DOCSLIB.ORG

Feasibility Study of Removing the Grand Rapids-Providence Dams, Maumee River (Nw Ohio) Based on Hec-Ras Models

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feasibility Study of Removing the Grand Rapids-Providence Dams, Maumee River (Nw Ohio) Based on Hec-Ras Models FEASIBILITY STUDY OF REMOVING THE GRAND RAPIDS-PROVIDENCE DAMS, MAUMEE RIVER (NW OHIO) BASED ON HEC-RAS MODELS Zachery P. Mueller A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 2008 Committee: James E. Evans, Advisor Joseph P. Frizado Enrique Gomezdelcampo Sheila J. Roberts ii ABSTRACT James E. Evans, Advisor The Providence and Grand Rapids dams, located on the Maumee River at Grand Rapids, Ohio are low-head dams built in 1840 as rock-crib dams that were subsequently bolstered with concrete in 1907. The Providence dam is 362.1 m long and 2.6 m tall while the Grand Rapids dam is 195.7 m long and 2.4 m tall. Both dams create a single reservoir with a normal pool storage of 1233.5 m3 which is used for water supply and recreation. This study investigated the impacts to the flood regime in the area associated with the removal of the two dams by comparing HEC-RAS models of pre- and post-dam removal scenarios with 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, 500-year flooding events. The model encompassed 30.6 river kilometers of the Maumee River located in Henry, Lucas, and Wood County, Ohio using a total of 64 cross-sections collected from HEC-GeoRAS and a 1998 HEC-6 sediment transport model along with 20 interpolated cross-sections created by HEC-RAS. The research also examined the potential release of sediment trapped behind the dams by performing grain-size analysis of sediment collected upstream of the dams. The HEC-RAS results showed no significant change in the flood regime upstream of the dams and no change at all downstream of the dams. Immediately upstream of the dams the water surface elevation decreased from an initial elevation of 644.82 ft to 644.64 ft for the 10-year flooding event, a difference of less than <1%. For the 500-year flooding event the water surface elevation immediately upstream of the dams decreased from an initial elevation of 649.70 ft to 649.46 ft resulting in the same difference of <1%. The other flooding events resulted in similar iii differences. The differences in the areas inundated upstream of the dams due to these changes varied from no change to 0.01 mi2 for the 10-year and 500-year flooding events respectively. The potential release of sediment trapped behind the dams was determined to be low due to the low trapping efficiency of the dams determined from observations of essentially no sediment accumulation in the reservoir. Along with the low trapping efficiency of the dams, the majority of the sediment being transported by the Maumee River was determined to be largely mud which is transported as suspended load and carried over the dams. These results showed no significant changes in the flood regime near Grand Rapids, Ohio and no risk of releasing large quantities of sediment downstream after dam removal. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to start by thanking Dr. James E. Evans, my thesis advisor, for guiding me through the process of conducting and writing this thesis. My sincere gratitude also goes to Dr. Joseph P. Frizado, Dr. Enrique Gomezdelcampo, and Sheila J. Roberts, my thesis committee, for providing invaluable advice and a diverse knowledge base. I would also like to thank Nathan Harris for the time he spent helping me collect sediment samples in the Maumee River. I am also indebted to Paul E. Murawski at the Army Corp of Engineers, and Tina Griffin and Pete George at the ODNR Division of Water for their guidance and help in obtaining the data necessary to conduct my research. Finally, I would like to thank my family for their everlasting love and support. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Dam Removal .............................................................................................................................. 1 Effects of Dam Removal ............................................................................................................. 2 Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................................... 5 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 7 Hydrology.................................................................................................................................... 7 Bedrock Geology....................................................................................................................... 10 Till ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Terraces ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 21 The Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................................................................... 23 Flood Insurance Studies ............................................................................................................ 25 Flood Insurance Rate Map ........................................................................................................ 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE HYDROLOGIC MODEL HEC-RAS ............................................ 27 Background ............................................................................................................................... 27 One-Dimensional Flow Calculations ........................................................................................ 29 Water Surface Profiles ........................................................................................................... 29 Cross-Section Conveyance .................................................................................................... 29 Critical Depth ........................................................................................................................ 31 Momentum Equation ............................................................................................................. 33 Weir Flow .............................................................................................................................. 33 vi Bridge Hydraulics ..................................................................................................................... 35 Energy Method ...................................................................................................................... 35 Momentum Method ............................................................................................................... 