DOCSLIB.ORG

New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7I.E.C Final Report Potomac River Source Water ~s.ejgitllm~tsjjK.,..~IW1I~ for Marylan . Prepared by: Becker and O'Melia, LLC in association with Straughan Environmental Services, Inc. Becker and O'Melia, LLC WATER PROCESS RESEARCHERS AND CONSULTANTS POTOMAC SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS Introduction The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments required states to develop and implement source water assessment prograIlli to evaluate the safety of all public drinking water systems. A Source Water Assessment (SWA) is a process for evaluating the vulnerability to contamination ofthe source of a public drinking water supply. The assessment does not address the treatment processes, or the storage and distribution aspects of the water system, which are covered under separate provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is the lead state agency in this source water assessment effort. There are three main steps in the assessment process: (1) delineating the watershed drainage area that is likely to contribute to the drinking water supply, (2) identijYing potential contaminants within that area and (3) assessing the vulnerability, or susceptibility, of the system to those contaminants. Public notification is the final component of the source water assessment report process. The goal of the source water assessment program is to provide a framework for local stakeholders and governments in developing a Source Water Protection Plan. The source water assessments for Maryland water systems utilizing the Potomac River was undertaken as a joint effort by MDE, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Conunission (WSSC), and several consultants, including The Center for Watershep Ptotection, and Becker & O'Melia, the lead consultant. The consulting team looked at many factors to determine the vulnerability of each water system utilizing the Potomac River, including the size and type of water system and watershed, available water quality data, the characteristics ofthe potential contaminants, and the capacity of the natural environment to attenuate any risk. Water quality modeling was perfonned by the consultants to analyze the threats posed by potential pollution sources and the likelihood of the delivery of contaminants to each water supply. Future management scenarios were also modeled to determine the benefits ofimplementing agricultural and urban best management practices. General Findings ... The source water assessment report for each of the seven water systems that use the Potomac River as a drinking water source have been completed. These water systems include (upstream to downstream): Luke-Westvaco, Hagerstown, Sharpsburg, Brunswick, New Design (Frederick County), WSSC, and Rockville. Below are some general findings from the assessment reports: • Drinking water contaminants of concern were identified and include natural organic matter (NOM) and disinfection byproduct precursors (DBPs), Cryptospridium oocyts and Giardia cysts, taste and odor causing compounds, ammonia, sediment/turbidity, algae, fecal coliforms, and dieldrin. .. • Even as far downstream as Rockville's intake, the watershed for the Potomac Basin is mostly forested. The percentage of agricultural land within the watershed of the main stem of the Potomac increases significantly with the inclusion of the basins draining the Great Valley. Some urban and upstream .. agricultural land uses appear to be the most significant sources of contaminants impacting the source water quality for water systems. • Modeling was used to predict the overall impact of management practices on source water quality; future conditions are expected to show a small deterioration in water quality without implementation of increased management practices. Also, the amount of contaminants reaching the river and its tributaries can be reduced noticeably by implementing aggressive management practices. However, for some .. contaminants, such as sediment, the benefits will not appear for many years because of existing hydrologic conditions within the mainstem river. • Potential sources of contaminants were complied using a variety of data sources and were organized according to contaminants source type and shown on GIS maps. These maps included land uses, point and nonpoint source locations, as well as potential spill sources. - .' Water Systems LukelWestvaco's intake is located just downstream ofthe confluence of the Savage River and the North Branch ., ofthe Potomac. The upstream watershed is about 406 square miles and is 82% forested. The Jennings-Randolph dam and lime dosers maintained by MDE provide significant protection from upstream mining activities. •• Hagerstown's intake watershed is 4,940 square miles, and is mostly forested (73%) with some agricultural land use (24 %). The North and South Branches of the Potomac as well as Town Creek and Cacapon are the major upstream watersheds. Cumberland, Frostburg, Moorefield and Petersburg are the major cities and towns upstream ofthis intake. Upstream combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are a potential problem for Hagerstown's intake. Town of Sharpsburg watershed is 5,950 