DOCSLIB.ORG

Conowingo Pond Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conowingo Pond Management Plan Conowingo Pond Management Plan Publication No. 242 June 2006 SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Paul O. Swartz, Executive Director Denise M. Sheehan, N.Y. Commissioner Kenneth P. Lynch, N.Y. Alternate Scott J. Foti, N.Y. Alternate/Advisor Kathleen A. McGinty, Pa. Commissioner Cathy C. Curran Myers, Pa. Alternate William A. Gast, Pa. Alternate/Advisor Kendl P. Philbrick, Md. Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Summers, Md. Alternate Matthew G. Pajerowski, Md. Alternate/Advisor Major General William T. Grisoli, U.S. Commissioner Colonel Robert J. Davis, Jr., U.S. Alternate Colonel Francis X. Kosich, U.S. Alternate Daniel M. Bierly, U.S. Advisor The Susquehanna River Basin Commission was created as an independent agency by a federal-interstate compact* among the states of Maryland, New York, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the federal government. In creating the Commission, the Congress and state legislatures formally recognized the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin as a regional asset vested with local, state, and national interests for which all the parties share responsibility. As the single federal-interstate water resources agency with basinwide authority, the Commission’s goal is to coordinate the planning, conservation, management, utilization, development and control of basin water resources among the public and private sectors. *Statutory Citations: Federal - Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509 (December 1970); Maryland - Natural Resources Sec. 8-301 (Michie 1974); New York - ECL Sec. 21-1301 (McKinney 1973); and Pennsylvania - 32 P.S. 820.1 (Supp. 1976). This report is available on our website (www.srbc.net) by selecting Public Information/Technical Reports. For a CD Rom or for a hard copy, contact the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 1721 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, Pa. 17102-2391, (717) 238-0423, FAX (717) 238-2436, E-mail: [email protected]. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 7 A. Purpose and Objectives .....................................................................................................7 B. Background of Conowingo Dam and Pond....................................................................... 8 C. Conowingo Pond Workgroup............................................................................................ 9 II. THE RESOURCES AND USES OF THE CONOWINGO POND....................................... 13 A. Fishery Resources ........................................................................................................... 13 B. Hydroelectric Power........................................................................................................ 13 C. Public Water Supply........................................................................................................ 14 D. Thermoelectric Power ..................................................................................................... 15 E. Recreational ..................................................................................................................... 15 F. Future Project................................................................................................................... 16 III. EXISTING PROBLEMS, ISSUES, AND OPPORTUNITIES ............................................ 17 A. Review of Various Interests in Pond’s Resources .......................................................... 17 B. Minimum Releases and the 1988 Settlement Agreement................................................ 20 C. Low Flow Operations...................................................................................................... 21 D. Identification of Existing Problems and Issues ............................................................... 23 E. Opportunities for Improvements...................................................................................... 25 IV. PLANNING PROCESS AND INITIAL SCREENING....................................................... 27 A. Hydrologic Model Development and Verification.......................................................... 27 B. Performance Measures .................................................................................................... 36 C. Baseline Conditions......................................................................................................... 37 D. Operational Alternatives Considered .............................................................................. 38 E. Computer-Aided Negotiations......................................................................................... 40 F. Model Results .................................................................................................................. 42 V. PREFERRED OPERATION ALTERNATIVES .................................................................. 45 A. Description of Preferred Alternatives ............................................................................. 45 B. Evaluation of Preferred Alternatives............................................................................... 47 C. Conclusions and Refinement of Alternatives.................................................................. 49 VI. DISCUSSION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE............................................................... 53 VII. CONOWINGO POND MANAGEMENT PLAN............................................................... 57 A. Description of the Conowingo Pond Management Plan ................................................. 