Codorus Creek Watershed Association PO Box 2881 York, PA 17405

CODORUS CREEK NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PADEP 319 Watershed Improvement Program

Prepared by: York County Conservation District

Prepared for: Codorus Creek Watershed Association PO Box 2881 York, PA 17405 www.codoruscreek.net

July 2007 Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

Acknowledgements

The Codorus Creek Watershed Association would like to acknowledge financial and technical assistance and support received from the following individuals and organization in producing the Codorus Creek Watershed Restoration & Protection Implementation Plan.

Contributing Individuals: • Gary R. Peacock, CCWA Director/Watershed Specialist, York County Conservation District • Genevieve Ray, WRDA Sec. 206 Coordinator • James Leaman, CCWA Chairman, Biology Teacher (retired) • Jeff Hamon, CCWA Treasurer /Glatfelter • Jeff Hines, CCWA Secretary /V.P. Engineering, The York Water Company • Jeff Kuhn, PhD, CCWA Director /Science Teacher, York Suburban High School • Michael Schaffer, CCWA Director/Planner, York County Planning Commission • Lee Irwin, Owner, Aquatic Resource Restoration Company • Matt Hoch PhD., Biology Professor, Penn State York • Skip Missimer, V.P. EH&S, Glatfelter

Codorus Watershed Restoration Partnership: • Aquatic Resource Restoration Company • Codorus Chapter Trout Unlimited • Codorus Creek Improvement Partnership • Codorus Creek Watershed Association • Codorus Implementation Committee • Glatfelter • Izaak Walton League of America - York Chapter #67 • Natural Resource Conservation Service - USDA • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District • York County Agricultural Land Preservation Board • York County Chamber of Commerce • York County Commissioners • York County Community Foundation - Codorus Watershed Endowment • York County Conservation District • York County Economic Development Corporation • York County Farm & Natural Lands Trust • York County Parks & Recreation • York County Planning Commission

ii Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

Executive Summary

The Codorus Creek watershed is located in southern York County, south-central Pennsylvania, and encompasses 278 square miles of drainage area. Watershed assessments of the South Branch (68 square miles), East Branch Codorus (44.5 square miles), and West Branch (165.5 square miles) were sponsored by the Izaak Walton League of America’s York Chapter and were completed in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Through a Growing Greener grant received from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and other partnership funding sources, the Codorus Creek Watershed Association (CCWA) completed a watershed assessment and stream restoration plan for the remainder of the watershed (West Branch and main stem Codorus Creek) which covers 165.5 square miles.

The Codorus Creek watershed has a wide diversity of land uses including agricultural, forest, residential, commercial, and industrial. The water quality of the Codorus drainages varies from those supporting wild trout populations, to those heavily influenced by watershed modifications. Field observations indicate good water quality, supporting a diversity of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish populations. The streams in the watershed however are far from reaching their full potential as a biological and recreational resource due to severe bank erosion, high sediment loads, and thermal warming.

A regional hydraulic curve was developed to determine stream types (Rosgen, 1994), and will serve as a design tool for future restoration. This regional curve was a continuation of efforts which started in the South and East Branch Codorus Creek watersheds which are within the Uplands Section of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. All streams and tributaries were assessed, classified as to stream type (Rosgen, 1994), and mapped using Geographic Information System (GIS). Bank erosion rates were monitored at nine locations in the watershed.

Results of the watershed assessment revealed that there is significant stream impairment, primarily stream bank erosion and channel migration. Over 447 miles of stream were assessed in the watershed. Approximately 65 miles (23%), 228 miles (51%) and 154 miles (26%) of streams assessed were found to be either severely impaired, moderately impaired, or slightly impaired/not impaired, respectively. A Watershed Assessment Map was prepared using ArcGIS to graphically show the locations, magnitude and extent of impaired streams and other important watershed features.

Stream restoration work is currently planned and underway in the East, South and West Branches. It is estimated that it will take up to 20-years to completely implement the restoration of severely and moderately impaired streams in the watershed. The estimated cost of full restoration efforts is expected to be approximately $12,281,166 today. An additional $13,897,500 will be needed to fully implement Best Management Practices on the upland 115,092 acres of agricultural working lands, 65% of total the land used.

The Codorus Watershed Implementation Plan was funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection through a 319 NPS Management Program grant.

iii Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

Contents

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

Introduction

1. Identification of Causes and Sources of Impairment 1.1 Watershed concerns, issues, goals, and other problems 1.2 Land Use 1.3 Geology 1.4 Soils 1.5 Applicable Water Quality Standards 1.6 Water Quality Quantified and Mapped by Category 1.7 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and Previous Studies 1.8 Watershed Priorities

2. Pollutant Load Reductions Required to Meet TMDLs 2.1 Total Maximum Daily Load Reductions Needed 2.2 Watershed Assessment Findings 2.3 Consider impacts on downstream waters 2.4 Watershed Restoration and Protection Priorities

3. Management Measures to Achieve Watershed Goals 3.1 Levels of Stream Restoration Efforts 3.2 Best Management Practices 3.3 East Branch Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole 3.4 South Branch Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole 3.5 West Branch Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole 3.6 Funding, Construction and Maintenance Activities

4. Implementation Schedule 4.1 Parties responsible for meeting implementation milestones 4.2 Consideration of local priorities for restoration, availability of funding/ personnel/ equipment, seasonal weather conditions, coordination opportunities, etc. 4.3 Schedule and parties responsible for monitoring and reporting progress

5. Interim Milestones to Track Implementation of Management Measures 5.1 Documented Best Management Practices (BMPs) already implemented or planned in the watershed and assessment of their effectiveness 5.2 Designate and Map Target Areas for Additional Controls 5.3 Selected BMPs for designated and mapped areas targeted for additional

iv Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

controls 5.4 Model performance of selected BMPs to estimate operational efficiencies, load reductions achieved, maintenance requirements, etc. 5.5 PRedICT Model Results

6. Criteria to Measure Progress Toward Meeting Watershed Goals 6.1 Milestones for pollutant load and water quality leading to achievement of DEP standards for water quality and recommended use 6.2 Milestones tailored to the character and magnitude of impairments in each subwatershed, specifying parameters, location and frequency of sampling 6.3 Consideration of local priorities for implementation, availability of funding/personnel/analytic capability, seasonal weather conditions, coordination with existing monitoring programs, etc. 6.4 Schedule and parties responsible for monitoring and reporting progress

7. Monitoring Component 7.1 Criteria for judging results of implementation and water quality monitoring against prescribed milestones 7.2 Select a Combination of Indicators 7.3 Codorus Creek Restoration Efficacy Program (CCREP) 7.4 Provisions for reevaluation of implementation efforts, project milestones, restoration measures and/or TMDLs if progress is less than expected 7.5 Logic Model Used to Develop an Evaluation Framework

8. Public information and participation 8.1 Stakeholders and sources of information and influence in the watershed 8.2 Designated watershed advisory group from those identified to sponsor project, review planning products, set priorities, gain landowner cooperation and secure funding for implementation 8.3 Strategy outline for informing citizens about watershed issues and soliciting their involvement in plan development and implementation

9. Technical and Financial Assistance Needed to Implement BMPs 9.1 Estimated costs of design, installation and maintenance 9.2 Evaluation of sources of funding for plan implementation 9.3 Implementation shortfalls identified

References

Glossary

Appendices Appendix A – Best Management Practices Typical Drawings Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets

v Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

Figures

Figure 1-1. Codorus Creek Watershed Figure 1-2. East Branch Codorus Creek Figure 1-3. South Branch Codorus Creek Figure 1-4. West Branch Codorus Creek Figure 1-5. Geology of Codorus Creek Watershed Figure 1-6. Soil Associations of Codorus Creek Watershed Figure 1-7. Opportunities for Stream Restoration of Codorus Creek Watershed Figure 1-8. South Branch Codorus Creek Watershed TMDL Areas Figure 1-9. Oil Creek TMDL Subbasin Figure 1-10. Water Quality Hazards Analysis. Figure 1-11. Land Use Analysis.

Figure 2-1. Classification Key for Natural Waters Figure 2-2. Stream Evolution Changes Figure 2-3. Codorus Creek Watershed Regional Curves Figure 2-4. Stream Survey Procedures Figure 2-5. Watershed Assessment Field Data Form Figure 2-6. East Branch Codorus Creek Watershed Assessment Map Figure 2-7. South Branch Codorus Creek Watershed Assessment Map Figure 2-8. SBCC-026 Bank Erosion Monitoring Figure 2-9. SBCC-015 Bank Erosion Monitoring Figure 2-10. Chain of Events Due to Disturbance.

Figure 5-1. Stream Restoration Opportunities in Codorus Creek Watershed

Figure 7-1. Logical Model Components

vi Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

Tables

Table 1-1. Land Use East Branch Codorus Creek Table 1-2. Land Use West Branch Codorus Creek Table 1-3. Applicable Water Quality Standards of Codorus Creek Watershed Table 1-4. 303(d) Impaired Streams Listings of Codorus Creek Watershed Table 1-5. Sources of Stream Bank Erosion of Codorus Creek Watershed Table 1-6. TMDL Load Allocations of South Branch Codorus Creek Subbasin 1 Table 1-7. TMDL Load Allocations of South Branch Codorus Creek Subbasin 2 Table 1-8. TMDL Load Allocations & Reductions of Oil Creek Table 1-9. Stream Restoration Best Management Practices Implemented (1995-2005) and Planned (2006-2010) in Codorus Creek Watershed

Table 2-1. Codorus Creek Watershed Drainage Areas Table 2-3. Stream Bank Erosion Monitoring Table 2-4. East Branch Estimated Sedimentation from Stream Erosion Table 2-5. East Branch Watershed Assessment and Restoration Priorities Table 2-6. West Branch Watershed Assessment Summary Table 2-7. West Branch Streambank Erosion Monitoring Table 2-8. Summary of Watershed Assessments Table 2-9. Watershed of Priority Restoration Activity By Subwatershed and Aggregate for the Watershed as a Whole

Table 3-1. Recommended Stream Restoration and Protection BMPs for Various Stream Types Table 3-2. East Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole Table 3-3. East Branch Priority Stream Restoration Costs (2002). Table 3-4. South Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole Table 3-5. West Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole Table 3-6. Stream Reaches Recommended for Riparian Planting Table 3-7. Stream Reaches Recommended for Streambank Fencing Table 3-8. Stream Reaches Recommended for Stormwater Management Table 3-9. Estimated Costs of BMP Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Table 3-10. Estimate Costs of Riparian Forest Buffer (RFB) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Table 3-11. Estimated Costs of Livestock Stream Crossings (LSC) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Table 3-12. Estimated Costs of Streambank Fencing (SBF) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole.

vii Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

Table 3-13. Estimated Costs of Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) Implementation and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Table 3-14. Estimated Costs of Stormwater Management (SWM) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Table 3-15. Estimated Costs of Stream Restoration (FGM) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Table 3-16. Estimated Costs of Wetlands Restoration (WRP) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole.

Table 4-1. Parties Responsible for Meeting Implementation Milestones Table 4-2. Schedule and Parties Responsible for Monitoring and Reporting Progress. Table 4-3. Implementation Schedule of Priority Restoration Activity by Subwatershed and Watershed

Table 5-1. Agricultural Best Management Practices Implemented (1985-2005) and Planned (2006-2010) in Codorus Creek Watershed. Table 5-2. Stream Restoration Best Management Practices Implemented (1995-2005) and Planned (2006-2010) in Codorus Creek Watershed Table 5-3. Selected Agricultural BMPs for designated and mapped areas targeted for additional controls. Table 5-4. PRedICT Model Data Fields Table 5-5. PRedICT Model Scenario Inputs for Ag-BMP Implementation in the Codorus Creek Watershed Table 5-6. PRedICT Model Scenario Inputs for Stream Restoration BMP Implementation in the Codorus Creek Watershed Table 5-7. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMPs Implemented in SBCC-1 TMDL Area Table 5-8. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag Plus Stream Restoration BMPs Implemented in SBCC-1 TMDL Area Table 5-9. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMPs Implemented in SBCC-2 TMDL Area Table 5-10. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag Plus Stream Restoration BMPs Implemented in SBCC-2 TMDL Area Table 5-11. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag Plus Stream Restoration BMPs Implemented in Non-TMDL Area Table 5-12. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMP Implemented in Oil Creek TMDL Area Table 5-13. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMP Implemented in Oil Creek TMDL Area Table 5-14. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMP Implemented in Oil Creek Non- TMDL Area

viii Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

Table 6-1. Milestones for Achieving Pollutant Load and Water Quality Standards by Subwatershed and Watershed Table 6-2. Milestones to the character and magnitude of impairments in each subwatershed, specifying parameters, location and frequency of sampling. Table 6-3. Schedule and Parties Responsible for Monitoring and Reporting Progress.

Table 7-1. Environmental Indicators Used to Identify Relationships Between Pollutant Sources and Watershed Conditions Table 7-2. Logical Model for Water Quality Improvements of Codorus Creek Table 7-3. Indicators Used To Track Implementation Progress Table 7-4. Performance Indicators Used to Develop Targets to Measure Progress in Meeting Watershed Goals

Table 8-1. Stakeholders and Their Roles in the Codorus Creek Watershed Table 8-2. Designated Watershed Advisory Group Table 8-3. Anticipated Annual Costs for Information/Education Activities

Table 9-1. Cost estimates for seven selected BMPs for designated and mapped targeted areas Table 9-2. Evaluation of sources of technical and financial assistance needed for plan implementation Table 9-3. Evaluation of other sources of funding for plan implementation

ix Codorus WIP Front 12/6/2007

Introduction

The Codorus Creek Watershed Association (CCWA) was formed in 1998 as a non-profit organization to promote the New Codorus Legacy: "To restore, enhance, sustain, and protect the Codorus Creek Watershed and its environs for future generations and as a living resource for biodiversity." Since its inception the CCWA has been very active in the stream cleanups, education workshops, monitoring, and general promotion of the Codorus as a valuable York County resource.

With the completion of the assessment of the West Branch of the Codorus in 2003, the entire watershed has been assessed. The assessment of the South and East Branches of the Codorus (40% of the entire watershed) were completed between 1999 and 2001. These assessments were sponsored by the York Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America to identify impaired reaches of stream and prioritize stream restoration efforts. Realizing that the key to long term restoration is to develop a restoration plan, the CCWA was successful in securing funding to complete the assessment of the remaining streams and in the Codorus Creek watershed. The assessment methodology used was consistent with the South and East Branch assessments. The assessment of the West Branch and main stem of the Codorus Creek was completed with funding provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Growing Greener Program, Glatfelter, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The CCWA contracted with Aquatic Resource Restoration Company (ARRC) of Seven Valleys, Pennsylvania, to perform the actual watershed assessment and to develop a restoration plan. Under this grant, the physical condition of all streams and contributing tributaries were assessed. The primary goal of these assessments was to identify all stream reaches, map impaired stream reaches, prioritize restoration efforts, and develop watershed restoration plans.

The Codorus Creek Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Watershed implementation Plan, York County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter the “WIP” and “Plan” ), will serve as a management tool for local governing agencies and entities, nonprofit organizations, watershed groups, and other stakeholders for future stream restoration efforts in the watershed. Numerous governments, nonprofit and private interests have established partnerships with the common goal of improving aquatic habitat, designated uses, and water quality of the Codorus Creek and its many streams and tributaries.

x Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1. Identification of Causes and Sources of Impairment

This section identifies the causes and sources of impairments. Sources of impairments are identified and described. Pollution loads are attributed to each source of impairment and quantified. Data sources are identified and verifiable and assumptions can be reasonably justified. Lastly, watershed-level estimates of necessary pollution control are provided, including overall load reduction.

1.1. Watershed concerns, issues, goals, and other problems

The Codorus Creek watershed is located in southeastern York County (Figure 1-1) and has a drainage area of approximately 278 square miles. The watershed is comprised of three primary drainages: East Branch Codorus, South Branch Codorus and West Branch Codorus. Contractor Aquatic Resource Restoration Company has completed fluvial geomorphic assessments of the East, South and West Branches of the Codorus for the York Chapter of the Izaak Walton League and Codorus Creek Watershed Association. The Codorus Creek watershed and all contributing drainages flow into the Susquehanna River near Saginaw.

1.1.1. East Branch Codorus Creek

The East Branch Codorus Creek (EBCC) has a drainage of 44 square miles and begins northeast of Stewartstown, Pennsylvania. The stream flows northeast and receives drainage from the southwest and northeast with the larger streams being Seaks Run, Barshinger Creek and Inners Creek. All of these tributaries are listed as impaired on the Pennsylvania 303(d) list. The East Branch drains to Lake Redman, which flows into Lake Williams. Both of these reservoirs serve as a public water supply maintained by York Water Company Inc. From Lake Williams, the East Branch flows a mile before its confluence with the South Branch Codorus at Reynolds Mill. Approximately 105 miles of stream were assessed in the East Branch Codorus Creek watershed.

Over 74% of the EBCC watershed is agriculture (cropland and pasture). The primary population centers are located along the northern watershed boundary near Dallastown and Red Lion. Interstate 83 is the approximate western watershed boundary and S.R. 74 serves as the approximate northern watershed boundary. Considerable residential development is also found along Susquehanna Trail between Jacobus and Loganville. A storm water management plan is currently being prepared for the watershed. The East Branch Codorus Creek flows through three County Parks, Spring Valley, William Kain, and Nixon County Parks. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has verified wild trout reproduction in the headwaters of the East Branch and also in an unnamed tributary in the headwaters near Blymire Hollow. As shown on Table 1-3, the East Branch from the headwaters to the S.R. 214 Bridge is protected as a high quality cold water fishery (HQ-CWF). From the S.R. 214 Bridge to Lake Redman, the East Branch is protected as a coldwater fishery (CWF). The remainder of the East Branch (including both Lake

1-1 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Redman and Lake Williams) to the confluence is protected as a warm water fishery (WWF).

1.1.2. South Branch Codorus Creek

South Branch Codorus Creek (SBCC) has a drainage area of 68 square miles and begins near the Maryland/Pennsylvania state line near New Freedom. The stream flows northwest through Glen Rock and picks up additional flow from several tributaries. The largest of these tributaries is Centerville Creek. From the confluence with Centerville Creek, the stream continues northwest towards Seven Valleys, Pennsylvania where additional drainage enters from both the southwest and northeast. Near Seven Valleys, the South Branch turns northeast to confluence with the East Branch Codorus Creek near Reynolds Mill. Approximately 148 miles of streams in the South Branch watershed were assessed. The South Branch Codorus from the confluence with the East Branch to the confluence with the mainstem (below Indian Rock Dam) was not assessed during earlier watershed assessments. This reach of stream and the New Salem Tributary are included in this watershed assessment as shown in Figure 2 and the Watershed Assessment Map.

Over 80% of the SBCC watershed is agriculture (cropland and pasture). Major population centers include New Freedom, Railroad, Glen Rock and Seven Valleys. The upper portion of the SBCC watershed is under increasing development pressure, especially along the Interstate 83 corridor. A storm water management plan (Act 167) has been developed for the South Branch and is currently being updated. The South Branch Codorus and tributaries: Centervillle Creek, Pierceville Run, Foust Creek, and Krebs Valley Run are listed as impaired on the Pennsylvania 303(d) list. Additionally, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) have been established for the watershed. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has verified wild trout reproduction in Centerville Creek near its confluence with Pierceville Run. The upper part of the watershed through Glen Rock is protected as a cold water fishery (CWF) as shown on Table 1-3. From Glen Rock the remainder of the basin is protected as a warm water fishery (WWF).

1.1.3. West Branch Codorus Creek

The headwaters of the Codorus Creek begins near the Maryland/Pennsylvania state line west of Glenville PA. The top of the drainage divide is approximately 1,040 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This section of the watershed is locally referred to as the East Branch Codorus. For the purpose of this assessment and to eliminate any confusion with the assessed East Branch near Dallastown, this section is referred to as the Upper Codorus Creek basin (See Figure 1-3). The upper Codorus Creek is predominantly agriculture (crops and pasture), and is very similar to the South Branch Codorus Creek watershed with respect to land use and drainage patterns. The stream flows southeast for about one half mile and turns northeast for approximately two miles through Glenville. At Glenville, the Codorus makes an abrupt turn to the northwest and flows approximately

1-2 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

six miles to confluence with the West Branch. The entire length of the stream parallels a railroad grade. The Upper Codorus is protected as a trout stocked fishery (TSF).

The West Branch Codorus begins near Lineboro, Maryland and flows north into Lake Marburg. The West Branch Codorus watershed terminates at its confluence with the Upper Codorus Creek. Long Run flows north and drains directly to Lake Marburg from the south. Furnace Creek drains to the tailwaters of Lake Marburg southeast of Hanover. Several small unnamed tributaries drain to Lake Marburg from both the north and south.

When filled to capacity, the water level in Lake Marburg is around 620 feet mean sea level. The outlet from Lake Marburg provides a unique cold water fishery due to the bottom release from the reservoir. This discharge combines with the upper Codorus Creek subwatershed, and over the next several miles the influence of this cold water provides a productive brown trout fishery.

For the purpose of this plan, the West Branch Codorus (WBC) and Upper Codorus Creek (UCC) are considered the mainstem of the Codorus Creek (CC). The West Branch and Lake Marburg have a protected use of warm water fishery (WWF) as shown on Table 1- 3. From this confluence, Codorus Creek flows north towards Menges Mill, and receives drainage from Porters Creek and Oil Creek. Along its course in this section, the stream crosses from the uplands section into the Lowlands Section near Ambau. Along this section, the Codorus has numerous tributaries coming from the northwest. The Codorus is protected as a high quality cold water fishery (HQ-CWF) from the confluence of the West Branch and upper Codorus Creek to the confluence with Oil Creek. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has verified wild trout reproduction in this section of the Codorus.

1-3 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-1. Codorus Creek Watershed

1-4 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-2. East Branch Codorus Creek

1-5 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-3. South Branch Codorus Creek

1-6 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-4. West Branch Codorus Creek

1-7 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1.2. Land Use

The Codorus Creek Watershed has many different land uses, including residential, agricultural, industrial, commercial, parks and recreation, and forested. Agriculture comprises the largest land use category in the entire watershed, covering an average of 65%, or about 115,092 acres, of the total land area of 177,065 acres. As mentioned previously, the Codorus Creek and its three main branches begin in the southern portion of the watershed and flow north through York City to meet the Susquehanna near Saginaw. The watershed starts out approximately 20 miles wide from the eastern edge of Hanover Borough (West/Main Branch Codorus Watershed) to the eastern edge of Hopewell Township (East Branch Codorus Watershed). Generally, the southern portion of the watershed is more agricultural, and as the watershed narrows toward the City of York, the watershed becomes more residential, commercial, and industrial. After exiting the city, land use in the watershed becomes more rural again with suburban sprawl into the northern section of the watershed. The watershed surrounding the northern most section of the Codorus Creek becomes more forested and agricultural before joining the Susquehanna.

1.2.1. East Branch

This watershed area consists of four municipalities: Springfield Township, North Hopewell Township, Hopewell Township, and York Township and five boroughs: Dallastown, Red Lion, Winterstown, Loganville and Jacobus. The primary population centers are along the northern watershed boundary near Dallastown and Red Lion. Considerable residential development is also found along the Susquehanna Trail between Jacobus and Loganville.

There are five primary transportation corridors which pass through the watershed. Four of these corridors serve as the approximate boundaries of the East Branch watershed: State Route 74 to the north, State Route 24 to the east, State Route 2074 (Plank Road) to the south and the Susquehanna Trail to the west. Interstate 83 is the largest of the transportation corridors and passes north to south along the western portion of the watershed.

The majority of the watershed is rural with a predominant land use of agriculture as shown on Table 1-1. Agriculture in the watershed includes both crop and animal production. Agricultural cropland is present throughout the watershed and is found on a wide range of slopes. Pasture areas are more prevalent along the valley floors and include beef, sheep, swine, and goats. The upper portion of the watershed is primarily rural agriculture.

1-8 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Table 1-1. Land Use East Branch Codorus Creek Land Use Percentage Agriculture 75.0 Forest 19.0 Residential 3.0 Reservoirs 1.5 Other 1.0 Commercial 0.5 Total 100

1.2.2. South Branch

The South Branch Codorus subbasin consists of eight municipalities including Codorus, North Codorus, Springfield, and Shrewsbury Townships, and Glen Rock, New Freedom, Railroad, and Seven Valleys Boroughs, the major population centers and located adjacent to the South Branch Codorus Creek. The majority of the watershed is rural with a predominant land use of agriculture. Agriculture in the watershed includes, row crop, hay, pasture, and animal production. Agricultural cropland is present throughout the watershed and is found on a wide range of slopes. Pasture areas are more prevalent along the valley floors and include beef, sheep, swine and goats. The upper portion of the watershed, along the Mason-Dixon Line, is under development pressure, particularly in the vicinity of New Freedom and Shrewsbury. This development includes both residential and commercial uses.

1.2.3. West Branch

There are twenty seven municipalities included in the West Branch watershed area. Hanover is located in the upper watershed and primarily drains to Lake Marburg and Oil Creek. The remainder of the upper watershed is primarily agriculture and forest. Dallastown and Red Lion are located at the headwaters of Mill Creek and majority of this watershed is developed including residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The City of York lies in the lower third of the watershed is the largest urbanized area. Due to encroachment on Codorus Creek and development since the mid 1700’s, a flood control project was constructed in the 1940’s including the construction of Indian Rock Dam and five miles of flood control channel.

Table 1-2. Land Use West Branch Codorus Creek Land Use Percentage Agriculture/Forest 51.0 Residential 26.0 Urban 9.0 Commercial 7.0 Other 6.0 Apartment 1.0 Total 100

1-9 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1.3. Geology

The Codorus Creek watershed lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province and includes the Uplands and Lowlands Section. The geology of the underlying watershed is shown in Figure 1-5. Stream channels and the surrounding geology are closely related. Factors that can control the development and evolution of a stream channel include: 1) durability of the rock, 2) how the rock was cleaved during crustal movement (jointing), and 3) how the rock has been bent or broken (folded and faulted).

1.3.1. East Branch

The East Branch subbasin is situated within the Piedmont Upland Section of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. This section is characterized by broad, gently rolling hills and valleys formed by the fluvial erosion of the underlying metamorphic rocks. The streams and tributaries comprising this watershed cover a linear distance of approximately 105 miles. The East Branch begins in the southeastern corner of the basin, and flows north to discharge to the main stem Codorus Creek where it converges with the South Branch Codorus Creek at Reynolds Mill. Codorus Creek then continues to flow north through the City of York to discharge into the Susquehanna River south of Saginaw, Pennsylvania.

The majority of the East Branch Codorus subasin is underlain by Paleozoic schists. The schists which comprise the majority of the rocks in the drainage basin belong to the Wissahickon Formation which occupies the southernmost area of the watershed. The Wissahickon Formation (along with the Marburg Member) is part of the Martic Block, a huge block of Paleozoic rock which was thrust from the southeast into its present position during tectonic mountain-building episodes.

The evolution of a surface drainage pattern in a region is directly affected by the physical and chemical characteristics of the rocks underlying the area. The influence of geology on the drainage patterns within the East Branch watershed is apparent on topographic maps of the study area.

The southern section of the basin exhibits a sub-dendritic pattern which has evolved on the albite-chlorite schist of the Wissahickon Formation. This rock unit exhibits a relatively gently schistosity (foliation resulting from parallel mineral grain arrangement) and moderate joint development. The Wissahickon is also moderately weathered, with an average overburden thickness of ten feet.

1.3.2. South Branch

The South Branch Codorus subbasin is situated within the Piedmont Upland Section of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. This section is characterized by broad, gently rolling hills and valleys formed by the fluvial erosion of the underlying metamorphic

1-10 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-5. Geology of Codorus Creek Watershed

1-11 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

rocks. The streams and tributaries comprising this subwatershed cover a linear distance of approximately 148 miles. The South Branch begins in New Freedom Borough, in the southeast corner of the subbasin, and flows north where it converges with the East Branch at Reynolds Mill and then discharges to the West Branch at Indian Rock Dam. Roughly 85% of the South Branch Codorus subbasin is underlain by Paleozoic schist. The remaining 15% is underlain by Camrbo-Ordivician phyllites, quartzites, conglomerates, and minor limestones. The schist which comprises the majority of the rocks in the drainage basin belongs to the Wissahickon Formation which occupies the southernmost area of the basin. The Wissahickon grades northward into the Marburg Schist Member. The gradational contact between the Wissahickon and the Marburg Member is mapped striking northeast from Glenville, just west of the west-central boundary of the basin, through Centerville, which is located just north of Glen Rock near the center of the basin.

The Wissahickon Formation (along with the Marburg Member) is part of the Martic Block, a huge block of Paleozoic rock which was thrust from the southeast into its present position during tectonic mountain-building episodes. The unconformable contact between the Martic Block and the younger rocks onto which it was thrust is referred to as the Martic Line. The Martic Line strikes northeast across the northern portion of the drainage basin from Jefferson on the western boundary of Jacobus, just east of the easternmost boundary. The rocks in the South Branch Codorus subbasin north of the Martic Line are comprised of Cambrian low grade metamorphic rocks (slates and phyllites) and minor Ordovician limestone units.

The evolution of the surface drainage pattern in the region is directly affected by the physical and chemical characteristics of the rocks underlying the area. The influence of geology on the drainage patterns within the South Branch is apparent on topographic maps and aerial photographs of the area.

The southern section of the subbasin exhibits a sub-dendritic pattern which has evolved on the albite-chlorite schist of the Wissahickon Formation. This rock unit exhibits a relatively gentle foliation resulting from parallel mineral grain arrangement and moderate joint development. The Wissahickon is also moderately weathered, with an average overburden thickness of ten feet.

As the Wissahickon grades into the Marburg mica-chlorite-quartzite schist to the northwest, the drainage pattern shifts from sub-dendritic to sub-rectangular or directional trellis. This transition reflects the structural control exerted largely by strong north- northwest trending joint system and the northeast trending schistose cleavage present in the Marburg.

Within the central section of the basin underlain by the Marburg schist, an interesting change in valley developmental is noted. The southern part of this section (that part bounded by the Wissahickon-Marburg contact to the south and a line defined by Huntrick Hill and Saint Peter’s and Paul’s Church to the north) is drained through Krebs Valley which trends southwest to northeast. The tributaries feeding the stream in Krebs Valley

1-12 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

strike north-northeast. However, the reverse is true in the northern part of the Marburg schist section where the main valley’s primary strike is north-northwest and the tributaries trend to the northeast. This variation may be caused by a cluster of quartzite interbeds north and south of Krebs Valley. The quartzite beds apparently form the ridgelines of Huntrick Hill to the north and Saubell Hill to the south. Differential erosion parallel to the strike of the resistant quartzite layers has resulted in the formation of the northeast trending Krebs Valley. The tributaries to Krebs Valley formed along the strike of the north-northwest trending joint system. The quartzite beds are not found north from the Huntrick Hill ridgeline. Therefore, the joint system becomes the predominant structural control for the formation of the main valley and the regional northeast trending schistose foliation that controls the formation of the tributaries.

The northern Cambro-Ordovician section of the South Branch drainage basin located north of the Martic Line and characterized by a sub-dendritic to directionally trellis drainage pattern. The controlling factor for tributary development appears to be the north- northwest trending joint system present in the underlying low grade metamorphic rocks. These joint controlled tributaries drain the highlands to a relatively broad valley which strikes northeast across the southern part of the section. This valley is underlain by a narrow band of limestone of the (Conestoga Formation. The soluble nature of this limestone unit has permitted the evolution of a relatively broad valley floor and floodplain across almost the entire width of the basin. Near Glatfelter, at the eastern edge of the basin, the stream channel makes an abrupt 90 degree turn to the northwest. This flexure is apparently due to the termination of the Conestoga limestone bed which formed the valley floor. Structural control of drainage subsequently reverts to the northwest trending joint system. The stream channel again changes direction southwest from Reynolds Mill to resume a northeasterly flow for a short distance. The cause for this change is apparently caused by a northeast striking fault zone which provides the stream a preferential path of flow. Joint control is reestablished at the confluence with the East Branch Codorus Creek.

1.3.3. West Branch

Rock exposures are rare along the West Branch within the Uplands Section due to the low resistivity to weathering of the schistose rocks. However, one exposure of the Marburg Member south of Lake Marburg exhibited foliation paralleling the drainage. A regional look at the drainage pattern in the Uplands Section does show a distinctive northwest-to-southeast pattern which may represent a major joint set.

Within the Lowlands Section, the absence of numerous tributaries to the north and west of the Codorus Creek is due to karst topography. As a result of inspections of available exposures within the limestone valley, both jointing and faulting has influenced Codorus Creek. Also, the presence of more durable rocks within the Uplands Section compared to the Lowlands Section assisted to develop a meandering system bordering between the two physiographic sections.

1-13 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

The last portion of Codorus Creek passes through the Hellam Hills Formation. Again, jointing appears to be a large contributor to the stream’s development. Many of the rapids developed in the lower reaches of the stream are formed by the Chickies quartzite near the contact with softer rocks belonging to the Harpers Formation.

The West Branch of the Codorus Creek and Codorus Creek pass through two diabase dikes. Diabase is considered the most-resistant rock to weathering and erosion in southeastern Pennsylvania. One section of stream near New Salem encounters a dike, but shows no effect on the stream. The more notable diabase occurrence, the Stoneybrook Dike, does create rapids in the lower reaches of the Codorus Creek. A description of general geologic conditions is presented for various sections of the project watershed.

