DOCSLIB.ORG

Taylor Valley UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL Towns of Cincinnatus, Cortlandville, Cuyler, Freetown, Solon, Taylor, Truxton, and Virgil County of Cortland February 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taylor Valley UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL Towns of Cincinnatus, Cortlandville, Cuyler, Freetown, Solon, Taylor, Truxton, and Virgil County of Cortland February 2015 Taylor Valley UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL Towns of Cincinnatus, Cortlandville, Cuyler, Freetown, Solon, Taylor, Truxton, and Virgil County of Cortland February 2015 DIVISION OF LANDS AND FORESTS Bureau of State Land Management, Region 7 1285 Fisher Ave. Cortland, NY 13045 (607) 753-3095 www.dec.ny.gov FINAL TAYLOR VALLEY UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN ADRESSING THE BAKER SCHOOL HOUSE, DONAHUE WOODS, GEE BROOK, HOXIE GORGE, AND TAYLOR VALLEY STATE FORESTS ALONG WITH THE PAPISH POND MULTIPLE USE AREA Prepared By: Henry C. Dedrick Jr., Senior Forester Greg Owens, Senior Forester Contributing Staff: Tom Bell, Diversity Biologist Lance Clark, Wildlife Biologist Linda Collart, Mineral Resources Specialist Dan Fuller, P.E. Environmental Engineer William Giraud, Forest Ranger Patricia Hazard, Secretary Wayne Lanning, Conservation Operations Supervisor Dan Little, Forestry Technician Jeff Robins, Aquatic Biologist Glenn Wolford, Regional Real Property Supervisor PREFACE Article 9, Titles 5 and 7, of the Environmental Conservation Law, authorize the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to manage lands acquired outside the Adirondack and Catskill Parks. Management, as defined by these laws, includes: watershed * protection, the production of timber and other forest products, recreation, and kindred purposes. The statewide Strategic Plan for State Forest Management (SPSFM) available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/64567.html provides direction and a framework for meeting this legal mandate. The Taylor Valley UMP conforms to the objectives, guidelines, and policies found in the SPSFM. It is the policy of the DEC to manage State lands for multiple benefits to serve the people of New York State. The first step in carrying out this policy is the development of Unit Management Plans (UMP) for State lands. The DEC conducts management planning on State lands to maintain ecosystems and provide multiple benefits for current and future generations. The Taylor Valley UMP addresses management of Taylor Valley, Donahue Woods, Baker School House, Hoxie Gorge, and Gee Brook State Forests and Papish Pond Multiple Use Area. This plan is the basis for supporting a Multiple Use goal through the implementation of specific objectives and management strategies. The implementation of these objectives and management strategies ensure the sustainability, biological diversity, and protection of the Unit’s ecosystems and optimize the many benefits that these State lands provide. The Unit will continue to provide ecosystem services such as clean water and air, carbon storage, nutrient cycling, fish and wildlife habitat, sustainable forest products, and a wide array of recreational opportunities. Using a long-range vision, the principles of ecosystem management, and public input and current use, the Taylor Valley UMP has been developed to address management activities on this Unit for the next twenty years, with an update due in ten years. Factors such as forest health conditions, budget and staffing constraints, and wood product markets may necessitate deviations from the scheduled management activities. * Bold text words are defined in the glossary. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... III TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... IV FOREST CERTIFICATION OF STATE FORESTS ............................................................... 1 LOCATION MAP OF THE UNIT .............................................................................................. 2 INFORMATION ON UNIT ......................................................................................................... 3 A. HISTORY.................................................................................................................................. 3 B. GEOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 5 TABLE 1. STATE FORESTS WITHIN THE UNIT. .................................................................................. 5 C. GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 6 Surface Geology ...................................................................................................................... 6 Bedrock Geology ..................................................................................................................... 7 Geologic Structure .................................................................................................................. 7 D. SOILS ...................................................................................................................................... 7 E. LAND CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE UNIT AND SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE ........................... 8 State Forest Assessment .......................................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Land Classification within the Unit .......................................................................... 9 Landscape Assessment ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 3. Land Classification of the Surrounding Landscape ............................................... 