DOCSLIB.ORG

Buda, Workshop Presentation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Buda, Workshop Presentation Assessing the hydrologic and water quality impacts of climate change in small agricultural basins of the Upper Chesapeake Bay watershed Anthony Buda USDA Agricultural Research Service Monday, March 7, 2016 Westin Hotel Annapolis, MD The Development of Climate Projections for Use 1:40 to 2:00 PM in Chesapeake Bay Program Assessments Today’s presentation Upper Chesapeake Bay climate assessment Upper Chesapeake LTAR A brief overview of the four basins comprising the Upper Chesapeake LTAR location in Pennsylvania. Climate change projections Future climate predictions for the Mahantango Creek basin using statistically downscaled data. Modeling hydrology and water quality An approach to predicting the effects of climate change on hydrology and water quality with the SWAT model. USDA’s LTAR Network serving as a sentinel to changes in climate and hydrology Northern Great Plains Heartland Northern Crescent R.J. Cook Agronomy Farm Northern Plains Great Basin Kellogg Upper Mississippi Upper Chesapeake Bay Biological Station Central Plains Platte River River Basin Eastern Experimental Range High Plains Aquifer Central Mississippi Corn Belt Lower Chesapeake Bay River Basin Eastern Uplands Southern Lower Mississippi Plains Southern Seaboard Walnut Gulch Jornada River Basin Gulf Atlantic Experimental Watershed Experimental Range Southern Coastal Plain Fruitful Rim Plains Archbold Basin and Range Biological Station Prairie Gateway Mississippi Portal LTAR Shared Research Strategy, 2013 Upper Chesapeake Bay LTAR Four basins typifying variable physiography and farming Anderson Creek Watershed Rockton, PA Anderson Allegheny Creek Plateau Spring Creek Watershed Rock Springs, PA Mahantango Spring Ridge & Creek Creek Valley Piedmont Conewago Creek Mahantango Creek Watershed Klingerstown, PA Coastal Plain Conewago Creek Watershed Elizabethtown, PA The Mahantango Creek Watershed an ideal place to assess long-term trends in hydroclimate Precipitation (1968 to present) WE-38 Watershed (7.3 km2) Temperature (1978 to present) Streamflow (1968 to present) Buda et al., 2011a, b (WRR) Significant hydroclimatic trends in WE-38 Steadily rising temperatures and a lengthening growing season are Annual 0.38 C mean temp. per decade consistent with a warming climate. At the basin level, evapotranspiration Annual 37 mm increases represent the clearest change AET per decade in hydroclimate over the past 45 years. More intense rain storms in the fall have led to augmented streamflow during a Tropical Storm Lee time when flows are normally low. Snowmelt runoff events are declining in Flood of winter whereas in summer, low flow 1996 periods are expanding in duration. Climate change in the Upper Chesapeake Using downscaled data to project future climatic conditions Regional models disaggregated to 1/16 Anderson Creek Mahantango Spring Creek Creek Conewago Creek Downscale 9 models from the Mahantango Creek watershed Coupled Model Inter- WE-38 comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) for the business as usual (RCP 8.5) and stabilization (RCP 4.5) emissions pathways. Hayhoe et al., 2007 (Climate Dynamics); Stoner et al., 2013 (International J. Climatology) We obtained climate projections from nine different climate models Climate models recommended by Katharine Hayhoe CCSM4 HadGEM2-CC inmcm4 CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 CNRM-CM5 MIROC5 IPSL-CM5A-LR MRI-CGCM3 MPI-ESM-LR International Centre for Earth Simulation Daily climate variables Mean temp. (C) Max temp. (C) Min temp. (C) Solar radiation (MJ/m2) Precip. (mm) Wind speed (m/s) Mid-century temperatures will be warmer with increases of about 2C relative to 1960-1989 Hadley Centre Climate Model Version 3 (HadCM3) Mean annual temperature 20 Mahantango C) Creek 15 10 5 Temp. ( Temp. 0 1950 2000 