Juniata Watershed Journal
Juniata Watershed Journal
Quarterly Newsletter of the Juniata
Clean Water Partnership
Volume 1,
Issue 2 Winter 2000
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Survey Highlights Water-Related Concerns
Storm water runoff and illegal roadside dumping are the most serious water-related problems for municipalities in the Juniata River watershed, according to a survey of community leaders. The Juniata Clean Water Partnership (JCWP) prepared and sent a survey in July to the 200 townships and boroughs that make up the Juniata River watershed. The survey results have been guiding the development of the Juniata Watershed Management Plan, which addresses environmental problems and opportunities along the Juniata River and its tributaries.
The survey asked municipal leaders to assess the magnitude of sixteen water-related problems in their community, with responses ranging from "not a problem" to "very serious problem." Besides storm water runoff and illegal roadside dumping, the next most important problems throughout the watershed are groundwater contamination from malfunctioning septic systems, surface water contamination from malfunctioning septic systems, erosion from secondary roads, and contamination of private wells from unknown sources. The rest of the listed problems, including pollution and erosion from industrial or commercial operations, were considered to be relatively insignificant in most municipalities.
Townships and boroughs face different sets of problems from one another. Townships with their rural, sparsely populated landscapes, find the following to be their biggest problems:
- Illegal roadside dumping
- Ground water contamination from malfunctioning septic systems
- Surface water contamination from malfunctioning septic systems
- Storm water runoff
- Contamination of private wells from unknown sources
- Nutrient runoff from agricultural operations.
Boroughs, with their dense settlement patterns and large amounts of impervious surfaces, find storm water runoff to be their largest problem by far. The following problems filled out the top five problems for boroughs:
- Streambank damage from non-agricultural sources
- Erosion from secondary roads
- Inadequate drinking water supplies
- Illegal roadside dumping.
*For a complete listing of the top problems by county, see table following article.
Counties largely experience similar problems across the watershed, demonstrated by the similarity of their lists of top problems. Distinctive traits of the seven watershed counties do appear in the data, however. Blair County’s results expressed its urban character; the county’s scores for storm water runoff, non-agricultural streambank damage, industrial/commercial pollution and erosion were higher than the overall scores (the higher the score the greater the problem). Juniata and Perry Counties had the two highest scores for both illegal dumping and agricultural nutrient runoff, demonstrating the rural, farming character of the two counties. Juniata County also scored the highest on other rural concerns such as erosion from secondary roads, septic surface water contamination, and private well contamination.
The survey also asked for a list of future, "critical" water-related projects and an update on the status of public water and sewer systems in each municipality. The upgrading and/or construction of public water and sewer systems make up a majority of the list of needed water-related projects. Sixty-two percent of municipalities with public water systems will need to upgrade within the next ten years. Twenty-nine percent of all municipalities predict the need to construct new community water systems in the same time period. Likewise, over the next ten years, 57 percent of municipalities with existing sewer systems will need to upgrade those systems, while 34 percent of all municipalities expect to construct new sewer systems within this time frame.
Overall, more than 160 projects were identified by 79 of the municipalities as needing to occur over the next ten years. Cost estimates for the list of projects exceed $140 million. Not surprisingly, the most important hurdle that these communities face in carrying out these projects is a lack of funding. The JCWP plans to do all it can to find funding for these critical water-related needs and projects. The first step is to ensure all such projects are identified in the upcoming watershed plan. "Municipalities that have not returned a survey but are planning to begin water-related projects in the next few years should let the JCWP know about its projects," says Dave Hockman-Wert, JCWP environmental planner. "Otherwise, we have no way of knowing about the needs in your community."
Members of JCWP also indicated the importance of municipalities signing a resolution or letter of support for the JCWP’s planning effort. "If a municipality expresses its support for the JCWP’s Watershed Management Plan, it will receive priority consideration when the plan is implemented and projects begin happening," suggests Deb Nardone, Juniata Watershed Coordinator for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "We’re very excited that, thus far, 70 percent of municipalities across the watershed have signed on as supporting municipalities."
