DOCSLIB.ORG

Fairview Beach Watershed Plan King George County, Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fairview Beach Watershed Plan King George County, Virginia Fairview Beach Watershed Plan King George County, Virginia Prepared for Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Northern Virginia Regional Office 13901 Crown Court Woodbridge, VA 22193 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Grant No. 15784 Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) 30 W. Gude, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 September 2014 Cover Photo Potomac River at Fairview Beach, Virginia, May 15, 2014. Photo by James Palmer, ICPRB. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the United States government or the signatories or Commissioners to ICPRB. Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... v List of Appendices ................................................................................................................................... vi Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................. vii Units of Measurement .............................................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... x Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... xi 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Selection of a Watershed Plan Approach ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Watershed Plan Elements.............................................................................................................. 2 2 Description of Fairview Beach ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Description of PSA ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.1 Delineation of Sub-watersheds .............................................................................................. 3 2.2 Topography ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Soils............................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Land Use Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 7 2.5 Population ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.6 Community Life .......................................................................................................................... 10 3 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Outreach/public participation ...................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Working Groups .......................................................................................................................... 14 4 Defining the Bacteria Problem ......................................................................................................... 16 4.1 Applicable Water Quality Standard ............................................................................................ 16 4.1.1 Fairview Beach Bacteria Impairment ................................................................................... 17 4.2 Analysis of Monitoring Data....................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Source and Transport Mechanisms for Bacteria ......................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Human Sources .................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.2 Dogs ..................................................................................................................................... 19 4.3.3 Birds and Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 19 4.3.4 Potomac River ...................................................................................................................... 20 4.3.5 Re-suspended Sediment and Beach Sand............................................................................. 23 4.3.6 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................... 24 4.3.7 Groundwater ......................................................................................................................... 24 4.3.8 Summary of Contributions of Sources and Transport Paths ................................................ 24 4.4 Conceptual Model of Bacteria Concentrations at Fairview Beach ............................................. 26 4.4.1 Fairview Beach Watershed Model ....................................................................................... 27 4.4.2 Validation of the Fairview Beach Conceptual Model .......................................................... 29 4.5 Reductions Required to Meet the Water Quality Standard ......................................................... 33 4.6 Approach to Achieving Necessary Load Reductions .................................................................. 33 5 Management Measures ..................................................................................................................... 35 5.1 Existing BMPs ............................................................................................................................ 36 5.2 BMPs to Address Human Sources .............................................................................................. 37 5.2.1 Anticipated Load Reductions ............................................................................................... 38 5.2.2 Critical Areas ....................................................................................................................... 38 5.2.3 Necessary Permits and Review ............................................................................................ 40 5.2.4 Lead Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 40 5.3 BMPs to Address Pet Waste ....................................................................................................... 40 5.3.1 Anticipated Load Reductions ............................................................................................... 41 i 5.3.2 Critical Areas ....................................................................................................................... 41 5.3.3 Necessary Permits and Review ............................................................................................ 42 5.3.4 Lead Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 42 5.4 BMPs to Address Stormwater ..................................................................................................... 42 5.4.1 Anticipated Load Reductions ............................................................................................... 43 5.4.2 Critical Areas ....................................................................................................................... 45 5.4.3 Necessary Permits and Review ............................................................................................ 47 5.4.4 Lead Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 47 5.5 Educational Activities ................................................................................................................. 47 5.5.1 Anticipated Load Reductions ............................................................................................... 48 5.5.2 Critical Areas ....................................................................................................................... 48 5.5.3 Necessary Permits and Review ............................................................................................ 49 5.5.4 Lead Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 49 5.6 Other BMPs ................................................................................................................................ 49 5.6.1 Anticipated Load Reductions ..............................................................................................
