Template 1. Phase 3 Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Planning and Progress Template

Green - action has been completed or is moving forward as planned Yellow - action has encountered minor obstacles Red - action has not been taken or has encountered a serious barrier

Action

#

Description Performance Target(s) Responsible

Party(ies) and

Partnerships

Geographic

Location

Expected

Timeline

Potential

Implementation

Challenges or

Recommendations

Resources Available Resources Needed

Technical Source Financial Source Technical Suggested

Source

Financial Suggested

Source

Priority Initiative 1: Streamside Tree Buffers- 80,500 acres of Ag Riparian Forest Buffers and 3,100(?) acres of Urban Riparian Forest Buffers 1.1 Develop and implement a

comprehensive

communications strategy

to support

implementation and

maintenance of Riparian

Forest Buffers.

Establish/maintain a network

of committed partners to

ensure consistent and

coordinated communications

around buffers.

PSC, DCNR’s

RFBAC, PA WIP

III Forestry

Workgroup, PA

in the Balance,

etc.

Bay Ongoing Coordination,

assembling data

RFBAC DCNR $5,000

annually

to host

RFBAC

Meetings

DCNR 1 FTE to

coordinate

continuous

updates from

all partners

DCNR $100,000

annually for

FTE and

operating

costs

PA General

Fund

Connect outreach campaign

directly to TA providers to

ensure campaign adds value

to their efforts and/or

provides specific needed

resources.

Contract w/ expertise to

develop a forest buffers

outreach/normalization

campaign. Include methods

and messages to increase

support from broad public,

decision makers, and

individual landowners, etc.

DCNR, DEP Bay 2019,

2020

Funding,

Coordination

Stream ReLeaf

Project

DCNR $125,000 NFWF N/A N/A $1,000,000 ??

Create discussion

opportunities with state

government leaders on forest

buffers, such as with key

legislative committees; for

example: CBC, joint

conservation committee,

energy resources and

environment committee, etc.

**Ask Katie Woodbury if she

can ID any key

events/committees that would

resonate.

DCNR, DEP,

PDA

Harrisburg By 2020 Legislature Bay Program,

Buffer Initiative

DEP, DCNR,

other

partners

$0 N/A n/a n/a n/a n/a

Create discussion

opportunities with local

government leaders, including

County Commissioners,

PSATS, Mayors, Assoc. of

Boroughs, etc.

Develop a citizen outreach

campaign for all buffers, but

especially non-ag buffers.

Utilize Tree Tender program,

PSU Master Watershed

Stewards, and inmate training

via prison programs.

PSU Extension,

PHS, DCNR,

TreePennsylva

nia, CDS

Baywide Ongoing Engaging new

people, volunteers

too busy with other

commitments, etc.

PSU Extension,

DCNR, PHS,

DOC:CWP

DCNR Estimate

$1,200/tr

aining

event,

does not

include

staff

time

DCNR,

PHS

-fee for

training

option

Build

partnerships

PSU, CDS,

Watershed

Organizatio

ns, Water

Authorities

, FBC

Apply for

grants as

needed

NSF

Create discussion

opportunities for business and

industry leaders and

landowners surrounding

forest buffers- Turkey Hill

example. Land O’ Lakes, etc.

Support/enhance (or create

new if needed) existing K-12

curriculum to foster

conservation commitment

from future generations.

Connect with existing

programs such as FFA,

Envirothon, Project WILD, etc.

Dept. of Ed,

PDA, DEP,

DCNR

Bay Ongoing Coordination,

Education

standards,

curriculum

development, buy-

in, teaching time

constraints

DCNR parks staff,

DEP EE center,

Dept. of Ed joint

positions,

current

environmental

standards

DCNR, DEP,

Dept. of Ed,

etc.

None/Un

known

N/A More

teachers or

environment

al science

coordinators,

improved

standards,

new

curriculum

Dept. of Ed

w/

assistance

from DEP,

DCNR,

partners.

$3M annually Unknown

Work with industry, PDA, etc.

to help encourage consumers

to invest in “clean water

products,” supporting farms

that implement conservation

measures. For example,

product labels, market

incentives for BMP

implementation, etc. (Connect

to PSU Creamery, etc. as

possible/appropriate).

Develop a training program

for municipal officials to help

them understand funding and

TA sources for forest buffers,

and how forest buffers can

help support MS4s as a BMP

for load reductions and to

stabilize other BMPs (stream

restoration, etc.)

