DOCSLIB.ORG

HAROLD MEISLER U. S. Geological Survey, 100 North Cameron St., Harrisburg, Pa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HAROLD MEISLER U. S. Geological Survey, 100 North Cameron St., Harrisburg, Pa HAROLD MEISLER U. S. Geological Survey, 100 North Cameron St., Harrisburg, Pa. Origin of Erosional Surfaces in the Lebanon Valley, Pennsylvania Abstract: Summit elevations in the Lebanon creeks—in which streams and interfluvial areas Valley, part of the Great Valley, range from 440 were in a state of erosional equilibrium. The land to 720 feet above msl (mean sea level). This range surface in equilibrium with the ancestral Quit- cannot be accounted for adequately by the pene- tapahilla Creek lies at a higher elevation than plain concept. Although accordant summits, the adjacent land surfaces that were in equilibrium chief evidence for peneplains, occur over large with Swatara Creek. areas, summits are not accordant between adjacent The land surface on the carbonate rocks, which areas within the valley. is in the ancestral Quittapahilla Creek system, lies The Lebanon Valley is underlain in the south by at a lower elevation than shale within the same carbonate rocks and in the north by shale. The system, but it commonly lies at a higher elevation major stream valley in the carbonate area is now than shale in adjacent parts of the Swatara Creek partly occupied by segments of two streams, but system. at one time it was the location of one major stream Accordance of summits is the result of uniform —the ancestral Quittapahilla Creek—which was erosion of uniform rocks in basins whose discharge beheaded by a tributary to Swatara Creek. points are at the same elevation. Lack of accordant Landforms of the Lebanon Valley are probably summits on uniform rocks is the result of erosion the result of erosion within two separate stream in basins whose discharge points differ in elevation. systems—Swatara and ancestral Quittapahilla CONTENTS Introduction . 1071 Geomorphic history 1080 Purpose and scope . 1071 Conclusions 1082 Area location . 1072 References cited 1082 Historical background . 1072 Methods of investigation . 1073 Figure Acknowledgments . 1073 1. Map of southeastern Pennsylvania showing lo- Geologic features . 1073 cation of Lebanon and Great valleys . 1072 Erosional features . 1073 2. Map of Lebanon Valley showing geomorphic Description . 1073 subdivisions and drainage pattern .... 1074 General statement . 1073 3. Topographic profiles across Lebanon Valley 1075 Shale areas 1, 2, and 3 . 1075 4. Hypsometric curves of areas within Lebanon Shale area 4 . 1076 Valley 1077 Carbonate area . 1076 5. Stages in development of drainage pattern in Hypsometric curves . 1076 Lebanon Valley 1081 Origin . 1076 General statement . 1076 Table Peneplain concept . 1077 1. Elevations of shale areas 1075 Erosional-equilibrium concepts . 1078 2. Elevations of carbonate area 1076 INTRODUCTION bonate rocks on the south and the shale on the north sides of the valley. The difference in ele- Purpose and Scope vation is commonly attributed to one of two Classical interpretations of the geomorphol- causes: (1) the existence of two peneplains—the ogy of the Lebanon Valley have been concerned Harrisburg peneplain, which developed on chiefly with describing real or supposed pene- shale, and the younger and lower Somerville plain levels within the valley and explaining peneplain, which developed on limestone, or the difference in elevation between the car- (2) the existence of only one peneplain, the Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 73, p. 1071-1082, 5 figs., September 1962 1071 Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/73/9/1071/3442172/i0016-7606-73-9-1071.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 1072 HAROLD MEISLER-EROSION SURFACES, LEBANON VALLEY, PA. Harrisburg, which was lowered differentially on physiographic province in Pennsylvania, few the soluble limestone. detailed studies have been made of the Lebanon The author believes that peneplains never Valley. Papers on the Lebanon Valley have developed in the Lebanon Valley. The major been concerned chiefly with the identification geomorphic features of the valley are inherited of peneplains and the levels of accordant ele- from a time before the capture by Swatara vations. Creek of Quittapahilla Creek when the streams Campbell (1903, p. 287) thought that the and interfluves were in equilibrium in each of meanders of Swatara Creek indicated a wide- these two basins. There is no evidence that the spread peneplain developed on the shale in the carbonate rocks have been eroded significantly Great Valley near Harrisburg. Presumably this lower than the shale. surface was younger than the Schooley pene- plain and more extensive