DOCSLIB.ORG

THE PENNSYLVANIA RIVERS CONSERVATION PROGRAM FINAL UPPER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER CONSERVATION PLAN the Cambria County Cons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE PENNSYLVANIA RIVERS CONSERVATION PROGRAM FINAL UPPER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER CONSERVATION PLAN the Cambria County Cons THE PENNSYLVANIA RIVERS CONSERVATION PROGRAM FINAL UPPER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER CONSERVATION PLAN Prepared By: The Cambria County Conservation and Recreation Authority August, 2001 UPPER WEST BRANCH RIVERS CONSERVATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Chapter I. Project Area Characteristics 3 Chapter II. Community Resources 9 Chapter III. Water Resources 15 Chapter IV. Non Point Pollution Sources 21 Chapter V. Education And Public Participation 27 Chapter VI. Issues And Concerns 29 Chapter VII. Remediation Plan 33 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The grant opportunity that facilitated this project was made possible through the Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund under the Administration of the PA- Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. The program was developed to conserve and enhance river resources through preparation and accomplishment of locally initiated plans. The program provides technical and financial assistance to municipalities and river support groups to carry out planning, implementation, acquisition and development activities. A registry is established to recognize local river conservation efforts. In 1999 the Cambria County Conservation and Recreation Authority (CCCRA) applied for and obtained such a grant to conduct a study of the Upper West Branch of the Susquehanna River. The CCCRA has partnered with the Conservation Districts of Cambria and Clearfield Counties, Headwaters RC&D of Clearfield and Southern Alleghenies RC&D in this endeavor. The planning project identifies significant natural, recreational and cultural resources. Issues, concerns and threats to river resources and values are determined locally as part of planning , as well as recommending methods to conserve, enhance and restore . The end result would be a comprehensive watershed plan that would designate segments for the Pennsylvania Rivers Registry. This registry promotes river conservation and recognizes waterways or waterway segments in communities who have completed river conservation plans. It is also an avenue to endorse local initiatives by binding them together in a state wide recognition program. In order for a river to be placed on the registry it must have an approved plan and local municipal support. Registry status must be achieved to qualify for implementation, development, or acquisition grants. Potential projects as identified in the Plan could be for water, waste water, recreational needs, storm water management and abandoned mine discharge remediation. Most of these types of infrastructure projects cannot be done currently at the local level due to the rural nature of the communities in the proposed watershed under current funding sources. As a result, economic development in this region is stagnant. This project was developed as part of an integrated, multi-county approach to monitor, prioritize, and implement a strategic plan for improving water quality in the upper reaches of the West Branch Susquehanna River Basin and tributaries that have severely degraded water quality. In addition to the West Branch of the Susquehanna River from its headwaters, the project includes the tributaries of Chest Creek, Clearfield Creek, Little Clearfield Creek, Anderson Creek, and Moshannon Creek. 3 I. PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS A. GENERAL WATERSHED OVERVIEW The Upper West Branch of the Susquehanna River is located in Central Pennsylvania. The West Branch originates near Carrolltown in Cambria County and drains a 675 square mile watershed in the study area of Cambria, Centre, Clearfield and Indiana Counties. After exiting Clearfield County, the river travels 114 miles further before meeting the North Branch of the Susquehanna River in Union County near the town of Northumberland, Pennsylvania. From here, the Susquehanna travels south another 60 miles where it flows into the Chesapeake Bay at Havre de Grace, Maryland. This study area of this project surrounds the 110 river miles of the mainstem