DOCSLIB.ORG

36-01 Concerning: Council Districts Boundaries Revised: 12-4-01 Draft No. 2 Introduced: November 6 2001 Enacted: December 11

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
36-01 Concerning: Council Districts Boundaries Revised: 12-4-01 Draft No. 2 Introduced: November 6 2001 Enacted: December 11 '" I Bill No. 36-01 Concerning: Council Districts Boundaries Revised: 12-4-01 Draft No._2_ Introduced: November 6 2001 Enacted: December 11. 2001 Executive: Deca!lber 19, 2001 Effective: March 12, 2002 Sunset Date: None Ch. -3.,L, Laws of Mont. Co. 2001 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND By: Councilmember Leggett AN ACT to revise the boundaries of Council districts. By amending Montgomery County Code Chapter 16, Elections Section 16-2 Boldface Heading or defined term. Underlinina Added to existing law by original bill. [Single boldface brackets] Deleted from existing law by original bill. no, 1hlA I 1nrlArlininn Added by amendment. [[Double boldface brackets]] Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment. * * * Existing law unaffected by bill. The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act: BILL No. 36-01 I Sec. 1. Section 16-2 is amended as follows: 2 16-2. Boundaries of Council districts. 3 The boundaries of the 5 Council districts required under Section 103 of the 4 · County Charter are as follows. 5 [(a) District 1. The southern boundary ofDistrict 1 begins at the junction of 6 the boundary lines of Montgomery County (Maryland), the District of 7 Columbia and Fairfax County (Virginia); thence northwesterly along 8 the boundary line of Montgomery County and Fairfax County to a point 9 on a line of prolongation from Muddy Branch; thence north along said IO line of prolongation, crossing the Potomac River and circumscribing 11 Watkins Island to Muddy Branch; thence meandering northerly and 12 easterly along the center line of Muddy Branch to its intersection with 13 Turkey Foot Road; thence easterly along the center line of Turkey Foot 14 Road to its junction with Travilah Road; thence northeasterly along the 15 center line of Travilah Road to its junction with Piney Meetinghouse 16 Road; thence southerly along the center line of Piney Meetinghouse 17 Road to its intersection with the right-of-way of the Potomac Electric 18 Power Company (PEPCO) power line; thence easterly along the center 19 line of the PEPCO right-of-way to its intersection with Falls Road (Md. 20 Route 189); thence northeasterly along the center line of Falls Road to 21 its immediate junction with Montrose Road; thence east along the center 22 line of Montrose Road, continuing as Randolph Road at Rockville Pike 23 (Md. Route 355), to the intersection of Randolph Road with Parklawn 24 Drive; thence north along the center line of Parklawn Drive to its 25 intersection with the right-of-way of the Rockville Facility (formerly the 26 proposed Outer Beltway right-of-way); thence northeast along the 27 center line of the Rockville Facility right-of-way approximately 2000 -2- BILL NO. 36-01 I 28 feet and due north to its junction with a southern boundary line of Rock 29 CreekRegional Park; thence east along said Park boundary line and a 30 line of prolongation to Rock Creek at a point opposite Edgebrook Road; 31 thence meandering southeasterly along the center line of Rock Creek to 32 its intersection with the boundary line of Montgomery County and the 33 District of Columbia; thence southwest along said boundary line to its 34 junction with the boundary lines of Montgomery County, the District of 35 Columbia and Fairfax County, the point ofbeginning.] 36 ((b) District 2. The southwestern boundary of District 2 begins at the 37 confluence of Muddy Branch with the Potomac River; thence 38 continuing south along a prolongation from Muddy Branch across the 39 Potomac River and circumscribing Watkins Island, to the boundary line 40 of Montgomery County (Maryland) and Fairfax County (Virginia); 41 thence northwesterly and northeasterly along said boundary line, 42 continuing as the boundary line of Montgomery County and Loudoun 43 County (Virginia), to its junction with the boundary line of Montgomery 44 County and Frederick County (Maryland); thence northeast along said 45 boundary line, continuing as the boundary line of Montgomery County 46 and Carroll County (Maryland) to its convergence with the boundary 47 line of Montgomery County and Howard County (Maryland); thence 48 southwesterly and southeasterly along said boundary line to its junction 49 with Ednor Road; thence southwesterly along the center line of Ednor 50 Road, continuing as Layhill Road (Md. Route 182) at Norwood Road, 51 to its junction with Norbeck Road (Md. Route 28); thence southwesterly 52 along the center line of Norbeck Road to its junction with Muncaster 53 Mill Road (Md. Route 115); thence northwesterly along the center line 54 of Muncaster Mill Road, continuing as Snouffer School Road at -3- BILL No. 36-01 55 Woodfield Road (Md. Route 124), to the junction ofSnouffer School 56 Road with Goshen Road; thence south along the center line of Goshen 57 Road, continuing as North Summit Avenue at Girard Street, to its 58 · intersection with the municipal boundary line of the City of 59 Gaithersburg on the north side of Park Avenue; thence southwest and 60 northwest along said municipal boundary line, crossing through the 61 Asbury Methodist Home property, to its junction with the municipal 62 boundary line on the southeastern side of