Clean Water, profile picture
Uploaded byClean Water
537 views

Pa milestone

The document evaluates Pennsylvania's progress toward meeting pollution reduction goals established in the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. It finds that Pennsylvania achieved its 2013 goals for four out of eight practices but is not on track to meet longer-term 2017 and 2025 goals, particularly for establishing forested stream buffers and conservation plans. Continued declines in practices like nutrient management and conservation tillage are concerning given their importance for reducing agricultural runoff. Accelerated implementation of practices across agriculture, urban/suburban areas, and wastewater treatment will be needed to improve water quality in Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Embed presentation

Download to read offline
Pennsylvania’s Plan for Clean Water: Is the Commonwealth On Track? Residents in the region are starting to see the benefits of investments and improvements made in local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. The practices that protect and restore our waterways— tree plantings, conservation planning, septic hookups, and upgrades to wastewater treatment plants— ultimately improve our quality of life by reducing flooding, securing healthier drinking water, beautifying our neighborhoods, and ensuring safer waters for recreation. Unfortunately, despite mak- ing progress, the Chesapeake Bay watershed still remains a system dangerously out of balance. Too much nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution continues to run off our lawns, city streets, and farm fields into local creeks and streams and the Bay. In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bay jurisdictions established science- based limits for these pollutants and state-specific plans to achieve them, together known as the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. EPA, the states, and Washington, D.C., also committed to implement actions to achieve 60 percent of the needed reductions by 2017 and 100 percent by 2025. To ensure these clean-water efforts stay on track, each of the states and Washington, D.C., committed to two-year goals or milestones detailing the programs and practices intended to be met in the near- term to achieve the 2017 and 2025 long-term goals. The milestones are a critical accountability tool, providing the opportunity to measure progress in the context of long-term Bay restoration efforts. Be- cause of the importance of the milestones, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Choose Clean Water Coalition are collaborating to evaluate and publicize pollution-reduction progress. This report evaluates, for select practices, whether Pennsylvania achieved its 2012/2013 two-year milestone goals and whether or not this progress is on a trajectory to achieve 60 percent implementation by 2017 and full implementation by 2025. Conclusion Pennsylvania achieved its 2013 goals for four of the eight practices evaluated. Of particular concern is the gap between current pace and the 2017 goals. For example, forested stream buffers were es- tablished at a rate of six acres per day from 2009 to 2013, but must increase to a rate of fifty acres per day, every day, through 2017. Conservation and nutrient management plans provide the base for keeping topsoil and nutrients on the land, rather than polluting waters. The declines in these essential plans are perplexing. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 2014 Pennsylvania Draft Inte- grated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Pennsylvania has roughly 19,000 miles of impaired streams. The vast majority of the practices needed to meet our milestone goals will go a long way toward improving the Commonwealth’s waters, within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, so our cit- izens can enjoy the benefits of healthy waters. June 2014 AT A GLANCE Agriculture Forest Buffers Conservation Tillage Nutrient Application Management Conservation Plans Barnyard Runoff Control Urban/Suburban Erosion and Sediment Control Stormwater Infiltration Practices Wastewater/Septic Wastewater Treatment Plants See the charts on the inside of this sheet for more information. Formoredetailedinformationon all of Pennsylvania’s milestone goals, go to: www.epa.gov/ reg3wapd/tmdl/Chesapeake Bay/EnsuringResults.html. 2012/2013 FINAL ASSESSMENT Pennsylvania Milestones 6 Herndon Avenue | Annapolis, Maryland 21403 888/SAVEBAY | cbf.org How this Report was Compiled We selected a subset of implemented practices within three pol- lution source categories—agricultural runoff, urban/suburban sources, and wastewater treatment—based on their potential to provide substantial nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollu- tion reductions and offer important lessons for implementation moving forward. Progress (% achievement) was evaluated by looking at incremental progress between the base year, 2011, and 2013, compared to the 2013 milestone goal. Progress during this milestone period was also compared to the long-term (2017 and 2025) implementation benchmarks that the states and Washing- ton, D.C., committed to in their Watershed Implementation Plans. Data were provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office. 706 Giddings Avenue Suite 1-B | Annapolis, Maryland 21401 443/759-3400 | choosecleanwater.org Pollution Reduction in Pennsylvania at a Glance Pennsylvania fell short in meeting its overall nitrogen pollution reduction target for 2013 and exceeded its phosphorus reduc- tion target. In particular, estimated loads from the agricultural sector actually increased for nitrogen and only decreased slightly for phosphorus. While the wastewater sector is already meeting or exceeding 2017 nutrient reduction goals, Pennsyl- vania must accelerate efforts to reduce loads from agriculture and urban and suburban areas. 0 10 20 40 60 70 2025201720132011 2025 GOAL POLLUTED RUNOFF WASTEWATER/SEPTIC AGRICULTURE 30 50 2017 GOAL Modeled Nitrogen Loads and Long Term Goals in Pennsylvania by Sector (millions of pounds) Success Story Polluted runoff from urban and suburban areas impairs over 2,500 miles of streams in Pennsylvania and is one of the leading causes of pollution degrading local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay. Many urban and suburban municipalities within Pennsylvania have CleanWaterAct permits for polluted runoff that is discharged into local waterways. Municipalities with these permits must prepare Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plans (CBPRPs) to address how they will reduce the pollution being dis- charged into local streams and rivers in order to comply with the Chesa- peake CleanWater Blueprint.The key,however,is funding and implementing those plans at a pace to meet 2025 goals. York County has 43 municipalities with these permits, each required to develop a CBPRP. Recognizing an opportunity for collaboration to opti- mize cost-effectiveness resulting in maximum pollutant reduction,theYork County Planning Commission,York County Conservation District,and sev- eral partners have worked with local municipalities (including several with- out permits) to develop a regional CBPRP that addresses York County watershed-implementation goals in a cooperative and equitable manner. The partners are considering a suite of practices for implementation under the regional CBPRP, including stream restoration, streambank forest buffers, bioswales, and stormwater pond retrofits, to achieve county pol- lution-reduction goals. The work being done inYork County serves as an example for dealing with polluted runoff from urban and suburban communities in a way that yields multiple benefits,at multiple scales with minimal cost.TheYork County ef- fort is also a model that may be replicated in areas across the watershed. 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 2025201720132011 2025 GOAL POLLUTED RUNOFF WASTEWATER* AGRICULTURE 1,500 2,500 2017 GOAL Modeled Phosphorus Loads and Long Term Goals in Pennsylvania by Sector (thousands of pounds) Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model 5.3.2 *Pollution reduction is ahead of schedule for this sector.
