Complete report - Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

REINING POND MASTER SITE PLAN 

Master Site Plan Steering Committee 

Wayne Conservation District - Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

2005

REINING POND 

MASTER SITE PLAN 

Cherry Ridge Township and Texas Township 

Wayne County, Pennsylvania 

2005 

Prepared for 

Master Site Plan Steering Committee 

Wayne Conservation District 

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

Funding for this Master Site Plan provided by: 

Pennsylvania Community Conservation Partnership Program 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Bureau of Recreation and Conservation 

Consultant 

Community Planning and Management, LLC 

Carson Helfrich 

Paupack, Pennsylvania


REINING POND STEERING COMMITTEE 

WAYNE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 

PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION 

with financial assistance from 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

Bureau of Recreation And Conservation 

Community Conservation Partnership Program 

SUMMARY 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION 

Page I - 

Purpose...................................................................1 

Reining Pond ..............................................................1 

Planning Process ...........................................................2 

Public Participation .........................................................2 

Action....................................................................2 

Steering Committee Sidebar ..................................................2 

SECTION II - COMMUNITY SETTING AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

Page II - 

Regional Location and Setting .................................................1 

Population and Housing Trends ................................................1 

Population ................................................................1 

Population Projections .......................................................4 

Housing Units .............................................................4 

Seasonal Housing and Population ..............................................4 

Need for Facilities and Services ...............................................5 

Community Plans and Land Use Controls........................................5 

Wayne County .............................................................5 

Local Comprehensive Plans...................................................7 

Land Use Controls ..........................................................7 

SECTION III - SITE INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS 

Page III- 

Reining Pond ..............................................................1 

Historical Perspective .......................................................1 

General Description and Current Uses ..........................................1 

Similar Recreation Areas in the Region .........................................1 

Site Characteristics .........................................................3 

Surrounding Land Use .......................................................3 

Access and Parking .........................................................3 

Reining Pond Master Site Plan 04-05

Reining Pond Master Site Plan Contents - 2 

Buildings and Structures .....................................................4 

Historic Resources .........................................................4 

Physical Features ...........................................................5 

Physiography and Geology ...................................................5 

Soils .....................................................................7 

Topography and Slope .......................................................8 

Watershed and Hydrology ...................................................10 

Forest Class and Age .......................................................11 

Farming History...........................................................11 

Forest Species ............................................................11 

Timber Size ..............................................................12 

Forest Health and Productivity ...............................................12 

Wetlands Importance .......................................................13 

Reining Pond Wetlands .....................................................14 

Wildlife - Wetland .........................................................15 

Wildlife - Wetland/Upland Transition Zone .....................................16 

Wildlife - Upland Forest ....................................................17 

Fish.....................................................................17 

Water Quality .............................................................18 

Floodplain ...............................................................18 

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index Search Results .............................18 

SECTION IV - POTENTIAL USES FOR THE REINING POND PROPERTY 

Page IV- 

Range of Potential Uses......................................................1 

Evaluation of Uses ..........................................................1 

Environmental Factors.......................................................1 

Soil Erosion and Sedimentation................................................1 

Storm Water Management ....................................................5 

Wetland Disturbance ........................................................5 

Downstream Water Quality ...................................................6 

Sewage Disposal ...........................................................6 

Community Effects .........................................................6 

Available Funding ..........................................................6 

Long Term Ownership .......................................................6 

SECTION V - PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL USES 

Page V- 

Meeting Publicity..............................................................1 

Overview ....................................................................1 

Specific Comments ............................................................1 

Written Comments .............................................................3 

SECTION VI - PROPOSED USES AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 

Page VI- 

Potential Uses Revised..........................................................1 


Reining Pond Master Site Plan Contents - 3 

Proposed Uses ................................................................1 

Recommended Action ..........................................................1 

Community Organization........................................................3 

Short Term Actions - Management ................................................3 

Long Term Actions - Capital Expenditure ..........................................3 

Maintenance Actions ...........................................................3 

Future Considerations for Berm or Dam Construction .................................4 

Funding ...................................................................4 

Environmental ..............................................................5 

Diversity of Public Opinion ...................................................5 

Property Ownership ............................................................6 

APPENDIX 

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index Search Results 

Comment Letters 

Maps 

Regional Location Map 

Public Recreation Map 

Aerial Photo Comparison 

Land Use / Land Cover Analysis 

Topographic Map 

Soil Types 

Contours and Tax Map Parcels 

Water Features 

Agricultural Security Areas 

LIST OF FIGURES Page - 

Wayne County Population .................................................... II-3 

Population Growth in NE PA ................................................. II-3 

Wayne County Generalized Future Land Use ..................................... II-6 

Physiographic Divisions of Pennsylvania ........................................ III-5 

Physiographic Provinces of Eastern Pennsylvania ................................. III-6 

Glacial Deposits in Pennsylvania .............................................. III-6 

Soil Associations ........................................................... III-7 

Attendee List, December 14, 2004 Public Meeting ................................. V-2 

LIST OF TABLES Page - 

Historical Population and Growth Rates ......................................... II-1 

Population Growth in Northeast Pennsylvania .................................... II-3 

Wayne County Population Projections .......................................... II-4 

Housing Units ............................................................. II-4 

Seasonal, Permanent and Peak Populations ....................................... II-5 

Land Use Comparison ....................................................... III-2 

Soil Associations ........................................................... III-8 

Fish Species Survey - 1971 .................................................. III-17 

Reining Pond Master Site Plan Potential Uses ....................................IV-2 

Reining Pond Master Site Plan Proposed Uses ....................................VI-2 



Partnership and Purpose 

The 2005 Reining Pond Master Site Plan is a partnership of the Reining Pond Steering 

Committee, the Wayne Conservation District and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission. The Plan is a long-range guide and action program for the conservation, 

continuing recreational use, environmental education, and appropriate development of 

the property to facilitate such activities. 

Goals 

The goals of the Master Site Plan include: 

• Conserve the environmental integrity, visual beauty and diverse natural 

resources of the Reining Pond property. 

• Enhance the outdoor recreation opportunities on the property for Wayne 

County and area residents and visitors. 

• Create environmental education opportunities for Wayne County and area 

residents and visitors., with a special focus on local students. 

• Foster public interest in, and support for, the Reining Pond property as a 

community resource. 

Stakeholders and Public Participation 

The Wayne Conservation District and the Fish and Boat Commission 

recognized the local interest in the Reining Pond property and formed a 

Plan Steering Committee comprised of representatives of local residents, 

community organizations, local government and agencies. The Steering 

Committee assisted with assembling base information for the plan and 

directed the planning process. Committee members conducted two public 

meetings and met with township and county officials and state 

representatives to discuss the details of the Plan. 

Reining Pond Property 

• 394 acres in Cherry Ridge and Texas Townships, Wayne County. 

• Owned by the Commonwealth and managed by Fish and Boat Commission. 

• Dam breached in 1985 due to safety concerns and 50-acre pond drained. 

• Existing beaver dam creates shallow pond with remnant fish populations. 

• Collins Brook, a high quality cold water fishery, drains the property. 

• A variety of land forms and vegetation - wetlands, shrubs, upland forest. 

• Primary recreational use is hunting, with limited boating and fishing. 

Proposed Uses 

The Steering Committee identified potential uses ranging from no change to 

dam replacement and swimming beach development. Based on public 

comment the more intensive uses were eliminated with the following uses 

identified as proposed uses: 

Short Term Actions - Management 

• Wildlife and timber management with forest management demonstration. 

• Primitive hiking with no improvements except trail blazes. 

• Environmental education without buildings or other improvements 

• Manage existing wetland with water level controller. 

Long Term Actions - Capital Expenditure 

• Small pond at level of existing beaver dam - $40-$60,000. 

• Replace dam and pond of original size - $1.5 - $2.0 million. 

Required Actions 

The creation of a formal Friends of Reining Pond group to shepherd the 

accomplishment of the Plan actions is recommended. This is particularly 

important for the long term capital expenditure actions where strong 

community support will be required. The short term management actions 

can be accomplished via formal agency and community group partnerships.

Section I – Introduction Page I-1 

Purpose 

The Reining Pond Master Site Plan is a longrange 

guide and action program for the 

conservation, continuing recreational use, 

environmental education, and appropriate, 

development of the property to facilitate such 

activities. The major goals of the planning 

project and subsequent implementation are: 

• Conserve the environmental integrity, 

visual beauty and diverse natural 

resources of the Reining Pond property. 

• Enhance the outdoor recreation 

opportunities on the property for Wayne 

County and area residents, and visitors. 

• Create environmental education 

opportunities for Wayne County and area 

residents and visitors., with a special focus 

on local students. 

• Foster public interest in, and support for, 

the Reining Pond property as a 

community resource. 

The basic tenet of the Master Site Plan is to 

evaluate alternatives for outdoor recreation 

and conservation education that will have a 

minimal effect on the ecology of the property 

and adjoining lands. The long-term intent is 

to encourage those uses which will enhance 

the site's distinctive natural features and 

recreational and educational potential, and fit 

well into the community while recognizing 

financial and regulatory limitations. 

Reining Pond 

The Reining Pond property is located along 

the Owego Turnpike and Prompton Road in 

Wayne County, with most of the 394 acres 

situated in Cherry Ridge Township and the 

northernmost part lying in Texas Township. 

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania owns 

INTRODUCTION 

and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission manages the property which 

originally contained a 50-acre impoundment 

created by a dam which spanned Collins 

Brook flowing through the property. The 

stream is part of the headwaters of Middle 

Creek, a tributary to the Lackawaxen River. 

Reining Pond supported warm water fish 

species typical to the area in the past and was 

used by many local and visiting sportsmen. 

However, based on dam safety concerns the 

Pond was drained and the dam was 

permanently breached in October of 1985. 

While the historic pond no longer exists, an 

extensive wetland area with a small remnant 

pond remains. The balance of the 394 acres is 

wooded and is open to the public for hunting, 

fishing, hiking and other outdoor recreation 

activities. Over the years there has been some 

discussion about when, how, and if a new dam 

should be constructed, or if other viable 

recreation opportunities exist. 

There is strong local interest in seeing that the 

recreation potential for this site is fully 

realized, and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat 

Commission and the Wayne Conservation 

District are acting on the longstanding 

community interest to optimize the 

recreational use of the property while 

conserving its natural features. In October of 

2002, the Conservation District, with the 

encouragement of the Fish and Boat 

Commission, submitted a grant application to 

the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation 

and Natural Resources, Community 

Conservation Partnership Program. In May 

2003, the Conservation District received 

notice that the grant was approved. to develop 

a master site plan to investigate future 

development and management options for the 

property. The Plan will also establish the 

necessary base to secure funding for site 


Section I – Introduction Page I-2 

improvements and to implement management 

plan recommendations. 

Planning Process 

The planning process involved a partnership 

of community organizations and local 

agencies with an interest in Reining Pond. 

(See following sidebar.) This broad 

partnership, evolved into an organized Project 

Steering Committee. These stakeholders 

participated in the planning process, presented 

their concerns and ideas, and built a consensus 

for the future of the Reining Pond property. 

The Steering Committee also played an active 

and key role in assembling the base 

information for the Plan. Committee 

members with special expertise in their fields 

provided information on site characteristics, 

land use, and physical features, and 

environmental issues. 

Public Participation 

While the Steering Committee assembled the 

data and developed alternatives for the 

property, public participation in the process 

was essential for setting the final direction of 

the Plan. A series of news releases about the 

process were issued, and Plan information 

was posted on the Wayne County and Fish 

and Boat Commission web sites. Most 

importantly, public meetings were conducted 

to present the Plan and receive comment 

about the proposed alternatives. In addition, 

Steering Committee members presented the 

draft Plan to local Township Supervisors and 

the Wayne County Board of Commissioners 

to address local concerns and ensure 

consistency with local plans. Committee 

members also met with area state legislators 

to detail the Plan. This public and stakeholder 

input was vital to the development of a 

realistic plan for the property. 

Action 

Accomplishing the Master Plan will not be 

immediate. Instead, it will be phased over a 

number of years, and the full realization of 

the Plan will demand both public and private 

cooperation and commitment. Clearly, the 

more ambitious elements of the Plan are 

dependent on funding and it will take 

considerable time and effort to build support 

and find the resources. Finally, as time 

passes, the Master Plan will likely require 

updating to meet changing conditions and 

level of public expectations and support. 

