DOCSLIB.ORG

Distance to Major Cities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distance to Major Cities III. LOUISA COUNTY TODAY LOCATION The location of Louisa County is advantageous to appeal to business, industry, and individuals. The proximity to major cities, the mid-point location between I-95 and I-81, the two north/south interstates in Virginia, and the four County interchanges along I-64, as well as the U.S. routes crossing the County provide access to the areas the County deems most suitable for growth. These factors support the County's approach to focusing growth in specific areas of the County, taking advantage of the location. Distance to Major Cities NYC Washington DC. Chicago Pittsburgh 327 mi. 95 mi. 641 mi. 300 mi. Charlottesville 35 mi. LOUISA Richmond 51 mi. Nashville 585 mi. Norfolk 145 mi. Atlanta Charlotte 518 mi. 283 mi. Louisa County encompasses nearly 514 square miles or 328,960 acres of Central Virginia. The County extends about 26 miles from north to south, and 34 miles east to west. Louisa shares its western boundary with Albemarle County and its eastern boundary with Hanover County. To the north of Louisa lie Orange and Spotsylvania Counties, and to the south, Fluvanna and Goochland Counties. The incorporated towns of Louisa and Mineral are centrally located within the County. The County is part of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, one of twenty-one planning districts established by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1970. Map #1 illustrates the location of the County in the state and region. DEMOGRAPHICS The people, natural and built assets of Louisa County are substantial. Historically the sense of community has strengthened the County and carried it through many changes. III-1 As Louisa grows, the sense of community will be important to continuing what Louisa County residents treasure most about the County. To the extent possible the most current demographics were located and used. However, the Census 2000 was initiated during this year and some of the projections are subject to change. As projections are generally based on the past trends, the increase in home building is not fully integrated into the demographic picture of the County. POPULATION GROWTH The chart below illustrates the U.S. Census population counts from 1970 to 1990 and state estimates from 1990 to 2050. For the twenty-year horizon of the Comprehensive Plan (2000-2020), the estimated growth rate is 36% or 9,192 additional people. Taking the horizon out to 2050, the Virginia Employment Commission estimates Louisa County population will increase from the current estimate of 25,407 persons in 2000 to 48,387 Louisa County Population 1970-2050 Source: US Census, VEC 60,000 50,000 48,387 43,791 40,000 39,195 34,599 30,000 30,003 25,407 20,000 20,325 17,825 14,004 10,000 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 persons. This 2050 estimate shows about 8,000 more people in Louisa County than the City of Charlottesville. The resulting population density is shown on Map #2. Implications of this growth could be increased demand for public services resulting in increased costs of government, sprawl patterns of development illustrated by roadside lot commercial and residential development, need to expand public facilities such as schools, libraries, law enforcement, health care, etc. Some of this growth occurs as a result of the expansion of county business and industry, while some comes from outside Louisa County as parts of the county become "bedroom communities" for the Richmond, Charlottesville, and Fredericksburg areas. III-2 Map 2: Louisa County Population Densities and Forest Resource Distributions Distributions Resource Forest and Densities Population County Louisa 2: Map Louisa County Comprehensive Plan III-3 AGE AND GENDER DISTRIBUTION By 2010, the percentage of people in the 45 to 64 year old range is the only age group with a significant growth. The elderly population shows a small increase. The age groups under 44 years of age decrease as a percentage of the total population. The youngest, age 0 to 5 years remain relatively the same. This pattern is similar to other localities in the region. The slight increase in the elderly percentage will most likely continue to rise and, with it, demand for services for that age group. These services tend to be transportation and health care. ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION The white population has grown more rapidly than the non-white, from 67%/33% in 1980 to 73%/27% in 1990. Both populations distribute by age in a similar manner, the major group being young to middle age. HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION Fifty percent (50%) of Louisa County households include children under the age of 18 at the last census, the third highest percentage in the region. Fifteen percent of these households are headed by a single parent. In 1993, 15% of the children born were born to mothers under the age of twenty. Louisa had the highest percentage of low birth weight babies in the region. Louisa has the highest percentage of disabled persons over the age of 16 in the planning district. AGRICULTURE According to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, the number of farms increased by one from 1992 to 1997, but the average farm size slightly decreased from 212 acres to 205 acres during that same period. According to the Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service, in 1997 Louisa County agriculture included 79,019 acres in farms. This represents 24% of the total land area in Louisa and a 14% loss since 1982. In 1997 Louisa County reported 385 individual farms. Farms in Louisa County are 3% smaller than in 1992, but 5 acres above the state average. III-4 Louisa County has seen increases in beef cattle production, small farm dairies, horse production, contract poultry, and nursery and greenhouse enterprises. With increases in livestock and smaller farms there has also been a 10% increase in hay production. Sheep and swine numbers have continued to decline. 73% of the farms hold cattle and calf inventories; 71% of the farms sell cattle and livestock, accounting for over $7 million of sales. For 72% the major crop is hay/alfalfa and silage. The number of farms with sales values over $25,000 has increased; the number below $25,000 in sales has decreased. Forty-three percent (43%) of the farms are farmed by full time farmers, 57% report another primary occupation. The top five crop commodities produced in 1997 are legume and grass hay, corn for grain, soybeans, corn for silage, and wheat. Total corn and soybean acreage has increased slightly since 1992 while the number of farms, which produce these crops, has declined. The market value of agricultural products sold in Louisa County in 1997 was just under 10 million dollars. Livestock and poultry production (principally beef cattle) represents the majority of farm income. There are 5 grade "A" dairy farms in operation. 1998 county reports show 18,000 cattle and calves, including 9,000 beef cows, 1,000 dairy cows and 8,000 calves. Over 300 farms are involved in beef and dairy cattle production. Contract poultry production (broilers and turkeys) has increased and produces over 1,000,000 birds per year. Total farm incomes of $50,000 or more were reported by 11% of the farms in 1997. Most (89%) of the farms are small and/or part- time operations with total sale values of less than $50,000. Landowners are also establishing forestry and wildlife enterprises such as pine plantations, Christmas tree farms, fee fishing, and hunting preserves. These activities could be considered in heritage tourism marketing as well. III-5 ORESTRY LAND COVER The 1992 Forest Survey estimated the forested area of Louisa County at 228,500 acres, which is almost 72 percent of the total land area. The total forested land area of Louisa has remained essentially constant since the first forest survey was done in 1940, with acreage additions to forestland equaling deletions for uses such as agriculture or home sites. OWNERSHIP Forestland in Louisa is predominately owned by individuals. Non-industrial private landowners own 60 percent, farmers own 21 percent, corporate owners (other than forest industry) own 10 percent, and forest industry owns 9 percent. Public ownership is less than 1 percent. TYPES Hardwoods, mostly the oak-hickory type, make up the greatest portion of Louisa's forests (163,000 acres, or 69 percent). The oak-pine mixed type comprises 7 percent of the forestland. Pine types total 49,000 acres, or 21 percent. Of the pine acreage, 28,400 acres (12 percent of the forest) are in plantations and 20, 700 acres are in natural stands (Forest Statistics for the Northern Piedmont of Virginia. 1992-USDA, Forest Service, Resource Bulletin SE-l27). HARVESTS/REFORESTATION For the past 5 years, most forestland that was completely harvested was reforested or allowed to regenerate naturally into mixed stands of hardwood and pine. From July 1998 to the end of June 1999 approximately 3556 acres were thinned or cleared. In 1999, 2130 acres were reforested, mostly in loblolly pine, with some tracts planted in shortleaf pine or mixed hardwoods (Virginia Department of Forestry). III-6 ECONOMIC IMPACTS Stumpage, the money paid to forest landowners for the right to harvest their standing timber, averaged 3.2 million dollars per year for the years 1992 through 1996. (Virginia Department of Forestry, 1997) Value added activities such as logging, primary processing at mills, secondary processing into finished products, transportation of forest products, construction, marketing, and induced economic impacts from wages, add value to the local economy in both employment and income. A 1995 Virginia Department of Forestry study estimated that for every dollar of stumpage received by forest landowners, $28.16 is generated by value added activities, and another $20.48 is generated by induced economic impacts.
