DOCSLIB.ORG

Least-Disturbed Streams” (LDS)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Least-Disturbed Streams” (LDS) 9. Least-Disturbed Stream (LDS) Reaches High-quality stream reaches, sometimes called Stream reaches for the LDS analysis are the “reference streams,” are often used to identify stream segments defined by EPA Reach Files aquatic habitats that are representative of the best version 3.0 or “RF3 stream reaches” (Dewald possible stream condition. Reference streams, and Olsen 1994). Using GIS, each stream reach generally identified using biological assem- was joined with information about its position in blages, ideally have little disturbance from the watershed, local environmental character- human influences, and the biota found there istics and landscape information about the demonstrate natural ecological function. A watershed that drains to each stream reach. drawback to this type of analysis is that only streams that have biological samples can be considered for reference streams. In our study, we used landscape-level attributes of watersheds to select streams with the least amount of relative disturbance in the ACC study area (Figure 9-1). This allowed for an all-inclusive assessment of stream quality which was not limited to locations where biological data have been collected. These streams are referred to here as “Least-Disturbed Streams” (LDS). To select LDS reaches systematically across our © PNHP study region, we chose a suite of 10 landscape- level variables that serve as indicators of overall Limestone Run in Fayette Co., PA is an example of a size 2 watershed quality. This method acts as a Least-Disturbed Stream (LDS). surrogate for time-consuming and costly on-the- ground field visits to individual stream locations. Data Used A key benefit of landscape-level analysis, as opposed to field visits, is that every stream reach Catchment land cover variables in the study area receives the same standardized level of information. Different types of land use (agricultural, urban, forested, etc.) within a watershed often influence The variables used in our study were chosen for water quality, habitat quality, channel condition two reasons: 1) the data were available for the and the hydrology of streams. The land cover entire study area and 2) the variables provide metrics used in this analysis were derived from information about the degree of disturbance and the 1992 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD), the ecological integrity of stream systems. Ten obtained from USGS (http://seamless. usgs.gov). variables were chosen that represent variations in Using totals of catchment land cover type, point and non-point source pollution, hydrologic proportions of land cover categories were regime, stream connectivity and quality of calculated for the catchment of each stream riparian habitat (Table 9-1). reach. The categories were: • Catchment Urbanization – This category of land Table 9-1. Landscape-level variables associated with RF3 cover was categorized as the sum of “Low stream reaches in GIS used to select least-disturbed stream (LDS) reaches. See text for descriptions of data Intensity Residential”, “High Intensity and sources. Residential” and “Commercial/ Industrial/ Transportation” land cover categories. Catchment Urbanization Riparian Urbanization (impervious) (impervious) • Catchment Agriculture – Land cover in this Catchment Agriculture category was divided into two types: Riparian Agriculture (non-row crop) Catchment Agriculture Riparian Forest Cover 1. Non-row crops – NLCD categories (row crop) “pasture/hay”, “small grains”, “fallow” and # Catchment Road Catchment Forest Cover “urban/recreational grasses”. Crossings # Catchment Point Sources # Catchment Dams 9-1 9-2 Figure 9-1. Least-Disturbed Stream (LDS) reaches for the ACC study area.9-2 See table 9-1 for listing of GIS variables used in the analysis. 2. Row crops – From the “row crop” NLCD in the upstream catchment was enumerated for land cover class. Row crops were used as a each stream reach. Point sources were identified separate land cover class because of their as mines, industrial discharges and permitted potential to contribute different kinds and discharges. Any of these point sources may levels of pollutants to stream systems than non-row crop agriculture. contribute potential toxins to the watershed, degrade water quality and alter stream habitats. • Catchment Forest Cover – This land cover type Although toxin type and amount may differ from represents the sum of different forest types in source to source, the number of point sources can NLCD: “deciduous forest”, “evergreen forest” be an indicator of overall watershed health. and “mixed forest”. Datasets used for point source information (see Riparian land cover variables Appendix A for more information): The types of vegetation and land use in riparian • Mines – USBM Mineral Availability System zones can have localized effects on water (http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/ minerals/pubs) quality, habitat condition, channel alteration and hydrologic regime in streams. The proportion of • Industrial point sources: land cover types in a 100-m buffer for each o Superfund/CERCLIS (EPA Comprehensive stream reach was also calculated using the 1992 Environmental Response, Compensation, NLCD layer (http://seamless.usgs.gov). Riparian and Liability Information System, www.epa.gov/superfund) statistics were not used in the determination of o IFD (Industrial Facilities Discharge, size 