and its major tributaries beginning at the headwaters to the confluence with Moshannon Creek, located 3 miles up river from the village of Karthaus. Throughout the watershed, major tributary waters are received from Clearfield Creek originating in Cresson in Cambria County; from Chest Creek which begins just south of Bradley Junction in Cambria County and confluences with the West Branch in Mahaffey in Clearfield County; from Moshannon Creek which enters the West Branch near the village of Karthaus in Clearfield County; from Little Clearfield Creek which is formed by the confluence of Watts Creek with Gazzam Run near the village of Kerrmorr in Clearfield County; and Anderson Creek, where we see its headwaters flowing southward to the confluence with the West Branch in Curwensville. The Upper West Branch of the Susquehanna River Basin includes parts of four (4) counties which are Cambria, Centre, Clearfield and Indiana. The basin had a population of about 114,939 persons in 1996. The Upper West Branch of the Susquehanna River Basin’s deep canyons and winding characteristics make it a particularly scenic waterway. These rural settings allow for much natural beauty and unchanged environment. The abandoned mine drainage which now is a major factor in the degradation of the river has become one of the main issues among communities throughout the watershed. The first reach of the river represents the upper 50 miles from headwaters at Carrolltown to the mouth of Chest Creek at Mahaffey. The waterway here generally follows U.S. Route 219 North and passes through towns such as Northern Cambria, Cherry Tree, Burnside and Mahaffey. Much of this reach is characterized as severely degraded with the absence of biological communities and high concentrations of aluminum, sulfate, and dissolved solids. It is in this section, a mere 2 miles from the headwaters, that perhaps the largest polluter of the water exists, the Barnes-Watkins coal refuse pile near Bakerton. An 80 year old relic of underground coal mining by-product, this smoldering behemoth contains 1,250,000 cubic yards of abandoned coal refuse and covers about 18 acres of ground. Situated nearly on top of the still small West Branch, this “boney dump” is continually leaching acid and metals into the stream in addition to the runoff of contaminated sediment. 4 The second reach extends approximately 37 miles, from the Chest Creek confluence at Mahaffey to the mouth of Clearfield Creek in Clearfield. The Curwensville Dam is located in this section. Because of the better water quality in Chest Creek and several smaller non-impaired tributaries, the stream sees some improved conditions. Improvements to this sections have been documented over the last 40 years. Most of these changes have been brought about by reclamation of abandoned coal mines. The enhancement of this section of river through Acid Mine Drainage Abatement indicates that the problems that exist upstream could also be alleviated by the same methods. The final reach is from Clearfield to the confluence of Moshannon Creek, three miles upriver from the village of Karthaus. Thirty miles of river comprise this section. Once again, the stream here is severely impaired to a point where no aquatic life exists and dissolved solids, acidity, manganese and sulfate concentrations are high. This is largely due to the Abandoned Mine Drainage associated with Clearfield and Moshannon Creeks. B. TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS The West Branch of the Susquehanna River is located in the low rolling hills of the Allegheny Mountains in Pennsylvania, and flows northeast passing the steep hillsides of the Allegheny High Plateaus Section. At Renovo, the West Branch turns southeast and cuts through the Allegheny Front entering a region of broad valleys separated by long high ridges. Following the northern flank of Bald Eagle Mountain northeastward, the West Branch turns south to its confluence with the Susquehanna River near Sunbury. The topography of the study area is typical of the Appalachian Plateau Province. The general type of topography is narrow V-shaped valleys separated by rolling plateau country extending to the higher ridges and broken uplands. The valleys are from 200 to 500 feet below the plateau, and the higher ridges stand as much as 1,000 feet above the plateau areas. The Chestnut Ridge rises to a maximum elevation of 2,405 feet in Goshen Township, the