1.4. Soils

The Codorus Creek Watershed contains seven major soil associations, and many more different soil types (Figure 1-6). The nature and properties of each soil are influenced by the parent geologic material and land cover. Descriptions of each major soil group are given below. For more information, refer to the Soil Survey of York County, Pennsylvania (2000).

1.4.1. East Branch

According to the Soil Survey for York County, two primary soils associations are found in the watershed: Glenelg-Manor Association and the Chester-Eliok-Glenelg Association.

Glenelg-Manor – This soil association is found through the northern portion of the study area watershed. The topography is hilly and is characterized by long slopes and moderately broad ridges. The Glenelg soils are well drained, moderately deep, and usually gently or moderately sloping. The Manor soils are shallow, well drained to excessively drained, and mostly moderately sloped. The soils in this association are somewhat droughty but are good for agriculture. Grain, potatoes, orchard fruits, and hay are the main crops. Pastures for dairy and beef cattle are common.

Chester-Eliok-Glenelg – This association is found in the southern or upper portion of the EBCC watershed. The topography is characterized by broad gently rounded ridges. The Chester and Eliok soils are well drained and are nearly level to moderately sloping. The Chester soils have a yellowish-brown silty clay loam subsoil and the Eliok have a somewhat firmer, reddish silty clay loam subsoil. This is the most important agricultural area in York County with nearly all the acreage devoted to full-time agriculture.

Chewacla and Congaree – These silt loam soils are located along the immediate floodplain of the major drainages in the watershed. The Chewacla silt loam soils are somewhat removed from the streambank where the depth to the normal water level of the streams is 36 inches or more. These soils have a Capability unit IIw-1 with scouring

1-14 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

being the only erosion hazard. The Congaree silt loam soils are primarily found on narrow bottom land next to steep hills. These soils are not prone to erosion and make good pasture areas.

1.4.2. South Branch

Soils of the South Branch Watershed are identical to those major associations previously described.

1.4.3. West Branch

Mount Airy-Glenelg-Linganore – This soil association is shallow and moderately deep soils, mostly moderately sloping to moderately steep soils underlain by schist or phyllite. These soils are found in the West Branch, Long Run, upper Codorus Creek subwatersheds and are also found along the entire southern edge of the study area including the upper two thirds of Mill Creek watershed.

Chester-Glenelg-Manor – This soil association is deep and moderately deep soils, underlain by schist or phyllite. This association is only found in the upper watershed to Spring Grove and the lower watershed in the Starview Tributary and lower Dee Run watersheds.

Hagerstown-Duffield-Clarksburg – This soil association is deep, nearly level to moderately steep soils underlain by limestone. These soils are prime agriculture soils and occur in the Gitts Run and Oil Creek watersheds. These soils also extend from an area north of Indian Rock dam, through York and lower Mill Creek, and east through Emigsville and the upper Codorus gorge.

Neshaminy-Lehigh-Glenelg – This soil association is deep upland soils underlain by quartzite, aporhyolite, quartz, or metabasalt; and deep colluvial soils over limestone. These soils only occur in the upper Bunch Creek watershed along Pigeon Hill, and in the upper watersheds of Dee Run and Trout Run.

Ungers-Penn-Klinesville – This soil association is shallow to deep, mostly nearly level or gently sloping soils underlain by Triassic sandstone or shale. This soil is only found along the watershed divide between Emigsville and Starview.

1-15 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-6. Soil Associations of Codorus Creek Watershed

1-16 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1.5. Applicable Water Quality Standards

Pennsylvania’s Water Quality Standards are encoded in Title 25. Environmental Protection, Department of Environmental Protection, Chapter 93, Water Quality Standards, Chapter 96, Water Quality Standards Implementation, and Chapter 16, Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy (December 15, 2001). The scope of Chapter 93 sets forth water quality standards for surface waters of the Commonwealth, including wetlands. These standards are based upon water uses which are to be protected and considered by the Department in its regulation of discharges. When an interstate or federal agency under an interstate compact or agreement establishes water quality standards more stringent than those in this title, the more stringent standards apply. Protected water uses are based upon the development of water quality criteria set forth in Table 1 of Chapter 93, including aquatic life, water supply, recreation, fish consumption, special protection, and navigation. The criteria associated with the statewide water uses apply to all surface waters, unless a specific exception is indicated. Applicable water quality criteria in the Codorus Watershed are given in table 1-3 below.

Table 1-3. Applicable Water Quality Standards of Codorus Creek Watershed Water Use Exceptions to No. Streams Zone Protected Criteria EAST BRANCH 1 East Branch Basin, Source to PA Rt. 214 HQ-CWF None 2 East Branch Basin, PA Rt. 214 to mouth CWF None SOUTH BRANCH 3 South Branch Main Stem WWF None 4 UNT to South Branch Codorus Basins, Source to UNT from Glen Rock WWF None Creek Valley at RM 16.06 5 UNT to South Branch Codorus Basin CWF None Creek through Glen Rock Valley 6 UNT to South Branch Codorus Basins, UNT from Glen Rock Valley to WWF None Creek Mouth 7 Trout Run Basin WWF None 8 Foust Creek Basin WWF None 9 Centerville Creek Basin WWF None 10 Cherry Run Basin WWF None 11 Fishel Creek Basin WWF None WEST BRANCH 12 Codorus Creek Basin, Source to West Branch TSF None 13 West Branch Codorus Creek Basin WWF None 14 Codorus Creek Main Stem, West Branch to Oil Creek HQ-CWF None 15 UNT to Codorus Creek Basins, West Branch to Oil Creek WWF None 16 Porters Creek Basin WWF None 17 Oil Creek Basin WWF None 18 Codorus Creek Main Stem, Oil Creek to Mouth WWF None 19 UNT to Codorus Creek Basins, Oil Creek to Mouth WWF None 20 Bunch Creek Basin WWF None 21 Stoverstown Branch Basin WWF None 22 Willis Run Basin WWF None 23 Mill Creek Basin WWF None 24 Dee Run Basin WWF None 25 Trout Run Basin source to river mile 0.3 HQ-CWF None

1-17 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1.5.1. Aquatic Life Protection

The Bureau of Watershed Conservation has listed several classifications for the streams in Pennsylvania. These classifications are listed by watershed in Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 93 – Water Quality Standards, and represent the characteristics of the streams which are to be protected. Some of the standards found within the sub-watersheds include the following, as defined in Title 25 of the Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 93:

Cold Water Fishes (CWF) – Maintenance and/or propagation of fish species including the family Salmonidae and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a cold water habitat.

Warm Water Fishes (WWF) – Maintenance and propagation of fish species and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a warm water habitat.

Migratory Fishes (MF) – Passage, maintenance and propogation of anadromous and catadromous fishes and other fishes which ascend to flowing waters to complete their life cycle.

Trout Stocking (TSF) – Maintenance of stocked trout from February 15 to July 31 and maintenance and propogation of fish species and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to warm water habitat.

1.5.2. Special Protection

Exceptional Value Waters (EV) – Exceptional Value Waters shall be maintained and protected.

High Quality Waters (HQ) – High quality commands special protection as noted in Section 93.4c – Antidegradation, of the Pennsylvania Code, Title 25.

1.5.3. Antidegradation

Antidegradation requirements apply to surface waters of the Commonwealth. Existing in- stream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. The water of High Quality and Exceptional Value Waters needs to be maintained and protected for specific chemical and physical properties listed in section 93.4.b. Water may not contain substances attributable to point or nonpoint source discharges in concentration or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life. In addition to other substances listed within or addressed by this chapter, specific substances to be controlled include, but are not limited to, floating materials, oil, grease, scum and substances which produce color, tastes, odors, turbidity or settle to form deposits.

1-18 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1.5.4. Other Specific Criteria

Other specific water quality criteria apply to surface waters in drainage basins and streams listed in sections 93.9a-93.9z. All applicable criteria apply to surface waters as specified in this chapter, Chapter 96, and other applicable State and Federal laws and regulations.

1.6. Water Quality Quantified and Mapped by Category

Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) uses an integrated format for Clean Water Act Section 305(b) reporting and Section 303(d) listing. The “2006 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report” satisfies the requirements of both Sections 305(b) and 303(d). The narrative that follows contains summaries of various water quality management programs including water quality standards, point source control and nonpoint source control. It also includes descriptions of programs to protect lakes, wetlands and groundwater quality. A summary of the use support status of streams and lakes is also presented in the narrative report.

In addition to this 305(b) narrative, the water quality status of Pennsylvania’s waters is presented using a five-part characterization of use attainment status. The listing categories are:

Category 1: Waters attaining all designated uses.

Category 2: Waters where some, but not all, designated uses are met. Attainment status of the remaining designated uses is unknown because data are insufficient to categorize the water.

Category 3: Waters for which there are insufficient or no data and information to determine if designated uses are met.

Category 4: Waters impaired for one or more designated use but not needing a TMDL. These waters are placed in one of the following three subcategories: • Category 4A: TMDL has been completed. • Category 4B: Expected to meet all designated uses within a reasonable timeframe. • Category 4C: Not impaired by a pollutant. • Category 5: Waters impaired for one or more designated uses by any pollutant.

The 303(d) impaired streams listings for the Codorus Creek Watershed are given below (table 1-4).

1-19 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Table 1-4. 303(d) Impaired Streams Listings of Codorus Creek Watershed Stream Drainage 303d List Impaired No. Stream Length Cause/Effect1 Area1 (sq.mi.) Status Length (ft.) (ft.) EAST BRANCH 1 East Branch (Lakes) 0 0 0 2 East Branch (B,I & S) 11.81 46,000 Impaired 16,000 Agriculture Sediment 3 East Branch 44.5 36,000 0 SOUTH BRANCH Agriculture/Urban 4 South Branch 117 72,000 Impaired 54,000 Sediment & Nutrients Municipal 5 UNT to South Br RM 16 0 18,000 Impaired 10,000 Nutrient 6 Glen Rock Valley 0 12,000 0 Urban 7 UNT to South Branch 0 7,000 Impaired 6,000 Sediment Agriculture 8 Trout Run 3.43 14,000 Impaired 6,500 Sediment & Nutrients 9 Foust Creek 1.76 12,000 Impaired 6,000 Agriculture Sediment & Nutrients 10 Centerville Creek 21.65 48,000 Impaired 24,000 Agriculture Sediment & Nutrients 11 Cherry Run 1.65 9,000 0 12 Fishel Creek 3.83 19,000 0 CODORUS CREEK 13 Willis Run 4.78 18,000 Impaired 18,000 Urban Sediment 14 Mill Creek 18.5 30,000 Impaired 24,000 Urban Sediment 15 Dee Run 3.12 10,000 0 16 Trout Run 1.31 6,000 0 WEST BRANCH Agriculture 17 Upper West Br Codorus Cr 0 36,000 Impaired 36,000 Sediment 18 West Branch 23.8 42,000 0 19 Codorus Creek 0 18,000 0 20 UNT to Codorus Creek 0 0 0 21 Porters Creek 1.96 10,500 0 Urban 22 Oil Creek 18.7 36,000 Impaired 36,000 Sediment 23 Codorus Creek 0 96,000 0 24 UNT to Codorus Creek 0 0 0 25 Bunch Creek 5.31 21,000 0 Agriculture 26 Stoverstown Branch 3.06 15,000 Impaired 8,000 Sediment

The most significant issue or concern facing the Codorus Creek Watershed is related to water quality and quantity. Much of the watershed contains streams and waterways that are impaired by one or more variables. There are approximately 296 miles of Priority 1 & 2 impaired streams within the watershed, approximately 259 of which are located in the planning area. These impairments are mostly related to stream bank erosion and fluvial geomorphological impairments such as abandoned floodplains, and loss of channel stability.

1-20 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

In addition to the Priority 1 & 2 streams, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Section has established a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the South Branch Codorus Creek and Oil Creek. Although agriculture is listed as the primary cause, current data shows that stream bank and channel erosion is the most significant nonpoint sources of sediment and nutrient pollution in the watershed (table 1-5 and figure 1-7).

Table 1-5. Sources of Stream Bank Erosion of Codorus Creek Watershed Site Municipality Watershed Stream Name Reach_ID No. (LF) 1 York City Codorus Creek Codorus Creek CC22 500 2 York City Codorus Creek Codorus Creek CC24 850 3 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Codorus Creek CC2504 620 4 Hellam Codorus Creek Codorus Creek CC26/CC25 2500 5 Springettsbury Codorus Creek UNT Codorus Creek CC2602 850 6 E Manchester Codorus Creek UNT Codorus Creek CC2701 1500 7 E Manchester Codorus Creek UNT Codorus Creek CC2705 1090 8 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Codorus Creek CC2805 1280 9 Hellam Codorus Creek Dee Run DRT101 460 10 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Dee Run DRT201 640 11 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Dee Run DRT301 1175 12 E Manchester Codorus Creek Emigsville Tributary ET101 500 13 Manchester Codorus Creek Emigsville Tributary ET502/503/501 1240 14 Manchester Codorus Creek Emigsville Tributary ET607 780 15 Manchester Codorus Creek Emigsville Tributary ET608 735 16 Manchester Codorus Creek Emigsville Tributary ET701 1030 17 York Codorus Creek Leaders Heights Trib LH01 900 18 York Codorus Creek Leaders Heights Trib LH03/LH101 2650 19 York Codorus Creek Leaders Heights Trib LH07/LH401 4480 20 Manchester Codorus Creek Lightners School Trib LST03 1900 21 Manchester Codorus Creek Lightners School Trib LST04 1225 22 Manchester Codorus Creek Lightners School Trib LST05/LST04 4250 23 Manchester Codorus Creek Lightners School Trib LST105 800 24 Manchester Codorus Creek Lightners School Trib LST201 1267 25 W Manchester Codorus Creek Lincolnway Trib LWT301/LWT04/LWT05 2280 26 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC02/MC03/MC04 1960 27 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC09 2600 28 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC10 1165 29 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC1002 1100 30 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC1003 1500 31 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC1006 3700 32 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC1101 1180 33 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC1201 1500 34 York/Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC13/MC12 1470 35 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC1512 500 36 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC1601 420 37 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC19 1660 38 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC1901 1733 39 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC21 0 40 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC22 2600 41 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC23 1000 42 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC2606 1255 43 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC2611 1260 44 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC2805 1445 45 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC2805 0

1-21 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

46 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC304 1030 47 Springettsbury Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC3601 460 48 York City Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC3901 0 49 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC402 1000 50 York Codorus Creek Mill Creek MC502/MC501 2025 51 E Manchester Codorus Creek Starview Trib SVT01 700 52 York Codorus Creek Tyler Run VH04/VH03 675 53 York Codorus Creek Tyler Run VH08 1400 54 Spring Garden Codorus Creek Tyler Run VH14 1730 55 York Codorus Creek Tyler Run VH401 500 56 York Codorus Creek Tyler Run VH501 2210 57 W Manheim Codorus Creek Tyler Run VH802 780 58 W Manchester Codorus Creek Willis Run WR01 1500 59 York City Codorus Creek Willis Run WR05 1500 60 York City Codorus Creek Willis Run WR07 2420 61 Manchester Codorus Creek Willis Run WR301 2020 62 York East Branch Barshinger Creek BC06/BC05/BC04 1575 63 York East Branch Barshinger Creek BC08 1260 64 York East Branch Barshinger Creek BC11 2450 65 York East Branch Barshinger Creek BC12/BC13/BC14 3300 66 N Hopwell East Branch Barshinger Creek BC15/BC16/BC17 3400 67 N Hopwell/York East Branch Barshinger Creek BC18/BC19/BC20/BC21 2820 68 N Hopwell East Branch Blymire Hollow Trib BHT07 1400 69 N Hopwell East Branch Blymire Hollow Trib BHT503-FILL 200 70 N Hopwell East Branch Blymire Hollow Trib BHT504 820 71 York East Branch Barshinger Creek DBT09/10/11/12/13 3000 72 Springfield East Branch East Branch Codorus Creek EB25 2075 73 Shrewsbury East Branch Hametown Trib HT05/HT04 1900 74 York East Branch Inners Creek IC10 1100 75 York East Branch Inners Creek IC1101 1185 76 York East Branch Inners Creek IC13/IC12 1180 77 York East Branch Inners Creek IC17 3650 78 York East Branch Inners Creek IC203/IC05/IC06 1025 79 York East Branch Inners Creek IC601 450 80 Springfield East Branch Nixon Park Trib NPT1103/1102 1090 81 Springfield East Branch Nixon Park Trib NPT15/NPT14 1900 82 Springfield East Branch Nixon Park Trib NPT18/NPT17/EB 3670 83 Springfield East Branch Ridgeview Road Trib RRT03/RRT04/RRT05 3350 84 Codorus South Branch Brush Valley Trib BRVT09 2560 85 Codorus South Branch Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT02 380 86 Codorus South Branch Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT03/04 1850 87 Codorus South Branch Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 1070 88 Codorus South Branch Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 955 89 Codorus South Branch Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 445 90 N Codorus South Branch Centerville Creek CC12 760 91 Codorus/N Codorus South Branch Centerville Creek CC12/CC11 1078 92 N Codorus South Branch Centerville Creek CC16/CC17 5250 93 Codorus/N Codorus South Branch Centerville Creek CC18/CC17/CC16 680 94 Codorus South Branch Centerville Creek CC605/CC606/CC607 2000 95 N Codorus South Branch Centerville Creek CC701 1000 97 Springfield South Branch Fischel Creek FIC05 1565 98 Seven Valleys South Branch Fischel Creek FIC01 2090 99 Springfield South Branch Fischel Creek FIC02 1360 100 Springfield South Branch Fischel Creek FIC08 1260 101 Springfield South Branch Fischel Creek FIC1003 400

1-22 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

102 Springfield South Branch Fischel Creek FIC1101 1930 103 Springfield South Branch Fischel Creek FIC1201/FIC13 1150 104 Springfield South Branch Foust Creek FOC02/FOC01 1010 105 Springfield South Branch Foust Creek FOC04 780 106 Springfield South Branch Foust Creek FOC07/FOC06 1732 107 Springfield South Branch Foust Creek FOC09/FOC08 2415 108 Shrewsbury South Branch Foust Creek FOC10 1440 109 Shrewsbury South Branch Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 1660 110 Shrewsbury South Branch Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 1720 111 Shrewsbury South Branch Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT06 1050 112 Shrewsbury South Branch Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT206 1300 113 Shrewsbury South Branch Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT209/208/GRVT03 1070 114 Shrewsbury South Branch Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT501 1270 115 Codorus South Branch Hanover Junction Trib HJT03/HJT04 990 116 Codorus South Branch Hanover Junction Trib HJT05 1575 117 Shrewsbury South Branch Hunderford Trib HuT05 1500 118 Codorus South Branch Krebs Valley Trib KVT0[7] 1850 119 Codorus South Branch Krebs Valley Trib KVT0[9] 2160 120 Codorus South Branch Krebs Valley Trib KVT01 3150 121 Codorus South Branch Krebs Valley Trib KVT04 1480 122 Codorus South Branch Krebs Valley Trib KVT04 2730 123 Codorus South Branch Krebs Valley Trib KVT401 0 124 Codorus South Branch Krebs Valley Trib KVT601/KVT602 3870 125 Shrewsbury South Branch New Freedom Church Trib NFCT04 1000 126 Shrewsbury South Branch New Freedom Church Trib NFCT05 1040 127 N Codorus South Branch New Salem Trib NST101/NST02 1885 128 N Codorus South Branch New Salem Trib NST301 1000 129 N Codorus South Branch New Salem Trib NST502/NST601 780 130 N Codorus South Branch New Salem Trib NST703 1070 131 Codorus South Branch Pierceville Run PR02 500 132 Codorus South Branch Pierceville Run PR05/PR06 2000 133 Codorus South Branch Pierceville Run PR12 3280 134 Codorus South Branch Pierceville Run PR3E 850 135 Codorus South Branch Pierceville Run PR502 1000 136 Codorus South Branch Pierceville Run PR601 515 137 Springfield South Branch South Branch Codorus Creek SB1601 1100 138 Shrewsbury South Branch South Branch Codorus Creek SB17 400 139 N Codorus/Seven Valleys South Branch South Branch Codorus Creek SB27 2650 140 Springfield South Branch South Branch Codorus Creek SB28/SB29 8625 141 N Codorus South Branch South Branch Codorus Creek SB31 1150 142 N Codorus/Springfield South Branch South Branch Codorus Creek SB36/SB34 1745 143 N Codorus South Branch South Branch Codorus Creek SBCC41 1460 144 York South Branch South Branch Codorus Creek SBCC42 3440 145 N Codorus South Branch Seven Valleys North Trib SVNT06/SVNT05 1478 146 N Codorus South Branch Seven Valleys North Trib SVNT102/SVNT101 500 147 Springfield South Branch Seven Valleys South Trib SVST08/SVST07 1650 148 Springfield/Seven Valleys South Branch Seven Valleys South Trib SVST11/SVST12 950 149 Shrewsbury South Branch Trout Run (South) TR05 1350 150 Shrewsbury South Branch Trout Run (South) TR06 1640 151 Shrewsbury South Branch Trout Run (South) TR07 1700 152 Shrewsbury South Branch Trout Run (South) TR08 910 153 Shrewsbury South Branch Trout Run (South) TR201/TR202 1500 154 Shrewsbury South Branch Trout Run (South) TR301 775 155 Springfield South Branch Travis Trib TT103 3200 156 Springfield South Branch Travis Trib TT106/TT105/TT104 2320

1-23 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

157 N Codorus South Branch Wangs Trib WT01 2560 158 N Codorus South Branch Wangs Trib WT02 2110 159 Jackson West Branch Bunch Creek BC05 1250 160 Jackson West Branch Bunch Creek BC301 750 161 Heidelberg West Branch Codorus Creek CC05 540 162 Codorus/N Codorus West Branch Codorus Creek CC101 1620 163 New Salem West Branch UNT Codorus Creek CC1302 800 164 W Manchester West Branch Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1502 4000 165 W Manchester West Branch Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1503 0 166 W Manchester West Branch Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1503/1504 3135 167 W Manchester West Branch Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1601 1875 168 W Manchester West Branch Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1604/1603/1602 2565 169 W Manchester West Branch Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1606/1605 4270 170 Heidelberg West Branch Codorus Creek CC201 1000 171 Heidelberg West Branch Codorus Creek CC401 800 172 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC02 550 173 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC03 314 174 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC04 735 175 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC07/FC06(D/S) 2700 176 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC08/FC801 2525 177 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC10 888 178 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC1002/FC09 590 179 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC1101(D/S) 380 180 Hanover West Branch Furnace Creek FC1202 530 181 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC701 1690 182 W Manheim West Branch Furnace Creek FC703 540 183 N Codorus West Branch Lischy Church Trib LCT02 2460 184 N Codorus West Branch Lischy Church Trib LCT04/LCT03 950 185 N Codorus West Branch Lischy Church Trib LCT05 500 186 N Codorus West Branch Lischy Church Trib LCT201 625 187 W Manheim West Branch Long Run LR01 0 188 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR03 280 189 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR04/LR102 2080 190 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR06 500 191 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR07 500 192 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR09 700 193 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR10 1550 194 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR11 805 195 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR2301 (D/S) 600 196 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR2303 800 197 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR2501 (D/S) 1400 198 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR2701 1260 199 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR2801 630 200 Manheim/W Manheim West Branch Long Run LR2901/LR2902 1360 201 W Manheim West Branch Long Run LR3201 (U/S) 750 202 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR3202 1350 203 W Manheim West Branch Long Run LR3302 560 204 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR3601 270 205 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR401 1500 206 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR502 900 207 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR503 2050 208 Manheim West Branch Long Run LR902/LR1001 1670 209 N Codorus West Branch Lehman Trib LT01 1570 210 N Codorus West Branch Lehman Trib LT06/LT05/LT04 1700 211 N Codorus West Branch Lehman Trib LT201 500

1-24 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

212 Jackson West Branch Nashville Trib NA02 500 213 Jackson West Branch Nashville Trib NA03 3025 214 Jackson West Branch Nashville Trib NA04 1280 215 Jackson West Branch Nashville Trib NA05 3180 216 Heidelberg West Branch Oil Creek OC19 2650 217 N Codorus West Branch Old Paths Trib OPT04 600 218 N Codorus West Branch Old Paths Trib OPT1001 2000 219 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC01 975 220 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC03/PC101 2180 221 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC04/PC201 1650 222 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC05 750 223 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC06 2000 224 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC08 780 225 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC09 500 226 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC10 650 227 Heidelberg West Branch Porters Sidling Trib PC401 1700 228 N Codorus West Branch Prospect Hill Trib PHT01 1480 229 N Codorus West Branch Prospect Hill Trib PHT03 500 230 N Codorus West Branch Prospect Hill Trib PHT05 750 231 Spring Garden West Branch Spring Grove Trib SG03 2280 232 Jackson West Branch Spring Grove Trib SGR01 380 233 Spring Grove West Branch Spring Grove Trib SGR03 1155 234 N Codorus West Branch Swimming Pool Trib SPT07/SPT08 1725 235 N Codorus West Branch Swimming Pool Trib SPT201 790 236 N Codorus West Branch Swimming Pool Trib SPT501 1200 237 Jackson West Branch Sunnyside Trib SS02 350 238 Jackson West Branch Sunnyside Trib SS02 1200 239 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST01 1840 240 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST02/ST03/ST04 2685 241 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST03ST103 2280 242 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST04 1390 243 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST05(GOLF) 1950 244 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST09 640 245 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST10 875 246 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST11 1650 247 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST204/ST205/ST203 1350 248 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST501 0 249 N Codorus West Branch Stoverstown Branch ST702/ST703 1160 250 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC03 500 251 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC04 390 252 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC06 500 253 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC08 1150 254 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC10 750 255 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1003/UCC1002 800 256 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1004 1785 257 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC11 3600 258 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1201 780 259 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC14/UCC13/UCC12 1900 260 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1402 1600 261 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1403 1470 262 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC15 1550 263 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1602 990 264 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC17/UCC16/UCC18 2850 265 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1701/1702 950 266 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 225

1-25 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

267 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 735 268 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801(U/S) 950 269 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1802 650 270 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1803 1105 271 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1804 1130 272 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC1805 1700 273 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC19/UCC18 1750 274 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC20 575 275 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC201 600 276 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC21 0 277 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC21/UCC3402 1450 278 Manheim/Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC22//UCC23 1320 279 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC2301 1350 280 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC2901 350 281 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3002 750 282 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3003 1350 283 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC302/UCC301 1540 284 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 600 285 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 775 286 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 475 287 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3401 600 288 Jefferson West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3703 700 289 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3704 1300 290 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3705 1700 291 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3706 720 292 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC3902 1100 293 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC401 825 294 Manheim West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC601 800 295 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC701 1120 296 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC801 2400 297 Codorus West Branch Upper Codorus Creek UCC902 500 298 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC02 700 299 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC03 2140 300 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC04 1380 301 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC07 1250 302 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC08 860 303 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC09 2500 304 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1001 400 305 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1201 677 306 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1302 790 307 Hanover West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1501 830 308 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1902 0 309 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC201 1700 310 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC202 1670 311 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC203 500 312 Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2501 500 313 Heidelberg West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2701 500 314 Heidelberg West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2901 950 315 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC301 2775 316 W Manheim West Branch West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC801 560 TOTAL LINEAR FEET 436277

1-26 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-7. Opportunities for Stream Restoration of Codorus Creek Watershed

1-27 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1.7 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and Previous Studies

Under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act, Pennsylvania is required to maintain a list of “impaired waters” that do not meet water quality standards required to protect aquatic life, human health/fish consumption, and/or recreational uses. In order for a waterbody to be included on the list, it must be determined that required technology-based treatment measures for pollution sources (point and non-point) will not be adequate to attain/maintain water quality standards. Once the waterbody is listed on the impaired waters, or 303(d) list, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection must determine conditions that would return the quality of the impaired waters to acceptable standards.

1.7.1 South Branch Codorus Creek Watershed Targeted TMDLs

Targeted TMDL values for the South Branch Codorus Creek subbasins were established based on current loading rates for phosphorus and sediment in the North Branch Muddy Creek reference subwatershed. Biological assessments have determined that the North Branch Muddy Creek subwatershed is currently attaining its designated uses. Reducing the loading rate of phosphorus and sediment in the South Branch Codorus subbasins (Figure 1-8) to levels equivalent to those in the reference portion of the North Branch Muddy Creek subwatershed will provide conditions favorable for the reversal of current use impairments.

There are two separate considerations of background pollutants within the context of these TMDLs. First, there is the inherent assumption of the reference watershed approach that because of the similarities between the reference and impaired watershed, the background pollutant contributions will be similar. Therefore, the background pollutant contributions will be considered when determining the loads for the impaired watershed that are consistent with the loads from the reference watershed. Second, the Arc View Generalized Watershed Loading Function (AVGWLF) model implicitly considers background pollutant contributions through the soil and the groundwater component of the model process.

The targeted TMDL values for phosphorus and sediment were determined by multiplying the total area of subbasins 1 and 2 (25,180.00 acres and 20,759.40 acres respectively) by the appropriate unit area loading rate for the North Branch Muddy Creek reference subwatershed. The existing mean annual loading of phosphorus and sediment to subbasin 1 (33,852.94 lbs/yr and 29,141,794.00 lbs/yr respectively) will need to be reduced by 52 percent and 53 percent to meet the targeted TMDL of 16,367.00 lbs/yr of phosphorus and 13,773,460.00 lbs/yr of sediment respectively. The existing mean annual loading of phosphorus and sediment to subbasin 2 (24,269.89 lbs/yr and 17,753,092.40 lbs/yr respectively) will need to be reduced by 44 percent and 36 percent to meet the targeted TMDL of 13,493.61 lbs/yr of phosphorus and 11,355,391.80 lbs/yr of sediment respectively.

1-28 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Targeted TMDL values were then used as the basis for load allocations and reductions in the South Branch Codorus Creek subbasins, using the following two equations: 1. TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS 2. LA = ALA + LNR where: TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load WLA = Waste Load Allocation (point sources) LA = Load Allocation (nonpoint sources) ALA = Adjusted Load Allocation LNR = Loads not Reduced

South Branch Codorus Creek Wasteload Allocation

There are two point sources in the watershed that discharge nutrients into the South Branch Codorus Creek. Both discharges are wastewater treatment plants associated with the towns of Glen Rock and New Freedom. Glen Rock has an average annual loading for phosphorus of 1,754.00 lbs/yr, with a permit limit of 3,650.00 lbs/yr. New Freedom has an average annual loading for phosphorus of 5,031.80 lbs/yr, with a permit limit of 4,562.50 lbs/yr to be implemented in September 2005. An interim permit limit for phosphorus of 6,752.50 lbs/yr currently exists at the New Freedom facility. This TMDL utilizes the final permit limits for both facilities in determining the loading limits.

South Branch Codorus Creek Margin of Safety

The MOS is that portion of the pollutant loading that is reserved to account for any uncertainty in the data and computational methodology used for the analysis. For this analysis, the MOS is explicit. Ten percent of the targeted TMDL for sediment was reserved as the MOS. Using 10 percent of the TMDL load is based on professional judgment and will provide an additional level of protection to the designated uses of the South Branch Codorus Creek subbasins. The MOS used for the phosphorus and sediment loads for subbasin 1 were 1,636.7 lbs/yr and 1,377,346.00 lbs/yr respectively. The MOS used for the phosphorus and sediment loads for subbasin 2 were 1,349.36 lbs/yr and 1,135,539.18 lbs/yr respectively.

Subbasin 1 Phosphorus - MOS = 16,367.00 lbs/yr (TMDL) x 0.1 = 1,636.70 lbs/yr Sediment - MOS = 13,773,460.00 lbs/yr (TMDL) x 0.1 = 1,377,346.00 lbs/yr

Subbasin 2 Phosphorus - MOS = 13,493.61 lbs/yr (TMDL) x 0.1 = 1,349.36 lbs/yr Sediment - MOS = 11,355,391.80 lbs/yr (TMDL) x 0.1 = 1,135,539.18 lbs/yr

1-29 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-8. South Branch Codorus Creek Watershed TMDL Areas

1-30 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

South Branch Codorus Creek Load Allocation

The LA is that portion of the TMDL that is assigned to nonpoint sources. The LA was computed by subtracting the WLA and MOS values from the targeted TMDL value. The LAs for subbasin 1 for phosphorus and sediment were 11,080.30 lbs/yr and 12,396,114.00 lbs/yr respectively. The LAs for subbasin 2 for phosphorus and sediment were 7,581.75 lbs/yr and 10,219,852.62 respectively.

Subbasin 1 Phosphorus - LA = 16,367.00 lbs/yr (TMDL) – 3,650.00 lbs/yr (WLA) – 1,636.7 lbs/yr (MOS) = 11,080.30 lbs/yr Sediment - LA = 13,773,460.00 lbs/yr (TMDL) – 0.0 lbs/yr (WLA) – 1,377,346.00 lbs/yr (MOS) = 12,396,114.00 lbs/yr

Subbasin 2 Phosphorus - LA = 13,493.61 lbs/yr (TMDL) – 4,562.50 lbs/yr (WLA) – 1,349.36 lbs/yr (MOS) = 7,581.75 lbs/yr Sediment - LA = 11,355,391.80 lbs/yr (TMDL) – 0.0 lbs/yr (WLA) – 1,135,539.18 lbs/yr (MOS) = 10,219,852.62 lbs/yr

South Branch Codorus Creek Adjusted Load Allocation

The adjusted load allocation (ALA) is the actual portion of the LA distributed among those nonpoint sources receiving reductions. It is computed by subtracting those nonpoint source loads that are not being considered for reductions (loads not reduced or LNR) from the LA. Phosphorus and sediment reductions were made to the hay/ pasture, cropland, developed areas, and streambanks. Those land uses/sources for which existing loads were not reduced (CONIF_FOR, MIXED_FOR, DECID_FOR, GROUNDWATER) were carried through at their existing loading values. The ALAs for phosphorus and sediment for subbasin 1 were 6,276.10 lbs/yr and 12,308,514.00 lbs/yr respectively. The ALAs for phosphorus and sediment for subbasin 2 were 4,301.95 lbs/yr and 10,151,852.62 lbs/yr respectively.