4 LDS reaches. www.epa.gov/ost/ basins) o TRI (Toxic Release Inventory Facilities, • Riparian Agriculture – Collective proportion of www.epa.gov/enviro/ NLCD agricultural categories - “row crops”, html/tris/tris_overview.html) “pasture/hay”, “small grains”, “fallow and o Permitted discharges - PCS (EPA/OW urban/recreational grasses”. Permit Compliance System, www.epa.gov/owmitnet/ pcsguide.htm) • Riparian Urbanization (Impervious) – Collective proportion of NLCD urbanization/impervious Number of catchment dams surface categories: “low intensity residential”, “high intensity residential” and “commercial/ The presence of dams can alter natural process of industrial/transportation”. lotic systems such as temperature dynamics, • Riparian Forest Cover – Collective proportion of flow regimes and the transport of nutrients and NLCD forest categories: “deciduous forest”, sediments. In-stream habitats are altered and “evergreen forest” and “mixed forest”. connectivity among aquatic habitats is disrupted. The total number of dams in the catchment Number of catchment road-stream crossings catchment areas was counted for each stream reach. Data on dam locations were acquired from Runoff from roads leads to pollution from the National Inventory of Dams petroleum products, metals and other toxins. In (www.epa.gov/OST/ BASINS). small headwater streams, otherwise intact water- sheds may be disturbed by sediment runoff from LDS Calculations roads. Improperly maintained bridges and culverts at road-stream crossings may lead to Stream reaches were separated into four size habitat and channel alteration. classes (based on watershed area; Table 9-2), so that reference criteria could be assigned to each The number of intersections of roads and streams size class independently. in the upstream catchment were summarized for each stream reach. Roads identified in the In order to identify the Least-Disturbed Streams Census 2000 Tiger line files (http://www.census. (LDS) in the study area regardless of physical gov/geo/www/tiger) were used in the analysis. habitat or ecological regions, we applied one set of criteria to all stream reaches in the region. Number of catchment point sources This was done by finding the cut-off values that showed the top 10% least disturbed streams for The number of point-source pollution discharges each of the 10 different metrics individually (for 9-3 each size class). These cut-off values were then calcareous streams out to determine where the applied to all reaches simultaneously and relaxed least-disturbed examples of this unique stream accordingly until 10% (± 0.3%) of stream type exist. reaches were selected (Table 9-3, Figure 9-1). Crystalline Silicic and Crystalline Mafic Geo- Table 9-2. Size class categories used in the ACC project. logy Streams: These two geology types are found Classes were adapted from those used by The Nature in the southeast corner of Pennsylvania (Figure Conservancy for stream conservation work (Anderson and Olivero 2003). 8-1). Crystalline rocks are formed from solution, such as igneous rock. This is in contrast to sedi- Size Class Watershed Size mentary rock like sandstone, which is formed from the layering and compaction of sediments. 0 – 2 mi2 1. Headwater stream 2 Both crystalline rock types contain certain (0 – 5.2 km ) elements that can leave unique signatures in 3 – 10 mi2 stream water; crystalline silicic rock contains 2. Small stream 2 (5.2 – 25.9 km ) high amounts of silica, while crystalline mafic 11 – 100 mi2 rocks can leave traces of calcium, sodium, iron 3. Mid-reach stream (25.9 – 259.0 km2) and magnesium in surface water. Furthermore, Over 100 mi2 these geology types are found in highly 4. Large streams and rivers (>259.0 km2) populated areas of southeastern Pennsylvania; water quality issues associated with urban Specialized LDS Criteria streams (e.g., stormwater runoff and municipal discharges) may compound or mask the effects Because human settlement, land use and of these unique geologies. pollution patterns can follow regional boundaries, some areas of the study region had © PNHP few or no reference streams identified in the first analysis (Figure 9.1). To identify the best remaining
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Luzerne County Act 167 Phase II Stormwater Management Plan
    Executive Summary Luzerne County Act 167 Phase II Stormwater Management Plan 613 Baltimore Drive, Suite 300 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 Voice: 570.821.1999 Fax: 570.821.1990 www.borton-lawson.com 3893 Adler Place, Suite 100 Bethlehem, PA 18017 Voice: 484.821.0470 Fax: 484.821.0474 Submitted to: Luzerne County Planning Commission 200 North River Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 June 30, 2010 Project Number: 2008-2426-00 LUZERNE COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction This Stormwater Management Plan has been developed for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania to comply with the requirements of the 1978 Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act, Act 167. This Plan is the initial county-wide Stormwater Management Plan for Luzerne County, and serves as a Plan Update for the portions or all of six (6) watershed-based previously approved Act 167 Plans including: Bowman’s Creek (portion located in Luzerne County), Lackawanna River (portion located in Luzerne County), Mill Creek, Solomon’s Creek, Toby Creek, and Wapwallopen Creek. This report is developed to document the reasoning, methodologies, and requirements necessary to implement the Plan. The Plan covers legal, engineering, and municipal government topics which, combined, form the basis for implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan. It is the responsibility of the individual municipalities located within the County to adopt this Plan and the associated Ordinance to provide a consistent methodology for the management of stormwater throughout the County. The Plan was managed and administered by the Luzerne County Planning Commission in consultation with Borton-Lawson, Inc. The Luzerne County Planning Commission Project Manager was Nancy Snee.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation and Site Characterization of the Surface and Underground Mines Hydrologically Connected to the Brandy Camp Discharge May 4, 2011
