DOCSLIB.ORG

FEM-FRAMS Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FEM-FRAMS Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study FEM-FRAMS Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment October 2011 Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment Contents amendment record Issue Revision Description Date Signed 1 0 First issue June 2011 LB 2 0 Revised to address client September 2011 LB comments Halcrow Barry has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of Fingal County Council, Meath County Council and the OPW for their sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. Halcrow Barry Tramway House, 32 Dartry Road, Dublin 6, Ireland Tel +353 1 4975716 Fax +353 1 4975716 www.halcrow.com www.jbbarry.ie © Halcrow Barry, Fingal County Council, Meath County Council & Office of Public Works, 2011 i Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment Acknowledgements In 2008, Fingal County Council (FCC), Meath County Council (MCC) and the Office of Public Works (OPW) commenced work on a Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study (FRAM Study) for the Fingal and East Meath area, as a means of addressing existing flood risk in the study area and the potential for significant increases in this risk in the future. The Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment Management Study (FEM FRAMS) was one of four pilot CFRAM studies for the new Flood Risk Assessment and Management Programme. The CFRAM studies are the core of the delivery of the new Flood Policy adopted by the Irish Government in 2004, shifting the emphasis in addressing flood risk towards a catchment-based, pro-active approach for identifying and managing existing, and potential future, flood risk’. The principal output from FEM FRAMS is a Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP). This has been prepared by Halcrow Barry in consultation with Fingal County Council, Meath County Council and the OPW. An in-house Project Management Team consisting of representatives from the OPW, FCC and MCC managed the work of the Consultant on the Study. A Project Steering Group, which included representatives from the OPW, FCC, MCC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF, which, later on, became part of the OPW) was responsible for overseeing and directing the study, and reviewing key outputs and deliverables. The project team would like to acknowledge and thank the data suppliers who have contributed to the project. These are listed below: • Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (DAFF) • Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) • DigiTech 3D • Dublin Airport Authority (DAA) • Dublin City Council (DCC) • Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Fingal County Council (FCC) • Forestry Services • Geological Survey of Ireland • Health Service Executive (HSE) • Marcon Computation International Ltd • Meath County Council (MCC) • Met Eireann ii Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment • National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) • National University of Ireland, Galway • National University of Ireland, Maynooth • Office of Public Works (OPW) • Teagasc • University College Dublin (UCD) iii Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment Table of contents Checking and Approval .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Contents amendment record................................................................................................... i Table of contents.................................................................................................................... iv List of figures .......................................................................................................................... iv List of tables..............................................................................................................................v 1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Habitats Directive requirements ............................................................................... 2 1.3. Approach to and scope of this assessment ............................................................. 3 2. The Flood Risk Management Plan ............................................................................ 4 2.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 4 2.2. The Draft FRMP ....................................................................................................... 5 2.3. Proposed FRMP actions and works......................................................................... 5 3. Implications for the Conservation Objectives of the European Sites................... 9 3.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 9 3.2. River Nanny Estuary and Shore SPA .................................................................... 