Sewage Treatment Plant mandate

[skippy]

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: I would like to join you in thanking Soccermom for the article that she recenlty posted. I am encouraged to hear news that the farming community is implementing nutrient reduction plans and BMPs (and receiving state tax credits to do so). It has been well documented that agricultural activities produce most of the nutrients and sediment that has been polluting the bay. It only makes sense that to rectify the problem, our focus (and funding through state tax dollars) needs to be placed on correcting the source.

In response to your above comment, I am uncertain what you would like to see accomplished. Are you proposing that we should have a moratorium on all development?

[My2Cents]

Something tells me that this too, is going to be a very ed-u-ma-cation-al subject. I have been doing a lot of reading from the sites that sandstone has submitted in his above posts... still, I have not been able to get thru all of them completely yet. The more I read, the more I am finding this to be very fascinating. I've been around the Bay a few times, back in the good 'ole days... but, I haven't been near it in approx. 15 to 20 years. It's hard to imagine it has become so contaminated !!! I took an overhead view of the entire area on one of the computer map sites... I absolutely cannot believe the population explosion around that entire area !!! Even up in DC and areas around the beltway.... houses, parking lots, shopping centers everywhere. Great Falls, just outside of DC, used to be a beautiful way out place to go... looking at it now... it's still intact but there are housing developments all around there now. I can remember going from the beltway out to Dullas airport.... forget how many miles from beltway to airport, but, it was quite a distance....At one time, there was nothing but trees and open fields all the way out, on both sides of the road. Now, looking down on there from the map.... it is nothing but residential homes, upon homes, upon homes all the way out there. That area has many tributaries going thru there and running into the Potomac, to the the Tidal Basin etc. then on to, and into, the Bay. I'm sure this population explosion, which has happened over the past 20 years, has had something to do in all of this also.
Anyway, before I make any comments on anything concerning this subject, I know for a fact that I have a lot of homework to do first.
I found the below site to be informative reading if you all get a chance. The right hand column "BayNews" has some interesting and informative newspaper articles for reading.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net

[Ice Man]

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.

I encourage you to review the USGS quadrangle maps, visit the site, and call the Altoona City Authority, which manages the Kettle Reservoir. The watershed of the Kettle Reservoir encompasses about 1/20th the area of Tyrone Township, has no agricultural activity, is almost entirely forested, and has only about a dozen homes.

No one ever claimed that the Kettle Reservoir is not in the Little Juniata River watershed.

Your claim that the "southern HALF of Tyrone Township drains toward the Kettle Reservoir" is absurd. The Village of Elberta sits on the dividing line between the Kettle Run watershed and the Sinking Run watershed. You need to recheck your map.

[Ice Man]

[quote="skippy"

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?[/quote]

Sandstone's analysis is correct. Skippy may not know that Agricultural Security Areas include woodlands, too, not just active farmland. Although Snyder and Antis Townships have more than 4,000 acres enrolled in ASAs, not all of this is active farmland. In addition, much of it, although farmable, is not being farmed. See http://www.pafarmland.org/agsecareas.htm
"The property should be viable agricultural land. Cropland, pasture, and woodland can all be included in an agricultural security area."

[Ice Man]

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

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.

I did read your post, and you stated that "the article lost its credibility," referring to the whole article, not just the ratio of runoff from grass v. runoff from pavement. As you can imagine, the amount of runoff from grass would be highly variable, based mainly on the rate of rainfall and the compaction of the grass substrate. Even lesser factors, such as the species of grass, can have a significant effect on rates of runoff: see http://www.haworthpress.com/store/Artic ... 7&ID=55254
Surface Runoff Comparison Between Creeping Bentgrass and Perennial Ryegrass Turf

Page Range: 11 - 34
DOI: 10.1300/J099v02n04_02
Copyright Year: 1998
Contributors: Douglas T. Linde, Department of Agronomy & Environmental Science, Delaware Valley College, Doylestown, PA, 18901
Thomas L. Watschke, Department of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802
Albert R. Jarrett, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802
Abstract:
This study was designed to explain more precisely why, in a previous study, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris Huds.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) turfs had different runoff rates despite being grown on soils of similar texture and slope and to assess the influence that vertical mowing and earthworms had on runoff. On 20 dates, sloped plots of bentgrass and ryegrass, maintained similar to a golf fairway, were irrigated at 139.5 mm h¯¹ to force runoff. Before runoff events, irrigation was used to equilibrate soil moisture levels for all plots. Mean runoff up to steady-state runoff rates was significantly less for bentgrass (18% of applied water) than ryegrass (27%). Vertical mowing and earthworms did not significantly affect runoff. It was concluded that the selection of a higher-density, thatch-forming turfgrass (creeping bentgrass) rather than a lower-density turfgrass that forms little thatch (perennial ryegrass) would lead to a reduction in runoff.