2050 2100 Mid-century (2015 to 2044) increase in mean annual temperature F 3.0 3.5 4.0 C 1.67 1.94 2.22 A warmer climate means more extremes daily max temperatures may approach 42C by century’s end 60 C) 50 40 30 Highest daily max Highest daily max Highest daily max 20 temp in 1975 temp in 2025 temp in 2075 35 (3)C 37 (4) C 42 (6) C 10 Annual max value of daily max temp. ( of temp. max daily value Annual max 0 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Year Mid-century will be wetter increases will range from 5 to 15% relative to 1960-1989 Hadley Centre Climate Model Version 3 (HadCM3) Mean annual precipitation 2000 Mahantango Creek mm) . ( 1000 0 Precip 1950 2000 2050 2100 Mid-century (2015 to 2044) increase in mean annual precipitation % 5 10 15 Daily rains of 25 mm will be more routine with 5 more such days by the year 2100 25 20 15 10 5 Days per year with rainfall > 25 mm with rainfall per year Days 0 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Year More frequent 20-yr storms (127 mm/d) with a 3-fold increase in frequency expected by 2100 Northeast By late century, events that recurred once in 20 years may happen three to four times as often. Future change multiplier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wuebbles et al., 2014 (BAMS); US National Climate Assessment, 2014 Paradoxically, the future also could be drier Evaporative demand is likely to overwhelm inputs from rain Longer dry spells Increased risk of drought Northeast Change in max consecutive dry days (%) Standardized soil moisture (0-30 cm; deviations from 20th century mean) for 2090 to 2099 using the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario (Cook et al., 2015; Science Advances). More than 80% of climate Take home point: more rain is needed models suggest that successive to keep pace with rising evaporative dry days will rise by 5 to 10%. demand (Sherwood and Fu, 2014). US National Climate Assessment, 2014; Sherwood and Fu, 2014 Implications for the Upper Chesapeake Simulating potential climate change impacts in small basins 30 ) • Emissions scenarios RCP 4.5 and 8.5 yr 25 20 • Three time frames 15 1. Early century (2015 to 2034) emissions 10 2 2. Mid century (2045 to 2064) CO 5 3. Late century (2081 to 2100) 0 (billion (billion tons/ metric 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Topo-SWAT (Easton et al., 2008) Improved simulation of variable source area (VSA) hydrology in agricultural watersheds of the humid Northeast. Climate change and watershed hydrology How will the water balance change with climate change? 1400 1200 1000 Precipitation 800 600 400 Streamflow 200 Precipitation or streamflow depth (mm) or streamflow Precipitation 0 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050 2075 2100 Year Climate change and watershed hydrology How will climate change affect runoff generation patterns? Using Topo-SWAT to identify variable source areas (VSAs) Runoff (mm) 400 500 600 700 800 Mattern Watershed runoff 22,000 L 90 L well drained soil Mattern poorly drained soil (restrictive layer) SWAT images courtesy of Tamie Veith and Amy Collick Climate change and watershed hydrology How will the frequency of floods and low flows change? 100 10 Will the flow duration curve ) shift with climate change? cms 1 0.1 Mean daily flow Mean flow ( daily 0.01 High flow Low flow 0.001 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of time equaled or exceeded Climate change and water quality Effects of current climate and land use on water quality Converted Converted ConvertedForested Forested Grass Current land management basedForestedGrass on farmer surveys None GrassNone NoneConverted PerennializationConverted ForestedCGAA Forested CGAAGrassCPSTForested buffer GrassGrass buffer CPSTNone NoneNone GRFL ConservationGRFLCGAA Cropping CGAA CPSTDGABCover crops CPST DGAB No till EGAB GRFL DGABEGABConservation tillage EGAC EGAB EGAC BaselineFGAC