36 Yarnell Equation .................................................................................................................... 36 Floodplain Encroachment Analyses .......................................................................................... 38 Computational Differences between HEC-2 and HEC-RAS .................................................... 44 Cross-Sectional Conveyance ................................................................................................. 44 Critical Depth ........................................................................................................................ 46 Bridge Hydraulic Computations ............................................................................................ 47 Culvert Hydraulic Computations ........................................................................................... 49 Floodway Encroachment Computations ................................................................................ 49 New Computational Features in HEC-RAS .............................................................................. 50 METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 52 Field Methods ............................................................................................................................ 52 Sediment ................................................................................................................................ 52 Differential Global Positioning System ................................................................................. 56 Laboratory Methods .................................................................................................................. 61 Grain-Size Analysis ............................................................................................................... 61 Sediment Core ....................................................................................................................... 62 GIS Analysis of Soils ................................................................................................................ 62 Hydrologic Modeling ................................................................................................................ 69 Data Sources .......................................................................................................................... 69 Digital Elevation Model ........................................................................................................ 70 vii Cross-Sections ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio Under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002
    State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Antidegradation Classifications Assigned to State and National Scenic Rivers in Ohio under Proposed Rules, March 25, 2002 March 25, 2002 prepared by Division of Surface Water Division of Surface Water, 122 South Front St., PO Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 644-2001 Introduction Federal Water Quality Standard (WQS) program regulations require that States adopt and use an antidegradation policy. The policy has two distinct purposes. First, an antidegradation policy must provide a systematic and reasoned decision making process to evaluate the need to lower water quality. Regulated activities should not lower water quality unless the need to do so is demonstrated based on technical, social and economic criteria. The second purpose of an antidegradation policy is to ensure that the State’s highest quality streams, rivers and lakes are preserved. This document deals with the latter aspect of the antidegradation policy. Section 6111.12(A)(2) of the Ohio Revised Code specifically requires that the Ohio EPA establish provisions “ensuring that waters of exceptional recreational and ecological value are maintained as high quality resources for future generations.” Table 1 explains the proposed classification system to accomplish this directive. The shaded categories denote the special higher resource quality categories. The proposed rule contains 157 stream segments classified as either State Resource Waters (SRW) or Superior High Quality Waters (SHQW). The approximate mileage in each classification is shown in Table 1. The total mileage in both classifications represents less than four percent of Ohio’s streams. Refer to “Methods and Documentation Used to Propose State Resource Water and Superior High Quality Water Classifications for Ohio’s Water Quality Standards” (Ohio EPA, 2002) for further information about the process used to develop the list of streams.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Lake Erie Lighthouses
    U.S. Lake Erie Lighthouses Gretchen S. Curtis Lakeside, Ohio July 2011 U.S. Lighthouse Organizations • Original Light House Service 1789 – 1851 • Quasi-military Light House Board 1851 – 1910 • Light House Service under the Department of Commerce 1910 – 1939 • Final incorporation of the service into the U.S. Coast Guard in 1939. In the beginning… Lighthouse Architects & Contractors • Starting in the 1790s, contractors bid on LH construction projects advertised in local newspapers. • Bids reviewed by regional Superintendent of Lighthouses, a political appointee, who informed U.S. Treasury Dept of his selection. • Superintendent approved final contract and supervised contractor during building process. Creation of Lighthouse Board • Effective in 1852, U.S. Lighthouse Board assumed all duties related to navigational aids. • U.S. divided into 12 LH districts with inspector (naval officer) assigned to each district. • New LH construction supervised by district inspector with primary focus on quality over cost, resulting in greater LH longevity. • Soon, an engineer (army officer) was assigned to each district to oversee construction & maintenance of lights. Lighthouse Bd Responsibilities • Location of new / replacement lighthouses • Appointment of district inspectors, engineers and specific LH keepers • Oversight of light-vessels of Light-House Service • Establishment of detailed rules of operation for light-vessels and light-houses and creation of rules manual. “The Light-Houses of the United States” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Dec 1873 – May 1874 … “The Light-house Board carries on and provides for an infinite number of details, many of them petty, but none unimportant.” “The Light-Houses of the United States” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Dec 1873 – May 1874 “There is a printed book of 152 pages specially devoted to instructions and directions to light-keepers.