Journal Title: Journal of Turfgrass Management:
Developments in basic and applied turfgrass research
Volume: 2 Issue: 4
ISSN: 1070-437X Pub Date: 1/20/1999

[My2Cents]

.......Abstract:
This study was designed to explain more precisely why, in a previous study, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris Huds.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) turfs had different runoff rates despite being grown on soils of similar texture and slope and to assess the influence that vertical mowing and earthworms had on runoff. On 20 dates, sloped plots of bentgrass and ryegrass, maintained similar to a golf fairway, were irrigated at 139.5 mm h¯¹ to force runoff. Before runoff events, irrigation was used to equilibrate soil moisture levels for all plots. Mean runoff up to steady-state runoff rates was significantly less for bentgrass (18% of applied water) than ryegrass (27%). Vertical mowing and earthworms did not significantly affect runoff. It was concluded that the selection of a higher-density, thatch-forming turfgrass (creeping bentgrass) rather than a lower-density turfgrass that forms little thatch (perennial ryegrass) would lead to a reduction in runoff.

Journal Title: Journal of Turfgrass Management:
Developments in basic and applied turfgrass research
Volume: 2 Issue: 4
ISSN: 1070-437X Pub Date: 1/20/1999

Whew, amazing!!! Thanks Ice Man... and thanks for the "newer" links !!!

[sandstone]

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.

I encourage you to review the USGS quadrangle maps, visit the site, and call the Altoona City Authority, which manages the Kettle Reservoir. The watershed of the Kettle Reservoir encompasses about 1/20th the area of Tyrone Township, has no agricultural activity, is almost entirely forested, and has only about a dozen homes.

No one ever claimed that the Kettle Reservoir is not in the Little Juniata River watershed.

Your claim that the "southern HALF of Tyrone Township drains toward the Kettle Reservoir" is absurd. The Village of Elberta sits on the dividing line between the Kettle Run watershed and the Sinking Run watershed. You need to recheck your map.

I live in the Village of Elberta, about a mile from the Kettle Reservoir. I also serve on the Watershed Protection Committee of the Altoona City Authority.

The Ice Man is right. Skippy is wrong.

The watershed of the Kettle Reservoir has an area of 1,600 acres. The Ice Man underestimated the watershed's size by 100 acres (not bad, Ice Man). Skippy overestimated the watershed's size by almost 12,000 acres.

Of the 1,600 acres in the Kettle Reservoir watershed, 915 acres are private and 685 are owned by the Altoona City Authority. There is NO agricultural activity in the Kettle Reservoir watershed. The only homes in the watershed are located on Holland Road/Stagecoach Road and an unnamed gravel road branching off of Kettle Road. These homes number about a dozen. The watershed is close to 100% forested.

[sandstone]

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.

How do you come to the conclusion that I am changing my answer? In one post I stated that "I doubt that all the farms in Logan, Antis and Snyder Townships combined amount to more than a few hundred acres" and in another I stated that all the farmland in Logan, Antis and Snyder Townships combined amount to fewer than 1,000 acres. What's the difference between the two answers?

[skippy]

[quote="skippy"

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?

Sandstone's analysis is correct. Skippy may not know that Agricultural Security Areas include woodlands, too, not just active farmland. Although Snyder and Antis Townships have more than 4,000 acres enrolled in ASAs, not all of this is active farmland. In addition, much of it, although farmable, is not being farmed. See http://www.pafarmland.org/agsecareas.htm
"The property should be viable agricultural land. Cropland, pasture, and woodland can all be included in an agricultural security area."[/quote]

I was aware that ASA include woodlands. But this really does not matter. As stated previously, according to 2006 USDA statistics, Blair County has 85,500 acres of farmland, and 49,666.4 acres included in ASA (not all farmers are in this program). If we asssume for a minute that only 70 percent of this acreage is actively farmed, then it could be estimated that Blair County has 34,766.5 acres of active farmland included in ASA (49,666.4 x 0.70 = 34,766.5). Under the same scenario, it could be estimated that Antis Township (for example) would have 1,525.5 acres of active farmland in the ASA (2,179.3 x 0.70 = 1,525.5). As previously stated, not all farmers elect to participate in the program To obtain an estimate of the acreage of Antis farmland, one would take the acreage described above, multiply it by the acreage of farmland in Blair County and divide it by actively farmed acreage in the Blair County ASA (1,525.5 X 85,500/34,766.5 = 3,751 acres). It looks like we are back to where we started.

