DOCSLIB.ORG

County of Louisa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
County of Louisa County of Louisa Water Quality Management Plan and Groundwater Study Prepared By: T/lOlllas Jeffersoll Plallnillg District COII/missiofl I'irgillia Divisioll of I'vlifleral Resollrces Louisa COUIII)' Plallfling Departlllel!1 Louisa Couflt)' Water Aut//Oir!)' Draper -Idell -hsociates lallllar\ 1l)l)X County of Louisa Water Quality Management Plan and Groundwater Study Prepared By: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Louisa County Planning Department Louisa County Water Authoirty Draper Aden Associates January, 1998 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Potential Growth Areas .............................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 General Infonnation ................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 HistorylBackground ................................................................................................... 1-4 1.5 Previous Reports and Infonnation ............................................................................. 1-4 2.0 Present Water Quality in Louisa County .................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Watersheds ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Groundwater Quality ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.1 Louisa County DRASTIC Study ................................................................ 2-3 2.2.2 Louisa County Water Testing Study .......................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 Evaluation of Household Water Quality in Goochland County ................. 2-4 2.2.4 Review ofVDH Data .................................................................................. 2-4 2.3 Surface Water Quality ................................................................................................ 2-5 2.3.1 Prioritization of Third and Fourth Order Watersheds ................................. 2-5 2.3.2 Chemical Data Analysis .............................................................................. 2-5 2.3.3 Biological Data Analysis ............................................................................ 2-8 2.4 Sanitary Drainfields ................................................................................................... 2-8 3.0 Geology and Groundwater Hydrology ........................................................................ 3-1 3.1 General Overview ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Bedrock Geology ....................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Saprolite ..................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Soils ........................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.5 Water Well Database ................................................................................................. 3-9 3.6 Impacts of Mining on Water Quality ....................................................................... 3-15 4.0 Existing Water Supply and Wastewater Systems ....................................................... 4-1 4.1 Water Supply .............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2.1 Surface Water ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Wastewater Treatment Systems ................................................................................. 4-5 4.2.1 Louisa County Wastewater Treatment Plant .............................................. 4-5 4.2.2 Town of Louisa WWTP .............................................................................. 4-7 4.2.3 Private Wastewater Treatment Facilities .................................................... 4-7 4.2.4 Septic Tanks and Sanitary Drainfields ........................................................ 4-8 4.3 Existing Water and Wastewater Infrastructure .......................................................... 4-8 4.4 Existing Water and Wastewater Usage ...................................................................... 4-9 4.5 Existing User Fees ..................................................................................................... 4-9 5.0 Projected Water and Wastewater Demands ............................................................... 5-1 5.1 Projected 20 Year Demands Using Population Growth ............................................. 5-1 5.2 Projected 20 Year Demands Using Present Comprehensive Plan ............................. 5-4 5.3 Ultimate Demands Using Present Comprehensive Plan ............................................ 5-8 5.4 Ultimate Demands Based on Build-Out Housing Unit Density ................................ 5-8 6.0 Water System Evaluation For Future Growth ........................................................... 6-1 6.1 Future Regulations and Water ................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Surface Water Sources ............................................................................................... 6-1 6.2.1 Northeast Creek Reservoir .......................................................................... 6-2 6.2.2 Lake Gordonsville ....................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.3 Direct Withdrawal from South Anna River ............................................... 6-2 6.2.4 New Surface Water Impoundments ............................................................ 6-3 6.3 Groundwater Resources in Potential Growth Areas .................................................. 6-3 6.4 Obtaining Water From Adjoining Counties ............................................................... 6-7 6.5 Water Storage Requirements ..................................................................................... 6-8 7.0 Wastewater System Evaluation For Future Growth .......•.......................................... 7-1 7.1 Future Regulations and Wastewater Treatment.. ....................................................... 7-1 7.2 Anticipated WWTP Discharge Requirements ........................................................... 7-3 7.3 Typical Wastewater Treatment Facility ..................................................................... 7-3 7.4 Wastewater Treatment for the Lake Anna Area ........................................................ 7-4 7.5 Upgrade of Louisa County Wastewater Treatment Plant .......................................... 7-5 7.6 Centralized WWTP for Louisa County ...................................................................... 7-5 7.7 Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems .............................................................. 7-6 7.7.1 Cluster Systems ........................................................................................... 7-6 7.7.2 Enhanced Flow Systems ............................................................................. 7-6 7.7.3 Low-Pressure Systems ................................................................................ 7-6 7.7.4 Sand Filters ................................................................................................. 7-6 8.0 General Information ...................................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Goal One: Protect and Maintain Water Quality in Louisa County ........................... 8-1 8.2 Goal Two: Protect the Groundwater Quality in Louisa County ............................... 8-8 8.2 Goal Three: protect water quality of the rivers and streams flowing through Louisa County .................................................................................................................. 8-11 8.3 General: strategies which cut across protecting rivers and streams, groundwater and streams ............................................................................................................... 8-12 9.0 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Development ....•.•..•...•..•.•..•...•..............•...•....... 9-1 9.1 Water System Master Plan ......................................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Wastewater System Master Plan ................................................................................ 9-2 9.3 Phases of Implementation .......................................................................................... 9-3 9.4 Modifications to Master Plans ................................................................................... 9-3 10.0 Cost Estimates for Public Water and Wastewater ................................................... 10-1 10.1 Zion Crossroads ..................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1.1 Zion Crossroads Budget Analysis ..........................................................
