MEHOOPANY CREEK and LITTLE MEHOOPANY CREEK WATERSHEDS

RIVERS CONSERVATION PLAN

March 31, 2007

Prepared By: Pennsylvania Environmental Council In cooperation with the Wyoming County Office of Community Planning And the Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association

This project was financed in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund, under the administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this Rivers Conservation Plan could not have been possible without the input of the local communities. Local residents, governmental representatives and private citizens, spent time during the visioning process to identify and prioritize the special qualities of the watershed that should by protected and enhanced for future generations. Their input has been invaluable and has given the report a true reflection of the communities in the watershed. Cover photograph courtesy of GreenTreks Network (www.greentreks.org).

A special thanks to: Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association

Steering Committee Members: Shawn Rybka Wyoming County Conservation District Carol Owens Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Lars Lundin Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Dave Ritz Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Frank Miner Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Karen Wargo Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Rusty Bennett Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Marilyn Stark Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Burr Hamilton Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Dave Krafjack Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association Chas Mead Wyoming County Office of Community Planning

Municipalities: Bradford County Wilmot Township Luzerne County Fairmount Township Lake Township Ross Township Sullivan County Cherry Township Colley Township Wyoming County Forkston Township North Branch Township Noxen Township Mehoopany Township Windham Township

Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Project Area Characteristics 5 2.1 Location/Topography/Geology 5 2.2 Major Tributaries/Drainage Area 6 2.3 Land Use/Zoning/Municipal Ordinances 7 2.4 Social/Economic Profile 8 2.41 Population Centers 8 2.42 Transportation Facilities 8 2.43 Major Employers 9 3.0 Land Resources 10 3.1 Soil Characteristics 10 3.2 Land Ownership (Public/Private) 10 3.3 Critical Areas 11 3.4 Landfills 11 3.5 Hazard Areas 11 3.51 Waste Sites 11 3.52 Active and Abandoned Mines/Quarries 12 4.0 Water Resources 13 4.1 Major Tributaries 13 4.2 Wetlands 15 4.3 Floodplain 15 4.4 Lakes and Ponds 16 4.5 Water Quality 16 4.51 Point Sources 16 4.52 Non-Point Sources 17 4.53 Monitoring 17 4.6 Water Supply 17 4.61 Public/Private 17 4.62 Well Head Protection Areas 18 5.0 Biological Resources 20 5.1 Wildlife 20 5.2 Vegetation 20 5.3 Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Species 20 5.4 Important Habitats 21 6.0 Cultural Resources 22 6.1 Recreational 22 6.2 Historical/Archeological 22 7.0 Special Issues/Opportunities 26 7.1 Water Quality 26 7.2 Streambank Erosion 26 7.3 Anthracite Coal Strip Mining Areas 26 8.0 Public Participation Process 27 8.1 Role of Steering Committee 27 8.2 Surveys 27

8.2.1 Municipal Survey 27 8.2.2 General Questionnaire 29 8.3 Key Person Interviews 30 8.4 Public Meetings 32 9.0 Action Plan 33 9.1 Water Resources 33 9.2 Land Resources 34 9.3 Recreation Resources 35 9.4 Education Resources 36 9.5 Management Options 37 9.6 Funding Opportunities and Technical Assistance 37

Figures Figure 1 Watershed Location Map Figure 2 Topographic Map Figure 3 Surficial Geology Map Figure 4 Land-Use Map Figure 5 Municipal Ordinance Data Map Figure 6 Watershed Based Population Map Figure 7 Major Transportation Routes Map Figure 8 Soils Association Map Figure 9 Public Lands Map Figure 10 Wetlands Map

Tables Table 1 Municipalities in the Watershed Table 2 Major Tributaries Table 3 Land Use Table 4 Municipal Ordinance Data Summary Table 5 Population Data within Watershed Boundaries Table 6 Major Employers Table 7 Public Lands Table 8 Permitted Quarries Table 9 Lakes and Ponds Table 10 PNDI Table 11 Recreational Amenities Summary Table 12 Historical Sites Table 13 Action Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources

Appendices Appendix A Data Tables Appendix B MCWA Water Quality Monitoring Data Sheets Appendix C Municipal Surveys Appendix D Questionnaire Surveys Appendix E Key Person Interviews

Executive Summary The Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC), Northeast Regional Office, has prepared a Rivers Conservation Plan (RCP) for the Mehoopany Creek Watershed through funding provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and Luzerne County. The Mehoopany Creek Watershed and the Little Mehoopany Creek Watersheds are located in the northeast corner of Pennsylvania, predominantly in the west to southwest portion of Wyoming County with small sections of the watershed in Bradford, Luzerne, and Sullivan Counties which encompasses eleven (11) local municipalities.

The entire drainage area of Mehoopany Creek is approximately one hundred and twenty- three (123) square miles. The North Branch Mehoopany Creek, the largest tributary of Mehoopany Creek, drains forty (40) square-miles. The Little Mehoopany Creek drainage area is approximately eleven (11) square miles. The Little Mehoopany Creek Watershed is actually an independent watershed draining directly into the Susquehanna River upstream of the Mehoopany Creek Watershed.

This RCP was prepared per DCNR guidelines and is based on an inventory of land, water, recreational, social and cultural resources on the study area. The Wyoming County Office of Community Planning prepared a series of GIS based maps which detail the population, municipal ordinance data, transportation, land use, topography, geology, soils, public lands, and wetlands sites in the watershed.

The Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Program was developed by DCNR to conserve and enhance river resources through the development and implementation of locally initiated plans. The program provides technical and financial assistance to municipalities and river support groups to carry out both planning and implementation activities. A registry has been established to recognize completed river conservation plans and is on- line at www.dcnr.state.pa.us/rivers/registry.htm. With the completion of this plan, and approval by DCNR, the Mehoopany Creek Watershed RCP will be placed on the Pennsylvania River Registry. This program has no regulatory component. Communities that develop a rivers conservation plan are not subject to additional state or federal regulations because of the existence of the plan.

Community involvement from the private and public sector in the planning stage of the rivers conservation program is essential to the success of a completed rivers conservation plan. Community involvement not only ensures that the interests of local citizens are reflected in the plan (thereby making specific projects eligible for implementation dollars), but also instills a degree of ownership on the part of the community for the plan once it is completed. PEC conducted an extensive community involvement/public participation process that included public and steering committee meetings, surveys, and key person interviews. This process was essential to the development of the Action Plan that reflects the needs of the local communities.

1 The primary goal for the RCP was to inventory land, water and cultural resources in the Mehoopany Creek Watershed that resulted in the formulation of a comprehensive Action Plan that addressed current and future water quality and quantity issues in the watershed.

The following is a summary of the recommendations developed through public and municipal participation and review of the background data and mapping.

Water Resources A variety of ecological and environmental issues were identified during the preparation of the River Conservation Plan. Accelerated stream bank erosion and sedimentation, and natural stream design issues were the most commonly listed critical water related challenges. Other critical water related needs or challenges included water quality and clean drinking water, land development and planning.

A variety of projects were identified via the public participation process to address these water related issues. Action plan projects include the need for water quality testing of private wells, removal of illegally dumped trash in Mehoopany Creek and surrounding tributaries, addressing agricultural runoff, and assessing the integrity of on lot septic systems.

Land Resources Preservation of green space, open space, and farmlands throughout the Watershed is also a priority for the study area according to the public participation process. Addressing this issue in the Watershed can be achieved through a variety of projects listed in the Action Plan.

The Wyoming County Office of Community Development recommended the development of a Countywide Recreation and Open Space Plan and acquiring more conservation easements under the Wyoming County Farmland Preservation program. An open space plan is a step towards preserving and enhancing the green infrastructure in the County, as well as, the Watershed. Wyoming County is also interested in preparing an Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan to proactively address future development impacts in the Watershed.

Addressing the issue of illegal dumping along streams in the Watershed was also a concern for some of the municipalities in the study area. Projects that address this issue include the Clean Up our American Lands and Streams (COALS) which cleans up illegal dump sites and keeps them clean via monitoring and partnerships with local law enforcement agencies.

Recreation Resources There is interest on behalf of Wyoming County in developing a County-wide Recreation and Open Space Plan. The Sullivan County Snowmobile Club is interested in developing a snowmobile trail system throughout the Watershed.

2 The Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) is in the process of creating a ten county regional trail GIS based map and tourism brochure. The GIS based map will be utilized by local municipalities and county officials to plan and develop future trail and greenway corridors. The tourism brochure will be used by the Endless Mountains Heritage Region and the Endless Mountains Visitors Bureau to promote the region for hiking and bicycling opportunities.

PEC, the Endless Mountains Heritage Region, and The National Park Service are also in the process of developing two (2) water trail map and guides for the North Branch of the Susquehanna River. The first map and guide will available to the public at no charge and the second map and guide will be of higher quality and be sold by PEC and the Endless Mountains Heritage Region at various locations. In conjunction with the map and guide has been the installation of water trail signage at various boat launch sites along the North Branch of the Susquehanna River.

Education Resources The Steering Committee also suggested a limited number of projects regarding information and educational development regarding watershed specific issues. It was recommended that several workshops be held throughout the Watershed to educate local residents and municipalities on a variety of subjects, including but not limited to, stream bank erosion and stabilization, natural stream channel design, the affects of pesticides on streams, agricultural runoff and riparian zone planting.

3 1.0 Introduction

During the process of preparing the North Branch of the Susquehanna River Rivers Conservation Plan, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Northeast Regional Office (PEC) spoke to the Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association (MCWA) regarding issues and concerns in the Mehoopany Creek Watershed and regarding the possibility of working cooperatively to prepare a Rivers Conservation Plan under the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR) Rivers Conservation Program for the Mehoopany Creek and Little Mehoopany Creek Watersheds located in Bradford, Luzerne, Sullivan and Wyoming Counties. The intent of the plan would be to address environmental, cultural and natural resource issues within the watershed and make locally relevant recommendations for preservation or restoration of environmental integrity to the corridor based upon public input and information gathered during the course of the project. The Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association agreed to the idea and PEC submitted a grant to PADCNR in the fall of 2001 and was successfully awarded in the spring of 2002.

The Wyoming County Office of Community Planning (WCOCP) prepared all GIS based maps for this report and assisted in the data gathering process and key person interviews. Borton-Lawson Engineering also prepared a professional assessment of the physical condition of the Mehoopany Creek and Little Mehoopany Creek watersheds for the MCWA. Much of the data gathered for this assessment has been incorporated into this study (see Appendix A Data Tables).

4 2.0 Project Characteristics

2.1 Location/Topography/Geology

Location

Mehoopany Creek Watershed and the Little Mehoopany Creek watersheds are located in the northeast corner of Pennsylvania, predominantly in the west to southwest portion of Wyoming County with small sections of the watershed in Bradford, Luzerne, and Sullivan Counties. The Mehoopany Creek Watershed is 123 square miles in size and the North Branch Mehoopany Creek, the largest tributary of Mehoopany Creek, drains forty (40) square-miles. The Little Mehoopany Creek watershed is eleven (11) square miles. The Little Mehoopany Creek is not a tributary of Mehoopany Creek and is not within in the watershed of the Mehoopany Creek. However, the Little Mehoopany Creek enters the Susquehanna River 1200 feet upstream of the Mehoopany Creek in Wyoming County and for the purpose of this report is included in the assessment and Action Plan. The two watersheds are collectively referred to in this report as the Mehoopany Creek Watershed (watershed) (see Figure 1 Watershed Location Map).

The watershed is located in the following eleven (11) local municipalities: Wilmot Township (Bradford County), Fairmount, Lake and Ross Townships (Luzerne County) and Forkston, Noxen, Mehoopany, North Branch, and Windham Townships (Wyoming County) and Cherry and Colley Townships (Sullivan County) (see Table 1 Municipalities in the Watershed). Mehoopany Creek generally flows in a northerly direction and discharges into the Susquehanna River in Mehoopany Township, Wyoming County. North Branch Mehoopany Creek, the largest tributary in the watershed, flows in a generally easterly direction and discharges into the Mehoopany Creek in Forkston Township, Wyoming County. The Little Mehoopany Creek headwaters are located in North Branch Township, Wyoming County and it flows in a northerly then easterly direction to the confluence with the Susquehanna River in Mehoopany Township, slightly upstream from the discharge point of the Mehoopany Creek.

Topography

The topography of the watershed varies from steep hilly terrain in the upper reaches of the watershed to gently sloping areas along the valley floor in the flood plain (see Figure 2 Topographic Map). The highest point in the watershed is in North Branch Township at an elevation of 2,382 feet above sea level and the lowest point occurs in Mehoopany Township at an elevation of 650 feet above sea level. The change in elevation from the highest point to the lowest point at the confluence with the Susquehanna River is 1,732 feet (Borton Lawson, 2003).

Geology

Mehoopany Creek Watershed is located in the Mountainous High Plateau Section and the Glaciated Low Plateau Section of the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province (see

5 Figure 3 Surficial Geology Map). A Physiographic Province is a region whose parts exhibit similar geographic structures and climate and whose topographic relief differs significantly from that of adjacent regions, indicating a unified geomorphic history. The Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province consists of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, primarily of sandstone and shale with limited areas of siltstone and conglomerate, which are 290 to 570 million years in age (PADCNR, 1996). The bedrock has been folded to a greater or lesser degree during the Alleghany Orogeny and the surface topography has been shaped by four glaciations occurring in the last 3 million years. The most recent glacial episode, the Wisconsin drift, ended approximately 11,000 years ago and deposited glacial sediments from which soils have developed. As defined by PADCNR, the Mountainous High Plateau Section consists of broad to narrow, rounded to relatively flat, lengthy uplands. Well defined, steep slopes separate the uplands from the Glaciated Low Plateau Section. Steep to shallow valleys dissect the upland areas. The Glaciated Low Plateau Section topography ranges from rounded hills and broad to narrow valleys. Glacial outwash till deposits of gravel and sand occur primarily in the valleys on erosion prone bedrock (shale and siltstone). The hills are formed from more erosion resistant sandstones and conglomerates.

The bedrock formations consist of Burgoon Sandstone and Catskill, Huntely Mountain, Mauch Chunk, and Pottstville Groups. These bedrock formations contain little to no limestone, a calcium containing rock, and therefore the overlying soils contain very little alkalinity with which to buffer acid rainfall which is common to this locale. The following is a brief description each formation:

1. Burgoon Sandstone Formation: Buff, medium grained cross-bedded sandstone. 2. Catskill Formation, Undivided: Succession of grayish red-sandstone, siltstone and shale. 3. Huntley Mountain Formation: Greenish-gray and light-olive-gray, flaggy, fine- grained sandstone interbedded with a few red shales. 4. Mauch Chunk Formation: Grayish-red shale, siltstone, sandstone, and some conglomerate; some local non-red (marine) zones. 5. Pottsville Group: Predominately gray sandstone and conglomerate, also contains thin beds of shale, claystone, limestone, and coal.

2.2 Major Tributaries/Drainage Area

The entire drainage area of Mehoopany Creek is approximately one hundred and twenty- three (123) square miles. The Little Mehoopany Creek drainage area is approximately eleven (11) square miles. The North Branch Mehoopany Creek, the largest tributary of Mehoopany Creek, is approximately thirteen (13) miles long from it’s headwaters at Saxe Pond to its confluence with the Mehoopany Creek. The North Branch Mehoopany Creek drains forty (40) square-miles. Other tributaries to Mehoopany Creek include Fox Hollow, Rogers Hollow, Bowman Hollow, White Brook, Scouten Brook, Kasson Brook, Stony Brook, Henry Lott Brook, Somer Brook, Becker Brook, South Brook, Opossum Brook, and Bellas Brook. Tributaries of the North Branch of the Mehoopany Creek include Farr Hollow, Caitlin Brook, Burgess Brook, Douglas Hollow, Miller Brook,

6 Sciota Brook, Barnes Brook, Smith Cabin Run, and Wolf Run. Several unnamed tributaries are also located within the watershed (see Table 2 Major Tributaries).

2.3 Land Use/Zoning/Municipal Ordinances

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and 1992 aerial photographs were used to determine land use in the watershed by the WCOCP (see Figure 4 Land Use Map).

Land Use

Mehoopany Creek Watershed is predominantly rural and undeveloped due to the topography of the land. The vast majority (approximately 81 percent) of the watershed is Forest Cover. The Forest consists primarily of a mix of deciduous trees and evergreens. Significant acreage of land in the watershed is state game lands (State Game Land 13, 57, and 66) or state park land in the lower portion of the watershed in Luzerne County (Ricketts Glen State Park).

Agricultural activities are found primarily in the northern portion of the watershed area. 17.27 percent of the watershed is crop and pasture land. Over the last several years, there has been a slight decrease in farming activities as residential growth occurs.

0.02 percent of the watershed is commercial, located primarily adjacent to State Routes 87 and 187 in the northern portion of watershed in Colley Township, Sullivan County and North Branch Township in Wyoming County and in the southern portion of the watershed located along State Route 487 in Colley Township, Sullivan County. .07 percent of the watershed is residential land, located at the intersection of State Routes 3001, 4001, and 4002 in Jenningsville in Windham Township, Wyoming County and off of SR 3001 in Forkston in Wyoming County.

Mehoopany Creek Watershed has yet to experience a large degree of sprawl that is typical of many Pennsylvania communities with much of the land cover in the watershed remaining undeveloped. However, future commercial and residential growth is likely to continue outward from main roadway corridors into the surrounding countryside (see Table 3 Land Use).

Zoning/Municipal Ordinances

Local land use ordinances (rather than County or State ordinances) primarily control/direct the development of land in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Construction activities are regulated by subdivision and land development ordinances. Flood plain ordinances control development in highly flood prone areas adjacent to rivers and creeks. Municipal comprehensive plans can include land use, housing, transportation, and municipal facility planning. Emergency action plans provide the municipality with specific instructions in the event of a community wide emergency.

