DOCSLIB.ORG

Bennett Creek Watershed Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bennett Creek Watershed Assessment BENNETT CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT March 20, 2008 Bennett Creek Watershed Assessment ABSTRACT The Bennett Creek Watershed, which is a subwatershed of the Lower Monocacy Basin, was the fourth watershed to be selected for a retrofit assessment by the Frederick County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit program. The first part of the assessment involved gathering all available information on the condition of the watershed. The next step involved using this data to rank the fifteen Bennett Creek subwatersheds in order of priority for restoration. Stressors were then identified at random and targeted site locations throughout the watershed by using a series of logical steps based on the US EPA Stressor Identification Guidance Document. Impairments were evaluated, candidate causes of impairment were described, relationships between causes, stressors and biotic conditions were assessed, and probable stressors were identified based on strength of evidence. Stressors varied among subwatersheds, but nutrient enrichment and habitat degradation were the most commonly cited candidate causes of impairment, followed by excessive sediment and turbidity. The next phase of this analysis will involve identifying priority restoration sites and recommending projects to reverse, prevent, or slow stream and watershed degradation. Effectiveness of stressor reduction projects and best management practices will be evaluated by the county based on monitoring the stressors they are designed to control (sediment, water temperature, nutrients). Effectiveness of the overall watershed management will be evaluated based on the overall biological condition of the watershed as monitored through continued probabilistic sampling. Tetra Tech, Inc. ii Bennett Creek Watershed Assessment Table of Contents ABSTRACT 1. WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................1 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................1 1.2 Bennett Creek Watershed Overview ..............................................................1 2. STRESSOR SOURCE INVENTORY......................................................................14 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................14 2.1.1 Response indicators (biological) ................................................................14 2.1.2 Stressor indicators (physical, chemical, hydrologic, biological) .............15 2.1. Source indicators (land use/land cover, NPDES permits, other) .............17 2.2. Spatial and temporal distribution of data ..................................................18 2.3. Data sufficiency .............................................................................................19 3. IDENTIFICATION OF STRESSORS .....................................................................38 3.1. Methods ..........................................................................................................38 3.1.1. Stressor Identification Process....................................................38 3.1.2. Data Analysis ................................................................................39 3.2. Results and Discussion .................................................................................41 3.2.1. Description of Impairment ..........................................................41 3.2.2. Conceptual Model/Candidate Causes ........................................42 3.2.3. Correlation Analyses ...................................................................44 3.2.3.1. Bennett Creek ..................................................................44 3.2.3.2. Northern Piedmont .........................................................47 4. PLEASANT BRANCH – STRESSOR IDENTIFICATION .................................49 4.1. Description of Impairment ...........................................................................49 4.2. Conceptual Model/Candidate Causes .........................................................49 4.3. Analysis of Evidence–Associating candidate causes ..................................49 4.4. Characterization of Causes ..........................................................................50 4.4.1. Elimination of candidate causes .................................................50 4.4.2. Strength of evidence .....................................................................50 4.4.3. Identification of probable causes ................................................50 4.5. Summary of Results ......................................................................................52 5. BENNETT CK – UPPER MAINSTEM – STRESSOR IDENTIFICATION .....79 5.1. Description of Impairment ...........................................................................79 5.2. Conceptual Model/Candidate Causes .........................................................79 5.3. Analysis of Evidence–Associating candidate causes ..................................79 5.4. Characterization of Causes ..........................................................................80 5.4.1. Elimination of candidate causes .................................................80 5.4.2. Strength of evidence .....................................................................80 5.4.3. Identification of probable causes ................................................80 5.5. Summary of Results .....................................................................................81 