Conewago Creek Watershed Implementation Plan Update

Plan Sponsors: Tri-County Conewago Creek Association

Report Prepared by:

January 2021

Contents Figures ...... ii Tables ...... iii Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... v Units of Measure ...... v 1. Introduction and Project Background ...... 1 1.1 Previous Watershed Planning in the Conewago Creek Watershed ...... 1 1.2 Clean Water Act Section 319 Eligibility ...... 3

2. Watershed Description ...... 4 2.1 Land use ...... 5 2.2 Soils ...... 8 2.3 Topography and drainage ...... 10 2.4 Population and Jurisdiction ...... 11

3. Water Quality ...... 11 3.1 Water Quality Standards and Assessment Status ...... 11 3.2 Total Maximum Daily Loads (PSU 2001) ...... 16 3.3 Water Quality Data ...... 17 3.3.1 Department of Environmental Protection ...... 17 3.3.2 Dauphin County ...... 18 3.3.3 U.S. Geological Survey ...... 19 3.3.4 Conewago Creek Initiative ...... 21 3.4 Key USGS Studies ...... 22 3.4.1 SPARROW Modeling of the Northeast ...... 22 3.4.2 Spatial and Temporal Variability in Showcase Watersheds (Hyer et al. 2016) ...... 23

4. Pollutant Sources and Critical Areas ...... 24 4.1 Sources of Phosphorus ...... 24 4.2 Sources of Sediment ...... 26 4.3 Critical Areas ...... 28

5. Previous Water Quality Improvement Practices ...... 30 5.1 Federally Funded Practices ...... 30 5.2 Surveyed Practices ...... 32 5.3 Ongoing Implementation Project – Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration Site ...... 32

6. Management Measures to Meet TMDL Load Reductions ...... 34 6.1 Modeling Load Reductions of Recommended Practices ...... 34 6.2 Overall Load Reductions ...... 37

7. Funding and Technical Resources ...... 38 7.1 Partners ...... 38 7.2 Estimated Costs ...... 39 7.3 Funding ...... 43

8. Education and Outreach...... 48 8.1 Existing Education and Outreach ...... 48 8.2 Additional Education and Outreach Needs ...... 49 9. Schedule and Milestones ...... 49 10. Evaluating Progress and Adaptive Management ...... 53 11. Monitoring Plan ...... 55 12. References ...... 61 Appendix A – ATTAINS Impairment Listings ...... 63 Appendix B – Water Quality Data ...... 78 Appendix C – Local Sponsor Watershed Issues and Concerns ...... 82 Appendix D – BMP Practice Recommendations ...... 83 Appendix E – Model My Watershed Outputs...... 109 Appendix F. Conewago Creek Monitoring Plan ...... 151

Figures Figure 1. Conewago Creek subwatersheds...... 5 Figure 2. Land Use in the Conewago Creek Watershed (NLCD 2011)...... 7 Figure 3. Soils in the Conewago Creek Watershed (NRCS SSURGO)...... 9 Figure 4. Conewago Creek Watershed topography (USDA NRCS 2020)...... 10 Figure 5. Category 4a streams in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 13 Figure 6. Category 4c streams in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 14 Figure 7. Category 5 streams in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 15 Figure 8. TMDL subbasins A and B in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Image from PSU 2001)...... 16 Figure 9. Macroinvertebrate IBI scores in Conewago Creek Watershed (2012-2013 and 2019) ...... 18 Figure 10. Total phosphorus load and concentration in the Conewago Creek Watershed (USGS 2012 synoptic sampling)...... 19 Figure 11. TSS load and concentration in the Conewago Creek Watershed (USGS synoptic sampling). ... 20 Figure 12. Species richness and abundance in Conewago headwaters (figure from Kyler and Hill 2018). 21 Figure 13. Species richness and abundance for Hersey Meadows (figure from Kyler and Hill 2018)...... 21 Figure 14. Fish species richness and abundance near the mouth of the Conewago (figure from Kyler and Hill 2018)...... 22 Figure 15. Total phosphorus yield (kg/km2) SPARROW results for the Conewago Creek subwatershed... 23 Figure 16. Conewago Creek showcase watershed (Hyer et al. 2016)...... 23 Figure 17. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 24 Figure 18. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus by subwatershed in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 25 Figure 19. Nonpoint sources of sediment in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed). .. 26 Figure 20. Nonpoint sources of sediment by subwatershed in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 27

Figure 21. Critical areas in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 29 Figure 22. Adaptive management iterative process (U.S. EPA 2008)...... 55 Figure 23. Monitoring plan sampling locations...... 58 Figure 24. Total phosphorus concentrations at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek watershed. . 78 Figure 25. Total nitrogen concentrations at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 78 Figure 26. Nitrate concentrations at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 79 Figure 27. Streamflow at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 79 Figure 28. Nitrate loads at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 80 Figure 29. TN loads at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 80 Figure 30. TP loads at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 81 Figure 31. Recommended BMP locations from Penn State AEC. See Table 20 for site-specific BMPs...... 83

Tables Table 1. Comparison of Watershed Implementation Plan Update to U.S. EPA’s Nine Elements ...... 4 Table 2. Land use distribution in the Conewago Creek Watershed (NLCD 2011)...... 6 Table 3. Hydrologic soil group descriptions ...... 8 Table 4. Municipalities within the Conewago Creek Watershed...... 11 Table 5. Summary of stream assessment unit status in the Conewago Creek Watershed (DEP 2020). .... 12 Table 6. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed). . 25 Table 7. Nonpoint sources of sediment in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed)...... 27 Table 8. Critical areas for water quality improvement in the Conewago Creek Watershed ...... 29 Table 9. Summary of previously implemented projects in the Conewago Creek Watershed that received 319 funding 2009-present (U.S. EPA 2020 Grants Reporting and Tracking System)...... 30 Table 10. Summary of previously installed NRCS practices in the Conewago Creek. BMPs include those that are cost-shared by NRCS, funded by FSA but administered by NRCS technical staff, and NRCS conservation technical assistance...... 31 Table 11. Implemented BMPs surveyed by Penn State AEC 2020 ...... 32 Table 12. Stream bank erosion pollutant loading at Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration Site...... 33 Table 13. BMPs evaluated in Model My Watershed ...... 35 Table 14. Summary of recommended practices by subwatershed in Basin A modeled in Model My Watershed...... 36 Table 15. Summary of recommended practices by subwatershed in Basin B modeled in Model My Watershed...... 37 Table 16. Implementation scenario in the Conewago Creek A and B TMDL subbasins ...... 38 Table 17. Estimated costs for implementation of recommended practices...... 40 Table 18. Funding Sources...... 44 Table 19. Targeted audiences in the Conewago Creek Watershed ...... 49 Table 20. Implementation schedule and milestones for Lynch Run ...... 51 Table 21. Implementation schedule and milestones for Hoffer Creek ...... 52 Table 22. Implementation schedule and milestones for Brills Run ...... 53 Table 23. Progress benchmarks ...... 54 Table 24. Data requirements for delisting 303(d) waters. (From DEP Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams (2018))...... 56 Table 25. Monitoring locations and descriptions for the Conewago Creek Monitoring Plan ...... 59 Table 26. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies in the critical area subwatersheds...... 63 Table 27. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies within the Conewago Creek watershed, outside the critical areas...... 68

iii

Table 28. Site-specific BMP recommendations from Penn State AEC (provided by Matt Royer on October 22, 2020)...... 84

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AEC Agriculture and Environment Center AVGWLF ArcView Generalized Watershed Loading Function model AU assessment unit BANCS bank assessment of nonpoint source consequences of sediment BMP best management practice CAP Countywide Action Plan CAST Chesapeake Area DCCD Dauphin County Conservation District DEP Department of Environmental Protection (Pennsylvania) EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program HSG hydrologic soil groups HUC hydrologic unit code IBI Index of Biotic Integrity MF migratory fishes NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service SPARROW SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes TCCCA Tri-County Conewago Creek Association TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen TMDL total maximum daily load TN total nitrogen TP total phosphorus TSF trout stocking TSS total suspended solids USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey WIP Watershed Implementation Plan

Units of Measure ac acre cfu colony forming unit d day ft2 square feet L liter lbs pound µg microgram mg milligram mi2 square miles yr year

1. Introduction and Project Background The ultimate goal of a Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) is to reduce nonpoint source pollution in a cost effective and timely manner by identifying appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) in targeted areas and creating a mechanism and schedule for implementation. WIPs help to achieve pollutant reductions and attain water quality standards and will result in a cleaner, healthier watershed for the people who depend on the resources of the watershed for their livelihood now and in the future.

The Conewago Creek WIP Update provides a framework that watershed stakeholders may use to guide implementation of BMPs to address excess nutrients, sediment, and bacteria in the Conewago Creek Watershed and serves as an update to the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan (RETTEW 2006), and can be considered a stand-alone document. In 2001, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) were developed to address phosphorus and sediment impaired segments in the watershed. These TMDLs were revised in 2006 by the Pennsylvania State University Environmental Resources Research Institute. The TMDLs provide pollutant load reduction targets that when met, should result in waterbodies that are no longer considered impaired.

This framework is flexible and incorporates adaptive management to allow watershed stakeholders to adjust the implementation plan to align with their priorities and limitations. This flexibility is necessary because the implementation of nonpoint source controls is voluntary. For example, an implementation plan that specifies a parking lot location for permeable pavement installation would be of little use to watershed stakeholders if the property owners at the specified locations are unwilling or unable to implement. Adaptive management is also necessary because factors unique to specific localities may yield better or worse results for a certain BMP (or suite of BMPs) and the implementation plan will need to be modified to account for such results.

1.1 Previous Watershed Planning in the Conewago Creek Watershed The Conewago Creek WIP Update provides updates to many previous planning efforts in the Conewago Creek Watershed and surrounding area.

Much of the information in the Conewago Creek WIP Update is included in the original Conewago Creek Restoration Plan developed in 2006 by the Tri-County Conewago Creek Association and prepared by RETTEW. References to the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan are provided throughout this document. The 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan included an aerial assessment of the watershed to identify specific BMP practice types and locations to address phosphorus and sediment in the watershed. The plan includes 129 project opportunities with the majority of the recommended BMPs being vegetative buffer strips, stream bank fencing, stream bank stabilization, and to a lesser extent terraces and diversions, and grazing land management. The 2006 plan selected Hoffer Creek, Gallagher Run, and Little Conewago Creek as the top 3 priority subwatersheds. The plan established a timeline for achieving full implementation of the entire plan within 35 years, but anticipated completion of Hoffer Creek and Gallagher Run projects within 10 years, assuming full landowner support, sufficient funding and successful collaboration between organizations.

In 2012 Tetra Tech finalized an urban stormwater BMP and stream restoration assessment for the watershed that provided a prioritized ranking of potential stormwater BMP practice locations and provided specific BMP recommendations. Recommendations included pond retrofits, vegetated swales, and bioretention/rain gardens. Potential sites included commercial/industrial properties, municipal property, churches, residential areas, and a golf course.

Similarly, stream condition of non-agricultural stream reaches was assessed throughout the watershed. This assessment was intended to supplement the assessment of streams within agricultural areas conducted for the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan. Using the aerial footage of the streams developed for the 2006 plan, several stream reaches needing restoration were identified. Recommendations included stream restoration and riparian buffers.

In 2017, Londonderry Township, in coordination with Mt. Joy Township, commissioned an assessment along approximately 3 miles of the Conewago Creek from Zeager Rd at the downstream extent to Mill Rd at Aberdeen Mills at the upstream extent. The assessment also included roughly 1,500-LF of Brills Run from its confluence with the Conewago Creek, upstream to Hoffer Rd. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)-funded effort supported the development of an Inter-Municipal Agreement to identify optimal project locations and cost-sharing opportunities to achieve regional pollutant reduction goals. LandStudies, Inc. assessed the reach using the Bank Assessment of Nonpoint source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) methodology. The assessment revealed extreme pollutant loading as a result of excessive stream bank erosion. The erosive conditions were determined to be a product of channel incision and floodplain disconnection caused by intensive historical land uses and resultant legacy sediment impairments ubiquitous throughout the watershed. Field work also included establishing bank-pin erosion monitoring stations used to measure erosion rates and calibrate pollutant loading estimates. The stakeholder group, led by HRG, Inc., presented the results in a 2019 Case Study. The study was integral in identifying the Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration site, scheduled to begin construction in 2021. The study also served as the basis for additional funding opportunities for design, permitting and project implementation.

The Lancaster Clean Water Partners developed the Lancaster County Countywide Action Plan (CAP) in 2019 to outline the county’s strategy for achieving the nutrient and sediment reduction goals for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and restoring local water quality. The strategy addresses agriculture, urban stormwater, riparian buffers and stream restoration. Numerous practices and implementation goals are quantified at the county level, but not at the smaller subwatershed level; therefore, specific implementation practices and goals have not been identified for the Conewago Creek Watershed. However, the types and amount of practices included in the plan can inform implementation in the Conewago Creek Watershed. Key agricultural strategies include addressing the nutrient imbalance in the county due to excess manure through improved manure management practices, drafting new conservation plans to address erosion and sedimentation and nutrient management, increase cover crops, and increase no-till and/or conservation tillage.

Outreach activities identified in the plan focus on topics including public health benefits, herd health, building legacy options for families, economics, and plain sect outreach to encourage participation in planning and implementation.

Stormwater practices in the CAP focus on wet ponds and wetlands, dry ponds, vegetated open channels, and urban nutrient management. To a lesser extent, bioretention and rain gardens, impervious surface reduction, street sweeping, infiltration practices and extended dry basins are identified. Other developed land practices include septic connections and septic pumping, grey infrastructure and dirt and gravel road management.

There is a strong emphasis on riparian buffers in the CAP, including the goal of one buffer demonstration project of at least one acre in every township. County-wide there is a goal of 6,000 new acres of forested

buffer or urban forested buffer, with projects in agricultural and headwaters streams being prioritized. The county has a buffer strategy that includes the goal of creating a Lancaster County Buffer Program that compliments the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Part of the program will include an outreach campaign to encourage buffers on all public and semi-public land.

Stream management is also a strong focus of the CAP, with a goal of 98 new acres of wetland restoration and creation, over 63,000 new linear feet of non-urban stream restoration and over 35,000 linear feet of urban stream restoration in the county.

The CAP also outlines data management needs to track implementation activities. Some key needs are a central location for conservation plans, restoration project permits, and grant applications; better documentation for practices in place; increased in-stream water quality monitoring; and aggregating water quality data from multiple agencies in one location.

1.2 Clean Water Act Section 319 Eligibility

An important factor for successful implementation of the WIP is access to technical and financial resources. One potential source of funding is the Clean Water Act Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management grants. Section 319 grant funding supports implementation activities including technical and financial assistance, education, training, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of nonpoint source implementation projects. To be eligible for these funds, watershed management plans must address nine elements identified by U.S. EPA (2008, revised 2014) as critical for achieving improvements in water quality. These nine elements include:

• Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve load reductions estimated within the plan • Estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures • Description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions estimated in element 2; and identification of critical areas • Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and the sources and authorities (e.g., ordinances) that will be relied upon to implement the plan • An information and public education component; early and continued encouragement of public involvement in the design and implementation of the plan • Implementation schedule that is reasonably expeditious • A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint source management measures or other control actions are being implemented • Criteria to measure progress towards meeting water quality standards and reevaluate the plan • Monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time

Although Section 319 plans are created to address nonpoint source pollution specifically, improvements to point source pollution control may also have great impacts on ambient water quality in the watershed.

The Conewago Creek WIP Update is considered a watershed plan that meets U.S. EPA’s nine elements Table 1 illustrates which sections of the document contain information that fulfills U.S. EPA’s nine elements.

Table 1. Comparison of Watershed Implementation Plan Update to U.S. EPA’s Nine Elements Section 319 Nine Elements Applicable Section of the WIP Update 1. Identification of causes of impairment and Section 3.1, 4.1, and 4.2 pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve load reductions estimated within the plan. 2. Estimate of the load reductions expected from Section 3.2 and 6 management measures 3. Description of the nonpoint source Section 6, 4.3, and Appendix D management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions estimated in element 2; and identification of critical areas 4. Estimate of the amounts of technical and Section 7 financial assistance needed, associated costs, and the sources and authorities (e.g., ordinances) that will be relied upon to implement the plan. 5. An information and public education Section 8 component; early and continued encouragement of public involvement in the design and implementation of the plan. 6. Implementation schedule Section 9 7. A description of interim, measurable Section 9 milestones for determining whether nonpoint source management measures or other control actions are being implemented. 8. Criteria to measure progress and reevaluate Section 10 the plan 9. Monitoring component to evaluate the Section 11 effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time

2. Watershed Description The Conewago Creek Watershed (HUC 020503051010) is 53.2 square miles and spans portions of Dauphin, Lancaster and Lebanon counties in the Piedmont region of Pennsylvania. Conewago Creek originates near Mt. Gretna, in Lebanon County and flows generally southwest to the confluence with the Susquehanna River near Falmouth, Pennsylvania. There are approximately 60.5 miles of stream within the watershed. There are 10 subwatersheds within the Conewago Creek Watershed, including tributary subwatersheds for Little Conewago Creek, Hoffer Creek, Gallagher Run, Brills Run, Lynch Run and two

unnamed tributaries in the lower watershed (Figure 1). The designated uses are water supply, recreation and aquatic life. The designated uses for aquatic life are trout stocking (TSF) and migratory fishes (MF).

The Conewago Creek Watershed has a diverse fish population. A 2018 Fish Survey by the Conewago Creek Initiative partners found between 12 and 18 fish species at three different sample locations on the Conewago Creek. The 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan notes that the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission stocks trout in upper Conewago Creek and that the lower portion of the watershed supports a rather unique population of Chain pickerel (RETTEW 2006). In addition, as part of the Muddy Run Pumped Storage Project, the Conewago Creek was stocked with over 16,5000 juvenile American eels (Anguilla rostrate) in June of 2017. The American eel population has decreased due to the lack of migration possibilities. Eel reintroduction, due to its connection with freshwater mussels, could help improve local water quality (Kyler and Hill 2018).

This section was developed based on information provided in the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan and updated as necessary.

Figure 1. Conewago Creek subwatersheds.

2.1 Land use The watershed is dominated by deciduous forest (35%), cultivated crops (20%), and pasture/hay (16%) with smaller areas of developed land, mostly developed open space and developed, low intensity (see Table 2). Forestland is concentrated in the headwaters and the southern boundary of the watershed (Figure 2.). The watershed is bisected by US 76 (The Pennsylvania Turnpike), and State Highways 230 and 283. More intense development tends to be clustered in the lower portion of the watershed, near the state highways. Animal agriculture in the watershed is predominantly broiler chicken (380,000) and hogs (10,500), along with approximately 3,000 dairy cattle.

Table 2. Land use distribution in the Conewago Creek Watershed (NLCD 2011). Land Use Acres % of Land Use Open Water 34.5 0.1 Developed, open space 3644.5 10.8 Developed, low intensity 1569.2 4.7 Developed, medium intensity 472.1 1.4 Developed, high intensity 74.1 0.4 Barren Land 74.1 0.2 Deciduous Forest 11799.4 35.1 Evergreen Forest 132.8 0.4 Mixed Forest 445.4 1.3 Shrub/Scrub 2348.2 7.0 Grassland/Herbaceous 177.9 0.5 Pasture/Hay 5393.8 16.0 Cultivated Crops 6713.4 20.0 Woody Wetlands 634.9 1.9 Emergent Herbaceous 19.8 0.1 Total 33606.9 100.0

Figure 2. Land Use in the Conewago Creek Watershed (NLCD 2011).

2.2 Soils The soils in the Conewago Creek Watershed are predominantly (57%) B soils, meaning that they have moderate infiltration rates. About 31% of the soils are C or C/D soils which have generally slow infiltration. Remaining soils in the watershed are a mix of A, B/D and D soils. As a general pattern, higher elevation areas in the watershed tend to have more poorly infiltrating soils, although poorly infiltrating soils are also commonly found along the streams within the watershed.

The National Cooperative Soil Survey publishes soil surveys for each county within the U.S. These soil surveys contain predictions of soil behavior for selected land uses. The surveys also highlight limitations and hazards inherent in the soil, general improvements needed to overcome the limitations, and the impact of selected land uses on the environment. The soil surveys are designed for many different uses, including land use planning, the identification of special practices needed to ensure proper performance, and mapping of hydrologic soil groups (HSGs).

HSGs refer to the grouping of soils according to their runoff potential. Soil properties that influence the HSGs include depth to seasonal high water table, infiltration rate and permeability after prolonged wetting, and depth to a slower permeable layer (e.g., finer grained). There are four groups of HSGs: Group A, B, C, and Group D. Table 3 and Figure 3 describe those HSGs found in the Conewago Creek Watershed. Group B soils are most prominent in the Conewago Creek Watershed, indicating silt loam or loam soils that are moderate well to well drained. Dual soil groups are found near streambanks and are characterized by higher runoff potential and high water table.

Table 3. Hydrologic soil group descriptions HSG Group Description Sand, loamy sand or sandy loam types of soils. Low runoff potential and high infiltration rates A even when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels with a high rate of water transmission. Silt loam or loam. Moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly or B moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. Soils are sandy clay loam. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of soils C with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine structure. Soils are clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay. Group D has the highest runoff potential. Low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. Consist chiefly of clay soils with a high D swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. Dual Hydrologic Soil Groups. Certain wet soils are placed in group D based solely on the B/D presence of a water table within 24 inches of the surface even though the saturated hydraulic conductivity may be favorable for water transmission. If these soils can be adequately drained, then they are assigned to dual hydrologic soil groups (A/D, B/D, and C/D) based on their C/D saturated hydraulic conductivity and the water table depth when drained. The first letter applies to the drained condition and the second to the undrained condition.

Figure 3. Soils in the Conewago Creek Watershed (NRCS SSURGO).

2.3 Topography and drainage

Elevation in the Conewago Creek Watershed ranges from 351 meters to 82 meters near its confluence with the Susquehanna River (Figure 4). Elevation is generally higher in the northeastern portion of the watershed and falls in the downstream, southwestern portions. Most of the watershed has low to moderate slopes.

Figure 4. Conewago Creek Watershed topography (USDA NRCS 2020).

2.4 Population and Jurisdiction The Conewago Creek Watershed has its headwaters in Lebanon County, before passing into Dauphin and Lancaster Counties. The Conewago Creek serves as the county boundary between Dauphin and Lancaster counties. There are two municipal separate sewer system (MS4) communities in the watershed: Londonderry Township and Mt. Joy Township.

In the 2010 Census, populations of Londonderry Township and Mt. Joy Township were 1,856 and 9,873 respectively 1. The Census Bureau estimated the 2019 population of these two municipalities, however, to be 1,762 (a 5% decrease) and 11,271 (a 14% increase), respectively. These values will be confirmed with the results of the 2020 Census. Other cities within or adjacent to the watershed include Elizabethtown, Middletown, and Mount Gretna whose 2010 populations were 11,545; 8,901; and 196 respectively. The Census Bureau estimated the 2019 populations of these cities, however, to be 11,445 (0.9% decrease); 9,594 (7.8% increase); and 209 (6.6% increase) respectively.

A full list of municipalities within the Conewago Creek Watershed was provided by the Tri-County Conewago Creek Association (TCCCA) (Table 4).

Table 4. Municipalities within the Conewago Creek Watershed. County Municipality West Cornwall Township Lebanon South Annville Township South Londonderry Township Borough of Mount Gretna Londonderry Township Dauphin Conewago Township Mount Joy Township West Donegal Township Lancaster Borough of Elizabethtown Conoy Township

3. Water Quality

3.1 Water Quality Standards and Assessment Status All surface waters in Pennsylvania have been assigned statewide water uses and should be able to support these uses: aquatic life, water supply, and recreation. For the aquatic life use, Conewago Creek is designated as a trout stocking (TSF) and migratory fishes (MF).

Water quality standards set the general and specific goals for the quality of surface waters in the state. They are based upon the water uses to be protected, the surface water conditions that need to be maintained or attained to support those uses, and an antidegradation policy which protects and maintains existing uses. Waterbodies that are not meeting their water quality standards are considered impaired.

Pennsylvania has not adopted numeric criteria for nutrients or sediment to protect aquatic life. However, Pennsylvania has adopted narrative criteria that protect aquatic life from harmful discharges

1 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/

of point and nonpoint sources, including turbidity (25 Pa 93.6). These narrative criteria apply to nutrient and sediment pollution that impair aquatic life.

An overview of impaired stream reaches in the Conewago Creek Watershed is provided in Table 5. No lakes were assessed in the Conewago Creek Watershed. According to Pennsylvania Integrated Report (2020):

• Category 4a streams are defined as “waters impaired for one or more uses, not needing a TMDL, because a TMDL has been completed.” • Category 4c waters are defined as “waters impaired for one or more uses, not needing a TMDL, because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant.” • Category 5 waters are defined as “waters impaired for one or more uses by a pollutant that require the development of a TMDL.”

Category 4a waters and their associated causes and sources are provided in Figure 5. Figure 6 includes Category 4c waters and their associated causes and sources, and Category 5 streams and their associated causes and sources are included in Figure 7. Appendix A includes a comprehensive list of all of the impaired ATTAINS assessment units within the critical areas and the overall watershed.

Table 5. Summary of stream assessment unit status in the Conewago Creek Watershed (DEP 2020). Designated Causes & Sources Stream Name Category Use (for Categories 4A and 5) Hoffer Creek and Aquatic Life 4a Nutrients and Siltation – Agriculture unnamed tributaries Aquatic Life Hoffer Creek 4c Other Habitat Alteration - Other Lynch Run and unnamed 4a Siltation and Turbidity - Agriculture Aquatic Life tributaries Cause Unknown - Other Aquatic Life Conewago Creek and 4a Nutrients – Agriculture unnamed tributaries Siltation – Agriculture Suspended Solids – Agriculture Aquatic Life Unnamed Tributary to 4a Suspended Solids – Agriculture and Municipal Point Source Conewago Creek, Organic Enrichment/Low dissolved oxygen – Municipal Point upstream of Lynch Run Source* Aquatic Life Unnamed Tributary to 4c Conewago Creek, Other Habitat Alterations – Habitat Modification downstream of Lynch Run Recreational Conewago Creek and 5 Pathogens – Source Unknown unnamed tributary *TMDL for point source was completed in 1998.

Figure 5. Category 4a streams in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Figure 6. Category 4c streams in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Figure 7. Category 5 streams in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

3.2 Total Maximum Daily Loads (PSU 2001) TMDLs were developed to address impairments to aquatic life uses that were identified in Pennsylvania’s 1996 and 1998 303(d) lists for Conewago Creek, Hoffer Creek, and Lynch Run. The causes of impairments were excess nutrients and sediment and the source of the impairments was agriculture2. Phosphorus was identified as the limiting nutrient. With respect to nutrients, the TMDL only addresses phosphorus because it was determined that phosphorus was the limiting nutrient.

Total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) TMDLs for two subbasins were developed using a reference watershed approach. Lehman-Muddy Creek and Little Swatara Creek were selected as reference watersheds for the two TMDL subbasins. Average annual sediment and phosphorus loads were simulated for a 24-year period for the reference watersheds and impaired TMDL subbasins using the ArcView Generalized Watershed Loading Function (AVGWLF) model. Unit area loads were calculated, and the unit area loads for the reference watersheds were used to set the loading capacities for TMDL subbasin A and TMDL subbasin B (Figure 8).

Figure 8. TMDL subbasins A and B in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Image from PSU 2001).

Wasteload allocations were calculated using data from Discharge Monitoring Reports. Since the model did not have an in-stream component, phosphorus losses were estimated using the methods in USGS SPARROW (SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes) modeling. The load allocation for nonpoint sources was delineated into (1) the adjusted load allocation for controllable nonpoint sources, and (2) the loads not reduced for uncontrollable (natural) nonpoint sources (e.g., forest). The controllable nonpoint sources are (1) runoff from hay/pasture, cropland, and developed land and (2)

2 PSU (2001) identified a 1998 TMDL that addressed organic enrichment from a municipal point source.

streambank erosion. The margin of safety was an explicit 10 percent of the loading capacity. Reductions were calculated for controllable nonpoint sources (adjusted load allocation).

In TMDL subbasin A, the necessary reductions for TP and TSS were 40 and 54 percent, respectively; in TMDL subbasin B, 37 and 34 percent, respectively. The equal marginal percent reduction method was used to distribute reductions to specific controllable nonpoint sources (i.e., hay/pasture, cropland, developed land, streambanks). Because the model used to calculate the existing loads and potential load reductions from BMP implementation in this plan (Model My Watershed) is different from the version used in the original TMDL (AVGWLF), the updated existing loads and required load reductions in pounds are presented later in this document, starting in Section 4. To ensure consistency with the reduction required from the original TMDL, the existing load was modeled in Model My Watershed and then the required percent reductions from the original TMDL were applied, to derive a reduction that is consistent with water quality results expected from the original TMDL reductions. Despite the change in the target load reductions, in pounds, the final determinant of successful implementation of this WIP is changes in water quality as determined by monitoring, not overall pounds of pollutant reduced or number of BMPs implemented. This plan provides a roadmap for achieving water quality targets.

3.3 Water Quality Data Publicly available water quality data are reported by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Dauphin County Conservation District (DCCD), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the Conewago Creek Watershed and summarized in the following sections.

