DOCSLIB.ORG

2013 Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment I ABSTRACT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2013 Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment i ABSTRACT Title: Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Author: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Subject: Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Subregion 5 (Planning Areas 81A, 81B, 83, 84, and 85A) of Prince George’s County, Maryland Date: July 2013 Source of Copies: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 Series Number: 515132306 Number of Pages: 280 Abstract: This document contains text and maps of the Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Areas 81A, 81B, 83, 84, and 85A. The plan amends the 1993 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Subregion V, Planning Areas 81A, 81B, 83, 84, 85A, and 85B. It also amends the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. This plan was developed with citizen input during numerous community planning workshops in 2007–2008. Planning policies in the 2002 General Plan are refined as land use concepts for the Brandywine Community Center and for the Rural Tier. Consistent with policies in the 2002 General Plan, future development is primarily directed toward areas with existing or planned infrastructure and away from areas that are designated to retain rural character. Specific commercial areas in Clinton and Brandywine are designated for future mixed- use, transit- and pedestrian-oriented development suitable for a wide array of public, commercial, employment, and residential land uses. The land use concept for the Brandywine Community Center refines the boundaries of this center identified in the 2002 General Plan, and encourages development centered on a future transit hub. The key planning concept in Accokeek preserves the rural Livingston Road corridor as the focus of the community and recommends low-intensity future development. In the Rural Tier, the future development pattern is planned to minimize impacts to the environment and infrastructure. The plan addresses the subregion’s environmental infrastructure, transportation, schools, fire, police, library, parks, recreation, economic development, historic preservation, and scenic roads. The sectional map amendment approved zoning changes to allow implementation of the land use concepts in the master plan. ii 2013 Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment THE MARYLAND‑NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION Elizabeth M. Hewlett, Chair Françoise Carrier, Vice Chair Officers Patricia Colihan Barney, Executive Director Joseph Zimmerman, Secretary-Treasurer Adrian R. Gardner, General Counsel The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is a bicounty agency, created by the General Assembly of Maryland in 1927. The Commission’s geographic authority extends to the great majority of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties: the Maryland-Washington Regional District (M-NCPPC planning jurisdiction) comprises 1,001 square miles, while the Metropolitan District (parks) comprises 919 square miles, in the two counties. The Commission has three major functions: • The preparation, adoption, and, from time to time, amendment or extension of the General Plan for the physical development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District. • The acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of a public park system. • In Prince George’s County only, the operation of the entire County public recreation program. The Commission operates in each county through a Planning Board appointed by and responsible to the county government. All local plans, recommendations on zoning amendments, administration of subdivision regulations, and general administration of parks are responsibilities of the Planning Boards. The Prince George’s County Department of Planning (M-NCPPC): • Our mission is to help preserve, protect and manage the County’s resources by providing the highest quality planning services and growth management guidance and by facilitating effective intergovernmental and citizen involvement through education and technical assistance. • Our vision is to be a model planning department of responsive and respected staff who provide superior planning and technical services and work cooperatively with decision-makers, citizens and other agencies to continuously improve development quality and the environment and act as a catalyst for positive change. Prince George’s County Planning Board Montgomery County Planning Board Elizabeth M. Hewlett, Chair Françoise Carrier, Chair Dorothy F. Bailey, Vice Chair Marye Wells-Harley, Vice Chair Manuel R. Geraldo Amy Presley John P. Shoaff Norman Dreyfuss A. Shuanise Washington Casey Anderson iv 2013 Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY RUSHERN L. BAKER, III, COUNTY EXECUTIVE COUNTY COUNCIL The County Council has three main responsibilities in the planning process: (1) setting policy, (2) plan approval, and (3) plan implementation. Applicable policies are incorporated into area plans, functional plans, and the Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. The County Council, after holding a hearing on the plan adopted by the Planning Board, may approve the plan as adopted, approve the plan with amendments based on the public record, or disapprove the plan and return it to the Planning Board for revision. Implementation is primarily through adoption of the annual Capital Improvement Program, the annual budget, the water and sewer plan, and adoption of zoning map amendments. COUNCIL MEMBERS Mary A. Lehman, 1st District Will Campos, 2nd District Eric Olson, 3rd District Ingrid M. Turner, Esq., 4th District Andrea C. Harrison, 5th District, Council Chair Derrick Leon Davis, 6th District Karen R. Toles, 7th District Obie Patterson, 8th District, Council Vice Chair Mel Franklin, 9th District CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Redis C. Floyd 2013 Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment v FOREWORD The Prince George’s County Planning Board is pleased to make available the Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Areas 81A, 81B, 83, 84, and 85A. This planning document sets forth land use concepts and policies for the communities of Accokeek, Brandywine, Clinton, and Tippett. It addresses policy changes that have occurred since the previous master plan and sectional map amendment (SMA) was approved in 1993, most notably the policy changes in the 2002 Prince George’s County Approved General Plan. Land use policies established in the 2002 General Plan are the foundation of planning concepts in this master plan. Development patterns are guided by the location and character of development sought for the Developing and Rural Tiers in Subregion 5. This plan addresses transit, either light rail or bus-rapid transit, along the MD 5 corridor, from the Branch Avenue Metro Station to Charles County. While providing for the lowest density residential development in the Rural Tier, the plan encourages high-density, transit- and pedestrian-oriented development in the Brandywine Community Center and surrounding several future transit nodes along MD 5. The plan contains additional recommendations for land use, transportation, environment, public facilities, parks and recreation, historic preservation, and other important community priorities. The SMA updated zoning to implement the plan’s vision and land use concepts. Stakeholders in the Subregion 5 planning areas participated in numerous listening sessions, meetings, and workshops throughout the plan preparation process to assist staff in identifying issues and developing alternative planning solutions. The preliminary master plan and proposed SMA that was the subject of joint public hearings held on March 31, 2009 and April 11, 2013 represents the culmination of this effort. Implementing the Subregion 5 master plan represents an opportunity to create livable, pedestrian-friendly, and vibrant communities in southern Prince George’s County. Sincerely, Elizabeth M. Hewlett Chairman Prince George’s County Planning Board vi 2013 Approved Subregion 5 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ................................................................1 II. Background . 5 A. Planning Context and Process .....................................................5 B. History of the Area. 11 C. Existing Conditions ............................................................13 D. Key Planning Issues. 24 III. A Vision for Subregion 5 ...........................................................27 IV. Land Use and Development Pattern ...................................................29 A. Future Land Use categories . 30 B. Communities .................................................................35 C. Center and Corridor . 45 D. Rural Tier . 53 E. Aviation . 60 F. Amendments of the 2002 General Plan . 64 V. Environment . 67 A. Green Infrastructure. 67 B. Water Quality, Stormwater Management, and Groundwater. 72 C. Watersheds . 78 D. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area . 83 E. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .........................................84 F. Green Building and Energy Efficiency .............................................86 G. Noise Intrusion. 87 H. Sand and Gravel Mining ........................................................88 VI. Transportation . 93 A. Roads . 94 B. Transit . 112 C. Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails . 115 D. Conservation and Enhancement of Special Roadways ................................122
Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5