South Branch Codorus Creek TMDLs

The phosphorus and sediment TMDLs established for the South Branch Codorus Creek subbbasins consists of a WLA, a LA and a MOS. No TMDL was established for nitrogen because the stream is phosphorus limited.

South Branch Codorus Creek Calculation of Sediment Load Reductions

The ALAs established in the previous section represent the annual phosphorus and sediment loads that are available for allocation between contributing sources in the South Branch Codorus Creek subbasins. The ALAs for phosphorus and sediment were allocated between agricultural and developed land uses, and stream banks. Data needed for load reduction analyses, including land use distribution, were obtained by GIS analysis. The

1-31 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Equal Marginal Percent Reduction (EMPR) allocation method was used to distribute the ALA between the appropriate contributing land uses.

The load allocation and EMPR procedures were performed using MS Excel. Table 1-6 and 1-7 contain the results of the EMPR for total phosphorus and sediment for the appropriate contributing land uses in the South Branch Codorus Creek subbasins 1 and 2, respectively. The load allocation for each land use is shown, along with the percent reduction of current loads necessary to reach the targeted LA. Each allocation unit corresponds with a TMDL segment shown in figure 1-8.

Table 1-6. TMDL Load Allocations of South Branch Codorus Creek Subbasin 1

Allocation 1 – South Branch Codorus –Glen Rock to Seven Valleys (Segment ID 1275) Pollutant Unit Area Loading Rate (lbs/ac/yr) Pollutant Loading (lbs/yr) Reduction Source Acres Current Allowable Current Allowable (%) Phosphorus Hay/Pasture 4,580.28 0.14 0.1 641.24 549.63 14 Cropland 10,132.81 2.13 0.4 21,582.89 4,357.11 80 Developed 145.17 1.02 0.9 148.07 126.30 15 Streambanks 0 0 0 110.92 94.10 15 Subtotals 14,858.26 3.29 1.4 22,483.12 5,127.14 31 Sediment Hay/Pasture 4,580.28 145.50 132.71 666,430.74 607,848.96 9 Cropland 10,132.81 2,268.25 913.76 22,983,746.28 9,258,956.47 60 Developed 145.17 281.25 256.53 40,829.06 37,240.46 9 Streambanks 0 0 0 240,565.14 219,419.30 9 Subtotals 14,858.26 2,695 1303 23,931,571.22 10,123,465.19 22

Allocation 2 – South Branch Codorus –Buffalo Valley Hollow Segment Pollutant Unit Area Loading Rate Pollutant Loading (lbs/yr) Reduction Source Acres (lbs/ac/yr) (%) Current Allowable Current Allowable Phosphorus Hay/Pasture 507.25 0.14 0.1 71.02 60.87 14 Cropland 1,040.24 2.13 0.4 2,215.71 447.30 80 Developed 9.44 1.02 0.9 9.63 8.21 15 Streambanks 0 0 0 9.79 8.17 17 Subtotals 1,556.93 3.29 1.4 2,306.15 524.55 32 Sediment Hay/Pasture 507.25 145.50 132.17 73,804.88 67,317.15 9 Cropland 1,040.24 2,268.25 913.76 2,359,524.38 950,529.70 60 Developed 9.44 281.25 256.53 2,655.00 2,421.64 9 Streambanks 0 0 0 23,759.52 21,671.04 9 Subtotals 1,556.93 2,695 1302.46 2,459,743.78 1,041,939.53 22

Allocation 3 – South Branch Codorus, Krebs Valley Run Segment Pollutant Unit Area Loading Rate Pollutant Loading (lbs/yr) Reduction Source Acres (lbs/ac/yr) (%) Current Allowable Current Allowable Phosphorus Hay/Pasture 792.95 0.14 0.1 111.01 95.15 14 Cropland 1,183.88 2.13 0.4 2,521.66 509.07 80 Developed 10.09 1.02 0.9 10.29 8.78 15 Streambanks 0 0 0 12.48 10.46 16 Subtotals 1,986.92 3.29 1.4 2,655.44 623.46 31 Sediment Hay/Pasture 792.95 145.50 132.71 115,374.23 105,232.39 9 Cropland 1,183.88 2,268.25 913.76 2,685,335.81 1,081,782.19 60 Developed 10.09 281.25 256.53 2,837.81 2,588.39 9 Streambanks 0 0 0 3,2669.34 29,797.68 9 Subtotals 1,986.92 2,695 1303 2,836,217.19 1,219,400.65 22

1-32 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Table 1-7. TMDL Load Allocations of South Branch Codorus Creek Subbasin 2 Allocation 4 – Upper South Branch Codorus - New Freedom to Glen Rock (Segment ID 19990630-1054-MSE & 19990630-1201-MSE) Pollutant Unit Area Loading Rate (lbs/ac/yr) Pollutant Loading (lbs/yr) Reduction Source Acres Current Allowable Current Allowable (%) Phosphorus Hay/Pasture 2,272.25 0.10 0.09 227.23 204.50 10 Cropland 4,886.30 1.65 0.40 8,062.40 1,954.52 76 Developed 502.72 0.15 0.13 75.41 65.35 13 Streambanks 0 0 0 45.25 39.14 13 Subtotals 7,661.27 1.9 0.62 8,410.29 2,263.51 28 Sediment Hay/Pasture 2,272.25 113.04 105.28 256,855.14 239,222.48 7 Cropland 4,886.30 1,821.93 1,017.09 8,902,496.56 4,969,806.87 44 Developed 502.72 34.53 32.16 17,358.92 16,167.48 7 Streambanks 0 0 0 11,765.54 10,957.84 7 Subtotals 7,661.27 1,969.5 1,154.53 9,188,476.16 5,236,154.67 16 Allocation 5 – South Branch Codorus – Foust Creek Segment Pollutant Unit Area Loading Rate (lbs/ac/yr) Pollutant Loading (lbs/yr) Reduction Source Acres Current Allowable Current Allowable (%) Phosphorus Hay/Pasture 254.50 0.10 0.09 26.25 22.76 13 Cropland 631.37 1.65 0.40 1,039.13 253.39 76 Developed 12.02 0.15 0.13 1.82 1.58 13 Streambanks 0 0 0 5.30 4.59 13 Subtotals 897.89 1.9 0.62 1,072.5 282.32 29 Sediment Hay/Pasture 254.50 113.04 105.28 28,768.68 26,793.76 7 Cropland 631.37 1,821.93 1,017.09 1,150,311.94 642,160.11 44 Developed 12.02 34.53 32.16 415.05 386.56 7 Streambanks 0 0 0 11,765.54 10,957.84 7 Subtotals 897.89 1,969.5 1,154.53 1,191,261.21 680,298.27 16 Allocation 6 – South Branch Codorus -Centerville Creek Segment Pollutant Unit Area Loading Rate (lbs/ac/yr) Pollutant Loading (lbs/yr) Reduction Source Acres Current Allowable Current Allowable (%) Phosphorus Hay/Pasture 997.26 0.10 0.09 99.73 89.75 10 Cropland 1,884.38 1.65 0.40 3,109.23 753.75 76 Developed 21.13 0.15 0.13 3.17 2.75 13 Streambanks 0 0 0 17.14 14.83 13 Subtotals 2,902.77 1.9 0.62 3,229.27 861.08 28 Sediment Hay/Pasture 997.26 113.04 105.28 112,730.27 104,991.53 7 Cropland 1,884.38 1,821.93 1,017.09 3,433,208.45 1,916,584.05 44 Developed 21.13 34.53 32.16 729.62 697.54 7 Streambanks 0 0 0 39,218.48 36,526.14 7 Subtotals 2,902.77 1,969.5 1,154.53 3,585,886.82 2,058,799.26 16 Allocation 7 – South Branch Codorus – Pierceville Run Segment Pollutant Unit Area Loading Rate (lbs/ac/yr) Pollutant Loading (lbs/yr) Reduction Source Acres Current Allowable Current Allowable (%) Phosphorus Hay/Pasture 1,182.48 0.10 0.09 118.25 106.42 10 Cropland 1,898.42 1.65 0.40 3,132.39 759.37 76 Developed 19.04 0.15 0.13 2.86 2.48 13 Streambanks 0 0 0 18.31 15.84 13 Subtotals 3,099.94 1.9 0.62 3,271.81 884.11 28 Sediment Hay/Pasture 1,182.48 113.04 105.28 133,667.54 124,491.49 7 Cropland 1,898.42 1,821.93 1,017.09 3,458,788.35 1,930,864.00 44 Developed 19.04 34.53 32.16 657.45 612.33 7 Streambanks 0 0 0 41,179.40 38,352.45 7 Subtotals 3,099.94 1,969.5 1,154.53 3,634,292.74 2,094,320.27 16

1-33 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1.7.2 Oil Creek Targeted TMDL

Targeted TMDL values for the Oil Creek subwatershed were established based on current loading rates for sediment in the Kreutz Creek reference subwatershed. Biological assessments have determined that the Kreutz Creek subwatershed is currently attaining its designated uses. Reducing the loading rate of sediment in the Oil Creek subwatershed (Figure 1-9) to levels equivalent to those in the reference portion of the Kreutz Creek subwatershed will provide conditions favorable for the reversal of current use impairments.

The targeted TMDL value for sediment was determined by multiplying the total area of the Oil Creek subwatershed (2,482.32 acres) by the appropriate unit area loading rate for the Kreutz Creek subwatershed. The existing mean annual loading of sediment to the Oil Creek subwatershed (1,549,618.60 lbs/yr) will need to be reduced by 33% to meet the targeted TMDL of 1,039,943.14 lbs/yr.

Targeted TMDL values were than used as the basis for load allocations and reductions in the Oil Creek subwatershed, using the following two equations:

1. TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS 2. LA = ALA + LNR where: TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load WLA = Waste Load Allocation (point sources) LA = Load Allocation (nonpoint sources) ALA = Adjusted Load Allocation LNR = Loads not Reduced

Oil Creek Wasteload Allocation

There are no known wasteload allocations for sediment in the Oil Creek subwatershed.

Oil Creek Margin of Safety

The MOS is that portion of the pollutant loading that is reserved to account for any uncertainty in the data and computational methodology used for the analysis. For this analysis, the MOS is explicit. Ten percent of the targeted TMDL for sediment was reserved as the MOS. Using 10% of the TMDL load is based on professional judgment and will provide an additional level of protection to the designated uses of the Oil Creek subwatershed. The MOS used for the sediment TMDL was 103,994.31 lbs/yr. MOS = 1,039,943.14 lbs/yr (TMDL) x 0.1 = 103,994.31 lbs/yr

1-34 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-9. Oil Creek TMDL Subbasin

1-35 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Oil Creek Load Allocation

The LA is that portion of the TMDL that is assigned to nonpoint sources. The LA was computed by subtracting the WLA and MOS values from the targeted TMDL value. LA for the Oil Creek subwatershed is 935,948.83 lbs/yr. LA = 1,039,943.14 lbs/yr (TMDL) – 0.0 lbs/yr (WLA) – 103,994.31 lbs/yr (MOS) = 935,948.83 lbs/yr

Oil Creek Adjusted Load Allocation

The adjusted load allocation (ALA) is the actual portion of the LA distributed among those nonpoint sources receiving reductions. It is computed by subtracting those nonpoint source loads that are not being considered for reductions (loads not reduced or LNR) from the LA. Sediment reductions were made to the hay/pasture, cropland, developed areas, and streambanks. Those land uses/sources for which existing loads were not reduced (CONIF_FOR, MIXED_FOR, DECID_FOR) were carried through at their existing loading values (Table 5). The ALA for the Oil Creek subwatershed was 935,548.83 lbs/yr.

Oil Creek TMDL

The sediment TMDL established for the Oil Creek subwatershed consists of a LA and a MOS.

Oil Creek Calculation of Sediment Load Reductions

The ALA is established in the previous section represent the annual sediment load that is available for allocation between contributing sources in the Oil Creek subwatershed. The ALA for sediment was allocated between agricultural and developed land uses. LA and reduction procedures were applied to the entire Oil Creek subwatershed using the Equal Marginal Percent Reduction (EMPR) allocation method. The LA and EMPR procedures were performed using MS Excel.

In order to meet the sediment TMDL for the Oil Creek subbasin (1,039,943.14 lbs/yr), the load currently emanating from agricultural sources (1,322,600 lbs/yr) must be reduced to 783,890.96 lbs/yr (Table 1-8). This can be achieved through a 33% and 42% reduction in current sediment loading from hay/pasture and cropland respectively. The load currently emanating from developed sources (30,000 lbs/yr) must be reduced by 33% to reach 20,076.62 lbs/yr. The load currently emanating from stream banks (196,618.60 lbs/yr) must be reduced by 33% to reach 131,581.25 lbs/yr.

1-36 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Table 1-8. TMDL Load Allocations & Reductions of Oil Creek Allocation 1 – Oil Creek Segment Pollutant Source Unit Area Loading Rate (lbs/ac/yr) Pollutant Loading (lbs/yr) Reduction Acres Current Allowable Current Allowable (%) Sediment Hay/Pasture 492.59 478.69 320.35 235,800.00 157,802.26 33 Cropland 989.42 1,098.42 632.78 1,086,800.00 626,088.70 42 Developed 855.09 35.08 23.48 30,000.00 20,076.62 33 Streambanks 0 0 0 196,618.60 131,581.25 33 Subtotals 2337.1 1,612.19 976.61 1,549,218.6 935,548.83 39

1.7.3 Previous Studies

Riparian Zone

Riparian zones are transitional areas between land and water environments. Riparian areas have unique plant and soil characteristics often much different than the land and water environments they connect.

Undisturbed riparian zones teem with wildlife and dense vegetation such as grasses, shrubs, and larger tree species such as willows, oaks, maples, hemlocks, and sycamores. Riparian areas protect and stabilize the adjacent waterbody and perform many vital functions including, but not limited to: stream bank/shoreline stabilization, moderation of temperature, attenuation of flood waters, improve water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat.

According to the Watershed Assessments, the Codorus Creek lacks riparian zones and what riparian areas are in tact, are not in good condition. Many of the riparian zones are too narrow to offer any benefits and most are not forested and contain vegetation that cannot stabilize the bank nor offer temperature moderation.

Riparian areas, sometimes referred to as buffers, are one of the most important features of a landscape for the protection of water quality and quantity. Understanding the functions and benefits of riparian areas is critical to watershed planning. Many of the improvements to water quality and quantity needed in a watershed, can be achieved through the restoration of these areas.

Soil Erosion/Loss

Due to poor land management and uses, the watershed is experiencing significant soil erosion and loss. While it is tough to estimate the amount of soil lost each year, some estimates of soil loss through streambank erosion amount to more than 60,000 tons/year. These estimates only account for streambank erosion and do not consider soil loss through streambeds, agricultural lands, barren land, and construction sites with malfunctioning erosion control measures.

1-37 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Soil and sediment deposition is one of, if not the most, significant causes of the decline in productivity of the Chesapeake Bay Estuary, of which the Codorus Creek is a major tributary through the Susquehanna River. Sedimentation of the bay causes complete communities of clams, oysters, kelp beds, and the famous Maryland Blue Crab to disappear. Suspended sediments in the bay block valuable light from reaching the organisms on the bay floor. These same sediments often have nutrients bonded to them from agricultural, commercial and recreational (golf courses) sources. Because of the increase in nutrient load, algal blooms form which also block sunlight from reaching the bay floor. Some of these algal blooms can be toxic to fish and humans. This process is known as eutrophication. Natural eutrophication is the process by which lakes gradually age and become more productive. It normally takes thousands of years to progress. However, humans, through their various cultural activities, have greatly accelerated this process in thousands of lakes around the globe. Cultural or anthropogenic "eutrophication" is water pollution caused by excessive plant nutrients.

Humans add excessive amounts of plant nutrients (primarily phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon) to streams and lakes in various ways. Runoff from agricultural fields, field lots, urban lawns, and golf courses is one source of these nutrients. Untreated, or partially- treated, domestic sewage is another major source. Sewage was a particular source of phosphorus to lakes when detergents contained large amounts of phosphates. The phosphates acted as water softeners to improve the cleaning action, but they also proved to be powerful stimulants to algal growth when they were washed or flushed into lakes.

The excessive growth, or "blooms", of algae promoted by these phosphates changed water quality in Lake Erie and many other lakes. These algal blooms led to oxygen depletion and resultant fish kills. Many native fish species disappeared, to be replaced by species more resistant to the new conditions. Beaches and shorelines were fouled by masses of rotting, stinking algae. A means to control this problem became a paramount need.

Using small, natural lakes as experimental systems, scientists at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) were able to add various combinations of nutrients and determine which of the major plant nutrients (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus) was the key to controlling cultural eutrophication in lakes. Over a number of years, seven different ELA lakes were experimentally fertilized in various ways. Two of these lakes were particularly important in demonstrating that phosphorus was the key nutrient for the control of eutrophication.

Although eutrophication is not a significant problem within the watershed, sound watershed planning principles must take into account the effects to downstream receiving waters and communities. As discussed earlier, the Codorus Creek is a major tributary to the Susquehanna River which is in turn a major tributary to the Chesapeake Bay estuary. As a result, understanding eutrophication including the causes of it, is important in a watershed management plan.

It is understood that within the Codorus Creek watershed there is excessive amounts of sediment being lost from riparian areas, agricultural fields, and the streams themselves.

1-38 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

What is not known, is the amount of phosphorus that is being transported with this sediment. As a result, reducing soil loss and erosion should be a major priority of watershed stakeholders.

Stormwater Management

Stormwater management is the detention, retention, control, and release of stormwater runoff often associated with impervious surfaces. Stormwater management is a relatively new (past 40 years) technique that is part of almost every sub-division/land development ordinance. Often, developers and land owners are required to match the post- development runoff to that of the pre-development conditions. On a small scale, and on a project-by-project basis, this works. However, stormwater from impervious surfaces is a major cause of stream degradation, soil loss, and streambank instability.

Every stream has a natural sediment load balance for a given watershed. If there is too much sediment in the water, such as from agricultural runoff, that sediment can settle out onto the bed of the stream and cause islands and significant point bars. If there is not enough sediment in the water, the stream will pull sediment from it’s banks and bed, cause down cutting of the stream channel which then causes bank instability and collapse. This sediment is then transported downstream.

To be effective in our stormwater management we must begin to look at regional stormwater management on a watershed scale. When doing so, we are connecting different regions so our releases are timed to minimize damage.

The York County Planning Commission is currently completing an Act 167 Stormwater Management Plan for the Codorus Creek Watershed. The plan addresses stormwater management on a watershed level as opposed to a municipal level.

Biological Resources

Invasive species are of great concern in the watershed. Invasive species are very aggressive and adaptable to environmental change and result in decreased biological diversity and can create economic hardships. Of special concern is mile-a-minute weed (Polygonum perfoliatum), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Invasive species often take over native communities and usually offer little habitat to other native species of birds and mammals. This is compounded by the continued growth and construction in the watershed. The subsequent loss of wetlands, floodplains, riparian areas, and forested habitats reduces habitat for threatened and endangered species.

Because of the aggressive and adaptable nature of invasive species, exposed and/or disturbed ground is particularly vulnerable to growth and establishment of these species. Once established, eradication can be difficult hence the need to stabilize exposed areas

1-39 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

with native vegetation. Invasive species often out compete native species for available resources. Of high priority in the watershed is mile-a-minute weed which acts as a vegetative blanket over native low-growing vegetation.

Fluvial Geomorphological Assessments

There were three separate geomorphic assessment reports for the entire Codorus Creek Watershed. These assessments were completed between 1999 and 2003. The goals of the assessments were to determine the stability of the watersheds streams and streambanks and develop a list of prioritized reaches for restoration. These assessments should be used as a tool for the eventual restoration of the Priority 1 and 2 stream reaches within the watershed. The reports of each for the assessments contain valuable information about the locations for restoration and the techniques and have been incorporated into the following sections for developing this implementation plan.

Water Resources Development Act Feasibility Study Sec. 206

The Interim Environmental Restoration Report is a combination of two previously initiated feasibility studies being conducted under the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP). Both feasibility studies were initiated in January 2003 but were subsequently halted in Fiscal Year 2004 due to limited CAP funding. In November 2004, Congress reinstated the funding to the Army Corps of Engineers for the continuation of this effort. The two feasibility studies were the Section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 for the aquatic resources restoration within the watershed and the Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 which provides the ACOE the authority to make modifications to existing structures for the improvement of the environment. Section 1135 relates to the Flood Control Project on the Codorus Creek through the City of York. Officials from the City of York and the York County Commissioners requested the USACOE, Baltimore District, conduct two studies to investigate the potential for environmental improvements and restoration. These studies used a watershed based ecosystem approach to identify problems and restoration opportunities in the watershed, focusing on restoration of aquatic life and stream habitat.

Other Efforts

Fortunately for the watershed, the re are numerous school groups, universities, non-profit organizations, municipalities, and government resource agencies which are conducting studies and completing projects that analyze and protect the watershed. These projects range from stream restoration using natural channel design principles and detailed water quality surveys to community involvement programs such as stream clean-ups. By partnering with other agencies and organizations, groups can form alliances that make an effort more feasible and stronger. Table 1-9 is a list of past and present projects within the Codorus Creek Watershed. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list and may not contain some projects.

1-40 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Table 1- 9. Stream Restoration Best Management Practices Implemented (1995- 2005) and Planned (2006-2010) in Codorus Creek Watershed Pounds Linear Year Best Management Practices Sediment Feet Stream Status Documentation Reduced 1994 Habitat improvement 1,000 EBCC Implemented NA 319 Program 1999 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,600 SBCC Implemented 2,080,000 Growing Greener 2000 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 400 EBCC Implemented 320,000 Growing Greener 2000 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,100 SBCC Implemented 1,680,000 Growing Greener 2001 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 650 EBCC Implemented 520,000 Growing Greener Seaks Run 2001 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 11,000 Implemented 8,800,000 319 Program EBCC 2001 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 4,500 SBCC Implemented 3,600,000 319 Program 2003 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 4,300 EBCC Implemented 3,440,000 319 Program 2003 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 14,000 SBCC Planned 11,200,000 319 Program 2003 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,400 Oil Creek Planned 2,720,000 319 Program 2004 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 4,000 SBCC Planned 3,200,000 319 Program 2004 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 4,000 EBCC Planned 3,200,000 319 Program Pierceville 2005 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,300 Implemented 1,840,000 319 Program Run SBCC 2005 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,300 EBCC Planned 2,640,000 319 Program Mill Creek 2005 Streambank rehabilitation and protection 150 Implemented 120,000 HELP-Streams CC 2006 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,200 EBCC Planned 1,760,000 319 Program 2006 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,350 EBCC Planned 2,680,000 319 Program Pierceville 2006 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,270 Planned 1,816,000 319 Program Run SBCC Mill Creek 2006 Streambank rehabilitation and protection 300 Implemented 240,000 HELP-Streams CC UNT 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,000 Planned 1,600,000 319 Program EBCC Mill Creek 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 1,500 Planned 1,200,000 319 Program CC Poorhouse 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,500 Planned 2,800,000 319 Program Run CC 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 6,000 EBCC Planned 4,800,000 319 Program 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,250 EBCC Planned 2,600,000 319 Program DVT 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 8,400 Planned 6,720,000 319 Program EBCC 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,400 SBCC Planned 1,920,000 319 Program 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 1,900 SBCC Planned 1,520,000 319 Program Mill Creek 2007 Stream stabilization 500 Planned 400,000 Growing Greener II CC Mill Creek 2007 Stream stabilization 1,500 Planned 1,200,000 Growing Greener II CC Pieceville 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 5,000 Planned 4,000,000 319 Program Run SBCC Hollow 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,000 Planned 1,600,000 319 Program Trib EBCC 2008 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,400 SBCC Planned 2,720,000 319 Program 2008 Stream stabilization 1,600 SBCC Planned 1,280,000 Private TOTAL 108,770 86,216,000

1-41 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

1.8 Watershed Priorities

The most significant issue or concern facing the Codorus Creek Watershed is related to water quality and quantity. As we have seen previously, much of the watershed contains streams and waterways that are impaired by one or more variables. There are approximately 296 miles of Priority 1 & 2 impaired streams within the watershed. These impairments are mostly related to stream bank erosion and fluvial geomorphological impairments such as abandoned floodplains, and loss of channel stability.

In addition to the Priority 1 & 2 streams, there are eight subwatersheds that are on the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. These streams must maintain a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) established for the source/cause of impairment. The historical and current data on macroinvertebrate and fish communities indicate very poor to good water quality throughout the watershed. According to the US ACOE Interim Report, abundance of sensitive EPT taxa (macroinvertebrates) could increase provided in stream habitat and general water quality (pollution) were improved.

These impairments to water quality can be attributed to a variety of causes. The increasing population in our suburban and rural areas, particularly in the south, has substantial impacts to water quality and quantity. Development of traditional rural/ agricultural areas to accommodate the emigration from the urban areas threatens the aesthetics, quality of life, and quality of the environment which made these areas so appealing in the first place. Poor land use planning and dysfunctional zoning in and around the watershed and particularly the drainage corridor will destroy the values of the watershed.

Not only is the growth and development of the rural areas an issue, but traditional farming practices are also a major source of declining water quality. Too often livestock are allowed free access to streams which greatly deteriorates the stream banks and water quality. In addition poor farming techniques, such as non-contour farming, and farming directly adjacent to streams and waterways, causes massive erosion problems and results in the loss of the watersheds valuable soils that are either prime farmland soils or soils suitable for infiltration.

Figure 1-10 shows the locations of very poor, poor, and fair water quality locations in relation to the locations of known point and nonpoint sources of pollution in the Codorus Creek Watershed. Figure 1-11 shows the locations of Priority 1 & 2 streams in relation to land use.

1-42 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-10. Water Quality Hazards Analysis.

1-43 Codorus WIP 1.0 Pollution Sources 12/6/2007

Figure 1-11. Land Use Analysis.

1-44 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

2. Pollutant Load Reductions Required to Meet TMDL’s

This section provides information on the pollutant load reductions needed and how they were determined. It addresses TMDL reductions needed given in the previous narratives. Nonpoint sources of pollution addressed are broken out by category quantified in the previous section. Finally, impacts on downstream waters are considered.

2.1. Total Maximum Daily Load Reductions Needed

Three separate stream assessments were conducted between April 2001 and October 2003, coinciding with historic low flow and drought conditions during 2002 for the region. The 2003 assessment was conducted during a high rainfall period with an excess of 13 inches of precipitation up to the end of the field assessment period. At least four bankfull events occurred since January 2003, beginning with a rapid snowmelt in early March 2003.

2.1.1. Methodology

The assessment methodologies and protocol used were the same as those used for the East, South and West Branches. Prior to beginning the field assessment, the Codorus Creek watershed was divided into subwatersheds. Each subwatershed was named according to the nomenclature on the U.S.G.S. topographic maps or labeled according to a landmark feature in that subwatershed. The corridor along the main stem of the Codorus from the confluence of the upper Codorus Creek and West Branch to the Susquehanna River was identified as a separate watershed and includes all first order streams that drain directly to the main stem. Drainage areas were determined at several locations within each subwatershed. This information was then plotted on U.S.G.S. 7.5' topographic quadrangles and used by the assessment crews to assist in stream type classification (Rosgen, 1994). The subwatersheds are listed by stream order (i.e., from outfall to source going down the list) by subwatershed in decreasing order, from outfall to source, in table 2-1.

All streams in each subwatershed were assessed. Stream reaches were determined either by stream type or degree of impairment. Each identified reach on the main stem of each subwatershed was identified with a two-digit number beginning with 01 at the headwaters and numbered sequentially downstream to the mouth. Each contributing tributary to the main stem was identified with a three digit number beginning with 101 following the same procedures. Field assessment crews began assessment efforts in the headwaters of each subwatershed and proceeded downstream. This identification system is a way to identify all stream reaches assessed on the forms and Watershed Assessment Map. During the assessment, photographs were taken to illustrate the various forms and degrees of impairment.

2-1 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Table 2-1. Codorus Creek Watershed Drainage Areas Drainage Area Drainage Area CODORUS CREEK Municipalities (Square Miles) (Acres) East Manchester, Manchester Twp. Hellam, Springettsbury, Spring Garden, Codorus Creek (CC) Saginaw-York 40.90 14,200.62 West Manchester, North York, West York, City of York Trout Run (TR) 1.59 846.84 Hellam Starview Trib (SVT) 0.97 620.80 East Manchester Dee Run (DR) 3.13 2,003.20 Hellam Emigsville Trib (ET) 3.73 2,387.20 Manchester Twp. Lightners School Trib (LST) 2.89 1,849.60 Manchester Twp., City of York Spring Garden, Springettsbury, York Twp., Mill Creek (MC) 18.49 11,833.60 Yoe, Dallastown, Red Lion Willis Run (WR) 4.77 3,052.80 CoY, NYB, MnT, WMT Violet Hill Trib (VHT) 4.38 2,803.20 Spring Garden, York Twp., City of York Lincolnway Trib (LT) 5.12 3,276.80 West York, West Manchester Leaders Heights Trib (LHT) 3.19 2,041.60 York Twp. TOTAL 89.16 44,916.26

EAST BRANCH East Branch Codorus Creek (EBCC3) 44.00 28,160.00 York Twp. Springfield SBCC Reynolds Mill Trib (RMT) 0.23 147.20 York Twp. Nixon Park Trib (NPT) 2.82 1,804.80 Springfield, Jacobus, Loganville Jacobus Boro West Trib (JBWT) 0.25 160.00 Jacobus, Springfield Leaders Heights South Trib (LHST) 0.21 134.40 York Twp. Jacobus Boro North Trib (JBNT) 0.20 128.00 Jacobus, Springfield I-83 Exit Four Trib (EFT) 0.45 288.00 York Twp. Arlington Park Trib (APT) 0.97 620.80 York Twp. Jacobus Boro East (JBET) 0.41 262.40 Jacobus, Springfield I-83 Exit Three Trib (ETT) 0.76 486.40 Springfield Spartan Road Trib (SRT) 0.36 230.40 York Twp. Inners Creek (IC) 3.11 1,990.40 York Twp., Dallastown Dunkard Valley Trib (DVT) 3.35 2,144.00 Springfield, Loganville Barshinger 4.23 2,707.20 York Twp., North Hopewell, Red Lion Dallastown South Trib (DST) 1.20 768.00 York Twp., Dallastown East Branch Codorus Creek (EBCC2) 22.3 14,272.00 York Twp., Springfield, North Hopewell SR 214 Ridgeview Road Trib (RRT) 0.63 403.20 Springfield Graydon Raod Trib (GRT) 0.86 550.40 Springfield Winterstown Boro North Trib (WBNT) 1.46 934.40 North Hopewell, Winterstown Seaks Run (SR) 3.22 2,060.80 Springfield Winterstown Boro South Trib (WBST) 0.73 467.20 North Hopewell, Winterstown East Branch Codorus Creek (EBCC1) 5.66 3,622.40 York Twp., Springfield Blymire Blymire Hollow Trib (BHT) 6.41 4,102.40 North Hopewell, Winterstown Hametown Trib (HT) 1.47 940.80 Springfield Rehmeyer Hollow Trib (RHT) 0.77 492.80 Springfield, North Hopewell Mt. Zion Trib (MZT) 0.89 569.60 Springfield Mt. Olivet Trib (MOT) 1.30 832.00 Shrewsbury, North Hopewell, Hopewell TOTAL 108.25 69,280.00

2-2 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

SOUTH BRANCH North Codorus, Springfield, Seven Valleys, South Branch Codorus Creek (SBCC) 68.00 43,520.00 Glen Rock, Codorus, Railroad, New Freedom Wangs Trib (WT) 1.02 652.80 North Codorus Bens Trib (BT) 0.43 275.20 North Codorus Fishel Creek (FIC) 3.74 2,393.60 Springfield Seven Valleys North Trib (SVNT) 0.77 492.80 North Codorus Seven Valleys South Trib (SVST) 1.07 684.80 Springfield, Seven Valleys Zeiglers Church Trib (ZCT) 1.14 729.60 North Codorus Stricthouser Trib (ST) 10.50 6,720.00 North Codorus, Jefferson, Codorus Brush Valley Trib (BRVT) 2.49 1,593.60 North Codorus, Codorus Buffalo Valley Trib (BUVT) 2.80 1,792.00 North Codorus, Codorus Hanover Junction Trib (HJT) 0.96 614.40 North Codorus, Codorus Cherry Run (CR) 1.66 1,062.40 Codorus Larue Trib (LT) 0.91 582.40 Springfield Peter & Paul Trib (PPT) 0.45 288.00 Codorus Travis Trib (TT) 1.71 1,094.40 Springfield Krebs Valley Trib (KVT) 4.32 2,764.80 Codorus Centerville Creek (CC) 14.40 9,216.00 Codorus Pierceville Run (PR) 6.70 4,288.00 Codorus Foust Creek (FOC) 1.78 1,139.20 Springfield, Shrewsbury Glen Rock South Trib (SGRT) 0.48 307.20 Codorus, Glen Rock Glen Rock Valley Trib (GRVT) 3.55 2,272.00 Glen Rock, Shrewsbury, Springfield Trout Run (TR) 3.37 2,156.80 Shrewsbury Twp. and Boro Golf Course Trib (GFT) 0.70 448.00 Shrewsbury New Freedom Church Trib (NFCT) 2.90 1,856.00 Shrewsbury North Railroad Trib (NRT) 0.40 256.00 Shrewsbury, Railroad Railroad Trib (RRT) 0.41 262.40 Shrewsbury, Railroad Hungerford Trib (HuT) 1.07 684.80 Shrewsbury, Railroad, New Freedom New Freedom Trib (NFT) 1.13 723.20 Shrewsbury, Railroad, New Freedom TOTAL 138.86 88,870.40

WEST BRANCH West Manchester, North Codorus, Spring Codorus Creek (CC) IRD-Lake Marburg 30.28 19,379.20 Grove, Jackson, Paradise, Heidelberg, Penn, Hanover South Branch Codorus Creek (SBCC) 1.56 998.40 York Twp., North Codorus IRD-Reynolds Mill New Salem Trib 2.42 1,548.80 North Codorus, York-New Salem Old Paths Trib (OPT) 3.94 2,521.60 North Codorus, Codorus Sunnyside Trib (ST) 1.04 665.60 Jackson, West Manchester Nashville Trib (NT) 1.55 992.00 Jackson, Spring Grove Stoverstown Branch (SB) 3.06 1,958.40 North Codorus Spring Grove Trib 1.03 659.20 Jackson, Spring Grove Lehman Trib (LHT) 3.06 1,958.40 North Codorus Bunch Creek (BC) 5.30 3,392.00 Jackson, Paradise Jackson, Paradise, Heidelberg, Penn, Oil Creek (OC) 14.91 9,542.40 Hanover Gitts Run (GR) 1.89 1,209.60 Heidelberg, Penn Lischy Church Trib (LCT) 1.44 921.60 North Codorus Swimming Pool Trib (SPT) 1.24 793.60 North Codorus

2-3 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Porters Creek (PC) 1.96 1,254.40 Heidelberg Prospect Hill Trib (PHT) 0.53 339.20 North Codorus Heidelberg, Penn, West Manheim, West Branch Codorus Creek (WBCC) 10.37 6,636.80 Manheim North Codorus, Jefferson, Codorus, Codorus Creek (Upper CC) 14.87 9,516.80 Manheim Long Run (LR) 9.81 6,278.40 West Manheim, Manheim Furnace Creek 3.36 2,150.40 Penn, West Manheim TOTAL 113.62 72,716.80

CODORUS CREEK WATERSHED AGGREGATE Codorus Creek 89.16 44,916.26 East Branch 108.25 69,280.00 South Branch 138.86 88,870.40 West Branch 113.62 72,716.80 TOTAL 449.89 275,783.46

2.1.2. Fluvial Geomorphic Stream Classification

Under Rosgen’s stream classification method, there are eight major stream types found naturally: A, B, C, D, DA, E, F, and G (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). Each of these stream types differs with respect to degree of entrenchment, width to depth ratio, extent of floodplain area, slope, and sinuosity. Each stream type is also classified according to the average particle size or D50 of the substrate particle size as follows. 1 = bedrock 2 = boulders (80" to 10.1") 3 = cobbles (10.1" to 2.5") 4 = gravel (2.5" to 0.08") 5 = sand 6 = silt

The main stem of each subwatershed was divided into reaches according to stream types and/ or degree of impairment. Each reach on the main stem of each sub-watershed, was identified with a two-digit number beginning with 01. Each contributing tributary to the main stem was identified with a three digit number beginning with 101. Survey crews began assessment efforts in the headwaters of a particular subwatershed where the first reach of stream assessed was identified as 01. This identification system was used to identify all stream reaches assessed on the assessment forms and watershed assessment mapping.

