DOCSLIB.ORG

Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 ACTION

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 ACTION Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 ACTION - 8 Endorsement of Design Plans for the Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements Project from Jeff Todd Way to Sherwood Hall Lane (Lee and Mount Vernon Districts) ISSUE: Board endorsement of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Design Public Hearing plans for the 3.1-mile Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements Project between Jeff Todd Way/Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and Sherwood Hall Lane. The purpose of the project is to increase capacity, safety, and mobility for all users. Improvements include widening Richmond Highway from four to six lanes; reserving the median for the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system; replacing structures over Dogue Creek, Little Hunting Creek, and the North Fork of Dogue Creek; intersection improvements; sidewalks; and two-way cycle tracks on both sides of the road. RECOMMENDATION: The County Executive recommends that the Board endorse the design plans for the Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements project administered by VDOT as generally presented at the March 26, 2019, Design Public Hearing and authorize the Director of FCDOT to transmit the Board’s endorsement to VDOT (Attachment I). TIMING: The Board should take action on this matter on July 30, 2019, to allow VDOT to proceed with final design plans and enter the Right-of-Way (ROW) phase in late 2019 to keep the project on schedule. BACKGROUND: In 1994, the Virginia General Assembly directed VDOT to perform a centerline design study of the 27-mile Route 1 corridor between the Stafford County line and the Capital Beltway. There was a continuation of the Centerline Study in 1996 and 1998. The study divided the corridor into three segments: Project A-Stafford County Line to Route 123; Project B-Route 123 to Armistead Road; and Project C-Belvoir Woods Parkway to the Capital Beltway. Project C encompasses the limits of the Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements project between Jeff Todd Way and Sherwood Hall Lane. While the Commonwealth Transportation Board selected centerline locations for Project A in 2004 and Project B in 2006, the centerline location for Project C remained unresolved. By 2009, the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan was amended to recommend six lanes on the northern portion of Project C along Richmond Highway between Mount Vernon Memorial Highway/Jeff Todd Way and the Capital Beltway without specifying the 346 Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 centerline location. In 2013 and 2014, the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) conducted a multimodal study of the 16-mile Richmond Highway corridor in Fairfax County. Several alternatives were studied included curb-running BRT, median-running BRT, light rail transit, and a hybrid median-running BRT with a Metrorail extension between Huntington Metrorail Station to Hybla Valley. The DRPT published the Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives study in 2015 and recommended pursuing median-running BRT in the near term with a Metrorail extension from Huntington to Hybla Valley in the long term. The Board endorsed this recommendation in May 2015. Subsequently, multiple County departments implemented the recommendations of the Route 1 Multimodal Alternatives study. Fairfax County commenced the Embark Comprehensive Plan Amendment (PA 2015-IV-MV1) to assess and refine the recommendations in the DRPT study between Huntington Metrorail Station and Fort Belvoir, which included a consistent six lane section of Richmond Highway. The Embark Comprehensive Plan covers the land use densities and mix for the areas within one-half mile of radius of the proposed BRT stations, corridor wide transportation systems, urban design, public facilities, and other elements supportive of BRT. The widening of this section of Richmond Highway from four to six lanes is included in Fairfax County’s Comprehensive Plan 2018 Edition (as amended) for Transportation. The Board of Supervisors included funding for the project as part of the County’s Four- Year Transportation Program, and Transportation Priorities Plan (collectively FY2013- FY2020). This project has long been a part of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (the Region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization) Constrained Long Range Plan and the Transportation Improvement Plan. In addition to being included in this regional plan, the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority’s regional transportation plan (TransAction) also includes the project. In addition, this project is included in VDOT’s VTrans2040 Vision Plan and Needs Assessment adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in late 2015. PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS: In accordance with the Code of the Commonwealth