0 1,000 5,000 6,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 G 3,000 4,000 2,000 PROGRESS MILESTONE Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Progress on Selected Pollution-Reduction Practices for 2013 Forest Buffers acres According to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, an error in reporting led to over-estimates of buffers in previous years. The error was corrected in 2013, resulting in an apparent decrease in forest buffer acres. In reality, new buffers are being installed, but nonethe- less, Pennsylvania is in danger of not meeting its 2017 goal on one of the most effective practices to improve stream health. 0 50,000 100,000 200,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 150,000 -14,337 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 5,503 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -261% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Conservation Tillage acres Although this year’s data includes estimates of conservation tillage es- tablished voluntarily by farmers, implementation still declined since 2011.Broader adoption will help farms improve soil health,in addition to meeting water-quality goals. 0 200,000 600,000 1,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 G 800,000 400,000 -60,923 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 60,936 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -100% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Nutrient Application Management acres This is now reported as an annual practice,with plans older than three years excluded, resulting in reductions from 2011 levels.The Nutrient Management Program no longer has funds to assist farmers with plan development and implementation, likely leading to additional decreases. 0 500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 1,000,000 -798,297 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 66,061 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -1,208% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Conservation Plans acres Pennsylvania exceeded its 2013 milestone goal, but the goal itself was not set to acheive the 2017 goal. Plan development actually declined since 2011, partially due to removal of some out-dated plans.This decline is especially concerning because plans are the foundation for many other conservation practices and have been required on all farms since 1972. 0 500,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 G 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 -142,448 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) -256,359 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = N/A Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Erosion and Sediment Control** acres The 2013 goal was not achieved.This practice, however, is dependent on the issuance of construction permits so fluctuations in the building industry directly impact implementation. Additionally, consistency in the reporting by other programs, such as abandoned mine reclama- tion, will also impact reported numbers. 0 30,000 60,000 150,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 2023 90,000 2013 2017 G 2025 120,000 Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals (acres) Wastewater Treatment Plants # of permits issued meeting Blueprint requirements Pennsylvania has made significant progress in increasing the number of permits issued, substantially exceeding its 2013 milestone goals. 0 100 150 250 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 50 200 141 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 99 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 142% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals (# of permits) Agriculture Urban/Suburban Polluted Runoff Wastewater/Septic Stormwater Infiltration Practices+ acres The 2013 goal has been exceeded, but progress remains less than 20 percent of the 2017 goal. The progress, in part, reflects a data collection effort by the Department of Environmental Protection to account for permitted practices. 0 4,000,000 6,000,000 10,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 G 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,984 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 3,581 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 307% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Barnyard Runoff Control acres Although the 2013 goal was exceeded, implementation rates need to increase dramatically in order to reach Pennsylvania’s 2017 goal. Barnyard improvements yield significant reductions in manure runoff and improvements in herd health. 547 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 256 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 214% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) 10,078 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 18,625 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 54% *2017 goals are calculated as 2009 Implementation plus 60% of the difference between 2009 Implementation and the 2025 Implementation goal. + Includes infiltration practices, filtering practices, bioretention, and bioswales. ** Includes erosion and sediment control and extractive erosion and sediment control. P 2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS M 2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE MILESTONE P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M MILESTONEPROGRESSMILESTONEPROGRESS MILESTONEPROGRESS PROGRESS MILESTONE MILESTONEPROGRESS MILESTONEPROGRESS PROGRESS
0 1,000 5,000 6,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 G 3,000 4,000 2,000 PROGRESS MILESTONE Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Progress on Selected Pollution-Reduction Practices for 2013 Forest Buffers acres According to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, an error in reporting led to over-estimates of buffers in previous years. The error was corrected in 2013, resulting in an apparent decrease in forest buffer acres. In reality, new buffers are being installed, but nonethe- less, Pennsylvania is in danger of not meeting its 2017 goal on one of the most effective practices to improve stream health. 0 50,000 100,000 200,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 150,000 -14,337 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 5,503 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -261% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Conservation Tillage acres Although this year’s data includes estimates of conservation tillage es- tablished voluntarily by farmers, implementation still declined since 2011.Broader adoption will help farms improve soil health,in addition to meeting water-quality goals. 0 200,000 600,000 1,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 G 800,000 400,000 -60,923 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 60,936 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -100% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Nutrient Application Management acres This is now reported as an annual practice,with plans older than three years excluded, resulting in reductions from 2011 levels.The Nutrient Management Program no longer has funds to assist farmers with plan development and implementation, likely leading to additional decreases. 0 500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 1,000,000 -798,297 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 66,061 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -1,208% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Conservation Plans acres Pennsylvania exceeded its 2013 milestone goal, but the goal itself was not set to acheive the 2017 goal. Plan development actually declined since 2011, partially due to removal of some out-dated plans.This decline is especially concerning because plans are the foundation for many other conservation practices and have been required on all farms since 1972. 0 500,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 G 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 -142,448 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) -256,359 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = N/A Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Erosion and Sediment Control** acres The 2013 goal was not achieved.This practice, however, is dependent on the issuance of construction permits so fluctuations in the building industry directly impact implementation. Additionally, consistency in the reporting by other programs, such as abandoned mine reclama- tion, will also impact reported numbers. 0 30,000 60,000 150,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 2023 90,000 2013 2017 G 2025 120,000 Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals (acres) Wastewater Treatment Plants # of permits issued meeting Blueprint requirements Pennsylvania has made significant progress in increasing the number of permits issued, substantially exceeding its 2013 milestone goals. 0 100 150 250 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 50 200 141 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 99 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 142% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals (# of permits) Agriculture Urban/Suburban Polluted Runoff Wastewater/Septic Stormwater Infiltration Practices+ acres The 2013 goal has been exceeded, but progress remains less than 20 percent of the 2017 goal. The progress, in part, reflects a data collection effort by the Department of Environmental Protection to account for permitted practices. 