DOCSLIB.ORG

Final 2012 IR Parts A-E.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final 2012 IR Parts A-E.Pdf Maryland’s Final 2012 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality Submitted in Accordance with Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act Maryland Dept. of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd Baltimore, MD 21230 Martin O’Malley, Governor Dr. Robert Summers, Secretary Anthony G. Brown, Lt. Governor Kathy M. Kinsey, Deputy Secretary David A. Costello, Deputy Secretary Submittal Date: July 23, 2012 EPA Approval Date: November 9, 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report, developed by the Environmental Assessment and Standards Program (EASP) of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) would not have been possible without the contributions from countless others. Much of the data collected by EASP was supplied by other Science Services Administration programs including: Field Services, TMDL Technical Development, and Water Quality Protection and Restoration Programs. In addition, special thanks go to Maryland Department of Natural Resources staff that not only supplied large amounts of data but also assisted with water quality assessments. Finally, EASP would like to thank all those who provided data for this report. To view a full list of individuals and organizations that provided data during the data solicitation period please see Table 3. FINAL 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 8 PREFACE......................................................................................................................... 12 PART A: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 13 A.1 Data Sources and Minimum Requirements .......................................................... 13 A.1.1 Quality Control of Water Quality Datasets.................................................... 16 A.1.2 Water Quality Data Review........................................................................... 17 PART B: BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 19 B.1 Total Waters .......................................................................................................... 19 B.1.1 Water Quality Standards ................................................................................ 19 B.2 Water Pollution Control Programs........................................................................ 23 B.2.1 Permits............................................................................................................ 23 B.2.2 Tier II Waters and Antidegradation ............................................................... 23 B.2.3 Grant Programs .............................................................................................. 23 B.2.4 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)......................................................... 23 B.2.5 Drinking Water Supply and Protection .......................................................... 24 B.2.6 Corsica River Targeted Watershed ................................................................ 24 B.2.7 Program Coordination.................................................................................... 24 B.3 Cost/Benefit Assessment....................................................................................... 24 B.3.1 Program costs ................................................................................................. 25 B.3.2 Program Benefits............................................................................................ 27 B.3.3 Summary ........................................................................................................ 28 B.4 Special State Concerns and Recommendations .................................................... 28 PART C: SURFACE WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ......................... 30 C.1 Monitoring Program.............................................................................................. 30 C.2 Assessment Methodologies................................................................................... 30 C.2.1 Assessment Methodology for Identifying Waters Impaired by Bacteria in Maryland’s Integrated Report ....................................................................... 31 C.2.2 Biological Assessment Methodology and the Biological Stressor Identification Process .................................................................................... 35 C.3 Assessment Results ............................................................................................... 39 C.3.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) .......................................................... 50 C.3.2 Assessment Summary .................................................................................... 76 C.3.3 Split and Aggregated Water Body Segments................................................. 76 C.3.4 Estuarine Assessments ................................................................................... 77 C.3.5 Lakes Assessment - Clean Water Act §314 (Clean Lakes) Report................ 82 C.3.6 Non-tidal Rivers and Streams Assessment..................................................... 89 C.4 Wetlands Program................................................................................................. 93 C.5 Trend Monitoring .................................................................................................. 94 C.6 Public Health Issues .............................................................................................. 95 C.6.1 Waterborne Disease........................................................................................ 