DOCSLIB.ORG

Working to Make the Chesapeake Clean Water Act the Law of the Land

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Working to Make the Chesapeake Clean Water Act the Law of the Land AVIS D President’s Message IKKI N Science, Resources, and Enforcement: A Formula for Success CBF President Will Baker s we go to press, there is so much on my The result? By the spring of 2010 the crab delegation don’t want to require a scientific mind, from our truly game-changing set- population had rebounded by 60 percent. standard for pollution reduction, because A tlement with EPA (page 10) to the sad- some polluters will be upset? What a sad ness we feel for the Gulf Coast and our deter- There was a formula for success that was testimony to the current state of affairs in mination to see that oil drilling never comes to followed and a lesson to be learned. Use America. our waters (page 22). But what I want to science to set a standard and then enforce write about is the resurgence of blue crabs it, strictly. Go to CBF’s website at cbf.org/ccwa to to the Bay, how it happened, and what les- review the list of those who are on the bill sons we can learn. The Chesapeake Clean Water Act intro- and those who are not. If your senator or duced by Senator Ben Cardin and House member is not a supporter, let him “Blue crab fishery on verge of collapse.” Congressman Elijah Cummings will put the or her know how you feel. Repeatedly! That was CBF’s warning, and the year was 1996. While you may think your voice has little We were met with almost Let your elected officials know that weight compared to the universal criticism for a the formula for crab success can work big money lobbyists, “Chicken Little” alarmist “ for pollution reduction. think again. You are a message. From elected voter. In your numbers, officials to the commer- you can do anything! cial fishing industry, CBF ” Even overcome the influ- was excoriated. We even had a building same formula to work on pollution reduc- ence of big money lobbyists. burned to the ground at one of our tion. It would have the weight of federal island education centers, as a threat statute behind it. Every member of Let your elected officials know that the for- from a local waterman. Congress who has promised to help “Save mula for crab success can work for pollu- the Bay” is a sponsor of this legislation. tion reduction. Support the Chesapeake Fast forward ten years, to 2006. There was Right? Wrong! Only 17 of the 53 members Clean Water Act. It is the most important then widespread acceptance of a blue crab of the six-state and D.C. congressional del- legislation for the Bay in a generation. fishery severely depleted, and yes, even on egation are on the bill. the brink of collapse. The non-sponsors are concerned by the In response in 2008, Governors O’Malley opposition of lobbyists for some special and Kaine agreed to a plan to cut the crab interests which would be required to harvest to sustainable levels, something that reduce their pollution. So let’s get this William C. Baker CBF and others had pushed for a decade. straight. Thirty-nine members of our Bay President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation 2 Spring 2010 ● cbf.org Contents Spring 2010 Vol. 36 ● No. 2 6 Destination Chesapeake: Antietam Creek The forested streams of the Antietam connect Maryland and Pennsylvania—through both geography and restoration efforts. 10 Progress in the Fight for Clean Water Updates on CBF’s Biggest Fight include an agreement with EPA, advocacy efforts to pass the Chesapeake Clean Water Act, and a federal plan for Bay restoration. 17 Blue Crabs Respond to Conservation Last year’s coordinated harvest restrictions by Maryland and Virginia have produced a promising rebound in the Bay’s blue crab population. 18 Menhaden: The Chesapeake’s Unsung Hero Although many are unfamiliar with this little fish, Atlantic menhaden are a vital feeding link and a mighty filter. 22 Offshore Drilling Proposed leasing for exploration off the Atlantic coast has been temporarily halted following the massive oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. 6 10 17 18 22 Departments 2 PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE 21 REFLECTIONS 30 LAST LOOK Use good science to set a standard and A Pennsylvania farmer calls for equal An eye-opening look at the financial then enforce it. effort behind new farming models. prospects for Dendron, Virginia—the proposed site of the largest-ever coal- 5 MAILBOX 24 BAY BRIEFS fired power plant in the state. Your voice is being heard. CBF activities in the Bay states and the District of Columbia. 