%XLOGLQJ D &RPPXQLW\ &OHDQ :DWHU 7RROER[ 3$ :DWHUVKHG,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 3ODQ :,3 /RFDO 3ODQQLQJ 3URFHVV 6WDNHKROGHU 0HHWLQJ

Transcription

1 %XLOGLQJ D &RPPXQLW\ &OHDQ :DWHU 7RROER[ 3$ :DWHUVKHG,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ 3ODQ :,3 /RFDO 3ODQQLQJ 3URFHVV 6WDNHKROGHU 0HHWLQJ

2 A Community Clean Water Toolbox Pennsylvania Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Local Planning Process to Meet Countywide Goals April 10,

3 TOOLBOX Table of Contents I. Introduction II. III. The Pennsylvania Story: Existing Conditions and Countywide Goals The Local Story: Opportunities to Improve Local Water Quality and Meet Countywide Goals IV. Involving the Right People in Local Planning V. Developing Local Plans VI. Communicating Local Planning Goals, Needs and Plans VII. Reporting Local Plans Appendix A: Resource List Appendix B: Contact List Appendix C: Timeline 2

4 TOOLBOX Pennsylvania Phase 3 Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Local Planning Process to Meet Countywide Goals I. Introduction Welcome to your Toolbox. This document has been prepared to help your county improve your local water quality. This effort is being made throughout Pennsylvania s portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Each Pennsylvania county within that watershed will have a Toolbox with similar components tailored to that county s specific conditions. What is the Phase 3 WIP? The Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was established in 2010 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce pollution and restore clean water in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed by The TMDL specifies nutrient and sediment reduction goals for the seven jurisdictions in the watershed: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, West Virginia, New York, and the District of Columbia. Like the other jurisdictions, Pennsylvania is required to develop a Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) to specify how Pennsylvania will accomplish these pollution reduction goals by The original WIP was written in This WIP was refined in 2012 based on updated information and understanding. Pennsylvania s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is now working on the third version of this plan. DEP is working with the Pennsylvania Departments of Agriculture and Conservation and Natural Resources and many other government, agriculture, environmental, community, academic and business partners to develop Phase 3 of Pennsylvania s WIP. The Phase 3 WIP will focus on steps Pennsylvania will take through 2025 to also meet local water pollution reduction goals in the Bay watershed, while addressing new information provided as part of the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership s midpoint assessment of the TMDL and the progress made towards achieving the original nutrient and sediment reduction goals. (For more detailed information, see EPA s expectations for what the Phase 3 WIP should include.) 3

5 Bottom-up development and teamwork with partners is crucially important to the success of the Phase 3 WIP. What is the toolbox? (and what it is not) This toolbox has been developed as a starting point for each county to use to improve local water quality. It contains useful data relevant to your county to assist you with reaching local water quality goals. No county is required to use every tool in the toolbox! You are encouraged to add other tools as fits your local situation. This toolbox serves as a guide to assist with collaborative efforts, not as a regulatory tool. You also will find a variety of resources that may be helpful in the Toolbox s Appendices. Why is Pennsylvania making this effort? The effort to meet water quality goals for the Chesapeake Bay has provided both need and opportunity to improve water quality in Pennsylvania s own waters within the Bay watershed. The need comes from the TMDL issued in 2010 described above. The issuance of the TMDL required the leadership of the six states and the District of Columbia to develop WIPs for their respective jurisdiction. These plans define how they plan to meet water quality goals for the Chesapeake Bay and, most importantly for Pennsylvania, for our own rivers and streams. The opportunities come from attention and support to improve local water quality from a variety of parties in Pennsylvania, including state agencies, local governments, private foundations, business and farm groups, universities, and nonprofits. There is also considerable technical and financial assistance being provided by the Chesapeake Bay Program to the states and, through them, to the localities. How were the countywide goals developed? Each jurisdiction is expected to develop local planning goals as a way of achieving this bottom-up development of the Phase 3 WIP, and as a way of more closely engaging local partners in its implementation. These goals can help local partners better understand their role in helping to meet TMDL requirements, assist with advancing other local restoration priorities, enhance local citizen engagement, and help stakeholders focus limited resources and targeted programs on defined local areas. Recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, EPA provided a significant amount of flexibility to the jurisdictions to determine what local might mean to them in setting the scope of the goals, and to determine how those goals would be measured. Pennsylvania established a Local Area Goals Work Group under the Phase 3 WIP Steering Committee to review these questions and make recommendations back to the 4