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]
  • 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]
  • Lake Anna State Park 6822 Lawyers Road Spotsylvania, VA 22553
    Lake Anna State Park 6822 Lawyers Road Spotsylvania, VA 22553 LAKE ANNA STATE PARK MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2011 UPDATE Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Planning and Recreation Resources 203 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Lake Anna State Park i June 7, 2011 LAKE ANNA STATE PARK MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2011 UPDATE Reviewed by the Board of Conservation and Recreation on June 17, 2011 Approved: /S/ 9/2/11 David A. Johnson, Director Date Department of Conservation and Recreation LAKE ANNA STATE PARK Lake Anna State Park ii June 7, 2011 MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2011 UDATE This Lake Anna State Park Master Plan Executive Summary is an update to the official unabridged master plan document adopted in 1998 and renewed in 2004 by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). It is the most recent review as described in §10.1-200.1 of the Code of Virginia. This master plan update is intended to set forth a clear vision for the future (based on phased development), while fulfilling the narrative text requirements of Chapter IV of the Virginia Capital Outlay Manual and §10.1-200.1 of the Code of Virginia. It outlines the desired future condition for Lake Anna State Park when it is fully developed. Lake Anna State Park’s central geographic location, its position on one of Virginia’s premier freshwater lakes, and its proximity to rapidly expanding population centers place it in a unique position within the Virginia State Park system. The park, located about 20 miles west of I-95 in Virginia’s central Piedmont, is within fifty miles of the four expanding population centers of Charlottesville, Fredericksburg, Richmond, and Northern Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted by the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors November 14, 2013 Updated: June 14, 2016 August 9, 2016 May 22, 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to the many people who contributed to development of this Comprehensive Plan. The Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors Ann L. Heidig David Ross Emmitt B. Marshall Gary F. Skinner Timothy J. McLaughlin Paul D. Trampe Benjamin T. Pitts The Spotsylvania County Planning Commission Mary Lee Carter Richard H. Sorrell John F. Gustafson Robert Stuber Cristine Lynch Richard Thompson Scott Mellott The Citizen Advisory Groups Land Use Scott Cook Aviv Goldsmith Daniel Mahon Lynn Smith M.R. Fulks Suzanne Ircink Eric Martin Public Facilities Mike Cotter Garrett Garner Horace McCaskill Chris Folger George Giddens William Nightingale Transportation James Beard M.R. Fulks Mike Shiflett Mark Vigil Rupert Farley Greg Newhouse Dale Swanson Historic & Natural Resources Mike Blake Claude Dunn Larry Plating George Tryfiates John Burge Donna Pienkowski Bonita Tompkins C. Douglas Barnes, County Administrator, and County Staff Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan Adopted November 14, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction and Vision Chapter 2 Land Use Future Land Use Map Future Land Use Map – Primary Development Boundary Zoom Chapter 3 Transportation & Thoroughfare Plan Thoroughfare Plan List Thoroughfare Plan Map Chapter 4 Public Facilities Plan General Government Map Public Schools Map Public Safety Map Chapter 5 Historic Resources Chapter 6 Natural Resources Appendix A Land Use – Fort A.P. Hill Approach Fan Map Appendix B Public Facilities – Parks and Recreation Appendix C Historic Resources Appendix D Natural Resources Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND VISION INTRODUCTION AND VISION – Adopted 11/14/2013; Updated 6/14/2016 & 5/22/2018 Page 1 INTRODUCTION The Spotsylvania County Comprehensive Plan presents a long range land use vision for the County.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheets for Impaired (Category 4 Or 5) Waters in 2020
    Fact Sheets for Impaired (Category 4 or 5) Waters in 2020 York River Basin Cause Group Code: F01L-01-HG Lake Gordonsville Cause Location: Includes the entirety of Lake Gordonsville, also known as Bowlers Mill Lake. City / County: Louisa Co. Use(s): Fish Consumption Cause(s) / VA Category: Mercury in Fish Tissue / 5A The fish consumption use is categorized as impaired due to a Virginia Department of Health, Division of Health Hazards Control, mercury fish consumption advisory. The advisory, dated 09/30/04, limits largemouth bass consumption to no more than two meals per month. Additionally, an exceedance of the risk-based tissue value (TV) of 300 ppb for mercury (HG) was recorded in 2 species (largemouth bass and bluegill sunfish) of fish sampled (5 total excursions) in 2017 at fish tissue monitoring station 8- DOV001.20, near the dam. Cycle TMDL Cause First Dev. Water Assessment Unit / Water Name / Location Desc. Category Cause Name Listed Priority Size VAN-F01L_DOV01A06 / Lake Gordonsville / Segment includes all 5A Mercury in Fish Tissue 2006 L 77.31 of Lake Gordonsville. Lake Gordonsville Estuary Reservoir River Fish Consumption (Sq. Miles) (Acres) (Miles) Mercury in Fish Tissue - Total Impaired Size by Water Type: 77.31 Sources: Source Unknown Final 2020 Appendix 5 - 3113 Fact Sheets for Impaired (Category 4 or 5) Waters in 2020 York River Basin Cause Group Code: F01R-01-BAC South Anna River Cause Location: Begins at the headwaters of the South Anna River and continues downstream until the confluence with Dove Fork. Begins again at the start of waterbody F02R, where Wheeler Creek intersects the South Anna River, and continues downstream until the confluence with Rock Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Orange County, Virginia 2013 Comprehensive Plan
    ORANGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA 2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 17th, 2013 Amended on July 14th, 2015, on October 27th, 2015, and on May 8th, 2018 This page intentionally left blank. 2013 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Sustain the rural character of Orange County while enhancing and improving the quality of life for all its citizens. Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .............................................................................. 7 A Very Brief History of Orange County, Virginia .......................................... 7 I. Introduction: Why a Comprehensive Plan? ........................................ 10 A. Statutory Authority .................................................................. 10 B. Purpose of the Plan ................................................................. 10 C. Utilizing this Plan .................................................................... 11 D. The Vision for Orange County ...................................................... 12 II. Existing Land Uses ...................................................................... 12 A. Overview .............................................................................. 12 B. Forest and Woodlands ............................................................... 13 C. Agricultural ........................................................................... 13 D. Residential ............................................................................ 13 E. Public and Private Easements ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Total Nutrient and Sediment Loads, Trends, Yields, and Nontidal Water-Quality Indicators for Selected Nontidal Stations, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985–2011
    Total Nutrient and Sediment Loads, Trends, Yields, and Nontidal Water-Quality Indicators for Selected Nontidal Stations, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985–2011 New York Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Watershed Maryland West Virginia Delaware Virginia Open-File Report 2013–1052 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Total Nutrient and Sediment Loads, Trends, Yields, and Nontidal Water-Quality Indicators for Selected Nontidal Stations, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985–2011 By Michael J. Langland, Joel D. Blomquist, Douglas L. Moyer, Kenneth E. Hyer, and Jeffrey G. Chanat Open-File Report 2013–1052 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Langland, M.J., Blomquist, J.D., Moyer, D.L., Hyer, K.E., and Chanat, J.G., 2013, Total nutrient and sediment loads, trends, yields, and nontidal water-quality indicators for selected nontidal stations, Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985–2011: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION 5 Utilities and Community Facilities
    SECTION 5 Utilities and Community Facilities Purpose Hanover County’s Mission is to be a premier community by providing superior service through creativity, innovation and sound financial practices. Adequate community facilities are essential to support services for current and future populations and for the local economy. The Comprehensive Plan has been developed with a 20-year horizon for guiding land use development and provides a course for predicting the need for future public facilities. The following section assesses existing facilities, the present design adequacy, capacity, and future demand for those facilities using the growth assumptions discussed in Section 1; specifically a 1.5% growth rate, 2.68 persons per household, and the assumption that 70% of growth will occur within the designated Suburban Service Area. This section addresses water/wastewater utilities and facilities associated with Public Safety (Fire/EMS, Sheriff’s Office, Animal Control), Parks and Recreation, Schools, Libraries, Judicial and General Government Services. References are made throughout this section to policies and documents that include further detail of the planning objectives utilized by a department or agency that administers the particular facility. This Section also provides guidance for accommodating private telecommunication infrastructure and to minimize the land use impacts of new facilities. Goal Hanover County citizens and businesses will be provided: • Superior services through cost-effective public utilities and community facilities
    [Show full text]