DOCSLIB.ORG

Wills Creek Preassessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wills Creek Preassessment Wills Creek Preassessment Eric Null Len Lichvar Produced by Somerset Conservation District, 6024 Glades Pike Road Suite 103, Somerset, PA 1 2 Wills Creek Preassessment Eric Null Len Lichvar March 2010 Somerset Conservation District Funding for this project provided by the Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds With special assistance from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Photos by Len Lichvar, Eric Null, and Amanda Deal Copies of this report may be obtained by contacting the Somerset Conservation District 6024 Glades Pike Road, Suite 103 Somerset, PA 15501 Phone (814) 445-4652 ext.5 Fax (814) 445-2044 E-mail [email protected] Report text may be accessed on the Somerset Conservation District Website http://www.somersetcd.org/ 3 Table of Contents Forward/Acknowledgements………...……………………………………………….7 Introduction………………………………………………………..………………….8 Methods………………………………………………………………………………10 Results…………………………………………………..…………………………....14 Discussion…………………………………………..………………………………..29 Recommendations …………………………………….…………………………….30 Literature Cited……………………………………….……………………………...31 Appendix 1— Macroinvertebrates collected at each site Appendix 2—Fishes collected at each site Wills Creek Sampling Station 5 4 List of Figures Figure 1. The Wills Creek watershed………………………………………………………....8 Figure 2. Wills Creek Preassessment sampling points…………………………………...….11 Figure 3. Macroinvertebrate species richness of the Wills Creek Watershed……………….15 Figure 4. Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index for the macroinvertebrates communities of the Wills Creek Watershed……………………………………………………..16 Figure 5. HBI scores for the Wills Creek watershed………………………………………....17 Figure 6. Percent EPT taxa in the Wills Creek watershed…………………………………....18 Figure 7. Percent Dominant taxa in the Wills Creek watershed……………………………...18 Figure 8. Percent acid tolerant taxa in the Wills Creek watershed…………………………...19 Figure 9. Fish species richness in the Wills Creek watershed ………………………………..21 Figure 10. Shannon-Weaver diversity index for fish communities in the Wills Creek Watershed…………………………………………………………………...22 Figure 11. WC1 trophic feeding levels…………………………………………………….….22 Figure 12 WC2 trophic feeding levels………………………………………………………..23 Figure 13. WC3 trophic feeding levels………………………………………………………..23 . Figure 14. WC4 trophic feeding levels………………………………………………………..24 Figure 15. WC5 trophic feeding levels…………………………………………………….….24 Figure 16. WC6 trophic feeding levels………………………………………………………..25 Figure 17. BC1 trophic feeding levels………………………………………………………...25 Figure 18. BC2 trophic feeding levels………………………………………………………...26 Figure 19. LWC trophic feeding levels……………………………………………………….26 Figure 20. GR trophic feeding levels………………………………………………………….27 Figure 21. Wills Creek watershed PHI scores………………………………………………...28 5 FORWARD and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Wills Creek watershed in Somerset County is a sparsely populated region with some rugged terrain. Perhaps not surprisingly then it has not received a great deal of human intervention. This could be deemed good since it has been spared some of man's intrusions and resultant negative impacts. It could also be considered not such a good thing since the same lack of attention provides for minimal understanding of the region and often can lead to eventual decision making without regard for the important natural resources it harbors. The Wills Creek watershed Preassessment was designed to determine the current status of the watershed and its resources so that as development pressure eventually finds its way into this last vestige of relatively untouched Somerset County landscape, the re- sources that make it a special place will be respected and retained to the greatest extent possible. If and when this lofty goal is accomplished it will be because of the foresighted interest of the Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds and its willingness to fund and support this important project. It will also be a testament to the Somerset Conservation District for its ability to look to the future and take proactive steps to safeguard an otherwise vulnerable region. Special thanks go to District Biologist Eric Null for taking the lead in this endeavor and to District support staff such as Dave Kemp, Amanda Deal and Bob Hook for their ex- pertise and assistance. Also a special thanks to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commis- sion Area 7 and Area 8 Fisheries Managers and their staff as well as the Habitat Man- agement Division in both areas for their essential assistance in gathering data. The Wills Creek watershed is a special place and the special efforts put forth by all in- volved will be even more appreciated and understood in the future than they are today. Len Lichvar District Manager Somerset Conservation District 6 INTRODUCTION Watersheds in Southwestern Pennsylvania are known for suffering from detrimental im- pacts from abandoned mine drainage (AMD), organic loading, and urban sprawl. Because of these pollution impacts almost all the major watersheds as well as sub watersheds have been assessed and evaluated chemically, physically, and biologically. Extensive remediation efforts have occurred in some of these watersheds and conservation easements and ordnances have been established on some of the more pristine areas. One major watershed in southwestern Pennsylvania that has gone relatively unassessed is the Wills Creek watershed. Wills Creek is a fourth order stream