DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Mallows Bay – Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary Designation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposed Mallows Bay – Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary Designation Proposed Mallows Bay – Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Management Plan 0 DECEMBER 2016 | sanctuaries.noaa.gov/mallows-bay/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Ocean Service W. Russell Callender, Ph.D. Office of National Marine Sanctuaries John Armor, Director Matt Brookhart, Acting Deputy Director Cover Photo: Mallows Bay in the Potomac River is home to an extraordinary collection of shipwrecks. Credit: Marine Robotics and Remote Sensing, Duke University. 1 Abstract In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that considers alternatives for the proposed designation of Mallows Bay-Potomac River as a National Marine Sanctuary. The proposed action addresses NOAA’s responsibilities under the NMSA to identify, designate and protect areas of the marine and Great Lakes environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archaeological, educational, or aesthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries. ONMS has developed four alternatives for the designation and the DEIS evaluates the environmental consequences of each alternative under NEPA. The DEIS also serves as a resource assessment under the NMSA, documenting present and potential uses of the areas considered in the alternatives. NOAA’s preferred alternative (Alternative C) would designate a 52 square mile area of the waters and bottomlands of the tidal Potomac River for the protection of at-risk, nationally-significant shipwrecks and associated maritime heritage resources. No significant adverse impacts to resources and the human environment are expected under any alternative. Long term beneficial impacts are anticipated if the proposed designation is finalized. Lead Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Navy For Further Information Contact: Paul Orlando, Regional Coordinator, Northeast and Great Lakes Region at (240) 460-1978, [email protected] Comments Due: March 31, 2017 Public Comments May Be Submitted: Online: Visit the federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov. In the search window, type NOAA-NOS-2016-0149, click the “Comment Now!” icon. Mail: Paul Orlando, Regional Coordinator, Northeast and Great Lakes Region, 410 Severn Ave, Suite 207-A, Annapolis MD 21403. 2 3 4 About This Document This draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) analyzes impacts and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives (including a no action alternative) associated with the proposed designation of Mallows Bay- Potomac River as a National Marine Sanctuary. This document is also a resource assessment document that details the present and future uses of the areas identified for possible designation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prepared this DEIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 USC 4321 et seq.) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, which describes NOAA policies, requirements, and procedures for implementing NEPA. Accordingly, this document was preceded by a Notice of Intent to prepare a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and carry out a public scoping process (80 FR 60634; Oct. 7, 2015). The public scoping period commenced in October 2015 and ended on January 15, 2016, during which time public meetings were held and NOAA received both written and oral comments on the concept of designating a sanctuary. NOAA received approximately 186 comments during that scoping period, strongly supportive of the concept. NOAA is the lead agency for this action. NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is the implementing office for this action. The cooperating agency for the development of this DEIS is the U.S. Department of Navy. Recommended Citation Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. 2016. Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary Designation Draft Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 5 Table of Contents Abstract: 2 Dear Reviewer: 3 About this Document 5 Recommended Citation 5 List of Figures 10 List of Tables 11 Acknowledgments 13 Acronyms 13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 20 1.1 INTRODUCTION 20 The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 20 Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 21 Sanctuaries as Marine Protected Areas 21 Comprehensive Management of the NMSS 22 Sanctuary Nomination Processes 22 Sanctuary Designation Processes 23 1.2 BACKGROUND 23 Community Nomination For Mallows Bay - Potomac River 23 Sanctuary Designation Public Scoping Input 25 Public Review of the DEIS 27 Scope of DEIS 28 Chapter 2: Purpose of and Need for Action 29 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 29 2.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 29 Purpose of Action 29 Need for Action 30 2.3 TARGET RESOURCES 30 Threats to Target Resources 30 Additional Activities 32 2.4 EXISTING LEGAL AUTHORITIES 32 State of Maryland Laws Directed to Protect Maritime Heritage Assets 33 6 State of Maryland Laws Controlling Activities That May Indirectly Affect Maritime Heritage Resources 34 Federal Laws Directed to Protect Maritime Heritage Assets 35 Federal Laws Controlling Activities That May Indirectly Affect Maritime Heritage Resources 37 Gap Analysis Related to Existing Authorities for Target Resources 39 National Marine Sanctuaries Act Role to Supplement and Complement Existing Authorities for Target Resources 40 Chapter 3: Alternatives 42 3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES 42 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 43 Alternative A. No Action or Status Quo Alternative 45 Alternative B. Approximately 18 square miles 45 Alternative C. Approximately 52 square miles 53 Alternative D. Approximately 100 square miles 58 Alternatives Considered But Not Carried Forward for Further Analysis 60 Regulations Proposed for All Action Alternatives 60 Permits, Certifications, and Authorizations 62 Non-regulatory Programs for All Action Alternatives 63 3.