Existing Use Classification (Last Revised on 9/22/2020)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Class a Wild Trout Streams
CLASS A WILD TROUT STREAMS STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVIEW STREAM REDESIGNATION EVALUATION Drainage Lists: A, C, D, E, F, H, I, K, L, N, O, P, Q, T WATER QUALITY MONITORING SECTION (MAB) DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BUREAU OF POINT AND NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION December 2014 INTRODUCTION The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is required by regulation, 25 Pa. Code section 93.4b(a)(2)(ii), to consider streams for High Quality (HQ) designation when the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) submits information that a stream is a Class A Wild Trout stream based on wild trout biomass. The PFBC surveys for trout biomass using their established protocols (Weber, Green, Miko) and compares the results to the Class A Wild Trout Stream criteria listed in Table 1. The PFBC applies the Class A classification following public notice, review of comments, and approval by their Commissioners. The PFBC then submits the reports to the Department where staff conducts an independent review of the trout biomass data in the fisheries management reports for each stream. All fisheries management reports that support PFBCs final determinations included in this package were reviewed and the streams were found to qualify as HQ streams under 93.4b(a)(2)(ii). There are 50 entries representing 207 stream miles included in the recommendations table. The Department generally followed the PFBC requested stream reach delineations. Adjustments to reaches were made in some instances based on land use, confluence of tributaries, or considerations based on electronic mapping limitations. PUBLIC RESPONSE AND PARTICIPATION SUMMARY The procedure by which the PFBC designates stream segments as Class A requires a public notice process where proposed Class A sections are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin first as proposed and secondly as final, after a review of comments received during the public comment period and approval by the PFBC Commissioners. -
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 .............................................................................................................................................. -
Pennsylvania Nonpoint Source Program Fy2003 Project Summary
Rev.1/30/03 PENNSYLVANIA NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM FY2003 PROJECT SUMMARY Base Program/District Staff Project Title: Conservation District Mining Program Project Number: 2301 Budget: $ 125,000 Lead Agency: Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (WPCAMR) Location: Western Pennsylvania bituminous coal region Point of Contact: Garry Price, BWM or Bruce Golden, Regional Coordinator, Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation The purpose of the WPCAMR is to promote and facilitate the reclamation and remediation of abandoned mine drainage (AMD) in western Pennsylvania. Through this project the Regional Coordinator will continue to develop an education program, coordinate AMD remediation activities, generate local support for remediation efforts, and assist watershed associations and conservation districts in the development of watershed management plans and in securing funding for AMD remediation. The Watershed Coordinator will continue to assist with the development and implementation of funded projects. Project Title: Conservation District Mining Program Project Number: 2302 Budget: $ 118,000 Lead Agency: Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR) Location: Anthracite and northern bituminous regions of Pennsylvania Point of Contact: Garry Price, BWM or Robert Hughes, Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation EPCAMR was formed to promote and facilitate the reclamation and remediation of land and water adversely affected by past coal mining practices in eastern Pennsylvania. EPCAMR is a complimentary organization to the Western Pennsylvania Coalition. The EPCAMR Regional Coordinator will continue efforts to organize watershed associations, develop an education program, coordinate AMD remediation activities, generate local support for remediation efforts, and assist watershed associations and conservation districts in the development of watershed management plans and in securing funding for AMD remediation. -
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Section 106 Annual Report - 2019 Prepared by: Cultural Resources Unit, Environmental Policy and Development Section, Bureau of Project Delivery, Highway Delivery Division, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Date: April 07, 2020 For the: Federal Highway Administration, Pennsylvania Division Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Penn Street Bridge after rehabilitation, Reading, Pennsylvania Table of Contents A. Staffing Changes ................................................................................................... 7 B. Consultant Support ................................................................................................ 7 Appendix A: Exempted Projects List Appendix B: 106 Project Findings List Section 106 PA Annual Report for 2018 i Introduction The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) has been delegated certain responsibilities for ensuring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) on federally funded highway projects. This delegation authority comes from a signed Programmatic Agreement [signed in 2010 and amended in 2017] between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and PennDOT. Stipulation X.D of the amended Programmatic Agreement (PA) requires PennDOT to prepare an annual report on activities carried out under the PA and provide it to -
2021 State Transportation 12-YEAR PROGRAM Commission AUGUST 2020