0 4,000,000 6,000,000 10,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 G 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,984 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 3,581 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 307% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Barnyard Runoff Control acres Although the 2013 goal was exceeded, implementation rates need to increase dramatically in order to reach Pennsylvania’s 2017 goal. Barnyard improvements yield significant reductions in manure runoff and improvements in herd health. 547 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 256 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 214% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) 10,078 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 18,625 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 54% *2017 goals are calculated as 2009 Implementation plus 60% of the difference between 2009 Implementation and the 2025 Implementation goal. + Includes infiltration practices, filtering practices, bioretention, and bioswales. ** Includes erosion and sediment control and extractive erosion and sediment control. P 2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS M 2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE MILESTONE P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M MILESTONEPROGRESSMILESTONEPROGRESS MILESTONEPROGRESS PROGRESS MILESTONE MILESTONEPROGRESS MILESTONEPROGRESS PROGRESS
Pennsylvania’s Plan for Clean Water: Is the Commonwealth On Track? Residents in the region are starting to see the benefits of investments and improvements made in local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. The practices that protect and restore our waterways— tree plantings, conservation planning, septic hookups, and upgrades to wastewater treatment plants— ultimately improve our quality of life by reducing flooding, securing healthier drinking water, beautifying our neighborhoods, and ensuring safer waters for recreation. Unfortunately, despite mak- ing progress, the Chesapeake Bay watershed still remains a system dangerously out of balance. Too much nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution continues to run off our lawns, city streets, and farm fields into local creeks and streams and the Bay. In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bay jurisdictions established science- based limits for these pollutants and state-specific plans to achieve them, together known as the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. EPA, the states, and Washington, D.C., also committed to implement actions to achieve 60 percent of the needed reductions by 2017 and 100 percent by 2025. To ensure these clean-water efforts stay on track, each of the states and Washington, D.C., committed to two-year goals or milestones detailing the programs and practices intended to be met in the near- term to achieve the 2017 and 2025 long-term goals. The milestones are a critical accountability tool, providing the opportunity to measure progress in the context of long-term Bay restoration efforts. Be- cause of the importance of the milestones, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Choose Clean Water Coalition are collaborating to evaluate and publicize pollution-reduction progress. This report evaluates, for select practices, whether Pennsylvania achieved its 2012/2013 two-year milestone goals and whether or not this progress is on a trajectory to achieve 60 percent implementation by 2017 and full implementation by 2025. Conclusion Pennsylvania achieved its 2013 goals for four of the eight practices evaluated. Of particular concern is the gap between current pace and the 2017 goals. For example, forested stream buffers were es- tablished at a rate of six acres per day from 2009 to 2013, but must increase to a rate of fifty acres per day, every day, through 2017. Conservation and nutrient management plans provide the base for keeping topsoil and nutrients on the land, rather than polluting waters. The declines in these essential plans are perplexing. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 2014 Pennsylvania Draft Inte- grated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Pennsylvania has roughly 19,000 miles of impaired streams. The vast majority of the practices needed to meet our milestone goals will go a long way toward improving the Commonwealth’s waters, within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, so our cit- izens can enjoy the benefits of healthy waters. June 2014 AT A GLANCE Agriculture Forest Buffers Conservation Tillage Nutrient Application Management Conservation Plans Barnyard Runoff Control Urban/Suburban Erosion and Sediment Control Stormwater Infiltration Practices Wastewater/Septic Wastewater Treatment Plants See the charts on the inside of this sheet for more information. Formoredetailedinformationon all of Pennsylvania’s milestone goals, go to: www.epa.gov/ reg3wapd/tmdl/Chesapeake Bay/EnsuringResults.html. 2012/2013 FINAL ASSESSMENT Pennsylvania Milestones 6 Herndon Avenue | Annapolis, Maryland 21403 888/SAVEBAY | cbf.org How this Report was Compiled We selected a subset of implemented practices within three pol- lution source categories—agricultural runoff, urban/suburban sources, and wastewater treatment—based on their potential to provide substantial nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollu- tion reductions and offer important lessons for implementation moving forward. Progress (% achievement) was evaluated by looking at incremental progress between the base year, 2011, and 2013, compared to the 2013 milestone goal. Progress during this milestone period was also compared to the long-term (2017 and 2025) implementation benchmarks that the states and Washing- ton, D.C., committed to in their Watershed Implementation Plans. Data were provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office. 706 Giddings Avenue Suite 1-B | Annapolis, Maryland 21401 443/759-3400 | choosecleanwater.org Pollution Reduction in Pennsylvania at a Glance Pennsylvania fell short in meeting its overall nitrogen pollution reduction target for 2013 and exceeded its phosphorus reduc- tion target. In particular, estimated loads from the agricultural sector actually increased for nitrogen and only decreased slightly for phosphorus. While the wastewater sector is already meeting or exceeding 2017 nutrient reduction goals, Pennsyl- vania must accelerate efforts to reduce loads from agriculture and urban and suburban areas. 0 10 20 40 60 70 2025201720132011 2025 GOAL POLLUTED RUNOFF WASTEWATER/SEPTIC AGRICULTURE 30 50 2017 GOAL Modeled Nitrogen Loads and Long Term Goals in Pennsylvania by Sector (millions of pounds) Success Story Polluted runoff from urban and suburban areas impairs over 2,500 miles of streams in Pennsylvania and is one of the leading causes of pollution degrading local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay. Many urban and suburban municipalities within Pennsylvania have CleanWaterAct permits for polluted runoff that is discharged into local waterways. Municipalities with these permits must prepare Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plans (CBPRPs) to address how they will reduce the pollution being dis- charged into local streams and rivers in order to comply with the Chesa- peake CleanWater Blueprint.The key,however,is funding and implementing those plans at a pace to meet 2025 goals. York County has 43 municipalities with these permits, each required to develop a CBPRP. Recognizing an opportunity for collaboration to opti- mize cost-effectiveness resulting in maximum pollutant reduction,theYork County Planning Commission,York County Conservation District,and sev- eral partners have worked with local municipalities (including several with- out permits) to develop a regional CBPRP that addresses York County watershed-implementation goals in a cooperative and equitable manner. The partners are considering a suite of practices for implementation under the regional CBPRP, including stream restoration, streambank forest buffers, bioswales, and stormwater pond retrofits, to achieve county pol- lution-reduction goals. The work being done inYork County serves as an example for dealing with polluted runoff from urban and suburban communities in a way that yields multiple benefits,at multiple scales with minimal cost.TheYork County ef- fort is also a model that may be replicated in areas across the watershed. 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 2025201720132011 2025 GOAL POLLUTED RUNOFF WASTEWATER* AGRICULTURE 1,500 2,500 2017 GOAL Modeled Phosphorus Loads and Long Term Goals in Pennsylvania by Sector (thousands of pounds) Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model 5.3.2 *Pollution reduction is ahead of schedule for this sector.

