DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL AMENDED PHASE III WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN New York Chemung and Susquehanna River Basins May 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL AMENDED PHASE III WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN New York Chemung and Susquehanna River Basins May 2021 FINAL AMENDED PHASE III WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN New York Chemung and Susquehanna River Basins May 2021 DIVISION OF WATER BUREAU OF WATERSHED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12223 P: (518) 402-8086 | F: (518) 402-9029 | [email protected] www.dec.ny.gov New York State Final Amended Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................5 Section 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................6 Section 1.1: New York’s Connection to the Chesapeake Bay .................................................. 6 Section 1.2: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model .....................................................................7 Section 1.3: Ambient Water Quality Monitoring ......................................................................12 Section 1.4: Land Use and Land Ownership ..........................................................................14 Section 1.5: May 2021 Final Amendment to New York’s Phase III WIP ................................. 16 Section 2: 2020 Progress and Sub-Allocations to Major Source Sectors ............................ 18 Section 2.1: 2020 Progress and Sector Contributions .............................................................. 18 Section 2.2: Midpoint Assessment .........................................................................................20 Section 2.3: Amended 2025 Sector Targets ..........................................................................20 Section 3: Local Engagement Strategies ...............................................................................21 Section 3.1: Phase III WIP Development and Outreach ........................................................... 21 Section 3.2: Local Planning Goals .........................................................................................22 Section 3.3: Ongoing Engagement for Implementation ..........................................................23 Section 4: State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit Program Overview ..................................................................................................................................25 Section 4.1: SPDES Permits in Effect ....................................................................................2 6 Section 4.2: SPDES Program Enforcement ...........................................................................27 Section 5: Agricultural Sector ................................................................................................28 Section 5.1: Current Sector Loading Baseline .......................................................................29 Section 5.2: NYS Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Permit Program ............. 30 Section 5.3. Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program ................................... 34 Section 5.4: Upper Susquehanna Coalition (USC) ................................................................... 39 Section 5.5: NYS Agriculture BMP Input Deck .......................................................................40 Section 5.6: Local Planning Goals for the Agriculture Sector ................................................. 60 Section 5.7: Agriculture BMP Tracking and Reporting Protocols ............................................ 62 Section 5.8: Agricultural Sector BMP Funding Programs ....................................................... 62 Section 5.9: Agricultural Economic Outlook ...........................................................................73 Section 5.10: Gap Analysis and Strategy to Fill Gaps ............................................................75 Section 6: Wastewater Sector ................................................................................................ 87 Section 6.1: Current Sector Loading Baseline .......................................................................87 Section 6.2: Requirements for Wastewater Facilities .............................................................87 Section 6.3: Bay-Significant Wastewater Treatment Facilities ................................................ 89 Section 6.4: Non-Significant Wastewater Treatment Facilities .............................................. 102 Page 2 of 158 New York State Final Amended Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan Section 6.5: Combined Sewer Overflows ............................................................................. 102 Section 6.6: Negligible Discharges ...................................................................................... 103 Section 6.7: Tracking and Reporting Wastewater Data .......................................................... 103 Section 6.8: Wastewater Funding and Loan Programs ........................................................ 104 Section 6.9: Wastewater Trading and Offset Program ........................................................ 107 Section 6.10: Gap Analysis and Strategy to Fill Gaps .......................................................... 107 Section 7: Developed (Urban Stormwater) Sector ............................................................... 108 Section 7.1: Current Loading Baseline ................................................................................. 108 Section 7.2: New York Phase II Stormwater Program ............................................................ 110 Section 7.3: Construction and Post Construction Practices Technical Standards ................ 110 Section 7.4: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) General Permit .................... 110 Section 7.5: Construction Stormwater General Permit ........................................................... 112 Section 7.6: NYS Developed BMP Input Deck ..................................................................... 114 Section 7.7: Local Planning Goals for the Developed Sector ............................................... 