DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT Wicomico River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT Wicomico River Final Wicomico River Watershed Management Plan - Updated April 2014 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: 8390 Main Street, 2nd Floor Ellicott City, MD 21043 www.cwp.org This page has intentionally been left blank. Wicomico River Watershed Management Plan Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................ viii SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Process for Developing the Wicomico Watershed Management Plan ..................... 1 1.2 U.S. EPA Watershed Planning “A-I Criteria” ......................................................... 2 1.3 Plan Organization .................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Caveats .................................................................................................................. 4 SECTION 2. WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .............................................. 5 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Stream Conditions ................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 Total Maximum Daily Loads......................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Biological Conditions .................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Water Quality Conditions .............................................................................. 16 2.2.4 Sources of Impairment .................................................................................. 21 2.3 Natural Resources ................................................................................................ 23 2.3.1 Ecological Areas ........................................................................................... 23 2.3.2 Protected Lands ............................................................................................. 27 2.4 Classification of Subwatersheds ........................................................................... 28 2.5 Sea Level Rise ..................................................................................................... 30 SECTION 3. WATERSHED ASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS ................................... 32 3.1 Introduction to the Watershed Assessment ........................................................... 32 3.2 Stormwater Retrofit Inventory ............................................................................. 32 3.3 Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance ................................................... 34 3.3.1 Hotspot Investigations ................................................................................... 34 3.3.2 Neighborhood Source Assessment................................................................. 35 3.4 Unified Stream Assessment ................................................................................. 36 3.5 Identification of Protection Opportunities ............................................................ 36 SECTION 4. FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 39 4.1 Subwatershed Assessment General Findings ........................................................ 39 4.1.1 Nomenclature ................................................................................................ 39 4.1.2 General Findings ........................................................................................... 40 4.1.3 Lakes and Ponds ........................................................................................... 44 4.1.4 Tree Planting Opportunities........................................................................... 46 4.2 South Prong Subwatershed Findings .................................................................... 47 4.2.1 South Prong Overview .................................................................................. 47 4.2.2 South Prong Field Assessment and Findings ................................................. 49 4.2.3. South Prong Protection Strategy ................................................................... 59 i Wicomico River Watershed Management Plan 4.3 Tony Tank Subwatershed Findings ...................................................................... 61 4.3.1 Tony Tank Overview .................................................................................... 61 4.3.2 Tony Tank Field Assessments and Findings .................................................. 63 4.3.3. Tony Tank Protection Strategy ..................................................................... 74 4.4 North Prong Subwatershed Findings .................................................................... 76 4.4.1 North Prong Overview .................................................................................. 76 4.4.2. North Prong Field Assessments and Findings ............................................... 78 4.4.3. North Prong Protection Strategy ................................................................... 92 SECTION 5. ACTION PLAN ..................................................................................... 94 5.1. Watershed Restoration Action Strategies............................................................. 94 5.2 Implementation Planning and Costs ..................................................................... 98 5.3 Monitoring Plan ................................................................................................. 