Easygrants ID: 18810 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF/Legacy Grant Project ID: 0603.09.018810 Small Watershed Grants 2009 - Submit Final Programmatic Report (Activities) Grantee Organization: Pocono Northeast Resource Conservation and Development Council Project Title: Agricultural BMP Implementation in the Pocono Region (PA)

Project Period 08/31/2009 - 08/31/2011 Award Amount $150,000.08 Matching Contributions $54,105.00 Project Location Description (from Proposal) The project will be targeting the following watersheds in Columbia and Montour Counties: Fishing Creek, Chillisquaque/ Creek, Briar Creek, Roaring Creek, and Catawissa Creek Watersheds.

Project Summary (from Proposal) Work with landowners to implement agricultural best management practices in watersheds of the upper . Project will establish and restore 30.5 miles of forested and grassed riparian buffers, enhance or restore 93 acres of wetlands, improve 75 acres of pastureland, install 10,000 feet of livestock exclusion fencing, construct 5,000 feet of stabilized laneways, install four watering systems, and reduce pollution loads to the Susquehanna River by 280 tons of sediment, 14,706 pounds of nitrogen, and 284 pounds of phosphorus.

Summary of Accomplishments The projects key accomplishments include 9 landowners within the key watersheds implemented BMP’s to improve the quality of the local watersheds and the Chesapeake Bay. A total of 9 landowners received technical and financial assistance through this project to account for 68 BMP’s implemented on those 9 farms. The amount of BMP’s completed was greater than expected and they included the following as a direct result of this project: 2.66 miles of riparian buffer established, 8.24 acres of wetland enhanced/restored, 17,220 feet of fence installed, 26,790 ft2 of stabilized laneway/heavy use area, and numerous other beneficial outcomes. With the incorporation of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s in-kind match as committed and reported by them, the total contributory amounts for riparian buffers and wetlands allowed the RC&D Council to exceed the amounts initially estimated in the grant application.

Lessons Learned The landowners were selected and required to submit a deposit for participation to show intent & sincerity. Conservation/Resource Management Plans were to be completed in the next 2-3 months, with the majority planning by NRCS, who became inundated with Farm Bill programs that the NFWF planning became secondary. This caused delays with plans and implementation.

NRCS had agreed to do the engineering designs, but was unable to dedicate the manpower to the project. NRCS realized they could not assist in the original capacity intended, but were able to work through a licensed engineer on staff with the Columbia County Conservation District to get some of the designs completed.

Landowners were eager, but got busy with their farm work and things become delayed. Landowners were given ample opportunity to comply and work with this timeline, but ultimately if they showed continual non-progression they were removed from the project and the next highest scoring landowner was given the opportunity to participate. This approach resulted in two landowners selected to participate not being able to stay on track and being disqualified from the project. This in turn delayed the next landowners in line from getting the project information and the partners being able to work with these new

Page 1 of 16 participants timely.

Conservation Activities Describe and quantify the primary activities according to the metrics of the grant and explain any descrepencies between activities conducted during t Progress Measures Acres of additional cover crops planted annually Value at Grant Completion 42.5 acres Conservation Activities Describe and quantify the primary activities according to the metrics of the grant and explain any descrepencies between activities conducted during t Progress Measures Other Activity Metric Value at Grant Completion 15 watering systems Conservation Activities Describe and quantify the primary activities according to the metrics of the grant and explain any descrepencies between activities conducted during t Progress Measures Other Activity Metric Value at Grant Completion 17,220 ft of fence installed Conservation Activities Describe and quantify the primary activities according to the metrics of the grant and explain any descrepencies between activities conducted during t Progress Measures Other Activity Metric Value at Grant Completion 26,790 square feet of stabilized laneway/heavy use Conservation Activities Describe and quantify the primary activities according to the metrics of the grant and explain any descrepencies between activities conducted during t Progress Measures Other Activity Metric Value at Grant Completion 44.88 tons of soil Conservation Activities Describe and quantify the primary activities according to the metrics of the grant and explain any descrepencies between activities conducted during t Progress Measures Lbs. of phosphorous reduced from entering the waterways Value at Grant Completion 36.06 pounds of phosphorus Conservation Activities Describe and quantify the primary activities according to the metrics of the grant and explain any descrepencies between activities conducted during t Progress Measures Lbs. of nitrogen reduced from entering the waterways Value at Grant Completion 725.9 pounds of nitrogen Conservation Activities Describe and quantify the primary activities according to the metrics of the grant and explain any descrepencies between activities conducted during t Progress Measures Acres of wetland habitat improved Value at Grant Completion 8.24 acres of wetland enhanced/restored

Page 2 of 16

Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund Final Programmatic Report Narrative

Instructions: Save this document on your computer and complete the narrative in the format provided. The final narrative should not exceed ten (10) pages; do not delete the text provided below. Once complete, upload this document into the on-line final programmatic report task as instructed.