125 Section 7.8: Developed BMP Tracking and Reporting Protocols .......................................... 126 Section 7.9: Developed Sector BMP Funding Programs ...................................................... 127 Section 7.10: Gap Analysis and Strategy to Fill Gaps .......................................................... 130 Section 8: Remaining Source Categories ............................................................................ 138 Section 8.1: Natural Sector .................................................................................................. 138 Section 8.2: Septic Systems ................................................................................................ 142 Section 8.3: Federal Facilities .............................................................................................. 144 Section 9: Accounting for Growth........................................................................................ 145 Section 10: Addressing Climate Change ............................................................................. 145 Section 10.1: Partnership Decisions Regarding Climate Change ......................................... 145 Section 10.2: Current Action Plans, Programs and Regulations ........................................... 146 Section 10.3: BMP Evaluation and Co-Benefits ................................................................... 151 Section 11: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement and BMP Co-Benefits ..................... 152 Section 12: Other Key Program Areas ................................................................................. 156 Section 12.1: Alternative Land Use Scenarios ..................................................................... 156 Section 12.2: Floodplain Management ................................................................................. 156 Section 12.3: Planned SPDES Program Improvement ......................................................... 157 Section 13: Partnership Decisions related to the Conowingo Dam ................................... 157 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 158 Page 3 of 158 New York State Final Amended Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan List of Tables Table 1. Change in New York load source loads between CAST-17 and CAST-19. .............................................. 11 Table 2. Summary of ambient water quality trends for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment ............................... 13 Table 3. May 2021 WIP Implementation Deck and Remaining Reductions ......................................................... 17 Table 4. Nutrient Exchange and Updated Nitrogen and Phosphorus Targets ..................................................... 18 Table 5. 2020 Progress and Remaining Reductions............................................................................................ 19 Table 6. 2020 Nutrient and Sediment Contributions from Sector Sources .......................................................... 19 Table 7. Midpoint Progress by Sector .................................................................................................................. 20 Table 8. Major Source Category Nutrient Targets ............................................................................................... 21 Table 9. New York Medium and Large CAFO Cutoffs by Number of Animals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and Issues for Congress
    Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and Issues for Congress Updated August 3, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45278 SUMMARY R45278 Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and August 3, 2018 Issues for Congress Eva Lipiec The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. It is Analyst in Natural recognized as a “Wetlands of International Importance” by the Ramsar Convention, a Resources Policy 1971 treaty about the increasing loss and degradation of wetland habitat for migratory waterbirds. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Bay’s watershed is home to more than 18 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals. A combination of factors has caused the ecosystem functions and natural habitat of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed to deteriorate over time. These factors include centuries of land-use changes, increased sediment loads and nutrient pollution, overfishing and overharvesting, the introduction of invasive species, and the spread of toxic contaminants. In response, the Bay has experienced reductions in economically important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual dead zones, as nutrient- driven algal blooms die and decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation, and real estate values. Congress began to address ecosystem degradation in the Chesapeake Bay in 1965, when it authorized the first wide-scale study of water resources of the Bay. Since then, federal restoration activities, conducted by multiple agencies, have focused on reducing pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay, restoring habitat, managing fisheries, protecting sub-watersheds within the larger Bay watershed, and fostering public access and stewardship of the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Event of 3/4/1964 - 3/7/1964
    Flood Event of 3/4/1964 - 3/7/1964 Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Campbell 8.00 3/5/1964 8.45 13,200 Minor Chemung Cohocton River Steuben Steuben Chemung 16.00 3/6/1964 20.44 93,800 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 3/5/1964 30.34 -9,999 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Elmira 12.00 3/6/1964 15.60 -9,999 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Lindley 17.00 3/5/1964 18.48 37,400 Minor Chemung Tioga River Steuben Steuben Delaware Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Walton 9.50 3/5/1964 13.66 15,800 Minor Delaware West Branch Delaware Delaware Delaware River James Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Lick Run 16.00 3/6/1964 16.07 25,900 Minor James James River Botetourt Botetourt Juniata Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Spruce Creek 8.00 3/5/1964 8.43 4,540 Minor Juniata Little Juniata River Huntingdon Huntingdon Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 4 Main Stem Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Towanda 16.00 3/6/1964 23.63 174,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Bradford Bradford Susquehanna Wilkes-Barre 22.00 3/7/1964 28.87 180,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Luzerne Luzerne Susquehanna North Branch Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category
