DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix B–Wetland Characteristics for 12- Digit Watersheds

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix B–Wetland Characteristics for 12- Digit Watersheds Appendix B – Wetland Characteristics for 12-Digit Watersheds APPENDIX B – WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS FOR 12- DIGIT WATERSHEDS B-1 Appendix B – Wetland Characteristics for 12-Digit Watersheds Acres by HUC 12 Watershed Percent of Watershed that is: Original Hydrologic Unit Percent Wetland Potentially Watershed Name Watershed Current Lost Wetland Current Impervious Code Loss (Lost/Orig) Restorable Size Wetland Wetland (Current Wetland Surface Wetland + Lost) 07060005 Apple-Plum ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 0706000502 Sinsinawa River-Mississippi River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 070600050201 Menominee River 19,774 0 5 5 100.00% 0.00% 0.02% 1.54% 070600050202 Frentress Lake-Mississippi River 8,144 422 56 479 11.80% 5.20% 0.55% 4.16% 070600050203 Sinsinawa River 31,580 6 94 100 93.80% 0.00% 0.28% 1.28% 070600050205 Little Menominee River-Mississippi River 20,776 0 46 46 100.00% 0.00% 0.18% 1.19% 0706000503 Galena River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 070600050301 Madden Branch 14,227 8 6 14 43.40% 0.10% 0.04% 0.67% 070600050302 Pats Creek-Galena River 22,010 33 55 88 62.80% 0.10% 0.23% 0.91% 070600050303 Shullsburg Branch 20,802 10 534 544 98.20% 0.00% 2.44% 1.23% 070600050304 Blacks Creek-Galena River 10,434 0 46 46 100.00% 0.00% 0.42% 0.83% 070600050305 East Fork Galena River 16,117 0 102 102 100.00% 0.00% 0.63% 1.08% 070600050306 Kelsey Branch-Galena River 32,398 7 150 158 95.30% 0.00% 0.37% 1.30% 0706000505 South Fork Apple River-Apple River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 070600050502 South Fork Apple River 19,606 0 31 31 100.00% 0.00% 0.16% 0.74% 070600050503 West Fork Apple River-Apple River 25,732 85 1,527 1,612 94.70% 0.30% 5.40% 0.56% 04010302 Bad-Montreal ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 0401030201 Montreal River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103020101 Laymans Creek 12,670 5,563 333 5,896 5.70% 43.90% 2.16% 0.13% 040103020102 Pine Lake-Montreal River 13,444 4,248 573 4,821 11.90% 31.60% 3.56% 0.35% 040103020103 East Creek-West Fork Montreal River 25,111 9,691 935 10,627 8.80% 38.60% 3.09% 0.09% 040103020104 Gile Flowage-West Fork Montreal River 23,063 5,481 619 6,100 10.10% 23.80% 2.30% 0.38% 040103020106 West Fork Montreal River 9,245 1,276 582 1,858 31.30% 13.80% 5.72% 0.93% 040103020107 Welch Creek-Montreal River 29,171 2,145 510 2,655 19.20% 7.40% 1.46% 1.40% 040103020109 Montreal River 23,912 2,105 828 2,933 28.20% 8.80% 3.15% 0.16% 0401030202 Tyler Forks ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103020201 Upper Tyler Forks 13,754 4,715 538 5,253 10.20% 34.30% 3.27% 0.08% 040103020202 Middle Tyler Forks 17,498 4,354 628 4,982 12.60% 24.90% 3.10% 0.11% 040103020203 Lower Tyler Forks 18,699 3,237 422 3,660 11.50% 17.30% 1.97% 0.16% B-2 Appendix B – Wetland Characteristics for 12-Digit Watersheds Acres by HUC 12 Watershed Percent of Watershed that is: Original Hydrologic Unit Percent Wetland Potentially Watershed Name Watershed Current Lost Wetland Current Impervious Code Loss (Lost/Orig) Restorable Size Wetland Wetland (Current Wetland Surface Wetland + Lost) 0401030203 Headwaters Bad River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103020301 Headwaters Bad River 22,641 8,384 747 9,131 8.20% 37.00% 2.85% 0.14% 040103020302 Iron River 18,093 5,780 588 6,368 9.20% 31.90% 2.83% 0.06% 040103020303 Minnow Creek-Bad River 12,015 2,720 580 3,300 17.60% 22.60% 3.94% 0.31% 