DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Management Program for the Hampton Roads Virginia Portion of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Management Program for the Hampton Roads Virginia Portion of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Watershed ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE HAMPTON ROADS VIRGINIA PORTION OF THE ALBEMARLE-PAMLICO ESTUARINE WATERSHED This project was funded, in part, through financial support from the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources under Contract C-14011 pursuant to a National Estuarine Program Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Preparation of the report was included in the HRPDC Program for 1992-93, approved by the Commission at its Executive Committee Meeting of March 18, 1992. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Prepared by the Staff of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission February 1 993 A/P Project No. 92-19 ABSTRACT The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System is the second largest estuarine system in the United States. This resource is shared by the citizens of Virginia and North Carolina. Through the National Estuary Program, the State of North Carolina has conducted the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study to determine the condition of the estuarine system's resources and to devise a management plan to protect and enhance those resources. The Hampton Roads Region is located at the northern end of the A/P Watershed. Major tributaries to the Watershed - the Blackwater, Meherrin, Nottoway, North Landing and Northwest Rivers and Back Bay - originate in or flow through the Hampton Roads Region. The Region straddles the watershed boundary between the Albemarle-Pamlico to the south and the Chesapeake Bay to the north. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is also the subject of intensive analysis and management initiatives. Thus, the Hampton Roads region is not only a physical bridge, but also an institutional bridge between the two Watersheds and their management programs. The Environmental Management Program for the Hampton Roads Virginia Portion of the A/P Watershed attempts to provide this institutional bridge between the two programs. Based on local government experience with the Chesapeake Bay Program and local government evaluation of the draft Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study (CCMP), a program has been developed which reflects the unique environmental setting and institut ional st ructure of the Hampton Roads Region. This report describes the Environmental Management Program for the Hampton Roads Virginia Portion of the A/P Watershed. It analyzes local development goals and regulations to determine areas of support and conflict with adopted environmental goals, including t hose of the CCMP. Critical resources within the watershed are identified and a management approach for protecting and managing them is recommended. Alternative management approaches, including the Virginia Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and the draft Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan's recommendations are evaluated. Recommendations for improved management of the watershed's resources, focusing on local government activities, are made. The Environmental Management Program addresses the needs and capabilities of local governments within the Hampton Roads Region, as they relate to the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System. It does not address management needs in t he balance of the Virginia portion of the A/P Watershed. However, recommendations would appear to be generally applicable in those areas as well. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..... ................... .. o • o o •••••• o •••••• i LIST OF FIGURES .. o •••••••••• o • o o •• •• •••••••••••••••••• iii LIST OF TABLES .... o • o •••••••• •• • •••••••••• •• o ••• o •••• iv GLOSSARY .. o •••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••• • v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY o •• o • 0 ••• 0 •• •••• 0 •• o •••••• o ••• o • • • vii INTRODUCTION ...... o •••• •• o ••••• o ••••••••• o •••••••••• 1 BACKGROUND ...... o ••• •••• o ••••• o ••• o •• o •••••• o •••••• 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ... .......... .. .... o •••••• 0 • • • • 10 GOALS COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS ... o •••••• o ••••••••••• • •• 22 REGULATORY ANALYSIS . o •••• o •• o • •••• • • •• o • o o ••• o ••••• 28 CRITICAL MANAGEMENT AREA ...... o ••••••••••••• o •••••• 37 ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ........ o •••• • o • • • • • 43 INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES ...... o • • • • • • • • 59 RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ...... 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..... o •••••••••••• o ••••••••• o •••••••••• 88 II - ... - .. .......... · -·· ... ····· ... - . - LIST OF FIGURES 1 ALBEMARLE - PAMLICO ESTUARINE SYSTEM - STUDY AREA . 3 2 CHOWAN RIVER- DISMAL SWAMP BASINS . 11 3 NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PRIORITIES IN THE CHOWAN RIVER- ALBEMARLE SOUND BASINS ......... ..... 