York County WIP - BMPs Not in the Current Bay Model

The current Chesapeake Bay Model has limitations, which results in certain types of pollutant reduction activities (BMPs) not being considered for credit. These limitations may exist for various reasons; however, it is worth examining the potential to revise the Model to credit such activities. A process exists by which new technologies, unthoughtof reductions, or intentionally not included BMPs may be included/reconsidered in the Model. Municipal leaf pick-up programs and surface water supplier sediment filtration processes may be examples of such activities. Awareness of such activities or BMPs that reduce nutrients and/or sediment is the first step for credit to be acknowledged in the Model.

There is evidence to indicate that some York County pollution reductions are resulting from a practice that is not recognized in the Model. These pollution reductions should not be overlooked. The merit of working with PA DEP to incorporate such pollution reductions into the Bay Model needs to be determined. Nevertheless, due to the complexities of the Model, potential difficulty in calculating pollutant reductions, and ecological factors that influence reductions, obtaining credit may be a lengthy process, if possible at all.

Success of this solution will be contingent upon availability of necessary data to document the pollution reduction and cooperation from regulatory agencies. There is potential for supporting documentation to exist on pollutant reductions resulting from some activities, such as municipal
leaf/yard waste pick-up programs and sediment removal from surface water supplier intakes. For example, municipalities may track tonnage of waste picked up, while water treatment plants
may track the tonnage of sediment removed from their source water. This data, as well as additional information, would likely be needed to obtain credit retroactively, and annually into the future,
for these types of activities. As stated previously, US EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Program are in the process of developing guidance that will be beneficial to the data collection effort. It is also
important to note that for BMPs to be credited under this solution, they must have been implemented on or after January 1, 2006.

Public Misperception of Quiescent Mill Ponds

Sunday's York Daily News contained an excellent article "Fix PA's Killer Dams", by Scott Fisher, Editor, about the dangers.

However, one reader commented that "The dam appeals to me, recalling a recent kayak paddle miles upstream and saying he has caught large fish in the pools created by the dam. If the dam(s) were removed, we'd end up with a shallow, rocky creek that would be useless for such activities."

The public maintains the misperception that these quiescent mill pond settings are both normal and healthy ecosystems. I argue they are not. Dams of all sizes are the direct result of the loss of migrating American shad, Atlantic eels, numerous freshwater shellfish, and other migratory species.

Impoundments behind dams often have poor water quality and may not have the quantity and diversity of aquatic species often found in a free-flowing river. Typically, the tail-water runs approximately one to two miles upstream of these dams.

Removing dams brings different ecological benefits, including restoring free-flowing rivers, enabling unobstructed fish passage, and improving water quality (Scruton et al., 1998; Bednarek, 2001). Bednarek (2001) reviewed the long-term and short-term ecological impacts of dam removal based on 16 dams. She concluded that biotic diversity could increase by removing the dams and that the increased sediment load was a short-term effect. Scruton et al. (1998) showed an 18-fold increase in biomass of juvenile salmon and trout, a result of a 62% habitat increase after removing some dams.

Removing these dams in York County have shown immediate improvements in water quality and diversity of aquatic species often found in a free-flowing river, as well as eliminating a public health and safety hazard.