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 64 Chapter 4: Affected Environment 65 4.1 INTRODUCTION 65 4.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 65 4.2.1 GEOLOGY 66 4.2.2 WATER RESOURCES 67 4.2.2.1 Water Quality/Quantity 67 4.2.2.2 Water Dynamics 70 4.2.3 AIR QUALITY 70 4.2.4 CLIMATE 71 4.2.5 NOISE 72 4.3 MARITIME CULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESOURCES 72 WWI Vessels & Shipbreaking 73 Other Submerged Historical and Cultural Resources 74 Contributing Cultural Aspects of the Maritime Cultural Landscape 76 Tribal Resources 77 African American History 77 Summary 77 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 78 4.4.1 FISHERIES 78 4.4.2 PROTECTED SPECIES 81 4.4.3 BIRDS 83 7 4.4.4 TERRESTRIAL SPECIES 85 4.4.5 HABITATS 88 4.4.5.1 Tidal River 88 4.4.5.2 Palustrine 89 4.4.5.3 Terrestrial 89 4.4.5.4 EFH/Critical Habitat 90 4.5 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES 91 4.5.1 Water Access and Existing Facilities 91 4.5.2 OTHER RECREATIONAL USES 93 4.5.2.1 Recreational Fishing 93 4.5.2.2 Hunting 94 4.5.2.3 Fishing and Hunting Guide Services 94 4.5.2.4 Fossil Collecting 94 4.5.2.5 Boating & Paddling 95 4.5.2.6 Birding and Wildlife Viewing 95 4.5.3 COMMERCIAL USES 96 4.5.3.1 Commercial Fishing 96 4.5.3.2 Shipping 96 4.5.4 TOURISM 96 4.5.5 LOCAL ECONOMY 97 4.5.6. PASSIVE ECONOMIC USE 104 4.6 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES 104 4.6.1 MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO 105 4.6.2 BLOSSOM POINT RESEARCH FACILITY 106 4.6.3 NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY INDIAN HEAD 107 4.6.4 NAVAL –SUPPORT FACILITY DAHLGREN 108 Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 112 5.1 INTRODUCTION 112 5.2 AFFECTED RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS 112 Types of Potential Impacts 112 Duration of Potential Impacts 113 Geographic Extent 113 Magnitude of Potential Impacts 113 5.3 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 114 5.3.1 Alternative A: No Action 114 5.3.2 Impacts Common to Alternatives B, C, and D 116 5.3.4 Impacts Specific to Alternative B 122 5.3.5 Impacts Specific to Alternative C 124 5.3.6 Impacts Specific to Alternative D 125 5.3.7 Relative Magnitude of Across Alternatives 127 8 5.3.8 Cumulative Impacts 132 Chapter 6: Additional Considerations 137 6.1 CONSULTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 137 6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 141 6.3 RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 142 6.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 142 INDEX 143 LIST OF PREPARERS 144 REFERENCES 145 APPENDIX A - Draft Management Plan 148 APPENDIX B - Additional State of Maryland Authorities 195 9 List of Figures Figure ES1: Map of Alternatives Considered 17 Figure 1: Map of the National Marine Sanctuary System 21 Figure 2: Boundaries for Alternatives B, C, and D 43 Figure 3: Boundary for Alternative B 46 Figure 4: Boundary Alternative C 54 Figure 5: Boundary Alternative C detail of proposed boundary area 55 around Quantico Marine Base Figure 6. Detail of proposed boundary (orange line) adjacent to Fairview, 57 VA. Figure 7. Detail of proposed boundary (orange line) adjacent to Caledon, 58 VA. Figure 8: Boundary Alternative D 59 Figure 9: The Potomac River Basin. Source: Interstate Commission on 66 the Potomac River 2016 Figure 10: Maryland physiographic provinces and county boundaries. 67 Source: Maryland Geological Survey 2016. Figure 11: Maryland Public Access Locations. Source: Maryland 92 Department of Natural Resources Figure 11: Alternative B Economic Study Area 98 Figure 12: Alternative C Economic Study Area 99 Figure 13: Alternative D Economic Study Area 100 Figure 14: Map of Propose Alternatives and DOD Installations 105 10 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of resources in each alternative including World War I (WWI) and 44 U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Virginia
    NORTHERN VIRGINIA SALAMANDER RESORT & SPA Middleburg WHAT’S NEW American soldiers in the U.S. Army helped create our nation and maintain its freedom, so it’s only fitting that a museum near the U.S. capital should showcase their history. The National Museum of the United States Army, the only museum to cover the entire history of the Army, opened on Veterans Day 2020. Exhibits include hundreds of artifacts, life-sized scenes re- creating historic battles, stories of individual soldiers, a 300-degree theater with sensory elements, and an experiential learning center. Learn and honor. ASK A LOCAL SPITE HOUSE Alexandria “Small downtown charm with all the activities of a larger city: Manassas DID YOU KNOW? is steeped in history and We’ve all wanted to do it – something spiteful that didn’t make sense but, adventure for travelers. DOWNTOWN by golly, it proved a point! In 1830, Alexandria row-house owner John MANASSAS With an active railway Hollensbury built a seven-foot-wide house in an alley next to his home just system, it’s easy for to spite the horse-drawn wagons and loiterers who kept invading the alley. visitors to enjoy the historic area while also One brick wall in the living room even has marks from wagon-wheel hubs. traveling to Washington, D.C., or Richmond The two-story Spite House is only 25 feet deep and 325 square feet, but on an Amtrak train or daily commuter rail.” NORTHERN — Debbie Haight, Historic Manassas, Inc. VIRGINIA delightfully spiteful! INSTAGRAM- HIDDEN GEM PET- WORTHY The menu at Sperryville FRIENDLY You’ll start snapping Trading Company With a name pictures the moment features favorite like Beer Hound you arrive at the breakfast and lunch Brewery, you know classic hunt-country comfort foods: sausage it must be dog exterior of the gravy and biscuits, steak friendly.