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]
  • Sewage and Wastewater Plants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 21 Sewage Plants Violated Permit Limits in 2016; PA and VA Used Trading to Allow Pollution
    Sewage and Wastewater Plants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 21 Sewage Plants Violated Permit Limits in 2016; PA and VA Used Trading to Allow Pollution NOVEMBER 29, 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was researched and written by Courtney Bernhardt and Tom Pelton of the Environmental Integrity Project. THE ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT The Environmental Integrity Project (http://www.environmentalintegrity.org) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for effective enforcement of environmental laws. EIP has three goals: 1) to provide objective analyses of how the failure to enforce or implement environmental laws increases pollution and affects public health; 2) to hold federal and state agencies, as well as individual corporations, accountable for failing to enforce or comply with environmental laws; and 3) to help local communities obtain the protection of environmental laws. For questions about this report, please contact EIP Director of Communications Tom Pelton at (202) 888-2703 or [email protected]. PHOTO CREDITS Cover photo of Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant from University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Photo of Back River WWTP by Tom Pelton. Photo of Monocacy River by Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Photo of Massanutten Wastewater Treatment Plant by Alan Lehman. Sewage and Wastewater Plants in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Executive Summary Across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 21 sewage treatment plants violated their permit limits last year by releasing excessive amounts of nitrogen or phosphorus pollution that fuel algal blooms and low-oxygen “dead zones” in waterways, according to an Environmental Integrity Project examination of federal and state records.1 The plants in violation included 12 municipal sewage facilities in Maryland that treat more than half of the state’s wastewater, with the most pollution coming from the state’s largest two facilities: Baltimore’s Back River and Patapsco wastewater treatment plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining the Greater York River Indigenous Cultural Landscape
    Defining the Greater York River Indigenous Cultural Landscape Prepared by: Scott M. Strickland Julia A. King Martha McCartney with contributions from: The Pamunkey Indian Tribe The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe The Mattaponi Indian Tribe Prepared for: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay & Colonial National Historical Park The Chesapeake Conservancy Annapolis, Maryland The Pamunkey Indian Tribe Pamunkey Reservation, King William, Virginia The Upper Mattaponi Indian Tribe Adamstown, King William, Virginia The Mattaponi Indian Tribe Mattaponi Reservation, King William, Virginia St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland October 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As part of its management of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail, the National Park Service (NPS) commissioned this project in an effort to identify and represent the York River Indigenous Cultural Landscape. The work was undertaken by St. Mary’s College of Maryland in close coordination with NPS. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept represents “the context of the American Indian peoples in the Chesapeake Bay and their interaction with the landscape.” Identifying ICLs is important for raising public awareness about the many tribal communities that have lived in the Chesapeake Bay region for thousands of years and continue to live in their ancestral homeland. ICLs are important for land conservation, public access to, and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. The three tribes, including the state- and Federally-recognized Pamunkey and Upper Mattaponi tribes and the state-recognized Mattaponi tribe, who are today centered in their ancestral homeland in the Pamunkey and Mattaponi river watersheds, were engaged as part of this project. The Pamunkey and Upper Mattaponi tribes participated in meetings and driving tours.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering the River: Traditional Fishery Practices, Environmental Change and Sovereignty on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation
    W&M ScholarWorks Undergraduate Honors Theses Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 5-2019 Remembering the River: Traditional Fishery Practices, Environmental Change and Sovereignty on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation Alexis Jenkins Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses Part of the Indigenous Studies Commons Recommended Citation Jenkins, Alexis, "Remembering the River: Traditional Fishery Practices, Environmental Change and Sovereignty on the Pamunkey Indian Reservation" (2019). Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 1423. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/honorstheses/1423 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Pamunkey Chief and Tribal Council for their support of this project, as well as the Pamunkey community members who shared their knowledge and perspectives with this researcher. I am incredibly honored to have worked under the guidance of Dr. Danielle Moretti-Langholtz, who has been a dedicated and inspiring mentor from the beginning. I also thank Dr. Ashley Atkins Spivey for her assistance as Pamunkey Tribal Liaison and for her review of my thesis as a member of the committee and am further thankful for the comments of committee members Dr. Martin Gallivan and Dr. Andrew Fisher, who provided valuable insight during the process. I would like to express my appreciation to the VIMS scientists who allowed me to volunteer with their lab and to the The Roy R.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted by the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors November 14, 2013 Updated: June 14, 2016 August 9, 2016 May 22, 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the many people who contributed to development of this Comprehensive Plan. The Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors Ann L. Heidig David Ross Emmitt B. Marshall Gary F. Skinner Timothy J. McLaughlin Paul D. Trampe Benjamin T. Pitts The Spotsylvania County Planning Commission Mary Lee Carter Richard H. Sorrell John F. Gustafson Robert Stuber Cristine Lynch Richard Thompson Scott Mellott The Citizen Advisory Groups Land Use Scott Cook Aviv Goldsmith Daniel Mahon Lynn Smith M.R. Fulks Suzanne Ircink Eric Martin Public Facilities Mike Cotter Garrett Garner Horace McCaskill Chris Folger George Giddens William Nightingale Transportation James Beard M.R. Fulks Mike Shiflett Mark Vigil Rupert Farley Greg Newhouse Dale Swanson Historic & Natural Resources Mike Blake Claude Dunn Larry Plating George Tryfiates John Burge Donna Pienkowski Bonita Tompkins C. Douglas Barnes, County Administrator, and County Staff Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan Adopted November 14, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction and Vision Chapter 2 Land Use Future Land Use Map Future Land Use Map – Primary Development Boundary Zoom Chapter 3 Transportation & Thoroughfare Plan Thoroughfare Plan List Thoroughfare Plan Map Chapter 4 Public Facilities Plan General Government Map Public Schools Map Public Safety Map Chapter 5 Historic Resources Chapter 6 Natural Resources Appendix A Land Use – Fort A.P. Hill Approach Fan Map Appendix B Public Facilities – Parks and Recreation Appendix C Historic Resources Appendix D Natural Resources Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND VISION INTRODUCTION AND VISION – Adopted 11/14/2013; Updated 6/14/2016 & 5/22/2018 Page 1 INTRODUCTION The Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan presents a long range land use vision for the County.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheets for Impaired (Category 4 Or 5) Waters in 2020
    Fact Sheets for Impaired (Category 4 or 5) Waters in 2020 York River Basin Cause Group Code: F01L-01-HG Lake Gordonsville Cause Location: Includes the entirety of Lake Gordonsville, also known as Bowlers Mill Lake. City / County: Louisa Co. Use(s): Fish Consumption Cause(s) / VA Category: Mercury in Fish Tissue / 5A The fish consumption use is categorized as impaired due to a Virginia Department of Health, Division of Health Hazards Control, mercury fish consumption advisory. The advisory, dated 09/30/04, limits largemouth bass consumption to no more than two meals per month. Additionally, an exceedance of the risk-based tissue value (TV) of 300 ppb for mercury (HG) was recorded in 2 species (largemouth bass and bluegill sunfish) of fish sampled (5 total excursions) in 2017 at fish tissue monitoring station 8- DOV001.20, near the dam. Cycle TMDL Cause First Dev. Water Assessment Unit / Water Name / Location Desc. Category Cause Name Listed Priority Size VAN-F01L_DOV01A06 / Lake Gordonsville / Segment includes all 5A Mercury in Fish Tissue 2006 L 77.31 of Lake Gordonsville. Lake Gordonsville Estuary Reservoir River Fish Consumption (Sq. Miles) (Acres) (Miles) Mercury in Fish Tissue - Total Impaired Size by Water Type: 77.31 Sources: Source Unknown Final 2020 Appendix 5 - 3113 Fact Sheets for Impaired (Category 4 or 5) Waters in 2020 York River Basin Cause Group Code: F01R-01-BAC South Anna River Cause Location: Begins at the headwaters of the South Anna River and continues downstream until the confluence with Dove Fork. Begins again at the start of waterbody F02R, where Wheeler Creek intersects the South Anna River, and continues downstream until the confluence with Rock Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Orange County, Virginia 2013 Comprehensive Plan
    ORANGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 17th, 2013 Amended on July 14th, 2015, on October 27th, 2015, and on May 8th, 2018 This page intentionally left blank. 2013 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Sustain the rural character of Orange County while enhancing and improving the quality of life for all its citizens. Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .............................................................................. 7 A Very Brief History of Orange County, Virginia .......................................... 7 I. Introduction: Why a Comprehensive Plan? ........................................ 10 A. Statutory Authority .................................................................. 10 B. Purpose of the Plan ................................................................. 10 C. Utilizing this Plan .................................................................... 11 D. The Vision for Orange County ...................................................... 12 II. Existing Land Uses ...................................................................... 12 A. Overview .............................................................................. 12 B. Forest and Woodlands ............................................................... 13 C. Agricultural ........................................................................... 13 D. Residential ............................................................................ 13 E. Public and Private Easements ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION 5 Utilities and Community Facilities
    SECTION 5 Utilities and Community Facilities Purpose Hanover County’s Mission is to be a premier community by providing superior service through creativity, innovation and sound financial practices. Adequate community facilities are essential to support services for current and future populations and for the local economy. The Comprehensive Plan has been developed with a 20-year horizon for guiding land use development and provides a course for predicting the need for future public facilities. The following section assesses existing facilities, the present design adequacy, capacity, and future demand for those facilities using the growth assumptions discussed in Section 1; specifically a 1.5% growth rate, 2.68 persons per household, and the assumption that 70% of growth will occur within the designated Suburban Service Area. This section addresses water/wastewater utilities and facilities associated with Public Safety (Fire/EMS, Sheriff’s Office, Animal Control), Parks and Recreation, Schools, Libraries, Judicial and General Government Services. References are made throughout this section to policies and documents that include further detail of the planning objectives utilized by a department or agency that administers the particular facility. This Section also provides guidance for accommodating private telecommunication infrastructure and to minimize the land use impacts of new facilities. Goal Hanover County citizens and businesses will be provided: • Superior services through cost-effective public utilities and community facilities
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Rivers Plan
    2017 REGIONAL RIVERS PLAN PhPhototo CrCrededitit: JoJohnh Henenleley A Plan for the Richmond Region 3 01/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Th is plan fulfi lls the James River Regional Plan strategy, one of Westham Fund of Th e Community Foundation, and Th e four strategies presented to Th e Capital Region Collaborative by Cameron Foundation and guidance from the local governments Bill Street, Chairman of the James River Work Group, on April of the Richmond Region. 26, 2013. Th e plan is the work of the James River Association and Richmond Regional Planning District Commission with Additional gratitude is extended to the Crater Planning assistance from consultants of Timmons Group and 3north. District Commission, Friends of the Lower Appomattox River (FOLAR), federal and state agencies, organizations, Th e creation of this plan would not have been possible without and individuals who contributed knowledge, expertise, and the generous support of Altria, WestRock Foundation, Custis guidance throughout the creation of the plan. It is imperative 4 for the region to have a plan to help guide the various uses of the James, Appomattox, Chickahominy, and Pamunkey Rivers. Regional Rivers Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 06/REGIONAL 01/ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS 3 44 02/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 07/LOCALITY 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 58 03/INTRODUCTION 9 08/CONNECTIONS 78 PART I: EXISTING CONDITIONS 04/EXISTING CONDITIONS 14 09/STEPS TO IMPLEMENTATION 80 PART II: VISION, RECOMMENDATIONS, & IMPLEMENTATION 05/VISION 10/CONCLUSION 43 88 APPENDIX A: PLANS AND STUDIES 90 02/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 02/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Th e James River, “America’s Founding River,” has defi ned Richmond throughout its history.