95 C.6.2 Drinking Water............................................................................................... 96 C.6.3 Shellfish Harvesting Area Closures ............................................................... 96 FINAL 3 C.6.4 Toxic Contaminants Fish Consumption Advisories....................................... 97 C.6.5 Harmful Algal Blooms................................................................................... 98 C.6.6 Bathing Beach Closures ................................................................................. 99 C.7 Invasive aquatic species ........................................................................................ 99 PART D: GROUND WATER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT........................ 102 PART E: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .......................................................................... 104 E.1 Informational Public Meeting Announcement .................................................... 105 E.2 Attendance Lists from Informational Public Meetings ....................................... 106 E.3 Comment-Response for the 2012 Integrated Report........................................... 109 PART F: THE 2012 INTEGRATED REPORT............................................................. 126 F.1 Report Format and Structure ............................................................................... 126 F.2 Category 2 Waters ............................................................................................... 128 F.3 Category 3 Waters ............................................................................................... 129 F.4 Category 4a Waters.............................................................................................. 130 F.5 Category 4b Waters ............................................................................................. 131 F.6 Category 4c Waters.............................................................................................. 132 F.7 Category 5 Waters ............................................................................................... 133 F.8 Assessments that were Modified During the Public Comment Period................ 134 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 135 FINAL 4 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Comparison of the Number of Category 5 (impaired, TMDL not yet complete) Listings Between the 2010 and 2012 Integrated Reporting Cycles per Pollutant Group................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 2: Illustration of the designated uses for Chesapeake Bay (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1998). Uses are both overlapping and three-dimensional. .............. 22 Figure 3: Federal Budget Appropriations to Water Programs (2004-2011). (Source: Association of Clean Water Administrators FY2012 Funding Chart)............. 26 Figure 4: Federal nonpoint source total budget allocation including the Maryland totals. (Sources: Association of Clean Water Administrators FY2012 Report and MDE’s 319 Annual Report) ............................................................................. 27 Figure 5: Report Format................................................................................................. 127 FINAL 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Category 5 Listing Status from 2010 to 2012...................................................... 9 Table 2: 2012 Delistings (water body-pollutant combinations removed from Category 5 (impaired status).............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. 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. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 26 Department of the Environment, Subtitle 08 Water
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapters 01-10 2 26.08.01.00 Title 26 DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Subtitle 08 WATER POLLUTION Chapter 01 General Authority: Environment Article, §§9-313—9-316, 9-319, 9-320, 9-325, 9-327, and 9-328, Annotated Code of Maryland 3 26.08.01.01 .01 Definitions. A. General. (1) The following definitions describe the meaning of terms used in the water quality and water pollution control regulations of the Department of the Environment (COMAR 26.08.01—26.08.04). (2) The terms "discharge", "discharge permit", "disposal system", "effluent limitation", "industrial user", "national pollutant discharge elimination system", "person", "pollutant", "pollution", "publicly owned treatment works", and "waters of this State" are defined in the Environment Article, §§1-101, 9-101, and 9-301, Annotated Code of Maryland. The definitions for these terms are provided below as a convenience, but persons affected by the Department's water quality and water pollution control regulations should be aware that these definitions are subject to amendment by the General Assembly. B. Terms Defined. (1) "Acute toxicity" means the capacity or potential of a substance to cause the onset of deleterious effects in living organisms over a short-term exposure as determined by the Department.
    [Show full text]
  • Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area
