Section 1 – Sayre to Laceyville
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Natural Areas Inventory of Bradford County, Pennsylvania 2005
A NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2005 Submitted to: Bradford County Office of Community Planning and Grants Bradford County Planning Commission North Towanda Annex No. 1 RR1 Box 179A Towanda, PA 18848 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Science Office The Nature Conservancy 208 Airport Drive Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 This project was funded in part by a state grant from the DCNR Wild Resource Conservation Program. Additional support was provided by the Department of Community & Economic Development and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through State Wildlife Grants program grant T-2, administered through the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. ii Site Index by Township SOUTH CREEK # 1 # LITCHFIELD RIDGEBURY 4 WINDHAM # 3 # 7 8 # WELLS ATHENS # 6 WARREN # # 2 # 5 9 10 # # 15 13 11 # 17 SHESHEQUIN # COLUMBIA # # 16 ROME OR WELL SMITHFI ELD ULSTER # SPRINGFIELD 12 # PIKE 19 18 14 # 29 # # 20 WYSOX 30 WEST NORTH # # 21 27 STANDING BURLINGTON BURLINGTON TOWANDA # # 22 TROY STONE # 25 28 STEVENS # ARMENIA HERRICK # 24 # # TOWANDA 34 26 # 31 # GRANVI LLE 48 # # ASYLUM 33 FRANKLIN 35 # 32 55 # # 56 MONROE WYALUSING 23 57 53 TUSCARORA 61 59 58 # LEROY # 37 # # # # 43 36 71 66 # # # # # # # # # 44 67 54 49 # # 52 # # # # 60 62 CANTON OVERTON 39 69 # # # 42 TERRY # # # # 68 41 40 72 63 # ALBANY 47 # # # 45 # 50 46 WILMOT 70 65 # 64 # 51 Site Index by USGS Quadrangle # 1 # 4 GILLETT # 3 # LITCHFIELD 8 # MILLERTON 7 BENTLEY CREEK # 6 # FRIENDSVILLE # 2 SAYRE # WINDHAM 5 LITTLE MEADOWS 9 -
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. -
The Myth of Etienne Brule
THE MYTH OF ETIENNE BRULE BY DONALD H. KENT' THE French interpreter and Indian agent Etienne Brul6 has been given a place in Pennsylvania history on very unsubstantial evi- dence, with a claim that he descended the Susquehanna River from its headwaters to the sea during the winter of 1615-1616. Sometimes he is even described as the first white man to tread the soil of Pennsylvania. Clement F. Heverly in his History and Geography of Bradford County wrote of "this event, 113 years after the discovery of America by Columbus" as "the first in the history of the state and county," and a recent Guide to Central Pennsylvania described Etienne Brule as "the first European to view the site of the future state capital." It expressed regret that he left no "description of central Pennsylvania as it was nine years after the first English set- tlers landed at Jamestown. ." I These local writers were in distinguished company. Similar, if less positive and less glowing, references to Brul6's descent of the Sus- quehanna were made by Francis Parkman, Justin Winsor, and Reuben Gold Thwaites.2 Under the patronage of the Western Reserve Historical Society, Consul Willshire Butterfield published a History of Brult's Discoveries and Explorations, 1610-1626, Being a Narrative of the Discovery by Stephen BruM, of Lakes Huron, Ontario, and Superior; and of His Explorations (the First Made by Civilized Man) of Pennsylvania and Western New York, also of the Province of Ontario, Canada.3 Howard M. Jenkins had the story in The substance of this article was part of a talk at the Friday luncheon of the an- nual meeting of the Pennsylvania Historical Association, October 10-11, 1975, when the author completed his term as its president. -
Feasibility Study on a Potential Susquehanna Connector Trail for the John Smith Historic Trail
Feasibility Study on a Potential Susquehanna Connector Trail for the John Smith Historic Trail Prepared for The Friends of the John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail November 16, 2009 Coordinated by The Bucknell University Environmental Center’sNature and Human Communities Initiative The Susquehanna Colloquium for Nature and Human Communities The Susquehanna River Heartland Coalition for Environmental Studies In partnership with Bucknell University The Eastern Delaware Nations The Haudenosaunee Confederacy The Susquehanna Greenway Partnership Pennsylvania Environmental Council Funded by the Conservation Fund/R.K. Mellon Foundation 2 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 Recommended Susquehanna River Connecting Trail................................................................. 5 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6 Staff ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Criteria used for Study................................................................................................................. 6 2. Description of Study Area, Team Areas, and Smith Map Analysis ...................................... 8 a. Master Map of Sites and Trails from Smith Era in Study Area........................................... 8 b. Study -
2018 Pennsylvania Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws PERMITS, MULTI-YEAR LICENSES, BUTTONS
