York County WIP – Criteria for Evaluating Solutions

Cost versus effectiveness is the ultimate bottom line when considering solutions; how to get the proverbial “biggest bang for the buck.” The effectiveness of each solution would be based upon the size of the pollutant load that is cleaned up by a particular remedy and the time it takes to accomplish it. The catch is that many factors come into play when calculating both the “bang” and the “buck.”

Among the factors are geographic considerations, such as outfall location, headwater areas and confluences. In addition to location within the watershed, environmental factors, such as soils, geology, impaired streams (see Appendix B) and species of concern; operation/maintenance; and sustainability need to be analyzed when contemplating the most effective solution to reduce nutrient/sediment pollution. The cost of implementing the solution also needs to be considered, in conjunction with effectiveness, to ensure practicality, as well as getting the most pollutant reduction for each dollar spent. At times, site restraints may prevent the use of the most effective and/or the least expensive solution. Among the common restraints are location of solutions, pollutant sources, population centers, types of land use, landowners, and funding sources.

When calculating financial costs for a particular solution, the achievement of multiple objectives should likewise be considered. York County has many plans, assessments, and reports concerning the County’s water resources, all with recommendations, goals, and objectives. For example, if a particular pollutant reduction solution also reduces an environmental hazard and/or provides an identified recreational need, achievement of multiple benefits may turn an otherwise economically impractical solution into the most cost effective remedy. Established TMDLs, Watershed/Rivers Conservation Plans, MS4 permits, County land preservation programs, and County/municipal comprehensive plans are some examples of environmental planning efforts throughout the County that should be consulted when establishing project priorities for this Plan.

The criteria presented above for evaluating solutions can be summarized as follows:

• Pollutant source/type
• Target impaired waters
• BMP efficiency (cost/benefit)
• Secondary benefits
• Cooperative partners
• Public vs. private projects
• MS4 compatibility
• Funding availability

York County WIP - BMPs Not in the Current Bay Model

The current Chesapeake Bay Model has limitations, which results in certain types of pollutant reduction activities (BMPs) not being considered for credit. These limitations may exist for various reasons; however, it is worth examining the potential to revise the Model to credit such activities. A process exists by which new technologies, unthoughtof reductions, or intentionally not included BMPs may be included/reconsidered in the Model. Municipal leaf pick-up programs and surface water supplier sediment filtration processes may be examples of such activities. Awareness of such activities or BMPs that reduce nutrients and/or sediment is the first step for credit to be acknowledged in the Model.

There is evidence to indicate that some York County pollution reductions are resulting from a practice that is not recognized in the Model. These pollution reductions should not be overlooked. The merit of working with PA DEP to incorporate such pollution reductions into the Bay Model needs to be determined. Nevertheless, due to the complexities of the Model, potential difficulty in calculating pollutant reductions, and ecological factors that influence reductions, obtaining credit may be a lengthy process, if possible at all.

Success of this solution will be contingent upon availability of necessary data to document the pollution reduction and cooperation from regulatory agencies. There is potential for supporting documentation to exist on pollutant reductions resulting from some activities, such as municipal
leaf/yard waste pick-up programs and sediment removal from surface water supplier intakes. For example, municipalities may track tonnage of waste picked up, while water treatment plants
may track the tonnage of sediment removed from their source water. This data, as well as additional information, would likely be needed to obtain credit retroactively, and annually into the future,
for these types of activities. As stated previously, US EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Program are in the process of developing guidance that will be beneficial to the data collection effort. It is also
important to note that for BMPs to be credited under this solution, they must have been implemented on or after January 1, 2006.

Public Misperception of Quiescent Mill Ponds

Sunday's York Daily News contained an excellent article "Fix PA's Killer Dams", by Scott Fisher, Editor, about the dangers.

However, one reader commented that "The dam appeals to me, recalling a recent kayak paddle miles upstream and saying he has caught large fish in the pools created by the dam. If the dam(s) were removed, we'd end up with a shallow, rocky creek that would be useless for such activities."

The public maintains the misperception that these quiescent mill pond settings are both normal and healthy ecosystems. I argue they are not. Dams of all sizes are the direct result of the loss of migrating American shad, Atlantic eels, numerous freshwater shellfish, and other migratory species.