6. FAHRNEY – STRESSOR IDENTIFICATION .....................................................99 6.1. Description of Impairment ...........................................................................99 6.2. Conceptual Model/Candidate Causes .........................................................99 6.3. Analysis of Evidence – Associating candidate causes: Fahrney (east) .....99 6.4. Characterization of Causes: Fahrney (east) .............................................100 6.4.1. Elimination of candidate causes ...............................................100 Tetra Tech, Inc. iii Bennett Creek Watershed Assessment 6.4.2. Strength of evidence ...................................................................100 6.4.3. Identification of probable causes ..............................................100 6.5. Analysis of Evidence – Associating candidate causes: Fahrney (west) ..103 6.6. Characterization of Causes: Fahrney (west) ............................................103 6.6.1. Elimination of candidate causes ...............................................103 6.6.2. Strength of evidence ...................................................................104 6.6.3. Identification of probable causes ..............................................104 6.7. Summary of Results ....................................................................................105 7. MONOCACY DIRECT – NORTH - STRESSOR IDENTIFICATION ............138 7.1. Description of Impairment .........................................................................138 7.2. Conceptual Model/Candidate Causes .......................................................138 7.3. Analysis of Evidence – Associating candidate causes ..............................138 7.4. Characterization of Causes ........................................................................139 7.4.1. Elimination of candidate causes ...............................................139 7.4.2. Strength of evidence ...................................................................139 7.4.3. Identification of probable causes ..............................................139 7.5. Summary of Results ...................................................................................141 8. LITTLE BENNETT – STRESSOR IDENTIFICATION ....................................160 8.1. Description of Impairment .........................................................................160 8.2. Conceptual Model/Candidate Causes .......................................................160 8.3. Analysis of Evidence – Associating candidate causes ..............................160 8.4. Characterization of Causes ........................................................................161 8.4.1. Elimination of candidate causes ...............................................161 8.4.2. Strength of evidence ...................................................................161 8.4.3. Identification of probable causes ..............................................161 8.5. Summary of Results ...................................................................................162 9. BENNETT MIDDLE MAINSTEM– STRESSOR IDENTIFICATION ............177 9.1. Description of Impairment .........................................................................177 9.2. Conceptual Model/Candidate Causes .......................................................177 9.3. Analysis of Evidence – Associating candidate causes ..............................177 9.4. Characterization of Causes ........................................................................177 9.4.1. Elimination of candidate causes ...............................................177 9.4.2. Strength of evidence ...................................................................178 9.4.3. Identification of probable causes ..............................................178 9.5. Summary of Results ...................................................................................178
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Dickerson Biking Trail
    THE DICKERSON BIKING TRAIL 摰摦 周畲獤慹Ⱐ乯癥浢敲′〬′〰㠠㌺ㄸ㨴㠠偍 THE DICKERSON BIKING TRAIL Bicycling through the Farmer’s World of 1895 This cycle tour recaptures some of the daily practices and customs of a farming community at the end of the 19th century. It visits farmsteads and the sites of social and commercial establishments that were part of the farm family’s life in and around Dickerson in 185. While the urban centers of this period were enjoying such technological innovations as electric lights and indoor plumbing, the farmer’s personal lifestyle had changed little since the mid-century. Not until electric power reached farther into the rural areas, arriving in Dickerson in 1928, did indoor plumbing facilities for farm homes become prevalent; the cast iron water pump and the now-legendary outhouse were still common rural fixtures. The farmer’s house, illuminated by gas or oil lamps, glowed much the same as homes half a century earlier. The major changes in the community had been in farming practices and transportation. While the farmer’s personal habits and manners had changed little from those of his immediate ancestors, reapers, threshers and self-propelled steam engines, along with better systems of fertilization and crop rotation, had allowed him to realize harvests unimaginable to his father. And the new railroad, the Metropolitan Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, which came through in 1873, gave him a quick, efficient way to get them to market. Running 41 miles from Washington to its junction with the old Main Line at Point of Rocks, the railroad had provided construction jobs for local day laborers and handymen and then maintenance work along the right- of-way, and white-collar jobs on the trains and in the many stationhouses.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Guidelines Draft Updates – Work Session