land use EGACDGABEGABFGAC LU_WE38_currentNo change in mgmt. FGAC EGACLU_WE38_current LU_WE38_currentEGABFGAC EGACLU_WE38_current SimulateFGAC N, P, and sediment losses in runoff LU_WE38_current Images courtesy of Tamie Veith and Amy Collick Climate change and water quality None Relative effects of climate and land useGrass change on water quality Converted ConvertedForested ConvertedForested ForestedConverted ForestedGrass Land mgmt. and BMP allocation usingGrassLU_WE38_manureinj PA’s WIP (thru 2025) None GrassNone LU_WE38_CoverCrops Converted NoneConverted Farm InfrastructureConvertedForestedLU_WE38_GravelRoads ForestedCGAA ForestedLU_WE38_FarmStrcBarnyard runoff CGAAGrassCPST GrassLU_WE38_NoTill PerennializationCPSTNone NoneLU_WE38_MinTill Converted GRFLGrass/forested buffer GrassGRFLCGAA Forested buffer CGAAGRFL Forested CPSTDGABGrass buffer CPST None LU_WE38_scenarios DGAB None EGAB LU_WE38_manureinj GRFLTree planting DGABEGAB EGAC LU_WE38_CoverCrops ConservationEGAB EGAC Cropping LU_WE38_GravelRoadsFGAC NoneEGACDGABEGABFGAC LU_WE38_FarmStrcLU_WE38_currentCover crops GrassFGAC EGACLU_WE38_current LU_WE38_NoTillNoneNo till ForestedLU_WE38_currentEGABFGAC LU_WE38_MinTillGrassConservation tillage ConvertedEGACLU_WE38_current Forested Manure/NutrientLU_WE38_covercropsFGAC Management GRFLConverted LU_WE38_manureinjLU_WE38_currentManure injection LU_WE38_scenariosLU_WE38_manureinj LU_WE38_NoTill Urban StormwaterLU_WE38_CoverCropsManagement LU_WE38_MinTill LU_WE38_GravelRoads Gravel road improvement LU_WE38_FarmStrc BaselineGRFL land use LU_WE38_NoTill LU_WE38_scenariosNo change in mgmt. Images courtesy of Tamie Veith and Amy Collick LU_WE38_MinTill GRFL LU_WE38_scenarios Acknowledgments Ray Bryant, Peter Kleinman, Amy Collick, Gordon Folmar, Sarah Goslee, Tamie Veith, Al Rotz Anne Stoner Katharine Hayhoe.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 3702 Curtin Road November 15, 2011
    APPLICATION TO THE USDA-ARS LONG TERM AGRO-ECOSYSTEM RESEARCH (LTAR) NETWORK FOR THE PASTURE SYSTEMS AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RESEARCH UNIT’S UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY / SUSQUEHANNA RIVER COMPONENT PASTURE SYSTEMS AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RESEARCH UNIT 3702 CURTIN ROAD UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802 SUBMITTED BY JOHN SCHMIDT, RESEARCH LEADER POC: PETER KLEINMAN [email protected] NOVEMBER 15, 2011 Introduction We propose to establish an Upper Chesapeake Bay/ Susquehanna River component of the nascent Long Term Agro-ecosystem Research (LTAR) network, with leadership of that component by USDA-ARS Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research Unit (PSWMRU). To fully represent the Upper Chesapeake Bay/ Susquehanna River region, four watershed locations are identified where intensive research would be focused in each of the major physiographic provinces contained within the region. Due to varied physiographic and biotic zones within the region, multiple watershed sites are required to represent the diversity of agricultural conditions. The PSWMRU has a long history of high-impact research on watershed and grazing land management, and has an established nexus of regional and national collaborative networks that would rapidly expand the linkages desired under LTAR (GRACEnet, the Conservation Effects Assessment Project, the Northeast Pasture Consortium and SERA-17). Research from the PSWMRU underpins state and national agricultural management guidelines (Phosphorus Index, Pasture Conditioning Score Sheet, NRCS practice standards). However, it is the leadership of the PSWMRU in Chesapeake Bay mitigation activities, reflected in the geographic organization of the proposed network by Bay watershed’s physiographic provinces that makes the proposed Upper Chesapeake Bay/ Susquehanna River component an appropriate starting point for the LTAR network.