REINING POND 

MASTER SITE PLAN 

STEERING COMMITTEE 

• David Adolfson, for Representative. Jerry 

Birmelin 

• Donald Chapman, Commissioner, Wayne 

County 

• Edward Coar, Director, Wayne County 

Department of Planning 

• Scott J. Cope, Grant Coordinator, PA DCNR, 

Bureau of Recreation and Conservation 

• Annetta DeYoung, Executive Director, Wayne 

County Chamber of Commerce 

• Paul Edwards, Superintendent, Wayne 

Highlands School District 

• Thomas Ford, Resource Planning Coordinator, 

PA Fish and Boat Commission 

• Jack Gearhart, Forester, PA Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources 

• Ian Gregg, Migratory Bird Biologist, PA Game 

Commission 

• Carson Helfrich, Community Planning and 

Management, LLC 

• David Kaneski, Waterways Conservation 

Officer, PA Fish and Boat Commission 

• Robert Mander, Cherry Ridge Township 

Planning Commission 

• William Manner, Acting Water Supply Manager, 

PA Department of Environmental Protection 

• James Murray, Texas Rod and Gun Club 

• William Pisechko, Bass Masters 

• Leon Reed, Commissioner, PA Fish and Boat 


• Scott Reinhart, Regional Biologist, Ducks 

Unlimited 

• Skane Renner, Trout Unlimited 

• William Rickard, Supervisor, Cherry Ridge 

Township 

• James Rodda, Local Hunter and Educator 

• Anthony Tur, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

• Grant Turano, Watershed Specialist, Wayne 

Conservation District 


Section II – Community Setting and Background Information Page II-1 

Regional Location and Setting 

The 394-acre Reining Pond property lies in 

south-central Wayne County less than five 

miles from the Borough of Honesdale, the 

Wayne County Seat. The property is within 

easy access of all of Wayne County, and much 

of Lackawanna County to the west and Pike 

County to the east. (See the Regional 

Location Map.) 

The recent completion of the Lackawanna 

Valley Industrial Highway, which links 

Wayne County to Route 81, has significantly 

shortened the travel time to the greater 

Scranton metropolitan area. The Industrial 

Highway connects to PA Route 6 just west of 

Waymart Borough, less than ten miles from 

Reining Pond. This not only suggests 

improved commercial opportunities for the 

area, particularly in the central part of Wayne 

County, but also reduced resident commuting 

time to employment in the metro area. More 

importantly for the potential use of Reining 

Pond, it is has shortened the travel time for 

Lackawanna County residents who have 

historically frequented the public streams and 

lakes, and State Game Lands in Wayne 

County. 

Most of Wayne County remains undeveloped, 

with agricultural land and forest land the 

predominate elements of the rural landscape. 

Population density in 2000 was 65.4 persons 

per square mile compared to 274 statewide. 

However, the County is in transition. As is 

the case with all of Northeastern 

Pennsylvania, the economic importance of 

agriculture in the County is declining. The 

number of farms decreased from some 920 in 

1969 to 565 in 1997 and the amount of farm 

land decreased from 173,470 to 109,620 acres 

COMMUNITY SETTING 

AND 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

between 1969 and 1997. 1 Many of the less 

productive soils which once supported pasture 

have reverted to forest. The total market 

value of agricultural products in the County in 

1997 was $25,143,000. 2 While still 

significant, agriculture is less important 

economically than tourism which generated 

almost $170,000,000 in expenditures in 2000 3 , 

and County-wide retail sales amounted to 

almost $400,00,000 in 1997. 4 

More and more dwellings are being built 

throughout the County, along with the retail 

and service establishments needed to meet the 

needs of the increasing population. Most 

commercial development is clustered in and 

around Hamlin, Hawley, Honesdale, and 

Waymart. While many residents find 

employment in the County, according to the 

2000 Census, almost 27% work in another 

county in Pennsylvania and 10% work in 

another state. 

Population and Housing Trends 

Population 

As shown in the Historical Population and 

Growth Rates Table and the Wayne County 

Population Chart, Wayne County’s 

population has grown steadily since1960. 

1 Census of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. The 1997 definition of 

farms was broadened, including the addition of 

Christmas tree farms. 

Reining Pond Master Site Plan 04-05 

2 Ibid. 

3 Pennsylvania Economic Impact Analysis, 

D.K. Shifflet & Associates, McLean Virginia. 

4 

Center for Rural Pennsylvania, County 

Demographic Profiles


HISTORICAL POPULATION AND GROWTH RATES – U.S. CENSUS 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 90-00 50-00 

Berlin Twp 971 1,010 1,109 1,676 1,777 2,188 23.1% 125.3% 

Bethany Boro 148 181 267 282 238 292 22.7% 97.3% 

Buckingham Twp 612 593 578 667 648 656 1.2% 7.2% 

Canaan Twp 1,838 1,831 1,470 928 1,267 1,916 51.2% 4.2% 

Cherry Ridge Twp 544 729 890 1,362 1,600 1,817 13.6% 234.0% 

Clinton Twp 1,266 1,132 1,105 1,399 1,582 1,926 21.7% 52.1% 

Damascus Twp 1,898 1,703 2,006 2,536 3,081 3,662 18.9% 92.9% 

Dreher Twp 691 654 705 743 1,022 1,280 25.2% 85.2% 

Dyberry Twp 584 594 706 898 1,223 1,353 10.6% 131.7% 

Hawley Boro 1,602 1,433 1,331 1,181 1,244 1,303 4.7% -18.7% 

Honesdale Boro 5,662 5,569 5,224 5,128 4,972 4,874 -2.0% -13.9% 

Lake Twp 1,506 1,621 1,755 2,453 3,287 4,361 32.7% 189.6% 

Lebanon Twp 363 300 363 417 479 645 34.7% 77.7% 

Lehigh Twp 446 533 637 884 1,178 1,639 39.1% 267.5% 

Manchester Twp 667 558 494 629 663 888 33.9% 33.1% 

Mt. Pleasant Twp 1,007 892 967 1,196 1,271 1,345 5.8% 33.6% 

Oregon Twp 344 322 348 518 606 745 22.9% 116.6% 

Palmyra Twp 514 568 528 773 905 1,127 24.5% 119.3% 

Paupack Twp 336 411 644 1,379 1,696 2,959 74.5% 780.7% 

Preston Twp 950 879 946 1,036 1,044 1,107 6.0% 16.5% 

Prompton Boro 197 204 224 249 238 243 2.1% 23.4% 

Salem Twp 1,289 1,324 1,581 2,538 2,933 3,664 24.9% 184.3% 

Scott Twp 473 447 604 576 590 669 13.4% 41.4% 

S. Canaan Twp 1,136 1,058 1,106 1,345 1,320 1,666 26.2% 46.7% 

Starrucca Boro 326 330 292 216 199 216 8.5% -33.7% 

Sterling Twp 440 490 576 730 974 1,251 28.4% 184.3% 

Texas Twp 1,598 1,765 2,003 2,250 2,570 2,501 -2.7% 56.5% 

Waymart Boro 1,068 1,106 1,122 1,248 1,337 1,429 6.9% 33.8% 

Wayne County 28,478 28,237 29,581 35,237 39,944 47,722 19.5% 67.6% 

PA (1,000's) 10,412 11,243 11,758 11,856 11,883 12,281 3.3% 18.0% 



POPULATION GROWTH IN NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA - U.S. CENSUS 

2010 PROJECTIONS - PENNSYLVANIA STATE DATA CENTER 

1980 80-90 1990 90-00 2000 00-10 2010 

Carbon Co. 53,285 6.7% 56,846 3.4% 58,802 9.4% 64,310 

Lackawanna Co. 227,908 -3.9% 219,039 -2.6% 213,295 -0.9% 211,360 

Luzerne Co. 343,079 -4.4% 328,149 -2.7% 319,250 1.7% 324,520 

Monroe Co. 69,409 37.9% 95,709 44.9% 138,687 24.1% 172,170 

Pike Co. 18,271 53.1% 27,966 65.6% 46,302 29.7% 60,060 

Wayne Co. 35,237 13.4% 39,944 19.5% 47,722 4.3% 49,750 

Northeast PA 695,661 10.3% 767,653 7.3% 824,058 7.3% 884,180 

PA (1,000's) 11,865 0.2% 11,883 3.3% 12,281 1.0% 12,408 

Between 1990 and 2000 the County population 

increased by 19.5%, or almost 8,000 persons. 

Although this increase did not match the rapid 

population growth in Pike County and Monroe 

County, it far surpassed the growth rate for 

Northeastern Pennsylvania and the 

Commonwealth as a whole. (See the 

Population Growth in Northeast Pennsylvania 

Table and Population Growth in NE PA Chart.) 

Wayne County, given its somewhat more 

distant location, has not experienced the level 

of development spurred by the migration of 

urbanites from the greater New Jersey and New 

York metropolitan area. During the same 

period, the population of Lackawanna County 

and Luzerne County, the more densely 

populated counties in Northeastern 

Pennsylvania, decreased slightly with many 

residents moving from urban areas to more rural 

municipalities. 

Population changes varied among the twentyeight 

municipalities in Wayne County 

depending on location and development 

pressure. For example, Paupack Township 

population increased by almost 75% between 

1990 and 2000 due in large part to the appeal 

of the Lake Wallenpaupack area and the 

conversion of second homes to permanent 

residences. Conversely, the population of 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 


population 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

-10.0% 

Wayne County Population 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

Population Growth in NE PA 

Carbon 

Lackawanna 

Luzerne 

Monroe 

Pike 

Wayne 

NE PA 

PA 

1990-2000 2000-2010


Honesdale Borough and Texas Township, 

which contain much of the commercial 

development in the County, decreased 

somewhat. In Cherry Ridge Township, where 

most of the Reining Pond property is situated, 

the population increased by almost 220 

persons, or 14%, between 1990 and 2000. 

WAYNE COUNTY 

POPULATION PROJECTIONS 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE DATA CENTER 

Year Population # Increase % Increase 

2000 47,722 -- -- 

2010 49,750 2,028 4.3% 

2020 51,330 1,580 3.2% 

Population Projections 

As shown on the Wayne County Population 

Projections Table, the Pennsylvania State 

Data Center projects Wayne County’s 

population will continue to increase, albeit at 

a much lower rate, reaching 49,750 persons 

by 2010, and 51,330 by 2020. The 1994 

Wayne County Comprehensive Plan predicted 

a more optimistic Year 2000 population of 

48,800 and a Year 2010 population of 57,400. 

While these projections vary considerably, it 

is obvious that the County population will 

continue to increase at least at the level 

predicted by the State Data Center. In any 

case, Wayne County will remain rural for 

many years, reaching a population density of 

only seventy-nine persons per square mile 

even if the County Plan prediction of 57,400 

persons is attained by 2010. 

1980 

Total 

Units 

HOUSING UNITS - U.S. CENSUS 

Number 

80-90 

Percent 

80-90 

Housing Units 

Between 1980 and 1990, the number of 

housing units in Wayne County increased by 

some 8,880 reaching a total of 28,480, a rate 

of increase of 45.3%. (See Housing Units 

Table.) An additional 2,113 units were added 

between 1990 and 2000, a much reduced rate 

of 7.4%, but moving the total to 39,953 units. 

An additional 837 units were added to the 

County tax rolls in 2000, 2001 and 2003. 

Similar to population, housing unit increases 

varied greatly among the County’s 

municipalities depending on location. Real 

housing construction has accounted for 

increased population in much of the County 

while the conversion of second homes to 

permanent residences has fueled much of the 

increased population in other areas, Paupack 

Township for example. While the number of 

new units will certainly not result in the 

suburbanization of the County, it will have a 

direct impact on the amount of open land. 

Seasonal Housing and Population 

The second home population in Wayne 

County is important for two reasons. First, 

the seasonal population, which is greatest in 

the summer, places increased demands on 

community facilities and services; and second, 

the current seasonal population is a good 

indicator of future permanent population. The 

2000 Census reported the number of vacant 

housing units for seasonal, recreational or 

occasional use, that is, the number of second 

homes. The Seasonal, Permanent and Peak 

Population Table presents the data for the 

County and several municipalities. Almost 

1990 

Total 

Units 

Number 

90-00 

Percent 

90-00 

2000 

Total 

Units 

Wayne County 19,598 8,882 45.3% 28,480 2,113 7.4% 30,593 

PA (1,000's) 4,596 342 7.4% 4,938 312 6.3% 5,250 



SEASONAL, PERMANENT AND PEAK POPULATION - U.S. CENSUS 

2000 

Total 

Units 

% 2nd 

homes 

# 2nd 

homes 

Permanent 

population 

Estimated 

peak 

2nd Home 

population 

Estimated 

peak 

population. 

(2nd+perm) 

Wayne County 30,593 35.5% 10,855 47,722 32,565 80,287 

Cherry Ridge Twp 864 11.8% 102 1,817 306 2,123 

Honesdale Boro 2,414 1.6% 39 4,874 117 4,991 

Lehigh Twp 2,454 71.8% 1,763 1,639 5,289 6,928 

Paupack Twp 3,398 62.6% 2,126 2,959 6,378 9,337 

Texas Twp 1,062 4.0% 42 2,501 126 2,627 

36% percent of the housing units in Wayne 

County are second homes, with the highest 

proportion in the County found in Lehigh 

Township at almost 72%. 

The results of a survey of second home 

owners conducted by the Wayne County 

Planning Commission as part of the County 

Comprehensive Plan indicates the average 

size of a second home household is 3.34 

persons. Applying a conservative household 

size of three persons to the number of second 

homes in the County results in an estimated 

peak second home population of 

approximately 32,560 persons, a number 

which could be reached on a busy summer 

weekend when visitation rates and guest 

numbers are the highest. The impact of the 

potential second home population is obvious 

in terms of the requirement of additional 

facilities and services, as well as the effect on 

open land. The Wayne County survey of 

second home owners revealed another 

interesting trend for second home owners. 