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION MCPB Item No. 9 Date: 07/01/2021 Environmental Guidelines Draft Updates – Work Session Mark Symborski, Planner Coordinator, Countywide Planning and Policy, [email protected], 301-495-4636 Jason Sartori, Chief, Countywide Planning and Policy, [email protected], 301-495-2172 Completed: 06/24/2021 Summary In accordance with the scope approved last year by the Planning Board, staff have prepared limited draft updates to the Environmental Guidelines to incorporate the requirements of the Approved and Adopted 10 Mile Creek Master Plan Amendment to the Clarksburg Master Plan, the Clarksburg East and Clarksburg West Overlay Zones, the 10 Mile Creek Special Protection Area, technical updates to reflect local and State changes approved since the last update in 2000, and redrafted figures. On June 3, 2021 the Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the proposed updates to the Environmental Guidelines. Planning staff have compiled the comments received since the Public Hearing along with staff responses below. Since the Public Hearing staff have also identified some additional minor clarifications to improve the Guidelines. Attachment 1 contains the red markup version of the Environmental Guidelines showing the draft updates from the June 3, 2021Public Hearing. Attachment 2 contains additional clarifications (in blue font) to the proposed updates to the Environmental Guidelines since the June 3, 2021 Public Hearing and Staff Memo. After approval, the updates will be consolidated into a revised document that will be finalized by the Planning Department’s Communications team for posting on the Department website.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Slave Quarters Poolesville Proposes Diversity Council
    July 31, 2020 A Biweekly Newspaper July 31, 2020 • Volume XVI, Number 9 Poolesville Proposes COVID-19 Father O’Reilly (driver) was not going By Link Hoewing to be the first priest in 145 years to not Diversity Council Testing Alert host St. Mary’s annual barbequed Ed Reed, a counselor in the school Commissioner Dickerson said the The Montgomery County Health chicken picnic. See Family Album on system who has been leading a series town had to figure out, if it created Department will conduct COVID-19 page 2. of community discussions about racial such a council, how to ensure that it testing on Saturday, August 15 at inequity in the wake of the June 12 has a wide range of voices. “We don’t the Poolesville Baptist Church, protest in town, said he wanted to want to just have people who all agree 17550 West Willard Road. On publicly praise the young students on everything,” but she said she was August 7, details on how to sign who organized the peaceful protest on board for doing something. up for a test will be posted on and have been working on ideas to Commissioner Klobukowski pointed the Town of Poolesville’s website strengthen Poolesville and improve to the role he felt the churches could and facebook page, and on the dialog and understanding. He said he play and wanted to reach out to get Town of Poolesville Community and those working on a series of “com- more input about the idea and how to Information facebook page. munity conversations” would like to structure it.
    [Show full text]
  • Rustic Roads Functional Master Plan
    Approved and Adopted Rustic Roads Functional Master Plan December 1 996 The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission The Montgomery County Department of Park and Planning 8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3760 RUSTIC ROADS FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN Abstract Title Approved and Adopted Rustic Roads Functional Master Plan Author The Montgomery County Department of Park and Planning The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Subject Master Plan for the Rustic Roads of Montgomery County Date December 1996 Planning Agency The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3760 Source of Copies The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3760 Number of Pages 258 Abstract This document contains the text, with supporting maps and tables, for the Approved and Adopted Rustic Roads Functional Master Plan of Montgomery County. This document recommends identification and classi­ fication of 66 Rustic Roads, of which 12 are exceptional. In addition, the entire master-planned roadway network included in the Study Area is rec­ ommended for reclassification to a network appropriate for the rural area of Montgomery County. ii APPROVED & ADOPTED December 1996 RUSTIC ROADS FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN Certificate of Approval and Adoption This Amendment to the Master Plan of Highways within Montgomery County, as amended; the Master Plan of Bikeways, 1978, as amended; the Functional Master Plan for the Preservation of Agriculture and Rural Open Space, 1980, as amended; the Boyds Master Plan, 1985, as amended; the Damascus Master Plan, 1985, as amended; the Master Plan for the Potomac Subregion, 1980, as amended; and, the Olney Master Plan, 1980, as amended; has been approved by the Montgomery County Council, sitting as the District Council, by Resolution No.