To receive a survey, resolution, or letter of support, please contact the JCWP at (814) 627-5391, or e-mail at JCWP@jcwp.org.
Top Four Municipal Water-Related Concerns by County
Bedford County:
- Storm water runoff
- Surface water contamination from malfunctioning septic systems
- Groundwater contamination from malfunctioning septic systems
- Contamination of private wells from unknown sources
Blair County:
- Storm water runoff
- Illegal roadside dumping
- Stream bank damage from non-agricultural sources
- Erosion from secondary roads
Fulton County:
- Groundwater contamination from malfunctioning septic systems
- Erosion from secondary roads
- Inadequate drinking water supplies (tie)
- Illegal roadside dumping (tie)
Huntingdon County:
- Storm water runoff
- Illegal roadside dumping
- Erosion from secondary roads
- Sinkhole dumping on private land
Juniata County:
- Illegal roadside dumping
- Erosion from secondary roads
- Surface water contamination from malfunctioning septic systems (tie)
- Groundwater contamination from malfunctioning septic systems (tie)
Mifflin County:
- Storm water runoff
- Surface water contamination from malfunctioning septic systems (tie)
- Groundwater contamination from malfunctioning septic systems (tie)
- Illegal roadside dumping
Perry County:
- Illegal roadside dumping
- Storm water runoff
- Groundwater contamination from malfunctioning septic systems
- Nutrient runoff from agricultural operations
By Deb Nardone
During the past nine months, the staff and partners of the Juniata Clean Water Partnership (JCWP) have been working excitedly to collect citizen input and develop a watershed management plan for all 3,400 square miles of the Juniata River watershed. This plan will outline recommended actions that need to happen over the next ten years. These actions will not only improve our quality of life, but the watershed in which we all live.
From the very beginning of this planning process, the JCWP believed that our community should decide for itself the kind of river it wants. Volunteers, natural resource professionals, and key decision makers have worked side by side for nearly two years to ensure that this plan best represents the needs and wants of all 309,000 watershed residents. The JCWP believes it is preparing an effective document and action plan that is meaningful, ambitious, and practical.
This watershed management plan completes a crucial planning phase for the Juniata River watershed and for the Juniata Clean Water Partnership. This plan by no means represents the "end of the road" for the JCWP or watershed planning. This is only the catalyst for watershed restoration and protection projects that will promise watershed residents a clean and healthy future.
Following submission of the final copy of the Juniata Watershed Management Plan to the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the JCWP will petition the state to be put on the Pennsylvania Rivers Conservation Registry. Once listed, the Juniata River watershed will be eligible for matching funds for the implementation of projects identified in the plan. This will allow a number of organizations, municipalities, conservation districts, county planning organizations, and community organizations to leverage funding.
The Juniata Watershed Management Plan will be available for public review at libraries and conservation district offices located within the watershed beginning January 15th. Also, beginning early February, the JCWP will host a second round of public meetings held at nine convenient locations. All meetings will begin at 7:00, with an open house at 6:30 p.m.
Please come to one of our upcoming public meetings, or take some time to read through a copy of the plan. Your input is crucial to ensuring the plan accurately reflects the needs and wants for your community and all the communities down stream.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation State of the Bay Report 1999
By Melinda Downey
The Chesapeake Bay’s health improved slightly in the past year, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s 1999 State of the Bay Report. The modest gains were offset, however, by increasing pressures on blue crabs and a decrease in Virginia wetlands. There were no long-term trends evident in other factors crucial to the Bay’s health, such as water clarity and pollution. On a scale of 100, CBF pegs the Bay’s health at 28, one point higher than in 1998.
"On the whole, 1999 was a very mixed year for the Bay," said CBF President William C. Baker. "While the Bay shows a few encouraging signs of improving health, it remains a system dangerously out of balance. Key systems are distressed and it operates at barely more than one-quarter of its historical potential."
In addition to improvements in oysters, striped bass, and shad, CBF’s State of the Bay ratings for water clarity, nitrogen, and phosphorus each improved slightly. The 1999 drought has caused reduced runoff and stream flows, resulting in less nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as sediment, reaching the Bay’s waters. This slight improvement is likely to reverse, however, when rains come and nitrogen and phosphorus, now held in the dry soils, quickly enter the Bay.
