Litter, declining water quality in Buffalo Creek watershed among concerns in upcoming report |
Valley News Dispatch

Litter, declining water quality in Buffalo Creek watershed among concerns in upcoming report

Mary Ann Thomas
Courtesy of Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania
A healthy, forested riparian buffer along Buffalo Creek prevents erosion, manages floodwaters, keeps streams cool and provides habitat for wildlife.
Courtesy of Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania
Map of impaired waterways in the Buffalo Creek watershed.
Courtesy of Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania
Map of the Buffalo Creek Watershed.

Diminishing water quality, litter, development and lack of recreational opportunities were among the chief concerns in an upcoming report on the Buffalo Creek watershed, which extends from Buffalo Township to north of Chicora in Butler County.

Keeping the beautiful and biologically diverse Buffalo Creek area that way continues to be a challenge, according to an upcoming 10-year update report from the Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania (ASWP). The nonprofit owns Todd Nature Reserve in Buffalo Township and other biologically important areas. The nonprofit is building a nature center along the Butler-Freeport Community Trail.

Almost 80 percent of the watershed in Butler and Armstrong counties is forest and farms; 99 percent is privately owned, according to Sarah Koenig, conservation director for ASWP.

Audubon has been tracking and encouraging stewardship of the watershed. The nonprofit is looking for public comment for “Buffalo Creek Watershed Plan, 10 Year Update.” It will post a draft of the report by May on its website.

The Foundation for Pennsylvania Watersheds awarded a $10,000 planning grant for the report.

Public sentiment on the watershed so far has been “protect what we have and make it better,” Koenig said.

The watershed continues to adjust to development pressures, especially in southern Butler County.

A new complaint was conspicuous and widespread litter along roadways and streams.

A decade ago, when Audubon asked, the public said they wanted to: Maintain the rural landscape, create a sense of community stewardship and enhance recreational opportunities and the natural environment.

A number of those wishes came true, according to Koenig. Specifically, Koenig noted the increased recreational opportunities with the completion of the Butler-Freeport Community Trail, a 21-mile, off-road trail stretching from Freeport to Butler.

For this second study and report, some of the public comments confirm some persisting issues such as water quality. More than 100 residents have already submitted their views of watershed issues, while another 30 provided comments at a meeting in Worthington last week.

During Audubon’s meeting in Worthington, residents, including members of Trout Unlimited, showed a strong interest in a number of issues.

“They came out for preserving existing forests and streams,” said Koenig. “They were interested in working with municipalities to ensure that zoning protects waterways — not allowing development to stretch to a stream, cutting all of the trees.”

Stopping erosion into waterways and creating a buffer zone remains an important issue. Improving water quality was a past and is a present recommendation for the watershed.

There are 341 miles of streams in the watershed; of those, more than 131 have been designated by the state as impaired, according to Koenig.

The state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources recently awarded a $54,000 grant to help restore waterway buffer zones along the Butler-Freeport Community Trail, she said.

Residents are encouraged to send in their comments to Koenig with their concerns and aspirations for the watershed and can do so by emailing Koenig at [email protected]

Mary Ann Thomas is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Mary at 724-226-4691, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.