    [Show full text]
  • An Aerial Radiological Survey of the Neutron Products Company and Surrounding Area
    CLEGCG THE ^ENERGY MEASUREMENTS REMOTE SENSING EGG 11265-1081 LABORATORY UC-702 OPERATED FOR THE U.S. DECEMBER 1994 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BY EG&G/EM «"•• AN AERIAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE NEUTRON PRODUCTS COMPANY AND SURROUNDING AREA DICKERSON, MARYLAND DATE OF SURVEY: NOVEMBER 1993 taftaimoK or THIS OOCUMEST IS UKLIIBITBJ DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. J} BSaS EGG 11265-1081 ENERGY MEASUREMENTS DECEMBER 1994 AN AERIAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE NEUTRON PRODUCTS COMPANY AND SURROUNDING AREA DICKERSON, MARYLAND DATE OF SURVEY: NOVEMBER 1993 R. J. Vojtech Project Scientist REVIEWED BY . W. Clark, Jr., Manager %£• Radiation Science Section This Document is UNCLASSIFIED 1 C. IC Mitchell Classification Officer This work was performed by EG&G/EM for the United States Department of Energy and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under Contract Number DE-AC08-93NV11265.
    [Show full text]
  • Anderson Property Site Analysis
    ANDERSON PROPERTY SITE ANALYSIS Introduction The Montgomery County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) initiated a feasibility study in the fall of 2012 to evaluate the need for transit service expansion to the existing Boyds MARC Station on Clopper Road in Boyds, Maryland. The study area is shown in Figure 1. Due to future development, MCDOT’s Ride On service may expand in the future to Clarksburg and would provide service to the Boyds MARC station, Clarksburg’s closest station. The Boyds MARC Station Project was initiated as a result of a request from the Boyds Civic Association for greater frequency of stops of the MARC Brunswick line at the Boyds station. The Boyds Transit Improvements Feasibility Study, November 2015 summarized existing conditions, identified goals for the station to meet the expanded service request, evaluated potential sites, and recommended the improvements that could accommodate the projected expansion needs. After the completion of the feasibility study, one of the adjacent sites considered for the improvements (Anderson Property) has become available for purchase, see Figure 2, sites 7 and 9. As a result, a concept layout was developed to provide bus access and additional parking for the existing Boyds MARC station on these two adjacent sites. This site analysis will briefly summarize existing conditions, identify the goals developed in the feasibility study for the station to meet the expanded service request, evaluate the feasibility of the Anderson Property. FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA N:\31681-018\Engineering\Reports\Anderson Property Site Analysis 2017.04.05.docx March 2017 Page 2 31681-018 Existing Conditions The Boyds MARC station is along the Maryland Transit Administration’s MARC Brunswick line.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Bridge Inventory Summary
    Montgomery County Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Engineering Transportation Planning and Design Section 2015 BRIDGE INVENTORY SUMMARY OCTOBER 2016 COVER PHOTOGRAPH: VALLEY ROAD BRIDGE NO. M-0111 OVER BOOZE CREEK – ELEVATION VIEW Bridge Inventory Summary (Based on 2015 Inspection) Montgomery County, Maryland Department of Transportation Division of Transportation Engineering Transportation Planning and Design Section 100 Edison Park Drive, Fourth Floor Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878 COUNTY EXECUTIVE Isiah Leggett COUNTY COUNCIL Nancy Floreen, President Roger Berliner Marc Elrich Tom Hucker Sidney Katz George Leventhal Nancy Navarro Hans Riemer Craig Rice DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Al Roshdieh, Director DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Bruce E. Johnston, P.E., Chief TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND DESIGN SECTION Timothy H. Cupples, P.E., Chief Barry N. Fuss, P.E., Chief Bridge Design Brian E. Copley, P.E. Hai-Yan Zhang, P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................................1 BRIDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY ......................................................................................1 A. Biennial Bridge Inspections...........................................................................................................................................3 B. Bridge Inventory ...........................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Montgomery County Heritage Area Management Plan
