ML17138A766

Assessment of Sites for Augmentation Reservoir, Aug 1977

ML17138A766
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	08/31/1979
From:	TIPPETTS - ABBETT - MCCARTHEY - STRATTON
To:
Shared Package
ML17138A767	List: ML17138A766 ML18031A251
References
NUDOCS 7909050376
Download: ML17138A766 (108)

Text

Assessment of Sites for an Augmentation Reservoir for ihe Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Prepared for Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company August 1977 Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton Engineers and Architects New York

<909'OSO a7 0

SUMMARY

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 TECHNICAL ASS ESS MENT CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT CHAPTER 4 EVALUATION OP SITES

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS Conclusions Thirteen reservoir sites capable of developing augmentation water supply storage needed to meet Susquehanna River Basin Commission requirements for consumptive water use at the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station were appraised both technically and environmentally. The appraisal led to the identi.fication of Pond Hills as being the site most suitable for development as a reservoir. The Graves Pond Creek site, which was almost as good but did require more reloca-tions of people, roads and utilities, is recommended as the first alternative site.

Little Meshoppen Creek is recommended as the second alternative site.

~Summar The 13 sites which were considered are:

Graves Pond Creek Salem Creek Little Meshoppen Creek Tributary to Nescopeck Creek Riley Creek Pond Creek Butler Creek Little Wapwallopen Creek Idlewild Creek Pond Hill Pargo Creek Tributary to South Branch Newport Creek Laning Creek The Little Wapwallopen site would develop the needed water supply or yield by storing runoff from its drainage area. Supplemental pumping from a nearby source is required to develop the yield at the other sites.

The study consisted of establishing criteria for project requirements, developing a plan for each site and appraising the technical and environmental qualities of each site. The assessments were based primarily on office studies using existing maps and a literature search. Each site was, however, givm a

cursory field inspection.

Based on the technical assessment, the Tributary to the South Branch, Newport Creek was eliminated. because of geological uncertainties resulting from past surface and deep mining Jn the immediate vicinity. The other sites were judged to be technically acceptable and cost estimates prepared. Based on cost as being a measure of the relative technical suitability of a site for the development of a reservoir, the sites could be grouped as follows:

Estimated Estimated tima ted

+eject. Cost .less ..

than $ 32.0 million $ 32. 0 and 39. 0 million'sProject

'Pqqj.ect Cost between Cost greater than 39. million.

$ 0 Little Meshoppen Creek Graves Pond Creek Laning Creek Riley Creek Butler Creek Fargo Creek Little Wapwallopen Creek Pond Hill Salem Creek Idlewild Creek Tributary to Nescopeck Cr. Pond Creek The environmental assessment indicated all sites to be good. Re-sults are summarized on Plate 4-1, Reservoir Environmental Evaluation Matrix.

From this matrix the sites were grouped as follows:

, Relative Environmental Suitabilit for Develo ment of a Reservoir Relativel Good Relativel vera e ela t vel oo Pond Hill Little Meshoppen Creek Butler Creek Graves Pond Creek Riley Creek Idlewild Creek Fargo Creek Salem Creek Laning Creek crib. to Nescopeck Cr.

Pond Creek Little Wapwallopen Cr.

CHAPTER 1 TABLE OP CONTENTS Pa<ac Introduction 1-1 Purpose 1-2 Scope 1-2 Previous Studies 1"3 List of Plates Plate l-l Reservoir Location

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the studies leading to the selection of a primary reservoir site and two alternative sites from a group of 13 sites for an augmentation of water supply storage needed to meet Susquehanna River Basin Commission requirements for consumptive water use at Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. The prime and two alternative sites were selected based on a technical and environmental assessment of 13 sites located on tributaries of the Susquehanna River between Berwick and Towanda, Pennsylvania. The 13 sites are:

U.S.G.S ~

Site Number Counta uad Ma Graves Pond Creek P-OD-09-1 Wyoming Jennings ville Little Meshoppen Creek T-10-10A yoming/ Auburn Center usque hanna Riley Creek SCS10-17A Wyoming/ Auburn Center Susquehanna 6 Springville Butler Creek T-38-100A Susquehanna Lenoxviile Idlewild Creek SCS 38-10 Susquehanna Clifford Fargo Creek P-OD" 10-1 Bradford Lac eyville Laning Creek 8CS-11-7 Bradford Towanda Salem Creek T-OD 08-2A Luz erne Berwick Tributary to Nescopeck Creek P-35" 1 Luzerne Berwick Pond Creek P 07-2 Luzerne Syberts ville Little Wapwallopen Creek SCS 07-8A Luzerne Syberts ville Pond Hill P-OD" 07-1 Luzerne Nanticoke Shick shinny Tributary to South Branch Newport Creek '-OD-07-3 Luzerne Nanticoke The location of the sites are shown on Plate 1-1.

1-1

~Pur ose The potential reservoir sites are being considered for development of a water supply source to augment the Susquehanna River during low flow periods by the amount of river flow used consumptively at the Susquehanna Steam Electiic Station, now under construction near Berwick. The estimated average consump-tive use is 50 cfs. The study was made for Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (PP&L), the owners of the Susquehanna Station, by Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton (TAMS) .

The augmentation is required by the Susquehanna River Basin Com-mission'SRBC), during periods of critical low Susquehanna River flow. They have adopted as low flow criterion the average consecutive seven day low flow with a return frequency of ten years plus a project's total consumptive use. For SSES, the average consumptive use is 50 cfs; and, the SRBC indicates the seven day ten year low flow to be 790 cfs at the Wilkes-Barre gage. When flow in the river is below 040 cfs the sum of 790 cfs and 50 cfs - there must be augmentation water released to equal the total consumptive use..

~Soo e In this study each reservoir was sized to meet the SRBC low flow cri-teria during the most critical period of historic recorded flows at the Wilkes-Barre gage. Other possible incidental uses of the reservoir such as recreation and fish-ing were considered as possible reservoir functions. In future, more detailed studies of any of these reservoir sites, other local needs such a s municipal and industrial water supply and flood control would be considered when appropriate.

Only one of the alternatives (Little Wapwallopen Creek) is a conven-tional type reservoir where the total yield required can be obtained by storing run-off from the contributing drainage area. The remaining sites require supplemental pumping from a nearby runoff source to obtain the desired yield.

This assessment is based on a field reconnaissance of each site by engineering (TOMS and PP&L) and environmental (TAMS) personnel, map studies, and a literature search. Field work for this phase of the investigation was limited to one brief visit.

1-2

Previous Studies Possible reservoir sites have been studied in the Susquehanna Basin by many investigators. The Susquehanna River Basin Coordinating Committee Report of June 1970, considered many reservoirs proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture and others. Most of these previous studies considered only streams with drainage areas large enough to provide a relatively high yield.

TAMS has, since 1972, made studies in the basin of both conventional reservoirs and reservoirs supplemented by pumping from nearby streams. PPGL engineers have contributed to these studies as well as making their own investiga-tions.

The'13 sites studied herein were selected by PP&L from combined in-ventories of all prior studies and from additional,map review. These sites are con-sidered to be the best'suited to develop the required augmentation water supply for Susquehanna SES, based on a broad appraisal of engineering, environmental and relocation problems of many possible sites within the part of the Susquehanna Basin being considered.

It should be noted that in the site identifying number given above, SCS refers to sites previously identified by the Soil Conservation Service in the Susque-hanna Report; T refers to sites identified by TAMS; and P refers to sites identified by PP6L. The first number refers to the sub-basins, and the second, a particular site.

1-3

CHAPTER 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacae Technical Ass es sment 2-1 Proj ect Requirements 2-1 Storage/Yield Criteria 2-1 Minimum Storage 2-2 S pillway Requirements 2~2 Freeboard 2-2 Other Project Features 2-3 Plans of Development 2-3 Graves Pond Creek 2-5 Little Meshoppen Creek Riley Creek 2-7 Butler Creek 2-8 Idlewild Creek 2-9 Fargo Creek Laning Creek 2-11 Salem Creek 2-12 Tributary to Nescopeck Creek 2-13 Pond Creek 2-14 Little Wapwallopen Creek 2-15 Pond Hill 2-16 Tiibutary to South Branch Newport Creek 2-17 Costs 2-18 Construction Cost 2<<18 Annual Cost 2-18

LIST OF PLATES AND FIGURES Following Plate No. Pa e 2-1 Historic Reservoir Operation 2-2 2-2 Summary of Projects 2-4 2-3 Graves Pond Creek Reservoir Plan 2-5 2-4 Graves Pond Creek Area-Storage Curve 2-5 Little Meshoppen Creek Reservoir Plan 2-6 2-6 Little Meshoppen Creek Area-Storage Curve 2~7 Riley Creek Reservoir Plan 2-7 2-8 Riley Creek Area-Storage Curve 2-9 Butler Creek Reservoir Plan 2-8 2-10 Butler Creek Area-Storage Curve 2-11 Idlewild Creek Reservoir Plan 2-9 2-12 Idlewild Area-Storage Curve 2-13 Fargo Creek Reservoir Plan 2-10 2-14 Fargo Creek Area-Storage Curve 2-15 Laning Creek Reservoir Plan 2 "11 2 16 Laning Creek Area-Storage Curve 2-17 Salem Creek Reservoir Plan 2-12 2i18 Salem Creek Area-Storage Curve 2-19 Tributary to Nescopeck Creek Reservoir Plan 2-13 2-20 Tributary to Nescopeck Creek Area-Storage Curve 2"21 Pond Creek Reservoir Plan 2-14 2-22 Pond Creek Area-Storage Curve 2-23 Little Wagwallopen Creek Reservoir Plan 2-15 2-24 Little Wapwallopen Creek Area-Storage Curve 2-25 Pond Hill Reservoir Plan 2-16 2-26 Pond Hill Area-Storage Curve 2-17

LIST OF PLATES AND FIGURES Following Plate No. Pa e 2-27 Tributary to South Branch Newport Creek 2-17 Reservoir Plan 2-28 Tributary to South Branch Newport Creek Area-S torage Curve 2-29 Summary of Costs 2-19 Figure 1 Annual Cost Factors 2-18

Chapter 2 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS Each reservoir site was studied to determine its yield/storage capabili-ties, technical suitability, land and relocation requirements, and development costs.

The appraisal was based on establishing a plan of development for each site, and assessing the various elements of each plan from a technical and cost standpoint.

Pro ect Re uirements The criteria, assumptions and study procedures described below were developed and used to establish comparable pro)ect requirements and a layout for each potential site. Each site layout for this assessment was based primarily on a single purpose augmentation water supply function. Incidental uses such as limited recreation and fishing could possibly be accommodated by the pro]ects.

Stora e/Yield Criteria Each reservoir was sized to augment the Susquehanna River during the historical low flow period by an amount equal to the consumptive use of the Susque-hanna SES. Low flow as defined by the SRBC is the seven-day, ten-year low flow (g7-10) plus the prospect's total consumptive use. The Q7-10 at the U.S.G.S. gaging station at Wilkes-Barre is estimated by SRBC to be 790 cfs, based on the historical record. The estimated average consumptive use at Susquehanna SES will be 50 cfs.

Therefore, in this study it was assumed that when the natural Susquehanna River flow as measured at the Wilkes-Barre gage is less than 840 cfs, augmentation releases would be needed.

An analysis of past flow records (1905-1975) indicates the historical record low flow period when the river flow was below 840 'cfs was 104 days in 1964.

Plate 2-1 summarizes the number of days each year during the period of record that the Susquehanna River at Wilkes-Barre was below 840 cfs. It is these days when augmentation releases would have been made from the reservoir.

2-1

Each reservoir was.designed to refill completely during the most critical refilling period. Prom an analysis of the historical records of appropriate gaging stations, the most critical refilling period extended from December l964 through May 1965 following the historical record low flow period. At all sites except Little Wap-wallopen, the inflow was insufficient to completely refill, and a pump station with a capacity to refill the remaining storage from a nearby source within a reasonable time was included as a part of the design. Results of mass curve analyses of nearby streams were used to estimate the portion of the required yield which could be developed from the natural runoff and the storage volume needed to do so. The remainder of the required yield must be developed by pumping, with storage volume provided accordingly.

Losses for evaporation and seepage were assumed to equal 109'f the inflow and/or pumped volume. Based on these criteria the total volume required for water supply at each of the sites ranged from ll, S00 acre-feet at the sites having the smallest drainage area to 12,300 acre-feet at the Little Wapwallopen site.

A minimum flow of 0. 1S cfs per square mile of drainage area was assumed to be maintained downstream of the reservoirs and pumping sources. This represents the present (conservation) minimum flow criteria of the Department of Environmental

.Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Streamf low downstream from the project would normally exceed this minimum because:

1. Most of the time the reservoir would be full, and all inflow will be passed downstream; and

2. During low flow periods, part of the augmentation release could be made downstream at those sites for which there is a demonstrable benefit to do so.

Minimum Stora e A minimum storage level with a capacity equivalent to either 2000 or 3000 acre-feet was assumed for each reservoir. Reservoirs near population centers were provided with the larger minimum pool. This pool would be large enough to store all sediments accumulating in the reservoir over the life of the project, and provide protection for aquatic life, reserve storage and for aesthetic reasons.

2-2

DAYS DURING PERIOD OF RECORD (1905-1975)

THAT AN

'LATE I/2 2-1 AUGMENTATIONRESERVOIR WOULD BE REQUIRED July>>>> Aug. Sept. Nov. Total 1905 0 06 0 07 0 08 12 12 09 0 1910 0 11 3 12 0 13 13 13 14 0 15 0 16 0

'l7 0 18 0 19 0 1920 0 21 0 22 0 23 0 24 0 25 0 26 0 27 0 28 0 29 0 1930 0 31 0 32 0 33 0 34 0 35 0 36 0 37 0 38 0 39 27 35 1940 0 41 16 42 0 43 0 44 0 45 0 46 0 47 0 48 0 49 0

>> Based on reservoir releases ween flow was equal to or less than B40 cfs at the Susquehanna Gage at Wilkes Barre.