    [Show full text]
  • South Anna Report Card: Changes Throughthe South Anna Rivertime Is a Main Tributary of the Pamunkey River in Central Virginia
    South Anna Report Card: Changes ThroughThe South Anna RiverTime is a main tributary of the Pamunkey River in central Virginia. The South Anna River begins near Gordonsville in southwestern Orange County and flows southeastwardly and 1! eastwardly through Louisa and Hanover counties. It 2! joins the North Anna River to form the Pamunkey River about 5 miles northeast of Ashland. The main branch 3! ! ! of the South Anna River runs for approximately 95.6 ! 6 ! 7 miles and its watershed covers 298,000 acres. Zion Crossroads ! 8 9! 1!0 1!1 2! 1!5 ! ! 12 13 ! 3! 14 ! ! 5!4 6 7! ± 0 5 10 Miles Ecological Health Indicators Human Health Indicator Year DO pH TN TP Bacteria 2010 95% A+ 96% A+ 90% A 40% C- 73% Moderately Poor 2011 97% A+ 98% A+ 86% A 33% D 51% Very Poor 2012 100% A+ 96% A+ 93% A 45% C 70% Moderately Poor This report card summarizes water quality results based on data collected from January 2010 to December 2012 at the numbered stations on the map. Monitoring data was assessed against threshold values for each indicator at each site by determining the percentage of samples passing the thresholds over the period of interest. The grades for each site were then averaged together to determine an overall watershed score for each indicator. Ecological Health Indicators, which characterize the health of the system for aquatic life, scored relatively well, except for Total Phosphorus. Bacteria is used as a Human Health Indicator because this data evaluates how safe water is for swimming.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Lessons from the Bay Virginia Department of Education Raindrop to the Bay By Kathy Woodard Presentation by LEEP: Lake Anna Environmental Education Program LessonsAs from we…the Bay Virginia Department of Education Follow a raindrop’s journey… Lake Anna … from Louisa to the Bay! Chesapeake Bay Lessons from the Bay Virginia Department of Education LessonsDownhill: from the Baythis Virginia Department of Education map shows elevation— tan Downhill! parts mountains, then foothills, green parts closer to sea level http://www.maps.com/explore/atlas/physical/North_America_United_States_Virginia.html LessonsSo when from the it Bay rains Virginia Department of Education some of the water soaks into theA ground watershed is (which we then pump up with ourall wells). the The land that rest flows over the grounddrains into into a streams, ponds, creeks, and into thisbody river. So all of water. this land is part of the watershed of this river.— Not this part because that flows down this way. That would be part of a different watershed. http://www.epa.gov/win/what.html LessonsEPA has from the a Baygreat Virginia Department of Education website—Surf your Watershed– we clickWhat on VA watershed are we a part of? http://www.epa.gov/surf3/locate/map2.html LessonsThen fromwe the click Bay on Virginia Department of Education where Louisa is… Virginia Watersheds LessonsHere fromis our the Bay local Virginia Department of Education watershed- see Louisa, Lake Anna--- all Pamunkey River Watershed creeks/streams flow to N/S Anna Rivers– which join to form the Pamunkey River http://www.epa.gov/surf3/hucs/02080106/ LessonsHere from are the Baysome Virginia Department of Education people frp, the MPRA kayaking on the Kayaking on the Pamunkey River, and all the water Pamunkey River in the Pamunkey comes from our local watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Dark Run and Robinson River
    Upper York River Basin Watershed Implementation Plan Prepared By: Blue Ridge Environmental Solutions, Inc. Submitted: August 8, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Review of TMDL Study ................................................................................................................ 1 Public Participation ..................................................................................................................... 2 Implementation Actions ............................................................................................................. 2 Measurable Goals and Milestones for Attaining Water Quality Standards ............................... 3 Stakeholder’s Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................... 4 Integration with Other Watershed Plans .................................................................................... 4 Potential Funding Sources .......................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6 STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ........................................
    [Show full text]