Draft for review and comment 10/2/18

Upper Susquehanna Coalition

Strategic Planning Retreat

A Synopsis

Cooperstown, NY

20 and 21 January 2005

Overall Meeting Objective: To review how the USC operates and renew our understanding and commitments to the organization. With the advent of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL issue it is a prime time to discuss how the USC can function.

Overall USC Vision: An implementation oriented organization dedicated to working on nonpoint source issues of local, state, regional and national importance. (What do you think?)

Bi-state efforts of PA and NY: The USC’s bi-state efforts have evolved to support those activities that help each state meet its water quality needs

I. Develop Institutional Standing

To facilitate and strengthen USC activities while not affecting the flexibility and networking ability that epitomizes the USC,standing should help with funding streams, tackling big issues, accepting more responsibility and such.

The District network was selected as the most easily melded into an institutional structure. It is important to not change the USC’s ability to function.

NEXT STEP: After much discussion the next step was to form a subcommittee to develop one or more possible scenarios to meet the above objective. Jim Curatolo will set up a subcommittee meeting in a timely manner. A subcommittee was formed which will at a minimum, review:

  1. An “intergovernmental agreement” among SWCDs (NY)/ CDs(PA) without the need to change District Law
  2. An “intergovernmental agreement” among SWCDs ( NY)/CDs(PA) with a change in District Law that may provide more “standing”
  3. Note: “inter-municipal” agreements between the Counties was thought to be not successful (worries about liability at the county level would probably be an insurmountable stumbling block)
  4. Other types of organizations such as 501c3 were quickly eliminated

Subcommittee members: Amanda Barber, Jeff Parker, Steve Lorraine, Wendy Walsh, Jim Curatolo, Keith Porter, Mark Watts, Jason Mulford, Mike Lovegreen

There was a discussion on general membership structure, as follows:

  1. Each county will ensure all water quality /water quantity/watershed type interests would be included as part of that USC county’s contingent; it is the responsibility of individual/individuals selected to vote at USC meetings to ensure that this occurs
  2. Each county is in complete charge of developing its “USC network” in its county as well as selecting the individual/individuals who will be the representatives that vote
  3. One county – one vote
  4. NY Water Quality Committees and PA Conservation Districts were the prime entities suggested as the way to ensure that bullet “i” is fulfilled, but other county entities might be used as deemed appropriate by that county (e.g. Delaware’s DCAP)

II. Review and Renew USC Activity Focus Areas.

The USC will also work on more local or less common issues from time to time as the membership feels it is appropriate. We separated the USC activity categories into:

  1. GIS/Data Management
  2. Scientific Support
  3. Outreach/Education
  4. Planning
  5. Implementation
1.GIS/Data Management

We have and will continue to support a robust GIS-based data management system. Because every county has different GIS capabilities and needs we will support each county to the best of our ability and to the degree that is needed. Our GIS Coordinator will support data collection and analysis, web-based mapping and related topics, LIDAR, computer modeling (but not as a prime focus) and other related efforts as they arise. We will add GIS/Data management support as needed.

2. Scientific Support

The USC has for several years promoted its concept of “partnering with academia” to help provide scientific support to its operations. With the advent of USC’s partnership with DEC in developing the NY CBP Tributary Strategy, the USC adopted the “Scientific Support Group” concept pioneered by DelawareCounty through their DCAP Program. We will strive to develop a more robust program to ensure a sound scientific basis for our activities. The need for sound science in CBP Tributary Strategy will be one driving factor in this area.

The USC will facilitate and support its academic partners (the majority of its scientific support) by providing study sites, practical research topics, staff support, funds when available, stakeholder support for research projects and other support as needed to work in the following areas:

  1. Monitoring. There are two levels of activity:
  2. Water Quality monitoring to support Tributary Strategy and academic research projects
  3. Water Quality Monitoring for education, outreach and small planning projects by USC members
  1. Supporting graduate and undergraduate student research. This provides a wide array of possibilities, especially for answering practical implementation questions as well as providing students with real life experiences (future staff training). The USC would support developing a rigorous academic program that provides students with credits and the USC with knowledge.
  2. Watershed Modeling is another important scientific component that USC will support, largely through its academic partners.

Partners:

BinghamtonUniversity, Center for Integrated Watershed Studies

Biological Field Station, SUNY Oneonta

WRI at Cornell

CornellUniversity

PennStateUniversity

AlfredUniversity

SUNY Cortland

SUNY Cobleskill

SRBC

USGS

NEXT STEP: SUNY Biological Field Station will host a meeting of interested Scientific Advisors to discuss topics of mutual interest and how to best support USC nonpoint source initiatives. This meeting could build on the Scientific Support Group developed by the USC for the NY Tributary Strategy. Bill Harmon will pick a time when the lake is not frozen. He also has offered the potential of housing a staff member or such that we should consider.

