhotohoto bbyy PPatat CCampbellampbell The format of the 2004 Section 303(d) list is organized around the Watershed Management Framework. The fi ve hydrologic groups (A-E) of the framework provide the skeleton. Within each hydrologic group, watersheds are arranged alphabetically and impaired waters are sorted by stream code in their appropriate watershed. The information that follows each impaired stream includes the stream code, the affected water quality criteria, the affected designated use, the general cause of the impairment (where known), the impaired length (or, by default, the entire length), the planned or last possible timing of TMDL development and whether or not the stream was on the 2002 list. The cause of impairment is often unknown or uncertain at the time of listing and is so indicated on the list. The cause(s) of impairment and the contributing sources of pollution will be identifi ed in the TMDL development process. Many waters are listed, by default, for their entire length. In most cases, it is doubtful that the entire length of stream is impaired, but without further data, the exact length of impairment is unknown. Each listed stream will be revisited prior to TMDL development. The additional assessments performed in the pre-TMDL monitoring effort will better defi ne the impaired length. A West Virginia Watershed Management Framework map is provided to assist navigation within the list. A key is also provided to aid in the interpretation of presented information.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Overview
    WWeett WWaaddeerrss aanndd BBeeyyoonndd TThhee CCoonnddiittiioonn ooff OOuurr SSttaattee’’ss WWaatteerrss AA CCiittiizzeenn’’ss PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee 1 WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water and Waste Management, Nonpoint Section 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 The document was prepared by Tim Craddock, WV DEP’s Citizens’ Monitoring Coordinator and is available electronically in Portable Document Format (PDF). To request your copy send e-mail to Tim Craddock at: [email protected]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Color photographs provided by: Alana Hartman, DEP’s Potomac Basin Coordinator; Abby Chappel, WV River Network; Sherry Evasic, Blue Heron Environmental Network; Neil Gillies, Cacapon Institute; Suzanne Hubbard, The Mountain Institute; Renee Cain, Lower West Fork Watershed Association; Martin Christ, Friends of Deckers Creek; Bobby Bonnett, Heizer-Manila Watershed Organization; Diana Green, Davis Creek Watershed Association; James Grey, Morris Creek Watershed Association; Larry Orr, Kanawha Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited; Valerie Wilson, Science Teacher, Oak Hill Catholic Center; Brad Durst, WV Conservation Agency and Curtis Canada, Upper Guyandotte Watershed Association. WV Save Our Streams would like to recognize all the volunteer monitors, not only those directly associated with the program, but any others who have given their time and energy in an effort to protect our state’s streams and rivers. WV Save Our Streams would also like to recognize all of the agency and other partners who have provided assistance of any kind, to help guide volunteers through the myriad of processes involved with water quality issues. “Perception is not acquired by formal education, nor is it reserved for persons learned in the arts or sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Road Log of the Geology of Frederick County, Virginia W
    Vol. 17 MAY, 1971 No. 2 ROAD LOG OF THE GEOLOGY OF FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA W. E. Nunan The following road log is a guide to geologic The user of this road log should keep in mind features along or near main roads in Frederick that automobile odometers vary in accuracy. Dis- County, Virginia. Distances and cumulative mile- tances between stops and road intersections ages between places where interesting and repre- should be checked frequently, especially at junc- sentative-lithologies, formational contacts, struc- tions or stream crossings immediately preceding tural features, fossils, and geomorphic features stops. The Frederick County road map of the occur are noted. At least one exposure for nearly Virginia Department of Highways, and the U. S. each formation is included in the log. Brief dis- Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps cussions of the geological features observable at are recommended for use with this road log. the various stops is included in the text. Topographic maps covering Frederick County include Boyce, Capon Bridge, Capon Springs, A comprehensive report of the geology of the Glengary, Gore, Hayfield, Inwood, Middletown, Mountain Falls, Ridge, Stephens City, Stephen- County is presented in "Geology and Mineral Re- son, Wardensville, White Hall, and Winchester. sources of Frederick County" by Charles Butts The route of the road log (Figure 1) shows U. S. and R. S. Edmundson, Bulletin 80 of the Virginia and State Highways and those State Roads trav- Division of Mineral Resources. The publication eled or needed for reference at intersections. has a 1:62,500 scale geologic map in color, which Pertinent place names, streams, and railroad is available from the Division for $4.00 plus sales crossings are indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Dams in the Passumpsic River Watershed
