Public Votes Loyalsock As PA River of the Year Perkiomen TU Leads
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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. -
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. -
Hanover Township Solomon Creek Sanitary Interceptor Rehabilitation Project Phase #1A/B & #2
DRAWING LIST CS COVER SHEET C100 OVERALL PLAN C101 FIRST STREET PLAN AND PROFILE C102 FIRST STREET PLAN AND PROFILE C103 DELANEY STREET PLAN AND PROFILE C901 DETAILS HANOVER TOWNSHIP SOLOMON CREEK SANITARY INTERCEPTOR REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE #1A/B & #2 LIST OF UTILITIES AMERIGAS 1027 TEXAS PALMYRA HIGHWAY HONESDALE, PA 18431 CONTACT: CANDY BORTZ EMAIL: [email protected] FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF PA INC. 67 S MAIN STREET SHICKSHINNY, PA 18655 CONTACT: JOHN BUGDONOVITCH EMAIL: [email protected] WYOMING VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY PO BOX 33A WILKES BARRE, PA 18703 CONTACT: RALPH BUSH EMAIL: [email protected] UGI PENN NATURAL GAS 1 UGI CENTER WILKES-BARRE, PA 18701 CONTACT: KIM SERIS EMAIL: [email protected] VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA LLC 100 S 6TH STREET VINELAND, NEW JERSEY 08360 CONTACT:BETH BALDWIN EMAIL: [email protected] HANOVER TOWNSHIP 1267 SANS SOUCI PARKWAY HANOVER TOWNSHIP, PA 18706 CONTACT: NED ZWIEBEL SERVICE ELECTRIC COMPANY 15 J CAMPBELL COLLINS DRIVE WILKES-BARRE, PA 18702 LOCATION MAP CONTACT:DAN HOLMES EMAIL: [email protected] UGI UTILITIES 1 UGI CENTER WILKES BARRE, PA 18711 CONTACT: JEREMY BOECKER EMAIL: [email protected] PENNSYLVANIA AMERICAN WATER 2699 STAFFORD AVENUE SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18507 CONTACT;MARK BALOH EMAIL: [email protected] PAOCS NUMBER: 20180180793 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! PENNSYLVANIA LAW REQUIRES 3 WORKING DAYS NOTICE FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND 10 WORKING DAYS IN DESIGN STAGE - STOP CALL Pennsylvania One Call System, Inc. www.borton-lawson.com 1-800-242-1776 BETHLEHEM ● PITTSBURGH ● STATE COLLEGE ● WILKES - BARRE REVISIONS 8/10/2017 1:28 PM - NO. DATE DESCRIPTION SEAL DRAWN BY MAG CHECKED BY DMW DATE FEBRUARY 5, 2018 PROJECT NUMBER 2016-2215-018 DRAWING NUMBER P:\2016\2215\018\02-CADD\SHEET\Cover.dwg CS GENERAL NOTES: SEWAGE DIVERSION NOTES: FEATURES LEGEND 1. -
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...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.- -
Kayaking • Fishing • Lodging Table of Contents
KAYAKING • FISHING • LODGING TABLE OF CONTENTS Fishing 4-13 Kayaking & Tubing 14-15 Rules & Regulations 16 Lodging 17-19 1 W. Market St. Lewistown, PA 17044 www.JRVVisitors.com 717-248-6713 [email protected] The Juniata River Valley Visitors Bureau thanks the following contributors to this directory. Without your knowledge and love of our waterways, this directory would not be possible. Joshua Hill Nick Lyter Brian Shumaker Penni Abram Paul Wagner Bob Wert Todd Jones Helen Orndorf Ryan Cherry Thankfully, The Juniata River Valley Visitors Bureau Jenny Landis, executive director Buffie Boyer, marketing assistant Janet Walker, distribution manager 2 PAFLYFISHING814 Welcome to the JUNIATA RIVER VALLEY Located in the heart of Central Pennsylvania, the Juniata River Valley, is named for the river that flows from Huntingdon County to Perry County where it meets the Susquehanna River. Spanning more than 100 miles, the Juniata River flows through a picturesque valley offering visitors a chance to explore the area’s wide fertile valleys, small towns, and the natural heritage of the region. The Juniata River watershed is comprised of more than 6,500 miles of streams, including many Class A fishing streams. The river and its tributaries are not the only defining characteristic of our landscape, but they are the center of our recreational activities. From traditional fishing to fly fishing, kayaking to camping, the area’s waterways are the ideal setting for your next fishing trip or family vacation. Come and “Discover Our Good Nature” any time of year! Find Us! The Juniata River Valley is located in Central Pennsylvania midway between State College and Harrisburg. -
Luzerne County Act 167 Phase II Stormwater Management Plan
