Coalition
Members

Apolacon Twp..
Bridgewater Twp.
Choconut Twp.
Forest Lake Twp.
Franklin Twp.
Jessup Twp.
Liberty Twp.
Middletown Twp.
Rush Twp.
Silver Lake Twp
Friendsville
Little Meadows
Montrose

V. NORTHERN TIER COALITION CONSERVATION PLANNING TARGETS AND THREATS

A. CONSERVATION TARGETS

After interviews with many of the NTC township supervisors, two major conservation targets were identified: 1) preserving the rural character of the landscape; and 2) Conserve critical natural resources by sustaining working landscapes, and mitigating objectionable land uses.

Target 1: Preserve the rural and agricultural character of the landscape

Preservation of rural character is a major concern for many communities facing outside development pressures (Figure 5.1). Preserving rural character involves physical, social, economic, and cultural issues. Visual imagery is a major component of rural character. Rolling hills, green pasturelands, and tree-covered mountains are to name but a few natural elements that create rural scenes and spectacular views. The preservation of these open spaces is critical to preserving rural character. The other component of rural character that residents of small communities cherish is the promotion of traditional values such as family, community, independence, self-government, conservation, and entrepreneurship. In order to preserve rural character, a community must identify the specific elements that are most desirable and focus on methods of preserving them (Heyer, 1990). That process will be discussed in the following comprehensive section of this report.

Target 2: Conserve critical natural resources, by sustaining working landscapes and mitigating objectionable land uses

Forest covered ridges, meandering streams, wetlands, lakes and rich soils create a rich ecological framework in the NTC area (Figure 5.2). These resources are valued as both open spaces for recreation and amenity, and as economic resources. Conserving critical areas will help to maintain the entire network of the rural ecosystem. Working landscapes include utilize a variety of natural resources are vital to the economic health however such activities have consequences for water quality, forest health and wildlife habitat, as well as the overall health of many natural systems in the region.

B. CONSERVATION THREATS

A series of Conservation Threats were also identified.

Threat 1: Development Pressure: Second Homes, Commuters & Rural Sprawl

Development pressure is one of the biggest threats to rural character. (Figure 5.3) Many townships are facing residential development pressures from commuters working in New York (primarily in Binghamton) and Scranton and may experience a threat from the growth of an industrial park within three miles of the Liberty/New York border. Pennsylvania offers residents better tax advantages than does New York. Liberty, Choconut and Apolacon Townships sit directly on the border of New York and are in close proximity to two employment centers. Silver Lake Township grew five times the rate of the County between 1970 and 1980, and overall 43.7% between 1980 and 1990. As of 1994, the County grew at a rate of 6.6% per decade with Silver Lake the fastest growing township with population density of 50 persons per square mile. Bridgewater Township, Silver Lake and other areas have also seen a substantial influx of second homeowners and retirees. Accompanying the increased residential development pressure is an expectation of expanded municipality services, such as water and sewer infrastructure and paved roads. These issues are becoming a growing concern to township officials.

Many of the new residents are complete “newcomers” to the community, and they are actually more closely tied to New York or other places that they came from. They are often not a part of the community in the NTC areas and often contribute little to ongoing community processes. This a generalization, and there are notable exceptions – some of the most activist members of the commuter in the conservation have been relative newcomers. In addition, influx of newcomers with different values impacts previously accepted norms for the local recreational uses of rural land for hunting, fishing and snowmobiling. And many pre-existing informal arrangements that allowed such uses in the past have to be revisited, or are often lost altogether. For long time members of the community, not only is the (un)social character of this form of contemporary development problematic, but also the spatial character of this form contemporary development is problematic. Much of this new construction in the NTC is road frontage, flag lots along paved roads, especially State Highways, and it creates a sense of blight, sprawl and unseemly change to long time members of the community, even though vast interior spaces remain largely wooded.

Threat 2: Lack of Planning & Enforcement Capacity & Structure

The greatest threat to the rural character is the lack of land use protection in the Townships. Liberty, Choconut and Silver Lake have formulated comprehensive plans and are at various points in the process of implementing those plans through regulations. Section VI addresses the value of land use regulations, and discusses ways they may be implemented to address the NTC’s conservation targets.

