Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Anything in our community you would like to discuss? Post it here.
sandstone
MVP Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:09 am
If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
Location: Sinking Valley

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by sandstone »

skippy wrote: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.
Here are some other articles from different sources that make the same points:

http://www.epa.gov/nps/facts/point7.htm

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/urbanrun.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5103/SIR2 ... report.pdf

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:sy ... d=10&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ap ... /nps_urban
skippy
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:12 am

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by skippy »

sandstone wrote:
skippy wrote:
By the way, I am curious if you have come up with a definition of what "not much agricultural activity" is :wink: . 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.
Thank you for your response. In addition to the communities that you described above, the southern half of Tyrone Township (essentially the entire drainage area of Kettle Reservoir) is tributary to the Little Juniata upstream of Ironville. I do not think that nutrient and sediment loadings from Elk Run and Logan Spring Run can be dismissed simply because you feel they do not represent landcover serviced by the STPs. Both of these streams discharge the contaminates that you describe above within 1/2 mile of the Tyrone treatment plant site. Part of Warriors Mark Township and roughly 30 percent of Blair County is tributary to the Little Juniata upstream of Ironville. According to 2006 USDA statistics, Blair County alone has 85,500 acres of farmland. If we forget about Warrior's Mark Township for a moment, and extrapolate this data (which I realize is not perfect), it could be estimated that roughly 25,000 acres of farmland are in the watershed. This number may be on the high side, but I feel confident that the acreage of farmland in the watershed upstream of Ironville would be measured not in hundreds of acres but more like tens of thousands of acres.
My2Cents
MVP Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:49 pm
If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
Location: Tyrone, PA

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by My2Cents »

Thanks sandstone for above links. I haven't been able to read thru them completely , but, I will. I can see they are full of very valuable information... once again, Thanks !!
Ice Man
MVP Member
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:56 am

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by Ice Man »

My2Cents wrote:
Thanks sandstone for above links. I haven't been able to read thru them completely , but, I will. I can see they are full of very valuable information... once again, Thanks !!
Yeah, great references, and they all corroborate the conclusions of the article that skippy dismissed as "not credible."
The US Geological Survey and the EPA are certainly credible sources of information regarding water quality.
Ice Man
MVP Member
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:56 am

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by Ice Man »

N E W S R E L E A S E COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Commonwealth News Bureau
Room 308, Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
1/17/2008


CONTACT:
Kerry Chippo
Phone: (717) 787-1323

PA’S AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY MEETING CHESAPEAKE BAY CLEAN UP OBLIGATIONS
State Conservation Commission Receives $10 Million in REAP Requests

STATE COLLEGE – Pennsylvania’s farmers are meeting the mandatory nutrient reduction targets they are required to make under the state’s Chesapeake Bay Compliance Plan, said Environmental Protection Deputy Secretary Cathleen Curran Myers today during the State Conservation Commission’s winter meeting. “Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Compliance Plan requires 25 million pounds of nutrient reduction from our farmlands—nearly five times the reduction required of our sewage treatment plants,” said Myers. “Our farmers are rising to that challenge, laying claim to more than half of all the nitrogen reductions made by farmers anywhere in the multi-state watershed thus far.”
According to Myers, agriculture, collectively, is the largest contributor of nutrients to Pennsylvania’s bay tributaries. The more than 40,000 Pennsylvania farms located within the watershed discharge 46 percent of the nitrogen and 58 percent of the phosphorus into these waterways and, consequently, farmers today face more stringent water quality requirements.

The state’s laws are requiring best management practices on larger Pennsylvania farms. Practices mandated for farms considered concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, include a thorough process to obtain a permit and comply with regulations more stringent than the federal requirements. Stronger regulations have expanded the number of CAFOs from 165 to 350. CAFOs are required to obtain permits that reduce nutrients and sediment flowing into local waterways. New manure requirements have added phosphorus to the nitrate regulations included as part of nutrient management plans. The new regulations also establish vegetative buffers or setbacks along the edge of streams, while farms that import manure must now meet the same requirements as the farm that produces the manure. With these sweeping changes, more than 5,000 farms will have full nutrient management plans, as well as stream setbacks or buffers, increasing the number of highly regulated farms in Pennsylvania by 600 percent.
Larger farms with animals must now meet standards for constructing and using manure storage structures, and must obtain a state permit when their structures reach a minimum level of storage capacity. Additionally, every farm in the state is required to develop and implement erosion and sedimentation plans that meet established minimum standards for control of soil and nutrient runoff. “Farmers are stepping up and taking advantage of the cost effective options available to meet their Chesapeake Bay obligations,” said Myers. “In the past few years, Pennsylvania’s farmers made our Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program the largest in the country. Now they are exhibiting their willingness to invest in conservation measures and clean water as evidenced by the $10 million in REAP requests received to date.”Myers pointed to the number of applications received for the new Resource Enhancement and Protection, or REAP, Program. The State Conservation Commission began accepting applications on a first-come, first-served basis Jan. 2. This week, the requests from Pennsylvania’s farmers were expected to have exceeded the $10 million allocated to the program. With an average 50 percent tax credit, this represents an additional $10 million from farmer’s pockets to make these watershed investments.

