DOCSLIB.ORG

Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs PREPARED BY James Cummins, Claire Buchanan, Carlton Haywood, Heidi Moltz, Adam Griggs The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street Suite PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 R. Christian Jones, Richard Kraus Potomac Environmental Research and Education Center George Mason University 4400 University Drive, MS 5F2 Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 Nathaniel Hitt, Rita Villella Bumgardner U.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center Aquatic Ecology Branch 11649 Leetown Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430 PREPARED FOR The Nature Conservancy of Maryland and the District of Columbia 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Ste. 100 Bethesda, MD 20814 WITH FUNDING PROVIDED BY The National Park Service Final Report May 12, 2011 ICPRB Report 10-3 To receive additional copies of this report, please write Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe St., PE-08 Rockville, MD 20852 or call 301-984-1908 Disclaimer This project was made possible through support provided by the National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy, under the terms of their Cooperative Agreement H3392060004, Task Agreement J3992074001, Modifications 002 and 003. The content and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the policy of the National Park Service or The Nature Conservancy and no official endorsement should be inferred. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policies of the U. S. Government, or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Acknowledgments This project was supported by a National Park Service subaward provided by The Nature Conservancy Maryland/DC Office and by the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, an interstate compact river basin commission of the United States Government and the compact's signatories: Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. We wish to recognize and thank the following individuals for their assistance in preparing materials for this document, contributing text, and/or their helpful reviews of various drafts: Colin Apse, Mark Bryer, Judy Dunscomb, Stephanie Flack, Eloise Kendy, Christian Marks, Tara Moberg, Michele DePhilip, Mark P. Smith, and Julie Zimmerman (The Nature Conservancy) Mary Freeman, Bruce Taggart (USGS) Steve Schreiner (Versar, Inc.) Claire O’Neill, Andrew Roach (U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District) Doug Curtis, Chris Lea, and Marian Norris (U.S. National Park Service) Alex Graziano (George Mason University) Joe Flotemersch (U.S. EPA) Jan Ducnuigeen, Sarah Ahmed, and Jim Palmer (ICPRB) Front cover: the Potomac River from South Mountain, downstream of Harpers Ferry. Photo by Jim Palmer, ICPRB. ii Potomac Basin Large River Environmental Flow Needs Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................ v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Hydrologic Indicators ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Factors Influencing Potomac River Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 5 Topography and Geology ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Climate and Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Water Uses ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Land Uses ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 CBP Watershed Model Results ............................................................................................................................ 13 Assessing Risk of Hydrologic Alteration ................................................................................................................ 13 Hydrologic Alteration Cumulative Risk Index ..................................................................................................... 13 Regions of Special Interest Due to Risk of Hydrologic Alteration ....................................................................... 14 The Potomac River Gorge and Flow-By Requirement at Little Falls .................................................................. 16 Wastewater and Pollutant Removal ..................................................................................................................... 18 Introduced Species ............................................................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2: RIVERINE ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS ....................................................................................... 20 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 20 The Riverine Habitat and Biological Communities ................................................................................................. 20 Water Quality and Drought in the Potomac River Mainstem .............................................................................. 22 Riparian Plant Communities ............................................................................................................................... 23 Fishes ................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Mussels ................................................................................................................................................................ 46 Flow-Ecology Hypotheses for Potomac Nontidal River Communities ................................................................... 50 CHAPTER 3: TIDAL FRESHWATER ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS ................................................................... 52 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 52 The Tidal Freshwater Habitat and Biological Communities.................................................................................... 52 Anthropogenic Impacts on Freshwater Flow to the Estuary ............................................................................... 54 Phytoplankton ...................................................................................................................................................... 57 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) ................................................................................................................. 60 Zooplankton ......................................................................................................................................................... 62 Benthic Macroinvertebrates ................................................................................................................................ 63 Fishes ................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Flow-Ecology Hypotheses for Biological Communities in the Tidal Freshwater Potomac Estuary ....................... 70 CHAPTER 4: FLOW NEEDS SYNTHESIS AND STUDY CONCLUSIONS ......................................................... 72 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 72 Key Considerations that Shaped the Study Team's Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................ 75 Potomac Large River Flow Needs Assessment Conclusions ................................................................................... 76 Workshop Review of Flow Component Needs ......................................................................................................