    [Show full text]
  • Maumee AOC Habitat Restoration
    Maumee AOC Habitat Restoration The Maumee River habitat restoration project at Penn 7 will improve habitat for fish and wildlife by creating coastal wetlands and forested upland along the Maumee River. Project Location and 30% Design Concept Map • Northern Shoreline of the Maumee River in Toledo, Ohio Project Highlights Create 8.5 acres of emergent coastal wetland and 6.7 acres of submerged coastal wetland Improve roughly 59 acres of habitat including adjacent upland areas Control invasive plant species and plant native vegetation Install water control and fish habitat connectivity structures Funding is provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Great Lakes Commission (GLC) Regional Partnership The City of Toledo is implementing this project with assistance from their consultant, Hull and Associates Environmental Benefits Economic Benefits Community Benefits New fish and wildlife habitat Regional benefits to Downtown nature space Improved hydrologic eco-tourism, birding Improved water quality and connectivity and fishing ecosystem health Background of the Area of Concern (AOC) Located in Northwest Ohio, the Maumee AOC is comprised of 787 square miles that includes approximately the lower 23 miles of the Maumee River downstream to Maumee Bay, as well as other waterways within Lucas, Ottawa and Wood counties that drain to Lake Erie, such as Swan Creek, Ottawa River (Ten Mile Creek), Grassy Creek, Duck Creek, Otter Creek, Cedar Creek, Crane Creek, Turtle Creek, Packer Creek, and the Toussaint River. In 1987 the Maumee AOC River was designated as an AOC under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Unusually Large Loads in 2007 from the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers, Tributaries to Lake Erie
    point sources of pollution, the control of erosion and sediment transport to Lake Erie doi:10.2489/jswc.65.6.450 became important because much of the non- point phosphorus was bound to sediment (IJC 1978). In this context, more detailed and accurate knowledge of tributary loads Unusually large loads in 2007 from the of sediment, phosphorus, and other nutrients became a matter of concern. Maumee and Sandusky Rivers, tributaries The National Center for Water Quality Research (NCWQR) at Heidelberg to Lake Erie University began monitoring sediment and nutrients in the major US tributaries to Lake R.P. Richards, D.B. Baker, J.P. Crumrine, and A.M. Stearns Erie in 1975, with some records extend- ing back as far as the late 1960s. The past Abstract: During water year 2007 (October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007), the thirty years have seen improvements in some Maumee River and Sandusky River in northern Ohio transported the largest, or nearly aspects of water quality in these tributar- Copyright © 2010 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. the largest, loads of several water quality constituents that have been observed in 33 years of ies (reductions in suspended solids [SS] and Journal of Soil and Water Conservation monitoring. Discharge, total phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitro- particulate phosphorus [PP] [Richards et gen, and chloride all recorded 33-year maximum loads, while the loads for nitrate ranked al. 2008, 2009]), as well as some worsening 5th (Sandusky) and 8th (Maumee) out of 33. Loads of particulate phosphorus ranked 2nd trends (increasing dissolved reactive phos- (Sandusky) and 4th (Maumee), and those for suspended solids ranked 10th (Sandusky) and phorus [DRP] [Richards 2006]).