The single most important stream channel feature used to determine stream type is the bankfull feature. The elevation or height of this channel feature is used to calculate the entrenchment ratio and the width/depth ratio. The bankfull height on stable streams is the point at which the water in a channel begins to move out over the floodplain. Stream dimensions, patterns, and bed features associated with the longitudinal stream profile are generally described as a function of channel width measured at the bankfull stage. Since streams are self-formed and self-maintained, it is important to relate measurable features

2-4 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Figure 2-1. Classification Key for Natural Waters

2-5 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Figure 2-2. Stream Evolution Changes

2-6 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

this can be identified in the field to a relatively frequent corresponding bankfull discharge. Bankfull discharge is associated with a momentary maximum flow which, on the average, has a recurrence interval of 1.5 years as determined by using a flood frequency analysis (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Although a great deal of erosion may occur during extreme flood events, it is the smaller flow regimes which often transport the greatest quantity of sediment material over time due to the higher frequency of such events (Wolman and Miller, 1960). It is these smaller, more frequent storms that are responsible for channel formation and maintenance over a long period of time.

2.1.3. Development of a Hydraulic Geometry Curve

Leopold developed hydraulic curves for four different regions across the United States that determine the bankfull cross sectional area (bankfull width x mean bankfull depth), bankfull width, and bankfull depth based on the size of the drainage area in square miles. These regional curves were developed by gathering information from various U.S.G.S. gage stations on stable streams in different hydrophysiographic provinces across the country. From a regional perspective, the Eastern United States curve or “B” curve is the only curve presently available for use in determining stream types. This curve however is based on features found on stable streams and also covers a wide range of hydrophysiographic provinces, landform features, and many different land uses.

Data collection from gage stations representative of a watershed is important in developing regional curves. Gage stations which have been active over long periods of time (greater than ten years) are especially valuable in determining bankfull flood flow frequency (1.2 to 1.8 year return) (Leopold, Wolman & Miller, 1964). Due to the high degree of variability within any physiographic region (land use, geology, topography etc.), the curve developed to date for the Codorus Creek watershed relied on more local data collected (similar watersheds) within the regional area. In addition to these variables, the middle and lower sections of the watershed are influenced by Indian Rock Dam and unmanaged stormwater flows from urban watersheds.

Cross sectional surveys in the Codorus Creek watershed were completed at four locations along stable stream reaches where possible bankfull features were identified in order to determine consistency in the regional curve already established. All cross sections were plotted using The Reference Reach Spreadsheet program (Ohio DNR).

The regional curve is shown (Figure 2-3) includes the information collected at the four survey locations. As shown on this figure, the data points collected during the assessment are consistent with the data previously collected during other regional watershed assessments.

2-7 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

10000

1000

100

CROSS SECTIONAL AREA (FT2) AREA SECTIONAL CROSS 1

0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 DRAINAGE AREA (MILES2)

1000

100 WIDTH (FT) WIDTH 10

1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 DRAINAGE AREA (MILES2)

1 DEPTH (FT)

0.1 0.1 1 10 100 1000 DRAINAGE AREA (MILES2)

SBCC EBCC USGS Gage CC

Figure 2-3. Codorus Creek Watershed Regional Curves

2-8 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

The bankfull cross-sectional areas, width and depth were then plotted on the hydraulic curve with the corresponding drainage area at the gage station. In addition, several cross sections were surveyed on stable stream reaches in the watershed where good bankfull indicators were evident. Likewise cross sections were surveyed in the watershed to expand the data collection efforts in order to apply the developed regional hydraulic curve to each watershed. The bankfull cross-sectional areas, width and depth at these locations were then added to the curve and plotted against the contributing drainage area (square miles) at each cross-sectional location. The locations of all reference cross sections are shown on the Watershed Assessment Maps in Figures 2-6 and 2-7.

Aquatic Resource Restoration Company has developed a regional hydraulic curve for the South Branch Codorus Creek watershed that lies within Piedmont Uplands Physiographic Province (Figure 2-11). This curve was established by collecting information at two U.S.G.S gage stations in the Codorus Creek watershed as well as surveyed stream data in the South Branch Codorus Creek watershed. This curve was then further refined with additional reference surveys completed during the assessment of the East Branch Codorus and North Branch Muddy watersheds. Information collected from the East Branch Codorus Creek was very consistent with that of the South Branch Codorus Creek. For the purpose of the Codorus Creek assessment, additional surveyed stream data was collected along four stable stream reaches in the Codorus Creek and plotted on the South Branch regional curve. The maximum drainage area plotted on South Branch curve was 117 square miles. One of the additional surveys included in this assessment was completed in the lower Codorus (CC-26) with a much larger drainage area (277 square miles).

2.1.4. Field Determination of Bankfull Features and Stream Type

Classification

Stream types were classified using fluvial geomorphological (FGM) characteristics of the stream channels developed by hydrologist David Rosgen in his book entitled “Applied Fluvial Geomorphology”. Rosgen developed four levels of assessing and classifying streams that vary from a broad geomorphic characterization (Level I) to a very detailed, specific assessment (Level IV). Level I provides a geomorphic characterization of streams using topographic maps and aerial photography. A Level II assessment is more detailed and requires the actual survey and measurement of stream morphological features to classify stream types. The procedures for surveying stream cross sections are shown on Figure 2-4. Once the bankfull elevation and width (BKFw ) are measured, the Floodprone Area Width (FPAw) can be determined (channel width at twice the maximum bankfull depth). Information collected includes the following: • Bankfull Width (BKFw) • Maximum Bankfull Depth (Thalweg or deepest part of the channel) • Mean Bankfull Depth (BKFd) • Floodprone Area Width (FPAw) • Sinuosity

2-9 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

• Average substrate particle size

Once this information is collected, the morphological characteristics of the stream reach can be determined to identify stream type. The two most important features in determining stream types are the following.

• Entrenchment Ratio - An index value which is used to describe the degree to which a stream channel is incised or entrenched within its banks. Entrenchment = FPAw/BKFw.

• Width/Depth (W/D) Ratio - An index value which compares the width of the channel during the bankfull flow event to the average bankfull depth of the channel. W/D= BKFw/BKFd

Due to the size of the Codorus watershed (278 square miles and 447 stream miles) and the desire to collect more detailed information than that provided by a Level I assessment, a modified stream classification procedure was used for the watershed assessment. This procedure basically required the use of the regional hydraulic curve developed for the watershed to approximate the bankfull cross-sectional area at any given stream reach by using the known drainage area at that location. The approximate size of drainage areas was determined by using a 1"x1" transparent dot grid over the field mapping. Each 1-inch square equals 92 acres on the 1" = 2,000' topographic mapping.

At a minimum, each member of the stream assessment crew had completed Rosgen Level I stream classification training or were trained (in the project study area) over a three-day period on the modified assessment procedures for determining stream types and completing stream stability assessments. This pre-assessment training by the watershed assessors allowed the field team to get calibrated to stream characteristics and assessment criteria.

During the field assessment, survey crews examined stream reaches and identified the limits of each reach on the field maps. At locations where visual determinations could not promptly be made based on entrenchment or width/depth ratios or where there was a lack of bankfull indicators, channel measurements were taken using tape measures and hand levels to determine the approximate bankfull level and approximate cross sectional area. This level was determined using the regional curve whereby the known drainage area would indicate the approximate bankfull cross-sectional area. The bankfull level was chosen where it would correspond with the bankfull width to meet the approximate cross sectional area expected at that location. Generally, stream reaches were identified and plotted on the field maps where the stream type features were similar along a given reach. Along certain reaches, stream types were combined where one stream type would transition into a similar stream type or where stream types with similar features were encountered. An example of combining stream types with similar features would be C and E types, which are both slightly entrenched, or B and F types, which have moderate to high width/depth ratio. Stream reaches were also assessed separately where there was a

2-10 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

noticeable change in the overall condition of the stream, even if the stream was of the same type.

Figure 2-4. Stream Survey Procedures

2.1.5. Stream Stability Assessment and Prioritization

The stream assessments for the East, South and West Branches were conducted between March and June of 1999, 2000 and 2003, respectively. At any given time, up to four teams were in the field. During the assessment, other important watershed features were identified and mapped such as land use, important wetland areas, and any potential sources of sedimentation.

There are several accepted stream assessment procedures and protocols used to assess stream stability. Due to the size of the watershed and the extensive lineal footage of streams to be assessed, an abbreviated stream assessment form was developed to efficiently and quantitatively evaluate and prioritize stream reach conditions. This form is a modification of procedures developed by USDA (Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, Technical Note 99-1). An example of the Stream Reach Prioritization Form used for assessing stream conditions is shown in Figure 2.5. The front side of the form provides information on the stream identification, cause of impairment, and the actual assessment of stream conditions. Under the Stream Assessment portion of the form, four stream

2-11 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

criteria were scored: bank stability, channel stability, riparian vegetation, and aquatic habitat. The evaluation consisted of visual observations and is divided into four separate categories with respect to stream feature condition: severe, moderate, minor, and stable. All references to left and right bank features were made from a view perspective looking downstream. Information from the form was then used to score each stream reach identified.

The assessment for each reach is for the overall condition of the entire reach identified. Point scores for each assessment criteria were assigned with severe rating being 1 and stable rating being 4. The degree of impairment or score for each stream reach assessed was determined from the scoring on the prioritization form as follows. • Priority 1- Score between 4 and 8 (severely impaired, unstable) • Priority 2 - Score between 8.1 and 12 (moderately impaired, some instability) • Priority 3 - Score between 12.1 and 16 (minor impairment or stable) • Other- Unassessed reaches (Piped, culverted or ponded reaches)

Other physical stream data collected on the assessment form include stream size (bankfull width) meander patterns, average size of the substrate particles, depositional features, and the extent of channel debris blockages. This information was recorded on the back of the assessment form (figure 2-5).

2.1.6. Watershed Assessment Map

A 1"=2,000' base map for each watershed area was prepared using U.S.G.S. digital mapping in GIS format (Figures 2-6 and 2-7). Information presented on the base mapping includes the following: • Watershed limits • Subwatershed boundaries and identification • Stream reaches and identifiers along with stream type designation and prioritization rating • Cross section locations • Monitoring locations

All stream reaches in each watershed were digitized on the project base mapping. This information was used to analyze the degree of stream impairment for each subwatershed. To illustrate the degree of impairment, each of the three priority levels (severe, moderate, and minor) were color-coded to graphically show the location and extent of all impaired reaches. Stream lengths were calculated based on the digitized location of each stream reach. This information was then used to determine the total length of the various stream types and also the lengths of the prioritized reaches for each subwatershed. All stream reach length data are conservative. The length of streams shown on the U.S.G.S. base mapping does not reflect the actual and true meander patterns of the streams within each reach. By providing the mapping in a GIS format, additional GIS layers can be added in the future to conduct other watershed management and evaluation studies.

2-12 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

EAST BRANCH CODORUS CREEK WATERSHED ASSESSMENT STREAM REACH PRIORITIZATION Date: ______OVERALL SCORE:______Assessed by: PRIORITY RANKING: 1 (4 to 8) 2 (9 to 12) 3 (13 to 16)

STREAM IDENTIFICATION: Watershed ID: ______Reach ID: ______Stream Type: ______

PREDOMINANT LAND USE: (Circle): Agricultural, Rural, Open, Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Forested)

CAUSE OF IMPAIRMENT: (Circle all that apply): Not impaired, stormwater runoff, pasture impacts, unstable conditions upstream, channel downcutting, , floodplain alteration, lack of riparian vegetation, high sediment loads

STREAM ASSESSMENT: (Circle descriptive elements that apply to overall stream reach) Bank Stability Priority _____ 1 Severe (Banks sloughing, undercut or vertical, exposed soils, evidence of property damage) _____ 2 Moderate (Banks unstable, some bank sloughing, bank slopes 60 to 80 degrees) _____ 3 Minor (Some bank erosion, slopes < 60 degrees,) _____ 4 Stable (Well vegetated, gently sloping or low banks)

Channel Stability Priority _____ 1 Severe (numerous or large unvegetated channel bars, channel dredged, straightened or bermed, no active floodplain, downcutting and/or widening,) _____ 2 Moderate (Degradation or aggradation noticeable, some evidence of over-bank flow) _____ 3 Minor (Some channel scouring or sediment buildup, migration appears minor, floodplain feature present) _____ 4 Stable (Channel appears natural with no evident migration, point bars well vegetated, active floodplain)

Riparian Vegetation Priority _____ 1 Severe (No woody vegetation with high banks, predominantly grasses, buffer < 10’, canopy < 20% closed) _____ 2 Moderate (Sparsely vegetated banks, buffer 10' to 20' wide, canopy 20% to 40% closed) _____ 3 Minor (Some woody diversity and density, buffer 20' to 60’, canopy 40% to 60% closed) _____ 4 Good (Good density and diversity of woody species, or low banks with grasses, buffer > 60’, canopy > 80%)

Aquatic Habitat (Features = riffles, runs and pools) (Cover = woody debris, large boulders, roots,) Priority _____ 1 Severe (No habitat present, uniform substrate or silt, no in-stream cover, uniform stream features) _____ 2 Moderate (Limited aquatic habitat, some substrate particle gradation, limited mix of stream features / cover) _____ 3 Minor (Aquatic habitat noticeable throughout reach, some mix of stream features and cover but not optimal) _____ 4 Good (Good in-stream cover, good mix of features, high variability of substrate particle size)

COMMENTS:

Figure 2-5. Watershed Assessment Field Data Form

2-13 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

2.1.7. Permanent Bank Erosion Monitoring Locations

Prior to conducting the field assessment, one to three bank erosion monitoring locations were established in each watershed. At each monitoring station, two three-foot long metal rebar pins were placed in the banks to monitor erosion rates. A third pin was installed in the channel to monitor changes in the channel. Cross-sectional surveys were completed, and reference pins were installed for future surveying and monitoring. Additional surveys and monitoring were then completed on an annual basis up to three years from establishment.

Bank erosion hazard indices (BEHI) were recorded at all nine monitoring locations. The information recorded for the BEHI’s include bank height, bank angle, root density, root depth, percentage surface protection (vegetation), soil stratification. The methodology for completing the bank profile is modeled after Rosgen’s “A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate”. This method uses measured field values, converted to prediction indices, to determine an approximate amount of streambank erosion as well as departure from stability. Using the BEHI information and the data from the continued monitoring of bank erosion in the watershed, a sediment rating curve will be developed to predict future erosion rates along impaired stream reaches.

2.1.7. Sediment and Bedload Sampling

Bedload and suspended sediment sampling was completed during high flow events in order to measure the amount of bedload and sediment transport during storm events. Three bridges were selected for sampling bedload each with similar physical features. The stream reaches selected for sampling were SBCC-020, CC-027, and SBCC-031. Cross-sectional surveys and channel profiles were completed at all three locations.

Bedload sampling was done with a Helly-Smith, cable-suspended bedload sampler with a 6”x6” orifice. Suspended sediment samples were collected using a depth-integrating cable mounted suspended sediment sampler, Model DH-76. A truck-mounted hoist was used to lower the sampling equipment into the stream.

2-14 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Figure 2-6. East Branch Watershed Assessment Map

2-15 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Figure 2.7. South Branch Codorus Creek Watershed Assessment Map

2-16 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

2.2. Watershed Assessment Findings

The East, South and West Branches of Codorus Creek were assessed between 1999 and 2003 and nonpoint sources of sediment and nutrient pollutants have been quantified by type and category, mapped and prioritized for restoration and protection management.

2.2.1. East Branch

Over the course of the watershed assessment, an estimated 552,300 feet or approximately 105 miles of stream were assessed and prioritized. Again, the total length is taken from U.S.G.S. base mapping and does not account for the actual stream meanders. It is presumed that the length of stream assessed may actually be 5% higher or another 5 miles of stream length. A total of 526 reaches were identified based on either stream type or degree of impairment.

Table 2-2 presents a summary of the assessment results and provides the lineal footage of stream and the degree of impairment (based on assessed scores) for each of the 27 subwatersheds in the project area. More than half (65%) of the lineal footage of streams in the EBCC watershed is either severely or moderately impaired. Approximately 67,912 feet of stream (13 miles) or 12% of all streams were assessed as being severely impaired. In all the severely impaired reaches, bank erosion is the primary cause of impairment. Information on all severely impaired reaches is shown on table 2-10. Another 286,634 feet of stream reaches were assessed as being moderately impaired (approximately 52% of all stream reaches). Therefore, approximately 36% of all stream reaches are slightly impaired or stable. Of the 27 subwatersheds, 14 had reaches of stream that are severely impaired and only 1 subwatershed, Leader Heights South Tributary (LHST), was found to be stable along its entire drainage course.

Of the subwatersheds that have severely impaired reaches of stream, Graydon Road Tributary (GRT) had the highest percentage (32% or 3,327 feet) of impaired stream reaches relative to the entire stream length per watershed (Table 2-9). Other subwatersheds where more than 10% of the entire stream length is severely impaired include Barshinger Creek (BC) with 14%, Dunkard Valley Tributary (DVT) with 31%, the main stem of the East Branch Codorus Creek (EBCC) with 25%, Inners Creek (IC) with 16%, Jacobus Boro North Tributary (JBNT) with 28%, Ridgeview Road Tributary (RRT) with 30%, Seaks Run (SR) with 21%, and Winterstown Boro South Tributary (WBST) with 26%.

The streams in the upper portion of the watershed (above Spring Valley Park (EBCC-17) are in relatively good condition with only 3,960 feet of severely impaired streams. Approximately 50% of the upper watershed was assessed as moderately impaired with the remaining streams assessed as being stable. As shown on the Watershed Assessment Map, a significant amount of stream impairment is centrally located in the watershed both on the main stem and several of the smaller sub-watersheds. Much of the land use in this portion of the watershed consists of agriculture pastureland where riparian vegetation has been removed. The upper reaches of Inners Creek, Dallastown South Tributary and

2-17 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Barshinger Creek watersheds drain south along the S.R. 74 corridor and most of the stream impairment is a direct result of stormwater. Only 4% of the Barshinger Creek watershed was assessed as being stable. Most of the smaller tributaries which drain directly to Lake Redman are well vegetated, but have a high percentage of impairment. Much of this impairment can be attributed to stormwater influences particularly the Jacobus Boro North Tributary. Stormwater impacts were also noted in the Dunkard Valley Tributary. Stormwater from Interstate 83 drains to a small tributary which has downcut and appears to be widening along reaches DVT-801 and 702. These reaches were assessed as severely impaired and are contributing a high sediment load to the main stem.

The York Chapter of the Izaak Walton League maintains a low head dam on the East Branch Codorus which serves as a water supply for a cooperative fish nursery. This dam restricts fish migration to the upper watershed. During the assessment, sucker spawning migrations were noted on two tributaries: Inners Creek and Dunkard Valley Tributary. Inners Creek drains directly to Lake Redman while Dunkard Valley Tributary drains to the East Branch Codorus, upstream of the confluence with Lake Redman. Although both sub-watersheds have a high percentage of stream impairment they do provide a resource to non-game fish.

The impact of sedimentation on the East Branch Codorus Creek and Lake Redman was clearly visible during the summer of 2002. An aerial photograph of Lake Redman was taken during April 2002 which shows the sediment accumulation in the upper reservoir. The watershed assessment was completed during an unseasonably dry period, with below normal rainfall. During the summer of 2002, York Water Company had to begin using the back up water supply of Lake Redman. As the lake was drawn down, these sediment deposits were exposed and reveal the degree of sedimentation.

Streambank Erosion

Bank erosion rates were documented at three monitoring locations in the watershed. All of these monitoring locations are within agricultural pastures with no riparian vegetation (SR-12, EBCC-21 and EBCC-23). At all three monitoring locations, cross-sectional surveys were completed twice over the study to document erosion rates and channel migration. The initial cross-sectional survey and installation of five foot long bank pins was completed in August 2000. Bank erosion was monitored for 20 months at SR-12 and EBCC-21 and for 22 months at EBCC-23.

During the study period no excessive flows or bankfull events occurred however, all of the bank erosion monitoring locations revealed soil loss after the second monitoring cross section data was processed. All of the cross section overlays show bank erosion and channel migration. Cross sections EBCC-21 and 23 also show channel down-cutting. A summary of the bank erosion monitoring is provided below (tables 2-3).

2-18 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Table 2-2. East Branch Watershed Assessment and Restoration Priorities

Table 2-3. Stream Bank Erosion Monitoring

2-19 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Table 2-4. East Branch Estimated Sedimentation from Stream Erosion

The volume of soil loss presented assumes average site conditions along the entire reach and erosion occurring only along one bank. Although soil loss was only measured at one location along the reach, there is a great deal of physical variability along each of the three reaches with respect bank height and actual soil loss. Although no bankfull storm events occurred during the study significant soil loss from the stream banks was documented.

One source of soil loss occurring is the freeze/thaw of vertical unstable stream banks. This type of soil loss occurs very slowly but is continuous during the winter months. As the frozen soil thaws during the morning hours, soil particles fall into the stream or collect along the ice at the bank/water interface. This condition was observed during the study at Reach EBCC-21 and videotaped.

Based on the bank erosion measured during the watershed assessment soil loss due to bank erosion was estimated (table 2-4). More refined soil loss estimates will be made as bank erosion monitoring continues in the future. All of the reaches where bank erosion was monitored are planned for restoration. Bank erosion monitoring will continue even after restoration to document measurable results.

2.2.2. South Branch

Over the course of the watershed assessment, a total of 785,096 linear feet, or approximately 148 miles of stream, were assessed and prioritized. Again, the total length is taken from USGS base mapping and does not account for the actual stream meanders. It is presumed that the length of stream assessed may actually be 5% higher or another 7

2-20 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

miles of stream length. A total of 542 reaches were identified based on either stream type or degree of impairment.

Table 2-5 lists the linear footage of stream and the degree of impairment, based on assessed BEHI scores, for each of the 28 subwatersheds. Approximately one-half (45%) of the linear footage of streams in the SBCC watershed are either severely or moderately impaired. Approximately 54,366 linear feet of stream (10 miles) or 7% of all streams were assessed as being severely impaired. In all the severely impaired reaches, bank erosion is the primary cause of impairment. Another 295,397 feet of stream reaches were assessed as being moderately impaired, approximately 38% of all streams. Therefore, approximately 54% of all stream reaches are slightly impaired or stable. Of the 28 subwatersheds, 11 had reaches of stream which are severely impaired and only 1 subwatershed, North Railroad Tributary, was found to be stable along its entire drainage length.

Of the subwatersheds which have severely impaired reaches of stream, the main stem of the South Branch Codorus Creek had the highest percentage (21%) of impaired reaches relative to the stream length per watershed. Other subwatersheds where more than 10% of the entire stream length is severely impaired includes Fishel Creek (FIC) 16%, Foust Creek (FOC) 15%, and Travis Trib (TT) 12%. The subwatershed with the most severely impaired reaches is the main stem of the South Branch with over 31,125 linear feet of stream. This correlates with DEP’s South Branch Codorus Creek TMDL for Subbasins 1 and 2.

The majority of the streams in the watershed are slightly entrenched, 348,015 linear feet or 44%, consisting of “C” and “E” stream types. A total of 217,374 linear feet (28%) of the streams are entrenched “A”, “G”, and “F” stream types. The moderately entrenched “B” stream types comprise 20% of all streams. The vast majority of all streams have a gravelly substrate.

Information pertaining to the location of all stream reaches assessed was shown on the West Branches Watershed Assessment Maps previously mentioned.

Streambank Erosion

Streanbank erosion rates were documented at two monitoring locations in the watershed. Both of these monitoring locations are within agricultural pastures with no riparian vegetation (Reach SBCC-026 and SBCC-015). At both locations, cross-sectional surveys were completed three times over the study to document erosion rates and channel migration. The initial cross-sectional survey and installation of three-foot long bank pins was completed in July 1999. In December 1999, a second cross-sectional survey was completed. During this survey, all bank pins at both monitoring locations were exposed up to 22 inches from the bank. A comparison of the first and second cross-sections at both locations revealed channel migration of up to two feet with bank erosion along the right bank and an extension of the point bar along the left bank. This channel migration is

2-21 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

believed to be associated with the high flows experienced with Hurricane Floyd which passed over the watershed in September 1999.

Table 2-5. South Branch Watershed Assessment and Restoration Priorities

The monitoring stations at both locations were again examined in March 2000. All bank pins (3-feet long) were either exposed entirely or had fallen into the channel. In early May 2000, a third cross-section was surveyed at both locations and five-foot long bank pins were installed to continue to monitor future erosion rates. Figures 2-6 and 2-7 provide a comparison of the first and third (July 1999 and May 2000) surveyed cross-

2-22 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

sections taken at both monitoring locations over a 10-month period. A comparison of these monumented cross-sections reveals that the stream at SBCC-026 had continued to migrate laterally resulting in the cumulative loss of 2.5 feet of soil along the right bank (Figure 2-6). Similarly, the stream channel at SBCC-015 had migrated laterally along the right bank with a cumulative loss of 3.3 feet of soil (Figure 2-7).

Using the data collected from these sites, the volume of soil loss at both monitoring locations was approximated using conservative estimates for eroded banks throughout these reaches. At SBCC-026, the surveyed eroded bank measures approximately 6 feet in height with a documented soil loss of up to 2.5 feet. The eroded condition of streambanks along this reach varies but extends for approximately 700 feet. Using an average eroded bank height of 4.5 feet and an average soil loss of 2 feet throughout the reach, the approximate loss of soil along the banks is 10,800 cubic feet or 540 tons (100 lbs/cubic foot) over a 10-month period or an average of 0.45 tons of soil per foot of streambank.

At reach SBCC-015, the surveyed eroded bank is approximately 5 feet in height with a documented loss of up to 3.3 feet of streambank along this 1,100-foot reach. Using an average eroded bank height of 4 feet and an average soil loss of 2.5 feet throughout this reach, the approximate volume of eroded soil along the banks is 11,000 cubic feet or 550 tons. This equates to 0.50 ton of soil loss per foot of streambank.

Based on the information collected at these two monitoring stations, bank erosion has contributed approximately 1,090 tons of soil along these two stream reaches in less than a year.

2.2.3. West Branch

Over the course of the watershed assessment, a total of 1,710,000 feet or approximately 324 miles of stream were assessed and prioritized. The total length of stream however is conservative as it only reflects stream length as provided by the U.S. Geological Survey and does not include the actual stream length and true pattern of the streams. It is estimated that an additional 5 % (approximately 16 miles) of actual stream channel may exist in the watershed. A total of 964 stream reaches were identified during the assessment. Information collected from the assessment is shown on the Watershed Assessment Map attached to this report. The results of the watershed assessment are presented on Tables 2-6.

As shown in Table 2-6 approximately 42 miles of stream were assessed as being severely impaired which represents 13% of the streams in the watershed. Another 118 miles (36%) were assessed as being moderately impaired while the balance (153 miles or 47%) was assessed as having minor impairment or were stable. 3.6 miles or 1% of the assessed stream reaches were concrete channels. All of the concrete channels in the project study area are located in the Willis Run watershed, which represents 3% of this watershed.

2-23 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Figure 2-8. SBCC-026 Bank Erosion Monitoring

2-24 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Figure 2-9. SBCC-015 Bank Erosion Monitoring

2-25 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

These concrete channels are primarily associated with the relocation of Willis Run around the rock quarry. Approximately 5,500 feet of piped channel or 37% of all stream reaches were mapped in the Spring Garden Park Tributary (Poorhouse Run) watershed. The length of piped or culverted channel is conservative and only noted where field conditions allowed. The true length of piped channel in this watershed and the other urban watersheds is higher, particularly in the urban and developed portions. In addition to having the highest percentage of piped channels, the Spring Garden Park Tributary has the highest percentage of severely impaired channels (53%). This subwatershed is highly urbanized. Other urban subwatersheds assessed include: Emigsville Tributary, Furnace Creek (lower watershed), Leader Heights Tributary, Lightners School Tributary, Lincolnway Tributary, Mill Creek, Violet Hill Tributary (Tyler Run), and Willis Run. Although there is considerable commercial and residential development occurring in the Emigsville Tributary, the majority of the streams (79%) were assessed as being stable.

The municipality with the most severely impaired stream reaches is Manheim Township. Approximately 9 miles of stream were assessed as severe. Manheim Township covers portions of the Upper Codorus Creek and Long Run subwatersheds, which are predominantly agriculture. York Township has approximately 6 miles of severely impaired stream. York Township is primarily an urbanized watershed and includes Mill Creek and Violet Hill Tributary (Tyler Run).

Streambank Erosion

During the watershed assessment bank erosion was measured at three sites; OC-12 #1, UCC- 18, and LR-11. Six additional monitoring locations were established to continue monitoring efforts.

Erosion rates varied between 1 cubic foot and 4 cubic feet of soil per foot of stream were recorded (table 2-7). OC-12 #1 is located along the outside of a meander bend and was monitored over a nine month period. This stream reach is approximately 3,500 feet and is located in a cattle pasture with no woody vegetation and unrestricted livestock. Based on survey data this reach of stream is eroding at rate of approximately 4 cubic feet of soil per foot of stream (one bank). The majority of the soil loss was along the top of the bank where approximately 8 inches of soil eroded. If this rate is consistent throughout the reach, approximately 700 tons of soil loss would occur annually. It would be inappropriate to assume the same erosion rate over the entire reach.