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]
  • 202B Targeting Resources Report.Pdf
    DRAFT REPORT Focusing Resources to Restore and Protect the Chesapeake Bay and its Tributary Waters Executive Order 13508, Section 202b Report Draft material prepared for the 24 November 2009 Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay Disclaimer: This document reflects the U. S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) revised report under Section 202(b) of Executive Order 13508 (EO) making recommendations to the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for a strategy to target resources to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters. This revised document is published to supplement the FLC’s publication of a Draft Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay (issued November 9, 2009). This revised report includes recommendations that may change as the FLC’s draft strategy is further refined based on public comments. This revised document is not a final agency action subject to judicial review; nor is it a rule. Nothing in this revised document is meant to, or in fact does, affect the substantive or legal rights of third parties or bind USDA or other agencies collaborating in the development of this report. While this revised document reflects USDA’s and collaborating agencies’ current thinking regarding recommendations to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay, USDA and the collaborating agencies reserve the discretion to modify the recommendations included in the report as they work with the FLC to refine the draft strategy, or act in a manner different from this report as appropriate. ii Draft material prepared for the 24 November 2009 Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay About this Document Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, issued a call to action “to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the Nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem.” Section 202(b) of the Executive Order directs the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphic Modeling for Concealed Phosphate Deposits in Virginia's
    Stratigraphic Modeling for Concealed Phosphate Deposits in Virginia’s Coastal Plain Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy Division of Geology and Mineral Resources in cooperation with United States Geological Survey Mineral Resources External Research Program COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT: G10AP00054 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT Aaron Cross and William L. Lassetter 2011 "Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS award number G10AP00054. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government." “Opportunities for new discoveries are good, and the increasing knowledge about the origin and occurrence of phosphate deposits should aid prospecting.” V. E. McKelvey, 1967 Abstract A study to outline an exploration program for phosphates beneath Virginia’s Coastal Plain was undertaken by the Virginia Division of Geology and Mineral Resources with funding support from the U.S. Geological Survey. An in-depth literature review highlighted the importance of two primary stages in the development of phosphate deposits in the geologic setting of the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. During stage one, primary phosphatic material was precipitated in the early Paleogene marine environment from nutrient-rich, oxygen-poor seawater. During stage two, primary phosphate deposits were exposed to weathering, reworked, and concentrated. The model presented here, at its simplest, advocates the concept of a genesis unit, the Paleocene-Eocene Pamunkey Group, bounded on top by an unconformity, which is overlain by the host unit, the Miocene Calvert Formation, whose base contains a lag deposit of phosphatic sand and gravel.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit C 190284
    190284 Exhibit C 190284 Exhibit C- U.S.G.S. HUC 12 Watersheds that contain and/or are immediately adjoining a U.S. EPA 303(d) water body impaired by PCBs States HUC12 Name AL,GA,TN 060200011204 Lower Nickajack Lake-Tennessee River AL 031501051003 Weiss Lake-Coosa River AL 031501060203 Big Cove Creek AL 031501060204 Turkey Town Creek AL 031501060309 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix-Cover Master Plan Report
    DINWIDDIE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER CAMPUS J-262-13 MASTER PLAN / 2014 Appendix A: VI. Environmental Studies • Wetland Delineations • Cultural Resource and Threatened and Endangered Species Review Baxter Bailey & Associates | February 10, 2014 PO Box 7i133 Enviro-Utllities Ric hmoad, Wrginia 2 3 2 3 5 Phone: EA4.796.3911 Experts on the Ground Fax: E04.7961090 \(f tl/ htu : //envir o-afilitie s. c o m January 27,20L4 Jeff Robinson and Associates c/o Jelf Robinson VIA EMAIL RE: Wetlands delineation Dinwiddie County Government Center Master Plan Dinwiddie County, Virginia Dear Mr. Robinson: Enclosed are the results of a wetland delineation conducted on the above referenced propefi. Fieldwork was conducted on January 23, 2AL4 by Enviro-Utilities, tnc. (EU) using the Routine Determination Method as outlined in the 7987 Corps of Engineers Wetlond Delineotion Manuol. Wetlands and Waters of the US were found on the subject property and flagged. ln addition, the flags were lo\ated using a sub-meter GPS system. The autocadfile containing the wetlands boundary was embiled to you on January 27,2014 under separate cover. Pertinent data was extracted from several information sources in an effort to expedite the onsite investigation. The USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map for Dinwiddie County, VA was used to locate the site and identify drainage patterns. Additionally, the 5o/ Survey of Chesterfield County, V4 indicates that this property is underlain primarily by uplands, non- hydric soils. The field evaluation conducted confirmed the soils map. A "Routine Onsite Determination" was performed along the defined topographic drainage ways. l Areas subject to jurisdiction by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FBRA Contamination Study of 2011