    Investigation and Site Characterization of the Surface and Underground Mines Hydrologically Connected to the Brandy Camp Discharge May 4, 2011 2400 2000 1600 1200 800 Flow in gpm Flow 400 Report of Investigation and Characterization of the Brandy Camp Discharge and 0 Background Post Construction Investigation and Site Characterization of the Surface and Underground Mines Hydrologically Connected to the Brandy Camp Discharge Jay W. Hawkins Hydrologist Appalachian Region Pittsburgh, PA Explanation: This investigation and report were conducted by personnel of the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement, Technical Support Division, Water and Engineering Services Branch of the Appalachian Region based in Pittsburgh, PA. This work was performed at the request of and in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR), Cambria Office in Ebensburg, PA. The hydrogeologic work was primarily conducted by hydrologist Jay W. Hawkins with considerable help of Jon Smoyer, Licensed Professional Geologist, of BAMR. The extensive mapping for this project was conducted by Lukus Monette, physical scientist, Technology Services Branch. Cover Photographs: Pre-aeration of the Brandy Camp discharge (upper left), sludge pond clean out at the Toby Creek treatment facilities (upper right), original broad-crested weir (middle left), notched box-and-whisker plot comparing background discharge rate to the rate post-plant construction (lower left) and well used for the test injection of Toby Creek facilities sludge (lower right). Acknowledgements: The author wishes to thank Joe Tarantino of the Knox District Office of the PADEP for his help in data collection in the course of this investigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Mines in the Windermere Valley
    Mines in the Windermere Valley Windermere Valley Museum and Archives Invermere B.C. 250-342-9769 www.windermerevalleymuseum.ca [email protected] Compiled by Alex Weller, 2013 2 Index Mineral King Mine………………………….………………...… 3 Paradise Mine…………………………………..……………… 5 Ptarmigan Mine………………………………….………..….... 7 Delphine Mine…………………………………….……………. 8 Thunderbird (Excelda) Mine………………….………………. 9 Hot Punch Mine…………………………………….………….. 10 Lead Queen Mine……………………………………………… 11 B.C. & Tilbury…………………………………………..………. 12 Issac Group…………………………………………………….. 13 Sitting Bull Group………………………………………………. 14 Swansea………………………………………………………… 15 Gypsum Mine…………………………………………………… 16 Bunyan Mine……………………………………………………. 17 Giant/ Giant Mineral/ Silver Giant/ Giant Mascot……………… 18 Thunderhill…………………………………..………………… 20 Ruth Vermont…………………………………………………… 22 Mountain Minerals……………………………………………… 23 Other Claims……………………………………………………. 24-32 Glossary of Terms…………………………………….…………. 33-34 Did we miss something important? Unfortunately, the creators of this text do not know everything, and we are always looking to improve our material. If you have more information about any of these mining sites, or if there is an additional site that you think should be included, please don’t hesitate to contact us. A map of approximate mine locations is available for viewing at the museum, which is open seven days a week from June-September, and one day a week during the winter months. Please see our website or look for us on Facebook for more details. All text is copyright to Windermere Valley Museum and Archives in Invermere, B.C. 3 Mineral King Mine 1895-1975 (off and on) Location: 25 miles up Toby Creek, at an elevation of 5,500ft, on the Toby Creek side of the ridge between Jumbo and Toby Creeks. Minerals extracted: Lead, zinc, silver, copper, cadmium, and barite. With some small exceptions, the ore was not good enough for profit without a concentrator.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality in British Columbia
    WATER and AIR MONITORING and REPORTING SECTION WATER, AIR and CLIMATE CHANGE BRANCH MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT Water Quality in British Columbia _______________ Objectives Attainment in 2004 Prepared by: Burke Phippen BWP Consulting Inc. November 2005 WATER QUALITY IN B.C. – OBJECTIVES ATTAINMENT IN 2004 Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Water quality in British Columbia : Objectives attainment in ... -- 2004 -- Annual. Continues: The Attainment of ambient water quality objectives. ISNN 1194-515X ISNN 1195-6550 = Water quality in British Columbia 1. Water quality - Standards - British Columbia - Periodicals. I. B.C. Environment. Water Management Branch. TD227.B7W37 363.73’942’0218711 C93-092392-8 ii WATER, AIR AND CLIMATE CHANGE BRANCH – MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY IN B.C. – OBJECTIVES ATTAINMENT IN 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................... III LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. VI LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ VII SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Project Sl 191 Toby Creek Watershed Clarion County Pennsylvania