57 B. Implementation of the Management Plan........................................................................ 57 C. Operation of the Management Plan................................................................................. 58 D. Related Actions by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission ..................................... 60 E. Long-Term Benefits......................................................................................................... 61 VIII. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND ACTIONS........................................................ 63 iii FIGURES Figure I-1. Location of Conowingo Dam and Pond ...................................................................... 9 Figure I-2. Facilities in the Vicinity of the Conowingo Pond...................................................... 10 Figure III-1. Important Operating Elevations (Conowingo Datum) of Conowingo Pond........... 22 Figure IV-1. Locations of Stream Gages Used in Development of Hydrologic Record ............. 29 Figure IV-2. Schematic of Hydrologic Model Coverage............................................................. 30 Figure IV-3. Schematic of Detailed Model Coverage in Lower Susquehanna Basin ................. 31 Figure IV-4. Modeled vs. Historic Marietta Flow in 2002.......................................................... 34 Figure IV-5. Modeled vs. Historic Conowingo Pond Stages in 2002 ......................................... 35 Figure IV-6. Modeled vs. Historic Conowingo Dam Flow Releases in 2002 ............................. 35 TABLES Table IV-1. Stream Gages Used in Development of the Hydrologic Record.............................. 28 Table IV-2. Alternative Operational Plans Evaluated During Computer-Aided Negotiations ... 41 Table V-1. Selected Results of the Final Four Alternatives ........................................................ 50 APPENDICES Appendix 1. Conowingo Pond Workgroup Input.........................................................................65 Appendix 2. Model Development and Verification......................................................................91 Appendix 3. Model Results and Evaluation of Alternatives.......................................................115 Cover Photo (courtesy of Exelon Generation, Inc.): Looking north at Conowingo dam with the pond in the upper portion of the photo. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Conowingo Pond Workgroup members were instrumental in the successful development of the selected management plan for the pond and preparation of the Workgroup’s report, which served as the basis for this report by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. The actively involved members, whose efforts were both important and appreciated, are listed below. Chester Water Authority – Brian MacEwen, Pat Stabler City of Baltimore – Sam Grant, Ed Huff; Frank Donaldson and Tom DiLego (Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates) City of Havre de Grace – Donna Costango Conectiv Mid Merit, LLC – Stu Widom Exelon Generation, Inc. – Al Ryan, Tracy Siglin Harford County – Jackie Ludwig Lancaster County – Mary Frey Maryland Department of the Environment –Mat Pajerowski*, John Smith Maryland Department of Natural Resources – Rich McLean, Steve Schreiner (Versar, Inc.) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection – Bill Gast Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission – Mike Hendricks PPL Corporation – Chris Porse Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation – Dick Johnson Susquehanna Electric – Don Baldwin, Ron Smith Susquehanna River Basin Commission – Tom Beauduy, Drew Dehoff, Dave Ladd U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Bill Haines U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Dick St. Pierre York County – John Seitz *Served as chairman of the Workgroup. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission retained the services of HydroLogics, Inc. of Columbia, Maryland, for assistance in the technical, water management,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5
    NON-TIDAL BENTHIC MONITORING DATABASE: Version 3.5 DATABASE DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND DATA DICTIONARY 1 June 2013 Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21403 Prepared By: Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 By Jacqueline Johnson Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin To receive additional copies of the report please call or write: The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 51 Monroe Street, PE-08 Rockville, Maryland 20850 301-984-1908 Funds to support the document The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.0; Database Design Documentation And Data Dictionary was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency Grant CB- CBxxxxxxxxxx-x Disclaimer The opinion expressed are those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the U.S. Government, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the several states or the signatories or Commissioners to the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin: Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia or the District of Columbia. ii The Non-Tidal Benthic Monitoring Database: Version 3.5 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pearly Mussels in NY State Susquehanna Watershed Paul H