"Water pollution from excessive nitrogen and phosphorus remains the Bay’s most serious problem," said CBF President Baker, "and it will continue to be until there is a long-term, Baywide trend towards reduced levels of these polluting nutrients."
The State of the Bay Report, which CBF issued for the first time last year, is a comprehensive measure of the Bay’s health. For the report, CBF analyzed 13 factors: oysters, shad, underwater grasses, wetlands, forested buffers, toxics, water clarity, dissolved oxygen, crabs, striped bass (rockfish), resource lands, phosphorus, and nitrogen. CBF scientists compiled and examined the best available historical and up-to-date information on each factor and sought direction and advice from other scientists who study the Bay. Then CBF assigned an index number to each indicator. For example, the index value of 12 given to underwater grasses indicates that this key resource today covers only 12 percent of its historical acreage in the Bay and tributaries. The rating for rockfish, which have rebounded from near collapse in the mid-1980s, improved from 70 to 75 because of an increased number of larger, older fish, which should help the species maximize spawning potential.
Taken together, the measure of these indicators offers an immediate description of Bay health. The unspoiled Bay, described by Captain John Smith’s exploration narratives from the 1600s and confirmed in part by modern science, serves as CBF’s benchmark. That original Bay, with its clear water, abundant fish and oysters, and lush growths of submerged vegetation, rates a 100 on CBF’s scale. The average index value of the 13 indicators evaluated by CBF for today’s Bay is 28.
"On balance, the Bay is in somewhat better shape than it was 15 years ago," said Baker. "But for every success story, like rockfish, there are continued declines, like the loss of more than 60% of Tangier Sound’s underwater grasses in just seven years." Baker also cited particular threats to wetlands in Virginia precipitated by a court ruling (the "Tulloch" decision) that re-opened a loophole that allows the ditching and draining of wetlands. "Tulloch ditching represents one of the most serious threats to the Bay in the last 30 years," he said.
"Pennsylvania’s role is an important one in the continuing effort to save the Bay," said Jolene Chinchilli, Executive Director for the Pennsylvania office of CBF. "Pennsylvania provides 50% of the freshwater that enters the Bay, so whatever we do in Pennsylvania, good or bad, has a significant impact not only on Pennsylvania rivers and streams, but ultimately on the Chesapeake Bay."
Juniata Wetland Monitoring Project
By Sarah Domonkos
The Juniata Wetland Monitoring Project, which is a two year effort to determine the ecological health of the wetlands in the Juniata River watershed, is moving steadily ahead. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is funding the project through its Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The Southern Alleghenies Conservancy (SAC) and the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center are coordinating the project along with help from local, state and federal organizations/agencies, such as the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and the Juniata Clean Water Partnership.
The project has a new coordinating team, Wendy S. Melius and Jackie Hockenberry of Melius & Hockenberry Environmental Services. The project also has a new project coordinator assistant, Sarah Domonkos, hired through the Pennsylvania Mountain Service Corps branch of AmeriCorps.
The project kicked off January 1, 1999, and has been constantly evolving because of the fact that it is a pilot project. The first year of this project dealt with the Tuscarora/Buffalo Creek and the Little Juniata areas of the watershed. Property assessment and access to the private properties was sought in the spring and early summer. Property owners were asked to allow field teams access to their property to verify the presence and determine the condition of wetlands. The field team was organized by SAC and consisted of work-study students and student interns from area colleges and universities. They were supervised by the Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, DEP and SAC. The field team sampled approximately 25 to 30 points within the watershed over the summer. On wetland sites selected for further study, ecological conditions will be determined by making various measurements to map the wetland, examining soils, identifying vegetation and recording other observations about the biological community.
