Cough cough bulls$!t cough cough

[salvelinusfontinalis]

http://www.wbng.com/news/local/Susquehanna-River-water-considered-to-be-top-notch-326423131.html

What is this guy an expert of exactly and what rivers are he comparing it too?

 

[Fishidiot]

Sure, there are problems as we bass anglers have been aware of for the last decade, but the SRBC has been monitoring the river for years and it IS - generally - cleaner than it used to be. This is particularly true for traditionally monitored pollutants such as sediment, Phosphorus, Nitrogen, etc.

Also, it should be remembered that the SRBC is looking holistically at the Susky watershed - which includes many improving tribs. Consider the West Branch: just the improvements in this watershed alone over the last couple decades have been tremendous.
There remain some impaired tribs and plenty of non-point issues, especially agro run-off, but the overall situation across the watershed is indeed better now compared to a generation ago.

SRBC

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

dave,
While you are right, do you see these kinds of comments as a potential road block for getting the river listed as impaired?
I do and it needs that listing frankly.

 

[Fishidiot]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
dave,
do you see these kinds of comments as a potential road block for getting the river listed as impaired?

For the most part, yes.

PFBC's argument for impairment is, however, based on the problems with SMB population structure and NOT based on pollution measurements.
Angler complaints of the last decade, combined with SMB population problems in the lower Susky, is viewed by the PFBC as a valid reason (even considering that the cause of the bass crash remains unknown) for a declaration of impairment.
In other word's, PFBC is saying, "we have to declare the river impaired in order to find out what is wrong with the bass."

DEP is currently not buying this angle and I doubt they will change their mind. DEP's model for impairment declaration is conventional and based on pollution measurements. The abundance of pollution intolerant macros in the lower Susky alone is a major argument in DEP's favor...and against the PFBC's angle.

 

[Swattie87]

Not a funny topic I know, but when I read your OP Sal, I immediately thought of this:

Walter Peck