DOCSLIB.ORG

Storm Water Master Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Storm Water Master Plan ,... ... Storm Water Master Plan .... September 1996 ... ..., Arlington County, Virginia Department of Public Works ... Public Works Planning Division ARLINGTON COUNTY, vm.GINIA Arlington County Board James B. Hunter, ill, Chair Ellen M. Bozman, Vice Chair Albert C. Eisenberg ... Paul Ferguson Christopher Zimmerman Arlington County Commissions Planning Commission, Elinor Schwartz, Chair ... Environment and Energy Conservation Commission, R.B. Neustadt, Chair Office of the County Manager Anton S. Gardner, County Manager ... William T. Donahue, Deputy County Manager Prepared By William H. Frost, P.E., Senior Planner Department of Public Works Public Works Planning Division Storm Water Master Plan Team .... Greg ZeIl, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Rachael Slemons, (formerly with Department of Management and Finance) Bill Roberts, Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development Carol McCoskrie, Office of the County Attorney Jeff Ham, Department of Environmental Services ... Mark Graham, (formerly with Department of Environmental Services) Other Assistance Many reviewers from the following departments, whose contributions are gratefully acknowledged. Department of Public Works Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development Department of Environmental Services ... CONTENTS CHAPI'ER. ONE: INTRODUCTION . • o. .. 1 ORGANIZATION OF THIS MASTER PLAN . • . • . • • . .. 1 KEY CONCEPTS IN STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ......••...... 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING CONTEXT ............•........• 3 mSTORY OF STORM WATER FACILITY PLANNING IN ARLINGTON. .. 4 CHAPTER TWO: POLICIES, PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES •...... 6 SUMMARY OF EXISTING POUCIES ......0. .. 6 PROPOSED POUCIES • . • . • . .. 7 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES . • . • . .. 7 Reduce or control damages from flooding ...........•........ 7 Improve runoff quality •...••........•.....•... .. 8 Preserve and improve stream valleys ...............•....... 8 Preserve groundwater resources .......................... 9 PRINCIPLES .....•.................................... 9 Coordination principles . • . • . .. 9 Planning and design principles ........................... 10 Financing principles . • . • o. 10 Maintenance principles .. 11 CHAPI'ER. THREE: REGVLATORY REQUIREMENTS ........ .. 12 FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ............... 12 Federal Regulations and Programs . • . 12 State Laws and Regulations .......................•..... 12 ARL~GTONORDINANCES ................................ 13 SIGNIFICANT STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS .............. 15 CHAPTER FOUR: WATERSHED EVALUATION ....................... 17 WATERSHED DELINEATION ............................... 17 CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS ................•............ 17 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS ................••......... 20 l..a.nd Use. • . • • . • . • . • • • . • . • . 20 Imperviousness . 21 Forests .......................................... 24 Wetlands ........................................ 28 WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS . '. 28 o Background . · . 28 Arlington Stream Quality . 30 Chesapeake Bay Quality ............................... 32 FLOODING PROBLEMS .................................. 32 WATERSHED PRIORITY RANKINGS . 33 Classification . 33 Priorities for stream restoration . 35 Priorities for water quality improvements . • . 36 Priorities for flood damage reduction ....................... 36 \ \. ,.. CHAPTER FIVE: EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROGRAMS ............... 37 I NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT . 38 CONSTR..UCTION . • . • • • . • • • • . • • . • • • 40 EXISTIN"G DEVELOPMENT' . • • • . • • • • . • . • • . 41 r-' POLLUTION PREVENTION - ILLICIT DISCHARGES AND SPILLS ...... 42 I POLLUTION PREVENTION - PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH' ... 43 ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES .....•................... 45 STREAMBANKS, WETLANDS, AND FLOODPLAINS ............... 45 MONITORIN"G . • . • . • . • . 46 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . • • . 48 SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE . • . • • . 49 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT' ...•.................••......... 51 NEW DEVELOPMENT ..............•....••........•. ~ ... 51 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................•......................... 52 Comprehensive Plan History . 52 Storm Sewer Plan History ..............•.•................. 52 r-' Policies, Principles, Goals, Objectives, Standards .................... 52 I Watershed Delineation . • . 54 ABBREVIATIONS ........................................... 56 APPENDIX A: FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ......... 58 r APPENDIX B: STORM DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ............ 65 r ',... I ( rI ~ FIGURES Figure 1: Original and Remaining Streams ...••.•..................... 18 Figure 2: Watersheds in Arlington County and Vicinity .•.............•.... 19 Figure 3: Existing I.Jlnd Use. • . • . 