DOCSLIB.ORG

Monitoring Needs and Partnership Opportunities Assessment: a Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Re-Alignment Action Team

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monitoring Needs and Partnership Opportunities Assessment: a Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Re-Alignment Action Team Monitoring Needs and Partnership Opportunities Assessment: A Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Re-Alignment Action Team Chesapeake Bay Program September 2009 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Monitoring Re-Alignment-Partnership Issue team To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109 Annapolis, Maryland 21403 ii Table of Contents Summary of Recommendations for Partnering Opportunities for Enhancing Monitoring for Chesapeake Bay Program ................................................................................................................................................ vi Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... x Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1 Partnership Issue Team Objectives..........................................................................................................1 Scope of Report........................................................................................................................................1 Relation to the Presidential Executive Order............................................................................................2 Monitoring Inventory Compilation .................................................................................................................3 Methods ....................................................................................................................................................3 Summary Inventory...................................................................................................................................3 Water Quality Partnership Opportunities ......................................................................................................9 Management Goals and Priority Water Quality Monitoring Needs...........................................................9 Summary of Current Monitoring Programs to Address Water Quality Needs........................................10 Case Study-Agricultural BMP Performance Studies......................................................................12 Case Study-Urban and Suburban BMP Performance Studies ......................................................16 Case Study- Sub-watershed Urban and Suburban BMP Effectiveness Monitoring ......................17 Monitoring Gaps, Challenges, and Partnership Opportunities for Water Quality...................................20 Fisheries Partnership Opportunities............................................................................................................25 Management Goals and Priority Fisheries Monitoring Needs................................................................25 Summary of Current Monitoring Programs to Address Fisheries Needs ...............................................26 Monitoring Gaps, Challenges, and Partnership Opportunities for Fisheries ..........................................29 Habitat Partnership Opportunities...............................................................................................................31 Management Goals and Priority Habitat Monitoring Needs ...................................................................31 Summary of Current Monitoring Programs to Address Habitat Needs ..................................................33 Monitoring Gaps, Challenges, and Partnership Opportunities for Habitat .............................................33 Watershed Partnership Opportunities.........................................................................................................37 Management Goals and Priority Watershed Monitoring Needs .............................................................37 Summary of Current Monitoring Programs to Address Watershed Needs ............................................38 Monitoring Gaps, Challenges, and Partnership Opportunities for Watersheds......................................38 References..................................................................................................................................................41 Appendix A- The 2009 Chesapeake Bay Region Monitoring Inventory .....................................................43 Appendix B- Chesapeake Action Plan Monitoring Needs Gap Analyses ...................................................83 Appendix C- Summary of Federally Funded Monitoring Programs ..........................................................105 Appendix D- Summary of Priority Monitoring Partnership Opportunities..................................................111 iii iv v Summary of Recommendations for Partnering Opportunities for Enhancing Monitoring for Chesapeake Bay Program • Staff resources should be allotted in 2010 to conduct a more comprehensive survey of monitoring activities in the Bay and its watershed and periodic up dates every five years there after. The data call for monitoring programs should include a well-defined definition of what is or is not a monitoring program. Programmatic needs for monitoring information extend beyond water quality and there needs to be an emphasis capturing monitoring efforts that address all CBP areas. • The 2009 Monitoring Inventory has identified numerous potential candidate programs to establish monitoring partnerships with to expand our monitoring networks and meet programmatic information need. However to participate in these potential partnerships, the Bay Program would need to provide resources (money, technical expertise, staffing) for these efforts. The CBP needs to have a flexible source of funds