    Approved and Adopted July 2014 10Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area Montgomery County Planning Department M-NCPPC MongomeryPlanning.org APPROVED and ADOPTED 10 Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan ans Hyattstown Special Study Area Abstract This document is a Limited Amendment to the 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed. It retains the 1994 Master Plan vision, but refines 1994 Plan recommendations to better achieve two important objectives: the creation of a well-defined corridor town that provides jobs, homes, and commercial activities; and the preservation of natural resources critical to the County’s well-being. The Amendment contains land use, zoning, transportation, parks, and historic resources recommendations for the portions of the Planning Area in the Ten Mile Creek Watershed. Source of Copies The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 Online: www.MontgomeryPlanning.org/community/plan_areas/I270_corridor/clarksburg/ clarksburg_lim_amendment.shtm Notice to Readers An area master plan, after approval by the District Council and adoption by the Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission, constitutes an amendment to The General Pl (On Wedges and Corridors) for Montgomery County. Each area master plan reflects a vision of future development that responds to the unique character of the local community within the context of a Countywide perspective. Area master plans are intended to convey land use policy for defined geographic areas and should be interpreted together with relevant Countywide functional master plans. Master plans generally look ahead about 20 years from the date of adoption.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    Gaithersburg A Character Counts! City City of Gaithersburg WATER RESOURCES A Master Plan Element February 17, 2010 2009 MASTER PLAN CITY OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT Planning Commission Approval: January 20, 2010, Resolution PCR-2-10 Mayor and City Council Adoption: February 16, 2010, Resolution R-10-10 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Mayor Sidney A. Katz Council Vice President Cathy C. Drzyzgula Jud Ashman Henry F. Marraffa, Jr. Michael A. Sesma Ryan Spiegel PLANNING COMMISSION Chair John Bauer Vice-Chair Matthew Hopkins Commissioner Lloyd S. Kaufman Commissioner Leonard J. Levy Commissioner Danielle L. Winborne Alternate Commissioner Geraldine Lanier CITY MANAGER Angel L. Jones ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Erica Shingara, former Environmental Services Director Gary Dyson, Environmental Specialist Christine Gallagher, former Environmental Assistant Meredith Strider, Environmental Assistant PLANNING AND CODE ADMINISTRATION Greg Ossont, Director, Planning & Code Administration Lauren Pruss, Planning Director Kirk Eby, GIS Planner Raymond Robinson III, Planner CIT Y CITY OF GAITHERSBURG OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 2 WATER RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................................ 1 2. Background.......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Plan Progress Report Fiscal Year 2016
    Strategic Plan Progress Report Fiscal Year 2016 July 2016 Introduction This report provides a one-year review of actions taken to achieve Columbia Association’s (CA) Strategic Plan goals and objectives. This is the second annual Strategic Plan Progress Report. It highlights CA’s accomplishments in FY 2016 (May 2015 through April 2016) as CA works toward achieving its vision of ―Making Columbia the community of choice — today and for generations to come.‖ Columbia Association’s current Strategic Plan was developed in 2013 and 2014 and became effective May 1, 2014, as approved by the Board of Directors. The strategic planning process included a review of trends and driving forces, as well as self-examination. CA also engaged an extensive group of different stakeholders and organizations that interact with or are impacted by CA. This helped CA develop a framework of goals and objectives to achieve its desired future. Moving the Needle - Recent Progress/Activities Columbia Association’s Strategic Plan identifies five high-level goals to guide the organization. 1. Deliver programs and services that meet stakeholders’ expectations and enhance the quality of life in Columbia 2. Maintain and enhance Columbia’s facilities, open spaces, connectivity and environmental stewardship 3. Develop and communicate a shared community vision for Columbia and advance the vision through advocacy, partnerships and alignment of CA programs and services 4. Strengthen communication and community engagement in CA 5. Demonstrate the practices of a high-performing and responsive organization This progress report is organized by Strategic Plan goal. Additional detail is provided in the appendix. We’re Serving ―Deliver programs and services that meet stakeholders’ expectations and enhance the quality of life in Columbia‖ Overview CA’s mission is ―Working every day in hundreds of ways to make Columbia an even better place to live, work and play.‖ CA offers a wide array of programs, events, activities and services putting that mission into action.
    [Show full text]
  • Deer and Turkey Tagging & Checking