Many Township Supervisors and community leaders have also expressed a frustration at not being able to enforce some existing local land use ordinances that regulate such activities as junk cars in yards and quarry sites. The problem is threefold. First, because there are not enough resources to be able to enforce every infringement of local ordinances, it becomes very hard to ever enforce them. Second, the municipalities do not have the economic or legal forces to defend any enforcement action taken. Third, local judges are concerned about their popularity within their constituencies and will cite violators but nothing will be done to rectify the issue in question. Because of this situation, the effect of any ordinance, permitting requirement or other review/approval process to guide growth in the municipalities would be severely limited, unless an there was a major investment in local enforcement capacity.

Threat 3: Loss of the Family Farm in Susquehanna County

Rural character is often directly associated with the farm economy and the traditions of the small family farm (Figure 5.4). Farms and other agricultural uses often dominate the rural landscape, and the health of the farm economy lies at the forefront of any discussion of threats to the preservation of rural character.

While the data seems to suggest that Susquehanna County currently has a relatively healthy agricultural base, several troublesome trends could result in a severe decline in the coming years. First, are the characteristics of the farms and their owners. The majority of farms are medium sized, and owned by a family or individual who is now approaching retirement. Furthermore, the number of farm owners who list farming as their primary occupation has been steadily decreasing over the past 15 years. Often, these individuals have no one to whom they might transfer ownership and operation of the farm. The choices open to the individual or family owner are seemingly few; they could subdivide the farm for development, or contribute to the consolidation of several small farms into a larger farm, or stop management of the property leading to reversion to woodland.

Another serious threat to family farms is intensive corporate agriculture. The traditional agricultural process involves many people – the crop or feed grower, the livestock farmer, the meat processor and the product distributor. In the late 1970’s corporations realized that their profits could be much greater if they owned the entire process, from feed production to meat-packing and distribution. The strategy of the corporations was to drive down market prices for the meat, because they could afford to make those lost profits up later in the process. Family farms that were only involved in selling their livestock however, could not continue to turn a profit with such low meat prices, and were eventually forced out of business.

Corporate agriculture also comes with a variety of environmental and human health problems that have resulted in its lost popularity among small rural communities, particularly in the Southeast and Midwest. North Carolina became the poster child of the anti-corporate agriculture movement after Hurricane Floyd flooded corporate hog farms that had been built in the floodplain. Millions of gallons of hog waste flowed straight into surface waters, and hundreds of thousands of drowned hogs further polluted the area. Unfortunately, these corporations are now targeting the northeastern rural areas.

Threat 4: Clean and Green and Rural Fragmentation in Susquehanna County

Another threat to rural character is the Pennsylvania State Clean and Green program. This tax relief program was created by the state of Pennsylvania in an effort to preserve farmland and open space from development, particularly in the southeastern corner of the state, where development pressure was quite intense. Instead, it has led to negative impacts on the Townships in rural counties such as Susquehanna County where non-farm (residential) landowners have availed themselves the Act. The net result has become a pattern of large plots of land into 10-acre parcels that townships lack the infrastructure to support. The requirements for Clean and Green are 10 acres of land that is either forested or farmland. As a result, most of Susquehanna County qualifies for the tax benefit program, even though the majority of program participants are not actually farmers, or even have farmland. With so few people living in the county, but such a large amount of property qualifying for tax reductions, the county and townships have found themselves hurting for income given limited options for shifting the tax burden. Aside from these revenue problems, Clean and Green also does not appear to be aiding in farmland preservation though no exact number of actual farmers in the program exists.

Beyond that, the program may not be achieving its stated targets – the Clean and Green program may actually accelerate subdivision of large tracts of rural forest and farm land. For example, if a farmer has a bad year or is in need of extra cash, he will often sell off one or two acres of his land. Unfortunately, the Clean and Green program actually provides incentives to buy 10 acres of land than to buy one acre. The tax savings on a 10- acre parcel enrolled in Clean and Green outweigh the costs of the extra land, making it economically inefficient to purchase only one acre. Thus, farmers and other landowners no longer have the option of selling off a single acre or two, but must sell off larger parcels. This quickly reduces the total acreage of a farm, particularly if that farm is less than 200 acres. In Susquehanna County the impact is noticeable and quantifiable: the median in acreage of new lots was 6 acres in 1991, increased to 11 acres in 1996 and ended at 10.1 acres in 2000.