6 steering committee on what local goals should look like in the Commonwealth. The Work Group examined several geographies for local goals, from land-river segments (505) to sub-basins (6), and ultimately recommended countywide goals as the most feasible in terms of size, number, existing data levels and ability to organize resources. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of this process. As part of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, Pennsylvania was given statewide targets to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus delivered to the Chesapeake Bay. These targets can be translated to statewide goals for reducing nitrogen and phosphorus to Pennsylvania local streams. Table 1 is a summary of these planning targets. The Phase 3 WIP Steering Committee approved the further translation of these statewide targets into countywide reduction goals at its November 30, 2017 meeting. Table 1. DRAFT Planning Targets Year Delivered to the Bay Nitrogen (M lbs/year) Edge of Stream Delivered to the Bay Phosphorus (M lbs/year) Edge of Stream 1985(Actual) (Actual) (Final TMDL Planning Target) Remaining Load to be Achieved Through Local Planning Goals * *This does not include the additional loads that the Commonwealth will still need to consider due to the loss of trapping capacity behind Conowingo Dam, the impacts of Climate Change in the watershed, or sector growth. It is important to note that these countywide goals do NOT establish any new requirement or regulatory obligation on counties. These goals are simply a way to assist Pennsylvania in engaging local partners and focusing resources so that efforts can be effectively aggregated in achieving the state s Chesapeake Bay goals. 5

7 Figure 1 Steps for Defining Local Planning Goals Figure 2 Estimated reductions in pounds of nitrogen delivered to Pennsylvania streams 6

8 Figure 2 illustrates the nitrogen loading delivered to the local streams in that county before being delivered to the Chesapeake Bay by county. This figure shows the total amount to be reduced and the progress made as of Of key importance is the amount of the green bar for each county. This is the countywide planning goal the amount of nitrogen that needs to be reduced from that county for Pennsylvania to achieve the Planning Targets depicted in Table 1. This is the focus for the Phase 3 WIP and this Toolbox. It should also be noted that Figure 2 is divided into tiers. Each tier represents a set of counties where 25 percent of the needed reductions to meet the Planning Targets can be achieved. For example, there are two counties in the first tier, Lancaster and York; if those counties achieve nitrogen reductions in the amount of their green bars, that will meet 25 percent of Pennsylvania s total required Planning Target for nitrogen. Aggregating the counties into these tiers can serve as a prioritization tool, and also demonstrates that efforts will be necessary throughout Pennsylvania s entire watershed to meet the Planning Targets. 7

9 II. The Pennsylvania Story Existing Conditions and Countywide Goals Figure 3 below depicts the hypothetical journey Pennsylvania will be taking across its Chesapeake Bay watershed counties. Planning will occur at a county-based level to achieve local water quality improvements and the reduction planning targets defined by the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership and the EPA s TMDL for restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Figure 3 Depiction of a County Goal The nitrogen and phosphorus planning targets for Pennsylvania are broken down into local planning goals for each county. (See Figure 2 above.) Added together, these goals will help Pennsylvania reach its assigned planning targets. In Figure 3, the purple is the progress Pennsylvania has made from 1985 through The green part of the bar depicts the estimated reductions that can be achieved between now and 2025 if all existing state agency permitting, compliance and enforcement initiatives are accomplished across the watershed. This will require ongoing effort to achieve these reductions through compliance. The yellow part of the bar depicts the estimated reductions from statewide existing or proposed technical and financial assistance or outreach initiatives that will need to be implemented. If all of these initiatives are met, there will be a gap of varying size in the counties within Pennsylvania s portion of the 8

10 Chesapeake Bay watershed. This gap is depicted in orange and represents the remaining reductions needed to meet the goals. One of the main purposes of this toolbox is to assist counties with the capturing of those existing or proposed local initiatives that can help to reduce, and hopefully eliminate, the remaining reductions needed, as depicted in the orange gap. Another purpose of this toolbox is to solicit further input on the effective implementation of those initiatives depicted in yellow to identify ways to more effectively implement these initiatives to increase the amount of reduction. 9

11 III. The Local Story: Opportunities to Improve Local Water Quality and Meet Countywide Goals A huge amount of information is available that can help inform local planning strategies. This information can help answer questions like: What is the water quality like in my area? How has it been changing? What are important sources of nutrients and sediments in my area? What opportunities exist to address these sources? Where geographically should we focus our efforts? This section provides information to help answer those questions and to tell the local story of water quality in your county. In this section you ll find information on local water quality, local sources and drivers of nutrients and sediments, best management practice information, and additional available resources. The information in this section and the guidance provided for its use are meant to act as a starting point to help answer some common questions that arise during planning. Local groups can utilize whichever pieces of information they find most useful, supplement with their own local knowledge, and use the additional resources listed to find more information. We hope this section gives you a foundation to build off in telling your county s local story and in identifying opportunities for meeting local goals. To further illustrate how this data can be used, parallel data for Lancaster County is provided as an example. 10

12 Lancaster County s Goal Table 2. DRAFT Countywide Goal for Lancaster County Year Nitrogen (M lbs/year) Delivered to Edge of the Bay Stream Delivered to the Bay Phosphorus (M lbs/year) Edge of Stream 1985(Actual) 2016 (Actual) 2025 (Final TMDL Planning Target) Remaining Load to be Achieved Through Local Planning Goals * Table 2. This table will be populated with information about Lancaster County s countywide goal. The numbers associated with Lancaster County s hypothetical journey to meet the countywide goal will be informed in part by statewide information and in part by local stakeholders who can share the local efforts that are already going on to improve local water quality. 11