    DEER AND TURKEY TAGGING & CHECKING Garrett Allegany CWDMA Washington Frederick Carroll Baltimore Harford Lineboro Maryland Line Cardiff Finzel 47 Ellerlise Pen Mar Norrisville 24 Whiteford ysers 669 40 Ringgold Harney Freeland 165 Asher Youghiogheny 40 Ke 40 ALT Piney Groev ALT 68 615 81 11 Emmitsburg 86 ge Grantsville Barrellville 220 Creek Fairview 494 Cearfoss 136 136 Glade River aLke Rid 546 Mt. avSage Flintstone 40 Cascade Sabillasville 624 Prospect 68 ALT 36 itts 231 40 Hancock 57 418 Melrose 439 Harkins Corriganville v Harvey 144 194 Eklo Pylesville 623 E Aleias Bentley Selbysport 40 36 tone Maugansville 550 419410 Silver Run 45 68 Pratt 68 Mills 60 Leitersburg Deep Run Middletown Springs 23 42 68 64 270 496 Millers Shane 646 Zilhman 40 251 Fountain Head Lantz Drybranch 543 230 ALT Exline P 58 62 Prettyboy Friendsville 638 40 o 70 St. aulsP Union Mills Bachman Street t Clear 63 491 Manchester Dublin 40 o Church mithsburg Taneytown Mills Resevoir 1 Aviltn o Eckhart Mines Cumberland Rush m Spring W ilson S Motters 310 165 210 LaVale a Indian 15 97 Rayville 83 440 Frostburg Glarysville 233 c HagerstownChewsville 30 er Springs Cavetown n R 40 70 Huyett Parkton Shawsville Federal r Cre Ady Darlingto iv 219 New Little 250 iv Cedar 76 140 Dee ek R Ridgeley Twiggtown e 68 64 311 Hill Germany 40 Orleans r Pinesburg Keysville Mt. leasP ant Rocks 161 68 Lawn 77 Greenmont 25 Blackhorse 55 White Hall Elder Accident Midlothian Potomac 51 Pumkin Big pringS Thurmont 194 23 Center 56 11 27 Weisburg Jarrettsville 136 495 936 Vale Park Washington
    [Show full text]
  • The Goldfinch Newsletter of the Howard County Bird Club a Chapter of the Maryland Ornithological Society
    May/June 2019 Volume 47, Issue 5 The Goldfinch Newsletter of the Howard County Bird Club A Chapter of the Maryland Ornithological Society www.howardbirds.org Club Meeting - By Jane Geuder Inside this Issue: hursday, May 9, 2019 “Mongolia: Birding in the Footsteps of Genghis T Khan,” by Gail Mackiernan. To the naturalist, Gail’s June 2018 trip into immense grasslands, the vast Gobi Desert, wild mountains, and varied Club Meeting ......................... 1 wetlands is of great interest. The group recorded about 175 of the planet’s Winter Bird Records ............. 1 most wanted birds. Gail and Barry are club members. They have traveled Field Trips ............................ 2 on seven continents and have seen more than 6,000 bird species. Managing a Rare Bird ........... 2 Meetings are at the Robinson Nature Center, 6692 Cedar Lane, Columbia MD 21044. Hospi- May Count ............................ 6 tality at 7:00 p.m. Meeting with program begins at 7:30 p.m. There is no admission charge. Board of Directors Meeting ... 6 For further information call Mary Lou Clark at 410-465-4061. Mid-winter Count Summary .. 7 Website: http://www.howardcountymd.gov/RobinsonNatureCenter New Members ....................... 9 Potluck Thanks ................... 10 Birding Basics Class ............ 10 WINTER BIRD RECORDS: DECEMBER 1, 2018 – FEBRUARY 28, 2019 BY JOANNE SOLEM Birding in Mongolia he 2018-19 winter was typical for central Maryland with cold, snow, T ice, sleet, fog, rain, a polar vortex, and record heat! And with those dramatic weather changes came a Greater White-fronted Goose, Trumpeter Swans, and Iceland Gulls. The predicted invasion of boreal species enter- tained many feeder watchers; special species included one Evening Gros- beak and one Common Redpoll.
    [Show full text]
  • From My Backyard to Our Bay an Anne Arundel County Resident’S Guide to Improving Our Environment and Protecting Our Natural Resources
    From My Backyard to Our Bay An Anne Arundel County Resident’s Guide to Improving our Environment and Protecting our Natural Resources From My Backyard to Our Bay The Chesapeake Bay is in Peril. What’s threatening the Bay? Nitrogen. Phosphorus. Sediment. These are the major pollutants responsible for the decline of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients that are essential food in the right quantities, but too much can be lethal to the Bay. Too much nutrients spawn the growth of algae which turns the water green and can be toxic to marine life, pets, and humans. When those algae die, they rob the water of oxygen and create ―dead zones‖ where fish, oysters, clams, and crabs can’t survive. Sediment is soil that washes into the Bay when it rains. It clouds the water and prevents underwater grasses from growing. These grasses produce oxygen and provide a place for young fish and crabs to develop and thrive. So who’s responsible? Every one of us. Every drop of water that falls on Anne Arundel County will make its way to the Bay. Along the way it will pick up and carry with it the things that we put on the ground. What can I do? From My Backyard to Our Bay offers tips for living in harmony with the Bay. It highlights how you can contribute to the health of your local watershed, maintain an environmentally friendly lawn, and manage stormwater runoff, wells, and septic systems in ways that will reduce the flow of pollutants and sediment into the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the BOARD of DIRECTORS MEETING Held: July 23, 2015
    Minutes of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Held: July 23, 2015 Approved: October 8, 2015 A meeting of the Columbia Association Board of Directors was held on Thursday, July 23, 2015, at the Columbia Association Building. Present were Chairperson Jeanne Ketley and members Dick Boulton, Brian Dunn, Janet Evans, Alan Klein, Nancy McCord, Gregg Schwind (arrived 7:33 p.m.), and Andrew Stack. Members Reg Avery and Chao Wu were absent. Also present were CA President/CEO Milton Matthews, Chief Staff Liaisons Susan Krabbe (arrived 7:35 p.m.) and Norma Heim, Governance Chief of Staff Jane Dembner, and General Counsel Sheri Fanaroff (arrived 7:33 p.m.). 1. Call to Order: The Board of Directors Meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. by the Chair, Jeanne Ketley. 2. Announcement of Closed/Special Meetings Held/To Be Held: The Architectural Resource Committee held a closed meeting at the Columbia Association Building on July 13, 2015 to discuss covenant cases. Members present were: Jane Dembner, Craig Garrison, Debbie Bach, and Gordon MacPhee. Also present were: Ingrid Hatz, Carole MacPhee, Debbie Nix, Pat Loeber, Carl McKinney, Karen Turcan, Dale Wasmus, and Sheri Fanaroff. The vote to close the meeting was 4-0-0. The closed meeting was authorized under the Maryland Homeowners Act, Md. Code, Real Property §11B-111 (4)(iv) Consultation with staff personnel, consultants, attorneys, or other persons in connection with pending or potential litigation or other legal matters. The meeting was closed from 1:15 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. The Audit Committee held a closed meeting at the Columbia Association Building on July 22, 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • "Federation Corner" Column the Montgomery Sentinel - July 6, 2006