    [Show full text]
  • Kayaking • Fishing • Lodging Table of Contents
    KAYAKING • FISHING • LODGING TABLE OF CONTENTS Fishing 4-13 Kayaking & Tubing 14-15 Rules & Regulations 16 Lodging 17-19 1 W. Market St. Lewistown, PA 17044 www.JRVVisitors.com 717-248-6713 [email protected] The Juniata River Valley Visitors Bureau thanks the following contributors to this directory. Without your knowledge and love of our waterways, this directory would not be possible. Joshua Hill Nick Lyter Brian Shumaker Penni Abram Paul Wagner Bob Wert Todd Jones Helen Orndorf Ryan Cherry Thankfully, The Juniata River Valley Visitors Bureau Jenny Landis, executive director Buffie Boyer, marketing assistant Janet Walker, distribution manager 2 PAFLYFISHING814 Welcome to the JUNIATA RIVER VALLEY Located in the heart of Central Pennsylvania, the Juniata River Valley, is named for the river that flows from Huntingdon County to Perry County where it meets the Susquehanna River. Spanning more than 100 miles, the Juniata River flows through a picturesque valley offering visitors a chance to explore the area’s wide fertile valleys, small towns, and the natural heritage of the region. The Juniata River watershed is comprised of more than 6,500 miles of streams, including many Class A fishing streams. The river and its tributaries are not the only defining characteristic of our landscape, but they are the center of our recreational activities. From traditional fishing to fly fishing, kayaking to camping, the area’s waterways are the ideal setting for your next fishing trip or family vacation. Come and “Discover Our Good Nature” any time of year! Find Us! The Juniata River Valley is located in Central Pennsylvania midway between State College and Harrisburg.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Pennsylvania Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws PERMITS, MULTI-YEAR LICENSES, BUTTONS
    2018PENNSYLVANIA FISHING SUMMARY Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws 2018 Fishing License BUTTON WHAT’s NeW FOR 2018 l Addition to Panfish Enhancement Waters–page 15 l Changes to Misc. Regulations–page 16 l Changes to Stocked Trout Waters–pages 22-29 www.PaBestFishing.com Multi-Year Fishing Licenses–page 5 18 Southeastern Regular Opening Day 2 TROUT OPENERS Counties March 31 AND April 14 for Trout Statewide www.GoneFishingPa.com Use the following contacts for answers to your questions or better yet, go onlinePFBC to the LOCATION PFBC S/TABLE OF CONTENTS website (www.fishandboat.com) for a wealth of information about fishing and boating. THANK YOU FOR MORE INFORMATION: for the purchase STATE HEADQUARTERS CENTRE REGION OFFICE FISHING LICENSES: 1601 Elmerton Avenue 595 East Rolling Ridge Drive Phone: (877) 707-4085 of your fishing P.O. Box 67000 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Phone: (814) 359-5110 BOAT REGISTRATION/TITLING: license! Phone: (866) 262-8734 Phone: (717) 705-7800 Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. The mission of the Pennsylvania Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday PUBLICATIONS: Fish and Boat Commission is to Monday through Friday BOATING SAFETY Phone: (717) 705-7835 protect, conserve, and enhance the PFBC WEBSITE: Commonwealth’s aquatic resources EDUCATION COURSES FOLLOW US: www.fishandboat.com Phone: (888) 723-4741 and provide fishing and boating www.fishandboat.com/socialmedia opportunities. REGION OFFICES: LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATION Contents Contact Law Enforcement for information about regulations and fishing and boating opportunities. Contact Education for information about fishing and boating programs and boating safety education.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • PA COAST Priority Ag Watersheds.Xls