040103020304 Devils Creeks-Bad River 16,927 2,333 565 2,897 19.50% 13.80% 2.91% 0.38% 040103020305 Hardscrable Creek-Bad River 16,606 1,684 608 2,292 26.50% 10.10% 3.10% 0.71% 0401030204 Marengo River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103020401 Brunsweiler River 34,961 8,421 1,375 9,796 14.00% 24.10% 3.43% 0.09% 040103020402 Headwaters Marengo River 37,119 5,711 1,425 7,136 20.00% 15.40% 3.48% 0.09% 040103020403 Brunsweiler River 17,537 1,110 388 1,497 25.90% 6.30% 2.11% 0.31% 040103020404 Troutmere Creek-Marengo River 30,937 1,533 64 1,597 4.00% 5.00% 0.17% 0.53% 040103020405 Marengo River 18,584 1,667 223 1,890 11.80% 9.00% 1.16% 0.39% 0401030205 Potato River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103020501 Alder Creek 14,302 2,940 391 3,331 11.70% 20.60% 2.34% 0.43% 040103020502 Headwaters Potato River 19,773 5,660 592 6,252 9.50% 28.60% 2.60% 0.13% 040103020503 Lawrence Creek 8,627 1,590 625 2,215 28.20% 18.40% 6.65% 0.27% 040103020504 Sullivan Creek-Potato River 13,720 1,884 569 2,453 23.20% 13.70% 3.77% 0.09% 040103020505 Vaughn Creek 17,775 734 96 830 11.60% 4.10% 0.43% 0.52% 040103020506 Potato River 14,264 1,143 277 1,420 19.50% 8.00% 1.80% 0.09% 0401030206 White River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103020601 Non-Contributing-White River 14,509 721 201 922 21.80% 5.00% 1.22% 0.07% 040103020602 East Fork White River-White River 28,752 1,577 362 1,940 18.70% 5.50% 1.04% 0.19% 040103020603 Hanson Creek-White River 14,582 1,462 484 1,947 24.90% 10.00% 3.13% 0.13% 040103020604 Eighteenmile Creek 19,242 2,707 594 3,302 18.00% 14.10% 2.72% 0.17% 040103020605 Long Lake Branch 37,293 3,575 991 4,566 21.70% 9.60% 2.36% 0.28% 040103020606 Twentymile Creek 11,726 1,513 355 1,868 19.00% 12.90% 2.82% 0.15% 040103020607 Bibon Marsh-White River 22,343 10,426 280 10,706 2.60% 46.70% 1.20% 0.22% 040103020608 Schramm Creek 12,050 97 4 100 3.50% 0.80% 0.01% 0.42% 040103020609 White River Flowage-White River 11,908 77 18 95 18.80% 0.60% 0.14% 0.38% B-3 Appendix B – Wetland Characteristics for 12-Digit Watersheds Acres by HUC 12 Watershed Percent of Watershed that is: Original Hydrologic Unit Percent Wetland Potentially Watershed Name Watershed Current Lost Wetland Current Impervious Code Loss (Lost/Orig) Restorable Size Wetland Wetland (Current Wetland Surface Wetland + Lost) 040103020610 Meadow Creek 12,928 2,564 0 2,564 0.00% 19.80% 0.00% 0.13% 040103020611 Deer Creek-White River 15,582 1,317 46 1,363 3.40% 8.50% 0.27% 0.34% 040103020612 White River 13,077 3,433 32 3,465 0.90% 26.20% 0.19% 0.08% 0401030207 Bad River-Frontal Lake Superior ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103020701 Copper Falls State Park-Bad River 13,070 833 62 895 6.90% 6.40% 0.45% 0.05% 040103020702 Camerons Creek-Bad River 13,488 2,129 60 2,189 2.80% 15.80% 0.43% 0.06% 040103020703 Graveyard Creek-Frontal Lake Superior 29,292 1,016 96 1,112 8.70% 3.50% 0.29% 0.26% 040103020704 Denomie Creek 9,488 554 141 695 20.30% 5.80% 1.40% 0.47% 040103020705 Bad River-Frontal Lake Superior 16,262 5,695 144 5,839 2.50% 35.00% 0.80% 0.20% 07070004 Baraboo ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 0707000401 Headwaters of the Baraboo River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 070700040101 Cleaver Creek 15,518 353 984 1,336 73.60% 2.30% 5.80% 0.80% 070700040102 Headwaters of the Baraboo River 22,220 812 1,331 2,143 62.10% 3.70% 5.27% 1.14% 070700040103 Seymour Creek 13,769 461 1,202 1,662 72.30% 3.30% 7.88% 0.56% 070700040104 West Branch Creek 11,644 263 267 530 50.40% 2.30% 1.86% 0.56% 070700040105 Veterans Lake-West Branch of the Baraboo River 11,818 353 454 807 56.30% 3.00% 2.99% 1.26% 070700040106 Hills Creek 10,991 