>>>> Based on historical record, augmentation releases would never be required in the months December through June.

PLATE 2-1 DAYS DURING PERIOD OF RECORD I (1905-1975) 2/2 THAT AN AUGMENTATIONRESERVOIR WOULD BE REQUIRED "

(Continued)

July" Aug. Sept. Nov. Total 0

51 0 52 0 53 8 54 0 55 10 12 56 0 57 0 58 0 59 9 1960 0 61 0 62 23 32 63 19 6 25 64 19 29 31 25 104 65 3 66 0 67 0 68 0 69 0 1970 0 71 0 72 0 73 0 74 0 75 0 Total 50 124 "63 31 Based on reservoir releases when flow was equal to or less than B40 cfs at the Susquehanna Gage at Wilkes.earre.

~~ Based on historical record, augmentation releases would never be required in the months Oecember through June.

S illwa Requirements A combination of flood surcharge storage and spillway capacity was pro-vided to insure safety of the pro)ect, should the probable maximum flood occur. In general, the following depths of surcharge storage were provided:

15 feet for drainage areas greater than 15 square miles 10 feet for drainage areas greater than 5 square miles 5 feet minimum Each spillway was sized to pass the peak. outQow considering the applicable storage volumes.

Freeboard A five foot freeboard over maximum flood level was used for all reservoirs.

This is sufficient to prevent overtopping of the dam for maximum combination of flood, fetch, and wind conditions.

Other Pro ect Features Embankment dams and overQow spillways with hydraulic Jump stilling basins for energy dissipation were specified for all sites. Studies leading to pre-liminary design would consider possible alternatives.

An outlet tower is indicated for each site and would connect to the pump-ing water conduit and/or to an. energy dissipation basin on the downstream side of the dam. Augmentation releases would be made either back to the original pumping source or to the existing downstream channel. In no case would the downstream re-leases exceed the capacity of the downstream channel. The towers would be designed so releases can be made from various selected depths to assist in maintaining down-stream water quality.

Pump stations were sized to refill the reservoir during the most critical historic refilling period which hydrologic records indicate to have occurred from December 1964 to May 1965 in the part of the Susquehanna River Basin containing the sites studied. At those sites which are refilled from the Susquehanna River or other large streams where ample water is available during this period, pumps were sized to refill the pumping storage volume within a three-month period.

Relocations are provided as needed to minimize disruptions to the present patterns of roads, transmission lines, pipelines and other utilities.

2-3

Land requirements were estimated from the existing U.S.G.S.

maps. It was assumed that an adequate area above the maximum reservoir level, would be acquired for recreation development and to preserve or enhance the existing aesthetic quality of the sites.

Plans of Develo ment A plan was developed for each site which would provide the water supply storage needed to meet the low flow augmentation requirements.

These plans are described herein. Yield/storage requirements, water level.

and other pertinent information for each site are. summarized on Plate 2-2.

A plan for each reservoir and an area-storage curve are shown on Plate 2-3 through 2-28. Project cost and annual cost are summarized on Plate 2-29 for each site.

The plans considered storage only for low flow augmentation necessary for the Susquehanna SES. Other incidental uses such as recrea-tlon and fishing which require no additional storage can be accommodated within the plan. Some of the sites can be developed for more storage than is anticipated in this study. The additional storage could be used for flood control, municipal and industrial water supply, and low flow augmentation for other purposes. The need for this additional storage is unknown at this time. The possibility of providing additional storage is noted in the project descriptions herein.

It should be noted that no studies leading to optimization of the project features and costs have been made.

The plans were based on the above criteria and the topography shown on the U.S. Geological Survey maps with a scale of l:24,000. Each reservoir site was visited in the field.

A description of each site, an area-storage curve and map show-ing the configuration of each reservoir follows.

2-4

Sus uehanna Reservoir Stud Summar of Pro ects Little Graves Pond Mes hoppen Idle wild S i te Number Creek Creek Riley Creek Butler Creek Creek Fargo Creek Laning Creek Vn its ~P-OD-09-) ~T-10-10A) (SCS-1 0-17A) LT-38-100A) ~SCS-30-)1) )P-OD-10-)) ~BCS-11-7 Draina e Area sq. ml 2.3 10 17.5 19.4 7.8 4,3 10.6 Yield from Runoff cfs 0 10 21 24 9 0 10 Pumping cfs 50 40 29 26 41 50 40 Total cfs 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Sforarfe for-Runoff AF 0 2,700 5;200 5,700 2,300 0 2,900 Pumping AF 11,500 9,300 6,700 6,100 9,400 11,500 9,200 Total Water Supply AF 11,500 12,000 11,900 11,800 11,700 11,500 12,100 Inactive AF 2,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 Elevations-Top of Dam ft. MSL 1,090 945 940 1,100 1,225 1,020 1,040 Maximum Water Level ft.MSL 1.085 940 935 1,095 1,220 1,015 1,035 Water Supply Level ft.MSL 1,080 930 920 1.080 1,210 1,005 1,025 Minimum Water Level ft. MSL 1,005 870 865 1,025 1,135 900 955 Reservoir Area-Top of Dam Acres 300 370 465 450 330 330 420 Maximum Water Supply Acres 255 310 355 350 275 280 340 Minimum Water Supply Acres 75 100 130 125 90 60 90 Ex osed Area Maximum Drawdown Acres 180 210 255 225 185 220 250

~Pom fn Source Susquehanna Mes hoppen Meshoppen Tunkhannock South Branch Susquehanna Susquehanna River Creek Creek Creek Tunkhannock River River Creek Drainage Area of Source sq.ml 9,000 104 78 40 8,500 u 63 8,000 o Q Capacity cfs 64 64 100 50 50 64 50 pee eo Head ft. 470 370 210 300 220 460 350

~ O I

Pipeline I.ength 2,000 10,000 8, 000 14,500 3,800 9,000 7,000 (Tunnel) (Tunnel)

Sus uehanna Reservoir Stud Summa of Pro ects Tributary South Branch Tributary to Little Wap- Newport Salem Creek Nescopeck Creek Pond Creek wa llopen Creek Pond Hill Creek Site Number Vnrre T-00-08-2A P-07-2 P-OD-07-I ~P-OD-07-3)

Draina e Area sq.mi 3.2 2.2 9.6 27 1.2 Yield from-Runoff cfs 0 0 16 54 0 0 Pumping cfs 50 50 34 0 50 50 Total cfs 50 50 50 54 50 50 3~tora e Ior-Runoff AF 0 4,000 0 12,300 0 0 Pumping AF 11,500 11,500 7,600 Total Water Supply 0 11,500 11,500 AF 11,500 11,500 11,600 12,300 11,500 11,500 Inactive AF 3,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 2,000 3,000 Eievations-Top of Dam Ft. MSL 895 915 840 850 960 Maximum Water Level 1,075 Ft. MSL 890 910 835 845 955 1,070 Water Supply Level Ft. MSL 885 905 825 830 950 Minimum Water Level 1,065 Ft.MSL 795 810 710 765 870 975 Reservoir Area-Top of Dam Acres 275 255 270 410 240 Maximum Water Supply 220 Acres 235 215 200 300 230 200 Minimum Water Supply Acres 55 45 45 100 80 70 Ex osed Area Maximum Drawdown Acres 180 170 155 200 150

~Pnm In Source Susquehanna Nescopeck Little Wap- 140'usquehanna Susquehanna River Creek wa llopen Creek River Drainage Area of Source River sq.mi 10,500 163 29 10,000 10,000 Capacity'ead cfs 64 64 50 64 64~ u ft. 490 340 305 470 735K R Pipeline Length ft. 9,000 2,000 2,000 3,000 20;000 ~ ~

Graves Pond Creek P-OD 09-1 This project would be located on a small right bank tributary to the Susquehanna River in Windham Township of Wyoming County about 4.7 miles west of the Borough of Meshoppen. The location of the damsite and the outline of the maximum and minimum reservoir area is shown on Plate 2-3. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-4.

The drainage area above the damsite is 2.3 square miles and is too small to develop any appreciable yield. This study assumes that all the yield would be developed by pumping from the Susquehanna River through a short tunnel (2200 feet) to the reservoir. Conservation releases will be made to the downstream channel. A part of the augmentation release could also be made to this channel as long as its capacity was not exceeded. The remainder of the augmentation release would be made through the tunnel back to the river.

The proposed project is based on providing 13,500 acre-feet of storage to obtain an augmentation yield of 50 cfs. It i.s estimate that the capability of the site as limited by topography is about 21,000 acre-feet which would yield about 80 cfs for augmentation purposes.

The reservoir is small and compact requiring a minimum of land.

It was assumed that the existing secondary road falling within the reservoir would be relocated in order to maintain existing access. No other relocation reauirements were apparent.

/')lkh%%%<~JI))

PLATE 2-3 i1. Rnnn3 TUNNEL I

~ l

//OO lll5

)

L pp y)p MAXIMUMWATER LEVEL l IO

)) c> MINIMUMWATER LEVEL

~ ~

C NegT0 I

. POnd rO Q.

r

/ / ~OZ~

' ~

/

0 Pg

~ 'I

/JOO IT 0

~ ~ ~ r/'+

+o SUSQUEHANNA STUDY I 'I KXNM~~~))/El'LLM)'/.il GRAVES POND CREEK ~

( P-00 j )

I 2

SCALE IN MILKS A(kX%kNXXh I TIPPETTS-ABBETT McCARTHY STRATTOII ENOINEERS ANO ARCHITECTS'E'//

YORK, N.T,.

A n,

H2 Ca l0 X 10 TO THE INCH+ I X iO INCHES KEUFFH 0 ESSER CO. scaOCINOSA 46 0703 300 200 100 110 100 900.

0

Little Mesho en Creek T 10-10A Th}.s project would be located on Little Meshoppen Creek, partly in Auburn Township, Susquehanna County, and partly in Meshoppen Township, Wyoming County. The damsite is approximately 1-1/2 miles north of the Borough of Meshoppen. The location of the damsite and the outline of the maximum and minimum reservoir area are shown on Plate 2-5. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-6.

The proposed project is based on developing 14,000 acre-feet of stor-age to yield 50 cfs of augmentation flow. The maximum storage capability of the site as limited by the topography is about 35,000 acre-feet which would yield 140 cfs for augmentation purposes. There may be some benefits to the Borough of Meshoppen for flood control. storage. This should be investigated in further studies of this site.

The drainage area of 10 square miles would provide an augmentation flow of 10 cfs. The remaining required augmentation yield of 40 cfs would be de-veloped by pumping from Meshoppen Creek near its confluence with the Susquehanna River at the B'orough of Meshoppen. A 1.9 mile pipeline would connect the pump sta-tion with the reservoir. Alternatively, pumping could be directly from the Susque-hanna River. It is believed however, that a better quality water can be obtained from Meshoppen Creek. When pumping from the Meshoppen, the flow below the pump station during the critical refilling period would have been above the estimated long term median flow.

Conservation releases would be made to the downstream channel. Aug-mentation releases could be made to the channel also, or via the pipline to the river.

The reservoir is long and narrow and would back water up almost to Car-lins Pond. Land requirements would not be extensive. The two transmission lines crossing the reservoir would be raised to provide not less than the minimum clear-ance required above the maximum water level. It was assumed that the secondary road at the upper end of the reservoir would be straightened and a new brdige con-structed. Access in and around the project would be maintained by the existing roads outside the reservoir.

p0 4

Ij r 0

~l 4 aooo xi.

