DOCSLIB.ORG

The Casselman River Watershed Restoration Project CONSTANCE A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Casselman River Watershed Restoration Project CONSTANCE A The Casselman River Watershed Restoration Project CONSTANCE A. LOUCKS MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT – AML FROSTBURG MARYLAND 21532 [email protected] In the Ohio River Basin Tributary of the Youghiogheny River Flows North 91 square miles in Maryland and Pennsylvania Maryland portion of the main river is 20 miles in length MD Drainage area: 62.5 mi2 Listed on the 303(d) for pH and biological impairment U.S. EPA 319 (h) Funding – FFY08 • CVI Priorities Study • Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) • $55,000 U.S. EPA 319 (h) Funding – FFY09 • Phase 1 Treatment Systems Completed • 11 sites constructed 2012-2013 • $644,115 U.S. EPA 319 (h) Funding – FFY13 • Phase 2 Treatment Systems Partially Complete • 3 Sites constructed 2014-2015 • 6 Sites to be constructed 2015-2017 • $401,307 Canaan Valley List of Study Criteria Water Quality pH Impairment Institute under High and Low Flow Priorities Study Regimes Biological Impairments A Collaborative Project to Prioritize Streams for AMD Remediation and Brook Fish IBI Values Trout Restoration Macro IBI Values Presence of Brook Trout Maryland Dept of Environment Habitat Quality Score Maryland Dept of Natural Resources Canaan Valley Institute Access to Roads Youghiogheny River Watershed Group Deep Mine Openings Funding : Chesapeake Bay Trust Public Use U.S. EPA 319 (h) Public Interest Rare, Endangered, Threatened CVI Tributary Ranking Worksheet TRIBUTARY RANKING WORKSHEET P.1 TRIBUTARY RANKING WORKSHEET P.2 pH Indicators Biological Indicators Access Importance of Criteria (3-1) 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 0.25 Importance of Criteria (3-1) 3213210 331 3 Hack pH Lab pH pH Impairment (# miles) pH standards (#pts) Fish IBI MacroInv IBI 2007 (#pts) 2007 (#pts) (# pts) (# pts) high flow low flow high flow low flow Deep Mine Openings (# pts) (# pts) Brook Trout Habitat Score SRSF Shed Tributary poor fair poor fair poor fair poor fair poor poor # in trib watershed Shed Tributary good fair poor good fair poor absent present good fair # Rds Xing TOTAL MSC Little Shade Run Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 1 1 18 MSC Little Shade Run Score 0101001 010 0 27.7 Rank Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 1 1 4.5 Weighted 0203000 030 0 18.2 4 MSC Spiker Run Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 1 1 11 MSC Spiker Run Score 0100100 110 1 21.1 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 1 1 2.75 Weighted 0200200 330 3 20.9 3 NBC2 UnNamed 1 Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 NBC2 UnNamed 1 Score 0010011 001 0 6.5 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 Weighted 0010010 001 0 5.5 13 NBC2 Tarkiln Run Score 2 0 0 0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1 0 1 NBC2 Tarkiln Run Score 0000000 000 1 5.9 Weighted 6 0 0 0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1 0 0.25 Weighted 0000000 000 3 11.1 8 NBC2 UnNamed 2 Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 1 1 1 NBC2 UnNamed 2 Score 0000001 001 1 7.2 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 1 1 0.25 Weighted 0000000 001 3 7.4 11 (tie) NBC2 UnNamed 4 Score 0 0 0 0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 NBC2 UnNamed 4 Score 0000000 000 0 2.0 Weighted 0 0 0 0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 Weighted 0000000 000 0 3.0 14 NBC2 Alexander Run Score 0 0 0 0 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 1 1 0 NBC2 Alexander Run Score 0000011 001 1 9.5 Weighted 0 0 0 0 3.5 0.0 3.5 0.0 1 1 0 Weighted 0000010 001 3 13.9 6 NBC2 UnNamed 11 Score 0 0 0 0 2.9 0.0 2.2 0.7 4 4 0 NBC2 UnNamed 11 Score 0000000 000 2 15.8 Weighted 0 0 0 0 5.8 0.0 4.4 0.7 4 4 0 Weighted 0000000 000 6 25.0 2 SBC1 UnNamed 12 Score 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 SBC1 UnNamed 12 Score 0000000 000 2 3.3 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 Weighted 0000000 000 6 7.3 12 SBC2 UnNamed 7 Score 0 0 0 