PACD News

	Press Releases
	Newsletters
	Front Page

News & Notes April 2006

District Uses County Implementation Plan as Management Tool

When the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) asked conservation districts to develop County Implementation Plans (CIP) as part of Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy, the Bradford County Conservation District (BCCD) looked at this as an opportunity to collect real data in their county as opposed to statistical or modeled data.

BCCD Manager Mike Lovegreen explains, "We decided to get out of the box and not focus on nutrient and sediment loading sources identified by the state. Instead, we did extra work to quantify real local numbers for loading."

Not all data gathering started from scratch. BCCD used its 1989 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assessment as a baseline study. When this report was being written, three staff members drove every road in the county and checked exactly where farms were located and the number and type of livestock on the farm. Four hundred farmers were surveyed and many visited to determine actual needs. This kind of detail includes basin, watershed and sub-watershed data, which was invaluable in creating the CIP. Since this report was required of all districts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, each could use its own report as a resource in developing or updating their CIP.

Seven water quality impacts were identified by BCCD with the data they assembled:

1. Agricultural nutrient management
Since 50% of Bradford County is farmland, agriculture accounted for the top two impacts. Solutions include supporting the development of nutrient management plans, soil samples, manure testing, and various agricultural best management practices (BMPs).
2. Agricultural tillage
The district supports miscellaneous BMPs and the development of conservation plans to help reduce soil loss.
3. Stream channel and bank stability
Assessments were conducted on the majority of streams by consultants or the district. It was found that 0.623 tons were eroding per foot annually on approximately 1.5 million feet of streambanks.
4. Rural transportation systems
A dirt and gravel road study was conducted from 1999-2000. The county has 1,302 miles of dirt and gravel roads. The number of sites identified as having an impact on water quality was 1,522. BCCD does participate in the Dirt and Gravel Road Maintenance Program.
5. On-lot septic systems
In 1995, a county-wide study was conducted where actual numbers, quantity of material, and nutrient content were determined. The study found that on-lot septic systems that are pumped every two to four years work. To follow the waste stream, waste haulers were surveyed as to where the septage goes. Since only 50% of the waste could be accounted for, the district started a demonstration project applying the septage to farmland. The project created income for the farmer who received the tipping fee which was split with the district for the first three years to cover start-up costs. No odor or other neighbor-related issues were reported. Twelve farms are needed to take care of the entire county's needs.
6. Stormwater
There is little control of stormwater in the rural areas of the county. Some solutions the district came up with are Act 167 plans, demonstration of BMPs, retention wetlands, and creating riparian areas.
7. Commercial fertilizer applications (non-agriculture)
The district identified businesses, schools, golf courses, and homeowners as the major players on this issue. The number of potential acres impacted in the county by commercial fertilizer applications is 133,000. The solutions identified include education, nutrient management mini-plans, and soil testing.

The district used this impact data to determine high, medium, and low priority areas of the county and which best management practices would address their needs. Next, the district developed two options for funding each area. The first option was the "dream or actual need budget" assuming unlimited funds would be available and the second was the bare-bones budget utilizing existing programs and staff.

Stream channel and bank stability option #1 (dream budget)
With the stream channel and bank stability impact, option one includes BMP work plus staffing needs (not listed in table) totaling $381,000.

BMP DESCRIPTION	#/YEAR	$/EACH	TOTAL
One mile stream stabilization	1.8	$330,000	$594,000
Total			$594,000
Current funding available			$250,000
BMP needs			$344,000

Stream channel and bank stability option #2 (bare-bones budget)
BMP work plus staffing needs totaling $17,750:
.

BMP DESCRIPTION	#/YEAR	$/EACH	TOTAL
One mile stream stabilization	.75	$330,000	$250,000
Total			$250,000
Current funding available			$250,000
BMP needs			0

On-lot septic systems option #1 (dream budget)
The cost of option one is $51,250. (Staff costs are not listed in the table).

BMP DESCRIPTION	#/YEAR	$/EACH	TOTAL
Septage storage and utilization sites	1	$75,000	$75,000
Well testing for coliform	125	$20	$2,500
System pumping incentives	100	$50	$5,000
Needs assessment	1	$10,000	$10,000
Total			$92,500
Current funding available			$60,000
BMP needs			$32,500

On-lot septic systems option #2 (bare-bones budget)
The cost of option two is $37,250. (Staff costs are not listed in the table).

BMP DESCRIPTION	#/YEAR	$/EACH	TOTAL
Septage storage and utilization sites	1	$75,000	$75,000
Well testing for coliform	50	$20	$1,000
System pumping incentives	50	$50	$2,500
Needs assessment	0	$10,000	0
Total			$78,500
Current funding available			$60,000
BMP needs			$18,500

Bradford County's Implementation Plan identifies needs, helps focus on funding opportunities as they occur, and accounts for existing funding. While $250,000 was leveraged for stream stabilization, this project was an effort of the district and individual watershed groups working together. The CIP was not solely responsible for obtaining the funding, but the data helped to bring focus to the stream stabilization issue.

Mini-grants also help support CIPs. For example, BCCD received several grants through the DEP's Chesapeake Bay Program (administered by the PACD). One, for example, provided $581 for a Municipal Environmental Awareness Workshop that addressed regulatory requirements for development activities. Municipal officials learned about floodplain management, dirt and gravel roads, on-lot septic systems, agricultural conservation and nutrient management, erosion and sedimentation controls, stream and wetland management and regulation, and stormwater management. This grant addressed nearly all of the water quality impacts identified in the CIP.

Another BCCD project was awarded a $2,500 grant to conduct a two-day Environmentally Sensitive Maintenance of Streams Workshop. Municipal officials, contractors, and landowners often engage in stream maintenance activities such as removing woody debris after a storm event or clearing a culvert opening. If not done in a sensitive manner, these activities could create long-term damage to the stream. Studies in Bradford County indicate considerable sediment loads from stream channels and banks can be directly traced to human activities in the stream. The district hopes that, by including elements such as stream morphology, permits and regulations, and sources of assistance, the participants become more aware of their activities and do a better job of maintenance.

The BCCD secured a number of funding sources that helped support its CIP:

$25,000 Fish & Wildlife Fund for aquatic habitat
$3,500 League of Women Voters Water Resources Education Network Grant for on-lot septic maintenance
$2,500 Growing Greener for Agricultural Assessment in N. Branch Towanda Creek
$20,000 Bradford County Conservation District allocation to biosolids project
$300,000 County Initiative for Stream Stabilization
$2,500 Chesapeake Bay Educational Mini-Grant for soils lesson plans
$60,000 Growing Greener Grant with Chesapeake Bay Foundation for forested riparian buffers
$20,000 DEP Chesapeake Bay Program BMP Implementation for driveway drainage, wetlands, agriculture stormwater
$14,000 DEP Chesapeake Bay BMP Implementation for farm access lanes and concentrated animal area

Personnel funding:

50% DEP Chesapeake Bay Program funding for engineer
2 technician positions
4 staff for a stream design team

BCCD is more competitive in receiving funding because of the detail and depth of its CIP. "It was a good exercise to engage in," said Lovegreen. But the exercise isn't over. The data will continue to be refined with further studies, and the CIP will be updated accordingly.

A CIP can serve as a valuable management tool and central focus for district programs. As in Bradford County, it can also serve as a valuable tool to leverage funding. To view examples of CIPs, including the Bradford County Conservation District's plan, click on http://www.pacd.org/resources/cb/CIP/default.htm.

Insert Side 2