DOCSLIB.ORG

Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Frederick County, Maryland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Frederick County, Maryland Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report Frederick County, Maryland Prepared for: Frederick County Community Development Division Office of Sustainability & Environmental Resources 30 North Market Street Frederick, MD 21701 Prepared by: EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC 225 Schilling Circle Suite 400 Hunt Valley, Maryland 21031 (410) 584-7000 April 2016 EA Project No. 6279401 Page intentionally left blank EA Project No.: 6279401 Page i EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 CONTENTS Page LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. i LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................2 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY.................................................................................................... 2 1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 3 2. PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................4 2.1 DESKTOP ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 5 2.2 INITIAL FIELD ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 12 2.3 WORKSHOP WITH COUNTY STAFF ....................................................................... 16 2.4 FLUVIAL GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 16 3. DEVELOPMENT OF RESTORATION STRATEGY ...........................................................19 4. PREDICTING POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTIONS ...........................................................20 4.1 APPROACH .................................................................................................................. 20 4.2 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 24 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................26 6. DETAILED ANALYSISJECT FEASIBILITY CONCEPTS .................................................26 6.1 PROJECT 1 .................................................................................................................... 27 6.2 PROJECT 2 .................................................................................................................... 35 6.3 PROJECT 3 .................................................................................................................... 42 6.4 PROJECT 4 .................................................................................................................... 50 6.5 PROJECT 5 .................................................................................................................... 57 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A: TYPICAL STRUCTURES Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page ii EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 1 Project Location Map 2 Little Hunting Creek Watershed Map 3 Areas of Interest Map 4 Project Sites Ranking Map 5 Top Project Sites Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page iii EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 LIST OF TABLES Number Title 1 Site Information 2 Priority Ranking of the Sites 3 Summary of Fluvial Geomorphological Assessment 4 List of Priority Projects 5 Potential BMP projects at priority sites 6 Project 1- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits 7 Project 2- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits 8 Project 3- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits 9 Project 4- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits 10 Project 5- Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits 11 Cost Estimation 12 Total Cost versus Pollutant Load Reductions and Impervious Acre Treatment Credits 13 Project 1- Property Ownership Information 14 Project 2- Property Ownership Information 15 Project 3- Property Ownership Information 16 Project 4- Property Ownership Information 17 Project 5- Property Ownership Information Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page iv EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AOI Areas of Interest ac. Acres BMP Best Management Practice CBP Chesapeake Bay Program EA EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC ESD Environmental Site Design etc et cetera e.g. for example ft. Foot or Feet GIS Geographic Information System Inc. Incorporated LF Linear Foot or Linear Feet Lbs Pounds MD Maryland MDE Maryland Department of the Environment MERLIN Maryland’s Environmental Resources and Land Information Network mm Millimeter(s) NAD North American Datum N/A Not Applicable No. Number PBC Public Benefit Corporation PVC Polyvinyl Chloride ROW Right of Way RR Runoff Reduction SR State Route ST Storm Water Treatment SPSC Step Pool Stormwater Conveyance Sq. ft. Square Foot or Square Feet TSS Total Suspended Solids TP Total Phosphorous Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page v EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 TN Total Nitrogen WARSSS Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply Yr Year Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 1 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (EA) conducted an assessment of the Little Hunting Creek Watershed, located in Frederick County near Thurmont, Maryland in an effort to develop specific stream and watershed restoration actions. The results of this assessment were used to compare and rank each site or sub-watershed area, and to prioritize the areas that would benefit most from watershed/stream restoration efforts to achieve measurable water quality improvements and pollutant and sediment load reductions. A desktop review of available GIS layers and online resources was performed in order to locate areas for potential stream improvements. A total of thirty (30) areas of interest (AOI) were identified as potential locations for in-stream improvements, upland Best Management Practices (BMP), or structural retrofits. An initial field assessment of each of the 30 sites was conducted in order to field truth the findings of the desktop review and rank each site based on restoration potential. The field assessment was used to identify five priority projects for a more detailed assessment. EA team members performed geomorphological assessments on September 15, 16, 18, 21 and 22 at the top priority sites. Cross section, profile and pebble count data were collected, as applicable at the stream sites. Out of nine study sites, eight of the sites contained stream channels. Sites FD06, FD21, FD22 and FD24 are within Little Hunting Creek, sites FD19 and FD23 are un- named tributaries to Little Hunting Creek, sites FD28 and FD30 are un-named tributaries to Big Hunting Creek, and site FD29 is identified as an inline pond in between sites FD28 and FD30. Based on the information obtained during the detailed site assessments, EA developed potential projects based on multiple factors, including the prioritization of specific study sites based on identified impairments of concern for the watershed, feasibility of implementation, and the potential for ecological