of Virginia and policies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, a Design Public Hearing was held on Tuesday, March 26, 2019. Approximately 230 members of the public attended the Design Public Hearing. A total of 324 individuals or organizations provided written, emailed, or oral comments during the open comment period which was extended 30 days after the hearing. Of the 324 who provided comments, 289 members of the public provided technical comments seeking to improve the project. There were also 26 comments which were direct statements of support for the project and nine comments in opposition. A copy of the 347 Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 public hearing brochure is attached (Attachment 2). Through the public hearing process and County staff review of the project design plans, and recommends that VDOT incorporate the following major design features into the design of the project: 1. Two-Way Cycle Tracks: Within the proposed 178-foot right-of-way width for Richmond Highway, this project should construct two-way cycle tracks on both sides of Richmond Highway. Each cycle track should be eight feet in width to accommodate two-way cyclist traffic. 2. BRT Transitway Bridges: a. Little Hunting Creek: The VDOT project should design and construct the BRT transitway bridge over Little Hunting Creek. There are multiple benefits of having the VDOT project accomplish this task instead of FCDOT, including reducing difficulties relating to constructability (e.g., narrow lateral width) and temporary traffic control (e.g., fewer disruptions to normal traffic patterns). The BRT project will compensate the VDOT project for the cost of BRT transitway bridge. b. North Fork of Dogue Creek: Whether VDOT pursues a continuous culvert design or a bridge design, the VDOT project should design and build the transitway structure at this location. 3. Proposed Traffic Signal – U.S. Post Office Entrance/ Wyngate Manor Court: The County supports the construction of a new traffic signal along Richmond Highway at the U.S. Post Office entrance. A traffic signal at this location will help accommodate safe passage of pedestrians across Richmond Highway, improve accessibility for motorists between the half-mile section of Richmond Highway between Lukens Lane and Frye Road, assist emergency vehicle access, and improve access to the U.S. Post Office. 4. Pedestrian Underpasses: a. Little Hunting Creek: The project should design and construct a pedestrian underpass underneath Richmond Highway at the Little Hunting Creek bridge between north Buckman Road and Ladson Lane. The pedestrian underpass will offer another option to cross Richmond Highway without waiting for a traffic signal and without conflicts with motorists or buses. VDOT created an online survey to assess public reaction to a pedestrian underpass concept at this location which gathered 381 responses. Approximately 58% of those surveyed indicated they would use a pedestrian underpass at Little Hunting Creek. On June 11, 2019, FCDOT and VDOT staff met with the New Gum Springs Civic Association regarding the pedestrian underpass at Little Hunting Creek. 348 Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 The New Gum Springs Civic Association does not support this underpass. b. Dogue Creek: The project should design and construct a pedestrian underpass underneath Richmond Highway at the Dogue Creek bridge between Jeff Todd Way and Sacramento Drive. There is no traffic signal for the half-mile section of Richmond Highway between Jeff Todd Way and Sacramento Drive. The pedestrian underpass will offer the option of crossing Richmond Highway between these two traffic signals without conflicts with motorists or buses. The VDOT online survey also gathered 381 responses for this location. Approximately 59% of those surveyed indicated they would use a pedestrian underpass at Dogue Creek. PROJECT SCHEDULE: The current schedule is as follows: ∑ Design Public Hearing – March 26, 2019 ∑ Begin Right-of-Way Acquisition – Winter 2019/2020 ∑ Utility Relocation – Winter 2020/2021 ∑ Begin Construction – Summer 2023 ∑ Complete Construction – 2026 FISCAL IMPACT: None. Of the $372 million estimated project cost, the County has allocated over $177.8 million in funding for the project from regional, state, federal, and local sources. ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS: Attachment 1: Letter for transmitting Board Endorsement of Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements Project Attachment 2: March 26, 2019, Design Public Hearing Brochure STAFF: Rachel Flynn, Deputy County Executive Tom Biesiadny, Director, Fairfax County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) Eric Teitelman, Chief, Capital Projects and Traffic Engineering Division, FCDOT Michael J. Guarino, Chief, Capital Projects Section (CPS), FCDOT Vanessa Aguayo, CPS, FCDOT Ajmal ‘AJ’ Hamidi, CPS, FCDOT Andrew G. Beacher, Preliminary Engineering Manager, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Dan Reinhard,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!
