Conococheague Priority Projects Plan

The Franklin County Conservation District (FCCD) has created the Conococheague Priority Projects Plan (CP3), an actionable planning tool for identifying and prioritizing projects which support Clean Water for Franklin County (CWFC) while best serving the people who call Franklin County home. CWFC is FCCD’s initiative to fulfill the county’s state-assigned Chesapeake Bay clean water goals through resource protection projects beneficial to all parties involved. By identifying, prioritizing, and implementing projects identified within this plan, we as a community can improve water quality in the Conococheague Creek Watershed and thus, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

CWFC’s water quality improvement goals are outlined in Franklin County’s  Clean Water Plan . These goals focus on nutrient load reductions that fulfill the objectives of Phase 3 of Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP3). FCCD is committed to prioritizing mutually beneficial water quality projects that serve stakeholders throughout the watershed. Potential stakeholder and landowner benefits include:

• Support Pollutant Reduction Plan (PRP) goals
• Infrastructure resiliency
• Flood mitigation
• Ecological uplift & habitat creation
• Recreational and educational opportunities

The plan also prioritizes regional-scale restoration projects that achieve cost efficient pollutant load reductions. Projects that engage and benefit multiple stakeholders and landowners are given additional consideration as they accomplish broad-reaching goals and are more feasible to implement. FCCD believes that collaboration is key to efficiently achieve the most beneficial projects that equitably serve all of Franklin County.

FCCD developed the  Clean Water Plan  with input from local and regional stakeholders and partners, to identify long-term objectives to reduce nutrient loading in Franklin County waterways. Specifically, the Clean Water Plan outlines how Franklin County aims to programmatically improve water quality by 2025. In conjunction, the CP3 is an actionable plan that outlines specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to implement and next steps to fulfill these broader objectives.

The Clean Water Plan aims to reduce 1,326,616 pounds (lbs.) of Total Nitrogen and 69,653 lbs. of Total Phosphorus by 2025. BMP Targets identified in the Clean Water Plan include over 36,000 linear feet (LF) of urban and non-urban stream restoration projects, over 600 acres of riparian buffers, over 1,000 acres of other upland stormwater BMPs (such as bioswales), and various agricultural BMPs. Since 2020, increased implementation and verification of both agricultural and stormwater BMPs have helped the county achieve significant loading reductions. However, as noted in the Clean Water Plan, there is a need for more data on existing conditions as well as funding to implement projects that help achieve water quality improvement targets. With a short implementation window to meet state-assigned water quality goals by 2025, it is urgent to identify feasible projects that efficiently and effectively reduce nutrient and sediment loading.

The Conococheague Creek Watershed spans 497 square miles (64%) of Franklin County, qualifying it as an area of key interest for this watershed prioritization effort. The CP3 serves as a tool to:

• Prioritize BMPs that fulfill water quality goals while providing additional community benefits
• Assess a given site in the context of the overall watershed
• Guide other watershed stakeholders on appropriate practices for various types of impairments

Understanding the needs of the County Clean Water Plan, FCCD applied for a Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and was awarded Planning and Technical Assistance funding for the development of the CP3. FCCD contracted LandStudies, Inc. (LSI) in the fall of 2021 for support with stakeholder coordination, background research, site assessment, BMP prioritization and plan development. The plan development progressed as follows:

• Readily available electronic data including aerial imagery, resource mapping, historical information, existing studies and watershed reports were collected and reviewed to establish an understanding of baseline watershed conditions, causal impairments.

• A community workshop was held to compile local knowledge and to inform assessment needs and help prioritize regional opportunities. Representatives from local municipalities, government agencies, non-profit organizations and other watershed stakeholders were in attendance.

• LSI carried out field assessments to evaluate watershed conditions and assess potential restoration opportunities.