1. Project Description. Briefly describe your project, including a description of the problem your project is trying to address, the project’s objectives and strategies, as well as the project location, and a characterization of the watershed and the relevant characteristics of the community’s natural resources, population, and economy.

The Pocono Northeast Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Council and its partners have accomplished the project titled, “Linking Agricultural BMP’s & Livestock for Watershed Health” in 2010-2011 through the Chesapeake Bay Small Watersheds Program. The RC&D Council took on this project in order to assist landowners with implementing Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to reduce soil erosion and negative impacts to environmentally sensitive areas ultimately reducing the amounts of sediments and nutrients entering local watersheds that are contributing to degrading the Chesapeake Bay. The RC&D Council and its partners targeted the following watersheds within the 10th and 11th Congressional Districts in Columbia and Montour Counties: Fishing Creek, Chillisquaque/Limestone, Briar Creek, Roaring Creek, and Catawissa Creek Watersheds.

This project was a priority for the RC&D Council and its partners because it will assist landowners that may not qualify for other Federal, State, and local conservation programs, while helping these landowners address the creation of forested and grassed riparian buffers, wetland enhancement or restoration, and assisting with soil and nutrient reductions to the local watersheds and Bay. All of the watersheds listed as part of this project have large amounts of the watersheds currently in agricultural production. The Fishing Creek and Chillisquaque/Limestone Watersheds have specifically been identified by each of the Columbia and Montour County Conservation Districts due to the amount of agricultural impacts to each of those watersheds in particular. The project also relates to local and regional watershed goals by several agencies and organizations which include the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, Department of Environmental Protection’s Chesapeake Bay Strategy, and the Pennsylvania State Wildlife Action Plan as prepared by the PA Game Commission and PA Fish & Boat Commission, and Lower West Branch Susquehanna Rivers Conservation Plan.

Through this project the partners will work with landowners to implement AG BMP’s such as installing forested riparian buffers, enhancing or restoring wetlands, fencing livestock out of environmentally sensitive areas, establishing stabilized livestock laneways, installing watering systems, and improving pasture systems to reduce the amount of soil and nutrients that are entering local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay as non-point source pollution. This project will extend the reach and amplify the impact of several local conservation partners that are working on similar projects.

The overarching project objectives are for the project partners to work closely with landowners in the Fishing Creek, Chillisquaque/Limestone, Briar Creek, Roaring Creek, and Catawissa Creek Watersheds that have some environmental issues on their properties that need attention and remediation through AG BMP’s. The BMP’s that will be proposed to be implemented will reduce degradation into the respective watersheds. More detailed project objectives are to work with a minimum of 10 landowners on implementing the following:

 Completing a minimum of 10 sets of AG BMP’s using funds from this award within the specified watersheds  Establishing forested and grassed riparian buffers to reduce soil erosion and nutrients from entering local waterways  Installing fencing to exclude livestock from streams and other water sources  Improving or enhancing wetlands by livestock exclusion and buffer creation

Page 3 of 16  Installing watering systems to allow livestock to be excluded from streams and other environmentally sensitive areas  Establishing livestock laneways to reduce soil erosion and compaction while improving livestock health  Improving pasture health by limiting livestock access during critical times and better distribution of nutrients through the grazing system  Reducing the amounts of soil loss and nutrients from each farm and thus reducing the soil entering local waterways