    American Council of Engineering Companies of Metropolitan Washington Water & Wastewater Business Opportunities Networking Luncheon Presented by Matthew Doyle, Branch Chief, Wastewater Design and Construction Division Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You! A Fairfax County, VA, publication August 20, 2019 Introduction • Matt Doyle, PE, CCM • Working as a Civil Engineer at Fairfax County, DPWES • BSCE West Virginia University • MSCE Johns Hopkins University • 25 years in the industry (Mid‐Atlantic Only) • Adjunct Hydraulics Professor at GMU • Director GMU‐EFID (Student Organization) Presentation Objectives • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization (Staff) • Snapshot of our Current Projects • New Opportunities To work with DPWES • Use of Technologies and Trends • Helpful Hyperlinks Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Wastewater Collection System • 3,400 Miles of Sanitary Sewer (Average Age 60 years old) • 61 Pumping Stations (flow ranges are from 25 GPM to 25 MGD) • 90 Flow Meters (Mostly billing meters) • 135 Grinder pumps • Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant • Noman M. Cole Pollution Control Plant, Lorton • 67 MGD • Laboratory • Reclaimed Water Reuse System • 6.6 MGD • 2 Pump Stations • 0.750 MG Storage Tank • Level 1 Compliance • Convanta, Golf Course and Ball Fields Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization • Wastewater Management Program (Three Areas) – Planning & Monitoring: • Financial,
    [Show full text]
  • Belle Haven, Dogue Creek and Four Mile Run
    1 Introduction to Watersheds A watershed is an area of land that drains all of its water to a specific lake or river. As rainwater and melting snow run downhill, they carry sediment and other materials into our streams, lakes, wetlands and groundwater. The boundary of a watershed is defined by the watershed divide, which is the ridge of highest elevation surrounding a given stream or network of streams. A drop of rainwater falling outside of this boundary will enter a different watershed and will flow to a different body of water. Figure 1-1: Diagram of a watershed Streams and rivers may flow through many different types of land use in their paths to the ocean. In the above illustration from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, water flows from agricultural lands to residential areas to industrial zones as it moves downstream. Each land use presents unique impacts and challenges on water quality. The size of a watershed can be subjective; it depends on the scale that is being considered. The image to the left depicts the extent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, "the big picture" that is linked to our local concerns. This watershed covers 64,000 square miles and crosses into six states: New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. One of the watersheds that comprise the Chesapeake Bay watershed is the Potomac River watershed. Fairfax County, as shown on the map, occupies approximately 400 square miles of the Potomac River watershed. This area contains 30 smaller watersheds. Think of watersheds as being "nested" within each successively larger one.