that flows into the North Branch of the Potomac River in the city of Cum- berland, Maryland. The total drainage area of the Wills Creek watershed is 65,682.4 hectares (253.6 square miles), with 50,012.8 hectares (193.1 square miles) located in Pennsylvania. The Wills Creek watershed begins in the Big Savage Mountains in Pennsylvania and flows south- east approximately 64.3 km (40mi) to its confluence with the Potomac River in Cumberland Maryland. Wills Creek does not encounter any large areas of human population until it crosses the Pennsylvania border with Maryland. The highest population in the Pennsylvania portion of watershed is the Borough of Hyndman, located in Bedford County with a population of 1005 residents. The total population of the entire watershed is estimated at 32,017 with the majority of the populace occurring in Maryland. Urbanized land use only comprises 2.4% of the total watershed in Pennsylvania (MDE 2006). Figure 1 illustrates the location and area of the Wills Creek watershed. The Wills Creek watershed is located on the Appalachian Plateau. The surface geology of the watershed is comprised of strongly folded and faulted sedimentary rock providing a rough topography. The Appalachian Plateau is characterized by gently folded shale, siltstone, and sandstone. (MDE 2006) The soils of the watershed are comprised of Dekalb, Ernest, and Hazelton soil series. (MDE 2006) There are no major coal seams located in the Pennsylvania portion of the watershed. The topography of the watershed is characterized by steep peaks and valleys. The creek ranges from extremely high gradient to low gradient flows. The stream is characterized by large stone and boulder bottoms throughout the majority of the mainstem. Most of the tributaries and headwaters are completely forested. Forested land comprises 84.2% of entire Pennsylvania portion of the watershed. Agricultural land uses utilize 13.4% of the Pennsylvania portion of Wills Creek, with water supply only using 18 acres of the watershed. (MDE 2006) The only major physical impact that has occurred in the Pennsylvania portion of the watershed has been very large flood events that have altered the stream channel. These events led to levee construction outside of the stream channel in the borough of Hyndman and City of Cumberland, Maryland. Figure 1 illustrates the area of the Wills Creek watershed. 7 Figure 1 The Wills Creek Watershed 8 Previous assessments and studies The only information that has been attained from the Wills Creek watershed comes from very few non Pennsylvania specific studies, and other small assessments. The Maryland Depart- ment of the Environment investigated the Pennsylvania portion of the watershed for their 2006 reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency concerning total maximum daily loads for fecal bacteria and sediment for the watershed in regards to possible Chesapeake Bay impacts. These surveys did not utilize specific sites in Pennsylvania and did not assess the physical and biological components of the watershed. Instead the PA portion of the watershed was assessed broadly for its total impact to the North Branch of the Potomac River. The find- ings of this study were that the PA portion contributed far less fecal and sediment impacts than the much smaller more urbanized Maryland portion. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commis- sion performed a small fish survey in 1981 in the Pennsylvania portion of the watershed. The Western Pennsylvania Conservancy in corporation with the Somerset Conservation District as- sessed an exceptional value tributary, Laurel Run for a Cold Water Conservation Plan in 2006. The survey determined that Laurel Run had a large stable population of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). (WPC 2007) There was a survey conducted by Frostburg State University in 2001 that assessed the hybridization between two species of sculpin in the main stem of Wills Creek (Kinziger and Raesly 2001). The Maryland portion of the watershed has been routinely assessed by the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS). Samples are collected from the Maryland portion of the watershed on a rotational basis to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Taxonomic Revision of Rhododendron L. Section Pentanthera G
    A TAXONOMIC REVISION OF RHODODENDRON L. SECTION PENTANTHERA G. DON (ERICACEAE) BY KATHLEEN ANNE KRON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1987 , ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the supervision and encouragement given to me by Dr. Walter S. Judd. I thoroughly enjoyed my work under his direction. I would also like to thank the members of my advisory committee, Dr. Bijan Dehgan, Dr. Dana G. Griffin, III, Dr. James W. Kimbrough, Dr. Jonathon Reiskind, Dr. William Louis Stern, and Dr. Norris H. Williams for their critical comments and suggestions. The National Science Foundation generously supported this project in the form of a Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant;* field work in 1985 was supported by a grant from the Highlands Biological Station, Highlands, North Carolina. I thank the curators of the following herbaria for the loan of their material: A, AUA, BHA, DUKE, E, FSU, GA, GH, ISTE, JEPS , KW, KY, LAF, LE NCSC, NCU, NLU NO, OSC, PE, PH, LSU , M, MAK, MOAR, NA, , RSA/POM, SMU, SZ, TENN, TEX, TI, UARK, UC, UNA, USF, VDB, VPI, W, WA, WVA. My appreciation also is offered to the illustrators, Gerald Masters, Elizabeth Hall, Rosa Lee, Lisa Modola, and Virginia Tomat. I thank Dr. R. Howard * BSR-8601236 ii Berg for the scanning electron micrographs. Mr. Bart Schutzman graciously made available his computer program to plot the results of the principal components analyses. The herbarium staff, especially Mr. Kent D. Perkins, was always helpful and their service is greatly appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • 7. Mineral Resources