13 12

14 A Summary of Lancaster County s Water Quality Story Current Conditions of Lancaster County s Streams Monitoring shows that streams in Lancaster County have the highest amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment of all monitored streams in the Chesapeake Bay region relative to watershed size. Water quality in Lancaster County s streams is changing over time: o The amount of nitrogen is going down in local streams, which means conditions are improving. o The amount of phosphorus is going up in the Pequea Creek and Conestoga Creek watersheds, which means conditions are degrading. o The amount of sediment is going up in the Octoraro Creek watershed, which means conditions are degrading. The amount of sediment is going down in the Conestoga River watershed, which means conditions are improving. Sources of Nutrients & Sediment in Lancaster County Streams in agricultural and developed/urban areas have the highest amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment; most nutrients and sediment in Lancaster County s streams are coming from agricultural and developed/urban lands. Effective management will address the specific sources of nutrients and sediment in Lancaster County: o On agricultural lands, the majority of nutrients are applied to the land as manure. o On developed/urban lands, the majority of nutrients entering local streams comes from stormwater outside regulated municipal separate stormwater sewer system (MS4) areas. o Wastewater and septic contribute a small portion of the nutrients to local streams, but can be important locally. o Most of the phosphorus and sediment in local streams comes from overland runoff during rain events; the most effective management practices reduce application of phosphorus to the land, reduce runoff of sediment, and reduce soil erosion. o Most of the nitrogen in streams in Lancaster County comes from groundwater, therefore the most effective management practices will reduce application of nitrogen to the land or prevent nitrogen from entering groundwater. o In both agricultural and developed/urban areas, erosion of stream banks are important sources of sediment to local streams. 13

15 Opportunities for Implementation in Lancaster County Chiques Creek, Pequea Creek, Conestoga Creek and Cocalico Creek are all effective places to manage nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in Lancaster County. Some effective practices to address nutrients and sediment are currently being implemented in Lancaster County, but there are many more opportunities within the county to increase implementation of those practices and to implement even more effective and cost-effective practices than those currently in place. 14

16 Understanding Pennsylvania s regional water quality trends can put trends in local watersheds, like those in Lancaster County, in perspective. The maps above show the locations of these monitoring stations, the watersheds that drain to them (mixed colored), and the most recent nitrogen (left) and phosphorus (right) trends at those stations over the last 10 years ( ). Blue downward triangles = improving conditions; orange upward triangles = degrading conditions; black dots = no trend. Nitrogen levels in streams have been improving throughout the region with a few exceptions. Phosphorus levels show varying patterns depending on local watershed, reflecting local changes. Trends in the lower Susquehanna are degrading. 15

17 Understanding Pennsylvania s regional water quality trends can put trends in local watersheds, like those in Lancaster County, in perspective. The map above shows the locations of these monitoring stations, the watersheds that drain to them (mixed colored), and the most recent sediment trends at those stations over the last 10 years ( ). Blue downward triangles = improving conditions; orange upward triangles = degrading conditions; black dots = no trend. Sediment levels show varying patterns depending on local watershed, reflecting local changes. In many cases across the region these trends are degrading. 16

18 Understanding where nutrients and sediment are highest across Pennsylvania streams can help when focusing planning efforts, especially in small watersheds. In the graph above, the bars show the annual pounds of nitrogen measured at monitoring stations divided by the acres of watershed draining into that station. The larger the bar, the more nitrogen is generated in that watershed relative to its size, and the more impact that watershed is having on its streams. Small watersheds in the Lower Susquehanna, including those in Lancaster County, have some of the highest amounts of nitrogen relative to their size. These watersheds can be some of the most effective places to manage nitrogen. Lancaster County s small watersheds have high amounts of both nitrogen and phosphorus (next page), making them effective places to manage both simultaneously. 17

19 Understanding where nutrients and sediment are highest across Pennsylvania streams can help when focusing planning efforts, especially in small watersheds. In the graph above, the bars show the annual pounds of phosphorus measured at monitoring stations divided by the acres of watershed draining into that station. The larger the bar, the more phosphorus is generated in that watershed relative to its size, and the more impact that watershed is having on its streams. Small watersheds in the Lower Susquehanna, including those in Lancaster County, have some of the highest amounts of phosphorus relative to their size. These watersheds can be some of the most effective places to manage phosphorus. Lancaster County s small watersheds have high amounts of both nitrogen (previous page) and phosphorus, making them effective places to manage both simultaneously. 18

20 The following pages provide more in-depth information on water quality in Lancaster County s monitored watersheds. 19

21 Four USGS monitoring stations (small squares) measure water quality in Lancaster County s watersheds. The maps show the areas that drain into each of those monitoring stations. The Susquehanna River at Marietta measures water quality in the Susquehanna River, and therefore captures the regional picture of the entire Susquehanna River watershed above the monitoring station. This is the last monitoring station on the Susquehanna River before the Conowingo Dam. The Conestoga River and Pequea Creek monitoring stations and the majority of the watersheds areas are in Lancaster County. The majority of the Octoraro Creek watershed is in Lancaster County, but the monitoring station is in Maryland. 20