Almost 40% of the second home owners 

surveyed responded that they do plan on 

residing in Wayne County on a full-time basis 

sometime in the future. Of those who plan to 

settle in the County, about 50% expected to 

do so within ten years. The implications are 

clear, the County and most townships will 

continue to experience strong population 

growth. 

Need for Facilities and Services 

Increasing population, both permanent and 

seasonal, translates into increased demand for 

public facilities and services, including 

outdoor recreation and environmental 

education. Concurrently, increased 

development results in the loss of open land 

and heightens the importance of public land 

for outdoor recreation. The Reining Pond 

property is one element of the area’s public 

land available for outdoor recreation, and its 

future use must be considered in terms of 

population growth and availability of other 

opportunities. 

Community Plans and Land Use Controls 

Local municipalities and counties in the 

Commonwealth plan and manage land use 

under the terms of the Pennsylvania 

Municipalities Planning Code. The Code 

authorizes the adoption of comprehensive 

plans, subdivision and land development 

ordinances and zoning ordinances. 

Wayne County 

The Wayne County Comprehensive Plan was 

adopted by the County Commissioners in 

December of 1994. The Wayne County 

Generalized Future Land Use Diagram 1994, 

shows the information for Cherry Ridge 



Township, Texas Township and surrounding 

municipalities, and is intended to provide a 

twenty-year generalized description of land 

use. 

The County Plan includes the Reining Pond 

and adjoining properties in the neighborhood 

development future land use classification 

surrounded by the population center/corridor 

classification. The individual classifications 

are not defined but the County Plan envisions 

multi-based economic development for the 

County, which places the priority neither on 

tourism nor on residential development but 

rather on multi-based economic development, 

including not only tourism but also industrial 

development and commercial expansion. The 

other major (County) priority would be to 

create more and better paying jobs - the 

Wayne County Generalized Future Land Use 

objective being to raise the standard of living 

for all while maintaining and improving 

property values. Conservation of natural 

resources would also be an important part of 

the equation but in the context of a balanced 

approach. 

The County Plan (Volume 4, Page 152) 

includes two caveats related to the use and 

development of Reining Pond, stating: 

• The emphasis of State and Federal 

managers of recreational facilities in the 

County (i.e., the Fish and Boat 

Commission, the Game Commission, the 

National Park Service) should be on 

maintaining their existing facilities and 

making them more available to meet local 



needs as opposed to expansion or 

development of new areas. 

• The County is opposed to any 

condemnation of land by the Pennsylvania 

Game or Fish Commissions or other 

similar agencies. All land additions 

should be on a “willing seller” basis. 

The continued use and improvement of the 

Reining Pond property, which is currently 

owned by the Commonwealth and managed 

by the Fish and Boat Commission, will be 

consistent with the Wayne County 

Comprehensive Plan provided the use is 

aimed at the conservation of natural resources 

and does not involve condemnation of 

additional land. No condemnation or any land 

acquisition, for that matter, is anticipated or 

advocated in this plan for the Reining Pond 

property. 

Local Comprehensive Plans 

Local municipal comprehensive plans must, in 

accord with the Pennsylvania Municipalities 

Planning Code, be consistent with the adopted 

County Comprehensive Plan. Cherry Ridge 

Township has not adopted a comprehensive 

plan. In the case of Texas Township, a plan 

has been adopted. However, given that only 

a fraction of the Reining Pond property is 

situated in Texas Township, and that fraction 

is largely wetland and inaccessible where no 

improvements are anticipated, no 

inconsistencies are expected with the Texas 

Township Comprehensive Plan. 

Land Use Controls 

The subdivision and land development 

ordinance (SALDO) and the zoning ordinance 

are the two principal land use controls 

authorized by the Pennsylvania Municipalities 

Planning Code. The SALDO governs how 

land is divided and how commercial and 

institutional buildings are developed. The 

zoning ordinance regulates how land is used, 

typically by creating zoning districts and 

applying development performance standards. 

Cherry Ridge Township and Texas Township 

each have adopted a SALDO and a zoning 

ordinance. The small part of the Reining 

Pond property and adjoining properties in 

Texas Township are included in the Rural 

Zoning District which allows low density 

residential development and typical 

agricultural and rural uses. Compliance with 

the Texas Township SALDO and zoning 

ordinance is not an issue given that no change 

in land use in that part of the property is being 

considered. 

The Cherry Ridge Township portion of the 

property is included in the Rural Development 

District which has the stated purpose to 

provide for residential, industrial and 

commercial development in areas of the 

Township which are largely rural in character 

and to provide compatibility with existing 

agricultural, residential and rural uses. It is 

also to provide for retail and service 

establishments designed to serve both the 

immediate area and surrounding region and 

sufficient space in appropriate locations to 

meet future needs for light manufacturing. 

The Rural Development District classifies 

public recreation facilities as a principal 

permitted use, and public and semi-public 

uses as a special exception. Any new use 

proposed for the Reining Pond property would 

fall into one of these classifications. Provided 

all zoning ordinance standards are satisfied, 

permits for principal permitted uses are issued 

by the zoning officer and special exceptions 

by the zoning hearing board. No subdivision 

is being considered, but the SALDO would 

apply if any new principal structure is 

proposed on he Cherry Ridge area of the 

Reining Pond property. 


Section III – Site Information and Analysis Page III-1 

Intent 

Understanding the physical resources and 

limitations of the Reining Pond property is 

critical to developing environmentally 

compatible alternatives. The baseline data in 

this section defines the site’s carrying 

capacity and provides the foundation to 

evaluate potential environmental impacts of 

the various potential uses for the property. 

Surrounding land uses, neighborhood 

compatibility, and regulatory limitations may 

also limit the practicality of alternatives, and 

must be considered in concert with the site’s 

physical resources. 

Historical Perspective 

The Fish and Boat Commission acquired the 

Reining Pond property for $7,500 on 

November 12, 1942, from the estate of Annie 

O. Reining. The site originally contained a 

fifty-acre lake created by a dam, 305 feet long 

and fifteen to twenty feet high, spanning 

Collins Brook. The small stream is part of the 

headwaters of Middle Creek, a tributary to the 

Lackawaxen River. With a maximum depth of 

some eleven feet, Reining Pond was well 

regarded as a warm water fishery. 

In 1952, the dam was repaired at a cost of 

$30,590. In the late 1970’s, studies were 

conducted to investigate the possibility of 

rebuilding the dam to address the inadequate 

flood control capacity that was associated 

with an inadequate emergency spillway. The 

study investigated the feasibility of enlarging 

the dam and the size of the lake to provide a 

viable fishery. When the study revealed that 

land acquisition was required the project was 

abandoned. The Pond was drained and the 

dam was permanently breached in October 

1985 due to the dam safety concerns. 

The Texas Rod and Gun Club is situated 

about a mile downstream from Reining Pond. 

SITE INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS 

The Club believes that the breaching of the 

dam in 1985 resulted in significant silting of 

Collins Brook and the pond on Club property; 

either from release of deposits behind the dam 

or from stream bank erosion caused by the 

water release and subsequent rain storms not 

controlled by the dam. The Club and the Fish 

and Boat Commission disagreed on the cause 

of the siltation, however, the Club decided not 

to pursue legal action. In any case, current 

planning efforts cannot resolve past problems. 

Instead, it is critical that downstream effects 

be carefully considered in the evaluation of 

every alternative considered. 

General Description and Current Use 

While the historic pond no longer exists, an 

extensive wetland area with a small remnant 

pond remains, and the balance of the 394 

acres is wooded. The property is currently 

open to the public for hunting, fishing, hiking 

and other passive recreation activities. 

Hunting is the principal use of the property, 

with the most intense use occurring during the 

deer hunting season. Details on the actual 

number of users are simply not available, but 

the number is low when considered in terms 

of the potential of the property. In reality, 

most area residents simply do not realize the 

property is open to the public. 

Similar Recreation Areas in the Region 

Wayne County and adjoining counties contain 

many thousands of acres of open land, miles 

of streams, and hundreds of lakes and ponds. 

However, most are private and not available 

for public recreation. Nevertheless, public 

land, streams with public access, and a 

number of public lakes are found within easy 

driving distance to Reining Pond. The Area 

Public Recreation Map provides an overview. 

Public recreation lands and lakes within 

fifteen miles of Reining Pond include: 



• Prompton State Park - fishing, boating, 

hiking, hunting, etc. 

• White Oak Pond, Fish and Boat 

Commission Access - fishing, boating 

• Lackawaxen River - fishing, boating 

• Upper Woods Pond, Fish and Boat 


• Duck Harbor Pond, Fish and Boat 


• State Game Lands 159 with Dyberry 

Creek - hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. 

• State Game Lands 316 with Cobey Pond 

and Mast Hope Creek - hunting, fishing, 

hiking, etc. 

• State Game Lands 300 - hunting, 

fishing, hiking, etc 

• Chapman Lake, Fish and Boat 

Commission Access - boating, fishing 

• State Game Lands 307 - hunting, hiking, 

etc. 

• Merli Sarnoski Park and Lake, 

Lackawanna County Park - fishing, 

hiking 

• Lackawanna River - fishing, Rails to 

Trails 

• State Game Lands 310 - hunting, hiking, 

etc. 

• Lake Wallenpaupack, Fish and Boat 


• State Game Lands 183 with Decker 

Pond and Decker Brook - hunting, 

fishing, hiking, etc. 

LAND USE COMPARISON 

(0.5-MILE PERIMETER) 

WAYNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 

• Delaware State Forest and White Deer 

Lake - hunting, fishing, boating, hiking, 

etc. 

• Fairview Lake, Fish and Boat 


acres % of total 

1959 1997 change 1959 1997 

residential 12 53 41 0.5% 2.4% 

crop land 517 416 -101 23.4% 18.9% 

farmstead 26 23 -3 1.2% 1.0% 

pasture-brush 438 191 -247 19.9% 8.7% 

forest 1,015 1,308 293 46.0% 59.3% 

water 80 58 -22 3.6% 2.6% 

wetland 117 155 38 5.3% 7.0% 



Houses Just West of Breached Dam and Parking Lot 

Site Characteristics 

Surrounding Land Use 

The Reining Pond Land Use Analysis Map 

shows the land uses within one-half mile of 

the property in 1959 and 1997, the result of a 

county-wide study now being conducted by 

the Wayne County Department of Planning. 

The comparison shows the decrease in 

agricultural land and the increase in the 

number of homes. Crop land has fallen out of 

production and evolved to pasture-brush, 

which in turn has reverted to forest. The 

number of homes increased from thirteen to 

forty-eight. (See the Land Use Comparison 

Table for details.) Although the density of 

residential development nearby the Reining 

Property remains relatively low, potential 

exists for conflicts between the neighborhood 

and any uses which involve noise, significant 

increases in traffic, and similar nuisances. 

Access and Parking 

Access to the existing parking area is from the 

Owego Turnpike on the east side of Collins 

Brook. The Owego Turnpike is a well 

maintained state road, and although the 

moderate grades and sharp turns limit its 

capacity, traffic congestion is not an issue. 

The parking area is hard surfaced and can 

accommodate about twenty cars. Sight 

Existing Parking Area 

distance looking west on the Owego Turnpike 

is far better than looking to the east. Any 

improvement to the site involving significant 

traffic increases or a larger class of vehicle, 

buses for example, will require a highway 

occupancy permit from PennDOT. If the 



Sight Distance Looking East 

Sight Distance Looking west 

Breached Dam from Downstream 

access is moved to another location, perhaps 

to Prompton Road, a PennDOT permit will 

also be required. 

Access to the parts of the property not directly 

adjacent to the Owego Turnpike and 

Prompton Road is difficult given steep slopes 

and the intervening wetland. No well defined 

trails or old woods roads are found on the site. 

Buildings and Structures 

No buildings are found on the property and 

the only structure is the breached dam. 

Situated less than 100 feet from the Owego 

Turnpike, the concrete structure has not been 

an issue in terms of safety or conflict with the 

use of the property, but it may be an issue if 

more intensive use of the property is planned. 

A new dam would, of course, involve the 

removal of the remnants, but this may also be 

required if environmental education is a 

component of the future use of the property. 

Historic Resources 

No known significant historical or 

archeological resources are found on the site. 

A Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Notification will be required at the time of any 

site disturbance. 



Physiographic Divisions of Pennsylvania 

Physical Features 

Physiography and Geology 

The natural features of the site are a direct 

result of its geological past. Bedrock geology 

and glacial geology are key factors affecting 

the natural environment and development 

potential by providing the base for the 

formation of soils. The Reining Pond 

property and most of Wayne County lies in 

the Glaciated Low Plateau Section of the 

Appalachian Plateaus Province, one of the 

major physiographic divisions of the State. 