3.3.1 Department of Environmental Protection DEP collected water quality data throughout Pennsylvania. Two types of data were evaluated to support WIP development. ▪ Macroinvertebrate3: DEP collects macroinvertebrate data and calculates qualitative scores (to determine use attainment) for monitoring sites across the state. DEP reports 25 macroinvertebrate sampling records for sites in the Conewago Creek subwatershed (HUC 02050305 10 10). Data were collected in 2012 (2 records), 2013 (12 records), and 2019 (9 records). Freestone Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores were calculated for each record. ▪ Water chemistry4: DEP collects water column samples from waterways across Pennsylvania. A query of the Water Quality Network indicated that only two monitoring sites are located in the WIP project area. Site 269 is on Conewago Creek at Falmouth and site 278 on Conewago Creek at Bellaire. Both sites are at USGS gages (see Section 3.3.3). DEP’s macroinvertebrate data were used to develop this WIP. This dataset is the most representative macroinvertebrate data due to the number of sites and recent year of sampling. Tetra Tech estimated aquatic life use attainment for the freestone IBIs using A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity for Wadeable Freestone Riffle-Run Streams in Pennsylvania (DEP 2012).

3 DEP macroinvertebrate data were downloaded from Looking Below the Surface (https://www.depgis.state.pa.us/macroinvertebrate/index.html ) via the Export Statewide Dataset function the online map (https://www.depgis.state.pa.us/macroviewer/index.html) on February 4, 2020. 4 DEP water chemistry data are available from the Water Quality Network (http://www.depgis.state.pa.us/WQN/).

Figure 9. Macroinvertebrate IBI scores in Conewago Creek Watershed (2012-2013 and 2019)

3.3.2 Dauphin County DCCD collected water chemistry samples from five tributaries to Conewago Creek from 2015 to 2020. The five sample locations are (moving upstream from the mouth of Conewago Creek): unnamed tributary (RM 0.36), Lynch Run (RM 0.20), Brills Run (RM 0.19), Gallagher Run (RM 0.45), and Hoffer Creek (1.84). DCCD reported results for total nitrogen (TN), nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), TP, orthophosphate, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature.

Nutrient data were evaluated to support WIP development. Appendix B presents box-and-whisker plots of the nutrient data. Non-detects were reported for several orthophosphate results and many TN, TKN, and TP results. Except for Lynch Run, 75% of TP concentrations at each tributary ranged from 0.05 to 0.19 mg/L, with a quarter of concentrations greater; the median concentrations at each site varied between 0.10 and 0.14 mg/L. At Lynch Run, 75% of TP concentrations were 0.31 mg/L or less and the median was 0.18 mg/L. TN and nitrate concentrations increased in an upstream direction (i.e., unnamed tributary < Lynch Run < Brills Run < Gallagher Run < Hoffer Creek). The TN and nitrate trends of increasing concentrations as moving upstream were the same for the full annual dataset and the spring- summer dataset.

3.3.3 U.S. Geological Survey USGS has collected water quality samples from sites throughout the Conewago Creek Watershed (HUC 020503051010). Sites were sampled and evaluated for nutrients and associated parameters; no bacteria data were reported5. Two key datasets were identified:

• Gages: USGS operates two gages on Conewago Creek: near Falmouth (01573710) and near Bellaire (01573695). From 2011 through 2019, over 2,000 samples were collected at each gage and evaluated for nutrients. • Synoptic: On May 15, 2012, USGS collected synoptic samples at 14 sample sites in the Conewago Creek subwatershed, including the two gages. TP and TSS loads were calculated using instantaneous flow data reported for May 15, 2012. TP (Figure 10) and TSS (Figure 11) loads and concentrations were evaluated to support WIP development, including the identification of tributary subwatersheds as critical areas.

Figure 10. Total phosphorus load and concentration in the Conewago Creek Watershed (USGS 2012 synoptic sampling).

5 USGS data were obtained from the Water Quality Portal (https://waterqualitydata.us/) on February 3, 2020.

Figure 11. TSS load and concentration in the Conewago Creek Watershed (USGS synoptic sampling).

3.3.4 Conewago Creek Initiative The Conewago Creek Initiative compiled historic fish survey data from 1972, 1973, 2007, 2012, 2015, and 2018 on three sites: the headwaters, at Hershey Meadows, and near the mouth of the creek, in a 2018 report (Kyler and Hill 2018). They evaluated species abundance and richness (Figure 12 through Figure 14), tolerance, and trophic status.

Figure 12. Species richness and abundance in Conewago headwaters (figure from Kyler and Hill 2018).

Figure 13. Species richness and abundance for Hersey Meadows (figure from Kyler and Hill 2018).

Figure 14. Fish species richness and abundance near the mouth of the Conewago (figure from Kyler and Hill 2018).

Kyler and Hill (2018) concluded that:

Overall, all three sites are demonstrating similar fish population diversity and tolerability. The continuing presence of insectivore species at all three sites is a positive sign for stream health. No significant decreases in fish population have been observed, suggesting the watershed conditions are remaining stable. Due to the significant amount of rain received before the 2015 and 2018 samplings, species counts were likely lower than if there had been ideal sampling conditions. However, the results are continuing to build a trend that is needed to judge improvement. The switch in trophic level dominance from generalist to insectivore at the Hershey Meadows site seems to indicate improvements following a restoration project. This could suggest as other projects are completed in the watershed, additional positive changes in fish population are likely to occur. (Kyler and Hill 2018 p. 18).

3.4 Key USGS Studies The Conewago Creek subwatershed (HUC 020503051010) is included in two key USGS studies that evaluated nutrient loading.

3.4.1 SPARROW Modeling of the Northeast USGS developed SPARROW models for regions across the United States. The Conewago Creek subwatershed is included in the Northeast SPARROW modeling. The online mapper6 allows users to search by HUC12 to see the associated total phosphorus yield in the watershed (Figure 15).

6 USGS SPARROW modeling mapper for the Northeast (https://sparrow.wim.usgs.gov/sparrow-northeast-2012/; accessed August 18, 2020).

Figure 15. Total phosphorus yield (kg/km2) SPARROW results for the Conewago Creek subwatershed.

3.4.2 Spatial and Temporal Variability in Showcase Watersheds (Hyer et al. 2016) In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USGS, U.S. EPA, and the USDA monitored water quality in four small, targeted watersheds with increased implementation of conservation practices, or showcase watersheds (Figure 16). The objectives of the study were to investigate water quality in each subwatershed to characterize current water quality and identify sources, sinks, and transport processes.

In the Conewago Creek subwatershed, water quality trends with concentrations and loads were evaluated spatially and temporally (Hyer et al. 2016, p. 102-140). The authors found that TP and orthophosphate were significantly positively correlated with streamflow and that orthophosphate was higher during the warm season. Hyer et al. (2016) determined that nearly 80 percent of the 2013 TSS load was from three largest storm events.

Figure 16. Conewago Creek showcase watershed (Hyer et al. 2016).

4. Pollutant Sources and Critical Areas Nutrients and siltation from agriculture are the two most identified causes and sources of pollutants to impaired streams in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Table 5). In addition, streambank erosion and channelization was identified by the local sponsor group as the third most important issue and concern in the watershed, following excess sedimentation and excess nutrients (Appendix C). As such, a more in- depth analysis of the various sources of sediment and nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) was conducted using information from previous studies in the watershed and by using the Model My Watershed modeling tool (Sections 4.1 through 4.2). Model My Watershed is a watershed-modeling application that can be used to model stormwater runoff and water quality impacts using real land use and soil data on a watershed scale.

Results of the source assessment were then combined with in stream water quality data analysis, and stakeholder input, to delineate critical areas for implementation in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Section 4.3).

4.1 Sources of Phosphorus According to results from Model My Watershed, farm animals and cropland are the predominant nonpoint sources of phosphorus loading to the watershed overall (Figure 17). Loading rates of phosphorus from nonpoint sources for each subwatershed ranged from 0.83 to 2.07 lbs/ac/yr with the 1st tributary south subwatershed having the largest loading rates per acre (Figure 18). A breakdown of all contributing nonpoint sources of phosphorus by subwatershed is provided in Table 6.

Figure 17. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed).

Figure 18. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus by subwatershed in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed).

Table 6. Nonpoint sources of phosphorus in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed).

Total phosphorus (lbs/yr)

Sources

Creek

1st 1st TributaryNorth 1st TributarySouth Run Brills ConewagoCreek A ConewagoCreek B Conewago Headwaters GallagherRun Hoffer Little Conewago Creek LynchRun Hay/Pasture 179.9 32 180.4 180.5 195.1 126.2 160.2 472.5 192.1 333 Cropland 914 119.2 1,014.4 1,663.9 1,821.3 806.8 859.9 2,110.2 2,059.5 1,079.6 Wooded 6.7 2 4 13.6 17.8 32.2 1.7 5.4 12.2 3.1 Areas Wetlands 0.4 0.1 0.8 2.9 1.6 3.9 0.1 0.8 1.1 0.5 Open Land 0.4 0.3 1.4 1.6 2.7 2.7 0.2 1.0 0.2 0.9 Barren Areas - - - 0.4 0.4 0.1 - 0.2 - - Developed 12.7 6.0 15.0 20.2 67.7 33.4 10.2 17.2 10.8 33.9

Total phosphorus (lbs/yr)

Sources

Creek

1st 1st TributaryNorth 1st TributarySouth Run Brills ConewagoCreek A ConewagoCreek B Conewago Headwaters GallagherRun Hoffer Little Conewago Creek LynchRun Farm Animals 345.1 959.7 628.1 4,118.7 6,802.0 6,273.0 271.5 1,263.2 3,550.3 443.4 Stream Bank 15.4 6.6 22 46.3 196.2 176.4 13.2 44.1 48.5 46.3 Erosion Subsurface 114 94.5 196.3 462.3 656.3 641.5 101.3 353.7 504 201.6 Flow TOTAL 1,588.6 1,220.4 2,062.4 6,510.4 9,769.9 8,096.2 1,418.3 4,268.3 6,378.7 2,142.3

4.2 Sources of Sediment According to results from Model My Watershed, cropland and streambank erosion are the predominant nonpoint sources of sediment loading to the watershed overall (Figure 19). Loading rates of sediment from nonpoint sources for each subwatershed ranged from 316 to 1,1158 lbs/ac/yr with the Gallagher Run subwatershed having the largest loading rates per acre (Figure 20). A breakdown of all contributing nonpoint sources of phosphorus by subwatershed is provided in Table 7.

Figure 19. Nonpoint sources of sediment in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed).

Figure 20. Nonpoint sources of sediment by subwatershed in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed).

Table 7. Nonpoint sources of sediment in the Conewago Creek Watershed (Model My Watershed).

Total suspended solids (ton/yr)

Sources

1st 1st Tributary North 1st Tributary South Run Brills ConewagoCreek A ConewagoCreek B Conewago Headwaters GallagherRun HofferCreek Little Conewago Creek LynchRun Hay/Pasture 106.9 13.7 102.3 52.9 60.4 33.9 91.5 252.6 56.5 193.0 Cropland 585.1 72.5 635.1 888.8 1,096.4 411.8 539.0 1,274.9 1,091.4 687.6 Wooded Areas 1.4 0.6 1.2 2.8 4.0 9.2 0.4 1.1 2.4 0.7 Wetlands 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 Open Land 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.4 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 Stream Bank 40.8 15.5 59.6 119.5 526.9 437.4 34.6 115.0 125.3 129.9 Erosion Developed 2.4 1.2 3.1 4.3 13.7 7.2 2.2 3.5 2.2 7.0 TOTAL 736.8 103.7 802.1 1,069.3 1,703.2 901.3 667.7 1,647.8 1,278.0 1,018.7

4.3 Critical Areas Critical areas are prioritized specific locations in which to target best management practices (BMPs) that address causes and sources of impairments during the first (5-10) years of implementation efforts. Critical areas are the focus of nonpoint sources pollution control and can be delineated to address the cause and/or source of impairment. The goals for each critical area are to achieve water quality standards and the objectives are to implement the required amount of BMPs to achieve those standards.

A tiered approach was used to determine critical areas for implementation. To begin, potential critical areas were narrowed down to the subwatersheds of impaired streams for the pollutants of concern in the Conewago Creek WIP: sedimentation/siltation and/or nutrients. Typically, the headwaters of a watershed would be the first critical area where implementation should focus; however, in the Conewago Creek watershed, the headwaters are not impaired, suggesting that the focus of implementation should be elsewhere.

A series of available data were then evaluated: Macroinvertebrate IBI scores, total phosphorus load and concentration, and total suspended solids load and concentration. Macroinvertebrate IBI scores were evaluated based on their differential from instream IBI targets. The Macroinvertebrate IBI scores along the mainstem Conewago Creek are largely meeting attainment thresholds or exhibit a relatively small differential from attainment thresholds while tributary streams display larger differentials from their thresholds (Figure 9). As downstream portions of the Conewago Creek remain impaired for both nutrients and sediments, targeting tributaries that are disproportionately contributing these pollutants to Conewago Creek will improve water quality along the mainstem.

Tributaries upstream of impaired mainstem Conewago Creek impairments were further evaluated for critical area selection beginning with the most upstream drainage areas. Drainage areas contributing the largest total phosphorus load and concentration and/or total suspended solids load and concentration data were provided to the Conewago Creek local sponsors for review.

Three subwatersheds were selected as critical areas for water quality improvements in the Conewago Creek Watershed based on the above tiered approach (Table 8 and Figure 21). Although some of the tributaries themselves are far from attaining non-impaired IBI scores, improvements in the tributaries are expected to have downstream impacts on the attainment status of the mainstem Conewago, moving those mainstem segments towards attainment in the first five to ten years of implementation. In addition, while Brills Run is not currently listed on the 303(d) list, it is potentially at risk of becoming listed based on its low macroinvertebrate IBI scores and was identified as an important drainage area by stakeholders.

Figure 21. Critical areas in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Table 8. Critical areas for water quality improvement in the Conewago Creek Watershed Critical area for Impairment cause and water quality Rationale source (PA 303(d) list) improvement • Freestone IBI is impaired (-28 in 2013 and -10 in 2019) • Synoptic TP was high (1.02-1.47 mg/L) • Synoptic TP load at mouth was 63 lbs/d Siltation, turbidity from Lynch Run agricultural sources • Synoptic TP loads in Conewago Creek increased (806 lb/d) from upstream of Brills Run (725 lb/d) to downstream of Lynch Run (1,531 lb/d). Lynch Run contributed about 8% of that increase. • Freestone IBI is impaired (-16 in 2013 and -12 in 2019) • Synoptic TP was relatively high (0.91 mg/L) Nutrients, siltation from • Synoptic TP load at mouth was 64 lbs/d Hoffer Creek agricultural sources • Synoptic TP loads in Conewago Creek increased (141 lb/d) from downstream of Little Conewago Creek (584 lb/d) to upstream of Brills Run (725 lb/d). Hoffer Creek contributed about 45% of that increase. • Freestone IBI is impaired (marginally, -2 in 2013 and -1 in 2019) • Synoptic TP was relatively high (0.57-1.59 mg/L) • Synoptic TP load at mouth was 429 lbs/d Brills Run is not on PA’s 2018 • Synoptic TP loads in Conewago Creek increased (806 lb/d) 303(d) List but is upstream of Brills Run from upstream of Brills Run (725 lb/d) to downstream of mainstem Conewago that is Lynch Run (1,531 lb/d). Brills Run contributed about 53% of on the 303(d) List that increase. As such, targeting Brills Run will have disproportionately large improvements to downstream impaired waters. • At risk of being added to 303(d) list based on IBI scores that are not in attainment

5. Previous Water Quality Improvement Practices Much progress has been made towards implementation of the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan and numerous resources were available to account for the water quality impacts of these implementation activities.

5.1 Federally Funded Practices Projects that receive federal funding are tracked through their applicable programs. Projects that have been funded through the 319 program in the Conewago Creek Watershed since the development of the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan are provided in Table 9 by Conewago Creek TMDL subbasins A and B.

Table 9. Summary of previously implemented projects in the Conewago Creek Watershed that received 319 funding 2009-present (U.S. EPA 2020 Grants Reporting and Tracking System). Reduction Project Year Location Practices implemented Nitrogen Phosphorus Sediment (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (ton/yr) • Obstruction removal Conewago Creek • 3.5 acres of riparian forest buffer Stream Restoration 2014 Conewago B • 1,470 feet of stream channel 380 190 224 stabilization (design, permit and construction) • 2,940 feet of streambank and shoreline protection • 0.03 acres of heavy use protection • 1 livestock stream crossing structure • 3 water control structures Conewago A 3395.7 614.5 36.9 (lbs) • 200 feet of subsurface drains • 790 feet of underground outlet • 1 waste storage facility • 0.5 acres of cover crops • 0.46 acres of critical area plantings • 4,029 feet of diversions • 4,016 feet of livestock fencing • 0.5 acres of forage and biomass Conewago Creek planting Watershed • 6.17 acres of grass waterway Restoration • 0.125 acres of heavy area use 2016 Phase III (design, protection permit and • 40 feet of line waterway/outlet construction) • 850 feet of livestock pipelines Conewago B • 6 livestock stream crossing structures 5,693 1,193 1,006 • 1.08 acres of mulching • 228 acres of nutrient management • 1.5 acres of riparian forest buffer • 5,079 feet of livestock stream exclusion with grazing land management • 9 water control structures • 4,526 feet of subsurface drains • 1,795 feet of terraces • 2,167 feet of underground outlets • 1 waste storage facility • 1 watering facility

In addition, projects implemented in the Conewago Creek Watershed since the development of the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan were provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and included in Table 10 as part of the USGS, USEPA and USDA showcase watershed program. NRCS data were provided by David Butler in the Colorado central data office on October 15, 2020 in response to a data request initiated on July 22, 2020. Data include those BMPs cost-shared by NRCS, funded by the Farm Service Agency but administered by NRCS technical staff, and NRCS conservation technical assistance. Conservation Technical Assistance is any practice that is recommended by NRCS, meets NRCS technical standards, and is not funded by USDA. These NRCS data were taken from the National Planning and Agreements Database.

Data for each year include the new practices implemented in that year. Some practices may have been implemented in previous years but still be functioning in later years. NRCS data are for calendar years 2006 through 2018. The data were aggregated to the Conewago Creek Watershed-scale to protect personally identifiable information. Data were withheld where there were less than 5 farmers implementing a practice in the Conewago Creek watershed.

Table 10. Summary of previously installed NRCS practices in the Conewago Creek. BMPs include those that are cost-shared by NRCS, funded by FSA but administered by NRCS technical staff, and NRCS conservation technical assistance. Year Agricultural Practice (MMW) Amount 2006 Conservation tillage 292.3 acres Nutrient management 550.1 acres 2007 Animal waste management system 5 systems Conservation tillage 201.2 acres Nutrient management 124.9 acres Streambank fencing 3,824 acres 2008 Nutrient management 144.9 acres Riparian forest buffers 21.5 acres 2009 Conservation tillage 342.6 acres Cover crops 100.8 acres Nutrient management 363.6 acres 2010 Conservation tillage 908.2 acres Cover crops 169.8 acres 2011 Conservation tillage 317.4 acres 2012 Conservation tillage 291.9 acres Nutrient management 177.8 acres Streambank fencing 18,695 linear feet 2013 Agricultural erosion and sediment control 1, 994 linear feet Cover crops 169.9 acres Cropland retirement 13.2 acres Nutrient management 134.1 acres 2014 Cover crops 147.9 acres Nutrient management 259.2 acres 2015 Cover crops 177.8 acres 2016 Agricultural erosion and sediment control 1,502 linear feet Cropland retirement 8.8 acres Riparian forest buffers 11.2 acres 2017 Conservation tillage 366.7 acres Cover crops 1508.6 acres Cropland retirement 2.2 acres Nutrient management 833.1 acres Streambank fencing 3, 435 linear feet

Year Agricultural Practice (MMW) Amount Streambank stabilization 300 linear feet 2018 Conservation tillage 59.9 acres

5.2 Surveyed Practices In addition to the federal tracking systems, Penn State Agriculture and Environment Center (AEC) conducted a windshield survey in 2020 of the recommended practices locations from the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan. Surveyors determined if recommended practices from the 2006 had been implemented, and developed a new set of recommendations, as needed. A summary of implemented practices surveyed are provided in Table 11.

Table 11. Implemented BMPs surveyed by Penn State AEC 2020 Subwatershed BMP Amount (unit) 1st Tributary North Rain gardens 1.16 acres treated Brills Run Forest riparian buffer 3,030 linear feet 14 acres Conewago Creek A Riparian buffer 9,256 linear feet 24.4 acres Stream restoration 680 linear feet Pasture management 33.5 acres Conewago Creek B Riparian buffer 6,792 linear feet 30.32 acres Stream restoration 3,542 linear feet Wetland restoration 13 acres Vegetated stormwater basin 47.4 acres treated Vegetated stormwater swale 300 linear feet 17.2 acres treated Permeable pavement 0.9 acres Barn yard runoff control 0.2 acres Animal waste management system 100 dairy cattle Conewago Headwaters Streambank fencing 3,388 linear feet Rain garden 1.12 acres Little Conewago Creek Forested riparian buffer 9,026 linear feet 34.3 acres Riparian buffer 3 acres

5.3 Ongoing Implementation Project – Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration Site The Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration project is an on-going Londonderry Township project to meet requirements of their MS4 permit. LandStudies, Inc., in coordination with HRG, Inc. and on behalf of Londonderry & Mt. Joy Townships, assessed pollutant loading resulting from streambank erosion along approximately 3 miles of the Conewago Creek and Brills Run. The effort utilized the BANCS methodology to predict bank erosion and identified a priority site including 4,960 linear feet of Conewago Creek between PA-230 and 1,450 linear feet of Brills Run for detailed investigation. This priority reach became the location of the proposed Phase 1 Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration project. To further calibrate loading rates at the site, six (6) bank-pin erosion monitoring stations were installed on this reach, including four (4) on the Conewago Creek and two (2) on Brills Run. Actual bank erosion rates were measured at the stations over the course of 16 months and used to calibrate the BANCS model to provide refined pollutant loading estimates for the priority site. Final load reductions anticipated to be achieved as a result of the Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration were calculated in

accordance with Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Individual Stream Restoration Projects7. Table 12 provides final reported load reductions proposed at the site.

Construction of the Phase 1 Brills Run project is expected to begin in spring of 2021 for an estimated cost of $1.17 million. Londonderry Township has received a Grower Greener grant for $738,752 to support these construction costs.

Table 12. Stream bank erosion pollutant loading at Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration Site. Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration - Load Reduction Summary Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Total Suspended Sediment (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Brills Run (Phase 1) 2,597.0 1,027.2 354,145 Conewago Creek 6,693.2 1,928.4 664,836 (Phases 2 and 3) Overall Project 9,290.2 2,955.6 1,018,981

7 Schueler and Stack, 2014.

6. Management Measures to Meet TMDL Load Reductions Model My Watershed was used to simulate an implementation scenario to achieve the phosphorus and sediment reductions set by the TMDL. The following pollutant load reductions are necessary to meet TMDL load allocation in the Conewago Creek Watershed:

• 2,811,165 lbs/yr of sediment in the Conewago A TMDL subbasin • 4,071 lbs/yr of phosphorus in the Conewago A TMDL subbasin • 5,791,202 lbs/yr of sediment in the Conewago B TMDL subbasin • 7,308 lbs/yr of phosphorus in the Conewago B TMDL subbasin

Sources of TP and TSS in the Conewago Creek Watershed are predominantly from agricultural sources. As such, the recommended management practices focus predominantly on agricultural BMPs. Streambank erosion and urban runoff were also identified as contributing to nutrients in the Conewago Creek Watershed, so a suite of stream restoration and urban BMPs were also included.

6.1 Modeling Load Reductions of Recommended Practices

Model My Watershed was used to calculate the expected load reductions for practices that did not have existing calculated load reductions. These BMPs include 1) water quality improvement practices installed since the 2001 TMDL (see Section 5), and 2) recommended practices provided by Penn State AEC. New recommended practices were developed by Penn State AEC and include recommendations from a recent windshield survey conducted in summer 2020, and recommended practices from the 2006 Conewago Creek Restoration Plan, Tetra Tech’s 2012 assessment of urban stream restoration and stormwater BMP opportunities, a suite of “Green Masterplans” developed for individual landowners in the watershed by LandStudies in 2013, and the Conewago Watershed Urbanized Areas Assessment (Penn State AEC 2017). In addition, partners within the Conewago Creek watershed are prioritizing whole farm management principles and practices that improve soil health.

BMPs evaluated in Model My Watershed and their descriptions are included in Table 13. Summarized lists of practices by subwatershed are provided for each basin in Table 14 and Table 15. In addition, a full list of recommended site-specific practices is provided in Appendix D. Model My Watershed Inputs and Outputs are provided in Appendix E.

The following assumptions were made when calculating reductions in Model My Watershed: • The windshield survey conducted by Penn State AEC was assumed to be the most comprehensive list of existing structural (e.g., visible) BMPs. • Only non-structural NRCS-funded BMPs (cover crops, conservation tillage, cropland retirement, and nutrient management) that were not possible to survey were included in the implementation scenario to avoid the potential of double counting impacts of previously implemented water quality improvement practices. • NRCS-funded BMPs were only available for the entire Conewago Creek Watershed. Impacts from these BMPs were therefore area weighted by percent of cropland in each TMDL subbasin. • Model My Watershed is not set up to apply treatment from multiple BMPs. Therefore, the BMP with the highest modeled removal efficiency was used as an input in Model My Watershed if more than one overlapping BMP was recommended at a site. • The nutrient management BMP was used as a proxy for whole farm management in Model My Watershed. This practice is intended to reflect the full suite of cropland implementation

practices (e.g. cover crops, conservation tillage, etc.) that partners within the Conewago Creek Watershed are prioritizing to reduce pollution and improve soil health, but is not an option within Model My Watershed.

One limitation of Model My Watershed is the inability to represent streambank erosion at the rates known to occur within the watershed. Similarly, load reductions from management measures to address streambank erosion are under-represented. While the loading and load reductions are poorly represented in the model, streambank stabilization, floodplain restoration, and riparian buffers are available in the model and were applied when projects were identified by stakeholders. During implementation, project implementers should consider whether stream restoration or floodplain restoration is an appropriate additional component to include in stream stabilization projects and determine the associated load reductions using the methodology outlined by the Chesapeake Bay guidance: Recommendations of the Expert Panel to Define Removal Rates for Individual Stream Restoration Projects8, or any updates to this methodology, as they become available. These values can then be reported, rather than relying on the modeling outputs during implementation. Notably, the methodology used in the Expert Panel report is approved for use when reporting load reductions for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. As part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, it is important to be able to document load reductions in Conewago Creek that also contribute to the larger Chesapeake Bay TMDL.

Table 13. BMPs evaluated in Model My Watershed BMP (NRCS Code, if Definition applicable) Cover crops (340) Use of annual or perennial plant cover to protect the soil from erosion during the time period between the harvesting and planting of the primary crop. Crops can consist of grasses, legumes, and forbs. Conservation tillage (345) Managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant residue on the soil surface year-round while limiting soil-disturbing activities used to grow and harvest crops in systems where the field surface is tilled prior to planting. Conservation tillage typically refers to 30% residue cover. Riparian buffers (391 and An area dominated by trees, shrubs, and/or grasses located adjacent to and up-gradient from 390) watercourses or water bodies that are designed to capture and renovate surface runoff and shallow subsurface flow from agricultural areas. Grazing land management Maintaining a 50% pasture cover with managed species (desirable, inherent) and managing high (528) traffic areas.

Cropland retirement Converting marginal and highly erosive cropland out of production by planting permanent vegetative cover such as shrubs, grasses, and/or trees. Nutrient management (590) Managing the rate, source, placement, and timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments while reducing environmental impacts. Streambank stabilization The use of rip-rap, gabion walls, or a “bio-engineering” solution of some type along the edges of (580) a stream to protect the banks during periods of heavy stream flow, thereby reducing direct stream bank erosion. The banks may also be covered with rocks, grass, trees, shrubs, and other protective surfaces to reduce erosion as well. Streambank fencing (382 and The construction of fencing that prohibits cattle from trampling stream banks, destroying 472) protective vegetation, stirring up sediment in the streambed, and depositing organic waste directly into the stream. Animal waste management These are systems that are designed to collect runoff and/or wastes from confined animal systems (313, 359 and 558) operations for the purpose of breaking down organic wastes via aerobic or anaerobic processes. Typical examples include waste lagoons or holding tanks that collect the wastes and prevent their discharge to nearby streams.

8 Schueler and Stack, 2014.

BMP (NRCS Code, if Definition applicable) Contour farming/strip cropping Narrow strips of permanent, herbaceous vegetative cover established around the hill slope, and (332) alternated down the slope with wider cropped strips that are farmed on the contour.

Agricultural erosion and The installation of practices to control runoff from agricultural areas. This includes practices such sediment control (561, 656, as roof runoff control, diversion of clean water from entering and control of runoff. 575, 362, and 367) Floodplain restoration Re-establishing wetlands in a floodplain by manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former wetland. Constructed wetlands and wet Modeled as an urban stormwater treatment practice in Model My Watershed. swales Establishing or creating wetlands by manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics to develop a wetland where one did not previously exist. Wet swale Modeled as an urban stormwater treatment practice in Model My Watershed.

A water impoundment structure that intercepts stormwater runoff then releases it to an open water system at a specified flow rate. These structures retain a permanent pool and usually have retention times sufficient to allow settlement of some portion of the intercepted sediments and attached nutrients/toxics. There is little or no vegetation living within the pooled area. Outfalls are not directed through vegetated areas prior to open water release. Bioswale Modeled as an urban runoff reduction practice in Model My Watershed.

A vegetated open channel designed to function as a bioretention area and allow for infiltration. Bioretention/Rain garden Modeled as an urban runoff reduction practice in Model My Watershed.

An excavated pit backfilled with engineered media, topsoil, mulch, and vegetation. Planting areas installed in shallow basins in which the storm water runoff is temporarily ponded and then treated by filtering through the bed components, and through biological and biochemical reactions within the soil matrix and around the root zones of the plants. Permeable pavement Modeled as an urban runoff reduction practice in Model My Watershed.

