DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Wetland Condition on a Watershed Basis in the Mid-Atlantic Region Using Synoptic Land-Cover Maps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. We recommend that agencies and organizations begin the process of assessing wetlands by adopting this approach as a first step toward determining the condition of wetlands on a watershed basis. Keywords: wetlands, watersheds, land cover, condition assessment, Mid-Atlantic Region 1. Introduction The need for strategic restoration of aquatic ecosystems was strongly supported by the National Research Council (NRC) (1995) which called for integrated approaches. A more recent report by the NRC (2001) provided advice on how to implement and improve the wetlands mitigation process on a watershed basis, a process that includes restoration as one element of many options. To conduct watershed-based management of aquatic ecosystems, or “waters” as defined by the Clean Water Act, one must integrate information obtained at various scales, from site-level assessments of stream, lake, and wetland conditions to landscape-level land uses. The objectives of a project conducted by the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center (CWC) were to develop, evaluate, and integrate a series Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94: 9–22, 2004. c 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 10 BROOKS ET AL. of tools for use in inventorying, assessing, and restoring the ecological condition of wetlands and associated riparian areas. To comprehensively manage wetlands on a watershed basis, these three integrated stages need to be addressed (Brooks et al., 2002). If assessment of wetland condition as a function of human disturbance is considered in a watershed context, restoration potential of those same wetlands also can be considered be- cause the proportion of wetlands falling below an acceptable level of con- dition, and their spatial location can be determined. For the purposes of this paper, we define condition as the state or quality of the wetland or watershed being studied as a function of physical, chemical, or biological parameters. Depending on the objectives of the assessment, the availability of re- sources, and the degree of confidence required in the results, there are three levels of effort available to address these tasks. In developing these assessment tools, the CWC has formulated a matrix that shows how con- ducting the three tasks over three levels of assessment is an integrated process (Figure 1). That is, an effort is made to relate information across tasks at an appropriate level of effort. In this paper we confine our discussion to assessing the condition of wetlands at Level 1, which is designed to produce a coarse assessment of wetland condition across a set of watersheds from remote-sensing imagery. An assessment conducted only from remote-sensing data is appropriate primarily for planning purposes (Figure 1). If one applies the collective Level 1 and 2 assessments and detects a problem or irregular “signal” within a specific area relative to an established reference condition, then an intensive Level 3 assessment using Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Func- tional Models (Brinson, 1993; Smith et al., 1995) and Indices of Biologi- cal Integrity (IBIs) can be used to diagnose specific stressors (Karr and Chu, 1997) and provide design guidance for specific restoration projects. The use of reference sites has become increasingly more common as ecologists and managers search for reasonable and scientifically based methods to measure and describe the inherent variability in natural aquatic systems (Hughes et al., 1986; Kentula et al., 1992). The primary reasons to include reference sites in a regional assessment and restoration effort are the need to compare impacted or degraded sites to a least impaired set of attributes or benchmarks. The primary criterion for selecting reference sites involves choosing sites that represent ideal, near-pristine conditions represented by the least disturbed sites available, which is common for ASSESSING WETLAND CONDITION USING SYNOPTIC LAND-COVER MAPS 11 stream assessments (Karr and Chu, 1997), or choosing sites that repre- sent the best attainable conditions for a particular region even though they may not be pristine (Smith et al., 1995). Although reference sites often represent areas of minimal human disturbance (i.e., reference standards in HGM parlance; Smith et al., 1995), in many instances it is more useful to represent a range of environmental conditions across a landscape. It is also possible, as we propose in this paper, to designate reference standard watersheds based on similar criteria. Whether individual wetlands or entire watersheds are being considered, we define a reference set as a gradient of conditions, not just the least impacted elements. INVENTORY ASSESSMENT RESTORATION Level 1 Use existing map Map land uses in watershed; Produce synoptic watershed resources (NWI) of compute landscape metrics map of restoration potential wetlands Level 2 Enhance inventory using Rapid site visit and stressor Select sites for restoration; landscape-based decision checklist; preliminary examine levels of threat from rules condition assessment surroundings Level 3 Map wetland zones Apply HGM and IBI models Map specific sites for abundance using verified to selected sites for condition restoration; design projects inventory based on reference with reference data sets Figure 1. Integrated tasks for wetland monitoring by watershed at three levels of effort. 