0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 SBC2 UnNamed 7 Score 0000000 000 1 5.1 Weighted 0 0 0 0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 0.25 Weighted 0000000 000 3 7.5 10 SBC2 UnNamed 8, 10 Score 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 1 1 0 SBC2 UnNamed 8, 10 Score 0000000 000 1 4.2 Weighted 0 0 0 0 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 1 1 0 Weighted 0000000 000 3 7.4 11 (tie) SBC2 Little Laurel Run Score 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 1 1 20 SBC2 Little Laurel Run Score 0000000 110 0 25.6 Weighted 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.7 1 1 5 Weighted 0000000 330 0 14.8 5 SBC2 UnNamed 5 Score 0 1 0 1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1 1 0 SBC2 UnNamed 5 Score 0000000 000 1 7.1 Weighted 0 2 0 2 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 1 1 0 Weighted 0000000 000 3 12.1 7 SBC2 UnNamed 6 Score 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 1 1 0 SBC2 UnNamed 6 Score 0000000 000 1 4.6 Weighted 0 0 0 0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 1 1 0 Weighted 0000000 000 3 8.3 9 SBC2 Big Laurel Run Score 0 0 1 0 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.0 3 2 9 SBC2 Big Laurel Run Score 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 21.4 Weighted 0 0 3 0 0.8 1.1 1.8 0.0 3 2 2.25 Weighted 3000000 330 3 26.0 1 Canaan Valley Institute Study Example: Big Laurel & Little Laurel Runs High Flow Prioritization Data Canaan Valley Institute Priorities Study Tributary Group Scores SBC2 1st Little Laurel Run SBC 2 2nd Big Laurel Run NBC2 3rd Unnamed 11 NBC2 4th Tarkiln Run MSC 5th Spiker Run MSC 6th Little Shade Run SBC2 7th Unnamed 7/8 NBC2 8th Alexander Run SBC1 9th Unnamed 2 NBC2 10th Unnamed 1 Canaan Valley Institute - Priorities Study Remediation Potential Project Rank based on Public Access Brook Trout Lime Dump Leach Bed Sites 1- 3 1st Priority Big Laurel Run Little Laurel Run North Branch Casselman Trib Sites 4-6 2nd Priority Tarkiln Run Spiker Run Little Shade Run CVI Priority Sites for AMD Remediation and Brook Trout Restoration Casselman Watershed pH Impairment and pH Goals Model pH CASSELMAN LOCATION & SAMPLE DESIGNATION Baseline FINAL TMDL PH GOALS Previous Current Source of Proposed Water TMDL Station TMDL Study pH – Existing pH pH pH r Impairment Location BMPs Quality Name Station (2001Lo - pHs – pH range Minimum Mean Maximu Station Code 2003Hi) 2008/09 m (Lo to Hi) EA Spiker Run Leach Bed C30u Spiker Run SP10018 6.2 / 6.1 5.6 – 7.7 5.57 – 7.78 6.50 7.10 7.84 CA Unnamed Trib to NBC C03 NB Casselman ZWN0003 7.6 / 6.2 4.85 – 8.07 6.50 7.09 8.11 AMD/AD North Branch Casselman C06 NB Casselman NBC0106 7.0 / 6.3 4.26 –7.73 6.57 7.06 7.82 AMD/AD North Branch Casselman C07 NB Casselman NBC0090 6.4 / 6.3 4.23 – 7.67 6.59 7.06 7.36 CA Unnamed Branch to NBC C15 NB Casselman UNA0015 3.3 / 4.3 4.36 – 6.16 6.51 7.04 7.72 CA Alexander Run Sand Dump C22 Alexander Run ALE0011 5.6 / 4.3 4.4 – 4.9 4.20 – 5.55 6.51 6.99 7.26 AMD/AD Tarkiln Run Sand Dump C25 Tarkiln Run TAR0003 7.0 / 5.0 4.7 – 5.3 4.25 – 5.63 6.51 7.02 7.29 AMD Unnamed Trib 2 2LB,3SD,SSB C27 None None 6.3 / 5.6 5.0 – 5.6 UNK Unnamed Trib 1 SD & LB C28 None None 6.7 / 6.6 5.9 – 7.1 AMD/AD North Branch Casselman C38 NB Casselman NBC0072 6.3 / 7.2 4.41 - 7.50 6.53 7.04 7.80 AMD South Branch Casselman C43 SB Casselman SCA0067 6.9 / 5.6 5.21 – 6.82 6.50 7.06 7.36 UNK South Branch Casselman SD &LB C52 None None 7.3 / 6.4 6.0 – 6.7 UNK Unnamed Trib 12 LB C53 None None 7.2 / 5.3 5.6 – 6.2 AMD? Unnamed 8 2Sand Dumps C56 None None 4.8 / 4.4 4.0 – 4.5 CA Little Laurel Run –UTrib 5 Sand Dump C64 Little Laurel Run LLR0024 5.9 / 3.9 4.4 – 5.2 4.22 – 5.61 6.51 7.02 7.28 AMD? Unnamed 6 SD & LB C65 None None 4.5 / 4.3 4.7 – 5.2 AMD Big Laurel Run Sand Dump C72 None None 4.9 / 4.5 4.2 – 4.8 EA Episodic Acidification CA Chronic Acidification Acid Mine Drainage AMD/AD Acidic Deposition UNK Unknown Source = Only BOM = Only TMDL = Both Project Sites Impaired BOM TMDL Reaches Project Impaired Site & Reaches TAKEN MONTHLY @ 18 SITES Closed pH .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Investigations 71 (Pdf, 4.8
