DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Water Supply Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Water Supply Plan Orange County, Virginia Orange County Water Supply Plan Report Draft Copy Wiley|Wilson Comm. No. 206060.00 July 6, 2007 Revised April 29, 2009 Orange County, Virginia Orange County Water Supply Plan Report Draft Copy Wiley|Wilson Comm. No. 206060.00 July 6, 2007 Revised April 29, 2009 Contact: Timothy R. Wagner, P.E. Project Manager 434.455.3681 .direct 434.947.1659 .fax [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 1 Technical Memorandum Number 1 Figures .............................................................................................................................. 2 Tables ............................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents..............................................................................................................4 Report ............................................................................................................................... 5 Technical Memorandum Number 2 Table of Contents..............................................................................................................6 Report ............................................................................................................................... 7 Appendices Adequacy Analysis for Orange County Water Supply Study Calculations............................................................................................................A State Water Control Board Regulation 9 VAC 25-780 ..................................................................B Groundwater Exploration ............................................................................................................. C Alternative Analysis- Qualitative Assessment of Alternatives Using Analytical Hierarchy Process ........................................................................................... D McGuire Woods LLP Correspondence to Wiley|Wilson................................................................E Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate .......................................................................................F Virginia Water Protection Permit No. 02-1835 – Special Conditions (Town of Orange, VA) .................................................................................... G Orange Water Conservation Ordinance 02 - 08 Amended – 08-2006......................................................................................................... H VWP Individual Permit Reissuance No. 96-0271 Attachment A...................................................................................................................... I RSA East Drought Water Conservation Plan................................................................................ J Town of Gordonsville, Ordinance No. 23.19-02 through 12.19-05 ...............................................K Construction Schedule.................................................................................................................. L Recommended Water Audit.........................................................................................................M Orange County Water Supply Plan 206060.00 TOC-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a direct result of the drought of 1998 to 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted 9 VAC 25-780, "Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulations." These Regulations became effective November 2, 2005. The Regulations require that each jurisdiction in the State prepare and submit to the State a local water supply plan to be included in the State Water Supply Plan, upon approval. In addition, the State is currently in the process of revising the permit regulations for future water supply projects 9 VAC 25-210, "Virginia Water Protection Permit Programs." These two Regulations will be the first two steps in having a water supply project approved at the State level prior to obtaining a federal permit from the Corps of Engineers under the 401 and 404 combined permitting process. In order to comply with the water supply planning regulation and to begin the process of developing water supply solutions, Orange County initiated a regional water supply plan for the County; the Towns of Orange and Gordonsville; and the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA). To meet the regulation, the Orange County Water Supply Plan was assembled in two technical memorandums and affiliated appendices. Technical Memorandum No. 1 and Technical Memorandum No. 2, along with the Appendices to Technical Memorandum No. 2, serve as Orange County’s Water Supply Plan in accordance with 9 VAC 25-780, “Local and Regional Water Supply Planning Regulations.” Orange County was greatly impacted by the drought of 1998 to 2002. During this most recent drought, flows in the Rapidan River reached their lowest recorded flows since 1930. This was critical because approximately half of the County relies on public water supply. Ninety-nine percent of this public water supply is obtained from the Rapidan River. The Town of Orange and the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA) both have raw water intakes on the Rapidan River. The Town of Orange intake and water treatment plant provides public water to the Town of Orange, the Town of Gordonsville, and the US 15 Corridor between the two towns. The RSA Wilderness intake and water treatment plant provides public water to the citizens in the Wilderness area of Orange County. The only public water supply not utilizing the Rapidan River is the RSA Route 20 system groundwater system, which accounts for the remaining 1 percent of public supply. Groundwater from private wells provides