    PA_COAST_Priority_Ag_Watersheds.xls HUC_12 HU_12_NAME STATES PARAMETER 020503050505 Lower Yellow Breeches Creek PA N and P 020700040601 Headwaters West Branch Conococheague Creek PA N and P 020503060904 Cocalico Creek-Conestoga River PA N and P 020503061104 Middle Conestoga River PA N and P 020503061701 Conoy Creek PA N and P 020503061103 Upper Conestoga River PA N and P 020503061105 Lititz Run PA N and P 020503051009 Fishing Creek-York County PA N and P 020402030701 Upper French Creek PA N and P 020503061102 Muddy Creek PA N and P 020503060801 Upper Chickies Creek PA N and P 020402030608 Hay Creek PA N and P 020503051010 Conewago Creek PA N and P 020402030606 Green Hills Lake-Allegheny Creek PA N and P 020503061101 Little Muddy Creek PA N and P 020503051011 Laurel Run-Susquehanna River PA N and P 020503060902 Middle Creek PA N and P 020503060903 Hammer Creek PA N and P 020503060901 Little Cocalico Creek-Cocalico Creek PA N and P 020503050904 Spring Creek PA N and P 020503050906 Swatara Creek-Susquehanna River PA N and P 020402030605 Wyomissing Creek PA N and P 020503050801 Killinger Creek PA N and P 020503050105 Laurel Run PA N and P 020402030408 Cacoosing Creek PA N and P 020402030401 Mill Creek PA N and P 020503050802 Snitz Creek-Quittapahilla Creek PA N and P 020503040404 Aughwick Creek-Juniata River PA N and P 020402030406 Spring Creek PA N and P 020402030702 Lower French Creek PA N and P 020503020703 East Branch Standing Stone Creek PA N and P 020503040802 Little Lost Creek-Lost Creek PA N and P 020503041001 Upper Cocolamus Creek
    [Show full text]
  • Anthracite Mine Drainage Strategy Summary
    Publication 279a Susquehanna Anthracite Region December 2011 River Basin Commission Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy SUMMARY In 2009, SRBC initiated the he largest source of Anthracite Coal challenging and ambitious one, especially Susquehanna River Basin Twithin the United States is found in light of current funding limitations. Anthracite Region Strategy, which in the four distinct Anthracite Coal However, opportunities exist in the is based on a similar scope of work Fields of northeastern Pennsylvania. Anthracite Coal Region that could completed for the West Branch The four fields – Northern, Eastern- encourage and assist in the restoration Susquehanna Subbasin in 2008. Middle, Western-Middle, and Southern of its lands and waters. – lie mostly in the Susquehanna River In the Anthracite Region, SRBC Basin; the remaining portions are in the For example, the numerous underground is coordinating its efforts with the Delaware River Basin. The Susquehanna mine pools of the Anthracite Region hold Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition watershed portion covers about 517 vast quantities of water that could be for Abandoned Mine Reclamation square miles (Figure 1). utilized by industry or for augmenting (EPCAMR). Sharing data between streamflows during times of drought. EPCAMR’s Anthracite Region The sheer size of these four Anthracite In addition, the large flow discharges Mine Pooling Mapping Initiative Coal Fields made this portion of indicative of the Anthracite Region also and SRBC’s remediation strategy Pennsylvania one of the most important hold hydroelectric development potential is valuable in moving both resource extraction regions in the United that can offset energy needs and, at the initiatives forward. Both agencies States and helped spur the nation’s same time, assist in the treatment of the will continue to work together Industrial Revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Northumberland County Implementation Plan for the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy A
    Northumberland County Implementation Plan For the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy A. County Description “Chesapeake Bay, the Nation’s largest estuary, has been adversely affected by nutrient enrichment. Excessive nutrients have caused eutrophication, contributing to periods of hypoxia (dissolved-oxygen concentrations lower than 1.0 mg/L) and poor water-clarity conditions that deprive living resources of necessary oxygen and sunlight.”(Sprague et. al. 2000) Freshwater source inputs come from a multitude of different sources, with the Susquehanna River contributing 50% of the freshwater to the Bay. Of the total streamflow into the Bay, the Susquehanna River contributes 60%. Of the total nutrient contribution to the Bay, the Susquehanna River contributes 62% of the total nitrogen and 34% of the total phosphorus. Northumberland County, located at the junction of the North and West Branches of the Susquehanna River, is an area of diverse and unique land uses and cultures. With a total area of 460 square miles and a population of 94,428, Northumberland County is, for the majority, a rural county. With a little over 123,500 acres of farm land within the county limits, agriculture has always been and continues to be a substantial amount of the land use in Northumberland County. The culture of Northumberland County is just as diverse as its land use. The east central and west central parts of the county are mostly urban while the northern half of the county brings in some of the Amish community. Northumberland County contributes approximately 3 million pounds of total nitrogen, 73,000 pounds of total phosphorus and 24,000 tons of total sediment to the Bay each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna and Juniata River Assessment Report