More than 230 applications have been received by the State Conservation Commission.

Act 55 of 2007 established REAP and gave farmers and businesses the opportunity to earn tax credits in exchange for best management practices on agricultural operations that enhance farm production, protect natural resources and ultimately benefit the bay.

The program is administered by the State Conservation Commission and the tax credits are granted by the Department of Revenue. Eligible applicants may receive between 25 percent and 75 percent of project costs as state tax credits for up to $150,000 per agricultural operation. For more information on Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay efforts, visit http://www.depweb.state.pa.us, keyword: Chesapeake Bay. To learn more about REAP, visit http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us, and enter “REAP” in the search field. ###
My2Cents
MVP Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 2:49 pm
If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
Location: Tyrone, PA

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by My2Cents »

Now that sounds more like it !! :thumb: I wonder why they can't use money coming in from the PA Lottery and Gambling Casino's to pay for ALL that has to be done ?? Make this a PA Statewide venture and just do it... get it done accurately and all at the same time ??? Sure it will cost money and take time, but, in the long run the waters will be clean and the proceeds from the lottery could pay for it all. Just wondering....
User avatar
150thBucktailCo.I
MVP Member
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 8:43 am
If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
Location: Blair County

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by 150thBucktailCo.I »

My2Cents wrote:I wonder why they can't use money coming in from the PA Lottery and Gambling Casino's to pay for ALL that has to be done ??
Because it would take legislative approval and a change in the state law. And most of those guys don't like to move too fast on anything for 2 reasons, in my opinion:

1) It would mean that their "never ending" work might actually get completed then they wouldn't have a reason to be the most expensive full-time legislature in the nation.

2) If they made hard choices, difficult decisions, and unpopular votes not in line with their constituents' leanings it would probably cost them their political careers.. I mean jobs.. I mean elected positions. Which would cost them additional pension and benefit money, as well as other freebies.



The proceeds from the PA Lottery is to pay for senior citizen services. Nothing else, I believe.

The casino money is SUPPOSEDLY to go towards the rebate and elimination of property taxes, as well as a few other things that Rendell throws out there every now and then.
SoccerMom
MVP Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 9:18 am
If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
Location: Warriors Mark, PA

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by SoccerMom »

From today's Altoona Mirror:
http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/conte ... ml?nav=742

DEP: State releasing cleaner water
By Jessica VanderKolk, jvanderkolk@altoonamirror.com

Programs to implement best management practices on farms across the state ensures cleaner water leaves Pennsylvania.

The state is one of six, plus Washington, D.C., that make up the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, where water runs off the land into lakes and rivers that flow into the bay.

The watershed covers about half the state’s counties, including most of Clearfield, the northeast part of Cambria and all of Centre, Blair, Bedford and Huntingdon.

Two major river basins in Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna and the Potomac, total about 40 percent of the watershed.

The Blair County Conservation District has worked with many local farmers to contribute to better water quality.

‘‘We do have cost-share programs for farmers to implement best management practices, to keep soil and nutrients on the land and not getting into the water,’’ said Rich Huether, agricultural conservation specialist. ‘‘We have a lot of farmers interested in the programs. The shortfall is money.’’

Cathy Curran Myers, DEP deputy secretary for water management, said Thursday that it’s important that Pennsylvania is on track with its program to reduce the amount of nutrients from farmland that reach the water.

As part of the state’s watershed compliance plan, farmers must reduce nutrients by 25 million pounds — about five times the amount of reduction required from sewage treatment plants.

Myers said Thursday during a State Conservation Commission meeting in State College that the farm community has stepped up to implement nutrient-reducing practices, using state programs that provide tax credits.

The programs give farmers the resources to reduce nutrients by managing fertilizer, controlling erosion and implementing no-till systems.

Pennsylvania farmers’ actions lead other watershed states. Myers said 55 percent of all nitrogen reductions have come from Keystone State farmers.