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]
  • 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. 1. Name of Property Historic name: Woodlawn Cultural Landscape Historic District Other names/site number: DHR File No.: 029-5181 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: Bounded by Old Mill Rd, Mt Vernon Memorial Hwy, Fort Belvoir, and Dogue Creek City or town: Alexandria State: VA County: Fairfax Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: X ____________________________________________________________________________ 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 and professional
    [Show full text]
  • Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan
    Restoration Plan for the Anacostia River Watershed in Prince George’s County December 30, 2015 RUSHERN L. BAKER, III COUNTPreparedY EXECUTIV for:E Prince George’s County, Maryland Department of the Environment Stormwater Management Division Prepared by: 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 COVER PHOTO CREDITS: 1. M-NCPPC _Cassi Hayden 7. USEPA 2. Tetra Tech, Inc. 8. USEPA 3. Prince George’s County 9. Montgomery Co DEP 4. VA Tech, Center for TMDL and 10. PGC DoE Watershed Studies 11. USEPA 5. Charles County, MD Dept of 12. PGC DoE Planning and Growth Management 13. USEPA 6. Portland Bureau of Environmental Services _Tom Liptan Anacostia River Watershed Restoration Plan Contents Acronym List ............................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Report and Restoration Planning ............................................................................... 3 1.1.1 What is a TMDL? ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 What is a Restoration Plan? ............................................................................................... 4 1.2 Impaired Water Bodies and TMDLs .............................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Water Quality Standards ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Assessment of Environmental Flows in the Western Indian Ocean Region Guidelines for the Assessment of Eflows in WIO Region
    Western Indian Ocean Ecosystem Guidelines and Toolkits Guidelines for the Assessment of Environmental Flows in the Western Indian Ocean Region Guidelines for the Assessment of EFlows in WIO region Western Indian Ocean Ecosystem Guidelines and Toolkits Guidelines for the Assessment of Environmental Flows in the Western Indian Ocean Region Published by the United Nations Environment Programme/Nairobi Convention Secretariat. Copyright © Nairobi Convention 2020. All rights reserved: The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Contracting Parties to the Nairobi Convention. Rights and Permissions: The information in this report is copyrighted, therefore, copying and/or transmitting portions of this report without permission of the Nairobi Convention may be a violation of applicable law. How- ever, the Nairobi Convention encourages dissemination and use of the materials in this report. Disclaimer: This publication has been produced by the United Nations Environ- ment Programme-Nairobi Convention and WIOMSA with the kind assistance of various regional governments, Non-Governmental Organizations, Civil Society Organizations, as well as of individuals through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded WIOSAP pro- ject and SIDA funded MASMA project executed by the Convention and WIOMSA respectively. The report is copyrighted entirely to the Nairobi Convention and WIOMSA. Compiled and prepared by: Cate Brown and Jackie King, with contributions from Lara Van Niekerk and Susan Taljaard. Series Editor: Matthew D. Richmond Designed by: Marco Nunes Correia Coordinated by: Jared Bosire, Julius Francis and Timothy Andrew Citation: UNEP-Nairobi Convention/WIOMSA (2020). Guidelines for the Assessment of Environmental Flows in the Western Indian Ocean Region.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Compared
    Water Resources Overview The goals of the Water Resources Chapter are listed below: - Protect the water supply from pollution and encroachment of developments. - Provide an adequate and safe drinking water supply to serve the existing and future residents of the City of Frederick. - Provide an adequate capacity of wastewater treatment with effluent meeting all necessary regulatory requirements for existing and future residents of the City. - Restore and protect water quality and contribute toward meeting the water qualityby striving to meet or exceed regulatory requirements. for water quality. This will require addressinginclude current water quality impacts as well as future impacts from land development and population growth. - Develop adequate stormwater management. - Protect the habitat value of the local and regional rivers and streams. - Efficiently use public dollars for infrastructure that ensures sustainable, safe, and adequate supply of water for all residents. The City is committed to ensuring water and wastewater (sewer) capacity for both existing and new developments andwhile minimizing the negative impacts of stormwater runoff. In 2002, the City established the Water and Sewer Allocation System to make certain that adequate treatment capacity for potable water and wastewater is in place for new growth prior to approval. In 2012, Ordinance G-12-13 was adopted which updated the allocation process and combined it with it the Impact Fees payable for water and sewer service. The City adopted an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) in 2007 that allows development to proceed only after it has been demonstrated that sufficient infrastructure exists or will be created in the water and wastewater systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Stones of Our Nation's Capital
    /h\q AaAjnyjspjopiBs / / \ jouami aqi (O^iqiii^eda . -*' ", - t »&? ?:,'. ..-. BUILDING STONES OF OUR NATION'S CAPITAL The U.S. Geological Survey has prepared this publication as an earth science educational tool and as an aid in understanding the history and physi­ cal development of Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital. The buildings of our Nation's When choosing a building stone, Capital have been constructed with architects and planners use three char­ rocks from quarries throughout the acteristics to judge a stone's suitabili­ United States and many distant lands. ty. It should be pleasing to the eye; it Each building shows important fea­ should be easy to quarry and work; tures of various stones and the geolog­ and it should be durable. Today it is ic environment in which they were possible to obtain fine building stone formed. from many parts of the world, but the This booklet describes the source early builders of the city had to rely and appearance of many of the stones on materials from nearby sources. It used in building Washington, D.C. A was simply too difficult and expensive map and a walking tour guide are to move heavy materials like stone included to help you discover before the development of modern Washington's building stones on your transportation methods like trains and own. trucks. Ancient granitic rocks Metamorphosed sedimentary""" and volcanic rocks, chiefly schist and metagraywacke Metamorphic and igneous rocks Sand.gravel, and clay of Tertiary and Cretaceous age Drowned ice-age channel now filled with silt and clay Physiographic Provinces and Geologic and Geographic Features of the District of Columbia region.