3. Outreach/Education

We discussed what outreach efforts the USC should focus on to support USC activities. Emphasis must be on continuing outreach efforts to keep stakeholders informed on Tributary Strategy efforts in NY and soliciting feedback.This feedback soliciting efforts should be focused especially on groups that are directly affected, such as the farming community. The USC must communicate to all local, state and federal legislators the role of USC in the nonpoint source arena. An educational effort, to both students and adults was discussed, focusing on watershed issues and the Chesapeake Bay Issue in particular. The SUNY Otsego Lake Biological Field Station may provide an opportunity for adding a Chesapeake Bay component to their student activities and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay may have partner with the USC in some outreach fashion. There is a need to have an Outreach point person, whether full time or part time. We expect most technical training to occur as part of the appropriate implementation initiative.

NEXT STEP: Lee Younge, Chemung EMC, will begin developing these ideas with an 8 February 2005 meeting to outline USC Outreach/Education Focus Areas.

Draft Outreach subcommittee: Lee Young, Leila Mitchel, Stacy Merola, Tim Hicks, Craig Schutt, Lindsay Wickham, Karen Clifford, Jim Curatolo, Jen Fais, Mary Jane Porter, Wendy Walsh, Jeff Parker, Jeff Carmichael, Terra Dillman, Melissa Yearick

4. Planning

Jen Fais, STRPDB, led the planning discussion. Some suggested efforts included continuing the highly successful Rural Design Notebook work Jen has initiated with the help of the Landscape Architecture Department at Cornell. Another suggestion was to initiate a “build out analysis” using historic air photos to show potential development trends. Again there must be someone who will take the lead on these and other potential USC Planning Focus Areas.

NEXT STEP: Jen Fais will develop a short list of potential USC Planning Focus Areas.

5. Implementation

The attendees review a list of potential implementation areas and ranked them using a pair-wise comparison matrix (32 responders). A score of 15% would be a “perfect score”. The objective was to rank important areas with respect to USC involvement in that category of implementation work. Listed below is an annotated description of the results:

  1. Agriculture Planning (10%) – The USC will use the NY AEM tiered planning approach for developing the agricultural portion of the NY Tributary Strategy, which will be a good umbrella for describing agricultural implementation in NY. Because of differences in state needs and smaller size of the PA portion there will be little formal general agricultural planning for PA pursued at the USC level; PA work will be more closely tied to specific agricultural initiatives. A major component of this focus area is documenting BMPs for use in the Bay Watershed Model and other models to support Tributary Strategy development. MadisonCounty has suggested a prioritization component be included to help match farm needs to funding sources.
  1. Agricultural Nonstructural BMP Support (11%) – This category may overlap with others such as the USC Wetlands Program, but that is good as it shows the integrated aspects of our work. This is a Focus Area that NY and PA members can both work in equally well. Here are some specific initiatives that may be of especial importance:
  1. Nutrient Management – Comprehensive nutrient management plans, mass balancing on farms to understand nutrient fluxes through the farmstead and as a different approach to BMP selection, precision feed and forage management and possibly precision nutrient application as real nutrient reduction practices
  2. Riparian Buffers – We will use CREP, CRP and Watershed Initiative funding to begin developing this focus area. Because of the relative permanence of the BMP, funding availability and multiple benefits this should be an important focus area.
  3. Intensive Rotational Grazing – In NY there has been a great emphasis on rotational grazing throughout the USC counties. The USC can provide additional networking support as needed to help promote this activity as a true Basin-wide Initiative.
  4. Cover Crop Program – in the early idea phase to develop a cover crop program in response to the needs of the CBP NY Tributary Strategy.
  1. Agricultural Structural BMP support (9%) – This category includes the more concrete and steel type projects such as manure storage structures. The USC will revisit this category to discuss how they see USC activities supporting these efforts.
  1. Stream Corridor Restoration (10%) – Starting with “triage” planning efforts espoused by Bradford CD as a practical approach to stream work, the USC will focus on Natural Stream Design, Floodplain enhancement, habitat restoration efforts and other practices to utilize as many avenues as possible to develop stable stream reaches. Bradford County Conservation District will take the lead for this important focus area, including training and technical support. The USC’s Targeted Watershed Initiative Grant will provide funds to follow through on this Initiative.
  1. USC Wetlands Program (9%) – The USC has successfully developed a wide ranging program that restores and constructs wetlands for flood attenuation, water quality improvement and habitat diversity. All wetland types, including ephemeral wetlands, are covered in the USC program. We will continue to work with all our wetland partners to maximize their programs, a well as develop new initiatives to meet future needs. We will use our wetland program to help meet Tributary Strategy needs for both PA and NY.
  1. Drinking Water Protection/Restoration – Groundwater and Surface Water (8%) – The USC will work on Source Water Issues pertinent to its other nonpoint source focus areas. This focus area includes many aspects and further refinement by the USC will be needed to clarify how to proceed.
  1. Road Ditches and Bank and other Highway Practices (7%) - Training of highway staff and restoration of banks, ditches, culverts, bridge right of ways and such. Use of the PA Dirt and Gravel Road Program will provide one important means of support. This focus area is closely tied to the stream restoration initiative due to many common sources of disturbance.
  1. Community Support (7%) – Helping communities develop strategies to address issues of local concern, concentrating on the USC nonpoint source focus areas.
  1. Stormwater (7%) – This focus area concerns Stormwater Phase 2 regulations and all those associated concerns. Landscape flooding, streambank erosion and roadway issues are captured in other Focus Areas discussed above.
  1. Septics (6%) – As a nonpoint source issue relating to lake eutrophication, groundwater contamination and stream reach pollution.
  1. Forestry (5%) –Forests compose about 70% of the landscape. Logging roads can cause long-term runoff drainage problems. Training on forestry BMPs can reduce runoff problems, especially sediment. A more intensive look at the forest landscape may provide insight into how big a component it is in affecting stream runoff and erosion. Research efforts in the Tributary Strategy arena are being conducted to better ascertain the extent of nitrogen fluxes through the forest ecosystem.
  1. LakeIssues (4%) – There are relatively few natural lakes in the USC, the largest being OtsegoLake. Although not extensive in nature these systems are important locally and are part of the greater river system that drives much of the nonpoint source issues on a regional basis. Incorporating lakes issues into the larger sediment/nitrogen/phosphorus river equation may be a way of tying the two water body types under the USC banner.