453 1,210 1,663 72.80% 4.10% 10.52% 0.71% 070700040107 West Branch of the Baraboo River 8,451 647 1,233 1,880 65.60% 7.70% 12.68% 1.45% 070700040108 City of Elroy-Baraboo River 11,116 824 1,092 1,917 57.00% 7.40% 8.38% 1.35% 0707000402 Little Baraboo River-Baraboo River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 070700040201 Plum Creek 9,649 346 68 414 16.40% 3.60% 0.52% 0.59% 070700040202 Crossman Creek 13,104 515 259 774 33.40% 3.90% 1.77% 0.41% 070700040203 Cazenovia Branch 21,547 462 164 626 26.20% 2.10% 0.67% 0.55% 070700040204 Little Baraboo River 24,509 992 435 1,426 30.50% 4.00% 1.54% 0.55% 070700040205 Lake Redstone 18,489 519 262 781 33.60% 2.80% 1.35% 0.56% 070700040206 Dutch Hollow Lake-Baraboo River 24,340 2,735 1,368 4,103 33.30% 11.20% 5.28% 1.06% 070700040207 Twin Creek-Baraboo River 29,663 3,154 533 3,686 14.50% 10.60% 1.51% 0.98% 0707000403 Narrows Creek-Baraboo River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 070700040301 Hill Point Creek-Narrows Creek 25,853 749 643 1,392 46.20% 2.90% 2.22% 0.79% B-4 Appendix B – Wetland Characteristics for 12-Digit Watersheds Acres by HUC 12 Watershed Percent of Watershed that is: Original Hydrologic Unit Percent Wetland Potentially Watershed Name Watershed Current Lost Wetland Current Impervious Code Loss (Lost/Orig) Restorable Size Wetland Wetland (Current Wetland Surface Wetland + Lost) 070700040302 Narrows Creek 17,996 872 486 1,358 35.80% 4.80% 2.41% 0.74% 070700040303 Seeley Creek 21,233 1,985 1,682 3,667 45.90% 9.30% 7.00% 0.50% 070700040304 Copper Creek-Baraboo River 23,699 2,418 1,448 3,867 37.50% 10.20% 5.00% 4.05% 070700040305 Pleasant Valley-Baraboo River 11,877 467 732 1,199 61.00% 3.90% 5.73% 0.87% 0707000404 Devil's Lake-Baraboo River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 070700040401 Pine Creek 9,626 312 181 492 36.70% 3.20% 1.79% 0.76% 070700040402 Devil's Lake-Baraboo River 10,086 95 106 201 52.80% 0.90% 1.01% 10.95% 070700040403 Rawley Creek 8,642 311 237 548 43.30% 3.60% 2.50% 0.39% 070700040404 Boulder Creek-Baraboo River 13,664 844 611 1,455 42.00% 6.20% 4.30% 1.87% 070700040405 Leech Creek 14,249 1,281 3,012 4,293 70.20% 9.00% 20.41% 0.51% 070700040406 Cascade Mountain-Baraboo River 15,342 3,804 2,619 6,423 40.80% 24.80% 14.83% 2.06% 04010301 Beartrap-Nemadji ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 0401030101 South Fork Nemadji River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103010103 Lower South Fork Nemadji River 2,158 269 34 303 11.30% 12.50% 1.24% 0.21% 0401030103 Black River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103010301 Upper Black River 7,033 3,716 98 3,814 2.60% 52.80% 1.06% 0.02% 040103010302 Middle Black River 18,410 5,572 582 6,154 9.50% 30.30% 2.69% 0.09% 040103010303 Lower Black River 23,329 5,284 349 5,633 6.20% 22.60% 1.26% 0.19% 0401030104 Middle Nemadji River ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ 040103010401 Clear Creek 1,115 284 0 284 0.10% 25.50% 0.00% 0.26% 040103010402 Balsam Creek 19,720 3,470 186 3,656 5.10% 17.60% 0.74% 0.16% 040103010403 Mud Creek-Nemadji River 7,908 1,113 36 1,149 3.20%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 22 AUG 2021 Index Acadia Rock 14967