    [Show full text]
  • Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843
    Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio 1654-1843 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org $4.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS Historical Background 03 Trails and Settlements 03 Shelters and Dwellings 04 Clothing and Dress 07 Arts and Crafts 08 Religions 09 Medicine 10 Agriculture, Hunting, and Fishing 11 The Fur Trade 12 Five Major Tribes of Ohio 13 Adapting Each Other’s Ways 16 Removal of the American Indian 18 Ohio Historical Society Indian Sites 20 Ohio Historical Marker Sites 20 Timeline 32 Glossary 36 The Ohio Historical Society 1982 Velma Avenue Columbus, OH 43211 2 Ohio Historical Society www.ohiohistory.org Historic American Indian Tribes of Ohio HISTORICAL BACKGROUND In Ohio, the last of the prehistoric Indians, the Erie and the Fort Ancient people, were destroyed or driven away by the Iroquois about 1655. Some ethnologists believe the Shawnee descended from the Fort Ancient people. The Shawnees were wanderers, who lived in many places in the south. They became associated closely with the Delaware in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Able fighters, the Shawnees stubbornly resisted white pressures until the Treaty of Greene Ville in 1795. At the time of the arrival of the European explorers on the shores of the North American continent, the American Indians were living in a network of highly developed cultures. Each group lived in similar housing, wore similar clothing, ate similar food, and enjoyed similar tribal life. In the geographical northeastern part of North America, the principal American Indian tribes were: Abittibi, Abenaki, Algonquin, Beothuk, Cayuga, Chippewa, Delaware, Eastern Cree, Erie, Forest Potawatomi, Huron, Iroquois, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mohicans, Maliseet, Massachusetts, Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mississauga, Mohawk, Montagnais, Munsee, Muskekowug, Nanticoke, Narragansett, Naskapi, Neutral, Nipissing, Ojibwa, Oneida, Onondaga, Ottawa, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, Peoria, Pequot, Piankashaw, Prairie Potawatomi, Sauk-Fox, Seneca, Susquehanna, Swamp-Cree, Tuscarora, Winnebago, and Wyandot.
    [Show full text]
  • Toledo-Magazine-Fall-Fly-Fishing.Pdf
    TOLEDO MAGAZINE toledoBlade.com THE BLADE, TOLEDO, OHIO SUNDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2011 SECTION B, PAGE 6 THE OUTDOORS PAGE !7BB<BO<?I>?D= on the scenic Little Beaver Creek BLADE WATERCOLOR/JEFF BASTING PHOTOS BY MIKE MAINHART By STEVE POLLICK and JEFF BASTING t is time well-spent, flycasting bald eagle, an osprey, and, around for smallmouth bass on a re- the next bend, two deer, wading, Imote, wild, scenic stream on one of them a nice buck. This is a a sunny autumn day. place to lose track of time. The surprising thing is that here It is not easy wading over the cob- on Little Beaver Creek, it is so wild, ble for hours, but too soon the sun- so quiet, so remote that you wonder shot shadows are getting long and whether you actually are in Ohio. you realize that you are a steady, 45- Hard by the Pennsylvania line on minute hike from the Jeep, follow- the eastern border of Ohio, 36 miles ing an old mule towpath. Tracing it of the Little Beaver system comprise is a godsend when you are hungry a state and national wild and scenic and tired and want to “get back.” river. A 2,722-acre state park named The raised path was used in the for the creek is a good place for an 1830s and 1840s by muleskinners outing, the bridges at its upper and prodding teams that pulled tow- lower ends making nice bookends boats through the 90 locks of the 73- for a day astream. mile-long Sandy and Beaver Canal.