Pavement or pavers that reduce runoff volume and treat water quality through both infiltration and filtration mechanisms. Water filters through open voids in the pavement surface to a washed gravel subsurface storage reservoir, where it is then slowly infiltrated into the underlying soils or exits via an underdrain.

Note that quantities of modeled BMP practices used in Model My Watershed are lower than in the full recommended BMP scenario shown in Appendix D because Model My Watershed is not set up to apply treatment from multiple BMPs. The BMP with the highest modeled removal efficiency was used as an input in Model My Watershed, if more than one overlapping BMP was recommended at a site.

Table 14. Summary of recommended practices by subwatershed in Basin A modeled in Model My Watershed. Conewago Conewago Little Conewago Basin A Headwaters Creek A Creek Hoffer Creek MMW Agricultural BMPs Conservation Tillage (ac) 162.4 106 263 39.8 Riparian Forest Buffer (ft) 11,915.47 26,258.93 20175.7 41090.91 Grazing Land Management (acres) 0 28.2 0 39.6 Streambank Stabilization (ft) 4,109.02 2,102 18,331.6 19,512.1 Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control (ac) 56.1 6.6 34.0 180.55 Streambank Fencing (ft) 5,824 0 0 9,811

Conewago Conewago Little Conewago Basin A Headwaters Creek A Creek Hoffer Creek Nutrient Management (ac)a 88.4 185.19 229.14 223.7 Contour Farming/Strip Cropping (ac) 0 188.96 0 24.9 MMW Urban BMPs Pervious Pavement (acres) 0.1 0 0 0 Bioswale new or retrofit (acres treated) 14.75 9.97 34.83 308.15 Riparian Buffer (acres) 0.8 3.12 6.21 1.2 Rain Garden (acres treated) 0.22 0.33 0.02 0.13 Constructed Wetlands (acres) 0.15 0 0.27 0 Retention basin (acres treated) 11.6 0 0 0 a. Nutrient management BMP used as a proxy for whole farm management in Model My Watershed analysis.

Table 15. Summary of recommended practices by subwatershed in Basin B modeled in Model My Watershed. 1st 1st Gallagher Conewago Tributary Tributary Basin B Run Brills Run Lynch Run Creek B North South MMW Agricultural BMPs Conservation Tillage (ac) 0 127.6 69.1 67.8 0 8.6 Riparian Forest Buffer (ft) 19,417.5 20,991.74 36,916.76 34,215.9 18,961.95 6,054.37 Grazing Land Management (acres) 0 15.5 3.53 10.1 75 0 Streambank Stabilization (ft) 0 0 18,670.32 8273 3296.71 3774 Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control (ac) 117.1 48 258.83 199.4 64.15 8.45 Streambank Fencing (ft) 8,000 1,879 0 1,800 6,454 0 Nutrient Management (ac)a 73.58 106.67 112.59 211.85 90.86 12.05 Animal Waste Management System (Livestock) (% treated) 0 0 0 2.45 20.16 0 Contour Farming/Strip Cropping 0 0 61 0 0 0 MMW Urban BMPs Pervious Pavement (acres) 0 0 1.2 131 0.67 0 Bioswale new or retrofit (acres treated) 0 0 19.9 213.07 3.17 12.57 Riparian Buffer (acres) 0 22.7 12.03 255 1.94 0 Rain Garden (acres treated) 0 0 15.3 23.42 0.25 0.06 Constructed Wetlands (acres) 0 0 0 5.2 1.26 0 Retention basin (acres treated) 0 0 13.8 163.39 0 42.2 a. Nutrient management BMP used as a proxy for whole farm management in Model My Watershed analysis.

6.2 Overall Load Reductions

Overall load reductions were calculated using the modeled reductions from previously implemented water quality improvement projects, reported load reductions from 319-funded projects, calculated load reductions from the ongoing Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration project, and modeled load reductions from the new recommended practices. Taken together, if implemented, these projects will result in load reductions in excess of the required TMDL reductions. A summary of load reductions from

existing projects and recommended and on-going projects are compared with the required TMDL reductions in Table 16. Model My Watershed output files used to calculate the load reductions for existing and proposed practices, excluding those with their own previously reported load reductions (Section 319-funded projects and the ongoing Conewago Creek Floodplain Restoration project) are provided in Appendix E.

Table 16. Implementation scenario in the Conewago Creek A and B TMDL subbasins Sediment Reduction (lbs/yr) Phosphorus Reduction (lbs/yr) TMDL Previously Previously Recommended Sub-watershed Recommended and Subbasin Implemented Implemented and Ongoing Ongoing Practices Practices Practices Practices Conewago Headwaters 295,405 285 Conewago Creek A 702,381 655 2,882 A Little Conewago Creek 1,351,477 816,325 713

Hoffer Creek 1,264,246 952 All sub-watersheds 3,078,357 2,605 TOTAL Implementation Scenario 4,429,834 5,487 Reduction Required TMDL Reduction 2,811,165 4,071 Gallagher Run 415,528 358 Brills Run 715,301 1,359 Lynch Run 1,204,153 995 B Conewago Creek B 3,124,491 1,977,979 3,347 2,914 1st Tributary North 310,945 321 1st Tributary South 239,600 285 All sub-watersheds 4,863,506 6,232 TOTAL Implementation Scenario 9,543 7,987,997 Reduction Required TMDL Reduction 5,791,202 7,308

7. Funding and Technical Resources

7.1 Partners Numerous partners exist in the project area that will continue to be instrumental to a successful WIP. The Tri-County Conewago Creek Association (TCCCA) is a nonprofit volunteer organization founded in 2002 and committed to monitoring, preserving, enhancing and promoting the Conewago Creek Watershed through education, community involvement and watershed improvement projects. The group has worked with interested landowners throughout the Conewago Creek Watershed to conduct stream cleanups, riparian buffer plantings and stream monitoring. It has also spearheaded various educational and outreach initiatives. TCCCA’s active membership includes farmers and other landowners, environmental professionals, college professors and municipal representatives. TCCCA was founded by a group of individuals concerned about declining water quality of the Conewago Creek. From its inception, one of TCCCA’s primary objectives has been to restore the Conewago and its tributaries to a healthier state.

TCCCA is the only existing watershed organization for the Conewago Creek. As such, it is expected that much of the work in implementing the restoration plan will be done by that group, as landowner cooperation and funds are secured. There are, however, several other entities with which TCCCA will partner to implement this plan.

Beginning in 2009, the Penn State AEC received a $750,000 Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund Grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to establish the Conewago Creek Collaborative Conservation Initiative (Conewago Creek Initiative). With the AEC providing facilitated leadership, the Conewago Creek Initiative partners have worked collaboratively in the watershed for over a decade. Over 40 different private and public sector partners have played active roles in the Initiative over this time. Key partners include TCCCA, the municipalities in the watershed, with Londonderry Township and Mount Joy Township most recently active, private sector partners such as HRG, Inc., LandStudies, Inc., Red Barn Consulting, and TeamAg, Inc., providing services in the municipal stormwater and agriculture sectors, the Dauphin, Lancaster and Lebanon County Conservation Districts, USDA’s local service offices for the NRCS and the Farm Service Agency, USGS, Department of Environmental Protection, USDA Agricultural Research Service, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Stroud Water Research Center, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Pennsylvania No-Till Alliance, Capital RC&D, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Manada Conservancy, and many others. The AEC continues to facilitate regular meetings of the Conewago Initiative partners. This partnership network provides a wide range of partners to assist in WIP implementation.

7.2 Estimated Costs

Estimated costs for implementing all recommended BMPs within the critical areas in the Conewago Creek WIP Update are $13-$14 million, and $45-$53.5 million for implementation of all recommended BMPs in the entire Conewago Creek watershed. It should be noted that loading reductions expected from the recommended BMPs exceed loading reductions required by the TMDL. Actual costs to achieve TMDL load reductions are likely lower. Estimated costs were determined using capital costs per unit provided in the Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST) Cost Profiles for the State of Pennsylvania9, Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Payment Schedule for fiscal year 2021 (NRCS 2020), and local input (Table 17). BMP quantities are summarized in the table as well. These practice quantities and types align with the practices in Appendix D, but are slightly different from those represented in Model My Watershed, due to the need to aggregate some BMP types to work within the limited number of BMPs in Model My Watershed, as well as Model My Watershed’s inability to represent a suite of BMPs on a given area (e.g. agricultural erosion and sediment control and conservation tillage cannot both be applied on the same acre of land). The BMPs listed below represent the more specific implementation recommendations identified by Penn State AEC. Nutrient management and soil conservation and water quality plan costs are provided to help represent the TCCCA’s goal of whole farm management and improving soil health through a suite of practices. While a specific amount of each individual practice (e.g., conservation tillage, cover crops, etc.) that may be included in whole farm management cannot be detailed at the planning level, these costs are included as a start.

9 https://cast.chesapeakebay.net/Documentation/CostProfiles

Table 17. Estimated costs for implementation of recommended practices. Recommended Implementation Costs BMP (NRCS Code, Unit Cost as applicable) Entire Lynch Run Hoffer Brills Run Entire Lynch Run Hoffer Brills Run watershed Creek watershed Creek Conservation /no 844 acres 69 acres 40 acres 128 acres $ 0 per acre $0 $0 $0 $0 tillage (345)

Contour farming/strip $ 6.96 – 8.35 per $2,624 – $905 – $306 – 377 acres 130 acres 44 acres - - cropping (332) acre 3,148 1,086 367

Grazing land 171.93 acres 3.5 acres 40 acres 15 acres $ 91.27 per acre $15,692 $319 $3,651 $1,369 management (528) Nutrient management (590)/ $ 8.86 -$24.91 per $11,819 – $1,001 – $1,985 – $948 – Soil Conservation 1,334 acres 113 acres 224 acres 107 acres acre 33,230 2,825 5,580 2,665 and Water Quality Plans a

(see (see Conewago Conewago Stream/ floodplain 18,670 19,512 Creek Creek 78,069 stream restoration (657) and stream feet stream feet Floodplain $2,053,700 Floodplain feet $110 per linear foot $ 8,587,590 stream bank Restoration $2,146,320 Restoration

stabilization (580) Phase 1 – Phase 1 – Brills Run Brills Run below) below)

- - - Wetland restoration 4.98 acres - - - $3,247 per acre $16,170 (657)

$ 1.26 – 4.54 per foot Streambank fencing 9,811 1,879 fence $42,548 – $12,362 – $2,368 – 33,768 feet - $0 (382 and 472) stream feet stream feet $ 466.78 –527.52 per 153,307 44,524 8,531 acre access control

Recommended Implementation Costs BMP (NRCS Code, Unit Cost as applicable) Entire Lynch Run Hoffer Brills Run Entire Lynch Run Hoffer Brills Run watershed Creek watershed Creek

Animal waste management $ 898.7 per animal 125 beef - - - $112,337 - - - systems (313, 359 unit and 558)

Improved Animal Concentration Area (Loafing lot $1,799 per acre per management) 5.55 acres 0.2 acres 1.45 acres 1.7 acres $99,984 $3,598 $26,085 $30,583 yearb (includes NRCS 570 stormwater runoff control)

Barnyard runoff 1.3 acres 0.3 acres 1.95 acres - $ 6,013.28 per acre $11,726 - $7,817 $1,804 control $ 3.92 – 6.05 per foot 1,200 acres diversion Terraces and 339 acres 198 acres 166 acres $ 15,691 – $ 4,431 - $2,588 – $2,176 – treated diversions treated treated treated 34,131 9,633 5,635 4,720 $ 2.17 -$4.72 per foot terrace

$5,039.01-$5,996.73 $ 26,661 – Grassed waterways 1,355 acres 251 acres 188 acres 120 acres $ 4,939 – $ 3,699 – $2,361 – per acre grassed 31,729 (412) treated treated treated treated 5,877 4,402 2,810 waterway

41,837 24,914 255,935 44,393 stream feet Riparian forest stream feet stream feet stream feet or 70.9 $4,062 per acre $1,762,908 $345,270 $381,828 $194,976 buffers or 56 acres 434 acres 71.3 acres acres of of buffer buffer

Recommended Implementation Costs BMP (NRCS Code, Unit Cost as applicable) Entire Lynch Run Hoffer Brills Run Entire Lynch Run Hoffer Brills Run watershed Creek watershed Creek $4,352 per acre treated with dry extended detention Stormwater basin 230.99 acres 13.8 acres $10,008 per acre $1,005,268 – $60,058 – - - - - retrofits treated treated treated with dry 2,311,748 138, 110 detention ponds and hydrodynamic structures 308.14 616.41 acres 19.89 acres $17,420.79 per acre Bioswale acres - $10,738,349 $346,500 - treated treated treated $5,368,042 treated $17,720.05 – Bioretention/ Rain 39.73 acres 15.3 acres 0.13 acres 39,377.89 per acre $704,018 – $271,117 – $2,304 – - - garden treated treated treated treated (soils 1,564,484 602,482 5,119 dependent) $125,057.41 – $16,628,884 – $150,069 – Permeable pavement 132.97 acres 1.2 acres - - - - 165,378.7 per acre 21,990,406 198,454 Constructed $11,505 per acre wetlands and wet 1.9 acres - - - $218,595 - - - treated swales Conewago Creek Floodplain 1,450 linear 1,450 linear $1.7 million - - $1.7 million - - $1.7 million Restoration Phase 1 feet feet (construction) – Brills Run Conewago Creek $1.69 million (phase Floodplain 4,960 linear 2 construction) - - - $ 3.35 million - - - Restoration Phase 2 feet $1.66 million (phase and 3 3 construction) $45 million - $3.2 million $1.9 million $7.9 million Total Costs $52.7 million – $3.7 – $2.1 – $8 million million million a. Nutrient management and soil conservation and water quality plan costs are provided to help represent the TCCCA’s goal of whole farm management and improving soil health through a suite of practices. Whole farm management practices may also include specific BMPs such as cover crops and conservation tillage however the specific amount of each individual practice cannot be detailed at the planning level. b. Costs for Improved Animal Concentration Area include operation and maintenance for the 10 year plan.

7.3 Funding There are many existing financial assistance programs which may assist with funding implementation activities within Conewago Creek Watershed. Many involve cost sharing, and some may allow the local contribution of materials, land, and in-kind services (such as construction and staff assistance) to cover a portion or the entire local share of the project. These programs are presented in Table . In addition to these programs, partnerships between local governments can help to leverage funds.

Table 18. Funding Sources. Program Type Entity Information More information National Funding Programs Farmers in the program are paid a yearly rental payment for the environmentally https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ Conservation Reserve USDA Farm sensitive areas they remove from agricultural production. Contracts range for Cost share nrcs/detail/pa/programs/financial/?cid Program (CRP) Service Agency 10-15 years or in perpetuity. Goals of the program are to reestablish land cover =nrcseprd1124008 to improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat. Environmental education programs that promote environmental awareness and https://www.usendowment.org/what- Environmental stewardship and help provide people with the skills to take responsible actions we-do/non-traditional- Education Grants Grant U.S. EPA to protect the environment. Local, state, non-profit, noncommercial, tribal and markets/healthy-watersheds- Program college/university programs are eligible. consortium/ Environmental Quality Farmers in livestock, agricultural, or forest production who utilize NRCS https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ Incentive Program Cost share NRCS approved conservation practices are eligible for cost share up to 75% of project nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial (EQIP) cost. Contracts are typically 3+ years. /eqip/ Healthy watershed program development projects that aim to preserve and protect natural areas, or local demonstration/trainings. Conservation easements U.S. EPA, are not eligible. Grants awarded are generally within three categories: NRCS, U.S. Short term funding to leverage larger financing for targeted watershed https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ Healthy Watersheds Grant Endowment for protection nrcs/main/national/programs/easeme Consortium Grant Forestry Funds to help build the capacity of local organizations for sustainable, long term nts/forests/ Communities watershed protection New replicable techniques or approaches that advance the state of practice for watershed protection. NWQI provides targeted funding for financial and technical assistance in small watersheds most in need and where farmers can use conservation practices to https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ National Water Quality Cost share NRCS make a difference. Conservation systems include practices that promote soil nrcs/detail/national/programs/initiative Initiative (NWQI) health, reduce erosion and lessen nutrient runoff, such as filter strips, cover s/?cid=stelprdb1047761 crops, reduced tillage and manure management. Regional Conservation RCPP provides funds for producers to install and maintain conservation https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ Partnership Program Cost share NRCS activities. The program is not a grant program, but partners can leverage RCPP nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ (RCPP) funding in their programs. rcpp/ State and Regional Funding Programs Provides financial and technical assistance to tribal, state, and local, and non- Agricultural governmental organizations that protect and conserve productive agricultural https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ Conservation Easement Easement NRCS land of environmental significance from non-agricultural uses. Within this nrcs/main/pa/programs/easements/ac Program (ACEP) program, Wetlands Reserve Easements are also available to protect, restore, ep/ and enhance wetlands on land owned by tribes or private landowners.

Program Type Entity Information More information Agricultural landowners and operators can receive reimbursement for fees paid Agricultural Planning to consultants to create new manure management plans, nutrient management https://uatwp.org/2019/09/06/dep- Reimbursement Reimburse DEP plans, and agricultural erosion and sediment control plans. This is limited to 2019-2020-agricultural-plan- Program agricultural areas within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and is awarded on a reimbursement-program/ first-come, first-served basis. Provides affordable financing for projects related to wastewater collection, treatment or disposal facilities, stormwater management, and nonpoint source Clean Water State https://www.pennvest.pa.gov/Informati Low-interest U.S. EPA, DEP, pollution controls. Projects involving the installation of agricultural BMPs and Revolving Fund on/Funding-Programs/Pages/Clean- loan PENNVEST watershed/estuary management also qualify. Low interest loans with flexible (CWSRF) Water-State-Revolving-Fund.aspx terms are awarded by the PENNVEST Board depending on the relative needs of the system. Community Recreation and Conservation Planning Funding is available from Community Recreation https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Communities Matching the DCNR’s Bureau of Recreation and Conservation to support local master site and Conservation DCNR /Grants/CommunityParks%20andRecr grant development, comprehensive, and conservation and stewardship planning. Planning eationGrants/Pages/default.aspx Municipalities, municipal agencies, and nonprofits are eligible. Competitive grants for public or private sector innovation in resource Conservation Matching conservation that improve water quality, soil health, and wildlife habitat. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ NRCS Innovation Grants (CIG) grant Available at the state and federal level. CIG generally funds pilot projects, field nrcs/main/pa/programs/financial/cig/ demonstrations, and on-farm conservation research. CREP is a partnership among state/federal agencies and farmers which pays landowners to conserve their land, make water quality improvements, and Conservation Reserve USDA Farm Payments, enhance wildlife habitat on environmentally sensitive land. Enrolled land is Enhancement Program Service Agency, https://www.creppa.org/ cost share removed from production and grazing, and landowners are compensated (CREP) NRCS, DEP through an annual rental payment under a 10-15 contract. Landowners receive additional reimbursement for installing select conservation practices. Conservation Provides agricultural producers with a consultation from a local NRCS https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ Technical Stewardship Program NRCS conservation planner to survey existing practices and provide recommended nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/finan assistance (CSP) conservation activities. cial/csp/?cid=nrcseprd1288524 Funding for the $6 million in projects comes from the county’s share of gaming revenue generated from Hollywood Casino at Penn National in East Hanover Township. Project requests are initially reviewed by the five-member Dauphin County Gaming Advisory Board which was created by the commissioners when Dauphin County https://www.dauphincounty.org/news_ Grants Dauphin County local share money first became available Gaming Grants detail_T14_R61.php

Under state law, the county must use the grant funds for projects that help human services; improve local infrastructure, such as water and sewer; transportation; health and safety needs; and public interest initiatives. Flood Mitigation Matching Municipalities, institutions, watershed organizations, and businesses are eligible https://dced.pa.gov/programs/flood- DCED Program (FMP) grant for grant funding for authorized flood mitigation projects. mitigation-program-fmp/

Program Type Entity Information More information Growing Greener has helped to slash the backlog of farmland-preservation projects statewide; protect open space; eliminate the maintenance backlog in https://www.dep.pa.gov/Citizens/Gran Growing Greener Grant DEP state parks; clean up abandoned mines and restore watersheds; provide funds tsLoansRebates/Growing- program for recreational trails and local parks; help communities address land use; and Greener/Pages/default.aspx provide new and upgraded water and sewer systems. The Keystone 10 Million Trees Partnership is a collaborative effort of national, regional, state, and local agencies, conservation organizations, outdoors enthusiasts, businesses, and citizens committed to improving Pennsylvania's Keystone 10 Million Chesapeake Donation communities, economy, and ecology. http://www.tenmilliontrees.org/ Trees Partnership Bay Foundation

The Partnership aims to facilitate the planting of 10 million new trees in priority landscapes in Pennsylvania by the end of 2025. Land Caster The Lancaster County Community Foundation’s mission is to embolden the Lancaster Clean Water County extraordinary individuals and community benefit organizations that already exist https://www.lancfound.org/fund/lancas Grant Fund Community all over the county through grantmaking, managing investments, and providing ter-clean-water-fund/ Foundation philanthropic counsel to organizations and individuals. National Fish and The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation supports vital conservation projects https://www.nfwf.org/grants/grants- Wildlife Foundation Grant NFWF across the United States and its territories. library Grants Provides landowners with financial and technical assistance to restore fish and wildlife habitats, especially wetlands, upland areas, riparian zones, and Partners for Fish and U.S. Fish and https://www.fws.gov/northeast/pafo/pa Partnership grasslands. The program supports partnerships between other federal Wildlife Program Wildlife rtners/ agencies, educational institutions, businesses, conservation organizations, and private landowners. Resource DCNR, State Farmers, landowners, and businesses earn tax credits for implementing Best https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants Enhancement and Conservation Management Practices to enhance farm production and protect natural Tax credits _Land_Water/StateConservationCom Protection Program Commission and resources. Eligible applicants receive between 50-75% of project cost as state mission/REAP/Pages/default.aspx (REAP) others tax credit that can be used incrementally or sold. Projects are designed to reduce pollutants from nonpoint sources, such as urban and agricultural runoff, streambank and shoreline degradation, and energy resource extraction. Priority is given to projects that implement cost- https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Wat Section 319 Nonpoint effective corrective and preventative BMPs on a watershed scale, including Grant U.S. EPA, DEP er/PlanningConservation/NonpointSo Source projects previously identified in an existing WIP. Also available for BMPs on a urce/Pages/default.aspx non-watershed scale and the development of information/education nonpoint source pollution control programs. Projects that meet requirements of a NPDES permit are not eligible for 319 funding. Small Water and Sewer Matching DCED Funding program to assist municipalities with small water, sewer, storm sewer, https://dced.pa.gov/programs/pa- Program grant and flood control infrastructure projects. Applicant must match 15% of total small-water-sewer/ eligible project cost which must be between $30,000 and $500,000.

Program Type Entity Information More information Funds available to finance acquisition, construction, or improvement of drinking Water & Waste water, sewer, solid waste, and stormwater systems. Eligible areas include rural https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs- Low-interest USDA Rural Disposal Loan & Grant areas and towns with a population of 10,000 or less, and tribal lands. Projects is services/water-waste-disposal-loan- loans, grants Development Program given to cost-effective projects and are encouraged to partner with other local grant-program/pa funding entities. The program’s purpose is to restore and maintain impaired stream reaches impacted by nonpoint source pollution, and to ultimately remove them from the Watershed Restoration https://dced.pa.gov/programs/watersh Cost share Impaired Waters list. This involves support for installation of BMPs for and Protection Program DEP, DCED ed-restoration-protection-program- grant agriculture, stormwater, streambank and channel restoration, and for (WRPP) wrpp/ repair/upgrade of these practices. Eligible projects must monitor and track the load reduction impacts resulting from the project. Supports the development and improvement of fish and wildlife habitat on https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ Wildlife Habitat private agricultural and forest land. Typical contracts provide funding from 1-3 Payments NRCS nrcs/detailfull/pa/programs/financial/e Incentives Fund (WHIP) years, but longer-term agreements may be developed for targeted species. qip/?cid=NRCS142P2_018210 Prioritizes projects with a developed conservation/management plan. DCED – Department of Community and Economic Development NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service DCNR – Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources DCED – Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development DEP – Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service NFWF – National Fish and Wildlife Foundation PENNVEST – Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

8. Education and Outreach Education and outreach activities are a vital component to community buy-in and successful implementation of the Conewago Creek WIP Update. Partners from state, regional, and local entities are and will continue to be active players in the education and outreach efforts in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

8.1 Existing Education and Outreach The TCCCA is an important component to the education and outreach effort in the Conewago Creek Watershed. TCCCA actively engages in education and outreach to landowners and the general public about watershed protection and restoration issues. TCCCA holds an annual Earth Day celebration at Aberdeen Mills on the banks of the Conewago, where members of the public learn about activities they can do to protect and restore the watershed. TCCCA has an active team of volunteers to plant and maintain riparian buffers on lands in the Conewago and works with many other groups, including scout troops, Rotary clubs, etc. to promote riparian buffer restoration and stewardship. The group also maintains a website at www.conewagocreek.org and holds monthly meetings to plan educational and outreach events.

Several programs through the Penn State Extension office are also active in the Conewago Creek Watershed. The Penn State Master Watershed Stewards Program is active in Lancaster, Dauphin and Lebanon Counties. The program was established to educate and empower volunteers to protect environmental resources. Training and volunteer service are coordinated at the county level by extension staff, partners, or trained volunteers. To become a certified Master Watershed Steward, volunteers must complete a minimum of 40 hours of training and fulfill 50 hours of volunteer service. For each subsequent year, volunteers can maintain their certification by giving at least 20 additional volunteers hours and attending at least 8 hours of update training annually. More information on the Penn State Master Water Steward Program is available: https://extension.psu.edu/programs/watershed-stewards/about.

Local youth programs are also available through Extension. Piloted in the Conewago, 4-H Stream Teams is currently undergoing revisions and a brand new youth watershed education program will soon be available as “Future Master Watershed Stewards,” with trained Master Watershed Stewards helping to administer the program. More information is available: https://ecosystems.psu.edu/outreach/youth/4- h-stream-teams.

Other Conewago Creek Initiative partners are also active in education and outreach. Londonderry Township in particular regularly hosts a number of educational events, including rain garden and rain barrel workshops, and farmer meetings and developed an online story map on a recent Conewago Creek Restoration Project: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c3a1e7e257f54ad59b237e1d40417fa9?header.

The Penn State AEC is a recent recipient of a NFWF grant to fund farmer outreach in the Conewago and other adjacent watersheds. A team of partners, including the AEC, Dauphin County Conservation District, Londonderry Township, Red Barn Consulting, TeamAg, Inc., and Rosetree Consulting will be visiting farms in the watershed to discuss opportunities for conservation practice implementation. Cost share funding is available under the NFWF grant. This outreach will provide a tremendous opportunity to discuss WIP implementation and provide resources to implement the types of projects identified in this plan.

8.2 Additional Education and Outreach Needs In addition to the continuation of the aforementioned education and outreach activities, it is important that education efforts in the Conewago Creek WIP Update identify common themes and campaigns that can then be tailored to targeted audiences. Effective targeted messaging 1) repeats frequently, 2) resonates with targeted audience, and 3) connects impacts of project to audience’s life and experiences. Table 19 provides an overview of each identified targeted audience in the Conewago Creek Watershed, their potential water quality related interests and concerns, and effective communication channels to best engage with each audience.

Table 19. Targeted audiences in the Conewago Creek Watershed Targeted Audience Potential Audience Concerns Communication Channels • Aesthetics • Newspapers • Livability for future generations • Websites General public • Quality of fisheries • Social media • Recreation • Community/civic groups and • Flooding events • Property values Landowners • Local media • Flooding • Local governments • Property values • Lake Associations Local businesses • Tourism • Conservation Districts • Flooding • Commodity Groups • Crop Advisors • Manure and nutrient management • 4-H groups • Feedlots Agricultural (livestock and • Conservation Districts • Fertilizers crop) producers • Word of mouth • Tillage practices • Demonstration projects • Funding/cost share opportunities • Radio • Newspapers • Newspapers • Websites • Livability for future generations • Social media • Water quality • Community/civic groups and Environmental nonprofits • Habitat events • Fisheries • Volunteer monitoring • Advisory/Watershed Committees • Conferences County officials • State agencies • Livability for future generations Municipal officials • Other local governments • Potential additional programmatic and • County Commissioners Association regulatory requirements of Pennsylvania • Technical and financial support from Elected officials • Pennsylvania State Association of state and federal partners Elected County Officials • Property values and revenue • Conservation Districts

9. Schedule and Milestones A key part of U.S. EPA’s nine-elements is interim milestones that provide meaningful evaluation points and a focus for program activities. Interim milestones are steps that demonstrate that implementation measures are being executed in a manner that will ensure progress over time. Milestones are not changes in water quality. Measurable milestones are an important tool for directing limited resources

towards the array and number of sources and nonpoint source pollution problems across the watershed.

A 10-year implementation schedule is assumed and divided into three phases: Year 1-2, Year 2-5, and Year 10+. Each phase will rely on an adaptive management approach and will build upon previous phases. Short-term efforts (Year 1-10) include implementing practices in critical areas in which waters are expected to be delisted due to implementation activities. This includes evaluating the success of projects installed (success rate, BMP performance, pollutant reductions realized, actual costs, etc.). Long-term efforts (Year 10+) will focus on obtaining water quality improvements in the remaining areas of the watershed and solidifying protection activities for the long term. Implementation schedules and milestones for each critical area are provided in Table 20, Table 21, and Table 22. Estimated pollutant load reductions were modeled using Model My Watershed and provided for each critical area. Whenever possible, effort should be made to maintain and upgrade existing BMPs. A full list of recommended BMPs in the watershed, and their location is provided in Appendix D.

