DOCSLIB.ORG

69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers 69 Dams Removed in 2020 to Restore Rivers American Rivers releases annual list including dams in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin for a total of 23 states. Nationwide, 1,797 dams have been removed from 1912 through 2020. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals. Contact information is provided for dam removals, if available. For further information about the list, please contact Jessie Thomas-Blate, American Rivers, Director of River Restoration at 202.347.7550 or [email protected]. This list includes all dam removals reported to American Rivers (as of February 10, 2021) that occurred in 2020, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Inclusion on this list does not indicate endorsement by American Rivers. Dams are categorized alphabetically by state. Beale Dam, Dry Creek, California A 2016 anadromous salmonid habitat assessment stated that migratory salmonids were not likely accessing habitat upstream of Beale Lake due to the presence of the dam and an undersized pool and weir fishway. In 2020, Beale Dam, owned by the U.S. Air Force, was removed and a nature-like fishway was constructed at the upstream end of Beale Lake to address the natural falls that remain a partial barrier following dam removal. This project will provide upstream passage of salmonids to Spenceville Wildlife Area, which has the most suitable water temperature conditions for summer steelhead rearing in Dry Creek. The dam was 12 feet high and 165 feet long, built in 1943, and made of concrete. Contact: Paul Cadrett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 209-649-0898, [email protected] Roy’s Dam, San Geronimo Creek, California By removing a 100-year-old dam and 20-year-old fish ladder on the former San Geronimo Valley golf course that was limiting the migration of endangered coho salmon and creating poor habitat conditions for other aquatic species, the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network created a free-flowing 250-feet long new creek channel where the former dam was. Coupled with more work next year, the project will restore a total of five acres of creek floodplain habitat across a quarter-mile long of San Geronimo Creek. In addition to providing critical habitat for young salmon the project will create valuable habitat for terrestrial wildlife and increase the amount of trees for nesting birds. A new, 100-foot pedestrian bridge was installed over the creek to provide safe fish viewing over a wider, more complex and stable creek channel. Contact: Preston Brown , Turtle Island Restoration Network, 303-877-0880, [email protected] York Dam, York Creek, California This project included the partial removal of the Upper York Creek Dam (UYCD) and armoring of the new streambank adjacent to the existing spillway and roadway, excavation of a low flow "pilot" channel in sediments impounded by the dam, disposal of sediment to an upland location(s), and construction of approximately 36 log structures downstream of the dam to capture a portion of the remaining impounded sediment released from upstream of the dam during storm events. The long-term outcomes of the project are expected to have positive impacts on federally-listed species and other wildlife. This earthen dam (24 feet high by 225 feet long) was owned by the City of St. Helena, California. Contact: Brian Bartell, Whitman, Requardt and Associates, 415-524-7588, [email protected] Slocomb Pond Dam, Roaring Brook, Connecticut In October 2020, the 12 feet high by 82 feet long Slocomb Pond Dam was removed from Roaring Brook in Connecticut. The Town of Glastonbury removed this former mill dam that was built in 1939. This project involved the removal of an Ambursen spillway, and the excavation/removal of some impounded sediment. Benefits of the project included: improved fish passage for resident species and sea lamprey (there are natural falls downstream), restored sediment transport, improved water quality, and improved public safety (part of town park). Project partners also expect new fishing opportunities at the site. Contact: Daniel A. Pennington, Town of Glastonbury, 860-652-7736, daniel.pennington@glastonbury- ct.gov Fort Dodge Hydroelectric Dam, Des Moines River, Iowa This 17 feet high by 366 feet long hydropower dam, built around 1917, was removed by the City of Fort Dodge in 2020. The project improved river integrity by preventing future degradation, restored natural in- stream habitat conditions, and aimed to meet the designated uses for the river. Contact: Snyder and Associates, 1-888-964-2020 Springbrook Marsh Dam #1 (Arrow Road Dam\Dragon Lake Wetland), Spring