22 Figure 4: Impervious Surface ........................•........... 25 Figure 5: Forest Cover ...........•.....•..........•...•....... 27 Figure .6: Potential Wetlands ..................................... 29 .~ TABLES Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Elements ..•...•..•.••.........•....... 3 Table 2: Proportion of Land Use in Each Watershed ...•.•................ 23 Table 3: Watershed Characteristics •..........•..................... 26 Table 4: Stonn Water Pollutants and Sources . •. 31 Table 5: Watershed Evaluation ............•...................... 34 ~ ! ,~ - ~ I PREFACE It has been fifty years since a comprehensive study of drainage needs has been made for Arlington County. In those five decades the technology and purpose of storm water management systems have changed substantially. Environmental regulations have added new constraints and opportunities. There is an increasing importance on designing storm drainage systems to improve runoff quality as well as control flooding. Emphasis on enhancing and restoring natural stream valleys has brought changes in the focus of storm drainage. Technology and design methods are changing rapidly, as assumptions about current engineering practices are challenged by new research. This Storm Water Master Plan has been driven by these changes. It is being written as a forum to discuss Arlington County's policies and goals for storm water management, and to reach a consensus among citizens and County agencies on programs and projects to correct runoff problems. The guiding philosophy behind the Storm Water Master Plan is that storm water management problems cannot be solved piecemeal, either site-by-site or agency-by-agency. Runoff does not respect jurisdiction boundaries or property lines, and analysis of problems must take a watershed approach. To develop technically sound projects that are supported by the community; a diverse group of specialists and interest groups are needed to contribute to planning and design. No Master Plan can guarantee a particular result. Circumstances and priorities change and the plan must be flexible enough to accommodate change. In the field of storm water management, changes have been rapid. New laws and regulations have revised many of the assumptions under which a plan would have been developed earlier. There is no reason to expect these changes to stop. An important purpose of this plan is to provide the policies and principles that can guide revisions to specific watershed projects as changes occur. The activities proposed as a result of this planning effort are somewhat unconventional. Instead of projects to be designed and built through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), several programs are proposed to meet plan objectives. A series of proposed studies will guide project planning and may lead to future CIP projects. Steps required to develop CIP projects include (1) establishing priorities for programs and watershed studies (done as part of this Master Plan), (2) carrying out data collection and analysis with the programs discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 to identify deficiencies, (3) developing sources of funding and preliminary concepts for improvement projects, and (4) developing a detailed design. Projects requiring County capital funds are programmed in the six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). County Board reviews of the CIP and the annual budget are opportunities for public review of proposed storm water projects, priorities, and funding. Where new development changes runoff characteristics substantially, review of storm water management is part of the County staff review of development plans. In addition to these review opportunities, Arlington County is committed to a thorough and open public participation process in the consideration of any new County facilities. As circumstances change, the plan should represent the most current thinking of the County. Between comprehensive plan updates, amendments are appropriate. Should the goals and objectives change, should new regulations be adopted, should specific facility proposals need to be changed, then this plan should be amended. Proposed amendments should be considered by other County commissions as appropriate, and be subject to an open public participation process developed for the type of amendment. The Stonn Water Master Plan has been developed through a process of inter-agency and citizen participation. The Department of Public Works has had primary responsibility for its development, with input from a Storm Water Master Plan Project Team consisting of representatives from the following departments: Department of Environmental Services Department of Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Department of Com~unity Planning, Housing, and Development
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Paper Is an Update of the Paper Presented by Dave Greenfield and Ron Ryczak of BAMR at the 2008 NAAMLP Conference in Durango, Colorado