22 Nitrogen levels have been improving (going down) over time in Lancaster s watersheds Flow normalized load (lbs) Susquehanna River at Marietta Nitrogen Loads 10-yr: improving Long-term: improving Flow normalized load (lbs) Conestoga River Nitrogen Loads 10-yr: improving Long-term: improving Flow normalized load (lbs) Pequea Creek Nitrogen Loads 10-yr: improving Flow normalized load (lbs) Octoraro Creek Nitrogen Loads 10-yr: improving The monitored watersheds within Lancaster County show improving nitrogen trends (meaning that nitrogen is decreasing). Of Lancaster County s three local monitored watersheds (Conestoga, Pequea and Octoraro), the Conestoga River has much higher nitrogen loadings than Pequea and Octoraro. This is partially due to its larger size. The bar graphs shown previously show that when size is taken into account, the nitrogen load per acre of watershed is similar between these three, and that they are some of the highest loading watersheds in the Susquehanna. These watersheds would all be effective areas to focus efforts. Decreasing nitrogen is due to decreasing deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere onto the watershed (due to the Clean Air Act), wastewater treatment plant upgrades, and some agricultural practices. The graphs above take into account variability between years in river flow. For more information see 21

23 Phosphorus levels in Lancaster streams vary most sites show degrading conditions over the last 10 years Flow normalized load (lbs) Susquehanna River at Marietta Phosphorus Loads 10-yr: degrading Long-term: no trend Flow normalized load (lbs) Conestoga River Phosphorus Loads 10-yr: degrading Long-term: improving Pequea Creek Phosphorus Loads Octoraro Creek Phosphorus Loads Flow normalized load (lbs) yr: degrading Flow normalized load (lbs) yr: no trend The monitored watersheds within Lancaster County show varying phosphorus trends (some are improving and some are degrading). Of Lancaster County s three local monitored watersheds (Conestoga, Pequea and Octoraro), the Conestoga River has much higher phosphorus loadings than Pequea and Octoraro. This is partially due to its larger size. The bar graphs shown previously show that when size is taken into account, the phosphorus load per acre of watershed is actually highest in Pequea Creek. All three are some of the highest loading watersheds in the Susquehanna. The high loads and degrading trends in these watersheds make them effective areas to focus efforts. The graphs above take into account variability between years in river flow. For more information see 22

24 Sediment levels in Lancaster streams vary some streams have been improving, some degrading Flow normalized load (lbs) 9E+09 8E+09 7E+09 6E+09 5E+09 4E+09 3E+09 2E+09 1E+09 0 Susquehanna River at Marietta Sediment Loads 10-yr: degrading Long-term: improving Flow normalized load (lbs) Conestoga River Sediment Loads 10-yr: improving 30 yr: improving Flow normalized load (lbs) Pequea Creek Sediment Loads 10-yr: no trend Flow normalized load (lbs) Octoraro Creek Sediment Loads 10-yr: degrading The monitored watersheds within Lancaster County show varying sediment trends (some are improving and some are degrading). Of Lancaster County s three local monitored watersheds (Conestoga, Pequea and Octoraro), the Conestoga River has much more sediment than Pequea and Octoraro. This is partially due to its larger size. The high loads and degrading trends in these watersheds make them effective areas to focus efforts. Phosphorus often travels attached to sediment. When phosphorus and sediment trends differ, it can be indicative of changes in dissolved phosphorus (not attached to sediment). The graphs above take into account variability between years in river flow. For more information see 23

25 Drivers of local water quality in Lancaster: Sources of nutrients and sediment This section will focus on and the sources and drivers of nutrients and sediment within Lancaster County. 24

26 Lancaster faces unique challenges because it has much less forested land than most other Pennsylvania counties Lancaster Land Use 25% 49% 26% Agriculture Developed Natural Phase 6 land use coverage available at Developed Forest Cropland Pasture Water/wetland Forest 15 Lancaster County is a county with unique challenges in restoring water quality. The pie chart above shows the breakdown of land uses in Lancaster County. Almost 75% of the county is agricultural or developed land, which is higher than most other counties in Pennsylvania. The maps show the geography of land uses (middle) and specifically the small amount of forest in the county (right). Agricultural and developed land generate much more nutrients and sediment than forested land. Lancaster has unique local water quality challenges in part due to its high acreage of these land uses. 25

27 Lancaster Chester York Adams Lebanon Cumberland Montour Jefferson Berks Franklin Northumberland Dauphin Snyder Carbon Percent of Land Area within Chesapeake Bay Watershed Covered by Forest Only 15% of Lancaster County s land area is comprised of forest. The average percent across PA counties is 55%. Columbia Lackawanna Union Bradford Luzerne Schuylkill Cambria Indiana Juniata Mifflin Blair Perry Susquehanna Tioga Wyoming Fulton Bedford Centre Huntingdon Clearfiled Wayne Lycoming Somerset Sullivan Clinton Elk Potter McKean Cameron 16 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% This graph shows that Lancaster County s land is only 15% forested. This is the least of all counties in Pennsylvania s Chesapeake Bay watershed, representing a unique challenge for this county. 26