    [Show full text]
  • State Water Control Board Page 1 O F16 9 Vac 25-260-350 and 400 Water Quality Standards
    STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PAGE 1 O F16 9 VAC 25-260-350 AND 400 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 9 VAC 25-260-350 Designation of nutrient enriched waters. A. The following state waters are hereby designated as "nutrient enriched waters": * 1. Smith Mountain Lake and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 2. Lake Chesdin from its dam upstream to where the Route 360 bridge (Goodes Bridge) crosses the Appomattox River, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter between the dam and the Route 360 bridge; 3. South Fork Rivanna Reservoir and all tributaries of the impoundment upstream to their headwaters; 4. New River and its tributaries, except Peak Creek above Interstate 81, from Claytor Dam upstream to Big Reed Island Creek (Claytor Lake); 5. Peak Creek from its headwaters to its mouth (confluence with Claytor Lake), including all tributaries to their headwaters; 6. Aquia Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 7. Fourmile Run from its headwaters to the state line; 8. Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 9. Little Hunting Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 10. Gunston Cove from its headwaters to the state line; 11. Belmont and Occoquan Bays from their headwaters to the state line; 12. Potomac Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 13. Neabsco Creek from its headwaters to the state line; 14. Williams Creek from its headwaters to its confluence with Upper Machodoc Creek; 15. Tidal freshwater Rappahannock River from the fall line to Buoy 44, near Leedstown, Virginia, including all tributaries to their headwaters that enter the tidal freshwater Rappahannock River; 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Development of Shenandoah River
    SDMS DocID 2109708 Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) for the Shenandoah River, Virginia and West Virginia I. Introduction The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) be developed for those water bodies identified as impaired by the state where technology-based and other controls did not provide for attainment of water quality standards. A TMDL is a determination of the amount of a pollutant from point, nonpoint, and natural background sources, including a margin of safety, that may be discharged to a water qualit>'-limited water body. This document will set forth the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rationale for establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of PGBs for the Shenandoah River. EPA's rationale is based on the determination that the TMDL meets the following 8 regulatory conditions pursuant to 40 CFR §130. 1) The TMDL is designed to implement applicable water quality standards. 2) The TMDL includes a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and load allocations. 3) The TMDL considers the impacts of background pollutant contributions. 4) The TMDL considers critical environmental conditions. 5) The TMDL considers seasonal environmental variations. 6) The TMDL includes a margin of safety. 7) The TMDL has been subject to public participation. 8) There is reasonable assurance that the TMDL can be met. II. Background The Shenandoah River drains 1,957,690 acres of land. The watershed can be broken down into several land-uses. Forest and agricultural lands make-up roughly 1,800,000 acres of watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance on Environmental Flows
    Guidance on Environmental Flows Integrating E-flow Science with Fluvial Geomorphology to Maintain Ecosystem Services 2019 edition WEATHER CLIMATE WATER CLIMATE WEATHER WMO-No. 1235 Guidance on Environmental Flows Integrating E-flow Science with Fluvial Geomorphology to Maintain Ecosystem Services 2019 edition WMO-No. 1235 EDITORIAL NOTE METEOTERM, the WMO terminology database, may be consulted at http://public.wmo.int/en/ resources/meteoterm. Readers who copy hyperlinks by selecting them in the text should be aware that additional spaces may appear immediately following http://, https://, ftp://, mailto:, and after slashes (/), dashes (-), periods (.) and unbroken sequences of characters (letters and numbers). These spaces should be removed from the pasted URL. The correct URL is displayed when hovering over the link or when clicking on the link and then copying it from the browser. WMO-No. 1235 © World Meteorological Organization, 2019 The right of publication in print, electronic and any other form and