    PROJECT SL 191 TOBY CREEK WATERSHED CLARION COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA INTRODUCTION GENERAL The Toby Creek Watershed has been the subject of intensive mineral resource recovery operations for the past one hundred and fifty years. Primarily, these activities have included the surface and underground extraction, of bituminous coal and the drilling for petroleum and natural gas. These operations, however, have had an adverse impact on the land and water environment of the Toby Creek Watershed. Most streams within the watershed are virtually devoid of aquatic life. Significant amounts of dissolved minerals in these waters has effectively disrupted the delicate biological environment. In addition, the water quality is such to preclude its use for human consumption or recreation. The pollution ultimately has its origin from abandoned mining operations. The resultant contamination known as acid mine drainage. The land affected by past mining activities in the watershed has been greatly disrupted. Unvegetated spoil piles with little or no backfilling stand as mute testimony to this fact. The affected area is unsuitable for agricultural, commercial or conservational purposes. In addition, land of this nature is subject to severe erosion and greatly increases the sediment load to receiving streams. This further reduces the capacity of the streams to sustain aquatic life. In order to effectively deal with acid mine drainage and its related problems, preliminary investigations are necessary. Studies of this nature identify and quantify problem areas and in turn provide the basis for effective means of dealing with the problems. The following report of the Toby Creek Watershed is one such endeavor. The study initially involved a cursory sampling program of all streams tributary to the Toby Creek Watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plan for Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority (Wvsa)
    369 East Park Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 (717) 564-1121 www.hrg-inc.com August 2017 REGIONAL CHESAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN FOR WYOMING VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY (WVSA) PREPARED FOR: WVSA LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HRG Project No. R005655.0426 ©Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc., 2017 REGIONAL CHESAPEAKE BAY POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN FOR WYOMING VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY, LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Introduction Section A – Public Participation Section B – Maps Section C – Pollutants of Concern Section D – Existing Pollutants of Concern Loading D.1 Baseline Pollutant Load Calculation D.2 Baseline Adjustment Section E – Select BMPs to Achieve the Minimum Required Reductions in Pollutant Loading E.1 Pollutant Reduction Requirements E.2 Proposed BMPs E.3 Partnerships E.4 Reportable BMPs Section F – Funding Mechanism Section G – BMP Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Appendices Appendix I – MS4 Permittee Participant List Appendix II – Public Comment Documentation Appendix III – Impaired Sewershed Maps Appendix IV – MS4 Municipal Requirements Appendix V – Existing Pollutant Loading Calculations Appendix VI – Pollutant Load Reduction Requirements BMP Strategy Pollutant Load Reduction Calculations Appendix VII – BMP Schematic Construction Details Regional Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plan Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania Page 1 Executive Summary The Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority (WVSA) has expanded their purpose and powers to include stormwater management. This
    [Show full text]
  • Wastewater Report
    WASTEWATER PERFORMANCE REPORT JULY 1, 2018 - JUNE 30, 2019 charlottewater.org CLTWater Blog @cltwater /CharlotteWater 4222 Westmont Drive Charlotte, NC 28217 I. General Information Name of Regulated Entity and Responsible Person City of Charlotte David Czerr, Interim Director Charlotte Water (CLTWater) Administration Division 4222 Westmont Drive Charlotte, NC 28217 704-336-4407 Applicable Permits There are seven wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) owned and operated by Charlotte Water (CLTWater). Below is a list of these facilities and their applicable NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit number. Included with the list of facilities is the name of the Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) at the facilities and the site telephone numbers. NPDES Permit WWTP Number ORC Phone Irwin Creek WWTP NC0024945 Michael Lingerfelt 704-336-2572 Mallard Creek WRF NC0030210 Henry Eudy 704-336-1024 McAlpine Creek WWMF NC0024970 Sandy Kim Neely 704-542-0736 McDowell Creek WWTP NC0036277 Darrell DeWitt 704-875-6443 Sugar Creek WWTP NC0024937 William Allen 704-432-2510 Ashe Plantation WWTP NC0065749 Jeremy Nance 704-634-3389 Oxford Glen WWTP NC0063584 Jeremy Nance 704-634-3389 In addition to those seven plants, CLTWater sends wastewater to the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant through an agreement with The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC). CLTWater also accepts flow from Union County to McAlpine Creek WWMF. WW COLLECTION NCDWQ Permit Number ORC Phone 4100 W. Tyvola Rd. WQCS00001 Steven Wrobleski 704-432-2748 Wastewater Performance Report August 2019 1 Description of collection and treatment systems Charlotte Water (CLTWater) collects wastewater from approximately 264,981 households and businesses throughout the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services Preliminary Engineering Report for Watershed Study No