4 4 /r

~ 5

ao ao oat oology oor i'=

Q~O

~aoooa ~ o4 oo

~ ~

~~~ CONSTRUCT BRIDGE ~ OR CULUERT "::

g(::

0 -. 67! fyaa ~

ii I Il CP CS

~ V SUSQUEHANNA STUDY

>gw&4 LITTLE t4'IESHOPPEN CREEK (T- IO- IO- A )

SCALE n

9.%(L~~ (

IIPPEa TS-ASSEiZ-A,

I 10 X IO TO THE INCH ~ 1 X IO INCHES H+E Ca KEUFFEI A ESSER CO. ~ls05A 46 0703 400 300 200 100 920 900 880 860 840 820.

10 12 14 16

Rile Creek SCS10-17A This project is on a tributary of the West Branch of the Meshoppen Creek. It is located mostly in Auburn Township in Susque-hanna County. A small portion is in Meshoppen Township in Wyoming County. The damsite is about 3-1/2 miles by road northeast of the Borough of Meshoppen. The location of the damsite and the extent of the maximum and minimum reservoir area is shown on Plate 2-7. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-8.

The possibility of providing some flood control storage for the Borough of Meshoppen exists at this site also. Again it should be investigated if further studies of this site are considered.

The drainage area above the damsite is 17.5 square miles.

Approximately 21 cfs of the SO cfs augmentation flow would be developed from the drainage area. The remaining 29 cfs would be developed from pumping from Meshoppen Creek at the confluence with the West Branch through a pipeline 1.S miles long. When pumping, the flows in the Meshoppen would not be reduced below the estimated long-term median flow at the pumping site. It is estimated that the downstream channel has sufficient capacity to convey all reservoir releases to the Susquehanna River.

Pumping from the West Branch of Meshoppen Creek is an alternative. However, during the critical refilling period, the flow past the pump station would have 'at times been reduced to the minimum re-quired for conservation purposes.

The reservoir is long and narrow consisting of both farm land and second growth undeveloped areas. Land requirements are not extensive.

Access throughout the areawould be maintained by the existing road network and a small length of relocated secondary road on the right bank just north of the damsite. The two existing transmission lines would be raised to pro-vide not less than the minimum clearance required above the maximum reser-voir level.

2-7

tfotfitj Sirs +ardV fife SS> ~ Tcc q

'v>5$ 8SI,DC<girt .

S!8!kel

. 5 RctjSrt.'/st t<a<SIC>c! S UISterg t!  !

(/

'rahma!T rr 8rà .I Cof 3!rrt bfe ~/ cc sz i c

,<<I!Ac czf>!an't = 1 Qt. fiftffofc !so'zfte r gp~~~tf s

r. Lot!tea>tf ~

~/

g r0)'

,3'ifttftO",

('~ i 'ITTLE MESHOPPEN CREEK

(

1 ~

g. roy Jg 10-IOA =

2 BUTLER CREEK s r *1 it"s%!r i

ffft'rIW>8fiis'ld i/ i T-38-100A ~:r r YST !3>.tscf>agric 469. vi POCK  !<¹rriCK

/

Oft>C>VlliC.

LANING CREEK D!tr8ff 538 "OI."ffi ¹ 0arnr .OT>sf! f jtc if>ft CCA, SCS-11-7 Art ti StO!ttc/t LlA I0tt .:l C><I<i Vft'.c:8S Vc!flay VII .

~ ff 1~as; 02 maSGOS ftVI!f8+~< Jc SVCS! Sprit'-Iscviiict . 's":

's..-':-I c.' /iiv

/

Pgccscefi t tA'>orv!4

'  ! ~

6.

<<V. Ffar.t.litt S <.3.; . tW>s5&J~S* ' i } 4" ~ ~

<t g r;Orot R g ~aft c0rm', ¹ t/.."-"-

~

- - = ."-ets Cafkf t!s 'to

'+ Cantor!  %~4 /"L8 itott tf >thc>gg Tg J

Aq.-rc r c rc C ts>. Bgttdrr P!~S iG nt' tg!>>R.GIS i a ee c~

1 S

ES! 3! ref 884 't s LASSIE r r C rf<ii;:!z J vt'js>

Ig "'cee;!

., <tc>8/" c

>gal/3 >f,

- ft p~" s

<<vtca --

r3 cc>/.<<

- +>>tt8 NeStt -~'tlbftny Czrfctft Pit>!.

sr'~ 'I 87 IDLEWII D CREEK. 'zrjrrfrCsS'dasttsop.

FARGO CREEK 'r/.Nfr

( q. 318~;-

DG tfjdsvi!'if P-OD-IO-I ~.. r. r *.pt( > >DOos /

2! Tj>

/'Dfp' c

~ft! t <" k':em.'o IA' St;c >Doff Vtt!!te

¹.. ~DuSh0re S. Cavu!! sti-3 /- Mitts A A,<

(

LIRcofo Fails P". .

i c

i ~ Z 4> J, i t t i:tt:ta 4~+ .:.FGf fcSV Mi!drftd tisssot> a.oo>> j t

?COT><fa:.i 22CD VROe.i:S -rVfs Sr.PC, G>>-

gQ zcv'v:

I Pfttrg S C 5-10-17 A

+. -:<~-: sQttphatft .--.

i G.j ~kg Arse!

I

<.c.

> n/SiS~R ~ t GRAVES POND CREEK

nq i. ~ I WK8V! fC /g c

v c>

~ =.- 'O*ffmare Prctrtgs 3 c

P-00-09-1 XV

'=

ct I

/

. SZ> Ji

.:.. ~wgleo MÃ8:pyigf ~ rvcr>2rncgr-=

246<> v<ORGj!V fiv g-.> -""<<"

tfaf";..gqr

~ Gffj ter .' -

gW:gp'As?!

'g Js ro> f Lof,".8 'Ai

~ ~ <S ~ ~

Ar, / sr O 1 e J+ctr.

blurt y  ! s t< 2 CintC4 f 4>:s>

. Mt!8>tCRrsit

~ 'ittflet n4XFVS o

<<>81~ faSs Itfstct tsvil f8 f!vofi C~~'ypV;r

$r

~~ f. Zac'Cr ir

~

~  !

tf. t>r>Oftttjgf!t Bff Qr!2V8 g

// '~Crt!."!tref

'Lg4 SY>'88>f Tfa!

~ >

~,3/

t n

i <

TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH BRANCH t Vt NEVI'PORT CREE / ~ "

i t820

'~+,

trrs --

~

Sptf!Ig k.cv i 8 "T ft Aftp,'fs e<nftlar

'196'Q>av,-ps!

c'f S.

i '

>car 03; mr Pecks Pd.

~CCiS

$ "q;. r,.

P"Q 3

~ ftE<" A><V t 3 Ao>Vlv8 I

Rorr POND HILL: >>ovfs s,c,c,

>Sf' ~

I

,'r!KV'I'8/T P . /c X:,

P-OD-07-3 .CrS Q+ 3 -".50t / a br>/

I, .f I rf. Lttjr felt 8

~

-.= M i]3~~; / P 07.1

&fo m ogda!8 v

~ . 'r

<tftjt<f8fc~

Ht>r'- JOCfS~+

.rr~CtfÃ98 3+f raf t/

at kyoto jt

"/fvt G

t,extttt dZ~vp II Harve2-c,iffe "-.. Ca~ttdettsis:

8~1 SALEM CREEK

< res< Ca~>,.Ef; t i < vft13>t>fit!geo>T """'.tCCkc sgv q

"-" +Bff Thott!tlurst ¹ "rGb7tta;ttta ~. t':gtf I >II c'ssIIS J 1.

r.i:~

442 f3tii!S s

. ~

8GT tfDs) J>> kloi tkc..ar of 4 + Wa f aa>L.~r ~g>A Q.rg!t¹tal I'.,',. a 7~

A "gftG~pg Opp TC <frf1 ftaor>"-.Tt.,!te ,/fc t

.'Sett a

.3 Qs Q>S Sc~vcva. a. tPy~

~

RohtSbfjf Jn r! ftvttfioctdct *-:- - LITTLE V/APWALI OPEN CREEK

)~~0 11 I

54 Ttt rltOfv Httff Mf'IIVIII@

corfcfj i

" f0'<!S<

aO. tf<S.

til>

6 SCS 07-8A 0 10 g,

'~ --

>ac>res f ~

>'O Chc!<gf z sect SGt ( Grok < s< jS Mf~c Has'.i HOis"fe ~

SCALE: 3 = 5 MILES 1 ~ J fo 8c &tfjfssjififtp ~ri SUSQUEHANNA STEAM

~ s

~ +

..! ImeetoneH~

t crt 3<5! <fgg;Orr>>! ti E3EO TR'C ET!IT!ON ."'-~.""'~-'t~-.'-<."3 >N'"":": f /"e'-"'"""":-"'*"=" tr<CfRQ<<'P p'Q'r1

'cS'"-"

SUSQUEIHIAI INA STUDY s

r "" "'- V-'""'*.'*"~- '

I .,~":-/~i t Y 3

POND CREEK ' rc Sjc

'1

'-Stt'T'r!> )'

e p>rc, s RES-RVGllR LGCATIGIAI

!;:c'A>~ "'. TRIBUT'ARY To NEBOOPED!( DREEI(

. g,,>>C>>>~*(r/a/ D T~P>RTTR-ARRRTT.>~ CARTA<-RTRATT>>R

+,

1 >A< t TAR J

C 8 'P R<>ccc <sic. c>< g~'~-'I.!>>J3i>R<<'

8

>H<t!Efs~~<sy r

g 9'Jfs S>/>! Jt Fl>, 1 fzcR.

~

'!JJ) yq=:="========~%, <<~ggN')'1'qual -'-~<<= <<'>~h- ~

'SE

)z)i/)g)jjj//)/f/';AXIMUM WATER I ~ )

'f RA EXISTING TRANSMISS ION LINE //.y <

J/(]ZPj" 1

',/,lj;:

~/v

'r

~

I 0

PIPEEINE i'4'- il-

)

~ ~t(

- lr ')Pa< ~ :J(L) ol o ) ~ Ij f

i rrrr - -.-. >0

'g)~'l .

r, M "~~ 5

/I %' oo oh~ ~I

~~~+; ~~~ U O )00 i AO ))l'I j rr r C~QJQ O,'o l) OOOO 4

f rr

'j.

~D JI

~ -)

J 4 RELOCATE ROAD,i/! ./I O)oO q r ~

iII I; I b) +l ~lli~J,J//

fI o

,~7/

~M) q" ~O yYj'3'.~~~'a 1

(.g 7

,,OO oo I

1 0

go Cl o.:>

rr Cl OOCI lg

" ~e~$

j((g: ~'p

~o, Oft'ITTLE oo MESHOPPEN CREEK SITE ~

I 0 9

l 2

0 P 'i' Ir wyyg ai>u~~ip!j!i~ g r

r~ oo fNG)Nff RS AND ARCN)'ffCf f I

I I ~

O C

Vr S

)0 OUI W~sl . q~~r~ 2 S'QUEHANNA.ETUDE

~'lLEY CREEK

~

')

0 xx:- y4%i, 0- r. (SCS P" SERVOIR PLAN 17A )

)5 O

~ l ~

P rl

~

peal n

10 X 10 TO THE INCH ~ 1 X 10 INCHES

~Pa KEUFFEL d ESSER CO. StlOCIS SSE 46 0703 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 100 90 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 S tora ge 1000 AF

Butler Creek T-38-100A This project is located in Harford Township in Susquehanna County about 2 miles directly west-northwest of the Village of South Gibson on a tributary to the Nine Partners Creek which is a tributary to Tunkhannock Creek. Plate 2-9 shows the location of the damsite and the extent of the reservoir and Plate 2-10 shows the area-storage curve.

The drainage area of 19.5 square miles upstream of the dam-site can develop an augmentation yield of 20 cfs. The remaining required yield of 30 cfs would be developed by pumping from the confluence of Nine Partners and Tunkhannock Creeks through a pipeline 2.75 miles in length. The flow in the Tunkhannock Creek downstream of the pump station would be reduced at times during the critical refilling period to the mini-mum required for conservation purposes. It is estimated, however, that pumping would have caused this to occur in one year during the 70 years of record.

Conservation releases would be made to the downstream chan-nel. Augmentation releases would be made to the downstream channel and back to the pumping source via the pipeline. In no case would the capa-city of the existing channel be exceeded.

The reservoir area is long and narrow consisting of both farm and second growth undeveloped land. Land requirements would not be ex-tensive. Access throughout the vicinity would be maintained by the exist-ing road network. It was assumed that repaving the existing gravel road on the right bank near the damsite would be a part of the project. No other re-locations are apparent.

2-8

'10 X 10 TO THE INCH ~ 7 X 10 INCHES HoE Cw IIEUFFEI A ESSER CO. saoC M 0%A. 46 0703 900 800 700 600 SOO 400 300 200 100 0 120 1100 1000 a

I I

900 ED 10 20 30 40 50

C 5

IQMEM llliiTER I EVIL ~ -. '.. f C . ~ I I

/ gE ' . A

/ .Sf C

/

~~ ~

~~ )

-~~o '- - -"',WX k~)'i~'.,:(' ~.+

~

~ -' q-:

I

'-. ~=~. ~ ~ j( ~= r, 5 ",,

M rgL-."-f'- --.. SuSauCHAnNASTVOV C

C

'5 S.ASSSSS-EAI(AASSIT SSEATSON 4+

I II>OR II IS RNO ~ CIIIIICIS M')1'-WX I )I i 'I

~ r tri+il~p+w ~

IC M

h

0 Idlewild Creek SCS 38-11 This project would be in Clifford Township, Susquehanna County.

The damsite would be about 4.4 miles directly south-southeast of the Village of South Gibson. The extent of the reservoir and the location of the dam-site is shown on Plate 2-'Ll. The area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-12.

The drainage area of Idlewild Creek above the damsite is 7.8 square miles. About 9 cfs of augmentation yield can be developed from the drainage area. The remaining 41 cfs needed would be developed by pumping from the East Branch of Tunkhannock Creek. The flow in the East Branch past the pump station was, during the critical period, reduced at times to the minimum required for conservation purposes. It is estimated that pump-ing would have caused this to occur only in one year during the 70 years of record.

A.pipeline 0.75 miles in length would connect the pump station and reservoir.

Conservation releases would be made to the downstream chan-nel. Augmentation releases would be made via both the channel and the pipe-line back to the pumping source. The existing channel capacity, however, would not be exceeded.

The reservoir is small and compact and will not require extensive land takings. Access in the area would be maintained mostly by the existing road system. A bridge is included as part of the project for the secondary road crossing near the upper end of the reservoir. A short relocation is pro-vided in the vicinity of the left abutment of the dam. The bridge is now out of service on the existing secondary road upstream from the damsite. Because existing access can be maintained without this road, it is assumed to be aban-doned. No other relocation requirements are apparent.