[banksy]

3.1415926535897932384626433

[My2Cents]

3.1415926535897932384626433

:huh:

[My2Cents]

3.1415926535897932384626433

:huh:

oops.... wait a minute.... that 3.14 is ringing a bell somewhere.

[skippy]

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.

How do you come to the conclusion that I am changing my answer? In one post I stated that "I doubt that all the farms in Logan, Antis and Snyder Townships combined amount to more than a few hundred acres" and in another I stated that all the farmland in Logan, Antis and Snyder Townships combined amount to fewer than 1,000 acres. What's the difference between the two answers?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were increasing your estimate. I will go back to your original estimate of a couple hundred acres (which could be defined as 200 to 300 acres). Please explain the difference between your estimate of a couple hundred acres and the over 4,000 acres that Antis and Snyder have in the ASA (which does not include farms in Logan).

In addition, how many acres of Tyrone Township discharge to the Little Juniata watershed upstream of Ironville (regardless if they are tributary to the Kettle Reservoir or not)?

More importantly, please answer how much of Tyrone Township drains to the Little Juniata watershed. I think that over 95 percent of Tyrone Township drains to the watershed (it is probably all, but I will allow for some margin of error). I am concerned about all of the watershed, not just about impacts from urban runoff above the Tyrone STP. Impacts below the Tyrone STP, and their causes should not be ignored.

Lastly, once again, are proposing a moratorium on all development upstream of the Tyrone STP?

[skippy]

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

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.

I did read your post, and you stated that "the article lost its credibility," referring to the whole article, not just the ratio of runoff from grass v. runoff from pavement. As you can imagine, the amount of runoff from grass would be highly variable, based mainly on the rate of rainfall and the compaction of the grass substrate. Even lesser factors, such as the species of grass, can have a significant effect on rates of runoff: see http://www.haworthpress.com/store/Artic ... 7&ID=55254
Surface Runoff Comparison Between Creeping Bentgrass and Perennial Ryegrass Turf

Page Range: 11 - 34
DOI: 10.1300/J099v02n04_02
Copyright Year: 1998
Contributors: Douglas T. Linde, Department of Agronomy & Environmental Science, Delaware Valley College, Doylestown, PA, 18901
Thomas L. Watschke, Department of Agronomy, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802
Albert R. Jarrett, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802
Abstract:
This study was designed to explain more precisely why, in a previous study, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris Huds.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) turfs had different runoff rates despite being grown on soils of similar texture and slope and to assess the influence that vertical mowing and earthworms had on runoff. On 20 dates, sloped plots of bentgrass and ryegrass, maintained similar to a golf fairway, were irrigated at 139.5 mm h¯¹ to force runoff. Before runoff events, irrigation was used to equilibrate soil moisture levels for all plots. Mean runoff up to steady-state runoff rates was significantly less for bentgrass (18% of applied water) than ryegrass (27%). Vertical mowing and earthworms did not significantly affect runoff. It was concluded that the selection of a higher-density, thatch-forming turfgrass (creeping bentgrass) rather than a lower-density turfgrass that forms little thatch (perennial ryegrass) would lead to a reduction in runoff.

Journal Title: Journal of Turfgrass Management:
Developments in basic and applied turfgrass research
Volume: 2 Issue: 4
ISSN: 1070-437X Pub Date: 1/20/1999

Ice Man: Thank you for providing the above information that defends my position that pavement does not produce 24 times as much stormwater runoff as grass. Pavement runoff rates generally vary betwen 70 percent to 95 percent. According to the above study, the runoff rate for ryegrass was found to be 27 percent, which is about one third the rate of pavement.

[My2Cents]

3.1415926535897932384626433

:huh:

oops.... wait a minute.... that 3.14 is ringing a bell somewhere.

Whew, a 'lil slow these days... I finally thought of it... ahhhh haaaaa, a piece of pi !! Now, I even understand the entire meaning of your post.