Highlight riparian forest buffer

co-benefits in communication

materials, such as revenue

potential from buffer-grown

florals or fruits or associated

value-added products, wildlife

and pollinator habitat, flood

mitigation, etc. that will

resonate with specific

landowner subgroups.

Develop high-quality buffer

demonstration sites, at least

one urban and one Ag, in each

county in the PA Bay

Watershed.

1.2

Commitment from

Leadership at all State

and Federal Levels to

Prioritize Forest Buffers.

Leaders develop a

collaborative strategy to

articulate how they will

support riparian forest

buffers. (Via a retreat,

workshop, etc. with

facilitation.)

Ensure that buffers are

incorporated in resolutions

and other high-level

documents and

communications.

Leaders prioritize buffers

when making decisions on

resource allocation in both

urban and agricultural sectors.

DCNR, DEP,

PennDOT,

DCED, etc.

Bay-Wide Ongoing Current CDWS and

other technician

contracts do not

include buffers as a

priority, no annual

buffer goals or

requirement to

promote practice,

etc. PennDOT does

not prioritize, PEMA

doesn’t recognize

flood benefits, etc.

DCNR C2P2

Buffer Grants,

PennVEST buffer

investment, DEP

Growing

Greener,

Conservation

Districts, PEMA,

etc.

DCNR, DEP,

PennDOT

n/a n/a N/a n/a n/a n/a

Ensure leaders have all

background knowledge

necessary to constructively

communicate buffer

Technical staff,

partners, etc.

to engage their

leadership on

importance and advocate for

buffer implementation.

buffer

importance

relative to

their program

areas.

Leaders include buffers and

buffer co-benefits such as

habitat, income/product

potential, flood mitigation,

etc. as Routine Component of

all internal and public

Communications.

Foster private sector

champions/leaders to help

them share messages with

their peers and others on the

importance of buffers.

Foster local-level leadership

among technical assistance

providers such as watershed

specialists, service foresters,

NGO partners, etc.

Continued support for partner

networks furthering forest

buffer communications,

implementation, etc. such as

RFBAC, PA in the Balance, etc.

1.3 Technical Assistance

Conduct thorough assessment

of existing TA and capacity to

identify inefficiencies relative

to status quo of programs,

funding, and outreach

methods.

Agencies and Partners

Bay-Wide By Dec

2019

Coordination n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Technical assistance providers

average 50 acres/year based

on status-quo funding levels

and outreach mechanisms

through existing programs.

Reaching implementation

DCNR, DEP,

NGOs, USDA

Bay-Wide ASAP Long hiring process,

training individuals,

housing individuals,

retaining

individuals,

overhead,

n/a n/a n/a n/a Training

from existing

TA staff?

DCNR,

DEP, NGOs,

USDA, etc.

OR Private

businesses

starting salary

of $40,000 +

35% benefits

= $12.42M

just for salary

& benefits of

??

goals of 80K Ag buffers by

2025 at these rates will

require 230 new TA positions-

these could be private sector,

NGO, State, etc. or some

combination thereof.

However, if investments in

communications and

leadership are realized as

recommended, the need for

new TA is reduced to

approximately 75 new

positions only. Additionally, if

deadline is extended past

2025 to a 20-year

implementation timeline, 30-

40 positions could adequately

suffice to support

implementation work.

/contractor

s?

230 new

positions, not

including

overhead, etc.

Create capacity to support

increased implementation,

such as increase in tree stock

availability, increase in

contract planters and

maintainers, etc. Private

sector and government.

Identifying strategic

locations/organizations for

adding new TA; examine

options for regional/county

buffer programs (USC

example).

Agencies and

partners

Bay-Wide Dec 2020 Finding funding,

long hiring

processes,

onboarding time,

etc.

20 FTE Various N/a N/a 230 FTE Various? $12.42M

annually

??

Deliver tools to TA providers

to ensure they can be most

effective when working with

landowners, including social

science/targeted marketing

and advertising options,

science-based location

prioritization, buffer gap

analyses, etc.

Agencies and partners

Bay-Wide

Ensure TA resources

understand all options

available to landowners to

implement buffers, and have

the ability to match the

program that best meets

landowner needs and values,

considering habitat,

income/product potential,

flood mitigation, etc.

SCC, PDA, NGOs,

Conservation Districts, etc.

Bay-Wide 2019-

Ongoing

Prioritization/

coordination across

agencies,

understanding

details/developing

user-friendly

messaging to

encourage

accelerated

enrollment, etc.