Creek #1, Illinois This small (4 feet high by 35 feet long) concrete weir was constructed in 1983. Its removal reconnected nearly 4 miles of habitat, increased river sinuosity, built pool and riffle sequences, increased stream and floodplain connectivity, built adjacent wetland, increased the percentage of riverbed covered with sand and gravel, improved aeshetic appeal and increased recreation opportunities. Contact: Stephen McCracken, Dupage River Salt Creek Workgroup, 630-428-4500, x 118, [email protected] Elkhart River Dam, Elkhart River, Indiana The Elkhart River Dam, an approximately 8-foot-tall low-head dam, was built around 1890 to increase the elevation of the river to divert water into raceways that were used to power industry in downtown Elkhart, Indiana. Over time as development occurred, these raceways filled and the dam no longer served a purpose. The dam gave rise to the name of Waterfall Drive, the street located adjacent to the former dam. The former dam was located approximately one-half mile upstream of the Elkhart River’s confluence with the St. Joseph River. With the Elkhart River being the largest tributary of the St. Joseph River, this dam served as a significant barrier to fish migrating out of the St. Joseph River. The dam’s removal reconnected 40 miles of upstream habitat, allowed for the recolonization of 16 species of fish in the Elkhart River and population integration for approximately 50 fish species, including endangered or threatened species (e.g., greater redhorse, longnose dace, and northern brook lamprey). Contact: Daragh Deegan, City of Elkhart, 574-293-2572, [email protected] Horseshoe Pond Dam, Weweantic River, Massachusetts This project involving a small (6 feet high by 45 feet long) 1800s era mill dam included the removal of a concrete spillway, notching of a legacy earthen dam, habitat enhancement for rainbow smelt, creation of two canoe launches, filling of the raceway to convert to an access trail, access trail improvements, scour protection of bridge abutments, and bridge improvements for pedestrian safety. Contacts: Sara N. da Silva Quintal, Buzzards Bay Coalition, 508-999-6363 x 225, [email protected]; Paul Woodworth, Princeton Hydro, 860-652-8911, [email protected] Middle Bog Dam, Coonamessett River, Massachusetts Phase Two of the Coonamessett River Bog Restoration and Culvert Replacement Project included the removal of Middle Bog Dam and restoration of 39 acres of wetlands by removing former commercial cranberry bogs. In addition, three failing culverts were replaced with a large box culvert to allow migratory fish to access their upstream habitat, including the 158-acre Coonamessett Pond. Contact: Steve Fuller, SumCo Eco-Contracting, 978-744-1516, [email protected] Petersons Pond Dam, Third Herring Brook, Massachusetts The removal of the Petersons Pond Dam reconnected 1.3 miles of instream habitat for migratory and native fish and concluded a broader restoration project involving the removal of three dams on Third Herring Brook. The goal of the project was to reconnect the stream to the headwaters at Jacobs Pond, which would result in a total of 9.7 miles of stream opened between the three dam removals and access to 59 acres of habitat. Historically, Third Herring Brook housed a very large run of river herring, hence its name, but was dammed in the early 1600s. This project will improve resiliency of the river to the effects of climate change, including increased storm and flood risks. Other benefits include: improved water quality via sediment transportation and base flow hydrology, reduced thermal pollution, improved habitat connectivity, improved public safety, and eliminated liability and maintenance costs. The work at the Peterson Pond Dam is intended to create a controlled breach of the structure which will prevent permanent re-impoundment of the pond and therefore address certain dam safety deficiencies at the existing dam embankment. The breaching of the dam will be through its full height such that the new river channel is within natural foundation material. Some portions of the existing embankment dam beyond the new channel and overbanks, including masonry structures with historic significance, will remain and be preserved. Contacts: Steve Fuller, SumCo Eco-Contracting, 978-744-1515, [email protected]; Joseph Gould, MA Division of Ecological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NH Trout Stocking - April 2018