21 4 GOALS COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS ..... • .................. 27 5 CRITICAL MANAGEMENT AREA . • . 42 6 TIDEWATER VIRGINIA .................. ..... .......... 45 7 THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIP- CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION AREAS . 46 iii LIST OF TABLES 1 LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS: VIRGINIA PORTION OFA/ PWATERSHED ..................... ... • ........ 18 2 GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE ALBEMARLE-PAMLICO ESTUARINE STUDY . 23 3 EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT - A /P WATERSHED- HAMPTON ROADS ..... • ...... • . ....... 29 iv GLOSSARY (List of Acronyms) A significant number of acronyms are used in this study, especially in the section entitled, "Recommended Environmental Management Program." All acronyms are defined in the Glossary, which is being placed at the beginning of the report to assist the reader. In addition, the first time that one of these acronyms is used in the text, the name is spelled out entirely and the acronym is placed in parentheses immediately after the term. APES Program Albemarle Pamlico Estuarine Study Program A/P Watershed The Watershed of the Albemarle - Pamlico Estuarine System BMP Best Management Practice CBLAB Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board CBLAD Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department CBPA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act CCMP Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study CGIA North Carolina Center of Geographic Information and Analysis DAPC Virginia Department of Air Pollution Control OCR Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation DCR-DSWC OCR Division of Soil and Water Conservation DCR-DNH OCR Division of Natural Heritage DCR-DPRR OCR Division of Planning and Recreation Resources DEHNR North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources DGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries DWM Virginia Department of Waste Management v .... .... ... ·---· . ~ EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GIS Geographic Information System HRPDC Hampton Roads Planning District Commission HRSD Hampton Roads Sanitation District NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS Nonpoint Source Pollution PDC Planning District Commission VCOE Virginia Council on the Environment VCRMP Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission VPDES Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, represents Virginia's Program to implement t he federal NPDES Permit Program SPSA Southeastern Public Service Authority of Virginia SWCB Virginia State Water Control Board vi . .. ·-··- - -··- ..... -·········· ·-· -· ·· ··· ·- ... - ···· .. .... ''"····-···- -·-- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The A lbemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System is the second largest estuarine system in the United States. This resource- its potential and its problems - is shared by the citizens of North Carolina and Virginia. To address a number of environmental concerns with the estuarine system and its resources, the State of North Carolina, with financial assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the National Estuary Program, has undertaken the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. The resulting management program has potential implications for environmental management throughout that portion of southern Virginia, including the Hampton Roads region, which lies within the A/ P Watershed. The Environmental Management Program for the Hampton Roads Virginia Portion of the A /P Watershed has been prepared by the HRPDC with financial assistance from the State of North Carolina through the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. It represents a locally-driven plan for improved environmental management in the Hampton Roads V irginia portion of the A/ P Watershed . As such, it represents t he type of environmental management activities that could and should be undertaken by watershed localit ies. The A/ P Watershed includes nineteen ( 19) cities and counties and thirty-four (34) towns in Virginia. A ll of these localities are potentially affected by any management initiative resulting from the APES Program. The Environmental Management Program for the Hampton Roads Virginia Portion of the A /P Watershed only addresses the needs and concerns of six (6) of those cities and counties, specifically. Those six communities are the Cities of Chesapeake, Franklin, Suffolk and Virginia Beach and the Counties of Isle of W ight and Southampton, which are members of the Hampton Roads Planning Dist rict Commission (HRPDC). A lthough many elements of this program appear to be applicable to the balance of the watershed, only the members of the HRPDC
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A. Conditional Use Permit Matthew W
    SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Regular Session i October 22, 2012 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS Attached for your reference please find information related to three (3) scheduled public hearings. SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Regular Session i October 22, 2012 A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MATTHEW W. CROWDER This public hearing is held pursuant to § 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended to receive public comment on a request by Matthew W. Crowder, applicant, on behalf of FIATP Timber LLC, owner, for a Conditional Use Permit for the extraction and processing of sand on property known as Tax Parcel 92-23. The land is 424 acres in size and is located approximately 630’ west of Delaware Road (Rt. 687) and approximately 1,500’ south of General Thomas Highway (Rt. 671). The notice of this public hearing was published in the Tidewater News on October 7 and October 14, 2012 and all adjacent property owners were notified in writing by first class mail as required by law. Following its public hearing on September 13, 2012, the Southampton County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request, subject to twelve conditions offered by the applicant. After conclusion of tonight’s public hearing, the Board of Supervisors will consider the comments offered and may act upon the matter or defer action until such time as it deems appropriate. Mrs. Beth Lewis, our Director of Community Development and Secretary to the Planning Commission will provide introductory remarks after which all interested parties are invited to come forward and express their views. MOTION REQUIRED: If the Board is so inclined, a motion is required to accept the Planning Commission recommendation and issue the conditional use permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Deed VA Brunswick Abs Books Vol 4 1765-1770
    Deed Abstracts, VA, Brunswick, Vol 4 1765 - 1770 BRUNSWICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA DEED BOOKS Volume 4 1765 - 1770 Abstracted by Dr. Stephen E. Bradley, Jr. Page 1 of 44 Deed Abstracts, VA, Brunswick, Vol 4 1765 - 1770 4 Deed Book 8 24-(39) WILLIAM PARHAM of Albemarle Parish in Sussex Co to George Booth of said parish. 26 Nov 1763. £400. 389 acres which was a patent to David Williams 31 May 1753, joining Cornelious Cargill, Beaver Pond Creek. Wit: Thomas Vines Jr, Thomas Booth, GEORGE PARHAM. Proved 25 Feb 1765. N. Edwards Jr DCC 25-(41) Thomas Flewelling of Brunswick Co to George Booth of Sussex Co. 15 Feb 1765. £100 VA 170 acres as by deed from Richard Berry to said Thomas Flewelling. Wit: William Averis, Rawleigh Hightower, Thomas Anderson, Mary McTyer. Proved 25 Feb 1765. N. Edwards DCC 26-(42) Kinchen Taylor merchant of Hartford Co NC to Miles Cary & Henry Taylor of Southampton Co. 30 Jul 1764. said Cary & said Henry Taylor did become bound with said Kinchen Taylor to John Woodrop merchant of Nansemond Co to pay £318; thus this transaction to save harmless the said Cary & said Henry Taylor. Thus for 55, the release to said Cary & said Henry Taylor of 1200 acres on Roses Creek which said Kinchen Taylor had purchased from Andrew Troughton & Which had been a patent to the said Troughton. Wit: John Simmons, William Peterson, John Taylor, James Taylor. Proved 25 Mar 1765, N. Edwards Jr DCC 27-(44) Benjamin Harrison of Westover Parish of Charles City Co to William Batte of Marton Brandon Parish in Prince George Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Southside Virginian
    Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/southsidevirgini1198283 THE SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIAN OCTOBER 1982 VOLUME 1, NUMBER 1 Reprinted May, 1991 THE SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIAN Volume 1 October 1?82 Number 1 Contents 1 From the Editors 2 Brunswick County Will Book 2 3 Amelia County Tithable List for 1737 15 Urquhart Family Cemetery, Southampton County 22 Account Book of Estates put into the Hands of the 23 Sheriff's Office, Nansemond County, 18^0- 1845 Register of Births and Deaths of William Browne and 24 Ann his wife of "Cedar Fields", Surry County. Some Importations from Lunenburg County Order Books 25 Wills from Southampton County Loose Papers 26 ^ Removals from Delinquent Tax Lists 30 Greensville County Powers of Attorney 31 Black Creek Baptist Church, Southampton County, ^3 Register of Births Queries 48 Lyndon H. Hart, J. Christian Kolbe, editors Copyright 1982 The subscription price is $15.00 per annum. All subscriptions begin with the October issue of the volume. Issues are not sold separately. Correspondence should be addressed: Box 118, Richmond, Virginia 23201. This is a reprint. For subscription information, contact: The Southside Virginian, P.O. Box 3684, Richmond, VA ' 23235. I FROM THE EDITORS The Southside Virginian is a genealogical quarterly devoted to to research in the counties of Southside Virginia, including the counties of Princess Anne, Norfolk, Nansemond, Isle of Wight, Southampton, Surry, Sussex, Prince George, Chesterfield, Dinwiddle, Powhatan, Greensville, Amelia, Nottoway, Brunswick, Cumberland, Prince Edward, Mecklenburg, Charlotte, Halifax, Henry, Pittsylvania. The purpose of this quarterly is to promote scholarly genealogical research in Southside Virginia by making available to its subscribers transcriptions and abstracts of county, church, and cemetery records.