to establish priority partnerships. The new Technical Support Services Team should oversee the funds. • There are opportunities to better utilize on-going monitoring being conducted by federal, state, and local governments, and non-governmental organizations to address information needs for all Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) goals: water quality, fisheries, habitat, and watershed. However, the CBP will have to greatly increase capacity to obtain, manage, and utilize appropriate information from these monitoring programs. CBP should develop or apply guidance documents which lay out analytical quality assurance requirements for a monitoring program to become a partner in our monitoring networks. Guidance for data management, data submission and metadata currently exists but will need modification for working with small data providers (CBP, 1998; CBP, 2001; and CBP 2006). • There needs to be careful consideration of monitoring needs of the entire Chesapeake Bay program when re-aligning monitoring funds. It was noted during the monitoring needs assessment conducted across all goal implementation teams that changes to the water quality monitoring programs will have repercussions in other parts of the program. Decreases in tidal monitoring effort will degrade our abilities to insure habitat conditions favorable for the maintenance and expansion of SAV acreage and conduct ecosystem based fisheries management. However increases in the non-tidal monitoring program will enhance our abilities to assess stream health and target stream restoration. Water-quality • The current CBP tidal water-quality monitoring programs (water quality, benthic invertebrate, phytoplankton and submerged aquatic vegetation) provide the majority of the data to assess vi water-quality criteria, the priority-monitoring objective. These programs also provide information to document status and trends, prepare communication products and support models. These programs need to be continued, because there are very limited partnering opportunities to support these programs. • There are opportunities to enhance partnerships, mostly with citizen monitoring groups, to assess the status of water-quality conditions in selected tidal tributaries and shallow waters of the Bay. These partnerships do not currently address the needs for criteria assessment in shallow waters or change over time. • There are opportunities to partner with on-going efforts in small watersheds to better evaluate the effectiveness of management practices. The CBP should increase resources to synthesize results from past and present small watershed studies to provide products on effectiveness of point source, agricultural, and storm-water management practices to reduce nutrients, sediment, and toxic contaminants. The CBP should select 6-18 small watersheds, which have on-going monitoring of best management practices (BMP’s), land-use activities, and water quality, to co- locate long-term monitoring sites as part of the non-tidal water-quality network. These small watersheds would provide information to help provide on-going evaluation of different types of water-quality management actions. • There are opportunities to partner with on-going programs to better assess the nutrient, sediment, contaminant, and bacterial conditions in the watershed to better target restoration and protection activities. However, these partnership opportunities will not address the needs of the CBP non- tidal network to monitor changes in nutrient and sediment loads and concentrations to help assess progress toward load allocations. • Assessing criteria related to toxic contaminant impairments
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Barry Mackintosh Park History Program National Park Service
    GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY Barry Mackintosh Park History Program National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 1996 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 I. THE MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY • • • 7 II. THE CAPPER-CRAMTON ACT 21 III. EXPANDING THE PARKWAY, 1931-1952 • 33 IV. EXPANDING THE PARKWAY, 1952-1970 57 V. THE UNFINISHED PARKWAY. 87 VI. ARLINGTON HOUSE .•• . • 117 VII. THEODORE ROOSEVELT ISLAND . • 133 VIII. OTHER ADDITIONS AND SUBTRACTIONS • . • • . 147 Fort Hunt •.. • • . • • . • • . 147 Jones Point . • • . • • . • . • • . • • . • • • . 150 Dyke Marsh and Daingerfield Island . • • • . • • . • 153 Arlington Memorial Bridge, Memorial Drive, and Columbia Island • . • • • • • • . • • • • . • . • 164 The Nevius Tract • • . • . • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • 176 Merrywood and the Riverfront Above Chain Bridge • • • . 184 Fort Marcy . • • • • . • • • • . • • . • • • . 187 The Langley Tract and Turkey Run Farm • • • • . • • • 188 Glen Echo Park and Clara Barton National Historic site • 190 GWMP Loses Ground • • • . • • • • .. • . • • . • • • 197 INTRODUCTION The George Washington Memorial Parkway is among the most complex and unusual units of the national park system. The GWMP encompasses some 7,428 acres in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. For reasons that will later be explained, a small part of this acreage is not administered by its superintendent, and a greater amount of land formerly within GWMP now lies within another national park unit. Some of the GWMP acreage the superintendent administers is commonly known by other names, like Great Falls Park in Virginia and Glen Echo Park in Maryland. While most national park units may be characterized as predominantly natural, historical, or recreational, GWMP comprises such a diverse array of natural, historic, and recreational resources that it defies any such categorization. Further complicating matters, GWMP's superintendent also administers four other areas classed as discrete national park units-Arlington House, The Robert E.
