Management Plan - Section VII

In order to identify the issues and concerns of watershed residents, several methods were used to gather public input. The JCWP collected information by holding public meetings, soliciting written responses, consulting existing studies, and creating a survey for municipal leaders. The Recommended Actions listed in Chapter VIII have been designed to address the concerns identified by watershed residents and municipal officials.

The JCWP reaped valuable feedback through the two rounds of public meetings that were held in 1999 and 2000. After reviewing the hundreds of comments that were collected during these 18 meetings, a few overarching themes began to emerge. These themes are listed below, along with some explanation of each one.

Cooperation: Need to achieve cooperation among municipalities themselves, between municipalities and counties, and between municipalities and state regulators.

Education 1: Need to focus on explaining why an issue is a concern, i.e. why x is a problem and z is better, why z needs to happen, how z impacts x and links to y, and on convincing people of the need/problem. Also, we need to focus on teaching how to, i.e. how to actually implement z or how to fix the problem.

Education 2: Focus educational efforts on municipal officials; partner with schools and universities.

Fairness: Need to ensure fairness between counties, regions, and subbasins within the watershed.

Funding: It is often difficult to find funding for valuable programs – ordinances, easements, engineering costs.

Involvement: Need to get local officials, general public, community members, large landowners involved. Focus efforts to attract involvement. Contact specific people to do one task each.

Motivation: How to get people interested and caring that they’re a part of the watershed?

Outreach: Need better public relations. Work with the media to get more people involved. Get more publicity for good projects. Present plan to Chambers of Commerce, business leaders and service organizations via media and speaking engagements.

Prioritize: Prioritize activities on protected parcels, i.e. those with easements, and upstream/headwaters projects (where the effects flow downstream).

Simplify: Reduce red tape, regulations, and bureaucracy. Be consistent. Don’t make the plan too broad.

What follows is a brief discussion of the top issues identified at the public meetings and in the municipal survey. We have noted in particular the many connections and interactions between the issues. These issues are not separate entities that occur in isolation. Rather, they are overlapping concerns, many of which are caused by the same underlying forces. Note especially the discussion of Land Use Planning and Development for a good example of this interconnectedness. Because of their overlapping and interconnected nature, these concerns can rarely be addressed in isolation from one another. Projects must be designed with these interconnections in mind. Quality projects can address a number of concerns at one time. For example, a project to restore a natural floodplain can reduce flood impacts, can reduce erosion and sedimentation, and can provide a pleasant recreational area for public use.

On the surface, the problems with rapid and poorly planned development appear to be mostly social and aesthetic. For example, cookie cutter developments are not very attractive, often reducing the value of the rural character that attracted people in the first place. Increased traffic and crowded schools can result from rapid growth that isn’t well planned for. However, rapid growth and poorly planned development can also have many less noticeable water-related impacts.

In many municipalities, rapid and poorly planned development can gobble up prime farmland. This development pressure, combined with the changing economics of agriculture, encourages the remaining farmers to increase production in order to remain economically viable. The need to increase agricultural production can lead to higher levels of herbicide and pesticide use, greater potential for nutrient pollution through increased fertilizer use and increased numbers of animals, and greater potential for erosion and sedimentation through intense grazing along streambanks that are less likely to be fenced off because of the increased land pressure. An increasingly common occurrence is for traditional family farming operations to convert to intensive livestock operations, which concern watershed residents because of their pollution threats, dust, and odors. In addition, increased production may lead to an increase in either irrigation or consumptive water use by livestock, which will reduce water quantities locally. As developments move further out into the rural farmland, neighbor conflicts increase, as the new suburbanites often do not appreciate some of the smells and practices of nearby farms.

The increase in impervious surfaces (such as roofs, roads, and parking lots) from poorly planned development will increase the amount and intensity of stormwater runoff. The increased runoff can lead to more intense flooding, as well as to increased non-point source pollution from lawn chemicals, oil on roads and parking lots, and litter.

