Mowing lawns to creek banks just love them to death!

Transcription

1 2 The deveopment of the RCP is a mutifaceted endeavor invoving a probem soving (panning) procedure, with various modes of pubic participation, professiona reviews of pan components, and other activities. Figure 2.0 RCP Panning Process 1 Identification of Issues, Probems and Opportunities Panning Methods and Sources The RCP uses a variety of methods. These approaches coect information, anayze data, perform other panning tasks throughout the panning process, and incude input from stakehoders during a phases. 2 Formuation of Goas and Objectives 5 Pan Review, Revision, and Update 3 Choice of Criteria and Indicators 4 Pan Deveopment and Impementation 7 Stormwater Retrofit Survey Existing information incudes data fies, records, reports, books, maps (paper and digita format), project bueprints, diagrams, drawings, and photographs. Particuary usefu (with a few exampes) are origina data fies (Paxton Creek water quaity monitoring data), primary study reports (Paxton Creek Stream Corridor and Watershed Assessment, Paxton Creek Roundtabe); secondary reports based upon primary and secondary information (Dauphin County Draft Comprehensive Pan). The main procedure was to review existing information, get additiona expanations or carifications, as necessary, and make integrative evauations. New studies were performed in subject areas with insufficient data. These studies by PCWEA and partners using standard scientific procedures were of the foowing types -- primary data coected directy from the watershed: terrestria vegetation; Mowing awns to creek banks just ove them to death! RCP panning foows a five-step probem soving procedure. (Figure 2.0) Watershed probems, issues, and opportunities are identified through visioning meetings, surveys, workshops, interviews, data evauations, and other means. An information baseine with data on dozens of factors and maps for comparing factors (what conficts, reinforces, cooperates) are compied. Pan goas are determined based upon the probems, issues, and desires; the goas are different for various parts of the watershed (subwatersheds). Criteria and indicators the rues and measures for making pan decisions, and evauating goa success are seected. The heart of the process, pan deveopment and impementation invoves: putting the information together, integrating upand and riparian projects, prioritizing potentia rehabiitative efforts, and monitoring basicay deciding what, when, where, and how for watershed improvement. Reviews, revisions, and updates wi be necessary during the coming decades in response to changes in the watershed and RCP circumstances (funding, personne, rehabiitative techniques).

2 andowner and stakehoder issues, practices, and preferences; comprehensive riparian habitat assessment, vegetation, water chemistry, macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity; and cover and impervious surface maps; stormwater detention pond inspections; codes and ordinances evauation; Paxton Creek Baseine and Stormwater Retrofit Assessment study; Paxton Creek North Subwatershed Restoration Pan; primary and secondary data compied and reworked for watershed focus (Census 2000 Summary 3, GIS maps, stormwater infitration). Most work was performed by professionas. Some was achieved by coege students under professiona guidance. Studies on two subjects (creek fows and poutant oads) were started during the panning period. 8 Vegetation Inventory Part of this RCP, and as a precursor for ongoing and future activities, is a pan for the Paxton Creek North (PCN) subwatershed. This work invoved a review of existing hydroogic, bioogica, water quaity, and geomorphoogic (creek processes) data, foowed by making maps from remote sensing images, ocating sites of potentia probems and opportunities on the maps, performing a subwatershed deineation which estabished precise water fow boundaries, and making an anaysis of impervious cover. Fied methods invoved an inventory of stormwater retrofit faciities, and teams performing stream and upand assessments with techniques caed the Unified Stream Assessment (USA), the Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance (USSR). The USA is a comprehensive stream wak for evauating the physica, riparian, and foodpain conditions in sma urban watersheds. The USSR assesses potentia subwatershed poution sources, and restoration opportunities in areas outside the stream corridor. (CWP, 2004) Together, the stream, subwatershed, and inventory methods were used to identify sites for 10 categories of watershed rehabiitation and enhancement projects: poution source contros, on-site stormwater faciity retrofits, riparian reforestation, creek rehabiitation, septic wastewater discharge prevention, upand reforestation, food contros, trais instaation, education, and recreation with economic redeveopment. Foowing prioritization of the projects by the Watershed Restoration Tempate (CVI and DEP, 2004), the RCP impementation costs were estimated using unit cost figures for subwatershed panning compied by the Center for Watershed Protection (1998). Late in the process subwatershed modeing fow estimates became avaiabe (DCCD, 2005). Athough this information was too ate for incorporation in the choice of projects, it can be used in future project prioritizations, and appications with the Watershed Treatment Mode (Center for Watershed Protection, 2002), a desktop spreadsheet approach for estimating poution oad reductions (sediment, nutrients) from various treatment options associated with different projects. An RCP objective was the formation of an impementation matrix integrating project and program activities (Tabe 8.4). This matrix shows: the types of activities; associated goas, objectives, strategies, and tactics; evauation indicators; required costs and resources; participants and responsibe parties; schedue. Stakehoders Meeting