    "Federation Corner" column The Montgomery Sentinel - July 6, 2006 Proper maintenance of Lake Needwood long overdue by Wayne Goldstein MCCF President For several days last week, thousands of county residents were evacuated from their homes after county officials became alarmed at water seeping through Lake Needwood's dam. Although this emergency is over for now, this is the right time to look more closely at other problems at Lake Needwood. This July 20th will mark the 50th anniversary of the 1956 flooding that killed six county residents and sparked the drive to help prevent such future killing floods by building flood control dams on Rock Creek. The drive to build the dams, led by an activist citizens group known as the Rock Creek Watershed Association, also included a demand by the group to change zoning and soil conservation laws. These citizens wanted to prevent people from building in flood plains, wanted to limit additional impervious surfaces and resulting stormwater runoff, and wanted to minimize the amount of sediment washing into Upper Rock Creek, the lakes behind the dams, and the lower Rock Creek. Construction of the dams that created Lake Needwood and Lake Bernard Frank began in October 1964 and were completed within 2 years with federal funding through the PL-566 program. Lake Needwood was built to provide both flood control and recreational facilities. It is ironic that the biggest flood threat this time was the fear that the dam holding back Lake Needwood might fail. The 1988 dam inspection report states: "Overall, this is one of the best maintained PL-566 dams in state..." The first specific mention of seepage through the Lake Needwood dam was in 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan
    Maryland’s 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230-1718 December 15, 2014 Updated August 4, 2016 Published and distributed by the Section §319(h) Nonpoint Source Program Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230 Phone: 410-537-3906 Fax: 410-537-3873 Lee Currey, Director Science Services Administration Jim George, Manager Water Quality Protection and Restoration Program Ken Shanks, Chief TMDL Implementation Division Maryland’s Nonpoint Source Program is funded in part by a Section §319(h) Clean Water Act Grant from the U.S. EPA. Although this program is funded partly by U.S. EPA, the contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of EPA. Maryland’s 2015-2019 NPS Management Plan page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ------ see first page(s) of each chapter for subheadings - Executive Summary - Chapter 1 – Introduction - Chapter 2 – Objectives and Milestones - Chapter 3 – Resource Assessment and Monitoring Programs - Chapter 4 – Maryland NPS Programs and Initiatives - Chapter 5 – Watershed Management to Achieve NPS Goals - Chapter 6 – Public Education, Outreach and Financial Assistance APPENDICES - Abbreviations - Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Two-Year Milestones - Components of Maryland’s 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan o (Documents designated as integral parts of Maryland’s NPS management plan) - Internet Sources - Milestones for Tracking Progress 2016 UPDATE LISTING - Cover
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment to the Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker Biker Trail
    MCPB Item No. Date: 11/30/17 November 23, 2017 MEMORANDUM TO: Montgomery County Planning Board VIA: Michael F. Riley, Director Mitra Pedoeem, Deputy Director Michael Ma, Chief, Park Development Division (PDD) Patricia McManus, Design Sec on Supervisor, (PDD) FROM: Aaron Feldman, Landscape Architect (PDD), 301-650-2887 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker Biker Trail STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve modifi ca ons to the 2013 Facility Plan for the North Branch Hiker-Biker Trail, specifi cally: 1) Relocate the proposed trailhead and parking lot from Muncaster Mill Road to Meadowside Lane. 2) Relocate the proposed bridge from near the Meadowside Nature Center to just south of the Intercounty Connector (ICC). PROJECT SUMMARY In March of 2017, during the detailed design phase of the project, the Norbeck Manor Homeowners Associa on contacted staff with concerns about the proposed loca on of a trailhead and parking lot intended to serve the North Branch Trail. Staff a ended a Homeowners Associa on mee ng, reviewed the concerns, studied alterna ves and presented them at a subsequent public mee ng for feedback. In light of strong community support for reloca ng the trailhead and parking lot from the loca on shown in the approved 2013 Facility Plan, staff is returning to the Planning Board for approval of the new loca on and other minor modifi ca ons to the overall plan. ExisƟ ng CondiƟ ons Located within both Rock Creek Regional Park and the North Branch Stream Valley Park, the North Branch Hiker-Biker Trail is a 2.2 mile-long segment of a con nuous regional trail system that will eventually extend from the District of Columbia northward to Olney.
    [Show full text]