    Assessment of Fluvial Geomorphology Projects at Abandoned Mine Sites in 1 the Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania Dennis M. Palladino, P.E.² Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation 2 Public Square, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701-1915 [email protected] (570) 830-3190 ABSTRACT Some watersheds have been so severely impacted by mining that the streams do not support aquatic life and can no longer accommodate flows or transport sediment. To fully recover the environmental resource of these scarred landscapes the land must be reclaimed and the streams reconstructed. As abandoned mine sites are being reclaimed to their approximate original contours, the hydrology of the watersheds will be returning to pre-mining conditions and generating base flows and storm discharges that residents may not have experienced in many years. A stable system will have to be designed to transport the flows and sediment while preventing erosion and flooding. Traditionally, rigid systems have been implemented that are rectangular or trapezoidal in shape and are constructed entirely of rock and concrete. These systems have a good survival rate but do not replace the resource that was lost during mining. In an attempt to reclaim the watersheds that were destroyed during mining to a natural state, the application of Fluvial Geomorphologic (FGM) techniques has been embraced at several sites in the Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania. These sites have had various degrees of success. All of the sites were designed based on bankfull conditions and were immediately successful in creating habitat for a wide variety of species. Some sites remained stable until damaged due to extreme discharge events where design, construction, or implementation flaws were revealed in regions above the bankfull elevation.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES) INDIVIDUAL PERMIT to DISCHARGE STORMWATER from SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (Ms4s
    3800-PM-BCW0200e Rev. 8/2019 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Permit DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) INDIVIDUAL PERMIT TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER FROM SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4s) NPDES PERMIT NO. PAI132224 In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. (“the Act”) and Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law, as amended, 35 P.S. Section 691.1 et seq., Lackawanna County 1280 Mid Valley Drive Jessup, PA 18434-1819 is authorized to discharge from a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) located in Lackawanna County to Roaring Brook (CWF, MF), Powderly Creek (CWF, MF), Lackawanna River (HQ-CWF, MF), Unnamed Tributary to Lucky Run (CWF, MF), Wildcat Creek (CWF, MF), Keyser Creek (CWF, MF), Unnamed Tributary to Stafford Meadow Brook (HQ-CWF, MF), and Unnamed Stream (CWF, MF) in Watersheds 5-A in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein. THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON MAY 1, 2021 THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE AT MIDNIGHT ON APRIL 30, 2026 The authority granted by coverage under this Permit is subject to the following further qualifications: 1. The permittee shall comply with the effluent limitations and reporting requirements contained in this permit. 2. The application and its supporting documents are incorporated into this permit. If there is a conflict between the application, its supporting documents and/or amendments and the terms and conditions of this permit, the terms and conditions shall apply. 3. Failure to comply with the terms, conditions or effluent limitations of this permit is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES) INDIVIDUAL PERMIT to DISCHARGE STORMWATER from SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (Ms4s
    3800-PM-BCW0200e Rev. 8/2019 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Permit DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF CLEAN WATER NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) INDIVIDUAL PERMIT TO DISCHARGE STORMWATER FROM SMALL MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4s) NPDES PERMIT NO. PAI132224 In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. (“the Act”) and Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law, as amended, 35 P.S. Section 691.1 et seq., Lackawanna County 1280 Mid Valley Drive Jessup, PA 18434-1819 is authorized to discharge from a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) located in Lackawanna County to Roaring Brook (CWF, MF), Powderly Creek (CWF, MF), Lackawanna River (HQ-CWF, MF), Unnamed Tributary to Lucky Run (CWF, MF), Wildcat Creek (CWF, MF), Keyser Creek (CWF, MF), Unnamed Tributary to Stafford Meadow Brook (HQ-CWF, MF), and Unnamed Stream (CWF, MF) in Watersheds 5-A in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth herein. THIS PERMIT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON TBD THIS PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE AT MIDNIGHT ON TBD The authority granted by coverage under this Permit is subject to the following further qualifications: 1. The permittee shall comply with the effluent limitations and reporting requirements contained in this permit. 2. The application and its supporting documents are incorporated into this permit. If there is a conflict between the application, its supporting documents and/or amendments and the terms and conditions of this permit, the terms and conditions shall apply. 3. Failure to comply with the terms, conditions or effluent limitations of this permit is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application.