    Department of Natural Resources Resource Assessment Service MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Emery T. Cleaves, Director REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO. 71 A STRATEGY FOR A STREAM-GAGING NETWORK IN MARYLAND by Emery T. Cleaves, State Geologist and Director, Maryland Geological Survey and Edward J. Doheny, Hydrologist, U.S. Geological Survey Prepared for the Maryland Water Monitoring Council in cooperation with the Stream-Gage Committee 2000 Parris N. Glendening Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Lieutenant Governor Sarah Taylor-Rogers Secretary Stanley K. Arthur Deputy Secretary MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 General DNR Public Information Number: 1-877-620-8DNR http://www.dnr.state.md.us MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 2300 St. Paul Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 (410) 554-5500 http://mgs.dnr.md.gov The facilities and services of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources are available to all without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or physical or mental disability. COMMISSION OF THE MARYLAND GEOLOGICAL SURVEY M. GORDON WOLMAN, CHAIRMAN F. PIERCE LINAWEAVER ROBERT W. RIDKY JAMES B. STRIBLING CONTENTS Page Executive summary.........................................................................................................................................................1 Why stream gages?.........................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River
    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River North Fork Watershed Project/Friends of Blackwater MAY 2009 This report was made possible by a generous donation from the MARPAT Foundation. DRAFT 2 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................... 7 PART I ‐ General Information about the North Branch Potomac Watershed ........................................................... 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Geography and Geology of the Watershed Area ................................................................................................. 9 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary for Youghiogheny River Fisheries Management Plan 2015
    Executive Summary for Youghiogheny River Fisheries Management Plan 2015 The purpose of the 2012 and 2014 surveys of the Youghiogheny River was to evaluate water quality and fish species occurrence in Sections 02 through 06, assess the river’s naturally reproducing gamefish populations (particularly Smallmouth Bass and Walleye), assess the results of fingerling stocking of Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout in Sections 02 to 05 (from the mouth of the Casselman River downstream to the dam at South Connellsville), assess the efficacy of annual Muskellunge stocking in Section 06 (from the dam at South Connellsville downstream to the mouth at McKeesport), and to update the fisheries management recommendations for the Youghiogheny River. All of the section and site data for the Youghiogheny River sampled in 2012 and 2014 were improved over the historic sampling numbers for water quality, fish diversity, and fish abundance. Smallmouth Bass made up the bulk of the available fishery at all sites sampled in 2012 and 2014. The water quality improvement was in large part due to the reduction of acid mine drainage from the Casselman River. This improvement in alkalinity was observed in the Youghiogheny River at Section 02 just below the mouth of the Casselman River, with an increase to 20 mg/l in 2012 from 11 mg/l in 1989. Section 03 (from the confluence of Ramcat Run downstream to the Route 381 Bridge at Ohiopyle) alkalinity improved from 13 mg/l in 1989 to 22 mg/l in 2012. Recreational angling in the Youghiogheny River for a variety of species has increased over the last fifteen years based on local reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics in the Coastal Plain Hydrologic Region