Table 20. Implementation schedule and milestones for Lynch Run Milestones a BMP Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 + Conservation Tillage 15 acres 35 acres 69 acres Contour farming/strip cropping 30 acres treated 65 acres treated 130 acres treated Grazing land management -- 3.5 acres 3.5 acres Whole farm management 30 acres 56 acres 113 acres Conduct stream Streambank stabilization, stream analysis to prioritize restoration and floodplain restoration 10,000 stream feet 18,670 stream feet locations for restoration (reconnect flood plain, restore wetlands) or stabilization Improved animal concentration area - 0.2 acres treated 0.2 acres treated Terraces and diversions 80 acres treated 175 acres treated 339 acres treated Grassed waterways 60 acres treated 125 acres treated 251 acres treated 44,393 stream feet or 71.3 Riparian forested buffers 11,000 stream feet 22,000 stream feet acres of buffer demonstration practice Stormwater basin retrofits implemented (assume 7 acres treated 13.8 acres treated 1 acre treated) Bioswale 10 acres treated 20 acres treated demonstration practice Bioretention/rain garden implemented (assume 8 acres treated 15.3 acres treated 1 acre treated) Permeable pavement 0.5 acres treated 1.2 acres treated Plan evaluation and Adaptive management -- -- adjustments, as needed. Continue monitoring Continue monitoring Ensure DCCD monitoring according to monitoring Monitoring according to monitoring staff have received Tier 3 plan schedule and submit plan schedule training and approval water quality/biological data to DEP Estimated Total phosphorus 142 lbs 444 lbs 625 lbs pollutant load reduction Total suspended solids 185,011 lbs 575,020 lbs 976,660 lbs a. Milestones are cumulative

Table 21. Implementation schedule and milestones for Hoffer Creek Milestones a BMP Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 + Conservation tillage 8 acres 20 acres 40 acres Contour farming/strip cropping 5 acres 15 acres 44 acres Grazing land management 8 acres 20 acres 40 acres Whole farm management 50 acres 110 acres 224 acres Conduct stream Streambank stabilization and restoration analysis to prioritize 8,000 stream feet 19,512 stream feet (reconnect flood plain, restore wetlands) locations for restoration or stabilization Streambank fencing 2,000 feet 5,000 feet 9,811 feet Improved animal concentration area -- 0.8 acres 1.45 acres Barnyard runoff control -- 0.8 acres 1.3 acres Terraces and diversions 50 acres treated 100 acres treated 198 acres treated 41,837 stream feet or 70.9 Riparian forest buffers 10,000 stream feet 20,000 stream feet acre acres of buffer Bioswale 75 acres treated 150 acres treated 308 acres treated Bioretention/rain garden 0.13 acres treated 0.13 acres treated 0.13 acres treated Plan evaluation and Adaptive management -- adjustments, as -- needed. Continue monitoring Ensure DCCD Continue monitoring according to monitoring monitoring staff have Monitoring according to monitoring plan schedule and submit received Tier 3 training plan schedule water quality/biological data and approval to DEP Estimated Total phosphorus 206 470 952 pollutant load reduction Total suspended solids 256,351 618,788 1,264,246 a. Milestones are cumulative

Table 22. Implementation schedule and milestones for Brills Run Milestones a BMP Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 + Conservation tillage 50 acres 120 acres 128 acres Grazing land management -- 8 acres 15 acres Whole farm management 25 acres 50 acres 107 acres Complete ongoing Streambank stabilization and restoration Conewago Floodplain -- -- (reconnect flood plain, restore wetlands) Restoration Streambank fencing 400 stream feet 900 stream feet 1,879 stream feet Improved animal concentration area -- 0.8 acres 1.7 acres Barnyard runoff control 0.3 acres 0.3 acres 0.3 acres Terraces and diversions 40 acres treated 80 acres treated 166 acres treated 24,914 stream feet or 56 Riparian forest buffers 6,250 stream feet 12,500 stream feet acres of buffer Plan evaluation and Adaptive management -- adjustments, as -- needed. Continue monitoring Ensure DCCD Continue monitoring according to monitoring monitoring staff have Monitoring according to monitoring plan schedule and submit received Tier 3 training plan schedule water quality/biological data and approval to DEP Total phosphorus 1,112 lbs 1,217 lbs 1,359 lbs Estimated pollutant load reduction Total suspended solids 451,807 lbs 580,174 lbs 715,301 lbs

a. Milestones are cumulative

10. Evaluating Progress and Adaptive Management To guide plan implementation, water quality benchmarks are identified to track and evaluate progress towards attaining watershed implementation goals. Progress benchmarks (Table 23) are intended to reflect the time it takes to implement management practices, as well as the time needed for water quality indicators to respond.

To ensure management decisions are based on the most recent knowledge, this WIP follows the form of an adaptive and integrated management strategy. U.S. EPA (2008) recognizes that the processes involved in watershed assessment, planning, and management are iterative and that actions might not result in complete success during the first or second cycle. For this reason, it is important to remember that implementation will be an iterative process, relying upon adaptive management. Phosphorus and sediment reductions from recommended management measures calculated using Model My Watershed are expected to exceed required TMDL reductions. As such, adaptive management can used to determine if and when water quality standards are met in the watershed and adjust management as needed to achieve a cost effective restoration.

Table 23. Progress benchmarks Water quality parameter or Timeframe indicator Current Year 2 Year 5 Year 10 Lynch Run IBI attainment thresholds Macroinvertebrate freestone 40 43 46 met: IBI (March 2019) (November-May) (November -May) 50 (November-May) 43 (June-September) Hoffer Creek IBI attainment thresholds Macroinvertebrate freestone 38 42 46 met: IBI (April 2019) (November-May) (November -May) 50 (November-May) 43 (June-September) Brills Run IBI attainment thresholds Macroinvertebrate freestone 49 49 50 met: IBI (March 2019) (November -May) (November -May) 50 (November-May) 43 (June-September) All critical areas Expanded Increased public buy-in and Continued public buy-in implementation of General public engagement understanding of benefits of and public advocacy for education and outreach practices watershed restoration efforts Continued 1 on 1 Expanded 1 on 1 Increased buy-in and communication with communication with priority agricultural producers Agricultural producer Active members priority agricultural agricultural producers on advocating to peers on engagement in TCCCA. See producers on benefits of benefits of recommended benefits of agricultural Section 8 recommended BMPs BMPs BMPs Key landowners of Remaining landowners of parcels targeted for parcels targeted for Widespread buy-in from stormwater Landowner engagement stormwater implementation landowners in urbanized implementation committed to areas. identified and committed implementation. to implementation.

Adaptive management is a commonly used strategy to address natural resource management that involves a temporal sequence of decisions (or implementation actions), in which the best action at each decision point depends on the state of the managed system. As a structured iterative implementation process, adaptive management offers the flexibility for responsible parties to monitor implementation actions, determine the success of such actions and ultimately, base management decisions upon the measured results of completed implementation actions and the current state of the system. This process, depicted in Figure 22, enhances the understanding and estimation of predicted outcomes and ensures refinement of necessary activities to better guarantee desirable results. In this way, understanding of the resource can be enhanced over time, and management can be improved.

Figure 22. Adaptive management iterative process (U.S. EPA 2008).

In addition to focusing future management decisions, with established assessment milestones and benchmarks, adaptive management can include a reassessment of the impaired waters. Reassessment of impaired waters is particularly relevant when completion of key studies, projects or programs result in data showing load reductions or the identification/quantification of alternative sources. More information on the de-listing process by DEP is provided in Section 11. It is important to recognize that because models can only provide estimates and predictions of future conditions, the IBI attainment thresholds are the most important metric for showing water quality improvements. This means that even if the target sediment and phosphorus reductions identified in the TMDL and this plan are achieved, if the IBI thresholds do not improve as anticipated, the watershed should be evaluated for other potential sources of impairment, as well as consider that more implementation may be required than was initially estimated to produce the desired in-stream results.

The implementation milestones and benchmarks will guide the adaptive management process, helping to determine the type of monitoring and implementation tracking that will be necessary to gauge progress over time. Evaluation for adaptive management can include a variety of evaluation components to gain a comprehensive understanding of implementation progress. An implementation evaluation determines if non-structural and structural activities are put in place and maintained by implementation partners according to schedule; this is often referred to as an output evaluation. An outcome evaluation focuses on changes to behaviors and water quality as a result of implementation actions. This type of evaluation looks at changes in stakeholder behavior and awareness, BMP performance, and changes to ambient water quality. Both output and outcome evaluation should be a regular part of implementing this plan, especially at 2,5 and 10-years, but each year the plan sponsors should evaluate whether progress is being made, and whether the milestones are being met. If there is less progress being made than expected, the reasons should be explored, and strategies adjusted.

11. Monitoring Plan Documented changes in water quality and improvement over time are the true measure of a successful watershed implementation plan. In addition, long-term monitoring of the overall health and quality of the project area is important. Monitoring will help determine whether the implementation actions have improved water quality and support future resource management decisions. In addition, monitoring will help determine the effectiveness of various BMPs and indicate when adaptive management should be initiated. The primary goals of the monitoring plan are to assess the effectiveness of source reduction

strategies for attaining water quality standards and designated uses and determine when streams can be removed from the 303(d) list.

According to the DEP’s Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams (2018), “[w]hen conditions improve in impaired waters it is possible to delist a cause or causes of impairment.... In addition, if a cause of impairment is no longer appropriate, it can be removed despite the waterbody remaining impaired for other sources or causes. Any removal of a cause of impairment…is subject to EPA review and approval and must come with reasoning and data to support the change”.

Delisting requirements for the state of Pennsylvania are provided below in Table 24. Full assessment methods and monitoring protocol for DEP can be found at the following links. • DEP Assessment Methods: http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%20and%20Facility%20Regulation/Water QualityPortalFiles/Methodology/2015%20Methodology/Assessment_Book.pdf • DEP Monitoring Protocols: http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%20and%20Facility%20Regulation/Water QualityPortalFiles/Technical%20Documentation/MONITORING_BOOK.pdf

The DEP Water Quality Division is responsible for assessment and delisting determinations. Typically, water quality assessments are performed by DEP staff; however, external data can be accepted, provided it meets specific quality assurance requirements. If monitoring data is collected in accordance with the Tier 3 requirements, it can be used in a reassessment or delisting assessment. “Tier 3 data are assessment level data that have approved quality assurance plans, follow appropriate study designs, and follow DEP monitoring protocols” (Shull and Pulket 2018). To be accepted as Tier 3 data, individuals designing and implementing a monitoring plan should be trained and audited by DEP staff prior to submitting data to DEP. Given the limited availability of DEP staff to reassess streams outside of the regular 10-year assessment cycle, DEP encourages local monitoring staff to coordinate with them for training on these protocols to ensure locally collected data can be used for future delisting assessments. The monitoring plan for the Conewago Creek WIP Update should incorporate Tier 3 requirements to ensure usability and DEP assessment staff should be consulted throughout the monitoring process.

Table 24. Data requirements for delisting 303(d) waters. (From DEP Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams (2018)). Assessed Use Delisting Data Requirements Aquatic Life - macroinvertebrate Data collected using DEP data collection protocols (Shull and Lookenbill 2018), that generates an IBI score above the attainment benchmark (50 (November-May) and 43 (June- September)) set by the sampling protocol. Multiple stations are required to bracket land use changes, nonpoint and point source influences, and any other influences that could affect water quality within the potential delisted waterbody. Aquatic Life - chemistry Macroinvertebrate sample results are preferred. Chemistry results must demonstrate that the applicable criterion is being met 99% of the time as set forth in 25 Pa. Code Chapters 93 and 96 Recreation The geometric mean of all 5 samples must be below the criterion for fecal coliforms (200 cfu/100 ml) and no single

Assessed Use Delisting Data Requirements sample above 400cfu/100 ml as described in the Bacteriological Assessment Method for recreational use section of this book

As implementation in the Conewago Creek Watershed continues with this WIP Update, water quality in the Conewago Creek Watershed should improve. Water quality monitoring will be conducted on a regular basis to determine and track progress. Although chemical sampling will be a part of standard monitoring, macroinvertebrate sampling will play the more critical role, as it is the stronger indicator of long term water quality and stream health and the basis for delisting by PADEP.

Sampling will be conducted by Dauphin County Conservation District, USGS, Penn State, the Lancaster County Conservation District, the SRBC, and DEP through their watershed assessment cycle. The initial stream assessments of the Conewago Creek conducted by DEP consisted of sampling at 15 monitoring points throughout the watershed. Dauphin County Conservation District has conducted follow up sampling of nine of these stations in the Dauphin County portion of the watershed approximately every 5 years. PADEP should work with the District to return to selected monitoring points at least once every five years to measure water quality improvement. Improvement will be demonstrated by reductions in sediment depth, increases in pebble count and, ultimately, reappearance of a diverse macroinvertebrate population at monitoring points throughout the watershed.

In 2012, the Conewago Creek Initiative partners develop a comprehensive monitoring plan for the Conewago Creek Watershed which incorporates the regular monitoring conducted by Dauphin County Conservation District and other partners. A 2021 update to the plan provides updated monitoring location information. The full monitoring plan is available in Appendix F. An overview of monitoring locations and water quality sampling parameters is provided in Figure 23 and Table 25. Many of the monitoring locations are located at the downstream end of tributaries, prior to the confluence with the Conewago Creek mainstem, including in the critical area subwatersheds. The monitoring stations in the critical areas also include macroinvertebrate data collection (IBI). This will provide opportunities for tracking improvement in the critical areas and providing appropriate data to DEP once enough water quality improvement is seen to justify a delisting assessment by DEP.

Figure 23. Monitoring plan sampling locations (modified from Conewago Creek Initiative 2021).

Table 25. Monitoring locations and descriptions for the Conewago Creek Monitoring Plan Sub Map ID Station ID or location Who What Is currently monitored Watershed description 1 Game Lands 145 TCCCA • Fish Assessment 1/3Y CNWG 13.59 DCCD • Macroinvertebrate assessment 1/5Y 2 Prospect Rd DEP • SHA, 1/5Y USGS 01573695 USGS • USGS Gauge Stationa 12X/Y Elizabethtown • Baseflow water qualityb, 2X/Y Hershey Meadows 3 TCCCA Macroinvertebrate assessment, 2X/Y

PFBC • Fish assessment 1/3Y CNWG 01.75 • Macro assessment 1/5Y DCCD 4 Covered Bridge Rd • SHA, 1/5Y

• Fish Assessment 1/3Y • Macroinvertebrate assessment 1/5Y CNWG 09.23 DCCD 5 • SHA, 1/5Y Aberdeen Mills • Lancaster Sonde USGS 01573710 USGS Conewago 6 near Hillsdale/ • USGS Gauge Station 12X/Y DEP Creek Sawmill Rd intersection • Macroinvertebrate assessment pre + Penn State, Conewago Restoration post project 7 LCCD, Project 001 • Basic Water Qualityc 1X/W DCCD • Lancaster Sonde Penn State, • Macroinvertebrate assessment pre + Conewago Restoration 8 LCCD, post project Project 002 DCCD • Basic Water Quality 1X/W Penn State, Conewago Restoration 9 LCCD, • Basic Water Quality 1X/W Project 003 DCCD Penn State, Conewago Restoration 10 LCCD, • Basic Water Quality 1X/W Project 004 DCCD • Macroinvertebrate assessment 1/5Y 11 CNWG 06.24 DCCD • SHA, 1/5Y Little Conewago 12 Upstream of Gingrich Rd Penn State • Continuous Nitrate Creek HOFR .02 • Macroinvertebrate assessment 1/5Y 13 DCCD • SHA, 1/5Y Hoffer HOFR 1.84 Creek • Baseflow water quality, 6X/Y 14 Downstream of Valley Rd DCCD • Discharge (Flow) measurement, 6X/Y

• Baseflow water quality, 6X/Y GALG 00.45 • Macroinvertebrate assessment 1/2Y Gallagher Run 15 Downstream of Valley Rd DCCD • SHA, 1/5Y • Discharge (flow) measurement, 6X/Y BRIL 00.19 • Baseflow water quality, 6X/Y Upstream of N. Hertzler • Macroinvertebrate assessment 1/2Y Brills Run 16 DCCD Rd • SHA, 1/5Y • Discharge (flow) measurement, 6X/Y LYNCH 00.20 • Baseflow water quality, 6X/Y Downstream of S. Hertzler Lynch Run 17 DCCD • Macroinvertebrate assessment 1/2Y Rd • SHA, 1/5Y

Sub Map ID Station ID or location Who What Is currently monitored Watershed description • Discharge (flow) measurement, 6X/Y • Baseflow water quality, 6X/Y UNTR 00.36 1st Unnamed • Macroinvertebrate assessment 1/2Y 18 Downstream of Zion Rd DCCD Tributary North • SHA, 1/5Y • Discharge (flow) measurement, 6X/Y a USGS gauge station water quality parameters include total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, nitrate, nitrate plus nitrite, ammonia, total nitrogen, dissolved nitrogen, pH, conductivity, temperature, alkalinity, total suspended solids, turbidity, chloride and sulfate, total magnesium, total calcium and total organic carbon. b Baseflow water quality parameters include pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, total nitrogen, nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, and phosphate c Basic water quality parameters include total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids

Among the monitoring mentioned in the plan is that which is ongoing by USGS. In 2010, the Conewago Creek Watershed was selected as a showcase watershed by the combined effort of the USGS, US EPA and USDA. The objective of the work in showcase watersheds is to investigate spatial and temporal variation in water chemistry and suspended sediment in order to 1) characterize current water-quality conditions in these watersheds, and 2) identify the dominant sources, sinks, and transport processes in each watershed. Conewago Creek has two primary monitoring locations as part of the showcase watershed effort—one near the middle of the watershed (Bellaire) and the other near the outlet just upstream of the Susquehanna River (Falmouth). These stations are USGS gauge stations which gather continuous data in the Conewago. Data from the Bellaire gauge station can be found here: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/uv?site_no=01573695. Data from the Falmouth gauge station can be found here: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/uv?site_no=01573710.

Penn State is also active in monitoring efforts in the Conewago. Every three years, the AEC works with the Lancaster County Conservation District and SRBC to conduct fish sampling using electroshocking methods to assess fish populations in the Conewago. The most recent survey was conducted in 2018 and a comprehensive report of all historic fish sampling results can be found here: https://www.conewagoinitiative.net/about/monitoring-team/conewago-fish-survey-report.

With a recently-awarded USDA research grant, Penn State researchers with support from the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) are presently conducting synoptic sampling of the watershed and are in the process of establishing a gauge station on the Little Conewago Creek. Additional monitoring and research is likely to continue through the USDA grant as well as the Conewago’s designation as one of the study watersheds in USDA ARS Long Term Agroecosystem Research Network (LTAR) for the Upper Chesapeake.

All of the above monitoring efforts will be important to evaluating plan implementation and water quality trends in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

12. References

Conewago Creek Initiative. 2021. Conewago Creek Watershed Monitoring Plan.

DEP (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection). 2012. A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity for Wadeable Freestone Riffle-Run Streams in Pennsylvania. DEP, Division of Water Quality Standards. March 2012. https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/CleanWater/WaterQuality/Pages/Macroinvertebrates .aspx. Accessed July 15, 2020.

----.2018. Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams. Office of Water Programs, Bureau of Clean Water. http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%20and%20Facility%20Regulation/Water QualityPortalFiles/Methodology/2015%20Methodology/Assessment_Book.pdf

-----. 2020. 2020 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report. DEP, Office of Water Programs, Bureau of Clean Water. https://www.depgis.state.pa.us/2018_integrated_report/index.html.

Hyer, K.E., J.M. Denver, M.J. Langland, J.S. Webber, J.K. Böhlke, W.D. Hively, and J.W. Clune. 2016. Spatial and Temporal Variation of Stream Chemistry Associated With Contrasting Geology and Land-Use Patterns in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Summary of Results from Smith Creek, Virginia; Upper Chester River, Maryland; Conewago Creek, Pennsylvania; and Difficult Run, Virginia, 2010–2013. Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5093. U.S. Department of the Interior, USGS. Reston, Virginia. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2016/5093/sir20165093.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2020.

Kyler and Hill. 2018. The Conewago Creek Revisited Fish Survey Report. Prepared by Kristen Kyler and Ryan Hill, Penn State Agriculture and Environment Center, for the Conewago Creek Initiative. July 2018.

NLCD (National Land Cover Database). 2011. Downloaded from: https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3ALand%20Cover

NRCS SSURGO (Soil Survey Geographic Database). Downloaded from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627

Penn State AEC (Agriculture and Environment Center). 2017. Conewago Creek Watershed Urbanized Area Assessment Final Report. December 2017.

PSU (Pennsylvania State University). 2001. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Plan for Conewago Creek Watershed. Revised June 27, 2006.

RETTEW. 2006. Conewago Creek Restoration Plan. Prepared for the Tri-County Conewago Creek Association by RETTEW Associates, Inc. 3020 Columbia Ave. Lancaster, PA

Shull, D. R., and M. J. Lookenbill. 2018. Water Quality Monitoring Protocols for Streams and Rivers. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Shull, D. and M. Pulket. 2018. Assessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Water Programs, Bureau of Clean Water. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Tetra Tech. 2012. Site Identification and Prioritization for Stormwater BMPs and Stream Restoration to Improve Water Quality. Conewago Creek. Dauphin, Lancaster and Lebanon Counties, Pennsylvania. October 2012. Prepared by Tetra Tech. 1036 Eaton Place, Suite 340. Fairfax, VA 22020.

USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services). 2020a. National Cartography & Geospatial Center. National Elevation Dataset 30 Meter 1-degree Tiles. Edition: . Downloaded from: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services). 2020b. Pennsylvania Payment Schedule for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program. Downloaded from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/financial/?cid=nrcseprd 1328261

Appendix A – ATTAINS Impairment Listings

Table 26. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies in the critical area subwatersheds. Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Length Cause Source (miles) Critical Area Stream Name Hoffer Creek Hoffer Creek 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402717 1.149 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56402717 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402717 1.149 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56402717 4c PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402717 1.149 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56402717 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402725 0.019 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56402725 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402725 0.019 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56402725 4c PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402725 0.019 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56402725 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402867 0.388 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56402867 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402867 0.388 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56402867 4c PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56402867 0.388 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56402867 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403071 0.720 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56403071 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403071 0.720 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56403071 4c PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403071 0.720 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56403071 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403421 0.979 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56403421 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403421 0.979 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56403421 4c PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403421 0.979 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56403421 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403493 0.248 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56403493 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403493 0.248 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56403493 4c PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56403493 0.248 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56403493 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56404031 1.836 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404031 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56404031 1.836 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56404031 4c PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56404031 1.836 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404031 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56404035 0.005 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404035 4a PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56404035 0.005 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56404035

Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Length Cause Source (miles) 4c PA-SCR- Hoffer Creek-56404035 0.005 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404035 Critical Area Stream Name Hoffer Creek Unnamed Tributary to Hoffer Creek 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Hoffer 0.287 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56402699 Creek-56402699 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Hoffer 0.287 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56402699 Creek-56402699 4c PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Hoffer 0.287 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56402699 Creek-56402699 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Hoffer 0.565 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56403069 Creek-56403069 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Hoffer 0.565 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE 56403069 Creek-56403069 4c PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Hoffer 0.565 HABITAT ALTERATIONS SOURCE UNKNOWN 56403069 Creek-56403069 Critical Area Stream Name Lynch Run Lynch Run 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404339 0.501 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404339 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404339 0.501 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404339 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404339 0.501 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404339 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404581 0.404 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404581 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404581 0.404 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404581 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404581 0.404 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404581 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404791 0.560 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404791 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404791 0.560 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404791 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404791 0.560 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404791 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404901 0.339 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404901 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404901 0.339 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404901 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56404901 0.339 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404901 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405019 0.371 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56405019 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405019 0.371 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56405019 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405019 0.371 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56405019 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405093 0.244 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56405093 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405093 0.244 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56405093

Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Length Cause Source (miles) 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405093 0.244 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56405093 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405201 0.374 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56405201 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405201 0.374 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56405201 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405201 0.374 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56405201 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405205 0.007 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56405205 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405205 0.007 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56405205 4a PA-SCR- Lynch Run-56405205 0.007 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56405205 Critical Area Stream Name Lynch Run Unnamed Tributary to Lynch Run 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.019 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404021 Run-56404021 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.019 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404021 Run-56404021 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.019 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404021 Run-56404021 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.011 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404205 Run-56404205 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.011 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404205 Run-56404205 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.011 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404205 Run-56404205 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.245 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404233 Run-56404233 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.245 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404233 Run-56404233 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.245 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404233 Run-56404233 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.058 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404235 Run-56404235 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.058 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404235 Run-56404235 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.058 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404235 Run-56404235 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.595 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404333 Run-56404333 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.595 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404333 Run-56404333 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.595 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404333 Run-56404333 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.470 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404343 Run-56404343 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.470 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404343 Run-56404343 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.470 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404343 Run-56404343

Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Length Cause Source (miles) 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.032 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404347 Run-56404347 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.032 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404347 Run-56404347 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.032 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404347 Run-56404347 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.140 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404423 Run-56404423 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.140 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404423 Run-56404423 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.140 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404423 Run-56404423 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.521 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404425 Run-56404425 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.521 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404425 Run-56404425 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.521 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404425 Run-56404425 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 1.909 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404583 Run-56404583 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 1.909 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404583 Run-56404583 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 1.909 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404583 Run-56404583 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.527 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404681 Run-56404681 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.527 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404681 Run-56404681 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.527 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404681 Run-56404681 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.546 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404683 Run-56404683 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.546 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404683 Run-56404683 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.546 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404683 Run-56404683 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.021 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404765 Run-56404765 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.021 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404765 Run-56404765 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.021 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404765 Run-56404765 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.314 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404777 Run-56404777 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.314 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404777 Run-56404777 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.314 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404777 Run-56404777 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.211 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404779 Run-56404779 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.211 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404779 Run-56404779

Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Length Cause Source (miles) 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.211 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404779 Run-56404779 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.977 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404789 Run-56404789 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.977 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404789 Run-56404789 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.977 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404789 Run-56404789 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.238 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404857 Run-56404857 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.238 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404857 Run-56404857 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.238 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404857 Run-56404857 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.167 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404903 Run-56404903 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.167 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404903 Run-56404903 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.167 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404903 Run-56404903 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.094 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404921 Run-56404921 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.094 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404921 Run-56404921 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.094 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404921 Run-56404921 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.720 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56404987 Run-56404987 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.720 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56404987 Run-56404987 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.720 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56404987 Run-56404987 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.454 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56405091 Run-56405091 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.454 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56405091 Run-56405091 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.454 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56405091 Run-56405091 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.641 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56405095 Run-56405095 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.641 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56405095 Run-56405095 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.641 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56405095 Run-56405095 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.039 CAUSE UNKNOWN SOURCE UNKNOWN 56405097 Run-56405097 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.039 SILTATION AGRICULTURE 56405097 Run-56405097 4a PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to Lynch 0.039 TURBIDITY AGRICULTURE 56405097 Run-56405097

Table 27. ATTAINS impairment listings for waterbodies within the Conewago Creek watershed, outside the critical areas. Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles)

Conewago Creek PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403013 Conewago Creek-56403013 0.104 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403013 Conewago Creek-56403013 0.104 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403013 Conewago Creek-56403013 0.104 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403085 Conewago Creek-56403085 0.158 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403085 Conewago Creek-56403085 0.158 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403085 Conewago Creek-56403085 0.158 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403461 Conewago Creek-56403461 0.807 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403461 Conewago Creek-56403461 0.807 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403461 Conewago Creek-56403461 0.807 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 5 56403467 Conewago Creek-56403467 0.008 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403473 Conewago Creek-56403473 0.024 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403473 Conewago Creek-56403473 0.024 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403473 Conewago Creek-56403473 0.024 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403535 Conewago Creek-56403535 0.302 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403535 Conewago Creek-56403535 0.302 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403535 Conewago Creek-56403535 0.302 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403567 Conewago Creek-56403567 0.126 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403567 Conewago Creek-56403567 0.126 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403567 Conewago Creek-56403567 0.126 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 5 56403569 Conewago Creek-56403569 0.006 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403583 Conewago Creek-56403583 0.050 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403583 Conewago Creek-56403583 0.050 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403583 Conewago Creek-56403583 0.050 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) PA-SCR- 4a 56403585 Conewago Creek-56403585 0.072 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403585 Conewago Creek-56403585 0.072 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403585 Conewago Creek-56403585 0.072 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 5 56403587 Conewago Creek-56403587 0.008 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 4a 56403687 Conewago Creek-56403687 0.618 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403687 Conewago Creek-56403687 0.618 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403687 Conewago Creek-56403687 0.618 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403689 Conewago Creek-56403689 0.239 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403689 Conewago Creek-56403689 0.239 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403689 Conewago Creek-56403689 0.239 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 5 56403691 Conewago Creek-56403691 0.004 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403787 Conewago Creek-56403787 0.669 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403787 Conewago Creek-56403787 0.669 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403787 Conewago Creek-56403787 0.669 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56403821 Conewago Creek-56403821 0.107 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56403821 Conewago Creek-56403821 0.107 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56403821 Conewago Creek-56403821 0.107 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404077 Conewago Creek-56404077 1.604 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404077 Conewago Creek-56404077 1.604 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404077 Conewago Creek-56404077 1.604 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404079 Conewago Creek-56404079 0.297 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404079 Conewago Creek-56404079 0.297 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404079 Conewago Creek-56404079 0.297 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404213 Conewago Creek-56404213 0.318 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404213 Conewago Creek-56404213 0.318 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404213 Conewago Creek-56404213 0.318 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) PA-SCR- 4a 56404311 Conewago Creek-56404311 0.183 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404311 Conewago Creek-56404311 0.183 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404311 Conewago Creek-56404311 0.183 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404351 Conewago Creek-56404351 0.326 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404351 Conewago Creek-56404351 0.326 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404351 Conewago Creek-56404351 0.326 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404415 Conewago Creek-56404415 0.128 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404415 Conewago Creek-56404415 0.128 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404415 Conewago Creek-56404415 0.128 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404449 Conewago Creek-56404449 0.054 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404449 Conewago Creek-56404449 0.054 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404449 Conewago Creek-56404449 0.054 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404555 Conewago Creek-56404555 0.004 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404555 Conewago Creek-56404555 0.004 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404555 Conewago Creek-56404555 0.004 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 4a 56404557 Conewago Creek-56404557 0.059 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404557 Conewago Creek-56404557 0.059 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404557 Conewago Creek-56404557 0.059 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404563 Conewago Creek-56404563 0.414 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404563 Conewago Creek-56404563 0.414 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404563 Conewago Creek-56404563 0.414 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 4a 56404619 Conewago Creek-56404619 0.176 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404619 Conewago Creek-56404619 0.176 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404619 Conewago Creek-56404619 0.176 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404621 Conewago Creek-56404621 0.204 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404621 Conewago Creek-56404621 0.204 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) PA-SCR- 5 56404621 Conewago Creek-56404621 0.204 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404705 Conewago Creek-56404705 0.252 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404705 Conewago Creek-56404705 0.252 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404705 Conewago Creek-56404705 0.252 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404827 Conewago Creek-56404827 0.354 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404827 Conewago Creek-56404827 0.354 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404827 Conewago Creek-56404827 0.354 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56404885 Conewago Creek-56404885 0.244 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404885 Conewago Creek-56404885 0.244 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404885 Conewago Creek-56404885 0.244 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 4a 56404895 Conewago Creek-56404895 0.080 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404895 Conewago Creek-56404895 0.080 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56404895 Conewago Creek-56404895 0.080 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- 4a 56404993 Conewago Creek-56404993 0.209 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56404993 Conewago Creek-56404993 0.209 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405029 Conewago Creek-56405029 0.084 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405029 Conewago Creek-56405029 0.084 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405033 Conewago Creek-56405033 0.044 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405033 Conewago Creek-56405033 0.044 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405035 Conewago Creek-56405035 0.007 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405035 Conewago Creek-56405035 0.007 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405037 Conewago Creek-56405037 0.028 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405037 Conewago Creek-56405037 0.028 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405039 Conewago Creek-56405039 0.024 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405039 Conewago Creek-56405039 0.024 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405043 Conewago Creek-56405043 0.081 SILTATION AGRICULTURE