    [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]
  • Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan
    Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Smith Creek Planning Initiative Working Partners New Hanover County Planning City of Wilmington Planning City of Wilmington Stormwater Services New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District UNCW Coastal Land Trust North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program North Carolina Coastal Federation Cape Fear River Watch Watershed Management Advisory Board Members William Caster, New Hanover County Board of Commissioners Don Cooke, Progress Energy Carlton Fisher, Coastal Realty Company William F. Gage, Smith-Gage Architects Clark Hipp – Hipp + Best Architects John Jefferies – Jefferies & Faris Architects Brenda McDonald – First Mortgage Corporation Shelly Miller – New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District Laura Padgett – Wilmington City Council Larry Sneeden – ESP Associates Watershed Management Advisory Board Technical Committee Members Shawn Ralston, New Hanover County Planning Department Phil Prete, City of Wilmington Planning Department Shelly Miller, New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District Jennifer Butler, City of Wilmington Stormwater Services Nicole Miller, Airlie Gardens Environmental Education Program Matthew Collogan, Airlie Gardens Environmental Education Program Kristen Miguez, North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Mike Mallin, UNCW Center for Marine Sciences Nancy Preston, Coastal Land Trust Smith Creek Watershed Management Plan Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Public Access Points Within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill
    Public Access Points within 50 Miles of Capitol Hill Public Access Point Boat Ramp Fishing Swimming Restrooms Hiking/Trekking Location 2900 Virginia Ave NW, Thompson's Boat Center X X X X Washington, DC 20037 3244 K St NW, Washington, DC Georgetown Waterfront Park X X 20007 George Washington Memorial Theodore Roosevelt Island X X X Pkwy N, Arlington, VA 22209 West Basin Dr SW, Washington, West Potomac Park X X DC 20024 Capital Crescent Trail, Washington Canoe Club X Washington, DC 20007 600 Water St SW, Washington, DC Ganglplank Marina X X X X 20024 George Washington Memorial Columbia Island Marina X X X Parkway, Arlington, VA 22202 99 Potomac Ave. SE. Washington, Diamond Teague Park X X DC 20003 335 Water Street Washington, DC The Yards Park X 20003 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE, Anacostia Boat House X Washington, DC 20003 700-1000 Water St SW, Washington Marina X X X X Washington, DC 20024 Anacostia Park, Section E Anacostia Marina X X X Washington, DC 20003 2001-2099 1st St SW, Washington, Buzzard's Point Marina X X X DC 20003 2038-2068 2nd St SW, James Creek Marina X X X Washington, DC 20593 Anacostia Dr, Washington, DC Anacostia Park X X X 20019 Heritage Island Trail, Washington, Heritage Island X DC 20002 Kingman Island Trail, Washington, Kingman Island X DC 20002 Mt Vernon Trail, Arlington, VA Gravelly Point X X 22202 George Washington Memorial Roaches Run X X X X Pkwy, Arlington, VA 22202 1550 Anacostia Ave NE, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens/Park X X X Washington, DC 20019 Capital Crescent Trail, Jack's Boat House X X Washington, DC 20007 Daingerfield Island X X X X 1 Marina Dr, Alexandria, VA 22314 67-101 Dale St, Alexandria, VA Four Mile Run Park/Trail X X X 22305 4601 Annapolis Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Corridor Analysis of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    2015 Corridor Analysis Of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia 0 http://www.novaregion.org/index.aspx?nid=299 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) thanks the following individuals for their contributions to this report: • Donald Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; • Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; • Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; • Debbie Andrews of Prince William County Department of Parks and Recreation; and • Members of the Potomac Heritage Trail Association. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided by a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service (Grant Cooperative Agreement P14AC01704). 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. Report prepared by: Corey Miles, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission Figure 1 Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail Corridor 1 http://www.novaregion.org/index.aspx?nid=299 The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 2015 Commissioners Listed by Jurisdiction (As of December 2015) Commissioners are appointed by and from the governing bodies of NVRC’s member localities on a population-based representation formula.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Maryland Ornithological Society, Inc. SEPTEMBER