2-9

g /277( g

(/

y)

7 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 1

/

I OR CULVERT

/

/

XN If l(//I PLATE j

2-11 i

//)/:,'(/'

) l05 gtP

/1

!//'

/

i i

(t,,

I (ff J//

MAIUMUMWATER I,EI/EL j ($ ,

go

/i Oj i l/j PIPELINE

~/ y!'i gl O

RELOCATE ROAD

~" r i'USQUEHANNA ft ii )l((j,'k( 4~n STUD Y WILD CREE K

(/j

'DLE i 0 (SCS 38 I I )

riigr~jg '."'""~. M'..WWW, l i 'i 1/ ce/

r

. 1 RESERVOIR PLAN

/455

~xLN~

II f I

~ < ~

10 X 10 TO THE INCH+ 1 X IO INCHES NOh KEUFFEL 0 ESSEA CO. VaOE W 0 EE 46 0703 10 0 130 125 120 115 110 105 0 0 50 60 70

Fa o Creek P-OD-10-1 This project is located in Tuscarora Township in Bradford County. The damsite is about 1.6 miles directly northeast of the Borough of Laceyville. The extent of the reservoir and the location of the damsite is shown on Plate 2-13. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2"14.

The drainage area of Fargo Creek above the damsite is 4.3 square miles which is too small to develop a substantial natural yield.

For this study it was assumed that the project yield was developed by pump-ing from the Susquehanna River near the confluence with Tuscarora Creek.

A pipeline 1.7 miles long would connect the pump station with the reservoir.

The conservation release and possibly part of the augmentation release would be made to the downstream channel. The capacity of this channel, however, would not be exceeded. The remainder of the augmentation re-lease would be made via the pipeline to the river.

This site requires a larger than usual dam to develop the re-quired storage.

The reservoir is kong and narrow. Land requirements would not be extensive. The land appears to be part farm and part second growth un-developed lands. Access is provided by the existing secondary road system.

A bridge at the upper end of the reservoir is included as part of the project.

Two existing transmission lines crossing the reservoirs would be raised to provide not less than the minimum clearance required above the maximum water level. No other relocations are apparent.

2-10

PLATE 2-l$

Qo

'I CONSTRUCT BRIDGE /OR CULVERT C7

(~p I i

yr RAISE EXISTING C Z.'~ZZZI/rl/l'J J VQ))

TRANSMISSION LINE I?

MAXIMUMWATER LVIEL J',,

MINIMUMWATER LEVEL 5.

a h

PIP E LINE 0

PUAIP STATION ( SUSQUEHANNA STUDY ~

5CAI.E lN RRII.E5 0 ":.':,

FARGO CREEK

( P- OD- IO- I )

~

dRRe TIPPETTS-ABBETT-McCARTHY STRATTON RESERVOIR PL'AN.

RNOINllRS AND ARCNIYRCYS A ll 8 AC~%X he% NRW YORK. N.Z..

X

r ~

10 X 10 TO THE INCH' X H0E Cii KEUFFEL 4 ESSER CO. Stttt IW t10taINCHES 46 0703 300 200 100 1000 900 800 20 30

Lanin Creek SCS 11-7 This project would be located in Sheshequin and Wysox Town-ships, Bradfordr County. The damsite is 2.6 miles northeast of the Borough

~

of Towanda (west end of Highway 6 bridge). A plan of the reservoir and the location of the damsite is shown on Plate 2-15. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-16.

The drainage area of Laning Creek above the damsite is 10.6 square miles and could develop an augmentation yield of 10 cfs. The remaining requirements (40 cfs) would be developed by pumping from the Susquehanna River. The pump station would be located on the bank opposite the Village of North Towanda. It would connect by tunnel (1.4 miles),

to the reservoir. ~

It is estimated that the downstream channel can convey the releases back to the river. An alternative to the channel would be through the tunnel.

The reservoir is long and narrow. This site would require more land takings than the other sites. The access in the area would be .

maintained over the existing network of roads. No relocations of any kind are apparent.

2>>11

PLATE 2-IS (p/ ,/ g!

( ,I xLW

/j)

MMGMUMWATER LEVEL (

/4 0 8 n X/31 w!

ZOO (I' II'

