sandstone wrote:I never heard about any follow-up regarding the fish kill at the mouth of the Tyrone STP last winter.
As a matter of fact, I also never heard any firm conclusion as to what caused the massive kill of macroinvertebrates downstream of the Tyrone STP in 1996.
Great point, sandstone. What was the official response in regards to that issue? I would not be surprised if it was classified as "merely an accident with no accountability required".
Here's more information about what we can expect with increasing urbanization of the Altoona-Bellwood-Tyrone corridor:
"Urban run-off consists of water that has drained from man-made non-porous surfaces in densely populated areas. These surfaces consist of roads, freeways, sidewalks, roofed structures, parking lots, airports and industrial sites among others. Any form of precipitation and/or irrigation can 'scour' these surfaces thereby washing away the materials on top of and from which the surfaces are made. Urban terrain is non-porous and does not have the ability to filter or biodegrade contaminants like natural soil does.
Suspended sediment is the primary pollutant in urban runoff which also contains oil, grease, pesticides from turf management, road salts, metals, bacteria and viruses, and toxic chemicals from automobiles among others.
Chemicals from urban storm water run-off pose a potential threat to human health and an even greater threat to aquatic organisms, according to a nationwide study. In this study seventy-seven of the 127 priority pollutants tested for were found in urban run-off. Lead, selenium, and BHC( a pesticide) were of most concern. But, with dilution, public water treatment, and environmental fate processes at work, the potential for harm from these pollutants can be substantially decreased.
The threat to human health by urban runoff is not only due to materials scoured from surfaces, but also from the infrastructure of the sewer system itself. Storm water systems are often combined with sanitary sewer systems enroute to sewage treatment plants. Excessive storm water can cause this joint system to overflow, resulting in sewage contamination of waterways. Urban runoff is usually collected by storm sewers and discharged directly into waterways so, many sources of discharge go uncontrolled and untreated. Combined systems are cheaper, but the potential to harm health is higher. Some systems have diversions to accommodate heavy flow. According to the EPA approximately 20% of the population is served by combined systems. Forty-six percent of the population is served by separate systems."
Are the storm water systems and sewage systems combined or separate in the upper Little J?
SoccerMom wrote:Its just easier to blame someone else. The truth of the mater is, non-agricultural use of pesticides from the 98 percent of people not directly involved in agriculture represents a significant non-point source of environmental pollution of surface waters and an unknown risk to these pesticide users. While agricultural workers have long had training requirements in the use of pesticides and some minimal understanding of the risks of products they were using, the general public has none. Many feel that if some is good, more is better. The highest percentage of pesticide contamination in streams now comes from urban runoff. (USGS 1999). This raises concern for vulnerable groups such as children, whose bodies have heightened sensitivities to many kinds of toxins including pesticides (NRC 1993).
Bill Anderson wrote:
It is with great frustration that I view the lack of understanding that many local people, including community leaders, have, regarding this exceptional recreational and economic potential. Many "Boomers" are searching for a place to spend their retirement years. I have been frequently asked, by out of town visitors, about property availability close to the Little Juniata. Their biggest concern is the future degredation of the local streams. Clearly, protecting and improving this river as a wild trout fishery could bring the boost to the local economies that municipalities say they wish to see. I can site numerous examples of communities nation wide who have strong real estate markets, healthy tourism and strong retail businesses all based on having wild trout fishing nearby. I have traveled to most of these very successfull destination towns. Many of them are based on fisheries that are not as good as the Little "J" is right now!
Bill Anderson
Here's a good article from the Herald about this subject:
Little Juniata River Association promotes waterway’s opportunity
By SAM J. ZEMA
Staff Writer
March 28, 2005
The Little Juniata River Association is making an effort to promote the waterway’s importance and value at a time when the river has received substantial coverage by the media due to flooding late last summer.
The Daily Herald recently completed a series noting the six-month anniversary of heavy rains which led to the Little Juniata overflowing its banks. The series detailed the effects and costs of the flood and what has and can be done in terms of control and prevention.
The river, as a Class “A” trout fishery, also presents economical and recreational opportunities for the area.
The association recently offered a slide presentation about the “river of opportunity” during a Tyrone Area Chamber of Commerce Breakfast and meeting, earlier this month.
The presentation was offered by Bill Anderson and Eric Stroup of the Little Juniata River Association.
