DOCSLIB.ORG

Total Maximum Daily Loads of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Pcbs) for Tidal Portions of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Total Maximum Daily Loads of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Pcbs) for Tidal Portions of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in The Total Maximum Daily Loads of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) for Tidal Portions of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia Prepared by Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Rockville, Maryland for District of Columbia Department of the Environment Maryland Department of the Environment Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Submitted September 28, 2007 With minor revisions Oct 31, 2007 to Water Protection Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 Acknowledgements This document is an inter-jurisdictional TMDL submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia, Washington D.C. It addresses PCB impairments in the tidal Potomac and Anacostia rivers. The document was prepared by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin in cooperation with a Steering Committee that included representatives from each affected jurisdiction, LimnoTech, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The following individuals participated as Steering Committee members for part or all of the Potomac PCB TMDL project: Carlton Haywood Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) Claire Buchanan Andrea Nagel Cherie Schultz Monir Chowdhury District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) Narendra Panday Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Leonard Schugam Anna Soehl Scott Macomber Mark Richards Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) Arthur Butt Bryant Thomas Katie Conaway Chris French Jutta Schneider Charles Martin Steven Bieber Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Victor J. Bierman, Jr. LimnoTech Scott C. Hinz Daniel K. Rucinski Charles App US Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (US EPA) ICPRB was charged with drafting this report. The Steering Committee members and individuals at their agencies provided substantial editorial assistance and technical contributions, particularly Section VII (TMDL Implementation and Reasonable Assurance) and Appendix E (Semi-Permeable Membrane Devices (SPMDs)). The Potomac PCB model was developed by LimnoTech and their contribution was invaluable. The technical support of ICPRB staff members Kristin Bermann, Sunghee Kim, and Ross Mandel, and MDE staff member Jeff White is gratefully acknowledged. Suggested Citation for Report Haywood, H. C. and C. Buchanan. 2007. Total maximum daily loads of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for tidal portions of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. ICPRB Report 07-7. Rockville, MD. October 2007. This document can be downloaded from www.potomacriver.org. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [Note: This document originally was submitted to the EPA on September 28, 2007. After that date, certain inconsistencies between tables were identified, as were places where labeling on figures and modifications to text were needed to improve clarity. This version reflects all of those changes, none of which significantly changes TMDL allocations.] This document, upon approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), establishes Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for 28 listed impaired water body segments in the tidal waters of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and EPA’s implementing regulations direct each state to identify and list waters, known as water quality limited segments (WQLS), in which current required controls of a specified substance are inadequate to achieve water quality standards. For each WQLS, the State is required to either establish a TMDL of the specified substance that the waterbody can receive without violating water quality standards, or demonstrate that water quality standards are being met (CFR 2007a). The District of Columbia has listed, in five defined segments, all of the tidal Anacostia and Potomac rivers within District borders. These WQLSs are designated for Class D (protection of human health related to the consumption of fish and shellfish) beneficial use, which is not supported due to elevated levels of PCBs in fish tissue, and were initially listed on DC’s 303(d) lists in 1996 and 1998 (DC DOH 2006). A PCB TMDL was established for the tidal Anacostia River by the District of Columbia in 2003. The TMDLs developed in this report will, when approved, replace the 2003 Anacostia TMDL. The Commonwealth of Virginia has listed in the 2006 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report 19 tidal embayments of the Potomac River as impaired due to PCBs. These WQLSs are designated for the beneficial uses of primary contact recreation, fish consumption, shellfish consumption (from Upper Machodoc Creek to the Potomac mouth), and the aquatic life use (VA DEQ 2006a). The fish consumption use is not supported due to elevated levels of PCBs in fish tissue (VA DEQ 2006b). The State of Maryland has listed the Potomac River Lower Tidal (basin number 02140101), Potomac River Middle Tidal (basin number 02140102), Potomac River Upper Tidal (basin number 02140201), and tidal portion of the Anacostia River (basin number 02140205) as impaired due to elevated levels of PCBs in fish tissue and other causes (MDE 2006). These waters are designated Use II: Support of Estuarine and Marine Aquatic Life and Shellfish Harvesting (COMAR 2007a, b). The Maryland Department of the Environment identified the waters of the Potomac River Lower Tidal watershed on the State’s 303(d) List as impaired by nutrients (1996), sediments (1996), toxics (PCBs in fish tissue) (2002), bacteria (2004), and impacts to biological communities (2004 and 