Impoundments behind dams often have poor water quality and may not have the quantity and diversity of aquatic species often found in a free-flowing river. Typically, the tail-water runs approximately one to two miles upstream of these dams.

Removing dams brings different ecological benefits, including restoring free-flowing rivers, enabling unobstructed fish passage, and improving water quality (Scruton et al., 1998; Bednarek, 2001). Bednarek (2001) reviewed the long-term and short-term ecological impacts of dam removal based on 16 dams. She concluded that biotic diversity could increase by removing the dams and that the increased sediment load was a short-term effect. Scruton et al. (1998) showed an 18-fold increase in biomass of juvenile salmon and trout, a result of a 62% habitat increase after removing some dams.

Removing these dams in York County have shown immediate improvements in water quality and diversity of aquatic species often found in a free-flowing river, as well as eliminating a public health and safety hazard.

Ways to Achieve and Account for Pollution Reductions - Best Management Practices

Best Management Practice (BMP) solutions consist of two (2) general types: structural BMPs and non-structural BMPs. Both types will need to be an integral component of York County’s Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) strategy. Moreover, the sustainability of York County’s water resources will depend upon incorporating BMPs into all aspects of our communities and lives. The Pennsylvania Stormwater BMP Manual identifies and describes both structural and non-structural BMPs and, in addition, provides design/construction criteria for structural BMPs. Nevertheless, a brief overview of each type is provided below.

Non-structural BMPs: Non-structural BMPs are practices that incorporate techniques and behaviors that do not involve physical construction. Education, outreach, planning, ordinance provisions, and land preservation are types of non-structural BMPs.

This WIP, however, focuses on provisions that could be adopted by a municipality, either through a standalone ordinance or incorporated into an existing zoning or subdivision/land development ordinance, and, when put into practice, would ultimately help to reduce stream pollution.

These provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Urban Nutrient Management
• Conservation by Design/Low Impact Development (LID)
• Green Infrastructure
• IWRP Flowchart Tool
• On-lot Septic System Management
• Protection of Sensitive Environmental Areas

Structural BMPs: Structural BMPs are those practices that use physical structures features to improve water quality.

Although PA DEP provided the County with a scenario of pollution reduction actions (BMPs) to meet the Draft Planning Targets, a primary purpose of this Plan, as previously stated, is to modify that scenario in an effort to make it better suited to York County, yet still meet the targets.

The Recommended Pollutant Reduction Actions Scenario Table (see Appendix D) includes an array of urban and agricultural BMPs to improve streams throughout the County, regardless of whether they are on the Impaired Waters List (see Appendix B), in an effort to be of benefit to both MS4 and non-MS4 municipalities.

Furthermore, BMPs that yield the most efficiency for the least amount of cost or “biggest bang for the buck” are highlighted on the Table.

With regard to recommended urban BMPs, four (4) of the BMPs are highlighted for having high efficiency and low cost in achieving reductions in two (2) out of the three (3) pollutants.

The Actions Opportunity Table (see Appendix E) notes the impaired streams by municipality and the amount of land available in the watershed to implement the Recommended Pollutant Reduction Actions or BMPs.

Both the Recommended Pollutant Reduction Actions and Actions Opportunity Tables were developed by local stakeholders, with specialized knowledge. They represent an attempt to produce a more efficient, less expensive, and more “implementable” means for York County and its municipalities to meet the Draft Planning Targets. However, the average efficiency, median lifecycle costs, and impaired waterway BMP lineal feet/acreage calculations should be used for general information and planning purposes only. Their accuracy cannot be guaranteed as there are many variables and costs are constantly changing.

The Tables can be used separately or in conjunction with one another. While all of the BMPs listed in the Recommended Actions Table are beneficial, their applicability on a watershed or municipal basis may vary.

Ways to Achieve and Account for Pollution Reductions - Existing Program Administration

Administration of existing programs, which includes regulatory compliance and subsequent enforcement, will help York County move closer toward meeting its pollutant reduction targets. The need for assistance with compliance from State and Federal partners is an important component of this solution. Three (3) aspects of program administration are considered in this Plan.