They began their presentation with a brief history about the waterway.
The area’s railroad history and industrial development was highlighted. It was noted other industries rapidly developed once the railroad was completed. Coal, timber, papermaking and manufacturing enterprises flourished along the river and its tributaries for 100 years.
In its presentation, the association said, “Pollution followed, and the Little J was rendered an industrial sewer by the 1890s and remained so until the early 1970s.”
After the brief history, Anderson and Stoup detailed the river as it is today and what it could become to the area for recreational and tourism purposes.
The association presentation offered this: “The Little Juniata watershed holds tremendous promise as a world-class trout fishery. Emanating from coldwater springs and tributaries in the Logan Valley and enhanced by limestone geology from Tyrone to its mouth, the ‘J’ has shown a remarkable recovery from its formerly, polluted condition just 30 years ago.”
According to the association’s information, insects and trout have responded extremely well to the cleansing of the “J”.
The Little Juniata River Association was formed in 1998 to monitor the return of flies to the “J” after a mysterious pollution event wiped out virtually all the aquatic insect life, leaving the trout to starve.
During the presentation, it was noted the river had made a fast recovery. Stoup noted the importance of the “bugs” in fly fishing during his portion of the presentation.
The economic opportunities of the river were also discussed, noting Spruce Creek businesses which benefit from the river and its tributaries’ recreational uses including bed and breakfast locations such as Cedar Ridge, Marshall House and Rivers Edge; fly shops such as Spruce Creek Fly Company and Spruce Creek Outfitters; fishing clubs such as Spruce Creek Rod & Gun Club, Spring Ridge Club, Harpster’s Club and Nelson Constantine’s and restaurants such as Spruce Creek Tavern, Main Street Cafe and C & Cs Wings and Things.
The presentation also detailed other towns which are benefiting from the fishing industry in areas in the northeast. Essentially, the group’s speakers tried to show those attending the Chamber event how much more could be done to tie the river to the community economically.
The association’s presentation noted the following trout fishing economic statistics and demographics: “The consumer for this industry is, indeed, impressive: The average (visiting) fly fisher is married (83 percent); nearly 90 percent attended college, the average income is $140,000 and 90 percent own their own home. In direct support of this industry’s tourism product – fly-fishing - some 95 percent traveled an average of 900 miles in the past year, spending an average of $2,800 per trip.” Reflecting these demographics, The American Sportfishing Association and Trout Unlimited, in a jointly sponsored 1996 study said, “The Economic Impact of Trout Fishing On the Delaware River Tailwaters in New York found that angling for the Delaware’s wild trout resulted in some $17.69 million in local revenues and generated some $30 million in local economic activity.”
The local river association noted the study was done only for Delaware County in New York, however it provided a window into the region.
In Tyrone, the association noted Burley’s Restaurant already benefits from the Little Juniata. It also pointed to a number of other businesses, either existing or those which could be created, which might benefit from the development of the river for recreation and tourism. Some examples were hotels, gifts and specialties, antiques, coffee shop, outdoor clothing, and canoes and kayaks.
The presentation also touched on the next steps which could be taken to develop the river.
The importance of getting “catch and release” regulations instituted on the river was detailed at the recent Chamber breakfast.
Anderson said he attended a Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission hearing, and as a result of a proposal adopted at the hearing he said, “It’s very promising we will get catch and release on the river.”
Anderson said if the plan were to go into effect it would not be until next season at the soonest.
The Little Juniata River Association is a non-profit conservation group formed to: monitor, preserve and improve the Little “J” as a cold water resource.
Anderson is the former owner and operator, along with his wife Carol, of Joybeans. A retired CEO of a New York state-based electronics company, Anderson is now the owner of the Spruce Creek Fly Company, LLC.
Stroup, a Tyrone native, is a veteran full-time fly-fishing guide, outdoor writer and fly-fishing editor of Pa. Outdoor Times Magazine. He is also an owner of Spruce Creek Fly Company, LLC of Franklinville and Spruce Creek.
Anyone interested in promoting the health of the river ought to join the Little Juniata River Association http://www.littlejuniata.org
Since some of you have asked. here is the latest on the fish kill last February.