    MontgomeryMontgomery CountyCounty HeritageHeritage AreaArea ManagementManagement PlanPlan Prepared for the Montgomery County Heritage Area Advisory Committee x Prepared by Mary Means & Associates, Inc. with Economics Research Associates, Inc. and Mahan Rykiel Associates October 2002 Title Page 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 7 Montgomery County’s Heritage 8 Heritage Area Boundary 11 Vision & Goals 13 Resources 15 Challenges 18 Markets & Visitation 19 Marketing & Outreach 22 Heritage Resource Conservation & Enhancement 25 Interpretation & Education 28 2 Circulation, Transportation & Linkages 32 Target Investment Zones 33 Poolesville 34 Sandy Spring 40 Implementation 46 Return on Investment 57 Endnotes 62 Appendix A: State of Maryland Heritage Areas Program 63 Appendix B: Heritage Area Resource Inventory 64 Appendix C: Zoning & Land Use 77 Appendix D: Baseline Data 79 Appendix E: Target Investment Zones Supplemental Information 81 Appendix F: Criteria for Tax Credit Expansion 85 Credits 87 Executive Summary In a region known for the high energy, high Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) education levels, and hard, long working hours of its and assistance from a consultant team of heritage citizens, it is important that leisure activities planners, market analysts, and designers. Advisory provide both a respite for the spirit and intellectual group meetings have been lively and interactive, as stimulation. In an area with residents from many have the several public workshops held during the backgrounds, countries,
    [Show full text]
  • Liiiiiii^ Liiiiiiii^^
    . R. FIELD SHEET Form 10-300 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STATE: (Dec. 1968) 'NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MARYLAND COUNTY: NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ALLIGAKY INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR NPS USE ONLY ENTRY NUMBER DATE (Type all entries — complete applicable sections) liiiiiii^ COMMON: G & 0 CANAL AND/OR HISTORIC: 0 & 0 CANAL liiiiiiii^^ STREET AND NUMBER: !• .,.,,. -r ^.... V^A-l .-. -f - » - .... .. -», CITY OR TOWNl Washlngt©nr P.0» t© Cumberland, Md. (Western Terminus) STATE " CODE COUNTY: CODE D.C. t© (ftimt)6l£L*na,MA.. 21502 A13.egany {iiiiiiiiiii^ ACCESSIBLE CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS (Check One) TO THE PUBLIC,- z District | | Building [~] Public ^ Public Acquisition: Occupied [ 1 Yes: o Site Q Structure Q Privote Q In Process [H) Unoccupied Q' Restricted Q? , _, Both r~l Being Considered [ 1 Preservation work Unrestricted [~~| Object LJ • in progress |~j{ No: D u PRESENT USE (Check One or More as Appropriate) ID Agricultural Q* Government £t] Park [Xj Transportation Q Comments [~7 Commercial Q* Industrial - Q Private Residence CD Other (Specify) Q h- Educational C? Military Q Religious Q Entertainment ["3|C Museum [ | Scientific | | ..........~. ....... - -z; ^P^^^^il^^^^^S^M^i^ OWNERS NAME: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (National Monument) UJ STREET AND NUMBER: LLJ CITY OR TOWN: STATE CODE Washing ten 6i>. d. STATE: COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS. ETC: Al^ega^ny - G©unty ~ 0©ur th©us e ( We a tern Terminus ) STREET AMD NUMBER: Washington Street . , , - ... ., -. ._ . - . CITY OR TOWN: STATE CODE TV:COUN Cumberland Mairyland. 21 60S APPROXIMATE ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY: TITLE OF SURVEY: -, - DATE OF SURVEY: Federal f~| State n County H| Local 3 NUMBERfeNTRY DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS: Tl O •z.70 STREET AND NUMBER: T3 cn C CO CITY OR TOWN: STATE CODE m O DATE rz -< /! / ^ / f ^ .