    [Show full text]
  • 96> ? SOLDIER in the SOUTHWEST: the CAREER of GENERAL AV
    Soldier in the Southwest: the career of General A. V. Kautz, 1869-1886 Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Wallace, Andrew Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 11/10/2021 12:35:25 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/552260 7?/ /96> ? zyz /, / {LOjO. >2y SOLDIER IN THE SOUTHWEST: THE CAREER OF GENERAL A. V. KAUTZ, 1869-1886 by ANDREW WALLACE Volume I A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In The Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1968 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by Andrew W h-U r c p __________________________________ entitled _________ Soldier in the Southwest:______________ The Career of General A. V. Kautz, 1869-1886 be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy_________________________ Dissertation Director Date After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:* This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. VLR Listed: 12/12/2019 1. Name of Property NRHP Listed: 3/19/2020 Historic name: Courtland Historic District Other names/site number: VDHR Architectural Inventory Number: 201-5001 Name of related multiple property listing: __N/A____________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: City or town: _Courtland_ State: VA County: Southampton Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural
    [Show full text]
  • The Sesquicentennial Commemoration
    Issue 23, summer 2014 THE SESQUICENTENNIAL COMMEMORATION In June, July and August of 1864, with less than ten months left in the War, fierce and deadly battles continued. There were a myriad of “smaller” engagements throughout the South as well as the major conflicts at Cold Harbor, Atlanta and the Marietta Operations, Kennesaw Mountain and the slaughter at Petersburg. One bright spot for Confederate Prisoners the South was Forrest’s performance at Brice’s Crossroads but one inspired victory Prisoner exchange had virtually ceased and could not offset the continued critical loss of this further added to the Southern woes. As men and materiel by the Confederacy. we now know the lack of exchange also Sherman had designs on Atlanta and Grant created places like Andersonville. wanted to attack Richmond and the armies of the South were dwindling. It was a time of The summaries of the summer Battles begin crisis but Lee, Johnson, Hood and the others on the next page. fought on. 1 The Summer Battles Grant continued his Overland Campaign and Accepting his loss and abandoning the well- on May 31 the bloody Battle of Cold Harbor defended approaches to Richmond, Grant began. This included the Cavalry engagement sought to shift his army quickly south of the at Trevilian Station and a concluding battle river to threaten Petersburg. known as Saint Mary’s Church. Summaries of these three combats follow. Cold Harbor Location: Hanover County VA Campaign: Grant’s Overland Campaign (May-June 1864) Dates: May 31-June 12, 1864 Principal Commanders: Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Maj.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussel Assessment in the Upper Nottoway River and Its Tributaries on Fort Pickett, VA
    Freshwater Mussel Assessment in the Upper Nottoway River and its Tributaries on Fort Pickett, VA Atlantic pigtoe, Fort Pickett, VA, July 2014 Prepared by: Caitlin S. Carey, Eric D. Wolf, and Verl R. Emrick The Conservation Management Institute College of Natural Resources and Environment Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 1900 Kraft Dr., Suite 250 Moss Building Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 540-231-7348 September 2014 Freshwater Mussel Assessment in the Upper Nottoway River and its Tributaries on Fort Pickett, VA Prepared for: Virginia Army National Guard and Virginia Department of Military Affairs Facilities Management–Environmental Division Blackstone, Virginia September 2014 Citation: Carey, C.S., E.D. Wolf, and V. Emrick. 2014. Freshwater mussel assessment in the upper Nottoway River and its tributaries on Fort Pickett, Virginia. Report-02-2014. Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. 41 pp. Page 1 Freshwater Mussel Assessment in the Upper Nottoway River and its Tributaries on Fort Pickett, VA Abstract The upper reaches of the Nottoway River and its tributaries on Fort Pickett, Virginia are located within one of the most diverse river basins of the Atlantic Slope region. Freshwater mussels are vital components of these aquatic ecosystems and are often referred to as ecosystem engineers. Mussel surveys on Fort Pickett have historically concentrated on the central reaches of the Nottoway below the reservoir. Thus, assessments in tributaries and sites above the reservoir were needed. We evaluated a total of 68 sites across Fort Pickett and implemented a two-phase sampling design using time-constrained and quadrat-based surveys at a sub-set of these sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Caddisflies from Greensville County, Virginia (Insecta: Trichoptera)