    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 ..............................................................................................................................................
  • Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia

    Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia

    W&M ScholarWorks Reports 1975 Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia Carl H. Hobbs III Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gary F. Anderson Virginia Institute of Marine Science Dennis W. Owen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Peter Rosen Virginia Institute of Marine Science Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Monitoring Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Hobbs, C. H., Anderson, G. F., Owen, D. W., & Rosen, P. (1975) Shoreline Situation Report Stafford County, Virginia. Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V5PB01 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Shoreline Situation Report ST AFFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 13 Supported by the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs Program NSF Grant Nos. GI 34869 and GI 38973 to the Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc. Published With Funds Provided to the Commonwealth by the Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant No. 04-5-158-50001 VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1975 Shoreline Situation Report ST AFFORD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Special Report In Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 79 Chesapeake Research Consortium Report Number 13 Prepared by: Carl H.
  • Potomac River Basin Assessment Overview

    Potomac River Basin Assessment Overview

    Sources: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality PL01 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation Potomac River Basin Virginia Geographic Information Network PL03 PL04 United States Geological Survey PL05 Winchester PL02 Monitoring Stations PL12 Clarke PL16 Ambient (120) Frederick Loudoun PL15 PL11 PL20 Ambient/Biological (60) PL19 PL14 PL23 PL08 PL21 Ambient/Fish Tissue (4) PL10 PL18 PL17 *# 495 Biological (20) Warren PL07 PL13 PL22 ¨¦§ PL09 PL24 draft; clb 060320 PL06 PL42 Falls ChurchArlington jk Citizen Monitoring (35) PL45 395 PL25 ¨¦§ 66 k ¨¦§ PL43 Other Non-Agency Monitoring (14) PL31 PL30 PL26 Alexandria PL44 PL46 WX Federal (23) PL32 Manassas Park Fairfax PL35 PL34 Manassas PL29 PL27 PL28 Fish Tissue (15) Fauquier PL47 PL33 PL41 ^ Trend (47) Rappahannock PL36 Prince William PL48 PL38 ! PL49 A VDH-BEACH (1) PL40 PL37 PL51 PL50 VPDES Dischargers PL52 PL39 @A PL53 Industrial PL55 PL56 @A Municipal Culpeper PL54 PL57 Interstate PL59 Stafford PL58 Watersheds PL63 Madison PL60 Impaired Rivers and Streams PL62 PL61 Fredericksburg PL64 Impaired Reservoirs or Estuaries King George PL65 Orange 95 ¨¦§ PL66 Spotsylvania PL67 PL74 PL69 Westmoreland PL70 « Albemarle PL68 Caroline PL71 Miles Louisa Essex 0 5 10 20 30 Richmond PL72 PL73 Northumberland Hanover King and Queen Fluvanna Goochland King William Frederick Clarke Sources: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Loudoun Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Department of Transportation Rappahannock River Basin
  • 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

    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.
  • Electricity Transmission, Pipelines, and National Trails. an Analysis Of

    Electricity Transmission, Pipelines, and National Trails. an Analysis Of

    About Argonne National Laboratory Argonne is a U.S. Department of Energy laboratory managed by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The Laboratory’s main facility is outside Chicago, at 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439. For information about Argonne and its pioneering science and technology programs, see www.anl.gov. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Online Access: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991 and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available free via DOE’s SciTech Connect (http://www.osti.gov/scitech/) Reports not in digital format may be purchased by the public from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS): U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Rd Alexandra, VA 22312 www.ntis.gov Phone: (800) 553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 Fax: (703) 605-6900 Email: [email protected] Reports not in digital format are available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI): U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 www.osti.gov Phone: (865) 576-8401 Fax: (865) 576-5728 Email: [email protected] Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor UChicago Argonne, LLC, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
  • Defining the Greater York River Indigenous Cultural Landscape

    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.
  • Florida National Scenic 1Rail

    Florida National Scenic 1Rail

    Uniled States Department or Agriculture Florida National forest Strvice Southern Region National forests in Florida Scenic 1rail Comprehensive Plan TABLE OF CONTEN1S SOHHARY STATEHENT . iii PREPARAnOH, REVIEW AliD APPROVAL . ................. vi I INTRODUCTION A. Purp<' :>-<" , Objectives and Background of This Plan . • . 1 B. History of The Florida Trail . 5 C. Present Developu,ent and Management Situation 6 D. Purpose of The Florida National Scenio Trail 12 II ROUTE SELECTION A. Overview of Route Selection Process ... ..... .. 17 B. Location Crj teria . • . 17 C. Composite Analysis . 22 D. TraJl Corridor Alternatives .... .........•. 31 III MAHAGEHENT AliD ADMINISTRATION OF THE FLORIDA NATIOHAL SCENIC TRAIL A. Overall Administrative Responsibil ities of The USDA-Forest Service . 4 7 B. Responsi bilities of Managing Authorities . 51 C. Florida Trail Association Responsibili ties ........ 53 D. Other User Group Responsibiliti es ............. 54 E. Agency Coordination . • • • • • • • • • • • . • • 55 F. Private Landowne r- Involvement Incentives .•.•...•• 60 G. Necessity of Strong Volunt eer Program ....•••.... 61 IV TRAIL DEVELOPMENT MAINTENANCE AND PROTECnOH A. Rou t e Locat i on For The Trail •.•.•.......... 65 B. Trail Protecti on .... ............ 66 C. Trail Use . • . • . 68 D. Tr an Design Overview •.......... ....... 71 V CERTIFICATION OF FLORIDA NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL SIDMENTS A. Certification Process Overview . • • . • . 77 B. Specific Requirements for Certl.flcation . 77 C. Specific Requirements for Decertification ......... 81 VI IMPLEHEIITATION OF THE PLAJ( A. Acti ons to be Taken i n the Immediate Future ....... 85 B. Ac t ions to be Taken Over Long-Term ......•..... 86 APPENDIX A. Defi ni ti ens . • . • . 91 B. , Public Law 90-543, The National Trail s Act. 93 C. Consultation With Others, Publ ic Invol vement ......
  • The Potomac Above the Falls — Archeological Identification And