• These efforts informed priority project benefits to best serve stakeholder and watershed needs. Benefits prioritized in project identification include:
  • Achieving water quality improvements to assist in meeting County targets identified in the Clean Water Plan
  • Mitigating risk and increasing resiliency for existing and planned infrastructure
  • Supporting MS4 municipalities with PRP requirements
  • Enhancing educational opportunities
  • Supporting smart growth and economic development
  • Habitat creation
  • Flood mitigation
  • Best management practices with multiple benefits likely to attract diverse funding source

• Three pilot opportunities were identified and are highlighted with conceptual plans to facilitate implementation and serve as examples or templates for similar opportunities in the watershed.

• Implementation considerations based on project type are presented to provide stakeholder guidance in planning, implementation and long-term operation of prioritized projects.

This interactive map is provided as a reference to facilitate understanding and offer greater detail of the watershed conditions presented in this section. The map shows the assessment watershed and subwatersheds, municipal boundaries, mapped streams, and historical mill dam locations. Most importantly, the map provides points of interest noted by stakeholders at the Community Workshop, BMPs identified in MS4 PRP plans, or observations from the watershed assessment. Private properties were only accessed where landowner coordination had occurred.

By navigating to and clicking on the green points and lines, users can see Field Note comments and photos from the watershed assessment. ArcGIS mapping allows all of the layers in the legend to be selected. If you click and select multiple layers, click the left or right arrow in the bottom right corner of the dialog box until you find the 'Field Note' or desired layer.

• Drains to Potomac River in MD, then to Chesapeake Bay

• Drains 497 square miles in Franklin County, representing 64% of the land in Franklin (USGS, 2022)
  • 1,056 miles of mapped streams
  • 40.2% karst or carbonate area

• Hydrologic Unit Code 10 (HUC10) Sub-watersheds are:
  • West Branch Conococheague Creek
  • Rocky Spring Branch-Back Creek
  • Conococheague Creek
  • These contain 14 smaller HUC12 sub-watersheds

• Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province (PA DCNR, 2022):
  • Mostly in the Great Valley Section
  • Upper West Branch in Appalachian Mountain Section
  • Eastern headwaters in the South Mountain Section

• Land cover (Model My Watershed, 2022) includes:
  • 38% forested area,
  • 45% agricultural land (pasture or crops)
  • >13% developed area.

• 12 municipalities all or mostly within the watershed boundary:
  • Fannett Township
  • Metal Township
  • Peters Township
  • Montgomery Township
  • Antrim Township
  • Guilford Township
  • Greene Township
  • Hamilton Township
  • St. Thomas Township
  • Greencastle Borough
  • Mercersburg Borough
  • Chambersburg Borough

Of these, seven municipalities (Antrim, Guilford, Greene, Hamilton, St. Thomas, Chambersburg and Greencastle) have Pollutant Reduction Plans (PRPs) associated with MS4 permitting requirements. A portion of Letterkenny Township also occupies the watershed, but the Letterkenny Army Depot is located on restricted land owned by the United States Department of Defense, who have a separate watershed restoration plan of their own. Therefore, site assessments were not completed in these areas.

Beyond understanding current watershed conditions, analysis of readily available online resources also revealed significant historical impacts. Impairments resulting from the remnant impacts of largely forgotten historical activities often far overshadow the impact of present-day land uses and are critical to gaining a comprehensive understanding of how to improve Franklin’s water resources.

Site assessments of the watershed were completed in November 2021 and February 2022. Conditions varied throughout the assessment watersheds of the Conococheague Creek based on existing land use, historic impacts, and location within the watershed. 

Chambersburg Borough and several of the surrounding municipalities are developed areas with a mixture of commercial, residential, and industrial land use. Mercersburg to the west and Greencastle Borough to the south also have more developed land use. Outside of these more urban areas, agriculture is the dominant land use in Franklin County. Runoff from both urban areas and agricultural lands adversely impact water quality within the Conococheague Creek Watershed.

Similar existing conditions were consistently observed throughout the sub-watersheds based roughly on the scale of the area draining to a given area of interest and the encroachments and land uses at that location. Therefore, impariments and appropriate opportunities are better categorized between the upland and smallest headwater areas, the mid-sized reaches connecting the headwaters to the receiving streams, and the higher order receiving streams of the lower watershed. These distinctions – small-scale, mid-scale, and large-scale catchments and their associated impairments – more so than differences between any given subwatershed, define the various impairments and opportunities for enhancement encountered within the Conococheague watershed.