Along unstable and unvegetated streams, the outside of meanders will erode at greater rates due to the higher shear stress along the banks. In order to more accurately define erosion rates, three additional monitoring locations were established along this reach OC- 12, #2L, & #2R and OC-12, #3. UCC-18 is located on a severely impaired reach along the upstream portion of an outside meander and was monitored over a one year period.

2-26 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Table 2-6. West Branch Watershed Assessment Summary

2-27 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

The survey results show an annual soil loss of one cubic foot per foot of stream. LR-11 was established on a severely impaired reach of Long Run and is located on the outside of the meander. The second monitoring survey was completed nine months after the initial survey and revealed a 0.77 cubic foot of soil loss per stream foot or 1.03 cubic feet per stream foot annually. A second monitoring cross section (LR-11 #2) was established on this reach downstream of LR-11 #1. At LR-11 #1 the right bank collapsed over the toe pin and the channel is actively migrating down valley. LR-11 #2 was established to measure bank erosion downstream where it appears that significant erosion and channel adjustments will occur.

Table 2-7. West Branch Streambank Erosion Monitoring

2.3. Consider impacts on downstream waters

Disturbances that bring changes to stream corridors and associated ecosystems are natural events or human induced activities that occur separately or simultaneously. Either individually or in combination, disturbances place stresses on the stream corridor that have the potential to alter its structure and impair its ability to perform key ecological functions. The true impact of these disturbances can best be understood by how they affect the ecosystem structure, processes, and functions.

A disturbance occurring within or adjacent to a corridor typically produces a causal chain of effects, which may permanently alter one or more characteristics of a stable system. A view

2-28 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

of this chain is illustrated in Figure 2-8 (Wesche 1985). This view can be applied in many stream corridor restoration initiatives with the ideal goal of moving back as far as feasible on the cause-effect chain to plan and select restoration alternatives. Otherwise, chosen alternatives may merely treat symptoms rather than the source of the problem.

Using this broad goal along with the thoughtful use of a responsive evaluation and design process will greatly reduce the need for trial-and-error experiences and enhance the opportunities for successful restoration.

Figure 2-10. Chain of Events Due to Disturbance.

Disturbances can occur anywhere within the stream corridor and associated ecosystems and can vary in terms of frequency, duration, and intensity. A single disturbance event may trigger a variety of disturbances that differ in frequency, duration, intensity, and location. Each of these subsequent forms of direct or indirect disturbance should be addressed in restoration planning and design for successful results.

This plan focuses on understanding how various disturbances affect the stream corridor and associated ecosystems. We can better determine what actions are needed to restore stream corridor structure and functions by understanding the evolution of what disturbances are stressing the system, and how the system responds to those stresses.

Natural disturbances as a multitude of potential events that cover a broad range of temporal and spatial scales. Often the agents of natural regeneration and restoration, natural disturbances are part of the dynamic system and evolutionary process at work in stream corridors.

Traditionally the use and management of stream corridors have focused on the health and safety or material wealth of society. Human-induced forms of disturbances and resulting effects on the ecological structure and functions of stream corridors are, therefore, common.

2-29 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

In either case, if existing stream bank and channel erosion is left unaddressed then the consequences will be continued ecosystem, environmental and water quality degradation, and increasing impairment of waterbody designated and protected uses, throughout the Codorus Creek Watershed.

Therefore, natural stream channel restoration design is considered to be the best hope and the most cost-effective and efficient solution for encouraging and implementing environmental stewardship and watershed protection measures in the Codorus Creek Watershed.

2.4 Watershed Restoration and Protection Priorities

The results of the Codorus Creek Watershed Assessments were fairly consistent between and among the East, South and West Branches with respect to degree of stream impairment and source of impairment (table 2-8).

Table 2-8. Summary of Watershed Assessments Watershed Severely Impaired Percent of Total Moderately Impaired Percent of Total (Miles0 (%) (Miles) (%) East Branch Codorus Creek 13 12 54 51 South Branch Codorus Creek 10 7 56 38 West Branch Codorus Creek 42 13 118 36 Total 65 228

The assessment of the South Branch Codorus included 148 miles of stream, while the East Branch involved 105 miles of stream. The assessment of the West Branch and main stem of the Codorus included another 324 miles of stream for a total of 577 miles of stream in the Codorus Creek watershed. Of this total, 66 miles were assessed as severely impaired or 11.5% of all streams. Another 40% or 230 miles of stream in the entire watershed were assessed as moderately impaired. The upper section of the watershed has a higher percentage of agriculture and forest land while the lower watershed in the vicinity of York has substantially more urban development including residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. As in the other completed watershed assessments, the primary sources of impairment in the watershed appears to be stream bank erosion and sedimentation, lack of adequate, woody riparian buffers, and unrestricted livestock access to the streams. Bank erosion monitoring will be continued to develop a sediment rating curve to help predict future erosion rates.

Overall the water quality of the Codorus Creek is good and supports a good diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates and fin fish. Although Codorus Creek and its tributaries have been impaired for many years, there is potential for enhancement and restoration. The upper Codorus supports a unique and productive coldwater fishery. The portion of the South Branch included in the assessment supports a productive warm water fishery despite obvious impairment.

Mill Creek was a stocked trout stream in the past and has great potential to be restored as a coldwater fishery. There appears to be significant groundwater recharge to the stream and the stream appears to have good water quality. With regional stormwater management planning,

2-30 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

sediment load reduction through bank stabilization and habitat improvements, this urban stream could be restored to a viable fishery.

With the water quality improvements completed by Glatfelter and the initiatives being implemented by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), there is tremendous restoration momentum. The identified watershed partners have pursued a number of restoration and habitat enhancements over the last several years. With the completion of the watershed assessment and prioritization of restoration, funding and property owner support will be a critical to implementing any restoration. A general stream restoration plan has been prepared and is presented in subsequent sections of this watershed implementation plan to help guide future stream restoration efforts. Priority watershed restoration activity by subwatershed and aggregate for the watershed as a whole is given below (table 2-9).

Table 2-9. Watershed of Priority Restoration Activity By Subwatershed and Aggregate for the Watershed as a Whole EAST BRANCH CODORUS CREEK Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Other Total WATERSHED Reaches Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1. East Branch CC-3 (Lower) EBCC-7 7 20,793 45,128 16, 288 949 83,158 2. Dunkard Valley Trib DVT-31 11,025 9,016 15, 728 366 36,135 3. Seaks Run SR-31 8,995 13,471 16, 137 3,366 41,969 4. Barshinge r Creek BC-52 7,924 45,553 2,053 0 55,530 5. Inners Creek IC-47 6,257 11,255 21,500 1,045 40,057 6. Graydon Road Trib GRT-11 3,327 7,103 0 0 10,430 7. Ridgeview Road Trib RRT-10 1,991 3,902 816 0 6,709 8. Blymire Hollow Trib BHT-52 1,985 42,431 29,482 500 74,398 9.Winterstown Boro S Trib WBST-8 1,975 1,247 4,280 0 7,502 10.Winterstown Boro N Trib WBNT-18 1,302 9,265 8,965 0 19,532 11. Jacobus Boro N. Trib JBNT-5 1,176 3,000 0 0 4,176 12. Dallastown South Trib DST-21 759 13,558 2,465 0 16,782 13. Nixon Park Trib NPT-37 234 21,168 18,114 0 39,516 14. Reynolds Mill Trib RMT-4 210 1,291 1,548 0 3,049 15. Mt. Zion Trib MZT-10 0 11,661 1,119 0 12,780 16. Arlington Park Trib APT-17 0 11,078 4,074 0 15,152 17. Hametown Trib HT-15 0 9,084 6,262 135 15,481 18. East Branch CC-2 (Mid) EBCC-17 0 9,022 7564 0 16,586 19. I-83 Exit Three Trib ETT-12 0 7,028 2,611 0 9,639 20. Jacobus Boro W. Trib JBWT-7 0 4,359 198 0 4,557 21. I-83 Exit Four Trib EFT-8 0 3,245 1,280 640 5,165 22. Jacobus Boro E. JBET-7 0 1,974 3,337 0 5,311 23. Rehmeyer Hollow Trib RHT-9 0 1,089 7,306 521 8,916 24. Spartan Road Trib SRT-5 0 265 3,646 0 3,911 25. Mt. Olivet Trib MOT-13 0 41 12,914 181 13,136 26. Leaders Heights S. Trib LHST-2 0 0 2,392 0 2,392 27. East Branch CC-1 EBCC-1 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 67,953 286,234 190,079 7,703 551,969 SOUTH BRANCH CODORUS CREEK Reaches Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Other Total WATERSHED

2-31 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) 1. South Branch CC SBCC 31,125 44,759 68,820 358 145,062 2. Fish el Creek FIC-38 7,752 11,220 29,407 0 48,379 3. Foust Creek FOC-15 2,914 4,973 12,056 0 19,943 4. Glen Rock Valley Trib GRVT-25 2,735 17,848 18,309 0 38,892 5. Travis Trib TT-22 2,518 5,761 12,995 0 21,274 6. Pierceville Run PR-47 2,485 33,290 38,529 0 74,304 7. Centerville Creek CC-64 2,336 24,163 51,398 0 77,897 8. Stricthouser Trib ST-21 940 31,898 15,862 0 48,700 9. Hungerford Trib HuT-18 898 2,204 9,560 942 13,604 10. Seven Valleys N. Trib SVNT-10 436 2,523 8,244 0 11,203 11. Trout Run TR-28 227 8,421 25,403 204 34,255 12. Krebs Valley Trib KVT-26 0 33,412 13,893 0 47,305 13. Hanover Junction Trib HJT-16 0 19,476 0 0 19,476 14. Wangs Trib WT-7 0 13,821 0 0 13,821 15. Zeiglers Church Trib ZCT-17 0 10,367 5,725 0 16,092 16. Brush Valley Trib BRVT-11 0 5,642 13,567 0 19,209 17. New Freedom Trib NFT-2 0 4,745 0 0 4,745 18. Cherry Run CR-10 0 4,203 12,367 0 16,570 19. Bens Trib BeT-1 0 4,153 0 0 4,153 20. Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT-9 0 2,730 25,079 0 27,809 21. New Freedom Ch Trib NFCT-13 0 2,350 23,944 0 26,294 22. Seven Valleys S. Trib SVST-19 0 2,291 14,523 0 16,814 23. Larue Trib LT-17 0 1,839 10,643 0 12,482 24. Glen Rock South Trib GRST-6 0 1,437 1,966 2,228 5,631 25. Railroad Trib RRT-6 0 989 2,786 845 4,620 26. Golf Course Trib GCT-7 0 626 4,247 0 4,873 27. Peter & Paul Trib PPT-4 0 254 4,963 0 5,217 28. North Railroad Trib NRT-4 0 0 2,619 0 2,619 TOTAL 54,366 295,395 426,905 4,577 781,243 WEST BRANCH CODORUS CREEK Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Other Total WATERSHED Reaches Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet ) (Feet) 1. Mill Creek MC-147 44,130 58,069 79,084 18,86 5 200,148 2.Upper Codorus Creek UCC-98 39,02 1 52,694 91,122 0 182,837 3. Codorus Creek CC-114 32,47 8 90,252 173,459 7,445 303,634 4. Willis Run WR-18 20,52 8 5,449 0 0 25,977 5. Oil Creek OC-75 16,36 8 86,053 39,362 206 141,989 6. Long Run LR-86 14,68 4 58,471 50,508 0 123,663 7. Spring Garden Park Trib SGPT-7 7,883 1,367 412 5,449 15,111 8. Violet Hill Trib VHT-40 6,262 31,896 18,144 0 56,302 9. Furnace Creek FUC-36 5,518 32,446 6,510 0 44,474 10. Stoverstown Branch SB-30 5,057 12,597 23,105 0 40,759 11. South Branch CC SBCC-4 4,990 0 18,601 0 23,591 12. Porters Creek PC-15 4,404 6,051 6,574 0 17,029 13. Old Paths Trib OPT-26 3,384 8,369 42,383 0 54,136 14. West Branch CC WBCC-56 3,319 34,35 7 56,88 1 0 94,55 7 15. Leaders Hieghts Trib LHT-20 3,168 24,468 12,155 0 39,791 16. Lightners School Trib LST-15 2,988 10,555 8,226 1,452 23,221

2-32 Codorus WIP 2.0 Pollution Reductions 12/6/2007

17. Lehman Trib LHT-23 1,927 5,903 24,404 0 32,234 18. New Salem Trib NST-24 1,874 13,659 15,581 0 31,114 19. Nashville Trib NT-5 1,431 9,192 1,352 0 11,975 20. Prospect Hill Trib PHT-7 1,151 2,798 2,445 0 6,394 21. Swimming Pool Trib SPT-14 703 11,236 7,392 0 19,331 22. Emigsville Trib ET-31 491 7,704 33,174 564 41,933 23. Bunch Creek BC-11 0 16,278 20,302 0 36,580 24. Dee Run DR-9 0 16,236 9,493 0 25,729 25. Lincolnway Trib LT-10 0 15,412 9,203 0 24,615 26. Spring Grove Trib SGT-5 0 7,096 1,356 0 8,452 27. Starview Trib SVT-9 0 3,316 11,972 0 15,288 28. Sunnyside Trib ST-3 0 2,867 3,347 0 6,214 29. Lischy Church Trib LCT-11 0 1,352 12,155 0 13,507 30. Gitts Run GR-13 0 528 23,03 7 0 23,565 31. Trout Run TR-2 0 0 8,806 0 8,806 TOTAL 221,75 9 626,671 810,545 33,98 1 1,692,956

2-33 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

3. Management Measures to Achieve Watershed Goals

This section describes the management measures developed that will help Codorus Creek stakeholders achieve our watershed goals. Milestones were developed by subwatershed and aggregate for the watershed as a whole. Funding, construction and maintenance activities were also considered.

3.1. Levels of Stream Restoration Efforts

Three levels of restoration efforts are discussed which cover a wide range of required effort, from volunteer assistance using manual labor and hand tools to larger construction efforts using heavy equipment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) were developed for future stream restoration and enhancement efforts in the watershed. These BMPs primarily involve streambank stabilization and consider natural stream channel design elements. Coordination with all adjacent landowners must take place prior to implementing any of the recommended BMPs, including minor volunteer efforts. Ideally, any BMP efforts should be completed during the normal low flow conditions in streams, including any efforts which may not require environmental permitting. With all of the BMPs presented, it is important to complete the restoration efforts as quickly as possible and promptly stabilize all disturbed areas.

3.1.1. Level I: Severe Stream Restoration

Projects which fall into this category are severely impaired reaches along larger streams (e.g., stream orders 3rd and greater) where extensive stabilization is required over considerable distances (over 500 feet length). Although many of the stream reaches in the watershed which are severely impaired can be restored through bank stabilization, some may require a complete change in the dimension, pattern and profile of the stream or a total channel realignment. At a minimum, these types of projects will require a joint permit application to DEP. The need to relocate a stream channel is usually due to safety reasons (extensive storm damage), where land use conflicts occur, or where the impairment is too great to provide the required stabilization using the existing stream pattern. These types of projects require detailed designs and permitting coordination with local, state and federal agencies. It is strongly recommended that a natural stream channel design approach be used for major stream restoration projects. This approach considers aquatic habitat features and is carefully designed so that the channel can maintain the proper geometry.

Although the need for total reconstruction of any stream channels with the watershed is not known at this time, there may eventually be a need to provide this level of restoration or to relocate certain reaches of a stream. It is highly recommended that a natural design approach be used, where possible and feasible. Using information from the watershed assessment, stable reaches of streams can be used as reference reaches based on the size of stream and stream type classification. The channel geometry for these different stream types can be used for reference in the design of new stream channels or major channel reconstruction. This level of design will also require the collection of detailed

3-1 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

information from the project reach including stream cross-sections and profiles, meander geometry, and pebble counts. Information included in this plan such as the hydraulic geometry curves can be used for design efforts (bankfull width and cross-sectional area).

3.1.2. Level II: Moderate Stream Restoration

The restoration efforts included under this level are generally for projects with smaller drainage areas (e.g., stream orders 1 and 2, generally less than 5 square miles) and would include many of the moderately impaired stream reaches in these smaller watersheds. Under this category, restoration would include some form of stabilization and would require the use of smaller excavating equipment to install in-stream structures, slope-toe protection and bank reshaping and stabilization. Projects under this level of restoration would typically not involve working in the stream and would not require stream crossings. At a minimum, these projects would require the preparation of a General Permit (GP-3) and coordination with the permitting agencies.

3.1.3. Level III: Slight to None Stream Restoration

These types of restoration projects were developed for manual implementation primarily using hand tools such as shovel, rakes, digging bars, lopping shears, and hand saws. Projects under this category would be minor enhancement and protection efforts and are ideal for implementation by private landowners, watershed groups, nonprofits organizations, and other groups engaging in environmental stewardship and watershed protection. These types of BMPs would generally be implemented on small streams (e.g., stream orders 1 and 2) with channel widths ranging in size between one to six feet. These types of projects would also include restoration of overly wide and shallow channels (entrenched F type) where streambanks are stable. At a minimum, coordination should take place with the permitting agencies. These agencies could then make the decision on the type of permit (if any) that would be required. Included under this level of effort is the construction of in-stream structures such as log and rock vanes which can be constructed manually with volunteer labor using the guidelines presented in the BMPs section.

3.2. Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs) and restoration guidelines were developed for stream restoration work in the watershed. All of the BMPs consider the natural stream channel design approach. A matrix which shows BMPs and a rating of their applicability to the various stream types found in the watershed are shown in table 3-1.

The construction of these in-stream structures can be done in wet or dry channel conditions. Working under wet conditions should be avoided when possible; however, many times restoration efforts are more effective, timely and have less overall impact with this approach. Construction with water in the channel allows the contractor to observe the change in flow

3-2 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

vectors in response to in-stream structure placement and alignment. Under these conditions, the equipment operator may have to pause momentarily until the water clears before continuing. Based on the watershed assessment, the watershed is sediment-ladened and becomes turbid even during minor rainfall events. Short-term sedimentation in the stream will result from this approach. The long-term benefits of the restoration effort far outweigh the temporary, minor sedimentation impacts especially where severe bank erosion is occurring. The crossing of streams and working within or adjacent to the channel are issues which need to be discussed with the permitting agencies during project planning.

The diversion of stream flow around the work area has the advantage of allowing the equipment operator to continually see the reconstruction of the channel and installation of the structures. The diversion of stream flows around a work area however will add to the construction costs and may also have an adverse impact on aquatic resources within the bypassed channel. Working in a dry channel does not allow the observation of how stream flows will be affected by the structure and may result in the need to make future adjustments.

Table 3-1. Recommended Stream Restoration and Protection BMPs for Various Stream Types

3.2.1. BMP #1 – Rock and Log Vanes

Rock and log vanes are in-stream structures used to direct stream flows away from an unstable streambank and into the center of the channel. These structures can be constructed with either rocks or logs and are placed along the outside of a meander bend of the channel. These structures are often installed in series depending on the degree of

3-3 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

curvature of the meander bend. The installation of rock vanes requires the excavation of the substrate and the placement of large “footer rocks” on which the rock structures are built. These footer rocks are placed below the desired channel grade to prevent the scour of the structure. The vanes are installed at slopes between 3% and 7% from the streambank to the channel. The vanes are also placed at angles ranging between 20 and 30 degrees from the bank facing upstream (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 1). The upper portion of the vane is keyed into the bank at the predetermined bankfull height so that higher flows cannot wash out around the structure.

“J” hook rock vanes are similar to rock vanes; however, additional rocks are placed at the end of the structure and slightly downstream. This modification of the rock vane will provide fish habitat in the form of a scour pool at the downstream end of the vane. The proper installation of vanes will prevent the lateral migration of stream channels by directing near-bank stress away from the streambanks and into the center of the channel. These structures also create aquatic habitat by providing designed scour pools downstream of the structure and create velocity vectors that segregate gravels. Typical Drawing 1 shows the configuration and installation procedures.

Larger excavating equipment will be required when large rock is used however smaller rock can be used by manually “shingling” or layering to get the appropriate design features (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 1A). The top of steeply sloped banks should be graded or collapsed behind the vane to provide backfill material.

Logs can also be used to build vanes but must be anchored into the channel and/or bank. Cables can be attached to both ends of the log using cable clamps and anchored into the bank by attaching to a piece of re-bar driven into the bank or channel. Log vanes have been used effectively by attaching wire mesh on the upstream side with fence staples and filling with a brush layer and coarse gravel and cobbles.

3.2.2. BMP #2 – Cross Rock Vanes

Cross rock vanes are generally used on straight channel reaches in order to provide stability along both streambanks (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 2). These structures essentially consist of two rock vanes (one on each bank) and are connected with rock between the limbs of the both vanes. The structure is “horseshoe” shaped with the bend in the structure being located upstream. This bend in the structure is also the lowest in elevation and is set at a pre-determined grade elevation. “Footer” rocks are also installed to provide a foundation for the rock structure. Cross rock vanes divert the erosive forces along the streambanks into the center of the channel and create designed, self-maintaining scour holes. In addition to bank protection and aquatic habitat, these structures also provide a set grade control to prevent channel downcutting or headcutting and enhance sediment bedload transport.

3-4 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

3.2.3. BMP #3 – Root Wad Installation

Root wads consist of a tree trunk, uprooted root bole, and a connected length of the tree itself. Root wads will provide bank protection; however, these structures are used primarily to provide habitat (scour pools and overhead cover). Root wads are installed in the thalweg so that the bole or root mass is facing upstream at a slight angle to the flow vectors. A “footer rock” or log is installed on the channel bottom to support the root wad (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 3). The tree trunk should be keyed into the streambank by excavating a trench and should be at least 12 feet in length. Large rocks are then placed on top of the tree and the trench is backfilled. It may be possible to push smaller root wads into the streambank with heavy equipment. This can be done by using a chain saw to form a point on the end of the stem and pushing the boll into the bank. The size of the root wad and soil conditions will dictate suitable installation conditions. If the conditions are suitable for this method of installation, a shorter trunk stem can be used (at least six to eight feet in length).

3.2.4. BMP #4 – Bank Grading and Rock Toe Protection

The basic concept of this BMP is to provide a more stable bank slope along eroding sections of the channel to reduce the potential of future erosion (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 4). Along sections of channel where streambanks are steeply sloping to vertical or undercut, the lower bank should be protected with rock which is keyed into the bank and edge of channel. Rock toe protection should be installed up to the bankfull elevation. The upper bank (above the bankfull elevation) should be re-graded to at least 2V:1H; however, if conditions permit, a slope less than 3V:1H is preferred. An effort should be made to avoid disrupting any dense root material. At a minimum, any overhanging bank material which has no root mass protection should be removed to prevent sloughing or encroachment into the stream channel and should be placed outside any areas prone to flooding. Coordination with adjacent landowners may result in the identification of suitable disposal areas. Where stream banks are undercutting trees, rock should be placed underneath the root mass and keyed into the channel. An attempt should be made to upright any trees which may be leaning into the channel and protect the root mass from further bank erosion. All disturbed areas should be stabilized with seed, mulch, and/or riparian plantings.

Meander bends may require additional stabilization due to the higher shear stress along the outside of the meander or the concave portion of the bend. Erosion along the toe of the concave bank can be reduced by armoring the bank with large rock. Rock toe protection is often used in conjunction with the installation of rock or log vanes to protect the lower bank between the structures. Rock used for bank protection should not be taken from the stream channel but instead should be either purchased or obtained outside the immediate stream channel where the work is being performed. The rock used for bank protection should be hard (erosion-resistant) and large enough to resist erosive forces. Larger streams or streams with gradients greater than 2% will generally require larger

3-5 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

rock. The top of the “footer rocks” or those rocks keyed into the channel bottom should be flush with the existing substrate. These rocks will serve as a foundation or footer for the subsequent placement of rocks along the bottom of the bank. These “footer rocks” should be placed along the entire eroded reach of the bank being stabilized. Keying these “footer rocks” in the substrate will prevent the undermining or scour along the toe of bank.

Other large rocks are then placed on top of the footer rocks. These rocks should in turn be keyed into the bank especially at the upstream end of the meander bend. This is done by either excavating into the streambank or can be forced into the bank with heavy equipment. Upon completing the placement of rocks, any voids between the rocks should be filled with clean gravel. Willow cuttings can be staked between the rocks to help stabilize the bank.

3.2.5. BMP #5 – Stream Crossings

Ramps For stream restoration projects, temporary crossings may be required to gain equipment access and deliver stone along the opposing bank. Generally, stream crossings require the preparation of General Permit BDWM 6, 7 or 8. The optimum location to cross streams is along slightly entrenched reaches with high width to depth ratios and suitable gravel substrates (C Type). With these conditions, temporary crossings may be approved by the permitting agencies without the required crossing permit. If these stream and bank conditions are not present, an improved crossing will need to be constructed and permitted. If the stream crossing is planned to be a permanent crossing such as a livestock crossing and watering access or for crossing with farm equipment, a general permit will also be required. This BMP is used for restoration projects where a constructed crossing is required and also for permanent agricultural crossings. The crossings are installed by keying in larger stone (No. 4 or No. 5) into the stream bottom and banks along the crossing and placing smaller (No. 2) stone on top of the course stone (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 5). The depth of the stone base should be at least 12 inches. The crossing approaches are graded to a minimum slope of 4H:1V

3.2.6. BMP #6 – Low Flow Channel

This BMP consists of removing gravel or substrate material from the deeper section of the channel and placing this material between the edge of the new channel and the streambank (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 6). The concept of this BMP is to create a new low flow channel within the banks of the entrenched channel to provide a narrower and deeper primary channel. The new channel width should be at least one-third to one- half the original F-type channel width. The gravel, stone or rock removed from the primary channel is placed between the edge of the primary channel and the toe of the existing bank and will essentially form a type of floodplain area within the oversized F- type channel. The material placed on this new floodplain area should be raked and graded so that the slope increases between the edge of the new primary channel and the exiting

3-6 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

streambank. This new low flow channel will also tend to be self-maintaining as flow velocities will be high in the primary channel allowing for the transport of bedload through the stream reach where this practice is applied. Additional stabilization can be achieved by establishing vegetation along the new builtup floodplain area. Native riparian and aquatic plant species with prolific and dense root mats are ideal for planting. Recommended plant species include water willow (Justicaamericana) and lizards tail (Saurus cernus). Once established, these plant species will continue to spread and help settle small bedload and finer particulates during high flow conditions. This BMP works exceptionally well in F4-type streams where the channel has already downcut and adjusted (widened through bank erosion).

Another practice can be used with this approach to help maintain and build the new floodplain area. This practice involves the placement of rocks along the floodplain area to promote additional deposition. The rocks can vary in size but should be flat. Larger rocks should be placed perpendicular to the stream flow and should be placed at an angle (25- 40 degrees) so that the downstream edge of the deposition rock should be keyed at least two inches into the substrate to prevent scouring. Small rocks and gravel can be placed under the deposition rocks to provide support so that an upward angle can be maintained during higher flows.

The placement of deposition rocks along the shallow floodplain will create eddies or dead space during higher stream flows and allow small gravel, sand and silt to settle out. Upon placing the deposition rocks, the substrate immediately downstream of the rocks should be planted with aquatic or wetland obligate species in order to help stabilize the substrate along the shallow floodplain gravel bars. The plant species recommended are those which provide prolific rhizome growth as mentioned above. Willow livestake cuttings or other riparian shrub species should be planted along the toe of the original channel banks as discussed under BMP#10.

3.2.7. BMP #7 – Removal of Debris Jams

Debris jams are a natural stream feature and can provide aquatic habitat. Some debris jams can become extensive and lead to accelerated bank erosion. Many jams consist of woody debris which become lodged along a channel reach. These jams can build during high flow events and accumulate finer debris such as leaves and twigs. Many times, these jams will constrict the capacity of the channel and direct flows into a streambank causing erosion. Some jams consist of residual trash (tires, plywood, or appliances) which can also lead to bank erosion.

In areas where debris jams are causing bank erosion or channel scouring, the debris should be removed above the normal water level of the stream (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 7). By removing the debris above the normal water level, higher flows can pass without restriction. Large woody material can be removed with chain saws while small woody debris can be trimmed with lopping shears and then be removed. All trees along the streambanks which are leaning due to bank erosion should be cut at the base of

3-7 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

the tree. The tree and limbs should then be removed out of the flood-prone area. The remaining trunk and roots should be left in place to provide bank stability. All woody debris imbedded in the substrate should remain in place as this material often times provides grade control and aquatic habitat.

Any woody debris material removed from the channel should be discarded outside of the work area which is prone to seasonal flooding. All residual trash should be properly disposed of and will require additional coordination. One approach to the removal of residual trash is to plan stream clean-up activities during the Spring when municipalities often sponsor special trash removal activities.

Included in this BMP is the removal of multiflora rose along the immediate stream bank. This thorny shrub species is invasive and was found growing along many stream reaches in the study area. Multiflora rose may provide some bank protection but is shallow rooted and can be easily removed. Large shrubs tend to grow out into open channels and can cause extensive channel blockages. Once removed, the stream bank should be replanted with more suitable riparian species as discussed under BMP #9.

3.2.8. BMP#8 – Culvert Crossings

The installation of culverts in a stream will require a General Permit BDWM-7. The size of the pipe or culvert for the desired design storm event will need to be determined. Under-sized culvert pipes can result in a “fire hose” effect where backwater along the upstream side of the pipe causes a dramatic increase in velocities. These increased flow velocities can result in channel downcutting and bank erosion.

Under this BMP, it is recommended that the cross-sectional area of the pipe be achieved through the use of a single larger pipe to carry the main flow and at least two smaller diameter pipes to carry additional flood flow (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 8). The cumulative cross-sectional area will need to be sufficient to carry the design flows. The smaller pipes should be placed higher in elevation and close to the floodplain area as shown in Typical Drawing #5. The primary pipe or culvert should be depressed in the stream substrate in order to provide fish passage. While one larger pipe may be sufficient to carry the design flood flows, the flow velocities from smaller storm events may not be sufficient to transport sediment through the pipe which results in sediment deposition and restriction of flow capacity. The installation of a smaller primary culvert will also provide increased opportunities for fish passage especially during low flow periods. The length of the culvert crossings should allow for stable bank slopes where the pipes are filled above the crossing. Secondary pipes should be installed within the active floodplain.

3.2.9. BMP #9 – Streambank Fencing

The installation of electric fence along a stream corridor in agricultural use is a very effective method of preventing unlimited livestock access to streams. Multi-wire high-

3-8 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

tensile fence is used along a stream corridor to prevent direct access to the stream banks and to promote a riparian buffer which helps to re-establish vegetation and prevent excess nutrients from entering the stream (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 9). At a minimum, fencing should be placed along the stream corridor at least 15' from the top of the stream bank. The use of fencing along a stream corridor does not require a permit. In many agricultural settings however livestock access to the stream is desired and will require the installation of designed stone ramps or crossings. All agricultural stream crossings will require a General Permit prior to implementation and is discussed under BMP# 5. With some fencing projects maintenance (mowing) can be an issue with the landowner. One option to address this issue is to provide a wider fenced buffer whereby the inside of the fence can be mowed (single pass) to prevent vegetative grounding of the electric fence.

There are numerous programs available which provide financial assistance to landowners that wish to install streambank fencing. Information on these programs and proper fence installation procedures can be obtained by contacting the York County Conservation District and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Water Management Program.

3.2.10. BMP #10 – Riparian Plantings

Riparian plantings should be included in all stream restoration projects. Plantings used to stabilize streambanks are species which prefer continuous moist to periodically flooded soil conditions. Native plant species recommended for riparian areas include willow, alder, silky dogwood, red osier dogwood, and buttonbush. These species can be purchased from various nurseries. A more cost-effective approach (but more labor intensive) is to acquire cuttings from the project area for planting.

Live Cuttings or Stakes

A cutting is a branch detached from a parent plant, capable of regeneration. Woody cuttings have long been used as a method of providing effective bank stabilization. When planted in soil under proper conditions of sun and moisture, they will grow into mature plants. Various species of willows are the most common shrub species used for erosion control. Cuttings can range from ½ inch to 2 inches in diameter and from 2 feet to 10 feet in length. In all cases, the cuttings must be long enough to reach undisturbed soils and have buds for rooting and leaf development. The branches should be cut at a slant on the base and be blunt on top to facilitate the placement of the cutting into the streambank (See Appendix A – Typical Drawing 10).

Cuttings must be installed during the dormant season which occurs between November and March. Cuttings must be kept moist in a shaded area and placed in the soil within 24 hours of being cut. They will do best when planted in a sunny location with moist soil. The installation of cuttings should begin at the toe of the eroded bank. The cuttings should be inserted into the bank at right angles to the slope at least 4/5 the length of the

3-9 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

cutting. The soil surrounding the cutting should be tamped to eliminate all air pockets. For hard compacted soils, an iron bar can be used to make the hole. The density of the installation depends on site conditions ranging from two to six cuttings per square yard. A spacing of two feet per square yard or less is recommended. Each horizontal row of plantings should be offset as shown on Typical Drawing 10.

Seedlings

Rooted woody seedlings can also be used to stabilize streambanks. Seedlings from the project area can be used but are not recommended. Transplants will result in inconsistent survival and require more time and effort to properly collect. Woody riparian species are readily available and low in cost. Seedlings must be kept moist and should be planted within ten days of arrival. The best time to plant seedlings is in early Spring at the end of the dormant season.

An efficient method for planting small seedlings involves the use of a planting bar. A hole is made with the bar, the plant is inserted, and the soil is tamped firmly around the plant. Larger container grown plants require a larger hole sufficient to cover the roots. The spacing of the installed plants is the same as that discussed above. The plants should be watered after installation.