Odend'hal Avenue; thence 63 northeast along the southeastern side of Odend'hal Avenue to its 64 junction with Lost Knife Road; thence northwesterly along the south 65 side of Lost Knife Road to its junction with Montgomery Village 66 Avenue; thence southwesterly along the center line of Montgomery 67 Village Avenue to its junction with the municipal boundary line of the 68 City of Gaithersburg; thence west, northerly, and southwesterly along 69 said municipal boundary line to its intersection with Whetstone Run; 70 thence meandering westerly along Whetstone Run to its immediate 71 intersection with Watkins Mill Road; thence northeasterly along the 72 center line of Watkins Mill Road to its intersection with a northern 73 municipal boundary line of the City of Gaithersburg; thence westerly 74 along said municipal boundary line to its intersection with Frederick 75 Road (Md. Route 355); thence northwesterly along the center line of 76 Frederick Road to its immediate intersection with Great Seneca Creek; 77 thence meandering southwesterly along the center line of Great Seneca 78 - Creek to its intersection with the right-of-way of.the Potomac Electric 79 Power Company (PEPCO) power line; thence southeasterly along the 80 center line of the PEPCO right-of-way to its intersection with 81 Damestown Road (Md. Route 28); thence southwesterly along the -4- BILL No. 36-01 I 82 center line of Damestown Road to its junction with Jones Lane; thence 83 southerly along the center line of Jones Lane to its intersection with 84 Turkey Foot Road; thence southeasterly along the center line of Turkey 85 Foot Road to its intersection with Muddy Branch; thence meandering 86 southwesterly along the center line of Muddy Branch to its confluence 87 with the Potomac River, the point of beginning.] 88 ((c) District 3. The southwestern boundary of District 3 begins at the 89 intersection of Muddy Branch and Turkey Foot Road; thence 90 northwesterly along the center line of Turkey Foot Road to its junction 91 with Jones Lane; thence northerly along the center line of Jones Lane to 92 its junction with Damestown Road (Md. Route 28); thence northeasterly 93 along the center line ofDamestown Road to the right-of-way of the 94 Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) power line; thence 95 northwesterly along the center line of the PEPCO right-of-way to its 96 intersection with Great Seneca Creek; thence meandering northeasterly 97 along the center line of Great Seneca Creek to its intersection with 98 Frederick Road (Md. Route 355); thence southeasterly along the center 99 line of Frederick Road to its immediate intersection with the northern 100 municipal boundary line of the City of Gaithersburg; thence 101 northeasterly, southeasterly, and northeasterly along said municipal 102 boundary line to its intersection with the center line of Watkins Mill 103 Road; thence southwest along the center line of Watkins Mill Road to 104 its intersection with Whetstone Run; thence meandering easterly along 105 Whetstone Run to its immediate intersection with a northern municipal 106 boundary line of the City of Gaithersburg; thence southeasterly along 107 said municipal boundary line to its junction with Montgomery Village 108 Avenue; thence northeasterly along the center line of Montgomery -5- BILL NO. 36-01 109 Village Avenue to its junction with Lost Knife Road; thence 110 southeasterly along the south side of Lost Knife Road to its junction 111 with Odend'hal Avenue; thence southwesterly along the southeastern 112· side of Odend'hal Avenue to its intersection with the north side of 113 Russell Avenue; thence southeast, following the municipal boundary 114 line of the City of Gaithersburg and crossing through the Asbury 115 Methodist Home property to the junction of said municipal boundary 116 line on the north side of Park Avenue with North Summit Avenue; 117 thence north along the center line of North Summit Avenue, continuing 118 as Goshen Road at Girard Street, to its junction with Snouffer School 119 Road; thence southeasterly along the center line of Snouffer School 120 Road, continuing as Muncaster Mill Road (Md. Route 115) at 121 Woodfield Road (Md. Route 124), to the intersection ofMuncaster Mill 122 Road with the North Branch of Rock Creek; thence meandering 123 southwesterly along the center line of the North Branch to its 124 northeastern confluence
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]
  • 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]
  • Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River
    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River North Fork Watershed Project/Friends of Blackwater MAY 2009 This report was made possible by a generous donation from the MARPAT Foundation. DRAFT 2 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................... 7 PART I ‐ General Information about the North Branch Potomac Watershed ........................................................... 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Geography and Geology of the Watershed Area ................................................................................................. 9 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • "Federation Corner" Column the Montgomery Sentinel - July 6, 2006