2. Methods A synoptic map provides an overall visual representation of the watershed and can be used to help interpret decisions regarding site selection for sampling, protection, and restoration. We have modified the synoptic approach developed by Leibowitz et al. (1992) where geographic information system (GIS) data were used to locate watersheds or wetlands with specific characteristics. We were not able to acquire the necessary data layers (e.g., county-level digital soils data, sufficient hydrologic gauging stations) to apply this approach. We recommend that synoptic maps display at a minimum the most current land-use and land-cover data available. Although land-use patterns do not completely describe disturbance levels, they are usually highly correlated with landscape and wetland condition (O’Connell et al., 1998; Wardrop et al., 1998). During discussions with state environmental managers early on in this project, land use was identified as a preferred factor to portray in watershed maps used for assessing wetland condition. 12 BROOKS ET AL. A synoptic map provides a set of baseline conditions for comparing long-term changes, whether these changes involve degradation or restor- ation. The map can help identify potential landscape-level threats to parts of the watershed. Targeting of major projects, such as mitigation banks can be facilitated. Using a digital database for creating a synoptic map, a set of metrics for spatial analysis can be generated from GIS software programs to characterize the patterns of the landscape (e.g., proportional land cover, connectivity, Miller et al., 1997). Recommended resources for developing synoptic maps include the listed parameters, although only the first three items were required for the analyses presented here. The other parameters can be useful in other geographic regions and for Levels 2 and 3. • current land use and land cover from Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery • stream network (digitized 1:24,000 blue line database) • wetlands and water bodies (National Wetlands Inventory [NWI] digitized 1:24,000 base maps) • road network (digitized 1:24,000 database) • topography (Digital Line Graph [DLG] database) • hydric and non-hydric soils (digitized county soil surveys as available, STATSGO) • trends data (indicators of expected change, such as land-use conversion rates, population growth rates, intensity of landscape use) Assessment at Level 1 serves as a screening
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Maryland Darter Etheostoma Sellare
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Maryland darter Etheostoma Sellare Introduction The Maryland darter is a small freshwater fish only known from a limited area in Harford County, Maryland. These areas, Swan Creek, Gashey’s Run (a tributary of Swan Creek) and Deer Creek, are part of the larger Susquehanna River drainage basin. Originally discovered in Swan Creek nymphs. Spawning is assumed to species of darters. Electrotrawling is in 1912, the Maryland darter has not occur during late April, based on other the method of towing a net from a boat been seen here since and only small species, but no Maryland darters have with electrodes attached to the net that numbers of individuals have been been observed during reproduction. send small, harmless pulses through found in Gashey’s Run and Deer the water to stir up fish. Electrofishing Creek. A Rare Species efforts in the Susquehanna are Some biologists suspect that the continuing. Due to its scarcity, the Maryland Maryland darter could be hiding darter was federally listed as in the deep, murky waters of the A lack of adequate surveying of endangered in 1967, and critical Susquehanna River. Others worry large rivers in the past due to limited habitat was designated in 1984. The that the decreased darter population technology leaves hope for finding darter is also state listed. The last is evidence that the desirable habitat Maryland darters in this area. The new known sighting of the darter was in for these fish has diminished, possibly studies would likely provide definitive 1988. due to water quality degradation and information on the population status effects of residential development of the Maryland darter and a basis for Characteristics in the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Pennsylvania Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws PERMITS, MULTI-YEAR LICENSES, BUTTONS
    2018PENNSYLVANIA FISHING SUMMARY Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws 2018 Fishing License BUTTON WHAT’s NeW FOR 2018 l Addition to Panfish Enhancement Waters–page 15 l Changes to Misc. Regulations–page 16 l Changes to Stocked Trout Waters–pages 22-29 www.PaBestFishing.com Multi-Year Fishing Licenses–page 5 18 Southeastern Regular Opening Day 2 TROUT OPENERS Counties March 31 AND April 14 for Trout Statewide www.GoneFishingPa.com Use the following contacts for answers to your questions or better yet, go onlinePFBC to the LOCATION PFBC S/TABLE OF CONTENTS website (www.fishandboat.com) for a wealth of information about fishing and boating. THANK YOU FOR MORE INFORMATION: for the purchase STATE HEADQUARTERS CENTRE REGION OFFICE FISHING LICENSES: 1601 Elmerton Avenue 595 East Rolling Ridge Drive Phone: (877) 707-4085 of your fishing P.O. Box 67000 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Phone: (814) 359-5110 BOAT REGISTRATION/TITLING: license! Phone: (866) 262-8734 Phone: (717) 705-7800 Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. The mission of the Pennsylvania Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday PUBLICATIONS: Fish and Boat Commission is to Monday through Friday BOATING SAFETY Phone: (717) 705-7835 protect, conserve, and enhance the PFBC WEBSITE: Commonwealth’s aquatic resources EDUCATION COURSES FOLLOW US: www.fishandboat.com Phone: (888) 723-4741 and provide fishing and boating www.fishandboat.com/socialmedia opportunities. REGION OFFICES: LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATION Contents Contact Law Enforcement for information about regulations and fishing and boating opportunities. Contact Education for information about fishing and boating programs and boating safety education.