7 North Branch, Noxen, and Windham Townships in Wyoming County all have their own Emergency Procedure Plan and Cherry and Colley Townships use Sullivan County’s Emergency Procedure Plan. All of the municipalities have their own Flood Plain Ordinance. Nine (9) municipalities use their respective County’s Subdivision Ordinance. Two (2) municipalities, Fairmont and Ross Townships, use Luzerne County’s Zoning Ordinance. All four (4) of the counties have Planning Commissions and Comprehensive Plans. Bradford County just updated their Comprehensive Plan in 2003, Luzerne County is presently updating their Comprehensive Plan, Sullivan County’s Comprehensive Plan was completed in the 1970’s and needs to be updated, and the Wyoming County Comprehensive Plan was updated in 1997. Fairmount, Lake, and Ross Townships follow the Luzerne County Comprehensive Plan. Forkston, Mehoopany, and Noxen Townships in Wyoming County follow the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The remaining municipalities do not have Comprehensive Plans (see Table 4 Municipal Ordinance Data Summary and Figure 5 Municipal Ordinance Data).

2.4 Social Economic Profile

2.41 Population Centers

The area encompassing Mehoopany Creek Watershed is primarily rural. Lake and Ross Townships in Luzerne County are the most populous with 78.2 and 63.4 people per square mile. However, only a relatively small percentage of these Townships are actually located within the Mehoopany Creek Watershed. Mehoopany Township in Wyoming County has a larger percentage of land area located in the watershed and has a population density of 57.9 people per square mile. North Branch and Forkston Townships, the municipalities with the largest percentage of land area located in the watershed, are the least populous with a population density of 8.8 and 5.5, respectively.

Between 1990 and 2000, three municipalities, Fairmont and Ross Townships in Luzerne County and Noxen Township in Wyoming County have decreased in population. The other eight municipalities have increased in population.

The two areas of residential population in the watershed are located in Wyoming County; Jenningsville in Windham Township off of Little Mehoopany Creek at the intersections of State Routes 3001, 4001, and 4002 and Forkston off of Bowman Hollow near SR 3001. These are the only residential areas in the watershed (see Table 5 Population Data within the Watershed Boundaries and Figure 6 Watershed Based Population Map).

2.42 Transportation Facilities

State Routes 87, 187, and 487 are the major transportation routes through the watershed (see Figure 7 Major Transportation Routes Map). SR 87 is the primary highway in the northern portion of the watershed and traverses the northern portion in an east-west direction. SR 87 has a relatively low Average Annual Daily Traffic volume (AADT) ranging from 600 AADT to 2,900 AADT. SR 187 connects SR 87 in Lovelton, Wyoming County with US Route 6 near Towanda in Bradford County. SR 187 traffic

8 volume is 250 AADT. SR 487 is located in the southwestern portion of the watershed and is the primary access to Ricketts Glen State Park. SR 487 provides a connection to Wilkes-Barre via State Routes 118 and 29 to the east and Towanda via State Route 220 to the north. Traffic volume along SR 487 is 1,300 AADT. Connections to Interstate 81, 84, and 476 are within 25 miles and connections to Interstate 80 are within 50 miles. State Route 3001 is a secondary route that traverses the watershed in a north-south direction. SR 3001 has a relatively low traffic volume, ranging from 50 AADT to 400 AADT.

The Reading Blue Mountain & Northern Railway serves the study area from the south and the Norfolk Southern Railway from the North.

2.43 Major Employers

The vast majority of the Mehoopany Creek watershed is rural and has very limited areas of development. There are no large industrial or commercial businesses within the watershed. However, the Tunkhannock Area School District’s Mehoopany Elementary School located in Mehoopany employs approximately 26 people (source: Tunkhannock Area School District). Major employers in the other respective counties can be found in Table 6 Major Employers, although these employers are not necessarily located within the Mehoopany Creek Watershed.

9 3.0 Land Resources

3.1 Soil Characteristics

The soil associations (groups of soils that exhibit a regularly repeating pattern) in the watershed are developed on glacial till deposits and sandstone and shale bedrock. Soil association characteristics can provide information and understanding of rainfall infiltration rates, flow through rates, runoff rates, water retention capabilities, agricultural suitability, erosion, and impact on construction activities. Most of the soil series in the upper Mehoopany Creek are low in pH and contain no buffering capabilities. The following presents a summary of the five soil associations (Mehoopany and Little Mehoopany Creek Watersheds Assessment, 2003)) found within the watershed (see Figure 8 Soils Association Map).

Wellsboro-Oquaga-Morris (PA024): The Wellsboro-Oquaga-Morris soil association is located in the northern and southwestern sections of the watershed. These soils are located on broad rolling uplands and were formed on glacial till derived from sandstone and shale. This association consists of nearly level to steep, deep and moderately deep soils that are moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, and somewhat excessively drained soils.

Volusia-Mardin-Lordstown (PA025) The Volusia-Mardin-Lordstown soil association is located in the northeast section of the watershed and is nearly level to moderately well drained, well drained, and somewhat poorly drained.

Lackawanna-Arnot-Morris (PA026) The Lackawanna-Arnot-Morris soil association is located in the central section of the watershed. This association is moderately steep and steep, moderately deep, deep and shallow soils that are somewhat excessively drained and well drained.

Chenango-Pope-Holly (PA027) The Chenango-Pope-Holly soil association is located on the Mehoopany Creek terraces and floodplains and consists of gravelly sandy loam. This association is nearly level to steep, deep soils that are somewhat excessively drained and well drained.

Arnot-Oquaga-Dystrochrepts (PA038) The Arnot-Oquaga-Dystrochrepts soil association is located between Mehoopany Creek and North Branch Mehoopany Creek. It is a rock outcrop, nearly level to steep, shallow to deep, non-stony and extremely stony soils that are well drained and somewhat excessively drained.

3.2 Land Ownership (Public/Private)

Types of publicly owned land within the watershed include State Game Lands, Parks and Forests. State Gamelands 13, 57, and 66 all have portions of their property located within

10 the Mehoopany Creek Watershed. The total gamelands area within the watershed is 33,962 acres or approximately 53 square miles. Total of state park lands area (Ricketts Glen) in the southern portion of the watershed is approximately 1,330 acres or about 2 square miles. The Creek Junction Park multi municipal park is in the study area. The watershed is approximately 41% public lands and 59% privately owned (see Table 7 Public Lands and Figure 9 Public Lands).

3.3 Critical Areas

Borton Lawson completed the Mehoopany and Little Mehoopany Creek Watershed Assessment in 2003 and North Branch Mehoopany Creek was identified as a problem area with a need for future restoration. Therefore, Borton Lawson conducted a Restoration Phase II Design for the North Branch of Mehoopany Creek. According to their findings, accelerated stream bank erosion and lateral shifting is occurring in five locations of the North Branch of the Mehoopany Creek, this is a critical issue in the watershed, for the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay.

The North Branch Mehoopany Creek is 13 miles long from its headwaters at Saxe pond to its confluence with the South Branch forming Mehoopany Creek. North Branch Mehoopany Creek is a trout stocked-cold waster fishery contributing approximately 1/3 of the entire Mehoopany Creek watershed drainage area. The accelerated erosion and lateral shifting were primarily caused by man-made changes to the stream following Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and subsequent floods as well as dredging of the stream. Correction of this accelerated erosion will reduce sediment transport to the Mehoopany Creek. Restoration of the entire North Branch Mehoopany Creek as close to the natural course as possible was recommended (Borton Lawson, 2003).

3.4 Landfills

Landfills are facilities specifically designed and constructed for the permanent and safe disposal of waste. Historically, landfills were not always located or engineered with these principals in mind and have been a source for soil and groundwater contamination throughout the state. However, current standards require that all landfills treat leachate (liquids) coming from the landfill, methane gas emission collection and control devices have double liners to minimize groundwater contamination and prevent erosion and sedimentation.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) web site there are no active permitted landfills or incinerators or municipal waster transfer facilities in the watershed.

3.5 Hazard Areas

3.51 Waste Sites

11 PADEP and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulate the handling, transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous waste material through a variety of legislative mechanisms.

At the federal level, in 1976, The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was passed to regulate the generation, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous substances. A permit is required from the USEPA to do so through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). In 1980 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was passed for the purpose of identifying active and abandoned hazardous waste sites, developing remediation plans, and requiring the remediation funding by the responsible parties. The National Priority List (NPL) (commonly known as Superfund sites) is a compilation of the most hazardous and contaminated sites (Love Canal was initial most well known site) and are eligible for federal funding for remediation. All toxic chemical releases to the environment are required, through the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), to be reported to the USEPA. These chemical releases are maintained by the USEPA in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) list.

At the state level, in 1988 Pennsylvania passed the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act (HASCA). This Act is similar to the NPL. Additionally, in 1995, Pennsylvania enacted the Land Recycling which encourages the recycling and redevelopment of old industrial sites into reusable land parcels (PADEP, 2001a).

According to the EPA web site (www.epa.gov) there are no superfund or NPL sites located in the study area. Although not in the study area, the Procter and Gamble Paper Products Company is listed on the USEPA TRI site. The Company is located in Mehoopany Township at the northern limit of the study area.

According to the PADEP web site there are no PADEP HSCA Remedial sites and Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Transportation, Storage or Disposal facilities located in the watershed. However, according to the PADEP web site, there is one (1) Pennsylvania Waste Tire Pile site located in Noxen Township, Wyoming County and that is owned by John Simon and is listed as a commercial facility with 20,000 tires, although it is not clear that this waste tire pile site is located in the watershed as only a small portion of Noxen Township is located in the study area.

3.52 Active and Abandoned Mines/Quarries

Geologically recent glacial episodes deposited large quantities of sand and gravel in the watershed. These areas have been and currently are being quarried by various companies. These mining activities have possibly had an impact on the water quality in the watershed (see Table 8 Permitted Quarries). Best Management Practices will reduce the water quality impacts by any on going or future quarrying activities.

12 4.0 Water Resources

4.1 Major Tributaries

Mehoopany Creek: Mehoopany Creek is classified as a high quality cold water fishery from its source to the North Branch Mehoopany Creek. Mehoopany Creek from its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek to the mouth at the Susquehanna River, the creek is classified as a cold water fishery.

Fox Hollow: Fox Hollow is tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with the Mehoopany Creek is in Mehoopany Township, Wyoming County.

Rogers Hollow: Rogers Hollow is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with the Mehoopany Creek is in Mehoopany Township

Bowman Hollow: Bowman Hollow is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

White Brook: White Brook is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

Scouten Brook: Scouten Brook is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

Kasson Brook: Kasson Brook is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

Stony Brook: Stony Brook is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

Henry Lott Brook: Henry Lott Brook is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

Somer Brook: Somer Brook is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

13 Becker Brook: Originates in North Branch Township and flows in an easterly direction to its confluence with Mehoopany Creek. Becker Brook is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

South Brook: Originates in Lake Township and flows in a northwesterly direction to its confluence with Mehoopany Creek. South Brook is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

Opossum Brook: Originates in Ross Township and flows in a northerly direction to its confluence with Mehoopany Creek. Opossum Brook is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

Bellas Brook: Bellas Brook is a tributary to Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a high quality cold water fishery and its confluence with Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

North Branch Mehoopany Creek: originates at Saxes Pond and continues to its confluence with the South Branch forming Mehoopany Creek in Forkston Township, Wyoming County. North Branch Mehoopany Creek is approximately thirteen (13) miles long and flows in an easterly direction. The North Branch Mehoopany Creek is classified as a cold water fishery contributing approximately 1/3 of the entire Mehoopany Creek watershed drainage area.

Farr Hollow: Farr Hollow is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery. Its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in Forkston Township, Wyoming County.

Caitlin Brook: Caitlin Brook is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in North Branch Township, Wyoming County.

Burgess Brook: Burgess Brook is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in North Branch Township, Wyoming County.

Douglas Hollow: Douglas Hollow is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in North Branch Township, Wyoming County.

Miller Brook: Miller Brook is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in North Branch Township, Wyoming County.

14 Sciota Brook: Sciota Brook is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in Colley Township, Sullivan County.

Barnes Brook: Barnes Brook is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in Colley Township, Sullivan County.

Smith Cabin Run: Smith Cabin Run is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in Colley Township, Sullivan County.

Wolf Run: Wolf Run is a tributary to North Branch Mehoopany Creek and is classified as a cold water fishery and its confluence with North Branch Mehoopany Creek is in Colley Township, Sullivan County.

4.2 Wetlands

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) have identified wetland areas through out the United States, including Pennsylvania. Wetlands act as a pollutant filtering mechanism and act to reduce flood flows. Wetland locations were obtained from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (see Figure 10 Wetlands Map). Since the NWI maps are dated (20-30 years in age) and not all-inclusive, the presence or absence of wetlands should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a professional. Wetlands are prevalent throughout the Mehoopany Creek Watershed, especially in the southwestern portion of the watershed (Borton Lawson, 2003). The wetlands in the Mehoopany Creek watershed include Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine. Although the Mehoopany Creek watershed contains numerous wetlands, Palustrine is the most commonly occurring wetland in the watershed.

4.3 Floodplain

In 1999, the Wyoming County Conservation District, FEMA, PA Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), WCOCP, and all of the county’s local municipalities worked together to update municipal floodplain ordinances. Currently, FEMA and DCED are conducting local meetings to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) and the Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) based on the June 2006 storm event. According to the Wyoming County Hazard Mitigation Plan, improving floodplain management, updating floodplain mapping, strengthening existing floodplain ordinances, and conducting Act 167 Stormwater Management Planning are important elements to address regarding flood mitigation in the County (WCOCP, 2006).

In 2003, Borton Lawson Engineering conducted the Mehoopany and Little Mehoopany Creek Watersheds Assessment and determined that stream bank erosion is occurring in several areas throughout the watershed. The erosion appears to be related to the excess flow that occurred during Hurricane Agnes and since then several other storms have

15 exacerbated the problem. There are seven stream bank erosion problem areas on the main branch of Mehoopany Creek and six erosion problem areas in the North Branch Mehoopany Creek, and no reported problems in the Little Mehoopany Creek watershed (Borton Lawson, 2003). In many areas the riparian buffer has partially or entirely been removed. These areas are subject to intensive stream bank erosion during storm events resulting in the erosion of large areas of the floodplain. Many local farmers and land owners have expressed concerns to the municipalities, the WCOCP and the Conservation District regarding the stream bank erosion problems. During the course of the public participation process of this Rivers Conservation Plan, stream bank erosion issues were a high priority.

4.4 Lakes and Ponds

Several ponds and lakes are found throughout the watershed. Sharpe, Black, Chamberlain, and Jennings Ponds are located in Windham Township along the Little Mehoopany Creek. Saxe Pond is located in Wilmot Township along the North Branch of the Mehoopany Creek. Rouse and Splashdam Ponds, and Lake John are located in Colley Township along South Branch Mehoopany Creek. Schmitthenner Lake is located in Forkston Township (see Table 9 Lakes and Ponds).

4.5 Water Quality

4.51 Point Sources

Water resource surveys to characterize river and stream quality are often based on a triad of three indicators: water quality, biological condition, and habitat assessment. Water quality data can be used to assess compliance with water quality standards, evaluate seasonal variations, and investigate changes or trends over time. Biological conditions are assessed using benthic macroinvertebrate populations (small bottom dwelling aquatic insects), which provide an indication of biological health of a stream and serve as indicators of water quality. Habitat assessments provide information concerning the potential impairment of a stream to erosion and sedimentation and are indicators of the stream’s ability to support a healthy biological community.

The Federal Clean Water Act and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams law requires wastewater dischargers to have a permit establishing pollution limits, and specifying monitoring and reporting requirements. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits regulate household and industrial wastes that are collected in sewers and treated at municipal wastewater treatment plants. Permits also regulate industrial point sources and concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge into other wastewater collection systems, or that discharge directly into receiving waters. More than 200,000 sources are regulated by NPDES permits nationwide. A listing of NPDES sites that have been issued permits to discharge wastewater into waterbodies can be found on the EPA Envirofacts web site (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html).

16 Mehoopany Township, Wyoming County submitted an application to construct and operate a central sewage collection system utilizing a combination of grinder pumps and low pressure sewer collection systems, and a conventional gravity sewer system to serve the Township. The application (Permit No. 6698401) was received in the regional DEP office May 11, 1998.

4.52 Non-Point Sources The most pressing water quality concern in the watershed is the low pH in the South Branch Mehoopany Creek. Acid precipitation is the potential cause and is impairing the aquatic habitat in this section of the watershed (Borton Lawson, 2003). Low pH levels can severely affect the aquatic wildlife in the watershed. Although, the exact cause of the low pH levels is not completely understood, the most likely theory is that the soils and bedrock are incapable of neutralizing acid rain fall because of a lack of carbonate containing minerals.

Stream bank erosion is occurring in several areas throughout the watershed, specifically, accelerated erosion and lateral shifting are occurring along the North Branch Mehoopany Creek. This stream bank erosion is increasing the sediment transport to the Mehoopany Creek and impairing aquatic resources in the watershed (Borton Lawson, 2003).

4.53 Monitoring

The Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association (MCWA) does periodic water quality monitoring throughout the watershed. The latest monitoring efforts at twenty-three (23) sites took place between 2001 and 2004. Some or all of these parameters were measured at numerous sites: temperature, pH, conductivity, alkalinity, nitrates, and phosphorus (see Appendix B MCWA Water Quality Monitoring Data Sheets). The MCWA received a grant form the Procter and Gamble Paper Products Company for $993.50 to purchase equipment to support their water quality monitoring program. MCWA purchased a pH/conductivity meter and chemical reagents to complete the testing on water samples with this grant (MCWA Newsletter Winter 2005-2006). The MCWA also installed permanent signs marking water quality monitoring sites throughout the watershed.

The MCWA has also obtained funding to stabilize the stream banks and reaches using Natural Stream Design techniques. They have completed one such large project near Forkston Four Corners that will be a demonstration site. For this project, the stream was diverted back into the relic channel and a multitude of structures were installed to promote sediment transport, stable banks and habitat for stream inhabitants (WCOCP, 2006).

4.6 Water Supply 4.61 Public/Private

The Northern portion of the watershed has approximately 30 - 40 people on public water supply. The Mehoopany municipal sewer authority provides public sewer to 200 customers. This is a central sewage collection system utilizing a combination of grinder

17 pumps and low pressure sewer collection systems, and a conventional gravity sewer system. The municipality recently extended the sewer lines to a new Habitat for Humanity development on Russell Road in the township.

