Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

[Luke]

Wow thanks for enlightening me on that one I apologize to Mr. Anderson.

[Ice Man]

.............................. The point of my previous posts was to demonstrate that this unfunded mandate will cost customers of the wastewater treatment plants a great deal of money, and will do very little to fix the problems in the bay. Please keep in mind that even after the improvements are made to the wastewater plants, they will still discharge nitrogen and phosphorus, just at lower concentrations. Tyrone Borough customers can expect to pay between $7 and $18 more each month (or $84 to $216 more per year) for these improvements. To put this into perspective, if Tyrone goes forward with the windfarm proposal, collects $60,000 annually, and decides to reduce sewer rates with this "windfall" (pun intended), a savings to sewer rates each month would only be about $2.50 (assuming 2,000 customers).Lastly, I would like to thank you for bringing this issue to light and Bill Anderson for his efforts to keep the Little Juniata River a great natural resource that we may continue to use and enjoy.

Which is certainly not worth a windmill !!
Thanks for info skippy.[/quote]

Right on!!

[150thBucktailCo.I]

Just as an add on to that article in the Daily Herald about this issue and in regards to the area Northern Blair Sewer Authority covers...

I know that the Northern Blair Sewer services Antis Township all the way down to the Bellmeade area and back around those developments near the Pinecroft Fire Dept.

And if I recall correctly, it's part of the inability of the sewer authority to expand their capacity which is holding up residential and commercial development projects in that area.

[coveredbridge]

Just as an add on to that article in the Daily Herald about this issue and in regards to the area Northern Blair Sewer Authority covers...

I know that the Northern Blair Sewer services Antis Township all the way down to the Bellmeade area and back around those developments near the Pinecroft Fire Dept.

And if I recall correctly, it's part of the inability of the sewer authority to expand their capacity which is holding up residential and commercial development projects in that area.

That should no longer be the case as NBCRSA recently brought a new pump station on line near the Pinecroft interchange.

[skippy]

Just as an add on to that article in the Daily Herald about this issue and in regards to the area Northern Blair Sewer Authority covers...

I know that the Northern Blair Sewer services Antis Township all the way down to the Bellmeade area and back around those developments near the Pinecroft Fire Dept.

And if I recall correctly, it's part of the inability of the sewer authority to expand their capacity which is holding up residential and commercial development projects in that area.

That should no longer be the case as NBCRSA recently brought a new pump station on line near the Pinecroft interchange.

NBCRSA serves customers in Antis and Snyder Townships. The southernmost part of Antis Township (south of the power lines) drains to Logan Township's wastewater treatment plant. Development in this portion of the Township has been stifled for years. In the past, either Logan Township's treatment plant was overloaded, or NBCRSA did not have sufficient allocated capacity at the plant. NBCRSA has a much larger allocated capacity at the Tyrone wastewater treatment plant (Ithink it is around 3,000,000 gallons per day) than the Logan wastewater treatment plant (which I believe is 150,000 gallons per day). I am sure that one of the main reasons for the pump station project was to divert flow from the Logan plant to Tyrone to allow for additional growth.

The pending project at the Tyrone plant will also have a major financial impact upon NBCRSA and Bellwood Borough customers. Has anyone heard what rate increases will be passed onto these customers?

According to an earlier article posted by Sandstone, in 2003, the state agreed to reduce nutrient and sediment loadings tributary to the bay by 30 percent. If we spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS to retrofit treatment plants, and only reduce nutrient loadings by 5 percent (as described in the Daily Herald article), where is the other 25 percent reduction in nutrient loading coming from? Also, please note that the treatment plant projects will do NOTHING to reduce sediment loadings. So in the end we will spend ONE BILLION dollars to reduce nutrient loadings by 5 percent (or one-sixth of the required amount), and reduce sediment loadings by zero percent. I usually do not try to predict what will happen in the future , but once it is determined that this strategy will fail (after ONE BILLION DOLLARS is flushed down the drain), Pennsylvania will be required to spend a lot more money (your tax money) to remove the other 25 percent of nutrients and 30 percent of sediment.