‘So Pennsylvania farmers are way ahead of their colleagues,’’ she said, crediting the state’s tax credit programs.

The local conservation district also preserves farmland, buying the rights to farms and preserving them, because development contributes to runoff to the bay.

The county has more than 5,000 acres preserved so far, with 36 farms applying for this year’s program.

‘‘Vegetation takes and filters out a lot of things before it gets to the water,’’ Huether said. ‘‘Farmers want to do the right thing. Water quality is something that we need. We need good, clean water.’’

Sewage treatment plants also have begun changes to meet watershed requirements. About 30 in central Pennsylvania have upgraded their facilities to reduce nutrients.

Area residents have seen sewer rate increases as a result, which provide the money for plant improvements and lessen nutrient pollution.

Mirror Staff Writer Jessica VanderKolk is at 946-7465.
sandstone
MVP Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:09 am
If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
Location: Sinking Valley

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by sandstone »

SoccerMom wrote:From today's Altoona Mirror:
http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/conte ... ml?nav=742

DEP: State releasing cleaner water
By Jessica VanderKolk, jvanderkolk@altoonamirror.com

Programs to implement best management practices on farms across the state ensures cleaner water leaves Pennsylvania.

The state is one of six, plus Washington, D.C., that make up the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, where water runs off the land into lakes and rivers that flow into the bay.

The watershed covers about half the state’s counties, including most of Clearfield, the northeast part of Cambria and all of Centre, Blair, Bedford and Huntingdon.

Two major river basins in Pennsylvania, the Susquehanna and the Potomac, total about 40 percent of the watershed.

The Blair County Conservation District has worked with many local farmers to contribute to better water quality.

‘‘We do have cost-share programs for farmers to implement best management practices, to keep soil and nutrients on the land and not getting into the water,’’ said Rich Huether, agricultural conservation specialist. ‘‘We have a lot of farmers interested in the programs. The shortfall is money.’’

Cathy Curran Myers, DEP deputy secretary for water management, said Thursday that it’s important that Pennsylvania is on track with its program to reduce the amount of nutrients from farmland that reach the water.

As part of the state’s watershed compliance plan, farmers must reduce nutrients by 25 million pounds — about five times the amount of reduction required from sewage treatment plants.

Myers said Thursday during a State Conservation Commission meeting in State College that the farm community has stepped up to implement nutrient-reducing practices, using state programs that provide tax credits.

The programs give farmers the resources to reduce nutrients by managing fertilizer, controlling erosion and implementing no-till systems.

Pennsylvania farmers’ actions lead other watershed states. Myers said 55 percent of all nitrogen reductions have come from Keystone State farmers.

‘So Pennsylvania farmers are way ahead of their colleagues,’’ she said, crediting the state’s tax credit programs.

The local conservation district also preserves farmland, buying the rights to farms and preserving them, because development contributes to runoff to the bay.

The county has more than 5,000 acres preserved so far, with 36 farms applying for this year’s program.

‘‘Vegetation takes and filters out a lot of things before it gets to the water,’’ Huether said. ‘‘Farmers want to do the right thing. Water quality is something that we need. We need good, clean water.’’

Sewage treatment plants also have begun changes to meet watershed requirements. About 30 in central Pennsylvania have upgraded their facilities to reduce nutrients.

Area residents have seen sewer rate increases as a result, which provide the money for plant improvements and lessen nutrient pollution.

Mirror Staff Writer Jessica VanderKolk is at 946-7465.

Thank you for posting this, SoccerMom
sandstone
MVP Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:09 am
If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
Location: Sinking Valley

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by sandstone »

skippy wrote: I do not think that nutrient and sediment loadings from Elk Run and Logan Spring Run can be dismissed simply because you feel they do not represent landcover serviced by the STPs. Both of these streams discharge the contaminates that you describe above within 1/2 mile of the Tyrone treatment plant site.
I am not "dismissing" the pollution from Elk Run and Logan Spring Run. I am excluding them from the area of my discussion because I wish to emphasize the stream impacts of increasing urbanization that are made possible by the expansion of the STPs. The stream impacts of increasing urbanization are described in;

http://www.epa.gov/nps/facts/point7.htm

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/urbanrun.html

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5103/SIR2 ... report.pdf

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:sy ... d=10&gl=us

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ap ... /nps_urban

As you stated in a previous post, development in the upper Little Juniata River watershed (which I described as "upstream of Ironville" - I should have just said upstream of the Tyrone STP), has been "stifled" by the lack of STP capacity. With increased capacity, development in the upper Little Juniata watershed (upstream of the Tyrone STP) will increase, resulting in a increasing frequency and severity of flooding, decreasing base flow, increasing water temperature, decreasing water dissolved oxygen, decreasing populations of pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrates, etc, as described in the articles referenced above.
sandstone
MVP Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:09 am
If Mike has 13 apples, and gives six to Jane, how many does he have left?: 13
Location: Sinking Valley