Fascines

Fascines or wattles are sausage-shaped bundles of live woody cuttings used to stabilize streambanks. The cuttings used to make fascines must be from woody species that root easily and have long straight branches such as willows, silky dogwood, or red osier dogwood. Shrub willows are desirable because they branch outward. The cuttings are placed in bundles and vary in length between 10 and 15 feet long and should be around 6 inches in diameter. The branches contained in the bundles should be at least three feet long with a maximum diameter of one inch. The cuttings are placed so that the butt ends and whip ends alternate giving a more uniform shape to the bundle. The cuttings are then secured with twine every 12 to 18 inches. The bundles are then secured to the bank with stakes (live stakes are preferred if available).

Fascines are installed by digging shallow trenches along the streambank contour beginning at the base of the bank. The trench should be at least eight inches deep and dug no more than one hour before planting. Water the trench just before and after planting to help prevent drying. The fascines are then placed in the trench with each bundle overlapping the next by a few inches. Stakes spaced at one-foot intervals are driven through the bundles to secure them with extra stakes at the joints. The fascines are then covered with soil excavated from the trench. The soil should be worked into the voids in the bundle to provide a growing medium for root development. The stakes should protrude at least six inches above the bundle. Trenches should be spaced at least three feet apart proceeding up the bank.

3-10 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

3.3. East Branch Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

Stream restoration in the East Branch Codorus Creek watershed should be undertaken using a watershed approach and natural channel design principles. The logical sequence of restoration efforts would be to begin with the severely impaired reaches in the upper watershed and proceed downstream as funding becomes available. As other contributing drainages enter the main stem, consideration should be given to using the same approach in each subwatershed. Information from the prioritized assessment should be used to identify stream reaches for restoration. Important to any restoration effort is the participation of the private landowners. Without the necessary approvals, the desired restoration cannot proceed.

There are some reaches of streams in the watershed which are very unstable and have been documented to be migrating at an accelerated rate. It may be necessary to consider these reaches for restoration early, regardless of the location in the watershed, especially where there may be an imminent threat to safety or property. Another critical aspect of restoration is the funding. The longer, impaired stream reaches (especially on the larger streams) will require detailed designs, permitting approvals from the regulatory agencies, and, most likely, the use of heavy excavating equipment. The initial restoration phases for the East Branch Codorus Creek watershed has targeted the identified, severely impaired reaches.

There are also many moderately impaired reaches of stream which could be stabilized through manual corrective measures, especially along the smaller drainage courses using the BMPs developed for the project. The removal of debris jams that are causing stream instabilities is an example of restoration or enhancement that can be done by volunteers from various sportsmen or watershed-based groups that collectively can contribute to the overall watershed restoration efforts.

The York Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America has developed various partnerships for the restoration of the East Branch Codorus Creek. These partnerships can be formed with various government agencies, corporate sponsors, and non-profit groups and include the donation of materials, equipment, supplies, and volunteer labor. The donation of various resources can also be used as matching funds and/or services for various restoration funding programs to maximize funding opportunities. To date through Phase IV restoration, the York Chapter of the Izaak Walton League has secured in-kind restoration funding from project partners valued at over $144,000. These partners include the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ($92,640), the York Water Company $50,000 and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission ($2,000). York County Parks has also completed two habitat improvement project within Spring Valley Park with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Nixon County Park has also completed small bank stabilization and habitat improvement projects on the Nixon Park Tributary. These projects incorporated many of the Best Management Practices recommended in this report.

In addition to IWLA volunteers who have expressed an interest in assisting with restoration planting and post-construction monitoring, the Yorktown Senior Environmental Corps has expressed an interest in assisting with post-construction monitoring of future restoration sites.

3-11 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

The IWLA is planning to provide the necessary training to this group for long-term monitoring and in the future may include biological assessments at restoration sites both pre- and post-construction.

There are many funding programs available for stream restoration projects. Information on these programs can be obtained by contacting the PA DEP’s Regional Watershed Coordinator or by contacting the Watershed Specialist through the York County Conservation District. These agencies can direct potential project sponsors to various funding sources which can provide plant materials, streambank fencing, and other restoration resources.

3.3.1. Watershed Restoration Efforts: Existing and Planned

Demonstration Project EBCC-024 (Phase I)

Based on the watershed assessment, a stream reach in the watershed was selected for restoration and will serve as a demonstration for the Best Management Practices discussed above. The restoration/demonstration project was selected based on the degree of impairment, landowner participation and budgeted construction funding. The demonstration project selected for restoration is Reach EBCC-024, on the Henry and Janice Brown property. Reach EBCC-024 is approximately 1,400 feet in length and has a drainage area of approximately 22 square miles. The reach has severe bank erosion and channel migration in the upper portion of the reach which was previously a sheep and horse pasture. The lower reach becomes more stable with a good riparian buffer but lacks aquatic habitat. Restoration of this reach included several of the BMPs previously discussed.

East Branch Codorus Creek Watershed Restoration, Phase II

Under the Pennsylvania Environmental Stewardship and Watershed Protection Program (Growing Greener), the IWLA York Chapter #67 received funding to complete the design, permitting and construction of 650 feet of stream restoration on reach EBCC-26. On August 26, 2002 the restoration was completed. The project is located in a cattle pasture with severe bank erosion and channel migration and no riparian vegetation. The right bank was migrating towards S.R. 216 and the channel was eroding around the Ridgeview Road bridge abutment. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) partnered with the York Chapter of the Izaak Walton League to complete the restoration work. Through this partnership, PennDOT built the construction entrance and provided other in-kind contributions valued at over $12,000. The project was used as a demonstration for a construction workshop related to stream restoration and involved bank grading and the installation of several in-stream rock structures to protect the roadway and bridge abutment and to provide habitat. The entire reach was fenced from livestock and planted with riparian vegetation.

3-12 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

East Branch Codorus Creek Watershed Restoration, Phase III

Phase III restoration funding has been provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Section 319 Non-Point Source Management Program. The funding will be used to survey, design, permit, construct and revegetate approximately 12,000 continuous feet of severely impaired stream reaches. The project includes approximately 7,400 feet of Seaks Run and 4,300 feet of the East Branch Codorus Creek and includes the stabilization of roadways along stream banks. In-kind funding matches for Phase III include the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ($65,640), York Water Company ($25,000) and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission ($2,000). Survey, design and permitting were begun in Spring 2005, and construction is scheduled to be complete by Summer 2007.

East Branch Codorus Creek Watershed Restoration, Phase IV

York Chapter 67 of the Izaak Walton League received funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Section 319 Non-Point Source Management Program to complete restoration of Phase IV. This restoration phase includes two assessed stream reaches (EBCC-18 & 19) which are located within Spring Valley Park. The length of impaired reach included in Phase 4 is approximately 4,400 feet. The York Water Company has committed and in-kind funding match of $25,000. Restoration work for Phase IV is scheduled to begin in Summer 2007 and be completed later that year.

Future Restoration Efforts and Permit Amendments

The first watershed based permit for the restoration/demonstration project for EBCC-024 will serve as a template for all future minor permit amendments for restoration work in the EBCC watershed. The regional hydraulic curve developed for the watershed will be used in all future project designs. The Izaak Walton League, through its consultant, has and will continue to use the information from the watershed assessment to pursue funding for the restoration of high priority sites. Additional detailed information to be included in future permit amendments will include the following. • Detailed project description • Detailed site survey and design (cross sections, profiles, pebble counts, reference reach data) • Landowner permission form • PNDI clearance • PHMC clearance • York County Conservation District approval (E&S) • Construction details and sequences • Design report • As-built mark ups of cross sections and profiles

East Branch restoration and protection milestones are given by subwatershed and aggregate for the watershed as a whole below (table 3-2).

3-13 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-2. East Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

Stream Name Reach_ID Total (SBF) (RFB) (WLP) (SWM) Plan (NMP) Location No. No. Location Linear Feet (LF) Restoration (FGM Fluvial Geomorphic Wetlands Restoration Stream Bank Fencing Nutrient Management Riparian Forest Buffers Forest Buffers Riparian Stormwater Management Livestock Crossing (LSC)

62 Barshinger Creek BC06/BC05/BC04 1575 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 63 Barshinger Creek BC08 1260 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 64 Barshinger Creek BC11 2450 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 65 Barshinger Creek BC12/BC13/BC14 3300 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 66 Barshinger Creek BC15/BC16/BC17 3400 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 67 Barshinger Creek BC18/BC19/BC20/BC21 2820 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 68 Blymire Hollow BHT07 1400 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trib 69 Blymire Hollow BHT503-FILL 200 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trib 70 Blymire Hollow BHT504 820 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trib 71 Barshinger Creek DBT09/10/11/12/13 3000 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 72 East Branch EB25 2075 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Codorus Creek 73 Hametown Trib HT05/HT04 1900 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 74 Inners Creek IC10 1100 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 75 Inners Creek IC1101 1185 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 76 Inners Creek IC13/IC12 1180 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 77 Inners Creek IC17 3650 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 78 Inners Creek IC203/IC05/IC06 1025 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 79 Inners Creek IC601 450 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 80 Nixon Park Trib NPT1103/1102 1090 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 81 Nixon Park Trib NPT15/NPT14 1900 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 82 Nixon Park Trib NPT18/NPT17/EB 3670 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 83 Ridgeview Road RRT03/RRT04/RRT05 3350 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Trib TOTALS 42800 22 5 9 8 1 0 0 45

3.3.2. Monitoring

Upon completion of the restoration projects, as-built markups of cross sections and profiles will be provided. At a minimum, post-construction monitoring will be completed at least once each year. Each restoration project will have monumented cross sections that will be installed during project design. These cross-section locations will be used to monitor stream improvements by comparing pre-construction conditions with the post- construction as-built cross sections. Future restoration projects may also include pre- and

3-14 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

post-construction biologic monitoring to measure improvements to the aquatic community.

3.3.3. Stream Restoration Costs

As mentioned throughout the report, the IWLA intends to use a natural channel design approach for all stream restoration. Information collected during the watershed assessment will be used in all restoration design. A regional hydraulic geometry curve has been established for the East Branch Codorus Creek watershed. This information will be important in the design process to determine the appropriate channel geometry. Where required, reference reaches will be used to determine appropriate stream patterns. A general watershed permit was also issued (E67-704) which will provide for more timely permit application reviews for all future restoration projects. All of this information and completed work efforts will result in some long term cost savings as it relates to stream restoration.

Due to the extent of stream impairment in the East Branch watershed, it is difficult to develop a detailed cost estimate for restoration. Each restoration project will need to be approached individually and restoration costs will vary depending on numerous factors including the following: • Stream size; • Extent of restoration required (bank stabilization vs. total reconstruction); • Accessibility; • Presence of utilities; • Adjacent land use constraints (structures, roads, etc.); and • In-kind donation of funding or services.

An approximate restoration cost for all severely impaired stream reaches (Priority 1) in the East Branch watershed was developed using the information from the watershed assessment and is shown on Table 3-3. The costs presented are approximate and are based on 2002 costs with no escalation. The unit costs per foot provided are based on both actual EBCC restoration costs to date and estimates based on stream size. The unit costs for the larger streams are naturally higher due to additional earthwork, increased volume of materials (primarily rock), larger in-stream structures, and larger riparian zone establishment. As illustrated, the estimated cost for construction is approximately $2,000,000. Additional costs include development of site plans, designs, preparation of permit applications, and construction management. Construction management by a trained restoration specialist is important to the success of any project. For cost estimating purposes, these costs were assumed to be 60% of the construction cost. The total cost to restore the severely impaired stream reaches (survey, design, permit, and construct) is estimated to be $3,560,000 or approximately $52.42/ft.

Table 3-3 also shows the restoration funding implemented to date and also funding secured and/or applied for under the Growing Greener program for restoration work in the East Branch watershed. To date, approximately $67,000 has been spent on restoration

3-15 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

and $700,000 in grant funding has been awarded for future restoration phases which encompass over 16,500 feet or over three miles of severely impaired stream reaches.

By using the watershed approach and targeting the severely impaired stream reaches, other moderately impaired stream reaches may become stable on their own. By stabilizing these stream reaches first, accelerated bank erosion will be substantially reduced and may allow for proper stream adjustments downstream through a reduction in sediment load (bank erosion) and improved sediment transport.

Table 3-3. East Branch Priority Stream Restoration Costs (2002).

3.4. South Branch Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

Stream restoration in the South Branch Codorus Creek watershed should be undertaken using a watershed approach and natural stream channel design principles. The logical sequence of restoration efforts would be to begin with severely impaired reaches in the upper watershed and proceed downstream as funding becomes available. As other contributing drainages enter the stream corridor, consideration should be given to using the same approach in each subwatershed. Information from prioritized assessments should be used to identify stream reaches for restoration. Important to any restoration effort is the participation of private landowners. Without the necessary approvals, the desired restoration cannot proceed.

3-16 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

There are some reaches of streams in the watershed that are very unstable and have been documented to be migrating at accelerated rates. It may be necessary to consider these reaches for restoration early, regardless of the location in the watershed, especially where there may be an imminent threat to safety or property. Another critical aspect of restoration is the funding. The longer, impaired stream reaches (especially on the larger streams) will require detailed designs and permitting approvals from the regulatory agencies and most likely the use of heavy excavating equipment. Additionally, beginning in 2005 the cost of petroleum products increased dramatically driving up associated costs of equipment operation, materials, transportation, etc. These increased costs are forecast to continue al least through 2008 and possibly beyond.

There are also many moderately impaired reaches of stream that could be stabilized through manual corrective measures, especially along the smaller drainage courses using the Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in this plan. For example, the removal of large woody debris jams on streams is an example of passive restoration that can be done by private landowners, volunteers and municipalities.

The Izaak Walton League of America’s York Chapter has developed various partnerships for the restoration of the South Branch Codorus Creek. These partnerships can be formed with various government agencies, corporate sponsors, and nonprofit groups. The partnership with these resources can result in the donation of materials, equipment, supplies, and volunteer labor. These partnerships and donations of various resources can also be used as matching funds and services for various restoration funding programs to maximize funding opportunities.

In addition to IWLA volunteers who have expressed an interest in assisting with restoration planting and post-construction monitoring, the York County Senior Environment Corps has expressed an interest in assisting with post-construction monitoring of future restoration sites. The IWLA is planning to provide the necessary training to this group for long-term monitoring and in the future may include biological assessments at restoration sites, both pre- and post-construction.

There are many funding programs available for stream restoration projects. Information on these programs can be obtained by contacting the PADEP’s Regional Watershed Coordinator (717-705-4906) or the York County Conservation District’s Watershed Specialist (717-840- 7430). These agencies can direct potential sponsors to various funding sources which can provide plant materials, streambank fencing, and other restoration resources.

3.4.1. Watershed Restoration Efforts: Existing and Planned

Demonstration Projects SBCC-10-1 and SBCC-09

Based on the watershed assessment, a stream reach in the watershed was selected for restoration will serve as a demonstration for the Best Management Practices discussed

3-17 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

above. The restoration demonstration project was selected based on the degree of impairment, landowner participation and budgeted construction funding. The demonstration projects selected for restoration are reaches SBCC-10-1 and SBCC-09.

SBCC 10-1

Reach SBCC 10-1 is approximately 720 feet in length and begins at S.R. 616 bridge near the intersection of Glen Valley Road. The project reach has a drainage area of approximately 3.2 square miles. The downstream limit of the restoration project is at a large debris jam that will be removed as part of the restoration effort. The project reach has a very limited riparian corridor but becomes stable downstream where a forested buffer is well established.

The stream reach is a C4-type, which was assessed as being severely impaired. The reach has severe bank erosion and channel migration. The property owner of this site stated that the stream has migrated approximately 40 feet over the last 15 years. Three meander bends have short radii of curvature, which contributes to channel instability. The steep or vertical banks (up to three feet in height) are unstable and will continue to erode until stabilized. Muskrats have also burrowed into these banks, which is contributing to further bank erosion.

Restoration of this reach will include several of the BMPs previously discussed. The existing channel alignment will be maintained except in the vicinity of the meanders. Approximately 80 feet of the new natural channel will be constructed between the second and third meander due to the short radius of curvature and improper stream alignment. At the three meanders, the radius of curvature will be lengthened which will allow for a more gradual sweep around the meanders. Information used in the design for the new channel was collected from a stable reference reach located immediately downstream of the demonstration project. In-stream rock structures (i.e., rock vanes, cross-rock vanes, and J-hook vanes) and root wads will be used to help stabilize the streambanks and provide aquatic habitat. These structures will also provide better sediment transport through the restoration site. The restoration plan will establish a riparian buffer along the stream corridor.

SBCC-09

This site is located upstream of SBCC 10-1 and is approximately 100 feet in length. The site is located immediately downstream of the railroad bridge underpass near Railroad Borough. The project consists of an eroded right bank that is migrating. Restoration of this reach will consist of constructing several in-stream rock structures along the right bank. The existing channel alignment will be maintained. Riparian plantings will also be installed to provide a buffer and help stabilize the banks.

3-18 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Stream Restoration Workshop

Through a partnership developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Izaak Walton League of America’s York Chapter #67 received a grant to sponsor a stream restoration workshop June 22-24, 2000, at the club’s compound, near Dallastown. Seventeen people attended the workshop which provided an introduction to watershed assessment, planning and restoration principles. The first day of the workshop involved an introduction to watershed assessments, characteristics and functions of stream corridors, an overview of the South Branch Codorus Creek project, and project planning (i.e., scheduling, permitting, budgeting, and monitoring). At the end of the day, a tour of the watershed took place. The tour included a visit to the planned watershed demonstration project (SBCC 10-1 and SBCC-09), future planned restoration projects, a dam removal project, and a small stream restoration project in Nixon County Park, where natural channel design principles were implemented.

The second day of the workshop focused on restoration project design. An introduction into soil bioengineering techniques was provided. The workshop participants then divided into four groups to complete a restoration project design. Each group was assigned a section of stream through the League’s property. The teams then collected information from their assigned reaches and used this information to develop a restoration plan. Each team then had to develop site plans and make presentations to the rest of the audience on their respective designs. The designs included plans, cross- sections, sketches, and planting plans. Each presentation was then critiqued by the other teams and workshop instructors.

Concurrent with the workshop was the installation of two rock vanes in the East Branch Codorus Creek on the League’s property. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s Adopt-a-Stream Program funded this bank stabilization project. These in-stream structures are BMPs that will be used for future restoration projects. The workshop participants had the opportunity to observe the installation and learn how these structures provide bank stabilization.

The last day of the workshop involved instruction on revegetating restoration sites. The instruction included the harvesting of native plant materials, tools, and planting procedures. Containerized plants were also installed as part of the planting effort.

South Branch Codorus Creek Restoration Phase I

Under the Pennsylvania Environmental Stewardship and Watershed Protection Program (Growing Greener), the IWLA-York applied for restoration funding based on the completed watershed assessment. On April 18, 2000, the League received funding under the program to collect additional information and begin stream restoration efforts in the watershed. Based on the preliminary results of the watershed assessment, three priority 1 (i.e., severely impaired) stream reaches were selected for design, permitting and restoration: SBCC-07, SBCC-015, and SBCC-026. Collectively, these three sites represent approximately 4,000 feet of restoration. Sites SBCC-015 and SBCC-026 are the

3-19 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

reaches where severe bank erosion and channel migration were documented. The restoration design and permitting of these sites were completed successfully. The post- construction monitoring of these sites will document the measurable environmental benefits of the restoration.

On August 11, 2000, the IWLA-York submitted a funding request for the design, permitting and restoration of an additional 4,300 feet of severely impaired stream. Under this funding request, the League formed a partnership with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) District 8 Maintenance Group to restore streams along state roads in the watershed. The District 8 Maintenance Unit committed to providing materials, equipment and traffic control for restoration projects adjacent to state roads.

Seitzville Dam Removal

Acting on behalf of a watershed landowner, the IWAL-York Chapter sponsored the removal of the Seitzville Dam, with funding provided by the PFBC. As the sponsor, the Chapter was involved in commenting on the demolition plans, contractor selection, and construction oversight. This involvement resulted in the League being able to suggest slight modifications to the demolition plans. The suggested modifications allowed for a more natural channel design consistent with restoration BMPs which also provided the desired goal of fish passage. The League’s members monitored bank erosion rates upstream of the dam.

Future Restoration Efforts

The first watershed-based permit for the demonstration of restoration projects for SBCC 10-1 will serve as a template for all future minor permit amendments for the restoration work in the SBCC watershed. The regional hydraulic curve developed for the watershed will be used in all future project designs. The IWLA-York, CCWA, and other stakeholder groups will be using the information from the watershed assessment to purse funding for the restoration of high priority sites. Additional detailed information to be included in future permit amendments will include the following: • Detailed project description • Detailed site survey (cross-sections, profiles, pebble counts, reference reach data, etc.) • Landowner permission form • PNDI clearance • PHMC clearance • Erosion & Sediment Control Plan approval • Construction details and sequences • Design report • As-built plans

South Branch restoration and protection milestones are given by subwatershed and aggregate for the watershed as a whole below (table 3-4).

3-20 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-4. South Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

Stream Name Reach_ID (LF) Total (FGM (WLP) Fluvial (SWM) Nutrient Wetlands Livestock Livestock Stormwater Linear Feet Restoration Restoration Plan (NMP) Geomorphic Stream Bank Management Management Buffers (RFB) Fencing (SBF) Location No. No. Location Crossing (LSC) Riparian Forest Riparian

84 Brush Valley Trib BRVT09 2560 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 85 Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT02 380 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 86 Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT03/04 1850 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 87 Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 1070 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 88 Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 955 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 89 Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 445 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 90 Centerville Creek CC12 760 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 91 Centerville Creek CC12/CC11 1078 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 92 Centerville Creek CC16/CC17 5250 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 93 Centerville Creek CC18/CC17/CC16 680 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 94 Centerville Creek CC605/CC606/CC607 2000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 95 Centerville Creek CC701 1000 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 97 Fischel Creek FIC05 1565 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 98 Fischel Creek FIC01 2090 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 99 Fischel Creek FIC02 1360 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 Fischel Creek FIC08 1260 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 101 Fischel Creek FIC1003 400 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 102 Fischel Creek FIC1101 1930 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 103 Fischel Creek FIC1201/FIC13 1150 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 104 Foust Creek FOC02/FOC01 1010 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 105 Foust Creek FOC04 780 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 106 Foust Creek FOC07/FOC06 1732 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 107 Foust Creek FOC09/FOC08 2415 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 108 Foust Creek FOC10 1440 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Glen Rock Valley 109 GRVT03 1660 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Tribs Glen Rock Valley 110 GRVT03 1720 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Tribs Glen Rock Valley 111 GRVT06 1050 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Tribs Glen Rock Valley 112 GRVT206 1300 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tribs Glen Rock Valley 113 GRVT209/208/GRVT03 1070 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Tribs Glen Rock Valley 114 GRVT501 1270 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 Tribs Hanover Junction 115 HJT03/HJT04 990 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trib Hanover Junction 116 HJT05 1575 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trib 117 Hunderford Trib HuT05 1500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 118 Krebs Valley Trib KVT0[7] 1850 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 119 Krebs Valley Trib KVT0[9] 2160 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3-21 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

120 Krebs Valley Trib KVT01 3150 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 121 Krebs Valley Trib KVT04 1480 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 122 Krebs Valley Trib KVT04 2730 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 123 Krebs Valley Trib KVT401 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 124 Krebs Valley Trib KVT601/KVT602 3870 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 New Freedom 125 NFCT04 1000 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Church Trib New Freedom 126 NFCT05 1040 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Church Trib 127 New Salem Trib NST101/NST02 1885 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 128 New Salem Trib NST301 1000 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 129 New Salem Trib NST502/NST601 780 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 130 New Salem Trib NST703 1070 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 131 Pierceville Run PR02 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 132 Pierceville Run PR05/PR06 2000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 133 Pierceville Run PR12 3280 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 134 Pierceville Run PR3E 850 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 135 Pierceville Run PR502 1000 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 136 Pierceville Run PR601 515 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 South Branch 137 SB1601 1100 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 Codorus Creek South Branch 138 SB17 400 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Codorus Creek South Branch 139 SB27 2650 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Codorus Creek South Branch 140 SB28/SB29 8625 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Codorus Creek South Branch 141 SB31 1150 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Codorus Creek South Branch 142 SB36/SB34 1745 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Codorus Creek South Branch 143 SBCC41 1460 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 Codorus Creek South Branch 144 SBCC42 3440 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Codorus Creek Seven Valleys 145 SVNT06/SVNT05 1478 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 North Trib Seven Valleys 146 SVNT102/SVNT101 500 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 North Trib Seven Valleys South 147 SVST08/SVST07 1650 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trib Seven Valleys South 148 SVST11/SVST12 950 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trib 149 Trout Run (South) TR05 1350 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 150 Trout Run (South) TR06 1640 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 151 Trout Run (South) TR07 1700 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 152 Trout Run (South) TR08 910 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 153 Trout Run (South) TR201/TR202 1500 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 154 Trout Run (South) TR301 775 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 155 Travis Trib TT103 3200 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 156 Travis Trib TT106/TT105/TT104 2320 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 157 Wangs Trib WT01 2560 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 158 Wangs Trib WT02 2110 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTALS 120668 73 16 29 25 3 5 2 153

3-22 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

3.4.2. Monitoring

Upon completion of the restoration projects, as-built markups of cross sections and profiles will be provided. At a minimum, post-construction monitoring will be completed at least once each year. Each restoration project will have monumented cross sections which will be installed during project design. These cross-section locations will be used to monitor stream improvements by comparing pre-construction conditions with the post- construction as-built cross sections. Future restoration projects may also include pre- and post-construction biologic monitoring to measure improvements to the aquatic community.

3.4.3. Stream Restoration Costs

As mentioned throughout the report, the IWLA intends to use a natural channel design approach for all stream restoration. Information collected during the watershed assessment will be used in all restoration design. A regional hydraulic geometry curve has been established for the South Branch Codorus Creek watershed. This information will be important in the design process to determine the appropriate channel geometry. Where required, reference reaches will be used to determine appropriate stream patterns. A general watershed permit was also issued which will provide for more timely permit application reviews for all future restoration projects. All of this information and completed work efforts will result in some long term cost savings as it relates to stream restoration.

Due to the magnitude and extent of stream impairment in the South Branch watershed, it is difficult to develop a detailed cost estimate for restoration. Each restoration project will need to be approached individually and restoration costs will vary depending on numerous factors including the following: • Stream size; • Extent of restoration required (bank stabilization vs. total reconstruction); • Accessibility; • Presence of utilities; • Adjacent land use constraints (structures, roads, etc.); and • In-kind donation of funding or services.

An approximate restoration cost for all severely impaired stream reaches (Priority 1) in the South Branch watershed was developed using the information from the watershed assessment and is given in table 3-9 to 3-16 of section 3.6 of funding, construction and maintenance activities. The costs presented are approximate and are based on 2006 costs with no escalation. The unit costs per foot provided are based on both actual restoration costs to date and estimates based on stream size. The unit costs for the larger streams are naturally higher due to additional earthwork, increased volume of materials (primarily rock), larger in-stream structures, and larger riparian zone establishment. Additional costs include development of site plans, designs, preparation of permit applications, and construction management. Construction management by a trained restoration specialist is

3-23 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

important to the success of any project. For cost estimating purposes, these costs were assumed to be 60% of the construction cost. The total cost to restore the identified severely impaired stream reaches (restore the identified severely impaired stream reaches) including survey, design, permit, and construct is estimated to be approximately $150 per linear foot of rural streambank restored and $250 per linear foot of urban streambank restored, or higher.

3.4.4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Over 66 miles or 45% of streams in the SBCC watershed are impaired, with over 10 miles being severely impaired. The primary source of impairment appears to be bank erosion. Many of the streams assessed have tremendous sediment loading in the form of gravel and silt. During the watershed assessment, there were no real overland flow nonpoint sources of sediment pollution documented. Although many of the streams in the watershed flow through cropland and pasture, it does not appear that these land uses caused the impairment. Many stream reaches were identified as being impaired where agricultural land use was not present, especially where there is no woody riparian vegetation. The majority of the impacts to the SBCC may have started over 100 years ago with land clearing activities especially along the riparian zone. With increasing development over the last 50 to 60 years, the streams never had a chance to stabilize. With ever-increasing development, especially in the upper watershed, stormwater was immediately discharged to the watershed’s streams causing bank erosion, channel downcutting, and lateral migration.

The gradual migration of a stream across a valley floor is a natural process and on stable streams can move several feet over long periods of time (200 years or more). With increased sediment loadings, the accretion of material on the point bar gradually pushes the convex bank into the channel causing the concave bank to erode. According to Leopold (1979), the rate of channel shifting is related to the rate which bedload is being transported in the reach.

The SBCC and its tributaries have high levels of gravel bedload and existing bank erosion is a considerable source of the bedload. Due to the high bedload of the streams, lateral stream migration has been greatly accelerated. During the watershed assessment, landowners have reported channel migration of up to 40 feet over a 15-year period. A review of historical aerial photographs between 1947 and 1971 (prior to Hurricane Agnes flooding, 1972) indicates channel migration up to 80 feet in some locations. During the SBCC watershed assessment, bank erosion over three feet has been documented in ten months along severely impaired reaches.

3-24 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

The amount of documented soil loss at the two bank erosion monitoring locations varied between 0.45 and 0.50 tons of soil per square-foot of streambank in less than a year. Using a conservative average soil loss value of 0.40 tons per foot of streambank per year for the identified severely impaired stream reaches (i.e., 54,366 feet), the annual soil loss due to bank erosion would be approximately 22,000 tons per year or an average of 60 tons per day. There are another 295,395 feet of streams in the watershed which have been identified as being moderately impaired. Using an average soil loss value of 0.20 tons per foot of streambank per year, the total annual soil loss due to bank erosion would be around 59,000 tons per year. Without considering any soil erosion associated with the stream reaches assessed as being slightly impaired to stable reaches (i.e., 426,907 feet), the cumulative annual soil loss along the severely to moderately impaired stream reaches is estimated at 81,000 tons per year or an average of 222 tons per day. This erosion and sedimentation further accelerates bank erosion downstream as the channels attempt to adjust.

Stormwater management regulations promulgated in the mid-1970’s contributed to the reduction of flood flow and subsequent impacts to the watershed’s streams. A change in agricultural practices also improved soil loss from cropland areas with the implementation of contour planting and no-till practices. During the field assessment, there was no evidence of overland erosion noted in the watershed. Many agricultural livestock operations in the watershed however continue to allow grazing along streambanks, which continues to hinder the ability of the stream to adjust to a stable condition. As mentioned previously, the existing eroded banks are a significant source of sediment in the watershed. With the streambanks eroded near vertical and with high sediment supply in the watershed, the streams will continue to erode and migrate. These bank conditions are also prone to erosion over the winter months as the exposed soil freezes and thaws. This condition is noticeable shortly after snowfall where eroded soils cover any snowfall at the base of the streambanks. Likewise, these soils are prone to wind erosion due to the exposed steeply sloping conditions.

The key to restoring the streams in the watershed is to stabilize streambanks, restore the proper channel dimension, pattern and profile, and establish woody riparian zones along the streams. Streambank stabilization and the establishment of riparian buffers will help reduce the amount of sediment in the South Branch Codorus Creek. This in turn will reduce the channel’s need to compensate or adjust further downstream.

3.5. West Branch Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

Over the last several years, tremendous interest has been generated in restoring Codorus Creek. The updated water treatment technology being implemented by Glatfelter is an important first step in the overall stream restoration plan for Codorus Creek. Glatfelter (P.H. Glatfelter Company) was established in 1864 and is a major employer in York County producing wood pulp for paper production. The process of making pulp requires the use of large volumes of water from the Codorus which is returned with a brown tannin color. In

3-25 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

1994 Glatfelter began improving their discharge by substantially reducing chlorine used to bleach the pulp. In 2003, Glatfelter invested in additional pollution prevention technologies in the manufacturing process which removed the tannin coloration. As of October 2003, the majority of the treatment systems were on-line with the remainder expected to be completed by the January 2004.

Due to the size of the Codorus Creek watershed and the degree of impairment it would be advantageous to plan and manage watershed restoration efforts concurrently throughout the subwatersheds with various partners and stakeholders. The Watershed Alliance of York (WAY) was established in 2001 to encourage watershed planning, restoration, and protection through locally led conservation, education and stewardship initiatives in York County. WAY is ideally suited to take a lead role in assisting with the organization of restoration in the Codorus watershed including funding procurement, education, and monitoring. Additionally, the Codorus Implementation Committee (CIC), formed in the 1970’s to address creek issues, was revitalized in 2006 to assist with coordinating Codorus Creek Watershed Restoration planning, restoration and protection between and among local governing entities, nonprofit organizations, watershed groups, and other stakeholders.

3.5.1. Watershed Restoration Efforts: Existing and Planned

Stream restoration work is underway in the South and East Branch Codorus Creek watersheds. Several aquatic habitat projects have also been completed in the HQ-CWF section of the upper watershed by the Codorus Chapter of Trout Unlimited. The Chapter also sponsored the preparation of a Rivers Conservation Plan. With this plan being finalized, other restoration funding is available through the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR).

Numerous public and academic interest groups have become established to continue restoration. In addition to actual stream cleanup and other implementation projects, volunteers are playing a major role in watershed education and monitoring.

