DOCSLIB.ORG

Selected Streamflow Statistics for Streamgage Locations in and Near Pennsylvania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Selected Streamflow Statistics for Streamgage Locations in and Near Pennsylvania Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Selected Streamflow Statistics for Streamgage Locations in and near Pennsylvania Open-File Report 2011–1070 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Tunkhannock Creek and Highway 6 overpass downstream from U.S. Geological Survey streamgage 01534000 Tunkhannock Creek near Tunkhannock, PA. (Photo by Andrew Reif, USGS) Selected Streamflow Statistics for Streamgage Locations in and near Pennsylvania By Marla H. Stuckey and Mark A. Roland Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Open-File Report 2011–1070 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Stuckey, M.H., and Roland, M.A., 2011, Selected streamflow statistics for streamgage locations in and near Pennsyl- vania: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–1070, 88 p. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................1 Previous Investigations........................................................................................................................1 Data Collection and Analysis .......................................................................................................................2 Comparison with Previously Reported Streamflow Statistics for Streamgage Locations in Pennsylvania .....................................................................................................................................4 Summary..........................................................................................................................................................4 Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................4 References Cited............................................................................................................................................5 Figures 1. Map showing location of U.S. Geological Survey streamgage locations with updated streamflow statistics ....................................................................................................3 Tables 1. List of U.S. Geological Survey streamgage locations in and near Pennsylvania with updated streamflow statistics ...........................................................................................8 2. Selected low-flow statistics for streamgage locations in and near Pennsylvania .........20 3. Selected base-flow statistics for streamgage locations in and near Pennsylvania .......34 4. Selected flood-flow statistics for streamgage locations in and near Pennsylvania ......48 5. Selected mean-flow and flow-duration statistics for streamgage locations in and near Pennsylvania ..............................................................................................................60 6. Comparison of streamflow statistics for 72 streamgage locations in Pennsylvania to previously reported streamflow statistics .........................................................................88 iv Conversion Factors Inch/Pound to SI Multiply By To obtain Area square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha) square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) Flow rate foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s) cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) cubic foot per second per square 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square mile [(ft3/s)/mi2] kilometer [(m3/s)/km2] Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Selected Streamflow Statistics for Streamgage Locations in and near Pennsylvania By Marla H. Stuckey and Mark A. Roland Abstract for Flood Insurance Studies (FIS), flood-plain manage- ment, and the design of bridges and flood-control structures. Streamflow statistics are used routinely by watershed Streamflow statistics for a streamgage can change over time planners, regulators, engineers, and managers for water- as more data become available or as land use or climate in resource projects. Streamflow statistics for a streamgage the watershed changes, so streamflow statistics should be can change over time as more flow data become available updated periodically. and (or) land use or climate in the watershed changes; con- sequently, streamflow statistics should be updated periodi- Purpose and Scope cally. This report, done in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, presents updated This report presents updated streamflow statistics for streamflow statistics for 526 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 526 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) continuous-record continuous-record streamgages in Pennsylvania, New York, streamgage locations in and near Pennsylvania using data New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Ohio collected through the 2008 water yeart. Streamgages from using data collected through 2008. The following statistics are Pennsylvania (306), New York (65), New Jersey (28), Dela- presented: low flows (1-day, 10-year; 7-day, 10-year; 7-day, ware (13), Maryland (68), West Virginia (21), and Ohio (25) 2-year; 30-day, 10-year; 30-day, 2-year; and 90-day, 10-year were included in this analysis. The following statistics are low flows), base flows (10-year, 25-year, and 50-year base presented: low flows (1-day, 10-year; 7-day, 10-year; 7-day, flows), peak flows (50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent 2-year; 30-day, 10-year; 30-day, 2-year; and 90-day, 10-year annual exceedance flood), mean flows (mean annual flow and low flows), base flows (10-year, 25-year, and 50-year base harmonic mean flow), and flow durations (99-, 95-, 90-, 85-, flows), peak flows (50-, 20-, 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent 80-, 70-, 60-, 50-, 40-, 30-, 20-, 15-, 10-, 5-, and 1-percent annual exceedance flood), mean flows (mean annual flow and exceedance). Streamflow statistics (7-day, 10-year and 30-day, harmonic mean flow), and flow durations (99-, 95-, 90-, 85-, 10-year low flows; harmonic mean; and 95-, 50-, and 5-per- 80-, 70-, 60-, 50-, 40-, 30-, 20-, 15-, 10-, 5-, and 1- percent cent flow duration exceedances) for 72 streamgage locations exceedance). This development of updated streamflow statis- in Pennsylvania were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank tics was done in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Depart- test to previously reported statistics. A statistically significant ment of Environmental Protection (PaDEP). The selection difference was found between the data sets for the 30-day, of streamgage locations was determined by the need from 10-year low-flow; harmonic mean; 50-percent flow-duration PaDEP for updated streamflow information at reference sites exceedance; and 5-percent flow-duration exceedance statis- to assist in permit application review. Streamflow statistics for tics. No significant difference was found between the data streamgages in Pennsylvania will be displayed on the web- sets for the 7-day, 10-year low-flow and 95-percent flow- based application Pennsylvania StreamStats (Stuckey and duration exceedance statistics. The lower flow statistics show Hoffman, 2010). a decrease since 1996, and the mid- to higher flows show an increase since 1996. Previous Investigations Streamflow statistics for USGS streamgage locations in Introduction Pennsylvania have been published in many USGS reports. Stuckey (2006) developed low-flow, base-flow, and mean-flow Streamflow statistics are used routinely by watershed planners, regulators, engineers, and managers for water- resource projects. Low-flow statistics are used to determine 1 Water year is defined as a 12-month period beginning October 1 and end- water availability, water-use allocations, assimilative capaci- ing September 30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which ties, and aquatic-habitat needs. Flood-flow statistics are used it ends. 2 Selected Streamflow Statistics for Streamgage Locations in and near Pennsylvania regression equations and reported statistics for 293 continu- post-regulation periods, when the period had at least 9 years of ous-record and partial-record streamgages using data through data.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chautauqua County
    CHAUTAUQUA Greenway Plan COUNTY April 2012 A four season destination for outdoor active living, nurtured by public/private partnerships. Prepared by Pashek Associates in cooperation with Chautauqua County Department of Planning & Economic Development “It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know of wonder and humility. - Rachel Carson” Photo Credit: Mark Geise All of the photographs in this document were taken at various locations throughout Chautauqua County. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A special thank you goes out to the citizens and organizations of Chautauqua County for their enthusiasm and input during this study. Also, the time commitment, wealth of knowledge, decision-making ability, and dedication of the following individuals made the Chautauqua County Greenway Plan possible. Chautauqua County Gregory J. Edwards ........................................................... County Executive Chautauqua County Department of Planning & Economic Development William Daly ...................................................................................... Director Mark Geise ........................................................................... Deputy Director Christine Kinn .........................................................................Senior Planner Don McCord ............................................................................Senior Planner Jeffrey Diers .............................................................Watershed Coordinator Debbie Liliestedt
    [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]
  • News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S