    U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service Maryland Stream Survey: Bankfull Discharge and Channel Characteristics in the Coastal Plain Hydrologic Region CBFO-S03-02 July 2003 MARYLAND STREAM SURVEY: BANKFULL DISCHARGE AND CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS IN THE COASTAL PLAIN HYDROLOGIC REGION By: Tamara L. McCandless U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office CBFO-S03-02 Prepared in cooperation with: Maryland State Highway Administration and U.S. Geological Survey Copies of this report are available at www.fws.gov/r5cbfo Annapolis, MD 2003 Bankfull discharge and channel characteristics of streams in the Coastal Plain hydrologic region TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES vii SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS viii INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 1 Selection of Gage Sites 1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4 Summary of General Site Characteristics 4 Rosgen Stream Types 5 Bankfull Discharge 11 Indicators 11 By Drainage Area 13 Recurrence Interval 18 Cross-section Relationships 19 By Drainage Area 19 By Bankfull Discharge 24 Resistance Relationships 25 CONCLUSIONS 26 APPLICATIONS 27 Use of Regression Relationships for Design Purposes 27 LITERATURE CITED 29 APPENDIX A Site characteristics for selected USGS gage station survey sites in the Coastal Plain physiographic province ii Bankfull discharge and channel characteristics of streams in the Coastal Plain hydrologic region EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As public demand increases for restoring the physical, biological, and aesthetic characteristics of degraded rivers, engineers and environmental managers are attempting to design in accordance with the natural tendencies of rivers in flood protection, channel stabilization, stream crossing, channel realignment, and watershed management projects. For these endeavors, designers need information on regional hydrologic relationships to evaluate and predict the dimension, pattern, and profile of natural rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Watersheds.Pdf
    Watershed Code Watershed Name 02130705 Aberdeen Proving Ground 02140205 Anacostia River 02140502 Antietam Creek 02130102 Assawoman Bay 02130703 Atkisson Reservoir 02130101 Atlantic Ocean 02130604 Back Creek 02130901 Back River 02130903 Baltimore Harbor 02130207 Big Annemessex River 02130606 Big Elk Creek 02130803 Bird River 02130902 Bodkin Creek 02130602 Bohemia River 02140104 Breton Bay 02131108 Brighton Dam 02120205 Broad Creek 02130701 Bush River 02130704 Bynum Run 02140207 Cabin John Creek 05020204 Casselman River 02140305 Catoctin Creek 02130106 Chincoteague Bay 02130607 Christina River 02050301 Conewago Creek 02140504 Conococheague Creek 02120204 Conowingo Dam Susq R 02130507 Corsica River 05020203 Deep Creek Lake 02120202 Deer Creek 02130204 Dividing Creek 02140304 Double Pipe Creek 02130501 Eastern Bay 02141002 Evitts Creek 02140511 Fifteen Mile Creek 02130307 Fishing Bay 02130609 Furnace Bay 02141004 Georges Creek 02140107 Gilbert Swamp 02130801 Gunpowder River 02130905 Gwynns Falls 02130401 Honga River 02130103 Isle of Wight Bay 02130904 Jones Falls 02130511 Kent Island Bay 02130504 Kent Narrows 02120201 L Susquehanna River 02130506 Langford Creek 02130907 Liberty Reservoir 02140506 Licking Creek 02130402 Little Choptank 02140505 Little Conococheague 02130605 Little Elk Creek 02130804 Little Gunpowder Falls 02131105 Little Patuxent River 02140509 Little Tonoloway Creek 05020202 Little Youghiogheny R 02130805 Loch Raven Reservoir 02139998 Lower Chesapeake Bay 02130505 Lower Chester River 02130403 Lower Choptank 02130601 Lower
    [Show full text]
  • G-II-C-307 River Road Bridge Over Casselman River (Bridge No