    ISSN 047-9725 September–December 2003 MARYLAND BIRDLIFE Bulletin of the Maryland Ornithological Society, Inc. SEPTEMBER–DECEMBER 2003 VOLUME 59 NUMBERS 3–4 MARYLAND ORNITHOLOGICAL SOCIETY, INC. Cylburn Mansion, 495 Greenspring Ave., Baltimore, Maryland 2209 STATE OFFICERS FOR JUNE 2003 TO JUNE 2004 EXECUTIVE COUNCIL President: Paul Zucker, 283 Huntsman Way, Potomac, MD 20854 (30-279-7896) Vice President: Janet Millenson, 0500 Falls Road, Potomac, MD 20854 (30-983-9337) Treasurer: Shiras Guion,8007 Martown Road, Laurel, MD 20723 (30-490-0444) Secretary: Janet Shields, 305 Fountain Head Rd, Hagerstown 2742 (30-46-709) Past Pres.: Karen Morley, 279 N. Calvert St., Baltimore, MD 228 (40-235-400) STATE DIRECTORS Allegany: * Barbara Gaffney Howard: * Kurt Schwarz Mary-Jo Betts Anne Arundel: * Paul Speyser Karen Darcy Linda Baker Darius Ecker Al Haury Kent: * Peter Mann Baltimore: * Peter Webb Walter Ellison Jeanne Bowman Mary Chetelat Montgomery: * Sam Freiberg Helene Gardel Don Messersmith John Landers Don Simonson Rick Sussman Caroline: * Bill Scudder Ann Weeks Danny Poet Patuxent: * Frederick Fallon Carroll: * Amy Hoffman Chandler Robbins Roxann Yeager Talbot: * Mark Scallion Cecil: * Rick Lee Shirley Bailey Marcia Watson-Whitmyre William Novak Frederick: * David Smith Tri-County: * Samuel Dyke Michael Welch Elizabeth Pitney Harford: * Jean Wheeler Washington Co.: * Judy Lilga Thomas Congersky Ann Mitchell Randy Robertson *Chapter President Active Membership: $0.00 plus chapter dues Life: $400.00 (4 annual installments) Household: $5.00 plus chapter dues Junior (under 8): $5.00 plus chapter Sustaining: $25.00 plus chapter dues Cover: Pied-billed Grebe, March 1989. Photo by Luther C. Goldman. September–December 2003 MARYLAND BIRDLIFE 3 VOLUME 59 SEPTEMBER–DECEMBER 2003 NUMBERS 3–4 Late NESTING Dates IN Maryland: PINE WARBLER, Northern Parula AND BLUE-Gray Gnatcatcher JAY M.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharon Francis Oral History Interview I, 9/5/80, by Dorothy Pierce Mcsweeney, Internet Copy, LBJ Library
    LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON LIBRARY ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION The LBJ Library Oral History Collection is composed primarily of interviews conducted for the Library by the University of Texas Oral History Project and the LBJ Library Oral History Project. In addition, some interviews were done for the Library under the auspices of the National Archives and the White House during the Johnson administration. Some of the Library's many oral history transcripts are available on the INTERNET. Individuals whose interviews appear on the INTERNET may have other interviews available on paper at the LBJ Library. Transcripts of oral history interviews may be consulted at the Library or lending copies may be borrowed by writing to the Interlibrary Loan Archivist, LBJ Library, 2313 Red River Street, Austin, Texas, 78705. SHARON FRANCIS ORAL HISTORY, INTERVIEW I PREFERRED CITATION For Internet Copy: Transcript, Sharon Francis Oral History Interview I, 9/5/80, by Dorothy Pierce McSweeney, Internet Copy, LBJ Library. For Electronic Copy on Diskette from the LBJ Library: Transcript, Sharon Francis Oral History Interview I, 9/5/80, by Dorothy Pierce McSweeney, Electronic Copy, LBJ Library. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON LIBRARY Legal Agreement Pertaining to the Oral History Interviews of Sharon Francis In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21 of Title 44, United States Code and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, I, Sharon Francis of Charlestown, New Hampshire do hereby give, donate and convey to the United States of America all my rights, title and interest in the tape recordings and transcripts of the personal interviews conducted on May 20, June 4, June 27, and August 20, 1969 in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    2009 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Water Resources 2009 CITY OF WESTMINSTER Water Resources 2009 What is the Water Resources Element? Community Vision for During its 2008 General Session, the Maryland General Water Assembly, as part of section 1.03 (iii) of Article 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, mandated that all Maryland The City’s ability to provide water to counties and municipalities exercising planning and residents and businesses has become an zoning authority prepare and adopt a Water Resources issue of great importance in recent years. Element in their Comprehensive Plans. According to the 2008 Community Survey, 65% of residents are satisfied with Requirements: the quality of water in Westminster, while Identify drinking water and other water resources others were concerned with the quality of that will be adequate