I have been assured by both PFBC and DEP officials that fines will eventually be levied against the Tyrone Water Treatment facility for allowing an excessive release of Ammonia last February which resulted in a substantial fish kill immediately downstream from the TWTP outflow.(some of you may remember my front page picture of the pile of dead fish), I will ask them again tommorow when this fine will be assessed. It sometimes seems to take forever to get action from our public agencies even when the damage is clear and assignable. It should be noted that the management at the TWTP is very competent and dedicated. I am convinced they do the best with what they have to work with. The simple truth is they do not have systems that are adequate to protect the wild trout fishery which is supporting a substantial and growing amount of recreational tourism downstream. I'll post the results of tomorow's inquiry tommorow.
Bill Anderson
President
Little Juniata River Association
a 501 (c) 3 non profit organization
Bill Anderson wrote:Since some of you have asked. here is the latest on the fish kill last February.
I have been assured by both PFBC and DEP officials that fines will eventually be levied against the Tyrone Water Treatment facility for allowing an excessive release of Ammonia last February which resulted in a substantial fish kill immediately downstream from the TWTP outflow.
Bill Anderson
President
Little Juniata River Association
a 501 (c) 3 non profit organization
Thanks for looking into this, Bill. :thumb: :flag:
Bill Anderson wrote:Since some of you have asked. here is the latest on the fish kill last February.
I have been assured by both PFBC and DEP officials that fines will eventually be levied against the Tyrone Water Treatment facility for allowing an excessive release of Ammonia last February which resulted in a substantial fish kill immediately downstream from the TWTP outflow.(some of you may remember my front page picture of the pile of dead fish), I will ask them again tommorow when this fine will be assessed. It sometimes seems to take forever to get action from our public agencies even when the damage is clear and assignable. It should be noted that the management at the TWTP is very competent and dedicated. I am convinced they do the best with what they have to work with.
So you want the the taxpayers and/or ratepayers to pay a fine and make it even harder to fund the needed upgrades ? How does that make sense?
The simple truth is they do not have systems that are adequate to protect the wild trout fishery which is supporting a substantial and growing amount of recreational tourism downstream.
Which treatment plants in this region have such systems? Do such systems even exist at a realistic cost?
I'll post the results of tomorow's inquiry tommorow.
Bill Anderson
President
Little Juniata River Association
a 501 (c) 3 non profit organization
Council voted to spend $2,000 to join a legal challenge of the state’s Chesapeake Bay Strategy.
The Capital Region Council of Governments (COG) is considering mounting the challenge to the Department of Environmental Protection’s heavy requirements on municipal sewage treatment plants that use Chesapeake Bay waterways.
Wastewater treatment plants like Lock Haven’s contribute only 15 to 18 percent of the harmful nitrogen and phosphorus that flows into the bay from Pennsylvania, City Manager Rich Marcinkevage reported.
Yet DEP has not directly approached the biggest source of these bionutrients, which is agriculture.
Perry Albert, executive director of the Capital COG, states: “Because little public funding is being made available to pay for these upgrades, the Bay Strategy appears to be a large unfunded mandate that places the cost of the entire state’s compliance onto the rate-payers of wastewater treatment plants rather than upon those responsible for most of the nutrient runoff or, alternatively, upon all the Commonwealth’s residents as a common and equitably shared expense.”
The legal challenge won’t be about cleaning up the bay but rather about the method DEP wants to use.
“It unfairly places the burden of compliance on customers of treatment plants, rather than upon the Commonwealth at large or upon the cost-causers,” Albert stated.
He called the $2,000 the city will put in and the amounts other municipalities are asked to contribute “a relatively modest financial investment in this important issue” and a “reasonable response to DEP’s requirement that we collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars for plant upgrades.”
That amount is closer to $1 billion, according to the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association, all without any special state funding available.
The 180 communities affected are “in the poorest area of the state,” according to Lock Haven Mayor Richard P. Vilello Jr.
Maryland has provided $1 billion for municipal treatment plant upgrades, and Virginia has provided $250 million.
Pennsylvania, meanwhile, has PennVEST, an agency that already is faced with an extensive backlog of sewer system projects that need funding.
PennVEST may be able to give the city a $10 million loan at the low rate of 1 1/4 percent over 30 years, Marcinkevage speculated. This would have to be paid back at the rate of $750,000 a year which would be spread out among the sewage customers in all the municipalities that use the treatment plant.
Marcinkevage said he did not have the number of total customers with him.