    [Show full text]
  • New York Buffer Action Plan
    Chesapeake Bay Buffer Action Strategy for New York Current Effort Based on the targets set in New York’s Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan, New York plans to implement 2,606 acres of forest buffer and 1,020 acres of grass buffers in the agriculture sector by 2025. In the urban sector, New York plans to implement 3,095 acres of forest buffer and 1,853 acres of tree planting by 2025. Table 1 shows the current progress in 2020 towards achieving riparian forest buffer targets, the percent achieved, and acres remaining. Table 1 Amount of riparian forest buffer and tree plantings to achieve NY’s WIP III. Best Management Practice 2020 WIP III Percent Acres Acres Progress (acres) Achieved Remaining Needed (acres) per Year Pasture Forest Buffers 2,058 3,543 58% 1,485 297 Pasture Grass Buffers 1,166 1,815 64% 649 130 Cropland Forest Buffers 1,003 2,124 47% 1,121 224 Cropland Grass Buffers 405 776 52% 371 74 Urban Forest Buffers 37 3,132 1% 3,095 619 Opportunities for Implementation Participating Partners New York’s key partners in buffer implementation are the Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Upper Susquehanna Coalition, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Partners to be further engaged include Farm Service Agency, National Resources Conservation Service, local communities, nongovernment organizations, land trusts and members of the Climate Action Council. Strategy for Implementation As outlined in the Phase III WIP, New York proposes the following strategies to improve its riparian buffer delivery including increase voluntary implementation, explore new funding strategies, sustaining motivation and continuing to support technical capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Module 1 Overview
    Module 1 Educator’s Guide Overview What’s up with Geography Standards World in Spatial Terms Earth’s water • Standard 1: How to use maps and other geographic representations, tools, and technologies to acquire, resources? process, and report information from a spatial perspective Places and Regions Module Overview • Standard 4: The physical and This module addresses issues that are of human characteristics of places fundamental importance to life. Four case Physical Systems studies of a coastal bay, an inland sea, a river, and mountain snow pack • Standard 7: The physical pro- investigate water resources important to millions of people in North cesses that shape the patterns of America, Asia, and Africa. Each investigation focuses on the physical Earth’s surface nature of the resource, how humans depend upon the resource, and how • Standard 8: Characteristics and human use affects the resource creating both problems and opportunities. distribution of ecosystems Environment and Society Investigation 1: Chesapeake Bay: Resource use or abuse? • Standard 14: How humans modify Students play roles of concerned citizens, public officials, and scientists the physical environment • while learning about the Chesapeake Bay and its environs. They use data Standard 15: How physical and satellite images to examine how human actions can degrade, im- systems affect human systems prove, or maintain the quality of the bay in order to make policy recom- The Uses of Geography • Standard 18: How to apply mendations for improving this resource for future use. geography to interpret the present and plan for the future Investigation 2: What is happening to the Aral Sea? Students work as teams of NASA geographers using satellite images to measure the diminishing size of the Aral Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Literacy in Delaware
    DELAWARE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED PORTION Environmental Literacy in Delaware Why environmental literacy? How does Delaware compare to the The well-being of the Chesapeake Bay watershed Chesapeake Bay watershed? will soon rest in the hands of its youngest citizens: 2.7 Environmental Literacy Planning: School districts’ self-identified preparedness million students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. to put environmental literacy programs in place Establishing strong environmental education programs Delaware now provides a vital foundation for these future stew- 63% 25% 13% ards. Chesapeake Bay watershed Along with Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and 9% 24% 8% 59% Washington, D.C., Delaware has committed to helping Well-prepared Somewhat prepared its students graduate with the knowledge and skills Not prepared Non-reporting needed to act responsibly to protect and restore their local watersheds. They will do this through: Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs): School districts that reported providing MWEEs to their students • Environmental Literacy Planning: Developing a MWEE Availability in Elementary Schools comprehensive and systemic approach to environ- Delaware mental literacy for students that includes policies, 13% 25% 50% 13% practices and voluntary metrics. Chesapeake Bay watershed • Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences 16% 13% 11% 59% (MWEEs): Continually increasing students’ under- MWEE Availability in Middle Schools standing of the watershed through participation in Delaware teacher-supported Meaningful Watershed Edu- 50% 13% 25% 13% cational Experiences and rigorous, inquiry-based Chesapeake Bay watershed instruction. 18% 14% 9% 59% MWEE Availability in High Schools • Sustainable Schools: Continually increasing the number of schools that reduce the impact of their Delaware buildings and grounds on the environment and 25% 25% 38% 13% human health.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Financing Chesapeake Bay Restoration in New York State
