slab cabin threat update

[nymphingmaniac]

Some time ago I posted about a planned Toll brothers development on a tract of land where slab cabin run (main trib to Spring creek in SC and spawning ground for wild trout).
This had the potential to increase thermal pollution from run off and other associated ills of having development near it. Citizens were up in arms over the effects on adjacent drinking water wells and challenged the proposal. Little surprised not much from the fishing community. Anyway, some good news at least for now. A judge has reversed the ferguson twsp approval of the project.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/community/state-college/article91015632.html

Unfortunately, threats are not over. That area is a prime tract of farmland that is being eyed for development.

 

[jifigz]

I have had some dynamite days fishing Slab Cabin Run. How much do we think the development would hurt? I would much prefer it to remain undeveloped, but development of land and resources is only going to continue to get worse and worse. For now, good news for fishermen though. I will write Judge Grine a thank you note and explain why I care about his ruling. Good info, thanks.

 

[pcray1231]

I don't know that it would hurt at all!

I know the location well as my wife lived about a block from there in grad school. Basically, on the NW side of Whitehall is a large area just chalk full of large apartment complexes. On the SE side is a big farm field, through which the upper end of slab cabin run flows. The proposal basically allows another apartment complex on the SE side of Whitehall Rd, in what was previously the farm field.

The stream currently has no real riparian buffer from the farm field. It's a large potential source of siltation into Slab Cabin, and the sun hits it full on as well. But it's relatively flat and rolling, so there could be some groundwater recharging going on there, rather than being pure runoff.

Obviously, the best thing for the stream would be to let it grow up into forest. But that ain't happening.

Building that field into apartments would obviously add a lot of construction in the short term, which could be disruptive. Long term, well, you'd have roofs and roads and some parking areas. But also a lot more trees, and grass and bushes and flower patches instead of bare dirt that gets plowed. And quite often in residential areas along streams they create park like greenways. So after the construction phase the apartment complex would likely have less siltation and better shading.

But obviously pavement and roofs warm the water, and may allow it to runoff directly into the stream instead of recharge into the ground. I guess the answer is that the apartments COULD feasibly be better for us fishermen, but this absolutely requires a well planned and effective stormwater system which recharges the water into the ground rather than running it off into the stream. If that were the case, it could be an improvement over the status quo on all fronts. If it's not the case, it could be pretty bad.

A good example of how bad decisions get made. One side trying to stop development at all costs, regardless of logic. The other side trying to move forward at all costs, regardless of logic. Where is the side saying "lets do this, but lets do it right"???? Instead, it'll either charge forward with poor controls, or it'll get stopped and moved to somewhere else that nobody's watching with poor controls.

The town needs more housing. It's gonna happen. The only question is exactly where and with what controls....

 

[sarce]

I love that stream and hope that if it does get developed, it is done so responsibly.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

point please- concisely

 

[evw659]

Where is the side saying "lets do this, but lets do it right"????

Very true. I'm pursuing a b.s. in civil engineering (water resource conc.) and this is how I would approach a project like this. The right combination of stormwater retention/ natural treatment systems (wetlands, rain gardens and the like) will undoubtedly reduce the negative effects of urban runoff on whatever watershed you happen to be in, in this case slab cabin run. There are even some more advanced stormwater treatment systems such as these that can be used to remove sediments, trash, oils and other pollutants from urban runoff.

 

[sarce]

evw that was my choice of studies as well. Graduated spring 2014. Currently working in that field. Feel free to reach out via PM, would love to discuss the classes and see if we had any of the same profs.

 

[pcray1231]

Evw, I'm making an educated guess that a apartment area with a better stormwater management system is better in terms of overall stream impact than is a large farm field abutting a stream with no riparian buffer?

Obviously forest is best, but the basis of the thread is compared to the status quo. It's not like it's undeveloped today.

Nymphing, my point is that the goal should be to make sure they do it with good systems in place. Not stop it altogether. It may be better than the status quo. And if you fight and lose, well, they ain't gonna do you no favors.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

ok.
can't say, but I usually believe development is bad. Black top and roofs are never a good addition.
I live 200 yards from the area under consideration and drive by it 2-4 times a day. The farmer does not spread manure and sprays very sparingly. Seems like he rotates crops and doesn't plant too close to the stream. I've even been back by the stream, he does what he can to be responsible.
The stream is not totally exposed through most of the field, but you are correct, no riparian buffer.

For me there are three points of concern
1. failure of storm water systems - happens more than people think. Don't trust Toll brothers.
2. The domino effect- once one development is there, others will follow.
3. the development will lie near an aquifer, which must tie into SCR.

 

[Midge22]

look up Class V Storm water wells. I manage projects drilling and finding suitable locations for them. Puts the rain (treated) right into the aquifer. heck of a lot better than farm field infiltration, and a ton better for the environment that running directly into a stream

 

[riverwhy]

I went to the EPA site and it seemed like there is a fair amount of concern regarding the injection wells. When you say it puts the water right back into the aquifer (after "treatment") sounds like a good idea on the surface but would worry about long term function and maintenance. Can you give us a bit of detail about how it works and how directly the water is returned to the aquifer? Also, how expensive is it to install and maintain? If they work well I would think this would be a common requirement.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Im a firm believer that if there is enough room for a wetlands of some sort (preferably one that mimics natural ones of the area) that the runoff can run through or in the case of large amounts of storm water have a retention pond that drains slowly through a wetlands that should be the first choice. Wetlands are nature's filters and are amazing if we let them work.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

A lot of filtration/purification happens as water percolates through soil from surface to aquifer. Putting the water right back into the aquifer seems like a great way to contaminate an aquifer.

