East Sidney Lake 2021 Fact Sheet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

EAST SIDNEY LAKE, NY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUILDING STRONG® FACT SHEET as of February 1, 2021 AUTHORIZATION: The project is a unit of the comprehensive flood control plan for the protection of communities in southern New York and eastern Pennsylvania authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936. TYPE OF PROJECT: Flood Risk Management, Recreation and Environmental Stewardship CONTRIBUTION TO CHESAPEAKE BAY: Contributes to Executive Order 13508 goals to protect habitat and water quality and expand public access. CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST: Senators Schumer and Gillibrand (NY) and Representative Faso (NY-19) NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR: None BACKGROUND: East Sidney Lake is located on Ouleout Creek, about five miles above the confluence of the creek with the Susquehanna River near Unadilla, NY. The dam is a combined earth fill and concrete gravity type structure, it is 2,010 feet long, rising 146 feet from firm rock and 130 feet above the streambed, with a spillway and five gate-controlled outlets in the concrete section. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 33,550 acre-feet at spillway crest and an area of 1,100 acres when filled to that level. The project was completed in 1950 and federal cost was $6,000,000. STATUS: Flood damages prevented through fiscal 2020 are estimated at $299,587,000. Recreation attendance in fiscal 2019 was 53,106 visitors. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – BALTIMORE DISTRICT 2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201 http://www.nab.usace.army.mil page 1 of 3 BUDGET: Federal Funds Data Total Allocation for FY 20192 766,000 Allocation for FY 20202 685,000 President Budget FY 20211 1,053,000 Allocation for FY 20212 1,053,000 President Budget FY 20221 TBD 1 The President typically sends the budget to Congress in February each year. Upon release, budget amounts for the USACE Civil Works programs and specified projects are posted online at the HQUSACE website in a Program Budget Press Book at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Budget. 2 The allocation amount for a project is determined after enactment of the Energy and Water appropriations and release of the approved FY work plan. SCHEDULE: FY 2020 Completed Work: Conducted normal operation and maintenance of the project and initiated update of the project’s master plan. FY 2021 Scheduled Work: Continue normal operation and maintenance of the project and updating the project’s master plan, and conduct a recurring 5-year Periodic Inspection. For more information contact Mr. Brian Luprek, (570) 649-6855, or e-mail [email protected]. Also see this project’s related web page at https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Missions/Dams-Recreation/East-Sidney-Lake/ U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – BALTIMORE DISTRICT 2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201 http://www.nab.usace.army.mil page 2 of 3 CORPS OF E GI EERS U. S. ARMY • ,J l'I, ,' i';1 ~ •\ .'•j ·/:-!; _ ,_· "- •~.1. ... CONCRETE SECTION DAM _ _ d) .\ D E L A A C O U S.USQUEHl'.i, A RI ER BASH\l EAST S IDNEY LAKE PROJ EC T AR EA OU LE:'.0Ul CRH~ l fOiJ _::;_. Olll..TIIIOR,E Dl$T ct omcE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS – BALTIMORE DISTRICT 2 Hopkins Plaza, Baltimore, MD 21201 http://www.nab.usace.army.mil page 3 of 3 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Technical Guidance List of Attachments
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR LOW FLOW PROTECTION RELATED TO WITHDRAWAL APPROVALS Under Policy No. 2012-01 December 14, 2012 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A TNC Flow Recommendations for the Susquehanna River Ecosystem Attachment B Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System (NEAHCS) Stream Size Classes Attachment C1 Aquatic Resource Classes in the Susquehanna River Basin Attachment C2 Aquatic Resource Classes in the Chemung Subbasin Attachment C3 Aquatic Resource Classes in the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Attachment C4 Aquatic Resource Classes in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Attachment C5 Aquatic Resource Classes in the Middle Susquehanna Subbasin Attachment C6 Aquatic Resource Classes in the Juniata Subbasin Attachment C7 Aquatic Resource Classes in the Lower Susquehanna Subbasin Attachment D United States Geological Survey (USGS) Reference Stream Gaging Stations Attachment E Monthly Percent Exceedance (Px) Flow Values for USGS Reference Stream Gaging Stations (computed using entire period of record through March 2012) A water management agency serving the Susquehanna River watershed Attachment A. TNC Flow Recommendations for the Susquehanna River Ecosystem Attachment B. Northeast Aquatic Habitat Classification System (NEAHCS) Stream Size Classes Attachment C1. Aquatic Resource Classes in the Susquehanna River Basin Attachment C2. Aquatic Resource Classes in the Chemung Subbasin Attachment C3. Aquatic Resource Classes in the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Attachment C4. Aquatic Resource Classes in the West Branch Susquehanna Subbasin Attachment C5. Aquatic Resource Classes in the Middle Susquehanna Subbasin Attachment C6. Aquatic Resource Classes in the Juniata Subbasin Attachment C7. Aquatic Resource Classes in the Lower Susquehanna Subbasin Attachment D. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Reference Stream Gaging Stations GAGING STATION USGS GAGING STATION NAME STATE HUC LONGITUDE LATITUDE No.