    19 SEP 2021 Index 543 Au Sable Point 14863 �� � � � � 324, 331 Belle Isle 14976 � � � � � � � � � 493 Au Sable Point 14962, 14963 �� � � � 468 Belle Isle, MI 14853, 14848 � � � � � 290 Index Au Sable River 14863 � � � � � � � 331 Belle River 14850� � � � � � � � � 301 Automated Mutual Assistance Vessel Res- Belle River 14852, 14853� � � � � � 308 cue System (AMVER)� � � � � 13 Bellevue Island 14882 �� � � � � � � 346 Automatic Identification System (AIS) Aids Bellow Island 14913 � � � � � � � 363 A to Navigation � � � � � � � � 12 Belmont Harbor 14926, 14928 � � � 407 Au Train Bay 14963 � � � � � � � � 469 Benson Landing 14784 � � � � � � 500 Acadia Rock 14967, 14968 � � � � � 491 Au Train Island 14963 � � � � � � � 469 Benton Harbor, MI 14930 � � � � � 381 Adams Point 14864, 14880 �� � � � � 336 Au Train Point 14969 � � � � � � � 469 Bete Grise Bay 14964 � � � � � � � 475 Agate Bay 14966 �� � � � � � � � � 488 Avon Point 14826� � � � � � � � � 259 Betsie Lake 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agate Harbor 14964� � � � � � � � 476 Betsie River 14907 � � � � � � � � 368 Agriculture, Department of� � � � 24, 536 B Biddle Point 14881 �� � � � � � � � 344 Ahnapee River 14910 � � � � � � � 423 Biddle Point 14911 �� � � � � � � � 444 Aids to navigation � � � � � � � � � 10 Big Bay 14932 �� � � � � � � � � � 379 Baby Point 14852� � � � � � � � � 306 Air Almanac � � � � � � � � � � � 533 Big Bay 14963, 14964 �� � � � � � � 471 Bad River 14863, 14867 � � � � � � 327 Alabaster, MI 14863 � � � � � � � � 330 Big Bay 14967 �� � � � � � � � � � 490 Baileys
    [Show full text]
  • Wisdot Project List with Local Cost Share Participation Authorized Projects and Projects Tentatively Scheduled Through December 31, 2020 Report Date March 30, 2020
    WisDOT Project List with Local Cost Share Participation Authorized projects and projects tentatively scheduled through December 31, 2020 Report date March 30, 2020 COUNTY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY PROJECT WISDOT PROJECT PROJECT TITLE PROJECT LIMIT PROJECT CONCEPT HWY SUB_PGM RACINE ABANDONED LLC 39510302401 1030-24-01 N-S FREEWAY - STH 11 INTERCHANGE STH 11 INTERCHANGE & MAINLINE FINAL DESIGN/RECONSTRUCT IH 094 301NS MILWAUKEE AMERICAN TRANSMISSION CO 39510603372 1060-33-72 ZOO IC WATERTOWN PLANK INTERCHANGE WATERTOWN PLANK INTERCHANGE CONST/BRIDGE REPLACEMENT USH 045 301ZO ASHLAND ASHLAND COUNTY 39583090000 8309-00-00 T SHANAGOLDEN PIEPER ROAD E FORK CHIPPEWA R BRIDGE B020031 DESIGN/BRRPL LOC STR 205 ASHLAND ASHLAND COUNTY 39583090070 8309-00-70 T SHANAGOLDEN PIEPER ROAD E FORK CHIPPEWA R BRIDGE B020069 CONST/BRRPL LOC STR 205 ASHLAND ASHLAND COUNTY 39583510760 8351-07-60 CTH E 400 FEET NORTH JCT CTH C 400FEET N JCT CTH C(SITE WI-16 028) CONS/ER/07-11-2016/EMERGENCY REPAIR CTH E 206 ASHLAND ASHLAND COUNTY 39585201171 8520-11-71 MELLEN - STH 13 FR MELLEN CITY LIMITS TO STH 13 CONST RECST CTH GG 206 ASHLAND ASHLAND COUNTY 39585201571 8520-15-71 CTH GG MINERAL LK RD-MELLEN CTY LMT MINERAL LAKE RD TO MELLEN CITY LMTS CONST; PVRPLA FY05 SEC117 WI042 CTH GG 206 ASHLAND ASHLAND COUNTY 39585300070 8530-00-70 CLAM LAKE - STH 13 CTH GG TOWN MORSE FR 187 TO FR 186 MISC CONSTRUCTION/ER FLOOD DAMAGE CTH GG 206 ASHLAND ASHLAND COUNTY 39585400000 8540-00-00 LORETTA - CLAM LAKE SCL TO ELF ROAD/FR 173 DESIGN/RESURFACING CTH GG 206 ASHLAND ASHLAND COUNTY 39587280070
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Ontonagon, Presque Isle, Black, and Montreal River Watersheds
    MI/DEQ/WRD-13/014MI/DEQ/WRD-15/024 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER RESOURCES DIVISION JULY 2015 STAFF REPORT A BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ONTONAGON, PRESQUE ISLE, BLACK, AND MONTREAL RIVERS WATERSHEDS AND OTHER SELECTED WATERSHEDS IN GOGEBIC, HOUGHTON, IRON, AND ONTONAGON COUNTIES, MICHIGAN JULY-AUGUST 2013 INTRODUCTION Staff of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Surface Water Assessment Section (SWAS), conducted biological, chemical, and physical habitat surveys during the summer of 2013 throughout the Ontonagon (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 04020102), Presque Isle (HUC 04020101), Black (HUC 04020101), and Montreal (HUC 