16 PROFILE 28 GIFTS AND GIVERS A Smith Island native brings his Bay PHOTO CREDITS THIS PAGE: WILLIAM GRAY; LEFT TO RIGHT, JOHN traditions to CBF field trippers aboard Turner Sculpture exhibits a passion for SURRICK/CBF STAFF, NANETTE KARDASZESKI, CHESAPEAKE BAY his floating classroom Susquehanna. wildlife and conservation. PROGRAM, GETTY IMAGES 3 JACK NEVITT Save the Bay is published quarterly and provided free of charge to CBF members by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 6 Herndon Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21403. Spring 2010 Volume 36 • Number 2 Loren Barnett Appel, Editor/Director of Creative Services Jen Wallace, Managing Editor WILL SAVING THE BAY BE YOUR LEGACY? © Chesapeake Bay Foundation 2010 E-mail: [email protected] 888/SAVEBAY • cbf.org Editor’s Note Our fight continues, and progess is being made. Positive news has come in the last days of this maga- zine’s production: a binding agreement with EPA settling our lawsuit (page 10), abundant support from members and the public for the Chesapeke Clean Water Act (page 12), a promising new federal plan to clean up the Chesapeake (page 15), and an encouraging increase in the Bay’s blue crab population (page 17). At the same time, other threats are coming to the fore- front: the dangers of offshore drilling (page 22) and the overfishing of the Bay’s “most important fish” (page 18). It is no time to rest on our laurels—and no time to think about quitting. Get involved. Write or call your federal representatives. Visit our web site and Facebook page. There ain’t no stopping us now! Including CBF in your will can be a convenient way to leave a restored Bay as your lasting Loren Barnett Appel legacy. Environmental Awareness Statement The Chesapeake Bay Foundation saved the following resources in the production of this publication: 11 tons Trees For more information about planned giving, 233,086 gallons Wastewater please contact us at 410/268-8816, or 506 million BTUs Total Energy 29,329 pounds Solid Waste contact your financial advisor. 75,763 pounds Greenhouse Gases Environmental impact estimates were made using the Environmental Defense Paper Calculator. www.papercalculator.org The inks used for this publication are based on linseed oil, a renewable vegetable oil derived from flax and known for low toxicity. CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION TRUSTEES Byron F. Marchant HONORARY TRUSTEES Jane P. Batten H. Turney McKnight Louisa C. Duemling OFFICERS EX OFFICIO TRUSTEES Donald F. Boesch, Ph.D. Charles W. Moorman IV C. A. Porter Hopkins D. Keith Campbell Governor Martin J. O'Malley W. Russell G. Byers, Jr. W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Burks B. Lapham Chairman Governor Edward G. Rendell John T. Casteen III Marie W. Ridder T. Gaylon Layfield III James E. Rogers Governor Robert F. McDonnell Amanda Deaver Alexis G. Sant H.F. Lenfest Vice Chairman Mayor Adrian M. Fenty Richard L. Franyo Truman T. Semans M. Lee Marston Susan S. Phillips Joanne S. Berkley G. Waddy Garrett Simon Sidamon-Eristoff Wayne A. Mills Secretary Bay Care Chapter Alan R. Griffith Jennifer Stanley Russell C. Scott Alan L. Wurtzel Carolyn Groobey Rt. Rev. Bishop Eugene Thomas H. Stoner Treasurer Ann Fritz Hackett Taylor Sutton Aileen Bowdoin Train William C. Baker Michael J. Hanley Anthony A. Williams President Robert A. Kinsley Peter L. Woicke Matthew J. Klein 4 Spring 2010 ● cbf.org Your Voice is Being Heard The last issue of Save the Bay magazine included a postcard readers could use to urge their representatives in Congress to support the Chesapeake Clean Water Act—the most important piece of federal Bay legislation since the 1972 Clean Water Act. What a response: More than 1,500 postcards were received. Thank you to everyone who has made his voice heard and supported this critical effort to provide pollution reduction and accountability. In addition to the postcards, we’ve been hearing your support in e-mails and on social media. Here is some of the conversation: Concerned Save the Bay readers rallied and sent in more Let’s get the Chesapeake Clean Water Act passed now so our chil- than 1,500 postcards urging the passing of the dren can enjoy a clean Bay tomorrow. Chesapeake Clean Water Act. The postcards —TONY VACHINO (e-mail) have been delivered directly to your Congressional representatives. If you join CBF’s action network, they will e-mail you all legislative and community action alerts, as well as updates on issues they are working on and any victories we have. I recommend it, it’s usually just a few per month, so your inbox won’t be clogged. —NICOLE PRICE (Facebook) It says a great deal about the leaders in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, etc., who should be working to protect this troubled resource, this irreplaceable treasure, “my beloved Bay.” If we all think it is “my beloved Bay,” we can make a difference. —CYNTHIA WOOD (Facebook) We all deserve clean, swimmable water. When Congress passes the Chesapeake Clean Water Act, we will be one step closer to a saved Bay and water that we can safely swim in once again.