    The Potomac Above the Falls — Archeological Identification And

    COHONGOROOTO: THE POTOMAC ABOVE THE FALLS ARCHEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION STUDY OF C&O CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ROCK CREEK TO SANDY HOOK (MILE MARKERS 0 TO 59) Volume I PREPARED FOR: NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1100 OHIO DRIVE, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242 PREPARED BY: THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. 2300 N Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 December 2005 Final Report COHONGOROOTO: THE POTOMAC ABOVE THE FALLS ARCHEOLOGICAL IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION STUDY OF CHESAPEAKE & OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ROCK CREEK TO SANDY HOOK (MILE MARKERS 0 TO 59) VOLUME I Final Report PREPARED FOR: National Capital Region National Park Service 1100 Ohio Drive, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20242 PREPARED BY: Stuart Fiedel, John Bedell, Charles LeeDecker THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. 2300 N Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 December 2005 FOREWORD This is the first of three volumes reporting the results of a three-year archeological survey of the easternmost 59 miles of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park (C&O Canal Park) for the National Park Service (NPS), National Capital Region, from 2003 through 2005. In recognition of the paucity of basic archeological data for the C&O Canal Park, and for other NPS properties in the National Capital Region, funds were devoted to implement the Systemwide Archeological Inventory Program (SAIP) in this area. The SAIP was developed to address the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (specifically Sections 106 and 110), Executive Order 11593, and the Archeological Resources Protection Act. The rationale for the archeological survey was based primarily on the NPS’s resource management needs under Section 110 rather than being driven by development or capital improvement projects within the park.
  • Backpacking Suggestions the Best Idea for a First Backpacking Trip Is A

    Backpacking Suggestions the Best Idea for a First Backpacking Trip Is A

    "First" Backpacking Suggestions The best idea for a first backpacking trip is a 3-day (2-night) 15-mile trip that can be safely taken by a relatively inexperienced Venture patrol. Details need be flushed out by the patrol as they plan. The suggestions shown below are only outlines and will need to be modified based upon equipment, season, weather, experience, and physical conditioning. The Appalachian Trail (AT) is closest to DC at VA Rte. 9, Rte. 7, and Rte. 50. The crossing at I- 66/Rte 55 is quick to get to, though it's further. In the 40 miles of AT between I-66 and Rte 9, there six locations than can be used for small group overnight camping; Manassas Gap Shelter, Dick's Dome Shelter, Rod Hollow Shelter, Bear's Den Youth Hostel (fee required), Blackburn Trail Center, and David Lesser Memorial Shelter. Sky Meadows State Park, located between Rte 55 and Rte 50, makes an excellent launching point. It has a primitive camping area (fee required) that can be used for the first night or as a base camp for hikes along the AT. If you go out on Friday night, pick a campsite that is near a trailhead and easy to walk to. In the winter, you will need to get to the AT as soon as possible because of a typical Friday night late start due to school and an early sunset. Be prepared to walk in the dark. The following are some suggested section hikes along the AT. For more details and maps, purchase the Appalachian Trail Guide to Maryland, and Northern Virginia published by the Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC) and available at most backcountry equipment stores.
  • 11 Family-Friendly Long-Distance Hikes in the US