    [Show full text]
  • SHA's Historic Bridge Inventory 1809-1947 Introduction
    SHA’s Historic Bridge Inventory 1809-1947 Introduction In 1995, the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) joined with the Maryland Historical Trust (MD SHPO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to inventory Maryland’s state, county and city highway bridges as part of SHA’s cultural resources initiative. Through that process, 855 bridges constructed between 1809 and 1947 were identified as historic resources. Based on the National Register of Historic Places’ Criteria for Evaluation, 415 bridges were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The eligibility determination for each bridge was completed on July 27, 2001 based on consultation between SHA and the MD SHPO. The reader should be aware that the bridges listed below represent the results of data collection for a specific activity at SHA. They are intended to be used for general planning purposes and general information purposes only. For a number of reasons it may be necessary to change an eligibility determination for an historic bridge; and SHA continues to consult with MD SHPO regarding these decisions. Final determinations of eligibility can be found in the records of MD SHPO. The bridge list is arranged first by county and then alphabetically by town. Each bridge is named, and while many names are the route number, e.g., US 40 over the Patapsco River, others have formal names, e.g., Blue Bridge, which is MD 942 over the North Branch of the Potomac River. The location of each bridge identifies the body of water or railroad that the bridge crosses. Each bridge has a number; the county bridges are identified by the alpha-numeric system, while the SHA bridges are noted numerically.
    [Show full text]
  • Montgomery County
    2014 Calendar Year HIGHWAY LOCATION REFERENCE ALL INTERSECTIONS Data as of December 31, 2014 MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHA DISTRICT #3 MO STATEWIDE GRID MAP KEY LEGEND C10C C10D 95 Interstate Highway D9B D10A D10B D11A D9C D9D D10C D10D D11C BG27 1 US Highway BG80 E9A E9B E10A E10B E11A E11B E9C E9D E10C E10D E11C E11D Y 8 State Highway T D F10A F10B F11A F11B N R OU The information in these maps is provided as a public service C F10D F11C by the Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA). ICK BG108 ER NOTICE ED FR BG355 Restriction of Liability: D BG124 SHA makes no claims, promises or guarantees about R E the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents 270 G D BG109 I of these maps and expressly disclaims liability for any errors D AD D R A E M AS and omissions in the contents of these documents. For R CUS H D O more detailed maps, please contact: Kevin Powers of the N U MD 121-A W W 650 Data Services Engineering Division at 410-545-5518 or H BG A O F by email at [email protected]. O R R D R D E D D L D O F E 108 BG97 I BG C R E I L O BARNESVILLE C K D U 28 N BG R T 121 D R D BG Y R BG27 D BG109 LAYTONSVILLE E O 650 L L BG L N I EY V S L L MONTGOMERY L A AY VILLAGE TO BE N BROOKEVILLE 355 S BG118 BG BG124 V I L BG117 L BG117 BG108 E R D BG124 BG28 BG108 BG117 BG115 D BG108 109 A BG R N GAITHERSBURG 107 BG E 119 E POOLESVILLE S BG 200 650 BG V BG T O A W BG182 N 370 R BG200 D BG124 AD270 AD BG97 BG107 BG118 BG28 BG198 0/29 115 BG N 650 BG198 BG E 28 W BG MD 899 A BG355 I MD 899-A G 28 BG28 R BG200 BG O E BG112 G BG182 H BG586
    [Show full text]