4.62 Well Head Protection Areas

The following information regarding the well head protection program was obtained from the PADEP web site. As required under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Bureau of Water Supply Management of the PADEP, has developed a Wellhead Protection Program to protect ground-water sources used by public water systems from contamination that may have an adverse effect on public health. Participation in the program is voluntary and builds upon the basic requirement for water purveyors to obtain the best available source and to take the appropriate actions to protect the source, thereby ensuring a continual and safe water supply (DEP, Pennsylvania Wellhead Protection Program, 2000).

Almost half of Pennsylvania’s residents rely on ground water as a source of drinking water. Ground water used as a public water supply is less expensive to use than surface water due to land acquisition costs and various treatment requirements for surface-water supplies. However, if ground-water contamination occurs, it is very costly to employ remedial activities and to provide the necessary treatment to comply with drinking water standards. Also, once ground water is polluted, it remains contaminated for a long period of time. Even if ground-water remediation is undertaken, it is a long and difficult process to attempt to restore water quality. (DEP, Pennsylvania Wellhead Protection Program, 2000).

Section 1428 of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires States to submit plans to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that describe how they will protect ground-water sources used by public water systems from contamination. The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) is a proactive effort designed to apply proper management techniques and various preventive measures to protect ground-water supplies thereby ensuring public health and preventing the need for expensive treatment of wells to comply with drinking water standards. The underlying principle of the program is that it is much less expensive to protect ground water than it is to try to restore it once it becomes contaminated. Pennsylvania’s WHPP was approved by EPA in March 1999 and it is the cornerstone of the Source Water Assessment Program which is also required under the SDWA. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the primacy agency for the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Source Protection Section in the Bureau of Watershed Management is responsible for administering the WHPP and other drinking water source protection efforts in Pennsylvania. (DEP, Pennsylvania Wellhead Protection Program, 2000).

The responsibilities for wellhead protection (WHP) in Pennsylvania are shared among many stakeholders. Public water suppliers are responsible for assuring the continuous supply of safe and potable water to the consumer. The authority to regulate land use is primarily seated in the local governments whereas the Commonwealth has primary

18 responsibility in regulating public water supplies and most discharges of potential contaminants. Other interested parties may include facility operators, landowners, local agencies and the public. Recognizing the need to balance the interests of all stakeholders, the WHPP emphasizes technical, financial and educational assistance to facilitate the development of voluntary local WHP programs. Pennsylvania’s Safe Drinking Water Regulations (25 Pa. Code § 109) incorporate aspects of wellhead protection including new community water system well permitting requirements, a three-tiered approach for wellhead protection areas and minimum elements for DEP approval of voluntary local WHP programs. Strategies for the delineation of wellhead protection areas have been developed based on hydrogeologic investigations conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey for DEP. Funding for local WHP program development is available through DEP’s Source Water Protection Grant Program. Although WHP is voluntary at the local level, a growing number of municipalities and water systems across the state are already implementing local WHP programs in order to protect public health and safety by ensuring the quality of their drinking water sources. In addition to the public health and economic benefits associated with preventing costly contamination of ground-water sources, an effective local WHP program may help to secure a monitoring waiver for certain synthetic organic chemicals, thereby reducing analytical costs to a water system. Wellhead protection also promotes sound land-use planning and complements the principles of pollution prevention. (DEP, Pennsylvania Wellhead Protection Program, 2000).

According to the PADEP there are no public water systems in the study area involved in the local Well Head Protection Program.

19 5.0 Biological Resources

5.1 Wildlife

Terrestrial

Avian species of special interest or concern that are found within the watershed include such species as the American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Peregrin Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca), Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), Northern Saw-Whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus), and the Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris).

Mammalian species located within the watershed Eastern Woodrat (Neotoma magister), Water Shrew (Sorex palustris Albibarbis) and the Rock Vole (Microtus chrotorrhinus).

Aquatic

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission maintain thirty (30) fish sampling stations along the Mehoopany and North Branch Mehoopany Creeks.

The Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) is a reptile of special concern within the watershed.

5.2 Vegetation

The vegetation in the watershed reflects the environmental conditions and disturbance history of the area. The watershed is located at the border of the Laurentian Mixed Forest Ecosystem Province to the north and the Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest- Coniferous Forest-Meadow Ecosystem Province to the south. The Laurentian Mixed Forest Ecosystem Province is described as having low relief with rolling hills occurring in many places from sea level up to 2,400 feet and the Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest-Coniferous Forest-Meadow Ecosystem Province is described as having low mountains of crystalline rocks and open low mountains with valleys underlain by folded strong and weak strata (Borton Lawson, 2003).

Much of the Laurentian Mixed Forest Ecosystem Province consists of a few coniferous species, mainly pine, and a few deciduous species, mainly yellow birch, sugar maple, and American Beech. Much of the upper reaches of the Central Appalachian Broadleaf Forest consists of birch, beech, maple, elm, red oak, and basswood with some hemlock and white pine.

5.3 Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Species

The Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) is maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PADCNR) for the purpose of

20 describing significant natural resources in Pennsylvania. The information is site specific and includes animal and plant species of concern, unique geologic features and exemplary natural communities. The following species were identified in the watershed from the PNDI report: seven birds including, American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), Green-Winged Teal (Anas crecca), Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola), Northern Saw-Whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus), and the Yellow-Bellied Flycathcer (Empidonax flaviventris); one insect, the Ocellated Darner (Boyeria grafiana); one reptile, Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus); two mammals, the Water Shrew (Sorex palustris albibarbis) and the Rock Vole (Microtus chrotorrhinus); three natural communities including, Boreal Conifer Swamp, Acidic Shrub Swamp, Northern Applachian Spruce Rocky’s; nineteen plants. According to the Mehoopany and Little Mehoopany Creek Watersheds Assessment, thirty-one (31) species of fish were sampled in the North Branch Mehoopany Creek including, Darters, Daces, Suckers, Bluegill; Trout, Suckers, and Bullheads were sampled in the upper reaches of Mehoopany Creek, and Bass and Catfish were also sampled in the lower reaches of Mehoopany Creek (see Table 10 PNDI).

5.4 Important Habitats

Ricketts Glen State Park, located in Luzerne County is adjacent to Mountain Springs Lake and located in the study area. The National Audubon Society has identified the park as an Important Bird Area. An Important Bird Area is a site of special significance to breeding or non-breeding birds. Ricketts Glen provides the specific habitat required by the Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla). This species is uncommon due to its reliance on mature forest along clear, mountain streams where it feeds on aquatic insects.

Bartlett Mountain Bald/Flat Top and the Coalbed Swamp, located in North Branch and Forkston Townships, Wyoming County are considered critical sites for maintaining biological diversity in the county. Coalbed Swamp provides the breeding habitat for at least one bird species that very rarely breeds in the state and may also provide breeding habitat for two other animals of concern. Schmitthenner Lake located in Forkston Township is a 20 acre natural lake that contains species of rare plants and rare breeding species. The existence of four plant species of special concern and the possibility of other rare plants and animals at this site make it a top site for conservation in Wyoming County. Sharpe Pond located in Windham Township, Wyoming County is a locally significant pond that supports a variety of aquatic plants and emergent vegetation. Splashdam Pond located in Colley Township, Sullivan County is the only know location for a PA rare animal in the County, this species needs high quality water with a good vegetated buffer (Natural Areas Inventory of Wyoming County, 1995).

The forested areas of the watershed also provide important habitat for the timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) that is considered a vulnerable species in Pennsylvania.

21 6.0 Cultural Resources

6.1 Recreational

Historically, few organized recreational amenities have existed within the watershed. However, in recent years several communities and organizations have been developing various facilities.

A significant percentage of the watershed is owned by state agencies. Pennsylvania State Gamelands 13, 57 and 66 encompass approximately 33,962 acres (53 square miles) or approximately 40% of the watershed area. The gamelands provide a well used opportunity for small game, deer, and turkey hunting. Many non-formal trails exist in the gamelands and provide excellent opportunities for hiking, snowmobiling and cross- country skiing.

A portion of Ricketts’s Glen State Park 1,330 acres (2 square miles) or 1.5 % of the watershed is located in Luzerne County in the Mehoopany Creek watershed. The park is home to a very geologically unique series of spectacular waterfalls (outside of the watershed). Facilities in the park include a series of trails throughout the park, boating, swimming and fishing. The park is heavily used in the spring, summer and fall months of the year. Ricketts Glen harbors Glens Natural Area, a National Natural Landmark. Old growth timber and diverse wildlife add to the scenic area.

Other recreational opportunities in the watershed include the Tannery Yard Athletic Field on Stull Road and the Richard “Dick” Traver Memorial Ball Field (see Table 11 Recreational Amenities Summary).

6.2 Historical/Archeological

Historical

The first inhabitants of the Mehoopany Creek area were the Native Americans. The legacy of these individuals can be seen today in “place names, trails, creeks and streams that run throughout this watershed.

Although there is some discrepancy regarding which major tribes inhabited this region, most authors offer similar list of American tribes that lived in Pennsylvania.

The Delawares were also known as the Leni-Lenape. There are various translations of what the name Leni-Lenape means, ranging from “real man” to “the real people” or “original people”. This group originated from the basin of the Delaware River and later ventured into the Wyoming Valley.

The Shawnees tribe also lived in Pennsylvania. They eventually migrated through Pennsylvania and then onto the Ohio to meet up with other Shawnee groups. “They were allies of the French in the French and Indian war and of the British in the Revolution,

22 being almost constantly at war with settlers for forty years preceding the Treaty of Greenville in 1795.”

The northern portion of the state was dominantly Iroquois nation. The Susquehannocks tribe received their name because they lived along the Susquehanna River. They were an Iroquoian-speaking tribe, who lived among various Algonquian-speaking tribes. Unfortunately, because of a lack of factual information, it is difficult to say if these tribes were truly peaceful. However, it appears that with the number and variety of tribes that were able to co-inhabit Pennsylvania, they were probably peaceful for the most part. Nevertheless, the destruction of the Susquehannocks proves that there was at least some conflict among the tribes.

Ironically, the Susquehannocks were actually decimated by the Iroquois themselves. The surviving members of this tribe moved to Lancaster County, and settled along Conestoga Creek. From that moment on, this group was renamed the Conestogas.

The Erie tribe was also located in the region. In addition to the Susquehannocks, the Eries “were also wiped out by the Iroquois about 1654.”

The Tuscaroras were a third tribe located in the region. The Tuscarora Tribe resided in Pennsylvania for a short time before migrating north to New York to join the Five Nations Confederacy. In 1714 they were the sixth tribe to join this nation making it the famous Six Nations of the Iroquois. Despite their short stay, they did remain “in Pennsylvania long enough to give their name to Tuscarora Summit and Tuscarora Valley in the Juniata region.” Luzerne County was established on September 25, 1786. It was named after a French Minister to the United States, Chevalier de la Luzerne. Wilkes-Barre was established as the County Seat in 1772. It was named after John Wilkes and Isaac Barre, members of the English Parliament and strong advocates for American rights. It was incorporated as a city on May 4, 1871. In 1808, Judge Fell proved anthracite coal’s burning potential, and in 1834 the North Branch Canal began to make coal exporting practical. Many canals and railroads followed, and Luzerne’s two anthracite fields flourished. In time the city of Scranton rivaled Wilkes-Barre, which led to the creation of Lackawanna County in 1887. Textiles and metal products manufacturing developed. Textile factories depended on miners’ families for their laborers. Coal strikes of 1902 and 1925–1926 were so bitter that consumers sought alternate fuels, and mining declined. World War II revived anthracite prices, but the Knox Mine disaster of January 22, 1959, was the death knell of deep anthracite mining. Sullivan County Created on March 15, 1847 from part of Lycoming County and named for Senator Charles C. Sullivan, Butler District, who took an active part in procuring passage of the bill. Laporte is the county seat, at an elevation of 2060 feet above sea level was incorporated as a borough in 1853. It was named for John La Porte, surveyor general of Pennsylvania from 1845 to 1851.The area was included in the New Purchase from the Indians in 1768, but Connecticut settlers who had been ousted from the Wyoming Valley entered and had to be run off by Pennsylvania agents. Pennsylvania settlers were themselves pushed out by the Indian and Tory attacks of 1778–1780. The Genesee Road

23 from New York opened up the area, and in 1794 a French refugee founded Dushore. A woolen industry was productive from 1802 until about 1900. Lumber and the related leather tanning industry were most productive from 1850 to 1900. Coal was discovered and mined by the Sullivan and State Line Railroad after 1871. Eagles Mere became a famous tourist resort in the late nineteenth century. Mountains and valleys, forests and farmlands are the terrain in Sullivan County's 478 total square miles including waterways. The state owns one third of this acreage as State Forest Lands and State Game Lands. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission owns a 1500 acre tract which includes Hunters Lake in Shrewsbury Township the County is known for semi-anthracite coal, timber and tourism. Known as the "Gem of the Endless Mountains," Sullivan County is a unique area with beautiful state parks, Ricketts Glen and World’s End breathtaking waterfalls, scenic vistas, small villages, natural lakes, quaint shops and a rich heritage that draws people to the region. In addition, the covered bridges located in Forksville, Hillsgrove and Sonestown are entered in the National Register of Historic Places. Bradford County Created on February 21, 1810, carved from parts of Luzerne and Lycoming Counties and was originally named Oneida County for the lake of the same name. On March 24, 1812 it was formally renamed for William Bradford, second Attorney General of the United States. Towanda, the county seat, was incorporated as a borough on March 5, 1828 and named for Towanda Creek. After the Revolution, veterans of the Sullivan expedition against the Indians and Dutch immigrants from New York settled the area. French refugees flourished at Azilium from 1793 to 1804. The county was part of the area plagued by disputes over land claims based on settlement by people from Connecticut. By 1812 agriculture and industry were well established. Englishman Robert Barclay opened a coal mine that year which boosted the economy and spawned a canal and railroad. As Barclay’s mines were closing, a lumber boom began, and it flourished until about 1930. Later many people throughout the county were involved in the Underground Railroad. Famed Freesoiler David Wilmot, who presented the Wilmot Provisos against slavery to Congress, lived in Towanda. Today dairy farming is the cornerstone of Bradford County's economy, with small farms covering 46 percent of the land. Wyoming County Created on April 4, 1842, from part of Luzerne County and named for the Wyoming Valley. “Wyoming” is derived from an Indian word meaning “extensive meadows.” Tunkhannock, the county seat was incorporated as a borough on August 8, 1841, and was named for Tunkhannock Creek. The creek’s name means “small stream.” Wyoming shares with its mother county, Luzerne, the Wyoming Valley tradition of the Connecticut claims, which began in 1754, and the Yankee-Pennamite wars. The Trenton Decree (1782), its acceptance by Connecticut (1786), and the land claimants’ compensation statute (1807) ended the dispute. Although not part of the geologically defined Wyoming Valley, which is in Luzerne County, Wyoming it is one of four counties regarded as making up the historic Wyoming Valley. Connecticut Yankees made up a large percentage of the early settlers. The area experienced the settler exodus known as the Great Runaway following the Wyoming Massacre (a Tory and Indian victory) in 1778. Lacking significant coal beds, the county had primarily a lumber economy until 1900, which gave rise to a leather tanning industry using hemlock bark. Leather manufacture continued after the stands of hemlock were gone. The North Branch Canal passed through the area, and Tunkhannock was on the Lehigh Valley and Nicholson on

24 the D. L. & W. Railroads. Grain and dairy farming gradually increased, and around 1900 dairying replaced lumber as the major product. Also, quarrying, especially of Pennsylvania bluestone, had been profitable. Tanneries used cattle hides and hemlock. The Cyrus Avery Foundry made farm equipment.

For a listing of the historical sites in the watershed see Table 12 Historical Sites.

25 7.0 Special Issues/Opportunities

7.1 Water Quality

Borton Lawson conducted a Mehoopany and Little Mehoopany Creek Watersheds Assessment in March 2003. According to the findings of the report, acid precipitation is the most pressing water quality concern in the watershed. Borton Lawson documented low pH in the South Branch Mehoopany Creek and suspect that it is a result of acid precipitation. The low pH is impacting the aquatic habitat in this section of the watershed.

Levels of acidity and base are measured by the pH scale from 0-14, with o being the most acidic and 14 being the strongest base value. Neutral waster has a pH of 7. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program includes a network of monitoring stations throughout the United States and two sampling stations are operating near the Mehoopany Creek Watershed at the U.S. Forest Service’s Gifford Pinchot Institute in Milford, Pike County and at Penn State University Park, Center County. The data collected during 2000 from these locations indicate that the precipitation deposition had a pH value of 4.3 pH. The soils and geology of the Mehoopany Creek basin do not contain good buffering qualities to reduce effects of acid precipitation which further exacerbates the problem (Borton Lawson 2003).

Another water quality issue documented by Borton Lawson in the 2003 report was an algae bloom at the mouth of Mehoopany Creek at the confluence of the Susquehanna River. Algae blooms indicate that excess nutrients are present in the creeks. Potential causes of these algae blooms could include excess nutrients from farming operations, eroding stream banks or failing septic systems, or the possibility of nutrient deposition from sediments from the Susquehanna River during high water events (Borton Lawson 2003).

7.2 Streambank Erosion

Stream bank erosion is a significant issue throughout the watershed. The Mehoopany and Little Mehoopany Creek Watersheds Assessment documented thirteen (13) specific areas of streambank erosion along the Mehoopany and Little Mehoopany Creeks. Streambank erosion and it’s associated sedimentation and non point source pollution in the streams is a major problem in the watershed.

7.3 Anthracite Coal Strip Mining Areas

Wyoming County has never been a highly mined area, however, there are several old mines located on Dutch Mountain in Forkston Township, Wyoming County. Past mining scars appear to be contributing to low pH in local creeks throughout the watershed.

26 8.0 Public Participation Process

8.1 Role of Steering Committee

All of the municipalities in the watershed were invited to participate on the steering committee. The first public meeting was held on February 25, 2003. Along with the municipalities, members of any interested groups and the public were also asked to participate. The contributing partners including PEC, Wyoming County Conservation District, Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association, and the Wyoming County Office of Community Planning also participated on the steering committee. Additional steering committee meetings were held on the following dates; March 18, 2003, May 15, 2003, June 19, 2003, October 16, 2003 and November 20, 2003. These meetings provided the forum for reviewing the data collected for the rivers conservation plan and determining the priority issues for the watershed.