Sprawling land use can also lead to the filling and development of wetlands. Depending on the size of the wetlands, this will either lead to a permanent loss of the wetlands or a “trade” for newly “constructed” wetlands, often a poor substitute for the real thing.

Rapid growth can create difficulties for municipalities in terms of providing adequate sewage treatment. An area that was previously served by on-lot septic systems may become overloaded with household sewage, leading to localized pollution. Providing new sewage treatment infrastructure, a common solution, can be an expensive prospect, even more so if the sewer system has to adapt to a random and sprawling development pattern.

Along with concerns about the impacts of growth in our communities, people in the Juniata watershed are also concerned about an inevitable and unwelcome by-product of growth: waste. Unlike nature, where one creature’s waste is another creature’s food, much of human waste is too exotic and too plentiful to be recycled naturally in local ecosystems. Illegal dumping, trash, and debris, especially in the floodplain, have been major concerns for watershed residents for many years.

Although illegal dumps are incredible eyesores, they may not appear to be directly related to watershed issues. However, if illegal dumps or other litter contain hazardous materials, rainfall may cause contaminants to leach through the soil or runoff over the land surface, contaminating groundwater or surface water. Floods can also wash trash and debris directly into stream courses, where any pollution will immediately enter the stream and adversely affect water quality. Sometimes the sheer amount of debris in streams can have a clogging effect, raising water levels upstream of the debris and causing localized flooding.

Reducing the amount of dumps and litter can occur through creative planning and the active participation of citizens and local government leaders. Programs such as PA CleanWays and county-wide hazardous waste collection days are already improving the blight of illegal dumping in our communities. Also, convenient, low-cost disposal of large household items such as refrigerators and stoves should reduce the amount of illegal dumping. Policies such as bottle bills (deposits on all soda, beer, and juice bottles/cans) or required garbage hauling for all residents of municipalities may also help to clean up rural areas.

Besides cleaning up and reducing illegal dumping, communities need to reduce their overall waste output. Landfills fill up, leading to the need for more space on which to place our trash. This grows costly, both in land and monetary terms. Recycling is a key component of any solid waste management program.

Three issues, Dumping, Trash, and Debris, Residential and Municipal Waste, and Recycling, were combined to form this new category. All of these issues deal with how we reduce, manage, and store our waste outputs.

Developing adequate wastewater treatment systems for both municipalities and individuals is a need seen by many in the region. Poorly-treated effluent from inadequate municipal sewage facilities can lead to a reduction in water quality of local streams. Overly treated effluent can harm aquatic ecosystems as well, as excess chlorine is released into the stream. Malfunctioning on-lot septic systems will lead to stream and/or ground water contamination, fouling the wells of rural residents and leading to potential health hazards. Many people see a need for local governments to take management responsibility for cluster and on-lot sewage systems.

Besides human waste, Juniata watershed residents are concerned about large concentrations of animal waste, particularly from large-scale, intensive livestock operations. These operations are also known by their regulatory names, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and Concentrated Animal Operations (CAOs). Under Act 6, Pennsylvania’s Nutrient Management Act, CAOs are required to complete Nutrient Management Plans for their operations. Thus far, 55 CAOs in the watershed have completed Nutrient Management Plans. More exist, but have not yet completed their Nutrient Management Plans. Juniata County has the most identified CAOs in the watershed, with 24. As more of these operations locate in the region, residents are realizing that many municipalities lack adequate land use planning to effectively protect their water quality from such large-scale agricultural operations. The potential for spills and subsequent nutrient pollution of streams and ground water leaves residents feeling wary of these “factory farm” operations.

Although many of the concerns in this section relate either directly or indirectly to water quality, concerns about water quality and quantity in regards to public water supplies were raised by many residents. Limited water supplies and contaminated wells were both items of particular concern. Public water supply concerns affect not only human health, but also economic matters such as costs for cleaning water or developing alternative supplies. Public water usage also has impacts on fisheries and other wildlife. As humans extract more water from streams and ground water, less water is available for use by fish and other aquatic species.