the other half of the Orange County residents with water supply. Based on the highly variable nature of the fractured bedrock aquifers in the area, the accumulated existing well data shows a wide range of yields and well depths. Figure E-1 shows a population breakdown of where Orange County residents currently get their water. Orange County Water Supply Plan 206060.00 1-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure E-1 Orange County Water Use in 2000 Town of Orange 16% Town of Gordonsville 6% Individual or Small Community Users 52% RSA Wilderness 24% Rapidan River RSA Route 15 RSA Route 20 Groundwater 1% 1% The drought of 1998 to 2002 peaked in the summer of 2002, resulting in record low stream flows and thousands of individual private well failures. During September of 2002, the Town of Orange was on the brink of a water shortage emergency and was developing emergency plans to pipe water from about 20 miles, near Culpeper, using a surface-laid pipeline. This was a dramatic reminder that water supply in Orange County is not unlimited, and that careful management is needed to ensure water availability for future generations. This is especially true considering the reoccurring nature of droughts in Virginia. The recent historical record shows that droughts occur approximately once every 20 to 30 years. The quantity of water in the Rapidan River and the quantity of groundwater in Orange County are relatively constant, but the number of people relying on these sources of supply will continue to grow. STATEMENT OF NEED As the population increases in Orange County, droughts will only exacerbate the competition for water resources. Population projections to the year 2050, with the percent increase for each of the water system’s service areas, are summarized in Figure E-2. Detailed population projections for each demand center are found in Technical Memorandum No. 2 Orange County Water Supply Plan 206060.00 1-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure E-2 2050 Population Projection with Percent Increase 25,000 Town of Orange 342 % Town of Gordonsville 20,000 RSA Wilderness RSA Route 20 RSA Route 15 15,000 282 % Population 10,000 407 % 5,000 244 % 0 156 % 2000 2050 Year Based upon the current contractual agreements between the Towns and the RSA, some of the public water systems in Orange County could experience periods of water shortage as early as 2010. Although the duration and frequency of these water shortages cannot be accurately predicted, they will most likely first occur during the late summer and early fall, when stream flows and groundwater levels are typically at their lowest. All residents could be impacted, even though roughly half of the residents depend on the Rapidan River as a supply and the other half depend on groundwater. Dry wells could force some residents to purchase and transport containers of water for basic domestic use, while residents on public water systems in the County could likely face mandatory restrictions that will limit water use. The potential for water shortages in Orange County is caused by the following two primary conditions: • Increased Growth All of the large water demand centers in Orange County that have established public utilities will experience, on average, a 300 percent population growth from 2000 to 2050. This population surge will lead to a proportional increase in water demand. Orange County Water Supply Plan 206060.00 1-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • No Growth in Water Supply There are no planned increases in available water supply rates for Orange County. Based on the present water supply and the projected maximum day demands in 2050, Figure E- 3 shows the amount of water deficits for all of the developed water systems. For example, the Figure shows that the Town of Orange has an overall demand in 2050 of 2.9 MGD with a supply of 0.9
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]
  • Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C
    ARCHITECTURAL RECONNAISSANCE Rͳ9 SURVEY, NDEL SEGMENT ΈSEGMENT 13Ή D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL November 2016 Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project North Doswell to Elmont (NDEL) Segment, Hanover County Architectural Reconnaissance Survey for the Washington, D.C. to Richmond, Virginia High Speed Rail Project North Doswell to Elmont (NDEL) Segment, Hanover County by Danae Peckler Prepared for Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation 600 E. Main Street, Suite 2102 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Prepared by DC2RVA Project Team 801 E. Main Street, Suite 1000 Richmond, Virginia 23219 November 2016 February 27, 2017 Kerri S. Barile, Principal Investigator Date ABSTRACT Dovetail Cultural Resource Group (Dovetail), on behalf of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), conducted a reconnaissance-level architectural survey of the North Doswell to Elmont (NDEL) segment of the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail (DC2RVA) project. The proposed Project is being completed under the auspices of the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) in conjunction with DRPT. Because of FRA’s involvement, the undertaking is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The project is being completed as Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) File Review #2014-0666. The DC2RVA corridor is divided into 22 segments and this document focuses on the NDEL segment only. This report includes background data that will place each recorded resource within context and the results of fieldwork and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluations for all architectural resources identified in the NDEL segment only.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Historic Resources