square miles. Land use is similar to Hagerstown, but a significant amount ofnew agricultural and urban lands are included with the addition of the Conococheague and Opequon tributaries. Hagerstown, Martinsburg, Winchester and Chambersburg are the additional urban centers. - The City ofBrunswick withdraws from the Potomac about 5 miles downstream from its confluence with the .. Shenandoah River. Antietam Creek enters the Potomac upstream of the intake. Forested land accounts for 65% of the 9,410 total square miles, with agricultural land use accounting for approximately 30%. Additional urban areas upstream are Front Royal, Harrisonburg, Staunton and Waynesboro. Automobile and railroad bridges are just .. upstream ofthis intake, making it susceptible to hazardous spills. , Frederick County (New Design Plant) withdraws from the Potomac River upstream of its confluence with the .. Monocacy River. The watershed is 9,660 square miles. Watershed characteristics are similar to Brunswick. New tributaries include Catoctin Creeks from Maryland and Virginia. Developed land is about 2.9% oftotal upstream area. - The WSSC intake is just downstream with the confluence ofWatt's Branch. The watershed is about 11,400 square miles. Forested land use is 60% of the total, agricultural 35% and urban 4%. Other tributaries entering the Potomac downstream from its confluence with the Monocacy include Goose Creek, Seneca Creek, Muddy Branch and Watts Branch, with Watts having the most significant negative water quality impacts. The assessment - recommended that WSSr should consider a new submerged channel intake to quickly negate the effects of Watts Branch during storm events. The Cities ofFrederick, Leesburg and Gaithersburg are also upstream ofthis intake. Rockville's intake is the furthest downstream MD intake, although just downstream from the WSSc. No significant streams or rivers enter the Potomac between the WSSC and Rockville. Watershed characteristics and water quality are essentially the same for these two plants. Recommendations - Each assessment report includes recommended strategies to protect drinking water sources in the future, which are specific to each water system. However, there are several recommendations that apply to all seven Potomac River water systems: - • Formation of watershed protection groups. These groups are necessary to set reachable goals and monitor the success of source water protection strategies. A multi-jurisdictional group, with local stakeholders and interstate commission members would be needed to bring together parties from each state, county, .. and local jurisdiction in the Potomac watershed. • Control the contamination of fecal coliform, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia in the watershed. This can be accomplished by increased implementation ofbest management practices that reduce erosion and .. sediment discharge into tributaries from agricultural and urban land, and minimizing the impact from pastures and concentrated agricultural operations (CAFOs). Reducing the load ofthese contaminants by wastewater treatment plant discharge is also important. .. • A basin-wide hazardous spill response plan is needed. A plan would help mitigate the potential damage of a spill into the Potomac or its tributaries. Advanced notice to water treatment plants will avert the threat of dangerous materials entering the public water supply. .. .. -;.. ~..............•..•... - MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 2500 Broening Highway • Baltimore, Maryland 21224 (410) 631·3000 • 1-800-633-6101 • http://www.rnde.state.rnd.us Ipl..rris N. Glendening MerryJin Zaw-Mon Governor Acting Secretary August 2, 2002 I J.. Mr. Mike Marschner Frederick Co. Water & Sewer 7303 Marcies Choice Lane Frederick, MD 21701 RE: Source Water Assessment for the New Design Water Treatment Plant /'7i.e.c. DearMr.~ , The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Amendments requires each State to complete source water assessments for all public water supplies. The Maryland Department of the Environment's Water Supply Program (WSP) is responsible for the completion ofthese assessments for Maryland's water systems. The Potomac River Protection Act passed in the 2000 General Assembly required that assessments for water systems using the Potomac River be completed and submitted to the General Assembly by July 1,2002. In response to the Potomac River Protection Act, .. the WSP enter~d into an agreement with the Washington
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]
  • 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]
  • Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River
    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River North Fork Watershed Project/Friends of Blackwater MAY 2009 This report was made possible by a generous donation from the MARPAT Foundation. DRAFT 2 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................... 7 PART I ‐ General Information about the North Branch Potomac Watershed ........................................................... 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Geography and Geology of the Watershed Area ................................................................................................. 9 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Benthic Tmdls for the Goose Creek Watershed