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]
  • 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]
  • Capper-Cramton Resource Guide 2019
    Resource Guide Review of Projects on Lands Acquired Under the Capper-Cramton Act TAME Coalition TAME F A Martin Northwest Branch Trail Indian Creek Stream Valley Park Overview The Capper-Cramton Act (CCA) of 1930 (46 Stat. 482) was enacted for the acquisition, establishment, and development of the George Washington Memorial Parkway and stream valley parks in Maryland and Virginia to create a comprehensive park, parkway, and playground system in the National Capital.1 In addition to authorizing funding for acquisition, the act granted the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, now the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), review authority to approve any Capper-Cramton park development or management plan in order to ensure the protection and preservation of the region’s valuable watersheds and parklands. Subsequent amendments to the Capper-Cramton Act2 allocated funds for the acquisition and extension of this park and parkway system in Maryland and Virginia. Title to lands acquired with such funds or lands donated to the United States as Capper Cramton land is vested in the state in which it is located. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) utilized Capper-Cramton funds to protect stream valleys in parts of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Similarly, the District of Columbia used federal funds to develop recreation centers, playgrounds, and park systems. There is no evidence that Virginia utilized Capper-Cramton funds to acquire stream valley parks under the CCA. Today, over 10,000 acres of Capper-Cramton land have been established and preserved as a result of the act. This resource guide is for general information purposes, and is not a regulatory document.
    [Show full text]
  • Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan Chapter 2: General Background 2017 – 2026 Plan (County Executive Draft - March 2017)
    Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan Chapter 2: General Background 2017 – 2026 Plan (County Executive Draft - March 2017) Table of Contents Table of Figures: ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 Table of Tables: ......................................................................................................................... 2-2 I. INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................... 2-3 II. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: .......................................................................................... 2-3 II.A. Topography:................................................................................................................. 2-4 II.B. Climate: ....................................................................................................................... 2-4 II.C. Geology: ...................................................................................................................... 2-4 II.D. Soils: ............................................................................................................................ 2-5 II.E. Water Resources: ....................................................................................................... 2-6 II.E.1. Groundwater: ........................................................................................................ 2-6 II.E.1.a. Poolesville Sole Source Aquifer:
    [Show full text]
  • Projects Previously Awarded by the Montgomery County Watershed Restoration & Outreach Grant Program
    Projects Previously Awarded by the Montgomery County Watershed Restoration & Outreach Grant Program Year Organization Grant Project Title Project Description Awarded Amount 2015 Friends of Sligo $15,000 Public Outreach and Stewardship: To increase citizen awareness of water pollution and to give them Creek Expanding the Water WatchDog tools to stop it by sending an email and photo to the Montgomery Program in the Sligo Creek County government. We would like to expand an existing citizen- Watershed based reporting system called "Water WatchDogs", developed by 2 neighbors in Silver Spring. Over the past 9 years, the program has become a partnership of citizens, FOSC and Montgomery County's Department of Environmental Protection. It features a simple email address "[email protected]", which citizens can use to send reports and a photo of pollution to DEP's water detectives' smart phones. 