16 3.3. Boyne Estuary SPA................................................................................................ 21 3.4. Rogerstown Estuary SPA....................................................................................... 24 3.5. Rogerstown Estuary cSAC..................................................................................... 30 3.6. Broadmeadow Estuary/Swords SPA...................................................................... 35 3.7. Baldoyle Bay cSAC ................................................................................................ 41 3.8. Baldoyle Bay SPA .................................................................................................. 48 3.9. Potential in-combination effect between SPAs ...................................................... 54 3.10. Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................... 54 Glossary of terms .................................................................................................................. 56 List of Figures Figure 2-1: Extent of the study area ...................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-2: The study area and the assessed AUs and APSRs. .............................................. 6 iv Fingal East Meath Flood Risk Assessment and Management Study Appropriate Assessment, Stage 2: Statement for Appropriate Assessment Figure 3-1 Natura 2000 or European Sites within the study area (Source: NPWS) .............. 10 Figure 3-2: Location of preferred option for the Laytown, Bettystown & Coastal area APSR in relation to the River Nanny Estuary and Shore SPA............................................................... 19 Figure 3-3: Location of Preferred Option for Rush APSR in relation to Rogerstown Estuary SPA.......................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3-4: Location of Preferred Option for Rush APSR in relation to Rogerstown Estuary cSAC........................................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 3-5: Location of the preferred option for Portmarnock and Malahide areas APSR: Malahide town centre, in relation to Broadmeadow Estuary/ Swords SPA............................. 39 Figure 3-6: Location of the preferred option for Portmarnock and Malahide areas APSR: Portmarnock, in relation to Baldoyle Bay cSAC. ..................................................................... 45 Figure 3-7: Location of the preferred option for St. Margaret’s, Dublin Airport, Belcamp & Balgriffin areas APSR.............................................................................................................. 47 Figure 3-8: Location of the preferred option for Portmarnock and Malahide areas APSR: Portmarnock, in relation to Baldoyle Bay SPA. ....................................................................... 52 List of Tables Table 2-1: Preferred options identified for the study area, AUs and APSRs............................. 7 Table 2-2 Preferred options for IRRs......................................................................................... 8 Table 3-1: Other European Sites within 15km of the study area boundary............................. 10 Table 3-2: Summary of screening assessment of the potential effects of the proposed FEM FRMP on European Sites in the study area ............................................................................ 13 Table 3-3: European Sites and features potentially sensitive and exposed to risks arising from the proposed FEM FRMP........................................................................................................ 14 Table 3-4: River Nanny and Shore SPA interest features....................................................... 16 Table 3-5: Boyne Estuary SPA interest features....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RULES and REGULATIONS Title 25—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [25 PA
    1226 RULES AND REGULATIONS Title 25—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [25 PA. CODE CH. 93] Corrective Amendment to 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has discovered a discrepancy between the agency text of 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j (relating to Drainage List J) as deposited with the Legislative Reference Bureau (Bureau) and published at 32 Pa.B. 4695, 4699 (September 28, 2002) and the official text as published in the Pennsylvania Code Reporter (Master Transmittal Sheet No. 337, December 2002), and as currently appearing in the Pennsylvania Code. When the amendments made by the Department at 32 Pa.B. 4695 were codified, an entry for the Lackawanna River in Luzerne County and an unnamed tributary to it were never deleted as proposed. Therefore, under 45 Pa.C.S. § 901: The Department has deposited with the Bureau a corrective amendment to 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j. The corrective amendment to 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j is effective as of December 7, 2002, the date the defective official text was announced in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The correct version of 25 Pa. Code § 93.9j appears in Annex A, with ellipses referring to the existing text of the regulation. Annex A TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS § 93.9j. Drainage List J. Susquehanna River Basin in Pennsylvania Lackawanna River Exceptions Water Uses To Specific Stream Zone County