More Related Content

PPTX
Water Indicators
byFAO
 
PDF
Va milestone
byClean Water
 
PDF
Wva milestone
byClean Water
 
PDF
Md milestone
byClean Water
 
PDF
De milestones
byClean Water
 
PDF
Dc milestone
byClean Water
 
PDF
Watershed scale conservation
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPTX
Water Quality and Productivity Enhancement in an Irrigated River Basin throug...
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
Water Indicators
byFAO
 
Va milestone
byClean Water
 
Wva milestone
byClean Water
 
Md milestone
byClean Water
 
De milestones
byClean Water
 
Dc milestone
byClean Water
 
Watershed scale conservation
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Water Quality and Productivity Enhancement in an Irrigated River Basin throug...
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 

What's hot

PDF
Adding water supply to rehab projects surface
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
Watershed success stories phillips
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPTX
National Water Quality Initiative
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPTX
July 29-210-Joe Lee
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPTX
Moving Forward on Agricultural Water Conservation in the Colorado River Basin
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
PPT
NutrientStar
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
DOCX
Appalachia_MH_7.7
byMariah Harrod
 
PPTX
Developing and Implementing a Vision for the Future of Water Supply in Kansas
byMatt Unruh
 
PPT
Jon Hall Ag Session - Executive Order
byChoose Clean Water
 
PDF
Kings Basin Report
byLucas Patzek
 
PDF
1. Addressing Ireland's Water challenges, the National Response - Feargal O C...
byEnvironmental Protection Agency, Ireland
 
PPTX
Urban-AG Partnerships
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPTX
MN Clean Water Land & Legacy
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
27 nov16 wu_as_need_for_institutional_strengthening
byIWRS Society
 
DOCX
Verifier Resume
byTimothy Kwiatkowski
 
PDF
Innovative Policies to Optimize the Allocation of Water Quality and Conservat...
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
PPTX
Natural Resources, Climate Change, and Policy Workshop
byOpenSpaceCouncil
 
PDF
Factors Affecting Adoption of Nutrient Management Practices by Farmers and Ho...
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
PPTX
Pitkin County Town Hall Meeting
byWalter Davidson
 
PDF
The Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force
byOhio Environmental Council
 
Adding water supply to rehab projects surface
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Watershed success stories phillips
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
National Water Quality Initiative
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
July 29-210-Joe Lee
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Moving Forward on Agricultural Water Conservation in the Colorado River Basin
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
NutrientStar
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Appalachia_MH_7.7
byMariah Harrod
 
Developing and Implementing a Vision for the Future of Water Supply in Kansas
byMatt Unruh
 
Jon Hall Ag Session - Executive Order
byChoose Clean Water
 
Kings Basin Report
byLucas Patzek
 
1. Addressing Ireland's Water challenges, the National Response - Feargal O C...
byEnvironmental Protection Agency, Ireland
 
Urban-AG Partnerships
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
MN Clean Water Land & Legacy
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
27 nov16 wu_as_need_for_institutional_strengthening
byIWRS Society
 
Verifier Resume
byTimothy Kwiatkowski
 
Innovative Policies to Optimize the Allocation of Water Quality and Conservat...
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
Natural Resources, Climate Change, and Policy Workshop
byOpenSpaceCouncil
 
Factors Affecting Adoption of Nutrient Management Practices by Farmers and Ho...
byNational Institute of Food and Agriculture
 
Pitkin County Town Hall Meeting
byWalter Davidson
 
The Ohio Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force
byOhio Environmental Council
 

Viewers also liked

PDF
Hype vs. Reality: The AI Explainer
byLuminary Labs
 
PDF
Teaching Students with Emojis, Emoticons, & Textspeak
byShelly Sanchez Terrell
 
PDF
Study: The Future of VR, AR and Self-Driving Cars
byLinkedIn
 
PPTX
Middleton
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Stormwater cost effectiveness 140604
byClean Water
 
PPT
Freeman
byClean Water
 
PDF
Presentation marcellus publands_201406_forcindydunn2
byClean Water
 
PPTX
CCW Conference: Protecting the Susquehanna River
byClean Water
 
PPTX
CCW conf: Economic impact of_smallmouth_fishing_on_the_susquehanna [autosaved]
byClean Water
 
PPT
P lde fur ccwc 6-2014
byClean Water
 
Hype vs. Reality: The AI Explainer
byLuminary Labs
 
Teaching Students with Emojis, Emoticons, & Textspeak
byShelly Sanchez Terrell
 
Study: The Future of VR, AR and Self-Driving Cars
byLinkedIn
 
Middleton
byClean Water
 
Stormwater cost effectiveness 140604
byClean Water
 
Freeman
byClean Water
 
Presentation marcellus publands_201406_forcindydunn2
byClean Water
 
CCW Conference: Protecting the Susquehanna River
byClean Water
 
CCW conf: Economic impact of_smallmouth_fishing_on_the_susquehanna [autosaved]
byClean Water
 
P lde fur ccwc 6-2014
byClean Water
 

Similar to Pa milestone

PDF
Mississippi river basin initiative
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
The watershed approach
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
Application of Monitoring to Inform Policy and Achieve Water Quality Goals
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPTX
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Pilot Project
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
Handbook for developing watershed plans.pdf
bystaycalmstayready
 
PPTX
Measured effects of conservation
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPTX
Bunting howart
byClean Water
 
PPT
Steve Stewart CCW
byCleanH2O
 
PPTX
Moore
byClean Water
 
PPT
Experiences in Nutrient Pollution Control Planning, Implementation and Evalua...
byIwl Pcu
 
PDF
Duriancik - Applying Monitoring Projects
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPTX
National nonpoint source program
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI)
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PPT
Options to Address Nutrient Pollution from Agricultural Drainage -Goldman Carter
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
Water quality targeting success stories perez
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
PDF
EIP-TheCWAandtheChesapeakeDec20122_000
byTom Lyons
 
PPT
Open Government
byNational States Geographic Information Council
 
PPTX
Restoration and Agriculture by Lamonte Garber, PA Agriculture Manager, Chesap...
byKim Beidler
 
PPTX
Federal regulations and pending legislation affecting nutrient management
byLPE Learning Center
 
PPTX
Federal Agency Perspective Environmental Regulations, Approaches, and Opportu...
byKim Beidler
 
Mississippi river basin initiative
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
The watershed approach
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Application of Monitoring to Inform Policy and Achieve Water Quality Goals
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) Pilot Project
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Handbook for developing watershed plans.pdf
bystaycalmstayready
 
Measured effects of conservation
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Bunting howart
byClean Water
 