For a detailed descriptions and photos of observed conditions throughout the Conococheague’s three HUC10 sub-watersheds, click the following link:

Below is a list of stakeholders and partners that have participated in the CP3 assessment process, or are otherwise actively involved with initiatives related to water resources within the Conococheague Watershed:

Franklin County Conservation District: The FCCD is the lead entity for the Conococheague Creek and for this CP3. The FCCD collaborates with federal, state, and local government related to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL that is a driver for the County’s Clean Water Plan, the CP3, and other water quality improvement initiatives within Franklin County. The FCCD works directly with landowners within the community on agricultural and other activities and it is the connection with these landowners that helps to facilitate the implementation of BMPs related to water quality and soil health. 

Municipalities: The municipalities within in the watershed represent valuable partners and motivated stewards. They own and operate roadways, stormwater conveyances, water infrastructure and community facilities that interact with and influence water quality and natural resources. The municipal partners play a part in managing resources for source water protection, flooding, infrastructure protection, and other community services.

Most of the municipal partners are also MS4 communities with water quality improvement requirements related to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and other water quality impairments as identified by PADEP. While the current emphasis for the MS4 municipalities is to address sediment impairments to the waterways, the implementation of BMPs as part of the individual MS4 PRPs will also address the nutrient impairments that are the targets for the Clean Water Plan. Therefore, projects that will help these individual MS4 municipalities meet their PRP requirements will also help the FCCD. Thus, collaboration with the MS4 permittees was a key part of the CP3. Where possible, PRP BMP data for the individual MS4 municipalities within the study area were included on the priority projects map, as indicated below.

The municipal partners engaged in the planning process include:

• Antrim Township - PRP BMP Data included in Existing Conditions Map
• Chambersburg Borough - PRP BMP Data included in Existing Conditions Map
• Greencastle Borough 
• Greene Township - PRP BMP Data included in Existing Conditions Map
• Guilford Township - PRP BMP Data included in Existing Conditions Map
• Hamilton Township - PRP BMP Data included in Existing Conditions Map
• Letterkenny Township
• Montgomery Township
• St. Thomas Township

Falling Spring Trout Unlimited: The Falling Spring Branch Chapter of Trout Unlimited has collaborated with FCCD, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and the local community on various on-going clean-up efforts, riparian buffer plantings, bank stabilization, fish habitat practices and other improvements along the Falling Spring Branch within Guilford Township and Chambersburg Borough. The Falling Spring Branch Chapter recently applied for grant funding to complete a watershed study from the headwaters of Falling Spring Branch to the confluence with the Conococheague Creek and to complete several stream restoration projects throughout the county.

The Franklin County Chapter Izaak Walton League: This volunteer organization owns property along the Conococheague Creek where they complete tree and shrub plantings, stream clean-ups and general stewardship. The Izaak Walton League is a national conservation organization who spearhead projects that improve water quality and other natural resources.        

Johnston Run Revitalization Council: Made up of community members active in groups such as ALLARM (Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring), Mercersburg Area Wellness Council, and other organizations within the Mercersburg area, this group is dedicated to water quality monitoring, riparian buffer plantings, recreational opportunities and other improvements along Johnston Run. The group collaborated in 2014 to prepare the  Johnston Run Watershed Management Plan  for Mercersburg Borough, identifying water quality improvement opportunities, in addition to identifying recreational opportunities to connect people with the watershed. Plan recommendations include specific small urban BMPs in Mercersburg as well as several stream restorations reaches. The opportunities presented in this plan include those reaches.

Pennsylvania Game Commission: Large portions of State Game Lands 235 are within the watershed. The Pennsylvania Game Commission’s (PGC) mission is to manage and protect wildlife and their habitats, while promoting hunting and trapping for current and future generations. The CP complements goals of the PGC’s  2022-2023 Strategic Plan. 