The related issues of stormwater management, flooding, and floodplain management raise serious concerns among watershed residents about property damage and personal safety. Stormwater management can help reduce the intensity of flooding, as well as decrease the amount of pollution entering streams. Without stormwater management, increased development generally leads to decreased infiltration (water entering the soil), increased runoff, and higher-intensity flooding.

Flooding is a common occurrence in the Juniata watershed, and has been for many years. Flood control dams such as the one on the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River can deflect the worst of the flooding, but no flood control method is foolproof. According to the public meetings, flooding is of particular concern along the Shoup’s Run, along the Aughwick River, and in the Duncansville/Hollidaysburg/Altoona region.

Floodplain encroachment (i.e. building in the floodplain) decreases the amount of area that is available to “accommodate” a flood. Besides increasing the likelihood of damage to themselves, structures built in the floodplain are likely to increase the intensity of flooding by raising the water level, forcing the water to spread out even farther across the landscape. Structures that are protected by a dike or levee exacerbate the flooding problem even more for those upstream. Floodplain management, a type of land use planning, can help prevent these negative impacts by limiting land uses in the floodplain to compatible uses such as forestland, parks (with limited facilities), farmland, or wetlands/nature areas.

Erosion and sedimentation is a concern for residents of the Juniata watershed. Erosion can result from a number of earth-disturbing land use practices, including poor logging practices, conventional tillage agriculture on steep slopes, and construction activities. Unvegetated stream banks in pastures or developed areas are in danger of eroding, and can cause large amounts of silt to enter a stream, especially during flood events. These loads of silt sometimes accumulate downstream, exacerbating flooding around the newly created islands of eroded soil. Silt also covers stream bottoms, sometimes smothering aquatic insects and fish eggs. As it passes downstream, sedimentation smothers oyster beds in the Chesapeake Bay and clouds underwater grasses, preventing sunlight from reaching them. These underwater grasses make up the major habitat for creatures such as blue crabs.

Wetlands and riparian (streamside) buffers of shrubs and trees can trap sediment and slow the water entering a stream, effecting more soil infiltration or allowing sediments to settle out. Stream bank fencing can keep grazing animals from walking on and eroding the streambed and bank. Agricultural conservation practices are designed to maintain good topsoil for farming and to prevent the loss of that soil to erosion. Logging best management practices (BMPs) improve the location, construction, and maintenance of roads, skid trails, and landing areas. It is usually these log-transporting activities (rather than tree felling itself) which cause the most erosion and sedimentation during logging operations.

Pollution, in its many and varied forms, is a serious problem in many areas of the country, and the Juniata watershed is no exception. Pollution negatively impacts water quality and, therefore, decreases the supply of clean and safe drinking water.

The number one pollution concern, nutrient pollution, has broad and far-reaching negative impacts. Nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, continue to act as fertilizers after they enter streams, dramatically increasing the growth of algae. Algal blooms use up oxygen and block sunlight as they proliferate, but they have an even greater impact when the algae die. As the algae die, decomposing bacteria eat the algae and, in the process, greatly reduce the amount of oxygen available for fish and other aquatic life. As many on the East Coast know, the impacts of nutrient pollution extend all the way to the Chesapeake Bay, where underwater grasses and shellfish populations (and therefore fishermen) are being depleted.

Land use practices that could reduce nutrient pollution loads in streams would include planting shrubs and trees along stream banks (riparian buffers), fencing off stream banks from grazing animals, storm water management, and introducing agricultural BMPs to farms, including cover cropping, contour farming, and proper manure use and storage. Other practices that can help reduce nutrient pollution include regular maintenance of septic systems, replacing or repairing malfunctioning septic systems, upgrading municipal sewage systems, and separating combined sewer overflow systems that funnel storm water into the municipal waste water system.

Herbicide and pesticide use on residential lawns and farm fields can contaminate ground water and streams via leaching or runoff, killing riparian plants and animals and contaminating wells.

Acid mine drainage (AMD) can result in lifeless acidic waters, adversely affecting the fishery, water use, and wetland preservation. In the Broad Top area of the watershed, mines have also affected water quantity in those communities, shifting streams through the mine and away from their historic channels.