28 In Lancaster, nitrogen entering local streams is estimated to come primarily from agricultural sources, followed by developed/urban and then wastewater. The picture is similar for phosphorus and sediment. 17 The pie chart above shows the estimated sources from the land of nitrogen in local streams. Most nitrogen entering local streams in Lancaster County is from agricultural sources including cropland, pasture, and barnyards. The developed/urban sector also contributes a fair amount of the load from stormwater. Because agriculture and developed/urban sources make up the majority of the load in Lancaster County, these sectors will have to supply the majority of the reductions to reach local goals. However, wastewater and septic sources can also be reduced. 27

29 Understanding how nutrients are being applied to the watershed can point to the sources that may need to be managed. Most nutrients applied to agricultural land in Lancaster County are in the form of manure rather than fertilizer. The application of manure alone almost exceeded the need by crops in the county in Nutrients that are applied to agricultural land and not taken up by crops can negatively impact water quality. When identifying strategies to manage nutrient application, focusing on manure addresses a large portion of the issue. 28

30 Cameron, PA Elk, PA Carbon, PA Mckean, PA Luzerne, PA Wyoming, PA Lackawanna, PA Sullivan, PA Clearfield, PA Cambria, PA Jefferson, PA Wayne, PA Montour, PA Potter, PA Indiana, PA Susquehanna, PA Lycoming, PA Clinton, PA Estimated Pounds of Manure Nitrogen Applied to Land in 2016 by County Lancaster County accounted for about 30% of all the manure nitrogen applied across all PA counties within the watershed. Applications exceeded the total from the next five counties combined. Columbia, PA Fulton, PA Adams, PA Tioga, PA Centre, PA Dauphin, PA Huntingdon, PA Somerset, PA Northumberland, PA Blair, PA Bradford, PA Bedford, PA Mifflin, PA Perry, PA York, PA Chester, PA Union, PA Schuylkill, PA Juniata, PA Cumberland, PA Snyder, PA Berks, PA Lebanon, PA Franklin, PA Lancaster, PA 19-5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 Lancaster County is unique in Pennsylvania in the amount of manure that is produced in the county and applied to the land. Practices that can effectively manage manure include: Practices that result in less application of nutrients to agricultural land, such as nutrient management, can address over-application of nutrients. Practices that manage manure, such as animal waste management systems and barnyard runoff control. Practices that get manure out of the county such as manure transport. 29

31 Estimated Share of Manure Nitrogen Applied to Agricultural Land in Lancaster County in 2016 by Animal Source 4% 3%1% 1% Most manure in Lancaster is produced by dairy, poultry and swine. Addressing manure from these sources will be important. 18% 35% 18% 21% dairy layers broilers swine pullets other cattle turkeys 20 horses Understanding where manure is coming from within the county will help identify opportunities to manage it. Most manure in Lancaster County is from dairy, poultry and swine operations. Focusing efforts on implementing practices at these sorts of operations can address a large portion of Lancaster County s manure management. 30

32 Lancaster, PA Nitrogen delivered to streams from developed/stormwater sector Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment 26% 2% 19% 29% 4% 14% 1% 18% 27% 25% 28% 33% 20% 23% 31% Construction Roads, buildings and other impervious outside MS4 Roads, buildings and other impervious in MS4 Turf grass outside MS4 Turf grass in MS4 21 The developed/stormwater sector is also an important source of nutrients and sediment in Lancaster County. The charts above show the estimated breakdown of sources of nutrients and sediment to local streams exclusively from developed/urban lands. MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer systems) areas are regulated by DEP. Land outside of MS4 areas is not regulated. Turf grass represents grassy and barren lands that have been altered through compaction, removal of organic material, and/or fertilization. These include all lawns and grassy areas in residential, commercial, recreational, cemeteries, shopping centers, etc. Understanding where stormwater nutrient and sediment comes from is an important first step in addressing it. In Lancaster County, both impervious and turf grass areas are important sources to manage stormwater. Managing stormwater outside of regulated MS4 areas will also be important in Lancaster County. Managing this unregulated stormwater will take different outreach, voluntary and funding programs to implement practices. 31

33 Wastewater Treatment Plant locations and loads The maps above show the locations of wastewater treatment plants within Lancaster County and their annual discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in Although wastewater makes up a smaller portion of nutrient loads to streams in Lancaster County than agricultural or developed land, they are still important sources to control because their discharges enter streams directly. Understanding where the higher loading plants are can help identify opportunities for treatment plant upgrades in the future, if possible. 32

34 Septic system density in Lancaster County Chiques Creek Cocalico Creek Conestoga Creek Pequea Creek While septic systems do not make up a significant portion of the nitrogen entering Lancaster s streams, they can be very important sources locally. It will be important as development continues in the county to address high densities of septic systems. 23 Although septic systems do not make up a large portion of the load in Lancaster County, they can be very important local sources of nitrogen, especially when leaking into groundwater. The map above shows the number of septic systems in different watersheds in the county, identifying potential areas of focus where septic system density is high. 33