The steering committee had several responsibilities. After the first public meeting, the initial steering committee meetings focused on developing a regional vision of the watershed and describing the special places and area of concern in the watershed.

After the visioning process was completed, the steering committee’s primary role was to review the background data gathered by the contributing partners and to review the GIS maps created by the WCOCP. Their comments played a critical role in ensuring the accuracy of the information gathered and the manner in which the data was presented.

The steering committee also participated in the creation of the municipal survey and general questionnaire. The steering committee also suggested a list of potential key persons to be interviewed. They also reviewed the possible questions that would be asked during the interview process.

During the final stages of the project, the steering committee developed an Action Plan. The list of projects in the Action Plan addresses the concerns of the community for the Mehoopany Creek Watershed and reflects their vision for the future. Finally, the steering committee reviewed the draft Rivers Conservation Plan report.

The commitment and efforts of the steering committee enabled this Rivers Conservation Plan to have a true sense of the community and a clear vision for the future. Without the efforts of the steering committee this plan would have had very little relation to the local community.

8.2 Surveys

8.2.1 Municipal Survey

Surveys were sent to all eleven municipalities in the Mehoopany Creek Watershed (see Appendix C Municipal Survey for sample survey and survey summary results). Seven municipalities completed and returned the survey, including Wilmot Township in

27 Bradford County, Cherry Township in Sullivan County, and Forkston, Mehoopany, North Branch, and Windham Townships in Wyoming County. Ross Township returned the survey with no comment due to the fact that only a very small portion of the township is actually located in the watershed.

The purpose of the survey was to assist in the determination of the importance of water protection issues by municipal representatives, municipal concerns regarding the watershed, and to obtain recommendations for the Action Plan of the Rivers Conservation Plan. Not all of the municipalities actively participated on the steering committee; therefore the survey provided municipal representatives with an alternative to contribute concerns/potential actions to this Rivers Conservation Plan. The following summarizes the results of the survey: • Five of the municipalities indicated that they wanted the benefits of stream bank erosion improvements and improved water quality addressed in the Plan. Four municipalities also wanted to see the following benefits and uses emphasized in the Plan: scenic beauty, fishing and hunting. Three municipalities indicated that protection of the watershed habitat and historic preservation should be addressed in the Plan. Two municipalities wanted to see hiking/walking opportunities as well as wetland protection in the Plan. One municipality felt that bicycling opportunities be addressed in the plan and one municipality wanted the benefits of protected open space. • The majority of the municipalities preferred either the Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association or the individual municipalities implement the Plan’s recommendations rather than some other form of intergovernmental cooperation. The most important land and water protection issues considered important varied from municipality to municipality. The issues most commonly characterized as very important were farmland protection and stream water quality and quantity. The issues most commonly indicated as important were habitat protection and enhancement and stormwater and flooding. The issues most commonly characterized as somewhat important were cultural resource protection and land development. One municipality felt that land ownership, management and stewardship were not important issues facing the watershed and one municipality indicated that state and federal regulations/funding was also not an important issue. • Stream bank erosion, stream relocation, and water quality were listed by one municipality as critical water related challenge facing the watershed. • Sreambank erosion and sedimentation was listed by another municipality as a critical water related challenge in the watershed. • One municipality indicated keeping garbage and herbicides from local farms out of the creek is a critical issue in the watershed, as well as, high water erosion. • Various projects identified by the municipalities to address water related issues included: stream bank stabilization of North and South Mehoopany Creek; continuation of funding and education for natural stream channel design; education for landowners regarding the use and effects of pesticides; enforcement of erosion and sedimentation regulations for loggers; water

28 testing for wells; control of sewer recycle sites; safe dams on three ponds entering the creek; addressing the erosion along all of the creek banks; cleaning out the streams.

8.2.2 General Questionnaire

A general questionnaire was sent to over fifty (50) landowners, farmers and businessmen living and working in the watershed (this was not a statistically valid survey). The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine the public’s views on a variety of issues with regards to the Watershed. They were questioned as to what they see as the benefits and drawbacks provided by the Watershed; whether or not they felt they were directly impacted by the Watershed; if their local municipalities had adequate protective ordinances; and finally, what would be the most important recommendations to consider in this Plan for conserving the watershed. Forty-eight (48) questionnaires were returned (see Appendix D Questionnaire Surveys for sample survey and survey summary results).

Water Resources Many of the local residents surveyed have at least one type of water body on their property (some had more than one water body type) including the Mehoopany Creek itself, a wetland, pond, spring, or streams. Of the respondents who indicated that they have a water body on their property, twenty-nine (29) indicated that there is some type of buffer along the bank, seven (7) indicated that there is no buffer and six (6) didn’t answer. Of the twenty-nine (29) with a buffer, fourteen (14) indicated that the buffer is over twenty (20) feet; four (4) stated that the buffer is between 10-20 feet; seven (7) said the buffer was between 5-10 feet; and four (4) had buffers of less than 5 feet.

Local residents indicated that the benefits of living near a water resource are varied. According to the respondents, the benefits include beautiful scenery, varied wildlife, and fishing opportunities. Many also felt that water resources provide walking opportunities and play areas for children, as well as, increase their property value. However, respondents also identified drawbacks, with a major issue being stream bank erosion. Some respondents also stated that trash and litter in and along the streams is an issue of concern.

Respondents also listed the most important water related recommendations for the Watershed and indicated that these recommendations should be included in the Plan. Many of these responses are directly related to conserving the water related resources of the Watershed including: identifying and correcting areas of stream bank erosion; controlling runoff; stabilizing stream banks; preventing sediment runoff into the streams; and addressing flooding. Respondents also indicated water quality concerns throughout the Watershed and a need to address the pH levels in the streams.

Land Resources Many of the survey respondents indicated that maintaining and creating riparian buffers with native trees and shrubs should be a priority in the plan. Some respondents indicated that there is a litter and trash problem in the Watershed that needs to be addressed.

29 Others indicated that there is a need to identify and eliminate sewage contamination sources, including homes and farms, as well as, provide high quality sewage systems in the local communities.

The need for sound land use planning on the local and county level was also listed as a land resource priority by the survey respondents. This was supported by the respondents when questioned about the adequacy of their local municipal ordinances with regards to protecting creeks and water bodies. Many felt that the local ordinances were not protective enough.

Recreation Resources Many respondents want to see more recreational opportunities in the Watershed. Fishing opportunities throughout the Watershed would be greatly improved, according to the survey results, by addressing water quality through increasing pH levels, deterring and cleaning up trash, and planting along stream banks to provide shade along the streams. All of these activities will provide a sustainable habitat for wildlife and improve the fishing opportunities in the Watershed.

Education Resources Survey respondents also understand the need to educate the public about a variety of issues affecting the water, land and recreational resources of the Watershed.

Finally, almost all of the respondents indicated that they would favor having all the municipalities in the Watershed work together with the Watershed Association, county officials, landowners, businesses, and industry to educate and plan with the local community regarding improving the quality of the watershed through this Rivers Conservation Plan.

8.3 Key Person Interviews

The intent of the key person interviews was to obtain information regarding the concerns, potential uses and attributes of the watershed from another segment of the local communities. The Steering Committee suggested over ten potential businesses people and landowners to be interviewed, as well as, reviewed the interview questions. The results of the interviews were used in the development of the Action Plan (see Appendix E Key Person Interviews).

The key person interviewees utilize the Watershed both professionally and personally. They appreciate the recreational opportunities afforded by the Watershed, including fishing and hunting, as well as, the natural landscape as an important wildlife habitat. The interviewees noted the existing assets of the watershed include pristine waters, a clean environment and rural character. However, they identified some threats currently facing the Watershed including illegal ATV use and past development pressures in certain areas of the Watershed.

30 Water Resources The key person interviewees identified many issues with regards to the water resources of the Watershed. They noted that increased opportunities to partner with watershed organizations on improvement projects would be beneficial to maintaining and enhancing the Watershed environment. In particular, with regards to the water resources of the Watershed, it was noted that Forkston Township, as well as, the other small communities within the Watershed should create central sewerage facilities to assist in the reduction of nutrient loading and pollution to the streams. The interviewees also stressed that the local municipalities should consider the harmful effects of chlorine dosing for treatment plant effluent and try alternative methods for treating effluent waters prior to discharging directly into small feeder streams, chlorine seems to be eliminating vegetative and aquatic life downstream of discharge areas. PennDOT and the local municipalities should consider the harmful effects of applying saline solutions to their roads during winter months as it seems more and more wells are containing increasing amounts of salt.

Interviewees also stated that local land owners could help the regeneration of ground water by creating small retention ponds on their properties which would allow rain and surface run-off to be slowly released back into the ground rather than released directly and immediately into the streams and drainage ways. The continued implementation of existing Timber Management Plans will address and minimize the erosion/sedimentation issues in the Watershed. Also, local farmer owners/operators should realize and understand the benefits of manure storage facilities and use them properly, as well as, utilize good conservation practices. Farm owner/operators should try their best to keep harmful amounts of nutrients from entering the water supplies.

Land Resources In regards to the land resources of the Watershed, the interviewees stated the importance of maintaining and enhancing areas for wildlife habitat. One interviewee stated that his vision for the future of the watershed is that it remains the same; it is ideal the way it is currently, although despite not wanting to see changes this interviewee is not entirely against development in the watershed. However it was also noted that the majority of the Watershed land is in public ownership, as State Gamelands, so this should ensure that those areas will stay the same and prevent development.

Recreation The interviewees indicated several issues with regards to the recreational resources of the Watershed. It was noted that the development of opportunities for sportsman to access the interior areas of Gamelands should be looked at. Further there should be opportunities for sportsman groups to volunteer to develop these access areas. Finally, PA State Gameland waterways should be open to the public as they are publicly owned.

Education Many of the issues listed above by key person interviewees would require educational outreach be developed for state and local government officials, residents, farmers and local businesses.

31 Lastly, the interviewees felt that some of the barriers to addressing the issues facing the Watershed included a lack of funding for habitat development and additional sportsman opportunities, no cohesiveness of landowners views on conservation and the treatment of their own property; and various different ideas concerning what is good for the area.

8.4 Public Meetings

An initial public meeting was held on February 25, 2003 at the Mehoopany Township municipal building to announce the project to the local communities. Seven (7) people attended the meeting. A summary of the scope of work, including the public participation process and a timetable was presented. Meeting attendees were asked to participate in the steering committee. Meeting attendees were enthusiastic about the project and were looking forward to the benefits to the watershed that this plan could provide.

A final public meeting was held on March 26, 2007 to present the Draft Rivers Conservation Plan Action Plan at the Mehoopany Township Municipal Building. The attendance at this meeting was minimal. Since attendance at the final public meeting was low, PEC distributed the Executive Summary, Section 9.0 Action Plan Text and the Action Plan table to all municipalities in the study area, County Planning Commissions and the Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association to review and provide final comments. The comments have been incorporated in this Plan.

32 9.0 Action Plan

On March 26, 2007 a meeting was held at the Mehoopany Township Building to present the findings of the public participation process regarding the vision, concerns and assets of the watershed. Attendance at this meeting was minimal. However, municipalities, county agencies, and other local non-profit organizations were also sent mailings asking for their input. Additionally, follow up phone calls were made to solicit more input (see Table 13 Action Plan Projects).

9.1 Water Resources

A variety of ecological and environmental issues were identified during the preparation of the River Conservation Plan. Stream bank erosion and sedimentation, and natural stream design issues were the most commonly listed critical water related challenges. Other critical water related needs or challenges included water quality and clean drinking water.

A variety of projects were identified via the public participation process to address these water related issues. Action plan projects in Wyoming County, for Forkston Township listed a number of projects related to stream bank erosion and stabilization on the North and South Branches of Mehoopany Creek. Forkston Township also wants to address water quality within the Township. Stream channel relocation work along Windy Valley Road was also a project of high priority within Mehoopany Township, as well as, addressing stream bank erosion along all of the creeks in the Township. North Branch Township also listed projects focusing on stream bank erosion utilizing natural stream channel design techniques for the creeks within the Township. Windham Township projects focused on water well testing, controlling sewer recycle sites, and conducting streamside cleanups to remove garbage, tires, and other debris from streams.

Wyoming County is also focused on updating municipal floodplain ordinances, modernizing the FIRM maps, developing a Susquehanna River flood forecast and warning system, and development of flood inundation maps for the County.

PEC would like to host multiple municipal workshops within the watershed related to stream bank erosion, stormwater runoff, and water quality and quantity ordinances. PEC would also like to conduct various water related projects including invasive species removal, stream bank native species planting, and rain garden plantings. PEC would also like to expand the COALS program through-out the study area (which will also have an impact of land resources as well).

Goals and Objectives: • Address stream bank erosion ¾ Plant riparian buffers along the streams throughout the Watershed ¾ Conduct natural stream design projects ¾ Conduct stream channel relocation work along Windy Valley Road ¾ Continue the implementation of Timber Management Plans

33 • Reduce sediment loading ¾ Utilize best management practices at local farms ¾ Construct manure storage facilities on local farms • Preserve water quality and quantity ¾ Support the MCWA to continue their existing water quality monitoring activities ¾ Conduct stream and streamside cleanups ¾ Control sewer recycle sites ¾ Conduct water testing of wells ¾ Build anti-skid material storage shed on Upper Bridge Street along Little Mehoopany Creek ¾ Research alternative methods for municipalities to treat effluent waters prior to discharging directly into small feeder streams. ¾ Reduce salt usage on roads during winter months by PennDOT and local municipalities due to the harmful effects on local wells ¾ Increase the regeneration of ground water by creating small retention ponds on residential properties to allow rain and surface run-off to be slowly released back into the ground rather than released directly into the streams and drainage ways • Address flooding ¾ Update municipal floodplain ordinances ¾ Conduct/Update Act 167 Phase I Stormwater Management Plan ¾ Complete Phase 2 Tunkhannock Creek stormwater management study ¾ Develop a Susquehanna River flood forecast and warning system ¾ Develop flood inundation maps ¾ FIRM map modernization

9.2 Land Resources

Preservation of green space, open space, and farmlands throughout the Watershed is also a priority for the study area according to the public participation process. Addressing this issue in the Watershed can be achieved through a variety of projects listed in the Action Plan.

The Wyoming County Office of Community Development recommended a variety of projects for the Action Plan including the development of an Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan to proactively address future development impacts in the Watershed; updating the County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan; and acquiring more farmland easements throughout the County under the Wyoming County Farmland Preservation program. Also recommended by the Wyoming County Office of Community Development as an Action Plan project was developing a Countywide Recreation and Open Space Plan and acquiring more conservation easements. An open space plan is a step towards preserving and enhancing the green infrastructure in the County, as well as, the Watershed.

Addressing the issue of illegal dumping along streams in the Watershed was also a concern for some of the municipalities in the study area. Projects that address this issue

34 include the Clean Up our American Lands and Streams (COALS) which cleans up illegal dump sites and keeps them clean via monitoring and partnerships with local law enforcement agencies.

Goals and Objectives: • Promote sound land use planning and development ¾ Update Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan ¾ Update municipal floodplain ordinance s ¾ Acquire farmland conservation easements ¾ Conduct Phase I Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan ¾ Complete Phase II Tunkhannock Creek Detail Stormwater Management Study • Address trash and littering throughout the Watershed ¾ Expand the implementation of the Clean up Our American Lands and Streams (COALS) program throughout the Watershed. ¾ Conduct stream and streamside cleanup activities • Maintain and enhance wildlife habitat

9.3 Recreation Resources

A variety of projects were included in the Action Plan to address the need for more recreational resources in the watershed. As previously mentioned, the interest on behalf of Wyoming County in developing a County-wide Recreation and Open Space Plan would also address recreational resources in the Watershed. Also, the Sullivan County Snowmobile Club is interested in developing a snowmobile trail system throughout the Watershed. Mehoopany Township wants to develop a boat launch access point at the confluence of Little Mehoopany Creek and the Susquehanna River.

The Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC) is in the process of creating a ten county regional trail GIS based map and tourism brochure. The tourism brochure will be used by the Endless Mountains Heritage Region and the Endless Mountains Visitors Bureau to promote the region for hiking and bicycling opportunities. A GIS based regional trail map will also be produced for utilization by local municipalities and county officials to plan and develop future trail and greenway corridors.

PEC, the Endless Mountains Heritage Region, and the National Park Service are also in the process of developing two (2) water trail map and guides for the North Branch of the Susquehanna River. The first map and guide will available to the public at no charge and the second map and guide will be of higher quality and be sold by PEC and the Endless Mountains Heritage Region at various locations. In conjunction with the map and guide will be the installation of water trail signage at various boat launch sites along the North Branch of the Susquehanna River. PEC will also be conducting a study to determine potential sites for the development of future river access locations.

PEC would like to examine trail and greenway options within the Watershed and how this area related to trails and greenways in the surrounding region. Where local interest is

35 present, PEC would like to work with community partners to develop trail/greenway master plans that would connect existing trail and park facilities in the region.

Goals and Objectives: • Promote recreational opportunities ¾ Plan and construct boat launch access on the Little Mehoopany Creek and the Susquehanna River. Examine ¾ Increase fishing opportunities by raising pH levels in streams, cleaning up streams littered with trash, and planting trees to shade the streams. ¾ Develop a snowmobile trail system ¾ Plan and develop walking/hiking trails and greenways ¾ Continue the development of the regional trail map brochure to promote bicycling and hiking opportunities ¾ Distribute and promote the North Branch of the Susquehanna Water Trail Map ¾ Install North Branch of the Susquehanna Water Trail signage ¾ Implement the Pennsylvania Advocates for Nutrition and Activity (PANA) Keystone Active Zone Passport Program ¾ Develop a Countywide Open Space and Recreation Plan ¾ Develop opportunities for sportsman to access the interior areas of State Gamelands

9.4 Education Resources

A limited number of projects regarding information and educational development regarding watershed specific issues were given for the Action Plan. It was recommended that several workshops be held throughout the Watershed to educate local residents and municipalities on a variety of subjects, including but not limited to, stream bank erosion and stabilization, natural stream channel design, the affects of pesticides on streams, agricultural runoff and riparian zone planting. PEC is interested in partnering with the watershed organization, county and local municipalities to host a series of workshops.