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    NNaannjjeemmooyy NNRRMMAA (Natural Resource Management Area) Land Unit Implementation Plan A joint publication between the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Bureau of Land Management—Eastern States September 2005 Publication Tracking # DNR-08-0205-0047 Publication Date: September 2005 Publication created by: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Attn: Resource Planning Tawes State Office Building, E-4 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, MD 21401 Toll free in Maryland: 1-877-620-8DNR ext. 8402 Out of State call: (410) 260-8402 TTY user call via the MD Relay www.dnr.Maryland.gov Document also available on the internet at: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/resourceplanning/ Cover photos courtesy of Matt Bucchin, Jeff McCusker, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) IRC Image Gallery Printed on Recycled Paper The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin or physical or mental disability. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of agencies and individuals made significant contributions in the development of the land unit implementation plan for the Nanjemoy Natural Resources Management Area (NRMA). The Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—Eastern States appreciates the efforts of each one of the individuals listed below for their time and effort in reviewing and providing input on this plan. We would also like to thank all the members of the public who contributed countless hours of time and effort attending public meetings and field days, reviewing and providing comments on the document, and assisting agency staff in collecting field data.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Page # GENERAL INFORMATION Charles County Symbols......................................................................................................................47 Attractions.................................................................................................................................................48 Parks.............................................................................................................................................................51 Charles County Symbols Seal The Charles County seal is designed from the escutcheon of the first Lord Baltimore’s seal. The county was established in 1658. Flower The wild carrot, also called Queen Anne’s Lace, is commonly found along roads and through fields. Queen Anne’s Lace is a biennial with 1 to 3 foot stems and lacy flowers that do not blossom until their second year. Tree The Dogwood tree produces beautiful flowers each Spring. These flowers are usually small and have four or five petals. The berries that appear in the Fall are commonly eaten by birds in the winter. Bird The Great Blue Heron is the nation’s tallest bird. The bird is abundant along rivers and creeks and is a superb fisherman. Page 47 Attractions Our Past Preserved.... La Plata Train Station This historic building recalls the railroad’s impact on Charles County during the growth boom of the late 1800's. Port Tobacco Courthouse Settled in 1634, Port Tobacco was once Maryland’s second largest seaport and was listed on early World Maps. This settlement was originally the site of the Indian Village of Potopaco. Port Tobacco was the first county seat, but after the river began silting up and after a shift of occupations from tobacco farming to other trades and industry people moved to the town of La Plata where the new railroad was being built. The county seat was eventually moved to La Plata. The first Charles County Courthouse was completed in 1729, and a second one in 1819.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 158 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2012 No. 75 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Friday, May 25, 2012, at 10 a.m. Senate WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2012 The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was to the Senate from the President pro SCHEDULE called to order by the Honorable tempore (Mr. INOUYE). Mr. REID. Madam President, we are KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, a Senator from The assistant legislative clerk read now on the motion to proceed to the the State of New York. the following letter: FDA user fees bill. Republicans control U.S. SENATE, the first half hour, the majority the PRAYER PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, second half hour. We are working on an The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- Washington, DC, May 23, 2012. agreement to consider amendments to fered the following prayer: To the Senate: the FDA bill. We are close to being able Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, Eternal God, You have made all to finalize that. We hope to get an of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby agreement and avoid filing cloture on things well. Thank You for the light of appoint the Honorable KIRSTEN E. GILLI- the bill. day and the dark of night. Thank You BRAND, a Senator from the State of New for the glory of the sunlight, for the York, to perform the duties of the Chair.