Characteristics of the population and economy within these watersheds where the projects have been conducted can be summarized as being rural and impoverished. The RC&D Council’s ten (10) county area covers 5,527-square-miles which are predominantly rural land. Montour and Columbia Counties are considered rural meaning they have an average of fewer than 274 people per square mile. The Council area has a population of 1,182,741 based upon the 2008 U.S. Census. The greatest negative increase in the population with the largest loss of -3.7% within Northumberland County (Chillisquaque/Limestone Watershed located here). The average age representation within the area is 18-65 year- olds representing 62.4% of the population, with 20.8% under 18, and 16.8% over 65 years old. The population of the area is under the Pennsylvania average for higher education with 81.1% of those over 25 years- old graduating from high school, and 16.1% of those over 25 having a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Economic factors present within the Counties and watershed areas are consistently below the state average for median income levels while unemployment and poverty levels are consistently higher. The average median income within the RC&D area is $46,460 which is less than the state average of $51,156 (data provided from www.census.gov ). The unemployment rate and poverty rate averages for the area are 9.42% showing higher than the state average of 8.1% for unemployment, and poverty rates are 12.11% in the area above the states’ 11.9% (all data from 2009, www.bls.gov & www.rural.palegislature.us ). Also of note is the fact that the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced school lunches within the RC&D area is an average of 38.9%.

2. Summary of Accomplishments In four to five sentences, provide a brief summary of the project’s key accomplishments and outcomes that were observed or measured.

The projects key accomplishments include 9 landowners within the key watersheds implemented BMP’s to improve the quality of the local watersheds and the Chesapeake Bay. A total of 9 landowners received technical and financial assistance through this project to account for 68 BMP’s implemented on those 9 farms. The amount of BMP’s completed was greater than expected and they included the following as a direct result of this project: 2.66 miles of riparian buffer established, 8.24 acres of wetland enhanced/restored, 17,220 feet of fence installed, 26,790 ft2 of stabilized laneway/heavy use area, and numerous other beneficial outcomes. With the incorporation of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s in-kind match as committed and reported by them, the total contributory amounts for riparian buffers and wetlands allowed the RC&D Council to exceed the amounts initially estimated in the grant application.

3. Project Activities & Outcomes

Activities Describe and quantify (using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement) the primary activities conducted during this grant. Briefly explain discrepancies between the activities conducted during the grant and the activities agreed upon in your grant agreement.

Outcomes Describe and quantify progress towards achieving the project outcomes described in your grant agreement. (Quantify using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement or by using more relevant metrics not included in the application.) Briefly explain discrepancies between what actually happened compared to what was anticipated to happen. Provide any further information (such as unexpected outcomes) important for understanding project activities and outcome results.

Page 4 of 16

Landowner#1- Shale Ridge Enterprise---Fishing Creek Watershed, Columbia County-----10 BMP’s completed 1) 1.3 acres riparian buffer 2) 0.93 acres wetland 3) 5,494 feet of perimeter fencing installed 4) 9.9 acres cropland converted to pasture 5) 4,900 ft2 of animal trails and walkways 6) 231 ft. roof gutters 7) 120 ft. underground outlet 8) Heavy use area 9) 4 watering troughs 10) Pipeline

The 9.9 acre conversion of cropland to pasture has enhanced this acreage to reduce soil erosion of 29.7 tons (based upon 3 ton average per acre-using RUSLE) by conversion to pasture. Utilizing the Chesapeake Bay Foundations Nonpoint Source Pollution (CBF’s NPS) loading reductions calculator, the pasture conversion from cropland also reduces total nitrogen by 27.99 lbs/acre and total phosphorus by 1.54 lbs/acre, therefore 9.9 acres results in 277.1 lbs of nitrogen and 15.25 lbs of phosphorus being reduced. The forested riparian buffer using the CBF’s NPS calculations result in the 1.3 acres of buffer establishment reducing 32.29 lbs of nitrogen, 2.00 lbs of phosphorus, and 1.92 tons of sediment being reduced. The watering facilities using CBF’s NPS calculator reduce the 3.98 lbs of nitrogen, 0.28 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.09 tons of sediment being reduced.

Landowner#2- Wyld Lyle's Angus Beef---Catawissa Creek Watershed, Columbia County-----9 BMP’s 1) 1.1 acre riparian buffer established 2) 0.78 acres wetland 3) Water well- 300 ft. deep 4) 1,300 ft. fence 5) 1,718 ft2 of heavy use area 6) 1 acre pasture enhancement 7) Pumping Plant 8) Water trough 9) Pipeline

The forested riparian buffer using the CBF’s NPS calculations result in the 1.1 acres of buffer establishment reducing 27.32 lbs of nitrogen, 0.96 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.39 tons of sediment being reduced annually. The fencing also enhanced 1.0 acres of pasture.