2018PENNSYLVANIA FISHING SUMMARY Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws 2018 Fishing License BUTTON WHAT’s NeW FOR 2018 l Addition to Panfish Enhancement Waters–page 15 l Changes to Misc. Regulations–page 16 l Changes to Stocked Trout Waters–pages 22-29 www.PaBestFishing.com Multi-Year Fishing Licenses–page 5 18 Southeastern Regular Opening Day 2 TROUT OPENERS Counties March 31 AND April 14 for Trout Statewide www.GoneFishingPa.com Use the following contacts for answers to your questions or better yet, go onlinePFBC to the LOCATION PFBC S/TABLE OF CONTENTS website (www.fishandboat.com) for a wealth of information about fishing and boating. THANK YOU FOR MORE INFORMATION: for the purchase STATE HEADQUARTERS CENTRE REGION OFFICE FISHING LICENSES: 1601 Elmerton Avenue 595 East Rolling Ridge Drive Phone: (877) 707-4085 of your fishing P.O. Box 67000 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Phone: (814) 359-5110 BOAT REGISTRATION/TITLING: license! Phone: (866) 262-8734 Phone: (717) 705-7800 Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. The mission of the Pennsylvania Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday PUBLICATIONS: Fish and Boat Commission is to Monday through Friday BOATING SAFETY Phone: (717) 705-7835 protect, conserve, and enhance the PFBC WEBSITE: Commonwealth’s aquatic resources EDUCATION COURSES FOLLOW US: www.fishandboat.com Phone: (888) 723-4741 and provide fishing and boating www.fishandboat.com/socialmedia opportunities. REGION OFFICES: LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATION Contents Contact Law Enforcement for information about regulations and fishing and boating opportunities. Contact Education for information about fishing and boating programs and boating safety education. -
Estimation of Suspended Sediment Concentrations and Loads Using Continuous Turbidity Data
Estimation of Suspended Sediment Concentrations and Loads Using Continuous Turbidity Data Pub. No. 306 September 2016 Luanne Y. Steffy Aquatic Ecologist Susquehanna River Basin Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 3 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Turbidity Method ........................................................................................................................ 5 Calculation of Sediment Loads ............................................................................................... 5 Relationships Between Land Use and Suspended Sediment Yields ....................................... 8 Impacts of Storm Events ....................................................................................................... 10 Flow Method Comparison ........................................................................................................ 12 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................... 17 LESSONS LEARNED.................................................................................................................. 18 APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................................... -
Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802 -
Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96 -
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail Connecting
CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH CHESAPEAKE NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL CONNECTING TRAILS EVALUATION STUDY 410 Severn Avenue, Suite 405 Annapolis, MD 21403 CONTENTS Acknowledgments 2 Executive Summary 3 Statement of Study Findings 5 Introduction 9 Research Team Reports 10 Anacostia River 11 Chester River 15 Choptank River 19 Susquehanna River 23 Upper James River 27 Upper Nanticoke River 30 Appendix: Research Teams’ Executive Summaries and Bibliographies 34 Anacostia River 34 Chester River 37 Choptank River 40 Susquehanna River 44 Upper James River 54 Upper Nanticoke River 56 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are truly thankful to the research and project team, led by John S. Salmon, for the months of dedicated research, mapping, and analysis that led to the production of this important study. In all, more than 35 pro- fessionals, including professors and students representing six universities, American Indian representatives, consultants, public agency representatives, and community leaders contributed to this report. Each person brought an extraordinary depth of knowledge, keen insight and a personal devotion to the project. We are especially grateful for the generous financial support that we received from the following private foundations, organizations and corporate partners: The Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, The Clay- ton Fund, Inc., Colcom Foundation, The Conservation Fund, Lockheed Martin, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, The Merrill Foundation, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Rauch Foundation, The Peter Jay Sharp Foundation, Verizon, Virginia Environmental Endowment and the Wallace Genetic Foundation. Without their support this project would simply not have been possible. Finally, we would like to extend a special thank you to the board of directors of the Chesapeake Conser- vancy, and to John Maounis, Superintendent of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office, for their leadership and unwavering commitment to the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail. -
Water Quality Impacts