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by sandstone »

skippy wrote: Part of Warriors Mark Township and roughly 30 percent of Blair County is tributary to the Little Juniata upstream of Ironville. According to 2006 USDA statistics, Blair County alone has 85,500 acres of farmland. If we forget about Warrior's Mark Township for a moment, and extrapolate this data (which I realize is not perfect), it could be estimated that roughly 25,000 acres of farmland are in the watershed. This number may be on the high side, but I feel confident that the acreage of farmland in the watershed upstream of Ironville would be measured not in hundreds of acres but more like tens of thousands of acres.
Your confidence is misplaced. Snyder, Antis, and Logan Townships combined have fewer than 1,000 acres of active farmland. Even including the two tribs immediately downstream of the Tyrone STP, Elk Run in Tyrone Township and Logan Spring Run in Warrior's Mark Township (each of which has about 1,000 acres of active farmland in its watershed), the total acreage of farmland adds up to about 3,000 acres, not the "tens of thousands of acres" that you claim. A quick look at topographical map combined with field reconaissance confirms this.

The error you made was in extrapolating county-wide percentages of agricultural land to a smaller watershed. There is much more agricultural land in southern Blair County than in northern Blair County.
Ice Man
MVP Member
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:56 am

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by Ice Man »

sandstone wrote:
skippy wrote: Part of Warriors Mark Township and roughly 30 percent of Blair County is tributary to the Little Juniata upstream of Ironville. According to 2006 USDA statistics, Blair County alone has 85,500 acres of farmland. If we forget about Warrior's Mark Township for a moment, and extrapolate this data (which I realize is not perfect), it could be estimated that roughly 25,000 acres of farmland are in the watershed. This number may be on the high side, but I feel confident that the acreage of farmland in the watershed upstream of Ironville would be measured not in hundreds of acres but more like tens of thousands of acres.

Your confidence is misplaced. Snyder, Antis, and Logan Townships combined have fewer than 1,000 acres of active farmland. Even including the two tribs immediately downstream of the Tyrone STP, Elk Run in Tyrone Township and Logan Spring Run in Warrior's Mark Township (each of which has about 1,000 acres of active farmland in its watershed), the total acreage of farmland adds up to about 3,000 acres, not the "tens of thousands of acres" that you claim. A quick look at topographical map combined with field reconaissance confirms this.

The error you made was in extrapolating county-wide percentages of agricultural land to a smaller watershed. There is much more agricultural land in southern Blair County than in northern Blair County.
Another source of skippy's errors may be in this statement that skippy made yesterday: "In addition to the communities that you described above, the southern half of Tyrone Township (essentially the entire drainage area of Kettle Reservoir) is tributary to the Little Juniata upstream of Ironville."

Skippy is wrong about this. The southern HALF of Tyrone Township does not drain into the Kettle Reservoir. The watershed of the Kettle Reservoir is almost entirely forested with about a dozen homes. The entire Kettle Reservoir watershed covers only about 1,500 acres. This does not represent HALF the area of Tyrone Township, but rather 1/20th of the area of Tyrone Township. There is NO agricultural activity in the watershed of the Kettle Reservoir.
skippy
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:12 am

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by skippy »

sandstone wrote:
skippy wrote: Part of Warriors Mark Township and roughly 30 percent of Blair County is tributary to the Little Juniata upstream of Ironville. According to 2006 USDA statistics, Blair County alone has 85,500 acres of farmland. If we forget about Warrior's Mark Township for a moment, and extrapolate this data (which I realize is not perfect), it could be estimated that roughly 25,000 acres of farmland are in the watershed. This number may be on the high side, but I feel confident that the acreage of farmland in the watershed upstream of Ironville would be measured not in hundreds of acres but more like tens of thousands of acres.
Your confidence is misplaced. Snyder, Antis, and Logan Townships combined have fewer than 1,000 acres of active farmland. Even including the two tribs immediately downstream of the Tyrone STP, Elk Run in Tyrone Township and Logan Spring Run in Warrior's Mark Township (each of which has about 1,000 acres of active farmland in its watershed), the total acreage of farmland adds up to about 3,000 acres, not the "tens of thousands of acres" that you claim. A quick look at topographical map combined with field reconaissance confirms this.