The tax impact on the local township coffers is dramatic. Reducing property taxes also reduces tax revenues for government and school districts. When a county loses tax revenue, it has an option to redistribute the burden or forgo services. Whether this is unfair is a matter of opinion. Some people believe it is unfair due to the burden placed on non-participants. The financial burden often falls on a portion of residents who cannot afford it. Wealthy homes on large acreage may pay less property tax than modest homes on small parcels. As of the last assessment Susquehanna County had 7,047 parcels and 391,351 acres of land within the Clean and Green program. The number of acres by land use category is 87,110 in agricultural use, 15,589 in agricultural reserve and 275,902 in forest use. The normal dollar value per acre in 2000 was reported at $1,133 and the Clean and Green dollar value per acre is $478 or a 58% reduction in dollar value and hence tax revenue. Because Clean and Green encourages parcelization, it results in fragmentation of larger parcels in rural areas has many impacts on the rural community and the variety of livelihoods they supports (Figure 5.5). Smaller acreages mean less workable land in the case of farms and smaller forests in forest management areas. Most working farms must contain or have access to 200-250 acres of land to survive, and research suggests that working forests must be 100 acres or more to be viable. Parcel fragmentation often results in a loss of informal communal open space, such as hunting trails and uses, snow mobile trails. Finally, parcel fragmentation can also have impacts on habit, because smaller residential parcels generally mean changes of land use from forest and field to lawn, successional old field, and smaller patches of forest. In both instances, critical core patches or the minimum area of land type needed to support certain kinds of wildlife, are lost.

Threat 5: Stream Degradation, Sedimentation & Water Quality

The protection of water resources and water quality is a chief concern of NTC township supervisors (Figure 5.6). Protecting the quality of lakes is important for a number of reasons. Many townships receive significant amounts of their drinking water from groundwater in the form of dug wells. Overall watershed health, and good water quality across the region, is crucial to ensuring a reliable source of groundwater for local residents. Water quality also impacts local fisheries, which is prime source of community recreation and potential source of tourist revenue.

Maintaining the health of other water resources, especially lakes also contributes to the economic value of the surrounding areas and provides recreational value. Much of the growth that several of the NTC townships have experienced in the last couple of decades has been in the form of second home development around the lakes. Improper lake development on the other hand, can adversely affect water quality. Excavation and/ or flooding of wetlands to create lakes destroy the hydrologic system changing the flow and cycles down further in the system. Lake edge development often does not respect critical edge habitat on the lake or allow for crucial vegetative buffers, which affect water quality and water temperature (Figure 5.7)

Stream quality is also of chief importance – both for its environmental and economic benefits. Not only is the health of the stream itself at issues, but also the edge or vegetative buffer, which minimizes bank erosion, filters surface water draining to streams and helps maintain the cold water temperatures necessary to prime local fisheries. In general, the riparian environment is resilient; however human induced disturbances to stream corridors can cause chemical, biological and/or physical damages. Examples of human-induced disturbances and some effects are the following:

• Dams
• Channelization and diversions
• Introduction of exotic species
• Recreation
• Agriculture – vegetative clearing, in-stream modifications, soil exposure and compaction, irrigation and drainage, sediment and contaminants, transportation of products, non-point source pollution
• Forestry – removal of trees, transportation of products, site preparation
• Domestic livestock grazing – loss of vegetative cover, various physical impacts
• Mining – clearing, soil disturbance, altered hydrology, water contaminants
• Urbanization – altered hydrology, altered channels, sedimentation and contaminants, habitat and aquatic life changes, increased storm water runoff

The EPA lists agriculture and mining, which both often occur in close proximity to streams, as two major contributors to water pollution in Susquehanna County. Non-coal mining and stone processing have the potential to cause severe water degradation if not in compliance with regulations. In addition, mines are often opened on steep terrain and require the removal vegetation and disturbance of existing soils. The disturbance of vegetation and soils on steep topography can lead to excessive erosion that often carries sediment to nearby water sources and streams. Sediment input into streams can have varied affects depending on the nature of the sediments and the water source it enters.

Agricultural practices may lead to stream degradation if mismanaged. Increased nutrient input to the watershed is a main concern surrounding agricultural practices. Increased nutrients may be derived from several sources including fertilizers and animal waste. Increased nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, can lead to algal blooms and decreased dissolved oxygen in the water, thus degrading the aquatic habitat of many organisms. In addition to generating waste, livestock and farm machinery are often responsible for physical damage to the landscape as well. Livestock can cause loss of vegetation, soil compaction, erosion, and increased sedimentation. Grazing and trampling often reduce vegetative cover and excessive and unmanaged herds can alter stream geomorphology.