    "Federation Corner" column The Montgomery Sentinel - July 6, 2006 Proper maintenance of Lake Needwood long overdue by Wayne Goldstein MCCF President For several days last week, thousands of county residents were evacuated from their homes after county officials became alarmed at water seeping through Lake Needwood's dam. Although this emergency is over for now, this is the right time to look more closely at other problems at Lake Needwood. This July 20th will mark the 50th anniversary of the 1956 flooding that killed six county residents and sparked the drive to help prevent such future killing floods by building flood control dams on Rock Creek. The drive to build the dams, led by an activist citizens group known as the Rock Creek Watershed Association, also included a demand by the group to change zoning and soil conservation laws. These citizens wanted to prevent people from building in flood plains, wanted to limit additional impervious surfaces and resulting stormwater runoff, and wanted to minimize the amount of sediment washing into Upper Rock Creek, the lakes behind the dams, and the lower Rock Creek. Construction of the dams that created Lake Needwood and Lake Bernard Frank began in October 1964 and were completed within 2 years with federal funding through the PL-566 program. Lake Needwood was built to provide both flood control and recreational facilities. It is ironic that the biggest flood threat this time was the fear that the dam holding back Lake Needwood might fail. The 1988 dam inspection report states: "Overall, this is one of the best maintained PL-566 dams in state..." The first specific mention of seepage through the Lake Needwood dam was in 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment to the Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker Biker Trail
    MCPB Item No. Date: 11/30/17 November 23, 2017 MEMORANDUM TO: Montgomery County Planning Board VIA: Michael F. Riley, Director Mitra Pedoeem, Deputy Director Michael Ma, Chief, Park Development Division (PDD) Patricia McManus, Design Sec on Supervisor, (PDD) FROM: Aaron Feldman, Landscape Architect (PDD), 301-650-2887 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker Biker Trail STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve modifi ca ons to the 2013 Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker-Biker Trail, specifi cally: 1) Relocate the proposed trailhead and parking lot from Muncaster Mill Road to Meadowside Lane. 2) Relocate the proposed bridge from near the Meadowside Nature Center to just south of the Intercounty Connector (ICC). PROJECT SUMMARY In March of 2017, during the detailed design phase of the project, the Norbeck Manor Homeowners Associa on contacted staff with concerns about the proposed loca on of a trailhead and parking lot intended to serve the North Branch Trail. Staff a ended a Homeowners Associa on mee ng, reviewed the concerns, studied alterna ves and presented them at a subsequent public mee ng for feedback. In light of strong community support for reloca ng the trailhead and parking lot from the loca on shown in the approved 2013 Facility Plan, staff is returning to the Planning Board for approval of the new loca on and other minor modifi ca ons to the overall plan. ExisƟ ng CondiƟ ons Located within both Rock Creek Regional Park and the North Branch Stream Valley Park, the North Branch Hiker-Biker Trail is a 2.2 mile-long segment of a con nuous regional trail system that will eventually extend from the District of Columbia northward to Olney.
    [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]
  • Potomac River News, Page 3 Classifieds, Page 7 Entertainment, Page 6 V Classifieds
    Piscataway Tribal Ongoing Connections To the Potomac River News, Page 3 Classifieds, Page 7 Classifieds, v Entertainment, Page 6 Piscataway Conoy Native American speaker Mario Harley talks about Piscataway Conoy past and present at Discovering Wildflowers Great Falls Tavern. Requested in home 5-16-19 home in Requested Time sensitive material. material. sensitive Time Along the C&O Canal Postmaster: Attention News, Page 4 WSS ECR Postal Customer Postal permit #322 permit Easton, MD Easton, Obituary: Peter M. Kimm PAID U.S. Postage U.S. Page 6 STD PRSRT Photo by Debbie Stevens/The Almanac by Debbie Stevens/The Photo May 15-21, 2019 online at potomacalmanac.com 2 ❖ Potomac Almanac ❖ May 15-21, 2019 www.ConnectionNewspapers.com Potomac Almanac Editor Steven Mauren News 703-778-9415 or [email protected] See www.potomacalmanac.com Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Shares History, Present Piscataway continue connection to the Potomac River. he Piscataway people and their ancestors have lived in Mary Tland for more than 13,000 years. All Piscataway are con- scious of a history that reaches back long before Europeans had invaded their home- land. Despite having endured the effects of colonialism for nearly 400 years, the Piscataway continued to thrive, leaving their mark on the history of the region, ac- cording to a report by Many place names throughout the region, for example, are derived from Algonquian words used by the Piscataway. The Piscataway Conoy were recognized in 2012 by then-Gov. Martin O’Malley after decades of lobbying. “American Indians have, through their cultural heritage, his- torical influence, and participation in pub- lic life, and helped to make the State of Maryland the great State that it is today,” the orders read, according to press reports from the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Conococheague Creek
    CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, HAER No. MD-123 CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK AQUEDUCT (Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Aqueduct No. 5) Milepost 99.80 Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Park Williamsport flttfe MD Washington County Maryland Po, 2r PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA REDUCED COPIES OF MEASURED DRAWINGS Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Department of the Interior P.O. Box 37127 Washington, D.C. 20013-7127 mb HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD 3- CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK AQUEDUCT (Chesapeake & Ohio Canal, Aqueduct No. 5) HAER NO. MD-123 Location: Milepost 99.80, in Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Park, Williamsport, Washington County, Maryland. Date of Construction: 1833-34 Builder: Michael Byrne and Company Frederick, Maryland Present Owner Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Present Use: Bike and foot path / Significance The Conococheague Creek Aqueduct was the fifth of eleven masonry aqueduct constructed along the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. It was the last and most ornate of the system1s five multiple span aqueducts Historian: Lee R. Maddex Institute for the History of Technology and Industrial Archaeology West Virginia University Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 Project Information: This recording project is part of the Historic American Engineering Record(HAER), a long-range program to document historically significant engineering and industrial works in the United States. The HAER program is administered by the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record division(HABS/HAER) of the National Park Service, US Department of the Interior. The Conococheague Creek Aqueduct CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL, CONOCOCHEAGUE CREEK AQUEDUCT HAER No. MD-123 (Page 2) Recording project was cosponsored during the summer of 1996 by HABS/HAER under the general direction of Blaine Cliver, Chief, and by the Institute for the History of Technology and Industrial Archaeology (IHTIA), Emory L.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland West Virginia
    C H H N U A R G C E H 1 Iron Ore: Deposits supplied the Antietam Furnace before the C&O Canal was built. R E S Y T O Antietam Village: Once a thriving industrial area; only three lime kiln chimneys are left. 2 W MARYLAND First iron furnace began in 1765, producing arms for the Revolution, and parts for N Rumsey’s steamboat. Area included rolling mills, a grist mill, cooperage, woolen mill, R D nail factories, and stove works. Industries declined due to fire, flood, disease--and war. D R P IK 3 Botelers Hydraulic Lime Cement Mill: Mill manufactured cement for canal; burned by E Union in 1861, destroyed in 1889 flood. Riffles in river mark the old dam location. TERRAPIN NECK 34 Miller’s Sawmill: Site of a wharf and warehouse. Canal supplied water to the mill until ANTIETAM 4 65 NATIONAL the Civil War. O R CEMETARY GE O RID RD B 5 Packhorse Ford: The only good river crossing for many miles. Settlers moving south B E S SID from Pennsylvania in the 1720s followed an old Indian and packhorse trail from York, N RN O U Pa., into Virginia. “Stonewall” Jackson crossed here enroute from Herpares Ferry to B O BURNSIDE B Sharpsburg. Army of northern Virginia crossed after withdrawal from Antietam. D BRIDGE R 6 M 6 Sharpsburg: The oldest town in Washington County, laid out in 1763 and names after HORSESHOE ONDELL Maryland Governor Sharpe. Town includes grocery stores and snack bars. BEND D R SNAVELY’S D R FORD 0 .5 1 G H A L IN A n L D R t E N D P ie W A R E t L R a O S m P L miles L F C I E r M R .
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • F/.{Egis Ative Attorney
    AGENDA ITEM #4 November 1, 2011 Public Hearing MEMORANDUM October 28, 2011 TO: County Council 1 . FROM: Jeffirey L. Zyontz,f/.{egIs atIve Attorney SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Redistricting Commission Report Bill 31-11, Council Districts - Boundaries On October 4, the Redistricting Commission presented its report to Council, and Bill 31-11, affirming the Commission's plan, was introduced. This public hearing will be on both the Commission redistricting plan and Bill 31-11. A Council worksession is scheduled for November 8, 2011. Charter Requirements The Charter requires the 5 Council Districts to be compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population. l Staff believes that the Commission proposed redistricts meet those standards. This conclusion should not be taken to mean that the Commission's plan is the only way to meet Charter standards. The Council can approve different district boundaries that also are compact, contiguous, and substantially equal in population. Compactness for the purpose of redistricting is a judgment that Federal Courts have left to legislatures. It is not a mathematical standard. Mathematically, the most compact district would be a perfect circle. The least compact district would be a district one block wide for its entire length. The Commission used 2010 precincts to construct their proposed districts. That decision ensured that proposed districts are never narrower than the width of a precinct at any point. 1 Charter § 103: Montgomery County shall be divided into five Council districts for the purpose of nominating and electing five members of the Council. Each district shall be compact in form and be composed of adjoining territory.
    [Show full text]