    [Show full text]
  • Basin Descriptions and Flow Characteristics of Ohio Streams
    Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water BASIN DESCRIPTIONS AND FLOW CHARACTERISTICS OF OHIO STREAMS By Michael C. Schiefer, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Bulletin 47 Columbus, Ohio 2002 Robert Taft, Governor Samuel Speck, Director CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 2 Purpose and Scope ……………………………………………………………. 2 Previous Studies……………………………………………………………….. 2 Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………… 3 Factors Determining Regimen of Flow………………………………………………... 4 Weather and Climate…………………………………………………………… 4 Basin Characteristics...………………………………………………………… 6 Physiology…….………………………………………………………… 6 Geology………………………………………………………………... 12 Soils and Natural Vegetation ..………………………………………… 15 Land Use...……………………………………………………………. 23 Water Development……………………………………………………. 26 Estimates and Comparisons of Flow Characteristics………………………………….. 28 Mean Annual Runoff…………………………………………………………... 28 Base Flow……………………………………………………………………… 29 Flow Duration…………………………………………………………………. 30 Frequency of Flow Events…………………………………………………….. 31 Descriptions of Basins and Characteristics of Flow…………………………………… 34 Lake Erie Basin………………………………………………………………………… 35 Maumee River Basin…………………………………………………………… 36 Portage River and Sandusky River Basins…………………………………….. 49 Lake Erie Tributaries between Sandusky River and Cuyahoga River…………. 58 Cuyahoga River Basin………………………………………………………….. 68 Lake Erie Tributaries East of the Cuyahoga River…………………………….. 77 Ohio River Basin………………………………………………………………………. 84
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Booklet
    2019 Ohio Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Ohio Sport Fish Consumption Advisory March 2019 2019 Ohio Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Fish for Your Health: Overall Advice on Fish Consumption .................................................................................................. 4 Fish: A Healthy Part of Your Diet ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Choose Better Fish .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 “Do Not Eat” Advisories ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Serving Size ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Prepare it Healthy .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Sensitive Populations ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Advisory
    [Show full text]
  • Huron River Brochure
    OTHER RIVERS Huron River In the Watershed Ottawa River Maumee River Cooley Canal Erie MetroParks summer day campers Toussaint River prepare to launch canoes into the Portage River Huron River at the Coupling MetroPark West Harbor in Milan Township. Sandusky River The Huron River bisects the Milan Huron River State Wildlife Area and can be viewed Vermilion River from the Lover's Lane Bridge. Black River Rocky River The Map indicates launch Sites Cuyahoga River for watercraft . Chagrin River Grand River Ashtabula River Conneaut Creek The Huron river is part of the Lake Erie Water Shed. The Huron River empties into Lake Erie. HURON RIVER WATERSHEDCOUNCIL 1100 NORTH MAIN STREET #210, ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 ( 734) 769-5123 About the Huron River The 14-mile long main branch of the Huron River begins at the confluence of the East Branch Huron and West Branch Huron rivers just west of Milan. The river empties into Lake Erie in the city of Huron. Headwaters for the branches are in Fitchville Township (Huron County) and Facts at a Glance Blooming Grove Township (Richland County), respectively, and are 30 miles and 50 miles long, respectively. Public Access: 13 sites The Huron River’s drainage basin, including both the West and East branches is 403 square miles (257,921 acres). Empties Into: Lake Erie The word “Huron” refers to a Native American tribe that was prevalent in the Great Lakes Mouth: Huron, OH (Erie County) region prior to European settlement. Variant names have included Bald Eagle Creek, Notowacy Thepy and Pettquotting River, among others. Much of the river system flows through Huron and Erie counties which together comprise a large amount of “the Firelands,” the westernmost Main Branch Length: 14 miles portion of the Connecticut Western Reserve.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Glacial Origin of the Maumee Valley Terraces, Northwestern Ohio1