Steve Stewart CCW
byCleanH2O
 
Moore
byClean Water
 
Experiences in Nutrient Pollution Control Planning, Implementation and Evalua...
byIwl Pcu
 
Duriancik - Applying Monitoring Projects
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
National nonpoint source program
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI)
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Options to Address Nutrient Pollution from Agricultural Drainage -Goldman Carter
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
Water quality targeting success stories perez
bySoil and Water Conservation Society
 
EIP-TheCWAandtheChesapeakeDec20122_000
byTom Lyons
 
Open Government
byNational States Geographic Information Council
 
Restoration and Agriculture by Lamonte Garber, PA Agriculture Manager, Chesap...
byKim Beidler
 
Federal regulations and pending legislation affecting nutrient management
byLPE Learning Center
 
Federal Agency Perspective Environmental Regulations, Approaches, and Opportu...
byKim Beidler
 

More from Clean Water

PPTX
Chris miller crisis is in the eye of the beholder -- cgm-- june 2014
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Choose clean water 060414
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Edelson june3choosecleanwater
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Conewago creek initiative farmer outreach
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Stoner 915 am tuesday
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Tues 9 whitescarver_choose clean water conf
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Choose clean water coalition
byClean Water
 
PPT
Ccwc cameron
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Clarke co clean_water
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Thg ccw presentation final
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Ccwslr
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Clean water conference (avoid crisis tone)
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Clean water talk draft2
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Kristen grimm nwf_baltimore_-_ppt_spitfire_template
byClean Water
 
PPTX
45 minute powerpoint
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Gw for ccwc
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Listening to farmers
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Clean water conference
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Sorrels 945 am tuesday ccw
byClean Water
 
PPTX
Ccw presentation nations
byClean Water
 
Chris miller crisis is in the eye of the beholder -- cgm-- june 2014
byClean Water
 
Choose clean water 060414
byClean Water
 
Edelson june3choosecleanwater
byClean Water
 
Conewago creek initiative farmer outreach
byClean Water
 
Stoner 915 am tuesday
byClean Water
 
Tues 9 whitescarver_choose clean water conf
byClean Water
 
Choose clean water coalition
byClean Water
 
Ccwc cameron
byClean Water
 
Clarke co clean_water
byClean Water
 
Thg ccw presentation final
byClean Water
 
Ccwslr
byClean Water
 
Clean water conference (avoid crisis tone)
byClean Water
 
Clean water talk draft2
byClean Water
 
Kristen grimm nwf_baltimore_-_ppt_spitfire_template
byClean Water
 
45 minute powerpoint
byClean Water
 
Gw for ccwc
byClean Water
 
Listening to farmers
byClean Water
 
Clean water conference
byClean Water
 
Sorrels 945 am tuesday ccw
byClean Water
 
Ccw presentation nations
byClean Water
 

Recently uploaded

PDF
Strengthening cybern resilience for a leading indian Financial Services group
bypandeydevika621
 
PDF
Achieving Interoperability in Healthcare IT: A Strategic Guide
byHart, Inc.
 
PDF
Azure Identity, Governance, and Monitoring solutions
byVICTOR MAESTRE RAMIREZ
 
PDF
How to Connect HP LaserJet MFP M234dwe to WiFi
byPrinter Tales
 
PPTX
Pizza Chain Market Data Scraping for Better Insights Report.pptx
byWeb Data Crawler
 
PPTX
Information about Trusted Platform Module(TPM)
bynewtoknowtechs
 
PPTX
AN Introduction to UNIX File System—An Approach
bysonjuktaweb
 
PPTX
Why 2026 Could Be a Turning Point for Decentralized Exchanges.pptx
bycalliemorgan193
 
PDF
Top 10 API Automation Testing Tools: Features, Pros & Cons
byhenrycavill30521
 
PDF
Regenerative Agriculture Finance : Environmental impact
byrose mason
 
PPTX
Large Language Model. LLM Audit Artificial Intelligence
byMANASCHOUDHARY22
 
PDF
IAI-Unit1-notes useful.............................
bydinesh620610
 
PDF
Top Benefits of Using KVM VPS Hosting for Growing Businesses
byEthernet Servers
 
PDF
Video Infrastructure_ Streaming Architecture and Delivery Systems.pdf
byTenbyte Limited
 
PPTX
Introduction to Computer Network Concepts.pptx
byAnacrissa Soriano
 
PPTX
Cesium formate brine - A brief history - prepared by John Downs in May 2011
byJohn Downs
 
PPTX
Compare and contrast types of attacks.pptx
bysyednaqihassan14
 
PPTX
Salesforce Spring 26 Release Key .pptx
byMehediHasan939830
 
PDF
AI Driven & AI Native Development AI native development
byZainKarim7
 
PPTX
AI Bot Traffic Surge: Retail Fraud Threat for Age-Restricted Websites
byFTx Identity
 
Strengthening cybern resilience for a leading indian Financial Services group
bypandeydevika621
 
Achieving Interoperability in Healthcare IT: A Strategic Guide
byHart, Inc.
 
Azure Identity, Governance, and Monitoring solutions
byVICTOR MAESTRE RAMIREZ
 
How to Connect HP LaserJet MFP M234dwe to WiFi
byPrinter Tales
 
Pizza Chain Market Data Scraping for Better Insights Report.pptx
byWeb Data Crawler
 
Information about Trusted Platform Module(TPM)
bynewtoknowtechs
 
AN Introduction to UNIX File System—An Approach
bysonjuktaweb
 
Why 2026 Could Be a Turning Point for Decentralized Exchanges.pptx
bycalliemorgan193
 
Top 10 API Automation Testing Tools: Features, Pros & Cons
byhenrycavill30521
 
Regenerative Agriculture Finance : Environmental impact
byrose mason
 
Large Language Model. LLM Audit Artificial Intelligence
byMANASCHOUDHARY22
 
IAI-Unit1-notes useful.............................
bydinesh620610
 
Top Benefits of Using KVM VPS Hosting for Growing Businesses
byEthernet Servers
 
Video Infrastructure_ Streaming Architecture and Delivery Systems.pdf
byTenbyte Limited
 
Introduction to Computer Network Concepts.pptx
byAnacrissa Soriano
 
Cesium formate brine - A brief history - prepared by John Downs in May 2011
byJohn Downs
 
Compare and contrast types of attacks.pptx
bysyednaqihassan14
 
Salesforce Spring 26 Release Key .pptx
byMehediHasan939830
 
AI Driven & AI Native Development AI native development
byZainKarim7
 
AI Bot Traffic Surge: Retail Fraud Threat for Age-Restricted Websites
byFTx Identity
 