    News Release Address: Email and Homepage: U.S. Department of the Interior Maryland-Delaware-D.C. District [email protected] U.S. Geological Survey 8987 Yellow Brick Road http://md.water.usgs.gov/ Baltimore, MD 21237 Release: Contact: Phone: Fax: January 4, 2002 Wendy S. McPherson (410) 238-4255 (410) 238-4210 Below Normal Rainfall and Warm Temperatures Lead to Record Low Water Levels in December Three months of above normal temperatures and four months of below normal rainfall have led to record low monthly streamflow and ground-water levels, according to hydrologists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Baltimore, Maryland. Streamflow was below normal at 94 percent of the real-time USGS gaging stations and 83 percent of the USGS observation wells across Maryland and Delaware in December. Record low streamflow levels for December were set at Winters Run and Pocomoke River. Streamflow levels at Deer Creek and Winters Run in Harford County have frequently set new record daily lows for the last four months (see real-time graphs at http://md.water.usgs.gov/realtime/). Streamflow was also significantly below normal at Antietam Creek, Choptank River, Conococheague Creek, Nassawango Creek, Patapsco River, Gunpowder River, Patuxent River, Piscataway Creek, Monocacy River, and Potomac River in Maryland, and Christina River, St. Jones River, and White Clay Creek in Delaware. The monthly streamflow in the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. was 82 percent below normal in December and 54 percent below normal for 2001. Streamflow entering the Chesapeake Bay averaged 23.7 bgd (billion gallons per day), which is 54 percent below the long-term average for December.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Insurance Study
    FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY CECIL COUNTY, MARYLAND AND INCORPORATED AREAS Cecil County Community Community Name Number ↓ CECIL COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 240019 *CECILTON, TOWN OF 240020 CHARLESTOWN, TOWN OF 240021 CHESAPEAKE CITY, TOWN OF 240099 ELKTON, TOWN OF 240022 NORTH EAST, TOWN OF 240023 PERRYVILLE, TOWN OF 240024 PORT DEPOSIT, TOWN OF 240025 RISING SUN, TOWN OF 240158 *No Special Flood Hazard Areas Identified Revised: May 4, 2015 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 24015CV000B NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report may not contain all data available within the Community Map Repository. Please contact the Community Map Repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of the FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: July 8, 2013 Revised Countywide FIS Effective Date: May 4, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Simulation of Streamflow and Water Quality in the Brandywine Creek Subbasin of the Christina River Basin, Pennsylvania and Delaware, 1994-98
    U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW AND WATER QUALITY IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK SUBBASIN OF THE CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, 1994-98 Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4279 In cooperation with the DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, and the PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW AND WATER QUALITY IN THE BRANDYWINE CREEK SUBBASIN OF THE CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND DELAWARE, 1994-98 by Lisa A. Senior and Edward H. Koerkle Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4279 In cooperation with the DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, and the PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 215 Limekiln Road Box 25286, Federal Center New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-2424 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 Email: [email protected] Telephone 1-888-ASK-USGS Internet address: http://pa.water.usgs.gov ii CONTENTS Page Abstract . 1 Introduction . 2 Purpose and scope . 4 Previous studies . 5 Acknowledgments . 5 Description of study area . 5 Physical setting . 5 Climate . 5 Geology . 6 Soils. 6 Hydrology . 6 Land use. 8 Water use . 8 Description of model . 8 Data for model input and calibration . 10 Model-input data .
    [Show full text]
  • Background Research
    BACKGROUND RESEARCH PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS Several archaeological investigations have been completed in the project vicinity, most of them associated with the building of SR 1 (Table 1). Figures 3-7 show the locations of these studies and the known archaeological sites in the APE. Table 1: Previous Archaeological Studies in the APE DESCRIPTION REFERENCE Phase I Archaeological Survey, Routes 4, 7, 273 Thomas 1980 Archaeological Planning Survey of the SR 1 Corridor Custer and Bachman 1986 Phase I and II Archaeological Studies, Route 7 South Corridor Catts et al. 1988 Archaeological Testing and Historical Investigations of “The Place at Catts et a. 1989 Christeen” Phase I Archaeological Survey of the SR 1 Canal Section, Red Lion Hodny et al. 1989 Creek to Scott Run Phase II Archaeological Testing of the Lewden Green Site, 7NC-E-9 Custer