The error you made was in extrapolating county-wide percentages of agricultural land to a smaller watershed. There is much more agricultural land in southern Blair County than in northern Blair County.
Sandstone: In an earlier post, you stated "I doubt that all the farms in Logan, Antis and Snyder Townships combined amount to more than a few hundred acres." It looks like you now are changing your answer. In any event, both answers are incorrect. Blair County has 85,500 acres of farmland. According to the Blair County Conservation District statistics, 49,666 of these acres are located in Agricultural Security Areas (ASA). Antis Township has 28 parcels accounting for 2,179 acres in the ASA. Snyder Township has 29 parcels covering 1,952 acres. Tyrone Township has 140 parcels covering 14,102 acres (about half of Tyrone Township is located "upstream of Ironville", but more importantly, all of which is located in the Little Juniata River watershed). Logan Township apparently has not enrolled in the ASA program, so I do not have statistics about their farm acreage. Some farmers elect not to participate in the ASA program. If we take the ratio of farmland in Blair County with respect to the acreage included in the ASA, (85,500/49,666), it can be estimated that Antis farms would cover 3,751 acres, and Snyder farms would cover 3,360 acres. If we only include half of Tyrone Township ("upstream of Ironville"), it can be estimated that this acreage would cover 12,138 acres. I will assume that Warriors Mark Township has the same farm acreage as Antis and Snyder combined (3,751 and 3,360). This totals 26,360 acres.

You were very clear in your last post that Snyder, Antis, and Logan combined have less than 1,000 acres of active farmland. If this is the case, how does Snyder and Antis alone have over 4,000 acres of farmland included in ASA?
skippy
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:12 am

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by skippy »

Ice Man wrote:
sandstone wrote:
skippy wrote: Part of Warriors Mark Township and roughly 30 percent of Blair County is tributary to the Little Juniata upstream of Ironville. According to 2006 USDA statistics, Blair County alone has 85,500 acres of farmland. If we forget about Warrior's Mark Township for a moment, and extrapolate this data (which I realize is not perfect), it could be estimated that roughly 25,000 acres of farmland are in the watershed. This number may be on the high side, but I feel confident that the acreage of farmland in the watershed upstream of Ironville would be measured not in hundreds of acres but more like tens of thousands of acres.

Your confidence is misplaced. Snyder, Antis, and Logan Townships combined have fewer than 1,000 acres of active farmland. Even including the two tribs immediately downstream of the Tyrone STP, Elk Run in Tyrone Township and Logan Spring Run in Warrior's Mark Township (each of which has about 1,000 acres of active farmland in its watershed), the total acreage of farmland adds up to about 3,000 acres, not the "tens of thousands of acres" that you claim. A quick look at topographical map combined with field reconaissance confirms this.

The error you made was in extrapolating county-wide percentages of agricultural land to a smaller watershed. There is much more agricultural land in southern Blair County than in northern Blair County.
Another source of skippy's errors may be in this statement that skippy made yesterday: "In addition to the communities that you described above, the southern half of Tyrone Township (essentially the entire drainage area of Kettle Reservoir) is tributary to the Little Juniata upstream of Ironville."

Skippy is wrong about this. The southern HALF of Tyrone Township does not drain into the Kettle Reservoir. The watershed of the Kettle Reservoir is almost entirely forested with about a dozen homes. The entire Kettle Reservoir watershed covers only about 1,500 acres. This does not represent HALF the area of Tyrone Township, but rather 1/20th of the area of Tyrone Township. There is NO agricultural activity in the watershed of the Kettle Reservoir.
Ice Man: I encourage you to to review USGS quadrangle maps. You will see that the southern half of Tyrone Township drains toward Kettle Reservoir, is much larger than 1,500 acres, has agricultural activity, and is in the Little Juniata River watershed.
skippy
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:12 am

Re: Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

Post by skippy »

Ice Man wrote:
My2Cents wrote:
Thanks sandstone for above links. I haven't been able to read thru them completely , but, I will. I can see they are full of very valuable information... once again, Thanks !!
Yeah, great references, and they all corroborate the conclusions of the article that skippy dismissed as "not credible."
The US Geological Survey and the EPA are certainly credible sources of information regarding water quality.
If you read my post, you would see that I made the statement that pavement does not produce 24 times as much runoff as grass. It certainly produces much more runoff, just not 24 times as much. Even the first article that Sandstone presented as an additional source contained a disclaimer that the information was outdated. I did not see any credible information that pavement produces 24 times as much runoff as grass.
Post Reply