    17 Banisteria, Number 9, 1997 © 1997 by the Virginia Natural History Society Caddisflies from Greensville County, Virginia (Insecta: Trichoptera) Richard L. Hoffman Virginia Museum of Natural History Martinsville, Virginia. 24112 Charles R. Parker U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Great Smoky Mountains National Park Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738 INTRODUCTION During a brief visit to the Dismal Swamp in May 1963, the first author collected nine species of caddisflies Despite several years (1976-1980) of intensive that were attracted to a gasoline lantern. These were sent sampling by the second author and colleagues at for identification to Dr. Herbert H. Ross, whose comment VPI&SU, and a much longer period of more sporadic about them (in litt.) "The remarkable circumstance about collecting by Oliver S. Flint, Jr. (USNM), the caddisflies of this list is that it is typical of a spring fed stream in Long Virginia are still inadequately known, and this is Island or in the Adirondacks rather than what we particularly true for the fauna of southeastern Virginia. consider to be the fauna of a southern swamp" stimulated The only published list of the state's caddisflies (Parker & an interest in pursuing such an intriguing lead. Voshell, 1981), which was based exclusively on material in Establishment of the VMNH in 1988, and employment the VPI&SU collection, accounted a total of 239 species. there of the first author, finally provided the opportunity Recent collections by VMNH personnel and others have to conduct sampling in many places in the southeastern since added nearly a score of additional forms, and search counties and cities.
    [Show full text]
  • “Calamitous War” Mecklenburg County, Virginia, and the War Between the States
    “Calamitous War” Mecklenburg County, Virginia, and the War Between the States “God grant some better day may come.” Mecklenburg County, Virginia, emerged from the Civil War unscarred by battle within its boundaries. The only obvious physical evidence now that the war had even touched the county is a marker or two and the statue of a Civil War soldier before the courthouse. No earthworks. No cannonballs in the sides of buildings. The scars the war did leave are harder to see. The Scene Is Set When the war started, Mecklenburg and neighboring counties were generally known as being rich counties. In the July 4, 1861, issue of the Richmond, Virginia, Daily Dispatch, a correspondent noted that “Old Mecklenburg is by no means the least among the counties of Virginia in size, wealth and numbers. In refinement of its population, she is among the first rank, and … in patriotism perhaps the first of the State. Glorious Old Dominion!” The correspondent had mentioned a point to keep in mind: Virginia — the glorious Old Dominion. For many Southerners, loyalty to one’s state was paramount. Many U.S. Army and Navy officers resigned their commissions, followed their home states out of the Union, and accepted Confederate commissions. They included Mecklenburg County natives J. Thomas Goode (Lieut. Col., CSA) and William Conway Whittle (Commodore, CSA). Robert E. Lee resigned from the U.S. Army as well, “[p]erhaps … tugged by what his cousin Anna Maria Fitzhugh called ‘a sweet binding to this spot of earth, this soil of Virginia that is irresistible.’ ” In 1853, writer J.G.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature Conservancy's Watershed Approach To
    THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S WATERSHED APPROACH TO COMPENSATION PLANNING FOR THE VIRGINIA AQUATIC RESTORATION TRUST FUND December 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: THE NATURE CONSERVANCY’S CONSERVATION BY DESIGN .... 2 Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation By Design ..................................................... 3 Element I: Geographic service area delineation ............................................................ 4 Elements ii, iii and iv: Threats Assessment ................................................................... 8 Elements v and vi: Aquatic resource goals / objectives and a prioritization strategy.. 10 Element xii. Satisfying Criteria for Use of Preservation ............................................. 13 Element viii. A description of any public and private stakeholder involvement in the plan ................................................................................................................................ 13 Element ix. Long-term protection and management strategies ................................... 15 Element x. Monitoring and Evaluating Progress .......................................................... 15 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17 PART II. OVERVIEW OF ECOREGIONAL PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS BY DEQ/CORPS SERVICE AREAS .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cheroenhaka Nottoway Indian Oral History Supported by Archeological Finds at the Hand Site
    Cheroenhaka Nottoway Indian Oral History Supported by Archeological Finds At The Hand Site VISIT THE PLACES WHERE OUR HISTORY LIVES Cheroenhaka Nottoway Indian Oral History Supported by Archeological Finds At The Hand Site (44SN22) Written by: Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown and Theresa Preston All photos courtesy of Bert Wendell (ASV) It’s sad but true that the oral histories of Native First Peoples are hardly ever taken seriously. It’s rare to hear an oral history and immediately recognize that there is physical evidence to support the claim. But that’s exactly what happened when Archeological Society of Virginia (ASV) member, Russell Darden, of Courtland VA, heard Chief Walt “Red Hawk” Brown recount the oral history of the Cheroenhaka Nottoway Tribe of Southampton County Virginia. A story had been passed down by the tribal elders that there had been a “saving mission” down river, into the region known today as the Outer Banks of North Carolina. People from far away had come by boat into the region. The boat off loaded many people and supplies and then left. Those remaining behind struggled to survive. They needed to be taught basic survival skills. Their sheer numbers had overwhelmed the capability of the local Native People. Abundant food resources were available, but not the necessary man power to devote to daily mentoring of such a large group. The language barrier didn’t help. Thus neighboring tribes up river were called to come and take some of these new people. The Cheroenhaka Nottoway was one of the tribes who responded. Mr. Darden knew that archeological evidence had been found that proves that at least one, a European woman, lived, and was buried in the tribal burial grounds along with grave goods consisting of her European scissors, hair comb and a handmade wrought iron carpentry nail.
    [Show full text]
  • Franklin 2010 Comp Plan.Cdr
    FRANKLIN 2010 The City of Franklin, Virginia Comprehensive Plan PEP05-07 November 2005 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Mr. James P. Councill, III, Mayor Mr. E. Kent Pope, Vice Mayor Mr. Mark S. Fetherolf Mrs. Mary E. Hilliard Ms. Raystine D. Johnson Mr. Joseph J. Scislowicz Mr. Charles A. Wrenn Mr. Rowland L. “Bucky” Taylor, City Manager Mr. William “Bill” Donnelly, City Attorney MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Dr. Daniel Peak, Jr., Chairman Mr. Lawyer Artis Mr. Harlan Lewis Mr. Ray Smith Mr. Thomas K. Stephenson Mr. R. W. “Bobby” Tyler Ms. Carolyn Williams Mr. Donald Goodwin, Planning Director ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The staff of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance extended by the officials and staff of the City of Franklin. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF FRANKLIN, VIRGINIA Prepared by the Staff of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission In Cooperation with The City of Franklin NOVEMBER 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................v CHAPTER 1 - DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................... 1-1 CHAPTER 2 - HOUSING ................................................................................. 2-1 CHAPTER 3 – ECONOMICS............................................................................ 3-1 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................ 4-1 CHAPTER 5 – TRANSPORTATION................................................................
    [Show full text]