Based on, say, 10,000 customers, the loan would cost each one an extra $75 per year. Based on 6,000 customers, it would cost $125 more per year.
And that’s just to pay back a possible PennVEST loan.
According to a feasibility study, the upgrades may total as much as $22 million, the city manager said, about 10 times the normal budget for sewage treatment. The cost of the other potential $12 million would also be spread out among the customers.
“This issue could have as big an impact, or bigger, as tolling Route 80,” the mayor said. “It could stifle growth.”
Councilman Jonathan Bravard pointed to Woodward Township, Mill Hall and other municipalities that are under DEP mandate to fix their local sewage systems.
The cost of the plant upgrades will have to be added onto the sewage rate hikes these municipalities have already been forced to levy, he said.
And what about farmers?
Marcinkevage said DEP allows municipalities to “buy nutrient credits” from farmers whose environmentally friendly practices have earned them excess credits. The municipality can use those credits to reduce the amount of bionutrients it must filter out of its treated wastewater.
The credits have to be bought every year and who knows what they will end up costing, Marcinkevage said.
Corporations may spring up to help farmers clean up their acts, start using best-management practices and earn those excess credits, he said. The corporations would then sell the credits and charge whatever the market would allow.
The city has just received its latest permit to treat and release wastewater, Marcinkevage reported, and it does address the removal of bionutrients.
City staff will have more information once the permit is reviewed, he said.
And a letter to the editor in the Harrisburg Patriot-News:
Sewage cleanup
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
This letter is in response to the Jan. 17 article, "Council to sue over bay cleanup." I try to understand both sides of an issue, but on this one, I just don't get it.
Do midstate municipalities really believe the continued practice of pumping undertreated sewage directly into the Susquehanna River is a good thing? Don't they realize that making much needed improvements to local sewage treatment plants will benefit the local area as well as the Chesapeake Bay? Wasn't the City Island Beach shut down several times last summer due to the dangerous condition of the water?
I understand budget constraints, but I question the logic of spending time and money to sue the Department of Environmental Protection instead of spending time and money to fix treatment plants that are outdated and not functioning as intended.
Hopefully Gov. Ed Rendell will be successful when he asks the Legislature to approve funding to help municipalities pay for much needed infrastructure improvements.
Municipalities raising money for lawsuit against bay strategy
By Andrea Ciccocioppo, January 27, 2008
Last updated: Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:53 PM EST
Carlisle Borough Council is already taking steps to comply by hiring a Missouri firm to start design work on upgrades to its wastewater treatment plant.
The borough is required to be in compliance of the federal regulations in 2010. “We’re on a tight schedule but we believe we can comply at this time,” said Public Works Director Michael Keiser.
Council has agreed to pay up to $874,000 to first identify, then design upgrades to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Initiative, with the hope of starting construction in early 2009.
Keiser said the borough expects an 18-month construction period and, while there are no final cost estimates, preliminary figures put the cost at about $13 million. According to Keiser, the planned upgrade is solely to address Bay mandates, it’s not a complete plant overhaul.
COG’s objections
The cost of upgrading plants is a sticking point for the Capital Region COG.
The COG is a voluntary association of local government officials formed in 1970 to promote intergovernmental communication and cooperation. Currently there are 34 member municipalities including North Middleton, South Middleton and Silver Spring townships, as well as members from Dauphin and Perry counties.
Members of the COG have raised concerns about how municipalities and taxpayers will pay for the upgrades.
According to COG executive director Perry Albert, the COG has consulted Harrisburg attorney Scott Wyland, of the law firm Hawke, McKeon and Sniscak, who indicated, “there is sufficient cause for a challenge aimed at preventing our local municipal taxpayers and ratepayers from having to pick up the tab for a very costly bureaucratic mandate that many of our members believe is both unfair and ineffective in achieving the stated goal of restoring the environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay,” Albert said.
The COG wants lawmakers to seek a moratorium of further regulatory implementation on all sewage treatment plants until its concerns, such as the possibility of federal and state funding, are addressed.
The COG has asked its members to participate in a collective, joint legal action against DEP aimed at challenging what it believes is the strategy’s “inequitable implementations and cost allocation, effectiveness and legal basis.”
Member municipalities have been asked to indicate their willingness to participate in potential legal action so the legal cost is jointly shared, rather than funded solely by one or a few municipalities.
McGinty said she doesn’t dispute that funding is needed but, “Lawsuits would be throwing good money after bad.”