[Show full text]
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]
Susquehanna Riyer Drainage Basin
'M, General Hydrographic Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 109 Series -j Investigations, 13 .N, Water Power, 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR HYDROGRAPHY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIYER DRAINAGE BASIN BY JOHN C. HOYT AND ROBERT H. ANDERSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 0 5 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittaL_.__.______.____.__..__.___._______.._.__..__..__... 7 Introduction......---..-.-..-.--.-.-----............_-........--._.----.- 9 Acknowledgments -..___.______.._.___.________________.____.___--_----.. 9 Description of drainage area......--..--..--.....-_....-....-....-....--.- 10 General features- -----_.____._.__..__._.___._..__-____.__-__---------- 10 Susquehanna River below West Branch ___...______-_--__.------_.--. 19 Susquehanna River above West Branch .............................. 21 West Branch ....................................................... 23 Navigation .--..........._-..........-....................-...---..-....- 24 Measurements of flow..................-.....-..-.---......-.-..---...... 25 Susquehanna River at Binghamton, N. Y_-..---...-.-...----.....-..- 25 Ghenango River at Binghamton, N. Y................................ 34 Susquehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa......_............-...----_--. 43 Susquehanna River at Danville, Pa..........._..................._... 56 West Branch at Williamsport, Pa .._.................--...--....- _ - - 67 West Branch at Allenwood, Pa.....-........-...-.._.---.---.-..-.-.. 84 Juniata River at Newport, Pa...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.-
[Show full text]
Upper Susquehanna River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Study
Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report Upper Susquehanna Comprehensive Flood Damage Reduction Study Prepared For: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Prepared By: Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office Cortland, New York Preparers: Anne Secord & Andy Lowell New York Field Office Supervisor: David Stilwell February 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Flooding in the Upper Susquehanna watershed of New York State frequently causes damage to infrastructure that has been built within flood-prone areas. This report identifies a suite of watershed activities, such as urban development, wetland elimination, stream alterations, and certain agricultural practices that have contributed to flooding of developed areas. Structural flood control measures, such as dams, levees, and floodwalls have been constructed, but are insufficient to address all floodwater-human conflicts. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is evaluating a number of new structural and non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the watershed. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is the “local sponsor” for this study and provides half of the study funding. New structural flood control measures that USACE is evaluating for the watershed largely consist of new levees/floodwalls, rebuilding levees/floodwalls, snagging and clearing of woody material from rivers and removing riverine shoals. Non-structural measures being evaluated include elevating structures, acquisition of structures and property, relocating at-risk structures, developing land use plans and flood proofing. Some of the proposed structural measures, if implemented as proposed, have the potential to adversely impact riparian habitat, wetlands, and riverine aquatic habitat. In addition to the alternatives currently being considered by the USACE, the U.S.
[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]
The New York State Flood of July 1935
Please do not destroy or throw away this publication. If you have no further use for it write to the Geological Survey at Washington and ask for a frank to return it UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 773 E THE NEW YORK STATE FLOOD OF JULY 1935 BY HOLLISTER JOHNSON Prepared in cooperation with the Water Power and Control Commission of the Conservation Department and the Department of Public Works, State of New York Contributions to the hydrology of the United States, 1936 (Pages 233-268) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1936 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. -------- Price 15 cents CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................... 233 Acknowledgments...................................................... 234 Rainfall,............................................................ 235 Causes.......................................................... 235 General features................................................ 236 Rainfall records................................................ 237 Flood discharges..................................................... 246 General features................................................ 246 Field work...................................................... 249 Office preparation of field data................................ 250 Assumptions and computations.................................... 251 Flood-discharge records........................................
[Show full text]
Index of Surface-Water Records
~EOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 138 July 1951 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART I.-NORTH ATLANTIC SLOPE BASINS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1950 Prepared by Boston District UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director Washington, 'J. C. Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 26, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 1.-NORTH ATLANTIC SLOPE BASINS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1950 EXPLANATION The index lists the stream-flow and reservoir stations in the North Atlantic Slope Basins for which records have been or are to be published for periods prior to Sept. 30, 1950. The stations are listed in downstream order. Tributary streams are indicated by indention. Station names are given in their most recently published forms. Parentheses around part of a station name indicate that the inclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name of the station or in a name under which records were published by some agency other than the Geological Survey. The drainage areas, in square miles, are the latest figures pu~lished or otherwise available at this time. Drainage areas that were obviously inconsistent with other drainage areas on the same stream have been omitted. Under "period of record" breaks of less than a 12-month period are not shown. A dash not followed immediately by a closing date shows that the station was in operation on September 30, 1950. The years given are calendar years. Periods·of records published by agencies other than the Geological Survey are listed in parentheses only when they contain more detailed information or are for periods not reported in publications of the Geological Survey.