    NH Trout Stocking - April 2018 Town WaterBody 3/26‐3/30 4/02‐4/06 4/9‐4/13 4/16‐4/20 4/23‐4/27 4/30‐5/04 ACWORTH COLD RIVER 111 ALBANY IONA LAKE 1 ALLENSTOWN ARCHERY POND 1 ALLENSTOWN BEAR BROOK 1 ALLENSTOWN CATAMOUNT POND 1 ALSTEAD COLD RIVER 1 ALSTEAD NEWELL POND 1 ALSTEAD WARREN LAKE 1 ALTON BEAVER BROOK 1 ALTON COFFIN BROOK 1 ALTON HURD BROOK 1 ALTON WATSON BROOK 1 ALTON WEST ALTON BROOK 1 AMHERST SOUHEGAN RIVER 11 ANDOVER BLACKWATER RIVER 11 ANDOVER HIGHLAND LAKE 11 ANDOVER HOPKINS POND 11 ANTRIM WILLARD POND 1 AUBURN MASSABESIC LAKE 1 1 1 1 BARNSTEAD SUNCOOK LAKE 1 BARRINGTON ISINGLASS RIVER 1 BARRINGTON STONEHOUSE POND 1 BARTLETT THORNE POND 1 BELMONT POUT POND 1 BELMONT TIOGA RIVER 1 BELMONT WHITCHER BROOK 1 BENNINGTON WHITTEMORE LAKE 11 BENTON OLIVERIAN POND 1 BERLIN ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER 11 BRENTWOOD EXETER RIVER 1 1 BRISTOL DANFORTH BROOK 11 BRISTOL NEWFOUND LAKE 1 BRISTOL NEWFOUND RIVER 11 BRISTOL PEMIGEWASSET RIVER 11 BRISTOL SMITH RIVER 11 BROOKFIELD CHURCHILL BROOK 1 BROOKFIELD PIKE BROOK 1 BROOKLINE NISSITISSIT RIVER 11 CAMBRIDGE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER 1 CAMPTON BOG POND 1 CAMPTON PERCH POND 11 CANAAN CANAAN STREET LAKE 11 CANAAN INDIAN RIVER 11 NH Trout Stocking - April 2018 Town WaterBody 3/26‐3/30 4/02‐4/06 4/9‐4/13 4/16‐4/20 4/23‐4/27 4/30‐5/04 CANAAN MASCOMA RIVER, UPPER 11 CANDIA TOWER HILL POND 1 CANTERBURY SPEEDWAY POND 1 CARROLL AMMONOOSUC RIVER 1 CARROLL SACO LAKE 1 CENTER HARBOR WINONA LAKE 1 CHATHAM BASIN POND 1 CHATHAM LOWER KIMBALL POND 1 CHESTER EXETER RIVER 1 CHESTERFIELD SPOFFORD LAKE 1 CHICHESTER SANBORN BROOK
    [Show full text]
  • Narrow River Watershed Plan (Draft)
    DRAFT Narrow River Watershed Plan Prepared by: Office of Water Resources Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 235 Promenade Street Providence, RI 02908 Draft: December 24, 2019, clean for local review DRAFT Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8 A) Purpose of Plan................................................................................................................. 8 B) Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Goals for the Watershed ........................................ 12 1) Open Shellfishing Areas ............................................................................................. 12 2) Protect Drinking Water Supplies ................................................................................ 12 3) Protect and Restore Fish and Wildlife Habitat ........................................................... 12 4) Protect and Restore Wetlands and Their Buffers ....................................................... 13 5) Protect and Restore Recreational Opportunities ......................................................... 14 C) Approach for Developing the Plan/ How this Plan was Developed .............................. 15 II. Watershed Description .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Paper Is an Update of the Paper Presented by Dave Greenfield and Ron Ryczak of BAMR at the 2008 NAAMLP Conference in Durango, Colorado
    Assessment of Fluvial Geomorphology Projects at Abandoned Mine Sites in 1 the Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania Dennis M. Palladino, P.E.² Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation 2 Public Square, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701-1915 [email protected] (570) 830-3190 ABSTRACT Some watersheds have been so severely impacted by mining that the streams do not support aquatic life and can no longer accommodate flows or transport sediment. To fully recover the environmental resource of these scarred landscapes the land must be reclaimed and the streams reconstructed. As abandoned mine sites are being reclaimed to their approximate original contours, the hydrology of the watersheds will be returning to pre-mining conditions and generating base flows and storm discharges that residents may not have experienced in many years. A stable system will have to be designed to transport the flows and sediment while preventing erosion and flooding. Traditionally, rigid systems have been implemented that are rectangular or trapezoidal in shape and are constructed entirely of rock and concrete. These systems have a good survival rate but do not replace the resource that was lost during mining. In an attempt to reclaim the watersheds that were destroyed during mining to a natural state, the application of Fluvial Geomorphologic (FGM) techniques has been embraced at several sites in the Anthracite Region of Pennsylvania. These sites have had various degrees of success. All of the sites were designed based on bankfull conditions and were immediately successful in creating habitat for a wide variety of species. Some sites remained stable until damaged due to extreme discharge events where design, construction, or implementation flaws were revealed in regions above the bankfull elevation.