    Pearly mussels in NY State Susquehanna Watershed Paul H. Lord, Willard N. Harman & Timothy N. Pokorny Introduction Preliminary Results Discussion Pearly mussels (unionids) New unionid SGCN identified • Mobile substrates appear exacerbated endangered native mollusks in Susquehanna River Watershed by surge stormwater inputs • Life cycle complex • Eastern Pearlshell (Margaritifera margaritifera) - made worse by impervious surfaces - includes fish parasitism -- in Otselic River headwaters • Unionids impacted - involves watershed quality parameters Historical SGCN found in many locations by ↓O2, siltation, endocrine disrupting chemicals • 4 Species of Greatest Conservation Need • Regularly downstream of extended riffle - from human watershed use (SGCN) historically found • Require minimally mobile substrates • River location consistency with old maps in NY State Susquehanna Watershed • No observed wastewater treatment plant impact associated with ↑ unionids - Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) -adult unionids more easily observed - Green Floater (Lasmigona subviridis) Table 1. NYSDEC freshwater pearly mussel “species of greatest conservation need” (SGCN) observed in the Upper Susquehanna from kayaks - Yellow Lamp Mussel (Lampsilis cariosa) Watershed while mapping and searching rivers in the summers of 2008 Elktoe -Elktoe (Alasmidonta marginata) and 2009. Brook Floater = Alasmidonta varicosa; elktoe = Alasmidonta • Prior sampling done where convenient marginata; green floater = Lasmigona subviridis; yellow lamp mussel = - normally at intersection
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Darter Etheostoma Sellare
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Maryland darter Etheostoma Sellare Introduction The Maryland darter is a small freshwater fish only known from a limited area in Harford County, Maryland. These areas, Swan Creek, Gashey’s Run (a tributary of Swan Creek) and Deer Creek, are part of the larger Susquehanna River drainage basin. Originally discovered in Swan Creek nymphs. Spawning is assumed to species of darters. Electrotrawling is in 1912, the Maryland darter has not occur during late April, based on other the method of towing a net from a boat been seen here since and only small species, but no Maryland darters have with electrodes attached to the net that numbers of individuals have been been observed during reproduction. send small, harmless pulses through found in Gashey’s Run and Deer the water to stir up fish. Electrofishing Creek. A Rare Species efforts in the Susquehanna are Some biologists suspect that the continuing. Due to its scarcity, the Maryland Maryland darter could be hiding darter was federally listed as in the deep, murky waters of the A lack of adequate surveying of endangered in 1967, and critical Susquehanna River. Others worry large rivers in the past due to limited habitat was designated in 1984. The that the decreased darter population technology leaves hope for finding darter is also state listed. The last is evidence that the desirable habitat Maryland darters in this area. The new known sighting of the darter was in for these fish has diminished, possibly studies would likely provide definitive 1988. due to water quality degradation and information on the population status effects of residential development of the Maryland darter and a basis for Characteristics in the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Settlement Hearing Brief of Sierra Club And
    Maillog Number: ________________; Date filed: May 1, 2015 STATE OF MARYLAND BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In the Matter of the ) Merger of Exelon Corporation and ) Case No. 9361 Pepco Holdings, Inc. ) POST-SETTLEMENT HEARING BRIEF OF THE SIERRA CLUB AND CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK Charles McPhedran, Esq. Susan Stevens Miller, Esq. admitted pro hac vice Earthjustice Earthjustice 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1675 Suite 702 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Washington, DC 20036 215.717.4520 202.667.4500 212.918.1556 [fax] 202.667.2356 [fax] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for the Sierra Club and Chesapeake Climate Action Network MAY 1, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4 I. Contrary to Applicants’ Assertion, the March 16 Settlement Does Not Include “Critical Parties.” ............................................................................................................................... 4 II. Exelon’s Commitment to Develop 15 MW of Solar is Designed Solely to Meet Exelon’s Statutory Obligations .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Landscaping at the Water's Edge
    LANDSCAPING/GARDENING/ECOLOGY No matter where you live in New Hampshire, the actions you take in your landscape can have far-reaching effects on water quality. Why? Because we are all connected to the water cycle and we all live in a watershed. A watershed is the LANDSCAPING land area that drains into a surface water body such as a lake, river, wetland or coastal estuary. at the Water’sAN ECOLOGICAL APPROACHEdge LANDSCAPING Landscaping at the Water’s Edge is a valuable resource for anyone concerned with the impact of his or her actions on the environment. This book brings together the collective expertise of many UNH Cooperative Extension specialists and educators and an independent landscape designer. Unlike many garden design books that are full of glitz and glamour but sorely lacking in substance, this affordable book addresses important ecological issues and empowers readers by giving an array of workable at the Water’s Edge solutions for real-world situations. ~Robin Sweetser, Concord Monitor columnist, garden writer for Old Farmer’s Almanac, and NH Home Magazine Landscaping at the Water’s Edge provides hands-on tools that teach us about positive change. It’s an excellent resource for the gardener, the professional landscaper, designer, and landscape architect—to learn how to better dovetail our landscapes with those of nature. ~Jon Batson, President, NH Landscape Association Pictured here are the : A major river watersheds in N ECOLOGICAL APPROACH New Hampshire. This guide explains how our landscaping choices impact surface and ground waters and demonstrates how, with simple observation, ecologically based design, and low impact maintenance practices, you can protect, and even improve, the quality of our water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Event of 4/5/1941 - 4/7/1941