/

gOO

/,~') ,I) ./

n 0 "I~

/,','I, e/c 3,, /(i

(( (

~~~~(

/'(

) i.

/ MINIMUMWATER LEVEL

/

(

Q

/

1

.I'J! POn E

g(il)

(

/( ~)

!i

') Q k<.

(

3 I /5/ (I(/,

I tl

'F59 PUMP STATION ((II, y. (

SUSQUEHANNA STUDY ILC "I

( n c,i" iOO '.:. >> '<;nisi>;it,X 'Q k ii, LAMING CREEK

( SCS -li -7 )

SCAt.C ttt litt.BB

) tl TtPPETTS-ABBETT-McCARTHY STRATTON ~ e nn~~( I, /-~i ~

BH835

((

j(//;;

t j

'I

n. ~ .nn . ~ .u

(((/ (I, RESERVOIR /

<

• imnemm PLAN

H'5

<<5 IO X 10 TO THE INCH+ 7 X IO INCHES KEUFFEI. 0 ESSER CO. woEwesL 46 0703 14 12 10 0 1100 1050 1000 950 900 850 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Salem Creek T-OD 08-2A)

This site is located in Salem Township, Luzerne County, three miles east-northeast of the City of Berwick (north end of bridge).

The extent of the reservoir and the location of the damsite is shown on Plate 2-17. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-18.

The drainage area of Salem Creek above the damsite of 3,2 square miles, ls too small to develop any substantial yield. This study assumes that the augmentation yield is developed by pumping from the Susquehanna River. The pump station would be located at the mouth of Salem Creek and would connect to the reservoir via a pipeline about 1.7 miles long.

Saiem Creek beiaw the darn haa a limited capacity. It is assumed that most of the augmentation releases will be made through the pipeline to the river. Releases for conservation purposes and part of the augmentation needs not exceeding the existing capacity would be made to the downstream channel.

This site requires an extra large dam to provide the required storage .

The reservoir is long, narrow and deep. The area is mostly second growth undeveloped land and land takings would not be extensive.

A bridge is provided for the secondary road which crosses the upper end of the reservoir area. The transmission line which crosses the upper end would be raised to provide not less than the minimum clearance required abova the maximum reservoir level. No other relocations are apparent.

2-12

(

i 10 X 10 TO THE IFICH+0 X IO INCHES 46 0703 8+2

~E KEUFFKI. a ESSER CO. NaOaWata.

400 300 200 100 0 900 800 700 650 0 2 4 6 10 12 14 16 18 20

ibutar to Nesco eck Creek P-35-1 This site is Nescopeck Township, Luzerne County about 4 miles southeast of the Borough of Nescopeck (south end of bridge). The extent of the reservoir and the location of the damsite is shown on Plate 2-19. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-20.

The drainage area of the stream above the damsite is 2.2 square miles and is too small to develop any substantial yield. This study assumes that the entire yield is developed by pumping from the Nescopeck Creek. The pump station is located at the confluence of the tributary to Nescopeck Creek and connects to the reservoir by a pipeline 0.75 miles long. When refilling the reservoir during the critical period, the flow in Nescopeck Creek would not be reduced below the estimated long term median flow. Because of the limited channel capacity, releases except for con-servation purposes would be via the pipeline to Nescopeck Creek.

Two alternative water conductors were considered. One was a 2.25 mile long tunnel connecting the reservoir to the Susquehanna River.

The second was a pipeline, 7.75 miles long, which follows the alignment of Nescopeck Creek to the Susquehanna River.

The reservoir is small, narrow and deep. The area appears to be farm and second growth undeveloped lands. Land requirements are II not extensive. A medium size transmission line which crosses the reser-voir would be raised to provide not less than the minimum clearance required above the maximum water level. A pipeline crbssing the reservoir area would be rebuilt as an underwater pipeline. No other relocations are apparent.

2-13

~ ~ A

~ I -I

~ ., Itpr ~ ~" - cW~

~ .>~ 8+.. r Ark ~ Pocky I

/

I 8

~. A r ~ '0 I.

9 p  !

\

"587 I 3

fq~WW3PPW~

~

~ ~ c' Ilc, gPgPa~+y.~

C~R c

,~~

I 0 1

:T-.-.---'I'L.a,~ ~As oye

~

/ ..'I '/

.,=,7C',

//

nI (

j ~~/

r Cr

"-~~.'-'+I I -8/+

/r o III

(~J, PUN iP RTB.TIO",. II

~

/.'cc/E/

~

' NX; ~ 3 /I /', CV. 8 ~aC. TRAIVS'M.SSION LINE ~~;-,(":

l

( t".INL>IUMWATER 'LEVEL I$ (

) C)( (X Og <. -'

'i(~'I

/ /

t 'I J (

X)

/';

i'l I',,~

PUI'8P STATION r~i-/

P!PEIINE ~ r 'j rr/~++>~/'(

.1 ~~~ LITTI E WAPWALLOPEN CREEK SITE r

1 1

'I(

~

I l I gl/i I l((l

,jr /r

)

i

/

/ / ~i.7/ l~-' l 0 ".

SUSQUEHANNA STUDY OP' ~~~'. YR.X POND CREEK (P-07-2 )

~) I-l( ~ID,'(~~~ ~rr(..."

~ 'I r'.O((k, a 5 I ~ 0 RESERVPI R PLAN r /r 5CAI.C IN

~AS'///~

IIII E5 TI'PETTS-ABBETT McCARTHT STRATTON ~

+ ' ~

~

i INOINIIES ANO AECNIIICIS ~

I: oM 10 X 10 TO THE INCH+ F X 10 INCHES go@Sa ll KEUFFEL A ESSEII CO. luau 0 5A. 46 0703 400 300 200 100 0 900 800 700 Q

Irt I

600 0 20 30 40 50

ittle Wa wallo en reek CS-07-8A This site would be partly in Conyngham, Dorance and Ho?len-back Townships, Luzerne County. The damsite is about 8 miles east-north-east of the City of Berwick. Plate 2-23 shows the location of the damsite and the extent of the reservoir. An area>>s'tnrage curve is shown on Piete 2-24.

The drainage area of Little Wapwallopen Creek at the damsite is 27 square miles. Approximately 54 cfs can be developed from the natural flow for augmentation releases. No pumping would be required.

Commissioners Little Wapwallopen Creek is classified by the Pennsylvania Pish a good trout stream. The release-refill pattern esti-mated for the design drought would reduce the downstream flow at times to the minimum required for conservation purposes. However, under normal hydrologic conditions an operating schedule could be established which would complement fish stocking. It would consist of the following:

l. When the reservoir is full, release alI, inflows. This would normally cover the period March through June.

2. In July and August make conservation and augmentation releases as required.

3. After August when it is apparent that hydrologic conditions are normal, make all required releases and maintain a minimum downstream flow equal to the reservoir inflow or the median flow which ever is least.

Store all inflows in excess of the median until the reservoir has completely refilled.

This site requires an extra large dam to provide the required storage. The reservoir area appears to consist mostly of second growth un-developed land. Real estate needs would not be extensive. It is assumed that the secondary road which crosses the reservoir can be abandoned without affecting existing traffic patterns in the area. The transmission line along the left rim of the reservoir will be raised to provide not less than the required minimum clearance above the maximum water level. No other relocation needs are apparent.

2-15

E C: '-~

j /~I" /Lk< ..

EXISTING TMXSIvllSSIO!i

~/> XE 'AISE i%;-':J~: I I l l

/ ~

/ / p

/ ' '

~>; "

'I

.. ~ ~~ POND CREEK SITE T

~

/ I (

/

0

)a I ~

~

l XZ

//

/

r-r I I

Glz

(

--A..

/'

~

pw

>'(I

> I ji I .

-~A /'~~: =~

I

'/r I I ~

n 'l ivIIMUA. f WATER LEYEE

'(ji 'J-z I l ~ ,('yOY/<g';.

I/L ~.~ 2<.(/ r / ~

MINIMUMWATER LEVEL Mr, I I

~

!.l /'

)

r' II( l" A

I

. ~

I>

//

--v il

<r>

)

I

/ /

T I

. .I >((

t i(

I

/ rg y/ /r l.

/( j - -~pP I) /! (. 'USQUEHANNA STUDY I

'.+- /,//'/.'uncil Cu p / g/p/

( I ) 'jlI

' . '+ f(~ 8/ /.' ///5//

WAPWALLOFEN 0REEK

'./ '.~c',

/ /ML$I/r,,

bF'ITTLE

>r (g I,

~

/ //"

~l .~ I ,o I RESERVOIR PLAN '

/" /

"/ i ~~ ..-./ JI I I. //' ~~ 'l T'"Pi.-- -//;((H(li.(( . /I ~~+i J/

~i NIW ZOEK y  !

N

/

~~l

/ / > ~ \ ~

I(

.~/

T./5 ~~~ ~N lg, ~ 4

~

+a '

/ '~w.-P J I- -~t/,.-//(/~~

\,

A-H-I I

=-~~

~II~ C i

10 X 'l0 TO THE INCH+ 'I X IO INCHES 8+5

~E KEUFFELOESSERCO. NNXSeaaa. 46 0703 800 600 400 200 0 900 800 700 650

10. 20 30 40 Sa

Pond Hill POD-07-1 This project would be located in Conyngham;Township, Luzerne County, on a small tributary to the Susquehanna River near the Village of Pond Hill. The damsite would be about one mile southeast of the Village of Mocanaqua. The location of the damsite and the extent of the reservoir is shown on Plate 2-25. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-26.

The drainage area of the stream upstream of the damsite is 1.2 square miles. As the flow from this drainage area is negligible, the yield for the project would be developed by pumping from the Susquehanna River. The pump station would be located about 0.8 miles south of the Village of Mocanaqua. A pipeline 0.50 mile long would connect the pump station with the Reservoir. An alternative to the pipeline would be a tunnel approxi-mately the same length.

The proposed project is based on developing 13,500 acre-feet of storage which would yield 50 cfs of augmentation flow. The maximum storage capacity of the site as limited by topography is about 25,000 acre-feet which could yield about 100 cfs for augmentation purposes.

The reservoir would be small and compact. The area appears to be second growth undeveloped wood lands. Right-of-ways needs are not ex-tensive. There are apparently no roads or utilities within the reservoir requir-ing reloca tions.

2-16

"':- '>~"" 't '"/'7 'E'lfi(((Ii(('//'/II/<Age&~'",/:: Pg//g<~

c /

g4..

t,'ff((//(('/II, ~ .

Igl(II' ($ ) l1 ,/i///(

r'///lj!lj//~'ii/

/ gpss

~

I 14/BLN3 0

(, /

(

-hi)jf,!i I I iliIi g/// i11 g /

]I 4 ~

'I~ii ~ (II (('IN TMUM WATER LEVEZ, 0 c~

l I~

I

~ ~

~I ~ l4 ~ I

<<0 J 4 Mc V;,

~ /

+pa

,I a

~ ~ MNGMUMWATER LEVEL 4

~

4 I

~~ ~

4

~ ~

~ .4r / SUSQUEHANNA STUDY 1>t 11 e POND HlLL

(.'(

o))

11 o Ae +

4

( P-OD-O7- ) I

/

4 I I RESERVOIR PLAN I

I I "

ICALK N

'AkA":~~

~4 LITLKS I

! (c Ii/i )

I I

I I

K r /I TFPOTS AddETT-McCARTHY-STRATTON I ENOINKIRS ANO ARCNlTCCT5 I g I

~

l

/

/

I 4rA'"L UH'41M ((o3////E/.. / 5<

r" ~ r I I i

~

I I

10 X '10 TO THE INCH ~ 7 X 10 INCHES

~E KEUFFEI. 0 ESSER CO. S~a SSa 46 0703 400 300 200 100 0 100 900 800 750 0 10 20 30 40 50

Tributa to South Branch New ort Creek POD-07-3 This project would be located in Newport Township, Luzerne County, about 2.7 miles south-southwest of the CitY of Nanticoke. The location of the damsite and the extent of the reservoir is shown on Plate 2-27. An area-storage curve is shown on Plate 2-28.

The drainage area of the stream above the dam is 1.1 square miles. The runoff from this area is negligible. Pumping from the Susque-hanna River would be necessary to develop the required yield. The pump station would be located on the Susquehanna River near the mouth of Newport Creek. A pipeline four miles long, following the stream align-ment would connect the reservoir with the pump station. Normally releases, except for conservation needs, would be made through the pipeline to the river.

The proposed site now contains:a small water supply reservoir.

It is adjacent to an area where both surface and deep coal mining has taken place. The surface mining extends right up to the dam-site. The extent of the underground mining is not known. The damsite is located over an existing waterfall approximately 25 feet high.

An extra large dam is required at this site to develop the needed storage. Also there are two low areas near the maximum water level where weathering of the existing ridge might have taken place.

Further investigation of the geology of this area is needed to establish the technical suitabilitY of this site. A boring program will be needed to establish the extent of the deep mining, water highness of the reservoir, the depth of weathering in the low ridges and the degree of foundation treatment which might be required.

The reservoir area is completely undeveloped except for the small water supply'reservoir. Land requirements are small. No reloca-tion needs are apparent.

2-17

400 iE 8+5 10 X 10 TO THE INCH+ 7 X IO INCHES KEUFFEI dr ESSER CO. wot la e tA 300

'6 200 0703 r ai 100 0 1100 1000 900 950 0 10 20 30 40 50

Cost Construction Cost An estimate of the profect cost was prepared for each of the reservoirs. The cost for each site are compared on Plate 2-29.

The estimates are based on the prof ect layouts described above. In general, quantity take-offs were made for the large construction items (including lands and relocations) and extended with appropriate unit prices. The cost for the smaller items which could not be readily estimated was included in the unit prices. The unit prices reflect recent experience with similar types of profects within the northeastern region of the United States.

The following allowances were added to obtain profect cost:

Contingencies 2S%

Engineering, legal and other costs incurred by the owner 10/o Interest during construction Annual Cost The annual cost of operation, maintenance and amortization of the profect cost were computed for each reservoir. These costs are compared in Plate 2-29 The factors used in estimating these costs are outlfned in Figure 1. The method used for the estimate is similar to that given in the Federal'ower Commission's publication "Hydroelectric Power Evaluation, Supplement No. 1."

Variable operation and maintenance costs for pumping stations were based on the following data which is similar to data for hydroelectric plants given in the FPC publication (Table 37). That data has been increased by 50% to reflect price increases.

2-18

FIGURE 1 ANNUAL COST FACTORS Annual Rate as a Percent Item of Initial Cost Land and Relocations Cost of Money )

)

Depreciation 17 S~/

Operation, Maintenance, Insurance )

Taxes (Local and Federal)

)

Civil Works Cost of Money ')

)

Depreciation

)

Insurance and Interim Replacements )

17.S%

)

Operation and Maintenance

)

~

Taxes (Local and Federal) )

Pum Station Cost of Money Depreciation 17.5/o Insurance and Interim Replacement Taxes (Local and Federal)

Operation and Maintenance Variable Power Cost Vairable

Annual Expenses Excluding Energy Costs Installed Capacity for Operation ilowatts Dollars er kilowatt of installed ca acit 2500 14.70 5000 11 F 80 7500 7 '0 10000 F 50 15000 4.20 20000 3.80 The annual power cost for each pump-in reservoir was based on operating the pump station,":arr the average, one month each year. In-cluded in this average is the pumping necessary to refill the reservoir each year, and an allowance for scheduled operation for maintenance purposes.

An average energy cost of $ 0. 025 per kilowatt hour was assumed.

2-19

Sus uehanna Reservoir Stud Summa of Costs Little Graves Pond Meshoppen Idlewild Creek Creek Riley Creek Butler Creek Creek Fargo Creek Laning Creek Pro ect Cost P-OD-09-1 T<<10-10A SCS-10-17A P-OD-10-1 Land and Land Rights $ 1,060,000 $ 1,240,000 $ 1,680,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 840,000 $ 9/0,000 $ 1,3S0,000 Reloca tions 800, 000 990,000 1,220,000 430,000 250,000 920,000 100,000 Dam 8,422,000 4,375,000 4,138,000 6,240,000 8,440,000 14,175,000 8,111,000 Spillway 2,054,000 4,042,000 4,183,000 4,440,000 4,240,000 3,640,000 4,798,000 Service Outlet 2,600,000 1,800,000 1,950,000 2,030,000 2,030,000 1, 800,000 2,500,000 Pumpstation 3,200,000 2,700,000 2,800,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,100,000 2,200,000 Tunnel and/or Pipeline 1,6S0,000 2,350,000 2,430,000 3,070,000 1,360,000 2,190,000 5,250,000 M is eel lan eous 1 800 000 1 600 000 1 800 000 600 000 7 0 Subtotal 21,586,000 19,097, 000 20,200,000 22,110,000 20,87n,ooo 29,095,000 26,539,000-Contingencies, etc. lo 514 000 9 503 000 0 00 000 Total $ 32,100,000 $ 28,600,000 $ 30,300,000 $ 32,200,000 $ 31,300,000 $ 43,700,000 $ 39,900,000 Annual Cos t Total $ 5,750,000 $ 4,960,000 $ 5,390,000 $ 5,870,000 $ 5,560,000 $ 7,77o,ooo $ 7,o8o,ooo Pumping $ 72,000 $ 57,000 $ 40,000 $ 36,000 $ 32,000 $ 70,000 $ 36,000 Ql 0

I

Sus uehanna Reservoir Stud Summa of Cost Tributary to Tributary to Little South Branch Nesco peck Wa pwa llopen Newport Pro'ect Cost Salem Creek Creek (T-OD-08-2A) P-35-1 Pond Creek P-07-2 Creek i-Pond Hill Creek P-OD-07-3 Land and Land Rights $ 1,060,000 $ 850,000 $ '70,000 $ 1,030,000 $ 1,160,000 $ 680,000 Relocations 750,000 560,000 1,600,000 500,000 50,000 50,000 Dam 16,350,000 11,860,000 14,820,000 10,427,000 8,955,000 14,417,000 Spillway 2,650,000 2,460,000 5,339,000 5,631,000 2,920,000 3,146,000 Service Outlet 2,250,000 3,150,000 3,250,000 1,500,000 2,700,000 2,250,000 Pumps tation 3,200,000 2,700,000 2,000,000 3,200,000 4,000,000 Tunnel and/or Pipeline 2,190,000 1,310,000 910,000 1,130,000 3,950,000 Miscellaneous 2 640 000 2 000 000 2 400 000 1 940 000 1 900 000 2 600 000 Subtotal 31,090,000 24,890,000 30,989,000 21,028,000 22,015,000 31,093,000 Contingencies, etc. 15 510 000 12 410 000 15,111,000 10,072,000 10 985 000 15 607 000 Total $ 45,600,000 $ 37,300i000 $ 46,100,000 $ 31,100,000 $ 33,000,000 $ 46,700,000 Annual Cost Total $ 8,280,000 $ 6,590,000 $ 8,180,000 $ 5,450,000 $ 5,920,000 $ 8,210,000 Pumping $ 76,000 $ 528000 $ 46,000 $ - $ 72,000 $ 112,000

CHAPTER 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pacae Introduction 3-1 Graves Pond Creek 3-3 Little Meshoppen Creek 3-5 Riley Creek 3 ~7 Butlei Creek 3-9 IdlewQd Creek 3-11 Fargo'-Creek 3-13 Laning Creek 3-15 Salem Creek 3-17 Tributary, Nescopeck Creek 3-19 Pond Creek 3>>21 Little Wapwallopen Creek 3-23 Pond Hill 3-24 Tributary to South Branch, Newport Creek 3-25 List of References 3-29