I do not wish to beat a dead horse, but subsequent to an earlier post where I was comparing the much larger sewer rate increases that will be necessary to fund this project (in relation to possible revenues from the windfarm proposal), I was advised that Tyrone Borough has over 2,900 equivalent dwelling units (a fancy way to say customers). So assuming that Tyrone Borough moves forward with the windfarm proposal, collects $60,000 annually, and reduces borough sewer rates with these revenues, a savings of about $1.72 per month per customer will be realized. The savings will be further reduced per customer if Tyrone shares these revenues with NBCRSA (since the windfarm may be located in Snyder Township)

[Bill Anderson]

Skippy, Bucktail et al,
The statement that Tyrone Borough sold capacity to Northern Blair Sewer and Water Authority is correct. In fact they sold all the remaining capacity! This means there is no capacity for growth in the Tyrone/Snyder township area. Not for additional jobs at the paper mill and not for additional residences. It also means that the Tyrone treatment plant is less able to meet the mandates for phosphorous reduction which has been well known as a coming requirement by 2010. Ask the American Eagle management if the Tyrone Treatment plant can provide adequate capacity for their current needs let alone for growth. Ask the Albemarle management if they are being allocated enough water treatment capacity. Both will tell you they are severely limited now.

The sale of all remaining volume capacity to facilitate upstream development is worse than shortsighted, its downright self defeating and dangerous for Tyrone residents. Ask yourself what happens to Park Avenue and 10th street the next time we have 9" of rain in one night? Every new parking lot, and every additional roof that is built in the headwaters i.e. Pinecroft or bellmead area will increase the stormwater run-off volume. Isn't it ironic that the well meaning Tyrone Borough Council has spent many hours of hand ringing over how to reduce the affects of flooding from the Little Juniata. All the while facilitating upstream development, by selling water treatment capacty, that is needed by local Tyrone industries and residents! Of course with the capacity sold and the pumping station on line, its too late now. Get ready for the next Hurricane Ivan and keep your boats handy.

Bill Anderson - Former Tyrone business owner and flood victim.

[sandstone]

Skippy, Bucktail et al,
The statement that Tyrone Borough sold capacity to Northern Blair Sewer and Water Authority is correct. In fact they sold all the remaining capacity! This means there is no capacity for growth in the Tyrone/Snyder township area. Not for additional jobs at the paper mill and not for additional residences. It also means that the Tyrone treatment plant is less able to meet the mandates for phosphorous reduction which has been well known as a coming requirement by 2010. Ask the American Eagle management if the Tyrone Treatment plant can provide adequate capacity for their current needs let alone for growth. Ask the Albemarle management if they are being allocated enough water treatment capacity. Both will tell you they are severely limited now.

The sale of all remaining volume capacity to facilitate upstream development is worse than shortsighted, its downright self defeating and dangerous for Tyrone residents. Ask yourself what happens to Park Avenue and 10th street the next time we have 9" of rain in one night? Every new parking lot, and every additional roof that is built in the headwaters i.e. Pinecroft or bellmead area will increase the stormwater run-off volume. Isn't it ironic that the well meaning Tyrone Borough Council has spent many hours of hand ringing over how to reduce the affects of flooding from the Little Juniata. All the while facilitating upstream development, by selling water treatment capacty, that is needed by local Tyrone industries and residents! Of course with the capacity sold and the pumping station on line, its too late now. Get ready for the next Hurricane Ivan and keep your boats handy.

Bill Anderson - Former Tyrone business owner and flood victim.

Little Juniata River Association President Bill Anderon makes some excellent points. Check out http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:jb ... cd=2&gl=us

“Suffering Waters” on the Urban Landscape
Decades of research shows that urbanization has degraded our water resources in many ways. But you don't have to
be a scientist to confirm it. Across the country, the casual observer can’t help but notice that lakes and streams in
highly populated areas are suffering badly.
In Southeast Wisconsin, a 30-minute drive toward
Milwaukee from any direction would bring this
fact to light. If you took note of the look of the
streams along the way, you would discover an
“evolution” that occurs as you leave the farmland
and open space and gradually become surrounded
by rooftops and parking lots. This fact sheet takes
a closer look at that evolution process and the signs
of "suffering waters" on our urban landscape. It
also outlines some actions that can be taken to
mitigate the problem, as well as to prevent it from
occurring in the first place.