for the needs of existing and their water service. future development Residents would like to improved water Identify suitable receiving waters and land areas to service in terms of improved meet the storm water management and wastewater communication. For example, residents treatment and disposal needs of existing and future development would like the City give proper notification when performing sewer or Purpose: water system repairs, as those repairs affect water pressure or the color of water. To ensure the Comprehensive Plan integrates water resources issues and potential solutions Residents also suggested that the City create incentives for residents to conserve To outline how management of water, wastewater and stormwater will support planned growth, given water in order to ensure reliable water water resource limitations service can continue into the future. Water Resources Priorities: State Planning Visions found in this Element: Water supply availability Infrastructure: Growth areas have the water resources and infrastructure to accommodate Reclaimed water use population and business expansion in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally sound manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Smith Creek Watershed
    Smith Creek Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Showcase Watershed 43 percent of this intensively farmed watershed is agricultural land with significant amounts of cropland (5,713 acres) and hayland (13,105 acres). Supporting State Goals NRCS is partnering with more than 20 groups and organizations in the watershed to improve water quality and support the current Smith Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation Plan. Best management practices to address resource concerns include installing riparian buffers, cover crops, rotational Overview Smith Creek Profile grazing and alternative watering systems; constructing waste storage In 2010, USDA’s Natural Resources The Shenandoah Valley is home to 75 facilities; excluding livestock from Conservation Service (NRCS) percent of Virginia’s poultry operations streams; and implementing nutrient established three showcase water- and approximately 46 percent of its management practices. sheds to demonstrate what can be dairies. This concentration of animal accomplished when people and groups farms has contributed to nitrogen, Smith Creek is the only small come together to solve natural resource phosphorus, sediment and bacteria agricultural watershed in Virginia where problems in a targeted area. pollution in local streams, the the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers, is monitoring progress as BMPs are The goal of the project was to reduce and the Chesapeake Bay. installed. USGS collects river samples nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment from the Smith Creek watershed contributions from soil erosion, over- The Smith Creek Watershed covers application of nutrients, poor pasture 67,335 acres and includes four sub- management and uncontrolled animal watersheds: Dry Fork, Mountain Run, access to streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Map 2.1 Overall Map Move
    WILMINGTON/NEW HANOVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE GREENWAY PLAN Northside Park Robert Strange Greensboro Park Park Optimist Johnnie Mercers Park Pier Legion Stadium Masonboro Island Coastal Resreve Snows Cut Park 2-5 | CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP 2.1 OVERALL MAP MOVE. PLAY. CONNECT. WILMINGTON/NEW HANOVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE GREENWAY PLAN This map displays some highlights from comments collected during steering committee meetings that took place in early 2012. GE Wilmington employs more than 2,000 people in its Castle Hayne facility1. The University of North Carolina at Wilmington employs over 1,800 faculty and staff, teaching over 2 The Riverwalk is a scenic 13,000 students each year . boardwalk along the east bank of the Cape Fear River in downtown Wilmington. It provides a place to stroll along the water minutes from the buildings, restaurants, and Middle Sound Loop Rd. is a shops forming the heart of popular on-road recreation downtown. destination. The Forest Hills Loop is a popular walking and jogging destination just east of downtown. The loop is approximately three miles in length and passes by the Wilmington “The Loop” around Wrightsville Beach YMCA and Beaumont Park. is a popular walking and jogging destination near the ocean. The Loop is formed by a concrete sidewalk varying in width from 5’ to 10’ and passes by scenic views of the sound, as well as New Hanover Regional Medical by the shops and restaurants forming Center is a major economic driver the commercial district along Lumina in the region, with more than 4,000 Avenue. employees3. The shopping center at the junction of College Rd.
    [Show full text]