10 F. FOREST RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 10 Cover Types .......................................................................................................................... 10 Age Structure ........................................................................................................................ 11 G. WETLANDS AND WATER RESOURCES.................................................................................... 12 Wetlands ................................................................................................................................ 12 Streams .................................................................................................................................. 13 Ponds..................................................................................................................................... 13 H. WILDLIFE RESOURCES .......................................................................................................... 14 Birds ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Amphibians & Reptiles ......................................................................................................... 14 Mammals ............................................................................................................................... 14 Fishes .................................................................................................................................... 15 Game Species ........................................................................................................................ 16 Important Habitat Features .................................................................................................. 16 I. SIGNIFICANT PLANTS, WILDLIFE AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ....................................... 19 J. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 20 K. CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 22 L. MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 22 Oil and Gas ........................................................................................................................... 22 Mining of Gravel & Hard Rock ............................................................................................ 24 M. ROADS ................................................................................................................................. 25 N. FACILITIES NEEDING MAINTENANCE ................................................................................... 27 O. PROPERTY USE AGREEMENTS .............................................................................................. 27 P. FOREST HEALTH ................................................................................................................... 34 Forest Insects & Diseases ..................................................................................................... 34 iv Regeneration & Interfering Vegetation ................................................................................ 36 Exotic Invasive Species ......................................................................................................... 37 RESOURCE DEMANDS ON UNIT ......................................................................................... 37 A. TIMBER RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 37 B. MINERAL RESOURCES…………………………………………………………………...….38 C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 40 D. RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Section 4: County Profile
    SECTION 4: COUNTY PROFILE SECTION 4: COUNTY PROFILE Broome County profile information is presented in the plan and analyzed to develop an understanding of a study area, including the economic, structural, and population assets at risk and the particular concerns that may be present related to hazards analyzed later in this plan (e.g., low lying areas prone to flooding or a high percentage of vulnerable persons in an area). This profile provides general information for Broome County (physical setting, population and demographics, general building stock, and land use and population trends) and critical facilities located within the County. GENERAL INFORMATION Broome County is a rural community located within the south-central part or “Southern Tier” of New York State. The Southern Tier is a geographical term that refers to the counties of New York State that lie west of the Catskill Mountains, along the northern border of Pennsylvania. Broome County lies directly west of Delaware County, 137 miles southwest of Albany and approximately 177 miles northwest of New York City. Broome County occupies approximately 715 square miles and has a population of approximately 199,031 (U.S. Census, 2011). Broome County is one of the 62 counties in New York State and is comprised of one city, sixteen towns, seven villages and many hamlets. The City of Binghamton is the County seat and is located at the confluence of the Susquehanna and Chenango Rivers. The City of Binghamton is part of the “Triple Cities,” which also includes the Villages of Endicott and Johnson City. With two Interstates and a major state route intersecting in the City of Binghamton, the area is the crossroads of the Southern Tier.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records