    [Show full text]
  • Download Proposed Regulation
    This space for use by IRRC H f7 .-I""* -*- i t. , ^ ^ (1) Agency Department of Environmental Protection 2m mm ?}mm (2) I.D. Number (Governor's Office Use) #7-366 IRRC Number: J?9BQ> (3) Short Title Stream Redesignations, Class A Wild Trout Waters (4) PA Code Cite (5) Agency Contacts & Telephone Numbers 25 PA Code, Chapter 93 Primary Contact: Sharon F. Trostle, 783-1303 Secondary Contact: Edward R. Brezina, 787-9637 (6) Type of Rulemaking (Check One) (7) Is a 120-Day Emergency Certification Attached? x Proposed Rulemaking X No Final Order Adopting Regulation Yes: By the Attorney General Final Order, Proposed Rulemaking Omitted Yes: By the Governor (8) Briefly explain the regulation in clear and nontechnical language This proposed rulemaking modifies Chapter 93 to reflect the recommended redesignation of a number of streams that are designated as Class A Wild Trout Waters by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). Class A Waters qualify for designation as High Quality Waters (HQ) under §§ 93.4b(a)(2)(ii). The changes provide the appropriate designated use to these streams to protect existing uses. These changes may, upon implementation, result in more stringent treatment requirements for new and/or expanded wastewater discharges to the streams in order to protect the existing and designated water uses. (9) State the statutory authority for the regulation and any relevant state or federal court decisions. These proposed amendments are made under the authority of the following acts: The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of June 22, 1937 (P.L. 1987, No 394) as amended, 35 P.S/S 691.5 etseq.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 60 Dams Removed to Restore Rivers in 2010
    60 dams removed to restore rivers in 2010 American Rivers releases annual list including dams in California, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Vermont. Nationwide, 888 dams have been removed to date. 450 dams have been removed since 1999. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals and was solely responsible for the removal of a number of others. Contact information is provided for each dam removal. For further information about the list, please contact Serena McClain, American Rivers’ Director of River Restoration Program at 202.243.7044 or [email protected]. This list includes all known dam removals that occurred in 2010, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Dams are categorized by alphabetically by state. Glenbrook Gulch Dam, Glenbrook Gulch (Albion River), California: The 10-foot high Glenbrook Gulch Dam removal restored 0.66 miles of the Albion River for coho and steelhead. The project will also restore instream habitat with the placement of large woody debris, re-establish hydrologic connectivity, and prevent collapse of this earthen structure. Contact: Joe Pecharich (NOAA), (707) 575-6095, [email protected]. Lower Montsweag Dam, Montsweag Brook, Maine: Lower Montsweag Brook Dam acted as a complete barrier to fish passage. The goal of the project was to restore native and diadromous fisheries resources in the lower watershed though removal of the dam, which was completed in early November 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Lackawanna River & Trail Access Points
    Lackawanna River & Trail Access Points Fall 2010 P.O. Box 368 - Scranton, PA 18501 570-347-6311 www.lrca.org Lackawanna River & Trail Lackawanna River Access Points Watershed Information developed by Bernard McGurl LRCA Executive Director Maps copied from Expedia.com Layout and typesetting by Barb Semian Produced from a grant from C&S Wholesale Grocers Introduction Heritage Trail by the LHVA. The D&H and O&W Rail trails operated by the NEPA RTC provide access to the beautiful Welcome to the Lackawanna River Greenway. This river and Upper Lackawanna. trail access booklet provides basic information to guide you to There are other reaches of river that are owned by operating locations along the Lackawanna River where you can access the railroads. These railroads are posted and they are dangerous River and lands along the River. The Lackawanna River Corridor places for the public. Please use discretion and respect posted Association (LRCA) is working with