35 The transport of nutrients matters for planning implementation Phosphorus reaches streams primarily from overland runoff during storms Nitrogen reaches streams as runoff or as nitrate through groundwater Conestoga River: 64% of nitrogen is from GW nitrate Ator, S.W. & Denver, J.M., Bachman, L.J., et al., Diagram from Lyerly, A.L. et al., The way in which nutrients and sediment travel to streams impacts which practices will be effective at controlling them. Phosphorus and sediment travel over the top of the land during high runoff events such as storms and rainfall. Nitrogen can travel over land as well, but in many watersheds, including those in Lancaster County, it travels to streams primarily as nitrate underground in groundwater. For example, 64% of the nitrogen in the stream at the Conestoga River is from groundwater nitrate. If agricultural practices only focus on overland runoff, they could be missing a lot of the nitrogen that s entering streams through groundwater. Once nitrogen is in groundwater, it is very difficult to get out. Effective practices include those that mitigate nitrogen entering groundwater in the first place, like applying less and planting cover crops. Riparian buffers can remove nitrate from groundwater if placed in effective locations. 34

36 Lancaster contains a large area vulnerable to groundwater contamination Geology makes the groundwater (and therefore streams) in some areas especially vulnerable to high nitrogen inputs These areas can be the most effective to focus practices for nitrate in groundwater Agricultural land on top of this vulnerable geology can particularly impact groundwater Areas of vulnerable geology Karst/carbonate areas Modified from Jimmy Webber, USGS, using Brakebill, JW 2000, Ator, S. et al and Nolan & Hitt, Certain areas of the watershed are more vulnerable to nitrate contamination of groundwater because the geology under the soil makes it easier for nitrogen to entire groundwater. The map above shows these vulnerable areas, which have Karst or carbonate geology. Agricultural land on top of these areas makes the groundwater especially vulnerable due to the high inputs of nitrogen onto the landscape. These areas can be very effective for focusing efforts that keep nitrogen from getting into groundwater and are especially important areas to manage application of nitrogen. 35

37 Certain areas of the watershed are more vulnerable Groundwater sampled in Lancaster over the last few decades has consistently shown high nitrate levels In many cases, nitrate levels are above the safe drinking water threshold (>10 mg/l) High groundwater nitrate Modified from Jimmy Webber, USGS, using Brakebill, JW 2000, Ator, S. et al and Nolan & Hitt, Groundwater in Lancaster County has some of the highest nitrate levels in the United States. Part of this is due to the vulnerable geology, part is due to the over-application of nutrients over time. Because groundwater contributes a significant portion of nitrogen to streams in these watersheds, groundwater nitrate levels are good indicators of what will eventually be entering streams. In many cases throughout Lancaster County, groundwater nitrate levels exceed the EPA s safe drinking water threshold of 10 mg/l. Many of these groundwater samples include those taken from private wells in rural areas. 36

38 Groundwater takes varying amounts of time to reach streams depending on location Nitrate in groundwater represents a range of ages from recent to decades old Benefits from management actions will manifest immediately as well as into the future Chesapeake Bay Program estimates the median groundwater age across Lancaster County is between 1 and 10 years, with much of the groundwater being less than 5 years old. This means we expect very little lag time between when a practice is implemented and when that practice s impact can be seen in local streams. That presents a unique opportunity for quick, verifiable results that does not exist across most of the watershed. Median groundwater age Estimated median age of groundwater, in years 1 to 5 6 to to to to 45 Phase 6 WSM groundwater age estimates. DRAFT from Jimmy Webber, USGS and Ghopal Batt, Chesapeake Bay Program. Groundwater takes anywhere from days to years to reach nearby streams. In Lancaster County, the groundwater is some of the youngest of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, meaning that it doesn t take long to reach streams. This means that we should see benefits in local streams due to restoration and conservation efforts that decrease nutrients in groundwater relatively faster than elsewhere in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 37

39 Information to help geographically focus efforts This section provides information that can help to focus efforts geographically within Lancaster County. 38

40 Lancaster s local sources of nutrients and sediment are impacting its streams Pennsylvania s impaired streams PADEP 29 Lancaster County has many streams that are impaired for different reasons. These impairments can be used to prioritize or coordinate efforts. For example, many agricultural practices that address nutrients can also address siltation impairments from sediment. Many urban practices that address nutrients and sediment also address the same causes of pathogen impairments. 39

41 Local restoration efforts will help Lancaster s waters first and foremost Pennsylvania s impaired streams Local TMDLs PADEP 30 While many waters are listed as impaired, only some of these impairments are being addressed through regulatory TMDLs. Local groups may want to coordinate restoration efforts to focus on the watersheds that already have these local TMDLs. 40

