DOCSLIB.ORG

Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis April 2014 Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis United States Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District The Natural Conservancy Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Final Report April 2014 Recommended citation: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Nature Conservancy, and Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. 2014. Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment: Potomac River Sustainable Flow and Water Resources Analysis. Final Report. 107 pp. and 11 appendices. Cover photograph: Great Falls on the Potomac River as seen from Virginia. Jim Palmer (ICPRB) Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment Abstract The Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment (MPRWA) was a collaborative effort to assess the relationship between streamflow alteration and ecological response in the Potomac River and its tributaries in a study area defined as the Middle Potomac. The assessment is comprised of five distinct components: (1) a large river environmental flow needs assessment, (2) a stream and small rivers environmental flow needs assessment, (3) a projection of future water uses, (4) a stakeholder engagement process, and (5) development of a concept or scope for a strategic comprehensive plan for watershed management. This information can be used to balance and mitigate water use conflicts and prevent ecological degradation. To assess flow needs in the Potomac watershed, the Ecologically Sustainable Water Management (ESWM) approach was used for large rivers and the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) framework was adapted for streams and small rivers. In the large rivers included in this study, based on currently available information, there has been no discernible adverse ecological impact on focal species due to human modification of flows. As a precautionary measure, the team recommended that the current large river flow regime be maintained for the entire range of flows as defined by 20 flow statistics based on a 21-year period of record (1984-2005). In streams and small rivers, strong relationships were found between urbanization (impervious surface), hydrologic alteration, and ecological impacts. Land use was found to be a more significant cause of hydrologic alteration than water withdrawals and impoundments at the present time. Impervious surfaces move rainfall and snowmelt more rapidly into rivers and streams than surfaces with natural vegetation, causing increased flashiness (rate of change). Increased flashiness correlates with declines in the status of stream macroinvertebrate, the streamflow assessment’s indicator taxa. These taxa were not found to be sensitive to changes in low magnitude flows. Analyses of other taxa more sensitive to low magnitude flows, such as fish and mussels, could provide a more complete picture of biological response to flow alteration for water use decisions. Basin-wide datasets of these groups are not collected at present. The impact on flow of future changes in water use was assessed through six scenarios: a) three different forecasts of per capita domestic water use; b) climate change; c) hot and dry summer conditions; and d) conversion of power plants to closed cycle operation. There was no regional pattern of flow alteration that applied to all scenarios and, within scenarios, impacts on flow varied for each subwatershed’s unique combination of land and water uses. Stakeholder education and engagement are key elements in the process of transferring scientific findings to management and policy. Workshops, webinars, and technical meetings were convened in order to obtain advice on methods, interpret draft results, and share findings with government agencies at all levels and other parties with significant roles in water management. This dialogue and information sharing contributes to state water management decision making processes and to the ongoing dialogue among stakeholders about ensuring the sustainable use of stream flows for all purposes. Water use and basin development in each of the Potomac watershed’s jurisdictions affects the other jurisdictions. The final component of this study was to scope a basin-wide comprehensive plan process. Because there is no single agency with regulatory authority for water planning across the Potomac watershed, the concept for a future comprehensive plan is based on a collaborative, stakeholder driven model. Abstract page i Middle Potomac River Watershed Assessment Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.1. Physiography ............................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Climate ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.4. Impoundments ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.5. Water Withdrawals and Discharges ....................................................................................................... 10 2.6. Land Uses .................................................................................................................................................. 10 2.7 Ecological Community ............................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 3. Large River Environmental Flow Needs .................................................................................. 14 3.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 14 3.2. Large River Flow Needs Assessment Approach ................................................................................. 15 3.3. Findings of the Large River Flow Needs Assessment ........................................................................ 18 3.4. Conclusions for Large River Flow Needs Assessment ....................................................................... 20 3.5. Large River Information Gaps and Monitoring Needs ...................................................................... 21 Chapter 4. Future Water Use Projections .................................................................................................... 23 4.1. Methods for Future Water Use Projections ......................................................................................... 23 4.2. Findings for Future Water Use Projections .......................................................................................... 25 4.3. Comparison to Previous Studies ............................................................................................................ 27 4.4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 5. Stream Environmental Flow Needs .......................................................................................... 29 5.1. Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) ...................................................................... 30 5.2. Findings for Stream Environmental Flow Needs: Interpretation and Use of Relationships ....... 33 5.2.1. Magnitude ........................................................................................................................................... 34 5.2.2. Duration ............................................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.3. Frequency ........................................................................................................................................... 37 5.2.4. Rate of Change .................................................................................................................................. 37 5.2.5. Possible Mechanisms Underlying FA-E Relationships ............................................................... 39 5.2.6. Other Environmental Stressors ...................................................................................................... 41 5.2.7. Using the FA-E Curves ...................................................................................................................