Residential and commercial development, especially construction of structures and the creation more paved areas also affects water resources. Initial construction disturbs and removes soils and vegetation resulting in increased sedimentation. New paved and cleared areas contribute greatly to the flow in existing hydrologic systems, resulting in increased flashiness (likelihood flooding), greater scouring of creek channels cumulatively resulting in increased sedimentation. Onsite sewer systems, difficult to construct in much the NTC area, also contribute nutrients to streams. All these processes area aggravated and accelerated by development on slopes.

In general, sediments are divided into the two main categories of suspended and deposited. Both forms can have deleterious effects on aquatic organisms. The impact of suspended sediments includes:

• Abrades and damages fish gills, increasing risk of infection and disease
• Scouring or periphyton from stream (plants attached to rocks)
• Shifts in fish community toward more sediment tolerant species
• Reduces sight distance of trout, with reduction in feeding efficiency
• Reduces light penetration causing reduction in plankton and aquatic plant growth
• Reduces filtering efficiency of zooplankton in lakes and sediments
• Adversely impacts aquatic insects which are the base of the food chain
• Slightly increases stream temperature in summer
• Suspended sediments are a major carrier of nutrients and metals
• Turbidity increases probability of boating, swimming, and diving accidents

The impact of deposited sediments includes:

• Physical smothering of benthic aquatic insect community
• Reduced survival rates for fish eggs
• Destruction of fish spawning areas and reeds
• “Imbedding” of stream bottom reduces fish and macroinvertebrate habitat value
• Loss of trout habitat when fine sediments are deposited in spawning or riffle-runs
• Increase in sediment oxygen demand can deplete dissolved oxygen in lakes or streams
• Reduced channel capacity, exacerbating downstream bank erosion and flooding

Threat 6: Siting Landfills and Issues of Contamination

Landfills, like quarries, can be characterized as a land use with economic benefits to the community; however, not without a host of additional potential environmental problems. The landfill in Middletown Township, for example, has apparently resulted water and soil contamination, which in turn have reportedly have resulted toxic impacts on both dairy animals, wildlife and people who live in the area. In Bridgewater Township the former Bendix Company used a portion of its land to dump wastes from its chemical processing plants. This has apparently resulted in the poisoning of local well water and the loss of prime commercial/ industrial space. In both instances, it will take major State and/or Federal intervention to ameliorate these sites. Like many rural areas with low land values, the NTC is vulnerable to an influx of waste processors and landfills. Local municipalities in the NTC do not have any local laws or regulations in place to guide the siting of landfills in the community. As such, the state has no legal means to stop a landfill from locating in an undesirable location from the community’s point of view as long as the landfill meets state environmental requirements, which may or may not properly take local concerns or conditions into account.

Under U.S. law, courts have considered landfills and the hauling of waste to be subject to the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. This means that state and local governments can only regulate and not completely prohibit the transport and dumping of waste. Courts have ruled that if a company can satisfy zoning and environmental standards, it is entitled to receive a permit, build a landfill and fill it with waste from wherever it wants.” (Western Organization of Resource Councils, 2001.)

Zoning case law and Pennsylvania law in particular, prohibit the exclusion of land uses in local zoning laws. This means that municipalities must make allowances within their jurisdiction for every type of legal land use. However, if there is a multi-municipal comprehensive plan, then an allocation anywhere within one of the various municipalities, can satisfy this requirement as to all the municipalities. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is the permitting authority for landfills in the state of Pennsylvania. 1 Parts of the DEP’s requirements include consistency between the project and local laws and plans. However, no local law may be more restrictive than the state law. In addition to a permit, a landfill project may also be required to obtain, Water Quality Permit, Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit, Air Quality Operating Permit and Air Quality Plan Approval. The best protection for the municipalities would be to designate areas for landfills in the comprehensive plan. Ideally, these would be removed from important cultural and ecological features. And they would be in areas where the soils are suitable for landfill purposes based on the Soil Survey (see Section II: Soils). Figure 5.8 is a map of existing landfills, as well as primary and secondary areas for siting a land fill based on the Soil Survey.

Threat 7: Poor forestry planning and management practices and habit degradation

Though much of the forestry that takes place within the townships is minimal compared to the rate at which the forest is regenerating (Figure 5.9), it does not lessen the importance for sustainable forest management. Improper forestry practices present threats to many of the NTC townships. If methods are performed incorrectly or too intensively, logging may significantly disrupt habitats and lead to erosion and ultimately impact the water quality of the streams in the region and the Susquehanna River Basin. All townships should implement and enforce best management forestry practices as planning protections within the coalition.