    SUSQUEHANNA AND JUNIATA RIVER ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared by: Josh Lookenbill PA Department of Environmental Protection Office of Water Programs Bureau of Clean Water 11th Floor: Rachel Carson State Office Building Harrisburg, PA 17105 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Susquehanna River from the confluence of the Juniata River to the Route 462 bridge near Columbia and the Juniata River from the confluence of the Raystown Branch to the mouth do not meet the Warm Water Fishes (WWF) protected aquatic life use based on DEP’s Continuous physicochemical assessment method, and DEP’s Semi-wadeable large river macroinvertebrate assessment method (Figure 1). The Continuous physicochemical assessment method has identified high pH as a cause of impairment for both rivers. DEP is currently evaluating the source of impairment. At this time the source of the impairment will be listed as unknown. Currently, there is insufficient information upstream or downstream of these delineations to make assessment determinations using these methods. Figure 1. Delineation of the aquatic life use impaired regions of the Juniata and Susquehanna Rivers. Peer reviewed, scientifically defensible assessment methods are the basis for making use assessment decisions. Both methods became final assessment methods in 2018. This provides the opportunity to develop an aquatic life use assessment for portions of the Susquehanna and Juniata Rivers. These assessment methods are independent evaluations that provide unique measures of water quality for assessing the aquatic life use. More intensive water quality monitoring that was implemented beginning in 2012 and through 2017 provided data that fit the framework of the assessment methods. The assessment of the Juniata River and the Susquehanna River documented exceedances of water quality standards in each year (2012 – 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Susquehanna Penns Watershed
    kj ! ! ! ! ! !" ! !! " ^&É ! ! ! !! ! " ! ! ! ! ! kj ! ! !! ! ! !!" MAP 38. Pennsylvania Fishing and Boating Access Strategy kj!! !&É kj ! ! Lower Susquehanna-Penns! Watershed ! kj kj! ! " " ! !! !! kj !! !!kj kj kj ! ! !!" kj ! ! &É ! ! !" Spruce Run BALD EAGLE! S.P. ! !" Black Creek ! ! &É Milton ! ! !" 295 Rapid Run Beaver Run ! ! 92 RAYMOND B.! WINTER S.P. 80 ! ! &É ¨¦§ ! !" 323 Lick Run ! 115 Danville! ^ kj Lewisburg ! Catawissa Gravel Run &É Catawissa Creek 80 !" Riverside !" " ¨¦§ Little Fishing Creek Elk Creek ! !&É Roaring Creek58 Laurel Run !" " Bellefonte 193 Mugserkj Run !" Millheim !! Pine Creek 317 !!! ! &É 201 New !" Snydertown 308 Berlin Shamokin ! " ! !^ Shamokin Cr. kj Dam ! ! " Penns Creek" &É! Sunbury ! !" !" Mahanoy ! ! !" Sinking Creek ! ! POE PADDY S.P. !! ! City kj !!kj Gilberton !" kj! POE VALLEY S.P. !" Middle Creek ! kj 329 N Br" !Middle Cr. Selinsgrove !! 165 Shamokin Girardville ! kj &É !! ! ! kj! Locust Cr. ! Middleburg Ashland !kj ¤£322 188 ! ! ! &É ! Mahanoy Creek Gordon ! ! Freeburg 212 ! ! 84 326 Beavertown 84 &É ! Schwaben Creek Middleport PENN ROOSEVELT! S.P. Saint Clair ! REEDS GAP S.P. 522 kj ¤£ ! Port Carbon Herndon kj Minersville ! ^ Palo Alto !! 132 Pottsville kj! kj Mahantango Creek kj ! kj 11 Mount Carbon ! kj&É 107 Stony Run ¤£ !kj! Honey Creek 194 ! kj! ! Landingville GREENWOOD FURNACE S.P. Jacks Creek ! " Pillow Tremont Cressona 286 " Burnham Juniata River kj ! Pine Creek Schuylkill Haven ! ! ! " ! Lost Creek 258! 209 Auburn kj ! ! 264 ¤£ Lewistown! ! kj ! "!" ! !! ! ! Susquehanna R. Williamstown !kj !! ! Mill Creek229 ! "!! ! Thompsontown Liverpool! " Lykens kj ! Millersburg Pine Grove &É !! ! 171 Millerstown ! ! ! &É 160 110 113 ! Wiconisco Creek ! ! ! !! kj "! East Licking Creek ! Doe! Run ! ! 210 ! 254 Doyle Run SWATARA! S.P. " ! ! " Raccoon Creek ! ! 80 Mcveytown !" ! 78 Hunters Creek ! ! ¨¦§ " Newport! ! !Armstrong Creek 211 281 ! !" ! kjkj !!! Powell Creek LITTLE BUFFALO!!kj S.P.