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) PA-SCR- 4a 56405043 Conewago Creek-56405043 0.081 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405057 Conewago Creek-56405057 0.088 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405057 Conewago Creek-56405057 0.088 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405073 Conewago Creek-56405073 0.171 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405073 Conewago Creek-56405073 0.171 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56405087 Conewago Creek-56405087 0.029 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 5 56405087 Conewago Creek-56405087 0.029 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405121 Conewago Creek-56405121 0.171 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405121 Conewago Creek-56405121 0.171 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405157 Conewago Creek-56405157 0.142 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405157 Conewago Creek-56405157 0.142 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405163 Conewago Creek-56405163 0.153 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405163 Conewago Creek-56405163 0.153 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405165 Conewago Creek-56405165 0.034 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405165 Conewago Creek-56405165 0.034 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405207 Conewago Creek-56405207 0.901 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405207 Conewago Creek-56405207 0.901 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405223 Conewago Creek-56405223 0.062 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405223 Conewago Creek-56405223 0.062 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405273 Conewago Creek-56405273 0.285 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405273 Conewago Creek-56405273 0.285 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405469 Conewago Creek-56405469 0.574 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405469 Conewago Creek-56405469 0.574 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405665 Conewago Creek-56405665 0.461 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405665 Conewago Creek-56405665 0.461 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405683 Conewago Creek-56405683 0.681 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) PA-SCR- 4a 56405683 Conewago Creek-56405683 0.681 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405909 Conewago Creek-56405909 1.749 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405909 Conewago Creek-56405909 1.749 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56405995 Conewago Creek-56405995 0.803 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56405995 Conewago Creek-56405995 0.803 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56406169 Conewago Creek-56406169 0.559 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56406169 Conewago Creek-56406169 0.559 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56406283 Conewago Creek-56406283 0.222 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56406283 Conewago Creek-56406283 0.222 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56406313 Conewago Creek-56406313 0.065 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56406313 Conewago Creek-56406313 0.065 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56406315 Conewago Creek-56406315 0.082 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56406315 Conewago Creek-56406315 0.082 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56406551 Conewago Creek-56406551 0.836 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56406551 Conewago Creek-56406551 0.836 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- TOTAL SUSPENDED 4a 56406837 Conewago Creek-56406837 1.220 SOLIDS (TSS) AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- 4a 56406837 Conewago Creek-56406837 1.220 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE Unnamed Tributary to Conewago Creek PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403475 Conewago Creek-56403475 0.080 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403475 Conewago Creek-56403475 0.080 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403479 Conewago Creek-56403479 1.070 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403479 Conewago Creek-56403479 1.070 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403487 Conewago Creek-56403487 0.034 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403487 Conewago Creek-56403487 0.034 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403745 Conewago Creek-56403745 0.618 SILTATION AGRICULTURE

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403745 Conewago Creek-56403745 0.618 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403761 Conewago Creek-56403761 0.998 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56403761 Conewago Creek-56403761 0.998 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404075 Conewago Creek-56404075 0.894 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404075 Conewago Creek-56404075 0.894 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404081 Conewago Creek-56404081 0.010 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404081 Conewago Creek-56404081 0.010 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404215 Conewago Creek-56404215 0.006 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404227 Conewago Creek-56404227 0.052 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404691 Conewago Creek-56404691 0.057 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404707 Conewago Creek-56404707 0.047 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404709 Conewago Creek-56404709 0.006 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404829 Conewago Creek-56404829 0.006 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404839 Conewago Creek-56404839 0.099 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404839 Conewago Creek-56404839 0.099 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404839 Conewago Creek-56404839 0.099 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404843 Conewago Creek-56404843 0.016 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404849 Conewago Creek-56404849 0.011 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404853 Conewago Creek-56404853 0.011 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404855 Conewago Creek-56404855 0.039 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404855 Conewago Creek-56404855 0.039 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404855 Conewago Creek-56404855 0.039 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404859 Conewago Creek-56404859 0.009 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404859 Conewago Creek-56404859 0.009 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 5 56404859 Conewago Creek-56404859 0.009 PATHOGENS SOURCE UNKNOWN PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404923 Conewago Creek-56404923 0.726 SILTATION AGRICULTURE

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404923 Conewago Creek-56404923 0.726 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56404923 Conewago Creek-56404923 0.726 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404925 Conewago Creek-56404925 0.616 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404925 Conewago Creek-56404925 0.616 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56404925 Conewago Creek-56404925 0.616 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404997 Conewago Creek-56404997 0.375 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56404997 Conewago Creek-56404997 0.375 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56404997 Conewago Creek-56404997 0.375 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405017 Conewago Creek-56405017 0.019 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405017 Conewago Creek-56405017 0.019 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405017 Conewago Creek-56405017 0.019 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405027 Conewago Creek-56405027 0.007 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405027 Conewago Creek-56405027 0.007 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405027 Conewago Creek-56405027 0.007 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405041 Conewago Creek-56405041 0.037 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405041 Conewago Creek-56405041 0.037 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405041 Conewago Creek-56405041 0.037 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405047 Conewago Creek-56405047 0.010 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405047 Conewago Creek-56405047 0.010 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT HABITAT 4c 56405047 Conewago Creek-56405047 0.010 ALTERATIONS MODIFICATION -

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) OTHER THAN HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405059 Conewago Creek-56405059 0.238 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405059 Conewago Creek-56405059 0.238 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405059 Conewago Creek-56405059 0.238 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405069 Conewago Creek-56405069 0.067 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405069 Conewago Creek-56405069 0.067 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405069 Conewago Creek-56405069 0.067 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405085 Conewago Creek-56405085 0.039 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405085 Conewago Creek-56405085 0.039 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405085 Conewago Creek-56405085 0.039 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405089 Conewago Creek-56405089 0.009 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405089 Conewago Creek-56405089 0.009 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405089 Conewago Creek-56405089 0.009 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405099 Conewago Creek-56405099 0.047 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405099 Conewago Creek-56405099 0.047 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405099 Conewago Creek-56405099 0.047 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405119 Conewago Creek-56405119 0.563 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405119 Conewago Creek-56405119 0.563 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405119 Conewago Creek-56405119 0.563 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to TOTAL SUSPENDED MUNICIPAL POINT 4a 56405161 Conewago Creek-56405161 0.947 SOLIDS (TSS) SOURCE DISCHARGES

Length Category ATTAINS ID ATTAINS Name Cause Source (miles) PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to ORGANIC MUNICIPAL POINT 4a 56405161 Conewago Creek-56405161 0.947 ENRICHMENT SOURCE DISCHARGES PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to TOTAL SUSPENDED MUNICIPAL POINT 4a 56405167 Conewago Creek-56405167 0.006 SOLIDS (TSS) SOURCE DISCHARGES PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to ORGANIC MUNICIPAL POINT 4a 56405167 Conewago Creek-56405167 0.006 ENRICHMENT SOURCE DISCHARGES PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405357 Conewago Creek-56405357 0.857 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405357 Conewago Creek-56405357 0.857 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405357 Conewago Creek-56405357 0.857 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405377 Conewago Creek-56405377 0.890 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405377 Conewago Creek-56405377 0.890 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405377 Conewago Creek-56405377 0.890 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405663 Conewago Creek-56405663 0.949 SILTATION AGRICULTURE PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to 4a 56405663 Conewago Creek-56405663 0.949 NUTRIENTS AGRICULTURE HABITAT MODIFICATION - PA-SCR- Unnamed Tributary to HABITAT OTHER THAN 4c 56405663 Conewago Creek-56405663 0.949 ALTERATIONS HYDROMODIFICATION

Appendix B – Water Quality Data

Figure 24. Total phosphorus concentrations at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek watershed.

Figure 25. Total nitrogen concentrations at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Figure 26. Nitrate concentrations at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Figure 27. Streamflow at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Figure 28. Nitrate loads at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Figure 29. TN loads at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Figure 30. TP loads at sampling locations in the Conewago Creek Watershed.

Appendix C – Local Sponsor Watershed Issues and Concerns Issues and concerns identified by local sponsor response to survey. State agency votes are not represented.

Average rank (5 being most Issue or Concern important, 1 being least) Excess sedimentation/siltation in our rivers and streams 4.92 Excess nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) in our rivers and 4.86 streams Streambank erosion and channelization 4.64

Runoff from agricultural land 4.43

Degraded fish and aquatic bug communities 4.29

Excess bacteria (E. coli) in our rivers and streams 4.23

Loss of habitat and natural areas in contributing watersheds 4.14

Increased flooding 4.08

Stream flashiness 3.77

Runoff from upstream areas Write in answer

Appendix D – BMP Practice Recommendations

Figure 31. Recommended BMP locations from Penn State AEC. See Table 20 for site-specific BMPs.

Table 28. Site-specific BMP recommendations from Penn State AEC (provided by Matt Royer on October 22, 2020).

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Rain garden and bioswale retrofit Land Studies Conewago 1 40.24883 -76.4629 proposed to BSR, BI 400 510 1 2013 Headwaters management stormwater runoff Stream restoration and riparian buffer needed. Rain garden adjacent to SR, RB, Conewago 2 40.25084 -76.4688 PSU 2020 186.01 0.30 186.01 1 gravel parking lot may BI Headwaters also help to treat direct stormwater discharges. Rain gardens and pervious pavement Land Studies Conewago 3 40.247 -76.4735 proposed throughout BI, PP 6,034 0.1 1 2013 Headwaters community to improve stormwater runoff Rain garden and bioswale retrofit Land Studies Conewago 4 40.24169 -76.481 proposed to BSR, BI 200 976 1 2013 Headwaters management stormwater runoff Stream bank fencing and riparian buffer opportunities on main Conewago 5 35 40.24101 -76.5105 stem in cattle pasture. RB, SBF RETTEW 1146 650 1.04 1 Headwaters Banks could also be stabilized with live staking. Stream bank fencing and riparian buffer Conewago 6 40 40.2435 -76.514 opportunities on RB, SBF RETTEW 4678 2996 4.81 1 Headwaters tributaries in cattle pasture. Land Studies Conewago 7 40.23779 -76.5166 Rain garden opportunity BI 1,000 1 2013 Headwaters Retrofit dry detention facility into a stormwater Tetra Tech Conewago 8 LCSW 40.23854 -76.5175 wetlands system to SWR 11.6 1 2012 Headwaters improve water quality treatment and habitat. Buffer needed on headwater tributary along Epler Rd. Conewago 9 40.24487 -76.5268 Opportunity for RB, NT PSU 2020 12.25 208.89 0.34 1 Headwaters conversion to no till on cropland along Route 117. Opportunity for Conewago 10 40.24156 -76.528 conversion to no till on NT PSU 2020 3.7 1 Headwaters Game Land crop fields

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude on both sides of Epler Rd. Opportunity for Conewago 11 40.23684 -76.5288 NT PSU 2020 52.27 1 conversion to no till. Headwaters Horse farm mows to stream on both sides, Conewago 12 34 40.23143 -76.5326 RB RETTEW 1616.99 2.60 1 riparian buffer Headwaters restoration opportunity. Buffer needed along stream where only sporadic mature trees exist. Opportunity for Conewago 13 40.22994 -76.5352 RB, NT PSU 2020 5.13 1542.18 2.48 1 conversion to no till on Headwaters small fields in conventional tillage along Route 241. Riparian buffer can be enhanced with tree plantings along stream. Rain garden, native RB, BI, Land Studies Conewago 14 40.22274 -76.5388 meadow and wetland 312 0.5 0.15 1,500 1 WR 2013 Headwaters restoration proposed to improve stormwater management at municipal park. Stream bank fencing implemented. Opportunity exists to move back fencing and improve riparian buffer RB, NT, Conewago 15 33 40.22037 -76.5428 with plantings. RETTEW 27.9 34.2 978.4 1.57 1 GW Headwaters Opportunity for conversion to no till and improved grassed waterways on crop field along Lawn Rd. Riparian buffer and stream restoration opportunities on farm along rail-trail where SR, RB, Conewago 16 32 40.21647 -76.5444 fishing access is RETTEW 26.6 2337.39 3.76 2337.39 1 NT Headwaters provided. Opportunity for conversion to no till on fields on both sides of Route 241. Stream bank fencing implemented but fence could be pulled back to RB, SR, Conewago 17 31 40.21488 -76.5551 RETTEW 28.2 28.2 1585.62 2.55 1585.62 1 allow for riparian buffer NT, GW Headwaters and stream restoration. Crop field opportunity

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude for conversion to no till and grassed waterways to control runoff to road culvert. Waterways through pasture could also be improved. Bioswale retrofit and Little rain garden proposed to Land Studies 18 40.25794 -76.545 BSR, BI 387 975 2 Conewago manage stormwater 2013 Creek runoff Bioswale retrofit Little propose to manage Land Studies 19 40.25645 -76.5477 BSR 530 2 Conewago stormwater runoff from 2013 Creek upslope development Stream restoration and bioswale retrofit Little Land Studies 20 40.25668 -76.5542 proposed to address BSR, SR 250 500 2 Conewago 2013 erosion and impacts to Creek stream Steep sloping ground conventionally tilled and not planted on contour. Clear signs of runoff NT, Little and yield loss. 21 40.26095 -76.5703 CSC, PSU 2020 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 Conewago Opportunity for T&D Creek conversion to no till, conservation strip cropping and terraces and diversions. Opportunity for conversion to no till. Little 22 40.25448 -76.5787 Grassed waterway also NT, GW PSU 2020 24.5 24.5 2 Conewago needed to address Creek active rill erosion. Little Opportunity for 23 40.2545 -76.5759 NT PSU 2020 10 2 Conewago conversion to no till. Creek Improve existing buffer, Little Riparian buffer 24 40.25036 -76.5671 RB PSU 2020 359.54 0.58 2 Conewago opportunities on Creek headwater streams. Aerial imagery indicates opportunity to improve Little 25 40.24417 -76.5748 riparian buffer. Improve RB PSU 2020 805.74 1.29 2 Conewago existing buffer in Creek headwater trib. Little Opportunity for 26 40.24403 -76.5516 NT PSU 2020 38.78 2 Conewago conversion to no till. Creek

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Riparian buffer and Little stream restoration 27 40.24468 -76.5498 RB, SR PSU 2020 2690.09 4.32 2690.09 2 Conewago opportunities on large Creek residential property. Riparian buffer, stream Little restoration and wetland SR, RB, LandStudies 28 40.24163 -76.5512 312 0.5 312 0.27 2 Conewago restoration opportunities WR 2013 Creek on residential property. Opportunity for stream restoration and riparian Little 29 40.24237 -76.5509 buffer on unstable SR, RB PSU 2020 638.02 1.03 638.02 2 Conewago reach on residential Creek property. Opportunity for conversion to no till and conservation strip NT, Little 30 40.24313 -76.5477 cropping and CSC, PSU 2020 12.11 12.11 14.11 2 Conewago installation of grassed GW Creek waterways on sloping cropland. Little Opportunity for 31 40.24275 -76.5457 NT PSU 2020 3.1 2 Conewago conversion to no till. Creek Small backyard buffer Little 32 40.24184 -76.5656 opportunity on RB PSU 2020 225.63 0.36 2 Conewago residential property Creek Cornfield in conventional tillage on sloping ground. NT, Little Opportunities for 33 40.23785 -76.5669 T&D, PSU 2020 34 34 6.2 2 Conewago conversion to no till, GW Creek terraces and diversions and grassed waterways. Cornfields in conventional tillage; Little 34 40.23888 -76.5736 opportunities for NT PSU 2020 27 2 Conewago conversion to no till on Creek three crop fields. Opportunity for tree plantings to enhance old riparian buffer Little 35 40.241 -76.5342 restoration. Opportunity RB, NT PSU 2020 21.48 2392 3.84 2 Conewago for conversion to no till Creek on upper and lower crop fields. Conventional tillage on ground experiencing Little 36 40.23171 -76.5479 rill/gully erosion. NT, GW PSU 2020 85.33 85.33 2 Conewago Opportunity for Creek conversion to no till and

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude installation of grassed waterways. Crop field accessed from Lawn Road also conventionally tilled. Improved animal concentration area needed for cattle. Little Opportunity for ACA, 37 40.2277 -76.55 PSU 2020 0.2 5.44 5.44 2 Conewago conversion to no till and NT, GW Creek grassed waterways on cropland along Colebrook Rd. Riparian buffer needed on west branch of Little Little 38 40.23061 -76.5589 Conewago north of RB PSU 2020 3469.02 5.57 2 Conewago Route 341 and west of Creek Lawn Rd. Riparian buffer Little opportunity in location 39 23 40.2316 -76.5553 RB RETTEW 1475.55 2.37 2 Conewago of failed planting east of Creek Lawn Rd. Stream bank fencing implemented in lower pasture but could be moved back for riparian buffer planting. Upper pastures have fencing, crossings and forest riparian buffer Little 21, implemented through RB, SR, 40 40.2293 -76.5541 RETTEW 17.1 5656.4 9.09 5656.4 2 Conewago 22 CREP. Livestaking has NT Creek helped stabilize some banks. Potential for stream restoration in isolated areas where banks remain unstable. Opportunities for no till on approximately three strips. Stream bank fencing implemented but could Little be moved back for 41 20 40.22752 -76.5548 SR, RB RETTEW 1151.99 1.85 1151.99 2 Conewago priority stream Creek restoration and riparian buffer project. Riparian buffer implemented and Little 42 19 40.22326 -76.5546 thriving. Stream SR RETTEW 2767.72 2 Conewago restoration opportunities Creek on unstable reaches.

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Stream bank fencing can be moved back to allow for riparian buffer planting and stream Little restoration on unstable RB, SR, 43 18 40.21819 -76.5576 RETTEW 8.2 2202.55 3.54 2202.55 2 Conewago reaches. Crop field NT Creek along Long Rd in conventional tillage and opportunity to convert to no till. Stream restoration and Little riparian buffer needed 44 40.21554 -76.5594 RB, SR PSU 2020 2662.87 4.28 2662.87 2 Conewago downstream of Eckert Creek Road. Bioswale retrofit opportunity through Conewago 45 40.22934 -76.5698 BSR PSU 2020 263 3 vegetative planting Creek A improvements. Riparian buffer Conewago 46 40.22913 -76.5715 restoration opportunity RB PSU 2020 793.83 1.28 3 Creek A on residential property Opportunities for riparian buffer, rain gardens and bioswale improvements on Conewago 47 40.22669 -76.5719 RB, BI PSU 2020 1147.43 1.84 8,286 3 stream and within Creek A stormwater management structures in mobile home park. Terraces and diversions recommended on cropland east of Bachmanville Rd; grassed waterways to T&D, Conewago 48 39 40.22549 -76.5753 address rill erosion in GW, RETTEW 80 80 80 3 Creek A cropland west of CSC Bachmanville Rd. Potential exists for conservation strip cropping as well. Riparian buffer opportunities on both sides of Long Rd. Terraces and RB, diversions, grassed CSC, Conewago 49 40.22181 -76.5685 PSU 2020 35.46 35.46 35.46 3113.4 5.00 3 waterways and contour GW, Creek A strip cropping T&D recommended on sloping cropland on farm.

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Stream bank fencing and crossings installed on cattle farm. Buffer Conewago 50 40.21786 -76.575 RB PSU 2020 3776.39 6.07 3 could be widened and Creek A planted as forest riparian buffer. Aerial imagery indicates Conewago 51 40.21869 -76.5683 opportunity to improve RB PSU 2020 697.52 1.12 3 Creek A riparian buffer. Aerial imagery indicates Conewago 52 40.21678 -76.5691 opportunity for RB PSU 2020 3028 4.86 3 Creek A improved riparian buffer Aerial imagery indicates Conewago 53 40.21279 -76.5767 opportunity to improve RB PSU 2020 808 1.30 3 Creek A riparian buffer Opportunity for Conewago 54 40.20917 -76.5785 NT PSU 2020 27.3 3 conversion to no till. Creek A Improved grassed waterway needed in GW, Conewago 55 40.20864 -76.5712 crop field. Opportunity PSU 2020 73.5 73.5 3 CSC Creek A for conservation strip cropping also exists. Opportunity for small Conewago 56 40.20876 -76.5625 riparian buffer on one RB PSU 2020 2595.9 4.17 3 Creek A side of stream Barnyard runoff RB, controls, ACA, pasture Conewago 57 40.206547 -76.570214 BRC, PSU 2020 0.35 6.7 0.35 1053.02 1.69 3 management and Creek A ACA, PM riparian buffer needed Opportunity for conversion to no till. Conewago 58 40.203806 -76.577411 Riparian buffer needed RB, NT PSU 2020 48.76 48.76 2774 4.45 3 Creek A on small tributary along road Riparian buffer 300 ft, Conewago 59 40.203781 -76.579361 RB PSU 2020 572.78 0.92 3 currently in no mow Creek A Riparian buffer implemented. Conewago 60 40.20151 -76.5544 NT PSU 2020 4.81 3 Opportunity for Creek A conversion to no till. Trees/shrubs could be Conewago 61 30 40.20081 -76.5626 planted as forest RB RETTEW 961 1.54 3 Creek A riparian buffer Riparian buffer, stream SR, RB, Land Studies Conewago 62 40.19615 -76.5603 restoration and rain 622 1 150 5,046 3 BI 2013 Creek A garden opportunities Steep field in need of no till and terraces and Conewago 63 40.19443 -76.564 NT, T&D PSU 2020 18.5 25.1 3 diversions; field to the Creek A east of headquarters

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude also in conventional tillage. Riparian buffer and stream bank fencing implemented. Stream Conewago 64 29 40.19551 -76.5681 RB, SR RETTEW 550 1 550 3 restoration and buffer Creek A needed on lower end of property. Riparian buffer and stream restoration needed on main stem. Riparian buffer 26, opportunity along 27, RB, SR, Conewago 65 40.1947 -76.5806 tributary. Pasture 21.5 5026.92 8.08 1402 3 28, PM Creek A management needed 36 on pasture along main stem and small horse pasture north of Mapledale. Rain garden and bioswales proposed to Land Studies Conewago 66 40.18585 -76.586 BSR, BI 170 750 3 manage stormwater 2013 Creek A runoff Stream restoration Conewago 67 25 40.190631 -76.588944 implemented, riparian RB RETTEW 680 1.09 3 Creek A buffer needed Retrofit existing rock swale into a bioswale to Tetra Tech Conewago 68 C13SW 40.18612 -76.6013 BSR 225 3.5 3 improve water quality 2012 Creek A treatment Significant barnyard, BRC, pasture and 1400 ft 69 17 40.24054 -76.5873 PM, RB, RETTEW 0.5 10.1 3112 1573.61 2.53 4 Hoffer Creek riparian improvements SBF needed. Field in cover crops/no till, but could use 70 40.23921 -76.5823 grassed waterways GW PSU 2020 9.79 4 Hoffer Creek within clearly visible flow paths. Field in no till, but highly 71 40.23654 -76.5813 sloped and could use T&D PSU 2020 16.5 4 Hoffer Creek terraces and diversions. Riparian buffer and stream bank fencing opportunity in small pasture where 72 40.23594 -76.5839 RB, SBF PSU 2020 3420 1710 2.75 4 Hoffer Creek headwater stream flows through middle of it. Currently no signs of active pasturing.