SUB-BASIN 4A SUB-BASIN 4C SUB-BASIN 4D 2005 CHESAPEAKE BAY A FIVE YEAR STRATEGY APPROVED JANUARY 3, 2005 BRADFORD COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT BRADFORD COUNTY CHESAPEAKE BAY STRATEGY - 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report was developed as a response to a need to better define and address non-point source pollution in Bradford County, giving particular attention to the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reductions needed for Pennsylvania’s commitment to the Chesapeake Bay reduction goals. A local assessment of the major sources of non-point pollution identified the following areas: Agricultural Tillage; Agricultural Nutrient Management; Transportation Systems; Storm-water Run-Off; Commercial Fertilizers; and Stream Channel and Bank Instability. Detailed studies and resulting data were utilized to define and quantify both the sources and the needs to address these sources. Those studies included the following: Ö 1989 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assessment Ö 1999-2000 Dirt and Gravel Roads Site Evaluation and Inventory Ö USDA Natural Resources Inventory Ö Watershed Assessments for Towanda, Sugar, Bentley, Satterlee, Laning, Wysox and Seeley Creeks Ö 2004 Bradford County Comprehensive Plan Ö County Plan for On-Lot Septage Management During 1989, the Bradford County Conservation District was given a grant to conduct watershed assessments, through the PA Conservation Commission under the PA Chesapeake Bay Program. The purpose of the grant was to assess the need for assistance in addressing potential non-point sources of pollution from agricultural enterprises in the targeted watersheds. The watershed studies covered an area of 519,328 acres. This area included the Susquehanna River Sub-Basins 4-C, which included 285,095 acres consisting of Sugar and Towanda Creeks, and 4-D, which included 234,233 acres consisting of Wysox, Wyalusing, Sugar Run and Tuscarora Creeks. -
Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science
Special Issue of the JOURNAL OF THE PENNSYLVANIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER HEATHLAND COALITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (SRHCES) Editors Jane E. Huffman1, Ahmed Lachhab2, Carlos A. Iudica2, Larry Laubach1 SRHCES 1Department of Biological Sciences 2SRHCES c/o SEDA-COG East Stroudsburg University 201 Furnace Rd East Stroudsburg, PA 18301 Lewisburg, PA 17837 ISSN: 1044-6753 - March 2014 - Special Issue Founded on April 18, 1924 Copyright© 2014 All Rights Reserved March 2014: Volume 88 Issue 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 H.W. “SKIP” WIEDER FORWARD 2 A. LACHHAB AND C. A. IUDICA SKIP WIEDER…THE ‘YES’ MAN 3 MARK LAWRENCE AND RENEÉ CAREY MIDDLE CREEK WATER ASSESSMENT USING WATER QUALITY INDEX (WQI) 4 AHMED LACHHAB, MATTHEW BEREN, BRIAN ZUIDERVLIET BIOACCUMULATION OF METHYLMERCURY IN NEOVISON VISON (SCHREBER, 1777) 13 POPULATIONS OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER VALLEY MATTHEW R. BROWN AND CARLOS A. IUDICA13 FACTORS INFLUENCING WALLEYE (SANDER VITREUS) YEAR CLASS STRENGTH IN THE 20 UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER ROBERT T. WNUK NATIVE AMERICANS IN THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER VALLEY: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL 28 SUMMARY DAVID J. MINDERHOUT WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF THE LOWER WEST BRANCH – SUSQUEHANNA RIVER: 40 FOCUS ON SEWAGE TREATMENT† MELVIN C. ZIMMERMAN, LYNETTE DOOLEY40 ASSESSMENT OF PASSIVE AND ACTIVE MACROINVERTEBRATE COLLECTION METHODS IN 47 ADJACENT REACHES ON THE UPPER MAIN STEM OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIVER KATHERINE GUILD, ANDREW ANTHONY, MICHAEL BILGER, AND JACK HOLT BIOASSESSMENT OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES OF THE MIDDLE PENNS CREEK, 57 PENNSYLVANIA WATERSHED JOHN PANAS, JONATHAN NILES, SAM SILKNETTER, MICHAEL BILGER MUSSEL POPULATION AND DISTRIBUTION ON BUFFALO CREEK, AN AMERICAN EEL 63 STOCKED TRIBUTARY TO THE WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA RIVER SEAN P. -
Stone Disks in Iroquoia
Stone Disks in Iroquoia By William Engelbrecht, Kathleen Allen, Bill Fox, Jim Herbstritt, Joshua Kwoka, Wayne Lenig, and Martha Sempowski Abstract Iroquoian speakers played the hoop and pole game, but there are no historic descriptions of Iroquoians playing chunkey, a variant of hoop and pole in which a rolled stone disk is used instead of a hoop. Also, no distinctively shaped Cahokia style chunkey stones have been found on Iroquoian sites. This has led to the belief that chunkey was not played by Iroquoians. However, a symmetrical stone disk that rolled well across a carpeted surface was recovered from the Eaton site, a mid-sixteenth century Erie village. Other researchers provided examples of symmetrical stone disks from Neutral, Erie, Seneca, Cayuga, Mohawk, and Susquehannock sites. These specimens generally resemble the Bradley variant of chunkey stones from the Midwest. We argue that these Iroquoian stone disks were used to play chunkey. In addition to describing the physical characteristics of the specimens, we discuss possible symbolism and functions of the game among Iroquoians and likely reasons for its disappearance. Chunkey, and “Hoop and Pole” Chunkey is a game that involves rolling a stone disk known as a chunkey stone or discoidal along a flat surface. The name comes from the Choctaw, chungke (Adair 1775:401). It is a variant of 41 Iroquoia: The Journal of the Conference on Iroquois Research Volume 4 October 2018 Engelbrecht, Allen, Fox, Herbstritt, Kwoka, Lenig, Sempowski the hoop and pole game which was played throughout North America (Culin 1907:420-422). Both games could be played by two players or by teams.