2006) (MDE 2006). A TMDL for Fecal Coliform to address the 2004 bacteria listing was approved by the EPA in 2005. The Department listed waters of the Potomac River Middle Tidal watershed as impaired by nutrients (1996), sediments (1996), toxics (PCBs in fish tissue) (2002), metals (Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, and Lead) (1996), and impacts to biological communities (2004 and 2006) (MDE 2006). A Water Quality Analysis (WQA) for Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, and Lead to address the 1996 metals listing Tidal Potomac PCB TMDL Page ii was approved by the EPA in 2006. Waters of the Potomac River Upper Tidal watershed were placed on the State’s 303(d) List as impaired by nutrients (1996), sediments (1996), toxics (PCBs in fish tissue) (2002), metals (Copper) (1996), and impacts to biological communities (2006 – non-tidal) (MDE 2006). A WQA for Copper to address the 1996 metals listing was approved by the EPA in 2006. The waters of the tidal Anacostia River watershed were placed on the State’s 303(d) List as impaired by nutrients (1996), sediments (1996), toxics (PCBs in fish tissue) (2006), bacteria (2004), and trash/debris (2006). A TMDL for Fecal Coliform to address the 2004 bacteria listing was approved by the EPA in 2006, and a TMDL for sediments to address the 1996 listing was approved by EPA in 2007. A data solicitation for PCBs was conducted by the PCB TMDL Steering Committee, and all readily available data have been considered. This document addresses the PCB impairment only. In all three jurisdictions, remaining impairment listings for causes other than PCBs will be addressed separately at a future date. A consent decree was entered into by the EPA and the U.S. District Court (Kingman Park Civic Association, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al, No. 1:98CV00758 (D.D.C.)) that requires the District of Columbia to complete a PCB TMDL by September 30, 2007. Maryland and Virginia were not required to complete their PCB TMDLs by this date, but the three jurisdictions informally agreed in 2004 to coordinate their PCB TMDL development efforts and address all of their tidal Potomac PCB impairments by that date. This study is the result of that agreement. A joint TMDL was desirable because the impaired waterbodies in the three jurisdictions are in such close proximity to each other that flows and loads cross state lines in each direction. Furthermore, a single, joint TMDL would be more cost effective, and the jurisdictions would avoid confusing the public with three independent TMDLs completed on different dates using potentially different models and assumptions, and possibly reaching different conclusions, particularly with respect to PCB loads crossing state lines. The provisions of this PCB TMDL are severable. If any provision of the PCB TMDL, or the application of any provision of this TMDL to any circumstances or participating jurisdiction, is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the application of such provision to other circumstances and any other participating jurisdiction, and the remainder of the TMDL document, shall not be affected. The objective of the PCB TMDL established in this document is to ensure that the “fish consumption” use is protected in each of the impaired waterbodies. This was done by identifying maximum allowable PCB loads that would a) meet the applicable PCB water quality criteria and b) lead to fish tissue PCB concentrations that do not exceed jurisdictional fish tissue thresholds. The following measures were taken to achieve the objective of the PCB TMDL: • PCB sources were identified and PCB loads in the baseline condition were estimated by an analysis of data collected from 2002 to 2007 and various models; • A linked
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]
  • Appendix M: Aquatic Biota Monitoring Table
    NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX M: AQUATIC BIOTA MONITORING TABLE Final – May 2020 Aquatic Habitat, BIBI, and FIBI Scores and Rankings for Monitoring Sites within the Vicinity of the I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study Corridor Aquatic Habitat BIBI FIBI MDE 12-digit Watershed Site Waterway Source Site I.D. Year Narrative Narrative Narrative Name Coordinates Method Score Score Score Ranking Ranking Ranking Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2008 -- -- -- 19.1 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2009 -- -- -- 15.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2010 -- -- -- 30.5 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2011 -- -- -- 29.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2012 -- -- -- 13.3 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2013 -- -- -- 12.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2014 -- -- -- 38 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2015 -- -- -- 27.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2016 -- -- -- 27.4 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Restoration Plan for the Anacostia River Watershed in Prince George’s County December 30, 2015 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. USEPA 2. Tetra Tech, Inc. 8. USEPA 3. Prince George’s County 9. Montgomery Co DEP 4. VA Tech, Center for TMDL and 10. PGC DoE Watershed Studies 11. USEPA 5. Charles County, MD Dept of 12. PGC DoE Planning and Growth Management 13. USEPA 6. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services _Tom Liptan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 3 1.1.1 What is a TMDL? ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 What is a Restoration Plan? ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Building Stones of Our Nation's Capital