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]
  • Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail National Park Service Potomac Heritage District of Columbia/Maryland/Pennsylvania/Virginia U.S
    Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail National Park Service Potomac Heritage District of Columbia/Maryland/Pennsylvania/Virginia U.S. Department of the Interior Parks and Regional Trails Charlestown k To Breezewood To Chambersburg e e r C 522 k l MICHAUX l e i 11IE e R 81 k E r H e E STATE C AK Allegheny L I g e L l A r i NF n g k R ADAMS i a T BUCHANAN C e CLEVELAND FOREST l l n r i i e e T a STATE FOREST r k k r d 70 a e c C COUNTY T i r i FRANKLIN e AKRON NEW YORK S y o e r e L t r v NJ a C Pittsburgh a CITY a BUCHANAN o IC t c INDIANA e N w E s C COUNTY C TRENTON S OH S STATE FOREST u Harrisburg BEDFORD o u d 26 l T e g PA i l COLUMBUS o t a M t e Dayton n i COUNTY FULTON h Philadelphia o L c T Baltimore o Chesapeake MD COUNTY CINCINNATI c Wayne o NF and Ohio WashingtonDOVER D.C. n Canal NHP ANNAPOLIS o WASHINGTON, D.C. Ohi o WV DE k C Shenandoah e George NP GeorgeCAPTAIN JOHN SMITH e FRANKFORT Washington CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL r Harpers Washington C NF L HISTORIC TRAIL Charleston A Ferry Memorial n N IO NHP PKWY PENNSYLVANIA Jefferson T w AVA o KY NF N T MARYLAND Richmond POTOMAC HERITAGE 68 Y NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL Hancock N W NORFOLK IA K To Cumberland ABINGDON H P C INDIAN SPRINGS WILDLIFE A L ge ELIZABETHTON PA id BELLE GROVE MANAGEMENT AREA P R WINSTON- TN Cherokee A BILLMEYER WILDLIFE NF e 68 Great Smoky lu SALEMNC WILDLIFE ail B Raleigh North MANAGEMENT Tr WASHINGTON Mountains NP l Ch Pisgah MANAGEMENT AREA i es OVERMOUNTAIN VICTORY a ap NF MorgantonNATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL AREA R e COUNTY a Nantahala CHARLOTTE CHATTANOOGA k Chattahochee
    [Show full text]
  • UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan
    UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER BASIN Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Prepared by Updated June 2012 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan (This page intentionally left blank) June 2011 Page 2 Upper Shenandoah River Basin Drought Preparedness and Response Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Historical Background .................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Drought Response Stage Declaration, Implementation and Response Measures.......................... 8 Drought Declaration .................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 10 Drought Response Stages and Response Measures ..................................................................... 10 4.0 Drought Response Stage Termination .......................................................................................... 11 5.0 Plan Revisions ............................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A Locality Drought Watch, Warning and Emergency Indicators Appendix B Drought Watch Responses and Water Conservation Measures Appendix C Drought Warning Responses
    [Show full text]
  • Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria
    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1979 Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Lynne C. Morgan Virginia Institute of Marine Science Nancy M. Sturm 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 Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Owen, D. W., Morgan, L. C., Sturm, N. M., Byrne, R. J., & Hobbs, C. H. (1979) Shoreline Situation Report Counties of Fairfax and Arlington, City of Alexandria. Special Report tn Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 166. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/ V5K134 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 COUNTIES OF FAIRFAX AND ARLINGTON, CITY OF ALEXANDRIA Prepared and Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric·Administration, Grant Nos. 04-7-158-44041 and 04-8-M01-309 Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 166 of the VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1979 Shoreline Situation Report COUNTIES OF FAIRFAX AND ARLINGTON, CITY OF AL.EXANDRIA Prepared by: Dennis W.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
    Native Vascular Flora City of Alexandria, Virginia Photo by Gary P. Fleming December 2015 Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia December 2015 By Roderick H. Simmons City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Natural Resources Division 2900-A Business Center Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [email protected] Suggested citation: Simmons, R.H. 2015. Native vascular flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Alexandria, Virginia. 104 pp. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Botanical Studies in Alexandria .............................................................................. 