At this time, the project is finishing up its first year of work. A field reconnaissance report is to be submitted to the EPA in the fall. Plans for next summer’s field work are based on what was learned during this summer’s work. The project is going to expand next summer, throughout the entire 3,400 square mile Juniata River watershed, with a goal of 150 points to be sampled. This increased work load will require the help of many more students, teachers and volunteers. There will be a need for help over the summer and winter, as there will be more property access work to be completed. There will also be an opportunity for secondary teachers to receive a scholarship to earn continuing education credits. For more information or to become part of the team, contact the project coordinators, Wendy Melius and Jackie Hockenberry at (814) 635-4010 or (814) 536-2228 respectively or through Southern Alleghenies Conservancy at (814) 623-7900 ext. #5 or e-mail at sac@nb.net.
The Blue Juniata Growing Greener
By Dave Sewak
The health of the Juniata River and the communities that reside along it are intricately tied to the mountains that border it. If those mountains could talk, the rich history of the Juniata Basin would come alive. Two efforts in the watershed are underway to identify, develop, conserve and preserve our valuable natural and cultural resources through the development of greenways. A greenway is a corridor of open space that can be land or water-based. Greenways can be found along riverfronts, old railways and even through urban and suburban areas. Greenways also act as tools to conserve wildlife and habitat, allowing for a focus on the importance of our natural resources.
The Raystown/Huntingdon and Broad Top (H&BT) Greenway Partnership have submitted a grant to the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for a greenway feasibility study/master plan. The study would look at the 75-mile Raystown corridor from Bedford to Huntingdon and tell the rich history of this valley. Some natural and cultural sites already identified by the committee include; Old Bedford Village and Fort, Juniata Woolen Mill (the first mill west of the Susquehanna), Riddlesburg Coke Ovens, Cooper tract, Hopewell foundry, and many more. Currently 17 attractions and/or projects have been chosen for Bedford County and 22 for Huntingdon County. The plan would outline a corridor along the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River and identify the appropriate steps in implementing a greenway.
The "other" greenway stretches from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg, and recently won the Millennium Legacy Trails designation from the White House’s Millennium Council in partnership with the U.S. Department of Transportation. This greenway corridor follows the Historic Pennsylvania Mainline Canal System touching many of our communities in the basin. The establishment of this greenway will facilitate new recreational opportunities, improve our quality of life, and encourage new economic growth. Approximately 50 people attended the first workshop, held on October 8, 1999, focusing on the conceptualization and development of the greenway .
Both of these greenways are locally driven projects that look at conservation issues for wildlife habitat and scenery as well as development of river access and possible land based trails. These initiatives will encourage economic development in an environmentally friendly manner. Both of these places have outstanding beauty and a rich history second to none. For additional information about this project, contact Dave Sewak at (814) 696-9380 or e-mail at dsewak@allegheny.org.
The Western Pennsylvania Watershed Protection Program
By R. John Dawes
The purpose of the Western Pennsylvania Watershed Protection Program (WPWPP) is to protect and/or restore Pennsylvania’s unique water resources and to foster technologies used to preserve and reclaim watersheds. With this purpose in mind, the WPWPP has been making grants on a site specific basis for over five years. Funded originally by the Heinz Endowments, Pittsburgh, Pa., the Program is now also funded by the Katherine Mabis McKenna Foundation of Latrobe, Pa.
The WPWPP is an outgrowth of the nationally recognized, yearlong colloquia sponsored by the Heinz Endowments, to give direction to their Environmental Program. This larger Program has had huge impacts on the entire region and demonstrates a strong commitment to environmental philanthropy.
The types of projects funded include watershed preservation, abandoned mine drainage restoration, streambank stabilization, non-point source pollution abatement, and some water quality monitoring projects if they relate to watersheds where the Program is already working.
An example of a funded watershed preservation project is the French Creek Project. This grant is administered jointly by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. Much focus is upon the biodiversity of the watershed, which includes 26 species of fresh water mussels and clams, as well as 80 species of fish. In fact the French Creek watershed is listed as one of the Nature Conservancy’s "Last Great Places." Restoration efforts include many streambank fencing projects and agricultural cost share projects. The project recently won the Conservation Fund’s National Watershed Award, competing with over 300 entries.