2015 Rock Creek $38,000 Public Outreach and Stewardship- Rock Creek Conservancy has developed a program called Rock Conservancy Rock Creek Park In Your Backyard Creek Park in Your Backyard to educate homeowners in the Rock Creek watershed about the importance of protecting streams and parks through stewardship of lands outside of park boundaries. This program will combine outreach and engagement activities to encourage pollutant reduction on private property through RainScape practices with partnering with institutional properties to create conservation landscaping installations. We plan to work throughout the Rock Creek watershed in Montgomery County with an emphasis on the east side to reach under-represented populations. 2015 Anacostia $27,685 Community-Based Restoration Anacostia Riverkeeper will seek out three churches in Montgomery Riverkeeper Implementation: Churches to County as partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Waterways & Civic Engagement
    RECLAIMING THE EDGE urban waterways & civic engagement RECLAIMING THE EDGE urban waterways & civic engagement Reclaiming the Edge: Urban Waterways and Civic Engagement is funded in part by the Smithsonian Institution Women’s Committee, the DC Commission on the Arts & Humanities—an agency supported in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Headquarters and Region 3 Offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Cornell Douglas Foundation. Cover Image: Learning to paddle a voyageur canoe on the Anacostia River Photograph by Keith Hyde, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011 Wilderness Inquiry, Minneapolis, Minnesota Back Image: Earth Day, Washington, DC, 2012 Photograph by Susana A. Raab, Anacostia Community Museum Director’s Statement Reclaiming the Edge: Urban to that density have turned rivers from pristine waterways Waterways and Civic Engagement of fresh waters into murky, polluted tributaries creating is the Smithsonian Anacostia challenges for public health. It examines how rivers, natural Community Museum’s 45th borders, and barriers have contributed to economic, anniversary exhibition and racial, and social segregation. The exhibit spotlights the marks the official public launch diversity of the folk culture spawned by river communities. of the museum’s new mission— It explores new experiences in city planning and waterfront to challenge perceptions, development and assesses the role the river plays in wildness Photograph by John Francis Ficara broaden perspectives, generate and an environmental “place” within the urban experience. new knowledge, and deepen This exhibition will not only help audiences understand the understanding about the ever-changing concepts and realities American experience but also foster understanding and of “community.” This exhibition moves ACM into a new era of sustenance of a biodiverse planet.
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia River Sediment Project
    Frequently Asked Questions – Anacostia River Sediment Project Q: What is the Anacostia River Sediment Project? A: The “ARSP” is the plan to clean up the bottom of the river. It is following a process similar to the “Superfund” process, but the ARSP is not a Superfund project. The project began in 2014 and the interim cleanup plan for the river is expected to be completed and shared with the public in 2019. Q: What area does the Anacostia River Sediment Project cover? A: The study area includes the tidal Anacostia River from the Potomac River to past Bladensburg, Maryland. It also includes Kingman Lake, which is next to Kingman Island, and the Washington Channel. Q: How big is the Anacostia River watershed? A: The Anacostia Watershed covers 176 square miles in Montgomery County, Prince George's County and Washington, DC. It is home to 43 species of fish, some 200 species of birds and more than 800,000 people. Q: What are contaminants? A: Contaminants are chemicals that are harmful to humans or wildlife. The contaminants of concern include “polychlorinated biphenyls” (PCBs) which were used in electrical equipment until the 1970’s; “dioxins” which are a highly toxic compound often produced by waste-burning incinerators; and “pesticides,” which are chemicals used to repel pests in agriculture and residential use. Q: How did the Anacostia River become contaminated? A: Like most rivers in urban environments, the Anacostia River has a long history of industrial and agricultural activity. Historical and ongoing sources of contamination may include industrial land use, sewer overflows, contaminated groundwater, landfills and runoff from rainstorms.