    Flood Event of 4/5/1941 - 4/7/1941 Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Chemung 16.00 4/6/1941 16.92 55,300 Minor Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 4/6/1941 30.09 -9,999 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Main Stem Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Monroeton 14.00 4/5/1941 14.20 8,640 Minor Upper Main Stem Towanda Creek Bradford Bradford Susquehanna Towanda 16.00 4/6/1941 18.47 122,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Bradford Bradford Susquehanna Wilkes-Barre 22.00 4/7/1941 23.50 138,000 Minor Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Luzerne Luzerne Susquehanna North Branch Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Chenango Forks 10.00 4/7/1941 11.86 29,000 Minor North Branch Chenango River Broome Broome Susquehanna Cincinnatus 9.00 4/6/1941 9.44 4,980 Minor North Branch Otselic River Cortland Cortland Susquehanna Conklin 11.00 4/6/1941 13.40 24,900 Minor North Branch North Branch Broome Broome Susquehanna Susquehanna River Cortland 8.00 4/6/1941 12.49 7,880 Moderate North Branch Tioughnioga River Cortland Cortland Susquehanna Sherburne 8.00 4/6/1941 9.25 4,960 Moderate North Branch Chenango River Chenango Chenango Susquehanna Vestal 18.00 4/7/1941 20.29 53,400 Minor North Branch North Branch Broome Broome Susquehanna Susquehanna River Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 2 Waverly 11.00 4/6/1941 14.75 68,500 Minor North Branch North Branch Bradford Tioga Susquehanna Susquehanna River Weather Summary The weather summary is unavailable at this time.
    [Show full text]
  • 20200025E.Pdf
    CONTENTS LETTER FROM THE GOVERNOR 3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 4 LETTER FROM THE DIRECTOR 5 MISSION AND VISION 6 ORGANIZATION CHART 7 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 9 ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATIONS 14 CURRENT AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS 17 2017 HIGHLIGHTS 19 TEAMMATE MILESTONES 20 PARTNERS AND VENDORS 22 Barge off Poplar Island 2 MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR Our administration is committed to providing a quality education for our children, growing our economy, and working to ensure that every Marylander enjoys the benefits of a healthy and clean environment. Since taking office, we have made unprecedented investments in our environment, and are moving forward on high-priority initiatives, like the pilot dredging project at the Conowingo Dam, that help ensure the long-term health of the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland Environmental Service (MES) is currently working on over 900 projects that have a significant impact on the health of the Bay and directly affects the quality of life for our citizens throughout the state. While we have made incredible strides over the past three years, there is still more work to do to ensure Maryland remains the best place to live, work, and raise a family. Working with state and local partners, MES will continue to fulfill its mission of protecting and enhancing Maryland’s environment for our citizens. In 2016, our administration launched the Customer Service Promise, a program designed to foster improvements in customer service across all Maryland state agencies. At the Maryland Environmental Service, this means a commitment to finding innovative solutions to our region’s most complex environmental challenges that will preserve our precious natural resources for generations to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Returning the American Eel to the Susquehanna River
    Returning the American Eel to the Susquehanna River ph ot o- Jo sh D . T r y n in e w s k by Josh D. Tryninewski i Fisheries Biologist PFBC Anadromous Fish Restoration Unit photo-USFWS The Susquehanna River once supported tremendous numbers of a long-lived and highly migratory fish that looked more like a snake than a fish. The American Eel (Anguilla rostrata) with its slimy, slender, elongated body, slithering movements, and reclusive and nocturnal lifestyle can conjure up feelings of fright and disgust to the unsuspecting angler. However, the misunderstood American Eel has a complex and fascinating life history with environmental importance that has gained A Normandeau appreciation, understanding and a refreshed restoration focus Associates Biologist counts American in recent years. photo-Josh Tryninewski The American Eel is a catadromous fish that requires access Eels at the Conowingo to both freshwater and marine environments to complete its Dam eel collection facility. life cycle. The entire population, which ranges from Greenland to northern South America, spawns in the Sargasso Sea. Young eels are then transported by ocean currents to the Atlantic Unfortunately, historical abundance was severely impacted Coast, where the eels move into estuaries and freshwater rivers by human activities, mainly dam building. Since the early to grow and mature. Juvenile eels are around 2- to 3-years- 1900s, the lower Susquehanna River has been harnessed by old and 4- to 6-inches in length when migration into the four large hydroelectric dams. While providing electricity to Susquehanna River begins. However, when mature, adult eels many communities, the dams effectively closed the river to may be 7- to 40-years-old and 3- to 5-feet in length.