Penn State Extension: Collaborating with and funded by federal, state, and county governments, Penn State Extension has a long history of bringing unbiased support and education to people, businesses, and communities. Extension programs are delivered by teams of experts that collaborate with government, industry, civic organizations, and others to address pressing needs in priority areas.

NRCS: Since 1935, NRCS has provided leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural resources.

Private Partners:

• Agricultural Operations: Farm land makes up such a large portion of the watershed’s land use and is a core industry in Franklin County. Working with farmers to implement agricultural and land use practices in a manner that both improves water quality and supports their agricultural operations is a key focus of this plan.

• Developers: In some instances, where developers employ stormwater BMPs that provide benefits above and beyond the regulatory requirements associated with the development activity, BMPs may be eligible for grant funding or cost-sharing with other watershed partners to fulfill other watershed goals. In these cases, projects can benefit watershed stakeholders and the developer.

• Landowners & Residents: The majority of land in the watershed is privately owned and as such cooperating with private landowners is vital to achieving plan goals. These projects should benefit these stakeholders through providing recreational opportunities, supporting environmental education and improving water quality and quality of life for surrounding residents. It is imperative that the plan and any resulting projects support the needs of the community and are carried out in an equitable and efficient manner.

The types of impairments and associated restoration opportunities in the Conococheague Creek watershed do not vary significantly from one subwatershed to the next. Background research, stakeholder feedback, and field assessments revealed extensive impairments to healthy resource function throughout the watershed. Instead, the clearest distinction between various impairments was based on whether it was located within a small-, medium- or large-scale catchment within the watershed. The distinctions between these sites are based on the type of impairments present and generalized based on the catchment scale.  This section presents appropriate regional BMPs for each area, describes when and where they are best suited, and provides an overview of the unique benefits and limitations.

These opportunities are located in upland areas, stormwater conveyances and headwater systems. Consider small-scale practices in drainageways that receive pollutant-laden runoff and along existing channels that are shallow and at least moderately stable but subject to intensive land uses. Identify willing landowners with drainage ways receiving significant agricultural or impervious area runoff. Stormwater conveyances on publicly owned land (parks, athletic fields, rights-of-way) are often good opportunities. Expansive lawn areas are often easily converted to more ecologically beneficial land cover.

This opportunity type exists within active floodplains along jurisdictional streams that are generally 2 & 3 ^rd  order or higher. In the Conococheague Creek watershed, they are found along rural agricultural and suburban reaches in unconfined valleys with minimal encroachments from existing infrastructure or development. These reaches connect the small-scale headwater systems to the mainstem and larger tributaries downstream. These types of restoration efforts should be considered for reaches impaired by legacy sediments and other historical manipulation. These projects would be most successful along uniform reaches and therefore may be more feasible where there are only one or a few landowners – through farmland, along a public park or on a large commercial development property.

These opportunities exist on large systems where incoming flows already carry significant pollutant loads from small- and mid-scale watershed impairments upstream. Infrastructure encroachments (bridges, utilities, structures) are common along these reaches as these waterways were often built upon during early settlement. Valley types can be unconfined or partially confined, but ideal project sites have some open area adjacent to the waterway to allow for floodplain restoration practices where low-lying wetlands can be created.

This section presents 29 opportunities for BMPs to achieve water quality benefits. There were several criteria considered when evaluating projects. The potential to achieve nutrient load reductions was a prerequisite since that is a focus of the County’s Clean Water Plan. The selection process also prioritized projects that are beneficial to, and support the goals of, multiple stakeholders/partners. These regionally coordinated efforts help to attract grant funding and leverage available funds to efficiently fulfill watershed goals across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. The largest of these restoration efforts generally require considerable investments but also represent the most cost-efficient opportunities because of the magnitude of the load reductions achieved and number of partners to share the costs. In addition to fulfilling county regulatory objectives, optimal projects will also support MS4 PRP goals, mitigate flooding in communities, protect and extend the life of existing infrastructure, improve wildlife habitat, aesthetically enhance public spaces, and offer recreational and educational opportunities. Projects that achieve multiple benefits for various partners are considered high priority. The projects are color coded to distinguish the various opportunity types defined in the previous section – small-scale , mid-scale and large-scale watershed projects. Please note that the numbering associated with the projects is not a ranking system and is only intended for ease of mapping, tracking, and coordination. The size of the point helps further categorize the project as follows:

• The largest dots are the “Pilot Concept” sites. These opportunities were selected by the FCCD for more detailed assessment or prioritized implementation due to the multitude of potential benefits that they offer. A site-specific concept rendering was developed for each, along with potential load reduction estimates, benefits, and design, permit, construction and maintenance considerations. These details are presented in the following section. These concepts are intended to be able to serve as examples of proposed restoration approaches that may be suitable tools for landowner outreach and planning coordination.

• Medium dots represent the remaining Priority Project Prospects. These projects include opportunities to achieve multiple benefits on a regional scale and best meet many of the outlined criteria. They include small-, medium-, and large-scale watershed opportunities throughout the Conococheague watershed.

• The smallest dots are additional opportunities. These are BMP prospects that were identified by stakeholders that have the potential to achieve water quality benefits and may offer additional benefits, but also presented some form of obstacle or limitation. These sites may have challenging encroachments, aren’t anticipated to be as cost effective as other BMPs, or simply were not feasible to address some of the potential concerns within the scope of this plan. These may be determined to be feasible BMPs pending further coordination.

The prospective projects presented here are professional opinions based on stakeholder recommendations, background research, and impairments observed as possible within the scope of this plan. Our recommendations are rooted in extensive professional experience with water resource impairment identification, restoration design and regulatory considerations. It is important to note that due to the scope and funding limitations of this effort, and the scale of the watershed, it was impossible to adequately assess every mile of stream in the watershed. There are certainly additional viable BMP opportunities throughout the watershed that may not have been captured within this plan. However, the tools and considerations provided within this plan can be used as a resource to evaluate potential sites and to facilitate project planning and implementation. Additional coordination, assessment, engineering, and regulatory authorizations (as discussed in further detail in the following Implementation Considerations section) are required to verify feasibility, pollutant load reductions, and final scope for any given site. Private properties were only accessed where landowner coordination had taken place, otherwise sites were observed from the road or other public rights-of-way. Proposed projects do not constitute approval for property access nor commitment for future involvement on behalf of the landowner, FCCD, or other stakeholders. Navigate to and select a specific point for additional details or scroll through the opportunities to the left to get a description of all of the priority projects.

This section provides a more detailed perspective of restoration opportunities chosen to serve as “Pilot Concepts”. The concepts are intended to further these specific efforts and to serve as examples for other landowners and stakeholders to progress other watershed opportunities. There are other Priority Project reaches that may be more impaired or where greater pollutant load reductions can be achieved, but these sites were chosen for concept development because they offer multiple benefits and highlight the cooperative spirit of the plan.

The planning and implementation overview presented in this section provides a high-level overview of general considerations for a wide array of various best management practices and are not specific to any one practice or opportunity. Always consult with a qualified individual to verify planning and implementation needs for a given project.

The proposed practice, project scale and site specifics will all factor into planning needs, and dictate what level of design, plan development and regulatory authorizations may be required. Regardless of these variables, all successful BMP planning efforts require coordination from three key individuals or groups; 1) a project lead 2) a qualified planner and 3) an engaged landowner or stakeholder.

• The project lead is the individual or organization who owns or champions the project. For instance, a municipality would lead a BMP project to fulfill their PRP requirements. The project lead is responsible for defining goals, initiating planning efforts, and procuring funding.

• The definition of a qualified planner depends on the type of project. For example, when planning a buffer planting, a qualified planner may be an individual with training in landscape planning or hands-on experience with similar efforts. BMPs that involve earth disturbances and resource impacts may require an environmental scientist or engineering consultant.

• A willing landowner or stakeholder is critical for any project. Landowners are most likely to support a best management practice when the results align with the landowner’s own needs or provide results that benefit the landowner in addition to the project lead.

These groups will vary depending on the project – for small projects, one group or organization may serve as the lead stakeholder, qualified planner and the landowner. While for large, regional projects, there may be multiple landowners involved, various planners carrying out tasks in tandem, and partnering stakeholders working together to achieve one project with a multitude of community benefits.