2021 State Transportation 12-YEAR PROGRAM Commission AUGUST 2020 Tom Wolf Governor Yassmin Gramian, P.E. Secretary, PA Department of Transportation Chairperson, State Transportation Commission Larry S. Shifflet Deputy Secretary for Planning State Transportation Commission 2021 12-Year Program ABOUT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Pennsylvania State Transportation Commission (STC) serves as the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) board of directors. The 15 member board evaluates the condition and performance of Pennsylvania’s transportation system and assesses the resources required to maintain, improve, and expand transportation facilities and services. State Law requires PennDOT to update Pennsylvania’s 12-Year Transportation Program (TYP) every two years for submission to the STC for adoption. PAGE i www.TalkPATransportation.com TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION....i THE 12-YEAR PROGRAM PROCESS............................................................9 Planning and Prioritizing Projects.....................................................9 TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................ii Transportation Program Review and Approval...............................10 From Planning to Projects...............................................................11 50TH ANNIVERSARY........................................................................................1 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.............................................13 -
Report Abstract
SL-145-1 REPORT ABSTRACT GENERAL INFORMATION Location and Geographics (p. 2) The Babb Creek Watershed is located in North Central Pennsylvania, occupying the southern portion of Tioga County and a small portion of northern Lycoming County. The area within the watershed is approximately 129 square miles, 65% of which is forested. The remaining 35% is agriculture and rural residential. The primary traffic arteries are Pa. T.R. 287 and U.S. Rt. 15. Topography and Drainage (pp. 3-4) The study area is in the upland plateau section of the Appalachian Physiographic Province. Elevation extremes are from a low of 860 feet above sea level at the confluence of Babb Creek and Pine Creek to more than 2200 feet along the sandstone ridges. Drainage forms a dendrite pattern commonly associated with plateau regions. Drainage into Babb Creek is received from three major tributaries--Lick Creek, Wilson Creek and Stony Fork Creek. Geology and Mining (pp. 5-12) Coal bearing strata in the project area are referable primarily to the Allegheny Group of Pennsylvania age. The coals are found in the Blossburg Syncline which traverses the study area northeastward from Pine Creek to Arnot. Six coals are present, four of which were mined. The major coal horizon is the Bloss vein which is tentatively correlated with Lower Kittanning of standard Pennsylvania Bituminous Coals. History of Deep Mining Activities (pp. 13-15) Coal was discovered at Blossburg in 1792, with the first drift opening" around 1815. The first mines in the Babb Creek Watershed were probably opened in Arnot around 1865. -
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. -
Juniata Subbasin Morrison Cove Survey
090706-1008.qxd 9/12/06 8:49 AM Page 1 Publication 243 Juniata River Subbasin Small September 2006 Watershed Study: Morrison Cove A Water Quality and Biological Assessment, April 2005 - February 2006 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) completed a water quality survey in the Morrison Cove (Cove) region from April 2005 through February 2006 as part of the Year-2 small watershed study in the Juniata River Subbasin (Figure 1). The Year-1 survey of the entire Juniata Subbasin was conducted from June to TABLE OF CONTENTS November 2004 (LeFevre, 2005). SRBC selected the Morrison Cove region for Figure 1. Morrison Cove Location in the Juniata River Subbasin Introduction..................1 the more intensive Year-2 study based baseline for future groundwater studies on the data collected in the Year-1 and assist SRBC staff with project Description..................2 survey, and the fact that SRBC identified review activities. The Year-2 survey the Roaring Spring area in Morrison included quarterly water chemistry sample Other Studies..............2 - 3 Cove as a Potentially Stressed Area collection, discharge measurements, in 2005. and a macroinvertebrate community Methods - Data Collection........4 Two primary goals were established and habitat assessment. This report was for this Year-2 study. The first goal partially funded by a grant from the U.S. Methods - Data Analysis.........5 was to provide chemical, biological, and Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). habitat data to state and local government For more information on SRBC’s entities, watershed organizations, local Subbasin Survey Program, see reports Results and Discussion..........6 citizens, and other interested parties. -
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 -
A Decade of Progress for the West Branch Susquehanna Restoration
WestA DECADE OF PROGRESS Branch FOR THE Susquehanna Restoration Initiative 2004–2014 A. WOLFE 1 Foreword PA Fish and Boat Commission Executive Director, John Arway In 2012, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) staff surveyed the upper reaches of the West Branch Susquehanna River in Cambria County and discovered a naturally reproducing wild trout population. The abandoned mine drainage (AMD) remediation efforts, including the Lancashire 15 treatment plant, have improved water quality to PA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION FISH AND BOAT PA the point where there are now wild trout in the West Branch! With the recently funded Twomile Run project in the lower Kettle Creek watershed and proposed remediation at the abandoned Fran Contracting site in the Cooks Run watershed, there is a great potential to recover significant miles of naturally reproducing brook trout streams in the near future. Another major recent accomplishment is the AMD remediation work that improved water quality in more than forty miles of the Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek. The partnership between government, industry and the public working together on reclamation activities and AMD treatment has allowed PFBC cooperative nurseries to stock a portion of the Bennett Branch in 2013, and the PFBC will be adding a preseason stocking to a 4.5 mile reach in the Medix Run/Benezette area for 2014. Additionally, a 2.8 mile section of the West Branch near Curwensville will receive a preseason trout stocking for the first time in 2014. A. WOLFE These are some exciting times in the West Branch Susquehanna watershed and we look forward to more improvements in the coming years. -
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.