    7. Mineral Resources The primary mineral resources extracted for human use in Allegany County are coal, sandstone, and limestone. Coal bearing formations are concentrated in the Georges Creek Basin in the western part of the county. Mineral resources present in Cumberland occur primarily in association with Shriver Ridge, Haystack Mountain, and Wills Mountain. All three of these landforms contain sandstone deposits of varying quality. Limestone formations occur between Shriver Ridge and Wills Mountain in the Valley Road area and extend across Wills Creek to the West Side. There are no current mining operations within the City of Cumberland. The limestone deposits in the Valley Road area and on the West Side have been quarried in the past. Outside of the City limits, there is an active sandstone mining operation on the northwest slope of Wills Mountain. This operation does not currently affect views of Wills Mountain from Cumberland. There is historic evidence that drilling for natural gas was unsuccessfully conducted in the Narrows at one time. However, the lithology of this area indicates that it is unlikely to be a potential source of natural gas. Issues: • Mineral extraction is not a use compatible with Cumberland's position as a regional urban center. Less developed areas of Allegany County have ample deposits to meet regional needs for mineral resources. Moreover, the mineral resources in Cumberland occur in association with landforms (Shriver Ridge, Haystack Mountain, and Wills Mountain) that are important to the City's visual setting. Mineral extraction is not currently a permitted use in any zoning district within Cumberland. • It is possible that mining on the northwest side of Wills Mountain could affect views of the mountain from Cumberland over the long term, depending upon the extent of future extraction and its potential to undermine slopes along the ridgetop.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedford County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan
    Bedford County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan December 18, 2007 Adopted by the Bedford County Board of Commissioners Prepared by the Bedford County Planning Commission With technical assistance provided by This plan was financed in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnership Program, Environmental Stewardship fund, under the administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. Intentionally Blank Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1-1 Plan Purpose and Value Planning Process Plan Overview by Chapter Setting and Study Area.........................................................................................................................2-1 Regional Setting County Characteristic and Trends Major Communities and Corridors Significant and Sizable Features Development and Conservation Policy Open Space Resources.............................................................................................................. 3-1 Sensitive Natural Resources Resources for Rural Industries Resources for Rural Character Regulation and Protection of Natural Resources Conclusions and Options Parks & Recreation Facilities ................................................................................................... 4-1 State Parks and Recreation Resources Local Public Park and Recreation Facility Assessment Analysis
    [Show full text]
  • Jjjn'iwi'li Jmliipii Ill ^ANGLER
    JJJn'IWi'li jMlIipii ill ^ANGLER/ Ran a Looks A Bulltrog SEPTEMBER 1936 7 OFFICIAL STATE September, 1936 PUBLICATION ^ANGLER Vol.5 No. 9 C'^IP-^ '" . : - ==«rs> PUBLISHED MONTHLY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA by the BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS HI Five cents a copy — 50 cents a year OLIVER M. DEIBLER Commissioner of Fisheries C. R. BULLER 1 1 f Chief Fish Culturist, Bellefonte ALEX P. SWEIGART, Editor 111 South Office Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. MEMBERS OF BOARD OLIVER M. DEIBLER, Chairman Greensburg iii MILTON L. PEEK Devon NOTE CHARLES A. FRENCH Subscriptions to the PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER Elwood City should be addressed to the Editor. Submit fee either HARRY E. WEBER by check or money order payable to the Common­ Philipsburg wealth of Pennsylvania. Stamps not acceptable. SAMUEL J. TRUSCOTT Individuals sending cash do so at their own risk. Dalton DAN R. SCHNABEL 111 Johnstown EDGAR W. NICHOLSON PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER welcomes contribu­ Philadelphia tions and photos of catches from its readers. Pro­ KENNETH A. REID per credit will be given to contributors. Connellsville All contributors returned if accompanied by first H. R. STACKHOUSE class postage. Secretary to Board =*KT> IMPORTANT—The Editor should be notified immediately of change in subscriber's address Please give both old and new addresses Permission to reprint will be granted provided proper credit notice is given Vol. 5 No. 9 SEPTEMBER, 1936 *ANGLER7 WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT STREAM POLLUTION By GROVER C. LADNER Deputy Attorney General and President, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen PORTSMEN need not be told that stream pollution is a long uphill fight.