Industrial pollution (i.e. point sources), particularly a few key paper mills and a large railroad yard, and non-point sources of pollution (such as contaminated storm water runoff, road salts, nutrient pollution, pesticides, AMD, and eroded soil) also concern local residents.

The lack of environmental education is a concern of many in the watershed. Without environmental education, citizens may not see the connections between different land uses and clean drinking water, or they may be inadequately prepared or motivated to act to improve the situation. With increased environmental education, however, citizens are more likely to recognize the value of a clean and healthy environment to the social and economic well-being of their communities. They are also more able to identify and remedy negative impacts of their actions and those of their neighbors and local governments, such as land development (sprawl), intensive livestock operations (factory farms), household, business, and agricultural pollution, and the need for quality sewage systems with active municipal management.

Preservation of wetlands can improve water quality and reduce flooding, because wetlands act as sponges and natural filters for pollutants and sediment.

Poor planning and underestimation of the significance of wetlands has led to the draining and filling of many wetlands in the past. Without wetlands, stormwater is more likely to run off directly into streams, carrying contaminants with it. Many natural wetlands are located in the floodplain, so any development that encroaches on a floodplain is likely to impact wetlands as well. Wetland plants have been shown to act as natural “filters,” trapping sediment and reducing the pollutant load in waters leaving the wetland. Wetlands also provide valuable habitat for fish and birds.

A lack of riparian, or streamside, buffers exacerbates stream bank erosion, as there are fewer roots to hold the soil and less vegetation to soften the intensity of rainfall. Without buffers, stream temperatures rise (affecting cold-water fisheries) and more polluted and sediment-laden runoff can rush directly into the stream.

The many types of pollution discussed above can have detrimental impacts on fish populations. While sometimes not harming fish directly, pollution can kill macroinvertebrates, the tiny creatures that fish consume. Without a healthy population of macroinvertebrates, the stream ecosystem suffers and fish are adversely affected. Nutrient pollution can also harm stream ecosystems by encouraging the rapid growth of algae, the decomposition of which ends up consuming much of the oxygen needed by other stream creatures, including fish.

One of the first steps in developing the Juniata Watershed Management Plan involved collecting public input. From January to March of 1999, nine public meetings were held throughout the watershed. Meetings were held in Hollidaysburg, Bedford, Tyrone, Huntingdon, Orbisonia, Robertsdale, Lewistown, Mifflintown, and Newport. Locations of the meetings were chosen to provide a balanced and well-distributed representation of the different counties and subbasins in the watershed. The purpose of the meetings was to hear and compile the concerns of local residents regarding the environmental and social health of the watershed. Minutes from the meetings, including all responses, are found in Appendix B. The discussion below compiles and categorizes the responses to three basic questions:

At each meeting, responses to question #1 were compiled and then prioritized by a point-based voting system.[1] The resulting list of environmental issues and concerns was compiled for all of the meetings and categorized by theme. Each issue’s points were summed by category to develop a prioritized list of general environmental concerns. The designation of issue categories is not a simple task, because a number of issues overlap or interconnect with one another. Instead of concerning ourselves with developing precise categorical boundaries, however, we simply refer you to the discussion above, which outlined the points of overlap and intersection between the various issues.

According to the public’s responses, the most significant environmental concern across the watershed is poorly planned land development (sprawl) and the need for better land use planning and development in the future. The prioritized list of environmental issues compiled from the public meetings is as follows:

·              Land Use Planning and Development             396 votes
·              Dumping, Trash, and Debris                          159 votes
·              Sewage and Septage                                     159 votes
·              Large Production Animal Farms                    146 votes
·              Water Quality and Quantity                           137 votes
·              Stormwater Management                              115 votes
·              Flooding                                                   90 votes
·              Erosion and Sedimentation                            89 votes
·              Nutrient Pollution                                            81 votes
·              Environmental Education                                 62 votes
·              Floodplain Management                             60 votes
·              Wetland Loss                                                 59 votes
·              Herbicide and Pesticide Use                           47 votes
·              Acid Mine Drainage                                       46 votes
·              Non-Point Source Pollution                            43 votes
·              Logging Impacts (erosion)                              36 votes
·              Industrial Pollution                                          35 votes
·              Riparian Buffers (lack of)                                33 votes
·              Fisheries Management                             32 votes

