Funding

There are multiple funding avenues outside of self funding, that offer financial incentives or assistance for deploying storm water managements systems  on your land or in your municipality. Sources include:

·      Federal grants

·      State Grants

·      Partnering with Non for profits

·      Maryland's storm water credit system

·      Private Public Partnerships

Recommend utilizing infrastructure that is in place or coordinating efforts with a with a local NGO like the Monocacy and Catoctin  Watershed Alliance, the Interstate commission on the Potomac River Basin, or the Chesapeake Bay foundation  to get the most out of restoration/ conservation  efforts.

Funding sources include:

Federal Agencies

USDA

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program  and Conservation Reserve program  has conserved over 155 thousand acres in the program and over $91 M in payments issued since inception. The programs focus on stream and wetland conservation and improvements on agricultural lands:

·      Stream Bank Fencing

·      Native tree and shrub Planting

·      Wetland Restoration

·      10-15 year lease by program after implementation

·      Up to 90% re-imbursement for eligible costs for established practices

·      Multiple incentive payments with matching funds from states

Use of a buffer strip can annually prevent up to 2.5 tons of soil, 6.4 lbs of nitrogen, and 1.1 lbs of Phosphorous  per acre from entering the watershed system.

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/index

State Programs

Pennsylvania Growing Green Fund

State funded environmental restoration fund, re-authorized annually for farmland preservation, state park improvements, and sewer system upgrades

www.dep.pa.gov/growinggreener

Watershed Grants

The Environmental Stewardship and Watershed Protection Act  authorized  the Department of Environmental Protection to allocate grants for:

·      Acid mine drainage

·      Abandoned oil and Gas wells

·      Watershed restoration and protection plans

http://www.dep.pa.gov/Citizens/GrantsLoansRebates/Growing-Greener/Pages/Watershed-Grants.aspx

Maryland 319 grants

            Reduce or remove non-point source water quality impairments

·      Planning, design, construction, monitoring and analysis

·      Focus on quantitative and measurable improvements in water quality

            http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/319NonPointSource/Pages/Programs/WaterPrograms/319NPS/index.aspx

Non for profit groups

NFWF

Environmental Solution for communities Initiative

• ·      Supports sustainable agricultural activities
• ·      Conservation of water resources
• ·      Improving water quality
• ·      Investment in green infrastructure

www.NFWF.org/environmetnalsolutions/pages/home.aspx

Five Star and Urban Waters Restoration Grant Program

·      Riparian habitat restoration

• ·      Conservation Education
• ·      Community partnerships with measurable benefits

www.nfwf.org/firvestar/pages/home.aspx

Un-Assessed Waters Program

• ·      Works with university’s and non for profits  to assess streams for eastern trout habitat in Pennsylvania
• ·      Provides funds for investigation and restoration

www.nfwf.org/unassessed/pages/home.aspx

Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund

·      Small watershed grant

·      Stream restoration

·      Nutrient reduction

www.nfwf.org/chesapeake/pages/home.aspx

Chesapeake Bay Trust

            Watershed grant program.

           

http://www.cbtrust.org/site/c.miJPKXPCJnH/b.5368633/k.BDEA/Home.htm

Instead of pushing our point source polluter to reach for the upper limits of technically feasible waste removal, it may be more economical to promote a public private partnership between them and upstream non point sources to implement green infrastructure to remove a higher amount of pollutants from the system. The Maryland storm water credit system and Public Private partnerships take this approach.

The state of Maryland has set up a nutrient trading program with in a watershed in the state where point source producers can purchase credits form either other point source producers or non-point sources that have reduced their discharge through use of certified BMP’s below their discharge allotments.   It does not appear as if the  market place is live just yet, but it is a interesting development.

In one of my previous post I had linked info on Public –Private Partnerships  where municipalities or counties partner with private entity’s to implement nutrient reduction as a trade off for other services.  There were examples in Prince Georges county Maryland and with DC water making trade offs with in the same watershed.

Classmates blogs for other watersheds in their region of the world.

Amy C.

Anna S.

Brian R.

Dana Z.

Dyllan C.

Jared R.

Jason A.

Jeanette D.

Jeremy B.

Jim E. (course)

John H.

Karl W.

Lauren H.

Lisa P.

Michael E.

Nicole K.

Patrick K.

Ryan M.

Walter A.

Xialon Z.

Yanet R.

Watershed visit.

As I drove through the watershed today,  on the way to an orchard, I was stuck by how much farm land had been converted to residential property and to the extent that the changes had been extended to.  This re-enforced to me the importance of addressing both nutrient and sediment sources from agricultural and develop lands within the water shed.  Current assessments indicated that agricultural sources are still the major source for nutrients in the watershed, but developed land is the fastest growing use, which if not done with an eye on water resources will result in high flow volumes of contaminated water during storm events.

Below are a couple photos from the C & O aqueduct across the mouth of the Monocacy, a pretty impressive structure. You can see in the upriver photo on top the sparse presence of submerged vegetation  and the silt laden bottom. On the plus side there is a nice snag on the bend in the upper left hand corner of the top photo, and lots of mature forests lining the river bed on either side. 

I have been building upon my presentation for the watershed, the most recent that now includes slides on stormwater treatment is located here .  There are still draft outline slides for future inputs.  