    [Show full text]
  • View of Valley and Ridge Structures from ?:R Stop IX
    GIJIDEBOOJ< TECTONICS AND. CAMBRIAN·ORDO'IICIAN STRATIGRAPHY CENTRAL APPALACHIANS OF PENNSYLVANIA. Pifftbutgh Geological Society with the Appalachian Geological Society Septembet, 1963 TECTONICS AND CAMBRIAN -ORDOVICIAN STRATIGRAPHY in the CENTRAL APPALACHIANS OF PENNSYLVANIA FIELD CONFERENCE SPONSORS Pittsburgh Geological Society Appalachian Geological Society September 19, 20, 21, 1963 CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Acknowledgments 2 Cambro-Ordovician Stratigraphy of Central and South-Central 3 Pennsylvania by W. R. Wagner Fold Patterns and Continuous Deformation Mechanisms of the 13 Central Pennsylvania Folded Appalachians by R. P. Nickelsen Road Log 1st day: Bedford to State College 31 2nd day: State College to Hagerstown 65 3rd day: Hagerstown to Bedford 11.5 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Wagner paper: Figure 1. Stratigraphic cross-section of Upper-Cambrian 4 in central and south-central Pennsylvania Figure 2. Stratigraphic section of St.Paul-Beekmantown 6 rocks in central Pennsylvania and nearby Maryland Nickelsen paper: Figure 1. Geologic map of Pennsylvania 15 Figure 2. Structural lithic units and Size-Orders of folds 18 in central Pennsylvania Figure 3. Camera lucida sketches of cleavage and folds 23 Figure 4. Schematic drawing of rotational movements in 27 flexure folds Road Log: Figure 1. Route of Field Trip 30 Figure 2. Stratigraphic column for route of Field Trip 34 Figure 3. Cross-section of Martin, Miller and Rankey wells- 41 Stops I and II Figure 4. Map and cross-sections in sinking Valley area- 55 Stop III Figure 5. Panorama view of Valley and Ridge structures from ?:r Stop IX Figure 6. Camera lucida sketch of sedimentary features in ?6 contorted shale - Stop X Figure 7- Cleavage and bedding relationship at Stop XI ?9 Figure 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Cross Section C–C' Through the Appalachian Basin from Erie
    Geologic Cross Section C–C’ Through the Appalachian Basin From Erie County, North-Central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge Province, Bedford County, South-Central Pennsylvania By Robert T. Ryder, Michael H. Trippi, Christopher S. Swezey, Robert D. Crangle, Jr., Rebecca S. Hope, Elisabeth L. Rowan, and Erika E. Lentz Scientific Investigations Map 3172 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Ryder, R.T., Trippi, M.H., Swezey, C.S. Crangle, R.D., Jr., Hope, R.S., Rowan, E.L., and Lentz, E.E., 2012, Geologic cross section C–C’ through the Appalachian basin from Erie County, north-central Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge province, Bedford County, south-central Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3172, 2 sheets, 70-p.