Another way to analyze the top environmental issues is by looking at the results for the two major regions within the watershed. The Upper region consists of four major subbasins: Raystown Branch, Frankstown Branch, Little Juniata, and Standing Stone. The public meetings in this region included those in Bedford, Hollidaysburg, Huntingdon, Robertsdale (Broad Top), and Tyrone. The Lower region consists of three major subbasins: Aughwick, Kishacoquillas, and Tuscarora. The public meetings in this region were held in Lewistown, Mifflintown, Newport, and Orbisonia.

·              Sewage and Septage                                116 votes
·              Dumping, Trash, and Debris                    106 votes
·              Large Production Animal Farms                104 votes
·              Land Use Planning and Development            98 votes
·              Water Quality and Quantity                        90 votes
·              Stormwater Management                            72 votes
·              Flooding                                                   61 votes
·              Erosion and Sedimentation                          59 votes
·              Wetland Loss                                            55 votes
·              Acid Mine Drainage                                  46 votes

·              Land Use Planning and Development               298 votes
·              Dumping, Trash, and Debris                           53 votes
·              Environmental Education                                48 votes
·              Water Quality and Quantity                             47 votes
·              Sewage and Septage                                       43 votes
·              Stormwater Management                             43 votes
·              Large Production Animal Farms                 42 votes
·              Nutrient Pollution                                           38 votes
·              Erosion and Sedimentation                            30 votes
·              Flooding                                                   29 votes

Although there are a number of points where the two regions differ in the ranking of concerns, a few key differences stick out. First, the perceived need for quality land use planning and development is much greater in the Lower region than in the Upper region, both in terms of sheer numbers of votes and in terms of its relative ranking compared to other concerns. In the Lower region alone, the category of land use planning and development received nearly six times more votes than the number two concern. A likely reason for the overwhelming concern about land use planning and development in the Lower region is its location between State College and Harrisburg, which is already leading to increased development in Perry and Juniata counties. Ongoing highway improvements to US 322 enable faster and more convenient commuting, making these outlying areas attractive as potential “bedroom communities.”

The lack of environmental education and watershed awareness was a considerably greater concern in the Lower region than in the Upper region. It is unclear, however, whether this difference arises from an actual difference in the level of education (is the number or quality of environmental education programs greater in the Upper region?), or from a difference in the level of concern itself (in other words, residents in the Upper region are less disturbed than their counterparts in the Lower region about the quality of environmental education programs, even though the programs do not differ in number or quality).

Other differences of note include the high ranking of wetland loss and acid mine drainage (AMD) in the Upper region, whereas these concerns were nearly absent in the Lower region. The presence of old coal mines in the Broad Top and Allegheny Front areas of the Upper region and the complete lack of coal fields in the Lower region accounts for the different levels of concern about AMD. However, it is not clear why the difference in concern about wetland loss was as marked as it was.

Sometimes committed citizens are well aware of environmental concerns and ready and willing to address them, but some political or social phenomenon arises to hinder the citizens’ efforts. While these phenomena are not environmental concerns per se, they do have considerable impacts on any efforts to remedy environmental concerns. Thus, political and social issues that make it difficult to improve environmental quality in the watershed were also identified at the public meetings. Afterwards, similar responses were grouped into categories by the JCWP staff. These issues were not voted on to determine a priority ranking, unlike the environmental issues. The ranking of political issues was determined, then, by the frequency with which similar issues were mentioned.

The top political issue identified at the public meetings is the need for government coordination and accountability. The Juniata watershed contains nearly 200 municipalities; coordinating these separate governmental units into a county or regional undertaking is a cumbersome but necessary task. Likewise, holding these government entities accountable can be a significant challenge. The top ten categories of political issues are listed below, along with the number of times each category was mentioned.