several other community properties that you may encounter along the river. conservation agencies including the Lackawanna Heritage Valley You can use this river guide to navigate a passage along the Authority (LHVA) and the NEPA Rail Trail Council (RTC) to Lackawanna using opened sections of trail, municipal parks, develop a river access, trail and greenway system along forty (40) flood levees, and LVC preserves. In between you can route a miles of the Lackawanna River. passage along local streets to the next section of trail or levee The maps and directional information in this booklet will that is open. Many of these access points also afford access to guide you to locations between Duryea in Luzerne County, PA the river itself for fishing and paddle sport.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex a TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I
    Annex A TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS DESIGNATED WATER USES AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA Editor’s Note: Additional changes to drainage list 93.9d were proposed on October 21, 2017 in the Pennsylvania Bulletin (47 Pa.B. 6609), including a stream name correction from “Beaverdam Run” to “Beaver Run.” § 93.9d. Drainage List D. Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Lehigh River Stream Zone County Water Uses Exceptions Protected to Specific Criteria * * * * * * 2—Lehigh River Main Stem, PA 903 Lehigh TSF, MF None Bridge to Allentown Dam 3—[Unnamed Basins, PA 903 Carbon[- CWF, MF None Tributaries] UNTs to Bridge to [Allentown Lehigh] Lehigh River Dam] UNT 03913 at 40°48'11.1"N; 75°40'20.6"W 3—Silkmill Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None 3—Mauch Chunk Basin, Source to SR Carbon EV, MF None Creek 902 Bridge 3—Mauch Chunk Basin, SR 902 Bridge Carbon CWF, MF None Creek to Mouth 1 3—Beaverdam Run Basin Carbon HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Long Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None Basin, Source to [Carbon] 3—Mahoning Creek CWF, MF None Wash Creek Schuylkill HQ-CWF, 4—Wash Creek Basin Schuylkill None MF Basin, Wash Creek to UNT 04074 at 3—Mahoning Creek Schuylkill CWF, MF None 40°46'43.4"N; 75°50'35.2"W HQ-CWF, 4—UNT 04074 Basin Schuylkill None MF Basin, UNT 04074 3—Mahoning Creek Carbon CWF, MF None to Mouth Basin, Source to SR 3—Pohopoco Creek 3016 Bridge at Monroe CWF, MF None Merwinsburg Main Stem, SR 3016 Bridge to
    [Show full text]
  • 90 Dams Removed in 2019 to Restore Rivers
    90 Dams Removed in 2019 to Restore Rivers American Rivers releases annual list including dams in Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for a total of 26 states. Nationwide, 1,722 dams have been removed from 1912 through 2019. Dam removal brings a variety of benefits to local communities, including restoring river health and clean water, revitalizing fish and wildlife, improving public safety and recreation, and enhancing local economies. Working in a variety of functions with partner organizations throughout the country, American Rivers contributed financial and technical support in many of the removals. Contact information is provided for dam removals, if available. For further information about the list, please contact Jessie Thomas-Blate, American Rivers, Director of River Restoration at 202.347.7550 or [email protected]. This list includes all dam removals reported to American Rivers (as of February 6, 2020) that occurred in 2019, regardless of the level of American Rivers’ involvement. Inclusion on this list does not indicate endorsement by American Rivers. Dams are categorized alphabetically by state. Howle and Turner Dam, Tallapoosa River, Alabama The removal of Howle and Turner Dam was in the works for over four years. This project was the result of a great partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program and the Alabama Rivers and Streams Network. The Service coordinated the pre-restoration planning and worked with their Fisheries and Aquatic Conservation Aquatic Habitat Restoration Team to carry out the demolition and restoration of the river channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Lackawanna River Watershed Conservation Plan