    [Show full text]
  • Studying and Fishing for Invasive Flathead Catfish in the Susquehanna River Watershed
    River Monsters – Studying and fishing for invasive flathead catfish in the Susquehanna River watershed. Unfortunately, Maryland is now home to two non-native, invasive catfish species -- flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) and blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus). Both of these species are native to the Mississippi River watershed and were recently introduced into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Both species grow very large (more than 100 pounds) and are highly predatory in nature. As their numbers increase, they pose a serious threat to our native and naturalized fish populations. Because of this, we ask that anglers harvest any blue or flathead catfish they catch. Click Here to learn more about invasive catfish species and how to identify them! Understanding the Adversary - Flathead catfish have been reported in Maryland’s portion of the Susquehanna and Conowingo Reservoir since the early 2000’s but were not collected during routine fisheries surveys until 2010. Following this, the most common sampling technique- boat electrofishing was utilized at first to try to collect individuals for study. Unfortunately, these efforts failed to effectively collect flathead catfish in the two areas. In 2017, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Freshwater Fisheries Program joined an ongoing study being conducted by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to study flathead catfish populations within the Susquehanna River watershed. These studies entail collecting flatheads above and below Conowingo Dam using baited hoop nets. Total length and weight are recorded from each fish collected. Additionally, the otoliths (the fish’s ear bone) from each fish is extracted and examined to determine the fish’s age.
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna Riyer Drainage Basin
    'M, General Hydrographic Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 109 Series -j Investigations, 13 .N, Water Power, 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR HYDROGRAPHY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIYER DRAINAGE BASIN BY JOHN C. HOYT AND ROBERT H. ANDERSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 0 5 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittaL_.__.______.____.__..__.___._______.._.__..__..__... 7 Introduction......---..-.-..-.--.-.-----............_-........--._.----.- 9 Acknowledgments -..___.______.._.___.________________.____.___--_----.. 9 Description of drainage area......--..--..--.....-_....-....-....-....--.- 10 General features- -----_.____._.__..__._.___._..__-____.__-__---------- 10 Susquehanna River below West Branch ___...______-_--__.------_.--. 19 Susquehanna River above West Branch .............................. 21 West Branch ....................................................... 23 Navigation .--..........._-..........-....................-...---..-....- 24 Measurements of flow..................-.....-..-.---......-.-..---...... 25 Susquehanna River at Binghamton, N. Y_-..---...-.-...----.....-..- 25 Ghenango River at Binghamton, N. Y................................ 34 Susquehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa......_............-...----_--. 43 Susquehanna River at Danville, Pa..........._..................._... 56 West Branch at Williamsport, Pa .._.................--...--....- _ - - 67 West Branch at Allenwood, Pa.....-........-...-.._.---.---.-..-.-.. 84 Juniata River at Newport, Pa...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.-
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: a Water Quality and Biological Assessment, June – September 2007
    Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: A Water Quality and Biological Assessment, June – September 2007 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducted a water quality and biological survey of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin from June to September 2007. This survey is part of SRBC’s Subbasin Survey Program, which is funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Subbasin Survey Program consists of two- year assessments in each of the six major subbasins (Figure 1) on a rotating schedule. This report details the Year-1 survey, which consists of point-in-time water chemistry, macroinvertebrate, and habitat data collection and assessments of the major tributaries and areas of interest throughout the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin. The Year-2 survey will be conducted in the Tioughnioga River over a one-year time period beginning in summer 2008. The Year-2 survey is part of a larger monitoring effort associated with an environmental restoration effort at Whitney Point Lake. Previous SRBC surveys of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin were conducted in 1998 (Stoe, 1999) and 1984 (McMorran, 1985). Subbasin survey information is used by SRBC staff and others to: • evaluate the chemical, biological, and habitat conditions of streams in the basin; • identify major sources of pollution and lengths of streams impacted; • identify high quality sections of streams that need to be protected; • maintain a database that can be used to document changes in stream quality over time; • review projects affecting water quality in the basin; and • identify areas for more intensive study. Description of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin The Upper Susquehanna Subbasin is an interstate subbasin that drains approximately 4,950 square miles of southcentral New York and a small portion of northeastern Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]