than the Somerville Area Location peneplain. He named it the Harrisburg pene- The Lebanon Valley is defined in this report plain. In the Lebanon Valley it ranges from 500 as the part of the Great Valley in southeastern to 600 feet above msl. Campbell (p. 283-28 EXPLANATION Great Valley Lebanon valley Figure 1. Map of southeastern Pennsylvania showing location of Lebanon and Great valleys Pennsylvania that lies within the drainage area also thought a lower peneplain, the Somerville, of Swatara Creek. It includes most of the drain- was developed on limestone near the major age area of the Susquehanna River in the Great streams at an elevation of 400 feet and stated Valley east of the Susquehanna River (Fig. 1). that in the Lebanon Valley the Somerville plain The Lebanon Valley is bounded on the north was slightly developed along Swatara Creek. by Blue Mountain, a ridge formed by the re- Knopf (1924, p. 658) recognized remnants of sistant Tuscarora Sandstone of Silurian age, and two erosion surfaces on the Martinsburg Shale on the south by a series of hills formed by of Ordovician age north and east of Harrisburg. Triassic conglomerate and diabase. The valley One of these, at 520 feet above msl, is the Har- is approximately 30 miles long. Its width ranges risburg peneplain. The other, consisting of from 14 miles near Lebanon to 9 miles near isolated monadnocks at 660 feet, she called the Hummelstown. Sunbury peneplain. The lowlands below the Harrisburg peneplain were called the Lancaster Historical Background subcycle rather than the Somerville peneplain, Although a great deal has been written about because the Somerville includes several different the geomorphology of the Valley and Ridge surfaces (Knopf, 1924). Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/73/9/1071/3442172/i0016-7606-73-9-1071.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 INTRODUCTION 1073 Hickok (1933, p. 114) believed that the the topographic maps and the elevations of over Martinsburg Shale is slightly more resistant to 2000 points were interpolated, from 20-foot erosion than the carbonate rocks so that contour lines, to the nearest 10 feet. erosion surfaces generally occur at lower eleva- tions on the carbonate rocks than on the shale. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Three extensively developed erosion surfaces Appreciation is expressed to Mr. John T. are preserved on the Martinsburg Shale in the Hack of the U. S. Geological Survey and Mr. Lebanon Valley, at 500, 550, and 600 feet Alan R. Geyer of the Pennsylvania Geological above msl. A few monadnocks at 660 and 700 Survey for critical reading of the manuscript. feet suggest additional older erosion surfaces. Other surfaces developed on the Martinsburg GEOLOGIC FEATURES (Hickok, p. 115) are terraces at 360, 400, and The southern part of the Lebanon Valley is 450 feet above msl. underlain by alternating beds of Cambrian and Ashley (1935, p. 1398) maintained that the Ordovician limestone and dolomite, and the present topographic surface in the Appalachian northern part is underlain by the Martinsburg region reflects a single old peneplain (Schooley Shale of Ordovician age. The Martinsburg con- peneplain) that has been differentially lowered. sists chiefly of shale, but it contains minor Ver Steeg (1942), in answer to Ashley, sug- amounts of limestone, sandstone, andesite lava, gested that the widespread, broad, flatfish and diabase. remnants of the Harrisburg peneplain could not The rocks in the valley strike generally east- have been so excellently preserved if the sur- northeastward, and progressively younger for- face had been greatly lowered as Ashley claimed. mations crop out northward. The oldest and Bethune (1948, p. 17) stated that the summits southernmost band of rocks consists of lime- underlain by Martinsburg Shale represent stone and dolomite of the Conococheaque lowered traces of the Schooley peneplain. Limestone of Late Cambrian age. The Beek- Fenneman (1938, p. 234) thought that in the mantown Group of Ordovician age, consisting Lebanon Valley the surface on the Martinsburg of limestone and dolomite, crops out north of Shale was 100 feet above that of the limestone. the Conococheaque. Cropping out northward He believed there was at least one peneplain in from the Beekmantown Group, in order of de- the valley, as indicated by the level of the shale creasing age, are the Annville, Myerstown, and hilltops, but acknowledged that the lower sur- Hershcy Limestones of Prouty (1959) of face on the limestone was commonly consid- Middle Ordovician age, and the Martinsburg ered by some writers to be a later (Somerville) Shale of Late Ordovician age. peneplain. Because the sequence of formations is over- Macar (1955, p. 259) conceded that the