·              Need for Government Coordination and Accountability                    34
·              Land Use Planning and Development                                            32
·              Environmental/General Education                                                 26
·              Need for Funding                                                                       23
·              Need for Economic Development                                                  20
·              Regulations (too many, too inconsistent, too little enforcement)      18
·              Lack of Environmental Concern                                                 15
·              Community Character (too little or too much change)                      14
·              Conflict between Economic Growth and Environmental Projects         12
·              Need for More Recreational Opportunities                                        9

·              Need for Government Coordination and Accountability                   21
·              Environmental/General Education                                               18
·              Land Use Planning and Development                                          16
·              Need for Economic Development                                                16
·              Need for Funding                                                                     13
·              Regulations (too many, too inconsistent, too little enforcement)    12

The top political issues in the Lower region are as follows:

·              Land Use Planning and Development                                          16
·              Need for Government Coordination and Accountability                 13
·              Need for Funding                                                                     10
·              Community Character (too little or too much change)                    10
·              Environmental/General Education                                                 8
·              Lack of Environmental Concern                                                     8

All is certainly not dismal in the Juniata watershed, and the JCWP also wanted to know what residents enjoy the most about this region. In order to protect and restore the resources of the Juniata River watershed, it is necessary to know what is already here that is valuable. Knowing the strengths of the region is also important because these strengths provide a solid foundation from which to address the weaknesses. In this light, watershed residents were asked to identify positive aspects of the region. As with the political issues, positive aspects of the watershed were not prioritized, and similar responses were grouped into categories. Thus the ranking of positive aspects is based on the frequency with which various categories were mentioned.

High quality educational programs, including those focusing on environmental education, were mentioned most frequently at the public meetings. This category was also frequently noted as a political and environmental concern, meaning that there is still a perceived need for more education among government officials and the general public about environmental issues and planning tools. The juxtaposition of these concerns, along with the acknowledgement of quality programs, may indicate that increased efforts are needed to publicize the availability of existing environmental education programs, to strengthen and increase the number of such programs, and to do a better job of connecting these programs with those persons who can benefit the most by them.

The top ten positive aspects of the watershed are listed below, along with the number of times each category was mentioned.

·              Environmental/General Education Efforts                                  23
·              Recreational Opportunities                                                       18
·              Good and/or Improving Water Quality                                     14
·              Natural Amenities                                                                    13
·              Conservation Organizations                                                      12
·              Agricultural Preservation Programs                                         11
·              Concerned and Active Citizens                                               11
·              Clean-up Efforts (e.g. Adopt-a-Highway)                                 10
·              Improved Governmental Coordination and Accountability           10
·              Best Management Practices                                                    9

·              Environmental/General Education Efforts                              12
·              Recreational Opportunities                                                 11
·              Conservation Organizations                                                10
·              Good and/or Improving Water Quality                                    8
·              Natural Amenities                                                               8
·              Clean-up Efforts (e.g. Adopt-a-Highway)                                8

·              Environmental/General Education Efforts                            11
·              Recreational Opportunities                                                7
·              Best Management Practices                                               7
·              Good and/or Improving Water Quality                                6
·              Agricultural Preservation Programs                                      6
·              Improved Governmental Coordination and Accountability        6

The second round of public meetings consisted of nine meetings held during February and March of 2000. The purpose of these meetings was to present and receive feedback on the draft version of this plan, which was released in January 2000. More than 160 people attended the meetings.

After listening to a brief summary of the plan and its recommended actions, attendees moved into small groups to give their feedback on what was presented. Because many of the recommended actions were broad in scope, attendees also were encouraged to suggest specific local water-related projects that could be incorporated into the final version of the plan. Table B-1 in Appendix B lists the specific recommended actions that came out of the public meetings and plan review phase.

Overall, more than 370 comments were recorded at the nine meetings. Comments included project ideas, responses to the plan’s contents and structure, suggestions of what was missing in the draft plan, suggestions for how to refine the planning and implementation processes, and reiterations of important watershed needs and concerns.