    [Show full text]
  • West Branch Subbasin AMD Remediation Strategy
    Publication 254 West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin May 2008 AMD Remediation Strategy: West Branch Susquehanna Background, Data Assessment River Task Force and Method Development Despite the enormous legacy ■ INTRODUCTION Pristine setting along the West Branch Susquehanna River. of pollution from abandoned mine The West Branch Susquehanna drainage (AMD) in the West Subbasin, draining a 6,978-square-mile Branch Susquehanna Subbasin, area in northcentral Pennsylvania, is the there has been mounting support largest of the six major subbasins in and enthusiasm for a fully restored the Susquehanna River Basin (Figure 1). watershed. Under the leadership The West Branch Susquehanna of Governor Edward G. Rendell Subbasin is one of extreme contrasts. While and with support from it has some of the Commonwealth’s Trout Unlimited, Pennsylvania most pristine and treasured waterways, Department of Environmental including 1,249 miles of Exceptional Protection Secretary Kathleen Value streams and scenic forestlands and mountains, it also unfortunately M. Smith McGinty established the West bears the legacy of past Branch Susquehanna River Task unregulated mining. With Abandoned mine lands in Clearfield County. Force (Task Force) in 2004. 1,205 miles of waterways The goal of the Task Force is to impaired by AMD, it is the assist and advise the department and most AMD-impaired region its partners as they work toward of the entire Susquehanna the long-term goal to remediate the River Basin (Figure 2). At its most degraded region’s AMD. sites, the West Branch The Task Force is comprised Susquehanna River contains of state, federal, and regional acidity concentrations of agencies, Trout Unlimited, and nearly 200 milligrams per other conservation and watershed liter (mg/l), and iron and aluminum concentrations of organizations (members are identified A.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Votes Loyalsock As PA River of the Year Perkiomen TU Leads
    Winter 2018 Publication of the Pa. Council of Trout Unlimited www.patrout.org Perkiomen TU Students to leads restoration research brookies project on on Route 6 trek By Charlie Charlesworth namesake creek PATU President By Thomas W. Smith Perkiomen Valley TU President In summer 2018, six college students from our PATU 5 Rivers clubs will spend a The Perkiomen Valley Chapter of month trekking across Pennsylvania’s U.S. Trout Unlimited partnered with Sundance Route 6. Their purpose will be to explore, Creek Consulting, the Montgomery do research, collect data and still have time County Conservation District, Penn State do a little bit of fishing in the northern tier’s Master Watershed Stewards and Upper famed brook trout breeding grounds. Perkiomen High School for a stream They will be supported by the PA Fish restoration project on Perkiomen Creek, and Boat Commission, three colleges in- Contributed Photo which was carried out over five days in Volunteers work on a stream restora- cluding Mansfield, Keystone and hopefully See CREEK, page 7 tion project along Perkiomen Creek. See TREK, page 2 Public votes Loyalsock as PA River of the Year By Pennsylvania DCNR Home to legions of paddlers, anglers, and other outdoors enthusiasts in north central Pennsylvania, Loyalsock Creek has been voted the 2018 Pennsylvania River of the Year. The public was invited to vote online, choosing from among five waterways nominated across the state. Results were pariveroftheyear.org Photo See RIVER, page 2 Loyalsock Creek was voted 2018 Pennsylvania River of the Year. IN THIS ISSUE Keystone Coldwater Conference ..........................3 How to become a stream advocate.......................6 Headwaters .............................................................4 Minutes ....................................................................8 Treasurer’s Notes ...................................................5 Chapter Reports ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 2002 Catchable-Trout Stocking Program Changes by Tom Greene