109 5.4 Project Tracking ................................................................................................ 110 5.5 Long Term Goals ............................................................................................... 110 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 111 List of Figures Figure 2. 1. Wicomico River Watershed .................................................................................8 Figure 2. 2. Location and Ranking of Fish Index of Biological Integrity (FIBI) Sites ............ 14 Figure 2. 3. Location and Ranking of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) Sites ............................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 2. 4. Average Monthly Total Nitrogen Concentration (mg/l) ...................................... 17 Figure 2. 5. Average Monthly Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/l) .................................. 17 Figure 2. 6. Total Phosphorus Values for Selected Creekwatcher Sampling Sites .................. 19 Figure 2. 7. Total Nitrogen Values for Selected Creekwatcher Sampling Sites ...................... 20 Figure 2. 8. E.coli and Total Coliform Concentrations in Salisbury Outfalls ......................... 22 Figure 2. 9. Protection and restoration subwatershed priorities as identified by the Core Team ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 2. 10. Sea level rise inundation scenarios for the Wicomico River watershed ............. 31 Figure 4. 1. Wet pond with weir outlet structure to road ditch ............................................... 41 Figure 4. 2. Rain garden opportunity at Prince Street School ................................................ 42 Figure 4. 3. Opportunity for ditch restoration in SP_NSA_6. ................................................ 43 ii Wicomico River Watershed Management Plan Figure 4. 4. Better site design and stormwater treatment reduce phosphorus loading (Caraco, 2001) .................................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 4. 5. Soil distribution across the South Prong subwatershed ....................................... 48 Figure 4. 6. (a) Bioretention opportunity at SP_RRI_15A; (b) sediment build-up in Ward Museum parking lot (SP_RRI_305A); and (c) existing wet pond at SP_RRI_17 could be retrofit to provide additional water quality treatment............................................................. 50 Figure 4. 7. (a) Opportunity for stormwater treatment at SP_NSA_15; (b) Opportunity for tree planting around a stormwater pond at SP_NSA_5; and (c) Opportunity for ditch restoration at SP_NSA_6 ........................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 4. 8. (a) Commercial vehicle washing on impervious cover (HSI_20a) and (b) improperly stored materials (HSI_20b) ................................................................................. 54 Figure 4. 9. (a) RCH 13 - "excellent reach" and (b) channelized section of RCH4 - "poor" reach..................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 4. 10. (a) Impacted buffer (IBI 701) has been overrun with invasive Japanese knotweed and (b) channel modification (CM 3101) at the airport.......................................................... 58 Figure 4. 11. (a) Very poor stream reach with no buffer and hardened banks (SP_RCH_8); (b) Excellent stream reach with floodplain access and good buffer (SP_RCH_33); and (c) Opportunity for buffer enhancement (SP_IB_501) ...............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of Maryland's Coastal Bays and Atlantic Ocean Finfish
    Investigation of Maryland’s Coastal Bays and Atlantic Ocean Finfish Stocks 2014 Final Report Prepared by: Linda Barker, Steve Doctor, Carrie Kennedy, Gary Tyler, Craig Weedon, and Angel Willey Federal Aid Project No. F-50-R-23 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Fish & Wildlife Service Division of Federal Assistance Region 5 Annual Report___X_____ Final Report (5-Year)_______ Proposal________ Grantee: Maryland Department of Natural Resources – Fisheries Service Grant No.: F-50-R Segment No.: 23 Title: Investigation of Maryland’s Coastal Bays and Atlantic Ocean Finfish Stocks Period Covered: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 Prepared By: Carrie Kennedy, Principal Investigator, Manager Coastal Program Date Approved By: Tom O’Connell, Director, Fisheries Service Date Approved By: Anissa Walker, Appointing Authority Date Date Submitted: May 30, 2015 ____________ Statutory Funding Authority: Sport Fish Restoration X CFDA #15.605 State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Cooperative Management Act CFDA #15.634 Acknowledgements The Coastal Bays Fisheries Investigation has been sampling fishes in the Coastal Bays for 42 years. Although the survey began in 1972, it did not have dedicated funding until 1989. Consistent funding allowed staff to specifically dedicate time and make improvements to the sampling protocol that resulted in significant beneficial contributions to the fisheries of the Coastal Bays. We would like to thank the past and present staff that dedicated their careers to the Coastal Bays Fisheries Investigation for having the knowledge, initiative, and dedication to get it started and maintained. Additionally, staff of the Coastal Fisheries Program would like to thank all of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Fisheries Service employees who assisted with the operations, field work, and annual reports over the years whether it was for a day or a few months.