    Benthic TMDLs for the Goose Creek Watershed Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin March 1, 2004 Revised April 27, 2004 ICPRB Report 04-5 This report has been prepared by the staff of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Support was provided by the Virginia Department of Environment Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the United States or any of its agencies, the several states, or the Commissioners of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Benthic TMDLs for the Goose Creek Watershed Submitted by Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin March 1, 2004 Revised April 27, 2004 __________________________________________ Benthic TMDLs For the Goose Creek Watershed TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................I LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................IV LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................................................................VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Historic Resource Study Great Smoky Mountains National Park
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Service National Park Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Great Smoky Mountains NATIONAL PARK Historic Resource Study Resource Historic Park National Mountains Smoky Great Historic Resource Study | Volume 1 April 2016 VOL Historic Resource Study | Volume 1 1 As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historic places; and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. GRSM 133/134404/A April 2016 GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK HISTORIC RESOURCE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 FRONT MATTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Maximum Stages and Discharges of Selected Streams in Virginia Through 1990
    ANNUAL MAXIMUM STAGES AND DISCHARGES OF SELECTED STREAMS IN VIRGINIA THROUGH 1990 By Byron J. Prugh, Jr., Edward H. Nuckels, and Clairiece G. Humphrey U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 90-587 Prepared in cooperation with the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Richmond, Virginia 1991 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: Chief, Virginia District U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section 3600 West Broad Street Federal Center, Box 25425 Room 606 Denver, Colorado 80225 Richmond, Virginia 23230 CONTENTS Page List of gaging stations for which records are published.............. iv Glossary............................................................. xx Abstract............................................................. 1 Introduction......................................................... 1 Purpose and scope................................................ 2 ................................................. 2 Explanation of data.................................................. 2 Records of annual maximum stages and discharges...................... 12 Index................................................................ 439 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1-4. Map showing location of gaging stations in: 1. The Ohio River Basin in Virginia........................ 4 2. The South Atlantic Slope basins in Virginia............. 6 3. The North Atlantic Slope
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Care of the Abrams Creek Wetlands
    Taking Care of 2010 Online Edition the Abrams Creek Wetlands: Purposes of This Booklet Tips for Homeowners, Landscapers Your property may border the Abrams Creek Wetlands, or you may live or work a few miles away. You may be a construction supervisor, and Businesses homeowner, business executive or landscaper. No matter where you live or what kinds of work you do in our community, the choices you make as you care for a piece of land can affect the Abrams Creek Wetlands and Abrams Creek itself. This booklet’s next few pages describe why the Abrams Creek Wetlands are important to our community. The sections that follow explain how you can maintain and enhance your property and home without harming the wetlands, Abrams Creek or the surrounding watershed. Included are guidelines for choosing plants for gardening and landscaping, controlling pests, preventing soil runoff, and creating habitats for wildlife. Each section ends with sources of further information. Eight undergraduates in Shenandoah University’s Environmental Studies Program prepared this booklet as a course project during the spring semester of 2006. We were inspired by previous Shenandoah students and a local citizens organization, The Opequon Watershed (TOW). For more than a decade, they have promoted a greater understanding, appreciation and protection of Abrams Creek and its wetlands. We were also inspired by the Good Neighbor Handbook. Tips and Tools for River-Friendly Living in the Middle Potomac Region published by the Potomac Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy. Our booklet, local in scope, addresses similar issues in our small portion of this watershed. Publication was supported by gifts from private individuals to Shenandoah University.