SCC

Website/Staff

SCC/PDA,

Conservatio

n Districts

Unknow

n

SCC, PDA Staff

Coordination

, new FTE?

PDA, SCC,

Conservati

on Districts

$250K SCC? PDA?

Etc. Private

Sponsors to

utilize REAP

sponsorship

option!

Develop university curriculum

or other types of training

programs to prepare students

and other professionals for TA

positions to help fill new TA

positions as they are created.

State University

System, USDA, DEP, etc.

Statewide? Begin

2019

Curriculum

Development,

University

partnership/buy-in,

policy change, etc.

N/A N/A None N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown University

Partnership,

USDA, PDA,

DEP, DCNR,

etc

Examine options for

encouraging additional private

sector consultants to provide

tree services (inclu. buffer

implementation and

maintenance) to landowners,

complimentary to current

public service options.

Landowner-paid consultant

services could enhance

delivery of many current

programs, and could include

both Ag-sector Consultants

and Forestry-sector

Consultants.

Ensure that practitioners are

aware that concentrated flow

paths can reduce buffer

effectiveness, and that

concentrated flow-paths are

adequately addressed during

buffer design and

implementation; develop

standard training program for

all buffer practitioners to

improve effectiveness of

installed buffers.

RFBAC- already under

advisement of this group.

Explore technological

advancements/innovations in

tree planting and

maintenance- Live Staking,

Direct Seeding, Natural

Regeneration where

appropriate (northern tier

communities, places with low

deer pressure/low invasive

pressure, in-tact forests and

seed sources, etc.)

Explore creation of new

technology to use lidar, land

cover data, etc. to determine

which sites would be most

likely to be successfully

reforested with natural

regeneration, direct seeding,

live staking, etc.

1.4

Develop comprehensive

funding mechanisms for

Riparian Forest Buffers.

Fully utilize existing funding

sources for buffer

implementation and

maintenance, including

federal, state, and private

programs (esp. under-utilized

programs such as REAP).

UDSA (CREP), SCC (REAP),

DCNR (C2P2) TreePennsylva

nia, (TreeVitalize

Urban Buffers), CBF?, etc.

Bay-Wide Ongoing Existing funding

sources are finite

and not

comprehensive, and

each source has its

own unique

limitations.

Determining best

source for each

project is time

consuming.

USDA and NGO

Partners, DEP,

PDA, SCC, DCNR,

TreePennsylvania

, PSU Extension,

PENNVEST,

USDA and

NGO

Partners,

DEP, PDA,

SCC, DCNR,

TreePennsyl

vania, PSU

Extension,

PENNVEST,

N/A for

some;

TreeVital

ize is

approxi

mately

$26K/yr,

DCNR=

~$500K/

yr,

PV/DCNR

grants

have

$1M+

left in

pilot

MFRFB

funds.

USDA,

CBF, PF,

PAGC,

SCC,

DCNR,

PDA, etc.

40 FTEs for

all buffers,

Urban and

Ag to

outreach,

design, help

contract

implementati

on, etc.

USDA, CBF,

PF, PAGC,

SCC, DCNR,

PDA, etc.

$2.16M

annually for

FTEs (included

in $12M

number listed

in TA section)

Keystone

Tree Fund,

if

developed.

Grants.

Other

sources

TBD?

Develop new, innovative PA

(or Ches. Bay) funding source

and mechanism for Buffers,

including incentive programs

for landowners utilizing buffer

co-benefits such as wildlife

habitat, income/product

potential, flood mitigation,

etc. Streamline funding source

similar to DCNR’s NFWF

Funded Stream ReLeaf

program.

All agencies

and partners

Bay Ongoing/

ASAP

Innovation,

Funding,

Coordination, etc.

Buffer Bonus,

CREP Rental

Payments,

Stroud model.

USDA, CBF,

Stroud, etc.

Unknow

n

Grants Unknown Unknown $500M ??

Ensure all funding

mechanisms for forest buffers

are adequately flexible,

streamlined, and accessible to

best meet landowner needs

and to realize greatest

efficiency.

Further develop Private

Funding program options,

such as social impact investing

and pay-for-success models.

When funding is developed

for other BMPs, include Tree

Buffer implementation as a

requirement for cost-share

funding.

Co-ops incentivize producers

to implement forest buffers.

PDA? Co-ops?

Other

partners?