The preparation necessary for a given best management practice depends largely on the opportunity type. Most upper-watershed opportunities are likely to have few or no permit requirements compared to other project types. Planning for these types of projects is generally much less involved as well. For land conversion practices like riparian buffer plantings or meadow establishment, planners should verify compliance with local ordinances and consult an experienced individual to inform appropriate planting locations, species, planting types, tree protection needs, and maintenance requirements. Upper watershed practices that involve earth disturbance activities, like swale improvements, warrant detailed engineering design and plan preparation. They are likely to require Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Control plan authorization. In some instances, these may require PADEP or US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authorizations if there are temporary or permanent impacts to jurisdictional water resources.

A more involved design and permitting effort is required for restoration projects suitable for middle and large-scale catchment areas. Restoration projects in active streams and floodplains require additional field work and data collection to further define baseline existing conditions and site constraints. This generally includes topographic survey, fluvial geomorphic assessment, wetland determination/delineation and a subsurface investigation. Data collected in the field is processed and utilized alongside known soil, geologic and hydrologic background data to inform the design development. A proposed restoration approach is developed based on the collected data, and the design integrity is assessed through a detailed hydraulic modeling effort. This process allows for the design to be repeatedly refined to minimize erosion potential and work to ensure optimal results.

 Once the design is finalized, restoration projects generally require Chapter 102, Chapter 105, and Section 404 Permit authorization. Regulatory authorization may take six months or more from the initial permit submittal. Some or all of the following authorizations may be required for restoration activities:

• Restoration Waiver per 25 PA Code Chapter 105.12.a.16 (Waiver 16) – PA Dept of Environmental Protection (PADEP)
• PASPGP-06 or Nationwide 27 -- US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• NPDES Permit or Erosion and Sediment Control (E&S) Plan Approval meeting requirements of 25 PA Code Chapter 102 – PADEP or FCCD

Activities unrelated to the restoration (such as crossings or trail improvements) may require additional permits or authorizations.

Much like planning, implementation costs and needs will depend greatly on the type of best management practice. Streamlined small-scale watershed practices like riparian buffers, can be done with minimal upfront planning and low installation costs.

For restoration efforts requiring earth disturbance activities, the construction effort will generally include some or all of the following tasks:

• Site Work: mobilization, clearing & grubbing, earthwork and construction activity.
• Erosion & Sediment Control: construction entrance(s), construction fence, silt fence, compost filter sock, temporary bypass pumping, stabilization matting & mulching
• Seeding & Landscaping: native species seeding, herbaceous species planting, tree & shrub installation, tree protection installation
• Professional Services which may include project manual development, contractor procurement, stakeout, engineering inspection, project management and as-built survey.

The diverse benefits offered by the priority projects identified in this plan (including water quality, educational, recreational, ecological and flood mitigation benefits) strengthen the potential for a given project to obtain funding from various federal, state, and local grant programs for implementation. Most grant funding sources require some amount of matching funds; having diverse benefits means more opportunity to attract funds for the implementation costs. For example, if local project partners are able to self-fund upfront planning and permitting efforts, these costs could be used as match for partial construction funds from a funding source that supports local water quality plan implementation. Those funds could in turn be leveraged as match for planting funds from ecologically focused grants or for recreational funds for bridge and trail construction. While the largest restoration efforts outlined in this study require considerable capital, the large-scale ecological restoration approach and substantial measurable benefits may be more likely to attract greater funding opportunities from federal, state and local grant providers compared to less extensive practices. As noted above, these restoration projects can also be phased or tailored to meet the budget requirements of potential grant funding opportunities. 

