DOCSLIB.ORG

Series 2013 Number 1 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION MEETING of MARCH 6, 2013 Minutes Commissioners Kelly J. Heffner, Pennsylvan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Series 2013 Number 1 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION MEETING of MARCH 6, 2013 Minutes Commissioners Kelly J. Heffner, Pennsylvan Series 2013 Number 1 DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2013 Minutes Commissioners Kelly J. Heffner, Pennsylvania, Chair Present: Michele N. Siekerka, New Jersey, Vice Chair Angus Eaton, New York, Second Vice Chair Kathleen M. Stiller, Delaware Lieutenant Colonel Chris Becking, United States DRBC Staff Carol R. Collier, Executive Director Participants: Robert Tudor, Deputy Executive Director Kenneth J. Warren, Warren Glass LLP Pamela M. Bush, Commission Secretary & Assistant General Counsel Thomas J. Fikslin, Branch Manager, Modeling, Monitoring and Assessment Richard C. Gore, Chief Administrative Officer William J. Muszynski, Branch Manager, Water Resources Management Amy Shallcross, Supervisor, Operations Section The Commission met at the West Trenton Volunteer Fire Company hall in West Trenton, New Jersey for its business meeting on March 6, 2013. Commission Chairwoman Kelly J. Heffner convened the meeting at 12:15 p.m. with introductions by the Commissioners and key staff. Minutes. The Minutes for the Commission Meeting of December 5, 2012 were approved unanimously on a motion by Ms. Siekerka, seconded by Mr. Eaton. Announcements. Ms. Bush announced the following meetings and events: • American Water Resources Association (AWRA). AWRA, founded in 1964, is a non- profit professional association dedicated to the advancement of men and women in water resources management, research and education. DRBC Executive Director Carol R. Collier is currently serving as its president. Upcoming AWRA conferences include: o 2013 Spring Specialty Conference: Agricultural Hydrology and Water Quality II. March 25-27 at the Hilton St. Louis Ballpark Hotel, St. Louis, Missouri. o 2013 Summer Specialty Conference: Environmental Flows. June 24-25 at the Hilton Hartford Hotel, Hartford, Connecticut. - 2 - o 2013 Summer Specialty Conference: Healthy Forests = Healthy Waters. June 27-28 at the Hilton Hartford Hotel, Hartford, Connecticut. Hydrologic Conditions. Ms. Shallcross reported on hydrologic conditions in the Basin: The observed precipitation for the portion of the Basin above Montague, New Jersey for the period January 1 through March 4, 2013 was 3.87 inches or 2.23 inches below normal. The observed precipitation for the Basin above Trenton for the same period was 4.40 inches or 2.16 inches below normal and for the Basin above Wilmington, Delaware for this period, 6.01 inches or 0.74 inches below normal. The average observed streamflow of the Delaware River at Montague in February 2013 was 5,828 cubic feet per second (cfs) or 117.2 percent of the long-term average for the month. For the same period, the average observed streamflow at Trenton was 14,079 cfs, or 109.4 percent of the long-term average for the month. For the period of March 1 through March 4, the average observed streamflow at Montague was 4,103 cfs, or 82.5 percent of the long-term average for the month. The average streamflow at Trenton during the same period was 11,010 cfs, or 85.6 percent of the long-term average for the month. In the Lower Basin, as of March 5, 2013, Beltzville Reservoir contained 13.97 billion gallons (bg) usable, or 100.3 percent of usable storage, and Blue Marsh contained 4.29 bg usable, or 100.2 percent of winter pool usable storage. As of March 4, Merrill Creek contained 14.86 bg usable, or 94.7 percent of usable storage. In the Upper Basin, as of March 5, 2013, Pepacton Reservoir contained 116.981 bg usable or 83.5 percent of usable storage. Cannonsville contained 80.654 bg usable, or 84.3 percent of usable storage. Neversink contained 27.524 bg usable or 78.8 percent of usable storage. The total New York City Delaware Basin reservoir storage was 225.159 bg usable or 83.1 percent of usable storage. During the month of February 2013, the location of the seven-day average of the 250-parts-per million (ppm) isochlor, also known as the “salt front,” ranged from River Mile (RM) 64 to RM 74. The normal location of the salt front during February is RM 68, which is ten miles downstream of the Delaware-Pennsylvania state line. As of March 1, the salt front was located at RM 74, which is seven miles upstream of the normal location of the salt front during March. Executive Director’s Report. Ms. Collier’s remarks are summarized below: • Dr. Ruth Patrick River Garden in the DRBC Courtyard. Those who frequent DRBC’s West Trenton office building know that the Commission has been working for years on a plan to better utilize the building’s courtyard by transforming it into the Ruth Patrick River Garden. Following the customary bidding process, Mark Shablin Landscape Contracting was awarded a contract to implement the approved design. The project is - 3 - being funded entirely from donations by staff, alumni, friends of the DRBC, and friends of Dr. Patrick. When the garden is complete, it will be a resource for the community and staff and will be used in educational outreach. Ms. Collier noted that there