Executive Summary Luzerne County Act 167 Phase II Stormwater Management Plan 613 Baltimore Drive, Suite 300 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 Voice: 570.821.1999 Fax: 570.821.1990 www.borton-lawson.com 3893 Adler Place, Suite 100 Bethlehem, PA 18017 Voice: 484.821.0470 Fax: 484.821.0474 Submitted to: Luzerne County Planning Commission 200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 June 30, 2010 Project Number: 2008-2426-00 LUZERNE COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction This Stormwater Management Plan has been developed for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania to comply with the requirements of the 1978 Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act, Act 167. This Plan is the initial county-wide Stormwater Management Plan for Luzerne County, and serves as a Plan Update for the portions or all of six (6) watershed-based previously approved Act 167 Plans including: Bowman’s Creek (portion located in Luzerne County), Lackawanna River (portion located in Luzerne County), Mill Creek, Solomon’s Creek, Toby Creek, and Wapwallopen Creek. This report is developed to document the reasoning, methodologies, and requirements necessary to implement the Plan. The Plan covers legal, engineering, and municipal government topics which, combined, form the basis for implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the individual municipalities located within the County to adopt this Plan and the associated Ordinance to provide a consistent methodology for the management of stormwater throughout the County. The Plan was managed and administered by the Luzerne County Planning Commission in consultation with Borton-Lawson, Inc. The Luzerne County Planning Commission Project Manager was Nancy Snee. -
Figure 2.6.2 Slope11x17
B U N K TUNKHANNOCK E R H IL L RD SR 0006 SH CLINTON 11 6 0 SR 0 11 SH 11 WYOMING CO. V A GE LLE CO 107 L eek IT ck Cr H anno NICHOLSON I nkh DALTON RD A Tu V nch A ra R B SR 0107 SH L uth O So L o E T O 6 Y 1 S 88 2 E OVERFIELD R Trib V T rib D E A 2 L L K E RD 88 T 06 H O W f S o u t h Br k anch Tunkhannock Cree FACTORYVILLE BENTON F A I R V T I r E i b W 2 F AI R RVI 8 D E EW RD 8 T 0 ON 3 M S th Br A W u a D RD T T E o n R HILL H S c S T o POS h AN T Tr S u AM ib o n E k S 28 u D ha 6 t R nn 84 h INOLA T o To South Branch Tunkhannock Creek W c T E r k D o B B LAK ib C R r r S ea 2 ee OS ve a 8 k ib 28849 R r C n 82 Tr re c 7 ek h T o T 6 L S A u o K n H u E k h I t W C h a C I B H n L 017 S N K ARK n 2 r O O SO a R L o N T R S o A n LOWER MILL CIT 28686 Be c R b k Y Tri a R c ve Y D R h r D D C C R T r r u e e I e D e LO k n k L k WE G A P R h L LAPLUME RD S E a U E M E n M R R n D D I o N Be c ave WEST ABINGTON A k r C T r R nch unkhannoc C ee Bra k Creek k Y h r R ut e o e W D f S k L A A ek 1 O PLU Cre 81 ME L nock A 8 RD an b 2 11 L Trib 28853 Of South B anch Tunkh B i r S Tr SV R I I N L 20 L E RD 23 SH G 438 T O W MAI N R 407 H A D I G c N ST k H T e r L r i S b l U A y N N S 2 C E 8 FALLS D r T k 6 e R e R e 832 To Ackerly Cr D 8 28 D e rib 7 k T T T rib 28677 To o B B T u e U S tt a R e R v r 0 e N m r 4 0 i T C P r 7 l i r I b K k 2 ee 86 tterm k S C 88 To Bu i E lk H r C R e r e ee k k D Creek Trib 28834 Of Ackerly B R HILL RD A 307 WILBU N K F S A T L T L RD rib DALTON S RS 288 R NE 36 T R T r D O o i C A b N ck DIXO er -
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. -
Species of Greatest Conservation Need Species Accounts
2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Species Accounts Appendix 1.4C-Amphibians Amphibian Species of Greatest Conservation Need Maps: Physiographic Provinces and HUC Watersheds Species Accounts (Click species name below or bookmark to navigate to species account) AMPHIBIANS Eastern Hellbender Northern Ravine Salamander Mountain Chorus Frog Mudpuppy Eastern Mud Salamander Upland Chorus Frog Jefferson Salamander Eastern Spadefoot New Jersey Chorus Frog Blue-spotted Salamander Fowler’s Toad Western Chorus Frog Marbled Salamander Northern Cricket Frog Northern Leopard Frog Green Salamander Cope’s Gray Treefrog Southern Leopard Frog The following Physiographic Province and HUC Watershed maps are presented here for reference with conservation actions identified in the species accounts. Species account authors identified appropriate Physiographic Provinces or HUC Watershed (Level 4, 6, 8, 10, or statewide) for specific conservation actions to address identified threats. HUC watersheds used in this document were developed from the Watershed Boundary Dataset, a joint project of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Physiographic Provinces Central Lowlands Appalachian Plateaus New England Ridge and Valley Piedmont Atlantic Coastal Plain Appalachian Plateaus Central Lowlands Piedmont Atlantic Coastal Plain New England Ridge and Valley 675| Appendix 1.4 Amphibians Lake Erie Pennsylvania HUC4 and HUC6 Watersheds Eastern Lake Erie -