In July of 1999, a survey was sent to each of the nearly 200 municipalities in the Juniata watershed in order to gather more information about local issues, concerns, and needs. Municipal officials in Pennsylvania have considerable power in planning for local land uses and managing sewer and water projects. Thus, their opinions on local water-related issues are crucial to the development and implementation of future projects.

The survey asked local government officials to identify the water-related problems, needs, projects, and hurdles that they face. More than 75 percent of the municipal leaders returned their surveys, providing a comprehensive look at the watershed from a grassroots perspective. See Appendix B, page B-96 ff., for a copy of the municipal survey. Table B-3 on page B-110 indicates which municipalities participated in the survey.

In the first section of the survey, recipients were asked to identify the magnitude of each of sixteen water-related problems for their municipality. Responses were ranked on a scale, from one (not a problem) to five (very serious problem). Mean scores were calculated for each item to determine an overall ranking of the issues by level of importance. Table VII-1 lists the issues in order from highest mean score to lowest.

No issue had a mean score higher than three, or “moderate problem,” indicating that most municipal supervisors or managers feel that these problems do not have a great impact in most watershed municipalities. In fact, all but the top six issues had scores lower than two, or “minor problem.” While none of these problems is having a dramatic impact across the whole watershed, many problems have serious localized impacts. Twenty-two municipalities said that storm water runoff is a “very serious problem” for them, while 19 municipalities identified illegal roadside dumping as a “very serious problem.” The only other issues for which more than ten municipalities claimed to have a “very serious problem” are ground water contamination from malfunctioning septic systems (15) and surface water contamination from malfunctioning septic systems (11).

Townships and boroughs face different sets of problems from one another. Townships, with their rural, sparsely populated landscapes, find illegal roadside dumping to be their most serious problem. Within the survey, municipal leaders were asked to estimate the number of illegal dumps in their municipality. The estimated mean number of illegal dumps is 11.5 per township. The top problems that townships face are listed in Table VII-2.

Boroughs, with their dense settlement patterns and large amounts of impervious surfaces (such as rooftops, roads, and parking lots), find storm water runoff to be their largest problem by far, by more than one full point. The top problems that boroughs face are listed in Table VII-3.

Counties largely experience similar problems across the watershed, demonstrated by the similarity of their lists of top problems (see below). Distinctive traits of the seven watershed counties do appear in the data, however. Blair County’s results expressed its urban character; the county’s scores for storm water runoff, non-agricultural streambank damage, industrial/commercial pollution and erosion were higher than the average overall scores (the higher the score, the greater the problem). Juniata and Perry counties had the two highest scores for both illegal dumping and agricultural nutrient runoff, demonstrating the rural, farming character of the two counties. Juniata County also scored the highest on other rural concerns, such as secondary roads erosion, septic surface water contamination, and private well contamination.

The survey also asked for a list of future, “critical” water-related projects and an update on the status of public water and sewer systems in each municipality. In fact, most of the needed water-related projects involve the upgrading and/or construction of public sewer and water facilities. Sixty-four percent of municipalities with public water systems will need to upgrade within the next ten years. Thirty percent of all municipalities predict the need to construct new community water systems in the same time period. Likewise, over the next ten years, 58 percent of municipalities with existing sewer systems will need to upgrade those systems, while 34 percent of all municipalities expect to construct new sewer systems within this time frame.

Overall, more than 160 projects were identified by 80 of the municipalities as needing to occur over the next ten years. Cost estimates for the list of projects exceed $140 million. Not surprisingly, the most important hurdle that these communities face in carrying out these projects is a lack of funding. Other hurdles that were mentioned include available time, achieving public support and understanding of the issues, permits/regulations, and achieving cooperation between local governments and/or authorities. The list of projects and estimated costs, if available, is located in Table B-2 in Appendix B.

[1] Each attendee was given five stickers worth one through five points each. Attendees then placed their stickers by issues they considered to be the most significant. Points were summed for each issue; the higher the point total, the higher the issue’s priority.