    [Show full text]
  • MAHANTANGO CREEK SUBWATERSHED TMDL Northumberland and Schuylkill Counties
    MAHANTANGO CREEK SUBWATERSHED TMDL Northumberland and Schuylkill Counties Prepared for: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection March 27, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS TMDL SUMMARIES .................................................................................................................... 1 WATERSHED BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 2 Surface Water Quality............................................................................................................... 7 APPROACH TO TMDL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 7 Pollutants & Sources ................................................................................................................. 7 TMDL Endpoints ...................................................................................................................... 7 Reference Watershed Approach ............................................................................................... 7 Selection of the Reference Watershed ...................................................................................... 8 Watershed Assessment and Modeling .................................................................................... 10 TMDLS ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Background Pollutant Conditions ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SRBC 2011 Anthracite Region Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy
    December 2011 Susquehanna Publication 279 River Basin Anthracite Region Commission Mine Drainage Remediation Strategy About this Report he largest source of Anthracite Coal in light of current funding limitations. Twithin the United States is found However, opportunities exist in the This technical report, Anthracite in the four distinct Anthracite Coal Anthracite Coal Region that could Region Mine Drainage Fields of northeastern Pennsylvania. encourage and assist in the restoration The four fields – Northern, Eastern- of its lands and waters. Remediation Strategy, includes: Middle, Western-Middle, and Southern – lie mostly in the Susquehanna River For example, the numerous underground introduction to the region’s Basin; the remaining portions are in the mine pools of the Anthracite Region hold geology & mining history; Delaware River Basin. The Susquehanna vast quantities of water that could be mining techniques and watershed portion covers nearly 517 utilized by industry or for augmenting square miles (Figure 1). streamflows during times of drought. impacts; In addition, the large flow discharges strategy methodology; The sheer size of these four Anthracite indicative of the Anthracite Region also discussion of data findings; Coal Fields made this portion of hold hydroelectric development potential Pennsylvania one of the most important that can offset energy needs and, at the basin-scale restoration plan; resource extraction regions in the United same time, assist in the treatment of the and States and helped spur the nation’s utilized AMD discharge. recommendations. Industrial Revolution. Anthracite Coal became the premier fuel source of To help address the environmental nineteenth and early twentieth century impacts while promoting the resource America and heated most homes and development potential of the Anthracite businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Subbasin Survey Year-1
    Susquehanna River Basin Commission Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin Publication 282 Year-1 Survey September 2012 A Water Quality and Biological Assessment April - July 2011 Report by Ellyn Campbell Supervisor, Monitoring and Assessment SRBC • 1721 N. Front St. • Harrisburg, PA 17102-2391 • 717-238-0423 • 717-238-2436 Fax • www.srbc.net 1 Introduction The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducted a survey of the Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin from April through July 2011. This survey was conducted through SRBC’s Subbasin Survey Program, which is funded in part through the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This program consists of two-year assessments in each of the six major subbasins (Figure 1) on a rotating schedule. The goals of this Year-1 survey were to collect one-time samples of the macroinvertebrate community, habitat, and water quality at 104 sites in the major tributaries and areas of interest throughout the Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin. The Year-2 survey, which is a more focused, in-depth study of a select area, will follow in late 2013 and be focused on the three major reservoirs comprising the last 45 miles of the Susquehanna River—Lake Clarke, Lake Aldred, and Conowingo Pond. Previous surveys of the Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin were conducted in 1985 (McMorran, 1986), 1996 (Traver, 1997), and 2005 (Buda, 2006). A comparison of the 1996 and 2005 data along with the 2011 results is included in this report. Subbasin survey information is used by SRBC staff and others to: • evaluate the chemical, biological, and habitat conditions of streams in the basin; Figure 1.
    [Show full text]