    [Show full text]
  • David Clickner, Et Ux. V. Magothy River Association, Inc., Et Al. No. 13, September Term, 2011, Opinion by Greene, J
    David Clickner, et ux. v. Magothy River Association, Inc., et al. No. 13, September Term, 2011, Opinion by Greene, J. REAL PROPERTY LAW – PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENTS – Public prescriptive rights may be acquired over privately owned portions of beaches located along inland waterways. It was error, however, for the trial court, under the circumstances of this case, to apply the general presumption of adversity to the public use of a beach that was unimproved and in a general state of nature. Instead, the proper presumption was that public use of the land was by permission of the owners. Therefore, the burden was on the claimants to overcome the presumption of permission by proving that the use was, in fact, adverse. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 13 September Term, 2011 DAVID CLICKNER, et ux. v. MAGOTHY RIVER ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins Barbera *Murphy, Joseph F., Jr. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ. Opinion by Greene, J. Filed: January 20, 2012 *Murphy, J., participated in the hearing and in the conference of this case in regard to its decision after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3A but did not participate in the adoption of this opinion. Six individuals and the Magothy River Association, Inc. (collectively, “Association” or “Appellees”) brought suit against the recent purchasers of Dobbins Island, David and Diana Clickner (“Clickners” or “Appellants”), seeking to establish a public right to use a beach located alongside the island’s northern crescent area. Following a bench trial on the merits, the trial judge determined that Appellees had demonstrated the existence of a prescriptive easement on behalf of the public and ordered the removal of portions of a fence erected on the beach by Appellants.
    [Show full text]
  • The Martinak Boat (CAR-254, 18CA54) Caroline County, Maryland
    The Martinak Boat (CAR-254, 18CA54) Caroline County, Maryland Bruce F. Thompson Principal Investigator Maryland Department of Planning Maryland Historical Trust, Office of Archeology Maryland State Historic Preservation Office 100 Community Place Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2023 November, 2005 This project was accomplished through a partnership between the following organizations: Maryland Historical Trust Maryland Department of Natural Resources Martinak State Park Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum Maritime Archaeological and Historical Society *The cover photo shows the entrance to Watts Creek where the Martinak Boat was discovered just to the right of the ramp http://www.riverheritage.org/riverguide/Sites/html/watts_creek.html (accessed December 10, 2004). Executive Summary The 1960s discovery and recovery of wooden shipwreck remains from Watt’s Creek, Caroline County induced three decades of discussion, study and documentation to determine the wrecks true place within the region’s history. Early interpretations of the wreck timbers claimed the vessel was an example of a Pungy (generally accepted to have been built ca. 1840 – 1920, perhaps as early as 1820), with "…full flaring bow, long lean run, sharp floors, flush deck…and a raking stem post and stern post" (Burgess, 1975:58). However, the closer inspection described in this report found that the floors are flatter and the stem post and stern post display a much longer run (not so raking as first thought). Additional factors, such as fastener types, construction details and tool marks offer evidence for a vessel built earlier than 1820, possibly a link between the late 18th-century shipbuilding tradition and the 19th-century Pungy form. The Martinak Boat (CAR-254, 18CA54) Caroline County, Maryland Introduction In November, 1989 Maryland Maritime Archeology Program (MMAP) staff met with Richard Dodds, then curator of the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum (CBMM), and Norman H.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014