    [Show full text]
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia
    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NOV 0 ·~ 2013 National Register of Historic Places NAT. Re018TiR OF HISTORIC PlACES Registration Form NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 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. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name George Washington Birthplace National Monument other names/site number Wakefield. Popes Creek Plantation , VDHR File #096-0026 2. Location 1732 Popes Creek Road not for publication street & number L-----' city or town Colonial Beach ~ vicinity state Vir inia code VA county Westmoreland code _ _;_:19'--=-3- zip code -"'2=2:....;.4"""43.;;...._ ___ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _!__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 requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property .K._ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: x_ b state ' Ide "x n J.VIA.rVI In my opinion, the property .x..._ meets_ does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Hunting Creek Bridge HAER No. VA-42D
    Mount Vernon Memorial Highway: Little Hunting Creek Bridge HAER No. VA-42D Carries the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway over Little Hunting Creek along the Potomac, 8.6 miles south of 1-95 Mount Vernon Vicinity Fairfax County Virginia 3\ <*-> PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Recoi National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20013-7127 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY: LITTLE HUNTING CREEK BRIDGE b~$ HAER No. VA-42D Location: Carrying the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway across Little Hunting Creek at the Potomac, 8.6 miles south of 1-95 and 1.1 miles north of Mount Vernon in Fairfax County, Virginia, UTM: 18/319650/4286750 Quad.: Mount Vernon Date of Construction: Designed 1929, Completed 1932 Architect: Gilmore D. Clarke Engineer: E.J. Budge, Resident Engineer F.M. DeWaters, Assistant Resident Engineer J.V. McNary, Senior Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads Contractor: Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation, New York, New York Present Owner George Washington Memorial Parkway National Park Service Department of the Interior Present Use: Vehicular bridge Significance: This parkway bridge is significant because it typifies the style of bridges which were designed for this new type of roadway. This bridge was designed to harmonize with the landscape by incorporating the natural shape of the arch, facing the bridge with native stone, and using careful attention regarding the plantings and landscape surroundin; the bridge. Historian: Elizabeth M. Nolin, 1988 LITTLE HUNTING CREEK BRIDGE HAER Mo. VA-42D (page 2) The final bridge on the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway (see HAER Mo.
    [Show full text]
  • English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records
    T iPlCTP \jrIRG by Lot L I B RAHY OF THL UN IVER.SITY Of ILLINOIS 975.5 D4-5"e ILL. HJST. survey Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/englishduplicateOOdesc English Duplicates of Lost Virginia Records compiled by Louis des Cognets, Jr. © 1958, Louis des Cognets, Jr. P.O. Box 163 Princeton, New Jersey This book is dedicated to my grandmother ANNA RUSSELL des COGNETS in memory of the many years she spent writing two genealogies about her Virginia ancestors \ i FOREWORD This book was compiled from material found in the Public Record Office during the summer of 1957. Original reports sent to the Colonial Office from Virginia were first microfilmed, and then transcribed for publication. Some of the penmanship of the early part of the 18th Century was like copper plate, but some was very hard to decipher, and where the same name was often spelled in two different ways on the same page, the task was all the more difficult. May the various lists of pioneer Virginians contained herein aid both genealogists, students of colonial history, and those who make a study of the evolution of names. In this event a part of my debt to other abstracters and compilers will have been paid. Thanks are due the Staff at the Public Record Office for many heavy volumes carried to my desk, and for friendly assistance. Mrs. William Dabney Duke furnished valuable advice based upon her considerable experience in Virginia research. Mrs .Olive Sheridan being acquainted with old English names was especially suited to the secretarial duties she faithfully performed.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony in Public Hearing of The
    Statement to Fairfax County Environmental Quality Advisory Council Betsy Martin, Friends of Little Hunting Creek and Northern Virginia Trash Action Work Force1 January 10, 2018 In Fairfax County’s new environmental vision, solid waste management is one of seven areas identified by the Board of Supervisors as priorities. Yet, EQAC’s most recent report offers only three recommendations on solid waste management (on improving recycling, illegal dumping, and a statewide container redemption fee). “Litter” is mentioned once in the report. I’m glad EQAC continues “to recommend a statewide container redemption fee to reduce litter and increase the recovery of containers in a form that can be recycled.” However, you demur, writing “This recommendation requires action at the General Assembly and cannot be addressed by County staff.” Please recommend actions the County can take on litter, not just actions it cannot. The need for action is great. The Friends of Little Hunting Creek and Senator Scott Surovell have conducted annual cleanups of the creek since 2002, as part of the Potomac Watershed Cleanup sponsored by Alice Ferguson Foundation. Since the Friends started keeping records in 2006, volunteers have picked up 3,343 bags of trash and recyclables, 258 tires, 177 shopping carts, and tons of additional bulk trash. On average, this is about 257 bags, 20 tires, and 14 shopping carts per cleanup. These figures do not include cleanups conducted by others, for example, the Boy Scouts annually pick up trash just downstream of the Route 1 bridge (60 bags this year, according to newspaper reports). Little Hunting Creek is but one of the tributaries that discharge Fairfax County’s litter into the Potomac River.