    [Show full text]
  • December 20, 2003 (Pages 6197-6396)
    Pennsylvania Bulletin Volume 33 (2003) Repository 12-20-2003 December 20, 2003 (Pages 6197-6396) Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/pabulletin_2003 Recommended Citation Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, "December 20, 2003 (Pages 6197-6396)" (2003). Volume 33 (2003). 51. https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/pabulletin_2003/51 This December is brought to you for free and open access by the Pennsylvania Bulletin Repository at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Volume 33 (2003) by an authorized administrator of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Volume 33 Number 51 Saturday, December 20, 2003 • Harrisburg, Pa. Pages 6197—6396 Agencies in this issue: The Governor The Courts Department of Aging Department of Agriculture Department of Banking Department of Education Department of Environmental Protection Department of General Services Department of Health Department of Labor and Industry Department of Revenue Fish and Boat Commission Independent Regulatory Review Commission Insurance Department Legislative Reference Bureau Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement Board Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Public School Employees’ Retirement Board State Board of Education State Board of Nursing State Employee’s Retirement Board State Police Detailed list of contents appears inside. PRINTED ON 100% RECYCLED PAPER Latest Pennsylvania Code Reporter (Master Transmittal Sheet): No. 349, December 2003 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Legislative Reference Bu- PENNSYLVANIA BULLETIN reau, 647 Main Capitol Building, State & Third Streets, (ISSN 0162-2137) Harrisburg, Pa. 17120, under the policy supervision and direction of the Joint Committee on Documents pursuant to Part II of Title 45 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes (relating to publication and effectiveness of Com- monwealth Documents).
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019
    Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019 Prepared by: Cultural Resources Unit, Environmental Policy and Development Section, Bureau of Project Delivery, Highway Delivery Division, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Date: April 07, 2020 For the: Federal Highway Administration, Pennsylvania Division Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Penn Street Bridge after rehabilitation, Reading, Pennsylvania Table of Contents A. Staffing Changes ................................................................................................... 7 B. Consultant Support ................................................................................................ 7 Appendix A: Exempted Projects List Appendix B: 106 Project Findings List Section 106 PA Annual Report for 2018 i Introduction The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) has been delegated certain responsibilities for ensuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) on federally funded highway projects. This delegation authority comes from a signed Programmatic Agreement [signed in 2010 and amended in 2017] between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and PennDOT. Stipulation X.D of the amended Programmatic Agreement (PA) requires PennDOT to prepare an annual report on activities carried out under the PA and provide it to
    [Show full text]
  • Washington County Flood Insurance Study Vol 4
    VOLUME 4 OF 4 WASHINGTON COUNTY, RHODE ISLAND (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER CHARLESTOWN, TOWN OF 445395 EXETER, TOWN OF 440032 HOPKINTON, TOWN OF 440028 NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE 445414 NARRAGANSETT, TOWN OF 445402 NEW SHOREHAM, TOWN OF 440036 NORTH KINGSTOWN, TOWN OF 445404 RICHMOND, TOWN OF 440031 SOUTH KINGSTOWN, TOWN OF 445407 WESTERLY, TOWN OF 445410 REVISED: APRIL 3, 2020 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 44009CV004C Version Number 2.3.3.