were still opportunities to contribute bricks, trees and benches. • DRBC Budget. Ms. Collier noted that as a consequence of federal sequestration, reductions in state budgets and other factors, the Commission faces a significant deficit in Fiscal Year 2014 and likely will reduce the services it provides to the basin. The federal government still has not restored the annual member contribution to which it is committed under the Delaware River Basin Compact, and sequestration is affecting funds that DRBC receives annually from the U.S. EPA pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. Effects on the Basin potentially include the loss of streamflow gages maintained in part by the U.S. Geological Survey, which provide data vital to measuring and managing hydrologic conditions. A pilot study on the Basin to be performed as part of the USGS WaterSMART national water census is also in jeopardy. The Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) or some other federal legislation could potentially bring federal funding back to the Commission. Senators Carper of Delaware, Gillibrand of New York and Lautenberg of New Jersey are critical to that action. Those interested in hearing more about the WRDA legislation or who would be willing to lend support are asked to contact Clarke Rupert or Ms. Collier. General Counsel’s Report. Mr. Warren reported on the status of a legal challenge pending in federal court in New Jersey – an appeal by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network of the Stone Energy water withdrawal docket approved by the Commission in July of 2010. The status of that matter remained the same as at the time of the Commission’s December 2012 meeting. The parties await decisions from the magistrate judge regarding discovery, production of documents and completion of the administrative record. The Commission also received an administrative appeal of a docket issued in December 2012 on the Susquehanna-Roseland powerline project. Mr. Warren explained that because some questions were still to be resolved in connection with that matter, his recommendation was that that request be deferred until the Commission’s next meeting to allow staff to fully inform the Commissioners and enable them to make a decision. Ms. Bush reported that the Commissioners had before them pending requests by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network for hearings in connection with two natural gas pipeline projects – the Columbia 1278 Replacement project and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline 300 Line project. She invited the Chair to address those items. Chairwoman Heffner recalled that at the Commission’s public meeting on December 5, 2012, the Commissioners had offered responses to requests by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network for hearings under Article 6 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure to reconsider determinations by the Executive Director in July of 2012 concerning Commission review of certain natural gas pipeline projects. At the December meeting the Commission declined DRN’s request for an Article 6 hearing on the Executive Director’s decision to review the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company’s Northeast Upgrade project (“NEUP”). Ms. Heffner explained that since the Commission in fact reviewed that project and issued a docket for it following a duly noticed - 4 - public hearing in July, the Commissioners had concluded that DRN’s request was moot at the time DRN made it. She added that the docket approval for the NEUP contains a finding that the project does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, which finding was based on a review of the project relative to all applicable Commission regulations. She said the docket was the Commission’s final action on the NEUP and it was not appealed, adding that the time for appeal of the action has elapsed and the Commission was not entertaining appeals or requests for rehearing on that final action now. Ms. Heffner related that DRN’s other hearing requests called for reconsideration of the Executive Director’s determination that DRBC review was not required for two other natural gas transmission line projects – the Columbia 1278 Replacement project and the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 300 Line. As a result of DRN’s request, the staff by way of due diligence undertook a second careful look at whether the projects required review under DRBC’s current rules. At the Commissioners’ December meeting they directed the Executive Director to examine new information produced by staff in the course of this second look and authorized her to amend her determination before the end of January if appropriate. Ms. Heffner said that in accordance with the Commissioners’ direction, the Executive Director examined the new information furnished by staff and concluded that both the 300 Line and the Columbia 1278 Replacement project were reviewable under DRBC’s current rules because both fall within an exception to the general exclusion from review for natural gas transmission lines.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
    Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission BUCKS COUNTY FLOOD RECOVERY AND MITIGATION STRATEGY Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission This Economic Adjustment Strategy was accomplished by staff of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission through Economic Development Administration Adjustment Strategy Grant No. 01-09-58005. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and other data in this report are solely those of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration. The background flood map is used in part solely for state affairs only. courtesy FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION SEPTEMBER 1998 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Publication Abstract TITLE Date Published: September 1998 Bucks County Flood Recovery and Mitigation Strategy Publication No. 98032 Geographic Area Covered: Bucks County Key Words: Floods, Flooding, Floodplain, Flood Prone, Flood Proofing, Regulations, Impervious Coverage, Watersheds, Sub-Basin 2, Emergency Management, Neshaminy Creek, Buck Creek, Brock Creek, National Flood Insurance Program, Levee, Dam, Floodwall, Acquisition, Relocation, Army Corps of Engineers, Delaware River Basin Commission ABSTRACT This report provides a flood recovery and mitigation strategy for those flood prone communities in Bucks County. As an element of a flood mitigation plan for eastern Pennsylvania, which
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware River Basin Wild and Scenic River Values
    DELAWARE RIVER BASIN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE | NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM | US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES DELAWARE RIVER BASIN | NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES DELAWARE RIVER BASIN DELAWARE | NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES NATIONAL Photo: David B. Soete PENNSYLVANIA • NEW YORK • NEW JERSEY EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA NATIONAL PARK SERVICE | NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM | US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONTENTS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES PENNSYLVANIA, NEW YORK, AND NEW JERSEY Overview ....................................... 2 Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River ....... 48 Dear friends of the Delaware River Basin, The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . 5 ° Cultural . 50 Outstandingly Remarkable Values . 8 ~ Lower Delaware River (including Tinicum Creek, What comes to mind when you think about the Delaware River and its tributaries? Tohickon Creek, and Paunacussing Creek) . 50 ° Cultural Values . 10 Do you think of a beautiful river valley where one can experience solitude in nature and Ecological Values . 12 ° Ecological . 51 enjoy the incredible scenery of the meandering river and forested hillsides? A family friendly ° ~ Lower Delaware River . 51 destination that provides great opportunities for boating, fi shing, and picnicking? A rare example ° Geological Values . 14 ~ Tinicum Creek . 52 of a large, undammed river that allows continual natural migration of native fi sh from the sea to ° Recreational Values . 16 the river headwaters and back? An intact network of aquatic and riparian habitat that supports Scenic Values . 17 ~ Tohickon Creek . 52 abundance and diversity of plants, fi sh, birds, and other animals? A waterway and valley with an ° ~ Paunacussing Creek .
    [Show full text]
  • The Buckingham Township Comprehensive Plan Review Committee I M I Buck Innham Townshid Boa Rd of Sudervisoe George M
    THE BUCKINGHAMTOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVEPLAN UPDATE 4991. B UCKI NGHAM TOW NSHlP BUCKS COUNTY PEN N SY LVA N IA I THE BUCKINGHAMTOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVEPLAN I UPDATE 49910 A Continuing Planning Program 1965 1991 BUCKS COUNTY I PEN NSY LVANl A I Adopted by the Buckingham Township Board of Supervisors Reviewed by the Buckingham Township Planning Commission Prepared by the Buckingham Township Comprehensive Plan Review Committee I m I Buck innham TownshiD Boa rd of SuDervisoE George M. Collie, Chairman Janet D.French, Vice Chairman 8 Robert W. Pierson, Member I Comorehensive Plan Review Committee John M. Cunningham, Planning Commission Drew C. Auara, Water and Sewer Commission /1 Ron Viehweger, Park and Recreation Board Carl Gaumann, Historic Commission 1 Michael Weisser, Environmental Advisory Commission 8 BWlDahom TownshiD Plonnincl Commissfoq John Cunningham Edwin Daniels Charles Frederick I Muriel Gordon Frederick Pope James Wannemacher I George Wells 1 1 1 I I 1 I I hckinaham TownshiD Manaaer Beverly J. Curtin Buckinaham TownshiD Fnaineer Ernest Knight. II, PE. Knight Engineering Buckinnham Townshin Solicitor George M. Bush, Esq. Camitv Plannina Consm Michael Frank E I I .- 8,I I_ I t 8 PLAN SUMMARY I-- 8 I PLAN SUMMARY The Buckingham Township Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission, after discussion with members of other Township commissions. completed a review and update of the Buckingham Township Comprehensive Plan of 1984. The primary changes include the following: munitv Develome nt GoaIs and Objectives These basic statements related to community development and conservation were reviewed in light of the conditions experienced in the 1980s and those anticipated in the 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • Marking 25 Years As the Voice of the Delaware River 1988