Poor forestry practices and an inattention to a changing mix of forest species is a serious long term threat for NTC townships. Invasive exotic plant species are rapidly expanding their ranges in Pennsylvania and compete so successfully with the native communities that indigenous vegetation decreases year after year. The more abundant an exotic becomes, the more difficult it is to control. Management usually does not take invasive exotics seriously soon enough, even though keeping a new plant from becoming established is easier than removing it once it is fixed. To do so, vigilance is needed, and observant people to act as monitors. With restoration as a goal, first priority should be given to protecting those areas that still support mostly native communities from large scale invasion.

However, deer have become the most pressing forest problem recent years. Populations of whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have increased dramatically throughout the Northeast and in many Midwestern and western states. In the early 1900s Pennsylvania’s deer population had virtually disappeared and commercial market hunting and unregulated sport hunting came to an end. Implementation of game laws and “buck only” harvests allowed regulated hunting to take place, while allowing the population to increase. More recently, increases in deer abundance can be attributed to changes in habitat, including reversion of abandoned farm fields to forest, and shifts in human population to rural and suburban areas. Both of these trends create open and forested habitat preferred by deer. In addition, decisions by landowners to prevent hunting have made many areas off limits to hunters, allowing deer populations to increase. Today it is estimated that there are more than 1,500,000 deer in Pennsylvania. Densities may exceed 40 deer per square mile in many rural areas (double a tolerable level for many forests) and deer populations will likely continue to increase in the future.

Deer can cause a number of human health and safety, economic, and environmental problems. Annual estimates of deer damage nationally are reported to exceed $2 billion nationwide, including $1 billion in car damages, more than $100 million in agricultural crop damage, $750 million in damage to the timber industry, and more than $250 million in damage to metropolitan households (e.g., landscape plantings) (Conover 1997). They also exert a profound influence on its own habitat and the habitat of other wildlife species (Waller and Alverson 1997). In many forests, overbrowsing of tree seedlings by deer creates open, park-like stands that have little or no vegetation near ground level. Instead of a diversity of woody and herbaceous plants, the ground surface may be dominated by ferns, grasses, and woody shrub or tree species not favored by deer. As a result, browsing by deer can completely changing the composition, biodiversity, and sustainability of our Pennsylvania’s forests. Forestry is an important component of Susquehanna County’s economy and economic potential, and therefore controlling deer populations is a critical element of maintaining long term viability of forests and the forest industry.

By limiting development in forested and agricultural areas, land use controls will indirectly result in a minimization of the amount of the edge habitat preferred by deer. Planning which protects larger tracts of forest and cropland can have an affect on deer populations, through enabling concentrated hunting to continue.

Threat 8: Loss of Cultural/Natural Resources: Timber Theft & Stone Wall Poaching

As the value of standing timber has increased in NTC townships and that of the stone found there, so has the appeal of stealing timber and stones from landowners. Consequently, timber theft is on the rise throughout much of the Northeastern United States, and Susquehanna County is no exception. Timber theft is the taking of timber without paying the landowner for it. It can occur through accident, when a logger working under contract with one landowner miss judges the boundary between two landowners properties, or through intent, when a logger decides that he will break the law and take more trees than he was contracted to, or take trees from land he has no contract to cut. A very small minority of loggers is responsible for intentional theft, and accidents are not common. Increasing landowner awareness of timber theft problems, and how to prevent them, is the best way to diminish this problem. Planners should work with landowner associations, professional forestry organizations, and state and extension foresters to develop educational programs with such aims.

Stonewalls (Figure 5.10) represent a link to the cultural history of Susquehanna County. They are a common site within the county and are valued by many citizens. The product of land clearing for agriculture and property delineation, the walls can be viewed in open agricultural fields as well as forest settings. These beautiful, dry-stack walls are constructed from blue stone and are finely crafted. Unfortunately, these walls represent a great monetary wealth in addition to their historical value and are subsequently being deconstructed by poachers and landowners that sell the stone on the market. Many citizens of the Northern Tier Coalition have expressed concern over the poaching of stone walls and view this crime as both unlawful and a loss of local heritage. The stone walls are an important piece of the areas cultural heritage that should be protected.

Footnotes 1 The laws and regulations for the state of Pennsylvania are found in the following statutes: Pennsylvania Solid Waster Management Act (35 P.S. §§6018.101-6018.1003), Pennsylvania Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act (53 P.S. §§4000.101-4000.1904) and The Clean Streams Law of Pennsylvania, (35 P.S. §§691.1-691.1001) and regulations: 25 Pa. Code Chapters 271-285.

< previous section | return to index | next section >