Phase I Restoration

The CCWA received a Growing Greener grant to survey, design, permit, and construct the first restoration project in the watershed. This Phase I project is reach OC-11 & 12 in Oil Creek watershed and includes restoration of approximately 4,000 feet of severely impaired stream through a cattle pasture. This project will include total channel reconstruction using natural channel design principles. This project will be used as a demonstration for other property owners in the watershed.

Water Resources Development Feasibility Studies Sections #206 and #1135

The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) has invested in the Codorus Creek watershed by providing funding for two restoration-related projects. The first project is the Codorus Ecosystem Restoration Project (Section 206), which involves the feasibility, biological

3-26 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

assessment, and preliminary design for identified habitat restoration projects. Using the results of the South and East Branch Codorus watershed assessments, and the preliminary assessment results of this project, the ACOE and their consultants are completing biologic assessment of identified impaired stream reaches, and will be preparing feasibility studies and conceptual designs. This project is being sponsored by York County, which provided 30% matching funds and/or services towards the project.

The second project funded by the ACOE is the York Restoration Project (Section 1135) that focuses on the ecological restoration of the existing 4.9-mile flood control channel through York. A feasibility study is being completed that will consider improvement through channel modifications to improve habitat, aesthetics, and recreation. Although it will be important to maintain flood control capacity, the project will examine the feasibility of environmental modifications. The project sought public input in mid November 2003 and got underway, but is currently on hold due to a freeze on ACOE funding. The Corps (through their consultant) also provided funding to complete Phase III of the watershed assessment (Indian Rock Dam to the Susquehanna River). The Army Corps of Engineers will continue to be an important partner over the next several years.

Future Restoration Planning

Due to the degree of impairment with over 42 miles of severely impaired streams it is difficult to develop a detailed plan. Many restoration projects can be completed concurrently and throughout different areas in the watershed. For example, stabilization or habitat improvement projects with riparian plantings could be considered concurrently. By having multiple restoration partnerships and project sponsors overall watershed restoration can be maximized. It is recommended that following watershed partners continue or begin various restoration plans concurrently in the watershed: • Izaak Walton League of America - York Chapter 67 • Codorus Chapter Trout Unlimited • Codorus Creek Watershed Association

Stream restoration along severely impaired reaches will require heavy equipment and detailed surveying, planning and permitting. The restoration planning should be undertaken using a watershed approach. This approach generally requires beginning in the upper watershed, subwatersheds and/or tributaries and working downstream. Although a watershed approach is recommended (upstream to downstream), it may be necessary to consider some reaches earlier in the restoration plan regardless of the location in the watershed, especially where there may be an imminent threat to safety or property. Another critical aspect of restoration is available funding. Information from the prioritized assessment should be used to identify stream reaches for restoration. Early restoration efforts should concentrate on the Priority 1 (severely impaired) reaches in each project subwatershed. A list of severely impaired stream reaches is provided on Table 3-5. By addressing the severely impaired reaches first, there is a high probability that some of the moderately impaired reaches can recover on their own, especially with riparian planting efforts.

3-27 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-5. West Branch Watershed Goals and Management Measure Milestones by Subwatershed and Aggregate for Watershed as a Whole

Stream Name Reach_ID Total (SBF) (LSC) (RFB) (WLP) Stormwater Plan (NMP) Location No. No. Location Linear Feet (LF) Restoration (FGM Livestock Crossing Fluvial Geomorphic Management (SWM) Wetlands Restoration Restoration Wetlands Stream Bank Fencing Nutrient Management Riparian Forest Buffers Forest Buffers Riparian

1 Codorus Creek CC22 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Codorus Creek CC24 850 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Codorus Creek CC2504 620 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Codorus Creek CC26/CC25 2500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 UNT Codorus Creek CC2602 850 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 UNT Codorus Creek CC2701 1500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 UNT Codorus Creek CC2705 1090 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 Codorus Creek CC2805 1280 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 Dee Run DRT101 460 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 Dee Run DRT201 640 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 Dee Run DRT301 1175 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 Emigsville Tributary ET101 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 Emigsville Tributary ET502/503/501 1240 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 Emigsville Tributary ET607 780 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 Emigsville Tributary ET608 735 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 Emigsville Tributary ET701 1030 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 Leaders Heights Trib LH01 900 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 Leaders Heights Trib LH03/LH101 2650 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 19 Leaders Heights Trib LH07/LH401 4480 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 Lightners School Trib LST03 1900 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 Lightners School Trib LST04 1225 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 Lightners School Trib LST05/LST04 4250 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23 Lightners School Trib LST105 800 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 24 Lightners School Trib LST201 1267 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 25 Lincolnway Trib LWT301/LWT04/LWT05 2280 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 26 Mill Creek MC02/MC03/MC04 1960 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 27 Mill Creek MC09 2600 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 28 Mill Creek MC10 1165 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 29 Mill Creek MC1002 1100 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 30 Mill Creek MC1003 1500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 31 Mill Creek MC1006 3700 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 32 Mill Creek MC1101 1180 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 33 Mill Creek MC1201 1500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 34 Mill Creek MC13/MC12 1470 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 35 Mill Creek MC1512 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 36 Mill Creek MC1601 420 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 37 Mill Creek MC19 1660 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 38 Mill Creek MC1901 1733 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 39 Mill Creek MC21 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 40 Mill Creek MC22 2600 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 41 Mill Creek MC23 1000 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 42 Mill Creek MC2606 1255 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 43 Mill Creek MC2611 1260 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 44 Mill Creek MC2805 1445 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3-28 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

45 Mill Creek MC2805 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 46 Mill Creek MC304 1030 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 47 Mill Creek MC3601 460 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 48 Mill Creek MC3901 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 49 Mill Creek MC402 1000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 Mill Creek MC502/MC501 2025 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 51 Starview Trib SVT01 700 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 52 Tyler Run VH04/VH03 675 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 53 Tyler Run VH08 1400 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 54 Tyler Run VH14 1730 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 55 Tyler Run VH401 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 56 Tyler Run VH501 2210 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 57 Tyler Run VH802 780 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 58 Willis Run WR01 1500 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 59 Willis Run WR05 1500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 60 Willis Run WR07 2420 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 61 Willis Run WR301 2020 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 159 Bunch Creek BC05 1250 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 160 Bunch Creek BC301 750 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 161 Codorus Creek CC05 540 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 162 Codorus Creek CC101 1620 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 163 UNT Codorus Creek CC1302 800 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 164 Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1502 4000 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 165 Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1503 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 166 Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1503/1504 3135 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 167 Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1601 1875 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 168 Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1604/1603/1602 2565 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 169 Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1606/1605 4270 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 170 Codorus Creek CC201 1000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 171 Codorus Creek CC401 800 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 172 Furnace Creek FC02 550 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 173 Furnace Creek FC03 314 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 174 Furnace Creek FC04 735 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 175 Furnace Creek FC07/FC06(D/S) 2700 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 176 Furnace Creek FC08/FC801 2525 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 177 Furnace Creek FC10 888 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 178 Furnace Creek FC1002/FC09 590 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 179 Furnace Creek FC1101(D/S) 380 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 180 Furnace Creek FC1202 530 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 181 Furnace Creek FC701 1690 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 182 Furnace Creek FC703 540 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 183 Lischy Church Trib LCT02 2460 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 184 Lischy Church Trib LCT04/LCT03 950 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 185 Lischy Church Trib LCT05 500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 186 Lischy Church Trib LCT201 625 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 187 Long Run LR01 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 188 Long Run LR03 280 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 189 Long Run LR04/LR102 2080 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 190 Long Run LR06 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 191 Long Run LR07 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 192 Long Run LR09 700 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 193 Long Run LR10 1550 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 194 Long Run LR11 805 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 195 Long Run LR2301 (D/S) 600 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 196 Long Run LR2303 800 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3-29 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

197 Long Run LR2501 (D/S) 1400 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 198 Long Run LR2701 1260 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 199 Long Run LR2801 630 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 200 Long Run LR2901/LR2902 1360 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 201 Long Run LR3201 (U/S) 750 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 202 Long Run LR3202 1350 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 203 Long Run LR3302 560 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 204 Long Run LR3601 270 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 205 Long Run LR401 1500 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 206 Long Run LR502 900 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 207 Long Run LR503 2050 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 208 Long Run LR902/LR1001 1670 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 209 Lehman Trib LT01 1570 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 210 Lehman Trib LT06/LT05/LT04 1700 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 211 Lehman Trib LT201 500 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 212 Nashville Trib NA02 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 213 Nashville Trib NA03 3025 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 214 Nashville Trib NA04 1280 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 215 Nashville Trib NA05 3180 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 216 Oil Creek OC19 2650 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 217 Old Paths Trib OPT04 600 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 218 Old Paths Trib OPT1001 2000 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 219 Porters Sidling Trib PC01 975 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 220 Porters Sidling Trib PC03/PC101 2180 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 221 Porters Sidling Trib PC04/PC201 1650 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 222 Porters Sidling Trib PC05 750 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 223 Porters Sidling Trib PC06 2000 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 224 Porters Sidling Trib PC08 780 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 225 Porters Sidling Trib PC09 500 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 226 Porters Sidling Trib PC10 650 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 227 Porters Sidling Trib PC401 1700 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 5 228 Prospect Hill Trib PHT01 1480 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 229 Prospect Hill Trib PHT03 500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 230 Prospect Hill Trib PHT05 750 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 231 Spring Grove Trib SG03 2280 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 232 Spring Grove Trib SGR01 380 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 233 Spring Grove Trib SGR03 1155 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 234 Swimming Pool Trib SPT07/SPT08 1725 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 235 Swimming Pool Trib SPT201 790 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 236 Swimming Pool Trib SPT501 1200 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 237 Sunnyside Trib SS02 350 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 238 Sunnyside Trib SS02 1200 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 239 Stoverstown Branch ST01 1840 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 240 Stoverstown Branch ST02/ST03/ST04 2685 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 241 Stoverstown Branch ST03ST103 2280 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 242 Stoverstown Branch ST04 1390 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 243 Stoverstown Branch ST05(GOLF) 1950 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 244 Stoverstown Branch ST09 640 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 245 Stoverstown Branch ST10 875 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 246 Stoverstown Branch ST11 1650 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 247 Stoverstown Branch ST204/ST205/ST203 1350 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 248 Stoverstown Branch ST501 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 249 Stoverstown Branch ST702/ST703 1160 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 250 Upper Codorus Creek UCC03 500 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 251 Upper Codorus Creek UCC04 390 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4

3-30 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

252 Upper Codorus Creek UCC06 500 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 253 Upper Codorus Creek UCC08 1150 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 254 Upper Codorus Creek UCC10 750 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 255 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1003/UCC1002 800 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 256 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1004 1785 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 257 Upper Codorus Creek UCC11 3600 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 258 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1201 780 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 259 Upper Codorus Creek UCC14/UCC13/UCC12 1900 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 260 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1402 1600 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 261 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1403 1470 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 262 Upper Codorus Creek UCC15 1550 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 263 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1602 990 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 264 Upper Codorus Creek UCC17/UCC16/UCC18 2850 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 265 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1701/1702 950 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 266 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 225 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 267 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 735 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 268 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801(U/S) 950 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 269 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1802 650 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 270 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1803 1105 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 271 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1804 1130 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 272 Upper Codorus Creek UCC1805 1700 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 273 Upper Codorus Creek UCC19/UCC18 1750 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 274 Upper Codorus Creek UCC20 575 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 275 Upper Codorus Creek UCC201 600 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 276 Upper Codorus Creek UCC21 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 277 Upper Codorus Creek UCC21/UCC3402 1450 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 278 Upper Codorus Creek UCC22//UCC23 1320 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 279 Upper Codorus Creek UCC2301 1350 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 280 Upper Codorus Creek UCC2901 350 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 281 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3002 750 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 282 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3003 1350 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 283 Upper Codorus Creek UCC302/UCC301 1540 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 284 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 600 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 285 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 775 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 286 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 475 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 287 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3401 600 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 288 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3703 700 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 289 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3704 1300 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 290 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3705 1700 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 291 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3706 720 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 292 Upper Codorus Creek UCC3902 1100 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 293 Upper Codorus Creek UCC401 825 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 294 Upper Codorus Creek UCC601 800 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 295 Upper Codorus Creek UCC701 1120 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 296 Upper Codorus Creek UCC801 2400 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 297 Upper Codorus Creek UCC902 500 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 298 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC02 700 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 299 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC03 2140 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 300 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC04 1380 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 301 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC07 1250 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 302 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC08 860 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 303 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC09 2500 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 304 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1001 400 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 305 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1201 677 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

3-31 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

306 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1302 790 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 307 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1501 830 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 308 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 309 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC201 1700 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 310 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC202 1670 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 311 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC203 500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 312 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2501 500 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 313 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2701 500 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 314 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2901 950 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 315 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC301 2775 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 316 West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC801 560 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

TOTAL 272809 211 30 56 65 20 17 5 404

Where stream restoration partnering opportunities exist (matching funds or services), consideration should be given to pursuing these projects early in long term planning to maximize restoration funding. Important to any restoration effort is the participation of the private landowners. Without the necessary approvals, the desired restoration cannot proceed.

A natural channel design approach based on fluvial geomorphic principles is highly recommended for all major stream restoration projects where conditions permit. A natural channel design provides stream bank/channel stability, improves sediment transport, and enhances aquatic habitat. These design principles often require the installation of in- stream rock and log structures that dramatically increase stream recovery.

As part of the Codorus Creek field assessments, four reference surveys were completed to verify the regional hydraulic curve developed. The regional hydraulic curve is important in restoration design, and should be utilized as a tool in preparing restoration design.

Where possible, any stream restoration work should connect the watershed streams to the floodplain to provide both floodplain attenuation and energy dissipation. This could be achieved either by raising the stream channel elevation or lowering the floodplain elevation. Additional study and coordination with landowners and regulatory agencies would need to occur to determine the feasibility of modifying floodplains. This of course can only be considered where there is no threat of structural damage from flooding.

Major stream restoration projects will require the preparation of a Joint Permit Application requiring PA Department of Environmental Protection and U.S. Army Corp of Engineer authorizations. This first permit application to be submitted for the Phase I restoration project (OC-11&12) on Oil Creek will be a multi-phase restoration application and include the information presented in this report. The PA DEP Southcentral Regional Office promotes this approach, which simplifies and expedites the Joint Permit Application review and processing. The application will include much of the information included in this Watershed Assessment Report. In addition to detailed site- specific environmental information and design plans, this first permit application will include: • Summary of the reaches of stream requiring restoration

3-32 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

• Map showing the location of the reaches • Types of restoration techniques being proposed

Information on various Best Management Practices (BMPs) recommended for restoration work in the watershed is included previously. Although each restoration project will require detailed site-specific information, the multi-phase permitting approach will expedite future permit application reviews, and only requires a one-time permit application fee.

The CCWA and other watershed partners should use the information from the Watershed Assessment to pursue funding for the restoration of high priority sites. Additional detailed information to be included in future project permitting will include the following: • Environmental Assessment Form • General information Form • Detailed project description • Detailed site survey and design (cross sections, profiles, pebble counts, reference reach data) • Landowner permission form • Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index (PNDI) clearance (endangered species) • Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) clearance (historic and/or archaeological resources) • York County Conservation District approval (E&S) • Construction details and sequences • Design report • As-built mark ups of cross sections and profiles

Realizing that this construction approach to stream restoration (natural channel design) may involve field adjustments, especially with the construction of in-stream bank stabilization/habitat structures, the PA DEP has requested as-built cross sections for all phases of restoration work completed under the Permit. This additional information has been requested as a special condition to the permit.

3.5.2. Monitoring

Upon completion of the restoration projects, as-built markups of cross sections and profiles will be provided. At a minimum, post-construction monitoring will be completed at least once each year. Each restoration project will have monumented cross sections which will be installed during project design. These cross-section locations will be used to monitor stream improvements by comparing pre-construction conditions with the post- construction as-built cross sections. Future restoration projects may also include pre- and post-construction biologic monitoring to measure improvements to the aquatic community.

3-33 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

3.5.3. Stream Restoration Costs

As mentioned throughout the West Branch Assessment report, the IWLA, CCWA and others intend to use a natural channel design approach for all stream restoration. Information collected during the watershed assessment will be used in all restoration design. A regional hydraulic geometry curve has been established for the West Branch Codorus Creek watershed. This information will be important in the design process to determine the appropriate channel geometry. Where required, reference reaches will be used to determine appropriate stream patterns. A general watershed permit needs to be issued, which will provide for more timely permit application reviews for all future restoration projects. All of this information and completed work efforts will result in some long term cost savings as it relates to stream restoration.

Due to the magnitude and extent of stream impairment in the West Branch watershed, it is difficult to develop a detailed cost estimate for restoration. Each restoration project will need to be approached individually and restoration costs will vary depending on numerous factors including the following: • Stream size; • Extent of restoration required (bank stabilization vs. total reconstruction); • Accessibility; • Presence of utilities; • Adjacent land use constraints (structures, roads, etc.); and • In-kind donation of funding or services.

An approximate restoration cost for all severely impaired stream reaches (Priority 1) in the West Branch watershed was developed using the information from the watershed assessment and is given in table 3-9 to 3-16 of section 3.6 of funding, construction and maintenance activities. The costs presented are approximate and are based on 2006 costs with no escalation. The unit costs per foot provided are based on both actual restoration costs to date and estimates based on stream size. The unit costs for the larger streams are naturally higher due to additional earthwork, increased volume of materials (primarily rock), larger in-stream structures, and larger riparian zone establishment. Additional costs include development of site plans, designs, preparation of permit applications, and construction management. Construction management by a trained restoration specialist is important to the success of any project. For cost estimating purposes, these costs were assumed to be 60% of the construction cost. The total cost to restore the identified severely impaired stream reaches (restore the identified severely impaired stream reaches) including survey, design, permit, and construct is estimated to be approximately $150 per linear foot of rural streambank restored and $250 per linear foot of urban streambank restored, or higher.

3-34 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

3.5.4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Following are 16 general recommendations to guide future planning, restoration and protection efforts in the West Branch Codorus Creek Watershed. These recommendations involve everything from public education and outreach to institutional controls, and implementation of nonstructural and structural Best Management Practices. Additionally, partnerships will be necessary to fully implement all of these measures.

1. The CCWA should continue playing an active role in WAY, and volunteer efforts. It is suggested that all identified watershed partners maximize coordination of planning and restoration activities throughout the watershed.

2. Innovative stormwater management is as important to the health of streams as it is to the surrounding watershed (table 3-8). Among the most beneficial structural and nonstructural BMPs are: porous pavement, wet detention/retention, wetland creation, preservation of vegetated areas, and site development that minimizes impervious areas. Since pollutant concentrations in developed watersheds run off during the earliest period of a rainfall event, any detention should be designed to catch and filter smaller storms. Since bankfull (channel-forming) flow varies from between 1.2-1.8 year return interval, release rates should be less than the 1-year flow of the receiving stream to minimize channel erosion. During the assessment, potential areas were noted that could be preserved and used to implement the aforementioned BMPs.

3. A native plant materials center should be considered in the watershed where native plants can be propagated or cuttings (willows and dogwoods) can be harvested by watershed partners and used on various restoration projects. The center could be established on public or private land easily accessible to restoration partners. Potential sites could include Glatfelter or York Water Company. These companies have large land holdings and are active project partners.

4. CCWA as well as other volunteer groups should complete restoration projects, including riparian plantings (table 3-6). Stream reaches in the watershed where streams are stable but have little or no riparian buffers should be a priority. The CCWA has planted five buffer projects and should pursue landowner contacts to begin potential riparian planting projects annually.

5. The reach of Codorus Creek between Spring Grove and Indian Rock dam is preserved for flood storage by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to flood storage, the active floodplain removes fine sediment from the stream. The area behind the dam is managed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and is open to the public for recreation. The reach was assessed by canoe and provides a scenic canoe resource. The continued preservation of this area is important.

6. The long-term goal of restoring the Codorus will rely on continued planning and implementation within the subwatersheds. The York Chapter 67 of the Izaak Walton

3-35 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

should continue with their phased restoration approach on the South and East Branches by applying to various funding programs for restoration assistance.

7. It is recommended that CCWA continue pursuing restoration partnerships. The Codorus Chapter of Trout Unlimited (CCTU) has been very active in the upper Codorus Creek watershed and sponsored the development of a Rivers Conservation Plan. With an approved plan, additional funding may be available for implementing restoration. The Codorus Chapter was instrumental with landowner contact for the recently approved Phase I funding through the Growing Greener Program to restore 4,000 feet of Oil Creek. Projects in the Oil Creek watershed and will have a higher likelihood of restoration funding due to the recently approved Total Maximum Daily Load established for the watershed. The CCTU should continue with these efforts and take the lead in sponsoring restoration projects in the Upper Codorus Creek and Oil Creek watersheds.

8. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has completed biological assessments throughout Codorus Creek watershed and prioritized habitat restoration projects. CCWA and other watershed partners should continue coordination with the Army Corps to encourage good landowner relationships for potential habitat restoration projects. The Army Corps is also studying the feasibility of improving the flood control channel through York with respect to aesthetics and recreational use. Pending detailed hydraulic analysis, it is recommended that a low flow channel be considered to improve habitat and aesthetics as well as various recreational opportunities.

9. Natural channel design using fluvial geomorphic principles should be promoted for all stream stabilization and restoration activities. When properly applied, this design approach provides stream stability and improved habitat and sediment transport. Restoring proper channel geometry will reduce and possibly eliminate channel maintenance. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) has shown an early interest in implementing natural channel design considerations for bridge and stream bank stabilization projects along state roads in the East and South Branch Codorus watersheds. Partnerships should be developed with watershed municipalities to address stream stability issues. These partnerships and donation of various resources can also be used as matching funds and/or services for various restoration projects to maximize funding opportunities.

10. Many streams in the watershed have been bermed or have downcut and are no longer connected to their floodplain at bankfull flow. Where possible, restoration should include connecting the stream to the floodplain.

11. Nine bank erosion-monitoring locations have been established to monitor erosion rates in the watershed. At a minimum, it is recommended that these locations be surveyed once a year. An attempt should be made to monitor bank erosion rates on sites targeted for restoration. The existing and/or pre-construction erosion rates should be determined to demonstrate measurable environmental results. As stream restoration is completed it will be important to continue and expand monitoring

3-36 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

efforts to document success. Additional monitoring should include biologic and physical monitoring (pebble counts).

12. Due to the extent of livestock grazing in the watershed, many stream reaches could benefit from stream bank fencing (table 3-7) and riparian buffer planting. There are 25 miles of stream that flow through pastures and have unrestricted access to the stream. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, provides incentives for landowners to protect streams by taking these areas out of production. Coordination with these landowners and the USDA is suggested to identify potential projects.

13. There are six golf courses in the watershed. Most of the golf courses in the watershed have impaired streams. Many of theses streams could benefit from riparian planting while not restricting recreational use. The golf courses would also benefit through improved aesthetics and reduced maintenance costs associated with bank and channel maintenance. It is recommended that the CCWA coordinate with the different golf courses to consider changes in maintenance practices and installing riparian buffer plantings.

14. There are numerous large woody debris jams on Codorus Creek between Spring Grove and Indian Rock Dam. In order to improve canoe accessibility and safety, it is recommended that at least partial removal of these debris jams be considered with volunteer efforts.

15. York County Parks has pursued and continues to pursue aquatic habitat improvement projects throughout the watershed parks. They are currently working on an educational and stream signage program. It is suggested that County Parks continue with these efforts and coordinate future watershed restoration efforts through WAY.

16. There are over 3 miles of concrete channel in the Willis Run watershed. These channels provide little habitat value; however the water in these channels is prone to accelerated thermal warming during the summer months. It is recommended that riparian buffers be planted along these channels (where feasible) to reduce thermal impacts. A portion of one channel (WR-102) has formed a low flow channel and has a dense growth of watercress. The presence of the watercress provides macroinvertebrate habitat. The potential to modify these concrete channels with vegetation should be investigated.

3-37 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-6. Stream Reaches Recommended for Riparian Planting

3-38 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-6. Stream Reaches Recommended for Riparian Planting (continued)

3-39 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-7. Stream Reaches Recommended for Streambank Fencing

3-40 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-8. Stream Reaches Recommended for Stormwater Management

3-41 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

3.6. Funding, Construction and Maintenance Activities

Estimated costs of construction and maintenance activities for management measure developed to achieve goals are summarized by subwatershed and aggregated for watershed as a whole in tables 3-9 through 3-16. Construction costs are based on actual BMP unit costs obtained from the York County Conservation District in 2006. For planning purposes, maintenance costs are assumed to be 15% of the total project cost, for three years following construction.

Table 3-9. Estimated Costs of BMP Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Area BMP Total BMP BMP Total Restored/ Unit BMP BMP Length Width Area Selected Appropriate BMPs Protected Cost Cost Sites (feet) (feet) (SF) (acres) (Dollars) (Dollars) Riparian Forest Buffer 306 436,277 70 30,539,390 701.09 $2,000 $1,402,176 Livestock Stream Crossing (LF) 51 5,100 16 81,600 1.87 $2.50 $204,000 Stream Bank Fencing (LF) 94 137,295 - 0 110.32 $2.00 $274,590 Nutrient Management Plan (ac) 98 139,735 100 13,973,500 320.79 $0.01 $9,620 Stormwater Management (LF) 24 1,200 70 84,000 1.93 $25 $2,100,000 FGM Stream Restoration (mi) 22 54,259 - 0 10.28 $150 $8,138,850 Wetlands Restoration (ac) 7 10,805 3,500 5,402,500 124.03 $1,225 $151,930 Totals 602 784,671 - 50,080,990 1270.31 - $12,281,166

Table 3-10. Estimate Costs of Riparian Forest Buffer (RFB) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole.

Total Total Unit Length Width Area Area Cost WS Stream Name Reach_ID (LF) (LF) (SF) (ac) AC Total Cost CC Codorus Creek CC22 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 CC Codorus Creek CC24 850 70 59500 1.37 $2,000 $2,732 CC Codorus Creek CC2504 620 70 43400 1.00 $2,000 $1,993 CC Codorus Creek CC26/CC25 2500 70 175000 4.02 $2,000 $8,035 CC UNT Codorus Creek CC2602 850 70 59500 1.37 $2,000 $2,732 CC UNT Codorus Creek CC2701 1500 70 105000 2.41 $2,000 $4,821 CC UNT Codorus Creek CC2705 1090 70 76300 1.75 $2,000 $3,503 CC Codorus Creek CC2805 1280 70 89600 2.06 $2,000 $4,114 CC Dee Run DRT101 460 70 32200 0.74 $2,000 $1,478 CC Dee Run DRT201 640 70 44800 1.03 $2,000 $2,057 CC Dee Run DRT301 1175 70 82250 1.89 $2,000 $3,776 CC Emigsville Tributary ET101 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 CC Emigsville Tributary ET502/503/501 1240 70 86800 1.99 $2,000 $3,985 CC Emigsville Tributary ET607 780 70 54600 1.25 $2,000 $2,507 CC Emigsville Tributary ET608 735 70 51450 1.18 $2,000 $2,362 CC Emigsville Tributary ET701 1030 70 72100 1.66 $2,000 $3,310 CC Leaders Heights Trib LH01 900 70 63000 1.45 $2,000 $2,893 CC Leaders Heights Trib LH03/LH101 2650 70 185500 4.26 $2,000 $8,517 CC Leaders Heights Trib LH07/LH401 4480 70 313600 7.20 $2,000 $14,399

3-42 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

CC Lightners School Trib LST03 1900 70 133000 3.05 $2,000 $6,107 CC Lightners School Trib LST04 1225 70 85750 1.97 $2,000 $3,937 CC Lightners School Trib LST05/LST04 4250 70 297500 6.83 $2,000 $13,659 CC Lightners School Trib LST105 800 70 56000 1.29 $2,000 $2,571 CC Lightners School Trib LST201 1267 70 88690 2.04 $2,000 $4,072 CC Lincolnway Trib LWT301/LWT04/LWT05 2280 70 159600 3.66 $2,000 $7,328 CC Mill Creek MC02/MC03/MC04 1960 70 137200 3.15 $2,000 $6,299 CC Mill Creek MC09 2600 70 182000 4.18 $2,000 $8,356 CC Mill Creek MC10 1165 70 81550 1.87 $2,000 $3,744 CC Mill Creek MC1002 1100 70 77000 1.77 $2,000 $3,535 CC Mill Creek MC1003 1500 70 105000 2.41 $2,000 $4,821 CC Mill Creek MC1006 3700 70 259000 5.95 $2,000 $11,892 CC Mill Creek MC1101 1180 70 82600 1.90 $2,000 $3,792 CC Mill Creek MC1201 1500 70 105000 2.41 $2,000 $4,821 CC Mill Creek MC13/MC12 1470 70 102900 2.36 $2,000 $4,725 CC Mill Creek MC1512 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 CC Mill Creek MC1601 420 70 29400 0.67 $2,000 $1,350 CC Mill Creek MC19 1660 70 116200 2.67 $2,000 $5,335 CC Mill Creek MC1901 1733 70 121310 2.78 $2,000 $5,570 CC Mill Creek MC22 2600 70 182000 4.18 $2,000 $8,356 CC Mill Creek MC23 1000 70 70000 1.61 $2,000 $3,214 CC Mill Creek MC2606 1255 70 87850 2.02 $2,000 $4,034 CC Mill Creek MC2611 1260 70 88200 2.02 $2,000 $4,050 CC Mill Creek MC2805 1445 70 101150 2.32 $2,000 $4,644 CC Mill Creek MC304 1030 70 72100 1.66 $2,000 $3,310 CC Mill Creek MC3601 460 70 32200 0.74 $2,000 $1,478 CC Mill Creek MC402 1000 70 70000 1.61 $2,000 $3,214 CC Mill Creek MC502/MC501 2025 70 141750 3.25 $2,000 $6,508 CC Starview Trib SVT01 700 70 49000 1.12 $2,000 $2,250 CC Tyler Run VH04/VH03 675 70 47250 1.08 $2,000 $2,169 CC Tyler Run VH08 1400 70 98000 2.25 $2,000 $4,500 CC Tyler Run VH14 1730 70 121100 2.78 $2,000 $5,560 CC Tyler Run VH401 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 CC Tyler Run VH501 2210 70 154700 3.55 $2,000 $7,103 CC Tyler Run VH802 780 70 54600 1.25 $2,000 $2,507 CC Willis Run WR01 1500 70 105000 2.41 $2,000 $4,821 CC Willis Run WR05 1500 70 105000 2.41 $2,000 $4,821 CC Willis Run WR07 2420 70 169400 3.89 $2,000 $7,778 CC Willis Run WR301 2020 70 141400 3.25 $2,000 $6,492 EB Barshinger Creek BC06/BC05/BC04 1575 70 110250 2.53 $2,000 $5,062 EB Barshinger Creek BC08 1260 70 88200 2.02 $2,000 $4,050 EB Barshinger Creek BC11 2450 70 171500 3.94 $2,000 $7,874 EB Barshinger Creek BC12/BC13/BC14 3300 70 231000 5.30 $2,000 $10,606 EB Barshinger Creek BC15/BC16/BC17 3400 70 238000 5.46 $2,000 $10,927 EB Barshinger Creek BC18/BC19/BC20/BC21 2820 70 197400 4.53 $2,000 $9,063 EB Blymire Hollow Trib BHT07 1400 70 98000 2.25 $2,000 $4,500 EB Blymire Hollow Trib BHT503-FILL 200 70 14000 0.32 $2,000 $643 EB Blymire Hollow Trib BHT504 820 70 57400 1.32 $2,000 $2,635