42 Focusing efforts on the highest loading areas within Lancaster can result in the greatest water quality benefits Nitrogen Phosphorus Nutrient load to local streams (lbs/acre) Less More Even within Lancaster County we can estimate where highest amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are entering local streams. The maps above show these higher loading areas within the county. Focusing efforts on the highest loading areas can result in the greatest water quality benefits by addressing a larger portion of the nutrients entering streams. 41

43 Remaining agricultural nitrogen loads that could be controlled Chiques Creek Cocalico Creek Conestoga Creek PA WIP Steering Committee has approved the concept of tiers to target restoration efforts 50% of the remaining agricultural nitrogen loads exist in just four well-known watersheds in Lancaster County. Pequea Creek Tier 1 (25%) Tier 2 (50%) Tier 3 (75%) Tier 4 (100%) 32 For each watershed within Lancaster County, we can estimate the remaining nitrogen and phosphorus reductions that are feasibly possible from the agricultural sector. We would never expect these areas to reduce all of these loads, but identifying where the remaining reductions can come from can help to geographically focus efforts. The map above shows, for the total remaining nitrogen reductions possible in Lancaster County, where the remaining loads exist broken in 25% tiers. For example, if we were to reduce nitrogen loads in the four darkest watersheds as low as feasibly possible, that would address 50% of the entire remaining nitrogen load. Pequea Creek, Chiques Creek, and Cocalico Creek are frequently in the top two tiers across nitrogen and phosphorus and both agricultural and developed sectors (see below). 42

44 Remaining developed land nitrogen loads that could be controlled Chiques Creek Cocalico Creek Conestoga Creek PA WIP Steering Committee has approved the concept of tiers to target restoration efforts 50% of the remaining developed nitrogen loads exist in just four watersheds in Lancaster County. Pequea Creek Tier 1 (25%) Tier 2 (50%) Tier 3 (75%) Tier 4 (100%) 33 For each watershed within Lancaster County, we can estimate the remaining nitrogen and phosphorus reductions that are feasibly possible from the developed/urban sector. We would never expect these areas to reduce all of these loads, but identifying where the remaining reductions can come from can help to geographically focus efforts. The map above shows, for the total remaining nitrogen reductions possible in Lancaster County, where the remaining loads exist broken in 25% tiers. For example, if we were to reduce nitrogen loads in the four darkest watersheds as low as feasibly possible, that would address 50% of the entire remaining nitrogen load. Pequea Creek, Chiques Creek, and Cocalico Creek are frequently in the top two tiers across nitrogen and phosphorus and both agricultural and developed sectors (see above). 43

45 Remaining developed land phosphorus loads that could be controlled Chiques Creek Cocalico Creek Conestoga Creek PA WIP Steering Committee has approved the concept of tiers to target restoration efforts 50% of the remaining developed phosphorus loads exist in just four watersheds in Lancaster County. Pequea Creek Tier 1 (25%) Tier 2 (50%) Tier 3 (75%) Tier 4 (100%) 34 For each watershed within Lancaster County, we can estimate the remaining nitrogen and phosphorus reductions that are feasibly possible from the developed/urban sector. We would never expect these areas to reduce all of these loads, but identifying where the remaining reductions can come from can help to geographically focus efforts. The map above shows, for the total remaining phosphorus reductions possible in Lancaster County, where the remaining loads exist broken in 25% tiers. For example, if we were to reduce phosphorus loads in the four darkest watersheds as low as feasibly possible, that would address 50% of the entire remaining phosphorus load. Pequea Creek, Chiques Creek, and Cocalico Creek are frequently in the top two tiers across nitrogen and phosphorus and both agricultural and developed sectors (see above). 44

46 Choosing practices and identifying opportunities for implementation This section provides information to help inform which restoration or conservation practices are selected, and to identify opportunities for implementing those practices. 45