Storm water management approach to improve watershed quality

Point Source pollution within the watershed is fairly well identified and regulated with few options to further reduce inputs outside  investment in better technologies to remove contamination from water to be discharged into the system.  Because higher tech systems come at a higher cost it may be more effective for users to pay for removal of an equal or larger amount of nutrients from the system by installing natural storm water treatment features in urban and agricultural areas that will provide a better return on investment than trying the remove  the last 5 mg/L of a nutrient out of wastewater discharge point.  Generally nutrients from waste water can be reduced to around 10 ppm using low tech solutions, in order to achieve lower concentrations to meet TMDL’s  higher technology systems must be used.(DC Water, 2016)  Rather than making that investment the money could be better spent else ware in the watershed to remove a larger amount of nutrient from the system using natural filtration systems like a buffer strip or bio filtration system to treat storm water and reduce the volume and velocity in which the storm water enters the drainage system.

Buffer strip

http://photogallery.nrcs.usda.gov/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=catalog&template=detail.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=732202&site=PhotoGallery

Bio infiltration system

DC Water, (2016)   Nitrogen Reduction program,  Accessed from: https://www.dcwater.com/education/nitrogen_reduction.cfm#existing

  

The benefits of developing green infrastructure are many and reach beyond water treatment  they include :

·      Reduced runoff quantity

·      Longer resonance time of water in the system

·      Habitat Improvement

·      Soil conservation

·      Improved livability  through green space

·      Enhance property value

·      Low impact and generally low cost

·      Promotes native planting and growth

·      Promotes stream restoration and health

(DC water 2015)  DC Clean Rivers Project, Green Infrastructure Program, Power point presented 19 October 2015,  accessed from https://www.dcwater.com/education/gi-images/2015-0921%20ANC%203C%20Presentation.pdf

For urban areas I am recommending the use of bio filters and water gardens to reduce the volume and velocity of the runoff. Because parts of the watershed are underlain by karst topography it will be important to ensure that we are not loading groundwater in those areas and destabilizing the subsurface resulting in a sinkhole. That does not limit the use of bio retention and infiltration trenches, as long as they are lined in those areas.

Bio filters in a laboratory setting have been shown to remove up to 85% of phosphorus, 70% nitrogen and 95% of suspended solids from storm water prior to discharge for a properly sized unit.  (Bratieres et al, 2008) Although these results were observed in a controlled setting, a lower % removal would still make a significant impact in real world use given proper sizing and maintenance.

In urban areas the goal is to treat and address storm water where it falls and to mitigate storm surges in the water system that often increase the sediment, nutrient, and trash in the water course. This approach has an additional  benefit of reducing  scouring of the local stream beds to allow for stream bank stabilization. A side benefit is a increase in quality of life in hares with a high % of impervious surfaces, which often coincide with poorer areas in municipalities.

The state of Maryland has several good examples of storm water management systems in their design manual: http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/StormwaterManagementProgram/MarylandStormwaterDesignManual/Documents/www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/chapter3.pdf

Buffer strips

For both urban and agriculture areas but especially for the agricultural regions of the watershed, we should promote the use of vegetative buffer strips  to protect streams weather herbaceous ( grasses and/or brush) or forested.  Regardless of the type of buffer there is general consensus  among  practitioners that a minimum 35” buffer on either side of a waterway is a preferred for an effective buffer strip to have the greatest effect but as seen in the North Carolina State report on buffer use and effectiveness, even a 15 ‘ buffer would have a significant impact to stream and watershed health. ( NCSU, 2016)  There will need to be a bit of negotiation in how much land a famer or landowner is willing to give up which may or may not be the optimum thickness, but we should  be sensitive to what the minimum thickness required to make a significant difference and what can be implemented.

Buffer strip effectiveness

Buffer Type	Width (M)	% Sediment Reduction	% Nitrogen Reduction	% Phosphorus Reduction
Grass	4.6	61	4	28
Grass	9.2	74	22	24
Forest	19	89	74	70
Grass/Forest	23.6	96	75	78
Grass/Forest	29.2	97	80	77

( adapted from NCSU, 2016)

Thicker and forested buffer strips provide the best return on value for stream protection and nutrient removal. They have an added benefit of adding richness in the biodiversity of the watershed and protection for fields from wind and water action helping to keep soils and nutrients on the property.  Tree’s add to the quality of streams by reducing the water temperature through shading, and providing structure to the stream in the form of downed trees and snags within the waterway that provide habitat for many species.

Grass and shrub buffers are still beneficial to the health of the watershed and conserving nutrients and soil on surrounding landscapes through soil and bank stabilization and reduction of water velocity entering the stream system from overland flow.

Example of herbaceous buffer strip removal actions

http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/BMPs/fig4.jpg

This all assumes that nutrient management in agricultural areas are fully in place.  Leaky or failing animal waste storage ponds and improper land spreading can often would overwhelm even the best natural buffer strips and should be a priority in areas where best management practices are not being applied.

The other elephant in the room is funding, who pays for all of this and how?

Reference

Bratieres, K. Fletcher, T. Deletic, A. Zinger, Y, (2008) Nutrient and Sediment removal by stormwater biofilters: A large-Scale design optimization study, Water Research, Vol 42, August 2008, pp. 3930-3940

NCSU (2016) Riparian Buffers: What are they and Why do they work?, North Carolina State University,  Accessed from: http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/BMPs/buffers.html#definition