    G-II-C-307 River Road Bridge over Casselman River (Bridge No. G-109, Casselman River Road Pratt Truss Bridge) Architectural Survey File This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps. Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment. All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust. Last Updated: 05-26-2017 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY/DISTRICT MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST INTERNAL NR-ELIGIBILITY REVIEW FORM Property/District Name: River Road Bridge Survey Nl.llber: G-II-C-307 Project: River Rd over Casselman River Garrett County Agency: USDA/Garrett Co. Site visit by MHT Staff: .JL no yes Name Date Eligibility reconmended _x_ Eligibility not reconmended Criteria: .JLA _B _c _D Considerations: _A _B _c _D _E _F _G _None Justification for decision: (Use continuation sheet if necessary and attach map) Under criteria A, the River Road Bridge derives its significance from its association with the development of transportation in Garrett County.
    [Show full text]
  • Casselman River Watershed Boating and Recreation Guide Is Unique in That It Highlights Important Features the First Time Down
    River Classifications HARNEDSVILLE TO CONFLUENCE: For the most part, this four mile segment provides a scenic view, although in Casselman River Along the Way the lower section there is a levee for flood control. Other than an easy ledge a short distance below Harnedsville, this section is an easy paddle with fast flowing Class I water. This section is typically floatable from early December River classification is a rating system that is used in determining the paddling difficulty of a waterway. There are six clas- The following descriptions are based on the Canoeing Guide to Western Pennsylvania and Northern Virginia, developed through early June. Optimal conditions are when the Markelton gauge is between two and four feet. Casselman River sifications. (Source: Canoeing Guide of Western Pennsylvania and Northern Virginia) as a community effort by the canoeists of the American Youth Hostels and other friends. Boating skills that match the Middle Youghiogheny Ramcat Access: Located near Confluence, PA downstream from the convergence of the Cas- Class I Easy: These are fast-moving waters with riffles and small waves. Few obstructions block the flow, but are obvious river classification for each segment listed are required! selman and Youghiogheny rivers, the access site is on the Yough and part of Ohiopyle State Park and is also a trail- Watershed and easily missed with little training. head for the Great Allegheny Passage. Do not miss the take-out on the left, ramcat rapid is immediately below. Casselman River Watershed CASSELMAN RIVER BRIDGE STATE PARK: Located near Grantsville, Maryland, this 0.4 acre park features the Cassel- Class II Novice: Straightforward rapids with wide, clear channels that are evident without scouting.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods in Youghiogheny and Kiskiminetas River Basins Pennsylvania and Maryland
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 204 FLOODS IN YOUGHIOGHENY AND KISKIMINETAS RIVER BASINS PENNSYLVANIA AND MARYLAND FREQUENCY AND MAGNITUDE Prepared by Water Resources Division UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CffiCULAR 204 FLOODS IN YOUGHIOGHENY AND KISKIMINETAS RIVER BASINS PENNSYLVANIA AND MARYLAND FREQUENCY AND MAGNITUDE Prepared by Water Resources Division Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State Department of Forests and Waters Washington, D. C.,1952 Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Page Introduction............................. 1 Gaging-station records--Continued Method................................... 1 Kiskiminetas River basin--Continued Records Available........................ 1 Conemaugh River at Tunnelton, Pa .•.. 13 Flood-frequency relationships............ 3 Kiskirninetas River at Avonmore ....... 14 Analysis of flood data................. 3 Little Conemaugh River at East Plotting positions..................... 3 Conemaugh........................ 15 Adjustment to base periods............. 3 Blacklick Creek at Blacklick •••••.•.. 15 Test for homogeneity................... 4 Loyalhanna Creek at Kingston ......... 16 Median flood ratios.................... 4 Loyalhanna Creek at New Alexandria •.. 16 Composite flood-frequency graphs....... 4 Youghiogheny River basin: Mean annual flood. • . • . • . • . • . 9 Youghiogheny River at Ohiopyle, Pa ... 17 Computation of comparable means.......