IIICapacityBuilding

The USC discussed the various needs of the different counties to build capacity to meet future demands. The following discussion attempts to capture the nature of the need for increasing capacity and some suggestions on fulfilling those needs. The list is in no special order.

  1. Natural Stream Design support, especially technical design and site review expertise
  2. Increase in county staffing to support implementation projects (Chenango, Schuyler, Broome, Madison NY) and educational efforts (Tioga PA)
  3. Increased office space
  4. AEM Planning support
  5. Develop mechanisms to prioritize projects
  6. Help with review of stormwater Phase II projects
  7. General engineering services to supplement NRCS engineering
  8. Specific engineering expertise for developing TR-20 model results and related floodplain analysis
  9. Use of college interns to support projects
  10. Water Quality monitoring, including stressed steam segment analysis
  11. Support for helping citizen and watershed groups
  12. Roadway restoration support such as aiding with better culvert designs
  13. Expertise on specific issues as they arise to support county staff
  14. Outreach/education support to supplement county staff
  15. Support for developing local water quality monitoring projects (possibly a task for our academic partners), including the suggestion to conduct “stressed Stream segment” analysis
  16. Keep present staff through increased salary levels and increased training “individual capacity building”
  17. Develop the concept of a “technical exchange” where a specific expertise in one USCCounty may be provided to another. This concept has already been initiated but we will expand upon it by searching for hidden talents and also provide funding to support this most cost effective capacity builder.
  18. All USC Counties supported the team approach concept, where one or several USC Staff (either dedicated USC staff or USC Member County Staff that could help in other counties) would help with a project. Depending on the need the team would provide specific expertise or possibly just additional staff time to ensure a project was completed. An entire continuum of help possibilities was considered. It was made quite clear, however that any “team” entering a county must be under the full auspices of the resident county. Also “trust” is an important issue with respect to some projects, as they are only successful due to the trust the recipient has with the local agency person. In these situations it will be imperative that the team or outside expertise staff be in the background.
  19. Consideration of the “distance” issue in all capacity building scenarios is important to develop practical solutions.

NEXT STEP: Jim Curatolo with the help of the USC staff will begin assessing local available expertise.

Potential Teams/Technical Exchange Topics: GIS, Natural Stream Design, Roadway banks, ditches, culverts, Wetland development, Riparian Buffers, Water Quality Monitoring, Precision feed and forage management, Intensive rotational grazing, Cover crop planting, Farm friendly CNMP (including CNMP Maps, digital RUSLE), mass balancing, web site support, scientific research with academia

IV Partners

We were not able to discuss, in depth, our partner associations due to time constraints. Provided is the list for all to review. Are there missing names?

NGO:Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Farm Bureau, Finger LakesLand Trust

Sierra Club

Agency: NYS DEC, NYS DAM, PADEP, NRCS, RC&D, USFWS, USGS, SRBC, FSA, NYS DOT, NYS DOH

1