    Larry Hogan, Governor Boyd Rutherford, Lt. Governor Mark Belton, Secretary Tidewater Ecosystem Assessment Joanne Throwe, Deputy Secretary Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 The Potomac River watershed includes area in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Washington D.C. For the purpose of this report, the basin is divided into four regions: the Upper Potomac, Shenandoah, Middle Potomac and Lower Potomac (Figure 1). Land use in the upper Potomac River watershed was estimated to be 69% forest and 22% agriculture (Figure 1, Table 1).1 The Upper Potomac watershed is largely within West Virginia (54%), with other portions in Pennsylvania (22%), Maryland (18%) and Virginia (7%). Impervious surfaces cover 1% of the Maryland potion of the Upper river basin (Table 1).2 Land use in the Shenandoah watershed was estimated to be 56% forest and 34% agriculture. The Shenandoah watershed is almost entirely in Virginia (96%), with a small area in West Virginia (4%). Land use in the Middle Potomac watershed was estimated to be 44% agriculture, 32% forest and 20% developed. The Middle Potomac watershed includes areas in Maryland (55%), Virginia (34%), Pennsylvania (13%) and Washington D.C. (0.1%). Impervious surfaces cover 7% of the Maryland potion of the Middle river basin. Land use in the Lower Potomac watershed was estimated to be 41% forest, 30% developed, and 16% agriculture. The Lower Potomac watershed includes Figure 1 Potomac River basin Top panel shows state boundaries and the individual watersheds. Bottom panel shows the land use throughout the basin for 2011.1 Potomac River Water Quality and Habitat Assessment Overall Condition 2012-2014 1 areas in Virginia (56%), Maryland (42%) and Washington D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Camping Places (Campsites and Cabins) with Carderock Springs As
    Camping places (campsites and cabins) With Carderock Springs as the center of the universe, here are a variety of camping locations in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Delaware. A big round of applause to Carderock’s Eric Nothman for putting this list together, doing a lot of research so the rest of us can spend more time camping! CAMPING in Maryland 1) Marsden Tract - 5 mins - (National Park Service) - C&O canal Mile 11 (1/2 mile above Carderock) three beautiful group campsites on the Potomac. Reservations/permit required. Max 20 to 30 people each. C&O canal - hiker/biker campsites (no permit needed - all are free!) about every five miles starting from Swains Lock to Cumberland. Campsites all the way to Paw Paw, WV (about 23 sites) are within 2 hrs drive. Three private campgrounds (along the canal) have cabins. Some sections could be traveled by canoe on the Potomac (canoe camping). Closest: Swains Lock - 10 mins - 5 individual tent only sites (one isolated - take path up river) - all close to parking lot. First come/first serve only. Parking fills up on weekends by 8am. Group Campsites are located at McCoy's Ferry, Fifteen Mile Creek, Paw Paw Tunnel, and Spring Gap. They are $20 per site, per night with a maximum of 35 people. Six restored Lock-houses - (several within a few miles of Carderock) - C&O Canal Trust manages six restored Canal Lock-houses for nightly rental (some with heat, water, A/C). 2) Cabin John Regional Park - 10 mins - 7 primitive walk-in sites. Pit toilets, running water.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • II. Background
    II. Background This chapter provides background information that was used as a basis for formulating the Preliminary Subregion 5 Master Plan and Proposed Sectional Map Amendment. Section A, Planning Context and Process, describes the location of the study area, the purposes of this master plan, prior plans and initiatives, and the public process used to prepare this master plan. Section B, Existing Conditions, contains profiles of Subregion 5 including the area’s history, demographic, economic, environmental, transportation and land use information. Section C, Key Issues, summarizes the key planning issues that are addressed in this master plan. A. Planning Context and Process Master Plan Study Area Boundaries The master plan study area includes land in south and southwest Prince George’s County generally bounded by the Potomac River, Tinkers Creek, Andrews Air Force Base, Piscataway Creek, the CSX (Popes Creek) railroad line, Mattawoman Creek, and the Charles County line. The subregion is approximately 74 square miles of land, equivalent to 15 percent of the total land area of Prince George’s County (See Map II-1, page 2). Within these boundaries are established and new residential neighborhoods, medical services, schools, commercial and industrial businesses, large retail centers, a regional park, two general aviation airports, a national park, environmental education centers, sand and gravel mining operations, a golf course, agriculture, and large forested areas. (See discussion of communities in section B. 6. and in Chapter IV, Land Use—Development Pattern.) For this master plan, Subregion 5 encompasses the following three communities (See Map II-2, page 3) in Planning Areas 81A, 81B, 83, 84, and 85A1.
    [Show full text]