    /h\q AaAjnyjspjopiBs / / \ jouami aqi (O^iqiii^eda . -*' ", - t »&? ?:,'. ..-. BUILDING STONES OF OUR NATION'S CAPITAL The U.S. Geological Survey has prepared this publication as an earth science educational tool and as an aid in understanding the history and physi­ cal development of Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital. The buildings of our Nation's When choosing a building stone, Capital have been constructed with architects and planners use three char­ rocks from quarries throughout the acteristics to judge a stone's suitabili­ United States and many distant lands. ty. It should be pleasing to the eye; it Each building shows important fea­ should be easy to quarry and work; tures of various stones and the geolog­ and it should be durable. Today it is ic environment in which they were possible to obtain fine building stone formed. from many parts of the world, but the This booklet describes the source early builders of the city had to rely and appearance of many of the stones on materials from nearby sources. It used in building Washington, D.C. A was simply too difficult and expensive map and a walking tour guide are to move heavy materials like stone included to help you discover before the development of modern Washington's building stones on your transportation methods like trains and own. trucks. Ancient granitic rocks Metamorphosed sedimentary""" and volcanic rocks, chiefly schist and metagraywacke Metamorphic and igneous rocks Sand.gravel, and clay of Tertiary and Cretaceous age Drowned ice-age channel now filled with silt and clay Physiographic Provinces and Geologic and Geographic Features of the District of Columbia region.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River. Days, Sundays, and National Holidays
    § 334.230 33 CFR Ch. II (7–1–12 Edition) (4) Day and night firing over the of the Naval Support Facility Dahl- range will be conducted intermittently gren, a distance of about 4,080 yards; by one or more vessels, depending on thence north along the Potomac shore weather and operating schedules. When of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahl- firing is in progress, adequate patrol by gren to Baber Point; and thence west naval craft will be conducted to pre- along the Upper Machodoc Creek shore vent vessels from entering or remain- of Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahl- ing within the danger zone. gren to Howland Point at latitude (5) This section shall be enforced by 38°19′0.5″, longitude 77°03′23″; thence the Commandant, Fifth Naval District, northeast to latitude 38°19′18″, lon- U. S. Naval Base, Norfolk, Virginia, gitude 77°02′29″, a point on the Naval and such agencies as he may designate. Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren [13 FR 6918, Nov. 24, 1948, as amended at 22 shore about 350 yards southeast of the FR 6965, Dec. 4, 1957. Redesignated at 50 FR base of the Navy recreational pier. Haz- 42696, Oct. 22, 1985] ardous operations are normally con- ducted in this zone daily except Satur- § 334.230 Potomac River. days, Sundays, and national holidays. (a) Naval Surface Warfare Center, (iii) Upper zone. Beginning at Mathias Dahlgren, VA—(1) The areas. Portions of Point, Va.; thence north to Light 5; the Upper Machodoc Creek and Poto- thence north-northeast to Light 6; mac River near Dahlgren, VA as de- thence east-southeast to Lighted Buoy scribed below: 2, thence east-southeast to a point on (i) Lower zone.
    [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]
  • MDE-Water Pollution
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 1 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 1 Chapters 01-10 ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 2 Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION .................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 01 General ......................................................................................................................................... 2 .01 Definitions................................................................................................................................................. 3 .02 Principles of Water Pollution Control....................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Building Stones of the National Mall
    The Geological Society of America Field Guide 40 2015 Building stones of the National Mall Richard A. Livingston Materials Science and Engineering Department, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA Carol A. Grissom Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute, 4210 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746, USA Emily M. Aloiz John Milner Associates Preservation, 3200 Lee Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22207, USA ABSTRACT This guide accompanies a walking tour of sites where masonry was employed on or near the National Mall in Washington, D.C. It begins with an overview of the geological setting of the city and development of the Mall. Each federal monument or building on the tour is briefly described, followed by information about its exterior stonework. The focus is on masonry buildings of the Smithsonian Institution, which date from 1847 with the inception of construction for the Smithsonian Castle and continue up to completion of the National Museum of the American Indian in 2004. The building stones on the tour are representative of the development of the Ameri­ can dimension stone industry with respect to geology, quarrying techniques, and style over more than two centuries. Details are provided for locally quarried stones used for the earliest buildings in the capital, including A quia Creek sandstone (U.S. Capitol and Patent Office Building), Seneca Red sandstone (Smithsonian Castle), Cockeysville Marble (Washington Monument), and Piedmont bedrock (lockkeeper's house). Fol­ lowing improvement in the transportation system, buildings and monuments were constructed with stones from other regions, including Shelburne Marble from Ver­ mont, Salem Limestone from Indiana, Holston Limestone from Tennessee, Kasota stone from Minnesota, and a variety of granites from several states.