    2002 Catchable-Trout Stocking Program Changes by Tom Greene photo-Art Michaels Beginning this season, the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Com- As with past practice, changes for the 2002 season will mission will produce approximately 3.8 million adult trout include the addition of new water areas, some expansions to for distribution in the waters of the Commonwealth. In currently stocked waters, and the removal of several waters comparison with past practice, this figure represents a reduc- from the stocking program. tion of about 1.4 million trout from the 5.2 million or so stocked in 2001. New waters Pennsylvania’s state fish culture stations are currently For the 2002 season, new-water additions consist of three faced with challenges related to both water quantity and water previously stocked waters that return to the stocking program quality. To take prompt action to address these issues, it was as a result of completed dam maintenance repair and a necessary at least temporarily to reduce the number of adult landowner agreement to provide public angling. trout produced in our state hatcheries and stocked in state Cloe Lake, Jefferson County. Following a two-year waters open to free public fishing. period of drawdown for dam maintenance and repairs, this As part of this change, Commis- 25.5-acre lake is expected to be avail- sion fisheries managers have worked able for trout angling for the 2002 closely with law enforcement and season. If the water levels are re- other staff to develop a plan to real- stored according to schedule, the locate the stocking of hatchery trout lake will receive a preseason and an for the 2002 season and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice Classification of Wild Trout Streams Proposed Additions, Revisions, and Removals September 2017
    Notice Classification of Wild Trout Streams Proposed Additions, Revisions, and Removals September 2017 Under 58 Pa. Code §57.11 (relating to listing of wild trout streams), it is the policy of the Fish and Boat Commission (Commission) to accurately identify and classify stream sections supporting naturally reproducing populations of trout as wild trout streams. The Commission’s Fisheries Management Division maintains the list of wild trout streams. The Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, will from time-to-time publish the list of wild trout streams in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The listing of a stream section as a wild trout stream is a biological designation that does not determine how it is managed. The Commission relies upon many factors in determining the appropriate management of streams. At the next Commission meeting on September 25 and 26, 2017, the Commission will consider changes to its list of wild trout streams. Specifically, the Commission will consider the addition of the following streams or portions of streams to the list: County of Mouth Stream Name Section Limits Tributary To Mouth Lat/Lon Rainsburg Gap 39.861368 Bedford Headwaters to Mouth Sweet Root Creek Run 78.491194 UNT to Chop Run 41.520047 Cameron Headwaters to Mouth Chop Run (RM 0.18) 78.320498 40.903740 Centre Dewitt Run Headwaters to Mouth Bald Eagle Creek 77.874069 40.942177 Centre Moose Run Headwaters to Mouth Bald Eagle Creek 77.792053 UNT to Black 41.005421 Centre Gap Run (RM Headwaters to Mouth Black Gap Run 77.211990 0.49) UNT to
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia County Start Bridge Sd Program Improvement Type Title Description Cost Period Count Count
    COLUMBIA COUNTY START BRIDGE SD PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT TYPE TITLE DESCRIPTION COST PERIOD COUNT COUNT BASE Bridge Replacement T-812 over Coles Creek Bridge replacement on T-812 over Coles Creek in Sugarloaf Township 2 $ 875,000 1 0 Bridge rehabilitation on State Route 4021 over Little Fishing Creek in Greenwood BASE Bridge Rehabilitation State Route 4021 over Little Fishing Creek Township 2 $ 1,200,000 1 0 Bridge replacement on State Route 1022 over Tributary to Green Creek in Fishing BASE Bridge Replacement State Route 1022 over Tributary to Green Creek Creek and Greenwood Townships 1 $ 140,000 1 1 Bridge replacement on State Route 1014 over Tributary to Little Briar Creek in Briar BASE Bridge Replacement State Route 1014 over Tributary to Little Briar Creek Creek Township 1 $ 150,000 1 1 Bridge replacement on PA 42 (Numidia Drive) over Roaring Creek in Conyngham BASE Bridge Replacement PA 42 over Roaring Creek Township 2 $ 1,400,000 1 1 Bridge replacement on State Route 44 (White Hall Road) over Chillisquaque Creek BASE Bridge Replacement SR 44 over Chillisquaque Creek in Madison Township, Columbia County. 1 $ 1,400,000 1 1 Bridge substructure rehabilitation on US 11 over Fishing Creek in the Town of BASE Bridge Rehabilitation US 11 over Fishing Creek Bloomsburg and Montour Township 3 $ 820,000 1 0 Bridge replacement on State Route 1033 over Little Pine Creek in Fishing Creek BASE Bridge Replacement State Route 1033 over Little Pine Creek Township 1 $ 235,000 1 0 Bridge replacement on State Route 2005 over Tributary to Roaring Creek in
    [Show full text]