highest point in Clearfield County. The West Branch of the Susquehanna River leaves Clearfield County in Karthaus Township, in the northeast corner of the county at an elevation of 798 feet, the lowest point in Clearfield County. As the river enters the county in the southwest corner of Burnside Township, its elevation is 1,364 feet, which constitutes an elevation drop of 566 feet as it winds northeastward through the county. This area is located in the Appalachian Plateau’s physiographic province on the Pittsburgh Plateau and is underlain with coal-bearing rocks from the Pottsville, Allegheny and Conemaugh groups, with most of the commercial coals in the Allegheny group. Soils within the study area within Cambria and Clearfield Counties are generally formed from residuum of gray and brown shale, sandstone and siltstone. Soil depths vary between 31 and 60 inches. Slopes vary from 3 to 80 percent, but generally from 3 to 65 percent. The predominant soil types in the study area are of the Rayne-Gilpin-Ernest association, followed by the Udorthents-Gilpin-Rayne, and the Cookport, Hazleton, Clymer association. A large percentage of soils
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Class a Wild Trout Streams
    CLASS A WILD TROUT STREAMS STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION EVALUATION Drainage Lists: A, C, D, E, F, H, I, K, L, N, O, P, Q, T WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (MAB) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF POINT AND NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION December 2014 INTRODUCTION The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is required by regulation, 25 Pa. Code section 93.4b(a)(2)(ii), to consider streams for High Quality (HQ) designation when the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) submits information that a stream is a Class A Wild Trout stream based on wild trout biomass. The PFBC surveys for trout biomass using their established protocols (Weber, Green, Miko) and compares the results to the Class A Wild Trout Stream criteria listed in Table 1. The PFBC applies the Class A classification following public notice, review of comments, and approval by their Commissioners. The PFBC then submits the reports to the Department where staff conducts an independent review of the trout biomass data in the fisheries management reports for each stream. All fisheries management reports that support PFBCs final determinations included in this package were reviewed and the streams were found to qualify as HQ streams under 93.4b(a)(2)(ii). There are 50 entries representing 207 stream miles included in the recommendations table. The Department generally followed the PFBC requested stream reach delineations. Adjustments to reaches were made in some instances based on land use, confluence of tributaries, or considerations based on electronic mapping limitations. PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The procedure by which the PFBC designates stream segments as Class A requires a public notice process where proposed Class A sections are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin first as proposed and secondly as final, after a review of comments received during the public comment period and approval by the PFBC Commissioners.
    [Show full text]
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Darter Etheostoma Sellare
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Maryland darter Etheostoma Sellare Introduction The Maryland darter is a small freshwater fish only known from a limited area in Harford County, Maryland. These areas, Swan Creek, Gashey’s Run (a tributary of Swan Creek) and Deer Creek, are part of the larger Susquehanna River drainage basin. Originally discovered in Swan Creek nymphs. Spawning is assumed to species of darters. Electrotrawling is in 1912, the Maryland darter has not occur during late April, based on other the method of towing a net from a boat been seen here since and only small species, but no Maryland darters have with electrodes attached to the net that numbers of individuals have been been observed during reproduction. send small, harmless pulses through found in Gashey’s Run and Deer the water to stir up fish. Electrofishing Creek. A Rare Species efforts in the Susquehanna are Some biologists suspect that the continuing. Due to its scarcity, the Maryland Maryland darter could be hiding darter was federally