    APPENDIX C HISTORIC RESOURCES HISTORIC RESOURCES APPENDIX – Adopted November 14, 2013 Page 1 HISTORIC RESOURCES The following Historic Resources appendix resources have been studied and documented to satisfy Virginia State Code Sec. 15.2-2224, Surveys and studies to be made in preparation of plan; implementation of plan. Additionally, the information is an educational resource for the community, offering valuable insights into environmental and land use planning within Spotsylvania County. HISTORY OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY A timeless sense of self, place and community are at the center of life. Spotsylvania’s heritage supports this truth as the foundation for present and future change. A preservation plan, therefore, includes a summary of character defining history. The following time periods have been established by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources for use in cultural resource documentation. Pre Historic Native American, Late Woodland Period, Pre 1607 Before European settlement, present day Spotsylvania County was home to the Siouan tribes. While these Native Americans were dominantly nomadic, there tended to be an ethnic division of land among them. The Fall Line marked the boundary between the Coastal Algonquians and the Piedmont Siouan- speakers at the end of the Late Woodland period. The land between the North Anna and Rappahannock Rivers, principally roamed by the Manahoacs, formed the region that later became Spotsylvania County. Settlement to Society, 1607-1750 Forts and friendly Indian settlements were established as the first colonists arrived from Europe. Alexander Spotswood was appointed Lieutenant Governor to the Colony of Virginia in 1710, and playing a significant role in westward expansion. Importing German immigrants, mainly indentured servants, he devised a settlement based on iron ore discoveries along the Rapidan River, and founded the County of Spotsylvania in 1721.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 USFWS Great Spangled Fritillary
    Chapter 3 USFWS Great spangled fritillary Existing Environment ■ Introduction ■ The Physical Landscape ■ The Cultural Landscape Setting and Land Use History ■ Current Climate ■ Air Quality ■ Water Quality ■ Regional Socio-Economic Setting ■ Refuge Administration ■ Special Use Permits, including Research ■ Refuge Natural Resources ■ Refuge Biological Resources ■ Refuge Visitor Services Program ■ Archealogical and Historical Resources The Physical Landscape Introduction This chapter describes the physical, biological, and social environment of the Rappahannock River Valley refuge. We provide descriptions of the physical landscape, the regional setting and its history, and the refuge setting, including its history, current administration, programs, and specifi c refuge resources. Much of what we describe below refl ects the refuge environment as it was in 2007. Since that time, we have been writing, compiling and reviewing this document. As such, some minor changes likely occurred to local conditions or refuge programs as we continued to implement under current management. However, we do not believe those changes appreciably affect what we present below. The Physical Landscape Watershed Our project area is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a drainage basin of 64,000 square miles encompassing parts of the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The waters of that basin fl ow into the Chesapeake Bay, the nation’s largest estuary. The watershed contains an array of habitat types, including mixed hardwood forests typical of the Appalachian Mountains, grasslands and agricultural fi elds, lakes, rivers, and streams, wetlands and shallow waters, and open water in tidal rivers and the estuary. That diversity supports more than 2,700 species of plants and animals, including Service trust resources such as endangered or threatened species, migratory birds, and anadromous fi sh (www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/ coastpgm.htm).
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Deposits and Landscape Evolution of the Central Blue Ridge of Virginia
    Geomorphology 56 (2003) 139–154 www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Quaternary deposits and landscape evolution of the central Blue Ridge of Virginia L. Scott Eatona,*, Benjamin A. Morganb, R. Craig Kochelc, Alan D. Howardd a Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, USA c Department of Geology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA d Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA Received 30 August 2002; received in revised form 15 December 2002; accepted 15 January 2003 Abstract A catastrophic storm that struck the central Virginia Blue Ridge Mountains in June 1995 delivered over 775 mm (30.5 in) of rain in 16 h. The deluge triggered more than 1000 slope failures; and stream channels and debris fans were deeply incised, exposing the stratigraphy of earlier mass movement and fluvial deposits. The synthesis of data obtained from detailed pollen studies and 39 radiometrically dated surficial deposits in the Rapidan basin gives new insights into Quaternary climatic change and landscape evolution of the central Blue Ridge Mountains. The oldest depositional landforms in the study area are fluvial terraces. Their deposits have weathering characteristics similar to both early Pleistocene and late Tertiary terrace surfaces located near the Fall Zone of Virginia. Terraces of similar ages are also present in nearby basins and suggest regional incision of streams in the area since early Pleistocene–late Tertiary time. The oldest debris-flow deposits in the study area are much older than Wisconsinan glaciation as indicated by 2.5YR colors, thick argillic horizons, and fully disintegrated granitic cobbles.