Goals and Objectives: • Provide education to state, county and local municipal officials regarding the Watershed ¾ Install a Natural Stream Design education/awareness information station at the site of the recently completed stream stabilization project North Branch Mehoopany Creek Areas A&B ¾ Conduct educational workshops for landowners on the use/affects of pesticides on water quality ¾ Work with PennDOT to increase education and awareness of natural stream design usage ¾ Conduct educational workshops regarding the benefits of riparian zone plantings

36 9.5 Management Options

The proposed lead organization for implementing this Action Plan according to the majority of municipalities surveyed would be the Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association (MCWA). The MCWA was formed to preserve and improve the water quality in the Mehoopany Creek Watershed. The north and south branches of Mehoopany Creek and the entire Little Mehoopany Creek watershed are also covered by MCWA. The MCWA is very active and has received numerous grants to conduct educational outreach, purchase and install signage, conduct restoration and demonstration projects for natural stream design, address low pH levels in streams by applying limestone, and plant trees to create riparian buffers along stream banks. All of these projects coincide with the priorities and goals of the local municipalities and residents of the Watershed as documented in this Plan.

The results of the municipal surveys also indicated that the municipalities would like to work with the MCWA, on an as needed informal basis, to help address the challenges facing the Watershed. Other key partners in implementing this Plan should include Bradford, Luzerne, Sullivan, and Wyoming Counties, State Gameland officials, the County Conservation Districts, the PA Fish and Boat Commission, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, local colleges, conservancies, local businesses and industries, farmers, local schools and residents.

9.6 Funding Opportunities and Technical Assistance This Rivers Conservation Plan with the associated Action Plan cannot be implemented without funding. See Table of potential funding and technical assistance sources which may be used to support the implementation of the water, land, recreation and education Rivers Conservation Plan projects.

37 References

Borton Lawson Engineering, Inc. for the Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association. Mehoopany and Little Mehoopany Creek Watershed Assessment. March 17, 2003.

Cochran, Thomas C. Pennsylvania: A Bicentennial History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1978.

Cornell, William A., and Millard Atland. Our Pennsylvania Heritage. 8th ed. Harrisburg, PA: Penns Valley Publishers, 1983.

Cornell, William A., and Millard Atland. Pennsylvania Milestones. Sate College, PA, Penns Valley Publishers, 1957

Dunaway Ph. D., Wayland F. A History of Pennsylvania. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1935.

Faris, John T. Seeing Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1919.

Graeff, Arthur D. The History of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Company, 1949.

Griswold, Wesley S. The Night the Revolution Began, The Boston Tea Party, 1773. Battleboro Vt., Greene Press 1972

Klein, Philip S. and Ari Hoogenboom. A History of Pennsylvania. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1973.

Hoffman, Jennifer L. R. Susquehanna River Basin Commission Monitoring and Assessment Strategy. December 30, 2004.

Land Studies. Stream Bank Erosion as a Source of Pollution: Research Report. August 2005.

LeFevre, Susan R. Susquehanna River Basin Commission Middle Susquehanna Subbasin A Water Quality and Biological Assessment July to September 2001 Publication 222 May 2002.

Miller, E. Willard. Pennsylvania: Keystone to Progress. United States: Windsor Publications Inc., 1986.

Murphy, Richmond and Marion Murphy. Pennsylvania Regional Geography. Harrisburg, PA: The Pennsylvania Book Service, 1937.

Myers, Richmond E. The Long Crooked River. Boston, Mass.: The Christopher Publishing House, 1949.

38

Northeast Region Hazardous Waste Facilities http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/northeastro/cwp/view.asp?a=1226&q=478572 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Coal Mine Drainage Prediction and Pollution Prevention in Pennsylvania. October 1998.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Statewide Directory of Citizens Volunteer Monitoring Programs. First Edition. n.d.

Pennsylvania Genealogy

“Pennsylvania State Archives (Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission)

Petrillo, F. Charles. Ghost Towns of North Mountain: Ricketts, Mountain Springs, and Stull. Wilkes-Barre, PA: Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, 1991.

Spear, Sheldon. Chapters in Northeastern Pennsylvania History: Luzerne, Lackawanna, and Wyoming Counties. Shavertown, PA, Jemags 7 Co. 1999

Stokes, A. F. Geography and History of Northeastern Pennsylvania. Scranton, PA: International Textbook Co., 1936.

Stranahan, Susan Q. Susquehanna, River of Dreams. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Streamnotes Vol 1 No. 2 Streambank Erosion

Sullivan County

The Pennsylvania Science Office of The Nature Conservancy. Natural Areas Inventory of Wyoming County. 1995.

“The Quaker Province: 1681-1776.” n.d. (29 June 2000).

Wood, Charles R. Water Quality of Large Discharges From Mines in the Anthracite Region of Eastern Pennsylvania, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4243, Prepared in Cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, 1996.

Wyoming County. Wyoming County Hazard Mitigation Plan. January, 2007.

39 Wyoming County Conservation District, Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association, Borton-Laswon Engineering, Skelly & Loy. North Branch Mehoopany Creek Restoration Phase II Design. February 1, 2003.

Wyoming County Conservation District. Wyoming County Implementation Plan for the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.

Wyoming County. Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance. June 1, 1989.

40 Mehoopany Creek Watershed River's Conservation Plan

Watershed Location Map

Figure #1 ERIE

SUSQUEHANNA WARREN McKEAN BRADFORD TIOGA POTTER CRAWFORD 2006 (CBM) WAYNE

FOREST WYOMING

ELK CAMERON SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan VENANGO PIKE has been performed by: MERCER LYCOMING PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council) CLINTON CLARION LUZERNE Funded by: JEFFERSON PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation MONROE COLUMBIA LAWRENCE MONTOUR and Natural Resources) CLEARFIELD CENTRE UNION BUTLER CARBON Portions of these maps were generated from NORTHUMBERLAND existing data sources listed here: ARMSTRONG US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania SNYDER NORTHAMPTON BEAVER SCHUYLKILL PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, INDIANA ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering MIFFLIN LEHIGH

JUNIATA Prepared by: ALLEGHENY CAMBRIA BLAIR Wyoming County Office of Community Planning BERKS HUNTINGDON PERRY DAUPHIN LEBANON BUCKS (All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only) WESTMORELAND

WASHINGTON MONTGOMERY CUMBERLAND

LANCASTER PHILADELPHIA SOMERSET BEDFORD CHESTER FAYETTE FULTON FRANKLIN YORK DELAWARE Watershed Location Map GREENE ADAMS CHESTER

SUSQUEHANNA TIOGA BRADFORD WAYNE

WYOMING SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA Legend PIKE LYCOMING Mehoopany Creek LUZERNE CLINTON MONROE Watershed Boundary MONTOURCOLUMBIA UNION CARBON County Boundaries NORTHUMBERLAND SNYDER NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL JUNIATA LEHIGH

DAUPHIN BERKS PERRY LEBANON BUCKS MONTGOMERY

Mehoopany Creek Watershed River's Conservation Plan

Wilmot Windham Surficial Geology Map 87 187 Figure #3

Cherry Colley 87 Mehoopany 2006 (CBM) 87

Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan North Branch has been performed by: Legend PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council)

Funded by: Watershed Streams PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation Watershed Roads and Natural Resources) Portions of these maps were generated from Township Boundary existing data sources listed here: US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, Geologic Formation ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering Forkston Burgoon Sandstone Prepared by: Wyoming County Office of Community Planning Catskill Fm Undiv (All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only) Huntley Mountain Fm

Mauch Chunk Fm Noxen Pottsville Group Watershed Location Map

Colley

SUSQUEHANNA 487 TIOGA BRADFORD WAYNE

WYOMING SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA PIKE LYCOMING Lake LUZERNE CLINTON MONROE 487 Ross MONTOURCOLUMBIA UNION CARBON Fairmount NORTHUMBERLAND SNYDER NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL JUNIATA LEHIGH

DAUPHIN BERKS BUCKS PERRY LEBANON MONTGOMERY Windham Mehoopany Creek Watershed River's Conservation Plan

Wilmot Land-Use Map Æ·87 Æ·187 Figure #4 Mehoopany Cherry Colley Æ·87 2006 (CBM) Æ·87 Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan Legend North Branch has been performed by: PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council) Municipal Boundaries Watershed Lakes Funded by: PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation Watershed Streams and Natural Resources) Watershed Roads Portions of these maps were generated from Watershed Land-use existing data sources listed here: US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, Commercial Services PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering Cropland and Pasture Deciduous Forest Land Prepared by: Wyoming County Office of Community Planning Evergreen Forest Land Forkston (All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only) Forested Wetlands Lakes Mixed Forest Land Nonforested Wetlands Noxen Watershed Location Map Reservoirs Residential Æ·487 SUSQUEHANNA TIOGA BRADFORD WAYNE

Colley WYOMING SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA PIKE LYCOMING

LUZERNE CLINTON MONROE MONTOURCOLUMBIA UNION CARBON NORTHUMBERLAND Lake SNYDER NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL Æ·487 Ross JUNIATA LEHIGH DAUPHIN BERKS BUCKS PERRY LEBANON Fairmount MONTGOMERY Windham Windham Mehoopany Creek Watershed Wilmot Mehoopany Wilmot Mehoopany River's Conservation Plan Cherry Colley Cherry Colley Zoning North Branch North Branch Subdivison Municipal

County Forkston Ordinance Data County Forkston No Noxen No Noxen Figure #5 Colley Colley Lake Yes Lake Ross 2006 (CBM) Fairmount Ross Fairmount

Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan has been performed by: PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council)

Windham Windham Funded by: Wilmot Mehoopany Wilmot Mehoopany PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) Cherry Cherry Colley Colley Emergency Portions of these maps were generated from North Branch Planning North Branch existing data sources listed here: Management Plan US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, Forkston Commission County Forkston ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering Noxen County Noxen No Prepared by: Wyoming County Office of Community Planning Colley No Colley (All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only) Yes Lake Lake Ross Ross Fairmount Fairmount

Watershed Location Map

Windham Windham Wilmot Mehoopany SUSQUEHANNA Wilmot Mehoopany TIOGA BRADFORD Cherry Cherry WAYNE Colley Colley North Branch North Branch WYOMING Flood Plain SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA Comprehensive Plan PIKE Ordinance LYCOMING Forkston Forkston County LUZERNE CLINTON MONROE Noxen MONTOURCOLUMBIA Yes Noxen UNION CARBON No NORTHUMBERLAND Colley Colley SNYDER NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL Lake Lake Ross Ross JUNIATA LEHIGH Fairmount Fairmount PERRY DAUPHIN BERKS BUCKS LEBANON MONTGOMERY Mehoopany Creek Watershed WINDHAM 37.2 River's Conservation Plan

WILMOT MEHOOPANY 26.8 57.9 Watershed Based

CHERRY Population Map 29.8 COLLEY 11.2

NORTH BRANCH 8.8 Figure #6 Watershed Density (people / square mile) FORKSTON 5.5 2006 (CBM) WINDHAM 6.4% NOXEN 33.3 WILMOT MEHOOPANY Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan COLLEY 11.4% 11.7% 11.2 has been performed by: CHERRY PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council) 20.3% COLLEY LAKE 7.8% 78.2 Funded by: ROSS NORTH BRANCH 17.3% PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation FAIRMOUNT 63.4 26.9 and Natural Resources) Municipal-wide Population Portions of these maps were generated from existing data sources listed here: Percent Change US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, FORKSTON PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, 18.4% ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering

WINDHAM NOXEN Prepared by: 365 -1.0% Wyoming County Office of Community Planning

COLLEY (All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only) WILMOT 7.8% MEHOOPANY 253 594

CHERRY LAKE 33 COLLEY 0.5% 120 ROSS FAIRMOUNT -5.6% NORTH BRANCH -13.9% 169 Watershed Location Map

Watershed Population 2000

(based on estimates from density data) SUSQUEHANNA FORKSTON TIOGA BRADFORD 327 WAYNE

WYOMING NOXEN SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA 66 PIKE LYCOMING

COLLEY LUZERNE 78 CLINTON MONROE MONTOURCOLUMBIA UNION CARBON LAKE 18 NORTHUMBERLAND ROSS SNYDER NORTHAMPTON 86 FAIRMOUNT SCHUYLKILL 44 JUNIATA LEHIGH DAUPHIN BERKS BUCKS PERRY LEBANON MONTGOMERY Mehoopany Creek Watershed River's Conservation Plan

Major Transportation Routes Map Wilmot Windham 87 187 Figure #7

Cherry Colley 87 Mehoopany 2006 (CBM)

87 Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan North Branch has been performed by: PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council)

Funded by: PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation Legend and Natural Resources) Portions of these maps were generated from Watershed Roads existing data sources listed here: US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, Watershed / Township PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, Boundaries Forkston ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering Major State Routes Prepared by: Wyoming County Office of Community Planning

(All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only)

Noxen

487 Watershed Location Map Colley

SUSQUEHANNA TIOGA BRADFORD WAYNE

WYOMING SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA PIKE Lake LYCOMING LUZERNE Ross CLINTON MONROE 487 MONTOURCOLUMBIA Fairmount UNION CARBON NORTHUMBERLAND SNYDER NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL JUNIATA LEHIGH

DAUPHIN BERKS BUCKS PERRY LEBANON MONTGOMERY Mehoopany Creek Watershed River's Conservation Plan

WINDHAM Soils Association Map

MEHOOPANY WILMOT Figure # 8

CHERRY 2006 (CBM) COLLEY

NORTH BRANCH Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan has been performed by: PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council)

Funded by: PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) Soils Associations Portions of these maps were generated from existing data sources listed here: ARNOT-OQUAGA-DYSTROCHREPTS (PA038) US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, CHENANGO-POPE-HOLLY (PA027) ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering LACKAWANNA-ARNOT-MORRIS (PA026) FORKSTON Prepared by: VOLUSIA-MARDIN-LORDSTOWN (PA025) Wyoming County Office of Community Planning WELLSBORO-OQUAGA-MORRIS (PA024) (All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only)

NOXEN Watershed Location Map

Y

E

L L SUSQUEHANNA BRADFORD O TIOGA C WAYNE

WYOMING SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA L A PIKE K LYCOMING E ROSS LUZERNE CLINTON MONROE MONTOURCOLUMBIA FAIRMOUNT UNION CARBON NORTHUMBERLAND SNYDER NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL JUNIATA LEHIGH DAUPHIN PERRY BERKS BUCKS LEBANON Mehoopany Creek Watershed River's Conservation Plan

WINDHAM Public Lands Map

WILMOT Figure # 9 MEHOOPANY

CHERRY

2006 (CBM)

COLLEY

NORTH BRANCH

Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan has been performed by: PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council)

Legend Funded by: PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) Watershed Boundary Portions of these maps were generated from existing data sources listed here: Municipal Boundries US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering DCNR State Park FORKSTON Prepared by: State Gamelands Wyoming County Office of Community Planning (All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only)

NOXEN Watershed Location Map

SUSQUEHANNA TIOGA BRADFORD COLLEY WAYNE

WYOMING SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA PIKE LYCOMING

LUZERNE ROSS LAKE MONROE FAIRMOUNT 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 MONTOURCOLUMBIA UNION CARBON Miles NORTHUMBERLAND SNYDER NORTHAMPTON MIFFLIN SCHUYLKILL JUNIATA LEHIGH DAUPHIN PERRY BERKS BUCKS LEBANON Mehoopany Creek Watershed Wetlands Map Mehoopany Creek Watershed Windham River's Conservation Plan Wetlands Map Wilmot Figure #10 Æ·87 Æ·187 Mehoopany 2006 (CBM) Cherry Colley Æ·87 NorthBranch Data collection and creation of Conservation Plan Æ·87 has been performed by: PEC (Pennsylvania Environmental Council)

Funded by: Legend PA DCNR (PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) Townships Portions of these maps were generated from existing data sources listed here: Roads US Census, Center for Rural Pennsylvania, Streams PADCNR, PennDOT, PA State Game Commission, Forkston ERRI, USGS, Borton-Lawson Engineering Wetland Type Prepared by: Lacustrine Wyoming County Office of Community Planning

(All measurements are approximate, maps are for display purposes only) Palustrine Riverine

Noxen Watershed Location Map Æ·487 Colley SUSQUEHANNA TIOGA BRADFORD WAYNE

WYOMING SULLIVAN LACKAWANNA PIKE LYCOMING Lake LUZERNE CLINTON MONROE MONTOURCOLUMBIA Æ·487 Fairmount Ross UNION CARBON NORTHUMBERLAND SNYDER NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL JUNIATA LEHIGH DAUPHIN BERKS BUCKS PERRY LEBANON MONTGOMERY Appendix A

Data Tables

Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 1 Municipalities in Watershed

County Municipality Bradford Wilmot Township Luzerne Fairmount Township Lake Township Ross Township Sullivan Cherry Township Colley Township Wyoming Forkston Township Mehoopany Township North Branch Township Noxen Township Windham Township Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 2 Major Tributaries

Tributary Designated Uses Municipality of Confluence Mehoopany Creek-N Br Mehoopany Crk to mouth CWF Mehoopany Creek-Source to N Br Mehoopany Creek HQ-CWF Fox Hollow CWF Mehoopany Twp, Wyoming County Rogers Hollow CWF Mehoopany Twp, Wyoming County Bowman Hollow HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County White Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Scouten Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Kasson Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Stony Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Henry Lott Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Somer Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Becker Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County South Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Opossum Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Bellas Brook HQ-CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County

Confluence with Mehoopany Creek in North Branch Mehoopany Creek CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Farr Hollow CWF Forkston Twp, Wyoming County Caitlin Brook CWF North Branch Twp, Wyoming County Burgess Brook CWF North Branch Twp, Wyoming County Douglas Hollow CWF North Branch Twp, Wyoming County Miller Brook CWF North Branch Twp, Wyoming County Sciota Brook CWF Colley Twp, Sullivan County Barnes Brook CWF Colley Twp, Sullivan County Smith Cabin Run CWF Colley Twp, Sullivan County Wolf Run CWF Colley Twp, Sullivan County

HQ-high quality CWF-cold water fishery Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 3 Land Use