listed as in the deep, murky waters of the A lack of adequate surveying of endangered in 1967, and critical Susquehanna River. Others worry large rivers in the past due to limited habitat was designated in 1984. The that the decreased darter population technology leaves hope for finding darter is also state listed. The last is evidence that the desirable habitat Maryland darters in this area. The new known sighting of the darter was in for these fish has diminished, possibly studies would likely provide definitive 1988. due to water quality degradation and information on the population status effects of residential development of the Maryland darter and a basis for Characteristics in the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • J I W November, 1935
    LANGLER -...-: ••. _•••• ••• Zgvp": 'k'^ m J i w \M I 'Ml November, 1935 OFFICIAL STATE NOVEMBER, 1935 PUBLICATION ^ANGLER? Vol. 4 No. 11 ,<>. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PUBLISHED MONTHLY BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS by the PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS l8il £3 E3 ES HP OLIVER M. DEIBLER Five cents a copy — 50 cents a year Commissioner of Fisheries C. R. BULLER Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries szxx Pleasant Mount E3S2E3 ALEX P. SWEIGART, Editor South Office Bldg.. Harrisburg, Pa. MEMBERS OF BOARD OLIVER M. DEIBLER, Chairman Greensburg E3J3S DAN R. SCHNABEL Johnstown LESLIE W. SEYLAR NOTE McConnellsburg Subscriptions to the PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER EDGAR W. NICHOLSON should be addressed to the Editor. Submit fee either Philadelphia by check or money order payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Stamps not acceptable. Individuals KENNETH A. REID sending cash do so at their own risk. Connellsville CHARLES A. FRENCH < Ellwood City HARRY E. WEBER PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER welcomes contributions Philipsburg and photos of catches from its readers. Proper credit will be given to contributors. MILTON L. PEEK All contributions returned if accompanied by first Ithan class postage. H. R. STACKHOUSE Secretary to Board ••» .,<>.. 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 ^ANGLERT Vol.4 No. 11 NOVEMBER, 1935 EDITORIAL them do not know the essential dif­ Junior Sportsmen ferences in shape, coloration and It is my belief that the conserva­ build of our inland water fishes. Un­ tion movement, not only in Pennsyl­ fortunately, size limits also are too vania but in the United States, can scantily known.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquhanna River Fishing Brochure
    Fishing the Susquehanna River The Susquehanna Trophy-sized muskellunge (stocked by Pennsylvania) and hybrid tiger muskellunge The Susquehanna River flows through (stocked by New York until 2007) are Chenango, Broome, and Tioga counties for commonly caught in the river between nearly 86 miles, through both rural and urban Binghamton and Waverly. Local hot spots environments. Anglers can find a variety of fish include the Chenango River mouth, Murphy’s throughout the river. Island, Grippen Park, Hiawatha Island, the The Susquehanna River once supported large Smallmouth bass and walleye are the two Owego Creek mouth, and Baileys Eddy (near numbers of migratory fish, like the American gamefish most often pursued by anglers in Barton) shad. These stocks have been severely impacted Fishing the the Susquehanna River, but the river also Many anglers find that the most enjoyable by human activities, especially dam building. Susquehanna River supports thriving populations of northern pike, and productive way to fish the Susquehanna is The Susquehanna River Anadromous Fish Res- muskellunge, tiger muskellunge, channel catfish, by floating in a canoe or small boat. Using this rock bass, crappie, yellow perch, bullheads, and method, anglers drift cautiously towards their toration Cooperative (SRFARC) is an organiza- sunfish. preferred fishing spot, while casting ahead tion comprised of fishery agencies from three of the boat using the lures or bait mentioned basin states, the Susquehanna River Commission Tips and Hot Spots above. In many of the deep pool areas of the (SRBC), and the federal government working Susquehanna, trolling with deep running lures together to restore self-sustaining anadromous Fishing at the head or tail ends of pools is the is also effective.