[Show full text]
Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
[Show full text]
Susquehanna River Management Plan
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN A management plan focusing on the large river habitats of the West Branch Susquehanna and Susquehanna rivers of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bureau of Fisheries Division of Fisheries Management 1601 Elmerton Avenue P.O. Box 67000 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Table of Contents Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... .ii List of Appendix A Tables ...........................................................................................................iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................ix 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 River Basin Features .......................................................................................................5 3.0 River Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 22 4.0 Special Jurisdictions .....................................................................................................
[Show full text]
2021 CBPO Grant Guidance Attachment 18__Dec2020
Attachment 18 (Page 1 of 16) Most Effective Basins Funding Allocations Rationale December 2020 In the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 Appropriations Conference Report, an increase to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Budget was provided in the amount of $6 million for “state-based implementation in the most effective basins.” This document describes the methodology EPA followed to establish the most effective use of these funds and the best locations for these practices to be implemented to make the greatest progress toward achieving water quality standards in the Chesapeake Bay. The most effective basins (MEBs) to reduce the effects of excess nutrient loading to the Bay were determined considering two factors: cost effectiveness and load effectiveness. Cost effectiveness was considered as a factor to assure these additional funds result in state-based implementation of practices that achieve the greatest benefit to water quality overall. It was evaluated by looking at what the jurisdictions have reported in their Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as the focus of their upcoming efforts, and by looking at the average cost per pound of reduction for BMP implementation by sector. Past analyses of cost per pound of reduction have shown that reducing nitrogen is less costly by far than reducing phosphorus1. Based on that fact, EPA determined that the focus of this evaluation would be to target nitrogen reductions in the watershed. Evaluating the load reduction targets in all the jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs shows that the agricultural sector is targeted for 86 percent of the overall reductions identified to meet the 2025 targets collectively set by the jurisdictions.
[Show full text]
Getting to Know Your Streams and Stream Program Delaware County, NY
Getting to Know Your Streams and Stream Program Delaware County, NY Prepared by: Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District in partnership with New York City Department of Environmental Protection Contact Information: Delaware County Soil and Water Conservation District Stream Management Program 44 West Street, Suite 1 Walton, NY 13856 607-865-5223 Phone 607-865-5335 Fax Staff: Larry Underwood, Executive Director Graydon Dutcher, Stream Program Coordinator Ben Dates, Stream Program Engineer Gale Neale, Stream Program Engineer Jeff Russell, Stream Program Technician Jessica Patterson, Stream Program Technician Mike Coryat, Stream Program Technician Catherine Skalda, Catskill Streams Buffer Initiative Coordinator Jay Dinga, Data Budget Specialist Table of Content Introduction to Streams ........................................................................................... 1 Introduction to Floodplains ...................................................................................... 6 Highway/Public Utility Infrastructure Influence ............................................................. 7 Residential and Commercial Development Influence ..................................................... 9 Agricultural Influence .................................................................................................... 10 Introduction to Riparian Buffer ................................................................................ 11 Healthy Riparian Systems .............................................................................................
[Show full text]
SUNY, College at Oneonta the Geomorpbology of East-Central New
A-5 GLACIAL MORPHOLOGY OF UPPER SUSQUEllAJlNA DRAINAGE P . Jay Fleisher SUNY , College at Oneonta INTRODUCTION The geomorpbology of east-central New York State reveals the cumulati ve erosional effects of multiple glacial events. but the deposits of only the last ice sheet are known . Evidence for pre-Wisconsin glaciation has long been recognized along the glacial limit in Pennsylvania and from isolated and widely spaced localities in New York. However, the glacieJ. chronology of the eastern Appalachian Plateau is confined to subdivis ions of the Wisconsin Glaciation as displayed in the landforms and stratigraphy. Those factors that influenced glacier pulses , floW' regime. and ice- marginal activity were widely variable across New York State, resulting in problems of correlation and chronology . In spite o~ this, a compre hensive picture has been developed through the combined efforts of many contributors who have concentrated on specific areas~ drainages, and problems. Within tbe area of the upper Susquebanna drainage are the depos its of mid-Wisconsin to late Wisconsin deglaciation . A characteristic • assemblage of depositional landforms const i tutes the valley f l oor morphology and r epresents a par ticular envir onment of deglacial processes. The valley wa.1.ls and divides are , for the most part, examples of the combined effects of erosional and depositional conditions of a different glacial environment. The emphasis of thi s report will be to consider the glacier environments of deposition as represented by the landforms and their stratigraphy. The area under consideration lies within Otsego County. along the upper reaches of the Susquehanna River from Wells Bridge to Otsego Lake.
[Show full text]