    [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]
  • A Brief History of Worcester County (PDF)
    Contents Worcester’s Original Locals ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Native American Names ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 From Colony To Free State ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 A Divided Land: Civil War .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Storm Surges & Modern Times ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Our Historic Towns .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Berlin ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Ocean City .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Ocean Pines
    [Show full text]
  • Msa S1879 000004.Pdf
    I * t I t / ^ t J r i t I t i * t 8 i I8 s B roin 9 ro b 0 D z zi B m • o o X 8 X 9 m m o n o x 71 m 3 m o m o o c z I. Iz B s a D o 8 D ft M ft s CO a CO 3. o ^• • n O o c ft 3 4 < I c j z "11 ri 51 u > o l:! s n k !:i v Tl B -i en I o 03 S. 8 X in in m a U |'J f o < (i:) z 1 1 i> i o <: < T n n 71 it rr in g 8 o 8 M Q 5 Q q 3 O n CD (D -%O (Q <D «)' • o O o C 3 i ro i tlLlMiiMl lil.t > r w o O O c 10 H SL a o o o c 3 ofo 1996 OFFICE OF BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT BRIDGE INVE NTO BRIDGE NO. 21038 MD ROUTE 68 OVER ANTIETAM CREEK WASHINGTON COUNTY AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE - MO CHAPTER EXCELLENCE IN CONCRETE AWARD 1995 - 1996 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS - MD CHAPTER OUTSTANDING CIVIL ENGINEERING ACHIEVEMENT 1995 - 1996 Mary/and Department of Transportation STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION NOTES AND DEBNmOMS LEGEND DEHNFTION FOR A BRIDGE ANY STSUCTURE (BRIDGE , BOX CULVERT, BATTERT Of PIPES) THAT HAS A LENGTH GREATER THAN 20 FEET MEASURED ALONG THE CENTERUNE OF HIGHWAY. ACCMP AsphoHCeatod Comigatad MvtatPip* AG Aiuminum Gira«r DEFINrtlON OF SINGLE SINGLE STRUCTURE: ANY BRIDE WHICH CARRIES A SINGLE ROADWAY OR DUAL ROADWAY ON WHICH AND DUAL STRUCTURES: THE MEDIAN AREA IS CLOSED, SHALL BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE BRIDGE.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Piedmont Forests
    Spring 2009 Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities Robert Coxe Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities-Spring 2009 Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the contributions and help from the following people for this edition of the Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities. Karen Bennett, Greg Moore and Janet Dennis of the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Bill McAvoy of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program Dr. John Kartesz of the Biota of North America Program Dr. Keith Clancy and Pete Bowman, Ecologists, formerly of the Delaware Natural Heritage Program Ery Largay and Leslie Sneddon of Natureserve All people unmentioned who made countless contributions to this document. -Take me to the vegetation community keys- Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities-Spring 2009 Introduction The Guide to Delaware Vegetation Communities is intended to provide a Delaware flavor to the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). All common names of communities, except for those not in the NVCS, follow the NVCS. This document is designed for the web and CD only, but desired sections can be printed by users. In this matter, paper and therefore trees can be preserved and impacts to the communities discussed within can be minimized. In spirit of saving these communities please only print those community descriptions that you will use or print none at all. The State of Delaware covers 1,524,863.4 acres of which 1,231,393.6 acres are terrestrial and 293,469.8 acres are water (Table 1). Currently 130 vegetation communities are known to occur in Delaware. Some of the largest vegetation communities/land covers in the state include: Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Bays
    Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays Prepared by: Maryland Department of the Environment Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Division Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Wetland Program Development Grant CD 983378-01-1 December 2004 Table of Contents Priority Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 2 TARGETING........................................................................................................................................... 8 Wetlands and wetland loss......................................................................................................................10 Existing management plan goals ............................................................................................................32 Existing targeting efforts.........................................................................................................................36 Additional targeting considerations ........................................................................................................41 GIS data sources .....................................................................................................................................54 Summary of restoration targeting information - existing recommendations..........................................56 MDE restoration
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds.Pdf
    Watershed Code Watershed Name 02130705 Aberdeen Proving Ground 02140205 Anacostia River 02140502 Antietam Creek 02130102 Assawoman Bay 02130703 Atkisson Reservoir 02130101 Atlantic Ocean 02130604 Back Creek 02130901 Back River 02130903 Baltimore Harbor 02130207 Big Annemessex River 02130606 Big Elk Creek 02130803 Bird River 02130902 Bodkin Creek 02130602 Bohemia River 02140104 Breton Bay 02131108 Brighton Dam 02120205 Broad Creek 02130701 Bush River 02130704 Bynum Run 02140207 Cabin John Creek 05020204 Casselman River 02140305 Catoctin Creek 02130106 Chincoteague Bay 02130607 Christina River 02050301 Conewago Creek 02140504 Conococheague Creek 02120204 Conowingo Dam Susq R 02130507 Corsica River 05020203 Deep Creek Lake 02120202 Deer Creek 02130204 Dividing Creek 02140304 Double Pipe Creek 02130501 Eastern Bay 02141002 Evitts Creek 02140511 Fifteen Mile Creek 02130307 Fishing Bay 02130609 Furnace Bay 02141004 Georges Creek 02140107 Gilbert Swamp 02130801 Gunpowder River 02130905 Gwynns Falls 02130401 Honga River 02130103 Isle of Wight Bay 02130904 Jones Falls 02130511 Kent Island Bay 02130504 Kent Narrows 02120201 L Susquehanna River 02130506 Langford Creek 02130907 Liberty Reservoir 02140506 Licking Creek 02130402 Little Choptank 02140505 Little Conococheague 02130605 Little Elk Creek 02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 02131105 Little Patuxent River 02140509 Little Tonoloway Creek 05020202 Little Youghiogheny R 02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay 02130505 Lower Chester River 02130403 Lower Choptank 02130601 Lower
    [Show full text]
  • Bathymetric Survey of Assawoman Bay, St. Martin River, Sinepuxent Bay and Newport Bay
    Department of Natural Resources MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director COASTAL AND ESTUARINE GEOLOGY FILE REPORT NO. 01-2 Bathymetric Survey of Assawoman Bay, St. Martin River, Sinepuxent Bay and Newport Bay by Darlene V. Wells and Richard A. Ortt, Jr. Submitted to Fisheries Services Department of Natural Resources in fulfillment of Contract #AR-00-020 Draft June 2001 Bathymetric Survey of Assawoman Bay, St. Martin River, Sinepuxent Bay and Newport Bay Executive Summary The Maryland Geological Survey, under contract with Fisheries Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resource, conducted hydrographic surveys in Assawoman Bay, St. Martin River, Sinepuxent Bay and Newport Bay. The purpose of the study was to provide a consistent bathymetry data set that may be used in other scientific studies. The hydrographic surveys were collected in May and June 2000, using differential global positioning service (DGPS) techniques and digital dual-frequency echo sounding equipment. Hydrographic survey lines were spaced 200 meters apart and extended from shore to shore. Five hundred kilometers of hydrographic records were surveyed and over 500,000 discrete soundings were recorded. In addition to the hydrographic surveys, water level data were collected at 10 different sites within the study area. The water level data were used to correct the echo sounding data for tide and wind offsets. Sounding depths were adjusted to North America Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and are listed in ASCII XYZ (northing, easting, depth) format. Location coordinates are in UTM, NAD83. The adjusted sounding data were used to generate 10-meter, regularly spaced grids for the four sub-basin areas and bathymetry (depth contour) map were created from the gridded data.