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Arlington County, Virginia (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 1 ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER ARLINGTON COUNTY, 515520 UNINCORPORATED AREAS PRELIMINARY 9/18/2020 REVISED: TBD FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 51013CV000B Version Number 2.6.4.6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 13 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 13 2.2 Floodways 17 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 18 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 19 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 19 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 19 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 21 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 21 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 22 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 22 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones 22 SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED 22 4.1 Basin Description 22 4.2 Principal Flood Problems 23 4.3 Non-Levee Flood Protection Measures 24 4.4 Levees 24 SECTION 5.0 – ENGINEERING METHODS 27 5.1 Hydrologic Analyses 27 5.2 Hydraulic Analyses 32 5.3 Coastal Analyses 37 5.3.1 Total Stillwater Elevations 38 5.3.2 Waves 38 5.3.3 Coastal Erosion 38 5.3.4 Wave Hazard Analyses 38 5.4 Alluvial Fan Analyses 39 SECTION 6.0 – MAPPING METHODS 39 6.1 Vertical and Horizontal Control 39 6.2 Base Map 40 6.3 Floodplain and Floodway Delineation 41 6.4 Coastal Flood Hazard Mapping 51 6.5 FIRM
    [Show full text]
  • Discover the Potomac Gorge
    Discover the Potomac Gorge: A National Treasure n the outskirts of Washington, D.C., O the Potomac River passes through a landscape of surprising beauty and ecological significance. Here, over many millennia, an unusual combination of natural forces has produced a unique corridor known as the Potomac Gorge. This 15-mile river stretch is one of the country’s most biologically diverse areas, home to more than 1,400 plant species. Scientists have identified at least 30 distinct natural vegetation communities, several of which are globally rare and imperiled. The Gorge also supports a rich array of animal life, from rare invertebrates to the bald eagle and fish like the American shad. g g n n In total, the Potomac Gorge provides habitat to i i m m e e l l F F more than 200 rare plant species and natural . P P y y r r communities, making it one of the most important a a G G © © natural areas in the eastern United States. The heart of the Potomac Gorge is also known as Mather Gorge, named This riverside prairie at Great Falls, Virginia, results from periodic river flooding, after Stephen T. Mather, first director of the National Park Service. a natural disturbance that creates and sustains rare habitats. g g g n n n i i i e n m m m e r y e e e l l l a e l F F F P C . y e P P P e L y y y v f r r r r f a a a a e G G H G J © © © © © Flowering dogwood, a native forest understory species in our Specially adapted to withstand river The Potomac Gorge is home to Clinging precariously to the cliff’s edge, Brightly colored in its immature form, a reptile known as the region, is being decimated by an introduced fungal disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management
    City of Alexandria, VA Proposed FY 2021 - FY 2030 Capital Improvement Program STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Stormwater Management Page 15.1 City of Alexandria, VA Proposed FY 2021 - FY 2030 Capital Improvement Program Note: Projects with a $0 total funding are active capital projects funded in prior CIP's that do not require additional resources. FY 2020 and FY 2021 - Before FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2030 Stormwater Management Cameron Station Pond Retrofit 4,681,8850000000000 0 City Facilities Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) 1,633,0000000000000 0 Four Mile Run Channel Maintenance 3,293,000 0 0 936,60000001,251,300 4,177,000 0 6,364,900 Green Infrastructure 1,850,000 206,500 210,000 0 1,549,0000000001,965,500 Lucky Run Stream Restoration 2,800,0000000000000 0 MS4-TDML Compliance Water Quality Improvements 1,255,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 9,000,000 5,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 51,000,000 NPDES / MS4 Permit 815,000 165,000 170,000 168,400 170,000 171,700 173,500 175,200 177,000 178,700 180,500 1,730,000 Phosphorus Exchange Bank 00000000000 0 Storm Sewer Capacity Assessment 4,713,500 498,750 508,300 0 0 7,529,100 0 588,100 10,213,900 0 0 19,338,150 Storm Sewer System Spot Improvements 7,605,221 420,000 430,500 441,400 452,500 464,000 475,800 488,000 500,500 513,400 526,700 4,712,800 Stormwater BMP Maintenance CFMP 135,000 140,000 144,200 148,600 153,000 1,201,500 1,220,100 157,700 160,900 164,100 167,400 3,657,500 Stormwater Utility Implementation
    [Show full text]
  • 46 Pola Negri in 1927