McGinty said though the clean water standards are new, they are really no different than air pollution standards. “The challenge is getting people to accept new ways of doing things,” she said. “That’s going to take time.”
Rep. Perry Announces Legislation to Help Fund Chesapeake Bay Cleanup
Rep. Perry
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Cumberland) said this week he will introduce legislation that will help increase the environmental quality of the Chesapeake Bay without placing an unfair burden on local governments or taxpayers.
“This bill calls for greater accountability, organization and cohesiveness in the deployment of the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy developed by the Department of Environmental Protection,” Rep. Perry said.
Rep. Perry explained the Commonwealth entered into an agreement with several other states to improve the environment in and around the Chesapeake Bay. These agreements outline certain standards for states to curtail pollution to the bay, and from these agreements, DEP put together a Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy.
To help limit pollution to the bay and fulfill the goals and standards set in the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy many wastewater treatment plants around the Commonwealth will need to be upgraded.
“While the Tributary Strategy has a laudable environmental goal, its practicality in terms of implementation costs, especially to local governments, is proving to be very problematic,” Rep. Perry said. “Businesses and homeowners are already seeing the effect in their sewer bills.”
The proposed legislation, known as the Chesapeake Bay Strategy Improvement Act, would address several key issues including:
· Providing an appropriation of up to $300 million over 10 years to help local governments fund the needed plant upgrades to reduce nutrient discharges;
· Providing an appropriation of up to $50 million over 10 years to help fund agricultural best management practices to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff;
· Affording wastewater treatment facilities access to low-interest loan financing to assist in meeting local matching funds requirements;
· Creating the Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Trading Board. The board will be made up of stakeholders in the nutrient trading process. Its overall mission will be to provide independent oversight and management to a reliable and viable nutrient trading process;
· Authorizing changes to municipal biding requirements to facilitate the acquisition of nutrient credits by wastewater treatment facilities;
· Requiring an economic impact study of the overall costs and benefits of the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy;
· Authorizing a more appropriate and realistic phase-in schedule for wastewater treatment plan compliance; and
· Requiring that nutrient and sediment reduction, storm water control and other water quality requirements be encompassed in legislation subject to review and approval by the General Assembly.
Rep. Perry said he is currently seeking co-sponsors for his legislation and will introduce within the month.
Looks like the farmers may be getting more help to meet their Bay obligations next year:
CBF Calls for Increased Funding for Successful REAP Farm Tax Credit Program
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation this week called for increasing funding for the highly successful Resource Enhancement and Protection Act (REAP) farm conservation tax credit program to at least $50 million in the next state budget.
In the first 10 days of accepting applications, the State Conservation Commission received over $10 million in applications. Now over 260 applications have been received, requesting $11.3 million in projects - maxing out the first-year budget of $10 million.
“The tremendous response to REAP demonstrates that farmers are willing to implement best management practices on their farms,” said Matthew Ehrhart, Executive Director of CBF’s Pennsylvania office. “REAP is a practical solution that will help farmers better protect water quality while at the same time helping their own bottom line.”
In what amounts to a huge success for the supporters, organizers, and sponsoring legislators of REAP, this level of interest proves that financial opportunities for agriculture are needed and welcomed by Pennsylvania’s farmers.
“We’re glad to see such a positive response in such a short timeframe,” said Mary Bender, REAP Director for the State Conservation Commission. “While the application requests for this fiscal year have gone beyond our budget, we will continue to accept applications until February 8th and encourage farmers who are in the process of submitting an application to continue to do so.”
“We’d like to thank our legislators and the Governor for enacting REAP,” said Ehrhart. “The State Department of Agriculture and the SCC should also be commended for their ability to pull the program together so quickly.”
Agriculture contributes a significant amount of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to the Susquehanna River, and ultimately to the Chesapeake Bay. With increasing pressure on Pennsylvania to meet water quality regulations, farmers need new options to help them decrease pollution and soil erosion. REAP is designed to fulfill that need –but clearly additional funds are necessary in order to meet the demand.
“REAP will make significant improvements to our statewide water quality and to local economies. We hope the Governor and our legislators will recognize the demand for the program and increase next years budget to the originally proposed $50 million.”