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Opportunity for riparian 73 16 40.23614 -76.5875 RB RETTEW 2612.53 4.20 4 Hoffer Creek buffer Riparian buffer 420 ft 74 40.23151 -76.5859 opportunity on small RB PSU 2020 713 1.15 4 Hoffer Creek tributary Riparian buffer, native meadow and rain Land Studies 75 40.22759 -76.5865 garden proposed to RB, BI 218 0.35 1,637 4 Hoffer Creek 2013 improve stormwater management. Grassed waterways and conservation strip 76 40.23327 -76.5968 cropping recommended GW,CSC PSU 2020 24.9 24.9 4 Hoffer Creek on large sloped crop field. Aerial imagery indicates 77 40.23258 -76.6058 opportunity to improve RB PSU 2020 1537.32 2.47 4 Hoffer Creek Riparian buffer 1200 ft Riparian buffer needed 78 40.23059 -76.609 downstream of pond on RB PSU 2020 220 0.35 4 Hoffer Creek residential property. 79 40.23009 -76.6097 Riparian buffer needed RB PSU 2020 778 1.25 4 Hoffer Creek Stream is fenced; grass buffer could be improved with 1800 ft forest buffer planting and stabilized crossing RB, NT, 80 10 40.23103 -76.6163 could be improved. No RETTEW 19.4 19.4 2215.1 3.56 4 Hoffer Creek CSC till and conservation strip cropping opportunities on large sloped cornfield above pasture. Existing stormwater controls are mowed with signs of erosion. Opportunities for BSR, 81 40.23383 -76.6232 retrofits of bioswales PSU 2020 442 4 Hoffer Creek SWR and shallow basins between Hershey Tennis Center and Ames Industries. Opportunity for short bioswale retrofit between storage units and Route 743 where SWR, 82 40.23369 -76.6227 PSU 2020 40 4 Hoffer Creek swale is actively BSR eroding. Square basins inside fencing are mowed and could be

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude retrofitted with naturalized plantings and potentially infiltration/treatment retrofits. Bioswale retrofit 83 40.23169 -76.6223 opportunity in front of BSR PSU 2020 152 4 Hoffer Creek Mangia Italian Grill Bioswale retrofit opportunity at 84 40.23114 -76.6217 BSR PSU 2020 262 4 Hoffer Creek Adventure Sports Golf Center Riparian buffer 500 ft on 85 40.22989 -76.626 multiple residential RB PSU 2020 526.28 0.85 4 Hoffer Creek properties Rain garden Tetra Tech opportunities on 86 C12SW 40.22737 -76.6239 BI 2012, Land 397 4 Hoffer Creek property with municipal Studies 2013 building Municipal park has opportunities for two basin retrofits and bioswale retrofits with native plantings to BSR, 87 40.22332 -76.624 address existing PSU 2020 1165 4 Hoffer Creek SWR erosion. Retrofits would be consistent with two naturalized basins already present at the park. Opportunities for rain garden retrofits at elementary school, one 88 40.22457 -76.621 around storm drain in BI PSU 2020 3530 4 Hoffer Creek grass at school entrance and one north of main parking lot. Large rain garden/bioinfiltration 89 40.2255 -76.6193 opportunities around BI PSU 2020 10,474 2.00 4 Hoffer Creek storm drain in grass at commercial site. Opportunities for stream restoration and priority riparian buffer 1500 ft 90 9 40.22252 -76.6079 on property mowed to RB, SR RETTEW 1468.44 2.36 1468.44 4 Hoffer Creek the stream bank. Stream bank unstable and eroding. Riparian buffer and 91 40.22071 -76.6073 RB, SR PSU 2020 1099.66 1.77 1099.66 4 Hoffer Creek stream restoration

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude opportunities where land is mowed to the banks. Opportunities for stream restoration and Riparian buffer on property mowed to the stream bank. Stream bank 92 8 40.21903 -76.607 unstable and eroding. RB, SR RETTEW 1150 1.85 1150 4 Hoffer Creek Buffer restoration also exists on two small tributaries which enter mainstem on this property. Opportunity for conversion to no till and terraces and diversions 93 40.22193 -76.5931 on sloping cropland. NT, T&D PSU 2020 14.3 14.3 4 Hoffer Creek Field erosion to roadway and stream evident. Opportunities for barnyard runoff controls, pasture management, ACA improvements and BRC, riparian buffer on ACA, 94 40.21884 -76.5987 PSU 2020 0.34 15.3 0.34 6.1 1097.24 1.76 4 Hoffer Creek pasture across road PM, RB, from headquarters and GW small pasture off Meadow Lane. Grass waterways needed in cropland off Witmer Rd. Barnyard runoff controls and improved ACA needed on dairy farm. Opportunities also exist to move back stream bank fencing and add BRC, 95 7 40.21491 -76.6056 RETTEW 0.34 0.71 1517 2.44 4 Hoffer Creek stabilized crossings to ACA, RB implement riparian buffer and minimize stream bank erosion and livestock access impacts. Opportunities for 2500 ft RB, SR, riparian buffers and 6, SBF, stream restoration on 96 13, 40.21416 -76.5962 BRC, RETTEW 0.12 0.4 3279 19.8 6.1 6424 10.32 6424 4 Hoffer Creek both branches of Hoffer 14 ACA, Creek. Stream bank T&D, NT fencing needed in

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude pasture along Mapledale. Barnyard runoff controls and ACA improvement opportunities at headquarters on east branch of Hoffer Creek. Terraces and diversions needed on crop field east of east branch; opportunity for conversion to no till on crop field along Mapledale. Opportunities for riparian buffer and stream restoration on multiple 97 40.21009 -76.5967 residential/farmette RB, SR PSU 2020 2946.31 4.73 2946.31 4 Hoffer Creek properties at end of east branch Hoffer Creek on both sides of Mapledale Rd. Cropland in need of T&D, 98 12 40.20855 -76.5911 terraces and diversions RETTEW 48.6 48.6 4 Hoffer Creek GW and grassed waterways Opportunity for riparian 99 5 40.20817 -76.598 RB RETTEW 1472.48 2.37 4 Hoffer Creek buffer Cropland in need of T&D, 100 4 40.20526 -76.6006 terraces and diversions RETTEW 99 99 4 Hoffer Creek GW and grassed waterways Riparian buffer needed on main stem and 101 3 40.205325 -76.595942 tributary. Stream RB, SR RETTEW 1976.92 3.18 935 4 Hoffer Creek restoration opportunity on main stem. Riparian buffer and 102 11 40.206347 -76.591400 pasture management RB, PM RETTEW 14.2 3724.86 5.99 4 Hoffer Creek needed Riparian buffer in need of significant replant and maintenance. 103 2 40.200806 -76.596097 RB, BSR RETTEW 1367.75 5.9 248 4 Hoffer Creek Bioswale retrofit opportunity on roadside swale. Some stream restoration has been 1, 104 40.19686 -76.5967 implemented, but RB, SR 5488.69 8.82 5488.69 4 Hoffer Creek 24 opportunity for additional stream

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude restoration and riparian buffer Riparian buffer needed Gallagher 105 79 40.21814 -76.623 along headwaters of RB RETTEW 2882.47 4.63 5 Run Gallagher Run Improved grassed waterways and field Gallagher 106 40.21732 -76.6243 boarder needed to GW PSU 2020 12.8 5 Run minimize runoff to road culvert. Riparian buffer needed along Gallagher Run Gallagher 107 80 40.21257 -76.614 RB RETTEW 2018.8 3.24 5 downstream of Route Run 341 Cropland in need of Gallagher 108 81 40.20749 -76.6152 T&D RETTEW 24 5 terraces and diversions Run Riparian buffer and Gallagher 109 78 40.201469 -76.616833 stream bank fencing RB, SBF RETTEW 8000 5355.27 8.61 5 Run needed in pasture Riparian forest buffer 77, opportunity; crop fields Gallagher 110 82, 40.195153 -76.615011 RB, GW RETTEW 57.3 6466 10.4 5 need improved grassed Run 83 waterways. Riparian buffer installed but in need of replantings and maintenance. Crop Gallagher 111 84 40.19232 -76.6103 RB, GW RETTEW 95.8 2695 4.3 5 fields on both side of Run stream in need of improved grassed waterways. Opportunity for 112 40.21272 -76.6315 conversion of field to no NT PSU 2020 7.14 6 Brills Run till. Significant barnyard, BRC, pasture and headwater PM, 113 40.21189 -76.6476 PSU 2020 0.3 9.9 0.9 1879 1146 1.84 6 Brills Run riparian improvement SBF, opportunities exist. RB, ACA Riparian buffer needed on small tributary. ACA 114 40.204981 -76.6325 improvement RB, ACA PSU 2016 0.8 2236 3.6 6 Brills Run opportunity on cattle farm. Thin, primarily grass riparian buffer could be 115 71 40.204022 -76.639653 RB RETTEW 2811.96 4.52 6 Brills Run enhanced with tree plantings Riparian buffer at 69, subdivision could be 116 40.201497 -76.639581 RB RETTEW 3923 22.7 6 Brills Run 70 enhanced with additional tree plantings

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Riparian buffer needed 117 74 40.193831 -76.630286 on both sides of Mill RB RETTEW 1103 1.8 6 Brills Run Road Cropland in need of 73, terraces and diversions. 118 40.189484 -76.631864 T&D, RB RETTEW 46 3119.45 5.01 6 Brills Run 76 Riparian buffers needed on two streams Riparian buffer and 119 68 40.186642 -76.636614 pasture management RB, PM RETTEW 5.6 5737.4 9.22 6 Brills Run needed Riparian buffer needed on stream Crop field RB, 67, west of stream in need 120 40.181842 -76.633179 T&D, RETTEW 120.5 120.5 120.5 4837.93 7.8 6 Brills Run 75 of terraces and GW, NT diversions, grassed waterways and no till. Conewago 122 85 40.18535 -76.6044 Riparian buffer needed RB RETTEW 1724 2.8 7 Creek B Rain garden and bioswale retrofit Land Studies Conewago 123 40.1831 -76.6122 proposed to BSR, BI 150 1,035 7 2013 Creek B management stormwater runoff Stream restoration and riparian buffer 101, implemented. Cropland GW, Conewago 124 102, 40.18289 -76.6142 RETTEW 52 52 7 is in need of terraces T&D Creek B 103 and diversions and grassed waterways. Opportunity to widen Conewago 125 40.178994 -76.612178 narrow buffer with tree RB PSU 2020 4201.63 6.75 7 Creek B planting Opportunity to install rain garden in grass Conewago 126 40.17806 -76.6016 medium with BI PSU 2017 12,400 1.71 7 Creek B stormwater inlet at 743- 283 interchange Opportunity to install rain garden in grass Conewago 127 40.17762 -76.6009 medium with BI PSU 2017 14,000 1.9 7 Creek B stormwater inlet at 743- 283 interchange Opportunity to install rain garden in grass Conewago 128 40.17719 -76.6012 medium with BI PSU 2017 2200 0.3 7 Creek B stormwater inlet at 743- 283 interchange Potential pervious Conewago 129 40.17552 -76.6027 PP PSU 2017 0.6 7 pavers for parking lot Creek B Retrofit opportunity at SWR, Conewago 130 40.17396 -76.6026 PSU 2017 1.57 . 0.5 7 small basin on PP Creek B

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude commercial property, pervious pavement for parking area Bioswale retrofit Conewago 131 40.17369 -76.6027 opportunity along BSR PSU 2017 400 89.6 7 Creek B parking area Stabilize and retrofit eroding swale and Conewago 132 40.17391 -76.6045 install pervious BSR, PP PSU 2017 134 12.22 0.6 7 Creek B pavement at commercial facility Potential for pervious Conewago 133 40.17244 -76.5987 pavement in parking PP PSU 2017 2.1 7 Creek B area Rain garden opportunity Conewago 134 40.17201 -76.5993 BI PSU 2017 1200 0.165 7 at townhome complex Creek B Basin retrofit Conewago 135 40.1724 -76.605 opportunity in SWR PSU 2017 2.81 7 Creek B apartment complex Basin retrofit opportunity and SWR, Conewago 136 40.17159 -76.6042 PSU 2017 3.75 1.8 7 pervious pavement at PP Creek B apartment complex Basin and bioswale retrofit opportunities near entrance to SWR, Conewago 137 40.17121 -76.604 townhome PSU 2017 9.81 150 12.5 0.7 7 BSR, PP Creek B development. Possible pervious pavement for parking area Potential pervious Conewago 138 40.16991 -76.6044 pavement for a parking PP PSU 2017 0.5 7 Creek B lot Small mowed basin and SWR, Conewago 139 40.16917 -76.6052 pervious pavement for PSU 2017 2 0.4 7 PP Creek B parking area Potential pervious Conewago 140 40.16837 -76.6058 pavement for parking PP PSU 2017 0.4 7 Creek B area Small basin retrofit Conewago 141 40.16854 -76.6076 opportunity in mowed SWR PSU 2017 1.55 7 Creek B basin Opportunities for rain Conewago 142 40.16817 -76.607 gardens and pervious BI, PP PSU 2017 1400 0.19 1.4 7 Creek B pavement at restaurant Potential pervious Conewago 143 40.16761 -76.6071 pavement for low traffic PP PSU 2017 1.4 7 Creek B parking lot Swale with signs of Conewago 144 40.17137 -76.615 slight erosion proposed BSR PSU 2017 740 26.56 7 Creek B for bioswale retrofit

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Riparian buffer, fencing and pasture Conewago 145 40.17517 -76.6185 RB, PM PSU 2017 2 1800 900 1.45 7 management Creek B opportunities Riparian buffer restoration and pasture management recommended. Stream restoration on small RB, SR, Conewago 146 Mill 40.17831 -76.6258 unstable reach on main PM, PSU 2017 2.5 700 1.1 500 220 7 0.9 7 Creek B stem. Bioswale retrofit BSR, BI opportunity through pasture; rain garden opportunity in front of mill. Bioinfiltration retrofit in Conewago 147 40.17733 -76.6463 shallow basin at mobile BI PSU 2017 0.75 7 Creek B home park Opportunity for conversion to no till. Conewago 148 86 40.174898 -76.643633 Grassed waterway also NT , GW RETTEW 30 30 7 Creek B needed to address active rill/gully erosion. No till and grassed waterways needed on sloping cropland. NT, GW, Manure storage and PM, 100 Conewago 150 40.16861 -76.6397 pasture management PSU 2020 5.6 24.2 32.2 857 13.8 7 AWMS, beef Creek B needed. Rain BI, BSR garden/bioswale retrofits proposed for headquarters. Riparian buffer needed Conewago 151 106 40.16609 -76.6418 RB RETTEW 523 0.8 7 on main stem Creek B Opportunity to widen Conewago 152 40.16972 -76.6467 narrow buffer with tree RB PSU 2017 1290 2.1 7 Creek B planting Stormwater basin Conewago 153 C11SW 40.16855 -76.6481 SWR PSU 2017 0.6 7 retrofit opportunity Creek B Opportunity for wetland Conewago 154 40.17024 -76.6526 WR PSU 2017 0.6 7 restoration Creek B Riparian buffer needed Conewago 155 40.16883 -76.6538 where grass is mowed RB PSU 2017 500 0.8 7 Creek B to stream Buffer along Conewago Creek main stem, RB, SR, Conewago 156 40.16645 -76.6516 PSU 2017 500 0.8 1400 2.6 7 stabilize eroding bank, WR Creek B restore wetlands Stream restoration, Conewago 157 40.16734 -76.6477 RB, SR PSU 2017 968 1.5 968 7 large buffer needed Creek B

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Riparian buffer needed on unnamed tributary. Buffer on main stem Conewago 158 40.166069 -76.645793 can be widened with RB, NT PSU 2020 5.6 1530 2.5 7 Creek B tree planting. Opportunity for no till on crop field. Conewago 159 40.16617 -76.644 Bioswale retrofit needed BSR PSU 2017 500 3.2 7 Creek B Roadside swale Conewago 160 40.1594 -76.6258 proposed for bioswale BSR PSU 2017 490 3.76 7 Creek B retrofit Bioswale retrofit and BSR, Conewago 161 40.16096 -76.6284 wetlands enhancement PSU 2017 0.1 160 0.57 7 WR Creek B on residential property Potential pervious Conewago 162 40.16067 -76.6344 pavement for low traffic PP PSU 2017 2 7 Creek B storage units Riparian buffer Conewago 163 40.16256 -76.6358 proposed on equine RB PSU 2017 1400 2.25 1400 7 Creek B operation Potential pervious Conewago 164 40.16137 -76.6381 pavement for low traffic PP PSU 2017 2.6 7 Creek B storage units Stormwater basin Conewago 165 40.1547 -76.6377 retrofit on three large SWR PSU 2017 82.7 7 Creek B new basins Rain garden opportunity Conewago 166 40.14752 -76.6368 in mowed depression in BI PSU 2017 0.44 7 Creek B residential area Rain garden opportunity Conewago 167 40.14866 -76.6386 in small mowed basin BI PSU 2017 0.5 7 Creek B on residential property Pond retrofit opportunity SWR, Conewago 168 C9SW 40.15804 -76.6489 with constructed PSU 2017 1.9 9.5 7 WR Creek B wetland Bioswale retrofit Conewago 169 40.15679 -76.6513 opportunity along road BSR PSU 2017 545 0.1 7 Creek B for new building Basin retrofit Conewago 170 40.15752 -76.6546 opportunity on very SWR PSU 2017 11 7 Creek B large mowed basin Basin retrofit opportunity in mowed Conewago 171 C7SW 40.16334 -76.6466 basin, a portion of SWR PSU 2017 2.6 7 Creek B which has concrete channel. Stream restoration and Conewago 172 C2SR 40.16262 -76.6468 riparian buffer RB, SR PSU 2017 750 1.2 750 7 Creek B opportunity where

100

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude stream is mowed to bank on one side. Basin retrofit opportunity where Conewago 173 C8SW 40.16212 -76.6475 mowed basin receives SWR PSU 2017 17.1 7 Creek B runoff from building and parking area. Bioretention opportunity Conewago 174 C6SW 40.16419 -76.6481 BI PSU 2017 2.6 7 in mowed grass area Creek B Vegetated swale retrofit opportunity around Conewago 175 40.16376 -76.6505 BSR PSU 2017 475 8.1 7 large commercial Creek B building Deep basin retrofit Conewago 176 C5SW 40.16217 -76.6519 opportunity, signs of SWR PSU 2017 8.1 7 Creek B erosion along walls Pervious pavement in parking areas throughout the entire Conewago 177 40.16114 -76.6523 PP PSU 2017 116 7 Industrial Park. May be Creek B limited by heavy truck use Bioswale retrofit Conewago 178 40.16238 -76.6547 opportunity within BSR PSU 2017 1710 3.7 7 Creek B industrial complex Basin retrofit Conewago 179 C3SW 40.16383 -76.6558 opportunity in currently SWR PSU 2017 3.5 7 Creek B mowed basin Bioswale retrofit along Conewago 180 40.16213 -76.658 BSR PSU 2017 380 0.17 7 roadside Creek B Improved riparian buffer Conewago 181 C3SR 40.16143 -76.6592 needed at industrial RB PSU 2017 255 0.4 7 Creek B complex Bioswale retrofit Conewago 182 40.16166 -76.6607 opportunity along BSR PSU 2017 600 0.19 7 Creek B roadside Basin retrofit Conewago 183 C1SW 40.1624 -76.6642 SWR PSU 2017 6.8 7 opportunity Creek B Stream restoration and riparian buffer Conewago 184 40.16186 -76.6663 RB, SR PSU 2017 1400 2.25 1400 7 enhancement Creek B opportunities Rain garden proposed Conewago 185 40.15417 -76.6655 BI PSU 2017 366 0.05 7 on residential property Creek B Terraces and diversions 107, needed on crop fields Conewago 186 40.15318 -76.6714 T&D RETTEW 30 7 108 on both sides of small Creek B tributary Bioswale retrofit, rain Land Studies Conewago 187 40.15856 -76.6951 garden, and native BSR, BI 840 3,309 7 2013 Creek B meadow proposed to

101

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude improve stormwater management. Improved riparian buffer 113, needed along bend. 114, Stream restoration and 115, buffer needed where RB, SR, Conewago 188 40.156018 -76.693877 RETTEW 63.4 7884 12.7 550 7 116, power line crosses T&D Creek B 117, creek. Cropland inside 118 bend in need of terraces and diversions. Riparian buffer needed Conewago 189 109 40.150184 -76.686128 on several adjacent RB RETTEW 1258 2 7 Creek B properties Terraces and diversions T&D, Conewago 190 110 40.14744 -76.6883 and grassed waterways RETTEW 30 30 7 GW Creek B needed on cropland Conewago 191 111 40.149175 -76.690506 Riparian buffer needed RB RETTEW 2336.27 3.75 7 Creek B Rain garden proposed Land Studies Conewago 192 40.14715 -76.6928 to manage stormwater BI 390 7 2013 Creek B runoff Potential for stream restoration and riparian Tetra Tech Conewago 193 C6SR 40.14461 -76.697 SR, RB 560 0.9 560 7 buffer planting near 2012 Creek B roadways Wider riparian buffer Conewago 194 119 40.14557 -76.6996 RB RETTEW 1680 2.7 7 needed Creek B Riparian buffer, barnyard runoff controls, manure storage implemented at 120, headquarters. 122, Additional buffer on 123, Conewago 195 40.14155 -76.705 tributary to south and RB RETTEW 1887 5.75 7 124, Creek B along main stem 125, needed. Crop field 126 access road stabilization also needed on fields east of Becker Road. Riparian buffer needed Conewago 196 121 40.14181 -76.7062 RB RETTEW 1046 1.7 7 on main stem. Creek B Riparian buffer needed Conewago 197 127 40.140778 -76.707339 RB RETTEW 433 0.7 7 on main stem. Creek B Riparian buffer and stream restoration 128, RB, SR, Conewago 198 40.13992 -76.7081 needed on main stem. RETTEW 24 745 1.2 745 7 129 T&D Creek B Cropland in need of terraces and diversions.

102

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude Opportunity to retrofit Tetra Tech 199 L1SW 40.20888 -76.6546 stormwater facility into SWR 11.3 8 Lynch Run 2012 bioretention facility. Opportunity for no till 200 63 40.206394 -76.651078 and conservation strip NT, CSC RETTEW 7.52 7.52 8 Lynch Run cropping. Stream restoration and Tetra Tech 201 L4SR 40.20468 -76.6511 riparian buffer SR, RB 450 0.72 450 8 Lynch Run 2012 opportunity. Crop field in need of terraces and diversions T&D, 202 62 40.202776 -76.647391 RETTEW 61 61 8 Lynch Run and conservation strip CSC cropping 203 61 40.200587 -76.649565 Riparian buffer needed RB RETTEW 2497.52 4.01 8 Lynch Run Cropland in need of 204 60 40.197539 -76.653870 T&D RETTEW 15 8 Lynch Run terraces and diversions Opportunity for terraces 205 45 40.200053 -76.657517 and diversions on steep T&D RETTEW 31 8 Lynch Run cropland Riparian buffer opportunity to connect 206 40.201231 -76.663908 RB PSU 2020 791.96 1.27 8 Lynch Run forest patches on small unnamed tributary Riparian buffer needed on stream east of 42, headquarters. Terraces 207 43, 40.19531 -76.6616 RB, T&D RETTEW 23 3278 5.3 5.3 8 Lynch Run and diversions on 44 cropland west of headquarters. Rain garden Tetra Tech 208 L2SW 40.19166 -76.6777 opportunities at BI 6.7 8 Lynch Run 2012 elementary school. Terraces and diversions and grassed waterways T&D, 209 40.19156 -76.6747 PSU 2020 67.93 67.93 8 Lynch Run needed on steep GW cropland Small animal operation in need of pasture 210 40.193653 -76.668819 PM, ACA PSU 2020 1.83 0.2 8 Lynch Run management and ACA improvements. Opportunity for 211 40.193272 -76.662294 improved riparian buffer RB, SR PSU 2020 666.35 1.07 666.35 8 Lynch Run and stream restoration Riparian buffer and stream restoration 212 40.19134 -76.6632 opportunities through RB, SR PSU 2020 700 1.12 700 8 Lynch Run small residential properties 58, Terraces and diversions T&D, 213 40.193103 -76.655811 RETTEW 12 12 842.57 1.35 8 Lynch Run 59 and grassed waterways GW, RB

103

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude needed on crop fields. Opportunities to wide riparian buffer with tree plantings. Terraces and diversions, grassed waterways, T&D, conservation contour 56, GW, 214 40.190281 -76.656939 strip cropping, and no RETTEW 19 19 19 19 2387.4 3.84 8 Lynch Run 57 CSC, till needed on crop NT, RB fields. Opportunities to wide riparian buffer with tree plantings. 215 54 40.191350 -76.650509 Riparian buffer needed RB RETTEW 1777.29 2.86 8 Lynch Run Grassed waterway and terraces needed on GW, 216 53 40.18892 -76.6526 cropland east of stream. PSU 2020 62.9 62.9 1737 2.8 8 Lynch Run T&D, RB Riparian buffer needed on stream. Potential for bioretention and constructed filter stormwater retrofits in Tetra Tech 217 L10SW 40.18796 -76.6617 BI 4.9 8 Lynch Run vicinity of Braeburn 2012 Park basketball courts and undeveloped residential parcels. Stream restoration and Tetra Tech 218 L5SR 40.18708 -76.6574 riparian buffer SR, RB 300 0.48 300 8 Lynch Run 2012 opportunity. Riparian buffer and stream restoration needed on severely 50, eroding stream banks RB, SR, 51, on tributary and main 219 40.184553 -76.655058 T&D, RETTEW 47 47 4077.16 6.55 4077.16 8 Lynch Run 52, stem. Cropland on both GW 55 sides of stream in need of grassed waterways and terraces and diversions. Stormwater basin Tetra Tech 220 L5SW 40.18372 -76.6597 retrofit opportunity at SWR 2.5 8 Lynch Run 2012 church. Bioswale retrofit 221 40.18201 -76.6615 opportunity across BSR PSU 2017 388 0.2 8 Lynch Run residential yard Vegetative swale 222 40.18082 -76.6615 improvements needed BSR PSU 2017 350 2.2 8 Lynch Run on both sides of the

104

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude street for erosion control Stream restoration at park area where banks RB, SR, 223 40.18191 -76.6648 are highly eroded. PSU 2017 600 0.96 600 260 0.2 8 Lynch Run BSR Bioswale retrofit opportunity as well. Pasture management 224 40.18018 -76.6634 needed on small equine PM PSU 2017 1.7 8 Lynch Run operation 225 40.18 -76.6652 Riparian buffer needed RB PSU 2017 990 1.6 8 Lynch Run small basin retrofit 226 40.18078 -76.6678 SWR PSU 2020 8 Lynch Run needed at storage units Riparian buffer enhancement 227 46 40.180117 -76.669408 RB RETTEW 1491 2.4 8 Lynch Run opportunity through multiple properties Opportunities for stormwater basin and bioswale retrofits on commercial property. Riparian buffer could SWR, 228 40.179844 -76.670572 also be widened. BSR, PSU 2020 460 0.74 669 4.95 8 Lynch Run Opportunity for RB, BI conversion of turf grass to meadow to improve stormwater management. Bioswale retrofit 229 40.183494 -76.673878 opportunities at large BSR PSU 2020 577 8 Lynch Run commercial property Potential stream restoration and riparian 230 40.17853 -76.6658 buffer plantings through RB, SR PSU 2017 980 1.6 980 8 Lynch Run several residential properties 231 40.175039 -76.668553 Riparian buffer needed RB PSU 2020 2671 4.3 8 Lynch Run Stream restoration and 232 41 40.17572 -76.6641 riparian buffer needed RB, SR PSU 2017 1830 2.94 1830 8 Lynch Run in old pasture Bioswale retrofit 233 40.17692 -76.6619 opportunity along BSR PSU 2017 250 0.42 8 Lynch Run commercial building Rain garden opportunities at golf course. Stream L7SW, BI, SR, Tetra Tech 234 40.17637 -76.6574 restoration needed on 1667 2.68 1400 3.7 8 Lynch Run L1SR RB 2012 main stem Lynch Run which flows through course. Riparian buffer

105

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude needed on portions of main stem and tributary. Riparian buffer opportunity on Naaman 235 40.175280 -76.654744 RB PSU 2020 3069.74 4.93 8 Lynch Run Center and upstream golf course property Stream stabilization and riparian buffer needed on Lynch Run. Buffer could also be widened 47, on small tributaries. RB, SR, 236 48, 40.17162 -76.6614 Opportunity for NT, GW, PSU 2017 42.6 42.6 42.6 10,276 16.5 6808 8 Lynch Run 49 conversion to no till, CSC improved grassed waterways and conservation strip cropping in crop field. Bioswale retrofit opportunity on roadside swale that receive 237 40.1716 -76.6515 runoff from parking BSR, PP PSU 2017 400 0.43 1.2 8 Lynch Run area. Pervious pavement opportunity in parking lot. Pervious pavement 1st Tributary 238 40.18914 -76.6804 opportunity in parking PP PSU 2017 0.57 9 North lot Bioswale retrofit 1st Tributary 239 40.18942 -76.6817 opportunity on roadside BSR PSU 2017 176 0.77 9 North swale Storm drains in turf collect parking lot runoff. Opportunity for 1st Tributary 240 40.188681 -76.681156 BI PSU 2020 3,764 0.72 9 large rain North garden/bioinfiltration BMP. Small riparian buffer 1st Tributary 241 40.1847 -76.6936 opportunity on RB PSU 2017 130 0.21 9 North residential land Bioswale retrofit 1st Tributary 242 40.18441 -76.6939 opportunity on roadside BSR PSU 2017 475 2.4 9 North swale Pervious pavement 1st Tributary 243 40.18171 -76.696 opportunity in township PP PSU 2017 0.1 9 North building parking lot 1st Tributary 244 90 40.181531 -76.691539 Riparian buffer needed RB RETTEW 3097.08 4.97 9 North Pasture management, PM, 89, ACA improvements, ACA, 1st Tributary 245 40.176450 -76.693322 RETTEW 25 beef 75 0.65 3364 2667 4.3 9 91 manure storage, stream AWMS, North bank fencing, riparian SBF, RB

106

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude buffers needed on cattle farm. Grass/wetland riparian buffer could be 1st Tributary 246 40.172733 -76.6862 RB PSU 2020 2096.95 3.37 9 enhanced with tree North planting. Riparian buffer needed on small tributary 1st Tributary 247 40.173878 -76.703850 RB PSU 2020 797.21 1.28 1.26 9 flowing through North cropland. Stream restoration, riparian buffer and SR, RB, Tetra Tech 1st Tributary 249 C8SR 40.17253 -76.7039 1200 1200 1.93 1200 9 stream bank fencing SBF 2012 North opportunity in pasture. Stream bank fencing and riparian buffer 1st Tributary 249 40.165328 -76.681603 RB, SBF PSU 2020 1890 945 1.52 9 needed on headwaters North of small tributary Riparian buffer needed on stream. Terraces RB, 92, and diversion and 1st Tributary 250 40.167050 -76.698542 T&D, RETTEW 35 35 2096.71 3.37 2096.71 9 93 grassed waterways North GW needed on sloping cropland. 95, Riparian buffer needed 1st Tributary 251 40.16703 -76.7008 RB RETTEW 1358 2.18 9 96 on two tributaries North Riparian buffer needed on tributaries. Terraces 94, and diversions and T&D, 1st Tributary 252 40.16534 -76.7022 RETTEW 14.5 14.5 2374 3.8 9 97 grassed waterways GW, RB North needed on sloping cropland. 1st Tributary 253 98 40.16364 -76.7033 Riparian buffer needed RB RETTEW 14 533 0.86 9 North Riparian buffer 1st Tributary 254 40.16219 -76.7039 opportunity on RB PSU 2020 200 0.33 9 North residential property Riparian buffer can be improved in reach 1st Tributary 255 40.16097 -76.7032 RB PSU 2020 650 1 9 where tree planting is North needed Riparian buffer opportunity through 1st Tributary 256 40.1584 -76.7021 RB PSU 2020 900 1.4 9 adjacent residential North properties Opportunity to enhance 1st Tributary 257 40.15807 -76.7002 riparian buffers along RB PSU 2020 1147 1.84 9 North tributaries Stream restoration Tetra Tech 1st Tributary 258 C5SR 40.16208 -76.6956 opportunity. Buffer SR, RB 750 1.2 1200 10 2012 South should be enhanced

107

near feet) near

New WIP ID WIP # New # ID Old WIP # ID TT 2012 Longitude Description Project Type Project Source Data (acres) BRC type #s) and (animal AWMS (acres) PM (acres) ACA feet) SBF(linear treated) (acres GW treated) (acres T&D planted) (acres CSC (acres) NT (acres) CC feet) (linear RB (acres) RB feet) (linear SR (li FR (acres) WR treated) (acres SWR feet) (linear BSR treated) (acres BSR ft) (sq BI treated) (acres BI (acres) PP # Subshed Name Subshed Latitude through lower reach after restoration. Bioswale retrofit needed to handle upslope 1st Tributary 259 40.16128 -76.6984 BSR PSU 2020 180 10 stormwater runoff and South erosion Bioswale remediation, waterway, road 1st Tributary 260 40.16097 -76.6986 BSR PSU 2020 316 10 improvements for crop South erosion Stream on both sides of Hillsdale Road in need of buffer and stream restoration. No till and grassed waterway NT, GW, 1st Tributary 261 112 40.16035 -76.6965 PSU 2020 11.8 16 8.55 1924 3.1 1924 10 needed on cropland T&D, RB South along Zion Road. Cropland south of stream in need of terraces and diversions. Rain garden and bioswale proposed to 1st Tributary 262 40.14461 -76.6495 BI, BSR PSU 2017 255 0.38 430 0.06 10 improve stormwater South management Basin retrofit opportunity at Large mowed basin in 1st Tributary 263 40.14633 -76.6492 SWR PSU 2017 26 10 headwaters of 1st South Unnamed Tributary South Small stormwater basin 1st Tributary 264 40.14697 -76.653 retrofit in residential SWR PSU 2017 16.2 10 South area Riparian buffer improvements and 1st Tributary 265 40.14653 -76.653 stream restoration RB, SR PSU 2017 650 1 650 10 South proposed to address bank erosion Riparian buffer implemented. 1st Tributary 266 87 40.14479 -76.6606 ACA RETTEW 1 10 Opportunity for South improved ACA. Opportunity for forest 1st Tributary 267 40.142914 -76.665147 riparian buffer on small RB PSU 2020 737 1.18 10 South tributary 1st Tributary 268 40.150144 -76.664711 Riparian buffer needed RB PSU 2020 1103.37 1.77 10 South Riparian buffer needed 1st Tributary 269 88 40.15017 -76.6666 RB RETTEW 890 1.4 10 on one side of stream South

108

Appendix E – Model My Watershed Outputs

111 Conewago Headwaters Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area. If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name.