Abandoned mine drainage projects include the treatment of acid mine drainage as well as alkaline discharges. While the treatment systems are of a site specific design, acid mine discharges are primarily treated anoxically in Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS). The discharge is cleaned up, but the systems routinely need monitoring and maintenance. The Powdermill Nature Reserve installation in Stahlstown is an example of an alkaline discharge. Alkaline discharges at this site are treated with churners and settling ponds before the mine water enters a wetland or stream. This drainage has been abated to the point where fish life is returning in a stretch of Loyalhanna Creek.
While abandoned mine drainage is the largest water quality problem in the western part of the state, there are also miles and miles of streambanks which have degraded to the point where the banks no longer function as run-off absorbers or natural filters. Eroded soil from the degraded stream bank coats the river bed, smothering aquatic life. The WPWPP has funded the Muddy Run restoration in the Borough of Huntingdon, where riparian areas are being restored and wetlands are being brought back to perform their original function for improved water quality.
The WPWPP requires proposals to have a broad support base. In other words, projects must have good partnerships, whether they are agency funded, privately supported, or have an in-kind, volunteer component to the project. The WPWPP meets twice a year to fund projects regionally. There is also commitment from the Community Foundation of Johnstown to provide accounting and managerial services for the Program. This new structure will allow for more regional input in terms of funding for projects. For additional information contact R. John Dawes, Administrator, RD 1, Box 152, Alexandria, PA, 16611, at (814) 669-4847 or fax: (814) 669-1323, e-mail: rjdawes@aol.com.
Spotlight on: Shoup's Run
The Shoup’s Run watershed, located in southern Huntingdon and northern Bedford Counties, encompasses 13,750 acres of land known as the Broad Top coal fields. The primary river flowing through the watershed is Shoup’s Run. Shoup’s Run cuts its path through Dudley, Barnettstown, Minersville, Coalmont, Middletown and East Saxton before emptying into the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River upstream of Raystown Lake. This area had been extensively mined, beginning in 1855 with commercial deep mining until 1972 when the last deep mine closed. In addition to the extensive deep mining, surface mining peaked beginning in the early 1930’s through World War II. Today, this long legacy of mining has led directly to many pollution problems within the Shoup’s Run watershed. Acid mine drainage (AMD) has been polluting streams and water supplies. In addition to these problems, the area also suffers from severe flooding, streambank erosion problems, and sewage and septage problems.
In order to address the existing environmental damage and to limit future damage, local citizens formed the Shoup’s Run Watershed Association in November 1998. The Association is working on the restoration and preservation of local water supplies, safeguarding the natural environment, and addressing the problems of storm water management, streambank erosion, flood control, AMD abatement and illegal dumping within the watershed. One of the first acts of the new Association was to print 2,000 educational brochures explaining the environmental problems and concerns within the watershed. Funding to help the Association get started was provided through a grant from the Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (WPCAMR). The Association also has started a membership drive along with several fundraising projects.
The Shoup’s Run Watershed Association has recently received several grants to help them begin planning and implementing watershed protection activities. On September 7, 1999, a $30,133 matching grant was approved by the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) for the hiring of an engineer to develop a Flood Mitigation Plan for the watershed. When completed, the plan will give a general overview of the condition of the watershed, along with a description of flooding problems, goals and objectives for flood mitigation, alternate flood mitigation measures and implementation and evaluation strategies. The Association has also received a $20,000 Watershed Restoration and Protection Program (WRAP) grant from the PA Department of Environmental Protection. (This grant will be used for a bank stabilization project along the old Huntingdon and Broad Top Mountain Railroad (Shoup’s Run branch) outside of Middletown Park. The Association is also pursuing several other grants for similar work. Future plans involve treating AMD with diversion wells, wetlands creation and additional streambank restoration projects.
The Association continues to develop project proposals, locate funding sources, and plan for the restoration of Shoup’s Run watershed. For additional information, please contact Gracie Angelo at (814) 635-2660 or Becky Dolte at (814) 635-9290.
Find out where Shoup's Run is located in the Juniata Watershed (Click for larger image)
Click here for a closer look at the Shoup's Run Watershed