CHAPTER 3

'IST OF TABLES Tab1e Pacae 3-1 Water Quality of Pumping Source Upper Susquehanna Sites 3 ~27 3-2 Water Quality of Pumping Source Lower Susquehanna Sites 3-28

Chapter 3 ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT Introduction This environmental assessment of thirteen potential reservoir sites in the Susquehanna River Basin is part of a screening process to identify a primary site which will be studied in detail prior to the Qnal selection of a site for development. As such, this assessment is necessarily limited in its scope, and does not attempt to treat any particular environmental factor in detail. Rather, only those areas associated with reservoir development which were felt to be of particular importance or to have potentially signiQcant im-pacts were identified and briefly analyzed.

Each site was analyzed according to eleven factors: number of residential units within the site; amount of residential development below the proposed dam site; amount and type of agricultural activity affected; agricul-tural capability classiQcation of soils within site; length of stream inundated; quality of the affected stream's Qshery; water quality of the reservoir's water source (this will directly affect the reservoir's potential water quality); poten-tial impact on pumping source (with particular emphasis on proportion of total Qow to be pumped and fishery quality); a qualitative judgment of the wQdlife habitat within the site relative to the other sites studied; length and type of water conduit (i.e. pipeline or tunnel) and character of area which would be traversed by a pipeline; and area exposed by maximum drawdown (this is directly related to the size and shape of the reservoir).

In order to preserve conQdentiality, the data on which this analy-sis was based was limited to that contained in easily obtainable public do-cuments. A list of documents consulted is presented in the list of references following this chapter. In addition to a literature review, a two-day recon-naissance was made of the 13 sites in late November, 1976 to assess the general character of each site.

Two major assumptions were made to facilitate the evaluation of the sites considered:

a) Because of the difQculties involved in accurately estimating total land requirements for each site at this stage of study, a site was deQned 3-1

as that area bounded by the topographic contour at the elevation of the top of the dam. In all cases this elevation is five feet above maximum water level. The elevations used are shown on Table 2-2.. It is within this area-that the analysis of such things as residential relocations and land use is focused. A plan of each reservoir showing the extent of the maximum water level is given in Chapter 2.

b) Construction impacts were assumed to be essentially similar for each site, with the exception of the water conduit route which is treated separately for each site.

The following descriptive site analyses present a brief discussion.

of each site's suitability for reservoir development.

3"2

GRAVES POND Land Use and Develo ment.

The Graves Pond site is located in the extreme northwest corner of Wyoming County. The site is simQar in its land use mix to the county as a whole, with approximately 30% of the site area devoted to agricultural use and the remainder wooded. The agricultural activity is located in the upper portion of the site, and is mainly cropland. The generalized agricultural capability classification for the cultivated area is Class III, which is thi predomi'nant classification for this section of the county. The project will directly affect a total of approximately 300 acres, with 90 acres of agricultural land and 210 acres of forest area impacted.

Graves Pond would affect the greatest amount of active agricultural land of any site studied.

The only residential development in the site is located along a local road which skirts the northern edge of the site. Three or four residential relocations may be required.

There are approximately 5-8 residences located below the proposed dam site. Most of these homes are over a mile away and the dam will probably not be visible to their inhabitants.

Natural Resources Graves Pond Creek is a very small stream which probably Qows intermittently during dry periods. The stream is not stocked or listed as a fishery by the Pennsylvania Pish Commission Approximately 1.5 miles, or 50% of the total length of the stream will be inundated. In that there are no obvious pollution sources in the drainage basin, it is assumed that the existing water quality of the stream is good, with the exception of some pos-sible pollution from farm runoff.

All of the water for this site will be pumped from the Susque-hanna River. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, water samples taken from this section of the River consistently 3-3

contain excesses of total dissolved solids and iron, and the one observation avaQable shows a very high total coliform level. Based on this information the water quality of the river in this area could be termed fair to good (see Table 3-1).

Pumping at this site will never exceed 7% of the Qow in the Susquehanna, and at most times it weal be much less than this.

Wildlife habitat at this site is of about average quality when compared with the other sites surveyed.

Other Factors The water will be pumped from the river through a tunnel; thus, the impacts of constructing the water conduit will be relatively minor.

Drawdown at Graves Pond is about average for the sites studied, with 180 acres of the total inundated area exposed in a maximum year.

3<<4

LITTLE MESHOPPEN CREEK Land Use and Develo ment Little Meshoppen Creek is located in northwestern Wyoming County and extends into southwestern Susquehanna County. The site is in a mixed agricultural and wooded area similar to Graves Pond, with approx-imately 40-50% of the watershed devoted to active agricultural use. The site itself, however, is much more wooded in character, with only about 5% of the site under cultivation. The site is in a long and narrow valley, which follows the creek for approximately 2.5 miles. The valley floor is mixed woodland and old fields with valley walls mainly wooded.

Approximately 370 acres of land would be directly affected by this project and, of this, only an estimated 20 acres is under active cultivation.

The land within the site is predominantly (80%) Class IV-VIII agricultural capability, which is considered land of poor productivity. There is, however, a small section (20%) of the upper end of the site which is rated Class II and III.

Residential activity within the site is limited, with approxi-mately 4-5 homes scattered through the site. Most of these homes appear to be former farm houses which are now used as rural non-farm residences.

There is a significant amount of.residential development below the dam, with 3-4 homes within sight of the structure and the Borough of Meshoppen about 1.5 miles downstream.

Natural Resources Little Meshoppen Creek is a medium to small stream which is approximately nine miles long and includes three small ponds in the upper half of its reach. Approximately 2.75 miles of the stream would be inundated, but none of the three ponds would be affected by the project.

The stream was stocked with brook and brown trout during the middle fifties, but was last stocked in 1958. During the period in which it was stocked,

~

L ~

17,550 fingerling trout were placed in the stream. Several beaver ponds were observed along the stream during the site reconnaissance.

3-5

The quality of the water in L'ittle Meshoppen Creek is assumed to be good due to the lack of pollution sources other than agriculture in its watershed. Approximately 80% of the water in this reservoir would be pumped in from Meshoppen Creek near its conQuence with the Susquehanna River.

Although stocking takes place approximately one mile upstream from the con-Quence of the Creek and the River, this section of Meshoppen Creek is not stocked, and the Creek's Qow would not normally be reduced below the long-term median Qow.* Water quality in Meshoppen Creek at this point is assumed to be good, due to the fact that trout are stocked in the area direct-ly above the pumping point.

The mixed character of this site's wildlife habitat, including the presence of beaver, results in its being classed as having somewhat above average wildlife habitat relative to the sites reviewed.

Other Factors The pump-in water conduit for this project runs to the con-Quence of Meshoppen Creek and the Susquehanna, and is approximately 1.8 miles long. It would go through the Borough of Meshoppen, and may cause some disruption to the area during construction.

Drawdown at this site would expose a greater than average area in comparison to the other sites studied. Approximately 210 acres would be exposed fn a maximum year.

• Conversations between PP&L and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission indi-cate that the Fish Commission believes it desirable not to reduce flows in designated trout fishing streams below the natural long-term median Qow.

RILEY CREEK Land Use and Develo ment Creek is long and narrow, surrounded by mixed

'iley agriculture and wooded areas, .with most of the site itself either wooded or abandoned agricultural land. Approximately five percent or 25 acres of the site's 465-acre, direct-impact area is currently under cultivation. The soils in'the site area are about ten percent Agricultural Capability Class II and III, and ninety percent Class IV-VIII.

Residential development in the site is limited, with three to four homes which may be directly affected. Development below the dam is also limited, with only scattered residences between the reservoir site and the Borough of Meshoppen approximately five miles downstream.

Natural Resources Riley Creek is a small stream, approximately eight miles in length, which joins with the West Branch of the Meshoppen Creek about 1.5 miles below the proposed dam site. Approximately 2.5 mQes of Riley Creek would be inundated by this project. Riley Creek was an approved trout stream and was stocked from 1932 to 1954, when it was removed from the approved list after public access became difficult because of posting. There is every reason to believe, however, that the stream remains of good quality and may support some trout. This is particularly true given the continued stock-ing of the West Branch of Meshoppen Creek.

The water quality of both Riley Creek and Meshoppen Creek (which would serve as the pumping source), is probably good. Although no recent data on the water quality of Riley Creek is available, there is no reason to believe it has changed for the worse since the years when it was stocked.

Meshoppen Creek is currently stocked with trout in the stretch from which water would be pumped. It is rated as a medium quality, cold water fishery by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Approximately, 65 per-cent of the water required for filling the reservoir will be pumped from 3-7

Meshoppen Creek; however, pumping would not lower the creek below its

lang-term median Qow.

Wildlife habitat at Riley Creek is rated as above average quality for the sites under consideration due to the. fact that much of the site is uncultivated bottom land which provides a very diverse habitat when associated with the wooded hills. A related factor is the inclusion of approxi-mately 50 percent of the land within and surrounding the site in the Pennsyl>>

vania Game Commission Farm-Game Cooperative Program.

The pump-in water conduit for this project will be a pipeline running approximately two miles to Meshoppen Creek just below the mouth of the West Branch of Meshoppen Creek. The area traversed is largely wooded with scattered residential development. Et may be possible to follow the right-of-way of a local road for most of this distance.

Drawdown at Riley Creek would expose approximately 225 l1 ~ ~

acres in a maximum year. This is an above average amount of drawdown exposure as compared to the other sites investigated.

Lo

I 3-8

BUTLER CREEK Land Use and Develo ment Butler Creek is located in the southeastern quadrant of Susquehanna County. This section of the county is predominantly wooded, with some agricultural land scattered throughout the area. Susquehanna County as a whole is approximately 53% forest and 39% agricultural land.

This site contains approximately 20 % active agricultural land with the remainder uncultivated bottom land or wooded hills. Development of this site would directly affect approximately 450 acres of land, including about 90 acres of active agricultural land. The agricultural capability rating of the land in the site is estimated to be about 50% Class IV - VIII land, with the remaining land approximately 25% Class III and 25% Class II.

Approximately four residences in the site would be affected by this prof ect. Downstream development is limited with only a few homes scattered along the valley below the dam.

Natural Resources Butler Creek is a tributary to Nine Partners Creek, which in turn feeds into Tunkhannock Creek. Butler Creek is classed as a medium quality, cold water fishery, and until last year was stocked with brown and brook trout. It was deleted from the approved trout stocking list in 1976 due to posting. Approximately two miles or 20% of the total length of Butler Creek would be lost by the development of this site.

Approximately 46% of the total water required for filling this site would come from natural runoff, and the remainder would be pumped from Tunkhannock Creek near the mouth of Nine Partners Creek. Water quality in Tunkhannock Creek (see Table 3-1) is good. Pumping from Tunkhan-nock Creek would, at certain times, withdraw all of the flow in the creek ex-cept for a conservation Qow of 0.15 cfs per square mile of the creek's drain-age area. Tunkhannock Creek is rated as a high quality trout stream and is stocked by the Pennsylvania Pish Commission.

The wildlife habitat was rated as being of average quality and abundance at the Butler Creek site relative to other sites studied.

3-9

Other Factors Water would be pumped to the site through a 2.75-mile pipe-line from Tunkhannock Creek. This pipeline could follow existing road rights-of-way for most of its length, but it may be required to pass through an area of wetlands which have been identified as suitable for preservation by the Comprehensive Water Quality Management P!an for this area Nuchart-Horn, Inc.) .

Drawdown in the Butler Creek site would expose a larger than, average area for the sites studied with approximately 225 acres exposed in a maximum year.

3-10

IDLEWILD CREEK Land Use and Develo ment Idlewild Creek is located approximately five miles southeast of Butler Creek in Susquehanna County. The site is surrounded by a mixture of agricultural and forested areas, but the site itself is approximately 90-95% forest or old fields. This project would directly affect a total of approximately 330 acres, with less than 30 acres of active agricultural land impacted. The generalized agricultural capability classification for

the site area is about 20% Class II, 40% Class III, and 40% Class IV-VII.

There are only two to three houses within the site, and there is no development along the three-quarter mile of stream between the dam and the East Branch of Tunkhannock Creek. There is, however, scattered development along this section of the East Branch.

Natural Resources Idlewild Creek is a small stream which is not currently stocked due to its small size (Pa. Fish Commission, 1977). It was, however, stocked with fingerling trout on at least two occasions; once in 1938 with 1750 brown trout, and.once in 1952 with 600 brook trout.

Development of this project would result in the loss of approxi-mately 2 miles or 50% of Idlewild Creek. Idlewild Lake, which feeds Idlewild Creek, would not be affected by this site's development.

Water for this site will be pumped from the East Branch of Tunkhannock Creek. The East Branch is a medium quality cold water trout stream which is currently stocked, (Pa. Fish Commission, 1977). Approxi-mately 82% of the required water would be pumped from the East Branch, and and in a worst case condition this would result in the withdrawal of all the stream's Qow, except a conservation Qow of 0.15 cfs per square mile of drainage area of the East Branch. The water quality in Idlewild Creek is not known; however, there may be some pollution problems caused by develop-ment around Lake Idlewild. Available literature mentions a pollution problem in the East Branch, but the location, severity or cause of this problem is not known at this time (Buchart-Horn, Inc.) .

3-11

Wildlife habitat along Idlewild Creek is about average for the sites considered.