If runoff from a land use/cover type with NO impervious cover (e.g., Cropland) is treated by a BMP system (either existing or proposed), use the Manual Override (column M) to type in the treatment depth (in/imp. ac). The examples below show various options for characterizing different types of project areas. Notice that one example demonstrates when a drainage area covers two land uses (see row 13 and 14).

Project Name BMP Name BMP Type Existing or Year Installed MapShed Land Cover of Drainage Drainage Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in) Stream Restoration* Length (ft) - Street Sweeping* Road Proposed Area Qualified projects only Length Swept (ft) - Qualified projects only

Project_name BMP_name BMP_type Existing? YearInstalled drainageLandCoverClass drainageArea_ac treatmentDepth_in lengthTreatedStream_ft lengthTreatedRoad_ft2 Riparian buffer RR Proposed Hd_Mixed 0.8 1.00 Wetland restoration ST Proposed Wetland 0.15 1.00 Retention basin ST Proposed Md_Mixed 11.6 1.00 Pervious pavement RR Proposed Md_Mixed 0.1 1.00 Rain garden RR Proposed Md_Mixed 0.22 1.00 Bioswale RR Proposed Md_Mixed 14.75 1.00

NOTE: the above table is an Excel Table, which has special features. https://support.office.com/en-us/article/overview-of-excel-tables-7ab0bb7d-3a9e-4b56-a3c9-6c94334e492c ADD ROWS by right-clicking a row number inside the Table, and chosing "Insert". This will automatically copy formulas and update links throughout this workbook. Land Use/Cover Distribution for the Smaller Urban Planning Area

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 64993.4 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

Note: The use of the "Stream Restoration" BMP type in this tab is only for streams associated with developed land areas. Total - Stream Restoration activities in agricultural areas should be addressed separately in the "Agricultural BMPs" tab. Impervious Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in/imp. Treatment Depth Effective Treatment Impervious (%) TSS Load TP Load TN Load TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction TSS Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction ac) (in/imp. ac) Manual Depth (in/imp. ac) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Override - use if no impervious area impervArea_ac treatmentDepthNormalized_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedManual_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedEffective_inPerImpervAcimpervFraction_percentTSS_Load_lbPerYTP_Load_lbPerYTN_Load_lbPerYTSS_ReductionEfficiency_percentTP_ReductionEfficiency_percentTN_ReductionEfficiency_percentTSS_Reduction_lbPerY TSS_Reduction_tonPerYTP_Reduction_lbPerYTN_Reduction_lbPerY 0.70 1.15 1.15 87.0% 884.47 0.25 0.79 77.6% 72.4% 61.9% 686.10 0.34 0.18 0.49 0.00 #N/A 1.00 1.00 0.0% 15.31 0.01 0.07 69.9% 54.9% 35.0% 10.70 0.01 0.00 0.02 6.03 1.92 1.92 52.0% 8,675.28 3.02 17.17 78.0% 61.3% 39.0% 6,768.03 3.38 1.85 6.69 0.05 1.92 1.92 52.0% 74.79 0.03 0.15 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 62.63 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.11 1.92 1.92 52.0% 164.53 0.06 0.33 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 137.79 0.07 0.04 0.22 7.67 1.92 1.92 52.0% 11,031.07 3.84 21.83 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 9,238.31 4.62 2.99 14.57 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 16,903.57 8.45 5.09 22.09 LandPlanning Use/Cover Area Distribution for the Smaller Urban

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 16,903.57 8.45 5.09 22.09

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - Conwago Headwaters

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 442.0 Available Acres 442.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 442.0 Available Acres 442.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 162.4 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 90,772.5 98.2 65.2

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 441.98 Available Acres 434 Stream feet buffered 1,695.00 Stream feet buffered 11,915.47 Buffer acres created 3.89 Buffer acres created 27.35 Acres Treated 7.78 15.56 7.78 Acres Treated 54.71 109.42 54.71 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 15,068.1 77.37 12.76 Lbs/Yr Reduced 105,925.7 543.89 89.71

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 6,594.49 Available Stream Feet 6,594.49 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 12.2 0.01 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 12.2 0.01 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 385.19 Available Acres 385.19 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 0.00 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 441.98 Available Acres 441.98 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 6594.49 Available Stream Feet 6594.49 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 4109.02 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 12.2 0.01 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 12.2 0.01 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 50223.52 32.02 10.13

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 441.98 Available Acres 441.98 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 56.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 16728.76 21.22 10.24

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 6594.49 Available Stream Feet 3206.49 Stream Feet Fenced 3388.00 Stream Feet Fenced 5824.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 8639.40 67.76 11.86 Lbs/Yr Reduced 14851.20 116.48 20.38

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 441.98 Available Acres 441.98 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 88.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 193.89 71.02

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 1867.58 12.83

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 2061.47 83.85

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 23922.05 6274.11 Total Available Animal Load 23922.05 6274.11 Poultry Fraction 0.25368 0.31568 Poultry Fraction 0.25368 0.31568 Livestock Fraction 0.74632 0.68432 Livestock Fraction 0.74632 0.68432 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 441.98 Available Acres 441.98 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dirt & Gravel Road Repair Dirt & Gravel Road Repair Available Road Length*** 0.00 Available Road Length 0.00 Feet of Road Length Repaired 0.00 Feet of Road Length Repaired 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction Coefficient 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 23707.54 145.13 24.62 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 278501.71 2873.31 279.53 Percent of Original Load 1.32 0.16 0.30 Percent of Original Load 15.54 3.15 3.46 Conewago Headwaters Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 1,792,734 91,155 8,073

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 16,904 22 5

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs 23,708 145 25

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 278,502 2,873 280

Total Loads Removed 319,113 3,041 309 New Reduced Load 1,473,621 88,115 7,764 Percent Reduction 17.8% 3.3% 3.8%

Total Baseline Load (1) 1,769,026 91,010 8,049 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 295,405 2,895 285 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 16.7% 3.2% 3.5%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for Conewago Creek A Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area. If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name.

Project_name BMP_name BMP_type Existing? YearInstalled drainageLandCoverClass drainageArea_ac treatmentDepth_in lengthTreatedStream_ft lengthTreatedRoad_ft2 Bioswale RR Proposed Md_Mixed 9.97 1.00 Rain garden RR Proposed Md_Mixed 0.33 1.00 Riparian buffer RR Proposed Md_Mixed 3.12 1.00

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 35629.9 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

Note: The use of the "Stream Restoration" BMP type in this tab is only for streams associated with developed land areas. Total - Stream Restoration activities in agricultural areas should be addressed separately in the "Agricultural BMPs" tab. Impervious Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in/imp. Treatment Depth Effective Treatment Impervious (%) TSS Load TP Load TN Load TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction TSS Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction ac) (in/imp. ac) Manual Depth (in/imp. ac) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Override - use if no impervious area impervArea_ac treatmentDepthNormalized_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedManual_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedEffective_inPerImpervAcimpervFraction_percentTSS_Load_lbPerYTP_Load_lbPerYTN_Load_lbPerYTSS_ReductionEfficiency_percentTP_ReductionEfficiency_percentTN_ReductionEfficiency_percentTSS_Reduction_lbPerY TSS_Reduction_tonPerYTP_Reduction_lbPerYTN_Reduction_lbPerY 5.18 1.92 1.92 52.0% 4,179.89 1.89 13.56 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 3,500.58 1.75 1.48 9.05 0.17 1.92 1.92 52.0% 138.35 0.06 0.45 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 115.87 0.06 0.05 0.30 1.62 1.92 1.92 52.0% 1,308.05 0.59 4.24 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 1,095.47 0.55 0.46 2.83 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 4,711.91 2.36 1.99 12.18 Land Urban Use/Cover Planning Distribution Area for the Smaller

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 4,711.91 2.36 1.99 12.18

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - Conewago Creek A

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 925.9 Available Acres 925.9 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 925.9 Available Acres 925.9 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 106.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 61,045.7 69.8 41.9

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 925.93 Available Acres 883 Stream feet buffered 9,255.91 Stream feet buffered 26,258.93 Buffer acres created 21.25 Buffer acres created 60.28

Acres Treated 42.50 84.99 42.50 Acres Treated 427.56 855.13 427.56 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 84,801.8 459.39 68.58 Lbs/Yr Reduced 558,915.9 3,375.15 415.25

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 5,183.73 Available Stream Feet 5,183.73 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.9 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.9 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 530.86 Available Acres 497.36 Acres Treated 33.50 Acres Treated 28.20 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 2001.71 11.81 3.42 Lbs/Yr Reduced 1685.02 9.94 2.88

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 925.93 Available Acres 925.93 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 5183.73 Available Stream Feet 4503.73 Stream Feet Stabilized 680.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 2102.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.9 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.9 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 3982.59 2.79 0.77 Lbs/Yr Reduced 12310.88 8.63 2.38

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 925.93 Available Acres 925.93 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 6.60 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 2027.75 2.72 1.19

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 5183.73 Available Stream Feet 5183.73 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 925.93 Available Acres 925.93 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 185.19 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 441.99 146.44

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 1593.85 9.25

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 2035.84 155.69

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 16094.96 4119.38 Total Available Animal Load 16094.96 4119.38 Poultry Fraction 0.22015 0.28230 Poultry Fraction 0.22015 0.28230 Livestock Fraction 0.77985 0.71770 Livestock Fraction 0.77985 0.71770 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 925.93 Available Acres 925.93 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 188.96 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 61,683.6 108.9 34.0

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 90786.12 473.99 72.77 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 697668.85 5610.90 653.25 Percent of Original Load 4.25 0.61 1.12 Percent of Original Load 32.67 7.18 10.05 Conewagao Creek A Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 2,135,486 78,164 6,503

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 4,712 12 2

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs 90,786 474 73

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 697,669 5,611 653

Total Loads Removed 793,167 6,097 728 New Reduced Load 1,342,319 72,067 5,775 Percent Reduction 37.1% 7.8% 11.2%

Total Baseline Load (1) 2,044,699 77,690 6,430 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 702,381 5,623 655 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 34.4% 7.2% 10.2%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for Little Conewago Creek Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area.

If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name. If runoff from a land use/cover type with NO impervious cover (e.g., Cropland) is treated by a BMP system (either existing or proposed), use the Manual Override (column M) to type in the treatment depth (in/imp. ac). The examples below show various options for characterizing different types of project areas. Notice that one example demonstrates when a drainage area covers two land uses (see row 13 and 14).

Project_name BMP_name BMP_type Existing? YearInstalled drainageLandCoverClass drainageArea_ac treatmentDepth_in lengthTreatedStream_ft lengthTreatedRoad_ft2 Riparain buffer RR Proposed Md_Mixed 6.21 1.00 Wetland restoration ST Proposed Md_Mixed 0.27 1.00 Rain garden RR Proposed Md_Mixed 0.02 1.00 Bioswale RR Proposed Md_Mixed 34.83 1.00

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 26443.6 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

Note: The use of the "Stream Restoration" BMP type in this tab is only for streams associated with developed land areas. Total - Stream Restoration activities in agricultural areas should be addressed separately in the "Agricultural BMPs" tab. Impervious Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in/imp. Treatment Depth Effective Treatment Impervious (%) TSS Load TP Load TN Load TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction TSS Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction ac) (in/imp. ac) Manual Depth (in/imp. ac) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Override - use if no impervious area impervArea_ac treatmentDepthNormalized_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedManual_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedEffective_inPerImpervAcimpervFraction_percentTSS_Load_lbPerYTP_Load_lbPerYTN_Load_lbPerYTSS_ReductionEfficiency_percentTP_ReductionEfficiency_percentTN_ReductionEfficiency_percentTSS_Reduction_lbPerY TSS_Reduction_tonPerYTP_Reduction_lbPerYTN_Reduction_lbPerY 3.23 1.92 1.92 52.0% 4,068.42 1.30 6.83 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 3,407.22 1.70 1.02 4.56 0.14 1.92 1.92 52.0% 176.89 0.06 0.30 78.0% 61.3% 39.0% 138.00 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.01 1.92 1.92 52.0% 13.10 0.00 0.02 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 10.97 0.01 0.00 0.01 18.11 1.92 1.92 52.0% 22,818.50 7.31 38.31 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 19,110.05 9.56 5.71 25.57 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 22,666.25 11.33 6.76 30.26 Land Planning Use/Cover Area Distribution for the Smaller Urban

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 22,666.25 11.33 6.76 30.26

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - Little Conewago Creek

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 1,145.7 Available Acres 1145.7 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 1,145.7 Available Acres 1145.7 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 263.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 150,366.0 159.5 104.0

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 1,145.68 Available Acres 1,098 Stream feet buffered 10,332.80 Stream feet buffered 20,175.66 Buffer acres created 23.72 Buffer acres created 46.32 Acres Treated 47.44 94.88 47.44 Acres Treated 415.39 830.79 415.39 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 93,944.2 472.15 76.59 Lbs/Yr Reduced 515,542.5 2,927.98 381.68

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 12,696.85 Available Stream Feet 12,696.85 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 6.4 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 6.4 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 555.56 Available Acres 555.56 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 0.00 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 1145.68 Available Acres 1145.68 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 12696.85 Available Stream Feet 12696.85 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 18331.64 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 6.4 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 6.4 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 117384.61 73.32 22.72

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 1145.68 Available Acres 1145.68 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 34.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 10365.86 12.89 6.11

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 12696.85 Available Stream Feet 12696.85 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 1145.68 Available Acres 1145.68 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 229.14 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 503.67 181.27

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 1790.65 10.08

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 2294.32 191.35

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 13551.93 3550.93 Total Available Animal Load 13551.93 3550.93 Poultry Fraction 0.25393 0.31593 Poultry Fraction 0.25393 0.31593 Livestock Fraction 0.74607 0.68407 Livestock Fraction 0.74607 0.68407 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 1145.68 Available Acres 1145.68 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 93944.21 472.15 76.59 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 793658.98 5468.02 705.91 Percent of Original Load 3.68 0.57 1.20 Percent of Original Load 31.08 6.59 11.08 Litte Conewago Creek Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 2,553,402 82,950 6,372

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 22,666 30 7

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs 93,944 472 77

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 793,659 5,468 706

Total Loads Removed 910,269 5,970 789 New Reduced Load 1,643,132 76,980 5,583 Percent Reduction 35.6% 7.2% 12.4%

Total Baseline Load (1) 2,459,458 82,478 6,295 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 816,325 5,498 713 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 33.2% 6.7% 11.3%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for Hoffer Creek Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table

Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name.

Project_name BMP_name BMP_type Existing? YearInstalled drainageLandCoverClass drainageArea_ac treatmentDepth_in lengthTreatedStream_ft lengthTreatedRoad_ft2 Rain garden RR Proposed Md_Mixed 0.13 1.00 Riparian buffer RR Proposed Md_Mixed 1.2 1.00 Bioswale RR Proposed Md_Mixed 308.15 1.00

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 19094.5 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

Note: The use of the "Stream Restoration" BMP type in this tab is only for streams associated with developed land areas. Total - Stream Restoration activities in agricultural areas should be addressed separately in the "Agricultural BMPs" tab. Impervious Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in/imp. Treatment Depth Effective Treatment Impervious (%) TSS Load TP Load TN Load TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction TSS Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction ac) (in/imp. ac) Manual Depth (in/imp. ac) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Override - use if no impervious area impervArea_ac treatmentDepthNormalized_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedManual_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedEffective_inPerImpervAcimpervFraction_percentTSS_Load_lbPerYTP_Load_lbPerYTN_Load_lbPerYTSS_ReductionEfficiency_percentTP_ReductionEfficiency_percentTN_ReductionEfficiency_percentTSS_Reduction_lbPerY TSS_Reduction_tonPerYTP_Reduction_lbPerYTN_Reduction_lbPerY 0.07 1.92 1.92 52.0% 60.01 0.03 0.18 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 50.26 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.62 1.92 1.92 52.0% 553.98 0.24 1.62 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 463.95 0.23 0.19 1.08 160.24 1.92 1.92 52.0% 142,257.27 61.63 416.00 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 119,137.70 59.57 48.08 277.62 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 119,651.91 59.83 48.29 278.82 LandPlanning Use/Cover Area Distribution for the Smaller Urban

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 119,651.91 59.83 48.29 278.82

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - Hoffer Creek

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 1,118.5 Available Acres 1118.5 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 1,118.5 Available Acres 1118.5 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 39.8 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 27,223.9 23.4 16.5

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 1,118.52 Available Acres 1,119 Stream feet buffered 0.00 Stream feet buffered 41,090.91 Buffer acres created 0.00 Buffer acres created 94.33 Acres Treated 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres Treated 553.24 1,106.49 553.24 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 896,027.9 4,023.88 594.98

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 19,619.42 Available Stream Feet 19,619.42 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.9 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.9 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 1241.98 Available Acres 1241.98 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 39.60 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 4833.35 15.07 4.52

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 1118.52 Available Acres 1118.52 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 19619.42 Available Stream Feet 19619.42 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 19512.10 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.9 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.9 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 115973.51 72.24 22.23

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 1118.52 Available Acres 1118.52 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 180.55 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 65866.33 66.42 34.07

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 19619.42 Available Stream Feet 19619.42 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 9811.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 25018.05 196.22 34.34

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 1118.52 Available Acres 1118.52 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 223.70 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 477.31 185.72

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 1030.99 7.07

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 1508.30 192.79

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 4846.59 1263.47 Total Available Animal Load 4846.59 1263.47 Poultry Fraction 0.28769 0.36047 Poultry Fraction 0.28769 0.36047 Livestock Fraction 0.71231 0.63953 Livestock Fraction 0.71231 0.63953 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 1118.52 Available Acres 1118.52 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 24.90 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 9,651.5 12.8 4.7

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 1144594.57 5918.37 904.14 Percent of Original Load 0.00 0.00 0.00 Percent of Original Load 34.75 11.96 21.22 Hoffer Creek Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 3,293,374 49,475 4,261

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 119,652 279 48

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 1,144,595 5,918 904

Total Loads Removed 1,264,246 6,197 952 New Reduced Load 2,029,128 43,278 3,309 Percent Reduction 38.4% 12.5% 22.4%

Total Baseline Load (1) 3,293,374 49,475 4,261 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 1,264,246 6,197 952 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 38.4% 12.5% 22.4%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for Gallagher Run Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area. If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name.

Project_name BMP_name BMP_type Existing? YearInstalled drainageLandCoverClass drainageArea_ac treatmentDepth_in lengthTreatedStream_ft lengthTreatedRoad_ft2

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 6069.6 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - - LandPlanning Use/Cover Area Distribution for the Smaller Urban

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - Gallagher Run

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 367.9 Available Acres 367.9 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 367.9 Available Acres 367.9 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 367.90 Available Acres 368 Stream feet buffered 0.00 Stream feet buffered 19,417.50 Buffer acres created 0.00 Buffer acres created 44.58 Acres Treated 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres Treated 114.75 229.51 114.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 312,092.4 1,241.97 211.32

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 7,250.66 Available Stream Feet 7,250.66 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.2 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.2 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 338.27 Available Acres 338.27 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 0.00 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 367.90 Available Acres 367.90 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 7250.66 Available Stream Feet 7250.66 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.2 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.2 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 367.90 Available Acres 367.90 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 177.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 83036.08 79.50 41.41

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 7250.66 Available Stream Feet 7250.66 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 8000.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 20400.00 160.00 28.00

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 367.90 Available Acres 367.90 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 73.58 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 191.58 75.70

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 261.52 2.02

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 453.10 77.72

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 1053.99 271.44 Total Available Animal Load 1053.99 271.44 Poultry Fraction 0.31316 0.39813 Poultry Fraction 0.31316 0.39813 Livestock Fraction 0.68684 0.60187 Livestock Fraction 0.68684 0.60187 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 367.90 Available Acres 367.90 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 415528.50 1934.57 358.45 Percent of Original Load 0.00 0.00 0.00 Percent of Original Load 31.16 14.02 25.36 Gallagher Run Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 1,333,739 13,798 1,414

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 415,528 1,935 358

Total Loads Removed 415,528 1,935 358 New Reduced Load 918,211 11,863 1,055 Percent Reduction 31.2% 14.0% 25.4%

Total Baseline Load (1) 1,333,739 13,798 1,414 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 415,528 1,935 358 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 31.2% 14.0% 25.4%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for Brills Run Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table

INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area. If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name.

The examples below show various options for characterizing different types of project areas. Notice that one example demonstrates when a drainage area covers two land uses (see row 13 and 14).

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 11187.7 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 6,043.97 3.02 3.01 18.94 LandPlanning Use/Cover Area Distribution for the Smaller Urban

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 6,043.97 3.02 3.01 18.94

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - Brills Run

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 533.3 Available Acres 533.3 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 533.3 Available Acres 533.3 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 127.6 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 91,208.2 77.8 53.4

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 533.33 Available Acres 519 Stream feet buffered 3,030.00 Stream feet buffered 20,991.74 Buffer acres created 6.96 Buffer acres created 48.19 Acres Treated 13.91 27.82 13.91 Acres Treated 96.38 192.76 96.38 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 34,442.6 139.46 23.79 Lbs/Yr Reduced 238,617.1 966.18 164.79

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 6,528.87 Available Stream Feet 6,528.87 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 6.7 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 6.7 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 432.10 Available Acres 432.10 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 15.50 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 2202.45 6.67 1.94

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 533.33 Available Acres 533.33 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 6528.87 Available Stream Feet 6528.87 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 6.7 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 6.7 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 533.33 Available Acres 533.33 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 48.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 18293.10 18.28 9.13

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 6528.87 Available Stream Feet 6528.87 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 1879.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 4791.45 37.58 6.58

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 533.33 Available Acres 533.33 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 106.67 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 235.57 89.28

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 495.27 3.92

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 730.85 93.20

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 2454.83 628.20 Total Available Animal Load 2454.83 628.20 Poultry Fraction 0.27815 0.35658 Poultry Fraction 0.27815 0.35658 Livestock Fraction 0.72185 0.64342 Livestock Fraction 0.72185 0.64342 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 533.33 Available Acres 533.33 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 34442.59 139.46 23.79 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 355112.38 1837.32 329.05 Percent of Original Load 2.15 0.58 1.16 Percent of Original Load 22.17 7.67 16.01 Brills Run Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 1,601,532 23,952 2,055

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 6,044 19 3

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs 34,443 139 24

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 355,112 1,837 329

Total Loads Removed 395,599 1,996 356 New Reduced Load 1,205,933 21,956 1,699 Percent Reduction 24.7% 8.3% 17.3%

Total Baseline Load (1) 1,567,089 23,813 2,031 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 361,156 1,856 332 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 23.0% 7.8% 16.3%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for Lynch Run Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area. If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name. If runoff from a land use/cover type with NO impervious cover (e.g., Cropland) is treated by a BMP system (either existing or proposed), use the Manual Override (column M) to type in the treatment depth (in/imp. ac). The examples below show various options for characterizing different types of project areas. Notice that one example demonstrates when a drainage area covers two land uses (see row 13 and 14).

Project_name BMP_name BMP_type Existing? YearInstalled drainageLandCoverClass drainageArea_ac treatmentDepth_in lengthTreatedStream_ft lengthTreatedRoad_ft2 Retention basins ST Proposed Md_Mixed 13.8 1.00 Bioswale RR Proposed Md_Mixed 19.9 1.00 Rain garden RR Proposed Hd_Mixed 15.3 1.00 Permeable pavement RR Proposed Md_Mixed 1.2 1.00 Riparian buffer RR Proposed Md_Mixed 2.72 1.00 Riparian buffer RR Proposed Md_Mixed 0.74 1.00 Riparian buffer RR Proposed Open_Land 8.57 1.00 Stream restorations Stream Restoration Proposed 2150

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 19685.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

Note: The use of the "Stream Restoration" BMP type in this tab is only for streams associated with developed land areas. Total - Stream Restoration activities in agricultural areas should be addressed separately in the "Agricultural BMPs" tab. Impervious Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in/imp. Treatment Depth Effective Treatment Impervious (%) TSS Load TP Load (lbs/yr) TN Load TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction TSS Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction ac) (in/imp. ac) Manual Depth (in/imp. ac) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Override - use if no impervious area impervArea_ac treatmentDepthNormalized_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedManual_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedEffective_inPerImpervAcimpervFraction_percentTSS_Load_lbPerYTP_Load_lbPerY TN_Load_lbPerYTSS_ReductionEfficiency_percentTP_ReductionEfficiency_percentTN_ReductionEfficiency_percentTSS_Reduction_lbPerY TSS_Reduction_tonPerYTP_Reduction_lbPerYTN_Reduction_lbPerY 7.18 1.92 1.92 52.0% 4,837.24 2.48 19.32 78.0% 61.3% 39.0% 3,773.78 1.89 1.52 7.53 10.35 1.92 1.92 52.0% 6,975.43 3.58 27.86 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 5,841.79 2.92 2.79 18.59 13.31 1.15 1.15 87.0% 7,637.12 3.21 23.10 77.6% 72.4% 61.9% 5,924.30 2.96 2.33 14.29 0.62 1.92 1.92 52.0% 420.63 0.22 1.68 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 352.27 0.18 0.17 1.12 1.41 1.92 1.92 52.0% 953.43 0.49 3.81 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 798.48 0.40 0.38 2.54 0.38 1.92 1.92 52.0% 259.39 0.13 1.04 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 217.23 0.11 0.10 0.69 0.00 #N/A 1.00 1.00 0.0% 1,051.37 0.51 8.23 74.9% 69.9% 59.8% 787.58 0.39 0.36 4.92 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 247,250.00 123.63 374.10 412.80 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 264,945.43 132.47 381.76 462.49 LandPlanning Use/Cover Area Distribution for the Smaller Urban

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 264,945.43 132.47 381.76 462.49

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - Lynch Run

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 563.0 Available Acres 563.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 563.0 Available Acres 563.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 69.1 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 50,659.8 42.7 29.2

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 562.96 Available Acres 563 Stream feet buffered 0.00 Stream feet buffered 36,916.76 Buffer acres created 0.00 Buffer acres created 84.75 Acres Treated 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres Treated 305.36 610.72 305.36 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 609,699.4 2,584.17 396.41

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 8,595.80 Available Stream Feet 8,595.80 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 9.2 0.01 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 9.2 0.01 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 780.25 Available Acres 780.25 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 3.53 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 524.00 1.57 0.45

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 562.96 Available Acres 562.96 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 8595.80 Available Stream Feet 7945.80 Stream Feet Stabilized 650.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 16520.32 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 9.2 0.01 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 9.2 0.01 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 5973.20 3.70 1.06 Lbs/Yr Reduced 151814.14 94.03 27.05

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 562.96 Available Acres 562.96 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 258.83 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 101175.05 100.01 49.64

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 8595.80 Available Stream Feet 8595.80 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 562.96 Available Acres 562.96 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 112.59 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 252.33 95.02

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 518.46 4.03

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 770.78 99.05

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 1702.26 443.43 Total Available Animal Load 1702.26 443.43 Poultry Fraction 0.35311 0.44342 Poultry Fraction 0.35311 0.44342 Livestock Fraction 0.64689 0.55658 Livestock Fraction 0.64689 0.55658 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 562.96 Available Acres 562.96 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 61.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 25,334.8 33.0 11.7

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 5973.20 3.70 1.06 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 939207.23 3626.29 613.47 Percent of Original Load 0.29 0.01 0.05 Percent of Original Load 46.17 14.37 28.77 Lynch Run Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 2,034,108 25,238 2,132

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 264,945 462 382

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs 5,973 4 1

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 939,207 3,626 613

Total Loads Removed 1,210,126 4,092 996 New Reduced Load 823,982 21,146 1,136 Percent Reduction 59.5% 16.2% 46.7%

Total Baseline Load (1) 2,028,135 25,235 2,131 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 1,204,153 4,089 995 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 59.4% 16.2% 46.7%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for Conewago Creek B Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area. If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name.