    StrategiesPrepared by the for University Financing of Maryland Chesapeake Environmental Bay Finance Center and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance RestorationCenter for the Chesapeake in New YorkBay Program State Office and the State of New York February 2019 efc.umd.edu efc.syr.edu Prepared by the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the State of New York March 2019 efc.umd.edu efc.syr.edu - 1 - This report was prepared by the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland (UMD-EFC) and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center (SU-EFC), with funding from the US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The EFC project team included Kristel Sheesley, Jen Cotting, Khris Dodson, and Bill Whipps. EFC would like to thank the following individuals for their input and feedback: Greg Albrecht, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets; Ruth Izraeli, Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Ben Sears, New York Department of Environmental Conservation; Lauren Townley, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and Wendy Walsh, Upper Susquehanna Coalition. Cover photos courtesy of Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center. About the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland The Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland is part of a network of university-based centers across the country that works to advance finance solutions to environmental challenges. Our focus is protecting natural resources by strengthening the capacity of decision-makers to analyze challenges, develop effective financing methods, and build consensus to catalyze action. Through research, policy analysis, and direct technical assistance, we work to equip communities with the knowledge and tools they need to create more sustainable environments, more resilient societies, and more robust economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Resource Guide
    Land Use Resource Guide The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), through its Maintain Healthy Watersheds Goal Implementation Team, has a goal of maintaining the long-term health of watersheds identified as healthy by its partner jurisdictions. In addition, under the leadership of the Land Use Workgroup, CBP is working to continually improve our knowledge of land conversion and the associated impacts throughout the watershed. This is a compilation of ongoing initiatives, databases, tools, other resources developed to support local governments and land use managers in designing sustainable landscapes. Land Use Planning Chesapeake Land Use Policy Toolkit: This toolkit provides information about land use policy tools local governments can use to slow the conversion of farmland, forestland, and wetlands from The National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education (NCSG) at the University of Maryland. Accounting for Growth: Factsheet on CBP Land Change Model (CBPLCM) Chesapeake Bay High-Resolution Land Cover: 2013 1-m and 10-m land cover and land use data Chesapeake Phase 6 Land Use Viewer: This data viewer allows you to explore the high-resolution land cover dataset. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Data Dashboard: The Data Dashboard provides information on the economic and community health benefits of pollution reduction and mapped opportunities for land policy, growth management, restoration and conservation practices to help guide watershed planning efforts. EnviroAtlas: Interactive tool from EPA that provides geospatial data, tools, and resources related to ecosystem services, their stressors, and human health to help inform policy and planning decisions. Holistically Analyzing the Benefits of Green Infrastructure: Guidance document for local governments on how to understand and evaluate the benefits of implementing green infrastructure from the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (Bmps)
    1 Prepared by Jeremy Hanson, Virginia Tech/Chesapeake Bay Program CBP/TRS-323-18 Support provided by Virginia Tech, EPA Grant No. CB96326201 Suggested citation: Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters. CBP DOC ID. <link> For individual BMP reference sheets: Chesapeake Bay Program. Title of specific BMP reference sheet. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, version date of the specific BMP reference sheet. Example: Chesapeake Bay Program. A-3: Conservation Tillage. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, MONTH DD, YYYY. 2 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 About the Chesapeake Bay Program ........................................................................................................ 5 About this Guide ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Understanding Best Management Practices and the Phase
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Protection: No Butts About It
    Stormwater Protection: No Butts About It Simple truths If you’re reading this, you probably live in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, along with 16 million other people. You may have never set foot in the Bay itself, but your footprint has been carried to its shores nevertheless. The Bay’s shallow aquatic ecosystem, with its peculiar mix of fresh and salt water, is sensitive to changes in water chemistry. Enter the cigarette butt. Cigarette butts accumulate outside buildings, in picnic areas, and along roadsides. These eventually make their way to the Bay via storm drains. According to the organization Clean Virginia Waterways, chemicals leached from a single cigarette butt in a two gallon bucket of Bay water are lethal to aquatic organisms (fish larvae, crustaceans, etc.). Hard Truths On occasion we may view ourselves as external to the Bay’s aquatic ecosystem. It is on those occasions (and when that view is shared by a few million people) that the situation pictured at left is created. Plastics, aluminum cans, cigarette butts, and Styrofoam™ all have one thing in common: buoyancy. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, stormwater is the fastest growing source of pollution affecting the Bay’s health. This surge in stormwater pollution invariably leads to more junk making its way to the Bay via stormwater. The end result is littered shorelines that compromise the health of underwater vegetation, crabs, oysters, and fish. If you’ve ever sat at a table lined with butcher paper, and uttered the phrase “Save the Crabs/Fish/Oysters So We Can Eat Them” this fact should stir you.
    [Show full text]