 

[evw659]

Pcray said:

Evw, I'm making an educated guess that a apartment area with a better stormwater management system is better in terms of overall stream impact than is a large farm field abutting a stream with no riparian buffer?

Interesting question. Just my opinion, but I would say yes in general. However, I think it is much more nuanced than that, and I probably have more questions than answers on this one.
With farmland w/o a rip. buffer, some of the major problems are potential e&s on site, mobilization of fertilizer and other pollutants, potentially very inefficient intrusion of rainfall into the subsurface (depending on gradient, porosity of soils, what crop is there, and more), just to name a few. But every piece of farmland is different, and so is every farmer that manages his/her land. Some are more responsible and environmentally conscious than others.
With a housing development, one of the big problems is simply the very large volume flow rate of somewhat polluted water that rushes at a very high rate to the stream below. This causes not only flash flooding and severe stream bank erosion, but in addition, very little to none of that water is passing through the subsurface and recharging aquifers. Thus, you end up with potential dewatering of the watershed when impervious surface constitutes a large relative surface area in the watershed, which is what housing developments offer unfortunately. With farmland, this problem still exists, but in most cases is probably not as severe. If you take a top down approach, there are some ways around these problems. Rain barrels and rain gardens are simple solutions, and they not only capture storm water, but also delay it in its path to the street, decreasing the "flashiness" of a heavy rainfall event on the storm water system and eventually the stream. Rain gardens also allow some intrusion depending on what the soil is like and how the rain garden is engineered. The remaining amount of runoff (probably 90% or more) pretty much has to be dealt with either in the storm water pipe system or after it passes through. This is where these, or other systems like it, come in. These will take out heavier sediments, trash, and other pollutants. After this filtration, then your probably talking about a series of retention ponds and wetlands as final treatment before the storm water reaches a stream, similar to what lcoflyfisher described. This piece of the puzzle is critical, because the storm water has to remain in the wetland long enough for the biochemical processes that treat it to take place. If these are not designed properly, then during a heavy rain, water will just pass through untreated.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

thermal pollution is a concern too.
the UAJA argues taking water from SCR at pine grove mountain at about 55-60 degrees and then releasing it at 72 degrees downstream is "good" for SCR.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/community/state-college/article42831387.html

 

[Midge22]

riverwhy wrote:
I went to the EPA site and it seemed like there is a fair amount of concern regarding the injection wells. When you say it puts the water right back into the aquifer (after "treatment") sounds like a good idea on the surface but would worry about long term function and maintenance. Can you give us a bit of detail about how it works and how directly the water is returned to the aquifer? Also, how expensive is it to install and maintain? If they work well I would think this would be a common requirement.

The setup is that they run all of their on site storm water into holding ponds. from there the water is treated for contaminants (stuff from pavement that may have come in contact with PCB's and volatiles, via carbon barrels or whatever their treatment will be). from there we would also drill an extra 3-4 holes that will be used as monitoring wells, and they are required to test the groundwater quarterly (may be a bit different in each county, but the worst i have heard of is 2 times a year instead of 4 times) to ensure that they are not contaminating the groundwater. If they find that they are, they are obviously responsible for the cost of reclamation, and also they will get a ridiculously expensive fine that will all but sink their company, so they take that stuff pretty seriously.

In the terms of contaminating an entire aquifer, it just isnt plausible with this system. they would basically have to pump a straight contaminate into the well in order to truly hurt the aquifer. the water that will be treated and pumped in, if it has anything bad in it whatsovever, will be so diluted by the time it hits the aquifer that it will not cause any harm, probably not even enough to show a concern on a drinking water standards test.

 

[Midge22]

Sorry, missed your cost question. The cost is somewhat steep. But it is cheaper than building infiltration beds under the ground. Im not sure on actual cost of those (i do not do those) but for a 10-20 well system that we would do, including time and such, your looking at around 100k. That includes drilling, groundwater testing (have to run water into the ground to see the rate at which the water will accept water for a period of time to know if it can handle the proper amount of water that the new sites surface area will receive during a 100-500 year storm), our time and travel and everything.

most of the jobs we get are because we are a few hundred thousand less than infiltration beds. And most of the time in a Karst environment, these infiltration beds are put right on top of the soil/rock interface, so there is no soil infiltration, it goes straight into rock as well, except almost never is it treated

 

[sarce]

100k isn't bad at all. Here in Fairfax Co bioretention facilities run about 50k each and only treat smaller storms at that cost

 

[Midge22]

Thats why they are becoming more prominent in karst environments in PA. Cost is better, and they are easier to use and maintain versus underground infiltration beds.

Now, if these would be used outside of a karst environment it may be more expensive. just due to the fact that you would likely need more wells due to the nature of the rock.

 

[pcray1231]

can't say, but I usually believe development is bad.

Agreed, but in this case, it's already developed. The question is the effect of changing the type of development.

Black top and roofs are never a good addition.

Nor are farms. Which is worse?

The answer, as we're seeing from the stormwater management experts, is nuanced. Perhaps it would improve some aspects and make others worse, and it depends how it's done (both the current farm as well as the proposed apartments).

And these questions deserve to be hashed out.

But I always abhor a kneejerk "change is bad" reaction. You need to evaluate the status quo. Then determine whether, for this farm, and this proposed apartment complex, and this stream, whether the balance is overall good or bad. And if it's bad, how bad, and would it be preferable to put more people in already developed areas, or develop some area that isn't as bad? Because obviously it's needed due to the growing housing demands of the area, and those people will live somewhere....

My general interest is to solve the housing need with as little impact on the environment as possible, and if you can actually improve the environment compared to the status quo in the process, great!