The well (off-stream watering facility) that was installed will provide the following reductions CBF’s NPS calculations of 11.56 lbs of nitrogen, 0.86 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.18 tons of sediment being reduced annually.

Landowner#3- Hayfield Farm---Fishing Creek Watershed, Columbia County-----8 BMP’s completed 1) 1.3 acre riparian buffer 2) 0.93 acre wetland 3) 370 ft of roof gutters 4) 550 ft underground outlets 5) 2,550 ft2 of stabilized animal trails & walkways 6) 2 stream crossings 7) 1,635 ft fence 8) 10 acres of pasture enhancement

The forested riparian buffer using the CBF’s NPS calculations result in the 1.3 acres of buffer establishment reducing 32.29 lbs of nitrogen, 1.13 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.46 tons of sediment being reduced annually.

Landowner#4- Mt. Airy Farms---Chilisquaque/Limestone, Montour County-----8 BMP’s completed

Page 5 of 16 1) 0.8 acres riparian buffer 2) 0.57 acres wetland 3) 1,201 ft. fence 4) 3 acres pasture planting 5) 2,500 ft2 of heavy use area 6) Stream crossing 7) Spring development 8) 2 watering facilities

The creation of this buffer based upon the Chesapeake Bay Foundation calculation (3acres of wetland created per mile of buffer created) results in the enhancement of 0.57 acres of wetland. The 3 acres of cropland conversion to hayland results in the improvement of those 3 acres and also savings of 15 tons of soil erosion saved, and using CBF’s nutrient calculator (reduces total nitrogen by 27.99 lbs/acre and total phosphorus by 1.54 lbs/acre), therefore 3 acres results in 83.97 lbs of nitrogen and 4.62 lbs of phosphorus being reduced. The established riparian buffer using the CBF’s NPS calculations result in the 0.8 acres of buffer establishment reducing 19.87 lbs of nitrogen, 0.7 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.28 tons of sediment being reduced annually.

Landowner#5- Greenwood Stock Farm---Fishing Creek Watershed, Columbia County-----6 BMP’s completed 1) 0.87 riparian buffer 2) 0.62 acres wetland 3) 4,330 ft. fence 4) 334 ft underground outlet 5) 16 ft of roof gutter 6) 7.7 acres pasture planting

The forested riparian buffer using the CBF’s NPS calculations result in the 0.87 acres of buffer establishment reducing 21.61 lbs of nitrogen, 0.76 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.31 tons of sediment being reduced annually. The pasture hayland seeding/enhancement results in the improvement of those 7.7 acres and also savings of 23.1 tons of soil erosion saved.

Landowner#6- Tri-John Farms---Briar Creek Watershed, Columbia County-----7 BMP’s completed 1) 5.1 acre riparian buffer established 2) 3.84 acres wetland 3) 400 ft. pipeline 4) 3,040 ft2 of animal trails & walkways 5) 4,452 ft2 heavy use area 6) 69 ft roof gutters 7) 318 ft underground outlet

The CBF’s NPS calculations result in the 5.1 acres of buffer establishment reducing 126.68 lbs of nitrogen, 4.44 lbs of phosphorus, and 1.79 tons of sediment being reduced annually.

Landowner#7- Quarter Circle H---Fishing Creek Watershed, Columbia County-----10 BMP’s completed 1) 0.8 acre riparian buffer established 2) 0.57 acres wetland 3) 2,200 ft2 of animal trails & walkways 4) 3 acres pasture enhanced 5) 3 stream crossings 6) 1,320 ft. fence 7) 180 ft pipeline 8) 460 ft underground outlet 9) 100 ft roof gutter 10) 3 watering facilities

Page 6 of 16 The established buffer using CBF’s NPS calculations result in the 0.8 acres of buffer establishment reducing 19.87 lbs of nitrogen, 0.70 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.28 tons of sediment being reduced annually. The three off-stream watering facilities that have been created have provided the following reductions CBF’s NPS calculations of 34.68 lbs of nitrogen, 2.58 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.54 tons of sediment being reduced annually.