    [Show full text]
  • US 219: I-68 (MD) to Meyersdale (PA) Planning and Environment Linkages Study Garrett County, MD and Somerset County, PA
    I-68 TO MEYERSDALE, PA July 2016 US 219 US 219: I-68 (MD) to Meyersdale (PA) Planning and Environment Linkages Study Garrett County, MD and Somerset County, PA Meadow Run and fringe Intersection of US 219 and Mine portals can provide Farms are typical to the wetland Route 40 Alternate habitat for rare bat species Study Area Aerial of the Study Area Executive Summary The Maryland Department of Transportation’s State Highway Administration (MDOT/SHA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) through coordination with the Federal Highway Administration division offices in both states collaborated to complete a Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) study for improving US 219 between I-68 (Maryland) and the Meyersdale Bypass (Pennsylvania). The US 219 PEL study focused on identifying a range of solutions to advance the PEL’s Vision of completing Corridor N of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). Additionally, The PEL will review the corridor to determine if any smaller standalone projects with independent utility and logical termini exist. The PEL Vision is to assist ARC in working toward the completion of Corridor N of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) through improvements to the section of US 219 between Meyersdale, Pennsylvania and I-68 in Maryland. The vision includes the desire to generate economic development in previously isolated areas1, supplement the interstate system through connecting I-68 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike (I-76), connect the study area portion of Appalachia to the interstate system, provide access to areas within the region as well as to markets in the rest of the nation2, and improve (the level of) safety for motorists traveling on US 219.
    [Show full text]
  • G-II-C-014 Old Casselman River Bridge (Casselman Bridge State Park)
    G-II-C-014 Old Casselman River Bridge (Casselman Bridge State Park) Architectural Survey File This is the architectural survey file for this MIHP record. The survey file is organized reverse- chronological (that is, with the latest material on top). It contains all MIHP inventory forms, National Register nomination forms, determinations of eligibility (DOE) forms, and accompanying documentation such as photographs and maps. Users should be aware that additional undigitized material about this property may be found in on-site architectural reports, copies of HABS/HAER or other documentation, drawings, and the “vertical files” at the MHT Library in Crownsville. The vertical files may include newspaper clippings, field notes, draft versions of forms and architectural reports, photographs, maps, and drawings. Researchers who need a thorough understanding of this property should plan to visit the MHT Library as part of their research project; look at the MHT web site (mht.maryland.gov) for details about how to make an appointment. All material is property of the Maryland Historical Trust. Last Updated: 12-01-2003 r_,-- -:::,. o(..,-5 •2.A~t,( G-II-C-014 1813 Casselman Bridge, National Road Grantsville vicinity public (restricted) Spanning the Casselman River, the Casselamn Bridge was built in 1813 as part of this country's effort to construct a National Road. The bridge, built of ashlar stone laid irregularly, spans some 354 feet. It is approximately 30 feet high, at the chord of the arc to the waterline below, while its width, at the entrances of the bridge, is about 48 feet. At the time of its construction, it was the largest single span stone bridge in America.
    [Show full text]