    11 Family-Friendly Long-Distance Hikes in the US

    11 Family-Friendly Long-Distance Hikes in the U.S. Tell Us What You Think your travel club is wanting to develop more desirable outdoor adventures for you and your grandchildren. Please assist us by suggestions to www.TravelClubAtRegency.com -Program Coordinator Jeannette Chabina 561-573-6665 Cell/Text Family Travel Adventure Travel The 11 National Scenic Trails in the U.S. provide great domestic hiking opportunities for families. School breaks provide the perfect time to get outdoors and be surrounded by nature. But for many people, the idea of planning a long-distance or multi-day hike can be intimidating, especially when traveling with kids.. However, with a few simple tips, families can take the plunge and plan a beautiful multi- day hike (or, plan to hike specific sections of the trail, and return for more hiking at a later date). There are 11 national scenic trails in the U.S. that are considered true through-hike trails. Traditionally, these routes attract long-distance hikers who spend weeks or months on the trail. But, with a little prep and realistic expectations, families can also experience the thrill of hiking themJul 27, 2021- Program coordinator research-Jeannette Chabina ~www.TravelClubAtRegency.com 11 Family-Friendly Long-Distance Hikes in the U.S. Family Travel Adventure Travel The 11 National Scenic Trails in the U.S. provide great domestic hiking opportunities for families. School breaks provide the perfect time to get outdoors and be surrounded by nature. But for many people, the idea of planning a long-distance or multi-day hike can be intimidating, especially when traveling with kids.
  • The Potomac Creek Site (44St2) Revisited

    The Potomac Creek Site (44St2) Revisited

    THE POTOMAC CREEK SITE (44ST2) REVISITED \ \ '-' STRUCTURE @@ OSSUARY 0BASTION 84 DITCH , .. ., ........ PALISADE 0- 40 meters Research Report Series No. 10 Virginia Department of Historic Resources 2801 Kensington Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23221 THE POTOMAC CREEK SITE (44ST2) REVISITED Virginia Department of Historic Resources Research Report Series No. 10 Prepared by: William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research Department of Anthropology The College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia 23 187-8795 Project Director Dennis B. Blanton Authors Dennis B. Blanton Stevan C. Pullins Veronica L. Deitrick with contributions from: Gwenyth Duncan William C. Johnson Lisa Kealhofer Justine K. McKnight This volume is dedicated in memory of Thomas Dale Stewart (1 90 1-1 997) ABSTRACT Under agreement with tlie Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR), the William and Mary Center for Archaeological Research (WMCAR) completed a second stage of data recovery in a portion of tlie Potomac Creek Site (44ST2) in Stafford County, Virginia. The fieldwork for this effort was completed in November and December, 1996. It followed completion of the first stage by Cultural Resources, Inc. which consisted of sampling and removal of plowzone to identify cultural features. The WMCAR work resulted in systematic sampling of each cultural feature identified. These include sections of a perimeter ditch, four palisade post lines, nine palisade trench lines, five pit features, and one structure. Radiocarbon dates establish occupation between AD 1300 and 1550. A model is presented of village evolution that accounts for an initial immigrant group and eventual adjustments to local conditions, including chiefdom-level organization. Patterns of subsistence are documented along with material culture.
  • Preservation and Partners: a History of Piscataway Park

    Preservation and Partners: a History of Piscataway Park

    Preservation and Partners: A History of Piscataway Park Janet A. McDonnell, PhD December 2020 Resource Stewardship and Science, National Capital Area, National Park Service and Organization of American Historians EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During the early republic period of American history, President George Washington was the most renowned resident of the Potomac River valley. His sprawling Mount Vernon estate sat on a hill directly across the Potomac River from the 17th century Marshall Hall estate in Maryland. There is ample evidence that Washington and his guests enjoyed and very much appreciated the stunning view. Many years later preserving this view would become the major impetus for establishing what we know today as Piscataway Park (PISC), a few miles south of Washington, DC. These lands along the Maryland shore of Potomac River were actively cultivated during George Washington’s time, and the existing park setting, which includes agricultural lands and open spaces interspersed with forests and wetlands, closely approximates that historic scene. The National Park Service’s (NPS) primary goal and responsibility in managing the park has been, and continues to be, preserving this historic scene of open fields and wooded areas and ensuring that it does not authorize any landscape alterations except those that would restore previously undisturbed sites, reduce visual intrusions, or maintain open fields. The NPS continues to take into account the slope and orientation of the terrain and the tree cover when considering the location of any new facilities. Piscataway Park and its associated lands are for the most part held under scenic easements and constitute a National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) historic district made up of nearly 5,000 acres of meadow, woodland, and wetland, along six miles of the Potomac River shoreline from the head of Piscataway Creek to the historic Marshall Hall in Maryland’s Prince George’s and Charles counties.