    Study No. 2, Mallard Creek Watershed Preliminary Engineering Report MECKLENBURG COUNTY STORM WATER SERVICES PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR WATERSHED STUDY NO. 2 MALLARD CREEK WATERSHED TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................1 1. General Watershed Conditions...................................................................................................11 1.1 Watershed Characteristics....................................................................................................11 1.2 Watershed Development......................................................................................................14 1.3 Aquatic Habitat and Environmental Monitoring .................................................................18 1.4 Rosgen Stream Morphology Assessment ............................................................................20 1.5 Bank Stability Problem Identification .................................................................................22 2. Benefit:Cost Economic Analysis ................................................................................................24 2.1 Riverine and Coastal A-Zone Flood Model Overview ........................................................24 2.2 Economic Data.....................................................................................................................24 2.3 Hydraulic Data.....................................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Toby Creek Coldwater Conservation Plan
    Upper Toby Creek Coldwater Conservation Plan Photo Credit: Dr. Joseph Simons, III- Wild Brown Trout caught on Toby Creek Prepared and written by Robert “Bobby” E. Hughes, EPCAMR Executive Director & North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAACC) Lead 1 Coordinator Technical Assistance, Mapping, Monitoring, Assessment, & Sampling Conducted by: EPCAMR Staff Michael A. Hewitt, Program Manager Shawnese Taylor, GIS Watershed Outreach Specialist & NAACC Lead Observer Steve Cornia, GIS Watershed Outreach Specialist & NAACC Lead Observer Laura Rinehimer, Environmental Education/Outreach Specialist & NAACC Lead Observer Denise Hernandez, Urban Environmental Education & Outreach Specialist Rachael Grube, GIS Watershed Outreach Specialist & NAACC Lead Observer Gavin Pellitteri, GIS Watershed Outreach Specialist & NAACC Lead Observer Gabby Zawacki, GIS Watershed Outreach Specialist & NAACC Lead 1 Coordinator Conal Herron, Watershed Outreach & Education Specialist Intern & NAACC Lead Observer Lauren Elizabeth Perry, Watershed Outreach & Education Specialist Intern, SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry-Environmental Resources Engineering & NAACC Lead Observer Jessica Britten, Watershed Outreach & Education Specialist Intern- King’s College & NAACC Lead Observer Sean Banul, Watershed Outreach & Education Specialist Intern- The Pennsylvania State University, Wilkes-Barre Campus & NAACC Lead Observer Jason Zubris-Watershed Outreach & Education Specialist Intern- The Pennsylvania State University, Main Campus-State College & NAACC
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Little Toby Creek Watershed Update
    DDDRRRAAAFFFTTT Little Toby Creek Priority Watershed Report 2004 Update Introduction This is the fourth annual update to the Little Toby Creek Watershed Report, developed by the Knox District Mining Office to update the restoration and monitoring activities occurring in the Little Toby Creek Watershed during 2004. The Little Toby Creek watershed originates in the village of Coal Hollow, Fox Township, Elk County and flows toward the south to the town of Brockway, and then flows north for a total distance of 23 miles. It enters the Clarion River at Carman, approximately 7 miles south of Ridgway. The 126 square mile watershed is located in a sparsely populated, forested area and is classified as a Cold Water Fishery (CWF). Brockway is the largest community located within the watershed. The majority of the land within the watershed is privately owned. Link to the Little Toby Creek Watershed Map Restoration efforts in the watershed have progressed through the construction of the Back Hayes Run treatment system, installation of turbidity curtains in the Hayes Run treatment system, initiation of the construction of the Blue Valley treatment system and fish culture station and the ongoing alkaline addition and treatment system upgrades at Squab Hollow. Future restoration efforts will include continued construction of the Blue Valley treatment system and fish culture station project, ongoing alkaline addition and treatment system upgrades at Squab Hollow, application for funding for expansion of the Brandy Camp Treatment System, continued reclamation of abandoned mine lands, and continued water quality monitoring by the Knox DMO staff. Activities (January 1, 2004 – December 31, 2004) Hayes Run The Hayes Run treatment system was constructed in 1997 under a cooperative effort between NRCS and the Knox DMO and consists of an aeration channel, settling basin and wetland pond.