for- turned, individual beds generally dip to the mation of several different levels on the shale south, and the older formations overlie the may possibly have been caused by differential younger ones. These rocks appear to be part of lowering of a single surface. However, he indi- the overturned south limb of a recumbent cated that this hypothesis would not be ap- synclinorium (Gray and others, 1958). plicable on a large scale and was convinced that there were more levels than the Somerville and EROSIONAL FEATURES Harrisburg peneplains. He cited levels at 400- 440, 500-520, and 600 feet above msl as ex- Description amples. General statement. The Lebanon Valley has been divided for the purpose of study and Methods of Investigation analysis into six areas called shale areas 1, 2, 3, The geology of the area was determined 4a, and 4b, and the carbonate area (Fig.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Initiatives Master Spreadsheet Prelim Final 061813.Xlsx
    Summary of Lebanon County Clean Water Initiatives Land use where BMP applied (crop, pasture, pervious Implementation related Subwatershed where Organization responsible General recommendations Document Name Document Date Prepared For BMP/Project Amount of BMP Watershed(HUC10) Municipality of Proposed BMP Developed land, impervious Priority Ranking Watershed Threats to:Outreach, Public Education, Notes BMP implemented for implementation for action Developed land, Policy ag/suburban/urban) Lancaster Dauphin and Lebanon Counties. Majority of focus is Provides a list of restoration increased res. And non‐res. Chiques and East within Lancaster County. Headwaters of these streams located within Lebanon Chiques and East $75000 to develop restoration plan for the Chiques/Susquehanna Tri‐County Conewago protection initiatives and development/ stormwater, 2003 1 Restoration Plan Conewago Creek (State Municipalities within the Co. They are attaining their designated uses. Conewago Creek WRAS Conewago Creek River Creek Association (TCCCA funding when the report was increase water demand Water Plan Subbasin 07G) watersheds in Lebanon are South Provides TMDL info written (2003). affecting stream baseflow Londonderry, West Cornwall and Cornwall stream restoration ‐ all other Chiques Creek Chiques Creek Watershed stream restoration (identified in report as 2002 1200 Chiques Chiques West Cornwall forested reaches identified were in geomorphic and habitat assessments performed Watershed Assessment Association reach C11) Lancaster County Soil conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Implementation Plan
    Watershed Implementation Plan Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Prepared by: Quittapahilla Watershed Association May 2013 Quittapahilla Creek Watershed Implementation Plan Table of Contents Background of Quittapahilla Creek Watershed.................................................................... 1 Historic and Current Impairments ............................................................................................ 2 Total Maximum DailyLoads ......................................................................................................... 3 Watershed Modeling of Total Maximum Daily Loads ........................................................................ 4 Loading Targets and Reductions ............................................................................................... 5 Existing and Future BMP .............................................................................................................. 9 Prioritization .................................................................................................................................. 35 Technical and Financial Assistance ....................................................................................... 31 Accomplishments of Quittapahilla Watershed Association ......................................... 37 Implementation Schedule .......................................................................................................... 38 Funding Sources ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Small Streams