"Impervious" Beginnings
Studies show that buildings and pavement are at the core of the negative impacts urbanization has had on our lakes
and streams. In fact, you may be surprised that these impacts begin when as little as 10% of the drainage area, or
watershed is covered by these impervious surfaces.The key word here is impervious - rooftops, roads, driveways, parking lots, etc. They all prevent rain and melting
snow from soaking into the soil surface, resulting in increased runoff from the landscape. But, that is just the
beginning of the story of how urbanization affects our water resources.

The “Hard” Facts on Urban Runoff1½” rain - Pavement produces 24 times more runoff than grass!
The Numbers:
Grass runoff fills a 10’ x 10’ room about knee high (2.2’).
Pavement runoff fills the same room almost 6 stories high (52’)!

The Underground Connection
Storm sewers are also an important factor in the
story of degraded urban waters. During a rain or
snowmelt period, this highly efficient network of
curbside drains and pipes beneath our streets
quietly collects runoff from our lawns, shopping
centers and industrial parks. When they work correctly, the sewers quickly “dispose” the unwanted runoff to the
nearest lake, stream or wetland - untreated. Upstream, this process pretty much occurs "out of sight and out of
mind". Downstream, it is a very different story.

“Growing” Streams
Vast impervious surfaces, teamed up with
the storm sewers that quickly drain them,
produce unnatural downstream flows that
are:
1) much larger volumes of water,
2) moving much faster, and
3) occurring far more often.
Eroding streambanks are a common early
symptom of a stream that is getting “too
big for its britches.” In other words, it can
no longer handle the increased flows
coming off the urban landscape during
runoff events, so it naturally tries to widen
itself. Rock riprap, concrete and other bank reinforcement measures are often used to try to stop the streambanks
from eroding.
Complaints of gully erosion or increased wetness in downstream farm fields are also indicators of the unnatural
flows produced from urban landscapes.

High Water Headaches
When a heavy rain or quick snowmelt occurs, a stream naturally overflows its banks into an established floodplain
area. But as the watershed keeps developing, flows increase and the floodplain may be expanding. Early signs are when the water reaches
flood levels more often than they are
"supposed to". But if a rare storm hits the
area, watch out! Calling something a 100
or 500-year event does little to relieve the
damage to homes and businesses - or
prevent it from happening again.
A common practice used to address this
problem in the past was the straightening,
deepening and widening of streams - often
leading to the entire channel being lined
with concrete. These are very common in
the Milwaukee area. They help carry
more water away faster without channel
erosion, but leave the stream lifeless and not real pretty. They also may only transfer or even compound the
problems downstream.

“Disappearing” Streams
While it is common for urban streams to swell quickly during a heavy rain, it is also common - especially for
smaller tributary streams - for flows to quickly “disappear” between storms. This is called losing “base flow”. It
means that the local groundwater is no longer being replenished enough to maintain the stream flows that may have
existed before the landscape was developed. Impervious surfaces, storm sewers and engineered grading prevent water from getting trapped in small natural
depressions and slowly seeping through the soil to replenish the groundwater. Instead, it quickly runs off, picking
up a smorgasbord of pollutants along the way.

The Dirty Facts
And that leads us to perhaps the most disturbing part of this story - the impacts urbanization has on water quality.
Decades of monitoring provide us with a very long and predictable list of sediment, nutrients, metals, hydrocarbons,
and other toxins that flow at alarming rates from our urban areas every time it rains. Here are a just few examples of
the types and amounts of pollutants that storm sewers commonly carry to our lakes and streams.
- For every 10 acres of land that is under
construction, an average of 15 dump truck
loads of eroded soil ends up in our waters.
- Lawn grass is now the number one
crop in the nation and urbanites apply
fertilizers and pesticides at rates 10 times
that of farmers.
- Urban runoff almost always exceeds
human contact standards for fecal
coliform bacteria counts - usually 20 to 40
times the health standard!
- Careless dumping and leaky engines
cause more motor oil and antifreeze to
flow into our nations waters from storm
sewers each year than is spilled in tanker
accidents.