in any language is reserved by WMO. Short extracts from WMO publications may be reproduced without authorization, provided that the complete source is clearly indicated. Editorial correspondence and requests to publish, reproduce or translate this publication in part or in whole should be addressed to: Chair, Publications Board World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 7 bis, avenue de la Paix Tel.: +41 (0) 22 730 84 03 P.O. Box 2300 Fax: +41 (0) 22 730 81 17 CH-1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland Email: [email protected] ISBN 978-92-63-11235-4 NOTE The designations employed in WMO publications and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WMO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Patuxent River Watershed Functional Plan
    TI11E Functional \laster Plan for the Patuxent Ril'er Watershed in \lontgome1y Count) AUTHOR The \lai-·land-\ational Capital Park and Planning Commi:sion Functional \laster Plan for tl1e Patuxent Ril'er \\'atershed in \lontgomei- Count)· DATE \01·ember 1993 PUNNING AGENCY The \Ian land-\ational Capital Park and Planning Cammi ion s~s~ Georgia Al'enue Sill'er Spring. \\D 20910-3~60 SOURCE OF COPIES The \lai-land-\ational Capital Park and Planning Commission s~s~Georgia Al'enue Siller Spring.\!D 20910-3"6o ABSTRACT This document contains the text. 11ith supporting graphics. for the Functional \laster Plan for tl1e Patuxent Rim\\ atershed in \lontgomm Count\. This plan amends the General Plan for the ,\lan·land-\X'ashington Regional District and the \laster Plan for Highwa1, for the \lard and-\\ ashington Regional District. and the following area master plans: Damascus. Olnel'. Sandi Spring-Ashton Special Stud, Area. Eastern \lontgomei-· Count\·. as well as the Functional \laster Plan for Presefl'ation of Agriculture and Rural Open Space. and the Patuxent Ril'er \\ atershed Park .\laster Plan. COPYRIGHT The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 1993 PUBLISHED BY The Montgomery County Planning Department of The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20910.3760 APPROVED BY The Montgomery County Council October 1993 ADOPTED BY The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission November 1993 THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION is a bi-county agency created by the General Assembly of Maryland in 1927. The Commission's geographic authority extends to the great majority of Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; the Maryland-Washington Regional District (M-NCPPC planningjurisdiction) comprises 1,001 square miles, while the Metropolitan District (parks) comprises 919 square miles, in the two counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Descendants of ROBERT FRENCH I 1 Generation No. 1 1. ROBERT1
    Descendants of ROBERT FRENCH I Generation No. 1 1. ROBERT1 FRENCH I was born in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. Child of ROBERT FRENCH I is: 2. i. ROBERT2 FRENCH II, b. PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. Generation No. 2 2. ROBERT2 FRENCH II (ROBERT1) was born in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. He married MARGARET CHADWELL. Child of ROBERT FRENCH and MARGARET CHADWELL is: 3. i. EDWARD3 FRENCH, b. cir 1540, PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. Generation No. 3 3. EDWARD3 FRENCH (ROBERT2, ROBERT1) was born cir 1540 in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. He married SUSAN SAVAGE cir 1570. She was born cir 1550 in ENGLAND. More About EDWARD FRENCH: Residence: OF PERSHORE More About EDWARD FRENCH and SUSAN SAVAGE: Marriage: cir 1570 Children of EDWARD FRENCH and SUSAN SAVAGE are: 4. i. DENNIS4 FRENCH, b. cir 1585, PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND; d. PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. ii. WILLIAM FRENCH. 5. iii. GEORGE FRENCH I, b. cir 1570, ENGLAND; d. cir 1647. Generation No. 4 4. DENNIS4 FRENCH (EDWARD3, ROBERT2, ROBERT1) was born cir 1585 in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND, and died in PERSHORE, WORCESTERSHIRE, ENGLAND. Child of DENNIS FRENCH is: 1 Descendants of ROBERT FRENCH I 6. i. ANN5 FRENCH, b. cir 1610, ENGLAND; d. 1674, ENGLAND. 5. GEORGE4 FRENCH I (EDWARD3, ROBERT2, ROBERT1) was born cir 1570 in ENGLAND, and died cir 1647. He married CECILY GRAY. She was born cir 1575 in ENGLAND. Child of GEORGE FRENCH and CECILY GRAY is: i. GEORGE5 FRENCH II, d. 1658; m. GRACE BAUGH; d. 1660. Generation No. 5 6. ANN5 FRENCH (DENNIS4, EDWARD3, ROBERT2, ROBERT1) was born cir 1610 in ENGLAND, and died 1674 in ENGLAND.
    [Show full text]