    [Show full text]
  • Assawoman Wildlife Area Sussex County, Delaware
    Historical Analysis and Map of Vegetation Communities, Land Covers, and Habitats of Assawoman Wildlife Area Sussex County, Delaware Little Assawoman Bay and Indian River Bay Watersheds Submitted to: Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife 4876 Hay Point Landing Road Smyrna, DE 19977 Completed by: Robert Coxe, Ecologist Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Wildlife Section, Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control 4876 Hay Point Landing Road Smyrna, DE 19977 July 12, 2012 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction and Methods ............................................................................................. 4 Setting of Assawoman Wildlife Area ......................................................................................... 4 History and Formation of Assawoman Wildlife Area ................................................................ 5 Early History of the Land ....................................................................................................... 5 Formation of Assawoman Wildlife Area ................................................................................ 5 Soils and Geology of Assawoman Wildlife Area ....................................................................... 6 Underlying Geology................................................................................................................ 6 Soil .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE FLOODS of MARCH 1936 Part 1
    If you do jno*-Be <l this report after it has served your purpose, please return it to the Geolocical -"" Survey, using the official mailing label at the end UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR THE FLOODS OF MARCH 1936 Part 1. NEW ENGLAND RIVERS Prepared in cooperation withihe FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 798 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 798 THS^LOODS OF MARCH 1936 PART 1. NEW ENGLAND RIVERS NATHAN C. GROVER Chief Hydraulic Engineer Prepared in cooperation with the FEDERAL EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATION OF PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1937 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 70 cents CONTENTS Page Abstract............................................................. 1 Introduction......................................................... 2 Authorization........................................................ 5 Administration and personnel......................................... 5 Acknowledgments...................................................... 6 General features of the storms....................................... 7 Floods of the New England rivers....................................o 12 Meteorologic and hydrologic conditions............................... 25 Precipitation records............................................ 25 General f>!-................................................... 25 Distr<* '-utlon
    [Show full text]
  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Lakes with an Asterisk * Do Not Have Depth Information and Appear with Improvised Contour Lines County Information Is for Reference Only
    IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Lakes with an asterisk * do not have depth information and appear with improvised contour lines County information is for reference only. Your lake will not be split up by county. The whole lake will be shown unless specified next to name eg (Northern Section) (Near Follette) etc. LAKE NAME COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY Great Lakes GL Lake Erie Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Port of Toledo) Great Lakes GL Lake Erie (Western Basin) Great Lakes GL Lake Huron Great Lakes GL Lake Huron (w West Lake Erie) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (Northeast) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (South) Great Lakes GL Lake Michigan (w Lake Erie and Lake Huron) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Rochester Area) Great Lakes GL Lake Ontario (Stoney Pt to Wolf Island) Great Lakes GL Lake Superior Great Lakes GL Lake Superior (w Lake Michigan and Lake Huron) Great Lakes GL Lake St Clair Great Lakes GL (MI) Great Lakes Cedar Creek Reservoir AL Deerwood Lake Franklin AL Dog River Shelby AL Gantt Lake Mobile AL Goat Rock Lake * Covington AL (GA) Guntersville Lake Lee Harris (GA) AL Highland Lake * Marshall Jackson AL Inland Lake * Blount AL Jordan Lake Blount AL Lake Gantt * Elmore AL Lake Jackson * Covington AL (FL) Lake Martin Covington Walton (FL) AL Lake Mitchell Coosa Elmore Tallapoosa AL Lake Tuscaloosa Chilton Coosa AL Lake Wedowee (RL Harris Reservoir) Tuscaloosa AL Lay Lake Clay Randolph AL Lewis Smith Lake * Shelby Talladega Chilton Coosa AL Logan Martin Lake Cullman Walker Winston AL Mobile Bay Saint Clair Talladega AL Ono Island Baldwin Mobile AL Open Pond * Baldwin AL Orange Beach East Covington AL Bon Secour River and Oyster Bay Baldwin AL Perdido Bay Baldwin AL (FL) Pickwick Lake Baldwin Escambia (FL) AL (TN) (MS) Pickwick Lake (Northern Section, Pickwick Dam to Waterloo) Colbert Lauderdale Tishomingo (MS) Hardin (TN) AL (TN) (MS) Shelby Lakes Colbert Lauderdale Tishomingo (MS) Hardin (TN) AL Tallapoosa River at Fort Toulouse * Baldwin AL Walter F.
    [Show full text]