    [Show full text]
  • Acts of the Eleventh Congress of the United States
    ACTS OF THE ELEVENTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Passed at the first session, which was begun and held at the City of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on Monday, the twenty- second day of May, 1809, and ended on the twenty-eighth day of June, 1809. JAMES MADISON, President; GEORGE CLINTON, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate; ANDREW GREGG, Pre- sident of the Senate pro tempore, on the 28th of June; J. B. VARNUM, Speaker of the House of Representatives. STATUTE I. CHAPTER I.--.n AcJt respecting the ships or vessels owned by citizens or subjects May 30, 1809. of foreign nations with which commercial intercourseis permitted. [Obsolete.] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Act of March States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the 1,1809, ch. 24. Ships and ves- passing of this act, all ships or vessels owned by citizens or subjects of sels of foreign any foreign nation with which commercial intercourse is permitted by nations with the act, entituled "An act to interdict the commercial intercourse be- which inter- course is per- tween the United States and Great Britain and France, and their depen- mitted by the dencies, and for other purposes," be permitted to take on board cargoes act of March 1, of domestic or foreign produce, and to depart with the same for any 1809, shall be permitted to foreign port or place with which such intercourse is, or shall, at the take cargoes time of their departure respectively, be thus permitted, in the same man- and depart for ner, and on the same conditions, as is provided by the act aforesaid, for any port with which inter.
    [Show full text]
  • Dominion's Joint Permit Application
    NARRATIVE JOINT PERMIT APPLICATION PROPOSED UNIT 3 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION Prepared for: Dominion Virginia Power 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060-3308 Prepared by: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology 15 Loveton Circle Sparks, Maryland 21152 July 2010 Dominion Virginia Power Proposed Unit 3 North Anna Power Station Mineral, Louisa County, Virginia Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 JPA SECTION 1, PAGE 7 – PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATION .............. 4 3.0 JPA SECTION 3, PAGE 8 – DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT....................... 5 3.1 Project Description ............................................................................................. 5 3.1.1 Cooling Towers............................................................................................... 5 3.1.2 Water Intake Structure .................................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Site Separation Activities................................................................................ 7 3.1.3.1 Paint Shop ................................................................................................... 7 3.1.3.2 Parking Lots................................................................................................ 7 3.1.3.3 Bypass Road................................................................................................ 8 3.1.4 Stormwater Management Basins ...................................................................
    [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]
  • 2012-2013 Annual Report to the Community 1 Who We Are
    The President’s Message At Germanna Community College, we know we must not waste our greatest resource--the potential of all of the people in our communities. That potential lies not only in the minds of the young, but in the untapped abilities of workers who must be retrained especially in fields where there will be high-wage jobs. An educated workforce creates a better economy for us all, translating into higher pay for local people and a better quality of life for their families, helping existing businesses be more profitable, attracting new employers from outside the area and helping to spawn start-up companies. An educated community makes for better citizens and brighter futures for all. With your support, Germanna will continue to expand to meet our communities’ needs. With your support, we will move forward with plans for a permanent campus in Stafford County and continue to seek ways to better serve Caroline and Madison County residents. With your support, we will continue to expand our Fredericksburg Campus in Spotsylvania, to grow our respected nursing program at our Locust Grove Campus in Orange County, offer new programs at our Daniel echnologyT Center in Culpeper and offer classes at Dahlgren. “Let us think of Germanna is working hard to respond quickly to provide students with the education as the knowledge, skills and attitude that lead to jobs that pay well and give local companies a competitive edge in a challenging global market. means of developing Nearly 80 percent of Germanna students remain in our area after our greatest abilities, completing their college work, investing the skills they’ve learned in their local communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Rappahannock Final ICL Report
    Defining the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Julia A. King G. Anne Richardson Martha McCartney Virginia R. Busby With Contributions From: The Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia G. Anne Richardson, Chief Cochise Fortune Faye Fortune Colonel John Fortune (USA, ret.) Judith Fortune Mark Fortune Dana Mulligan Barbara B. Williams Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay The Chesapeake Conservancy Annapolis, Maryland The Rappahannock Tribe of Virginia Indian Neck, Virginia St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland December 2016 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Rappahannock Indigenous Cultural Landscape between Port Royal/Port Conway and Urbanna, Virginia. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. The project was administered by the Chesapeake Conservancy and the fieldwork undertaken and report prepared by St. Mary’s College of Maryland. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the earliest years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept was developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes along the Smith Trail, both as they existed in the early 17th century and as they exist today. The Rappahannock River watershed was identified as a priority watershed area for ICL mapping in 2015. For this project, then, the mapping effort assembled a mix of qualitative and quantitative data, including tribal and non-tribal stakeholder input, documentary research, and archaeological, environmental, and ecological evidence.
    [Show full text]