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 3 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 15 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 15 2.2 Floodways 18 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 19 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 19 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 19 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 19 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 21 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 22 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 23 SECTION 3.0 – INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 24 3.1 National Flood Insurance Program Insurance Zones 24 SECTION 4.0 – AREA STUDIED 24 4.1 Basin Description 24 4.2 Principal Flood Problems 26 4.3 Non-Levee Flood Protection Measures 36 4.4 Levees 36 SECTION 5.0 – ENGINEERING METHODS 38 5.1 Hydrologic Analyses 38 5.2 Hydraulic Analyses 44 5.3 Coastal Analyses 50 5.3.1 Total Stillwater Elevations 52 5.3.2 Waves 52 5.3.3 Coastal Erosion 53 5.3.4
    [Show full text]
  • Official List of Public Waters
    Official List of Public Waters New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Water Division Dam Bureau 29 Hazen Drive PO Box 95 Concord, NH 03302-0095 (603) 271-3406 https://www.des.nh.gov NH Official List of Public Waters Revision Date October 9, 2020 Robert R. Scott, Commissioner Thomas E. O’Donovan, Division Director OFFICIAL LIST OF PUBLIC WATERS Published Pursuant to RSA 271:20 II (effective June 26, 1990) IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not use this list for determining water bodies that are subject to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). The CSPA list is available on the NHDES website. Public waters in New Hampshire are prescribed by common law as great ponds (natural waterbodies of 10 acres or more in size), public rivers and streams, and tidal waters. These common law public waters are held by the State in trust for the people of New Hampshire. The State holds the land underlying great ponds and tidal waters (including tidal rivers) in trust for the people of New Hampshire. Generally, but with some exceptions, private property owners hold title to the land underlying freshwater rivers and streams, and the State has an easement over this land for public purposes. Several New Hampshire statutes further define public waters as including artificial impoundments 10 acres or more in size, solely for the purpose of applying specific statutes. Most artificial impoundments were created by the construction of a dam, but some were created by actions such as dredging or as a result of urbanization (usually due to the effect of road crossings obstructing flow and increased runoff from the surrounding area).
    [Show full text]
  • Partnership Opportunities for Lake-Friendly Living Service Providers NH LAKES Lakesmart Program
    Partnership Opportunities for Lake-Friendly Living Service Providers NH LAKES LakeSmart Program Only with YOUR help will New Hampshire’s lakes remain clean and healthy, now and in the future. The health of our lakes, and our enjoyment of these irreplaceable natural resources, is at risk. Polluted runoff water from the landscape is washing into our lakes, causing toxic algal blooms that make swimming in lakes unsafe. Failing septic systems and animal waste washed off the land are contributing bacteria to our lakes that can make people and pets who swim in the water sick. Toxic products used in the home, on lawns, and on roadways and driveways are also reaching our lakes, poisoning the water in some areas to the point where fish and other aquatic life cannot survive. NH LAKES has found that most property owners don’t know how their actions affect the health of lakes. We’ve also found that property owners want to do the right thing to help keep the lakes they enjoy clean and healthy and that they often need help of professional service providers like YOU! What is LakeSmart? The LakeSmart program is an education, evaluation, and recognition program that inspires property owners to live in a lake- friendly way, keeping our lakes clean and healthy. The program is free, voluntary, and non-regulatory. Through a confidential evaluation process, property owners receive tailored recommendations about how to implement lake-friendly living practices year-round in their home, on their property, and along and on the lake. Property owners have access to a directory of lake- friendly living service providers to help them adopt lake-friendly living practices.
