Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
PPFF Spring2020 Nwsltr.Qxd
Penn’s Stewards News from the Pennsylvania Parks & Forests Foundation Spring 2020 CLIMATE CHANGE Managing Pennsylvania’s Greatest Environmental Crisis rt e ilb By Greg Czarnecki, G y Tuscarora se Ka it: Director, Applied Climate Science, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources red State Park o C Phot INTHIS ISSUE In the 50 years since the first Earth Day we have made tremendous PG: 1 Climate Change progress protecting our air, water, and natural resources. But in spite PG: 2 President’s Message A Call for Advocates of that progress we now face our greatest environmental crisis— PG: 3-4 Climate Change continued climate change. PG: 4 Happy 50th Birthday Earth Day Nearly every day we hear stories about the effects of climate change, such as PG: 5 The Value of Trees melting glaciers in Greenland, horrific wildfires in Australia and California, and super- PG: 6 Let There Be Trees on Earth charged hurricanes. While many of these events are far away, we are also seeing climate PG: 7 Wilderness Wheels change impacts here in Pennsylvania. continued on page 3 Skill Builder PG: 8 We Will Miss Flooding at the Presque Isle Marina due to heavy lake levels. New Faces at PPFF PG: 9 Calendar of Events #PAFacesofRec Bring on Spring PG: 10 PPFF Friends Groups Your Friends in Action PG: 11 More Friends in Action Making an Impact on Legislation PG: 12-13 YOU Made it Happen PG: 14-15 2019 Photo Contest Results PG: 16 Fun Fact! ExtraGive Thank You PPFF Membership Form CONTACT US: Pennsylvania Parks & Forests Foundation 704 Lisburn Road, Suite 102, Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 236-7644 www.PaParksAndForests.org Photo Credit: DCNR President’s Message Marci Mowery Happy New Year! By the time this newsletter “...join us in activities lands in your hands, we will be several months r into the new year. -
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. -
RESTORATION PLAN Conewago Creek
Conewago Creek Dauphin, Lancaster and Lebanon Counties Pennsylvania May 2006 Tri-County Conewago Creek Association P.O. Box 107 Elizabethtown, PA 17022 [email protected] UTH www.conewagocreek.netU RESTORATION PLAN Prepared by: RETTEW Associates, Inc. 3020 Columbia Ave. Lancaster, PA 17603 3 ____________________________________________________ ConewagoU Creek Restoration Plan May 2006 ____________________________________________________ This plan was developed for use by the Tri-County Conewago Creek Association. “A nonprofit volunteer organization committed to monitoring, preserving, enhancing and promoting the Conewago Creek Watershed through education, community involvement and watershed improvement projects.” This plan was developed with technical and financial support of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the United States Environmental Protection Agency through the section 319 program under the federal Clean Water Act. This plan was prepared by RETTEW Associates, Inc. 4 TABLEU OF CONTENTS PageU I. Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 II. Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 III. Data Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- 10 IV. Modeling ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13 V. Results ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 VI. Restoration Recommendations ---------------------------------------------- -
Jjjn'iwi'li Jmliipii Ill ^ANGLER
JJJn'IWi'li jMlIipii ill ^ANGLER/ Ran a Looks A Bulltrog SEPTEMBER 1936 7 OFFICIAL STATE September, 1936 PUBLICATION ^ANGLER Vol.5 No. 9 C'^IP-^ '" . : - ==«rs> PUBLISHED MONTHLY COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA by the BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS HI Five cents a copy — 50 cents a year OLIVER M. DEIBLER Commissioner of Fisheries C. R. BULLER 1 1 f Chief Fish Culturist, Bellefonte ALEX P. SWEIGART, Editor 111 South Office Bldg., Harrisburg, Pa. MEMBERS OF BOARD OLIVER M. DEIBLER, Chairman Greensburg iii MILTON L. PEEK Devon NOTE CHARLES A. FRENCH Subscriptions to the PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER Elwood City should be addressed to the Editor. Submit fee either HARRY E. WEBER by check or money order payable to the Common Philipsburg wealth of Pennsylvania. Stamps not acceptable. SAMUEL J. TRUSCOTT Individuals sending cash do so at their own risk. Dalton DAN R. SCHNABEL 111 Johnstown EDGAR W. NICHOLSON PENNSYLVANIA ANGLER welcomes contribu Philadelphia tions and photos of catches from its readers. Pro KENNETH A. REID per credit will be given to contributors. Connellsville All contributors returned if accompanied by first H. R. STACKHOUSE class postage. Secretary to Board =*KT> IMPORTANT—The Editor should be notified immediately of change in subscriber's address Please give both old and new addresses Permission to reprint will be granted provided proper credit notice is given Vol. 5 No. 9 SEPTEMBER, 1936 *ANGLER7 WHAT IS BEING DONE ABOUT STREAM POLLUTION By GROVER C. LADNER Deputy Attorney General and President, Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen PORTSMEN need not be told that stream pollution is a long uphill fight. -
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...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.- -