47 Top 20 Nitrogen Reduction Practices (PA Statewide) BMP Lbs N Reduced/Acre to Description the Bay Barnyard Runoff Controls and Loafing Lot Management 224 Practices such as roof runoff control, diversion of clean water from entering the barnyard, and control of runoff from barnyard areas and heavy use loafing lot areas. Wide Forest Buffers on Cropland Ft buffers that covert cropland to forest Wetland Restoration on Cropland 45 Restoration of wetlands on cropland Exclusion Fencing with Wide Forest Buffers 41 Exclusion of livestock from the stream using a fence with a 35+ Ft forested buffer behind the fence Wide Grass Buffers on Cropland Ft buffers that covert cropland to grass-herbaceous cover Exclusion Fencing with Wide Grass Buffers 31 Exclusion of livestock from the stream using a fence with a 35+ Ft grass-herbaceous buffer behind the fence Exclusion Fencing with Narrow Forest Buffers 30 Exclusion of livestock from the stream using a fence with a ft forested buffer behind the fence Exclusion Fencing with Narrow Grass Buffers 24 Exclusion of livestock from the stream using a fence with a ft grass-herbaceous buffer behind the fence Narrow Forest Buffers on Cropland ft buffers that convert cropland to forest Alternative Crops (e.g., Switchgrass) 17 Conversion of cropland to non-nutrient intensive crop such as switchgrass Narrow Grass Buffers on Cropland ft buffers that convert cropland to grass-herbaceous cover Land Retirement to Open Space 14 Conversion of cropland to grass-herbaceous open space Water Control Structures for Cropland 12 Installing and managing boarded gate systems in agricultural land that contains surface drainage ditches Land Retirement to Pasture 11 Conversion of cropland to pasture Core Nutrient Management for Nitrogen 11 The nutrient management core nitrogen BMP includes 5 elements: 1) application rate modification; 2) manure analysis used in plan; 3) spreader must be calibrated within one year; 4) yield estimates used in plan; 5) legume residual N credits and manure mineralization are credited as part of plan. Manure Injection 9 Immediate incorporation of manure into the soil Precision Rotational Grazing 9 Maintaining a vegetative cover of greater than 60% year-round on rotationally grazed pasture Nutrient Management Reduced Nitrogen Application Rate 7 Includes any of the following that result in lower applications than land-grant university recs: split applications, variable rate N application, or reduced rate from core NM BMP Soil and Water Quality Conservation Plan 7 Credit for a host of practices generally prescribed in a soil and water quality conservation plan to protect erosion and deterioration of soil resources Nutrient Management Precision Placement of Nitrogen 6 Includes any of the following: injection of inorganic N, incorporation, or setbacks Note: Animal Waste Management Systems is not listed, but is likely to be a key practice. Note: Cover Crops are a top 25 practice, but not top 20. These will be revised in April by the Chesapeake Bay Program. The list above reflects the top 20 most effective practices at reducing nitrogen across Pennsylvania. This list can serve as a starting point to identify which effective practices are already being implemented across the county, and which can feasibly be implemented in the future. 46

48 37 The previous page listed the most effective practices at removing nitrogen. This bar graph takes cost into account and shows the most cost-effective practice at reducing nitrogen to both local streams and to the Bay. This list should also serve as a starting point to assess feasibility. For example, even though Alternative Crops are cost-effective, this practice involves replacing crops with switchgrass, which may not be a feasible practice to implement. Forest buffers are circled because many groups within Pennsylvania and Lancaster County specifically have expressed interest in mobilizing around forest buffer initiatives. The Chesapeake Bay Program is currently developing a tool to help identify forest buffer implementation opportunities. 47

49 This chart shows the current implementation in Lancaster County of some effective agricultural practices, and the remaining acres of land in the county available to implement those practices. The current percent implementation reflects how much of the land that s available for a particular practice actually has the practice implemented on it. For example, prescribed grazing current percent implementation reflects that 7% of pasture land in Lancaster County is currently reported to have prescribed grazing implemented. 41,532 acres of pasture remain in the county without prescribed grazing, thus representing an opportunity for implementing that practice. 48

50 Remaining opportunities in Lancaster for stormwater practices on developed/urban land Practice Current Percent Implementation Acres Remaining Erosion & Sediment Control 100% 0 Stormwater Management 5.3% 150, This chart shows the current implementation in Lancaster County of stormwater practices, and the remaining acres of land in the county available to implement those practices. Erosion and sediment control addresses construction areas and time periods. However, sediment from developed land and from erosion of streams on developed land persist as issues long after construction is over. Therefore, stormwater management is incredibly important for managing these issues once construction ends. A lot of opportunity exists in Lancaster to implement stormwater management practices in developed and urban areas. 49

51 IV. Involving the Right People in Local Planning The countywide planning process provides an opportunity to increase the knowledge, awareness, and contributions to water quality improvements of residents in your county. You may already have a group with diverse representation focused on water quality that could undertake this task. If not, you may want to work with Pennsylvania s DEP and other agencies to help you convene a representative local planning group. Some useful criteria for selecting members in such a group include those with relevant specialized knowledge; those who will potentially be impacted by actions; those who will be undertaking those actions; those with connections to relevant groups; and those who are willing to come to the table and willing to contribute to consensus. You may wish to consider individuals representing the following groups to be part of your countywide planning process. Like the toolbox itself, this list is meant to serve as a starting point you are not required to include these individuals in your process and you may certainly invite others! County conservation districts County or other municipal officials (township, borough, city) County or municipal planning organizations Water authorities/companies Watershed groups Local environmental consulting groups Business associations Farming associations and unions Cooperative Extension College/university personnel Land trusts and conservancies Private funders/foundations Communications personnel Local/community leaders and champions Funding institutions, co-ops, banks Hunting, fishing and sportsmen s groups Forest products industry representatives Agriculture industry representatives Nursery and tree-growing industry representatives Historic preservation groups Rural development groups Economic development groups 50

52 While your county will be making the decisions, you may wish to invite various state and federal entities to be at the table as resources. These may include: State: Department of Environmental Protection Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Department of Agriculture PennVEST PENNDOT Game Commission Department of Corrections Fish and Boat Commission Penn State Extension State legislators Department of Community and Economic Development Federal USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Federal facilities U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 51