Products will cost

more- prices passed

on to consumers.

Work with corporations and

institutions (businesses,

hospitals, schools, etc.) to

implement forest buffers on

their lands.

Incentives for Communities,

Private owners, businesses to

Plant Non-Ag Forest Buffers;

Similar to what CBF and

Stroud offer to farmers, based

on number of acres enrolled

in buffers. Incentive money to

be used for other

conservation practices on

same property or in same

municipality.

DCNR, DEP, TreePennsylvania, CBF, ACB, NRCS

Bay wide By 2025 -political climate

-partnership with

DEP

-recognition by civil

engineers that

green infrastructure

is important

component

DCNR,

TreePennsylvania

, CBF, ACB, NRCS,

DEP

DCNR, DEP NA NA NA, studies

needed

NA, studies

needed

NA, studies

needed

NA, studies

needed

1.5

Report and Communicate

Buffer Implementation

Progress.

Assess the capabilities of

current reporting and tracking

systems; understand and

address any existing gaps.

PracticeKeeper

, Stream

ReLeaf,

FieldDoc,

NEIEN, Bay

Model, PA Tree

Map, etc.

Develop mechanism to

capture partner reported and

privately funded buffers and

other BMPs, with appropriate

QA/QC processes, enabling

those BMPs to be properly

credited.

Ensure ability to utilize

tracking system to clearly

communicate success and

progress; utilize data for

planning, outreach, and

resource allocation.

1.6

Invest in site preparation

and post-planting

establishment care to

ensure long-term survival

of forest buffers.

Develop a Maintenance

funding source to create the

capacity for NGOs to develop

their own maintenance

programs for new and

already-implemented buffers

(up to 4 years after initial

planting).

DCNR, DEP,

USDA, SCC,

PDA, NGOs.

Bay Beginning

in 2019

Securing a

sustainable funding

source.

Several NGOs

with existing

programs,

several private

restoration

contractors

USDA PPA,

DCNR C2P2,

DEP

Growing

Greener,

NFWF CBSP,

NGOs, SCC

REAP,

landowner

funds/labor

Unknow

n- TDB

(not

enough!)

USDA

PPA,

DCNR

C2P2,

DEP

Growing

Greener,

NFWF

CBSP,

NGOs,

SCC

REAP,

landown

er

funds/la

bor.

Add capacity

to existing

NGOs,

increase

private

restoration

contractors

willing to

perform

maintenance

activities.

NGOs,

private

contractors

.

Cost of Site

Prep + 4yrs

maintenance

costs X 85K

acres, PLUS

cost of

maintaining

existing acres.

Pooled from

USDA, DEP,

DCNR, PDA,

NFWF, etc.

AND/OR

new from

general

fund or

other?

Develop outreach campaign

and clear, concise materials

for landowners that

communicate timelines and

responsibilities for buffer

maintenance. Highlight

information on technical or

financial assistance options.

DCNR Bay 2019 Funding for

marketing/communi

cations expertise,

time to contract

expertise.

Landowner

Guide to Buffer

Success, other

existing materials

CBF, other

NGOs,

USDA, PSU

Ext, etc.

None or

little.

N/A Communicati

ons/Marketi

ng person to

coordinate

universal

material

development

, updates,

distribution,

etc. (expert).

Private

firm?

$200,000 for

initial printing

and

development

costs.

Unknown

Require that all grantees

applying to any existing or

new buffer grant programs

demonstrate knowledge and

ability required to conducted

adequate site preparation and

post-planting establishment

care.

DEP, DCNR,

USDA, NFWF,

TreePennsylva

nia, etc.

Bay 2019 Coordinating RFP

language

development

n/a n/a n/a n/a Staff to write

RFP language

DEP,

DCNR,

USDA,

NFWF,

TreePenns

ylvania,

etc.

n/a n/a

Where opportunities exist,

examine options to develop

new capacity for community-

based post-planting support.

Look at options for site

steward volunteers, PA

Outdoor Corps, Prison

Programs, Community

Service, etc.

Ensure that all current buffer

implementation programs,

and any newly developed

programs, include a

mechanism to fund

maintenance.

Ensure that buffers are

designed to be maintained in

such a way that meets

landowner intended use and

maintenance ability. Consider

maintenance differences for

buffers designed as wildlife

habitat vs. income/product

potential, etc.

Continue to support research

where there are new or

ongoing challenges with

maintenance or

implementation.