and biological uplift of the watershed. Through the field assessment of the nine sites, EA developed 5 potential restoration projects. For each of the five proposed restoration concept sites, EA performed an assessment of pollutant load reductions, impervious surface treatment area, and a cost estimate in order to determine a cost benefit analysis of each of the projects. Based on this assessment EA identified two projects that would provide a greater benefit with a lower cost and should be considered as the top two priority projects for future consideration. Little Hunting Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Concept Report EA Project No.: 6279401 Page 2 EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC April 2016 1. INTRODUCTION The Frederick County Planning and Permit, Office of Sustainability and Environmental Resources has contracted EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., PBC (EA) to conduct an assessment of the Little Hunting Creek watershed, located in Frederick County near Thurmont, Maryland (Appendix A: Figure 1). Located in the northwestern part of Frederick County, Little Hunting Creek flows west to east beginning in the Catoctin Mountains west of Cunningham Falls State Park. The Little Hunting Creek watershed is primarily
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia
    Native Vascular Flora City of Alexandria, Virginia Photo by Gary P. Fleming December 2015 Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia December 2015 By Roderick H. Simmons City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Natural Resources Division 2900-A Business Center Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [email protected] Suggested citation: Simmons, R.H. 2015. Native vascular flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Alexandria, Virginia. 104 pp. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Botanical Studies in Alexandria .............................................................................. 5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pohick Creek Watershed Management Plan Are Included in This Section
    Watershed Management Area Restoration Strategies 5.0 Watershed Management Area Restoration Strategies The Pohick Creek Watershed is divided into ten smaller watershed management areas (WMAs) based on terrain. Summaries of Pohick Creek’s ten WMAs are listed in the following WMA sections, including field reconnaissance findings, existing and future land use, stream conditions and stormwater infrastructure. For Fairfax County planning and management purposes the WMAs have been further subdivided into smaller subwatersheds. These areas, typically 100 – 300 acres, were used as the basic units for modeling and other evaluations. Each WMA was examined at the subwatershed level in order to capture as much data as possible. The subwatershed conditions were reviewed and problem areas were highlighted. Projects were proposed in problematic subwatersheds. The full Pohick Creek Draft Watershed Workbook, which contains detailed watershed characterizations, can be found in the Technical Appendices. Pohick Creek has four major named tributaries (see Map 3-1.1 in Chapter 3). In the northern portions of the watershed two main tributaries converge into Pohick Creek stream. The Rabbit Branch tributary begins in the highly developed areas of George Mason University and Fairfax City, while Sideburn Branch tributary begins in the highly developed area southwest of George Mason University. The confluence of these two headwater tributaries forms the Pohick Creek main stem. The Middle Run tributary drains Huntsman Lake and moderately-developed residential areas. The South Run tributary drains Burke Lake and Lake Mercer, as well as the low-density southwestern portion of the watershed. The restoration strategies proposed to be implemented within the next ten years (0 – 10-year plan) consist of 90 structural projects.
    [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]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Trout Program Maps
    SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 FOUR DOLLARS Inside: 2019 Trout Program Maps SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 Contents 5 How Sweet Sweet Sweet It Is! By Mike Roberts With support from the Ward Burton Wildlife Foundation, volunteers, and business partners, a citizen science project aims to help a magnificent songbird in the Roanoke River basin. 10 Hunting: A Foundation For Life By Curtis J. Badger A childhood spent afield gives the author reason to reflect upon a simpler time, one that deeply shaped his values. 14 Women Afield: Finally By John Shtogren There are many reasons to cheer the trend of women’s interest in hunting and fishing, and the outdoors industry takes note. 20 What’s Up With Cobia? By Ken Perrotte Virginia is taking a lead in sound management of this gamefish through multi-state coordination, tagging efforts, and citation data. 24 For The Love Of Snakes By David Hart Snakes are given a bad rap, but a little knowledge and the right support group can help you overcome your fears. 28 The Evolution Of Cute By Jason Davis Nature has endowed young wildlife with a number of strategies for survival, cuteness being one of them. 32 2019 Trout Program Maps By Jay Kapalczynski Fisheries biologists share the latest trout stocking locations. 38 AFIELD AND AFLOAT 41 A Walk in the Woods • 42 Off the Leash 43 Photo Tips • 45 On the Water • 46 Dining In Cover: A female prothonotary warbler brings caterpillars to her young. See page 5. ©Mike Roberts Left: A handsome white-tailed buck pauses while feeding along a fence line.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • TMDL) Action Plan
    City of Alexandria, Virginia Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Action Plan For compliance with 9VAC25-890, “General VPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Permit No. VAR040057 June 17, 2015 Revised November 20, 2015 Revised June 30, 2016 Prepared by: City of Alexandria, Virginia Department of Transportation and Environmental Services Stormwater Management Division PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 3. Legal Authorities to Reduce Pollutant of Concern ............................................................... 3 4. Planning Framework ........................................................................................................... 3 a. Principles ......................................................................................................................... 3 b. Action Goals .................................................................................................................... 4 5. TMDL Development and Load Determination ..................................................................... 4 a. Four Mile Run Non-Tidal ................................................................................................. 4 b. Four Mile Run Tidal ........................................................................................................
    [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]