    Table of Contents General Description of the Passumpsic River Watershed .................................................. 1 Uses, Values, Special Features of the Passumpsic Watershed ......................................... 2 Waterfalls, Cascades, Gorges, and Swimming Holes ..................................................... 2 Significant Natural Communities...................................................................................... 2 Public Lands and Private Conservation Land in the Basin .............................................. 2 Water Quality/Aquatic Habitat Assessment Basinwide ....................................................... 3 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3 Overall Assessment of Lake, Pond, River, Stream Uses ................................................ 4 Assessment of Cause and Sources affecting River, Stream, Lake, Pond Uses .............. 5 Passumpsic River up to the Branches and some tributaries ............................................... 7 Description ....................................................................................................................... 7 Sampling Results and Assessment Information .............................................................. 8 River and Stream Assessment Summary ...................................................................... 12 Lakes and Ponds ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Document Overview, Lyndon
    Description NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RIVERBEND 189 PARK Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial R Great ive 495 r Falls Ro ad d R B Grove on the Potomac was established r s ic ll k a ya F r d Ro 190 ad Great Falls Park C&O CANAL by Congress on December 28, NATIONAL American Legion MARYLAND HISTORICAL Memorial Bridge PARK Exit 40 1973, through Public Law 93-211. C a Naval Surface Warfare Center b in Foundation Document Overview 495 (Carderock Division) Jo Washington, D.C. h Maryland n The memorial is intended to honor 738 P C M k a a thur B w O r cAr oule Clara Barton National Historic Site l d Exit 41 vard y d er o D ck President Lyndon B. Johnson and o G Clar m a Bar e ton Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac i o Parkw n rg a io e y ROCK n to Glen Echo Park w D n Exit 43 recognize his achievements in r i Pik CREEK v e n e u R 193 Turkey Run Park PARK District of Columbia y Parkway e preserving the nation’s environment, k Headquarters r u Exit 44 T l d a i R n 193 M.D. n o as well as his love of the land. It was l m VA. u 738 r o R a C F d a e D 495 privately funded and planned, but 123 Claude Moore Colonial Farm 123 267 was dedicated to the public as a unit Exit 45 t mi Run Little Pim G Falls Fort Marcy e Chain Bridge o of the National Park Service, serving rg WASHINGTON, e W anc 123 Exit 46 Br h a as a place where people can enjoy the 267 lf s u h D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Keystone Tap Magazine
    A Publication of the Pennsylvania Rural Water Association fhe ~ystOne 1r~~ !summer 1994 Vol. VII, No. ~ Pennsylvania Rural Water ' Association Serving Water/Wastewater I..... Systems in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Rural Water Association 138 West Bishop Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823 (814) 353-9302 FAX: (814) 353-9341 Here is what people are saying about PRWA: PENNSYLVANIA Wonderview Water Co. RURAL WATER 91 Dutch Hill Rd. ASSOCIATION Bloomsburg, PA 17815 717-387-8762 6-6-94 -mlnite'b ~ ta tes ~ena t e Pennsylvania Rural Water Association WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3803 138 West Bishop Street Bellefonte, PA 16823 May 4, 1994 (814) 353-9302 FAX (814) 353-9341 Mr. Stephen M. Krchnavy Pennsylvania Rural Water Association Dear Rural Water, 138 West Bishop Street Thank you for sending out your leak detection expert Chris Shutt. Bellefonte, PA 16823 He was very helpful in finding two water leaks in our system. Enclosed, please find our application for membership from and a Dear Mr. Krchnavy. check for this year's dues. Thank you to you and the rest of the Pennsylvania Rural Water Thank you, Association members for stopping by our office to share your views. I have passed on your material and video tape on to Sena10r Wofford. You can be certain that he will keep your views in mind as the Safe Drinking Water Act #~ is considered in the Senate. John Yohey Please do not hesitate to contact our office again if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, J""- ~~ L~ KAfiM,id.l Sara Marcus Kaplaniak BAINBRIDGE WATER AUTHORITY POST OFFICE BOX 338 • BAINBRIDGE, PA 17502 March 10, 1994 Pennsylvania Aural Water Association 138 West Bishop Street Bellefonte, PA 16823 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • REQUEST for PROPOSALS for PURCHASE: FORMER STAR CITY CINEMAS PARCEL Proposals Must Be Received No Later Than WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019 @ 10:00 A.M
    REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PURCHASE: FORMER STAR CITY CINEMAS PARCEL Proposals must be received no later than WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019 @ 10:00 A.M. April 16, 2019 South Fayette Township REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PURCHASE OF THE FORMER STAR CITY PARCEL LOCATED IN THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH FAYETTE, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Application The undersigned Applicant, having carefully read this RFP and had the opportunity to obtain all clarifications it believes it needs, proposes to purchase the property as described in detail in the Request for Proposals (RFP) set forth below. Applicant understands that anything in its proposal which is found to be incomplete or inaccurate will be a valid basis for the Township discontinuing further consideration of the proposal and notifying Applicant accordingly. Any information provided in or attached to this proposal which the Applicant considers to be confidential shall be clearly marked as such by Applicant, and justification for the claim of confidentiality shall be provided. Applicant understands that information will be subject to disclosure to other Applicants and the public as and when required by law. Applicant’s name, U.S. headquarters address, and local address: Applicant has completed and attached to this proposal a true, correct and complete Disclosure on the form provided by the Township. The undersigned representative of the Applicant affirms that the contents of the Disclosure form are true, correct and complete. The undersigned officer of Applicant, being duly authorized to do so, submits this proposal on behalf of Applicant, affirming that it is complete and correct in all respects. By submitting this proposal, Applicant agrees that, if selected, it will perform all items described in the RFP.