The Net Result
Researchers have found that by the time a watershed is a 25% impervious, stream and lakes are usually beyond hope
- no longer able to support the diverse aquatic life found in healthy waters. The impacts do not happen over night,
but are more chronic in nature. Hundreds of storm sewers or road ditches discharging polluted runoff dozens of
times each year slowly take their toll on the fragile aquatic ecosystem.
Algae blooms, excessive weed growth and
the odor of decaying organic matter are
some of the symptoms noticeable to the
average passerby. Below the water line,
the desirable fish species slowly migrate
out of the area as their food supply,
oxygen levels and habitat are degraded.
Tolerant species like carp slowly take
over and add to the problem by constantly
stirring up the bottom sediments.
In short, urban waters are usually
suffering.


Creative Planning is Key to Protecting Our Waters
The problems described above, while all too common in urban areas, are not the inevitable price of progress. There
are a wide variety of actions that can be taken by planners, developers, engineers, public officials and citizens to
protect our water resources from the negative impacts of urbanization. Creative planning is the key behind all of
them. Here are some "guiding principles" for urban runoff management planning and some examples of how they
can be applied:
1. Preserve Open Space & Drainageways
Identify and preserve natural drainageways, shorelands, woodlands and wetlands. These areas help absorb
and filter urban runoff. Provide vegetated buffer strips along shorelands and natural drainageways.
Multistory structures and condensed site planning can also save open space.
2. Maximize Infiltration & Filtering
Use grass swales to carry stormwater
runoff instead of curb and gutters where
possible. Direct downspouts and low use
pavement areas to gravel infiltration
trenches or basins. Design parking lots to
“sheet drain” to lawns or other vegetated
areas. Use native prairie species in
landscape plans – for deeper roots and
better infiltration. Identify internally
drained areas and preserve for
groundwater recharge. Use pervious
surfacing materials such as reinforced turf
and special pavers for overflow parking,
patios, driveways and low use areas.
3. Minimize Roof & Pavement Areas
Put maximum impervious limits in zoning. Reduce road lengths through efficient layouts, cluster zoning or
planned unit developments. Allow for sidewalks on one side of the street and narrower roads in low traffic
areas. Use cul-de-sacs with vegetated centers. Encourage shorter and narrower driveways. Reduce parking
lot size requirements.
4. Treat Stormwater Before Discharging
Reserve space for wet detention basins and
constructed wetlands, which work best for
trapping sediment and the many pollutants
that are attached. Install infiltration
practices at the basin discharge for
additional downstream protection. Require
provisions for access and future
maintenance.
5. Control Erosion During Construction
Avoid steep slopes. Minimize the disturbed
area and the time the soil is exposed.
Sequence construction, plant temporary
cover for large areas, install sediment traps
and basins to treat runoff. Complete final
grading, seeding and landscaping in a timely manner. Schedule work around the growing season if
possible.

[150thBucktailCo.I]

NBCRSA serves customers in Antis and Snyder Townships. The southernmost part of Antis Township (south of the power lines) drains to Logan Township's wastewater treatment plant.

I am pretty positive that the sewer bill for the developments behind Martins and near the Pinecroft Fire Hall (Bel-Aire Estates and Pine Ridge Estates) are paid in Tyrone at the Northern Blair Sewer Authority office across from Pizza Hut. In fact, I'm about 100% positive that's the case.

Ask yourself what happens to Park Avenue and 10th street the next time we have 9" of rain in one night? Every new parking lot, and every additional roof that is built in the headwaters i.e. Pinecroft or Bellmeade area will increase the stormwater run-off volume. Isn't it ironic that the well meaning Tyrone Borough Council has spent many hours of hand ringing over how to reduce the affects of flooding from the Little Juniata. All the while facilitating upstream development, by selling water treatment capacty, that is needed by local Tyrone industries and residents! Of course with the capacity sold and the pumping station on line, its too late now. Get ready for the next Hurricane Ivan and keep your boats handy.

Bill Anderson - Former Tyrone business owner and flood victim.

Just wait until more development occurs along 220 at the Pinecroft intersection should Wal-Mart get the OK.

Honestly, why do we, the public as a whole, need 9 Wal-Marts within a 60 mile radius of Altoona anyway?