    [Show full text]
  • The Benefits of Acid Mine Drainage Remediation on the North Branch
    The Benefits of Acid Mine Drainage INTE Remediation on the North Branch Potomac River Evan Hansen Alan Collins Sera Zegre Anne Hereford Downstream Strategies 219 Wall Street Morgantown, WV 26505 www.downstreamstrategies.com Prepared for: Maryland State Water Quality Advisory Committee Garrett County, Maryland Economic Development Office th 203 S. 4 Street, Room 208 Oakland, MD 21550 December 1, 2010 The Benefits of Acid Mine Drainage Remediation on the North Branch Potomac River Evan Hansen, Alan Collins, Sera Zegre, Anne Hereford ABOUT THE AUTHORS Evan Hansen, M.S., Principal, Water Program, Downstream Strategies. Mr. Hansen founded Downstream Strategies and has 20 years of experience as an environmental consultant on water and energy issues for government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private businesses. He has developed and applied computer models; provided training and expert testimony on issues related to environmental laws, policies, and permits; and led multi-disciplinary research teams. Alan Collins, Ph.D., Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Chair of the Program in Agricultural and Resource Economics at West Virginia University. Dr. Collins has been at West Virginia University for over 20 years. He teaches courses in environmental and natural resource economics and his research areas include non-market valuation, water quality, animal manure management, and market-based incentives for environmental improvements. He has extensive experience with grant and contract research. Sera Zegre, M.S., Project Manager, Water Program, Downstream Strategies. Mrs. Zegre is a social scientist and project manager with a background in public land management, natural resource policy and law, and asset-based community planning. She works with government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private businesses to research, plan, facilitate, and educate on issues related to communities and natural resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena - May 2018
    Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena - May 2018 Location Date/Time Deaths & Property & Event Type and Details Injuries Crop Dmg ATLANTIC NORTH CHESAPEAKE BAY POOLES IS TO SANDY PT MD COUNTY --- (KMTN)MARTIN STATE AIRPORT [39.33, -76.42] 05/04/18 19:25 EST 0 Marine Thunderstorm Wind (EG 34 kt) 05/04/18 19:25 EST 0 Source: AWOS A wind gust in excess of 30 knots was reported at Martin State. CHESAPEAKE BAY SANDY PT TO N BEACH MD COUNTY --- GREENBERRY POINT (GBY) [38.97, -76.46] 05/04/18 20:04 EST 0 Marine Thunderstorm Wind (EG 34 kt) 05/04/18 20:04 EST 0 Source: Buoy A wind gust in excess of 30 knots was reported at Greenberry Point. An isolated storm produced gusty winds over the waters. TIDAL POTOMAC COBB IS MD TO SMITH PT VA COUNTY --- LEWISETTA (LWS) [38.00, -76.47] 05/10/18 16:42 EST 0 Marine Thunderstorm Wind (EG 34 kt) 05/10/18 16:42 EST 0 Source: Buoy A wind gust in excess of 30 knots was reported at Lewisetta. TIDAL POTOMAC COBB IS MD TO SMITH PT VA COUNTY --- LEWISETTA (LWS) [38.00, -76.47] 05/10/18 16:42 EST 0 Marine Thunderstorm Wind (EG 34 kt) 05/10/18 16:42 EST 0 Source: Mesonet A wind gust in excess of 30 knots was reported at Lewisetta. TANGIER SOUND AND THE INLAND WATERS SURROUNDING BLOODSWORTH ISLAND COUNTY --- CRISFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT (CRSFL) [37.98, -75.86] 05/10/18 17:33 EST 0 Marine Thunderstorm Wind (MG 37 kt) 05/10/18 17:40 EST 0 Source: Mesonet Wind gusts of 35 to 37 knots were reported at the Crisfield Fire Department.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Cemeteries in Great Smoky Mountains National Park