04010302) (OPBM) Rivers watersheds. Additionally, some streams located in smaller western Lake Superior coastal watersheds were surveyed (Figure 1). The goals of this monitoring were to: (1) assess the current status and condition of individual water bodies and determine whether Michigan Water Quality Standards (WQS) are being met; (2) evaluate biological integrity temporal trends; (3) satisfy monitoring requests submitted by external and internal customers; and (4) identify potential nonpoint source (NPS) pollution problems. These surveys qualitatively characterized the biotic integrity of macroinvertebrate communities with respect to existing habitat conditions at randomly selected sites throughout the OPBM watersheds region. The results of the surveys are used by the SWAS’s Status and Trends Program to estimate the amount of these watersheds that is supporting the other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife designated use component of R 323.1100(1)(e) of the Part 4 rules, WQS, promulgated under Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL SAMPLING EFFORTS The OPBM watersheds are located in the extreme west end of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm 67 Lawson.Pdf
    l-1: 13-32 ACHS s tJ:irr.rn RY FOP,~>I 1. Name Tenmile Creek Stream Valley '"~. Planning Area/Site Number 13/32 3 ..HNCPPC Atlas Reference Map 6 I-12 4. Address Northwestern Montgomery County between Route 121 ~West Old Baltimore Road 5. Classifica~ion Summary Category Multiple Resource Ovmership Various Public Acquisition In process Status Occupied Accessible Yes: restricted Present use A~Ti culture, Park, Private Residence Previous Survey Recording M-NCPPC Federal__ State_LCounty_LLocal __ (Titls and date: Inventory of Historical Sites 1976 6. Date 7. Original Owner 8. Apparent Condition b. Altered 9. Descriotion: Tenmile Creek Road, one of but a few dirt roads remaining in le County, winds past a nineteenth century schoolhouse, a slave cabin, a fire- ~:~oof house built on the site of a turreted mansion destroyed by fire in 1945, a Victorian summer boarding house and private park, a mid-nineteenth century mill site and pond, and a deserted, early road. The road leads through a green valley where jersey cows graze, up a gentle rise and around a bend where the trees meet overhead, through a ford, to the intersection with West Old Baltimore Road and a pond of pink and yellow water lilies. The creek valley contains numerous natural springs, many lined with watercress, meadows of wildflowers, surrounded with tree covered hills. 10. Significance: The valley of Tenmile Creek, immediately northwest of Boyds, Md. is an uncompromised historic & environmentally significant area that has suc­ ceeded in maintaining its character. Saved from development, it is now threatened by an impoundment. Historically the area contains potentially signifi­ cant archeological sites -- possibly of prehistoric Indian culture -- associated with woodland settlements of eighteenth century tobacco planters, a mill site, pond, race & house, a large boarding house constructed to accommodate summer visitors after the area became accessible by railroad in 1873, & later structures erected by dairy farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Survey Report