    Courtesy LofC, Prints & Photo Div, LC-DIG-ggbain-37938 Pola Negri in 1927 46 ARLINGTON HISTORICAL MAGAZINE Pola Negri Slept Here? Unraveling the Mystery of a Screen Siren's Stay in Arlington BY JENNIFER SALE CRANE With Arlington having few Hollywood connections to boast of, save For­ rest Tucker, Warren Beatty, Shirley MacLaine, and Sandra Bullock, the story about a modest stone bungalow nestled in the Gulf Branch stream valley off of Military Road is curious indeed. According to a long-held local legend, silent film star Pola Negri once stayed there. Local accounts have varied- some say the house was rented by Negri as her "Virginia hideaway," others think it was built as Negri and Rudolph Valen­ tino's love nest, and played host to Hollywood-style pool parties. The cozy bungalow at 3608 N. Military Road, 1 with quite a few additions and alterations, is now home to the Gulf Branch Nature Center, established in 1966 and operated by Arlington County Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources. The swimming pool, filled in and planted with a garden, can still be identified by the exposed segments of its curved concrete walls. The Nature Center's connection to the early Hollywood star was investi­ gated in the 1970s by ComeliaB. Rose, Jr., a founding member of the Arlington Historical Society. Rose's documentation leaves a few questions unanswered. But despite the lack of unequivocal primary source evidence, the story of Pola egri and the Gulf Branch Nature Center has become an important part of the oral tradition of Arlington County.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Management Plan Background…
    ARLINGTON COUNTY NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY AND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND… PUBLIC SPACES MASTER PLAN (2005) “CREATE A NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND TO DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION” • Bring together various plans & practices to protect the County’s natural resources. • Develop a classification system of the various types of natural resources. • Define lines of authority & responsibilities among various agencies. • Create an additional GIS Layer to identify significant natural resources. NATURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY: LAYING THE GROUNDWORK…2005-2008 ARLINGTON’S FIRST COMPREHENSIVE NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY…. Partnership development… PROJECT ELEMENTS: WATER RESOURCES GEOLOGY NATIVE FLORA TREE RESOURCES INVASIVE PLANTS URBAN WILDLIFE GIS WATER RESOURCES… SPRINGS AND SEEPS STREAM MAPPING WETLANDS CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS GEOLOGICAL FEATURES… SCENIC WATERFALLS OUTCROPS HIGH VALUE EXPOSURES HISTORIC QUARRIES NATIVE FLORA… LOCALLY-RARE PLANTS NATIVE FLORA STATE-RARE PLANTS SPECIMEN PREPARATION NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES & TREE RESOURCES… CHAMPION TREES SIGNIFICANT TREES FOREST TYPES PLANT COMMUNITIES INVASIVE PLANTS… 500 acres of parkland mapped… GOOSEBERRY FIVE-LEAVED AKEBIA ENGLISH IVY “Invasive plants represent the greatest current threat to the natural succession of local native forests in Arlington County” URBAN WILDLIFE: LEPIDOPTERA AVIFAUNA AMPHIBIANS ODONATA REPTILES MAMMALS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) … Mapping Examples: Native Plant Communities Donaldson Run Park
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Under the Ice Frogs and Turtles Sometimes Become Active Under the Ice and Can Be Seen Moving Slowly About
    WINTER 2015-2016 CHECK OUT OUR GREAT NATURE PROGRAMS! REGISTRATION BEGINS November 16, 2015 WHAT’S HAPPENING Sign up to receive THE SNAG and to find other information about our nature and conservation programs at http://parks.arlingtonva.us GULF BRANCH NATURE CENTER LONG BRANCH NATURE CENTER FORT C.F. SMITH PARK 3608 Military Road 625 S. Carlin Springs Road 2411 N. 24th St. Arlington, VA 22207 Arlington, VA 22204 Arlington, VA 22207 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 703-228-3403 703-228-6535 703-228-7033 Some frogs hibernate at the bottom of ponds, breathing through their skin. Frogs usually lie on the bottom rather than dig into the oxygen-poor mud because they require more oxygen than the mud can supply. Painted, snapping, and other native aquatic turtles also breathe through their skin during hibernation, but maintain a much lower metabolism than frogs. Consequently, they need less oxygen and can afford to bury themselves in the mud. In more northern latitudes, where ice can cover ponds and lakes for months and oxygen can become depleted, turtles have another trick up their shell. They can switch to anaerobic respiration, meaning respiration without oxygen. They can keep this up for weeks or even months! Under the Ice Frogs and turtles sometimes become active under the ice and can be seen moving slowly about. You might also see fish and aquatic insects such as water boatmen and predacious diving beetles. Check it out — under the ice! n the summer ponds are obviously lively places. Frogs sit along the edge or float in the water while turtles bask on logs and rocks.
    [Show full text]