    Late Glacial Origin of the Maumee Valley Terraces, Northwestern Ohio1 JACK A. KLOTZ2 AND JANE L. FORSYTH, Department of Geology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403 ABSTRACT. Four major paired terraces and six short local terraces have been identified along the Maumee River valley between the Ohio-Indiana state line and Perrysburg in northwestern Ohio by detailed field mapping and study of gaging-station records, water-well logs, and soils data. From highest to lowest, the paired terraces have been named the Antwerp, Florida, Napoleon, and Grand Rapids terraces. The three higher terraces are correlated with Glacial Lakes Warren I and II, Lake Wayne, and Lake Grassmere, respectively, based on similarities in elevation of the lowest end of the terraces and the lake levels. The lowest of the four major terraces, the Grand Rapids Terrace, is rock-defended, controlled by outcrops of the Silurian Tymochtee Dolomite in its channel at Waterville. The short local terraces appear to be related to short-lived stages in the cutting of the Maumee Valley. Although some may correlate with one of the major terrace systems, such correlations remain tentative because of the isolation of these local terraces. OHIO J. SCI. 93 (5): 126-133, 1993 INTRODUCTION TABLE 1 The Maumee River is the largest river draining northwestern Ohio. It heads in Indiana, and is fed by Glacial Lakes in the Erie Basin. tributaries in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, creating a 2 drainage basin encompassing approximately 19,425 km Lake Elevation Outlet (7,500 mi2) (Cross and Weber 1959). The Maumee River flows across a broad, low lake plain formed by ice- dammed lakes in the Erie Basin during the retreat of the Modern Lake Erie 174 m (570 ft) Niagara Wisconsinan ice sheet (Leverett 1902; Leverett and Taylor Early Lake Erie 128 m (420 ft) Niagara 1915; Carman 1930; Forsyth 1966, 1970, 1973; Calkin and Feenstra 1985; Coakley and Lewis 1985; Eschman and Lundy 189 m (620 ft) east* Karrow 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA List of Special Waters April 2014
    ist of Ohio’s Special Waters, As of 4/16/2014 Water Body Name - SegmenL ting Description Hydrologic Unit Special Flows Into Drainage Basin Code(s) (HUC) Category* Alum Creek - headwaters to West Branch (RM 42.8) 05060001 Big Walnut Creek Scioto SHQW 150 Anderson Fork - Grog Run (RM 11.02) to the mouth 05090202 Caesar Creek Little Miami SHQW 040 Archers Fork Little Muskingum River Central Ohio SHQW 05030201 100 Tributaries Arney Run - Black Run (RM 1.64) to the mouth 05030204 040 Clear Creek Hocking SHQW Ashtabula River - confluence of East and West Fork (RM 27.54) Lake Erie Ashtabula SHQW, State to East 24th street bridge (RM 2.32) 04110003 050 Scenic river Auglaize River - Kelly Road (RM 77.32) to Jennings Creek (RM Maumee River Maumee SHQW 47.02) 04100007 020 Auglaize River – Jennings Creek (RM 47.02) to Ottawa River (RM Maumee River Maumee Species 33.26) Aukerman Creek Twin Creek Great Miami Species Aurora Branch - State Route 82 (RM 17.08) to the mouth Chagrin River Chagrin OSW-E, State 04110003 020 Scenic river Bantas Fork Twin Creek Great Miami OSW-E 05080002 040 Baughman Creek 04110004 010 Grand River Grand SHQW Beech Fork 05060002 Salt Creek Scioto SHQW 070 Bend Fork – Packsaddle run (RM 9.7) to the mouth 05030106 110 Captina Creek Central Ohio SHQW Tributaries Big Darby Creek Scioto River Scioto OSW-E 05060001 190, 05060001 200, 05060001 210, 05060001 220 Big Darby Creek – Champaign-Union county line to U.S. route Scioto River Scioto State Scenic 40 bridge, northern boundary of Battelle-Darby Creek metro river park to mouth Big Darby Creek – Champaign-Union county line to Conrail Scioto River Scioto National Wild railroad trestle (0.9 miles upstream of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE %ITTLE MIAMI AIVER Scenic River Study
    THE %ITTLE MIAMI AIVER Scenic River Study Bureau of Outdoor Recreation U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR O AS THE NATION' S PRINCIPAL CONSERVATION AGENCY, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HAS BASIC RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WATER, FISH, WILDLIFE, MINERAL, LAND, PARK AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES. INDIAN AND TERRITORIAL AFFAIRS ARE OTHER MAJOR CONCERNS OF AMERICA'S "DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES." THE DEPARTMENT WORKS TO ASSURE THE WISEST CHOICE IN MANAGING ALL OUR RESOURCES SO EACH WILL MAKE ITS FULL CONTRIBUTION TO A BETTER UNITED STATES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary Bureau of Outdoor Recreation James G. Watt , Director ^Rv THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO PUBLIC LAW 90-542, THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT. IT SETS FORTH CONCEPTUAL GUIDE- LINES FOR THE CLASSIFICATION , DEVELOPMENT , AND MANAGEMENT OF THE RIVER AREA AS A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL SYSTEM AND IS INTENDED FOR USE BY CONCERNED FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN MASTER PLANNING AND EVENTUAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE AREA. a 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................1 II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................7 III. REGIONAL SETTING ....................................... 13 Landscape ............................................... 15 Economy and Population .................................. 17 Transportation Network ..................................21 Recreation Resources ..... ............................ 23 IV. DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS ............................... 29 A
    [Show full text]