    Town of Frisco Historic Resource Survey 2020 draft draft Town of Frisco Cultural Resource Survey 2020 Survey Report Prepared for: Town of Frisco Community Development Department 1 East Main Street Frisco, Colorado 80443 Prepared By: Suzannah Reid Reid Architects, Inc PO Box 1303 Aspen, Colorado 81612 970 920 9225 December, 2020 This project was partially funded by a State Historical Fund Grant award from History Colorado, the Colorado Historical Society #2019-M2-022 draft Survey Report • Town of Frisco Historic Resource Survey Table of Contents Introduction………………………………. 1 Survey Design & Methodology…………… 3 General Historic Context………………… 13 Findings & Recommendations…………... 39 Maps Town of Frisco Regional Map Town of Frisco Survey Map Frisco and the Region Appendix A - Photo catalog of sites listed by construction date. Appendix B - Sites listed by State ID with National Register Evaluation Sites Listed by Street Address Appendix C - Bibliography Survey Report • Frisco Historic Resource Survey 2020 draft draft Survey Report • Introduction Figure 1 • View of Mt Royal along Main Street, c.1960s Introduction US. Located in the “mineral belt” of Colorado’s high country, Frisco benefited The Town of Frisco located on the edge of the from its proximity to a wealth of precious Blue River basin was created by prospectors, metals in the hills running up the Tenmile entrepreneurs, and homesteaders. Like its Canyon to the headwaters of Tenmile Creek. counterparts in the basin, the Town was But also, to its convenient location along the formed by the economic instability of mineral mountainous route from Georgetown on the extraction; the competing forces of capitalism; Front Range to Leadville, just over Fremont and a desire to make a home in a young Pass.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington County Planning Commission
    Washington County Planning Commission Washington County Act 167 County-Wide Stormwater Management Plan Phase II June 17, 2010 200 West Kensinger Drive, Suite 400 • Cranberry Township, PA 16066• 724.779.4777 [phone] WASHINGTON COUNTY ACT 167 PLAN PHASE II ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Washington County Planning Commission would like to thank the following individuals, municipalities, and agencies for their assistance and support of this project: WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAWRENCE O. MAGGI J. BRACKEN BURNS, SR. DIANA L. IREY Representing PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BARRY NEWMAN RUTH SITLER Representing WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LISA L. CESSNA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JASON E. THEAKSTON CAROLINE SINCHAR JEFFREY W. LEITHAUSER DEBRA S. REA MELANIE THOMAS-FINNEY HOLLY M. DAMES VINCENT P. LEY WASHINGTON COUNTY PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE Name Representing Name Representing Name Representing City Scott Honsaker New Eagle Chris Lawrence Jefferson Bob Kepics Monongahela Joseph Villella N. Charleroi Scott Finch Morris Anthony Spossey Washington Edward Vercoe Roscoe William Dinsmore Mount Pleasant Boroughs Roger Grandy Speers Bob Taylor N. Bethlehem Mark Chucuddy Allenport Michael Lee Stockdale Donald Hazlett N. Franklin Frank Startare Beallsville Paul Minardi Twilight Brian Spicer N. Strabane Ken Yankowsky Bentleyville Laurie Riggle W. Alexander Raymond Barley Nottingham Richard Alvarez Burgettstown Daniel Kendall W. Brownsville Frank Arcuri Peters Jon Bittner California John Opal W. Middleton George Lucchino Robinson Daniel Caruso Canonsburg Thomas Schilinski Smith Patsy Ricciutti Centerville David Blackburn Somerset Mark Alterici Charleroi Tom Hart S. Franklin Patricia Brown Claysville Townships John Stickle S. Strabane Robert Staley Coal Center Larry Headley Amwell Stephen Parish Union Carol Basara Cokeburgh Scott Weiss Blaine Robert Mercante W. Bethlehem William Beck Deemston James Mounts Buffalo David Martin W.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV – MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans
    Part IV MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans Part IV MDOT SHA Watershed TMDL Implementation Plans MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION IMPERVIOUS RESTORATION AND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION COORDINATED TMDL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2010a; MDE, 2011a). The allocated trash baseline for MDOT SHA is to IV. MDOT SHA WATERSHED be reduced by 100 percent (this does not mean that trash within the watershed will be reduced to zero). The allocation is divided into TMDL IMPLEMENTATION separate requirements for each County. PLANS PCBs are to be reduced in certain subwatersheds of the Anacostia River watershed. The Anacostia River Northeast Branch subwatershed requires a 98.6 percent reduction and the Anacostia River Northwest A. ANACOSTIA RIVER WATERSHED Branch subwatershed requires a 98.1% reduction. The Anacostia River Tidal subwatershed requires a 99.9% reduction. A.1. Watershed Description A.3. MDOT SHA Visual Inventory of ROW The Anacostia River watershed encompasses 145 square miles across both Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland and an The MS4 permit requires MDOT SHA perform visual assessments. additional 31 square miles in Washington, DC. The watershed Part III, Coordinated TMDL Implementation Plan describes the terminates in Washington, D.C. where the Anacostia River flows into MDOT SHA visual assessment process. For each BMP type, the Potomac River, which ultimately conveys water to the Chesapeake implementation teams have performed preliminary evaluations for each Bay. The watershed is divided into 15 subwatersheds: Briers Mill Run, grid and/or major state route corridor within the watershed as part of Fort Dupont Tributary, Hickey Run, Indian Creek, Little Paint Branch, desktop and field evaluations.
    [Show full text]
  • Wastewater Treatment Facilities with Individual WPDES Permits That Do Not Discharge Directly to Lake Michigan
    NE Lakeshore TMDL List of Wastewater Treatment Facilities with individual WPDES permits that do not discharge directly to Lake Michigan. List includes information on design flow, current total phosphorus (TP) limits, and current Total Suspended Solids (TSS) limit. * Baseline flow represents the highest annual average flow between 2015 and 2019. **Units for TP and TSS limits are mg/L unless otherwise noted. Design Baseline* Baseline Current TP limit Current TSS limit Waste Permit Outfall Outfall Outfall Flow flow flow Flow mg/L** mg/L** Facility Name Type Number Number Lat Long Receiving Water (MGD) (MGD) year source (average type) (average type) Unnamed Trib to 40 (daily); AGROPUR INC LUXEMBURG Industrial 0050237 009 44.4306 -87.6869 East Twin River NA 0.665 2018 Effluent 0.72 (monthly) 20 (monthly) ALGOMA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Municipal 0020745 001 44.6129 -87.4410 Ahnapee River 1 0.743 2019 Effluent 1 (monthly) 10 (monthly) 0.225 (monthly); 0.075 (6 month); 40 (daily); BAKER CHEESE FACTORY INC Industrial 0050521 003 43.7322 -88.1736 Mullet River NA 0.190 2019 Effluent 1 (12 month) 20 (monthly) Unnamed Trib of 40 (daily); BELGIOIOSO CHEESE INC DENMARK Industrial 0051128 007 44.3605 -87.8876 Devils River NA 0.476 2017 Effluent 1 (12 month) 20 (monthly) BELGIUM WASTEWATER TREATMENT Unnamed Trib to FACILITY Municipal 0023353 001 43.5139 -87.8493 Onion River 0.63 0.341 2019 Effluent 0.5 (monthly) 20 (monthly) BEMIS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 0.3 (monthly); 6.7 lbs per day PLANT D Industrial 0027456 001 43.7310 -87.8383 Sheboygan River NA 0.458 2016 Effluent 0.1 (6 month) (daily) BRIESS MALT & INGEDIENTS CO Industrial 0066257 001 44.0917 -87.6548 Manitowoc River NA 2.16 NA Permit 40 (daily) Unnamed Trib to BRILLION WASTEWATER TREATMENT Manitowoc N.