See the Physiographic Divisions of 

Pennsylvania 1 Figure and the Physiographic 

Provinces of Eastern Pennsylvania Figure. 2 

1 Pennsylvania Geology Summarized, 

Pennsylvania Topographic and Geologic Survey, B. 

Willard, 1968. 

2 Report 65, Groundwater Resources of Pike 

County, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Topographic 

and Geologic Survey, D. K. Davis, 1989. 

This area is underlain primarily by bedrock of 

the Devonian System which is some 350 to 

400 million years old, and comprised of shale, 

sandstone, limestone and chert. 

The Soil Survey of Wayne County reports that 

the Catskill continental group, which is Upper 

Devonian in age, is the oldest bedrock 

underlying glacial drift throughout about 95 

percent of Wayne County. It consists chiefly 

of red to brown sandstone and shale. The 

Catskill sandstone is used commercially as 

building stone. The Catskill formation is the 

most important source of ground water in 

Wayne County. More wells have been drilled 

into this formation than into any other 

bedrock formation. 3 

3 Soil Survey of Wayne County Pennsylvania, 

United State Department of Agriculture, 1985, p. 2. 



Physiographic Provinces of Eastern PA 

Glacial Deposits in Pennsylvania 



Soils 

The geologic past of Wayne County, 

especially the glaciation of the area, has 

defined the soils that would be formed, or in 

many cases, not formed. Variables in the 

formation of soils include climate 

(precipitation and temperature affecting 

weathering), biological activity and 

accumulation of organic material in the 

forming soil, the parent material (e.g., bedrock 

vs. glacial material) and formation and 

movement of clay minerals, topography (e.g., 

steep slopes vs. flood plain), and time. The 

most recent glacier to affect the County, 

called the Wisconsin Glacier, retreated about 

12,000 to 14,000 years ago, after having 

formed some 70,000 years ago). (See the 

Glacial Deposits in Pennsylvania Figure.) 

The effect of the glaciers cannot be 

overemphasized. Because of their great 

thickness, the pressure at the base of the ice 

sheets was very great. As the ice moved along 

with pieces of. rock it had picked up, it 

scraped the soil off the bedrock, scoured and 

scratched the exposed rock, and pressed itself 

down into valleys, cutting them sometimes to 

great depths. The material picked up and 

carried or pushed along by the ice, later to be 

deposited as till or outwash, was moved in 

some cases for hundreds of miles. Rocks 

picked up in Canada were mixed with rocks 

picked up in New York State and these in turn 

were mixed with rocks picked up in 

Pennsylvania. In deposits of glacial material 

in Pennsylvania, you will find many different 

kinds of rock and many types which do not 

occur in Pennsylvania. Igneous rocks, such 

as granite, that have come great distances, 

may be found. Pieces of copper ore, nickel 

ore, and even diamonds have been found in 

glacial deposits and none of these occur in the 

bedrock near where they were found in the 

glacial deposits. The ice, in moving south, 

overrode forests in some places and it is not 

unusual to find fossil wood mixed with the 

Soil Associations 

base of the till. 4 

Although this explanation is somewhat 

simplified, it is obvious that the formation of 

soil is a long-term, highly complex process. 

Given this complexity, it is understandable 

that a number of soil series (i.e., groups of 

soils formed from a particular parent material 

and exhibiting similar soil horizons) and many 

different soil types are found in the County. 

Two of the seven major soil associations 

identified in Soil Survey of Wayne County are 

found on the Reining Pond property and are 

shown on the Soil Associations Figure and are 

described in the Soil Associations Table. (A 

detailed soil map and descriptions are 

included in the Appendix.) 

In terms of improvements to the Reining Pond 

property, the soil types in the southeast corner 

of the property are most critical. This area is 

most conducive for any development based on 

access and limiting effects on the balance of 

the property. According to the Soil Survey, 

4 Pennsylvania and the Ice Age, 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1962, p. 16. 



SOIL ASSOCIATIONS 

Association 1 -- Oquaga-Wellsboro-Arnot Association 

1. found on plateau areas that are dissected by streams 

2. formed in reddish glacial till 

3. shallow to deep, somewhat excessively to somewhat poorly drained 

4. sloping to steep soils on knobs and valley walls, some gently sloping areas on plateau tops 

5. most in woodland, potential ranges from high to low 

6. tree harvesting difficult due to seep slopes and extremely stony surface 

7. only used for farming in a few areas, too steep and stony for pasture or crop land 

8. development limited by steep slopes, stony surface, and shallow to moderate depth to bedrock, bedrock 

outcrops 

9. potential for wildlife habitat and recreation 

10. Oquaga - 30% of association, moderately deep and well drained 

11. Wellsboro - 20% of association, deep and moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained 

12. Arnot - 15% of association, shallow, somewhat excessively drained to well drained 

13. 35% of association - Lordstown, Morris, Norwich, Wyoming on uplands 

Association 2 -- Morris-Wellsboro 

1. found on broad plateaus dissected by drainage ways 

2. formed in reddish glacial till 

3. primarily nearly level and gently sloping, some steeper soils on side slopes 

4. much have been cleared of trees and stones for farming 

5. cleared areas have medium to high potential for crops and pasture, with seasonal high water table a limitation 

6. non-cleared areas have extremely stony surface 

7. moderately high and high potential for woodland 

8. development limited by seasonal high water table, slow and very slow permeability, and extremely stony 

surface in some areas 

9. Morris - 40% of association, deep, somewhat poorly drained, fragipan and seasonal high water table 

10. Wellsboro - 32% of association, deep, moderately well drained and somewhat poorly drained, fragipan and 

seasonal high water table 

11. 28% of association - Oquaga and Norwich on uplands, Basher and Holly on floodplain, Medihemists and 

Medifibrists in swamps 

the soil in the southeast corner is Arnot 

Channery Loam which is very rocky with 

slopes of 3% to 8%. The soil was formed in 

glacial till and is excessively to moderately 

well drained. Its principal limitation for onsite 

sewage disposal appears to be shallow 

depth to bedrock which is at seventeen inches. 

Topography and Slope 

Elevations of the property range from about 

1,300 feet above sea level at the low point 

where Collins Brook leaves the property to a 

some 1,400 feet along the eastern and western 

boundaries. (See the Topographic Features 

Map in the Appendix.) In general the 

topography of the property is gently rolling 

hills and swales, with most of the slopes 

facing either east or west. Slopes in the 

northern section of the property are gentle, 

falling toward the wetland, and become 

somewhat steeper in the vicinity of the 

standing water where there is a greater 

elevation change from the property lines. 

This situation obviously was key to the 

construction of the original dam. 

There are several steep, rock outcrop ledges 

near the top of several of the ridges along with 

several areas with interesting bolder and rock 

outcrop formations. The soil surface varies 

from areas with a large amount of surface 

rock in the swales to relativity little visible 

surface rock on the slopes and terraces. 



Rock Outcrop Ledge 

View of Slope on East Section of Property 

Large Surface Boulder 



Collins Brook Downstream from Owego Turnpike 

Watershed and Hydrology 

As noted earlier, the property lies in the 

headwaters of Middle Creek, being drained by 

Collins Brook. The watershed area of the 

former dam is relatively small, containing a 

total of 3.88 square miles or 2,483 acres. (See 

the Topographic Features Map in the 

Appendix.) When it leaves the Reining Pond 

property, Collins Brook flows under the 

Owego Turnpike, onto the property of Joseph 

Coar and south to the Texas Road and Gun 

Club. 

Beaver Dam Looking North from Breached Dam 

A beaver dam near the location of the 

breached dam has created a pond of some 

three to five acres, above which the Collins 

Brook originates from wetlands. Runoff from 

the small, undeveloped and well vegetated 

watershed is not significant and the beaver 

dam moderates any downstream effects. 

Several substantial drainage swales and small 

feeder streams on the site are not identified on 

the topographic map. Numerous spring seeps 

and runs are evident along all the slopes. 



Forest Class and Age 1 

The Reining Pond forest is classified as a 

Northern Hardwood Forest (beech, birch, 

maple), which is the most common forest type 

in Wayne County. There are also at least four 

small sections, less then five acres, classified 

as Eastern Hemlock. The most noteworthy 

found on a ridge just south of the interior 

stonewall in the east-central section of the 

property. Forest age varies with some sections 

in the 100-year plus category, while other 

sections are in the 50 to70 year class, and still 

others in the 30 to 40 year class. Most of the 

stands are in the 50 to 70 year bracket. These 

upland forests account for approximately 325 

acres of the property. 

Farming History 

There is evidence that at least a portion of 

Reining Pond tract has a farming history. 

Some of the forest has definite signs of having 

been open pasture, while other areas have 

subtle signs of being a wooded pasture in the 

early 1900's. A reverting field in the eastern 

section of the property is bounded by stone 

walls. Other sections have large bushy trees, 

twenty inches or more in diameter, indicating 

that it was a wooded pasture years ago. 

Between these trees is the 8 to 14 inch 

diameter class forest that regenerated after the 

pasture was abandoned. This type of forest 

can be classified as a 2-age forest because, as 

the name infers, of the distinct difference in 

age. Old apple trees were also observed at 

several locations. 

Forest Species 

The most common tree species on the site are 

red maple, American beech, and sweet birch. 

These species make up an estimated 60% to 

1 Forest information adapted from a report 

prepared by Jackson L. Gearhart, Service Forester, 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and 

Natural resources, Bureau of Forestry, Wayne and 

Lackawanna Counties. 

Old Foundation Near Parking Lot 

Stone Walls Bounding Reverting Field 



70% percent of the stocking. Of the three 

species, red maple is the most common. 

Sugar maple is next most common species, 

making up 10 to 15% of the stocking. White 

ash, yellow birch, black cherry, Eastern 

hemlock, American basswood, bigtooth aspen, 

quaking, aspen, and bitternut hickory are also 

common, but in far lesser number. Fire cherry 

and gray birch, remnants of the old-field 

forest, are present in some spots. Slippery 

elm and white pine are also present, but very 

uncommon. Norway spruce trees adorn the 

perimeter of the parking lot. The understory 

tree species consist of serviceberry, 

hophornbeam, hornbeam, and striped maple. 

All are native species except for the Norway 

spruce. 

The understory shrubs consist of highbush 

blueberry, arrowwood, witch hazel, silky 

dogwood, mountain winterberry, small 

patches of red and black raspberry, mountain 

laurel, gooseberry, current, Japanese barberry, 

and multi-flora rose. The Japanese barberry 

and multiflora rose are not native species and 

are considered invasive. Highbush blueberry 

is the most common shrub in the reverting 

fields in the eastern section. The greatest 

shrub concentrations are found near the 

wetlands. 

The groundcover is sparse to normal, the 

result of the dense hardwood forest and the 

high deer population. The species observed 

included hat scented fern, Christmas fern, 

woodfern, partridge berry, winterberry, tree 

clubmoss, ground cedar, running clubmoss, 

and mosses. 

Timber Size 

The size class of the forest also varies 

depending upon location. Most of the forest is 

in the 8 to 14 inch diameter class. There are 

also sections in the 6 to 12 inch class and the 

16 inch plus class. In timber management 

terms, the forest is fully stocked with a high 

percentage of good quality growing stock. 

There is no evidence of management or 

harvesting in the last thirty years, nor are there 

any signs of widespread tree mortality, 

blow-downs, or other catastrophic events. 

Forest Health and Productivity 

The timber quality varies depending upon the 

age class and species composition. The 

younger age class is of relatively good quality. 

On the other hand, the older age class is of 

relatively poor quality due to the past growth 

environment, market value, and age. The 

majority of the older age class is American 

beech, red maple, and white ash. The ash are 

long past prime, with branches and branch 

stubs and probably with a high percentage 

brown heart. The red maple and beech are 

similar, but with a much lower market value. 

There is a substantial amount of cull trees, due 

to defects, multiple stems, and rot. The 

exception to this is the financially mature 

black cherry which do not exhibit the defects 

of the other species. However, most of the 

black cherry is immature with room to 

increase in quality and value. The bulk of 

forest however is in the 6 to 12 and 8 to 14 

inch class, and it has a great deal of timber 

potential for the future. 

The forest health is relatively good except for 

several situations. Most of the American 

beech is infected with beech bark disease, a 

Grape Vines 



Beaver Pond and Wetlands -- Northwest from Parking Area 

very common problem in all of Northeastern 

Pennsylvania. Grapevines threaten tree health 

and survival in some sections. There are also 

several areas where the dominant trees are 

either financially or physiologically mature 

and in need of a forest regeneration practice. 

The lack of adequate advance regeneration 

(tree seedlings) is a problem here as it is in 

most other parts of Wayne County. A major 

reason is the extremely high deer population 

over last forty years; the deer repeatedly 

browse the seedlings. Beech saplings are by 

far the most common species present, 

especially in the southern section. There were 

only a few small areas with sugar maple 

sapling regeneration. Most of the regeneration 

is in the seedling class. Sugar maple and white 

ash seedlings are present but probably not in 

the numbers needed to regenerate a forest. 