3 Pubic Invovement Pan anayses and findings were submitted to agencies for review and comment, and to watershed stakehoders and the pubic at workshops, meetings, website interactions, and ibrary dispays. Panning materias were suppied to an advisory group and technica committee for deriving input into the pan. The PCWEA quartery newsetter contained stories issue by issue about particuar panning studies, and pan status updates. A specia newsetter issue accompanied the reease of the draft pan. and invited comments from participants. During February, 2005 ibrary dispays designed by coege students at the East Shore Area Library featured monitoring, and the panning process with inputs into the RCP. The educationa materias for foow up and impementation incude the brochure Are You Loving Paxton Creek to Death? (AYLPCTD?), side shows on Paxton Creek and a subwatershed, and 7 fact sheets on practices specific to residentia, municipa, and deveopment, and business behaviors that can improve the watershed. A copy of the education brochure AYLPCTD? is attached (RCP-1). The RCP brings a new era to the watershed: projects. Athough past pubic invovement was extensive, the pubic invovement program wi need new emphases better attuned to the needs of specific stakehoders. Exampes: PCWEA sponsorship of tours to proposed project sites, neighborhood and subwatershed focus groups formed for oca advisory and faciitation roes, frequent meetings at reguar times, and continuing partnerships with oca peope wi be necessary so peope can understand better, participate more meaningfuy, and even ead projects in their communities. Panning Workshop Panning workshops began the process (RCP aunch), occurred near the end of data gathering phase (PCN Stakehoders Gathering, and State of the Watershed Report), and accompanied the preparation of the draft pan (RCP Projects Prioritization Workshop). The initia and fina workshops, guided by panning professionas, featured proposed pan inputs and GIS maps. RCP sma group discussions focused upon seect pan themes (water resource management, recreation, economic deveopment). The website contained a pan summary with inks to the Appendix sections, 9 Creek Habitat Education

4 Community Context: Concerns and Practices Figure 2.1 Watershed Concerns Even before the RCP process was officiay underway, the pubic puse of the watershed was being taken. At 4 visioning gatherings conducted by PCWEA throughout the watershed, 4 main sets of frequent concerns were found to dominate 91% of the stakehoder interests: foods, stormwater runoff; water quaity, and reated issues; spraw and open space; vegetative habitat and widife. Forty concerns were expressed by 124 persons at the visioning meetings. (Figure 2.1) Additiona insights about watershed concerns were gathered by surveys, interviews, participative workshops, and other means invoving hundreds more stakehoders. 10 Some peope came to visioning sessions ooking for immediate assistance with specific probems (particuary fooding), not merey to respond with their opinions. Some never attended other watershed association events. This experience points to a centra tenet: a Paxton Creek RCP stands itte chance of being impemented uness the peope have a shared image. This requires the RCP coordinators to take actions that hep stakehoders share common goas, understand what is invoved, agree on what to do, have cear expectations, enjoy widespread participation, and exercise patience. PCWEA must hep stakehoders give input, and enjoy their accompishments in impementing the RCP and subwatershed pans: Broad consensus on goas. Activey share data and maps, make evauations, seect panning criteria and indicators, and customize subwatershed management toos. Watershed understanding. Increase watershed awareness and stewardship invoving intergenerationa educationa activities, and technica training. Agreement on tasks. Promote ways and estabish programs for accompishing goas invoving pubic private partnerships whie buiding community cohesion. Widespread participation. Encourage invovement by a stakehoders, so as to buid upon the diversity and strengths of the entire watershed, whie aiming for synergism..reaistic expectations and patience. Hep participants appreciate the benefits and take pride in their achievements, so as to avoid boredom and burnout. Digging Rain Garden

5 For the most part stakehoders are cooperative, agreeabe, and have good intentions, but many of their current practices are harmfu to the creek. (Tabe 2.0) Tabe 2.0 Practices Harming Paxton Creek Careess use of substances (ois, fertiizers, ceaners) poute the creek through stormwater runoff. Mowing awns to the edge of creeks for a tidy appearance can greaty acceerate erosion, and aow poutants to wash into the creek. Cearing creek side vegetation for a neat or andscaped appearance. Connecting drain pipes from basements, washing machines, and toiets (iega discharges!) directy to the creek or wetands. Separating and poory coordinating poution prevention, stormwater management, and watershed enhancement (recreation, economic redeveopment) by municipaities. Beginning conventiona and deveopment with compete, sometimes careess, and cearance (cearing and grubbing). Faiure to recognize unique site aspects worth conserving or protecting before engineering pans for and deveopment are begun. Stripping top sois (vasty diminishing stormwater infitration, and productivity of gardens), at the start of and deveopments. Continued buiding of homes and other deveopments (roads, utiities) on the mountain and in headwater areas. Conventiona and deveopment ordinances focusing protection upon sites, but not downstream properties (causing erosion, foods). Running stormwater off streets into curbs, drains, and ponds, rather than simpy soaking into swaes and vegetation beds. Ordinance requirements for overy wide and ong streets. Largey unnecessary parking areas, as for oncein-a-century commercia saes events (excess space even required by ordinances). Creek corridors with vegetative buffers too narrow and too sparse to keep pouted waters out of the creek. Landowners using the ast inches of their properties by encroaching upon creek corridors with was and outdoor storage pies. Peope who compain of upstream runoff causing them damage (foods, erosion), but who do itte to reduce runoff on their own and. Rooftop and other runoff discharged onto driveways, sidewaks, and streets rather than oca, onsite soaking into sois and vegetation. Loss of open space resuting in groundwater osses (dry wes, ow creek fows, widife habitat oss, diminished recreation potentia). Use of the creek amost entirey as a drain, without any consideration for other possibiities (creek-based recreation, widife habitat, trais/aternative transport, economic redeveopment). Participation in occasiona, isoated rehabiitation events (creek ceanup, tree panting, trai maintenance), where ongoing, repetitive actions are reay needed to make a big difference. The ist goes on. The workshops and other pubic participation activities show imited pubic understanding of how a watershed works. Generay, citizens are more ikey to be aware of crises hazardous waste spis, foods, wet basements, and droughts and demonstrate ess knowedge about the big picture of watershed heath. Simiary, oca government officias ack an understanding of watershed dynamics, but are becoming increasingy aware of the interconnections, and need to impement poicy, programs, and reguations that best baance and use practices with the quaity and quantity of water resources. Lawn Mown to Creek Edges 11 Paxt Cre k Wa ershed and duc i ss i i on e t E at on A oc at on

6