Kayaking • Fishing • Lodging Table of Contents
KAYAKING • FISHING • LODGING TABLE OF CONTENTS Fishing 4-13 Kayaking & Tubing 14-15 Rules & Regulations 16 Lodging 17-19 1 W. Market St. Lewistown, PA 17044 www.JRVVisitors.com 717-248-6713 [email protected] The Juniata River Valley Visitors Bureau thanks the following contributors to this directory. Without your knowledge and love of our waterways, this directory would not be possible. Joshua Hill Nick Lyter Brian Shumaker Penni Abram Paul Wagner Bob Wert Todd Jones Helen Orndorf Ryan Cherry Thankfully, The Juniata River Valley Visitors Bureau Jenny Landis, executive director Buffie Boyer, marketing assistant Janet Walker, distribution manager 2 PAFLYFISHING814 Welcome to the JUNIATA RIVER VALLEY Located in the heart of Central Pennsylvania, the Juniata River Valley, is named for the river that flows from Huntingdon County to Perry County where it meets the Susquehanna River. Spanning more than 100 miles, the Juniata River flows through a picturesque valley offering visitors a chance to explore the area’s wide fertile valleys, small towns, and the natural heritage of the region. The Juniata River watershed is comprised of more than 6,500 miles of streams, including many Class A fishing streams. The river and its tributaries are not the only defining characteristic of our landscape, but they are the center of our recreational activities. From traditional fishing to fly fishing, kayaking to camping, the area’s waterways are the ideal setting for your next fishing trip or family vacation. Come and “Discover Our Good Nature” any time of year! Find Us! The Juniata River Valley is located in Central Pennsylvania midway between State College and Harrisburg. -
Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025. -
Species of Greatest Conservation Need Species Accounts
2 0 1 5 – 2 0 2 5 Species of Greatest Conservation Need Species Accounts Appendix 1.4C-Amphibians Amphibian Species of Greatest Conservation Need Maps: Physiographic Provinces and HUC Watersheds Species Accounts (Click species name below or bookmark to navigate to species account) AMPHIBIANS Eastern Hellbender Northern Ravine Salamander Mountain Chorus Frog Mudpuppy Eastern Mud Salamander Upland Chorus Frog Jefferson Salamander Eastern Spadefoot New Jersey Chorus Frog Blue-spotted Salamander Fowler’s Toad Western Chorus Frog Marbled Salamander Northern Cricket Frog Northern Leopard Frog Green Salamander Cope’s Gray Treefrog Southern Leopard Frog The following Physiographic Province and HUC Watershed maps are presented here for reference with conservation actions identified in the species accounts. Species account authors identified appropriate Physiographic Provinces or HUC Watershed (Level 4, 6, 8, 10, or statewide) for specific conservation actions to address identified threats. HUC watersheds used in this document were developed from the Watershed Boundary Dataset, a joint project of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Physiographic Provinces Central Lowlands Appalachian Plateaus New England Ridge and Valley Piedmont Atlantic Coastal Plain Appalachian Plateaus Central Lowlands Piedmont Atlantic Coastal Plain New England Ridge and Valley 675| Appendix 1.4 Amphibians Lake Erie Pennsylvania HUC4 and HUC6 Watersheds Eastern Lake Erie -
Subdivisions Colorado C L E a R C R E E K CO
Fire & Ambulance Districts Park County Subdivisions Colorado C L E A R C R E E K CO. NAME TWP_RNG NAME TWP_RNG R76W R75W R74W R73W ADVENTURE PLACER T9S,R78W ELKHORN RANCHES T10S,R75 R72W ALMA T9S,R78W ELKHORN SUBDIVISION T9S,R76W ALMA BUCKSKIN CREEK AMENDED T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO T14S,R75W Duck Creek Truesdell Creek Indian Creek ALMA FOREST T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO 2 AMEND T14S,R75W Yankee Creek Cub Creek ALMA GROSE AND TREWEEK SOUTH T9S,R78W ESTATES OF COLORADO AMENDED T14S,R75W ALMA MERCURY HILL SUB T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY T9S,R77W North Elk Creek ALMA MISC TRACTS T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BEAVER MEADOWS T9S,R77W ALMA MOYNAHAN ADD SOUTH T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BRISTLECONE T9S,R77W North Fork Tanglewood Creek ALMA NORTH RHODESIA SOUTH T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BURGIN ADDITION T9S,R77W ALMA PARK ESTATES T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BUSINESS PARK T9S,R77W North Elk Creek ALMA PLACER SUBDIVISION T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY BUTTERMILK T9S,R77W 1038 T Francis Creek Church Fork ALMA RHODES 2ND ADDITION T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY CLARK AND BOGUES T9S,R77W Produced by Park County GIS PLATTEPLATTE CANYONCANYON FPDFPD FAIRPLAY COLUMBINE PARK T9S,R77W Scott Gomer Creek ALMA RHODES 3RD ADDITION T9S,R78W June, 2011 Threemile Creek FAIRPLAY GOLD PAN MH VILL T9S,R77W 65 T6S ALMA RHODES ADDITION T9S,R78W Geneva Creek T North Fork South Platte River Elk Creek FAIRPLAY HEIGHTS T9S,R77W Deer Creek ALMA RIVERSIDE T9S,R78W FAIRPLAY JANES ADDITION T9S,R77W Burning Bear Creek T66 ALMA VIDMAR T9S,R78W Camp Creek FAIRPLAY JOHNSON ADDITION T9S,R77W 63 Elk Creek ANGELFIRE T9S,R78W Lamping Creek T 1184 FAIRPLAY -
Assessing Wetland Condition on a Watershed Basis in the Mid-Atlantic Region Using Synoptic Land-Cover Maps