Other Factors The water conduit for this site is a pipeline which is very short (0.75 mile), and could follow the right of-way of the eixsting local road in the valley.

Drawdown at Idlewild Creek would be about average for the sites studied with approximately 185 acres of the inundated area exposed in a maxi-mum year.

3-12

FARGO CREEK Fargo Creek is located in southeastern Bradford County and is long and narrow, with a mixture of agricultural land and woodlands surrounding the site. Land use in the site itself is about 15% active agriculture, which is concentrated at the upper end of the site, and the remainder either old fields or forest. The upper end of the site is rated as Class III Agricultural Capa-bility, and the lower portion is rated as Class IV-VIII.

A total of approximately 330 acres would be directly affected by this project, including about 35 acres of active agricultural land, and 295 acres of non-agricultural land.

Residential development in the site is fairly active, with approx-imately seven homes now present, and several lots for sale. Downstream of the dam, there are several scattered residences with the village of Skinners Eddy approximately 1.5 miles below the site. In all, there are probably no more than 20 homes below the reservoir, with only two or three within sight of the dam.

Natural Resources Fargo Creek, a tributary to Tuscarora Creek, is approximately seven miles long, and is currently considered too small for stocking by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, (Pa. Fish Commission, 1977). The stream was stocked with fingerling brook trout in the years 1953-1956, and it is possible that trout continue to inhabit the creek. Approximately 2.0 miles of Fargo Creek would be inundated by this project.

All of the water for this project would be obtained from the Susquehanna; the water quality of the river in this area is considere'd fair to good, with high iron and total dissolved solids levels during cer-tain periods, and the one observation available showing a high total coliform count (see Table 3-1). Pumping at this site will never exceed seven percent of the flow in the Susquehanna, and at most times it will be much less.

3-13

Other Factors The water conduit for Fargo Creek would be a pipeline to the I

Susquehanna. This pipeline could follow the existing road right-of-way for approximately two miles to the river.

Drawdown at Fargo Creek would be above average for the sites studied with approximately 220 acres exposed in a maximum year.

3-14

LANING CREEK Land Use and Develo ment Laning Creek is located in central Bradford County, in an area of mixed farming and woodlands. Bradford County is divided almost equally between woodland and agricultural land, with 48% of the land area devoted to forest and 47% to agriculture. This site is located in a long, narrow valley, and as such is predominantly woodlands and old fields, with only 10% of its surface area used for active agricultural cultivation.

The soils in the site are predominantly rated Class IV-VIIIwith the area surrounding the site rated as Class III land. The site would directly affect approximately 330 acres, or about 35 acres of active agricultural land.

Residential development in the site is somewhat more extensive than most sites, with approximately 8-10 homes which may be directly af-fected by the project. Several of the homes are new, and there is fairly ex-tensive development below the dam.

Natural Resources Laning Creek, which is also known as Little Wysox Creek, is a small, unstocked stream of approximately 10 miles length. The project would inundate 2.5 miles of the stream. Because there are no apparent pol-lution sources, the water quality of the stream is assumed to be good, with some agricultural runoff possible. Approximately 80% of the water required for this site would be pumped from the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna at Towanda has water quality problems simQar, to those found downstream near Graves Pond and Fargo Creek. Iron and total dissolved solids levels are consistently high, and the one observation available shows a high total coliform count (see Table 3-1).

Pumping at this site would never exceed 50 cfs, or approxi-mately seven percent of the total Qow in the river.

Wildlife habitat at Laning Creek was rated as somewhat better than average for the sites studied with abundant deer habitat and several beaver dams observed.

3-15

Other Factors Water would be pumped to this project through a tunnel, and thus water conduit construction impacts would be limited.

A greater than average area for the sites studied (2SO acres) would be exposed during maximum drawdown at this site.

3-16

SALEM CREEK Land Use and Develo ment Salem Creek is located near the Luzerne-Columbia County line, in an area that is a mixture of heavy forests, scattered agriculture and rela-.

tively extensive urban development. The west side of the site is an active agricultural area, with peach and apple orchards extending down into the site.

The site itself is less than 10% agricultural land, however, with the remainder heavily wooded. The land in the site is predominantly Class IV-VIIIagricultural land, with Class II and III land on the site peri-meter. Approximately 275 acres would be affected by this project, or about 250 acres of woodland and less than 30 acres of active agricultural land.

Six to eight residences in the site would be directly affected by this project.

There is also extensive new residential development in an area approximately one mile downstream from the dam.

The only significant public recreation resource in the site vici-nity is the State Game Land immediately northeast of the site.

Natural Resources Salem Creek is a small stream of about four miles length which runs from Lee Mountain to the Susquehanna. Because there are no apparent pollution sources, it is probably of good quality. It was stocked in the late 1950's with fingerling brook trout, but was deleted from the approved list in 1961 due to its small size. Approximately two miles, or 50% of the stream would be inundated by this action.

All of the water required for this project would be obtained from the Susquehanna. According to the Pennsylvania Department of'Environmental Resources, the Susquehanna River at this'oint suffers from depressed water quality; with several parameters showing unacceptable levels during certain periods (see Table 3-2). The volume of water pumped for sites in this area would have little effect on the Qow of the river, as less than seven percent of the Qow would be removed in a worst-case situation.

Wildlife habitat at Salem Creek is rated as average relative to the sites studied.

3-17

Other Factors Water would be pumped to the reservoir through a 1. 7-mile pipeline which would run parallel to Salem Creek to the Susquehanna. Con-struction impacts of the pipeline would be low if it follows the presently existing road right-of-way from the dam to the river.

Drawdown at Salem Creek would be about average for the sites studied with 180 acres exposed in a maximum year.

3-18

o

~

~ I-

~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~

~ ~ o ~ o ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ o ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ o

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

o ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ 1

~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pumping from the Nescopeck would result in the creek being re-duced to its-long-term median flow during certain periods.

Wildlife habitat at this site is about average for the sites sur-veyed. However, much of the area is posted as being owned or leased by an organization called WhitetaQ Enterprises.. Other sections of the site are posted by the Tri-Township Rod and Gun Club. This would indicate that al-though the actual site itself may not have wildlife habitat of special signi-ficance, its proximity to the heavily wooded Nescopeck Mountain offers good access for deer hunting.

Other Factors The pump-in pipeline could run along the existing road right-of-way from the Nescopeck for approximately 0.75 miles, and would have very little construction impact.

Drawdown at this site would be slightly less than average for the sites studied with approximately 170 acres exposed in a maximum year.

3-20

square mile of drainage area.

Wildlife habitat at Pond Creek was rated as somewhat better than average for the sites studied.

Other Factors Water would be pumped to the reservoir through a short (1/2-mile) pipeline whose construction would have limited impacts beyond those associ-ated with constructing the dam.

Drawdown at Pond Creek would expose about 155 acres in a maximum year; this is less than average for the sites studied due to the com-pact nature of the site.

3-22

t .and Use and Develo ment The LITTLE WAPWVALLOPEN CREEK Little Wapwallopen Creek site is located on Little Wapwal-lopen Creek in Luzerne County approximately three miles above the Creek's confluence with the Susquehanna River.

There is no active agricultural land in the site. The land in the area is approximately 30% Class I and 70% Class IV-VIII agricultural capability. Approximately 410 acres of land would be affected by this project, of which about 380 acres is forest and the remainder is devoted to a small road which crosses the site, a small recreational lake on the site, and an electrical transmission line.

There are approximately two to three residences in or near the site that r1ay be directly affected. The nearest downstream residences are scattered homes. approximately two mQes downstream.

Tner'e is a small lake and picnic area in the center of the site.

atural Resources Little Vlapwallopen Creek is a medium quality cold water fish-ery, which is stocked with brown and rainbow trout in the section of the stream which will be inundated. Approximately 2.25 miles of the stream's total 17.5 mQes will be lost. This includes about 1.25 miles of the total four-mile stockable length of the stream. In addition, because this would be a conventional reservoir which would not require pumping, t'ne flow down-stream of the dam would be reduced to a conservation release of 0. 15 cfs per square mile of the Creek's drainage area in a maximum drought year. The pro-posed operating scheme for this project is described in Chapter 2, Page 2-15.

The water quality of Little Wapwallopen Greek is considered to be good, with only minor agricultural runoff problems (Buchart-Horne, Inc.) .

The wildlife habitat at this site was rated somewhat better than average for the sites studied.

3-23

POND HILL Land Use and Develo ment The Pond HQl site is primarily woodland, with scattered cul-tivated fields along its south side. Penobscot Mountain runs parallel to the site on the north.

Approximately 040 acres of land would be directly affected by this project and all of the land within the site is rated as agricultural capa-bQity Class IV- VIII. The land directly south of the site is rated as Class III land.

There is no residential activity within or below the site.

Natural Resources The Pond Hill site is located in a valley formed by a small unnamed tributary to the Susquehanna River. The stream is about two miles long, and has two small ponds along its course. About one mile of the stream would be inundated'by the impoundment.

The stream is probably intermittent in its low and is not classed as a fishery by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.

All of the water for this project will be pumped from the Sus-quehanna River just below the village of Mocanaqua. According to the Penn-sylvania Department of Environmental Resources", the Susquehanna River in this area suffers from depressed water quality with several water quality parameters showing unacceptable levels during certain periods (see Table 3-2). Pumping would never reduce the river's flow more than seven percent.

Wildlife habitat at the Pond Hill site was rated as somewhat better than average for the sites studied, but it is very similar to much of the land in the area and does not appear unique.

Other Factors A pipel'ine running from the river to the site would be required to run through a heavily wooded area,and down a steep bluff to the river for approximately 0. 5 miles.

Drawdown at Pond Hill would be less than average for the sites studied, with 155 acres exposed in a maximum year out of the total 225-acre inundated area.

3-24

TRIBUTARY TO SOUTH BRANCH NEWPORT CREEK Land Use and Develo ment This site is located in a wooded and swampy area along the north side of the heavily wooded Penobscot Mountain. The land within the site is devoted entirely to wetlands, forest and a small water supply reservoir owned by the Pennsylvania Gas & Water Company. The site is immediately south of an extensive strip mining area and the. soils are not considered suitable for cultivation or other agricultural use.

"Approximately 220 acres of land (the smallest of any site) would be affected by this project.

There is no residential development in or around the site, but there is extensive development about 2 miles downstream in the city of Nanticoke. There is a small settlement known as Wanamie, which was built by the coal company for its employees, about 1/2 mile north of the reservoir. This village is currently listed as a State Historic District.

Natural Resources The stream on which this site is located is very small and is not listed as a fishery by the Pennsylvania Pish Commission. It is a tributary to the south branch of Newport Creek, which is reported to be severely polluted. Approximately one mile of the 1.5 mile length of this stream would be lost.

All of the water for this project would be pumped from the Susquehanna near Nanticoke. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources the Susquehanna River in this area suffers from depressed water quality with several water quality parameters showing un-acceptable levels during certain periods (see Table 3-2).

The location of this site next to Penobscot Mountain, and the mixed wetland/woodland character of the site causes its wildlife habi-tat to be rated as better than average for the sites studied.

3 "25

Other Factors The water for this site would be pumped through a pipeline which would run for about three miles through a strip-mined area and along Newport Creek to the Susquehanna.

Drawdown at this site would expose the least amount of land of any site studied, with about 12S acres exposed in a maximum year.

3-26

TABLE 3-1 WATER QUALITY OF PUMPING SOURCE UPPER SUSQUEHANNA SITES Tunkhannock Creek - Rt. 6 Bridge S. Branch - Tunkhannock Ck/ (mouth) Towanda Creek - Rt. 220 Bridge PA. DER- Quarterly, 1971-1974 PA. DER-Quarterly, 1971-1974 PA. DER-Quarterly, 1971-1974 PARAMETER Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Minimum Maximum Average Temperature (C ) 0.5 26.0 15.0 1.0 20.0 0.5 22.0 10.8 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 9 5 14.0 11.56 10.0 15.0 ll 7 9 ' 13 1 10 7 pH 6.80 8.60 7 '7 6.8 8,0 7.40 6 '0 7.30 6.98 Ammon{a Nitrogen (mg/I) 0.030 0.400 0.146 0.03Q 0.330 0. 132 0.030 1.399 0.261 Iron (mg/1) 90 1~ 100 318 100 52,0 228.2 10 9,300 1,375+3 Total Coliform (coL/100 mg/1) {one obs ation) 5,695 Susquehanna -

River Rt. 309 Bridge Susquehanna River-Rt. 92 Bridge Susquehnnna River-Rt. 6 Bridge PA. DER-Quarterly, 1971-1974 PA. DER- Qunrterly, 1971-1974 PA. DER-Qunrterly, 1971-1974 Temp'erature (C 0 ) 0.5 26.0 7.5 1,0 22.0 9.72 3.5 23 0 15.28 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 11.0 15.0 12,4 8 0 12.2 10.6 11 0 17.0 12.6 pll 6.60 7 50 7.01 6 F 80 8.00 7 '8 6.60 8.40 7 '2 Total Dissolved SoL (mg/I) (one observ ation) 130 (one obie ation) 72 204 238 216 Ammonin Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.100 0.300 0,190 0.090 0.200 0.153 0.150 1.399 0.798 Iron (mg/I) 140 4,100 1,167.1 280 1,780 1,095,7 100 2,300 957.5 Total Coliform (coL/100 mg/I) (one observation 23,940 (one observation) 3,700 (one observation) 8,985

~Souroast US EPA Quality Criteria for Water, 1976I Penna. DER Water Quality Criteria eff. Oct. 1976; Std. Methods, 14th Edition 1976 ~

TABLE 3-2 WATER QUALITY OF PUMPING SOURCE LOWER SUSQUEHANNA SITES Susquehanna Stvcr (Bt-Weekly) Hescopeck Creek (Ouartcrty)

PP6LDats, 4/ll/68-8/30/72 VSGS Data, 10/2/74-9/23/TS PA DEtt Data, 1971~1974 t/

Standatdae, Mlnhnum Maximum Average Mlnlmum Maxtmum Average Mlnlmum Maximum Average Comments Hardness fmg/11 42,0 279,0 12Soo Mod Hard Alkallnlty (mg/D 2loo 67.0 34oo 59oo 46oo Mlnoo 20 mg/1 Iron (mg/1) 0,02 3,0 Ood Oo23 17oo 3 ~ 374 Oo 100 3oo lo41$ 0.3 mg/l dr(uk tng water (EPA) not to exceed 1.5 mg/1 (DES)

Atumtnum (mg/1) 'osd 0 10 0. 02 8,8 O,ddd C 0.2 mg/1 destrablet Ooo'o2 >>.5 mgn dangerous to

~ quattc life, Suspsroded Solids (mg/1) 912od $ oo $ 01 oo $2 ~ 1 C 80 mg/)

drtnklng water pH dos To4 4.2 Sol Too 4,2 7,4 5 ~ dd 6.0 to 8.$

acceptabl ~ range Fecal Cot(form (col./1 00 mt.) 390,0 21 ~ ooooo 3,068,0 (one ohservstton) 60,0 (ttL) ( contact 200 for water Sulfide (5) Ooo Oo2$ C .OO2 mg/1 ror aquatic otg.