[skippy]

NBCRSA serves customers in Antis and Snyder Townships. The southernmost part of Antis Township (south of the power lines) drains to Logan Township's wastewater treatment plant.

I am pretty positive that the sewer bill for the developments behind Martins and near the Pinecroft Fire Hall (Bel-Aire Estates and Pine Ridge Estates) are paid in Tyrone at the Northern Blair Sewer Authority office across from Pizza Hut. In fact, I'm about 100% positive that's the case.

Ask yourself what happens to Park Avenue and 10th street the next time we have 9" of rain in one night? Every new parking lot, and every additional roof that is built in the headwaters i.e. Pinecroft or Bellmeade area will increase the stormwater run-off volume. Isn't it ironic that the well meaning Tyrone Borough Council has spent many hours of hand ringing over how to reduce the affects of flooding from the Little Juniata. All the while facilitating upstream development, by selling water treatment capacty, that is needed by local Tyrone industries and residents! Of course with the capacity sold and the pumping station on line, its too late now. Get ready for the next Hurricane Ivan and keep your boats handy.

Bill Anderson - Former Tyrone business owner and flood victim.

Just wait until more development occurs along 220 at the Pinecroft intersection should Wal-Mart get the OK.

Honestly, why do we, the public as a whole, need 9 Wal-Marts within a 60 mile radius of Altoona anyway?

150th: You are correct that Bel-Aire Estates and Pine Ridge Estates are NBCRSA customers, but their sewage is not treated in Tyrone. Their sewage is conveyed to the Logan wastewater treatment plant. NBCRSA has allocated capacity in both the Tyrone and Logan plants. I was not suggesting that people in the southern portion of Antis Township are Logan sewer customers, just that their sewage naturally drained to the Logan plant for treatment.

Bill: I do not have first hand knowledge about the paper mill's or chemical plant's capacity at Tyrone's plant. However growth in Snyder Township can continue to occcur since Snyder is served by NBCRSA. Tyrone Borough, is essentially built out and has very little abilty to grow (as compared to Snyder Township). Consequently, reserving large amounts of excess capacity makes very little sense since this excess capacity has to be paid for (by Borough customers) and may never be utilized. Once again, I do not know the mechanics of how the paper mill or chemical plant may have obtained their allocated capacity at the plant. It would be simple for either party to obtain additional capacity at Tyrone's plant. Either they need to purchase from another party who has excess capacity, or they pay all the costs for a plant expansion. In addition, it may have been in Tyrone's best interest to sell their excess capacity to NBCRSA. For all I know, this capacity may have been sold when the mill was closed and had no plans for reopening. Regardless, the more capacity that Tyrone can sell to NBCRSA and the more flow that NBCRSA can send to Tyrone means that NBCRSA can pay a larger share of both the capital costs and operation and maintenance expenses. If Tyrone did not sell this capacity to NBCRSA, NBCRSA could have paid the capital expenses for an addition at the Logan plant. If this were the case, the development would still occur in southern Antis, and Tyrone would not reap any benefit of additional revenues from NBCRSA.

I am sorry to hear about your flooding woes and those of your neighbors. I assume that you are referrring to the flooding at Joybeans. If this is the case, unfortunately, the cold hard fact is that this business was located well inside the floodplain. Flooding within the floodplain can and should be expected to occur. I hope that you maintained flood insurance. This may sound harsh, but the next time 9" of rain falls overnight, flooding will happen again, regardless of development upstream in the watershed.

A review of the Antis Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (which is available on-line at the Township's website) reveals that Antis has stringent requirements regarding stormwater runoff. In fact, over 30 pages of the Ordinance are dedicated to stormwater management requirements that must be met by Developers. Among many other requirements, the rate of runofff after development must be less than or equal to the rate of runoff prior to development. There are other requirements requiring infiltration and even water quality requirements. It appears that Antis is being very progressive with the enactment and enforcement of at least this Ordinance.

[skippy]

Sandstone: I started reading your post on "Suffering Waters". Unfortunately, I only made it to the Hard Facts on Urban Runoff paragragh that I knew was factually incorrect to the point of being way out of line. Pavement does produce roughly three times the runoff that grass does (not even close to 24 times). The article lost its credibility at this point.