    FBRA Contamination Study Summer 2011 October 15, 2011 Herb Cover, Joe Hancharick, Janet Harrover, George Meadows Background Fairview Beach has a long history of contamination problems in the Potomac River. The most obvious indication of that is when the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) posts beach advisories after finding high levels of enterococci bacteria in a weekly test. Enterococci bacteria indicate the presence of fecal contamination, whether the source is mammal or bird. VDH performs these tests during the summer season, and posts the warning signs whenever the bacteria count exceeds 104 colony forming units (cfu) per 100ml of water. They currently sample at 3 locations: near the trailer park, in front of the Shore Store, and at 2nd Street. Other evidence of contamination is the actual human waste observed along the one mile shoreline from Passapatanzy Creek to Fairview Beach. Karen Radley, a resident near the Passapatanzy Creek, reports that is quite common to find tampons and human waste along her beachfront. The same is true with residents as far downriver as 8th Street. The grandson of a fisherman who has several fishing nets at the mouth of Passapatanzy Creek reported that it is common to find human waste and tissue in the nets. Dennis Fisher, who lives about 500 feet upriver from Fairview Beach, reports similar findings Previous Studies on Problem Since VDH found extraordinarily high bacteria readings in the vicinity of Tim’s II restaurant, this was obviously a point of interest. VDH worked with Professor Hagedorn from Virginia Tech (under contract with the Department of Environmental Quality [DEQ]) to identify the source(s) of the bacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape
    Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Julia A. King G. Anne Richardson Martha McCartney Virginia Busby Prepared For: National Park Service Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Conservancy The Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland December 2016 Defining the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Julia A. King G. Anne Richardson Martha McCartney Virginia R. Busby With Contributions From: The Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia G. Anne Richardson, Chief Cochise Fortune Faye Fortune Colonel John Fortune (USA, ret.) Judith Fortune Mark Fortune Dana Mulligan Barbara B. Williams Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Conservancy Annapolis, Maryland The Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia Indian Neck, Virginia St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland December 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape between Port Royal/Port Conway and Urbanna, Virginia. 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. The project was administered by the Chesapeake Conservancy and the fieldwork undertaken and report prepared by St. Mary’s College of Maryland. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the earliest years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept was developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes along the Smith Trail, both as they existed in the early 17th century and as they exist today.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Fredericksburg 30' X 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and Maryland
    EUSGS science for a changing world Geologic Map of the Fredericksburg 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Virginia and Maryland By Robert B. Mixon, 1 Louis Pavlides,2 David S. Powars, 1 Albert J. Froelich,2 Robert E. Weems, 1 J. Stephen Schindler,1 Wayne L. Newell,1 Lucy E. Edwards,1 and Lauck W. Ward3 Pamphlet to accompany Geologic Investigations Series Map 1-2607 1U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192. 2U.S. Geological Survey, deceased. 3Virginia Museum ofNatural History, Martinsville, VA 24112. 2000 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey COVER: This Corinthian capital, originally used atop columns of the east-central portico of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D. C., was carved in the early 19th century from sandstone of the Cretaceous Potomac Formation. The stone was obtained within the map area of the Fredericksburg quadrangle from a quarry on Government Island at the head of tidewater on Aquia Creek, Va. The well­ defined sedimentary structures (visible as faint, subhorizontal crossbeds in the photograph), the moderately spaced jointing, and the clay matrix made quarrying of the sandstone and carving of the capitals easier. However, these qualities also caused rapid weathering and structural failure, which led to the removal of the columns and capitals from the U.S. Capitol in 1958. This capital was later moved to its present location on the grounds of the U.S. National Arboretum, Washington, D.C. Photograph by J. Stephen Schindler. CONTENTS Chapter I. Overview of the Fredericksburg 30' x 60' quadrangle, Virginia and Maryland By Robert B. Mixon 1 Chapter II.