    Delaware riverkeeper Network Marking 25 Years as the Voice of the Delaware River 1988 39 York Street Lambertville, NJ 08530 1994 1997 1298 General Washington Memorial Boulevard PO Box 326 Washington Crossing, PA 18977 2002 2000 2005 2008 2006 300 Pond Street Bristol, PA 19007 2011 925 Canal Street, Suite 3701 Bristol, PA 19007 2013 River Reflections: 25 Years of Speaking for the River Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper oo often the needs of our rivers go unde- action. Our restoration work has restored the ecologi- fended, their enemies unchallenged. Rivers cal functions and values of numerous local streams. Tcannot speak for themselves; they cannot take We have helped many communities organize around those who harm them to court. In the late 1980s, even local streams and local issues, and given citizens the though the health of the Delaware River had recov- tools they need to take meaningful and successful ac- ered from the days when pollution caused a 20 mile tion. oxygen dead zone in the Philadelphia/Camden reach, I wish I could say that my job was done, the Riv- a small group of individuals became convinced that er and its tributaries protected and restored, but as the Delaware River needed an individual who could in 1988, the River still needs an individual to speak personify the importance taking personal responsibil- for it today. The Delaware River is unique and mag- ity for river protection. nificent, but it continues to be threatened by under- At that time, a New York citizen-based environ- regulated stormwater, toxic discharges, massive water mental organization had appointed its own watchdog, withdrawals, dredging and more.
    [Show full text]
  • [Pennsylvania County Histories]
    9 ^%6\\ S'. i»j> Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from This project is made possible by a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services as administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Education through the Office of Commonwealth Libraries https://archive.org/details/pennsylvaniacoun13unse / I Page B Page c INDEX Page s Page S Pase‘ ■ s . ■ j ' T , ' | U V . w : . ■ «_ - 2 w w XYZ 1 v. , — ---"T«... mmm ■■ •„. - ' 1— . -. - 4 L 3 ready to i os tor and encourage.. His aptness and early promise of talent >G COLLEGE AG must have been noticed by the ministers in the Presbytery in which she resided, NOTABLE EVENTS OF THE OLD TIME. and each and every ono of thorn must have _ rendered valuable aid in teaching him the languages which he mastered thoroughly An Interesting tetter From Our Focal before he attained his fifteenth year. Historian, Samuel Evans, Esq —Some On May 20, 1729, Charles Clinton, an Points Worthy of Careful uncle of the subject of this sketch, and a Perusal. number of friends, chartered a ship, in which the widow of Christian Clinton and her son Charles were also taken to emi¬ The ‘‘Log College” celebration at Nesh- grate to America. aminy.a few days ago, recalls the name of On the voyage the captain attempted to one of the students of that historic place. starve the passengers and get possession of their property, several died, among The name has been kept green in my whom vtas a son arid daughter of Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware River Basin
    DELAWARE RIVER BASIN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE | NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM | US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES DELAWARE RIVER BASIN | NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES DELAWARE RIVER BASIN DELAWARE | NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES NATIONAL Photo: David B. Soete PENNSYLVANIA • NEW YORK • NEW JERSEY EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA NATIONAL PARK SERVICE | NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM | US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CONTENTS WILD AND SCENIC RIVER VALUES PENNSYLVANIA, NEW YORK, AND NEW JERSEY Overview ....................................... 2 Lower Delaware National Wild and Scenic River ....... 48 Dear friends of the Delaware River Basin, The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . 5 ° Cultural . 50 Outstandingly Remarkable Values . 8 ~ Lower Delaware River (including Tinicum Creek, What comes to mind when you think about the Delaware River and its tributaries? Tohickon Creek, and Paunacussing Creek) . 50 ° Cultural Values . 10 Do you think of a beautiful river valley where one can experience solitude in nature and Ecological Values . 12 ° Ecological . 51 enjoy the incredible scenery of the meandering river and forested hillsides? A family friendly ° ~ Lower Delaware River . 51 destination that provides great opportunities for boating, fi shing, and picnicking? A rare example ° Geological Values . 14 ~ Tinicum Creek . 52 of a large, undammed river that allows continual natural migration of native fi sh from the sea to ° Recreational Values . 16 the river headwaters and back? An intact network of aquatic and riparian habitat that supports Scenic Values . 17 ~ Tohickon Creek . 52 abundance and diversity of plants, fi sh, birds, and other animals? A waterway and valley with an ° ~ Paunacussing Creek .