Landowner#8- Roaring Creek Evergreens---Roaring Creek Watershed, Columbia County-----6 BMP’s completed 1) 2,430 ft2 of heavy use area 2) 41 ft roof gutter 3) 140 ft dripline 4) 90 ft diversion 5) Manure stacking area 6) Vegetated Treatment Area

The work is directly affecting 0.6 acres of barnyard/pasture that is being stabilized, improved, and enhanced through proper nutrient management. The pasture hayland seeding/enhancement results in the improvement of those 0.6 acres and also savings of 1.8 tons of soil erosion saved. The nutrient management on this acreage is directly improving the water quality to a 0.8 acre pond adjacent to the barnyard/pasture. The HUAP improvement also allows better nutrient management on a 7.3 acre field that the livestock have access to as their main pasture.

Landowner #9- Frosty Farm---Fishing Creek Watershed, Columbia County-----4 BMP’s completed 1) 1,940 ft. fence 2) 3,000 ft2 of heavy use area 3) 3 watering facilities 4) 600 ft pipeline

The three off-stream watering facilities that have been created have provided the following reductions CBF’s NPS calculations of 34.68 lbs of nitrogen, 2.58 lbs of phosphorus, and 0.54 tons of sediment being reduced annually.

Landowner Totals: 2.66 miles of riparian buffer established 8.24 acres of wetland enhanced/restored 725.9 lbs of nitrogen 36.06 lbs of phosphorus 44.88 tons of soil 26,790 ft2 of stabilized laneway/heavy use area 17,220 ft of fence installed 15 watering systems 42.5 acres of pasture seeding/enhancement

With these accomplishments that RC&D Council and its partners were able to meet and/or exceed the following intended outcomes: stabilized laneway/heavy use area exceeded by 21,790 ft2 (5,000 ft2 intended), 7,220 ft excess fence (10,000 ft. intended), 11 watering systems excess (4 intended), and numerous other AG BMP’s implemented (roof gutters, pumping plant, well, pipeline, underground outlet, etc).

The RC&D Council was not able to accomplish the intended amounts of riparian buffer, wetlands, and pasture enhancement alone through the project. The RC&D Council announced the availability for interested landowners to participate with the project through various media outlets. There were 16 applications received by the Council from interested landowners to participate with the project. Due to the delay of the Conservation Planning and engineering of the project (as described in the challenges/lessons learned section of this report), several of the landowners were offered contracts through USDA-NRCS Farm Bill Programs. These programs offered significantly increased financial assistance above what the RC&D Council could through this grant. Therefore those landowners selected to participate with the NRCS Programs, and therefore did not participate with the NFWF Project. This along with the fact that two landowners did not follow through with their projects even though they indicated they would, and lastly there was a 2-4 acre wetland enhancement/restoration site that was not allowed by the US Army Corps of Engineers,

Page 7 of 16 the landowners that participated with the NFWF project did not have the riparian buffer and/or wetland acreage to achieve the goals intended in the grant application. The RC&D Council had some fine applications, but could not garner additional applications to make sure the buffer and wetland requirements would be met. The amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment/soil reductions intended were directly tied to the amount of buffers and wetlands through this project.

The nutrient and sediment reductions also were contingent upon the acreage of pasture enhancement that would be accomplished through this project. The intent of the project was to assist landowners with cropland conversion to pasture which significantly attributes reductions in both nutrients and sediments as indicated in the grant application. Of the applications that were received, there was only two landowners that were willing to convert cropland to pasture in the amount if 12.9 acres. This acreage amount was expected to be significantly higher, but the applicants that applied were not willing to convert acreage at this time. Commodity prices are quite high at this time, and the landowners were not willing to convert acreage while high premiums are being commanded by these crops. There was additional pasture acreage that was “enhanced” due to fencing and nutrient management being implemented and/or enhanced so this acreage was able to be reported. However, if the acreage was already in sod or pasture the practices enhanced the acreage, but no nutrient or sediment reductions were able to be reported. Also, the fencing amounts far exceeded the initial intended amounts, but the fence was for smaller acreages which again did not provide the large benefit numbers that it could have completed on larger acreages.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation---In-Kind Match and Accomplishments

The technical assistance they provided through partnering on this project and the efforts they were able to accomplish within the watersheds selected for this project total 35.9 miles of riparian buffer established and 107.7 acres of wetland restored/enhanced during the June 30, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2009 timeframe. A detailed listing of the properties and the buffers established has been provided by CBF and is being included as part of the documentation for this submission. Landowners’ names and street addresses have been removed due to not having CBF or NRCS policy to provide this personally identifiable information.