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania Flood Operations Plan Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania Flood Operations Plan
    Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania Flood Operations Plan 44 TOP OF FLOOD / FLOODWALL ELEVATION VARIES 43 "FREEBOARD ZONE" 42 MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE DESIGN FLOOD PROTECTION. 41 WILKES - BARRE - LCFPA INSTALLS COURTHOUSE NORTH LAWN CLOSURE 40 WYOMING - LCFPA INSTALLS CLOSURE ON SIDEWALK AT 12 TUBES ON RT. 11. 39 EMBANKMENT PLYMOUTH - LCFPA INSTALLS CLOSURES AT BEADE STREET & OTSEGO 38 NORTH RR STREET. LAKE EXETER - LCFPA INSTALLS WILKERN ST. CLOSURE 37 EXETER - LCFPA INSTALLS OLD POCONO NORTHEAST RR CLOSURE AT RT 92. COOPERSTOWN WILKES-BARRE & EDWARDSVILLE - LCFPA INSTALL CLOSURES AT NORFOLK SOUTHERN RR 36 TRACKS. WEST WYOMING - LCFPA INSTALLS CLOSURE AT OLD LEHIGH VALLEY RR TRACKS. HANOVER TWP. - DUNDEE AREA INUNDATION BEGINS. EDWARDSVILLE - RT. 11 INUNDATED. 35 R. NESCOPECK BOROUGH - INUNDATION BEGINS N A AN WILKES - BARRE - LCFPA INSTALLS PEDESTRIAN CLOSURE IN FLOODWALL AT RIVERSIDE DR. & MARKET ST. BRIDGE CLOSURE. 126 MILESEH 34 EDWARDSVILLE - LCFPA INSTALLS CLOSURE AT RT. 11 KINGSTON - LCFPA INSTALLS MARKET ST. BRIDGE CLOSURE. SUS QU VESTAL BINGHAMTON MAJOR FLOOD STAGE WILKES - BARRE - LCFPA INSTALLS CLOSURE AT COURTHOUSE ON NORTH ST. 33 MILES CHE ELMIRA MU 50 WYOMING - LCFPA INSTALLS CLOSURE AT OLD DL & W R.R. TRACKS. NG CHEMUNG 32 R. CONKLIN LEVEE WILKES-BARRE - HOLLENBACK PARK FLOODS. EDWARDSVILLE - MARK PLAZA FLOODS. DURYEA - COXTON RD. FLOODING. HANOVER TWP. - NO LCFPA INSTALLS CLOSURE 31 GREAT BEND AT NORFOLK SOUTHERN RR & SOLOMON CREEK PUMP STATION. WEST PITTSTON - SUSQUEHANNA AVE. FLOODING. RT WILKES-BARRE - C.H. SUBBASEMENT FLOODS, BROOKSIDE (WB) - FLOOD PROTECTION SYS. ACTIVATED. LCFPA INSTALLS H 30 FT. + MAJOR FLOOD STAGE 30 PORTAL GATES AT RIVERFRONT PARK. RT. 11, AVONDALE INUNDATED. SHICKSKINNY - MAIN ST.
    [Show full text]