    [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]
  • Susquehanna Riyer Drainage Basin
    'M, General Hydrographic Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 109 Series -j Investigations, 13 .N, Water Power, 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR HYDROGRAPHY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIYER DRAINAGE BASIN BY JOHN C. HOYT AND ROBERT H. ANDERSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 0 5 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittaL_.__.______.____.__..__.___._______.._.__..__..__... 7 Introduction......---..-.-..-.--.-.-----............_-........--._.----.- 9 Acknowledgments -..___.______.._.___.________________.____.___--_----.. 9 Description of drainage area......--..--..--.....-_....-....-....-....--.- 10 General features- -----_.____._.__..__._.___._..__-____.__-__---------- 10 Susquehanna River below West Branch ___...______-_--__.------_.--. 19 Susquehanna River above West Branch .............................. 21 West Branch ....................................................... 23 Navigation .--..........._-..........-....................-...---..-....- 24 Measurements of flow..................-.....-..-.---......-.-..---...... 25 Susquehanna River at Binghamton, N. Y_-..---...-.-...----.....-..- 25 Ghenango River at Binghamton, N. Y................................ 34 Susquehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa......_............-...----_--. 43 Susquehanna River at Danville, Pa..........._..................._... 56 West Branch at Williamsport, Pa .._.................--...--....- _ - - 67 West Branch at Allenwood, Pa.....-........-...-.._.---.---.-..-.-.. 84 Juniata River at Newport, Pa...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.-
    [Show full text]
  • Download Proposed Regulation
    REVISED 12/16 INDEØTg%ORV Regulatory Analysis Form (Completed by PromulgatingAgency) Wfl[: >ic (All Comments submitted on this regulation will appear on IRRC’s website) Mt. — 4 (1) Agency I Environmental Protection Thdepenqp Rf&uIt -Ui, Review r,.qu; (2) Agency Number: 7 Identification Number: 548 IRRC Number: (3) PA Code Cite: 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 (4) Short Title: Water Quality Standards — Class A Stream Redesignations (5) Agency Contacts (List Telephone Number and Email Address): Primary Contact: Laura Edinger; 717.783.8727; ledingerpa.gov Secondary Contact: Jessica Shirley; 717.783.8727; jesshirleypa.gov (6) Type of Rulemaking (check applicable box): Proposed Regulation El Emergency Certification Regulation El Final Regulation El Certification by the Governor El Final Omitted Regulation El Certification by the Attorney General (7) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language. (100 words or less) The amendments to Chapter 93 reflect the list of recommended redesignations of streams as embedded in the attached Water Quality Standards Review Stream Redesignation Evaluation Report. The proposed regulation will update and revise stream use designations in 25 Pa. Code § 93.9d, 93.9f, 93.9j, 93.9k, 93.91, 93.9m, 93.9p, 93.9q, 93.9r, and 93.9t. These changes will not impose any new operating requirements on existing wastewater discharges or other existing activities regulated by the Department under existing permits or approvals. If a new, increased or additional discharge is proposed by a permit applicant, more stringent treatment requirements and enhanced best management practices (BMPs) may be necessary to maintain and protect the existing quality of those waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Proposed Regulation
    This space for use by IRRC H f7 .-I""* -*- i t. , ^ ^ (1) Agency Department of Environmental Protection 2m mm ?}mm (2) I.D. Number (Governor's Office Use) #7-366 IRRC Number: J?9BQ> (3) Short Title Stream Redesignations, Class A Wild Trout Waters (4) PA Code Cite (5) Agency Contacts & Telephone Numbers 25 PA Code, Chapter 93 Primary Contact: Sharon F. Trostle, 783-1303 Secondary Contact: Edward R. Brezina, 787-9637 (6) Type of Rulemaking (Check One) (7) Is a 120-Day Emergency Certification Attached? x Proposed Rulemaking X No Final Order Adopting Regulation Yes: By the Attorney General Final Order, Proposed Rulemaking Omitted Yes: By the Governor (8) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language This proposed rulemaking modifies Chapter 93 to reflect the recommended redesignation of a number of streams that are designated as Class A Wild Trout Waters by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). Class A Waters qualify for designation as High Quality Waters (HQ) under §§ 93.4b(a)(2)(ii). The changes provide the appropriate designated use to these streams to protect existing uses. These changes may, upon implementation, result in more stringent treatment requirements for new and/or expanded wastewater discharges to the streams in order to protect the existing and designated water uses. (9) State the statutory authority for the regulation and any relevant state or federal court decisions. These proposed amendments are made under the authority of the following acts: The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No 394) as amended, 35 P.S/S 691.5 etseq.