Below are some of the viable funding sources available for these types of restoration projects:

• Franklin County Countywide Action Plan (CAP) Sub-Grants Program: The CAP allows for Franklin County to receive funding provided through PADEP in support of CAP goals. The focus of this funding is for the implementation of agricultural BMPs (i.e. riparian buffers, agricultural E&S, waste management, etc.) and non-agricultural BMPs (i.e. stream restoration, upland tree plantings, etc.). The FCCD may identify suitable projects and apply for funding from PADEP on an annual basis.
• PADEP Growing Greener: State grant program that provides funds for watershed restoration projects and other environmental beneficial initiatives
• Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Community Conservation Partnerships Program (C2P2): State grant for projects involving the rehabilitation and development of public parks, recreation facilities, greenways, river conservation projects, and the like.
• DCNR/Western PA Conservancy (WPC) Partnership Watershed Forestry fund: funds and supports native plantings and meadows outside of the riparian buffer zone (i.e., lawn conversion) and a Buffer Program for native plantings, including both conventional and multifunctional, within the riparian zone.
• Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST): PENNVEST provides low-interest loans and grants for new construction or for improvements to publicly or privately-owned drinking water, storm water or sewage treatment facilities, as well as non-point source pollution prevention best management practices.
• Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) Watershed Restoration and Protection Program (WRPP): The overall goal of the WRPP is to restore, and maintain restored stream reaches impaired by the uncontrolled discharge of nonpoint source polluted runoff, and ultimately to remove these streams from the Department of Environmental Protection’s Impaired Waters list.
• American Rescue Plan Act Local Recovery Funding (ARPA): These federal funds disbursed to local communities to support COVID-19 response and recovery specify investments in stormwater infrastructure and practices to address non-point source pollution as acceptable uses. These funds are also being dispersed through many new grant programs, such as the Franklin County IMPACT grant.
• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF):   Federal grants that provide funding on a competitive basis to projects that sustain, restore and enhance fish, wildlife and plants, and their habitats.

As water quality goals for best management practices are met, stakeholder priorities will shift from planning and implementation to maintenance and verification. Achieving watershed goals will require a great number of BMPs, each with different owners and responsible parties. The overall success of these efforts will depend upon the ability of stakeholders to work in a coordinated and concerted effort to maintain BMPs, track performance and verify their on-going function in a well-organized and well-documented manner. 

Post-installation maintenance of a BMP is key to a successful project. BMP planning efforts should include a monitoring & maintenance plan to give the owner the tools necessary to ensure proper function and longevity, beginning with a clear understanding of native and non-native plant identification. For many restoration projects, the first 2-3 years following construction are often considered the most critical to the project’s success as the newly planted vegetation becomes established. Many permit authorizations require at least 5 years of reporting to applicable regulatory agencies to demonstrate proper maintenance practices and successful establishment.  

Maintenance needs often decrease over time for projects that restore natural ecological function as the system becomes naturally self-maintaining. Projects that require structural components with a specified lifespan will require maintenance for the life of the structure with maintenance often intensifying up to the point of failure and ultimately replacement.  

In all instances, maintenance is important to ensuring long-term BMP function and project success, and to achieving the intended water quality benefits.

The Conococheague Creek Priority Projects Plan is presented to serve as a strategic guide to help identify and prioritize means to address impacts from both past and present influences in a way that meets today’s needs and will serve the community into the future. The projects and strategies provided herein support Clean Water for Franklin County while best serving the people and organizations that make up this community. 

The plan prioritizes regional restoration that engages and benefits multiple stakeholders and landowners to accomplish broad-reaching community and regional goals. FCCD believes that collaboration is key to efficiently achieve results that equitably serve all of Franklin County and would like to thank all of the stakeholders who informed this plan and will work together to realize these opportunities. 

FCCD will be actively collaborating with plan stakeholders through 2023 and beyond to procure funding for priority projects. Several priority projects have pending funding and will commence design, permitting and construction activities in 2023. It will take the concerted efforts of dedicated organizations and individuals to achieve the goals of the county’s clean water plan and ensure the value of Franklin’s natural resources are secured for tomorrow’s generations. 

Please reach out to the Franklin County Conservation District with questions or comments related to items identified in the plan, water quality concerns, or other opportunities in Franklin County: 

185 Franklin Farm Lane Chambersburg, PA 17202 | Phone: 717-264-5499

 Or Email Clean Water Coordinator Caitlin Lucas at: clucas@franklinccd.org