The first is compliance required under the NPDES Permit Program; conditions associated with permits must be met. The Nutrient Credit Trading Program is an option by which permit compliance may be possible. The PA DEP created a Nutrient Credit Trading Program, enabling an eligible permit holder to buy pollution reduction credits from another entity, who has either (a) generated credits by reducing pollutants more than is required by law; (b) has not discharged its allocation of pollution into the watershed; or (c) has installed an improvement that results in quantifiable pollution reductions. So, buyers and sellers should be aware of what credits are actually available for sale (must be credits ‘certified’ by PA DEP). Like any other regulatory program, the Pennsylvania Trading Program is revised periodically.

The regulatory acceptance of nutrient credit trading, coupled with the possible financial benefits, makes nutrient credit trading an approach to consider and analyze as a component of York County’s pollutant reduction strategy. It is important to remember that the financial benefits of this Program could be a savings realized for the purchaser of credits, as well as an income producer for the seller of credits. Furthermore, these financial benefits could result in more funds being available to implement additional BMPs.

A second aspect deals with Conservation Plans, Nutrient Management Plans, and Manure Management Programs. Although municipalities are not responsible for compliance under these Programs, benefits of complying with the associated regulations may well have positive impacts for municipalities. There are various reasons why countywide compliance with Conservation Plan requirements has not been achieved, but limited resources are most likely a primary cause. The YCCD works with farmers to develop and implement Conservation Plans that address not only the conservation plan requirements, but also nutrient and manure management regulations. The limited resources of the YCCD have resulted in a backlog of Conservation Plans in need of development, review and/or approval. A potential consideration worth analysis for this Plan could be obtaining municipal assistance in hiring independent technicians to work with YCCD to administer the Program and attain compliance. Should the analysis prove the benefits (pollution reductions) would keep stricter MS4 requirements away from municipalities, they could achieve some cost savings.

A third aspect is the administration of stormwater management (SWM) regulations under the Pennsylvania Stormwater Management Act (Act 167). This task falls to each County municipality who is required, by the Act, to adopt a SWM Ordinance consistent with the County’s approved and adopted countywide SWM Plan. This requirement, to date, has not been fulfilled by all County municipalities, although most, if not all, are working in that direction. Compliance with Act 167, and subsequent enforcement of the adopted SWM Ordinances, will help prevent urban stormwater runoff pollution from getting worse, thereby allowing the benefits of BMPs installed outside of Act 167 to have a greater impact toward achieving the target reductions.

Ways to Achieve and Account for Pollution Reductions

There are many ways to achieve and account for pollution reductions. In Developing an effective and viable strategy for York County to meet its pollution reduction targets, a variety of solutions were evaluated. Below is a description of potential solutions recommended for the County by the York County Coalition for Clean Waters. York County has identified four areas of activity, and they are:

1. Capture unreported actions;
2. Existing program administration;
3. Best Management Practices; and
4. BMPs not currently in Bay Model.

 The Chesapeake Bay Model can only give credit for BMPs entered into it, and only what is known can be entered into it. The amount of pollution reduction Pennsylvania has achieved since January 1, 2006, is determined by BMPs that have been entered into the Bay Model by US EPA. To date, Pennsylvania has primarily included only BMPs cost shared by Federal/State programs. Thus, unreported actions relate to BMPs that were (1) funded completely by private dollars, (2) cost shared through government programs not presently accounted for in the Bay Model, or (3) undertaken without pollution reduction being a goal, but in reality, achieved pollution reductions.

York County’s municipalities need to identify, report, and get credit for these unreported BMPs to help achieve their draft target reductions. These unreported BMPs, or “credits,” may be the least costly and most efficient means of reducing the distance the County must travel toward reaching its pollutant reduction targets. Examples of such projects include, but are not limited to:

Capture Unreported Actions  

• Ag BMPs not associated with conservation plans and/or cost shared by Appendix C programs,   
• Municipal BMPs not required by NPDES permits or cost shared by Appendix C programs, 
• Projects cost shared with agencies not included in Appendix C, such as PEMA and PennDOT; project examples include Wrightsville Susquehanna riverbank restoration and PennDOT Mt. Rose Avenue stream bank stabilization, 
•  Projects requiring PA DEP permits, BUT not cost shared by Appendix C programs, 
•  Erosion and sedimentation projects not reported to PA DEP, and 
•  BMPs completed by any stakeholder on private lands.