    [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]
  • Subdivisions Colorado C L E a R C R E E K CO
    Fire & Ambulance Districts Park County Subdivisions Colorado C L E A R C R E E K CO. NAME TWP_RNG NAME TWP_RNG R76W R75W R74W R73W ADVENTURE PLACER T9S,R78W ELKHORN RANCHES T10S,R75 R72W ALMA T9S,R78W ELKHORN SUBDIVISION T9S,R76W ALMA BUCKSKIN CREEK AMENDED T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO T14S,R75W Duck Creek Truesdell Creek Indian Creek ALMA FOREST T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO 2 AMEND T14S,R75W Yankee Creek Cub Creek ALMA GROSE AND TREWEEK SOUTH T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO AMENDED T14S,R75W ALMA MERCURY HILL SUB T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY T9S,R77W North Elk Creek ALMA MISC TRACTS T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BEAVER MEADOWS T9S,R77W ALMA MOYNAHAN ADD SOUTH T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BRISTLECONE T9S,R77W North Fork Tanglewood Creek ALMA NORTH RHODESIA SOUTH T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BURGIN ADDITION T9S,R77W ALMA PARK ESTATES T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BUSINESS PARK T9S,R77W North Elk Creek ALMA PLACER SUBDIVISION T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BUTTERMILK T9S,R77W 1038 T Francis Creek Church Fork ALMA RHODES 2ND ADDITION T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY CLARK AND BOGUES T9S,R77W Produced by Park County GIS PLATTEPLATTE CANYONCANYON FPDFPD FAIRPLAY COLUMBINE PARK T9S,R77W Scott Gomer Creek ALMA RHODES 3RD ADDITION T9S,R78W June, 2011 Threemile Creek FAIRPLAY GOLD PAN MH VILL T9S,R77W 65 T6S ALMA RHODES ADDITION T9S,R78W Geneva Creek T North Fork South Platte River Elk Creek FAIRPLAY HEIGHTS T9S,R77W Deer Creek ALMA RIVERSIDE T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY JANES ADDITION T9S,R77W Burning Bear Creek T66 ALMA VIDMAR T9S,R78W Camp Creek FAIRPLAY JOHNSON ADDITION T9S,R77W 63 Elk Creek ANGELFIRE T9S,R78W Lamping Creek T 1184 FAIRPLAY
    [Show full text]
  • Shamokin Creek Site 48 Passive Treatment System SRI O&M TAG Project #5 Request #1 OSM PTS ID: PA-36
    Passive Treatment Operation & Maintenance Technical Assistance Program June 2015 Funded by PA DEP Growing Greener & Foundation for PA Watersheds 1113102 Stream Restoration Incorporated & BioMost, Inc. Shamokin Creek Site 48 Passive Treatment System SRI O&M TAG Project #5 Request #1 OSM PTS ID: PA-36 Requesting Organization: Northumberland County Conservation District & Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (in-kind partners) Receiving Stream: Unnamed tributary (Shamokin Creek Watershed) Hydrologic Order: Unnamed tributaryShamokin CreekSusquehanna River Municipality/County: Coal Township, Northumberland County Latitude / Longitude: 40°46'40.152"N / 76°34'39.558"W Construction Year: 2003 The Shamokin Creek Site 48 (SC48) Passive Treatment System was constructed in 2003 to treat an acidic, metal-bearing discharge in Coal Township, Northumberland County, PA. Stream Restoration Inc. was contacted by Jaci Harner, Watershed Specialist, Northumberland County Conservation District (NCCD), on behalf of the Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) via email on 8/2/2011 regarding problems with the SC48 passive system. Cliff Denholm (SRI) conducted a site investigation on 9/19/2011 with Jaci Harner and SCRA members Jim Koharski, Leanne Bjorklund, and Mike Handerhan. According to the group, the system works well; however, they were experiencing problems with the SC48 system intake pipe. An AMD- impacted stream is treated by diverting water into a passive system via a small dam and intake pipe. During storm events and high-flow periods, however, erosion with sediment transport takes place which results in a large quantity of sediment including gravel-sized material being deposited in the area above the intake as well as within the first settling pond.
    [Show full text]