Kochel Et Al., 2009
Geomorphology 110 (2009) 80–95 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geomorphology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph Catastrophic middle Pleistocene jökulhlaups in the upper Susquehanna River: Distinctive landforms from breakout floods in the central Appalachians R. Craig Kochel a,⁎, Richard P. Nickelsen a, L. Scott Eaton b a Department of Geology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA b Department of Geology & Environmental Science, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807, USA article info abstract Article history: Widespread till and moraines record excursions of middle-Pleistocene ice that flowed up-slope into several Received 14 November 2008 watersheds of the Valley and Ridge Province along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. A unique Received in revised form 23 March 2009 landform assemblage was created by ice-damming and jökulhlaups emanating from high gradient mountain Accepted 24 March 2009 watersheds. This combination of topography formed by multiple eastward-plunging anticlinal ridges, and the Available online 6 April 2009 upvalley advance of glaciers resulted in an ideal geomorphic condition for the formation of temporary ice- dammed lakes. Extensive low gradient (1°–2° slope) gravel surfaces dominate the mountain front Keywords: geomorphology in this region and defy simple explanation. The geomorphic circumstances that occurred Jökulhlaup Ice-damming in tributaries to the West Branch Susquehanna River during middle Pleistocene glaciation are extremely rare Susquehanna River and may be unique in the world. Failure of ice dams released sediment-rich water from lakes, entraining Middle Pleistocene cobbles and boulders, and depositing them in elongated debris fans extending up to 9 km downstream from Valley and Ridge their mountain-front breakout points. -
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 -
Assessing Wetland Condition on a Watershed Basis in the Mid-Atlantic Region Using Synoptic Land-Cover Maps
ASSESSING WETLAND CONDITION ON A WATERSHED BASIS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION USING SYNOPTIC LAND-COVER MAPS ROBERT P. BROOKS*, DENICE H. WARDROP, and JOSEPH A. BISHOP Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, 302 Walker Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 USA (*author for correspondence, phone: 814-863-1596, fax: 814-863-7943, e-mail:[email protected]) Abstract. We developed a series of tools to address three integrated tasks needed to effectively manage wetlands on a watershed basis: inventory, assessment, and restoration. Depending on the objectives of an assessment, availability of resources, and degree of confidence required in the results, there are three levels of effort available to address these three tasks. This paper describes the development and use of synoptic land-cover maps (Level 1) to assess wetland condition for a watershed. The other two levels are a rapid assessment using ground reconnaissance (Level 2) and intensive field assessment (Level 3). To illustrate the application of this method, seven watersheds in Pennsylvania were investigated representing a range of areas (89–777 km2), land uses, and ecoregions found in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Level 1 disturbance scores were based on land cover in 1-km radius circles centered on randomly-selected wetlands in each watershed. On a standardized, 100-point, human-disturbance scale, with 100 being severely degraded and 1 being the most ecologically intact, the range of scores for the seven watersheds was a relatively pristine score of 4 to a moderately degraded score of 66. This entire process can be conducted in a geographic information system (GIS)-capable office with readily available data and without engaging in extensive field investigations.