Examine options for

encouraging additional private

small business to provide

landowner-paid or cost-

shared/contracted site prep

and post-planting care

services to landowners,

complimentary to any newly

developed public service

options.

1.7

Implement the widest

possible buffers on each

individual site (100ft

width goal) to best

ensure that nutrient

reduction capabilities and

buffer co-benefits are

realized.

Ensure forest buffers are

implemented to Chesapeake

Bay Model Specifications (min

35ft wide). Through the Bay

Program, buffers must be 35ft

wide to receive model credit

as a “forest buffer”.

Provide greater incentives for

landowners who install wider

buffers, i.e. 100+ ft. wide.

Narrow streamside forest

strips (10-34ft in width) are

not as effective as true forest

buffers (35+ft wide).

Encourage policy to prioritize

wider buffers.

1.8

Conserve existing riparian

forest buffers to ensure

continued progress

towards goals and to

support the investment in

new buffer

implementation.

Encourage existing buffer

conservation to normalize

forest buffers everywhere/on

every stream, and as way to

continue support for ongoing

buffer implementation

funding.

Maintenance of newly

installed riparian forest

buffers, to ensure long term

survival, is critical.

Incentivize permanent

conservation of existing forest

buffers through conservation

easements and/or long-term

leases (99yrs), as applicable

(examine lease idea w/

expertise before strongly

advocating- See Berks Nature

example).

Develop tools that encourage

localities to create riparian

buffer ordinances to protect

existing riparian buffers and

limit development in the

riparian zone. Also consider

tool development to

encourage local zoning that is

favorable to riparian tree

planting possibilities.

Create mechanism to

conserve existing buffers for

flood prevention/mitigation.

PEMA/FEMA

Phase 3 Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) Planning and Progress Template

Each county-based local area will use this template to identify:

1. Inputs – These are both existing and needed resources, public and private, to implement the identified priority initiative. These include both technical and financial resources, such as personnel, supplies, equipment and funding.

2. Process – what is each partner able to do where and by when. These are the action items listed under each priority initiative.

3. Outputs and outcomes – both short and long-term. These are the priority initiatives identified by each county. The performance targets are the intermediate indicators that will measure progress.

4. Implementation challenges – any potential issues or roadblocks to implementation that could impede outputs and outcomes

For each Priority Initiative or Program Element: Use the fields, as defined below, to identify the inputs and the process that will be followed to achieve each priority initiative. This is the “who, what, where, when and how” of the plan:

Description = What. This may include programs that address prevention, education, or as specific as planned BMP installations that will address the Priority Initiative. A programmatic or policy effort will require some ability to quantify the anticipated benefits which will allow calculation of the associated nutrient reductions.

Performance Target = How. This is an extension of the Description above. The Performance Target details the unique BMPs that will result from implementation of the Priority Initiative and serves as a benchmark to track progress in addressing the Priority Initiative. Performance Targets may be spread across multiple Responsible Parties, Geographies, and Timelines based on the specifics of the Initiative.

Responsible Party(ies) = Who. This is/are the key partner(s) who will implement the action items though outreach, assistance or funding, and who will be responsible for delivering the identified programs or practices.

Geographic Location = Where. This field identifies the geographic range of the planned implementation. This could extend to the entire county or down to a small watershed, based on the scale of the Priority Initiative, range of the Responsible Party, or planned funding/resources. NOTE: Resource limitations alone should not limit potential implementation as additional funding may become available in the future.

Expected Timeline = When. Provide the expected completion date for the planned activity. This should be a reasonable expectation, based on knowledge and experience, that will aid in tracking progress toward addressing the Priority Initiative.

Resources Available: Technical & Funding = This field will note technical and financial resources secured/available to implement the program (Description). This is the total of the resources identified in the County Resources Inventory Template below allocated to the priority initiative as a whole; or, if available, to each action.

Resources Needed: Technical & Funding = This field will note technical and financial resources needed/outstanding to implement the program (Description). This is the total of the additional resources projected and identified as needed in the County Resources Inventory Template below allocated to the priority initiative as a whole; or, if possible, to each action.

Potential Implementation Challenges/Issues = This field will note challenges and issues that may delay program implementation (Description)

Incentivize the conservation

of forest for Developers when

they’re developing new areas.

Communicate that forest

buffers in urban areas can

help offset future costs for

regulated communities

(Healthy Watersheds Project).

Work with DEP to incentivize

existing buffer conservation as

post-construction stormwater

management BMP.