ASSESSING WETLAND CONDITION ON A WATERSHED BASIS IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION USING SYNOPTIC LAND-COVER MAPS ROBERT P. BROOKS*, DENICE H. WARDROP, and JOSEPH A. BISHOP Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, 302 Walker Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 USA (*author for correspondence, phone: 814-863-1596, fax: 814-863-7943, e-mail:[email protected]) Abstract. We developed a series of tools to address three integrated tasks needed to effectively manage wetlands on a watershed basis: inventory, assessment, and restoration. Depending on the objectives of an assessment, availability of resources, and degree of confidence required in the results, there are three levels of effort available to address these three tasks. This paper describes the development and use of synoptic land-cover maps (Level 1) to assess wetland condition for a watershed. The other two levels are a rapid assessment using ground reconnaissance (Level 2) and intensive field assessment (Level 3). To illustrate the application of this method, seven watersheds in Pennsylvania were investigated representing a range of areas (89–777 km2), land uses, and ecoregions found in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Level 1 disturbance scores were based on land cover in 1-km radius circles centered on randomly-selected wetlands in each watershed. On a standardized, 100-point, human-disturbance scale, with 100 being severely degraded and 1 being the most ecologically intact, the range of scores for the seven watersheds was a relatively pristine score of 4 to a moderately degraded score of 66. This entire process can be conducted in a geographic information system (GIS)-capable office with readily available data and without engaging in extensive field investigations. -
Parks & Recreation
Lancaster County has made a commitment to conserving greenways, including abandoned railroad lines H Conewago An Outdoor Laboratory suitable for hiking trails. Because of its rich history of rail- Recreation Trail roading, Pennsylvania has become one of the leading states Lancaster County The county’s parks provide in the establishment of rail trails. In fact, in Pennsylvania In 1979, the county acquired the Conewago Recreation opportunities for educational alone there are over one hundred such trails extending Trail located between Route 230 and the Lebanon County field trips, independent study, Parks & more than 900 miles. line northwest of Elizabeth town. This 5.5-mile trail, and numerous outdoor formerly the Cornwall & These special corridors not only preserve an im portant and environmental educa- Recreation Lebanon Railroad, follows piece of our heritage, they also give the park user a unique tion programs. Programs view of the countryside while preserv ing habitats for a the Conewago Creek include stream studies, ani- Seasonal program listings, individual park maps, and variety of wildlife. While today’s pathways offer the pedes- through scenic farmland mal tracking, orienteering, facility use fees may be obtained from the department’s trian quiet seclusion, these routes once represented part of and woodlands, and links GPS programming, owl website at www.lancastercountyparks.org. the world’s busiest transportation system. to the Lebanon Valley Rail- Trail. A 17-acre day-use prowls, moonlit walks, and area, which in cludes a interpretive walks covering For more information, call or write: small pond for fishing, was wildflowers, birds and tree Conestoga Lancaster County G acquired in 1988. -
Conewago Creek Watershed York and Adams Counties
01/09/01 INCOMPLETE DRAFT DEP Bureau of Watershed Management DO NOT COPY FOR PUBLIC Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) State Water Plan Subbasin 07F (West) Conewago Creek Watershed York and Adams Counties Introduction The 510 square mile Subbasin 07F consists of the West Conewago Creek watershed in York and Adams Counties, which enters the west side of the Susquehanna River at York Haven. Major tributaries include Bermudian Creek, South Branch Conewago Creek, Little Conewago Creek, and Opossum Creek. A total of 903 streams flow for 1104 miles through the subbasin. The subbasin is included in HUC Area 2050306, Lower Susquehanna River a Category I, FY99/2000 Priority watershed in the Unified Watershed Assessment. Geology/Soils The geology of the subbasin is complex. The majority of the watershed is in the Northern Piedmont Ecoregion. The Triassic Lowlands (64a) consisting of sandstone, red shale, and siltstone of the Gettysburg and New Oxford Formations are interspersed throughout the watershed with the Diabase and Conglomerate Uplands (64b) consisting of Triassic/Jurassic diabase and argillite. 64a is an area of low rolling terrain with broad valleys and isolated hills. The soils derived from these rocks are generally less fertile than those derived from Piedmont limestone rocks but are more fertile than those derived from Piedmont igneous and metamorphic rocks. The sandstone and shale of the Gettysburg and New Oxford Formations are poorly cemented and have good porosity and permeability. These soils generally have moderate to high infiltration rates and yield a good supply of groundwater. The red Triassic sandstone is quarried for use as brick and stone building blocks.