Land Use Acres Percent Commercial Services 14.51 0.02 Cropland and Pasture 14,892.52 17.27 Deciduous Forest Land 55,743.98 64.65 Evergreen Forest Land 3,505.62 4.07 Forested Wetlands 252.50 0.29 Lakes 519.66 0.60 Mixed Forest Land 10,794.89 12.52 Nonforested Wetlands 264.95 0.31 Reservoirs 170.23 0.20 Residential 61.31 0.07 Streams and Canals 4.62 0.01 Total Acres: 86,224.79 100 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 4 Municipal Ordinance Data Summary

Emergency Comprehensive Zoning Subdivision Planning Procedure Flood Plain Municipality Plan Ordinance Ordinance Commission Source(s) Plan Ordinance Yes (46 of 51 Bradford County Yes (updated in 2003) Municipalities) Yes 5 Yes No Wilmont Twp No No County County 1 Yes Yes

Luzerne County being up-dated Yes Yes Yes 2 N/A N/A Fairmont Twp County County Yes County 1 No Yes Lake Twp County No County County 1 No Yes Ross Twp County County County County 1 No Yes

Sullivan County Yes - 1970s (needs updated)No - Review process Yes Yes 6 Yes Yes Cherry Twp No No County County 6 County Yes Colley Twp No No County County 6 County Yes

Wyoming County Yes No Yes Yes 3 N/A N/A Forkston Twp County No County County 3,4 No Yes Mehoopany Twp County No County County 3,4 No Yes North Branch Twp No No No No 3 Yes Yes Noxen Twp County No County County 3 Yes Yes Windham Twp No No No No 3 Yes Yes

Sources: Key: 1 - Phone calls to individual townships * Joint planning commission being formed 2 - Luzerne County Planning Department along with joint comprehensive plan in process 3 - Wyoming County Planning Department 4 - 2001 Wyoming County 5W's Resource Guide published by the New Age Examiner 5- Bradford County Planning Commission 6-Sullivan County Planning Commission Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 5 Population Data Within the Watershed Boundaries

Population Population Percent Square 2000 Pop Municipality 1990 2000 Change Miles Density Bradford County Wilmont Township 227 253 11.4% 44.00 26.8

Luzerne County Fairmount Township 51 44 -13.9% 45.60 26.9 Lake Township 17 18 0.5% 26.90 78.2 Ross Township 91 86 -5.6% 43.20 63.4

Sullivan County Cherry Township 27 33 20.3% 57.60 29.8 Colley Township 111 120 7.8% 58.00 11.2

Wyoming County Forkston Township 276 327 18.4% 70.80 5.5 Mehoopany Township 531 594 11.7% 17.20 57.9 North BranchTownship 144 169 17.3% 22.30 8.8 Noxen Township 67 66 -1.0% 28.50 33.3 Windham Township 342 365 6.4% 22.30 37.2

Source: Wyoming County Planning Commission Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 6 Major Employers County Major Employers Bradford Robert Packer Hospital Inc. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation Guthrie Clinic Ltd. Osram Sylvania Products Inc Craftmaster Manufacturing Inc Bradford County EI Dupont De Nemours and Company Mill's Pride Pennslvania LLC JCP Logistics LP Memorial Hospital Inc. & Skilled Nursing Unit Luzerne United States Government Pennsylvania State Government Luzerne County Government WVHCS-Hospital OneSource, Inc Step By Step, Inc. Hazleton Area School District Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. PPL Susquehanna LLC TJ Maxx Distribution Center Sullivan Sullivan County School Distirct Management and Training Corporation The Highlands Care Center Pennsylvania State Government Hoffman/New Yorker Inc Sullivan County Darway Elder Care Rehabilitation Memorial Hospital Inc. & Skilled Nursing Unit A Sisters Inc Eagles Mere Country Club Wyoming Procter & Gamble Paper Products Co Tunkhannock Area School District Tyler Memorial Hospital St. Michael's School Lackawanna Trail School District Wyoming County Beverly Health & Rehabilitation Services Penn's Best Inc Wal-Mart Associates Inc Ronco Machine and Rigging Inc Pennsylvania State Government includes all state employment except Pennsylvania State University, SEPTA and System of Higher Education

Source: Center for Workforce Information & Analysis-January 2006 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 7 Public Lands

Municipality Name of Site Location Ownership

Bradford County Wilmont Township NONE

Luzerne County Fairmount Township Rickett's Glen State Park Red Rock S State Game Lands #57 Red Rock S Lake Township State Game Lands #57 Red Rock S Ross Township Rickett's Glen State Park Red Rock S State Game Lands #57 Red Rock S

Sullivan County Cherry Township State Game Lands #13 Fishing Creek Road S State Game Lands #66 Along Township Route 826 S Colley Township State Game Lands #13 Fishing Creek Road S State Game Lands #66 Along Township Route 826 S Ricketts Glen State Park Red Rock S

Wyoming County Forkston Township State Game Lands #57 S Mehoopany Township NONE Northbranch Township State Game Lands #57 S Noxen Township State Game Lands #57 S Tannery Yard Athletic Field Stull Road M Richard "Dick" Traver Memorial Ball Field Rt. 29 M Windham Township NONE M-Municipal C-County S-State Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 8 Permitted Quarries County Municipality Quarry Name Permit Status Authorization Bradford Wilmot Twp Adams Quarry Issued 12/3/1998 Small Surface Mining Permit Adams Quarry Issued 12/3/1998 Bluestone Surface Mining Permit Burke Quarry Pending Small Surface Mining Permit Clint Crawford Quarry Issued 8/3/2006 IM Blast Plan Approval Clint Crawford Quarry Issued 8/1/2006 Small Surface Mining Permit Fenton Farm Issued 4/14/2004 Small Surface Mining Permit Fenton Farm 2 Issued 6/1/2004 Small Surface Mining Permit McCarty Quarry Issued 9/221/2006 Small Surface Mining Permit McCarty Quarry Issued 3/12/2001 Bluestone Surface Mining Permit Moody Quarry Issued 2/22/2007 Small Surface Mining Permit Northern Tier Stone Quarry Issued 8/24/2004 Bluestone Surface Mining Permit PA Quarry Issued 6/9/2006 IM Blast Plan Approval PA Quarry Issued 9/19/2002 Small Surface Mining Permit Picketts Quarry Issued 9/29/1997 Small Surface Mining Permit Quarry #2 Issued 10/10/2006 Small Surface Mining Permit Quarry #1 Issued 10/10/2006 Small Surface Mining Permit Rocky Forest Quarry Issued 4/27/2006 IM Blast Plan Approval Rocky Forest Quarry Issued 2/24/2006 Small Surface Mining Permit Rocky Forest Quarry II Issued 11.3.2006 Small Surface Mining Permit Surnocky Issued 4/5/2006 Small Surface Mining Permit SKB Partnership Quarry Issued 9/21/2006 Small Surface Mining Permit SKB Pit 1 Issued 7/10/2002 Small Surface Mining Permit Stone Edge, Inc. Quarry Issued 2/15/2007 Small Surface Mining Permit Sugar Hill Quarry Issued 11/3/2006 Small Surface Mining Permit Walter Shale Issued 9/7/1994 Small Surface Mining Permit Wilmot Township Pit Issued 6/26/1976 Large Surface Mining Permit

eFacts lists permitted quarry sites but does not provide adequate information to determine if these quarries are located within the Mehoopany Creek Watershed study area boundaries. 1 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 8 Permitted Quarries County Municipality Quarry Name Permit Status Authorization Luzerne Fairmont Twp none Lake Twp Beccaria Cornell Quarry Issued 11/20/1987 Large Surface Mining Permit Cornell Quarry Issued 8/15/1986 Small Surface Mining Permit Hoover Quarry Issued 10/18/1982 Small Surface Mining Permit Piatt Quarry Issued 6/18/1996 Small Surface Mining Permit Piatt Ruggles Hollow Quarry Issued 11/1/2005 Small Surface Mining Permit Reading Materials Pit 1 Quarry Issued 2/22/2002 Large Surface Mining Permit Reading Materials Pikes Creek 2 Quarry Issued 8/22/2002 Large Surface Mining Permit Rebennack Pit Quarry Issued 3/22/1977 Large Surface Mining Permit Yatsko Quarry Issued 7/24/1987 Small Surface Mining Permit Ross Twp none

Sullivan Cherry Twp Dushore Materials Issued 9/24/2002 IM Bonding Increment Dushore Materials Issued 11/3/2005 Large Surface Mining Permit Mildred 2 Issued 4/20/2005 CM Annual Bond Calculation Mildred 2 Issued 3/16/2001 Incidental Extraction Colley Twp Barca Pit Mine Issued 7/27/1998 Surface Mine Permit

Wyoming Forkston Twp Baker Quarry Issued 12/1/1994 Small Surface Mining Permit North Branch Twp none Noxen Twp Noxen Sand & Materials Quarry Pending Large Surface Mining Permit Mehoopany Twp Benson Quarry Issued 4/15/1992 Small Surface Mining Permit Earnshaw Quarry Issued 9/15/1988 Small Surface Mining Permit Eastern Ind Jaynes Bend Quarry Issued 3/16/2004 Large Surface Mining Permit Windham Twp Fike 1 Quarry Issued 4/6/1998 Small Surface Mining Permit Fike 2 Quarry Issued 4/6/1998 Small Surface Mining Permit J & K Vandemark Windham Quarry Issued 10/7/2004 Small Surface Mining Permit Long Robin Quarry Issued 5/12/2004 Small Surface Mining Permit

eFacts lists permitted quarry sites but does not provide adequate information to determine if these quarries are located within the Mehoopany Creek Watershed study area boundaries. 2 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 8 Permitted Quarries County Municipality Quarry Name Permit Status Authorization Wyoming Windham Twp Powers Laceyville Quarry Issued 5/31/2000 Bluestone Surface Mining Permit Tiffany Windham Quarry Issued 10/2/2003 Bluestone Surface Mining Permit Walter Fagstone Windham Quarry Issued 3/25/2005 Bluestone Surface Mining Permit Walter Vandemark Quarry Pending Small Surface Mining Permit Weavers Quarry Issued 12/20/1994 Small Surface Mining Permit

eFacts lists permitted quarry sites but does not provide adequate information to determine if these quarries are located within the Mehoopany Creek Watershed study area boundaries. 3 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 9 Lakes and Ponds

Body of Water Municipality Creek Sharpe Pond Windham Township Little Mehoopany Creek Black Pond Windham Township Little Mehoopany Creek Chamberlain Pond Windham Township Little Mehoopany Creek Jennings Pond Windham Township Little Mehoopany Creek Saxe Pond Wilmot Township North Branch Mehoopany Creek Splashdam Pond Colley Township South Branch Mehoopany Creek Rouse Pond Colley Township South Branch Mehoopany Creek Lake John Colley Township South Branch Mehoopany Creek Schmitthenner Lake Forkston Township Mehoopany Creek Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 10 PNDI

Species and Ecological Communities Tracked by PNDI Within the Mehoopany Creek Watershed Proposed Global Federal State Scientific Name Common Name State Rank State Rank Status Status Status Birds BOTAURUS LENTIGINOSUS AMERICAN BITTERN S1B G4 PE PE ARDEA HERODIAS GREAT BLUE HERON S3S4B,S4N G5 ANAS CRECCA GREEN-WINGED TEAL S1S2B,S3N G5 CR CIRCUS CYANEUS NORTHERN HARRIER S3B,S4N G5 CA RALLUS LIMICOLA VIRGINIA RAIL S3B G5 AEGOLIUS ACADICUS NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL S3B,S3N G5 CU EMPIDONAX FLAVIVENTRIS YELLOW-BELLIED FLYCATCHER S1S2B G5 PT PT Mammals SOREX PALUSTRIS ALBIBARBIS WATER SHREW S3 G5T5 CR MICROTUS CHROTORRHINUS ROCK VOLE S2 G4 CA Reptiles CROTALUS HORRIDUS TIMBER RATTLESNAKE S3S4 G4 PC CA Natural Communities BOREAL CONIFER SWAMP BOREAL CONIFER SWAMP S3 G? ACIDIC SHRUB SWAMP ACIDIC SHRUB SWAMP S3 G5 NORTHERN APPALACHIAN SPRUCE ROCKYS NORTHERN APPALACHIAN SPRUCE ROCKY S S1 G? Insects BOYERIA GRAFIANA OCELLATED DARNER S3 G5 Plants STELLARIA BOREALIS MOUNTAIN STARWORT S1S2 G5 N TU GAULTHERIA HISPIDULA CREEPING SNOWBERRY S3 G5 PR PR LEDUM GROENLANDICUM COMMON LABRADOR-TEA S3 G5 PR PR LATHYRUS OCHROLEUCUS WILD-PEA S1 G4G5 PT PT UTRICULARIA INFLATA FLOATING BLADDERWORT S1S2 G5 N TU UTRICULARIA INTERMEDIA FLAT-LEAVED BLADDERWORT S2 G5 PT PT UTRICULARIA RADIATA SMALL SWOLLEN BLADDERWORT SX G4 PE PX POLEMONIUM VANBRUNTIAE JACOB'S-LADDER S1 G3 PE PE CAREX LASIOCARPA SLENDER SEDGE S3 G5 PR PR CAREX OLIGOSPERMA FEW-SEEDED SEDGE S2 G4 PT PT ELEOCHARIS ROBBINSII ROBBINS' SPIKE-RUSH S2 G4G5 PT PT SCHOENOPLECTUS TORREYI TORREY'S BULRUSH S1 G5? PE PE

1 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 10 PNDI

Proposed Global Federal State Scientific Name Common Name State Rank State Rank Status Status Status NAJAS GRACILLIMA BUSHY NAIAD S2 G5? PT PT MUHLENBERGIA UNIFLORA FALL DROPSEED MUHLY S2 G5 PE PT POTAMOGETON BICUPULATUS PONDWEED S2 G4? N TU POTAMOGETON CONFERVOIDES TUCKERMAN'S PONDWEED S2 G4 PT PT POTAMOGETON OAKESIANUS OAKES' PONDWEED S1S2 G4 TU PE DRYOPTERIS CLINTONIANA CLINTON'S WOOD FERN S2 G5 N PT

For more information about the ranking codes, please visit http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/RankStatusDef.aspx

G2-Imperiled globally because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. G3-Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or because of other fators making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. G4-apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rate in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G5-Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rate in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G#G#-Range Rank - A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) is used to indicate uncertainty about the exact status of a taxon. Q-Questionable Taxonomy-Taxonomic status is questionable; numeric rank may change with taxonomy. S1-Critically imperiled in state because of extreme rarity or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S2-Imperiled in state because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. S3-Rare or uncommon in state S4-Accidental in state, including species which only sporadically breed in the state. SH-Historical-Element occurred historically in the state, perhaps having not been verified in the past 20 years, and suspected to be still extant. S#S#-Range Rank-A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of the Element. SU-Unrankable-Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends. PE-Pennsylvania Endangered- Plant species which are endanger of extinction throughout most or all of their natural range within this Commonwealth, if critical habitat is not maintained if the species is greatly exploited by man. This classification shall also include any populations of plant species that have been classified as Pennsylvania Extirpated, but which subsequently are found to exist in this Commonwealth. PT-Pennsylvania Threatened- Plant species which may become endangered throughout most or all of their natural range within this Commonwealth, if critical habitat is not maintained to prevent further decline in this Commonwealth, or if the species is greatly exploited by man. PR-Pennsylvania Rare- Plant species which are uncommon within this Commonwealth. All species of native wild plants classified as Disjunct, Endemic, Limit of Range and Restricted are included within the Pennsylvania Rare classification. TU-Tentatively Undetermined- Plant species which are believed to be in danger of population decline, but which cannot presently be included within another classification due to taxonomic uncertainties, limited evidence within historical records, or insufficient data. None- Plant species which are believed to be endangered, rare, or threatened, but which are being considered by the required regulatory review processes for future listing.

2 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 10 PNDI

CA-Candidate at Risk-Species that although relatively abundant now are particularly vulnerable to certain types of exploitation or environmental modification. CR-Candidate Rare-Species which exist only in one of a few restricted geographic areas or habitats within Pennsylvania, or they occur in low numbers over a relatively broad area of the Commonwealth. CP-Candidate Proposed-Species comprising taxa for which the Pennsylvania Biological Survey (PBS) currently has substantial information on hand to support the biological appropriateness of proposing to list as Endangered or Threatened. CU-Condition Undetermined-Species for which there is insufficient data available to provide an adequate basis for their assignment to other classes or categories.