5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    Gaithersburg A Character Counts! City City of Gaithersburg WATER RESOURCES A Master Plan Element February 17, 2010 2009 MASTER PLAN CITY OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT Planning Commission Approval: January 20, 2010, Resolution PCR-2-10 Mayor and City Council Adoption: February 16, 2010, Resolution R-10-10 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Mayor Sidney A. Katz Council Vice President Cathy C. Drzyzgula Jud Ashman Henry F. Marraffa, Jr. Michael A. Sesma Ryan Spiegel PLANNING COMMISSION Chair John Bauer Vice-Chair Matthew Hopkins Commissioner Lloyd S. Kaufman Commissioner Leonard J. Levy Commissioner Danielle L. Winborne Alternate Commissioner Geraldine Lanier CITY MANAGER Angel L. Jones ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Erica Shingara, former Environmental Services Director Gary Dyson, Environmental Specialist Christine Gallagher, former Environmental Assistant Meredith Strider, Environmental Assistant PLANNING AND CODE ADMINISTRATION Greg Ossont, Director, Planning & Code Administration Lauren Pruss, Planning Director Kirk Eby, GIS Planner Raymond Robinson III, Planner CIT Y CITY OF GAITHERSBURG OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 2 WATER RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................................ 1 2. Background.......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Control Board Page 1 O F16 9 Vac 25-260-350 and 400 Water Quality Standards
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 O F16 9 VAC 25-260-350 AND 400 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 9 VAC 25-260-350 Designation of nutrient enriched waters. A. The following state waters are hereby designated as "nutrient enriched waters": * 1. Smith Mountain Lake and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 2. Lake Chesdin from its dam upstream to where the Route 360 bridge (Goodes Bridge) crosses the Appomattox River, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter between the dam and the Route 360 bridge; 3. South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 4. New River and its tributaries, except Peak Creek above Interstate 81, from Claytor Dam upstream to Big Reed Island Creek (Claytor Lake); 5. Peak Creek from its headwaters to its mouth (confluence with Claytor Lake), including all tributaries to their headwaters; 6. Aquia Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 7. Fourmile Run from its headwaters to the state line; 8. Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 9. Little Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 10. Gunston Cove from its headwaters to the state line; 11. Belmont and Occoquan Bays from their headwaters to the state line; 12. Potomac Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 13. Neabsco Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 14. Williams Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with Upper Machodoc Creek; 15. Tidal freshwater Rappahannock River from the fall line to Buoy 44, near Leedstown, Virginia, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter the tidal freshwater Rappahannock River; 16.
    [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]
  • Authorization to Discharge Under the Virginia Stormwater Management Program and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act
    COMMONWEALTHof VIRGINIA DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Permit No.: VA0088587 Effective Date: April 1, 2015 Expiration Date: March 31, 2020 AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND THE VIRGINIA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ACT Pursuant to the Clean Water Act as amended and the Virginia Stormwater Management Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, the following owner is authorized to discharge in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in this state permit. Permittee: Fairfax County Facility Name: Fairfax County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System County Location: Fairfax County is 413.15 square miles in area and is bordered by the Potomac River to the East, the city of Alexandria and the county of Arlington to the North, the county of Loudoun to the West, and the county of Prince William to the South. The owner is authorized to discharge from municipal-owned storm sewer outfalls to the surface waters in the following watersheds: Watersheds: Stormwater from Fairfax County discharges into twenty-two 6lh order hydrologic units: Horsepen Run (PL18), Sugarland Run (PL21), Difficult Run (PL22), Potomac River- Nichols Run-Scott Run (PL23), Potomac River-Pimmit Run (PL24), Potomac River- Fourmile Run (PL25), Cameron Run (PL26), Dogue Creek (PL27), Potomac River-Little Hunting Creek (PL28), Pohick Creek (PL29), Accotink Creek (PL30),(Upper Bull Run (PL42), Middle Bull Run (PL44), Cub Run (PL45), Lower Bull Run (PL46), Occoquan River/Occoquan Reservoir (PL47), Occoquan River-Belmont Bay (PL48), Potomac River- Occoquan Bay (PL50) There are 15 major streams: Accotink Creek, Bull Run, Cameron Run (Hunting Creek), Cub Run, Difficult Run, Dogue Creek, Four Mile Run, Horsepen Run, Little Hunting Creek, Little Rocky Run, Occoquan Receiving Streams: River, Pimmit run, Pohick creek, Popes Head Creek, Sugarland Run, and various other minor streams.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River Aqueduct