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Resilient Water Systems COASTAL RESILIENCY COUNTY CASE STUDIES • VOLUME 1
    Planning Resilient Water Systems COASTAL RESILIENCY COUNTY CASE STUDIES • VOLUME 1 July 2014 Planning Resilient Water Systems COASTAL RESILIENCY COUNTY CASE STUDIES • VOLUME 1 Overview Water quality standards measure three important features: how safe the water is for human contact, how safe it is for drinking and the health of an ecosystem. A critical component of community resilience is responsible stewardship of our water bodies, which are vital resources for human, economic and ecological health. The following case studies showcase counties that have experienced negative effects of poor water quality, and are now striving to reverse this course. Both Bucks County, Pa. and Suffolk County, N.Y. have created detailed plans to guide future water quality improvements through sediment reduction and wastewater management, respectively. In each case, the counties have found that partnerships have been key components for achieving success. July 2014 July 2014 2 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES • JULY 2014 Bucks County, Pennsylvania Neshaminy Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction Plan for Municipal Implementation Located in southeastern Pennsylvania, Bucks County is home to approximately 625,000 citizens.1 Although several riverfront communities exist, it is an otherwise landlocked county which makes up part of the Delaware Bay watershed. The county seat is Doylestown, and the populous southern third of Bucks County lies between Trenton, N.J. and Philadelphia. This flat, industrial area lays within the Atlantic Coastal Plain, at about sea level. The southern part of the county has a long history of large industrial mills and factories including steel, vulcanized rubber and plastics, chemical plants and landfills that receive much out-of-state waste.
    [Show full text]
  • Mill Creek Habitat Restoration Plan
    Mill Creek Habitat Restoration Plan November 2006 Photo of New Hope Road Bridge on Mill Creek provided by Barry Forgeng and Richard Shindell of Bucks County Trout Unlimited Prepared For: Bucks County Chapter of Trout Unlimited Prepared By: F. X. Browne, Inc. Mill Creek Habitat Restoration Plan November 2006 Prepared For: Bucks County Chapter of Trout Unlimited 412 Manor Drive Dublin, PA 18917 215-249-3033 Prepared By: F. X. Browne, Inc. 1101 South Broad Street Lansdale, PA 19446 215-362-3878 Table of Contents Section Page I. Executive Summary and Introduction.....................................................................................................1 II. Impacts to Water and Habitat Quality.....................................................................................................2 Automated Temperature Monitoring Methodology .......................................................................2 Results 4 Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................10 Visual Assessment Results ................................................................................................................12 Wastewater Treatment Plant Effects...............................................................................................16 III. Habitat Restoration Vision, Goals, and Objectives............................................................................17 IV. Agenda for Municipal Land Use and Development Policy Reform
    [Show full text]
  • WRAS for Subasin 2F
    Updated 5/2004 Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) State Water Plan Subbasin 02F Neshaminy Creek Watershed Bucks and Montgomery Counties Introduction Subbasin 02F, which consists mainly of the Neshaminy Creek and its tributaries, drains 232 square miles of west central and southern Bucks County and a portion of adjacent Montgomery County. A small portion of the Delaware River drainage adjacent to the confluence of Neshaminy Creek between the villages of Croyden to Cornwells Heights is also included in the subbasin. Neshaminy Creek flows in a southeasterly direction for about 50 miles to its confluence with the Delaware River north of the City of Philadelphia. A total of 428 streams flow for 418 miles through the subbasin; however, the majority of the streams in the subbasin are small unnamed tributaries, only 17 of the streams have official names. The subbasin has three Mill Creeks and two Pine Creeks. Major tributaries are the North Branch, West Branch, and Little Neshaminy Creek. The subbasin is part of HUC Area 2040201, Neshaminy Creek, a Category I, FY99/2000 Priority watershed under the Unified Watershed Assessment. Geology/Soils Most of the subbasin lies within the Northern Piedmont Ecoregion (64). The upper two-thirds of the watershed is in the Triassic Lowlands (64a) subsection, which is comprised of gray arkose sandstone, red and brown sandstone, shale, and conglomerate of the Stockton Formation. The topography is flat to gently sloping (0 to 8 percent). Soils in this section are sandy and highly erodible. The Stockton Formation is the best source for water supply wells in the subbasin; however, yields vary greatly and some of the aquifer is under artesian pressure.
    [Show full text]