et al. 1990 Phase I Survey of Waterline Near Route 13/72 Intersection Mellin and Baumgardt 1990 Management plan for Delaware’s historic archaeological resources De Cunzo and Catts 1990 Cultural Resource Planning Study for the proposed Route 301 Corridor, Kellogg 1992 New Castle County Phase II Archaeological Investigations, SR 1 Canal Section Kellogg et al. 1994 Paleoenvironmental Studies of the SR 1 Corridor Kellogg and Custer 1994 Phase III Archaeological Excavations of the Wrangle Hill Site (7NC-G- Custer et al. 1995 105) Phase III Archaeological Excavations of the Snapp Site (7NC-G-101) Custer and Silber 1995 Phase I and II Testing at Scott Run and the Route 13/72 Interchange, and Doms et al. 1995 Phase III Mitigation of the Woodville Grave Site Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations in the SR 1 Corridor, Scott Bedell et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices
    Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan Appendices Draft (V6) March 2007 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Table of Contents Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan A1 Appendix B 2006 Update: Public Input B1 Appendix C 2006 Update: Profile and Inventory of Town Resources C1 Appendix D Zoning Build-out Analysis D1 Appendix E Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis E1 Appendix F 1987 Master Plan F1 Appendix G Ancillary Maps G1 See separate document for Comprehensive Plan: Section 1 Introduction Section 2 Summary of Current Conditions and Issues Section 3 Vision Statement Section 4 Goals Section 5 Strategies to Implement Goals Section 6 Mapped Resources Appendix A Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan APPENDIX A-1 Town of Otsego Comprehensive Plan – Draft March 2007 Appendix A. Consultants Recommendations to Implement Plan This section includes strategies, actions, policy changes, programs and planning recommendations presented by the consultants (included in the plan as reference materials) that could be undertaken by the Town of Otsego to meet the goals as established in this Plan. They are organized by type of action. Recommended Strategies Regulatory and Project Review Initiatives 1. Utilize the Final GEIS on the Capacities of the Cooperstown Region in decision making in the Town of Otsego. This document analyzes and identifies potential environmental impacts to geology, aquifers, wellhead protection areas, surface water, Otsego Lake and Watershed, ambient light conditions, historic resources, visual resources, wildlife, agriculture, on-site wastewater treatment, transportation, emergency services, demographics, economic conditions, affordable housing, and tourism. This document will offer the Planning Board and other Town agencies, background information, analysis, and mitigation to be used to minimize environmental impacts of future development.
    [Show full text]
  • A Characterization of the Riparian Corridor of the Oaks Creek Blueway Trail with Emphasis on Otsego Land Trust Properties
    A characterization of the riparian corridor of the Oaks Creek Blueway Trail with emphasis on Otsego Land Trust properties Nicole Pedisich1 and Donna Vogler2 INTRODUCTION The Otsego Land Trust Blueway is a series of Land Trust owned and protected parcels that provide fishing, hiking, paddling, bird watching, and educational opportunities from Canadarago Lake to the Susquehanna River including Brookwood Point on Otsego Lake. (Otsego Land Trust 2014). The trail consists of Fetterly Forest, Deowongo Island, Oaks Creek Preserve, Crave, Parslow Road, Greenough Road, and Compton Bridge. For this project, an assessment of the riparian vegetation communities of Oaks Creek was conducted along a section of the Blueway Trail starting in Schuyler Lake and ending in Cattown. More in-depth characterizations of plant communities were done at Oaks Creek Preserve, the Crave property, and Parslow Road Conservation Area. Oaks Creek is a stream located in Otsego County, NY. It flows from Canadarago Lake southeast into the Susquehanna River, a distance of approximately 13.8 miles. (Hingula 2004). A majority of the stretch of stream assessed is state-regulated freshwater wetlands (Figure 1, NYSDEC). Oaks Creek Preserve is a 28-acre parcel located along its namesake between Schuyler Lake and Oaksville. Downstream are Crave, a parcel recently acquired by the Otsego Land Trust and Parslow Road Conservation Area, an 86-acre parcel located on the northern edge of Oaksville running a half-mile along Oaks Creek (Figure 2). 3 1 BFS Intern, summer 2015. Current affiliation: SUNY College at Oneonta. Funding for this project was provided by the Otsego Land Trust. 2 Professor.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Foods Plaza
    Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Whole Foods Plaza 2740/2750 Monroe Avenue Town of Brighton, New York August 2018 Prepared for: Daniele Family Companies 2851 Monroe Avenue Rochester, NY 14618 P.N. 20162290.0002 Passero Associates | 242 West Main Street, Suite 100 | Rochester, NY 14614 | 585.325.1000 | www.passero.com Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Whole Foods Plaza – 2740/2750 Monroe Avenue CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 2 3.0 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 3 4.0 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................................... 11 5.0 STANDARD STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (SMP’S) ............................ 7 6.0 CONSTRUCTION EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES & INSPECTIONS .............. 123 7.0 POST CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................. 15 8.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. SWPPP Practices, Procedures and Certifications APPENDIX B. Aerial Photograph APPENDIX C. Site as Depicted by the USGS Quadrangle Map
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • 01-22-2020 Agenda LEG.Pdf
    CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY LEGISLATURE 01/22/2020 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PRAYER BY LEGISLATOR HARMON PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR 12/18/19 & 01/02/20 PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR (Members of the public may speak on any subject relating to any local law, resolution, or motion appearing on the agenda. An individual is limited to 3 minutes and a person representing a group shall be limited to 5 minutes) _______________________________ VETO MESSAGES FROM ACTING COUNTY EXECUTIVE ABDELLA AND COUNTY EXECUTIVE WENDEL NO VETOES FROM 12/18/2019 & 01/02/2020 _______________________________ COMMENDATION: CLYMER- SHERMAN- PANAMA WOLFPACK FOOTBALL TEAM by LEGISLATOR WARD _________________ HANNAH ROSING By LEGISLATOR BANKOSKI _______________________________ 6:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING A PROPOSED FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO) AND HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CENTRIC AVIATION AT THE CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY AIRPORT AT JAMESTOWN _________________ 6:35 P.M. REGARDING A PROPOSED FIXED BASE OPERATOR (FBO) AND HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CENTRIC AVIATION AT THE CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY AIRPORT AT DUNKIRK _______________________________ Page 1 of 3 CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY LEGISLATURE 01/22/2020 COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Certificate – District Committee of the Chautauqua County Republican Committee - Certificate to Fill Vacancy for Chautauqua County Legislature 2. Letter – Kenneth J. Lawton – Certificate of Acceptance – District 10 Legislator 3. Letter – Chautauqua County Clerk – Jamestown DMV Parking 4. Letter – Paul M. Wendel Jr. – Resignation as District 10 Legislator 5. Letter – Co. Exec. Wendel – Designation of Acting Co. Executive 6. Letters (4) – Acting Co. Exec. Abdella – Appointments To Various Boards 7. Letter – County Attorney – Legal Services for County Legislature – 2020 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: a Water Quality and Biological Assessment, June – September 2007
    Upper Susquehanna Subbasin Survey: A Water Quality and Biological Assessment, June – September 2007 The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) conducted a water quality and biological survey of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin from June to September 2007. This survey is part of SRBC’s Subbasin Survey Program, which is funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Subbasin Survey Program consists of two- year assessments in each of the six major subbasins (Figure 1) on a rotating schedule. This report details the Year-1 survey, which consists of point-in-time water chemistry, macroinvertebrate, and habitat data collection and assessments of the major tributaries and areas of interest throughout the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin. The Year-2 survey will be conducted in the Tioughnioga River over a one-year time period beginning in summer 2008. The Year-2 survey is part of a larger monitoring effort associated with an environmental restoration effort at Whitney Point Lake. Previous SRBC surveys of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin were conducted in 1998 (Stoe, 1999) and 1984 (McMorran, 1985). Subbasin survey information is used by SRBC staff and others to: • evaluate the chemical, biological, and habitat conditions of streams in the basin; • identify major sources of pollution and lengths of streams impacted; • identify high quality sections of streams that need to be protected; • maintain a database that can be used to document changes in stream quality over time; • review projects affecting water quality in the basin; and • identify areas for more intensive study. Description of the Upper Susquehanna Subbasin The Upper Susquehanna Subbasin is an interstate subbasin that drains approximately 4,950 square miles of southcentral New York and a small portion of northeastern Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]