Download as a PDF - CiteSeerX

BMP is being implemented and the appropriate pollutant reduction coefficients and
unit costs specific to that BMP. These additional ‘units’ are based on the difference
between ‘existing’ and ‘future’ values (e.g. acres, stream miles) specified by the user
for each BMP or pollutant reduction strategy. More specific information on the usage
of PRedICT is provided in Evans (2003).
POST-RESTORATION EVALUATION
After restoration activities have been implemented in a watershed, the success of
such activities is evaluated on the basis of in-stream surveys conducted to verify
if the health of the stream has improved. If no improvements are noted, additional
funds are provided by the State to implement more or better corrective measures in
the watershed until the desired results are achieved. This is an iterative process that
may take many years to complete in significantly degraded watersheds. However,
this approach is predicated on the belief that moving towards a corrective solution is
better than not moving at all.
To date, few restoration projects funded through the Growing Greener programme
have been in place long enough to warrant re-examination of affected streams.
However, limited data from some fixed water quality monitoring stations maintained
by PaDEP that are located at the mouth of watersheds where mitigation measures
have been taken suggests that improvements in stream health are beginning to
occur. Within the next 2–5 years, PaDEP plans to begin the process of re-surveying
Pennsylvania’s streams to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures that
have been implemented over the past few years.
Figure 4: Example of predicted load reductions via combined use of AVGWLF
and PRedICT
60