The productivity of the area is considered 

good for tree growth, about the standard for 

Wayne County. This is based on the soils and 

the general topography of the land. The only 

exceptions are the wetlands and extreme tops 

of some of the ridges, where the soils are too 

wet or shallow for good tree growth and 

survival. Almost all of the wooded areas have 

very satisfactory timber growth potential. 

Wetlands Importance 

Wetlands have in past times been considered 

wastelands, and, as a result, it is estimated that 

over half of all wetlands in the nation have 

been lost to development. In recent years, the 

identification and protection of wetlands have 

surfaced as a key environmental issue. Three 

types of wetlands have been identified in 

Pennsylvania: emergent, scrub-shrub, and 

forested. Each type is classified according to 

vegetation type. Vegetation in emergent 

wetlands includes freestanding, non-woody 

plants such as cattails, reed canary grass, and 

rushes. Scrub-shrub wetlands are 

characterized by woody plants less than 

twenty feet in height. The presence of trees 

such as red maple, hemlock, yellow and river 

birch, pin oak and ash over twenty feet tall, 

indicate a forested wetland. Standing water, 

or even saturated soil, need not be present to 

qualify an area as a wetland. A wetland, as 

defined by the Federal Manual For 

Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional 

Wetlands is any area which supports 

hydrophytic plants (adapted to growth in 

saturated soil), contains hydric soils (wet 

soils) or where water is present at or near the 

surface of the soil at some time during the 

growing season. 



Collins Brook at Upstream Point of Wetlands 

Reining Pond Wetlands 2 

The Reining’s Pond property contains the 

southern end of a high-quality wetland 

complex that extends beyond the property 

boundaries approximately one mile to the 

north and two miles to the west. On the 

Reining Pond property, the wetland corridor is 

associated with Collins Brook. This waterway 

meanders through the length of the property, 

providing a mixture of wetland types typical 

of wetlands located in the glaciated Allegheny 

plateau physiographic area of northeastern 

Pennsylvania. 

Historic aerial photographs of the site 

demonstrate the tremendous influence beavers 

have had on the hydrology of the Reining 

2 Reining pond wetland information adapted 

from a report prepared by Anthony Tur, Biologist, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Pond property. For example, aerial 

photographs from May of 1981 show a 

relatively small area of open water habitat in 

the upper most reaches of the property. That 

same photograph shows a large emergent 

wetland in the middle reach, and a large 

scrub-shrub and emergent area within the old 

impoundment area. By April of 1987, the 

middle reach was impounded by beavers, 

thereby converting this wetland area to open 

water habitat. In the summer of 2002, beavers 

established a dam within the historic pool area 

of Reining Pond, thereby converting 

additional areas to open water habitat. The 

presence of beavers within the waterway 

provides a mosaic of habitat types that 

enhances the site productivity and value for 

wetland wildlife. It is likely that beavers will 

continue to provide temporary and dramatic 

influences over the site's wetland 

communities. 



Beaver Pond -- West to East 

Wetlands within the property exhibit 

vegetative communities that are typical of 

those associated with beaver dam ecosystems. 

Emergent areas are almost entirely comprised 

of early successional sedge (Carex sp.) and 

scrub-shrub wetland types. Scrub-shrub 

vegetation is dominated by meadowsweet 

(Spirea alba), grey birch (Betula grandifolia) 

and other saplings. There are additional areas 

of red maple (Acer rubrum) and hemlock 

(Tsuga canadensis) dominated forested 

wetlands located on up-slope areas and along 

Collins Brook. The beaver impoundments 

have extensive beds of aquatic bed vegetation 

dominated by smart weed (Polygonurn sp.), 

the presence of which is evidenced by the 

pink colored flowers which appear in late 

summer. As the beaver ponds age the aquatic 

bed vegetation begins to die out. 

Wildlife - Wetland 3 

The wetlands on and adjacent to the Reining 

3 Wildlife information adapted from a report 

prepared by Ian D. Gregg, Wildlife Biologist 2, 

Waterfowl and Migratory Game Bird Section, Bureau 

of Wildlife Management, Pennsylvania Game 


Pond tract are typical of the glaciated portions 

of Northeastern Pennsylvania. Such 

complexes are extremely valuable to 

waterfowl and other wetland wildlife by 

providing a diversity of interconnected 

wetland habitat types including bogs, 

emergent marshes, forested swamps, and 

beaver ponds. Reining’s Pond itself is an 

example of the human-created open water 

areas now found as an additional feature in 

many of these wetland complexes. 

The primary value of the Reining’s Pond area 

to waterfowl is as breeding habitat. A portion 

of the northern section of the property is 

surveyed for waterfowl once each spring by 

Pennsylvania Game Commission personnel as 

part of the Atlantic Flyway Breeding 

Waterfowl Survey. The Survey is conducted 

to obtain waterfowl population estimates used 

in setting annual hunting regulations. Results 

of these surveys indicate that the Reining 

Pond area is consistently used by breeding 

mallards, wood ducks, and resident Canada 

geese. Other species observed during the 

breeding season in some years include hooded 

merganser and American black duck. 

Breeding blue-winged and green-winged teal 



South Across Former Pool Area 

have not been observed on the site, but there 

are scattered breeding records of these species 

across Northeastern Pennsylvania and they 

could conceivably breed at the Reining Pond 

complex in the future. 

Breeding populations of each of the above 

waterfowl species in the Atlantic Flyway are 

stable to increasing. However, American 

black duck numbers, although currently 

stable, are significantly reduced from 

historical levels. Waterfowl biologists 

consider maintenance and enhancement of 

existing black duck breeding habitat to be an 

important priority throughout this species’ 

range. In Northeastern Pennsylvania, which 

has traditionally supported the highest 

densities of breeding black ducks in the state, 

this is probably the top priority for waterfowl 

habitat conservation programs. Among the 

likely reasons for their historical population 

decline is that black ducks tend to be more 

sensitive to disturbance than many other 

waterfowl species. Encroachment of human 

residential, agricultural, industrial, and 

recreational activities have diminished the 

suitability of many areas for black ducks, even 

where the wetland habitats themselves are 

unaffected and populations of waterfowl more 

tolerant of disturbance are not reduced. Any 

management options for the Reining Pond 

property that would increase recreational use 

during the spring and summer months should 

take into consideration the potential negative 

effects of disturbance on breeding black ducks 

in the wetland complex. 

As evidenced by its popularity with waterfowl 

hunters, the Reining Pond complex provides 

migration habitat for the various species listed 

above as well as ring-necked ducks and 

occasional representatives of other dabbling 

and diving duck species. The area is of little 

value to wintering waterfowl because of the 

lack of available open water during this 

season. 

Other wetland-dependent wildlife species 

either known to occur, or not recorded but 

very likely present, in the Reining Pond area 

include beaver, mink, great blue heron, and 

red-winged blackbird. 

Wildlife - Wetland/Upland Transition Zone 

Most wildlife species associated with 

grasslands and early successional habitats 



(shrub lands and seedling/sapling stage forest 

cover) have declined in Pennsylvania and the 

eastern United States in recent decades as 

these habitats have reverted to mature forest 

or been converted to residential land use or 

intensive row crop agriculture. At the Reining 

Pond site, there is some early successional 

habitat including aspen, alder, hawthorn, 

multiflora rose, and other shrub and small tree 

species interspersed with herbaceous 

vegetation in the formerly flooded basin on 

the southern half of the site, as well as in 

narrow bands along the wetland/upland 

interface in the northern half. Although no 

detailed inventories of breeding birds on the 

property are available, the shrubby to open 

areas provide habitat suitable for songbirds 

such as eastern towhee, rose-breasted 

grosbeak, northern cardinal, common 

yellowthroat, gray catbird, and possibly 

golden-winged warbler. With further 

succession and/or active management, these 

areas could be expected to fill in further with 

woody species and provide improved habitat 

for ruffed grouse. 

The American woodcock is an early 

successional game bird of significant 

management concern because populations 

have been steadily declining across most of its 

range for at least thirty years due to habitat 

loss and maturation. The vegetative 

composition of the existing early successional 

areas at the Reining Pond tract may be 

attractive to woodcock and could potentially 

be enhanced. However, the overall value of 

the site for this species is likely limited by the 

very rocky soil, which inhibits availability of 

earthworms, their preferred food. 

Wildlife - Upland Forest 

The northern hardwood forest on the upland 

portions of the site provides habitat for a 

variety of woodland birds and mammals. 

Among the species recorded or likely to occur 

on this portion of the site are black bear, 

white-tailed deer, raccoon, opossum, gray 

squirrel, eastern chipmunk, wild turkey, 

scarlet tanager, ovenbird, red-eyed vireo, 

wood thrush, white-breasted nuthatch, and 

black-capped chickadee. Several valuable 

habitat components including den trees with 

hollow trunks and/or limbs), wild grape, and 

barberry are present in these portions of the 

site. In addition to their utility for upland 

wildlife, the tree cavities likely provide 

nesting sites for wood ducks and hooded 

mergansers. 

FISH SPECIES SURVEY - 1971 

PA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION 


# 

avg size 

(inches) 

chain pickerel 2 12.0 

largemouth bass 4 5.1 

yellow perch 35 8.3 

bluegills 502 7.2 

pumpkinseeds 242 6.5 

yellow bullhead 21 7.8 

brown bullhead 14 11.2 

golden shiner 82 -- 

Fish 

A fish species survey of Reining Pond has not 

been conducted for many years. After the 

dam breaching in 1985, the remaining pool 

had little value as a sport fishery and found 

little fishing pressure. Any extant fish species 

would be remnant populations of those which 

inhabited the Pond prior to draining. The 

most recent Fish and Boat Commission fish 

survey of Reining Pond was conducted in 

1971. Although quite dated, the survey does 

identify the species found in Reining Pond at 

the time. The survey involved the use of three 

nets fished for a total of 200 hours, and 

resulted in a total catch of 820 fish. (See the 

Fish Species survey - 1971 Table.)


Water Quality 

The streams in the vicinity of Reining Pond 

are classified as High Quality Coldwater 

Fisheries according to the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection’s 

Chapter 93 – Water Quality Standards. The 

streams in the area were evaluated in 2003 by 

DEP staff under the unassessed water program 

and it was determined that the streams were 

not impaired for their intended uses. This 

means that the water in the streams would 

support aquatic life and would support a high 

quality cold water fishery, including Collins 

Brook. A review of DEP files revealed that 

there had been no previous sampling record of 

the waters in Collins Brook or Reining Pond 

and that there were no complaints related to 

water quality problems on either the stream or 

pond. 

The macroinvertebrate sampling conducted 

during 2003 by DEP Aquatic Biologists 

indicated a healthy population of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates with good habitat for these 

aquatic insects. The use of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates as a tool for determining 

water quality is now the primary method of 

evaluating water quality. This is due to the 

fact that chemical samples only indicate water 

quality conditions at a point in time when the 

sample is collected for analysis. Aquatic 

macroinvertebrates are present continuously 

in the water and react to long term changes in 

water quality and give a clearer picture of 

actual water quality conditions over time. 4 

Floodplain 

The floodplain on the Reining Property, as 

shown on the maps issued by the federal 

Emergency Management Agency is limited to 

the area immediately adjacent to the wetlands 

and presents no limitations to the use of the 

4 Water quality information adapted from a 

report prepared William Manner, Acting Water 

Supply Manager, PA Department of Environmental 

Protection 

property. 

PNDI Search Results 

The Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index 

(PNDI) includes data about plant and animal 

species of special concern, exemplary natural 

communities and unique geological features. 

The data base is intended to provide a means 

of assessing the effect of development 

projects on the species, natural communities 

and geologic features listed on the Index. A 

description of any project affecting anything 

on the Index must be submitted to the 

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources (DCNR) and must include 

the steps being taken to protect any listed 

elements. 

A PNDI computer screening of the Reining 

Pond property found two potential plant 

species of concern, the slender sedge and the 

umbrella flatsedge. A follow-up submission 

was made to DCNR with more detailed 

information about potential projects on the 

site. DCNR responded with a PA Natural 

Diversity Inventory Potential Conflict 

Response Form that reported: 

NO IMPACT ON PLANTS OR NATURAL 

COMMUNITIES ANTICIPATED-The PNDI 

computer screening revealed hits on species 

of special concern. Based on the information 

submitted to us concerning the site we 

determined that there would be no impact on 

the species of special concern identified 

during the screening. 

(See the PNDI Internet Database Search 

Results and the PA Natural Diversity 

Inventory Potential Conflict Response Form 

included in the Appendix.) 


Section IV – Potential Uses Page IV-1 

POTENTIAL USES FOR REINING POND PROPERTY 

Range of Potential Uses 

The Steering Committee discussed a wide 

array of potential uses for the Reining Pond 

property. The uses ranged from the 

continuation of the existing condition with no 

changes, to the reconstruction of the dam and 

lake similar in size to the original, to more 

intensive development including a public 

beach and environmental education center. 

The practicality, that is, the real possibility of 

being able to plan, fund, construct, operate 

and maintain any particular use, is dependent 

on a variety of interrelated factors. These 

factors are discussed in more detail later, but 

in general, are related to environmental 

considerations, community effects, available 

funding, and long term ownership. 