    Kayaking Small Streams The Yellow Breeches Creek, Cumberland County, is a great location to start your small stream kayak experience. It offers miles of easy paddling along with a water trail that highlights the paddling opportunities on this stream and provides maps that point out easy access. by Carl Haensel photos by the author Slip your kayak into the water off a country road in rural Pennsylvania, and your cares soon fade away. The forest glides by you on either side as you slip over riffles and float under bridges. Eight or ten miles pass in an afternoon as you explore a watershed far off the beaten path. A day like this spent kayaking on a small Pennsylvania stream is a day to be savored. Here are some tips, tricks and highlighted sections where you may find your own small-stream idyll. Paddling on a small stream What is small stream kayaking? For our use, a small stream in Pennsylvania is one that is less likely to receive Mixing fishing with kayaking is a great option while paddling small motorboat traffic and is best navigated by paddling. There Pennsylvania streams. Often, there are top-notch opportunities for are many streams that fit these criteria throughout the fishing for smallmouth bass, trout and other species. Target deep- Commonwealth from short, steep, rapid filled creeks water areas with good cover for fish such as large logs or other to placid, winding pastoral streams. While all paddlers submerged debris in the water. should be prepared when they hit the water, paddlers on small streams need to take extra care, because they are out of the way locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Streams Proposed Additions and Revisions January 2019
    Notice Classification of Wild Trout Streams Proposed Additions and Revisions January 2019 Under 58 Pa. Code §57.11 (relating to listing of wild trout streams), it is the policy of the Fish and Boat Commission (Commission) to accurately identify and classify stream sections supporting naturally reproducing populations of trout as wild trout streams. The Commission’s Fisheries Management Division maintains the list of wild trout streams. The Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, will from time-to-time publish the list of wild trout streams in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The listing of a stream section as a wild trout stream is a biological designation that does not determine how it is managed. The Commission relies upon many factors in determining the appropriate management of streams. At the next Commission meeting on January 14 and 15, 2019, the Commission will consider changes to its list of wild trout streams. Specifically, the Commission will consider the addition of the following streams or portions of streams to the list: County of Mouth Stream Name Section Limits Tributary To Mouth Lat/Lon UNT to Chest 40.594383 Cambria Headwaters to Mouth Chest Creek Creek (RM 30.83) 78.650396 Hubbard Hollow 41.481914 Cameron Headwaters to Mouth West Creek Run 78.375513 40.945831 Carbon Hazle Creek Headwaters to Mouth Black Creek 75.847221 Headwaters to SR 41.137289 Clearfield Slab Run Sandy Lick Creek 219 Bridge 78.789462 UNT to Chest 40.860565 Clearfield Headwaters to Mouth Chest Creek Creek (RM 1.79) 78.707129 41.132038 Clinton
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Pub 316 Bike 2/4 Revision
    Philadelphia and the Countryside PennDOT District Bicycling/Pedestrian Coordinators Steve Dunlop - District 6 Steve Pohowsky - District 5 Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Northampton, Berks and Lehigh Counties Philadelphia, and Delaware Counties 1002 Hamilton Street 7000 Geerdes Boulevard Allentown, 18101 King of Prussia, 19406 (610) 871-4490 (610) 205-6996 [email protected] Bicycle Advocacy Organizations Southeastern Pennsylvania Bicycle The Coalition for Appropriate Issues Task Force Transportation (CAT) 190 North Independence Mall West Lehigh Valley Bike/Ped Transit Center Philadelphia, 19106 60 W. Broad Street Contact: John Madera Bethlehem, 18018 (215) 238-2854 Contact: Steve Schmitt (610) 954-5744 The Bicycle Coalition of Greater [email protected] Philadelphia (BCGP) 252 S. 11th Street Philadephia, 19107 Contact: John Boyle (215) BICYCLE Planning Organizations Delaware Valley Regional Berks County Planning Commission Planning Commission Berks County Services Center 190 North Independence Mall West 633 Court Street, 14th Flr 8th Floor Reading, 19601 Philadelphia, 19106 (610) 478-6300 Contact: John Madera Contact: Michael Golembiewski (215) 238-2854 [email protected] [email protected] www.co.berks.pa.us/planning Lehigh Valley Planning Commission 961 Marcon Boulevard, Suite 310 Allentown, 18109 (610) 264-4544 Contact: Joe Gurinko [email protected] Philadelphia and the Countryside 28 Tourism Promotion Agencies/Convention and Visitors Bureaus Bucks County Conference Lebanon Valley Exposition Corporation and Visitors Bureau, Inc 80 Rocherty Road 3207 Street Road, Bensalem, 19020 Lebanon, PA 17042 (800) 836-2825 (717) 273-3670 www.buckscountycvb.org www.visitlebanoncounty.com Brandywine Conference Lehigh Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau and Visitor’s Bureau One Beaver Valley Road, Chadds Ford, 19317 840 Hamilton Street, Suite 200 (800) 343-3983 Allentown, 18101 www.brandywinecvb.org (800) 747-0561 www.lehighvalleypa.org Chester Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Conewago Creek Watershed Implementation Plan Update