Sulfate ($ 04) 12od 222.$ dooo ~ '$ Omg/1 (Or drtnklng water C.O.D. 0 g/1) 4,8 TOol 4oo 37 0 14,4 ( cal mg/1 12 typi of good quality B.O,b, Osg/1) Ooss So6 2,9 Oo8 4o4 So42 3 S.O mg/1 undesirable Lead (mg/l) Ooooo O,033 0.0073 ( drtnktng o.os mon for water Elno (mg/)) Ooolo Oo120 oo027 ( drtnktng 5 mg/1 lor water Chlorophyll A 0,000 0.0$ 7 Oooldy eutrophic at

>O.O)O mgn 0

Temperature (C ) Ooo 29o4 1702 1,0 27,0 13o2$ 4.$ 21 ~ 0 Ilod 30 5 or no tsors than 3o increase over ambient, Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Sod 14o20 lood T,d 14oo looss 8,0 15oo loo$ 9 Mln.. 4-$ mg/1 Dissolved Solids (mg/1) 79 ad 388od 20doS 54oo 298oo 167o2 Msxoo TSO mg/1 absolutct SOO mg/1 monthty range,

~ Sourccst V.S. EPA Oucll Crtterte for Water, 197dt Penna. DEtt Wata uall Crttsrt ~ ~ lfecttve Oct. l9'76 Standard Methods 14th Ed. )976, J/ Samples taken at Susquehanna Steam Elcctrtc Ststton.

Q Samples taken neer Hunlock Creek (V.S.G.S, Statton 85377l, Q Samples taken at Bridge on L.ft. 40017 ln Hcscopdck Township, Lus<<ne County.

3-28

LIST OF REFERENCES CONSULTED Buckhart-Horn, Inc., Com rehensfve Water uali Mana ement Plan, U er Sus uehanna River Basin Stud Area 4, Report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pa.,

1975.

Luzerne County Planning Commission, Existing Land Use Map, Wflkes-Barre, Pa., undated.

Luzerne County Planning Commission, Future Land Use Map, Wilkes-Barre, Pa., undated.

Luzerne County Planning Commission, Land Use Plan of Luzerne Coun for The Year 2000, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.,'une 1976.

Northern Tier Regional Planning Commission, Sus uehanna Count Interim Land Use Plan and Interim Trans ortation Plan Towanda, Pa., March 1970.

Northern Tier Regional Planning Commission, Recreation and 0 en S ace Plan Sus uehanna Coun Penns lvania, Towanda, Pa., May 1971.

Northern Tier Regfonal Planning Commission, Ph sical Features and Natural Resources W omin Count Penns lvania, Towanda, Pa., March 1969.

Northern Tier Regional Planning Commission, Interim Land Use Plan, W omfn Coun Penns lvania, Towanda, Pa., February 1970.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources., Penns lvanfa Scenic Rivers Invento, Harrisburg, Pa., 1975.

Pennsylvania Pish Commissfon, "Pennsylvania Trout Waters, 1974" Harris-burg, 1974.

Pennsylvania Pish Commission, "Changes in Stocked Trout Waters - 1976",

Harrisburg, Pa., 1976.

Pennsylvania Pish Commission. Stream Survey Report Piles of Approved Il,~ll and Unapproved Trout Stocking Waters. Pleasant Gap, Pa. 1977 Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission, "Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Places" Office of Historic Preservation, Harrisburg, Pa.

U.I. I I .

Sus uehanna Count Penns lvania, August 1973.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Luzerne I,I Coun Penns lvania Interim Soil Surve Re ort, 1974 II Penns lvanfa Soil Inte retations, 1976.

il 3-29

Chapter 4 EVALUATIONOF SITES TABLE OF CONTENTS INTROD UCTION. 4-1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION 4-1 ENVIRONMENTALEVALUATION 4-2 SELECTION OF SITES LIST OF PLATES Follows Plate No. ~Pa 8 No 4"1 Reservoir Environmental Evaluation Matrix 4-7

CHAPTER 4 EVALUATIONOP SITES INTRODUCTION Based on the results of the technical and environmental assess-ments of the sites developed in the previous chapters, the sites were com-pared and ranked considering physical suitability and environmental factors.

Prom this comparison, the sites best suited for development of a reservoir were selected.

Ia L EVAN,tf The technical assessment indicated that except for the Tributary to South Branch Newport Creek there were no apparent reasons why 'reservoirs could not be constructed at any of the sites; This part of the Newport Creek area spay have geologic problems resulting from surface and deep mining

~

which make it questionable as a reservoir site. It is recommended that this area be eliminated from further consideration.

Some of the other sites are, however, bett'er suited for reservoir development than others. Among the many factors influencing suitability of a site for developing a reservoir are topography, hydrology, geology and existing facilities. These usually are factors affecting project cost also.

Accepting project costs as an important indicator of the physical suitability of a site for development of a reservoir, the following is a ranking of the sites from this standpoint.

Good Sites Poor Sites (Project Cost less (Project Cost $ 32.0 (Project Cost greater than $ 32.0 million to $ 39.0 million than $ 39.0 million Little Meshoppen Creek Graves Pond Creek Fargo Creek Riley Creek Butler Creek Salem Creek Idlewild Creek Trib. to Nescopeck Cr. Pond Creek Little Wapwallopen Creek Pond Hill Creek Laning Creek 4-1

ENVIRONMENTALEVALU ON Each site was evaluated on eleven environmental factors which are summarized on an accompanying Reservoir Environmental Evaluation Matrix (Plate 4-1) .

The matrix rates sites as potential reservoirs relative to each other, and is not a summary of environmental impacts at each site. It is, rather, an assessment of a site's relative suitability for reservoir development. The sites are rated relatively good, fair or poor on each factor. Although the rat-ings are based on a sub)ective [udgment as to what constitutes the dividing line between a relatively good, fair or poor reservoir site under each factor, an attempt was made to ensure comparabQity between sites by establishing criteria for rating the sites on each factor prior to the analysis. The criteria used are shown on Plate 4-1.

An important point to remember in using this matrix is that the environmental factors must be examined individually to compare sites, and cannot be added to develop a score for a site. Although a decision on selecting a site should be based on all the factors, one or two fac-tors may outweigh several others in selecting or rejecting a site. This is a fudgment which must be made by the decision maker based on the rat-ings in this matrix as well as the facts and analyses presented in the fore-going individual site analyses.

Each of the thirteen potential reservoir sites was evaluated and placed in one of three categories: Category I sites should definitely be given further consideration for development; Category II sites 'are pos-sibilities for further consideration, but do not appear as favorable as Category I sites; and Category III sites should be dropped from further con-sideration.

The sites were classified as follows based on the environ-mental evaluation:

Category I - Recommended for Further Stud:

- Pond Hill

>> Graves Pond Creek 4-2

Category II - Further Stud Should Be Considered:

- Little Meshoppen Creek

- Riley Creek

- Fargo Creek

- Laning Creek

- Unnamed Tributary to South Branch Newport Creek Category III - Not Recommended for Further Stud:

- Butler Creek

- Idlewild Creek

- Salem Creek

- Unnamed Tributary to Nescopeck Creek

- Pond Creek

- Little Wapwallopen Creek The sites were placed in their respective categories for the following reasons:

Cate o I Pond Hill From the perspective of the environmental evaluation, Pond Hill is the best reservoir site of the thirteen sites evaluated in this study. The Pond Hill site is rated as a good reservoir site on eight of the eleven factors considered. Development of this site would have mini-mal direct negative impact on people, existing or potential agriculture, ex-isting stream fishery, river Qow and aesthetics. This site was rated fair in one area, character of pipeline route, because the pipeline would extend through a wooded area which is clearly visible from the Susquehanna River.

The poor rating on wildlife habitat resulted from the site's relatively undis-turbed character relative to the other sites studied. It should be emphasized, however, that the wildlife habitat within the site is very similar to much of this part of Pennsylvania, and as such it does not appear to be unique in any way.

4-3

The significance of the site's poor rating on the quality of its water source is not known at this time; however, the generally poor qual-ity of the Susquehanna in this area could affect the quality of the water in the reservoir, and thus its potential as a fishery and a recreation area. This subject will require further study prior to this site's final selection for development.

Graves Pond Creek This site was rated as a good reservoir site on four factors, including stream fishery quality, length of stream inundated, impact on water source, and impact of the water conduit. It was rated as a fair site I

in six areas, and poor in only one the amount of active agricultural land affected. None of the fair ratings are the result of serious problems, and although the site takes the most agricultural land of any site studied, its development would result in the loss of less than 100 acres of actively farmed, Class III, agricultural land. Overall, the Graves Pond Creek site is only slightly less attractive than the Pond Hill site, and is rated as a Category I site.

Cate o II Little Mesho en Creek The Little Meshoppen Creek site was rated as the best of the Category II sites. It was rated as a good site in the areas of impact on agriculture, quality of reservoir water source and impact on the water source. It was rated fair on residential activity within the site, 'stream fishery quality and the character and length of the water conduit ro'ute. Poor ratings in the areas of development below the dam, length of stream inun-dated, wildlife habitat and area exposed by drawdown kept from it; from be-ing rated as a Category I site.

Riley Creek is very similar to Little Meshoppen Creek in many respects, not the least of which is their close proximity to each other.

4-4

There are also several differences between the two sites. These include Riley Creek's less intense downstream development, its higher quality fish>>

ery and the possible negative impact on Meshoppen Creek's flow. Although it is difficult to assess the relative importance of these factors, it appears that Riley Creek is somewhat less attractive as a reservoir site than Little Meshoppen Creek, but should be retained for further study as a Category II site.

Fa o Creek Fargo Creek is an average site, with a poor suitability rating in only three factors: residential activity, wildlife habitat and drawdomm.

Of these factors, residential activity is probably the most important; how-ever, this site has only a few more residential units than others rated "fair" in residential activity. The other factors on which this site is rated "poor" are also important but not major. Therefore, although Fargo Creek is slightly less attractive than Little Meshoppen Creek or Riley Creek, it is rated as Category II.

Laning Creek is similar to Fargo Creek in that it is rated as "fair" on a number of factors, but is not rated "poor" on any factor which would, in itself, knock the site out of consideration. Therefore, although residential activity is somewhat more intense at Laning Creek than at Riley or Little Meshoppen, Laning Creek is also classed as a Category II site.

Unnamed Tributa to South Branch Ne ort Creek This site is rated good on seven factors, and poor on four factors. The poor ratings on water quality of pumping source, development below dam, wildlife habitat, and character and length of water conduit route are important enough to reduce the site to Category II, but not suffi-cient in themselves to put the site into the "not recommended for further study" category.

4-5

Cate o III Butler Creek Butler Creek has several serious problems, not the least of which is the severe impact that pumping to fill it would have on Tunk-hannock Creek. The additional impacts of this site on agricultural lands and wetlands indicates that this site should be classed as Category III and dropped from further consideration.

Idlewild Creek Idlewild Creek is somewhat more suitable than Butler Creek, but the problem of depletion of the pumping source remains as a serious draw-back to this site. It is felt that although Idlewild Creek is similar to a site such as Riley Creek in many ways, a more important factor is the potential problem in pumping from the East Branch of Tunkhannock Creek. These difficulties are even more severe than those at Butler Creek due to the smaller drainage areas involved. Therefore, Idlewild Creek should also be rated Category III and dropped from further consideration.

Salem Creek Salem Creek is rated "fair" on several factors and "poor" on three: water quality, residential activity within the site and development below the site. These negative factors plus the paucity of good ratings are strong enough to knock it out of consideration. It is, therefore, ranked as Category III.

Unnamed Tributa to Nesco eck Creek This site appears to be a fair site overall, but is suffers from a problem which is not shown on the selection matrix. That is, much of site is apparently owned or leased by a hunt club. An organization such

'he as this could pose serious problems to acquisition, and it is felt that the overall fair suitability rating of the site plus the possible ownership problem makes a Category III rating appropriate.

Pond Creek The Pond Creek site is rated highly in several areas, but has a poor rating on three important factors. One of these poor ratings (i.e., im-part on pumping source) could be changed to good if water were pumped from the Susquehanna instead of Little Wapwailopen. Creek. This would result in other trade-offs, however, as pumping source water quality would then be rated poor and character/length of water conduit would rate fair. Thus, three important areas would remain rated "poor" including residential activ-ity, water quality and wildlife habitat. In addition, there is a strong pos-sibQity that part of this site is a state game or recreation area of some sort.

This conQict, plus the other factors, brings the site a Category III rating.

Little Wa wallo en Creek This site has one very serious problem: Little Wapwallopen Creek, at this point, is considered one of the best stocked trout streams in the region. This project would inundate part of the stocked reach and seriously reduce the flow at certain times to the remaining stocked area.

Mainly because of this .fact, Little Wapwallopen Creek is rated Category III.

SELECTION OF SITES The technical and environmental evaluations and the resulting site rankings were used to select a preferred site and two alternative sites. 'All sites other than the Unnamed Tributary to South Branch Newport Creek were found to be feasible for reservoir development from an engineering and geo-technical standpoint, and no site was so costly as to be dropped automati-cally from further consideration. The four sites rated as technically poor sites were, however, significantly less desirable than the other eight sites.

The environmental evaluation rated Pond Hill as clearly the most suitable site of the thirteen sites evaluated. Graves Pond Creek was rated

'econd, and Little Meshoppen Creek was rated third. Based on the environ-mental evaluation, and given the relatively small differences in cost be-tween the three environmentally top rated sites, these sites were recom-mended for further evaluation with Pond Hill as the preferred site.

4-7

RESERyOI R DJVI RONMEN TAL PJ~'ATION MATRIX F~TE '.

Sly E$

O 0 2 = u0 x Ct Key: Rating as a Potential Reservoir l x 0 Relative to Other Sites Studied CC xcu a tu CJ 4 x Y x Good Reservoir Site x cu cc I CJ 0 tu tu C" CJ 4 Oiii Fair Reservoir Site. cc CJ 4 U e V tu X cC til 0 0 O 4 tu 4 c Poor Reservoir Site 0 2 cs z 2 C

O cc 0

tu lil CC CJ tu cc I

4 ccc uc 2 0 uc C

0 00 0 el RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY 0.2 Residences Good 34 Residences Fair 0 6 Residences Poor 0

DEVELOPhlENT BELOW OAM 0 5 Residences Good 6-15 Resiciences Fair Q Q 0':,.

) 15 Residences Poor ACTIVE AGRICULTURALLANDAFFECTED 0 25 Acres Good 26-75 Acres Fair

) 75 Acres Poor 0 0 0 6 AGRICULTURALCAPABILITYOF SOILS WITHIN SITE Predominantly Class I V VillGood Signihcant Amount ol Class III -Fair Significant Acnount of Class I and II Poor 0 0 0 0 Gl LENGTH OF STREAhl INUNDATED

)

1.5 mile Good 1.6 2.9 mile Fair 3.0 mile Poor 0 0 0 STREAM FISHERY QUALITY Small llntermit tent F fowl Unstocked Other Unstocked Streams Fair Stocked Streams Poor Good 0 Q 0 QUALITYOF RESERVOIR WATER SOURCE Good to Excellent Quality Good Fair to Good Quality Fair Poor to Fair Quality Poor 9 0 0 POTENTIAL IhlPACT ON WATER SOURCE Never 1Vithdcaw More Than Io.o of Flow Good Normally. Flovs Not Reduced Below Long-term Median Fair Flows Sometimes Reduced to Conservation Flow Poor WILDLIFE HABITAT y/ocse 1han Avecage (For Sites Studied) Good Average Quality IFoc Sites Studiedl Fair Better Than Average I For Sites Studied) Poor 0 0 0 CHARACTER/LENGTH OF 1VATER CONDUIT ROUTE Tunnel. or Pipeline Less Than 1.0 Mile Long Good Pipeline 1.0-3.0 Miles Long Fair 0 @l Pipeiine hlore Than 3.0 Miles Long or Pipeline of Any Length y/hich Traverses Sensitive Area Poor AREA EXPOSED BY DRAVVDOWN (150 Acces Good 150 200 Acres Fair

)200 Acres Poor 0 0 CI l

il li',q I

'i ~

i

, i l