Pa milestone

  • 1.
    Pennsylvania’s Plan forClean Water: Is the Commonwealth On Track? Residents in the region are starting to see the benefits of investments and improvements made in local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. The practices that protect and restore our waterways— tree plantings, conservation planning, septic hookups, and upgrades to wastewater treatment plants— ultimately improve our quality of life by reducing flooding, securing healthier drinking water, beautifying our neighborhoods, and ensuring safer waters for recreation. Unfortunately, despite mak- ing progress, the Chesapeake Bay watershed still remains a system dangerously out of balance. Too much nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution continues to run off our lawns, city streets, and farm fields into local creeks and streams and the Bay. In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bay jurisdictions established science- based limits for these pollutants and state-specific plans to achieve them, together known as the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. EPA, the states, and Washington, D.C., also committed to implement actions to achieve 60 percent of the needed reductions by 2017 and 100 percent by 2025. To ensure these clean-water efforts stay on track, each of the states and Washington, D.C., committed to two-year goals or milestones detailing the programs and practices intended to be met in the near- term to achieve the 2017 and 2025 long-term goals. The milestones are a critical accountability tool, providing the opportunity to measure progress in the context of long-term Bay restoration efforts. Be- cause of the importance of the milestones, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Choose Clean Water Coalition are collaborating to evaluate and publicize pollution-reduction progress. This report evaluates, for select practices, whether Pennsylvania achieved its 2012/2013 two-year milestone goals and whether or not this progress is on a trajectory to achieve 60 percent implementation by 2017 and full implementation by 2025. Conclusion Pennsylvania achieved its 2013 goals for four of the eight practices evaluated. Of particular concern is the gap between current pace and the 2017 goals. For example, forested stream buffers were es- tablished at a rate of six acres per day from 2009 to 2013, but must increase to a rate of fifty acres per day, every day, through 2017. Conservation and nutrient management plans provide the base for keeping topsoil and nutrients on the land, rather than polluting waters. The declines in these essential plans are perplexing. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 2014 Pennsylvania Draft Inte- grated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Pennsylvania has roughly 19,000 miles of impaired streams. The vast majority of the practices needed to meet our milestone goals will go a long way toward improving the Commonwealth’s waters, within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, so our cit- izens can enjoy the benefits of healthy waters. June 2014 AT A GLANCE Agriculture Forest Buffers Conservation Tillage Nutrient Application Management Conservation Plans Barnyard Runoff Control Urban/Suburban Erosion and Sediment Control Stormwater Infiltration Practices Wastewater/Septic Wastewater Treatment Plants See the charts on the inside of this sheet for more information. Formoredetailedinformationon all of Pennsylvania’s milestone goals, go to: www.epa.gov/ reg3wapd/tmdl/Chesapeake Bay/EnsuringResults.html. 2012/2013 FINAL ASSESSMENT Pennsylvania Milestones 6 Herndon Avenue | Annapolis, Maryland 21403 888/SAVEBAY | cbf.org How this Report was Compiled We selected a subset of implemented practices within three pol- lution source categories—agricultural runoff, urban/suburban sources, and wastewater treatment—based on their potential to provide substantial nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollu- tion reductions and offer important lessons for implementation moving forward. Progress (% achievement) was evaluated by looking at incremental progress between the base year, 2011, and 2013, compared to the 2013 milestone goal. Progress during this milestone period was also compared to the long-term (2017 and 2025) implementation benchmarks that the states and Washing- ton, D.C., committed to in their Watershed Implementation Plans. Data were provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office. 706 Giddings Avenue Suite 1-B | Annapolis, Maryland 21401 443/759-3400 | choosecleanwater.org Pollution Reduction in Pennsylvania at a Glance Pennsylvania fell short in meeting its overall nitrogen pollution reduction target for 2013 and exceeded its phosphorus reduc- tion target. In particular, estimated loads from the agricultural sector actually increased for nitrogen and only decreased slightly for phosphorus. While the wastewater sector is already meeting or exceeding 2017 nutrient reduction goals, Pennsyl- vania must accelerate efforts to reduce loads from agriculture and urban and suburban areas. 0 10 20 40 60 70 2025201720132011 2025 GOAL POLLUTED RUNOFF WASTEWATER/SEPTIC AGRICULTURE 30 50 2017 GOAL Modeled Nitrogen Loads and Long Term Goals in Pennsylvania by Sector (millions of pounds) Success Story Polluted runoff from urban and suburban areas impairs over 2,500 miles of streams in Pennsylvania and is one of the leading causes of pollution degrading local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay. Many urban and suburban municipalities within Pennsylvania have CleanWaterAct permits for polluted runoff that is discharged into local waterways. Municipalities with these permits must prepare Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plans (CBPRPs) to address how they will reduce the pollution being dis- charged into local streams and rivers in order to comply with the Chesa- peake CleanWater Blueprint.The key,however,is funding and implementing those plans at a pace to meet 2025 goals. York County has 43 municipalities with these permits, each required to develop a CBPRP. Recognizing an opportunity for collaboration to opti- mize cost-effectiveness resulting in maximum pollutant reduction,theYork County Planning Commission,York County Conservation District,and sev- eral partners have worked with local municipalities (including several with- out permits) to develop a regional CBPRP that addresses York County watershed-implementation goals in a cooperative and equitable manner. The partners are considering a suite of practices for implementation under the regional CBPRP, including stream restoration, streambank forest buffers, bioswales, and stormwater pond retrofits, to achieve county pol- lution-reduction goals. The work being done inYork County serves as an example for dealing with polluted runoff from urban and suburban communities in a way that yields multiple benefits,at multiple scales with minimal cost.TheYork County ef- fort is also a model that may be replicated in areas across the watershed. 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 2025201720132011 2025 GOAL POLLUTED RUNOFF WASTEWATER* AGRICULTURE 1,500 2,500 2017 GOAL Modeled Phosphorus Loads and Long Term Goals in Pennsylvania by Sector (thousands of pounds) Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model 5.3.2 *Pollution reduction is ahead of schedule for this sector.
  • 2.