By the way, I am curious if you have come up with a definition of what "not much agricultural activity" is . I still have no idea if a study exists that outlines nutrient loading in the Little Juniata watershed and its causes (farms, treatment plants etc.) If one exists, I will ask again for someone to advise where it may be found.

[Bill Latchford]

It is certainly great that we get all these different views. This topic as some others of course affects whole communities. I remember the discussions and such when we sold capacity to Northern Blair. I believe that was capacity available for sale. I am pretty sure it does not hurt the Borough or any of the industries interested in growth in our community. I know there are issues at the Mill with their loadings but that is a different capacity that they need.
Just doing a bit of research on this one and heard that there is a good deal of runoff from agriculture during the winter months when farmers are spreading their manure and such and then there is a rain that takes it all right into streams. To me that is pretty significant, knowing how much rain we have had this winter. I have traveled Rt 45 many times this year on my way home from work and have seen the manure being spread on the fields and the rains just running it everywhere. I know I have seen a few streams also running through these fields. I of course am only assuming but there is a downstream from these fields and I am quite certain that there had to be quite a mess downstream from the rains and the farmer's fields. Just what we have heard from engineering and that at the Borough it does appear that a good deal of the pollution does fall upon agriculture more than community wastewater treatment facilities. If there is a nutrient problem, I know that part of that is not an issue with the Borough since we have to add nutrients to help out with issues from the mill, unless that is a different nutient.
There is no doubt that we all play a part of the problem...It is just hard to deal with as a community when the State says something has to be done and they are not willing to help. They offered the help as a State but then they pass it right on to the small municipalities and such to take care of it. It is like they volunteered us without even giving us any options. I have been on Council for around 14 years and this has only come to the forefront in recent times like maybe 2 years. I am not quite sure of the time line, but it has not been on my radar for 12 years as it was put out in a prior post.

[150thBucktailCo.I]

I did not know that. Thanks for the clarification, Skippy. :thumb:

[skippy]

150th: You are most welcome.

Bill Latchford: I would like to thank you for your public service to the residents of Tyrone Borough. Many people (myself included) play arm-chair quarterback in these types of forums. In many cases, the people who criticize our local public officials and their decisions are uninformed. I know that you spent a great deal of your time (most likely uncompensated) educating yourself on the windmill situation. You may note that I have no posts specifically under that subject either for or against the windmills as it is a subject that I know very little about. What I do know is that the costs to pay for the treatment plant upgrades will dwarf the revenues received by the Borough if it decides to move forward with the windmill proposal. In addition to thanking you, I would like to thank ALL of our local public servants. I know that our local borough council members, township supervisors, water and sewer authority members, school board members, etc. spend a great deal of time (for little or no compensation) to make this area a better place to live and work :flag: . By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I am not related to Bill .

[sandstone]

By the way, I am curious if you have come up with a definition of what "not much agricultural activity" is . I still have no idea if a study exists that outlines nutrient loading in the Little Juniata watershed and its causes (farms, treatment plants etc.) If one exists, I will ask again for someone to advise where it may be found.

I stated that "there is not much agricultural activity upstream of Ironville." "Not much" is a relative and subjective term. For example, although I may not consider $100 to be much money, someone else may.

Municipalities upstream of Ironville include Snyder Township, the Borough of Tyrone, Antis Township, parts of Logan Township, and parts of the City of Altoona. Judging from topographical maps, Snyder Township is ~90% forested, the Borough of Tyrone is urban, Antis Township is ~80% forested, Logan Township is ~70% forested, and the City of Altoona is urban. There is no farming in the Borough of Tyrone or the City of Altoona. I doubt that all the farms in Logan, Antis, and Snyder Townships combined amount to more than a few hundred acres. There is definintely more urban area than farmland upstream of Ironville, although forest is the dominant landcover in the watershed. Forestland is not a source of water pollution.

I am sure that Elk Run in Tyrone Township and Logan Spring Run in Warrior's Mark Township intruduce significant loads of sediment, N, P, insecticides, and herbicides into the Little Juniata River. I did not mean to include these waterways in my "upstream of Ironville" description because they are not representative of the landcover serviced by the STPs.