The various uses are included in the Potential 

Uses Table which follows. The Table 

summarizes the uses and related issues as a 

first step in the public participation process. 

The uses are not listed in any order of 

preference, but more or less increase in the 

level of intensity in terms of the number of 

users and amount of funding and operation 

and maintenance resources required. In 

addition, the uses are not mutually exclusive; 

instead, most could be combined with the 

others for a multi-use approach; and, more 

intensive uses would require more time to 

implement. In fact, a variety of compatible 

uses developed over time are included in the 

alternatives developed for the property. 

Evaluation of Uses 

The uses in the Table are described in terms 

of use, opportunities/benefits, constraints, and 

cost. The potential use descriptions are 

self-explanatory, with the understanding that 

additional detail will be required for any use 

included in the final master site plan. 

Opportunities and benefits are related to how 

the use would maintain or improve the natural 

resource value of the property, the practicality 

of the use, and the recreational and 

educational benefit associated with the use. 

Constraints focus on those factors which may 

be problematic to implementing the use. 

Although problematic, the constraint listing is 

not intended to imply that a particular use is 

inappropriate or cannot be achieved. The cost 

description is obviously very general, and is 

simply intended to describe the cost of each 

use relative to the cost of the other uses. 

Additional cost details for uses included in 

specific alternatives considered for the site are 

required. 

Environmental Factors 

One of the major goals of the planning 

process and use of the site is to conserve the 

environmental integrity, visual beauty and 

diverse natural resources of the Reining Pond 

property. Of course, any development on the 

property must comply with all environmental 

regulations; but, as the level of development 

and intensity of use increase, the degree of 

environmental impacts also increases. Several 

issues arise from the range of potential uses 

for the property including soil erosion and 

sedimentation, storm water management, 

wetland disturbance, downstream water 

quality, and sewage disposal. 

Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 

Any of the potential uses which involve soil 

disturbance must comply with Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Resources 

(DEP), Chapter 105 Rules and regulations in 

terms of controlling soil erosion and 

sedimentation (E&S). Compliance can range 

from the preparation of a simple E&S plan to 

a full NPDES 1 permit if one or more acres is 

disturbed. E&S controls must be installed and 

System 

1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 




POTENTIAL USES 

# / USE OPPORTUNITIES / BENEFITS CONSTRAINTS $ COST 

1. existing uses - no 

change 

2. timber 

management 

3. existing uses - 

manage for wildlife 

and hunting via timber 

management, planting 

and mowing for food 

and habitat 

4. forest management 

demonstration area on 

public lands to educate 

public about best 

management practices 

for timber and wildlife 

(currently none in 

Wayne County) 

5. manage existing 

wetland (install 

Clemson leveler at 

beaver dam to enable 

water level regulation, 

limited or no site work) 

6. primitive hiking 

(trail blazes only, no 

other improvements) 

• no cost 

• existing uses are maintained but 

additional public benefits are 

limited 

• potential revenue source 

• easily combined with other uses 

• potential revenue source - timber 

sales 

• improve plant and animal species 

diversity 

• improve hunting access and 

opportunities 


• improve timber stand 

• meet need for nearby area to 

demonstrate exemplary forest 

stewardship 

• potential revenue source - timber 

sales 

• improve wildlife habitat 

• improve hunting opportunities 


• minimal cost 

• improve wetland diversity 

• increase plant diversity 

• improve waterfowl habitat 

• improve woodcock habitat 

• increase wildlife species 

diversity 



• no impact on plant species 

diversity including PNDI listed 

species 

• encourage use of entire property 

• would not encourage ATV use 

• limited long-term maintenance 

• expectations for more 

improvements 


improvements 

• timbering revenue would accrue 

to Fish & Boat Commission 

general budget, not Reining 


improvements 

• timbering revenue would accrue 

to Fish & Boat Commission 

general budget, not Reining 


improvements 

• restrictions on use of timber 

revenue on site 

• need for facilities on site for 

visitors 

• potential use by ATV’s on skid 

trails 


improvements 

• long-term maintenance 


improvements 

• none 


•low 

•low 

•medium 

•low 

•low





7. walking trails 

(minimal width and 

clearing) 

8. construct berm to 

create small pond 

(berm < 4' in height and 

water depth of 

approximately 18", 

could be closer to 

headwaters) 

9. reconstruct dam 

for pond of 

approximately original 

size, with boat access 

• encourage use of entire property 


• less costly than dam 

• improve wetland diversity 

• increase plant diversity 

• improve waterfowl habitat 

• improve woodcock habitat 


diversity 


• potential for flood control 

• improve fishing opportunities 

(marginal) 

• provide boating opportunities 

(marginal) 

• improve fishing opportunities 

• potential for flood control 

• provide waterfowl habitat 

• provide boating opportunities 

• create additional open water 

habitat 

• increase fish species diversity 


diversity 

10. picnic area • easily combined with other uses 

• area available near parking lot 

• funding availability 

• potential use by ATV’s 

• long-term operation and 

maintenance 


visitors 

• effects on existing uses 


• long-term ownership, operation 

and maintenance 

• environmental and dam safety 

permit requirements 

• EV wetlands impact and 

mitigation 

• downstream HQ water 

limitations - temperature and 

benthic organisms cannot be 

impaired 

• impact on plant species diversity 

including PNDI listed species 

• possible need for 

access/easement for construction 




• environmental and dam safety 

permit requirements 


visitors 

• potential for local youth hangout 

• EV wetlands impact and 

mitigation 

• downstream HQ water 

limitations - temperature and 

benthic organisms cannot be 

impaired 

• impact on plant species diversity 

including PNDI listed species 

• need for access/easement for 

construction 




visitors 

• potential for local youth hangout 

• effect on neighboring properties 

•medium 

•medium 

•very 

high 

•medium 






11. environmental 

education without 

buildings 

12. environmental 

education center 

13. public beach and 

associated amenities 

• work with school districts 

• 12 schools within easy access 

• many potential users 

• meet local need - current lack of 

facilities 

• improve area wide 

environmental education 


• work with school districts 

• possible funding partnerships 

with school districts 

• 12 schools within easy access 

• many potential users 

• meet local need - current lack of 

facilities 

• improve area wide 

environmental education 

• use as Wayne Conservation 

District office 

• meet community need for public 

swimming beach 



visitors 


• competition with other local 

similar efforts 



• soil limitations for on-site 

sewage 









sewage 

• limited space for new facilities 




visitors 




• diversion of funds from other 

public park facilities (e.g., 

Prompton State Park) 


and maintenance* 


sewage 

• limited space for new facilities 



*a transfer of ownership would be required because swimming is prohibited on Fish & Boat Commission 

properties 

•medium 

•very 

high 

•very 

high 



maintained during construction. Skid trails 

associated with timber harvesting operations 

are also regulated and the E&S plan would be 

included in the forest management plan. An 

NPDES permit would clearly be required in 

the case of the uses involving the construction 

of a dam, environmental education center, or 

beach. 

Storm Water Management 

The amount of storm water generated from a 

development project is related to the amount 

of impervious area created. An impervious 

surface is any area covered by buildings, 

pavement, or other manmade material which 

impedes the percolation of rain or snow melt 

into the soil. If storm water is not controlled 

on the development site it can result in 

downstream flooding. In accord with the 

Pennsylvania Storm Water Management Act, 

local regulations, in this case the Cherry 

Ridge Township Storm Water Management 

Ordinance, require on-site control of storm 

water for a specified storm frequency, 

typically the 10-year or 25-year storm. In 

short, storm water must be detained on site or 

infiltrated into the soil so that the amount of 

storm water leaving the site after development 

does not exceed that which occurred naturally 

from the site. 

Storm water management would be required 

for any potential uses which would result in 

the creation of impervious area on the Reining 

Pond property. The uses which would 

generate the most storm water would be the 

environmental education center, and any use 

requiring parking in excess of the existing 

parking area. The dam could conceivably be 

used to control storm water. 

Wetland Disturbance 

Any potential use which involves the 

disturbance of wetlands will require a permit 

from DEP. The first step in the process would 

be a complete delineation of all of the 

wetlands on the property. This would be 

conducted by a person qualified to identify the 

wetlands, and then a detailed map would be 

produced showing the extent and types of 

wetlands. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers will require any disturbed wetlands 

to be replaced (mitigated) at a ratio of at least 

1.5 to 1. Replacement on site is preferred but 

a different location is possible. The 

construction of new buildings and installation 

of other improvements are typically designed 

around wetlands to avoid the permit and 

mitigation requirements. 

The construction of a berm and small pond 

and the replacement of the dam would have 

the potential for the greatest impact on 

wetlands, with the smaller pond obviously 

having the lesser effect of inundation. The 

Reining Pond site does have the potential for 

the creation of new wetlands to replace any 

disturbed wetlands. A permit from the DEP 

Bureau of Waterways Engineering would also 

be required for both the berm and pond, and 

the permit would not be issued if any 

exceptional value wetland is disturbed. 

• A wetland is considered exceptional value 

if it is: 

• in the watershed of a stream with wild 

trout. 

• in the watershed of an exceptional value 

stream (as designated by DEP). 

• in the watershed of a stream that serves 

as a public water supply. 

• in a state-listed natural area. 

• the habitat for any species of special 

concern identified by the Pennsylvania 

Natural Diversity Index (PNDI). 

• Are the wetlands on the Reining Pond 

property exceptional value? 

• Collins Brook does not support wild 

trout. 

• Collins brook is classified by DEP as 

high quality - cold water fishery, a step 



below exceptional value. 

• Collins Brook does not serve as a public 

water supply. 

• the property is not located in a statelisted 

natural area. 

• a PNDI screening found two hits on 

species of special concern, but the 

Potential Conflict Response Form 

reported no impact on plants or natural 

communities anticipated. 

This information suggests that the wetlands on 

the reining Pond property are not exceptional 

value and the DEP permit for the berm and 

pond would not be precluded. However, 

should any site specific wetlands delineation 

or other studies find any species of special 

concern, DEP permits could not be obtained. 

Downstream Water Quality 

Temperature increases in Collins Brook and 

effects on aquatic life would be an issue with 

the construction of a dam. With larger 

impoundments, the temperature of the water, 

when compared to the inflowing stream, 

would be higher due to heating by the sun. 

The increase in temperature may or may not 

be significant enough to affect downstream 

water quality. Any thermal effects could be 

addressed by installing a syphon tube to make 

cooler water releases from lower levels of the 

pond instead of a spillway release. 

Sewage Disposal 

Any use which would bring large or organized 

groups to the site would require sanitary 

facilities. The extent of the facilities would 

depend on the number of individuals visiting 

the site. Lower numbers, such as boaters and 

fisherman visiting a new pond, could be 

served by portable toilets. For more intense 

uses which do not require a water supply, 

environmental education without a building or 

a forest management demonstration project, 

permanent holding tanks or composting toilets 

may be adequate. The more intense uses such 

as a public beach or environmental education 

center would require a water supply and an 

on-site sewage disposal system. Adequate 

soils for such system would have to be 

available on site. 

Community Effects 

The effects on surrounding properties and the 

community as a whole are also important to 

the consideration of potential uses for the 

Reining Pond property. One concern raised 

early in the process was the possibility of the 

condemnation of additional land to enlarge the 

size of the property. This option has been 

ruled out by the Steering Committee because 

it would be inconsistent with the Wayne 

County Comprehensive Plan which states the 

County is opposed to any condemnation of 

land by the Pennsylvania Game or Fish (and 

Boat) Commission or other similar agencies. 

All land additions should be on a “willing 

seller” basis. None of the identified potential 

uses involve the need for additional land. 

Other community impacts include increases in 

traffic, possible trespass on adjoining 

properties, increased litter, and noise. 

Available Funding 

Funding of potential uses ranges from no or 

low cost, to very high cost. While low cost 

uses may be simpler to accomplish, the uses 

may not meet the expectations of the 

community. Securing the funding for more 

costly uses may be viewed as an 

insurmountable obstacle. On the other hand, 

the more costly use, if supported by the 

community, may simply be a longer term 

project requiring more time for planning and 

building support. In addition to funding the 

actual development of the use, adequate 

financial capacity must also be established for 

the long term operation and maintenance of 

any capital improvements. In any case, 

funding is a key consideration in the viability 

of the range of potential uses. 

Long Term Ownership 

In addition to the initial development costs 



associated with a particular use, the 

responsibility for long term ownership, 

operation and maintenance must be accepted 

by some organization or agency. The greater 

the intensity of the use, the greater the 

commitment in financial and administrative 

resources. In addition, the question of 

liability and costs of insurance must be 

addressed. 

A number of the uses could be conducted as a 

cooperative effort without a change in 

ownership of the property. For example, local 

school districts and the Wayne Conservation 

District could work with the Fish and Boat 

Commission to use the property for 

environmental education student outings. 

Walking trails could be marked and 

maintained by volunteers. At the other end of 

the spectrum of uses, an environmental 

education center goes beyond what is 

typically found on Fish and Boat Commission 

managed property and would require a lease 

or transfer of property and substantial 

commitment from a local organization or 

agency. 


