Rural pollutants that impact the Chesapeake region affect Pennsylvania trout streams

afishinado

afishinado

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
16,179
Location
Chester County, PA
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/outdoors/2017/04/16/Rural-pollutants-impact-Chesapeake-Pennsylvania-trout-streams/stories/201704160129
 
That's a worth while read. Runoff is a chemical disaster for creeks and whats down stream. I'd like to see man made swamps to help remove toxic wastes from run off such as lawn fertilizer. GG
 
no great surprise in any of that, yet there are people who will still dismiss it as nothing to worry about.
 
I got to the end of the article and was looking for the rest. Odd ending.

The article essentially rehashes information that has been published in articles for several years. Seems to miss the obvious question as to why municipal discharges are an issue with the current regulations placed on them? My understanding is that they are fairly stringent.
 
At least we have a president who has mother nature's best interest in mind....
 
franklin wrote:
I got to the end of the article and was looking for the rest. Odd ending.

The article essentially rehashes information that has been published in articles for several years. Seems to miss the obvious question as to why municipal discharges are an issue with the current regulations placed on them? My understanding is that they are fairly stringent.

Yep, just regurgitated information that's been out since the 1970s. Agricultural runoff and waste fertilizers put nitrogen in the dirt and get washed out by the rains. Chesapeake has been hurting for a while, but I will say the oysters are better than they've ever been in a loooooong time this year and last year. Not as plentiful as they used to be, but they're damn good.

The only new piece of info has been the parasite.
 
Agriculture runoff has always been an issue BUT this issue is extremely improved from what it was in the 90s when the Susquehanna was considered so great. They continue putting stricter regs on farms. I personally feel that the greatest risk is with the sewage treatment plants. From what I understand an awful lot of hormones are being dumped into the river that are not being filtered out. Can the farms improve? Sure everything can improve but is it the main problem? I highly doubt it!
 
bigjohn58 wrote:
Agriculture runoff has always been an issue BUT this issue is extremely improved from what it was in the 90s when the Susquehanna was considered so great. They continue putting stricter regs on farms. I personally feel that the greatest risk is with the sewage treatment plants. From what I understand an awful lot of hormones are being dumped into the river that are not being filtered out. Can the farms improve? Sure everything can improve but is it the main problem? I highly doubt it!

I'd like to see some study that actually breaks down the contributors. My impression is a bit different. I'm aware of a number of treatment plants in the watershed that have been upgraded in the past 15 years. Also a number of communities that put in sewer treatment plants having forced residents to give up septic systems. And a large number of chicken and hog farms that started up in the past 15 - 20 years. So I would expect municipal contributions to be better but agriculture worse. I do agree that regulations have been added for agriculture and I have seen some farms in the area I frequent that added containment systems.

This all adds up to subjective evidence and may certainly vary by area. The article could have offered more details on available studies, gaps that could be filled by new studies, and actual proposed solutions. I don't consider simply tightening regulations as a solution until the impacts are understood and implementation seems practical (especially financially).
 
Hormones are the smallest problem with the Susquehanna.

Chicken and pig farms and manure spreaders will be the problem until some cheaper methods of fertilization are found.
 
duckfoot wrote:
Hormones are the smallest problem with the Susquehanna.

Chicken and pig farms and manure spreaders will be the problem until some cheaper methods of fertilization are found.

When male smallmouths are being found with eggs inside of them I'm thinking hormones are the largest problem!
 
Endocrine disrupting compounds in the river come from many different sources including pharmaceuticals, but also in some forms of natural plan decay... Sewer plants have already undergone immensely expensive upgrades in many localities and have reduced their nutrient discharges. I don't foresee any of these upgraded plants taking on another 100 million dollar project to be able to remove hormones and other compounds from pharmaceuticals any time soon. Regulations on farmers are not getting stricter they are just now being enforced on more regular basis. nutrient and sediment discharges will continue to be areas where we can make the most improvements in the foreseeable future.
 
bigjohn58 wrote:
When male smallmouths are being found with eggs inside of them I'm thinking hormones are the largest problem!
How many did they find?
 
I know its not the point of the article but where does the Potomac run through Pennsylvania?
 
The Potomac does not run through PA, bit a large portion of the state is within the watershed. That is the difficult thing about non-point pollution, the practices within the entire watershed has an impact. A pollutant introduced just south of Bedford PA eventually will find its way to the Bay.
 
duckfoot wrote:
bigjohn58 wrote:
When male smallmouths are being found with eggs inside of them I'm thinking hormones are the largest problem!
How many did they find?

I am not sure...you would have to check with area guides and the owner of Southside Sports Bait & Tackle in Sunbury. I just have heard various reports of this.
 
I do need to make a trip down there. Haven't been in that shop since I worked down the street.
 
Back
Top