    [Show full text]
  • HIGH ALLEGHENY PLATEAU ECOREGIONAL PLAN: FIRST ITERATION Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean
    HIGH ALLEGHENY PLATEAU ECOREGIONAL PLAN: FIRST ITERATION Conservation Science Support—Northeast and Caribbean The High Allegheny Plan is a first iteration, a scientific assessment of the ecoregion. As part of the planning process, other aspects of the plan will be developed in future iterations, along with updates to the ecological assessment itself. These include fuller evaluations of threats to the ecoregion, constraints on conservation activities, and implementation strategies. CSS is now developing a standard template for ecoregional plans, which we have applied to the HAL first iteration draft report, distributed in 2002. Some of the HAL results have been edited or updated for this version. Click on the navigation pane to browse the report sections. What is the purpose of the report template? The purpose of creating a standard template for ecoregional plans in the Northeast is twofold: — to compile concise descriptions of methodologies developed and used for ecoregional assessment in the Northeast. These descriptions are meant to meet the needs of planning team members who need authoritative text to include in future plan documents, of science staff who need to respond to questions of methodology, and of program and state directors looking for material for general audience publications. — to create a modular resource whose pieces can be selected, incorporated in various formats, linked to in other documents, and updated easily. How does the template work? Methods are separated from results in this format, and the bulk of our work has gone into the standard methods sections. We have tried to make each methods section stand alone. Every section includes its own citation on the first page.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Mineral Operators
    INDUSTRIAL MINERAL OPERATORS N M D I U N S E T R R A I L A S TABLE 40 INDUSTRIAL MINERAL DEEP MINE OPERATORS Company License No. Name of Mine/Permit No. Armstrong County Bradys Bend Corporation 4-01877 Kaylor Mine #3/03950401 R.D . 1, Box 109 East Brady, PA 16028 Continental Clay Company 3-02855 Clay Mine/03920301 260 Oak Avenue Kittanning, PA 16201 M & M Lime Company, Inc. 3-02662 Lime R.D . 1, Box 257M Worthington, PA 16262 Butler County Winfield Mine Stone Co., Inc. Winfield 1295 Winfield Road Cabot, PA 16023 Bellefonte Lime Co ., Inc. 3-01684 Mines 1, 2, 3 & 4/1474301 P .O. Box 448 Gentzel Quany/1479401 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Mines 5 & 6/149$0301 Con-Lime, Inc. Rt . 550 South Bellefonte, PA 16823 Fayette County Commercial Stone Co ., Inc 3-00745 Springfield Pike/3372SM24 2200 Springfield Pike Connellsville, PA 15425 Coolspring Mining, Inc. 3-02135 Coolspring 1 Quarry/3374SM58T 1122 Jumonville Rd. Uniontown, PA 15401 Somerset County Keystone Lime Co., Inc. 3-00718 Buckeye Quarry/56940301 P .O. Box 278 Springs, PA 15562 Westmoreland County Pioneer Mid-Atlantic, Inc. ,3-00744 Whitney/65900403 & P .O. Box 173 Torrance Quarry 65900402 Blairsville, PA 15717 Ferrari B./Latrobe Construction Co. 3-02809 Longbridge/65930401 1 Marcia Street, P.O . Box 150 N M Latrobe, PA 15650 D I U N York County S E T R Southdown, Inc. 3-00729 Thomasville/4874SM2 R A Biesecker Road IL Thomasville, PA 17364 A S L TABLE 41 INDUSTRIAL MINERAL OPERATORS PRODUCING MORE THAN 2,000 TONS PER YEAR License Company Address City St Zip 3-02726 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer . 2009 Land Protected in Glenburn Township SAVE the DATE
    Summer . 2009 Land Protected in Glenburn Township In March, following many years of consideration and discussion, the Countryside Conservancy concluded a conservation easement with Barbara Monick to cover seven acres of her land in Glenburn Township, Lackawanna County. The protected land lies in the Ackerly Creek sub-watershed of the South Branch Tunkhannock Creek Watershed, in the same general area where Countryside Conservancy closed many of its earliest projects. The easement is bounded by Waverly Road and the former Northern Electric Railway right-of-way. It will preserve a highly visible piece of undeveloped green space in the middle of Glenburn Township, an area subject to increasing suburbanization. The land protected by the easement consists mainly of old fields This open space will be protected forever by the conservation easement. which are succeeding to shrubland. Dominant plants in the shrubland areas include gray dogwood and arrowwood, and young red maples, walnuts, black cherry and white spruce are also growing up in places. Trees planted on this property by the Conservancy in cooperation with the landowner in the late 1990s include redbuds, sycamores, red maples, and hawthorns. Two small wetlands in low- lying areas of the property harbor typical wetland plants such as sedges, rushes and sensitive fern. A woodland area fringing the easement includes sugar maples, black cherries, walnuts and other species. The entire easement is designated as “Highest Protection Area” under the classification developed by the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association. This means that the area within the easement will never be subject to development of any sort – a very serious commitment by the landowner.
    [Show full text]