Section V – Public Meeting, 12-14-04 Page V-1 

PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL USES 

Meeting Publicity 

On December 14, 2004, the Reining Pond 

Steering Committee conducted the first public 

meeting to present and discuss the range of 

potential uses for the property. The meeting 

was held at the Honesdale High School. A 

news release was distributed to local area 

media as well as to all statewide contacts on 

the Fish and Boat Commission distribution 

list. A special invitation and a copy of the 

Plan information was sent to each Township 

Supervisor and Secretary of Cherry Ridge 

Township and Texas Township, and to each 

Wayne County Commissioner and the County 

Chief Clerk. The Plan information was also 

available on the web sites of Wayne County, 

the Fish and Boat Commission, and 

Community Planning and Management, LLC. 

Overview 

In addition to members of the Steering 

Committee, twenty-two individuals attended 

the meeting. The participants were largely 

from the immediate area around the Reining 

Pond property, and most expressed support 

for the reconstruction of the dam to create a 

pond similar in size to the original. In 

addition, the group, by and large, favored the 

continuation of the types of uses historically 

associated with the property as opposed to the 

more intense types of uses. 

Specific Comments 

Meeting participant comments and questions, 

along with the responses provided by Steering 

Committee members, are summarized below. 

Jim Kilgo 

Question: Any Fish Commission plans? 

Response: Commission has limited funding, 

one of many projects. 

Joe Coar 

Question: Can revenues from timbering on 

property go to improvements on property? 

Response: No separate timber management 

fund, only boat fund and fish fund 

Bob Mander 

Comment: Timber revenues are a possibility 

but not guaranteed. 

Jack Gearhart 

Comment: Revenues from timber sales on 

state forest land go into the state’s general 

fund. 

Allen Brownell 

Question: Value of timber on property? 

Response: Has not been evaluated yet. 

Tom Atkinson 

Comment: Thanked committee for efforts. 

Question: What constitutes wetlands? 

Response: Soils, plant life, and hydrology. 


Comment: Would like to see the pond 

reconstructed. Good place for kids to go and 

catch fish. 

Leonard Swendson 

Comment: Agreed with Bob Mander. 

Brian Smith 

Comment: Put pond back to original size. 

Question: Is there any specific funding? 

Response: None identified to date. 

Brian O’Neill 

Question: Without the pond, how can there 

be any other uses such as hiking? 

Comment: Fishermen make their own trails. 

Mike Coar 

Comment: There was a trail around the pond 

before; no need to spend money on new trails. 

Reining Pond Master Site Plan 04.05


Tom VanOrden 

Comment: Fish Commission should tell public 

that the land is available for public use. 

Tom Atkinson 

Comment: The Reining land has been hunted 

since the dam was constructed. At Prompton, 

hunting is affected by other recreational uses. 

The east side would be dangerous during 

hunting season if no changes are made other 

than the lake. 

Brian O’Neill 

Question: Cost of replacing dam? 

Response: $1.5 to $2 million based on 

preliminary estimates. 

Allen Brownell 

Comment: The property should be managed 

for the people who pay for it -- purchasers of 

fishing and hunting licenses. Idea of potholing 

to improve waterfowl habitat. The 

property should be managed as a wildlife area. 



Pete Snyder 

Question: Are we sure that a dam can even 

be rebuilt there? 

Response: This is a legitimate question. 

Would depend on DEP permit process in 

terms of safety and environmental effects. 

Tom VanOrden 

Comment: General feeling in country of 

wanting to remove dams instead of 

constructing new dams. 

Leon Reed 

Comment: Fish Commission initially 

contacted Game Commission and Ducks 

Unlimited to cooperate to rebuild the dam. 

More stringent dam construction requirements 

for flood control resulted in significant cost 

increase. The upper end of the property 

should be managed as a duck reserve. Would 

like to replace dam and have limited other 

improvements and duck reserve 

Al Snyder 

Comment: Suggested Get Hooked on Fishing, 

Not on Drugs program. Consider limiting use 

of restored pond to children and seniors. 

Would be the only place in the state 

designated for such use. 


Comment: Even without the pond the site gets 

use. Nothing stopping people from using the 

area. Used heavily during hunting season. 

Cars in the parking lot everyday. 

Brian Smith 

Question: What happens with the beaver dam 

and will it get bigger? 

Response: The size and stability of the dam 

will vary depending on the natural life cycle 

of the beavers and available food supply. 

Joe Coar 

Comment: If dam is replaced it will improve 

water quality downstream. 

Response: A dam would retain sediment but 

downstream water quality can also be affected 

by temperature increases. Dam design would 

have to address downstream issues. 

Dave Arnold 

The dam will not affect aquatic migratory 

species. 

Ed Coar 

Comment: Suggested that removal of the 

remainder of the breached dam would be an 

improvement for the property. 

Bob Mueller 

Comment: Developing any of the proposed 

uses will involve time. 

Matt Coar 

Question: What is the Clemson Leveler? 

Response: A piping device used for 

controlling beaver dam water level for 

waterfowl management. 

Quinton Holl 

Question: How soon will the grants be 

applied for and be received? 

Response: Depends on planned use and 

available funding. 

Tom Atkinson 

Comment: The dam should be reconstructed 

and the property should be used for the same 

uses as it has been. 

Written Comments 

In addition to the comments made at the 

public meeting, the Wayne Conservation 

District received comment letters from three 

area residents. The author of each of these 

letters supports maintaining the reining Pond 

property in its present state without 

reconstruction of a dam. The contents of each 

letter is summarized below. 

Jerry Arnold 

• maintain existing wetland 

• area population growth and loss of wild 



places 

• keep Wayne County clean and green 

Dwight Landis 

• preference for restoration of natural stream 

and floodplain habitats 

• high cost of constructing and maintaining 

a dam 

• about half of wetlands in state have been 

lost 

Barbara Leo 

• Regional Coordinator for 2 nd Pennsylvania 

Breeding Bird Atlas 

• conserve integrity of the existing wetland 

• other fishing/boating areas nearby 

• enormous expense of new dam 


Section VI – Identified Uses and Recommended Actions Page VI-1 

PROPOSED USES AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 

Potential Uses Revised 

The Steering Committee revised the list of 

potential uses presented in Section IV based 

on the following: 

• Public, local official and county official 

comments received on the range of 

potential uses for the Reining Pond 

property. 

• Limited availability of funding for capital 

improvements. 

• Uncertainty of resources for operation and 

maintenance of any improvements. 

With the exception of the reconstruction of 

the dam, those uses which would involve 

higher capital expenditures and operation and 

maintenance costs, and more intensive use of 

the property, were eliminated. The citizens 

who participated in the public meeting largely 

preferred dam reconstruction over all other 

capital intensive uses. Given the public 

interest expressed at the public meeting for 

the reconstruction of the dam, this use, despite 

the high capital and operation and 

maintenance costs, was included as a 

proposed use. 

Proposed Uses 

The revised uses are included in the Proposed 

Uses Table which follows. The Table 

summarizes the uses and related issues as a 

first step in the process of community and 

agency action to move forward on the Reining 

Pond property. The uses are not listed in any 

order of preference, but more or less by the 

level of intensity in terms of the amount of 

funding and operation and maintenance 

resources required. In addition, the uses are 

not mutually exclusive; instead, most could be 

combined with the others for a multi-use 

approach. Obviously, the more intensive uses 

would require more time to implement. The 

Partnerships column of the Table suggests 

how the various involved agencies could work 

together to accomplish the specific use. 

Recommended Action 

The uses proposed for the Reining property 

fall into two basic categories – those requiring 

a change in management and those requiring 

a capital outlay. The key to the attainment of 

any of the proposed uses is the continued 

public focus on the property, individual and 

community commitment to action, and agency 

interest in participating in its management. 

Without this, little will change at Reining 

Pond. Recommended actions include: 

• Continue Steering Committee participation 

and periodic meetings. 

• Adopt formal partnership agreements 

among interested agencies and groups 

using the Steering Committee members as 

a base. 

• Include the implementation of the Master 

Site Plan as the specific intent of the 

partnership agreements. 

• Provide support for non-agency Steering 

Committee members and interested citizens 

to create a local non-profit Friends of 

Reining Pond organization to serve as an 

advisory group and possible grant 

applicant. 

• Formalize relationship between Friends of 

Reining Pond and the Pennsylvania Fish 

and Boat Commission as an element of the 

management of the property. 

• Wayne Conservation District to provide 

administrative support similar to assisting 

watershed association operation. 




PROPOSED USES 

# / USE NOTES PARTNERSHIPS 

1. Existing uses - manage 

for wildlife and hunting via 

timber management, 

planting and mowing for food 

and habitat, and pot-holing to 

improve waterfowl habitat.. 

Also use as a forest 

management demonstration 

area. 

2. Primitive hiking (trail 

blazes only, no other 

improvements) 

3. Environmental education 

without buildings or other 

improvements. 

4. Manage existing wetland 

(install Clemson leveler at 

beaver dam to enable water 

level regulation, limited or no 

site work.) 

5. Construct berm to create 

small pond (berm < 4' in 

height and water depth of 

approximately 18", could be 

closer to headwaters.) 

6. Reconstruct dam for pond 

of approximately original size, 

with boat access. 

• Proceeds from 

timber sale to be 

allocated to 

Reining property. 

• Combine with all 

other uses. 


other uses. 


other uses. 

• Least intensive 

water related use. 

• Medium intensity 


• Would preclude 

Use #4. 

• Most intensive 


• Would preclude 

Use #4 and Use #5. 

• Game Commission - wildlife management. 

• DCNR, Bureau of Forestry - timber management. 

• Conservation District - local partnership coordinator. 

• Friends of Reining Pond - advisory group and 

volunteer labor to reduce costs. 

• Steering Committee - technical assistance. 

• DCNR, Bureau of Forestry - trail layout. 


• Friends of Reining Pond - trail marking and 

maintenance. 

• School Districts - provide curriculum 


• Friends of Reining Pond - serve as guides for school 

classes. 

• Steering Committee - technical assistance 

• Fish and Boat Commission - provide authorization. 



volunteer labor to reduce costs; possibly serve as 

grant applicant. 

• Township/County - possibly serve as grant applicant. 


• Fish and Boat Commission - provide authorization; 

apply for permits; provide operation and 

maintenance.. 







• Fish and Boat Commission - provide authorization; 

apply for permits; provide operation and 

maintenance. 









• Agency participation funded under current 

agency budgets. 

• Administrative and operating expenses for 

the Friends of Reining Pond to be provided 

by membership dues, grants, and/or some 

agency support. 

Community Organization 

The creation of a community group, such as 

The Friends of Reining Pond, to build support 

for the long term management and 

improvement of the Reining Pond property is 

critical. Fish and Boat Commission funds are 

limited, as are all government funds and grant 

programs. Limited public funds are typically 

directed to those projects with the greatest 

level of public support. Without a viable local 

organization to promote the management and 

improvement of the Reining Pond property, 

and vie for funding, public resources will 

likely be directed to other projects. Agency 

participants on the Steering Committee can 

provide some technical assistance for 

organizing and supporting a community based 

organization, but only a well functioning, 

nonprofit corporation with a robust 

membership can hope to successfully achieve 

the goals of this Master Plan. In short, the 

creation of such a group will dependent on the 

action of motivated citizens. 

Short Term Actions - Management 

The initial focus should be on the 

management uses which can be accomplished 

via partnership agreements and interagency 

cooperation. The Steering Committee would 

play the key role in developing the details of 

each use, and each agency would act as 

specified in the partnership agreements. 

Funding requirements are minimal and 

primarily would involve staff time provided 

out of existing participating agency budgets. 

Short term actions include: 

• Use #1 - Wildlife and timber management 

and forest management demonstration area. 

• Use #2 - Primitive hiking. 

• Use #3 - Environmental education with no 

site improvements. 

• Use #4 - Managing the existing wetland 

with a Clemson leveler. 

Long Term Actions - Capital Expenditure 

Based on the higher costs, environmental 

issues, and differing opinions about stream 

impoundment vs. ecosystem maintenance, 

consideration of capital expenditure uses 

should be undertaken only in the longer term. 

Once formed and functioning, the Friends of 

Reining Pond should serve as the advisory and 

public information group to further consider 

the uses. If the local organization cannot 

garner the support for the capital expenditures 

the construction will likely not materialize. The 

capital expenditure uses include: 

• Use #5 - construction of a berm and small 

pond at the same level as the existing beaver 

dam, estimated cost of $40,000 to $60,000. 1 

• Use #6 - reconstruction of the dam and pond 

of original size at an estimated cost of 

$1,500,000 to $2,000,000. 2 

If the local community cannot successfully 

organize a Friends of Reining Pond to 

shepherd the development of either use, the 

Fish and Boat Commission could include the 

two uses in future capital budget for 

consideration in terms of cost vs. benefit along 

with all other agency improvements. 

Maintenance Actions 

Steering Committee discussions and public 

comments identified a number of actions which 

1 Estimate based on cost of $2,000 per acre 

and anticipated pool size of 20 to 30 acres. 