3 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed River Conservation Plan Table 11 Recreational Amenities Summary Municipality Name of Site Location Ownership Services 12345678910111213141516171819202122 Bradford County Sax's Pond Wilmont Township Campground Route 87 Mike Saxe X X X X p X

Luzerne County Rickett's Glen State Fairmount Township Park Red Rock PA DCNR X X X X X X B X X L/R S X X

State Gamelands 57 Red Rock PGC X S X X

Lake Township State Gamelands 57 Red Rock PGC X S X X Rickett's Glen State Ross Township Park Red Rock PA DCNR X X X X X X B X X L/R S X X

State Gamelands 57 Red Rock PGC X S X X

Sullivan County State Gamelands Cherry Township 66/13 X S State Gamelands Colley Township 66/13 X S Ricketts Glen Red Rock PA DCNR X X X X X X B X X L/R S X X

Wyoming County

Forkston Township State Gamelands 57 PGC X S X X Forkston, Mehoopany, Route 87 and North Branch and Creek Junction Windy Valley Wimdham Recreation Park Road Townships X X X X X X X X X X P X X X

Goodwins Ball Field Route 87 Private X P

1 of 2 Mehoopany Creek Watershed River Conservation Plan Table 11 Recreational Amenities Summary Municipality Name of Site Location Ownership Services 12345678910111213141516171819202122

School House Mehoopany Township Piligram School Hill Road Mehoopany Twp X X X M Stark Memorial Northbranch Township Park Lovelton Private X X P

Noxen Township State Gamelands 57 S Windham Township None

Key: 1. Baseball 7. Beautification area/ seating 13. Swimming Pool/Beach/Creek 19. Fishing 2. Lighting 8. Campsite (no hook-up) 14. Basketball Court 20. Ice Skating 3. Bathrooms/ sewer 9. Tennis Court 15. Running Water 21. Target Range 4. Pavilion 10. Playground equip./ children 16. Picnic Area 22. Rattle Snake Roudup/Fireman Fairgrounds 5. Bleachers 11. Bathrooms/ rent-a-john 17. Boat Launch/Rental/Canoe 6. Walking Trail 12. Concession stand 18. Owned by M - Municipality C - County S - State P - Private

2 of 2 Mehoopany Creek Watershed River Conservation Plan Table 12 Historical Sites

Municipality Name of Site Location Significance Bradford County Wilmont Township None

Luzerne County Fairmount Township None Lake Township None Ross Township None

Sullivan County Cherry Township None Colley Township Ghost town of Ricketts Wyoming & Sullivan County Line Lumber town abandoned in circa 1920s

Wyoming County Forkston Township Stone Cabin South Brook Road in State Gamelands 57 Built by Conservation Corps in circa 1930s Dutch Mountain Coal Mine State Gamelands 57 Mehoopany Township Historic Buidings Main Street - Mehoopany Township Built by lumber industry Northbranch Township Grist Mill Lovelton Noxen Township None Historic Buidings-Post Office (Golden Hill (1869), Windham Township Jenningsville, Scottsville) Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 13 Action Plan CATEGORY LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORGANIZATION ESTIMATED COST TIMETABLE Water Resources Forkston Twp Address streambank erosion Forkston Twp unknown unknown Forkston Twp Relocate stream Forkston Twp unknown unknown Forkston Twp Preserve water quality Forkston Twp unknown unknown Bank stabilization of both branches/North and South Forkston Twp Mehoopany Creek Forkston Twp $900,000 unknown

Streambank restoration/sediment reduction efforts. Phase 2 restoration June 2007 to Mehoopany Twp work on areas C, D, E and Area 6 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association $500,000 unknown Stream channel relocation work along Windy Valley Road SR 3001 Mehoopany Twp Area 12 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association unknown unknown Address erosion of stream banks along all of the creeks in the Mehoopany Twp watershed Mehoopany Twp unknown unknown Clean out streams and put them back Mehoopany Twp in the original stream channel Mehoopany Twp unknown unknown Build storage shed for anti-skid material on Upper Bridge St. along Mehoopany Twp Little Mehoopany Creek Mehoopany Twp $18,000 2007

Address streambank erosion utilizing natural stream channel design North Branch Twp; Mehoopany Creek North Branch Twp techniques Watershed Association unknown unknown North Branch Twp; Mehoopany Creek North Branch Twp Address stream sedimentation Watershed Association unknown unknown Windham Twp Conduct water testing of wells unknown unknown Windham Twp Control sewer recycle sites unknown unknown Windham Twp Safe dams on three (3) ponds unknown unknown Conduct stream clean ups in order to remove garbage, tires, etc. from Windham Twp streams unknown unknown Update municipal floodplain Wyoming County, local municipalities, Wyoming County ordinance FEMA, PEMA $10,000

1 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 13 Action Plan CATEGORY LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORGANIZATION ESTIMATED COST TIMETABLE Water Resources Wyoming County FIRM map modernization $500,000

Develop a Susquehanna River flood Wyoming County forecast and warning system $15,000

Develop flood inundation maps Wyoming County through technology $300,000 Land Resources Mehoopany Creek Expansion and implementation of Watershed COALS program PEC $200,000 plus 1-5 years Update Countywide Hazard Wyoming County Mitigation Plan Wyoming County $40,000 ongoing to 2 years Acquire Farmland conservation Wyoming County Farmland Preservation Wyoming County easements Program unknown ongoing Phase 1 Stormwater Management Wyoming County Plan Wyoming County $12,000 1 year

Phase 2 Tunkhannock Creek Detail Wyoming County Stormwater Management Study Wyoming County $300,000 2-3 years Recreation Resources Boat launch access on Little Mehoopany Creek and the Mehoopany Twp Susquehanna River Mehoopany Twp $20,000 plus 1-5 years Mehoopany Creek Watershed Snowmobile Trail System Sullivan County Snowmobile Club unknown ongoing

Mehoopany Creek Watershed Trails/Greenway Development PEC $100,000 plus 2-4 years Mehoopany Creek Watershed Regional Trail Mapping Project Northbranch Water Trail Signage PEC; National Park Service; Endless Wyoming County and Map Mountains Heritage Region $50,000 plus ongoing Implementation of the PANA Keystone Active Zone Passport Wyoming County Program PEC $50,000 2-4 years Develop County-wide Recreation Wyoming County and Open Space Plan Wyoming County $50,000 Present to 2 years

2 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 13 Action Plan CATEGORY LOCATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ORGANIZATION ESTIMATED COST TIMETABLE Educational Resources

Natural Stream Design education/ awareness information station at the site of the recently completed stream Mehoopany Creek stabilization project North Branch Mehoopany Creek Watershed Watershed Mehoopany Creek Areas A&B Association; League of Women Voters $1,500 Spring 2007 Conduct educational workshops for Mehoopany Creek landowners on the use/affects of Watershed pesticides North Branch Twp/PEC unknown 1-3 years Work with PennDOT to increase Mehoopany Creek education and awareness of natural Watershed stream design usage North Branch Twp unknown 1-5 years

Conduct educational workshops Mehoopany Creek regarding the benefits of riparian Watershed zone plantings PEC $10,000 1-3 years

3 of 3 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE WATER RESOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Water Supply and Community and Wastewater For water and sewer projects not used solely for residential Municipalities; Industrial Economic Infrastructure purposes: Land and building acquisition; Demolition; Development Corporations; Development Program Water/sewer project construction costs; Engineering and other Municipal Authorities; Investor- (DCED) (PennWorks) fees associated with project. owned water or wastewater enterprise http://www.newpa.com/programFinder.aspx Broad-based citizen, industry and government program working to eliminate acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines. Using a combination of private and governmental resources, the program facilitates and coordinates citizen U.S. Office of groups, university researchers, the coal industry, corporations, Surface Mining the environmental community, and local, state, and federal Reclamation and Clean Streams government agencies that are involved in cleaning up streams Broad-based citizen, industry, Enforcement Program polluted by acid drainage. government http://www.osmre.gov U.S. Office of Surface Mining Watershed Projects must meet eligibility criteria for coal projects outlined Reclamation and Cooperative in the Surface Mining Law and undertake local acid mine Enforcement Agreement Program drainage (AMD) reclamation projects. Non-profit 501 (c)3 http://www.osmre.gov/

The goal of the C-SAW program is not to offer direct U.S. Department of assistance, but rather to provide training to build the capacity Agriculture of groups to plan, conduct watershed assessments, and conduct Watershed Groups, non-profit (USDA) C-SAW post-implementation monitoring in the future. organziations www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/rcd Provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers U.S. Department of and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource Agriculture concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and (USDA) Natural cost-effective manner. The program provides assistance to Resource Conservation farmers and ranchers in complying with federal, state, and Conservation Reserve Program tribal environmental laws, and encourages environmental Farmers, ranchers and conservation Service (NRCS) (CRP) enhancement. districts http://www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov

The purpose is to develop efficient and effective measures that prevent flood damages, restore the natural resource values of riverine systems and have strong local support. It expands the use of non-structural flood hazard mitigation options, combing them with restoration of the functions and values of riverine Challenge 21 – Flood ecosystems. The program will encompass planning through U.S. Army Corps Hazard Mitigation implementation, build on existing programs and initiatives, use Local communities, wildlife of Engineers And Riverine a watershed approach, and initiate and expand partnerships restoration, conservation and (USACE) Restoration with other Federal agencies. restoration agencies www.usace.army.mil

Page 1 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE WATER RESOURCE The Corps of Engineers has the authority, provided under Section 1135 of the Water Resources Act of 1986, as amended, to make modifications in the structures and operations of water resources projects constructed by the Corps or funded jointly Section 1135 – with other federal agencies to improve the quality of the Habitat Restoration environment. The primary goal of these projects is ecosystem for Fish and Wildlife restoration with an emphasis on projects benefiting fish and State, regional, local governments or USACE Resources wildlife. other non-Federal public agencies www.usace.army.mil The Corps of Engineers' Floodplain Management Services Program (FPMS), also known as the Section 206 Program, is authorized by Section 206 of the Flood Control Act of 1960, as Section 206 - amended. Under this program, the Corps is authorized to Floodplain provide a full range of technical services and planning Management guidance on floods and floodplain issues to municipalities or State, regional, local governments or USACE Services individuals. other non-Federal public agencies www.usace.army.mil

Grants to states and tribes to implement nonpoint source projects and programs in accordance with Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Non-point source pollution reduction projects can be used to protect source water areas and the Local governments, community U.S. Environmental general quality of water resources in a watershed. In groups, non-profit conservation, Protection Agency Clean Water Act – Pennsylvania the 319 program is administered by the watershed, greenway and trail (EPA) 319 Program Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. organizations www.epa.gov

The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to make funds available to drinking water suppliers to finance State Revolving infrastructure improvements.The program also emphasizes Fund Programs: providing funds to small and disadvantaged communities and Clean Water Act and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for EPA Safe Drinking ensuring safe drinking water. Municipalities, local governments www.epa.gov Grants are founded on building cooperative agreements with one or more non-profit ogranizations to support watershed partnerships and long term effectiveness, supports Watershed organizational development and capacity building for Watershed partnerships, non-profit EPA Assistance Grants watershed partnerships and diverse membership. organizations www.epa.gov Supports scientific and economic research and analysis and Coldwater science-based watershed restoration projects that further Trout Conservation organizations, research Trout Unlimited Conservation Fund Unlimited’s mission. groups, watershed organizations www.tu.org

Page 2 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE WATER RESOURCE

To plan, acquire or develop projects that conserve and enhance river resources. Grants are available to identify significant Department of natural and cultural resources, threats, concerns and special Municipalities, counties, municipal Conservation and opportunities and to develop river conservation plans. and intermunicipal authorities, non- Natural Resources Rivers Conservation Implementation grants are available to carry out projects or profits, non-profit river support (DCNR) Projects activities defined in an approved river conservation plan. groups www.dcnr.state.pa.us

U.S. Army Corps National Corporate Grants to protect, enhance and restore wetlands and other Participating private foundations or of Engineers Wetlands Restoration aquatic habitats by partnering to leverage the collective state trust funds to protect aquatic (USACE) Partnership (CWRP) resources, skills and processes of the private and public sectors. ecosystem restoration projects. www.usace.army.mil

Funds, on a competitive basis, projects that sustain, restore and enhance the Nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats through Keystone Initiative Grants and other Special Grant Programs. Funds projects that address priority actions promoting fish and wildlife conservation and the habitats on U.S. Fish and National Fish And which they depend, work proactively to involve other Federal, state, and local governments, Wildlife Service Wildlife Foundation conservation and community interests, leverage Foundation- educational institutions, and non- (USFWS) (NFWF) provided funding, and evaluate project outcomes. profit organizations www.nfwf.gov

The Program provides assistance through Service staff and cooperative partnerships. Types of assistance include providing information on fish and habitat needs and methods for fish to bypass barriers in order to provide opportunities for communities to restore natural river functions and native fish populations by removing or circumventing barriers to fish passage. The program uses a voluntary, non-regulatory approach to remove and bypass barriers. The Program addresses the problem of fish barriers on a national level, National Fish working with local communities and partner agencies to restore Local communities, state, tribal and USFWS Passage Program natural flows and fish migration. federal agencies www.fws.gov

Page 3 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE WATER RESOURCE

Provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects for the benefit of wetlands-associated migratory birds and other wildlife. The Standard Grant involves development of a 4-year plan of action supported by a NAWCA grant and partner funds to conserve wetlands and wetlands-dependent fish and wildlife through acquisition (including easements and land title donations), restoration and/or enhancement. The North American Small Grant is given only in the United States. The small grant Wetland supports the same type of projects as the U.S. Standard Grants Conservation Program, however, project activities are usually smaller in Private or public organization or USFWS Program scope and involve fewer project dollars. individuals www.fws.gov Provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners on a voluntary basis for the benefit of federal trust species. The partners assist with all types of habitat projects Partners for Fish and which conserve or restore native vegetation, hydroloy, and Private landowners, conservation USFWS Wildlife soils associated with imperiled ecosystems. organizations www.fws.gov Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Non-profit organizations, Protection (PA Various Grant Numerous grants and loans to assist individuals, groups and municipalities, watershed DEP) Programs businesses with environmental issues. organizations www.depweb.state.pa.us

Federal Emergency Management Pre-Disaster Helps communities reduce losses from flood events by Agency (FEMA) Mitigation Program restoring and protecting healthy more natural ecosystems Municipalities, local governments www.fema.gov

RTCA staff provide technical assistance regarding conserving Rivers Trails and rivers, preserving open space, and developing trails and Conservation greenways. The RTCA program implements the natural National Park Assistance Program resource conservation and outdoor recreation mission of the Community groups and local, state, Service (NPS) (RTCA) National Park Service in communities across America. and federal government agencies www.nps.gov

The WRP is a voluntary program offering landowners financial and technical assistance to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands and associated uplands through permanent easements, Natural Resources 30-year easements, and long-term restoration agreements. The Conservation Wetlands Reserve program is designed to achieve maximum wetland functions Service (NRCS) Program and values while obtaining optimum wildlife habitat. Land owners www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov

Page 4 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE WATER RESOURCE

WHIP is a voluntary technical assistance and cost-share program to install wildlife habitat practices including conservation buffers according to a site-specific wildlife habitat development plan. NRCS helps participants prepare the habitat plan in consultation with the local conservation district. NRCS and the participant enter into a cost-share agreement that generally lasts from five to 10 years, that requires the landowner to install and maintain the practices and allow NRCS to monitor the effectiveness of the practices and NRCS agrees to provide technical assistance and cost-share payments. WHIP can be used to restore aquatic habitat and riparian areas Wildlife Habitat and to establish native plant communities. Landowners are not NRCS Incentives Program required to grant public access to their land. Land owners www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov

Page 5 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE LAND RESOURCE

Department of Conservation and Community Makes purchases of land or easements on its own through their local communities, non-profits, land Natural Resources Conservation Bureau of Forestry and State Parks and funds others to acquire trusts, conservancies and (DCNR) Partnership Program land and easements municipalities www.dcnr.state.pa.us

Community Makes grants to develop a comprehensive long-range planning local communities, non-profits, land Conservation document that provides strategies to address a municipality's trusts, conservancies and DCNR Partnership Program recreation, park and open space needs. municipalities www.dcnr.state.pa.us Conservation Provides incentives to farmers and ranchers to implement Farmers, ranchers and conservation NRCS Reserve Program conservation practices on their lands districts www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov This program offers assistance to agriculture and forestry producers to install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices. Help is available for erosion control practices, livestock grazing, livestock manure and nutrient management systems, improvement of irrigation systems Environmental efficiency, wildlife habitat establishment, forest management, Quality Incentives pest management/IPM, conversion to No Till; cover crops, and NRCS Program (EQIP) CNMP Plan Development. www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov This program offers assistance to agriculture and forestry producers to install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices. Help is available for erosion control practices, livestock grazing, livestock manure and nutrient management systems, improvement of irrigation systems Agricultural efficiency, wildlife habitat establishment, forest management, Management pest management/IPM, conversion to No Till; cover crops, and NRCS Assistance Program CNMP Plan Development. www.pa.nrcs.usda.gov

The Agricultural Land Preservation Fund's, administered by the Bureau of Farmland Protection within the Department of Agriculture, purpose is to purchase development rights (agricultural conservation easements) on lands containing high- ranking soil classification, for the purpose of keeping the land open for agriculture. The program requires that each county that wishes to participate must create an Agricultural Land Pennsylvania Farm Preservation Board to administer the program. The county must Bureau Farmland American Farmland also contribute some of its own funds, which are then matched Preservation Trust with substantially more money by the state. Farmers and ranchers www.pfb.com

Page 6 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE LAND RESOURCE

FLP is a Federal program in partnership with States, that supports State efforts to protect environmentally sensitive forest lands. Designed to encourage the protection of privately owned forest lands, FLP is an entirely voluntary program. To maximize the public benefits it achieves, the program focuses on the acquisition of partial interests in privately owned forest lands. FLP helps the States develop and carry out their forest conservation plans. It encourages and supports acquisition of conservation easements, legally binding agreements transferring a negotiated set of property rights from one party to another, without removing the property from private ownership. Most FLP conservation easements restrict U. S. Forest Forest Legacy development, require sustainable forestry practices, and protect Service (USFS) Program (FLP) other values. Private forest owners http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/aboutflp.shtml

Created by Congress in 1964, the LWCF provides money to federal, state and local governments to purchase land, water and wetlands for the benefit of all Americans. Land is bought Land and Water from landowners at fair-market value (unless the owner USFS Conservation Fund chooses to offer the land as a donation or at a bargain price). Federal, State, Local governements http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/LWCF/about.shtml Pennsylvania Two components: Entitlement Department of Grants and technical assistance for federal designated program which provides annual Community and municipalities for any type of community development funding to designated municipalities. Economic Community including housing rehabilitation, public services, community Competitive program is available to Development Development Block facilities, infrastructure improvement, development and all non-federal entitlement (DCED) Grant (CDBG) planning municipalities http://www.newpa.com/programFinder.aspx Local Government, municipal and Provides grant funds to support local initiatives that promote redevelopment authorities and community stability and quality of life. Grants are for agencies, industrial development construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure, building authorities and agencies, non-profit rehabilitation, acquisition and demolition of structures/land, organizations incorporated under the revitalization or construction of community facilities, purchase laws of the Commonwealth, Community or upgrade of machinery and equipment, planning of community organizations engaged in Revitalization community assets, public safety, crime prevention, recreation, activities consistent with the program DCED Program (CRP) and training. guidelines http://www.newpa.com/programFinder.aspx

Grant funds for planning, technical assistance and physical Municipalities; Redevelopment improvements to residential and mixed use areas in proximity Authorities; Non-profit Main Street to central business districts including the revitalization of Organizations; Economic residential and mixed use neighborhoods; administration costs Development Organizations; DCED Elm Street to support an Elm Street Program. Neighborhood Improvement districts http://www.newpa.com/programFinder.aspx Page 7 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE LAND RESOURCE Pennsylvania Municipalities Provides grants and technical assistance to encourage the participating in the National Flood proper use of land and the management of floodplain lands Insurance Program (NFIP), complying Floodplain Land Use within Pennsylvania. Including the preparation, administration with Act 166 and submitting an DCED Assistance Progrm and enforcement of floodplain management regulations. Annual Report http://www.newpa.com/programFinder.aspx