    Fact Sheet: Our Water Lifeline__ The Colorado River Aqueduct. Photo: Aerial photo of CRA Investment in Reliability The Colorado River Aqueduct is considered one of the nation’s Many innovations came from this period in time, including the top civil engineering marvels. It was originally conceived by creation of a medical system for contract workers that would William Mulholland and designed by Metropolitan’s first Chief become the forerunner for the prepaid healthcare plan offered Engineer Frank Weymouth after consideration of more than by Kaiser Permanente. 50 routes. The 242-mile CRA carries water from Lake Havasu to the system’s terminal reservoir at Lake Mathews in Riverside. This reservoir’s location was selected because it is situated at the upper end of Metropolitan’s service area and its elevation of nearly 1,400 feet allows water to flow by gravity to the majority of our service area The CRA was the largest public works project built in Southern California during the Great Depression. Overwhelming voter approval in 1929 for a $220 million bond – equivalent to a $3.75 billion investment today – brought jobs to 35,000 people. Miners, engineers, surveyors, cooks and more came to build Colorado River the aqueduct, living in the harshest of desert conditions and Aqueduct ultimately constructing 150 miles of canals, siphons, conduits and pipelines. They added five pumping plants to lift water over mountains so deliveries could then flow west by gravity. And they blasted 90-plus miles of tunnels, including a waterway under Mount San Jacinto. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA // // JULY 2021 FACT SHEET: THE COLORADO RIVER AQUEDUCT // // OUR WATER LIFELINE The Vision Despite the city of Los Angeles’ investment in its aqueduct, by the early 1920s, Southern Californians understood the region did not have enough local supplies to meet growing demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards
    Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards EPA Approval Date: July 11, 2018 Table of Contents Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards ............................................ 3 Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria Considered with Maryland’s 2016 Triennial Review ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Re-evaluation of Maryland’s Restoration Variances ...................................................................... 5 Other Future Water Quality Standards Work ................................................................................. 6 Water Quality Standards Amendments ........................................................................................... 8 Designated Uses ........................................................................................................................... 8 Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Antidegradation.......................................................................................................................... 24 2 Overview of the 2016 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that States review their water quality standards every three years (Triennial Review) and revise the standards as necessary. A water quality standard consists of three separate but related
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Erie Canal Aqueduct & Broad Street Corridor
    HISTORIC ERIE CANAL AQUEDUCT & BROAD STREET CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN MAY 2009 PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF ROCHESTER Copyright May 2009 Cooper Carry All rights reserved. Design: Cooper Carry 2 Historic Erie Canal AQUedUct & Broad Street Corridor Master Plan HISTORIC ERIE CANAL AQUEDUCT & BROAD STREET CORRIDOR 1.0 MASTER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 23 1.2 INTRODUCTION 27 1.3 PARTICIPANTS 33 2.1 SITE ANALYSIS/ RESEARCH 53 2.2 DESIGN PROCESS 57 2.3 HISTORIC PRECEDENT 59 2.4 MARKET CONDITIONS 67 2.5 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 75 2.6 RECOMMENDATIONS 93 2.7 PHASING 101 2.8 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES 113 3.1 RESOURCES 115 3.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Historic Erie Canal AQUedUct & Broad Street Corridor Master Plan 3 A city... is the pulsating product of the human hand and mind, reflecting man’s history, his struggle for freedom, creativity and genius. - Charles Abrams VISION STATEMENT: “Celebrating the Genesee River and Erie Canal, create a vibrant, walkable mixed-use neighborhood as an international destination grounded in Rochester history connecting to greater city assets and neighborhoods and promoting flexible mass transit alternatives.” 4 Historic Erie Canal AQUedUct & Broad Street Corridor Master Plan 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CREATING A NEW CANAL DISTRICT Recognizing the unrealized potential of the area, the City of the historic experience with open space and streetscape initiatives Rochester undertook a planning process to develop a master plan which coordinate with the milestones of the trail. for the Historic Erie Canal Aqueduct and adjoining Broad Street Corridor. The resulting Master Plan for the Historic Erie Canal Following the pathway of the original canal, this linear water Aqueduct and Broad Street Corridor represents a strategic new amenity creates a signature urban place drawing visitors, residents, beginning for this underutilized quarter of downtown Rochester.
    [Show full text]