    [Show full text]
  • 202(B) Targeting Resources Draft Report.Pdf
    Draft material prepared for consideration by the 9 September 2009 Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay DRAFT REPORT Focusing Resources to Restore and Protect the Chesapeake Bay and its Tributary Waters Executive Order 13508, Section 202b Report 1 Draft material prepared for consideration by the 9 September 2009 Federal Leadership Committee for the Chesapeake Bay About this Document Executive Order 13508, Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, issued a call to action “to protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the Nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem.” Section 202(b) of the Executive Order directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in coordination with other Federal, State, and local stakeholders to develop recommendations for targeting resources to better protect the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Section 401 clarifies that the Secretary of Agriculture should concentrate programs, as appropriate, on priority conservation practices to reduce nutrient and sediment losses from agriculture within priority watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This draft report provides a series of recommendations for focusing technical and financial resources to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and its tributaries. The recommendations were developed in consultation with Federal agencies and State and local government agencies and stakeholders from the six states and the District of Columbia with lands in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Disclaimer: This draft document is USDA’s current draft report under Section 202(b) of E.O. 13508 making recommendations to the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for targeting resources to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Situation Report King George and Caroline Counties
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1979 Shoreline Situation Report King George and Caroline Counties Lynne C. Morgan Virginia Institute of Marine Science Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Nancy M. Strum Virginia Institute of Marine Science Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science Carl H. Hobbs III Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Sustainability Commons Recommended Citation Morgan, L. C., Owen, D. W., Strum, N. M., Byrne, R. J., & Hobbs, C. H. (1979) Shoreline Situation Report King George and Caroline Counties. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 165. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5J43V This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report KING GEORGE AND CAROLINE COUNTIES Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant Nos. 04-8-M01-309 and 03-4-043-357 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 165 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1979 Shoreline Situation Report KING GEORGE AND CAROLINE COUNTIES ·_.;, -Prepared by: Lynne C. Morgan Dennis W. Owen Nancy M. Sturm Project- Supervisors~ Robert J.
    [Show full text]
  • An Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Manhood in the Potomac River Valley of Virginia, 1645-1730
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2015 An Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Manhood in the Potomac River Valley of Virginia, 1645-1730 Danny Brad Hatch University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Hatch, Danny Brad, "An Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Manhood in the Potomac River Valley of Virginia, 1645-1730. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2015. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/3303 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Danny Brad Hatch entitled "An Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Manhood in the Potomac River Valley of Virginia, 1645-1730." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Anthropology. Barbara J. Heath, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Walter E. Klippel, Elizabeth J. Kellar, Christopher P. Magra Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) An Historical Archaeology of Early Modern Manhood in the Potomac River Valley of Virginia, 1645-1730 A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Danny Brad Hatch May 2015 Copyright © 2015 by Danny Brad Hatch.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairview Beach Is a Small Beach on the Potomac River in King George County, Virginia
    Addressing the Bacteria Impairment at Fairview Beach: Monitoring Data Analysis and Justification for a Watershed Plan Approach Submitted by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street PE-08 Rockville, MD 20850 Submitted to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Northern Virginia Regional Office 13901 Crown Court Woodbridge, VA 22193 October 15, 2013 Table of Contents List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... iv 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Description of Drainage Area ................................................................................... 2 1.2 Applicable Water Quality Standards ........................................................................ 3 2.0 Analysis of Monitoring Data ........................................................................................ 4 2.1 Virginia Department of Health Monitoring Data ...................................................... 4 2.2 Virginia Tech Monitoring Results ............................................................................ 7 2.2.1 VT Sampling Results at VDH Sampling Sites
    [Show full text]