    Compiled in 2001 by Great Smoky Mountains National Park Cemeteries Within Great Smoky Mountains National Park CEMETERY NAME ALT NAME RANGER DISTRICT COUNTY STATE LAT LON ELEVATIO USGS QUADNAME TOPO MAP NOTATION CR_NOTES GRAVES TRAIL ROAD SOURCE Big Poplar Curve; Bas Shaw‐Big "Shaw Grave Gap", No Parson Branch Road (closed Bas Shaw Cemetery Poplar Grove Cemetery Cades Cove District Blount TN 35.50755454 ‐83.954654 1,849 CALDERWOOD symbol 1 Gregory Bald Trail Winter) 96a, Names for CC10 & CC11 were reversed. Other text sheet coada and hill p.113, Boring & Wilcox Cemetery Boring & Wilcox Cades Cove District Blount TN 35.56353138 ‐83.84763475 1,953 CADES COVE Cem by symbol information consistent with location. 2‐6 Gregory Ridge Trail Forge Creek Road 2003 Location based on Pete Prince data. Location questionable, Abrams Creek Campground Boring Cemetery Abrams Creek Cades Cove District Blount TN 35.61172507 ‐83.93146486 1,184 CALDERWOOD Cem by symbol no distinguishable headstones, verify location 7 Cooper Road Trail Road THUNDERHEAD No identifiable marker, location from reliable sources, Bote Mountain Cemetry Cades Cove District Blount TN 35.60450314 ‐83.72672925 2,788 MOUNTAIN Not on topo recommend verify location. 1 Bote Mountain Trail Finley Cane Trail Parking No identifiable headstones, recommend verify location. Search map shows on opposite side of road from text sheet Browns Hill Cemetery Brown's Hill Cades Cove District Blount TN 35.58956814 ‐83.83264589 1,820 CADES COVE Not on topo directions. 2‐3Lawson Cemetery Access Cades Cove Loop Road Foothills Parkway Southwest Buchanan Family Cemetery Cane Creek Cades Cove District Blount TN 35.65311809 ‐83.8857463 1,327 BLOCKHOUSE Buchanan Cem 30 Cane Creek Trail Parking #7 Parson Branch Road (closed pb‐16; coada and hill Burchfield Cemetery Cades Cove District Blount TN 35.53509926 ‐83.90236848 2,675 CALDERWOOD Cem by symbol 18‐20 Gregory Bald Trail Winter) p.
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Control Board Page 1 of 44 9 VAC 25-800 VIRGINIA
    State Water Control Board Page 1 of 44 9 VAC 25-800_VIRGINIA WATER PROTECTION GENERAL PERMIT FOR MINOR SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS Statutory Authority: §§ 62.1-44.15 and 62.1-44.15:5 of the Code of Virginia and § 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1341). 9 VAC 25-800-10. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this regulation, shall have the following meaning unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: "Impacts" means results caused by human-induced activities conducted in surface waters, as specified in § 62.1-44.15:5 D of the Code of Virginia. “Interbasin transfer” means the withdrawal and transport of water from one eight digit United States Geological Service Hydrologic Unit to another eight digit United States Geological Service Hydrologic Unit where it is discharged. “Minor agricultural surface water withdrawal” means a withdrawal of surface water in Virginia or from the Potomac River for the purpose of agricultural, silvicultural, horticultural, or aquacultural operations, as authorized by 9 VAC 25-800-30 B 2 or as applicable to 9 VAC 25- 800-40. Agricultural surface water withdrawals include withdrawals for turf operations, but do not include withdrawals for landscaping activities, or turf installment and maintenance associated State Water Control Board Page 2 of 44 9 VAC 25-800_VIRGINIA WATER PROTECTION GENERAL PERMIT FOR MINOR SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS with landscaping activities. “Minor public surface water supply withdrawal” means a withdrawal of surface water in Virginia or from the Potomac River for the production of drinking water, distributed to the general public for the purpose of, but not limited to, domestic use, as authorized by 9 VAC 25- 800-30 B 1 or as applicable to 9VAC25-800-40.
    [Show full text]