    ~EOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 138 July 1951 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART I.-NORTH ATLANTIC SLOPE BASINS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1950 Prepared by Boston District UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director Washington, 'J. C. Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 26, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 1.-NORTH ATLANTIC SLOPE BASINS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1950 EXPLANATION The index lists the stream-flow and reservoir stations in the North Atlantic Slope Basins for which records have been or are to be published for periods prior to Sept. 30, 1950. The stations are listed in downstream order. Tributary streams are indicated by indention. Station names are given in their most recently published forms. Parentheses around part of a station name indicate that the inclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name of the station or in a name under which records were published by some agency other than the Geological Survey. The drainage areas, in square miles, are the latest figures pu~lished or otherwise available at this time. Drainage areas that were obviously inconsistent with other drainage areas on the same stream have been omitted. Under "period of record" breaks of less than a 12-month period are not shown. A dash not followed immediately by a closing date shows that the station was in operation on September 30, 1950. The years given are calendar years. Periods·of records published by agencies other than the Geological Survey are listed in parentheses only when they contain more detailed information or are for periods not reported in publications of the Geological Survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report, 2011
    Susquehanna River Basin Commission www.srbc.net SRBC Annual Report 2011 40th Anniversary Edition 1971 - 2011 Pine Creek, Tioga County, Pa. 1 9 7 1 - 2 0 1 1 Welcome Executive Director’s Message In 2011, the Commission marked an important milestone – its 40th anniversary. We reflected not only on the agency’s many programmatic accomplishments over the years, but we also took the time to remember and honor the many dedicated people who drafted and helped enact the Susquehanna River Basin Compact. The Compact established the Commission as the guardian of the Susquehanna River. Standing in the Pantheon of those who advocated for watershed management in the Susquehanna basin are Frederick Zimmermann, Dr. Maurice Goddard, Harris Breth and William James, to name just a few. Upon the passage of the compact, William Voigt, Jr., who served as the Executive Director of the advisory committee that drafted the Compact, wrote, “A host of people consisting of a broad mix of realists, pragmatists, idealists, and others dreamed, labored, perspired and persevered to make the compact what it is and to safeguard it…Henceforth the destiny of the compact and of the water resources of the Susquehanna River Basin will rest in the hands of the commission established. I speak only for myself, of course, but have little doubt that my Paul O. Swartz sentiment is that of the overwhelming majority of all who had a hand, large or small, in the ultimate result. It is a fervent hope that performance under the compact will match or exceed the highest aims of the most dedicated in our group.” Today, while we stand in the shadows of those from the Commission’s past, it is my hope that we have and will continue to live up to the expectations of those who created the SRBC Compact.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Willard N. Harman
    1 INTRODUCTION Willard N. Harman The Biological Field station (BFS) continued to work closely with both graduate and undergraduate students whose efforts were critical to this Annual Report and to the ongoing research on the Otsego Lake ecosystem. Matthew Albright, Mead McCoy and David Ramsey continued their graduate work, the former with the support of the Otsego County Conservation Association (OCCA) and the U.s. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). OCCA also funded three high school students: two via FHV Mecklenbury Conservation fellowships plus support for a Village of Cooperstown intern to monitor water quality in the upper Susquehanna. These positions were held by Darcy King, Cherry Valley Central, and Kristen France and Colleen Moriarty, Oneonta High School, respectively. The New York Academy of Sciences Research Training internships supported Anne Mary Meyers from Owen D. Young, Brooke Baker from Oneonta and Tavis Austin from Cooperstwon High. Dylan Sickles and James Hakala from SUNY Cobleskill were sponsored by Robert C. MacWatters Internships in the Aquatic Sciences, funded by the OCCA, SUNY Cobleskill, SUNY Oneonta and the Biological Field Station. Marcy Goldberg, from Rochester polytechnic Institute, received an OCCA Rufus J. Thayer Otsego Lake Research Assistantship. Tina Nelson, SUNY Oneonta, helped in the office with support from the Oneonta Alumni Association. Jodi Fiorella and Kaaren Illsley, both from SUNY Oneonta, completed undergraduate and graduate "directed study" problems, respectively. Linda Taylor, SUNY Oneonta, held a Peterson Family (Greenwoods Conservancy) Internship. The OCCA generously provided funding, joining the "Friends of Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary", to repair the walkways at Goodyear Swamp Sanctuary. Don Denmead, Ken Beckering and Philip DeBlasi, all from SUNY Oneonta, did the work.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish-Community Composition in Otselic River, in the Vicinity of Whitney Point Lake, Broome and Cortland Counties, New York, 2000