Project_name BMP_name BMP_type Existing? YearInstalled drainageLandCoverClass drainageArea_ac treatmentDepth_in lengthTreatedStream_ft lengthTreatedRoad_ft2 Hershey Meadows Wetland restoration ST Existing Wetland 13 1.00 Pervious pavers RR Existing Md_Mixed 0.9 1.00 Bioswale RR Existing Md_Mixed 17.2 1.00 Retention basins ST Existing Md_Mixed 11.85 1.00 Pervious pavement RR Proposed Md_Mixed 131 1.00 Constructed wetland ST Proposed Wetland 5.2 1.00 Retention basins ST Proposed Md_Mixed 163.39 1.00 Bioswale RR Proposed Hd_Mixed 213.07 1.00 Rain garden RR Proposed Md_Mixed 23.42 1.00 Riparian buffer RR Proposed Hd_Mixed 255 1.00 Stream restoration Stream Restoration Proposed 560

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 108070.9 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

Note: The use of the "Stream Restoration" BMP type in this tab is only for streams associated with developed land areas. Total - Stream Restoration activities in agricultural areas should be addressed separately in the "Agricultural BMPs" tab. Impervious Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in/imp. Treatment Depth Effective Treatment Impervious (%) TSS Load TP Load TN Load TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction TSS Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction ac) (in/imp. ac) Manual Depth (in/imp. ac) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Override - use if no impervious area impervArea_ac treatmentDepthNormalized_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedManual_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedEffective_inPerImpervAcimpervFraction_percentTSS_Load_lbPerYTP_Load_lbPerYTN_Load_lbPerYTSS_ReductionEfficiency_percentTP_ReductionEfficiency_percentTN_ReductionEfficiency_percentTSS_Reduction_lbPerY TSS_Reduction_tonPerYTP_Reduction_lbPerYTN_Reduction_lbPerY 0.00 #N/A 1.00 1.00 0.0% 1,713.94 0.39 3.90 69.9% 54.9% 35.0% 1,198.05 0.60 0.21 1.36 0.47 1.92 1.92 52.0% 542.65 0.21 1.43 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 454.46 0.23 0.16 0.95 8.94 1.92 1.92 52.0% 10,370.66 3.96 27.35 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 8,685.22 4.34 3.09 18.25 6.16 1.92 1.92 52.0% 7,144.90 2.73 18.84 78.0% 61.3% 39.0% 5,574.11 2.79 1.67 7.35 68.12 1.92 1.92 52.0% 78,985.83 30.13 208.29 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 66,149.09 33.07 23.51 139.00 0.00 #N/A 1.00 1.00 0.0% 685.58 0.16 1.56 69.9% 54.9% 35.0% 479.22 0.24 0.09 0.55 84.96 1.92 1.92 52.0% 98,515.22 37.58 259.79 78.0% 61.3% 39.0% 76,856.79 38.43 23.04 101.29 185.37 1.15 1.15 87.0% 188,246.52 59.66 368.61 77.6% 72.4% 61.9% 146,027.41 73.01 43.18 228.03 12.18 1.92 1.92 52.0% 14,120.98 5.39 37.24 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 11,826.04 5.91 4.20 24.85 221.85 1.15 1.15 87.0% 225,291.51 71.40 441.15 77.6% 72.4% 61.9% 174,764.12 87.38 51.68 272.90 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 64,400.00 32.20 97.44 107.52 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 556,414.52 278.21 248.26 902.05 LandPlanning Use/Cover Area Distribution for the Smaller Urban

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED 15,911.84 7.96 5.13 27.91

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 540,502.68 270.25 243.13 874.14

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - Conewago Creek B

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 1,059.3 Available Acres 1059.3 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 1,059.3 Available Acres 1059.3 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 67.8 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 42,113.9 37.5 25.7

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 1,059.26 Available Acres 1,028 Stream feet buffered 6,792.00 Stream feet buffered 34,215.90 Buffer acres created 15.59 Buffer acres created 78.55 Acres Treated 31.18 62.37 31.18 Acres Treated 381.10 762.20 381.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 67,107.0 283.31 48.17 Lbs/Yr Reduced 588,510.5 2,697.32 396.73

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 6,856.96 Available Stream Feet 6,856.96 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 9.2 0.01 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 9.2 0.01 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 580.25 Available Acres 580.25 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 10.10 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 631.22 3.46 1.02

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 1059.26 Available Acres 1059.26 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization

Available Stream Feet 6856.96 Available Stream Feet 3314.96 Stream Feet Stabilized 3542.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 7713.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 9.2 0.01 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 9.2 0.01 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 32484.57 20.45 6.05 Lbs/Yr Reduced 70737.86 44.54 13.17

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 1059.26 Available Acres 1059.06 Acres Treated 0.20 Acres Treated 199.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 66.26 0.07 0.03 Lbs/Yr Reduced 66057.14 68.94 34.29

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 6856.96 Available Stream Feet 6856.96 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 1800.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 4590.00 36.00 6.30

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 1059.26 Available Acres 1059.26 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 211.85 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 424.83 160.30

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 2122.27 13.13

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 2547.10 173.43

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 27100.77 6803.09 Total Available Animal Load 26698.67 6709.80 Poultry Fraction 0.19253 0.25372 Poultry Fraction 0.19253 0.25372 Livestock Fraction 0.80747 0.74628 Livestock Fraction 0.80747 0.74628 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00

Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 2.45 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 2.45 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 402.10 93.29 Lbs/Yr Reduced 396.13 92.01

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 1059.26 Available Acres 1059.26 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 99657.78 705.93 147.54 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 772640.62 5831.00 742.60 Percent of Original Load 2.93 0.65 1.51 Percent of Original Load 22.73 5.41 7.62 Conewago Creek B Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 3,398,817 107,784 9,749

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs 15,912 28 5

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 540,503 874 243

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs 99,658 706 148

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 772,641 5,831 743

Total Loads Removed 1,428,713 7,439 1,138 New Reduced Load 1,970,104 100,345 8,611 Percent Reduction 42.0% 6.9% 11.7%

Total Baseline Load (1) 3,283,247 107,050 9,597 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 1,313,143 6,705 986 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 40.0% 6.3% 10.3%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for 1st Tributary North Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area. If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name.

Project_name BMP_name BMP_type Existing? YearInstalled drainageLandCoverClass drainageArea_ac treatmentDepth_in lengthTreatedStream_ft lengthTreatedRoad_ft2 Pervious pavement RR Proposed Md_Mixed 0.67 1.00 Bioswale retrofit RR Proposed Md_Mixed 3.17 1.00 Riparian buffer RR Proposed Md_Mixed 1.94 1.00 Rain gardens RR Existing Md_Mixed 1.16 1.00 Constructed wetland ST Proposed Cropland 1.26 1.00 Rain gardens ST Proposed Md_Mixed 0.25 1.00

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 10006.6 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

Note: The use of the "Stream Restoration" BMP type in this tab is only for streams associated with developed land areas. Total - Stream Restoration activities in agricultural areas should be addressed separately in the "Agricultural BMPs" tab. Impervious Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in/imp. Treatment Depth Effective Treatment Impervious (%) TSS Load TP Load TN Load TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction TSS Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction ac) (in/imp. ac) Manual Depth (in/imp. ac) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Override - use if no impervious area impervArea_ac treatmentDepthNormalized_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedManual_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedEffective_inPerImpervAcimpervFraction_percentTSS_Load_lbPerYTP_Load_lbPerYTN_Load_lbPerYTSS_ReductionEfficiency_percentTP_ReductionEfficiency_percentTN_ReductionEfficiency_percentTSS_Reduction_lbPerY TSS_Reduction_tonPerYTP_Reduction_lbPerYTN_Reduction_lbPerY 0.35 1.92 1.92 52.0% 160.02 0.11 0.90 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 134.01 0.07 0.09 0.60 1.65 1.92 1.00 1.00 52.0% 757.11 0.54 4.25 74.9% 69.9% 59.8% 567.15 0.28 0.38 2.54 1.01 1.92 1.92 52.0% 463.34 0.33 2.60 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 388.04 0.19 0.26 1.73 0.60 1.92 1.92 52.0% 277.05 0.20 1.55 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 232.02 0.12 0.15 1.04 0.00 #N/A 1.00 1.00 0.0% 3,282.07 3.07 12.21 69.9% 54.9% 35.0% 2,294.17 1.15 1.69 4.27 0.13 1.92 1.92 52.0% 59.71 0.04 0.34 78.0% 61.3% 39.0% 46.58 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 3,661.98 1.83 2.59 10.31 Land Urban Use/Cover Planning Distribution Area for the Smaller

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED 232.02 0.12 0.15 1.04

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 3,429.96 1.71 2.44 9.27

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - 1st Tributary North

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 454.3 Available Acres 454.3 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 454.3 Available Acres 454.3 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 454.32 Available Acres 454 Stream feet buffered 0.00 Stream feet buffered 18,961.95 Buffer acres created 0.00 Buffer acres created 43.53 Acres Treated 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres Treated 87.06 174.12 87.06 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 233,118.8 922.25 157.35

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 4,461.94 Available Stream Feet 4,461.94 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.6 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.6 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 372.84 Available Acres 372.84 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 75.00 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 12907.69 37.68 10.86

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 454.32 Available Acres 454.32 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 4461.94 Available Stream Feet 4461.94 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 3296.71 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.6 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 5.6 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 18589.99 11.56 3.52

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 454.32 Available Acres 454.32 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 64.15 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 26440.79 25.87 12.91

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 4461.94 Available Stream Feet 4461.94 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 6454.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 16457.70 129.08 22.59

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 454.32 Available Acres 454.32 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 90.86 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 212.53 80.45

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 163.16 2.28

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 375.69 82.73

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 1324.10 345.08 Total Available Animal Load 1324.10 345.08 Poultry Fraction 0.35648 0.44735 Poultry Fraction 0.35648 0.44735 Livestock Fraction 0.64352 0.55265 Livestock Fraction 0.64352 0.55265 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100)

Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 20.16 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 128.84 28.84

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 454.32 Available Acres 454.32 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 307515.00 1630.97 318.78 Percent of Original Load 0.00 0.00 0.00 Percent of Original Load 20.90 14.43 20.14 1st Tributary North Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 1,471,388 11,305 1,583

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs 232 1 0

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 3,430 9 2

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 307,515 1,631 319

Total Loads Removed 311,177 1,641 321 New Reduced Load 1,160,211 9,664 1,261 Percent Reduction 21.1% 14.5% 20.3%

Total Baseline Load (1) 1,471,156 11,304 1,582 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 310,945 1,640 321 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 21.1% 14.5% 20.3%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for 1st Tributary South Urban BMP Load Reduction Calculation Table INSTRUCTIONS: Each row in the table below can represent either different areas of land use/cover within a single planning area (e.g., municipality), or different BMP drainage areas within a given planning area. If an individual planning area has multiple "developed land" types, each type can be represented in separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". If it is assumed that the planning area is being reated by one BMP system, then the "Treatment Depth" should be the same for each row. Similarly, a given planning area can have multiple "BMP drainage areas" (i.e., areas treated by different BMP systems). If a BMP drainage area has multiple "developed land" types, separate "land use areas" can be represented on separate rows, with each row having the same "Project Name". Also, the treatment depth should be the same for any row associated with the same Project Name.

SOURCE AREA (acres) Cells requiring user input for all BMPs Hay/Pasture - Cells requiring user input for BMP efficiencies calculated using Performance Standard approach Cropland - Cells requiring user input for non-Performance Standard BMPs (e.g., streambank stabilization and street sweeping) Wooded Areas - Cell values calculated based on user input Wetlands - Optional user input for treatment depth in non-developed areas (e.g., cropland) Open Land - Optional user input Barren Areas - Low-Density Mixed - 5807.1 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the entire watershed (from MMW Output tab) Medium-Density Mixed - 0.0 Available stream length (ft) in Non-Ag Areas in the smaller target area (from MMW Output tab) High-Density Mixed -

Note: The use of the "Stream Restoration" BMP type in this tab is only for streams associated with developed land areas. Total - Stream Restoration activities in agricultural areas should be addressed separately in the "Agricultural BMPs" tab. Impervious Area (ac) Treatment Depth (in/imp. Treatment Depth Effective Treatment Impervious (%) TSS Load TP Load TN Load TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction TSS Reduction (lbs/yr) TSS Reduction TP Reduction TN Reduction ac) (in/imp. ac) Manual Depth (in/imp. ac) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (%) (%) (%) (tons/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) Override - use if no impervious area impervArea_ac treatmentDepthNormalized_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedManual_inPerImpervActreatmentDepthNormalizedEffective_inPerImpervAcimpervFraction_percentTSS_Load_lbPerYTP_Load_lbPerYTN_Load_lbPerYTSS_ReductionEfficiency_percentTP_ReductionEfficiency_percentTN_ReductionEfficiency_percentTSS_Reduction_lbPerY TSS_Reduction_tonPerYTP_Reduction_lbPerYTN_Reduction_lbPerY 21.94 1.92 1.92 52.0% 9,724.30 7.17 51.48 78.0% 61.3% 39.0% 7,586.42 3.79 4.40 20.07 0.03 1.92 1.92 52.0% 13.83 0.01 0.07 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 11.58 0.01 0.01 0.05 6.54 1.92 1.92 52.0% 2,896.55 2.14 15.34 83.7% 78.0% 66.7% 2,425.80 1.21 1.67 10.23 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 138,000.00 69.00 208.80 230.40 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 0.00 #N/A #N/A 0.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 148,023.81 74.01 214.87 260.76 LandPlanning Use/Cover Area Distribution for the Smaller Urban

Existing TOTAL LBS REDUCED - - - -

Proposed TOTAL LBS REDUCED 148,023.81 74.01 214.87 260.76

Project Name LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - LBS REDUCED - - - - 1st Tributary South

Existing BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Proposed BMPs Sediment Total N Total P Cover Crops Cover Crops

Available Acres 60.3 Available Acres 60.3 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 0.0 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Reduction Coefficient 0.35 0.29 0.50 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.0

Conservation Tillage Conservation Tillage

Available Acres 60.3 Available Acres 60.3 Acres Treated 0.0 Acres Treated 8.6 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Reduction Coefficient 0.30 0.08 0.22 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 6,171.8 5.2 3.7

Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers Available Acres 60.26 Available Acres 60 Stream feet buffered 0.00 Stream feet buffered 6,054.37 Buffer acres created 0.00 Buffer acres created 13.90 Acres Treated 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres Treated 27.80 55.60 27.80 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Reduction Coefficient 0.54 0.41 0.40 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 69,507.4 280.42 49.44

Floodplain Restoration Floodplain Restoration

Part 1: Streambank Load Part 1: Streambank Load Available Stream Feet 492.13 Available Stream Feet 492.13 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 4.9 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 4.9 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs Streambank Load Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Part 2: Upland Load Part 2: Upland Load Additional % Reduction 0.10 Additional % Reduction 0.10 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs upland load reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Floodplain Lbs Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grazing Land Management Grazing Land Management Available Acres 150.87 Available Acres 150.87 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 0.00 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30 Sed Reduction Coeff 0.30 0.30 0.30

Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cropland Retirement Cropland Retirement Available Acres 60.26 Available Acres 60.26 Acres Retired 0.00 Acres Retired 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Streambank Stabilization Streambank Stabilization Available Stream Feet 492.13 Available Stream Feet 492.13 Stream Feet Stabilized 0.00 Stream Feet Stabilized 2574.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 4.9 0.00 0.00 Pollutant Reduction (lb/ft) 4.9 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 12643.91 8.11 2.70

Ag E&S Ag E&S Available Acres 60.26 Available Acres 60.26 Acres Treated 0.00 Acres Treated 8.45 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.16 0.05 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 3253.12 3.24 1.67

Streambank Fencing Streambank Fencing Available Stream Feet 492.13 Available Stream Feet 492.13 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Stream Feet Fenced 0.00 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Reduction (lb/ft) 2.55 0.02 0.0035 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management Part 1: Surface Runoff Part 1: Surface Runoff Available Acres 60.26 Available Acres 60.26 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 12.05 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Reduction Coefficient 0.29 0.44 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 26.82 10.50

Part 2: Subsurface Flow Part 2: Subsurface Flow Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.15 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 331.80 1.89

Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 358.61 12.39

AWMS AWMS Total Available Animal Load 3828.98 959.84 Total Available Animal Load 3828.98 959.84 Poultry Fraction 0.18867 0.24911 Poultry Fraction 0.18867 0.24911 Livestock Fraction 0.81133 0.75089 Livestock Fraction 0.81133 0.75089 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Poultry Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Pct of Livestock Treated (0-100) 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Reduction Coefficient 0.75 0.75 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.00 0.00

Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Contour Farmimg/Strip Cropping Available Acres 60.26 Available Acres 60.26 Acres Implemented 0.00 Acres Implemented 0.00 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Reduction Coefficient 0.17 0.07 0.10 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lbs/Yr Reduced 0.0 0.0 0.0

TOTAL LBS REDUCED 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL LBS REDUCED 91576.21 655.63 69.92 Percent of Original Load 0.00 0.00 0.00 Percent of Original Load 44.47 4.22 5.75 1st Tributary South Entire Watershed Sediment (lbs/yr) TN (lbs/yr) TP (lbs/yr)

Initial MMW Loads 205,930 15,543 1,217

Loads Removed w/Existing Urban BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Urban BMPs 148,024 261 215

Loads Removed w/Existing Agricultural BMPs - - -

Loads Removed w/Proposed Agricultural BMPs 91,576 656 70

Total Loads Removed 239,600 916 285 New Reduced Load (33,670) 14,627 932 Percent Reduction 116.4% 5.9% 23.4%

Total Baseline Load (1) 205,930 15,543 1,217 Total Loads Removed from Baseline (2) 239,600 916 285 Percent Reduction from Baseline Load 116.4% 5.9% 23.4%

(1) After existing BMPs have been accounted for (2) After proposed BMPs have been accounted for

Appendix F. Conewago Creek Monitoring Plan

151

Conewago Creek Watershed Monitoring Plan

This briefing synthesizes discussions and input from across the Conewago Initiative partners and advisors (Chesapeake Bay Science and Technical Advisory Committee) on the development of a shared monitoring plan and approach for the Conewago Creek and its tributaries.

I. Monitoring Goals: A. BAY: Assess N, P, and sediment loads discharged by the Conewago basin with goal of identifying changes in pollutant concentration in response to practice implementation. B. LOCAL: Assess changes in habitat/aquatic life to evaluate stream reach health with goal of identifying response to practice implementation.

II. Monitoring Locations: A. Monitoring locations are based on existing/past monitoring conducted and are also selected to be representative of land practices across the watershed and best capture subwatershed information where new practices are anticipated and will be concentrated. 1. 11 Mainstem Sampling Locations 2. 7 Tributary Sampling Locations

Page | 1 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

III. Monitoring Categories: The following monitoring categories were identified by Conewago Initiative partners and are currently underway or are expected to be added. Category Frequency Parameters Who1 Baseflow water Bimonthly pH  DCCD2 quality (6X/Y) Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Temperature Total Nitrogen (TN) Nitrate (NO3) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (sometimes) Total Phosphorus (TP) Phosphate  USGS Monthly Total Phosphorus (TP) gauges Dissolved Phosphorus (DP) (stations P, Ortho (DIP) 3 and 11) Nitrate (NO3) Nitrate plus Nitrite (NO3+2) Ammonia (NH4) Total Nitrogen (TN) Dissolved Nitrogen (DN) pH Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Temperature Alkalinity Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Turbidity Chloride and Sulfate (for denitrification) Total Magnesium Total Calcium Total Organic Carbon

Basic Water Weekly Total Nitrogen (TN)  Penn Quality Total Phosphorous (TP) State Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Continuous Nitrate Continuous Nitrate (NO3)  Penn Stream Stage State Macroinvertebrate Triennial Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)  DCCD Assessment (1X/3Y) referenced in ICES2 (Instream  PA DEP Comprehensive Evaluation  Etown Surveys) protocol – Biological College Sampling Methods, p. 17

1 Based on entity currently monitoring and/or proposed entity(ies) 2 Dauphin County Conservation District (DCCD) 2ICE protocol: http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/Drinking%20Water%20and%20Facility%20Regulation/WaterQualityPort alFiles/ice2009.pdf Page | 2 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

Stream Habitat Triennial DEP’s Water Quality Network  DCCD Assessment (SHA) (1X/3Y) Habitat Assessment (ICE  PA DEP protocol), p. 23  Etown College

Stormflow water 2 storms per Total Phosphorus (TP)  USGS quality quarter (8X/Y), Dissolved Phosphorus (DP) gauges with 4-5 samples P, Ortho (DIP) (stations per storm Nitrate (NO3) 3 and 11) (NOTE: USGS Nitrate plus Nitrite (NO3+2) limited to Ammonia (NH4) submitting 10 Total Nitrogen (TN) samples per Dissolved Nitrogen (DN) year) pH Conductivity Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Temperature Alkalinity Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Turbidity Chloride and Sulfate (for denitrification) Total Magnesium Total Calcium Total Organic Carbon

Stream stage Continuous  USGS monitoring gauges (stations 3 and 11) Discharge Flow  DCCD measurements measurements taken during baseflow water quality monitoring (bimonthly 6X/Y)

Continuous  USGS monitoring using (stations transducers plus 3 and 11 frequent periodic visits to establish stable rating Lancaster Sondes Temperature  LancCCD pH Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Turbidity Fish Community Triennial  LancCCD Assessment (1X/3Y)  TCCCA  Penn

Page | 3 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

State  DCCD  SRBC

IV. Monitoring Stations The following table describes the stream stations and the monitoring categories to be conducted at each. The stations are listed chronologically – from upstream to downstream by subwatershed. The second column “number on map” corresponds with the station locations shown on the map. A summary of the sampling to be conducted is as follows:

 Six (6) stations have routine baseflow water quality sampling.  Four (4) stations have routine basic water quality sampling  Two (2) stations are recommended for intensive discharge measurements to establish stable rates, eight (8) others for bimonthly flow measurements, one one (1) other for biennial flow measurements.  Thirteen (12) stations are recommended for stream habitat assessment (SHA).  Twelve (12) stations have macroinvertebrate assessments.  Three (3) stations are recommended for fish assessment.  Two(2) stations are taking continuous______ Two (2) stations are recommended for stormflow water quality sampling.  Two (2) USGS gauging stations (at which baseflow and stormflow water quality sampling and intensive discharge measurements will be conducted).3 Link to real time data for USGS 01573710 (Site 11 on map): http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/uv?site_no=01573710 Link to real time data for USGS 01573695 (Site 3 on map): http://waterdata.usgs.gov/pa/nwis/uv?site_no=01573695  One (1) site is taking continuous nitrate readings

3 There have been discussions about the number of one or two additional USGS gauging stations to be situated in a subwatershed for intensive subwatershed monitoring. Financial resources are not available for these additional gauges at this time. If they do become available, integration of methodology for ungaged stream locations is recommended, Archfield, S.A., Vogel, R.M., Steeves, P.A., Brandt, S.L., Weiskel, P.K., and Garabedian, S.P., 2010, The Massachusetts Sustainable-Yield Estimator: A decision-support tool to assess water availability at ungaged stream locations in Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5227, 41 p. plus CD-ROM.

Page | 4 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

Conewago Monitoring Plan Sub Map Station ID or Who What Is currently Rationale Watershed ID location monitored description Conewago 1 Game Lands 145 TCCCA 3. Fish Assessment 1/3Y Single station to capture Conewago Creek 40.23912462178 Creek in headwaters upstream of 749, - major tributaries and prior to 76.51835030191 significant land use influences. PA 396 DEP (Dan Bogar) conducted sampling in spring 2010. 3 CNWG 13.59 DCCD 1. Macroinvertebrate Captures downstream influence of Wenger Farm DEP assessment 1/5Y Little Conewago tributary on USGS 01573695 2. SHA, 1/5Y mainstem. 40.19430472040 3. USGS Gauge Station 6386, - 76.57677585335 745 5 Hershey Meadows Etown 1. Baseflow water Monitoring underway with pre- 40.18839562962 TCCCA quality, 2X/Y and post instream restoration 982, - PFBC Macroinvertebrate conducted by TCCCA, USFWS, DEP 76.60851711483 assessment, 2X/Y (319 project) makes this mainstem 98 2. Fish assessment 1/3Y location an important site for inclusion in monitoring initiative. Added benefit is the visibility and accessibility of this site. Captures downstream influence of Hoffer Creek.. Fish assessment would monitor fish habitat improvements and track historic fish sampling. 7 CNWG 09.23 DCCD 1. Macroinvertebrate Existing DCCD site. Captures Aberdeen Mills assessment 1/5Y downstream influence of Hershey 40.178627, - 2. SHA, 1/5Y Meadows and other proposed 76.624167 3. Lancaster Sonde mainstem restoration projects. Two new sondes are being deployed to capture upstream and downstream restoration data. Conewago 1. Macroinvertebrate Two new sondes are being Restoration assessment pre + post deployed to capture upstream and

Page | 5 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

Project 001: project downstream restoration data. 40.166721, - 2. Basic Water Quality 76.641394 1X/W 3. Lancaster Sonde Conewago 1. Macroinvertebrate Restoration assessment pre + post Project 002: project 40.16806, - 2. Basic Water Quality 76.636694 1X/W Conewago 1. Basic Water Quality Restoration 1X/W Project 003: 40.173672, - 76.633547 Conewago 1. Basic Water Quality Restoration 1X/W Project 004: 40.17817, - 76.624702 10 CNWG 06.24 DCCD 1. Macroinvertebrate Captures downstream influence of assessment 1/5Y Lynch and Brills Run. 2. SHA, 1/5Y 11 USGS 01573710 USGS 1. USGS Gauge Station Overall discharge information for near Hillsdale/ DEP the basin that will include Sawmill Rd continuous monitoring with water intersection quality measures for baseflow and stormflow. 13 CNWG 01.75 DCCD 1. Macro assessment Existing DCCD site. Captures all Covered Bridge 1/5Y tributaries and represents most Rd 2. SHA, 1/5Y downstream monitoring point. 40.14722067320 3. Fish Assessment 1/3Y Fish assessment will assess lower 528, - watershed warmwater fishery. 76.69887369745 238 Little 2 Hanson Farm Penn 1. Continuous Nitrate A new station being established by Conewago 40.22557715277 State Jon Duncan to capture continuous Creek 027, - water quality data from the Little 76.55465668313 Conewago. 963

Page | 6 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

Hoffer 4 HOFR .02 DCCD 1. Macroinvertebrate Creek 40.19029515486 assessment 1/5Y 784, - 2. SHA, 1/5Y 76.60364454858 738

HOFR 1.84 DCCD 4. Baseflow water Downstream of quality, 6X/Y Valley Rd 5. Discharge (Flow) 40.19919, - measurement, 6X/Y 76.59606 Gallagher 6 GALG 00.45 DCCD 1. Baseflow water Run Downstream of quality, 6X/Y Valley Rd 2. Macroinvertebrate 40.19346, - assessment 1/2Y 76.61085 3. SHA, 1/5Y 4. Discharge (flow) measurement, 6X/Y Brills Run 8 BRIL 00.19 DCCD 1. Baseflow water Upstream of N. quality, 6X/Y Hertzler Rd 2. Macroinvertebrate 40.17386, - assessment 1/2Y 76.63378 3. SHA, 1/5Y 4. Discharge (flow) measurement, 6X/Y Lynch Run 9 LYNCH 00.20 DCCD 1. Baseflow water Downstream of S. quality, 6X/Y Hertzler Rd 2. Macroinvertebrate 40.16616, - assessment 1/2Y 76.6609 3. SHA, 1/5Y 4. Discharge (flow) measurement, 6X/Y 1st Unnamed 12 UNTR 00.36 DCCD 1. Baseflow water Tributary Downstream of quality, 6X/Y North Zion Rd 2. Macroinvertebrate 40.15813, - assessment 1/2Y 76.70169 3. SHA, 1/5Y 4. Discharge (flow) measurement, 6X/Y

Page | 7 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

Page | 8 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

Page | 9 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

V. Data Management. The monitoring network for the Conewago Creek Initiative will produce a substantial amount of data of varying types that will need to be stored in a central location for easy use in the project. The output data will be produced in a variety of formats both electronically and hard copy. As part of its Conewago information technology (IT) platform, ZedX will acquire, assimilate, and distribute this data in an efficient and user-friendly manner. The data will be kept secure as required and will be used in spatial displays, overlays, and inputs to and verification of models.

Data can be sent to or acquired by ZedX in a variety of methods. Some data, such as USGS guage station data, can be downloaded automatically from the Web, while other data, like stream assessments, will be acquired via hard copy in person or through mail delivery. Where appropriate and possible, the IT platform will allow for data upload directly to the central database. Other methods, including email ([email protected]), fax (814-357-8499), and ftp (ftp.zedxinc.com), will also be available for data sharing.

Contact information: Jeremy Zidek Senior Research Scientist ZedX, Inc. 369 Rolling Ridge Drive Bellefonte, PA 16823 phn: (814) 357-8490 fax: (814) 357-8499

Page | 10 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team

VI. Costs. Costs of implementing this monitoring plan total approximately $56,000 to $62,500 annually. Funding for operation and maintenance of the two USGS gages will be sought on an annual basis by USGS and should be available through 2014. Funding for all additional monitoring activities is available through April 30, 2013 through existing funding sources, including Section 604b, Section 319, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

For this monitoring plan to continue long term so that water quality impacts of the Conewago Creek Initiative’s conservation work can be measured, additional funding beyond 2013-14 will need to be secured.

The following represents a breakdown of monitoring costs:

Conewago Monitoring Plan Cost Estimates Monitoring Element Description Annual Cost USGS Gage #1 (Station Includes annual gage costs ($14,500), water $30,000 11) quality sampling ($8,500), statistical related interpretations ($2,000), and project maintenance ($5,000) USGA Gage #2 (Station 3) Includes all of the above, but second gage $20,000 results in overall costs savings Macroinvertebrate At 12 sites. $553.48 per site. Includes labor $6,641.76 sampling for collection, subsampling, identification, and entering data. Mileage included as well. Water quality sampling $115.75 per site. 8 sites @ 6X per year; 1 site $5,787.50 @ 2X per year. Includes labor for collection/delivery and stream discharge measurement, and data entry. Lab analysis quote included (for TP, Orthophosphorus, Nitrate, TKN, TN) Fish sampling Lancaster CCD, TCCCA in kind contribution $0 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (MACRO SAMPLING YEAR) $62,430 TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (NON MACRO SAMPLING YEAR) $55,788

Page | 11 Conewago Creek Initiative – Monitoring Team