Growing Greener II - Main Street and Downtown Redevelopment Grants to municipalities and nonprofits to help a community's downtown redevelopment effort, focusing on the improvement of downtown sites and buildings. The eligible Grants to municipalities and projects may include approaches that assist in business nonprofits to help a community's development and/or public improvements in core communities. downtown through community Uses of the grant include capital improvement costs and those development and housing activities, costs directly related to such physical building improvements downtown reinvestment, facade and such as acquisition and pre-development costs. anchor building activities, residential DCED Gowing Greener II reinvestment, and business assistance. http://www.newpa.com/programFinder.aspx Provides grant funds for the preparation of community comprehensive plans and the ordinances to implement them. Funds can be used for preparing and updating of comprehensive community development plans, policies and Priority is given to any county implementing mechanisms such as zoning ordinances, government acting on behalf of its Land Use Planning subdivision regulations, functional plans such as downtown municipalities, any group of two or and Technical revitalization, water resource plans and land development more municipalities, or a body Assistance Program regulations. authorized to act on behalf of two or DCED (LUPTAP) more municipalities http://www.newpa.com/programFinder.aspx Grants to municipalities for improving quality of life within the community such as construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure, building rehabilitation, acquisition and Local Municipal demolition of structures/land, revitalization or construction of Resources and community facilities, purchase or upgrade of machinery and Development equipment, planning of community assets, public safety, crime DCED Program (LMRDP) prevention, recreation, and training. Municipalities; Non-profit entities http://www.newpa.com/programFinder.aspx Provides 50-50 matching funds for visioning and Governor's Center comprehensive planning projects involving multi-municipal for Local State Planning efforts. The World Class Communities Program also provides Government Assistance Program funds up to 50 percent for multimunicipal planning and Services (SPAG) visioning efforts. Local governments and communities http://www.newpa.com/default.aspx?id=20

Page 8 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE RECREATION RESOURCE Community grants are awarded for recreation, park and conservatin projects including the rehabilitation and development of parks and recreation facilities, acquisition of land for park and conservation purposes, and technical Community assistance for feasibility studies, trails studies and site Conservation development planning. Grants for these programs are all Department of Partnership Program submitted under an annual application cycle (generally late Conservation and (see individual summer/early fall), and use a single application format and Natural Resources programs listed process with one grant manual and one set of application Local communities, non-profits and (DCNR) below) forms. other organizations www.dcnr.state.pa.us

Funding to rehabilitate public park, trails, and recreational facilities; acquire land for park and conservation purposes; and Community undertake feasibility studies, site development planning and Local communities, non-profits and DCNR Recreation comprehensive recreation, greenway, and open space planning. other organizations www.dcnr.state.pa.us Funding for pre-qualified land trusts to plan for or acquire land for critical habitat, open space and natural area protection. The public value of the project, including public access, is an Local communities, non-profits and DCNR Land Trusts important consideration in project selection. other organizations www.dcnr.state.pa.us Local communities, non-profits and DCNR Rails-to-Trails Funding to plan, acquire or develop rail-trail corridors. other organizations www.dcnr.state.pa.us Local communities, non-profits and DCNR Rivers Conservation other organizations www.dcnr.state.pa.us Funding for municipalities, and in some cases for-profit Snowmobile/All enterprises, nonprofits for construction, rehabilitation, and Local communities, non-profits and DCNR Terrain Vehicle Fund maintenance of snowmobile and ATV Trails. other organizations www.dcnr.state.pa.us Funding to promote public-private partnerships to preserve and enhance natural, cultural, historical and recreational resources to stimulate economic development through heritage tourism. Grants are only available in Pennsylvania’s 12 designated Local communities, non-profits and DCNR Heritage Parks heritage areas. other organizations www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/heritageparks State or local agency, tribe, non-profit organization, citizens' group, Federal RTCA provides technical assistance to locally-led natural agencies, including the National Park Rivers, Trails and resource conservation and outdoor recreation projects. RTCA Service, may apply only in National Park Conservation does not provide financial assistance to support project collaboration with a non-federal Service (NPS) Assistance (RTCA) implementation. partner http://www.nps.gov/state/pa

Page 9 of 10 Mehoopany Creek Watershed Rivers Conservation Plan Table 14 Potential Funding and Technical Assistance Sources AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS WEB SITE EDUCATION RESOURCE Pennsylvania Funding is available for the following: cultural resource Historical and surveys, national register nominations, technical and planning Museum Certified Local assistance, educational and interpretive programs, staffing and Commission Government Grant training, and pooling CLG grants and third party Federally designated Certified Local (PHMC) Program administration. Governments www.phmc.state.pa.us Keystone Historic Funding is available for the following: preserving or restoring Preservation Grant historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Non-profit organizations and local PHMC Program Register of Historic Places. governments www.phmc.state.pa.us

Pennsylvania History Funding under this program is designated to support a wide and Museum Grant variety of museum, history, archives and historic preservation Non-profit organizations and local PHMC Program projects governments www.phmc.state.pa.us

Funding is available for the following: acquisition of property for public purposes; construction or reconstruction of streets, water and sewer facilities, neighborhood centers, recreation facilities, and other public works; demolition; rehabilitation of public and private buildings; public services; planning activities; assistance to nonprofit entities for community development activities; and assistance to private, for profit US Department of State Community entities to carry out economic development activities. The State Housing and Urban Development Block must ensure that at least 70 percent of its CDBG grant funds Development Grant (CDBG) are used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income (HUD) Program persons over a one to three-year time period. Local governments and communities http://www.hud.gov Heritage Area Projects that promote public-private partnerships to preserve and enhance natural, cultural, historic and recreation resources to stimulate economic development through heritage tourism. Grants are awarded for a variety of Department of purposes including feasibility studies; development of Conservation and Community management action plans for heritage park areas; specialized Natural Resources Conservation studies; implementation projects; and hiring of state heritage Local communities, non-profits, and (DCNR) Partnership Program park managers. other organizations www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/heritageparks

Page 10 of 10 Appendix B

MCWA Water Quality Monitoring Data Sheets

Little Mehoopany Site #1 Fire Company Dry Hydrant Property

Date Air Temp Water Tem pH Conductivit Nitrates PhosphorusAlkalinity 8/1/2001 85 74 8.1 0.234 0.352 50 9/12/2001 75 65 7.5 0.24 0.44 50 10/9/2001 60 52 7.9 0.243 0.44 50 35 11/14/2001 32 36 7.7 0.178 0.26 50 50 12/27/2001 12 34 7.6 0.148 0.35 1/27/2002 50 36 7.9 0.171 0.88 50 35 3/2/2002 55 46 7.5 0.151 0.968 25 4/1/2002 56 48 7.1 0.116 0.264 25 5/6/2002 8 0.122 30 7/10/2002 75 75 6.9 0.176 1.54 0.28 40 8/19/2002 84 76 7.6 0.204 0.23 50 3/19/2003 6.2 4/28/2003 72 58 7.2 0.102 0.044 0.54 20 7/29/2003 72 72 7.8 0.147 0.968 0.34 40 6/30/2004 80 67 7.6 0.178 1.32 0.22 45 Little Mehoopany Creek Site # 2 Elementary School Bridge

Date Air Temp Water Tem pH Conductivit Nitrates Phosphoru Alkalinity 8/1/2001 85 68 8.4 0.181 0.44 50 9/12/2001 75 62 7.5 0.195 0.88 4 10/9/2001 60 48 7.9 0.179 0.704 50 20 11/14/2001 32 36 7.6 0.225 0.35 5 45 12/27/2001 12 34 7.3 0.14 0.44 25 1/27/2002 50 35 7.5 0.148 0.57 35 3/2/2002 55 46 7.2 1.41 0.88 25 4/1/2002 56 48 7.1 0.112 0.44 25 5/6/2002 8.1 0.12 30 4/28/2003 72 58 6.9 0.1 0.176 0.86 25 7/29/2004 72 70 7.9 0.138 0.572 40 6/30/2004 80 65 7.6 0.144 1.11 0.12 50 Little Mehoopany Ste #3 Davenport Property

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrates Phosophor Alkalinity 3/2/2002 44 34 8.35 0.125 0.227 25 4/1/2002 61 49 7.3 0.111 0.132 25 5/6/2002 9.1 0.096 0.44 25 7/10/2002 83 69 8.1 0.144 0.16 35 Little Mehoopany Site #4 Jenningsville Dry Hydrant

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 3/2/2002 44 33 8.3 1.27 0.25 30 4/1/2002 62 51 7.2 0.12 0.176 25 5/6/2002 62 51 9.6 0.091 0.44 50 30 7/10/2002 81 76 9 0.192 40 9/8/2003 75 70 6.7 0.151 0.528 55 Little Mehoopany Creek Site #6 Morrison Road

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 3/2/2002 43 35 7.1 1.17 0.227 30 4/1/2002 62 48 7.3 0.101 0.132 25 5/6/2002 10.1 0.074 0.88 50 40 7/10/2002 82 68 7.8 0.126 0.176 0.1 50 Henry Love Property Site # 1

Date Air Temp Water Temp pH Conductivity Nitrite Nitrate Phosphorus Alkalinity 8/1/2001 85 80 7.9 0.078 0 0 50 0 9/12/2001 75 72 7.5 0 0 1.8 0 1.6 10/9/2001 60 54 7.5 0.047 0 0 50 5 11/14/2001 35 38 7.2 0.044 0 0 50 15 12/27/2001 12 35 6.8 0.037 0 0.44 0 15 1/27/2002 50 36 7.2 0.058 0 0.48 0 15 3/2/2002 55 44 7.2 0.046 0 0.176 0 10 4/1/2002 56 47 6.9 0.049 0 0.308 0 10 5/6/2002 7.1 0.04 0 0 0 15 7/10/2002 75 80 7.1 0.068 0 0.176 0 15 Betty Davis Property Site # 2

Date Airt Temp Water Temp pH Conductivity Nitrite Nitrate Phosphorus Alkalinity 8/1/2001 85 81 7.7 0.083 0 0.088 50 9/12/2001 75 69 7.5 0 0.088 1.2 10/9/2001 60 52 7.4 0.048 0 0.088 50 10 11/14/2001 35 38 7.3 0.033 0 50 15 12/27/2001 12 36 6.8 0.096 0 0.35 50 15 1/27/2002 50 37 7.2 0.055 0 0.528 15 3/2/2002 55 44 7.2 0.045 0 0.396 10 4/1/2002 56 46 6.7 0.043 0 0.396 10 5/6/2002 6.8 0.038 0 15 6/10/2002 7.1 0.04 0 50 10 8/19/2002 84 80 7.2 0.083 0 0.022 20 3/19/2003 5.9 4/28/2003 72 57 6.3 0.038 0.044 50 15 6/30/2004 80 72 7.8 0.066 0.22 20 Henningstead Farms Site # 3

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 9/8/2003 72 62 7 192 0.44 0.16 6.5 7/28/2004 86 64 8 226 0.22 0.26 6.5 Creek Junction Site #4

Date Air Temp Water Tem pH Conductivit Nitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 7/24/2001 84 73 6.8 0.03 4.4 50 10 12/11/2001 45 42 6.1 0.02 5 1/27/2002 5 6.1 0.03 0.352 5 5/6/2002 5.7 0.023 0.44 15 6/10/2002 84 62 6.6 0.024 5 6/20/2002 5.1 12/31/2002 5.8 3/19/2003 4.5 4/28/2003 50 42 6.2 0.024 50 10 6/25/2003 75 44 6 0.023 50 5 9/8/2003 74 61 6.6 0.042 0.044 15 4/28/2004 55 51 6.69 0.027 0.088 5 7/28/2004 75 65 6.21 0.026 Forkston Methodist Church Site # 5

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrates Phosphoru Alkalinity 4/1/2002 52 7.4 0.041 0.352 10 6/10/2002 84 62 7.3 0.043 50 15 3/19/2003 5.2 7/29/2003 72 68 7.5 0.088 0.044 50 30 6/30/2004 74 62 7.3 0.44 35 Kimble/Cobb Site #6

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrates Phosphoru Alkalinity 7/10/2002 56 55 6.6 0.029 0.176 10 8/19/2002 67 48 7.1 0.032 0.22 5 3/19/2003 4.1 4/28/2003 55 43 5.7 0.023 0.044 0.48 5 7/29/2003 60 50 6.5 0.027 0.132 10 4/28/2004 51 49 6.3 0.021 0.088 5 7/28/2004 75 64 6 0.025 Stony Brook Tributary Site #7

Date Air Temp Water TempH Conductivity Nitrates Phosphoru Alkalinity 12/11/2001 45 39 5.2 0.019 5 12/27/2001 54 33 5.6 0.053 0.35 50 5 1/27/2002 50 5.5 0.041 0.396 5 2/3/2002 55 5.4 0.026 0.22 5 4/11/2002 56 45 5.5 0.026 0.352 5 5/6/2002 77 58 6 0.023 0.44 5 6/20/2002 3.8 0.022 0.088 15 7/10/2002 75 67 4.4 0.022 0.176 5 8/19/2002 84 70 5.1 0.021 0.25 5 12/31/2002 4.3 3/19/2003 3.6 4/28/2003 66 36 4.8 0.022 0.088 5 7/29/2003 62 45 6.2 0.022 0.088 10 9/8/2003 70 58 5.2 0.078 4/28/2004 51 47 5.6 0.02 0.088 5 6/30/2004 77 63 6.6 0.029 15 7/28/2004 75 60 5.38 0.03 8/10/2004 62 5.7 0.024 Stony Brook above Trib Site #8

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrates Phosphoru Alkalinity 12/14/2001 45 39 5 0.015 5 1/27/2002 50 5.4 0.035 0.394 5 2/3/2002 55 47 5.7 0.024 0.25 5 4/1/2002 56 47 5.3 0.027 0.308 5 5/6/2002 77 57 5.7 0.024 0.88 5 6/20/2002 4.1 0.018 7/10/2002 75 71 4.4 0.022 0.176 5 8/19/2002 84 73 5.1 0.019 0.227 5 12/31/2002 4.3 3/19/2004 3.6 4/28/2003 66 40 5.4 0.022 0.044 5 7/29/2003 62 47 6.3 0.026 0.088 15 9/8/2003 70 60 5.4 0.061 10 4/28/2004 51 49 5.5 0.02 0.088 5 6/30/2004 78 64 6.5 10 7/28/2004 75 64 5.46 0.026 8/10/2004 64 6.2 0.026 Rusty Bennett Property Site #9

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 12/11/2001 45 41 7.2 0.089 25 1/27/2002 50 7.3 0.093 0.396 25 4/1/2002 52 46 7.3 0.062 0.44 20 6/10/2002 7.4 0.078 25 7/10/2002 55 60 8.3 0.113 20 8/19/2004 68 53 7.2 0.142 0.227 35 12/31/2002 6.2 3/19/2003 5.6 7/29/2003 70 55 7.7 0.098 0.132 45 4/28/2004 56 68 7.8 0.083 0.088 20 9/8/2003 74 62 8.8 0.118 0.088 0.06 35 7/28/2004 80 66 8.1 0.13 0.264 30 Douglas Hollow Tributary Site #10

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 2/3/2002 55 45 7.2 0.96 0.227 35 6/10/2002 84 62 7.4 0.08 50 30 8/19/2002 84 56 7.3 0.163 0.227 3 65 9/8/2003 68 62 7 0.163 0.176 60 7/28/2004 88 64 7.8 0.143 0.066 Catlin Hollow Site #11

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 5/6/2002 76 59 7.5 0.081 20 6/10/2002 78 67 7.5 0.069 25 7/1/2002 56 58 7.7 0.102 0.176 15 8/19/2002 84 60 7.5 0.117 0.227 2 30 6/25/2003 70 45 7.2 0.064 20 9/8/2003 65 64 7.15 0.091 0.088 35 4/28/2004 54 68 8 0.077 20 6/30/2004 80 64 7.6 0.094 35 Starr Road Tributary Site #12

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 2/3/2002 52 45 7.2 0.81 0.25 25 5/6/2002 76 57 7.6 0.085 0.88 25 6/10/2002 78 65 7.7 0.087 35 6/25/2003 75 45 7.4 0.063 20 4/28/2004 51 60 8.4 0.068 0.088 0.04 20 6/30/2004 86 65 7.4 0.119 0.396 50 Above Starr Trib # 13

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 4/28/2004 51 68 7.8 0.093 0.02 20 Spruce Lodge Site #14

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 1/27/2002 5 7.1 0.138 0.044 30 7/10/2002 7.2 0.175 0.264 0.16 60 6/25/2003 75 47 7.3 0.103 0.308 0.1 30 7/28/2004 80 70 7.6 0.142 0.132 0.16 40 Kneller Road Bridge Site #15

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 2/3/2002 53 44 7 1.26 0.227 25 Gamelands # 1

Date Air Temp Water Tem pH Conductivit Nitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 10/28/2001 42 47 6.9 27 5 11/12/2001 42 38 6.9 29 5 1/25/2002 43 33 7.1 41 5 3/27/2002 39 38 6.9 24 5 7/23/2002 86 72 7.1 40 5 8/23/2002 68 70 7.1 49 5 Gamelands #2

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 10/28/2001 42 47 6.9 27 5 11/12/2001 40 38 7 30 5 1/25/2002 42 33 7.1 40 5 3/27/2002 39 38 6.8 25 5 7/23/2002 88 72 6.9 37 5 Gamelands # 3

Date Air Temp Water TempH ConductivitNitrate Phosphoru Alkalinity 10/28/01 42 48 7 24 5 11/12/01 40 38 6.9 30 5 1/25/02 42 33 6.9 41 5 3/27/02 39 38 6.9 24 5 7/23/02 90 72 7.1 37 5 8/23/02 68 70 7.1 49 5 Appendix C

Municipal Surveys (available in hard copy only)

Appendix D

Questionnaire Surveys (available in hard copy only)

Appendix E

Key Person Interviews (available in hard copy only)