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FISH-COMMUNITY COMPOSITION IN OTSELIC RIVER, IN THE VICINITY OF WHITNEY POINT LAKE, BROOME AND CORTLAND COUNTIES, NEW YORK, 2000 Open-File Report 01-78 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BALTIMORE DISTRICT U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey FISH-COMMUNITY COMPOSITION IN OTSELIC RIVER, IN THE VICINITY OF WHITNEY POINT LAKE, BROOME AND CORTLAND COUNTIES, NEW YORK, 2000 by Robin A. Brightbill and Michael D. Bilger Open-File Report 01-78 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, BALTIMORE DISTRICT New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 2001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director The use of product names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 215 Limekiln Road Box 25286 New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-2424 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 ii CONTENTS Page Abstract . 1 Introduction . 1 Description of the dam and stream study reaches . 2 Study methods . 4 Fish sampling . 4 Habitat quantification . 4 Data analysis . 4 Fish-community composition. 6 Summary . 10 References cited . 10 Appendix. 12 ILLUSTRATION Figure 1. Map showing location of reaches sampled for fish communities upstream and downstream of Whitney Point Lake, N.Y., 2000 . 3 TABLES Table 1. Taxa list, native or exotic, trophic status, tolerance value, number of individuals, total weight by species and for all species, total number of individuals, total number of species, catch-per-unit effort, Shannon Index, Jaccard Coefficient, and Index of Similarity for fish communities upstream and downstream of Whitney Point Lake, N.Y., 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Whitney Point Adaptive Management Plan a FiveYear Summary Luanne Steffy, Aquatic Ecologist December 2013
    Whitney Point Adaptive Management Plan A Five-Year Summary Luanne Steffy, Aquatic Ecologist December 2013 Whitney Point Lake is a 1,200-acre U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reservoir located on the Otselic River in Broome County, New York (Figure 1), that was completed in 1942 primarily for flood control purposes. Starting in mid-1990s, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (Commission), USACE, and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) began discussions about a water management and environmental restoration project in Whitney Point Lake that would allow for water storage in the lake to be used for low flow augmentation releases. Over the following decade, discussions, negotiations, and planning continued until in 2008, a lake modification and environmental restoration plan was completed. This agreement called for not only the elimination of winter drawdown, replaced by a maintained year-round water level in Whitney Point Lake, but also provided for environmental releases from the lake to augment low flow conditions downstream in the Otselic, Tioughnioga, Chenango, and, ultimately, Susquehanna Rivers. Other supplemental improvements were also made to the lake and surrounding park area including constructed wetlands, wildlife habitat improvements, and updated recreational facilities. In order to monitor the ecological ramifications of the lake modifications and restoration plan, a five-year Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) was also established in 2008 as part of the environmental restoration plan which was to be carried out from 2009-2013. The long-term goal of the monitoring portion of the AMP was to document potential impacts of flow augmentation on aquatic communities in Whitney Point Lake and the surrounding watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • Whitney Point Lake 2021 Fact Sheet
    WHITNEY POINT LAKE, NY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUILDING STRONG® FACT SHEET as of February 1, 2021 AUTHORIZATION: The project is a unit of the comprehensive flood control plan for the protection of communities in southern New York and eastern Pennsylvania authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936. TYPE OF PROJECT: Flood Risk Management, Recreation and Environmental Stewardship CONTRIBUTION TO CHESAPEAKE BAY: Contributes to Executive Order 13508 goals to protect habitat and water quality and expand public access. CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST: Senators Schumer and Gillibrand (NY) and Representative Tenney (NY-22) NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR: None BACKGROUND: Whitney Point Lake is located near Whitney Point, New York, on the Otselic River, a tributary of the Tioughnioga River, which discharges into the Chenango River, which, in turn, discharges in the Susquehanna River at Binghamton, New York. The dam is an earthfill structure, 4,900 feet long, rising 95 feet above the streambed, with a concrete spillway and a gated outlet in the left abutment. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 84,233 acre- feet (28.2 billion gallons) at spillway crest and will extend about 12 miles upstream when filled to that level. The project was completed in 1942 and federal cost was $5,421,500. STATUS: Flood damages prevented through fiscal 2020 are estimated at $743,721,000. Recreation attendance in fiscal 2019 was 5,725 visitors. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – BALTIMORE DISTRICT 2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201 http://www.nab.usace.army.mil page 1 of 3 BUDGET: Federal Funds Data Total Allocation for FY 20192 1,386,000 Allocation for FY 20202 1,443,000 President Budget FY 20211 1,167,000 Allocation for FY 20212 1,167,000 President Budget FY 20221 TBD 1 The President typically sends the budget to Congress in February each year.
    [Show full text]