With the landowner and CBF Partner totals for buffer and wetland combined= 38.56 miles of buffer & 115.94 acres of wetland enhanced/restored which exceeded the initial intended amount provided in the grant application.

4. Challenges and Lessons Learned Describe any specific challenges that have arisen during the course of the project and how they have been addressed. Also describe the key lessons learned from this project, such as the least and most effective conservation practices or notable aspects of the project’s methods, monitoring, or results. How could other conservation organizations adapt their projects to build upon some of these key lessons about what worked best and what did not?

There were numerous challenges that arose during the project timeframe that can be shared. The partners identified the project application and selection information early during the process in order to provide potential interested landowners with the opportunity to apply for the project. During this time the RC&D Council and project partners identified the project timeline which included the Conservation/Resource Management Plan timeline for preparation. Once the landowners were selected they were required to submit a “deposit” to the RC&D Council for participation with the program. The “deposit” proved valuable to make sure the “intent and sincerity” of the landowners to follow through with the project. Once the landowners committed, the Conservation/Resource Management Plans were to be completed in the net 2-3 months. The majority of the planning was to be completed by NRCS, but what happened was they became inundated with Farm Bill programs that the NFWF planning became secondary. This caused a problem in that landowners did not receive their plans in a timely fashion and it delayed the projects considerably.

The second issue was that NRCS had agreed to do the engineering designs required for the various BMP’s for each of the projects. Again, due to constraints and commitments to their own Farm Bill Programs, NRCS was unable to dedicate the manpower necessary to do the required engineering for the project. NRCS realized they could not assist in the original capacity intended, but were able to work through a licensed engineer on staff with the Columbia County Conservation District to get some of the designs completed. This again delayed the projects from moving forward at the intended time in 2010. In retrospect, making sure dedicated conservation planners and engineers are available and not required to set aside the committed work to this project for another program or project is important on delivering the necessary tasks on time.

Page 8 of 16

One issue with the project was trying to keep the landowners engaged and on-track with the projects. The landowners are very eager and excited once they know they have been selected to participate with the program and projects, but they get busy with their other farm work and things become delayed from their end rather easily. What the RC&D Council did to combat this issue was to implement some “progress dates” which were used to try and encourage the project participants to stay on schedule with completing the tasks required in order to complete their project. Landowners were given ample opportunity to comply and work with this timeline, but ultimately if they showed continual non-progression they were removed from the project and the next highest scoring landowner was given the opportunity to participate with the program/project. This approach resulted in two landowners selected to participate not being able to stay on track and being disqualified from the project. This in turn delayed the next landowners in line from getting the project information and the partners being able to work with these new participants timely.

The whole intent of the program/project by the RC&D Council and its partners were to increase the amount of riparian buffers implemented and wetlands enhanced/restored as a priority out of all of the potential AG BMP’s available. There were two landowners that did not implement any riparian buffer and/or wetland, but the practices they did accomplish were definitely beneficial to improving water quality on the farm and downstream. There was one landowner that had a large 2-4 acre wetland creation project application submitted, but as we worked through the proper channels for the project there was an issue. The US Army Corps of Engineer representative that was assigned to the project did not approve the project even though the US Fish & Wildlife Service and PA Dept of Environmental Protection approved the project. This caused the project to be delayed and resulted in having to not implement the project through this funding, and the landowner feeling very frustrated. Due to many of the aforementioned issues the RC&D Council was not able to complete some of the riparian buffer and wetland work that the project intended, but did exceed goals on some of the other BMP’s and project deliverables.

5. Dissemination Briefly identify any dissemination of lessons learned or other project results to external audiences, such as the public or other conservation organizations.