    [Show full text]
  • Adams County Conservation District
    Highlights of Conservation District Activities 2017 Presented by PACD Adams County Conservation District 2017 Feature Accomplishments Other Accomplishments Dirt, Gravel & Low Volume Road Maintenance Program Contact Information • Performed 265 E & S inspections with Resource Challenge 85% compliance Sediment is the largest pollutant by volume to the waters of the • Re-assessed 10 streams to upgrade Sherri Clayton-Williams Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Unpaved roads not only Interim District Manager stream designation and protective uses. generate sediment, but also act as collectors for runoff and • Sponsored the Adams County sediment from adjacent land uses resulting in increased flood Envirothon programs involving 104 Charles Bennett flows in streams, and transport of sediment and other pollutant Board Chairman middle school students and 60 high into local waterways. school students • Installed 3 acres of riparian buffers Project Summary and Results 670 Old Harrisburg Road, Suite 201 through community volunteer projects. Technical assistance and funding to install driving surface Gettysburg, PA 17325 • Installed agricultural BMPs including 21 aggregate, new culverts, underdrains, ditching, and stormwater (717) 334-0636 waterways, 2 diversions and 3 terraces management to address problems on local roads that www.adamscounty.us • Provided technical assistance on EQIP adversely affect water quality. • Six project sites completed in 2017- $229,703.48 projects that brought an additional More Work to Do $232,767.00 into Adams County • Three
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Geology of the Transylvania Fault Zone in Bedford County, Pennsylvania
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge University of Kentucky Master's Theses Graduate School 2009 STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY OF THE TRANSYLVANIA FAULT ZONE IN BEDFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Elizabeth Lauren Dodson University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Dodson, Elizabeth Lauren, "STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY OF THE TRANSYLVANIA FAULT ZONE IN BEDFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA" (2009). University of Kentucky Master's Theses. 621. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/gradschool_theses/621 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Kentucky Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT OF THESIS STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY OF THE TRANSYLVANIA FAULT ZONE IN BEDFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Transverse zones cross strike of thrust-belt structures as large-scale alignments of cross-strike structures. The Transylvania fault zone is a set of discontinuous right-lateral transverse faults striking at about 270º across Appalachian thrust-belt structures along 40º N latitude in Pennsylvania. Near Everett, Pennsylvania, the Breezewood fault terminates with the Ashcom thrust fault. The Everett Gap fault terminates westward with the Hartley thrust fault. Farther west, the Bedford fault extends westward to terminate against the Wills Mountain thrust fault. The rocks, deformed during the Alleghanian orogeny, are semi-independently deformed on opposite sides of the transverse fault, indicating fault movement during folding and thrusting. Palinspastic restorations of cross sections on either side of the fault zone are used to compare transverse fault displacement.
    [Show full text]
  • Occurrences of Laurel Run Fish Species
    LAUREL RUN Watershed Coldwater Conservation Plan August 2007 Prepared by Western Pennsylvania Conservancy Assistance provided by Somerset Conservation District Funded by a grant from The Coldwater Heritage Partnership TABLE of CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3 Conservation Plan Objectives 3 Background 3 Geology and Topography 7 METHODS ................................................................................................................................. 10 Visual Assessment 10 Electrofishing 10 Macroinvertebrates 14 Water Chemistry 14 Public Participation 15 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 16 Visual Assessment 16 Electrofishing Results 17 Macroinvertebrate Results 22 Water Chemistry Results 27 Public Input 28 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 31 POSSIBLE FUNDING SOURCES ................................................................................................... 33 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................. 34 WORKS CITED .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stratigraphy, Structure, and Tectonics: an East-To-West Transect of the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge Provinces of Northern Virginia and West Virginia
    FLD016-05 2nd pgs page 103 The Geological Society of America Field Guide 16 2010 Stratigraphy, structure, and tectonics: An east-to-west transect of the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge provinces of northern Virginia and West Virginia Lynn S. Fichter Steven J. Whitmeyer Department of Geology and Environmental Science, James Madison University, 800 S. Main Street, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, USA Christopher M. Bailey Department of Geology, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA William Burton U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 22092, USA ABSTRACT This fi eld guide covers a two-day east-to-west transect of the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge provinces of northwestern Virginia and eastern West Virginia, in the context of an integrated approach to teaching stratigraphy, structural analysis, and regional tectonics. Holistic, systems-based approaches to these topics incorpo- rate both deductive (stratigraphic, structural, and tectonic theoretical models) and inductive (fi eld observations and data collection) perspectives. Discussions of these pedagogic approaches are integral to this fi eld trip. Day 1 of the fi eld trip focuses on Mesoproterozoic granitoid basement (associated with the Grenville orogeny) and overlying Neoproterozoic to Early Cambrian cover rocks (Iapetan rifting) of the greater Blue Ridge province. These units collectively form a basement-cored anticlinorium that was thrust over Paleozoic strata of the Val- ley and Ridge province during Alleghanian contractional tectonics. Day 2 traverses a foreland thrust belt that consists of Cambrian to Ordovician carbonates (Iapetan divergent continental margin), Middle to Upper Ordovician immature clastics (asso- ciated with the Taconic orogeny), Silurian to Lower Devonian quartz arenites and car- bonates (inter-orogenic tectonic calm), and Upper Devonian to Lower Mississippian clastic rocks (associated with the Acadian orogeny).
    [Show full text]