    [Show full text]
  • Potomac River Basin Assessment Overview
    Sources: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality PL01 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation Potomac River Basin Virginia Geographic Information Network PL03 PL04 United States Geological Survey PL05 Winchester PL02 Monitoring Stations PL12 Clarke PL16 Ambient (120) Frederick Loudoun PL15 PL11 PL20 Ambient/Biological (60) PL19 PL14 PL23 PL08 PL21 Ambient/Fish Tissue (4) PL10 PL18 PL17 *# 495 Biological (20) Warren PL07 PL13 PL22 ¨¦§ PL09 PL24 draft; clb 060320 PL06 PL42 Falls ChurchArlington jk Citizen Monitoring (35) PL45 395 PL25 ¨¦§ 66 k ¨¦§ PL43 Other Non-Agency Monitoring (14) PL31 PL30 PL26 Alexandria PL44 PL46 WX Federal (23) PL32 Manassas Park Fairfax PL35 PL34 Manassas PL29 PL27 PL28 Fish Tissue (15) Fauquier PL47 PL33 PL41 ^ Trend (47) Rappahannock PL36 Prince William PL48 PL38 ! PL49 A VDH-BEACH (1) PL40 PL37 PL51 PL50 VPDES Dischargers PL52 PL39 @A PL53 Industrial PL55 PL56 @A Municipal Culpeper PL54 PL57 Interstate PL59 Stafford PL58 Watersheds PL63 Madison PL60 Impaired Rivers and Streams PL62 PL61 Fredericksburg PL64 Impaired Reservoirs or Estuaries King George PL65 Orange 95 ¨¦§ PL66 Spotsylvania PL67 PL74 PL69 Westmoreland PL70 « Albemarle PL68 Caroline PL71 Miles Louisa Essex 0 5 10 20 30 Richmond PL72 PL73 Northumberland Hanover King and Queen Fluvanna Goochland King William Frederick Clarke Sources: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Loudoun Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation Rappahannock River Basin
    [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]
  • A GUIDE to MCB QUANTICO WATERFOWL HUNTING Sixth Edition (2020)
    A GUIDE TO MCB QUANTICO WATERFOWL HUNTING Sixth Edition (2020) Edited and Updated by Kenneth Erwin Fall 2020 Guide to MCB Quantico Waterfowl Hunting (2020) Table of Contents Introduction 3 Jump-Shooting 4 Chopawamsic Creek 4 Chopawamsic Creek Map 4 Blind 1 6 Blind 2 6 Blind 3 7 Blind 4 8 Blind 11 8 Blind A 9 Blind C 9 Quantico Creek 10 Blind 5 10 Blind 6 11 Blind 7 11 Blind 8 11 Blind E 12 Blind F 12 Blind Hospital Point 12 Potomac River 13 Potomac River Map 13 Blind D 14 Blind 9 14 Blind 10 15 MCAF Shoreline Restricted Area Map 16 Lunga Reservoir 17 Blind 12 17 Blind 13 17 Blind 14 18 Blind 15 18 Lunga Reservoir Map 19 Smith Lake 20 Blind 16 20 Blind 17 20 Smith Lake Map 20 Dalton Pond 21 Dalton Pond Blind 21 2 Guide to MCB Quantico Waterfowl Hunting (2020) INTRODUCTION This guide provides information about and directions to waterfowl blinds located aboard Marine Corps Base (MCB) Quantico. It also provides locations of the different boat launch points, information about the different waterways, and restrictions and safety concerns associated with the hunting areas. This guide is not an all-encompassing document but is a tool to assist you in getting safely to your hunting area. This document does not supersede MCB hunting regulations. For the purpose of this guide, the waterfowl blinds will be associated with the water feature where they are located. All directions will use the Game Check Station as the start point.
    [Show full text]