    [Show full text]
  • The Northern Part of Richmond Highway Is Located in the Belle Haven and Little Hunting Creek Watersheds, While the Southern Segm
    1 NOMINATION. Richmond Highway Corridor ATTACHMENT A. Revise and strengthen land use and transportation recommendations of the Plan for Richmond Highway Corridor to reduce stormwater runoff, be consistent with county watershed plans, and support the Policy Plan’s environmental objective 2, policy k. 1. Revise and update the description of the Richmond Highway Corridor Area to reflect current knowledge about environmental impacts, esp. on water quality. To the following existing paragraph (p. 25), The northern part of Richmond Highway is located in the Belle Haven and Little Hunting Creek watersheds, while the southern segment is in the Dogue Creek watershed and is affected by the floodplains and stream valleys of Dogue Creek. The entire corridor is located in the Coastal Plain geologic province and thus lies in a zone of extensive slippage-prone swelling clays and sensitive aquifer recharge. add Development in the Richmond Corridor has degraded all three of these watersheds by increasing stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces and decreasing aquifer recharge. 2. Add a land use recommendation to p. 27: Offer incentives for development and redevelopment projects to reduce imperviousness and achieve better control over stormwater runoff in the Richmond Highway Corridor. Possible incentives to be created were recommended by the Little Hunting Creek Watershed Plan and are described in Attachment B. It is recommended that an overlay district, as suggested by the watershed plan, be created to implement these changes in the Richmond Highway Corridor as soon as possible, without waiting for county-wide changes in policy. The urgency is due to the inadequacy of stormwater controls in the Richmond Highway Corridor and consequent damage to three watersheds, the Potomac River, and the Chesapeake Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Mills and Mill Sites in Fairfax County, Virginia and Washington, Dc
    Grist Mills of Fairfax County and Washington, DC MILLS AND MILL SITES IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA AND WASHINGTON, DC Marjorie Lundegard Friends of Colvin Run Mill August 10, 2009 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most of the research for this catalogue of mills of Fairfax County was obtained from the owners, staff members, or neighbors of these mills. I want to thank all these persons who helped in the assembling of the history of these mills. Resource information was also acquired from: the library at the National Park at Great Falls, Virginia; the book, COLVIN RUN MILL, by Ross D. Nether ton; brochures from the Fairfax County Park Authority; and from the staff and Friends of Peirce Mill in the District of Columbia. Significant information on the mill sites in Fairfax County was obtained from the Historic American Building Survey (HABS/HAER) reports that were made in 1936 and are available from the Library of Congress. I want to give special thanks to my husband, Robert Lundegard, who encouraged me to complete this survey. He also did the word processing to assemble the reports and pictures in book form. He designed the attractive cover page and many other features of the book. It is hoped that you will receive as much enjoyment from the reading of the booklet as I had in preparing it for publication. 0 Grist Mills of Fairfax County and Washington, DC Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 0 GRIST MILLS of FAIRFAX COUNTY and WASHINGTON, DC .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment C Receiving Waters by Watershed