    [Show full text]
  • 0307010602 Tenmile Creek-Altamaha River HUC 8 Watershed: Altamaha
    Georgia Ecological Services U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2/9/2021 HUC 10 Watershed Report HUC 10 Watershed: 0307010602 Tenmile Creek-Altamaha River HUC 8 Watershed: Altamaha Counties: Appling, Jeff Davis, Tattnall, Toombs Major Waterbodies (in GA): Tenmile Creek, Altamaha River, Slaughter Creek, Little Tenmile Creek, Bells Mill Creek, Inman Creek, Grace Branch, Big Pond Federal Listed Species: (historic, known occurrence, or likely to occur in the watershed) E - Endangered, T - Threatened, C - Candidate, CCA - Candidate Conservation species, PE - Proposed Endangered, PT - Proposed Threatened, Pet - Petitioned, R - Rare, U - Uncommon, SC - Species of Concern. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) US: E; GA: E Occurrence; Please coordinate with National Marine Fisheries Service. Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) US: E; GA: E Occurrence; Critical Habitat; Please coordinate with National Marine Fisheries Service. Altamaha Spinymussel (Elliptio spinosa) US: E; GA: E Occurrence; Critical Habitat; Survey period: for larvae 15 Feb - 15 Mar. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) US: T; GA: E Potential Range (county); Survey period: early May Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) US: E; GA: E Occurrence; Survey period: habitat any time of year or foraging individuals: 1 Apr - 31 May. Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) US: T; GA: T Potential Range (county); Survey period: for larvae 15 Feb - 15 Mar. Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi) US: T; GA: T Occurrence; Survey period: 1 Nov - 31 Mar. Updated: 2/9/2021 0307010602 Tenmile Creek-Altamaha River 1 Georgia Ecological Services U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2/9/2021 HUC 10 Watershed Report HUCFederal 10 Candidate,Watershed :Candidate Conservation, or Petitioned Species: (likely or known to occur in the watershed) Delicate Spike (Elliptio arctata) US: Pet; GA: E Occurrence; Survey period: year round, when water temperatures are above 10° C and excluding when stage is increasing or above normal.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Upper Ohio River Basin in Western Pennsylvania
    Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Upper Ohio River Basin in Western Pennsylvania Report to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection French Creek © The Nature Conservancy Submitted by The Nature Conservancy March 2013 Ecosystem Flow Recommendations for the Upper Ohio River Basin in Western Pennsylvania March 2013 Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy Michele DePhilip Tara Moberg The Nature Conservancy 2101 N. Front St Building #1, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 232‐6001 E‐mail: Michele DePhilip, [email protected] Suggested citation: DePhilip, M. and T. Moberg. 2013. Ecosystem flow recommendations for the Upper Ohio River basin in western Pennsylvania. The Nature Conservancy. Harrisburg, PA. i Acknowledgments We thank Sue Weaver and Hoss Liaghat of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection who served as project managers. We thank all who generously contributed their time, invaluable expertise and resources through each of our technical workshops, in‐person meetings, phone calls and other means of consultation. We especially thank Mark Hartle, Bob Ventorini, Rick Lorson, Doug Fischer and Nevin Welte (Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission); Beth Meyer, Mary Walsh, Charles Bier, Ephraim Zimmerman and Eric Chapman (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program); Rick Spear, Tony Shaw, Rita Coleman, Julie Baldizar Dana Drake, Dan Counahan and Brian Dillemuth (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection); Sam Dinkins and John Spaeth (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission); Lou Reynolds, Frank Borsuk and Kelly Krock (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3); Rose Reilly, Ashley Petraglia, Mark Wozniak and Werner Loehlein (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District); Lora Zimmerman and Bob Anderson (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • MD 355 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Planning Study Natural Resources
    MD 355 Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Planning Study Natural Resources Technical Report May 2019 DRAFT Natural Resources Technical Report Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 MD 355 BRT Project Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 No-Build Alternative ......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative ................................................................................. 6 1.5 Alternative A ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Alternative B ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.7 Alternative C ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.8 Alignment Segments ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]