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds.Pdf
    Watershed Code Watershed Name 02130705 Aberdeen Proving Ground 02140205 Anacostia River 02140502 Antietam Creek 02130102 Assawoman Bay 02130703 Atkisson Reservoir 02130101 Atlantic Ocean 02130604 Back Creek 02130901 Back River 02130903 Baltimore Harbor 02130207 Big Annemessex River 02130606 Big Elk Creek 02130803 Bird River 02130902 Bodkin Creek 02130602 Bohemia River 02140104 Breton Bay 02131108 Brighton Dam 02120205 Broad Creek 02130701 Bush River 02130704 Bynum Run 02140207 Cabin John Creek 05020204 Casselman River 02140305 Catoctin Creek 02130106 Chincoteague Bay 02130607 Christina River 02050301 Conewago Creek 02140504 Conococheague Creek 02120204 Conowingo Dam Susq R 02130507 Corsica River 05020203 Deep Creek Lake 02120202 Deer Creek 02130204 Dividing Creek 02140304 Double Pipe Creek 02130501 Eastern Bay 02141002 Evitts Creek 02140511 Fifteen Mile Creek 02130307 Fishing Bay 02130609 Furnace Bay 02141004 Georges Creek 02140107 Gilbert Swamp 02130801 Gunpowder River 02130905 Gwynns Falls 02130401 Honga River 02130103 Isle of Wight Bay 02130904 Jones Falls 02130511 Kent Island Bay 02130504 Kent Narrows 02120201 L Susquehanna River 02130506 Langford Creek 02130907 Liberty Reservoir 02140506 Licking Creek 02130402 Little Choptank 02140505 Little Conococheague 02130605 Little Elk Creek 02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 02131105 Little Patuxent River 02140509 Little Tonoloway Creek 05020202 Little Youghiogheny R 02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay 02130505 Lower Chester River 02130403 Lower Choptank 02130601 Lower
    [Show full text]
  • A Flow-Simulation Model of the Tidal Potomac River
    A Flow-Simulation Model of the Tidal Potomac River A Water-Quality Study of the Tidal Potomac River and Estuary United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2234-D Chapter D A Flow-Simulation Model of the Tidal Potomac River By RAYMOND W. SCHAFFRANEK U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 2234 A WATER-QUALITY STUDY OF THE TIDAL POTOMAC RIVER AND ESTUARY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1987 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section, U.S. Geological Survey, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Schaffranek, Raymond W. A flow-simulation model of the tidal Potomac River. (A water-quality study of the tidal Potomac River and Estuary) (U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper; 2234) Bibliography; p. 24. Supt. of Docs, no.: I. 19.13:2234-0 1. Streamflow Potomac River Data processing. 2. Streamflow Potomac River Mathematical models. I. Title. II. Series. III. Series: U.S. Geological Survey water-supply paper; 2234. GB1207.S33 1987 551.48'3'09752 85-600354 Any use of trade names and trademarks in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. FOREWORD a rational and well-documented general approach for the study of tidal rivers and estuaries. This interdisciplinary effort emphasized studies of the Tidal rivers and estuaries are very important features transport of the major nutrient species and of suspended of the Coastal Zone because of their immense biological sediment.