    0 1,000 5,000 6,000 2011 2015 20192021 20232013 2017 G 2025 G 3,000 4,000 2,000 PROGRESS MILESTONE Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Progress on Selected Pollution-Reduction Practices for 2013 Forest Buffers acres According to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, an error in reporting led to over-estimates of buffers in previous years. The error was corrected in 2013, resulting in an apparent decrease in forest buffer acres. In reality, new buffers are being installed, but nonethe- less, Pennsylvania is in danger of not meeting its 2017 goal on one of the most effective practices to improve stream health. 0 50,000 100,000 200,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 150,000 -14,337 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 5,503 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -261% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Conservation Tillage acres Although this year’s data includes estimates of conservation tillage es- tablished voluntarily by farmers, implementation still declined since 2011.Broader adoption will help farms improve soil health,in addition to meeting water-quality goals. 0 200,000 600,000 1,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 G 800,000 400,000 -60,923 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 60,936 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -100% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Nutrient Application Management acres This is now reported as an annual practice,with plans older than three years excluded, resulting in reductions from 2011 levels.The Nutrient Management Program no longer has funds to assist farmers with plan development and implementation, likely leading to additional decreases. 0 500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 1,000,000 -798,297 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 66,061 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -1,208% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Conservation Plans acres Pennsylvania exceeded its 2013 milestone goal, but the goal itself was not set to acheive the 2017 goal. Plan development actually declined since 2011, partially due to removal of some out-dated plans.This decline is especially concerning because plans are the foundation for many other conservation practices and have been required on all farms since 1972. 0 500,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 G 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 -142,448 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) -256,359 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = N/A Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Erosion and Sediment Control** acres The 2013 goal was not achieved.This practice, however, is dependent on the issuance of construction permits so fluctuations in the building industry directly impact implementation. Additionally, consistency in the reporting by other programs, such as abandoned mine reclama- tion, will also impact reported numbers. 0 30,000 60,000 150,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 2023 90,000 2013 2017 G 2025 120,000 Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals (acres) Wastewater Treatment Plants # of permits issued meeting Blueprint requirements Pennsylvania has made significant progress in increasing the number of permits issued, substantially exceeding its 2013 milestone goals. 0 100 150 250 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 50 200 141 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 99 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 142% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals (# of permits) Agriculture Urban/Suburban Polluted Runoff Wastewater/Septic Stormwater Infiltration Practices+ acres The 2013 goal has been exceeded, but progress remains less than 20 percent of the 2017 goal. The progress, in part, reflects a data collection effort by the Department of Environmental Protection to account for permitted practices. 0 4,000,000 6,000,000 10,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 G 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,984 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 3,581 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 307% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Barnyard Runoff Control acres Although the 2013 goal was exceeded, implementation rates need to increase dramatically in order to reach Pennsylvania’s 2017 goal. Barnyard improvements yield significant reductions in manure runoff and improvements in herd health. 547 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 256 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 214% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) 10,078 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 18,625 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 54% *2017 goals are calculated as 2009 Implementation plus 60% of the difference between 2009 Implementation and the 2025 Implementation goal. + Includes infiltration practices, filtering practices, bioretention, and bioswales. ** Includes erosion and sediment control and extractive erosion and sediment control. P 2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS M 2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE MILESTONE P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M MILESTONEPROGRESSMILESTONEPROGRESS MILESTONEPROGRESS PROGRESS MILESTONE MILESTONEPROGRESS MILESTONEPROGRESS PROGRESS
  • 3.
    0 1,000 5,000 6,000 2011 2015 20192021 20232013 2017 G 2025 G 3,000 4,000 2,000 PROGRESS MILESTONE Assessment of Pennsylvania’s Progress on Selected Pollution-Reduction Practices for 2013 Forest Buffers acres According to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, an error in reporting led to over-estimates of buffers in previous years. The error was corrected in 2013, resulting in an apparent decrease in forest buffer acres. In reality, new buffers are being installed, but nonethe- less, Pennsylvania is in danger of not meeting its 2017 goal on one of the most effective practices to improve stream health. 0 50,000 100,000 200,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 150,000 -14,337 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 5,503 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -261% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Conservation Tillage acres Although this year’s data includes estimates of conservation tillage es- tablished voluntarily by farmers, implementation still declined since 2011.Broader adoption will help farms improve soil health,in addition to meeting water-quality goals. 0 200,000 600,000 1,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 G 800,000 400,000 -60,923 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 60,936 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -100% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Nutrient Application Management acres This is now reported as an annual practice,with plans older than three years excluded, resulting in reductions from 2011 levels.The Nutrient Management Program no longer has funds to assist farmers with plan development and implementation, likely leading to additional decreases. 0 500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 1,000,000 -798,297 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 66,061 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = -1,208% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Conservation Plans acres Pennsylvania exceeded its 2013 milestone goal, but the goal itself was not set to acheive the 2017 goal. Plan development actually declined since 2011, partially due to removal of some out-dated plans.This decline is especially concerning because plans are the foundation for many other conservation practices and have been required on all farms since 1972. 0 500,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 2025 G 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 -142,448 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) -256,359 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = N/A Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Erosion and Sediment Control** acres The 2013 goal was not achieved.This practice, however, is dependent on the issuance of construction permits so fluctuations in the building industry directly impact implementation. Additionally, consistency in the reporting by other programs, such as abandoned mine reclama- tion, will also impact reported numbers. 0 30,000 60,000 150,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 2023 90,000 2013 2017 G 2025 120,000 Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals (acres) Wastewater Treatment Plants # of permits issued meeting Blueprint requirements Pennsylvania has made significant progress in increasing the number of permits issued, substantially exceeding its 2013 milestone goals. 0 100 150 250 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 50 200 141 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 99 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 142% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals (# of permits) Agriculture Urban/Suburban Polluted Runoff Wastewater/Septic Stormwater Infiltration Practices+ acres The 2013 goal has been exceeded, but progress remains less than 20 percent of the 2017 goal. The progress, in part, reflects a data collection effort by the Department of Environmental Protection to account for permitted practices. 0 4,000,000 6,000,000 10,000,000 2011 2015 2019 2021 20232013 2017 G 2025 G 2,000,000 8,000,000 10,984 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 3,581 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 307% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) Barnyard Runoff Control acres Although the 2013 goal was exceeded, implementation rates need to increase dramatically in order to reach Pennsylvania’s 2017 goal. Barnyard improvements yield significant reductions in manure runoff and improvements in herd health. 547 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 256 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 214% Progress Relative to Long-Term Goals* (acres) 10,078 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS) 18,625 (2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE) = 54% *2017 goals are calculated as 2009 Implementation plus 60% of the difference between 2009 Implementation and the 2025 Implementation goal. + Includes infiltration practices, filtering practices, bioretention, and bioswales. ** Includes erosion and sediment control and extractive erosion and sediment control. P 2-YEAR INCREMENTAL PROGRESS M 2-YEAR INCREMENTAL MILESTONE MILESTONE P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M P M MILESTONEPROGRESSMILESTONEPROGRESS MILESTONEPROGRESS PROGRESS MILESTONE MILESTONEPROGRESS MILESTONEPROGRESS PROGRESS