2 

Cost estimate provided by PA Fish and Boat 

Commission. 



the Fish and Boat Commission should 

consider at Reining Pond to enhance public 

use. These include: 

• Installing a standard Fish and Boat 

Commission sign. 

• Mowing and cutting brush more frequently. 

• Sealing or resurfacing the parking area. 

• Removing the remaining parts of the dam. 

Future Considerations for Berm 

or Dam Construction 

As part of the planning process, a number of 

critical issues related to constructing either a 

berm and small pond, or reconstructing the 

dam were identified. While these issues are 

certainly not insurmountable, they must be 

addressed before any agency or organization 

could undertake either project. The issues are 

included here to serve as a checklist for future 

action. 

Funding 

• Near term Fish and Boat Commission 

funding is not probable given the current 

forecast of some $150,000,000 required for 

current priority projects at Commission 

facilities, including $85,000,000 in fish 

hatchery improvements and $58,000,000 

million in dam improvements. 

• Current Fish and Boat Commission goals do 

not include dam construction or land 

acquisition. 

• Local funding is simply not available from 

local or county governments due to limited 

resources and the need to focus on local 

community facility and service priorities. 

• Operation and maintenance costs would be 

in addition to construction costs. 

• Grant funds for the construction of a dam 

are limited given the high cost, commitment 

required for operation and maintenance, and 

environmental considerations. 

• Grants would not include funds for 

operation and maintenance. 

• Potential funding sources for the berm and 

small pond (Use #5) include: 

• North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act Grants Program, U.S. Fish and 



Wildlife Service – intended to promote 

the long term conservation of wetland 

ecosystems, the funds may be used for 

the enhancement and restoration of 

wetlands and uplands associated with 

wetlands. A local funding match is 

required. The program has been used 

successfully in Wayne County. 

• Ducks Unlimited, Inc. – This private 

nonprofit organization often provides 

funds and partners with other 

organizations for wetlands enhancement 

which benefits waterfowl. 

• Pennsylvania Community Conservation 

Partnership Program, Small Community 

Development Projects, Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources – 

funding of up to $40,000 for the 

development or rehabilitation of park, 

recreation and conservation areas. 

Municipal applicant and local match 

required for grants in excess of $20,000. 

Environmental 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, and the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

regulations would apply. 

• Key environmental concerns include 

wetlands inundation and downstream water 

quality, including temperature. (See 

detailed discussion in Section IV.) 

• A permit would be required from the 

Department of Environmental Protection, 

Bureau of Waterways Engineering, . 3 

3 DEP regulations provide for certain waivers 

of permit requirements as detailed in §105.12 of 

DEP’s Rules and Regulations. The only waiver 

available to the Reining Pond uses would be for a 

dam not exceeding three feet in height within the 

• The DEP permit process is complex and the 

review and approval process typically takes 

one year from the time DEP receives a 

complete application. 

• The application requires a wide range of 

detailed information including, among 

others: 

• Pennsylvania Historical and Museum 

Commission notification 

• PNDI search. 

• Site plan with cross sections and location 

maps 

• Erosion and sedimentation control plan 

• Hydrologic and hydrualic analysis 

including dam break analysis 

• Environmental assessment form and 

mitigation plan 

• Detailed construction drawings 

• Emergency action plan 

• Plan to address any dam settling or other 

structural compromise 

• Operation and maintenance manual 

• Certification by professional engineer 

Diversity of Public Opinion - As discussed in 

Section V, most citizens who commented at the 

December 14, 2004, public meeting supported 

the reconstruction of the dam. However, if 

such construction is specifically proposed, a 

number of issues may be raised by citizens 

who would not support construction of a dam 

or berm. These issues include: (See also the 

the three comment letter summaries at the end 

of Section V.) 

• The cost versus recreation benefit and use of 

limited tax revenues. 

• The availability of other, similar fishing 

areas. 

banks of the stream where the stream does not exceed 

fifty feet in width and no wild trout are not present. In 

the case of Collins Brook, the dam would produce only 

a minimal size pond. 



• The need to maintain existing the stream 

and wetland ecosystem. 

• The diversion of limited resources from 

other recreation areas. 

Property Ownership 

Continued Commonwealth ownership and 

Fish and Boat Commission management of 

the Reining Pond property appears to be the 

only real option at this time for continued 

public use. Neither Cherry Ridge Township 

nor Texas Township have the financial 

resources or administrative capability, nor the 

interest, to assume ownership. In the case of 

Wayne County, the Board of Commissioners, 

in addition to normal operations, is currently 

in the process of constructing a jail and 

working to develop a business park, and there 

is no interest in additional land ownership. In 

addition, political support for either Township 

or County ownership is not likely to occur. 

Other options include the transfer to another 

state agency or to a non-profit organization. 

The Pennsylvania Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) 

and the Pennsylvania Game Commission 

(PGC) are the two most likely candidates for 

the ownership of the Reining Pond property. 

However, these two agencies clearly do not 

hold dam construction as a project priority. 

Therefore, the Reining Pond should remain 

under management of the Fish and Boat 

Commission to maintain dam construction as 

a long term option. In any case, similar to the 

Fish and Boat Commission, the DCNR and 

the PGC, and other state agencies, have 

limited budgets and must carefully evaluate 

any additional costs for capital improvements 

and operation and maintenance. The Reining 

Pond property is not contiguous to any other 

state lands, making it somewhat less 

appealing to either agency in terms of overall 

public benefit compared to long term cost. 

Non-profit organizations may, and often do, 

own and manage recreation and natural areas. 

The Nature Conservancy and the Natural 

Lands Trust are two such nationally known 

organizations. A local example is Lacawac 

Sanctuary in Paupack Township, where a nonprofit 

corporation owns and manages the 500acre 

which includes a glacial lake. National 

non-profit organizations now typically show 

interest only in properties with national 

significance and the Reining Pond property, 

while important locally, may not meet this 

criterion. Local non-profits can only be 

successful in owning and managing land with 

a large financial endowment or a very broad 

base of community support for funding. 

Obviously, this type of support does not 

currently exist for the Reining property. 



APPENDIX 

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index Search Results 

Comment Letters 

Maps 






Soil Types 



Agricultural Security Areas


APPENDIX 

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index Search Results


APPENDIX 

Comment Letters


APPENDIX 

Maps 






Soil Types 



Agricultural Security Areas

¥§¦©¨¨¥¨¡£ ¤£ ¨¥£ ¨ 

¢¡¤£ 

¥£ 

¨ 

¤£ £ ¦¦£ 

¤£ 

¨£ £ ¥£ ¨¡ 

¨¥ 

¨£ ¥¡¨¨¦¦£ ¥¥£ 

¥¤¢¨¤£ 

¨£ ¨¤¨¥¥£ ¥¨¦ 

£¡£ 

¨¨ ¦©¥ ¢¨£ ¨¨¨¤¥¥ 

¥¤¢¨¤£ 

¨¥ ¢¨£ ¨¡ 

¨¨£ 

¤ 

¦¦¤£ ¥ ¨£ ¨ ¥¡¤£ ¥¨¦ 

 

¢ 

¤ 

¤ 

 

 

 

¤ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¤ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§ 

§ §¢ 

 

 

 

 

¢

¤ ¨ ¤ ¨ 

 

¦ 

 

¨ 

 

 

 

¤ ¨ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¨ 

¡ 

 

 

 

¤¨ ¨ 

 

 

 

 

©¨¨¥ £¨ §¨§¨¢¨ ©¥¨¢ ¨¨©¨¥ §¨ 

¢¤£¦¥¨§ 

¥§¥ §¨©¦ § ¥ ¥¨©¨¥¨ 

 

 

¤ 

¦ ¤ 

¤¤ ¦¤¤¤¤ ¤¦ ¤ 

¡ 

¡ 

¡

¡ 

¡ 

¢ 

£ 

¤ 

¥ 

¤ 

¡ 

¥ 

¢ 

¦ 

£ 

§¨ 

© 

 

 

¨

¡ 

¡ 

¢ 

£ 

¤ 

¥ 

¤ 

¡ 

¥ 

¢ 

¦ 

£ 

§¨ 

© 

 

 

¨

¥§¦©¨¨¥¨ ¡¤£ ¤£ ¤¨¥ ¢£ ¨ 

¢¡¤£ 

¥£ 

¨ 

£ ¤ £ ¦¦©£ 

£ 

£ £ ¥ £ ¨ ¡ 

¨¤¥¨ 

¨¤£ ¨£ ¥¡¨¨¦¦£ ¥¥£ 

¤¥ 

¡£ ¨£ ¨¨¥¥£ ¥ ¨ ¦ 

£ 

¨¤£ ¨¨¦¤¥¨ £ ¨¨ ¨¥¥ 

¤¥ 

£ ¨¥¨ £ ¨ ¡ 

¤¨¨ 

¦¦©£ ¥¨ £ ¤¨ ¥¡¤£ ¥§¤¨¦ 

 

¤¤ ¤ 

 

 

© 

 

 

 

¢

¨ 

¨ 

¦ § 

£ 

¦ 

¦ ¨ £ 

© 

¨ ¤ 

¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¨ ¤ 

¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ ¨ ¢¥¤ 

¡£¢¥¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¤ ¤ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ 

 

£¢ 

 

 

 

¤ 

© 

 

 

¦¤ §¢ 

¥¤ 

 

¡£¢¥¤ 

¤ 

¤ ¢ ¨ 

¨¤ 

¥¤ 

¨¤ £¢ 

©¤© 

 

¥ 

 

 

 

 

 

§ 

¨ ¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

 

 

§ 

 

 

 

¤ 

 

 

¥ 

 

§ §¥ 

 

¥ 

 

¥ § 

 

¨ 

¨ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¤ 

¨ ¤ 

¡£¢¥¤ 

 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¡£¢ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¤ 

¢ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¤ 

¤ 

¡£¢ 

¨ 

¤ 

 

¨ ¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

 

 

¤ 

¤ 

¤ 

© 

 

¤ 

¡£¢¥¤ 

¤ 

¡§¦£¤ 

 

 

 

 

 

¨ 

 

¡£¢ 

¡£¢ 

 

¤ 

¨ ¢ © 

¡£¢¥¤ ¢ 

¨ ¤ ¡£¢ 

 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¡£¢¥¤ 

© 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

 

 

 

¨ ¤ 

 

¢ 

¨ ¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

 

¨ 

 

 

 

 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¢¥¤ ¨ 

¤ ¨ 

 

¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¡£¢¥¤ 

¢¥¤ 

 

© 

¨ ¢ © 

 

¨ ¤ 

 

¡£¢ 

¨ ¤ 

¨ ¤ 

© 

¤ 

¢¥¤ ¨ 

 

 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¨ © 

¨ ¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¢ © ¨ 

¢¥¤ ¨ 

¤ 

¢¥¤ ¨ 

¨ ¤ 

¨ ¢ © 

 

¤ 

 

¨ ¤ 

¤ ¨ ¢¥¤ 

¢ 

£ © 

¤ 

© 

£ ¤ 

 

 

 

¢ 

 

 

© 

 

 

 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¤ 

 

¢¥¤ ¨ 

© ¢ ¨ 

 

 

© 

 

 

 

 

¨ ¤ 

 

 

 

 

 

¡£¢ 

¤ 

¡§¦£¤ 

¨ ¢¥¤ 

¡£¢ 

 

¤¥¨¤ 

© 

¤ 

¨¤ £ ¢ 

¤¦¤ 

 

 

¨¤ 

¨¤ 

¨ 

 

¡ 

¨ ¡ 

¡ 

¡ ¨¤ 

¨ ¡ ¨¤ 

 

¡ ¨¤ § ¢ 

¤ 

§ 

 

¨ ¤ 

 

 

 

 

¤ 

© 

¡§¦£¤ 

¤ 

 

 

 

¥ 

 

 

 

¥ 

 

 

¨ © 

¨ ¢¥¤

¤§ 

© ¨ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¤¥¦§ 

© © ¨ 

 

¤¥§§ 

¡£ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡¢£ 

¤¥¦§ 

 

 

 

 

¡£

§ § § 

§ 

 

 

§ 

 

 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 

 

§ § 

§ 

 

§ 

§ § § 

¢ 

 

 

 

 

 

¥§¦§¨© ¦©§ 

 

 

¡ ¡ 

 

 

£ £ £ ¤ 

§§§ 

§ 

 

 

 

§

§§§§ § §¤ ¤ ¤§§ § § 

¤ 

§§ § 

§§ 

§¤§ §§ § 

 

§ §§ § 

¤§§ 

§¤ §§§§ © § 

¤§§§ 

§§§ ©§© § 

 

§¤ §§§§§§¤§§§ §§§ §§ 

¤§§§ 

§§§§§ §§ § 

¤§§§ 

§ §§§§ §¤§ §§¤ §¤§ 

 

 

 

 

 

¢¤£¤¥§¦©¨ £¦¤ 

 

 

 

¤ ¤ 

 

 

 

 

¤ 

 

§© 

 

 

¡

Complete report - Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?