    ATTACHMENT C RECEIVING WATERS BY WATERSHED ACCOTINK CREEK ACCOTINK BAY ACCOTINK CREEK BEAR BRANCH CALAMO RUN COON BRANCH CROOK BRANCH DANIELS RUN FIELD LARK BRANCH FLAG RUN GUNSTON COVE HUNTERS BRANCH KERNAN RUN LAKE ACCOTINK LONG BRANCH MASON RUN POHICK BAY TURKEY RUN BELLE HAVEN CAMERON RUN HUNTING CREEK POTOMAC RIVER QUANDER BROOK BULL NECK RUN BLACK POND BULLNECK RUN POTOMAC RIVER BULL RUN BULL RUN CAMERON RUN BACKLICK RUN CAMERON RUN COW BRANCH FAIRVIEW LAKE HOLMES RUN INDIAN RUN LAKE BARCROFT PIKES BRANCH POPLAR RUN TRIPPS RUN TURKEYCOCK CREEK TURKEYCOCK RUN Page 1 of 12 CUB RUN BIG ROCKY RUN BULL RUN CAIN BRANCH CUB RUN DEAD RUN ELKLICK RUN FLATLICK BRANCH FROG BRANCH OXLICK BRANCH ROCKY RUN ROUND LICK ROUND RUN SAND BRANCH SCHNEIDER BRANCH UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAGE AUTHORITY DEAD RUN DEAD RUN POTOMAC RIVER DIFFICULT RUN ANGELICO BRANCH BRIDGE BRANCH BROWNS BRANCH CAPTAIN HICKORY RUN COLVIN MILL RUN COLVIN RUN DIFFICULT RUN DOG RUN FOX LAKE HICKORY RUN LAKE ANNE LAKE AUDUBON LAKE FAIRFAX LAKE NEWPORT LAKE THOREAU LITTLE DIFFICULT RUN MOONAC CREEK OLD COURTHOUSE SPRING BRANCH PINEY BRANCH PINEY RUN POTOMAC RIVER ROCKY BRANCH ROCKY RUN SHARPERS RUN SNAKEDEN BRANCH SOUTH FORK RUN Page 2 of 12 THE GLADE TIMBER LAKE WOLFTRAP CREEK WOLFTRAP RUN WOODSIDE LAKE DOGUE CREEK ACCOTINK BAY BARNYARD RUN DOGUE CREEK DOGUE RUN GUNSTON COVE LAKE D'EVEREUX NORTH FORK DOGUE CREEK PINEY RUN POTOMAC RIVER FOUR MILE RUN CAMERON RUN FOUR MILE RUN HUNTING CREEK LONG BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER HIGH POINT BELMONT BAY GUNSTON COVE MASON NECK OCCOQUAN BAY POHICK BAY
    [Show full text]
  • Belle Haven, Dogue Creek and Four Mile Run Watersheds Was Developed with the Assistance and Input of the Watershed Advisory Group (WAG)
    4 Watershed Restoration Strategies 4.1 Subwatershed Strategies The watershed restoration process follows the assessment of subwatershed conditions summarized in the preceding section. It involves two elements: first, to determine where in the watershed to prioritize restoration efforts, and second, to identify specific practices and locations where improvements can be made. The purpose of prioritizing was to focus limited resources in the most effective way, as there were some geographic areas within the watershed where the same improvement can have a greater impact than in others. Once prioritization was complete, specific restoration sites were identified at a subwatershed scale. These results are described in Section 5. This section provides an overview of the approach and practices considered. The overall strategy for restoring the Belle Haven, Dogue Creek and Four Mile Run watersheds was developed with the assistance and input of the Watershed Advisory Group (WAG). The group suggested focusing project recommendations to identify impaired headwater areas and concentrate restoration efforts in these subwatersheds. These improvements will reduce the stress and subsequent damage to downstream channels. This strategy recognized that improvements in headwater areas have the potential to reduce stressors downstream and to improve conditions throughout the stream network. Projects were given a higher priority if they were on publicly maintained land or in areas where project costs could be shared with developers. The full Technical Memorandum detailing the subwatershed strategy process can be found in Appendix B. Figure 4-1 visually depicts subwatershed prioritization for project selection. Headwater subwatersheds, shown in grey, are subwatersheds where a stream begins, either for the main channel, a tributary, or a small branch draining to a main channel or tributary.
    [Show full text]