    [Show full text]
  • The Passumpsic Watershed Water Quality Assessment Report 2018
    The Passumpsic Watershed Water Quality Assessment Report 2018 Table of Contents Land Cover of the Passumpsic Watershed 3 Water Quality Protection Priorities 4 Water Quality Remediation Priorities 5 Millers Run (Wheelock, Sheffield, Lyndon) 6 Dishmill Brook & Dishmill Brook #2 (Burke) 7 Unnamed Tributary to Passumpsic River, EPA Superfund (Lyndon) 8 Moose River (St. Johnsbury, Waterford) 9 Passumpsic River & Lower Sleepers River (St. Johnsbury) 10 The Water Andric (Danville, Barnett) 11 Simpsons Brook (Waterford), Sleepers River (Danville, St. Johnsbury) 12 Monitoring Priorities 13 3 Land Cover of the Passumpsic Watershed Forested Developed East Agriculture Wetlands Sub Watershed Boundary West Moose Millers Run Sleepers Upper Lower Joes 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Table 1. NLCD 2011 Land Cover for the Passumpsic River Watershed. Sub Watershed Forested Developed Agriculture Wetlands Sub Watershed Forested Developed Agriculture Wetlands Millers Run 76.3 6.9 9.8 2.0 Upper Tributaries 67.4 11.2 14.3 1.8 Sleepers River 73.6 6.2 14.7 1.8 West Branch 71.2 6.3 12.9 6.3 Joes Brook 75.1 4.6 8.7 5.0 East Branch 84.4 3.5 4.7 3.4 Lower Tributaries 69.9 11 13.4 1.3 Moose River 82.1 3.1 3.3 5.8 4 Water Quality Protection Priorities Potential B(1) Current A(1) Fishing Potential A(1) Aquatic Biota Potential B(1) 1 2 Aquatic Biota 3 Reclass From A(2) 5 4 Remain 6 11 13 A(2) 7 12 8 9 Potential 10 A1 Wetland 28 Sentinel Sites 15 16 17 18 19 14 Victory Bog 29 20 21 22 ID Waterbody Name Potential 11 Nation brook trib B1 Fishing 12 Square brook trib B1 Fishing 23 13 Moose
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I Digital Object Identifier
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge KWRRI Research Reports Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute 6-1971 Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/kwrri.rr.40 John A. Dearinger University of Kentucky George M. Woolwine University of Kentucky Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kwrri_reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Repository Citation Dearinger, John A. and Woolwine, George M., "Measuring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I" (1971). KWRRI Research Reports. 155. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/kwrri_reports/155 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Kentucky Water Resources Research Institute at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in KWRRI Research Reports by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Research Report Number 40 MEASURING THE INTANGIBLE VALUES OF NATURAL STREAMS, PART I Application of the Uniqueness Concept By John A. Dearinger Principal Investigator and George M. Woolwine Research Assistant University of Kentucky Water Resources Institute Lexington, Kentucky Project Number B-015-KY Agreement Number 14-31-0001-3086 July 1969 - June 1971 June 1971 The work upon which this report is based was supported by funds provided by the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964.
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Reconnaissance for Nutrients and Other Water-Quality Parameters, Greater Pittsburgh Region, Pennsylvania
    STREAM RECONNAISSANCE FOR NUTRIENTS AND OTHER WATER· QUALITY PARAMETERS, GREATER PITTSBURGH REGION, PENNSYLVANIA U.S. Geological Survey Water • Resources Investigations 50-7 4 BIBLIOGR"APHIC DATA l1. Report No. 3. Recipient 's Accession No. SHEET 4. T itle and Subtitle 5. Report Date STREAM RECONNAISSANCE FOR NUTRIENTS AND OTHER WATER-QUALITY February 1975 PARAMETERS, GREATER PITTSBURGH REGION, PENNSYLVANIA 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept. Robert M. Beall No. WRI 50-74 9. P erforming Organiza tion Name and Address 10. ·Project/ T ask/ Work Unit No. Greater Pittsburgh Regional Studies U.S. Geological Survey 11. Contract/ Grant No. P.O. Box 420 Carnegie. Pennsylvania 15106 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Re port & Period C oyered Same as 9. above. Final 14. 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstracts Eighty-five stream sites in and near the six-county Greater Pittsburgh Region were sampled in mid-June 1971 and again in mid-October 1972. Concentrations of inorganic nitrogen, organic carbon, or phosphorus were high enough to indicate potential problems at about a quarter of the sampling sites. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH values indicated a generally favorable capacity for recovery from degradation, although a number of streams east of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers ar~ marginal or lacking. Regionally, sulfate is the dominant ion and was observed in concentrations of 40 milligrams per litre· or more at 90 percent of the sites. Bicarbonate exceeded 100 milligrams per litre at 22 sites. A moderate to high degree of mineralization is indicated by conductance readings of more than 500 micromhos per centimetre at half of the sampling sites.
    [Show full text]