Tyrone to raise sewage rates
About $4 million needed to lower level of nutrients in borough’s waterways
TYRONE — Whether Tyrone Borough gets more time to complete sewer plant upgrades to comply with the state’s Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy remains uncertain.
What is certain is that the brunt of the cost — at least $4 million — will trickle down to customers of the borough’s wastewater treatment plant.
“Unless [state officials] step up to the plate and supply some funds,” Tyrone Borough Manager Sharon Danaway said.
The more stringent regulations were borne out of Pennsylvania’s commitment to decrease nutrient levels in its waterways that feed the Chesapeake Bay.
For Tyrone sewage customers, the cost of reducing phosphorous and nitrogen levels in the treatment plant’s effluence likely will mean a $7.20 to $18.50 increase to the base $24 per month bill.
“Right now, the cost is going to fall on the back of the residents because we don’t have the funds,’’ Danaway said.
While the borough is reaching out to state officials to obtain funding, the most likely avenues at this time are a bond issue or a loan from the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority.
Borough engineer Kevin Nester of CET Engineering said competition for Pennvest funds will be fierce as municipalities across the state scramble to comply with the regulations.
Another problem, Nester said, is making sure the pool of qualified contractors doesn’t tighten up as the deadline draws near. Huntingdon, Logan Township and Altoona all will need to complete plant upgrades as well, he said.
While the average residential customer will see an increase in sewer bills, so will Tyrone’s largest industrial customers: American Eagle Paper Mill and Albemarle Fine Chemicals.
Nester said the recommended plan, which has yet to be OK’d by Borough Council pending state approval of the borough’s Act 537 sewage plan, would mean about a $1 million bill to the paper mill and $600,000 to Albemarle.
Randy Andrews, plant manager at Albemarle, said the company has yet to talk with borough officials about future costs.
He said the chemical plant already made changes to its processes to reduce phosphorous and ammonia concerns at its end.
“I don’t know how that would provide us any benefit,’’ Andrews said of the upgrades, adding that the changes have created a 50-fold decrease in the amount of each nutrient it sends to the wastewater treatment plant.
The borough has shared Nester’s study regarding its Act 537 plan with American Eagle, but borough officials haven’t responded to concerns raised by paper mill officials.
“We have significant concerns about the study,’’ American Eagle President John Ferner said. Ferner said the company still was waiting to hear back from the borough and said it would be premature to divulge the nature of the concerns.
For conservationists looking after the well-being of the Little Juniata River, where treated wastewater is discharged below Tyrone, the upcoming improvements are important —regardless of whether they’re unfunded state mandates targeted at cleaning up a bay hundreds of miles away.
“Our efforts should be to clean up the streams in our own backyard,’’ said Bill Anderson, president of the Little Juniata River Association. ‘‘The Little Juniata deserves in its own right to be cleaned up.’’
Nester said if the state changes the designation of the Little Juniata River, upgrading the section from the sewage plant downstream to a high- quality cold water stream — something the association supports — Tyrone could be facing even more upgrades to the sewage plant to decrease nutrient levels even further.
Nester said those upgrades could cost between $9 million and $17 million.
I apologize for taking so long to reply regarding the fish kill last February below the Tyrone Water Treatment plant. Here is the press release we sent to area media today.
Press Release - Fish Kill fines Assessed Against Tyrone Borough
We learned this morning that the cause of the fish kill which occured at the mouth of the Tyrone Water Treatment Plant outflow, February 21, 2007 has finally been determined. Effective with an agreement signed by Tyrone Borough officials on January 23rd (see attached), Tyrone Borough has admitted that they "had an unpermitted discharge of an unknown substance or condition into the Little Juniata River which caused an undetermined number of fish (including a number of brown trout) to die". As a result of this assessment, Tyrone Borough has been ordered to pay fines of $6,475 to the Department of Environmental Protection and an additional fine of $2,514 to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.
In past years there have been several significant fish kills on the Little Juniata. A major kill of the entire food chain, traced to approximately the area of the Tyrone Water Treatment Plant outflow, occurred in 1996. The cause of this devastating kill was never assigned. This time, through the diligence of the PF&BC, DEP and the Little Juniata River Association, we have an answer. Although the fine is minimal and came as the result of "negotiations to avoid litigation", maybe closer attention, better maintenance and more robust systems in all three upstream water treatment plants will result. Hopefully the full implementation of improvements required for compliance with new water pollution requirements will help prevent future events such as this.