  • 4.
    Pennsylvania’s Plan forClean Water: Is the Commonwealth On Track? Residents in the region are starting to see the benefits of investments and improvements made in local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. The practices that protect and restore our waterways— tree plantings, conservation planning, septic hookups, and upgrades to wastewater treatment plants— ultimately improve our quality of life by reducing flooding, securing healthier drinking water, beautifying our neighborhoods, and ensuring safer waters for recreation. Unfortunately, despite mak- ing progress, the Chesapeake Bay watershed still remains a system dangerously out of balance. Too much nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution continues to run off our lawns, city streets, and farm fields into local creeks and streams and the Bay. In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bay jurisdictions established science- based limits for these pollutants and state-specific plans to achieve them, together known as the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. EPA, the states, and Washington, D.C., also committed to implement actions to achieve 60 percent of the needed reductions by 2017 and 100 percent by 2025. To ensure these clean-water efforts stay on track, each of the states and Washington, D.C., committed to two-year goals or milestones detailing the programs and practices intended to be met in the near- term to achieve the 2017 and 2025 long-term goals. The milestones are a critical accountability tool, providing the opportunity to measure progress in the context of long-term Bay restoration efforts. Be- cause of the importance of the milestones, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Choose Clean Water Coalition are collaborating to evaluate and publicize pollution-reduction progress. This report evaluates, for select practices, whether Pennsylvania achieved its 2012/2013 two-year milestone goals and whether or not this progress is on a trajectory to achieve 60 percent implementation by 2017 and full implementation by 2025. Conclusion Pennsylvania achieved its 2013 goals for four of the eight practices evaluated. Of particular concern is the gap between current pace and the 2017 goals. For example, forested stream buffers were es- tablished at a rate of six acres per day from 2009 to 2013, but must increase to a rate of fifty acres per day, every day, through 2017. Conservation and nutrient management plans provide the base for keeping topsoil and nutrients on the land, rather than polluting waters. The declines in these essential plans are perplexing. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 2014 Pennsylvania Draft Inte- grated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, Pennsylvania has roughly 19,000 miles of impaired streams. The vast majority of the practices needed to meet our milestone goals will go a long way toward improving the Commonwealth’s waters, within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, so our cit- izens can enjoy the benefits of healthy waters. June 2014 AT A GLANCE Agriculture Forest Buffers Conservation Tillage Nutrient Application Management Conservation Plans Barnyard Runoff Control Urban/Suburban Erosion and Sediment Control Stormwater Infiltration Practices Wastewater/Septic Wastewater Treatment Plants See the charts on the inside of this sheet for more information. Formoredetailedinformationon all of Pennsylvania’s milestone goals, go to: www.epa.gov/ reg3wapd/tmdl/Chesapeake Bay/EnsuringResults.html. 2012/2013 FINAL ASSESSMENT Pennsylvania Milestones 6 Herndon Avenue | Annapolis, Maryland 21403 888/SAVEBAY | cbf.org How this Report was Compiled We selected a subset of implemented practices within three pol- lution source categories—agricultural runoff, urban/suburban sources, and wastewater treatment—based on their potential to provide substantial nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollu- tion reductions and offer important lessons for implementation moving forward. Progress (% achievement) was evaluated by looking at incremental progress between the base year, 2011, and 2013, compared to the 2013 milestone goal. Progress during this milestone period was also compared to the long-term (2017 and 2025) implementation benchmarks that the states and Washing- ton, D.C., committed to in their Watershed Implementation Plans. Data were provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office. 706 Giddings Avenue Suite 1-B | Annapolis, Maryland 21401 443/759-3400 | choosecleanwater.org Pollution Reduction in Pennsylvania at a Glance Pennsylvania fell short in meeting its overall nitrogen pollution reduction target for 2013 and exceeded its phosphorus reduc- tion target. In particular, estimated loads from the agricultural sector actually increased for nitrogen and only decreased slightly for phosphorus. While the wastewater sector is already meeting or exceeding 2017 nutrient reduction goals, Pennsyl- vania must accelerate efforts to reduce loads from agriculture and urban and suburban areas. 0 10 20 40 60 70 2025201720132011 2025 GOAL POLLUTED RUNOFF WASTEWATER/SEPTIC AGRICULTURE 30 50 2017 GOAL Modeled Nitrogen Loads and Long Term Goals in Pennsylvania by Sector (millions of pounds) Success Story Polluted runoff from urban and suburban areas impairs over 2,500 miles of streams in Pennsylvania and is one of the leading causes of pollution degrading local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay. Many urban and suburban municipalities within Pennsylvania have CleanWaterAct permits for polluted runoff that is discharged into local waterways. Municipalities with these permits must prepare Chesapeake Bay Pollutant Reduction Plans (CBPRPs) to address how they will reduce the pollution being dis- charged into local streams and rivers in order to comply with the Chesa- peake CleanWater Blueprint.The key,however,is funding and implementing those plans at a pace to meet 2025 goals. York County has 43 municipalities with these permits, each required to develop a CBPRP. Recognizing an opportunity for collaboration to opti- mize cost-effectiveness resulting in maximum pollutant reduction,theYork County Planning Commission,York County Conservation District,and sev- eral partners have worked with local municipalities (including several with- out permits) to develop a regional CBPRP that addresses York County watershed-implementation goals in a cooperative and equitable manner. The partners are considering a suite of practices for implementation under the regional CBPRP, including stream restoration, streambank forest buffers, bioswales, and stormwater pond retrofits, to achieve county pol- lution-reduction goals. The work being done inYork County serves as an example for dealing with polluted runoff from urban and suburban communities in a way that yields multiple benefits,at multiple scales with minimal cost.TheYork County ef- fort is also a model that may be replicated in areas across the watershed. 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 2025201720132011 2025 GOAL POLLUTED RUNOFF WASTEWATER* AGRICULTURE 1,500 2,500 2017 GOAL Modeled Phosphorus Loads and Long Term Goals in Pennsylvania by Sector (thousands of pounds) Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model 5.3.2 *Pollution reduction is ahead of schedule for this sector.