[sandstone]

From the Woods Hole Research Center
http://www.whrc.org/midatlantic/eco_app ... health.htm

Monitoring Stream Health

The altered composition and configuration of land use, such as expansion of impervious surface areas within a watershed, disrupt the hydrology and ecology of stream ecosystems. The inhibited infiltration of rainwater and snow melt in impervious areas results in reduced base flows and flashier stream hydro graphs that exhibit a reduced lag time between storm events and peak discharge. Stream channels are modified by these changes, quickening bank and stream bed erosion and increasing sediment loads. We have demonstrated the association of these land use changes with the degradation of biological, chemical and physical properties of streams within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stream health impacts have been carefully documented in Maryland by the Department of Natural Resources as part of the Maryland Biological Stream Survey. These metrics include, among others, macro invertebrate and fish Indices of Biological Integrity (IBI), Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (BIBI) and number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) species.

Maryland
We documented the statistical association between our mapped land cover variables (impervious cover, tree cover, crop and pasture land) and BIBI/EPT across small watersheds in Maryland. These spanned a wide range of land uses, from predominantly agricultural to mostly residential. The BIBI and EPT rankings were based on data from a number of MBSS sampling stations collected over a five year time period.

Our methodology included geolocating each of the MBSS sample points within the stream network, defining a catchment area representative of each sampling point, and overlaying these areas with the land cover maps. Inverse Distance Weighting schemes were used to further define land cover contributions to stream measurements.
We constructed linear models that include the predictor variables; physiographic region, stream length, stream order, watershed area, percent impervious surfaces, percent crop area, percent tree cover, and percent grassland. The response variables were BIBI and number of EPT. The results of this analysis show that impervious area is the primary predictor of stream health, followed by percent tree cover. The results vary by physiographic region and catchment size. The models allow us to predict (Figure 2) stream water quality based on land cover metrics for the Piedmont and Highland regions of Maryland. Watersheds in the Coastal Plain were more difficult to predict due to the challenge of identifying basin catchments in this topographically invariant area.

Montgomery County, Maryland
We also worked using finer scale resolution in Montgomery county. Stream health was ranked as excellent, good, fair, or poor by the Montgomery county Department of the Environment, based on a combination of the IBI scores and physical stream properties such as dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature measured between 1996 and 2001 (Figure 3).
The suite of land cover variables were incorporated as independent predictor variables, as were landscape configuration metrics such as mean distance from impervious areas to the stream channel along a topographically defined flow path, and lumpiness and contagion indices, which define the dispersion or aggregation of land cover within the watershed.
Our results, based on statistical models, demonstrated that the primary indicator of stream health was, once again, the amount of impervious surface within a watershed, followed by the amount of tree cover within the stream buffer zone (30m either side of the stream channel). These observations, summarized in Table 1 and Figure 4, support anecdotal evidence that reducing impervious cover in new residential and commercial development, or reducing the impacts of impervious areas through mitigation measures such as retention ponds, is beneficial to stream water quality and associated biotic health. The results also indicate that despite the importance of tree cover in the stream buffer zone, the overall proportion of impervious cover throughout the watershed was the overriding factor in predicting the health of streams within small watersheds.

Based on these fine scale results, guidelines for achieving a rating of excellent stream health would be to restrict watershed impervious surfaces to no more than 6% of the total area, and ensure that at least 65% of the riparian buffer zones were occupied by vegetation, in this case tree cover. To achieve an overall rating of good watershed health required no more than 10% impervious area, and at least 60% buffer zone vegetation cover. Using these criteria to assess watersheds across the state of Maryland (Figure 2) we can identify those that should be targeted for protection (excellent and good rankings) versus those that require restoration (fair or poor rankings).

Management practices such as storm water retention ponds and/or stream restoration efforts may influence these relationships. Other factors, such as point source pollution (like sewage treatment plants) not easily identified from imagery, could dominate disturbance within the stream. We are exploring these relationships with stream reach scale measurements, where they exist, and assessing the efficacy of increasingly relevant policies that fall under the umbrella of Smart Growth, Low Impact Development, Green Infrastructure, and Best Management Practices.

Links to relevant publications:
Goetz. JAWRA (2006)
Snyder. et. al. JAWRA (2005)
Goetz. et. al. RSE (2003)