    [Show full text]
  • DC Citizen Science Water Quality Monitoring Report 2 0 2 0 Table of Contents Dear Friends of the River
    WAter DC Citizen Science Water Quality Monitoring Report 2 0 2 0 Table of Contents Dear Friends of the River, On behalf of Anacostia Riverkeeper, I am pleased to share with you our first Annual DC Citizen Science Volunteer Water Quality Report on Bacteria in District Waters. This report focuses on 2020 water quality results from all three District watersheds: the Anacostia River, Potomac River, and Rock Creek. The water quality data we collected is critical for understanding the health of the Anacostia River and District waters; as it serves as a gauge for safe recreation potential as well as a continuing assessment of efforts in the Methodology District of Columbia to improve the overall health of 7 our streams and waterways. As a volunteer program, we are dependent on those who offer time out of their daily schedule to work 8 Anacostia River with us and care for the water quality. With extreme gratitude, we would like to thank all our volunteers and staff for the dedication, professionalism, and enthusiasm to execute this program and to provide high quality data to the public. Additionally, support 10 Potomac River from our partner organizations was crucial to running this program, so we would like to extend an additional thanks to staff at Audubon Naturalist Society, Potomac Riverkeeper, and Rock Creek 12 Rock Creek Conservancy. We hope you find this annual report a good guide to learning more about our local DC waterways. We believe that clean water is a benefit everyone should experience, one that starts with consistent and 14 Discussion publicly available water quality data.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs
    Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs PREPARED BY James Cummins, Claire Buchanan, Carlton Haywood, Heidi Moltz, Adam Griggs The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street Suite PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 R. Christian Jones, Richard Kraus Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University 4400 University Drive, MS 5F2 Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 Nathaniel Hitt, Rita Villella Bumgardner U.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center Aquatic Ecology Branch 11649 Leetown Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430 PREPARED FOR The Nature Conservancy of Maryland and the District of Columbia 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Ste. 100 Bethesda, MD 20814 WITH FUNDING PROVIDED BY The National Park Service Final Report May 12, 2011 ICPRB Report 10-3 To receive additional copies of this report, please write Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe St., PE-08 Rockville, MD 20852 or call 301-984-1908 Disclaimer This project was made possible through support provided by the National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy, under the terms of their Cooperative Agreement H3392060004, Task Agreement J3992074001, Modifications 002 and 003. The content and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the policy of the National Park Service or The Nature Conservancy and no official endorsement should be inferred. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the U. S. Government, or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Acknowledgments This project was supported by a National Park Service subaward provided by The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC Office and by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, an interstate compact river basin commission of the United States Government and the compact's signatories: Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Paint Branch Fish Passage Fact Sheet
    Paint Branch Fish Passage, Prince George’s County, MD FACT SHEET as of February 1, 2020 AUTHORIZATION: Continuing Authorities Program, Section 206 of the Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Water Resources Development Act of 1996, as amended TYPE OF PROJECT: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration CONTRIBUTION TO CHESAPEAKE BAY: Directly contributes to achieving protection and restoration goals established by the 2009 Executive Order 13508 and the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Program Agreement by restoring clean water, recovering habitat, and sustaining fish and wildlife. CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST: Senators Cardin and The major fish blockage on Paint Van Hollen (MD); Representatives Brown (MD-04) and Branch, upstream of Route 1 in College Hoyer (MD-05) Park, Prince George’s County, Maryland. NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR: Prince Georges County Department of Environmental Resources BACKGROUND: The Paint Branch Fish Passage and Stream Restoration Project is located in the Anacostia River watershed in Prince George’s County, Maryland, in the southern portion of the Paint Branch sub- watershed and is bounded by State Route 193 (University Boulevard/Greenbelt Road) to the north, U.S. Route 1 (Baltimore Avenue) to the south and east, and Paint Branch Drive to the west. The goal of the project is to create a stable stream condition and habitat for resident and migratory aquatic resources, with minimal armor or maintenance. The project addresses known fish blockages in Paint Branch and provides additional spawning habitat for river herring along a 6-mile stretch of Paint Branch and Little Paint Branch. The Anacostia River watershed has been identified by the Chesapeake Bay Program as one of three priorities for restoration in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
    [Show full text]