    Conewago Creek Watershed Implementation Plan Update Plan Sponsors: Tri-County Conewago Creek Association Report Prepared by: January 2021 Contents Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... v Units of Measure ......................................................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction and Project Background ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Previous Watershed Planning in the Conewago Creek Watershed ............................................. 1 1.2 Clean Water Act Section 319 Eligibility ......................................................................................... 3 2. Watershed Description .................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Land use ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Soils ..............................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • 2017 Lebanon Valley College Football Oct
    2017 Lebanon Valley College Football Oct. 21 2017 | 1 p.m. | Mangelsdorf Field | The Sixth Meeting LEBANON VALLEY at MISERICORDIA Five Things Lebanon Valley is fresh off earning a signature win over Stevenson on 1) Lebanon Valley earned a signature victory Homecoming a week ago. The Flying Dutchmen will look to keep that over Stevenson last weekend. momentum rolling when they travel to take on Misericordia on Satur- 2) LVC has never lost to Misericordia and leads day. LVC has never lost to the Cougars. the all-time series 5-0. 3) Tim Schumacher and Tyler Hodges earned team’s first-ever trip to Mangelsdorf Field back in MAC Weekly Awards thanks to their performanc- Game Coverage 2013 … LVC topped the Cougars 47-7 at Arnold Field es in last week’s win. Schumacher also earned The game will be broadcast on the Flying Dutchmen in Misericordia’s inaugural MAC game in 2012 - That ECAC POTW recognition. Radio Network on WMSS 91.1 FM in Middletown and contest was also the first football game played on 4) The Dutchmen have recovered 15 fumbles on WWSM 1510 AM in Lebanon County. John Wilsbach artificial turf at Arnold Field … LVC’s average margin the season; a number that ranks first in the MAC. and Steve Leedy are back this season to call the of victory in the previous five meetings is an impres- 5) Misericoridia currently ranks dead last in action. The game will be streamed live and for free sive 28 points per game. the conference in points allowed and passing on the TuneIn app, as well as at WMSSFM.com and defense, as well as second to last in rushing on GoDutchmen.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Time Warner Cable ) CSR-4741-A ) for Modification of the Philadelphia, ) Pennsylvania ADI )
    Federal Communications Commission DA 96-1694 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In re: ) ) Time Warner Cable ) CSR-4741-A ) For Modification of the Philadelphia, ) Pennsylvania ADI ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Adopted: October 8, 1996 Released: October 15, 1996 By the Deputy Chief, Cable Services Bureau: INTRODUCTION 1. On May 9, 1996, Time Warner Cable filed the above-captioned petition for special relief seeking to modify the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Area of Dominant Influence ("ADI") of Station WTGI-TV (Ind., Ch. 61), Wilmington, Delaware. Specifically, Time Warner requests that WTGI-TV be excluded from the Philadelphia ADI relative to the communities it serves on three separate cable systems in Berks County, Pennsylvania,1 for the purposes of the cable television mandatory broadcast signal carriage rules. WTGI-TV filed an opposition to this petition to which Time Warner replied. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to §614 of the Communications Act and implementing rules adopted by the Commission in its Report and Order in MM Docket 92-259,2 a commercial television ©The three Time Warner cable systems located in Berks County operate under the names of BerksCable, Hamburg Cable and Lebanon Valley Cable. BerksCable serves the communities of Alsace Township, Bern Township, Bernville, Brecknock Township, Cumru Township, Exeter Township, Heidelberg Township, Jefferson Township, Kenhorst, Laureldale, Lower Alsace Township, Lower Heidelberg Township, Maidencreek Township, Mohntown, ML Penn, Muhlenberg Township, North Heidelberg Township, Oley Township, Ontelaunee Township, Penn Township, Reading, Ruscombmanor Township, Sinking Spring, South Heidelberg Township, Spring Township, Shillington, Temple, Tilden Township, Upper Bern Township, Upper Tulpehocken Township, Wemersville, West Lawn, West Reading, Wyomissing, and Wyomissing Hills, Pennsylvania.
    [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]