    Lackawanna River Watershed Conservation Plan prepared by The Lackawanna River Corridor Association November 2001 This project is funded with support from the Chesapeake Bay Program Small Watershed Grants Program administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Scranton Area Foundation, the Rivers Conservation Program of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and The membership and community support funding received through contributions to the Lackawanna River Corridor Association. This document has been prepared by: Bernard McGurl, Executive Director For the: Arthur Popp, Project Manager Deilsie Heath Kulesa, Administrative Assistant Gail Puente, Education and Outreach Coordinator Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Executive Summary: Issues, Process 1.2. Executive Plan Recommendations 1.3. Priority Recommendations 1.4. Considerations for Implementation 2. Purpose and Vision 2.1 Vision 2.2 Scope of Work 3. The River and Its Watershed 3.1 Soils and Geology 3.2 Flora and Fauna 3.3 Socio-economics and Cultural History 4. Issues: A discussion and review of public policy issues and topics affecting the Lackawanna River Watershed Environment 4.1 A discussion and review of public policy issues and topics affecting the Lackawanna River Watershed environment 5. Water Quality and Quantity 5.1 Sewage Treatment, Treatment Plants, CSO’s, Act 537 Planning 5.2 Storm Water Management 5.3 Acid Mine Drainage/Abandoned Mine Reclamation 5.4 Erosion and Sedimentation 5.5 Water Supply 5.6 Aquatic Habitats and Fisheries 6. Land Stewardship 6.1 Flood Plain Management 6.2 Stream Encroachment 6.3 Riparian and Upland Forest and Forestry Management 6.4 Wetlands 6.5 Natural Areas and Open Space Management 6.6 Land Use Regulations and Watershed Best Management Practices 6.7 Reclamation and Economic Development 6.8 Litter, Illegal Dumping and Contaminated Sites 7.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Annex a TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    Annex A TITLE 25. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PART I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Subpart C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ARTICLE II. WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER 93. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS DESIGNATED WATER USES AND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA § 93.9d. Drainage List D. Delaware River Basin in Pennsylvania Lehigh River Exceptions Water Uses Stream Zone County To Specific Protected Criteria 2—Lehigh River Main Stem, the point Lehigh TSF, MF None at 40° 52' 3.5" N; 75° 44' 9.3" W to Allentown Dam 3—[Unnamed Basins, the point at Carbon[- CWF, MF None Tributaries] UNTs 40° 52' 3.5" N; 75° Lehigh] to Lehigh River 44' 9.3" W to [Allentown Dam] UNT 03913 at 40°48`11.1"N; 75°40`20.6"W 3—Silkmill Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None 3—Mauch Chunk Creek 5—White Bear Creek Basin, Source to SR Carbon EV, MF None 902 Bridge 5—White Bear Creek Basin, SR 902 Bridge Carbon CWF, MF None to inlet of Mauch Chunk Lake 4—Mauch Chunk Basin Carbon CWF, MF None Lake 3—Mauch Chunk Basin, Mauch Chunk Carbon CWF, MF None Creek Lake Dam to Mouth 1 3—Beaver Run Basin Carbon HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Long Run Basin Carbon CWF, MF None 3—Mahoning Creek Basin, Source to [Carbon] CWF, MF None Wash Creek Schuylkill 4—Wash Creek Basin Schuylkill HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Mahoning Creek Basin, Wash Creek Schuylkill CWF, MF None to UNT 04074 at 40°46`43.4"N; 75°50`35.2"W 4—UNT 04074 Basin Schuylkill HQ-CWF, None MF 3—Mahoning Creek Basin, UNT 04074 to Carbon CWF, MF None Mouth 3—Pohopoco Creek Basin, Source to SR Monroe CWF, MF None 3016 Bridge at Merwinsburg 3—Pohopoco Creek Main Stem, SR 3016
    [Show full text]
  • A Publication of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association
    Lackawanna River Watershed Atlas A publication of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association Lackawanna River Watershed Atlas Geographic Information Systems mapping in the watershed area of northeastern Pennsylvania in Lackawanna, Luzerne, Susquehanna, and Wayne counties. A publication of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association First Edition Copyright 2008 This publication made possible by a grant from the Margaret Briggs Foundation and by support from the membership of the Lackawanna River Corridor Association. Map and atlas design: Alexandra Serio Younica Acknowledgements This project was made possible by a grant from the Margaret Briggs Foundation. The Lackawanna River Corridor Association would like to thank the following organizations assisting with this project. Concurrent Technologies Corporation King’s College Lackawanna County Conservation District Lackawanna County GIS Luzerne County GIS Wayne County GIS Cover Graphic The watershed graphic is derived from a mosaic of the 10 meter digital elevation model United States Geological Survey Table of Contents Original drawings by Bernie McGurl The Lackawanna River Guide, 1994 Acronyms ……..…………………….. ii Mapping Details ……..…………………….. iii Introductory Overview ……..…………………….. 1 The Lackawanna River Basin and Adjacent Watersheds What is a Watershed? ……..…………………….. 3 Places ……..…………………….. 5 Geology & Industry ……..…………………….. 7 GIS for the Watershed ……..…………………….. 9 Land Use ……..…………………….. 11 People ……..…………………….. 13 The Water ……..…………………….. 15 Preserving the Watershed ……..…………………….. 17 The
    [Show full text]