The dissemination of the project benefits have been provided to all of the project partners. Each of the project partners will use the data and information to best understand and report the information as they possibly can. The Columbia and Montour County Conservation Districts will report the information before their Board of Directors so they can understand the importance of a project of this nature, but also so they can determine if they would like to continue and pursue similar projects in the future. USDA-NRCS was instrumental in the preparation of Conservation/Resource Management Plan preparation as NRCS are certified conservation planners in the agricultural field. NRCS will be able to utilize their expertise and data from this project to better understand and plan for similar projects in the future as part of their suite of Farm Bill Programs.

6. Project Documents Include in your final programmatic report, via the Uploads section of this task, the following:

2-10 representative photos from the project. Photos need to have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi; report publications, GIS data, brochures, videos, outreach tools, press releases, media coverage; Any project deliverables per the terms of your grant agreement.

POSTING OF FINAL REPORT: This report and attached project documents may be shared by the Foundation and any Funding Source for the Project via their respective websites. In the event that the Recipient intends to claim that its final report or project documents contains material that does not have to be posted on such websites because it is protected from disclosure by statutory or regulatory provisions, the Recipient shall clearly mark all such potentially protected materials as “PROTECTED” and provide an explanation and complete citation to the statutory or regulatory source for such protection.

Page 9 of 16 Pocono Northeast Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Council’s Linking Agricultural BMP’s & Livestock for Watershed Health-- 2010-2011 through the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation’s Chesapeake Bay Small Watersheds Program

Shale Ridge Enterprises

Date Picture Taken: October 2010 Date Picture Taken: October 2010 Subject: View from barn looking west at the Subject: View from the barn looking west at the barnyard area that will be stabilized walkway, fence, and underground outlet/ through walkway and fencing as part of the stoned dripline installed as part of the NFWF project NFWF project

Wyld Lyle’s Angus Beef

Date Picture Taken: 6/9/2011 Date Picture Taken: 8/23/2011 Subject: Fence installed through NFWF project Subject: View from the HUA walkway looking west excluding livestock from the stream and at the fence installed as part of the NFWF creating a riparian buffer project at the start of the stream and riparian buffer area

Page 10 of 16

Date Picture Taken: 8/18/2011 Date Picture Taken: 8/18/2011 Subject: Heavy use area/walkway with #4 stone Subject: Roller compaction of #4 stone and DSA and DSA being applied for topcoat topcoat

Mt. Airy Farms

Date Picture Taken: 3/18/2010 Date Picture Taken: 8/9/2010 Subject: View of current barnyard/heavy use Subject: View of previous barnyard/heavy use area with the stream being to the left side of area showing livestock fenced out of stream the picture with natural revegetation beginning to take place

2

Page 11 of 16

Date Picture Taken: 3/18/2010 Date Picture Taken: 4/29/2010 Subject: View looking south towards barnyard Subject: View looking south showing the with stream being on right side of picture stabilized laneway/heavy use area from the 3 acre converted pasture to the barn (fence on stream side not yet installed at time of picture)

Tri-John Farms

Date Picture Taken: 3/29/2011 Date Picture Taken: 7/14/2011 Subject: View showing the barnyard area at Subject: View showing 39 ft. of roof gutter main barn with no roof gutter and installed and downspout from existing roof downspout from other roof line emptying line routed into downspout/UGO onto heavy use area (behind gates)

3

Page 12 of 16

Date Picture Taken: 3/29/2011 Date Picture Taken: 7/21/2011 Subject: View from the farm lane looking north Subject: Same as view on left showing stabilized at pasture hill walkway installed and functioning

Roaring Creek Evergreens

Date Picture Taken: 6/17/2011 Date Picture Taken: 7/22/2011 Subject: Heavy use area/walkway is being formed, Subject: The HUA has been backfilled on the up and rebar/wire placed by White Deer Concrete slope side and the fencing has been installed according to the specifications in the design

4

Page 13 of 16

Date Picture Taken: 6/28/2011 Date Picture Taken: 7/22/2011 Subject: The landowners also installed, at their Subject: The site overview of the HUA, the own expense, a manure stacking area with pasture created above the area, and the compacted screenings for the floor, and a access road to the HUA concrete block retaining wall on the left side of the picture

Greenwood Stock Farm

Date Picture Taken: 7/30/2011 Subject: View of fencing installed at the Farm through the NFWF project, and the large pasture area for the 5livestock

Page 14 of 16

Page 15 of 16

Page 16 of 16