3-43 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

EB Barshinger Creek DBT09/10/11/12/13 3000 70 210000 4.82 $2,000 $9,642 EB East Branch Codorus EB25 2075 70 145250 3.33 $2,000 $6,669 EB Hametown Trib HT05/HT04 1900 70 133000 3.05 $2,000 $6,107 EB Inners Creek IC10 1100 70 77000 1.77 $2,000 $3,535 EB Inners Creek IC1101 1185 70 82950 1.90 $2,000 $3,809 EB Inners Creek IC13/IC12 1180 70 82600 1.90 $2,000 $3,792 EB Inners Creek IC17 3650 70 255500 5.87 $2,000 $11,731 EB Inners Creek IC203/IC05/IC06 1025 70 71750 1.65 $2,000 $3,294 EB Inners Creek IC601 450 70 31500 0.72 $2,000 $1,446 EB Nixon Park Trib NPT1103/1102 1090 70 76300 1.75 $2,000 $3,503 EB Nixon Park Trib NPT15/NPT14 1900 70 133000 3.05 $2,000 $6,107 EB Nixon Park Trib NPT18/NPT17/EB 3670 70 256900 5.90 $2,000 $11,795 EB Ridgeview Road Trib RRT03/RRT04/RRT05 3350 70 234500 5.38 $2,000 $10,767 SB Brush Valley Trib BRVT09 2560 70 179200 4.11 $2,000 $8,228 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT02 380 70 26600 0.61 $2,000 $1,221 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT03/04 1850 70 129500 2.97 $2,000 $5,946 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 1070 70 74900 1.72 $2,000 $3,439 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 955 70 66850 1.53 $2,000 $3,069 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 445 70 31150 0.72 $2,000 $1,430 SB Centerville Creek CC12 760 70 53200 1.22 $2,000 $2,443 SB Centerville Creek CC12/CC11 1078 70 75460 1.73 $2,000 $3,465 SB Centerville Creek CC16/CC17 5250 70 367500 8.44 $2,000 $16,873 SB Centerville Creek CC18/CC17/CC16 680 70 47600 1.09 $2,000 $2,185 SB Centerville Creek CC605/CC606/CC607 2000 70 140000 3.21 $2,000 $6,428 SB Centerville Creek CC701 1000 70 70000 1.61 $2,000 $3,214 SB Fischel Creek FIC05 1565 70 109550 2.51 $2,000 $5,030 SB Fischel Creek FIC01 2090 70 146300 3.36 $2,000 $6,717 SB Fischel Creek FIC02 1360 70 95200 2.19 $2,000 $4,371 SB Fischel Creek FIC08 1260 70 88200 2.02 $2,000 $4,050 SB Fischel Creek FIC1003 400 70 28000 0.64 $2,000 $1,286 SB Fischel Creek FIC1101 1930 70 135100 3.10 $2,000 $6,203 SB Fischel Creek FIC1201/FIC13 1150 70 80500 1.85 $2,000 $3,696 SB Foust Creek FOC02/FOC01 1010 70 70700 1.62 $2,000 $3,246 SB Foust Creek FOC04 780 70 54600 1.25 $2,000 $2,507 SB Foust Creek FOC07/FOC06 1732 70 121240 2.78 $2,000 $5,567 SB Foust Creek FOC09/FOC08 2415 70 169050 3.88 $2,000 $7,762 SB Foust Creek FOC10 1440 70 100800 2.31 $2,000 $4,628 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 1660 70 116200 2.67 $2,000 $5,335 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 1720 70 120400 2.76 $2,000 $5,528 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT06 1050 70 73500 1.69 $2,000 $3,375 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT206 1300 70 91000 2.09 $2,000 $4,178 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT209/208/GRVT03 1070 70 74900 1.72 $2,000 $3,439 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT501 1270 70 88900 2.04 $2,000 $4,082 SB Hanover Junction Trib HJT03/HJT04 990 70 69300 1.59 $2,000 $3,182 SB Hanover Junction Trib HJT05 1575 70 110250 2.53 $2,000 $5,062 SB Hungerford Trib HuT05 1500 70 105000 2.41 $2,000 $4,821 SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT0[7] 1850 70 129500 2.97 $2,000 $5,946 SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT0[9] 2160 70 151200 3.47 $2,000 $6,942

3-44 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT01 3150 70 220500 5.06 $2,000 $10,124 SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT04 1480 70 103600 2.38 $2,000 $4,757 SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT04 2730 70 191100 4.39 $2,000 $8,774 SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT601/KVT602 3870 70 270900 6.22 $2,000 $12,438 SB New Freedom Trib NFCT04 1000 70 70000 1.61 $2,000 $3,214 SB New Freedom Trib NFCT05 1040 70 72800 1.67 $2,000 $3,343 SB New Salem Trib NST101/NST02 1885 70 131950 3.03 $2,000 $6,058 SB New Salem Trib NST301 1000 70 70000 1.61 $2,000 $3,214 SB New Salem Trib NST502/NST601 780 70 54600 1.25 $2,000 $2,507 SB New Salem Trib NST703 1070 70 74900 1.72 $2,000 $3,439 SB Pierceville Run PR02 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 SB Pierceville Run PR05/PR06 2000 70 140000 3.21 $2,000 $6,428 SB Pierceville Run PR12 3280 70 229600 5.27 $2,000 $10,542 SB Pierceville Run PR3E 850 70 59500 1.37 $2,000 $2,732 SB Pierceville Run PR502 1000 70 70000 1.61 $2,000 $3,214 SB Pierceville Run PR601 515 70 36050 0.83 $2,000 $1,655 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SB1601 1100 70 77000 1.77 $2,000 $3,535 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SB17 400 70 28000 0.64 $2,000 $1,286 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SB27 2650 70 185500 4.26 $2,000 $8,517 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SB28/SB29 8625 70 603750 13.86 $2,000 $27,720 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SB31 1150 70 80500 1.85 $2,000 $3,696 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SB36/SB34 1745 70 122150 2.80 $2,000 $5,608 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SBCC41 1460 70 102200 2.35 $2,000 $4,692 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SBCC42 3440 70 240800 5.53 $2,000 $11,056 SB Seven Valleys North Trib SVNT06/SVNT05 1478 70 103460 2.38 $2,000 $4,750 SB Seven Valleys North Trib SVNT102/SVNT101 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 SB Seven Valleys South Trib SVST08/SVST07 1650 70 115500 2.65 $2,000 $5,303 SB Seven Valleys South Trib SVST11/SVST12 950 70 66500 1.53 $2,000 $3,053 SB Trout Run (South) TR05 1350 70 94500 2.17 $2,000 $4,339 SB Trout Run (South) TR06 1640 70 114800 2.64 $2,000 $5,271 SB Trout Run (South) TR07 1700 70 119000 2.73 $2,000 $5,464 SB Trout Run (South) TR08 910 70 63700 1.46 $2,000 $2,925 SB Trout Run (South) TR201/TR202 1500 70 105000 2.41 $2,000 $4,821 SB Trout Run (South) TR301 775 70 54250 1.25 $2,000 $2,491 SB Travis Trib TT103 3200 70 224000 5.14 $2,000 $10,285 SB Travis Trib TT106/TT105/TT104 2320 70 162400 3.73 $2,000 $7,456 SB Wangs Trib WT01 2560 70 179200 4.11 $2,000 $8,228 SB Wangs Trib WT02 2110 70 147700 3.39 $2,000 $6,781 WB Bunch Creek BC05 1250 70 87500 2.01 $2,000 $4,017 WB Bunch Creek BC301 750 70 52500 1.21 $2,000 $2,410 WB Codorus Creek CC05 540 70 37800 0.87 $2,000 $1,736 WB Codorus Creek CC101 1620 70 113400 2.60 $2,000 $5,207 WB UNT Codorus Creek CC1302 800 70 56000 1.29 $2,000 $2,571 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1502 4000 70 280000 6.43 $2,000 $12,856 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1503/1504 3135 70 219450 5.04 $2,000 $10,076 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1601 1875 70 131250 3.01 $2,000 $6,026 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1604/1603/1602 2565 70 179550 4.12 $2,000 $8,244 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1606/1605 4270 70 298900 6.86 $2,000 $13,724

3-45 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

WB Codorus Creek CC201 1000 70 70000 1.61 $2,000 $3,214 WB Codorus Creek CC401 800 70 56000 1.29 $2,000 $2,571 WB Furnace Creek FC02 550 70 38500 0.88 $2,000 $1,768 WB Furnace Creek FC03 314 70 21980 0.50 $2,000 $1,009 WB Furnace Creek FC04 735 70 51450 1.18 $2,000 $2,362 WB Furnace Creek FC07/FC06(D/S) 2700 70 189000 4.34 $2,000 $8,678 WB Furnace Creek FC08/FC801 2525 70 176750 4.06 $2,000 $8,115 WB Furnace Creek FC10 888 70 62160 1.43 $2,000 $2,854 WB Furnace Creek FC1002/FC09 590 70 41300 0.95 $2,000 $1,896 WB Furnace Creek FC1101(D/S) 380 70 26600 0.61 $2,000 $1,221 WB Furnace Creek FC1202 530 70 37100 0.85 $2,000 $1,703 WB Furnace Creek FC701 1690 70 118300 2.72 $2,000 $5,432 WB Furnace Creek FC703 540 70 37800 0.87 $2,000 $1,736 WB Lischy Church Trib LCT02 2460 70 172200 3.95 $2,000 $7,906 WB Lischy Church Trib LCT04/LCT03 950 70 66500 1.53 $2,000 $3,053 WB Lischy Church Trib LCT05 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Lischy Church Trib LCT201 625 70 43750 1.00 $2,000 $2,009 WB Long Run LR03 280 70 19600 0.45 $2,000 $900 WB Long Run LR04/LR102 2080 70 145600 3.34 $2,000 $6,685 WB Long Run LR06 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Long Run LR07 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Long Run LR09 700 70 49000 1.12 $2,000 $2,250 WB Long Run LR10 1550 70 108500 2.49 $2,000 $4,982 WB Long Run LR11 805 70 56350 1.29 $2,000 $2,587 WB Long Run LR2301 (D/S) 600 70 42000 0.96 $2,000 $1,928 WB Long Run LR2303 800 70 56000 1.29 $2,000 $2,571 WB Long Run LR2501 (D/S) 1400 70 98000 2.25 $2,000 $4,500 WB Long Run LR2701 1260 70 88200 2.02 $2,000 $4,050 WB Long Run LR2801 630 70 44100 1.01 $2,000 $2,025 WB Long Run LR2901/LR2902 1360 70 95200 2.19 $2,000 $4,371 WB Long Run LR3201 (U/S) 750 70 52500 1.21 $2,000 $2,410 WB Long Run LR3202 1350 70 94500 2.17 $2,000 $4,339 WB Long Run LR3302 560 70 39200 0.90 $2,000 $1,800 WB Long Run LR3601 270 70 18900 0.43 $2,000 $868 WB Long Run LR401 1500 70 105000 2.41 $2,000 $4,821 WB Long Run LR502 900 70 63000 1.45 $2,000 $2,893 WB Long Run LR503 2050 70 143500 3.29 $2,000 $6,589 WB Long Run LR902/LR1001 1670 70 116900 2.68 $2,000 $5,367 WB Lehman Trib LT01 1570 70 109900 2.52 $2,000 $5,046 WB Lehman Trib LT06/LT05/LT04 1700 70 119000 2.73 $2,000 $5,464 WB Lehman Trib LT201 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Nashville Trib NA02 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Nashville Trib NA03 3025 70 211750 4.86 $2,000 $9,722 WB Nashville Trib NA04 1280 70 89600 2.06 $2,000 $4,114 WB Nashville Trib NA05 3180 70 222600 5.11 $2,000 $10,220 WB Oil Creek OC19 2650 70 185500 4.26 $2,000 $8,517 WB Old Paths Trib OPT04 600 70 42000 0.96 $2,000 $1,928 WB Old Paths Trib OPT1001 2000 70 140000 3.21 $2,000 $6,428

3-46 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

WB Porters Sidling Trib PC01 975 70 68250 1.57 $2,000 $3,134 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC03/PC101 2180 70 152600 3.50 $2,000 $7,006 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC04/PC201 1650 70 115500 2.65 $2,000 $5,303 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC05 750 70 52500 1.21 $2,000 $2,410 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC06 2000 70 140000 3.21 $2,000 $6,428 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC08 780 70 54600 1.25 $2,000 $2,507 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC09 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC10 650 70 45500 1.04 $2,000 $2,089 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC401 1700 70 119000 2.73 $2,000 $5,464 WB Prospect Hill Trib PHT01 1480 70 103600 2.38 $2,000 $4,757 WB Prospect Hill Trib PHT03 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Prospect Hill Trib PHT05 750 70 52500 1.21 $2,000 $2,410 WB Spring Grove Trib SG03 2280 70 159600 3.66 $2,000 $7,328 WB Spring Grove Trib SGR01 380 70 26600 0.61 $2,000 $1,221 WB Spring Grove Trib SGR03 1155 70 80850 1.86 $2,000 $3,712 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT07/SPT08 1725 70 120750 2.77 $2,000 $5,544 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT201 790 70 55300 1.27 $2,000 $2,539 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT501 1200 70 84000 1.93 $2,000 $3,857 WB Sunnyside Trib SS02 350 70 24500 0.56 $2,000 $1,125 WB Sunnyside Trib SS02 1200 70 84000 1.93 $2,000 $3,857 WB Stoverstown Branch ST01 1840 70 128800 2.96 $2,000 $5,914 WB Stoverstown Branch ST02/ST03/ST04 2685 70 187950 4.31 $2,000 $8,629 WB Stoverstown Branch ST03ST103 2280 70 159600 3.66 $2,000 $7,328 WB Stoverstown Branch ST04 1390 70 97300 2.23 $2,000 $4,467 WB Stoverstown Branch ST05(GOLF) 1950 70 136500 3.13 $2,000 $6,267 WB Stoverstown Branch ST09 640 70 44800 1.03 $2,000 $2,057 WB Stoverstown Branch ST10 875 70 61250 1.41 $2,000 $2,812 WB Stoverstown Branch ST11 1650 70 115500 2.65 $2,000 $5,303 WB Stoverstown Branch ST204/ST205/ST203 1350 70 94500 2.17 $2,000 $4,339 WB Stoverstown Branch ST702/ST703 1160 70 81200 1.86 $2,000 $3,728 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC03 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC04 390 70 27300 0.63 $2,000 $1,253 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC06 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC08 1150 70 80500 1.85 $2,000 $3,696 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC10 750 70 52500 1.21 $2,000 $2,410 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1003/UCC1002 800 70 56000 1.29 $2,000 $2,571 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1004 1785 70 124950 2.87 $2,000 $5,737 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC11 3600 70 252000 5.79 $2,000 $11,570 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1201 780 70 54600 1.25 $2,000 $2,507 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC14/UCC13/UCC12 1900 70 133000 3.05 $2,000 $6,107 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1402 1600 70 112000 2.57 $2,000 $5,142 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1403 1470 70 102900 2.36 $2,000 $4,725 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC15 1550 70 108500 2.49 $2,000 $4,982 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1602 990 70 69300 1.59 $2,000 $3,182 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC17/UCC16/UCC18 2850 70 199500 4.58 $2,000 $9,160 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1701/1702 950 70 66500 1.53 $2,000 $3,053 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 225 70 15750 0.36 $2,000 $723 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 735 70 51450 1.18 $2,000 $2,362

3-47 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801(U/S) 950 70 66500 1.53 $2,000 $3,053 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1802 650 70 45500 1.04 $2,000 $2,089 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1803 1105 70 77350 1.78 $2,000 $3,551 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1804 1130 70 79100 1.82 $2,000 $3,632 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1805 1700 70 119000 2.73 $2,000 $5,464 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC19/UCC18 1750 70 122500 2.81 $2,000 $5,624 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC20 575 70 40250 0.92 $2,000 $1,848 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC201 600 70 42000 0.96 $2,000 $1,928 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC21/UCC3402 1450 70 101500 2.33 $2,000 $4,660 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC22//UCC23 1320 70 92400 2.12 $2,000 $4,242 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC2301 1350 70 94500 2.17 $2,000 $4,339 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC2901 350 70 24500 0.56 $2,000 $1,125 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3002 750 70 52500 1.21 $2,000 $2,410 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3003 1350 70 94500 2.17 $2,000 $4,339 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC302/UCC301 1540 70 107800 2.47 $2,000 $4,949 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 600 70 42000 0.96 $2,000 $1,928 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 775 70 54250 1.25 $2,000 $2,491 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 475 70 33250 0.76 $2,000 $1,527 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3401 600 70 42000 0.96 $2,000 $1,928 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3703 700 70 49000 1.12 $2,000 $2,250 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3704 1300 70 91000 2.09 $2,000 $4,178 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3705 1700 70 119000 2.73 $2,000 $5,464 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3706 720 70 50400 1.16 $2,000 $2,314 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3902 1100 70 77000 1.77 $2,000 $3,535 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC401 825 70 57750 1.33 $2,000 $2,652 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC601 800 70 56000 1.29 $2,000 $2,571 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC701 1120 70 78400 1.80 $2,000 $3,600 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC801 2400 70 168000 3.86 $2,000 $7,713 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC902 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC02 700 70 49000 1.12 $2,000 $2,250 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC03 2140 70 149800 3.44 $2,000 $6,878 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC04 1380 70 96600 2.22 $2,000 $4,435 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC07 1250 70 87500 2.01 $2,000 $4,017 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC08 860 70 60200 1.38 $2,000 $2,764 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC09 2500 70 175000 4.02 $2,000 $8,035 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1001 400 70 28000 0.64 $2,000 $1,286 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1201 677 70 47390 1.09 $2,000 $2,176 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1302 790 70 55300 1.27 $2,000 $2,539 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1501 830 70 58100 1.33 $2,000 $2,668 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC201 1700 70 119000 2.73 $2,000 $5,464 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC202 1670 70 116900 2.68 $2,000 $5,367 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC203 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2501 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2701 500 70 35000 0.80 $2,000 $1,607 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2901 950 70 66500 1.53 $2,000 $3,053 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC301 2775 70 194250 4.46 $2,000 $8,919 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC801 560 70 39200 0.90 $2,000 $1,800 TOTALS 436277 30539390 701.09 $1,402,176

3-48 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-11. Estimated Costs of Livestock Stream Crossings (LSC) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Width Length Area Cost Restored WS Stream Name Reach_ID (LF) (LF) (SF) (SF) Unit Cost (ac) EB Barshinger Creek BC12/BC13/BC14 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 EB Barshinger Creek BC18/BC19/BC20/BC21 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 EB East Branch Codorus Creek EB25 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 EB Nixon Park Trib NPT15/NPT14 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 EB Ridgeview Road Trib RRT03/RRT04/RRT05 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT02 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT03/04 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Foust Creek FOC02/FOC01 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT06 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT209/208/GRVT03 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT501 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB New Freedom Church Trib NFCT05 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Pierceville Run PR502 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB South Branch Codorus SBCC41 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Trout Run (South) TR06 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 SB Trout Run (South) TR201/TR202 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Codorus Creek CC101 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1502 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1601 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1604/1603/1602 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Furnace Creek FC701 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Long Run LR04/LR102 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Lehman Trib LT06/LT05/LT04 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Old Paths Trib OPT1001 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC08 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC09 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC401 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT07/SPT08 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Stoverstown Branch ST10 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC03 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC04 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC06 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1602 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1701/1702 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1804 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC20 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC201 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC21 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC2901 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC302/UCC301 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3704 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3705 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3706 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3902 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04

3-49 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC202 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC301 16 100 1600 $2.50 $4,000 0.04 Total 816 5100 81600 $204,000 1.87

Table 3-12. Estimated Costs of Streambank Fencing (SBF) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole.

Area Length Unit Total Restored WS Stream Name Reach_ID (LF) Cost Cost (ac) CC Codorus Creek CC26/CC25 2500 $2.00 $5,000 2.01 EB Barshinger Creek BC08 1260 $2.00 $2,520 1.01 EB Barshinger Creek BC11 2450 $2.00 $4,900 1.97 EB Barshinger Creek BC12/BC13/BC14 3300 $2.00 $6,600 2.65 EB Barshinger Creek BC18/BC19/BC20/BC21 2820 $2.00 $5,640 2.27 EB Barshinger Creek DBT09/10/11/12/13 3000 $2.00 $6,000 2.41 EB East Branch Codorus Creek EB25 2075 $2.00 $4,150 1.67 EB Inners Creek IC17 3650 $2.00 $7,300 2.93 EB Nixon Park Trib NPT15/NPT14 1900 $2.00 $3,800 1.53 EB Ridgeview Road Trib RRT03/RRT04/RRT05 3350 $2.00 $6,700 2.69 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT02 380 $2.00 $760 0.31 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT03/04 1850 $2.00 $3,700 1.49 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 1070 $2.00 $2,140 0.86 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 955 $2.00 $1,910 0.77 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 445 $2.00 $890 0.36 SB Centerville Creek CC701 1000 $2.00 $2,000 0.80 SB Fischel Creek FIC05 1565 $2.00 $3,130 1.26 SB Fischel Creek FIC01 2090 $2.00 $4,180 1.68 SB Fischel Creek FIC1101 1930 $2.00 $3,860 1.55 SB Fischel Creek FIC1201/FIC13 1150 $2.00 $2,300 0.92 SB Foust Creek FOC02/FOC01 1010 $2.00 $2,020 0.81 SB Foust Creek FOC04 780 $2.00 $1,560 0.63 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 1660 $2.00 $3,320 1.33 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 1720 $2.00 $3,440 1.38 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT06 1050 $2.00 $2,100 0.84 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT209/208/GRVT03 1070 $2.00 $2,140 0.86 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT501 1270 $2.00 $2,540 1.02 SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT601/KVT602 3870 $2.00 $7,740 3.11 SB New Freedom Church Trib NFCT05 1040 $2.00 $2,080 0.84 SB New Salem Trib NST301 1000 $2.00 $2,000 0.80 SB Pierceville Run PR502 1000 $2.00 $2,000 0.80 SB South Branch Codorus SB1601 1100 $2.00 $2,200 0.88 SB South Branch Codorus SBCC41 1460 $2.00 $2,920 1.17 SB Seven Valleys North Trib SVNT102/SVNT101 500 $2.00 $1,000 0.40 SB Trout Run (South) TR06 1640 $2.00 $3,280 1.32 SB Trout Run (South) TR08 910 $2.00 $1,820 0.73 SB Trout Run (South) TR201/TR202 1500 $2.00 $3,000 1.21 SB Travis Trib TT106/TT105/TT104 2320 $2.00 $4,640 1.86 SB Wangs Trib WT01 2560 $2.00 $5,120 2.06 WB Bunch Creek BC05 1250 $2.00 $2,500 1.00 WB Bunch Creek BC301 750 $2.00 $1,500 0.60 WB Codorus Creek CC101 1620 $2.00 $3,240 1.30 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1502 4000 $2.00 $8,000 3.21

3-50 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1601 1875 $2.00 $3,750 1.51 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1604/1603/1602 2565 $2.00 $5,130 2.06 WB Furnace Creek FC08/FC801 2525 $2.00 $5,050 2.03 WB Furnace Creek FC701 1690 $2.00 $3,380 1.36 WB Lischy Church Trib LCT04/LCT03 950 $2.00 $1,900 0.76 WB Lischy Church Trib LCT05 500 $2.00 $1,000 0.40 WB Long Run LR04/LR102 2080 $2.00 $4,160 1.67 WB Long Run LR3202 1350 $2.00 $2,700 1.08 WB Lehman Trib LT01 1570 $2.00 $3,140 1.26 WB Lehman Trib LT06/LT05/LT04 1700 $2.00 $3,400 1.37 WB Lehman Trib LT201 500 $2.00 $1,000 0.40 WB Nashville Trib NA04 1280 $2.00 $2,560 1.03 WB Nashville Trib NA05 3180 $2.00 $6,360 2.56 WB Old Paths Trib OPT1001 2000 $2.00 $4,000 1.61 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC08 780 $2.00 $1,560 0.63 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC09 500 $2.00 $1,000 0.40 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC401 1700 $2.00 $3,400 1.37 WB Prospect Hill Trib PHT01 1480 $2.00 $2,960 1.19 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT07/SPT08 1725 $2.00 $3,450 1.39 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT201 790 $2.00 $1,580 0.63 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT501 1200 $2.00 $2,400 0.96 WB Stoverstown Branch ST10 875 $2.00 $1,750 0.70 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC03 500 $2.00 $1,000 0.40 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC04 390 $2.00 $780 0.31 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC06 500 $2.00 $1,000 0.40 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1403 1470 $2.00 $2,940 1.18 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1602 990 $2.00 $1,980 0.80 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1701/1702 950 $2.00 $1,900 0.76 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 225 $2.00 $450 0.18 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 735 $2.00 $1,470 0.59 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801(U/S) 950 $2.00 $1,900 0.76 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1804 1130 $2.00 $2,260 0.91 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC201 600 $2.00 $1,200 0.48 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC2901 350 $2.00 $700 0.28 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC302/UCC301 1540 $2.00 $3,080 1.24 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3401 600 $2.00 $1,200 0.48 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3703 700 $2.00 $1,400 0.56 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3704 1300 $2.00 $2,600 1.04 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3705 1700 $2.00 $3,400 1.37 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3706 720 $2.00 $1,440 0.58 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3902 1100 $2.00 $2,200 0.88 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC401 825 $2.00 $1,650 0.66 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC801 2400 $2.00 $4,800 1.93 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC03 2140 $2.00 $4,280 1.72 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC07 1250 $2.00 $2,500 1.00 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC201 1700 $2.00 $3,400 1.37 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC202 1670 $2.00 $3,340 1.34 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC203 500 $2.00 $1,000 0.40 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2901 950 $2.00 $1,900 0.76 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC301 2775 $2.00 $5,550 2.23 TOTALS 137295 $274,590 110.28

3-51 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-13. Estimated Costs of Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) Implementation and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Length Width Area Cost Total WS Stream Name Reach_ID (LF) (LF) (SF) (ac) Cost Area (ac) CC Codorus Creek CC26/CC25 2500 100 250000 $30 $172 5.74 CC Mill Creek MC1006 3700 100 370000 $30 $255 8.49 CC Willis Run WR01 1500 100 150000 $30 $103 3.44 EB Barshinger Creek BC12/BC13/BC14 3300 100 330000 $30 $227 7.58 EB Barshinger Creek BC18/BC19/BC20/BC21 2820 100 282000 $30 $194 6.47 EB Barshinger Creek DBT09/10/11/12/13 3000 100 300000 $30 $207 6.89 EB East Branch Codorus Creek EB25 2075 100 207500 $30 $143 4.76 EB Inners Creek IC1101 1185 100 118500 $30 $82 2.72 EB Inners Creek IC601 450 100 45000 $30 $31 1.03 EB Nixon Park Trib NPT15/NPT14 1900 100 190000 $30 $131 4.36 EB Ridgeview Road Trib RRT03/RRT04/RRT05 3350 100 335000 $30 $231 7.69 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT02 380 100 38000 $30 $26 0.87 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT03/04 1850 100 185000 $30 $127 4.25 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 1070 100 107000 $30 $74 2.46 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 955 100 95500 $30 $66 2.19 SB Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT04 445 100 44500 $30 $31 1.02 SB Centerville Creek CC701 1000 100 100000 $30 $69 2.30 SB Fischel Creek FIC01 2090 100 209000 $30 $144 4.80 SB Foust Creek FOC02/FOC01 1010 100 101000 $30 $70 2.32 SB Foust Creek FOC04 780 100 78000 $30 $54 1.79 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 1660 100 166000 $30 $114 3.81 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT03 1720 100 172000 $30 $118 3.95 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT06 1050 100 105000 $30 $72 2.41 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT209/208/GRVT03 1070 100 107000 $30 $74 2.46 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT501 1270 100 127000 $30 $87 2.92 SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT601/KVT602 3870 100 387000 $30 $267 8.88 SB New Freedom Church Trib NFCT04 1000 100 100000 $30 $69 2.30 SB New Freedom Church Trib NFCT05 1040 100 104000 $30 $72 2.39 SB New Salem Trib NST301 1000 100 100000 $30 $69 2.30 SB Pierceville Run PR502 1000 100 100000 $30 $69 2.30 SB South Branch Codorus SB1601 1100 100 110000 $30 $76 2.53 SB South Branch Codorus SBCC41 1460 100 146000 $30 $101 3.35 SB Trout Run (South) TR06 1640 100 164000 $30 $113 3.76 SB Trout Run (South) TR201/TR202 1500 100 150000 $30 $103 3.44 SB Trout Run (South) TR301 775 100 77500 $30 $53 1.78 SB Travis Trib TT106/TT105/TT104 2320 100 232000 $30 $160 5.33 WB Bunch Creek BC301 750 100 75000 $30 $52 1.72 WB Codorus Creek CC101 1620 100 162000 $30 $112 3.72 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1502 4000 100 400000 $30 $275 9.18 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1601 1875 100 187500 $30 $129 4.30 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1604/1603/1602 2565 100 256500 $30 $177 5.89 WB Furnace Creek FC08/FC801 2525 100 252500 $30 $174 5.80 WB Furnace Creek FC701 1690 100 169000 $30 $116 3.88 WB Lischy Church Trib LCT04/LCT03 950 100 95000 $30 $65 2.18 WB Lischy Church Trib LCT05 500 100 50000 $30 $34 1.15 WB Long Run LR04/LR102 2080 100 208000 $30 $143 4.78 WB Long Run LR3202 1350 100 135000 $30 $93 3.10 WB Long Run LR503 2050 100 205000 $30 $141 4.71 WB Lehman Trib LT06/LT05/LT04 1700 100 170000 $30 $117 3.90

3-52 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

WB Lehman Trib LT201 500 100 50000 $30 $34 1.15 WB Nashville Trib NA03 3025 100 302500 $30 $208 6.94 WB Nashville Trib NA05 3180 100 318000 $30 $219 7.30 WB Old Paths Trib OPT1001 2000 100 200000 $30 $138 4.59 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC08 780 100 78000 $30 $54 1.79 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC09 500 100 50000 $30 $34 1.15 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC401 1700 100 170000 $30 $117 3.90 WB Prospect Hill Trib PHT01 1480 100 148000 $30 $102 3.40 WB Prospect Hill Trib PHT05 750 100 75000 $30 $52 1.72 WB Spring Grove Trib SG03 2280 100 228000 $30 $157 5.23 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT07/SPT08 1725 100 172500 $30 $119 3.96 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT201 790 100 79000 $30 $54 1.81 WB Sunnyside Trib SS02 350 100 35000 $30 $24 0.80 WB Sunnyside Trib SS02 1200 100 120000 $30 $83 2.75 WB Stoverstown Branch ST02/ST03/ST04 2685 100 268500 $30 $185 6.16 WB Stoverstown Branch ST05(GOLF) 1950 100 195000 $30 $134 4.48 WB Stoverstown Branch ST11 1650 100 165000 $30 $114 3.79 WB Stoverstown Branch ST204/ST205/ST203 1350 100 135000 $30 $93 3.10 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC03 500 100 50000 $30 $34 1.15 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC04 390 100 39000 $30 $27 0.90 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC06 500 100 50000 $30 $34 1.15 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1402 1600 100 160000 $30 $110 3.67 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1602 990 100 99000 $30 $68 2.27 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1701/1702 950 100 95000 $30 $65 2.18 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 225 100 22500 $30 $15 0.52 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801 735 100 73500 $30 $51 1.69 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1801(U/S) 950 100 95000 $30 $65 2.18 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC1804 1130 100 113000 $30 $78 2.59 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC201 600 100 60000 $30 $41 1.38 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC2901 350 100 35000 $30 $24 0.80 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3002 750 100 75000 $30 $52 1.72 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC302/UCC301 1540 100 154000 $30 $106 3.54 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 600 100 60000 $30 $41 1.38 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 775 100 77500 $30 $53 1.78 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 475 100 47500 $30 $33 1.09 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3401 600 100 60000 $30 $41 1.38 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3704 1300 100 130000 $30 $90 2.98 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3705 1700 100 170000 $30 $117 3.90 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3706 720 100 72000 $30 $50 1.65 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3902 1100 100 110000 $30 $76 2.53 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC401 825 100 82500 $30 $57 1.89 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC801 2400 100 240000 $30 $165 5.51 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC07 1250 100 125000 $30 $86 2.87 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC202 1670 100 167000 $30 $115 3.83 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC203 500 100 50000 $30 $34 1.15 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2701 500 100 50000 $30 $34 1.15 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2901 950 100 95000 $30 $65 2.18 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC301 2775 100 277500 $30 $191 6.37 TOTALS 139735 13973500 $9,624 320.79

3-53 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

Table 3-14. Estimated Costs of Stormwater Management (SWM) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Unit Area Length Width Area Cost Total Protected WS Stream Name Reach_ID (LF) (LF) (SF) (LF) Cost (ac) CC Lightners School Trib LST105 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Lightners School Trib LST201 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC02/MC03/MC04 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC1006 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC21 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC23 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC2606 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC2611 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC2805 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC3901 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 CC Willis Run WR01 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 EB Barshinger Creek BC06/BC05/BC04 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 SB Centerville Creek CC18/CC17/CC16 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 SB Foust Creek FOC10 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 SB New Salem Trib NST101/NST02 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB Long Run LR401 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB Nashville Trib NA03 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB Old Paths Trib OPT1001 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB Spring Grove Trib SG03 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB Stoverstown Branch ST02/ST03/ST04 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB Stoverstown Branch ST05(GOLF) 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB Stoverstown Branch ST204/ST205/ST203 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC902 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC2501 50 70 3500 $25 $87,500 0.08 TOTALS 1200 1680 84000 $2,100,000 1.93

Table 3-15. Estimated Costs of Stream Restoration (FGM) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole. Unit Length Cost Stream R&P WS Stream Name Reach_ID (LF) (LF) Total Cost (mi) CC Mill Creek MC1006 3700 $150 $555,000 0.70 CC Mill Creek MC1601 420 $150 $63,000 0.08 CC Mill Creek MC1901 1733 $150 $259,950 0.33 SB Fischel Creek FIC1101 1930 $150 $289,500 0.37 SB Foust Creek FOC02/FOC01 1010 $150 $151,500 0.19 SB Glen Rock Valley Tribs GRVT501 1270 $150 $190,500 0.24 SB Krebs Valley Trib KVT401 22176 $150 $3,326,400 4.20 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SB1601 1100 $150 $165,000 0.21 WB Bunch Creek BC301 750 $150 $112,500 0.14 WB Codorus Creek CC101 1620 $150 $243,000 0.31 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1601 1875 $150 $281,250 0.36 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1604/1603/1602 2565 $150 $384,750 0.49 WB Long Run LR01 3000 $150 $450,000 0.57 WB Long Run LR401 1500 $150 $225,000 0.28 WB Lehman Trib LT01 1570 $150 $235,500 0.30

3-54 Codorus WIP 3.0 Watershed Goals 12/6/2007

WB Lehman Trib LT201 500 $150 $75,000 0.09 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC01 975 $150 $146,250 0.18 WB Porters Sidling Trib PC401 1700 $150 $255,000 0.32 WB Swimming Pool Trib SPT201 790 $150 $118,500 0.15 WB Stoverstown Branch ST501 3000 $150 $450,000 0.57 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3301 475 $150 $71,250 0.09 WB Upper Codorus Creek UCC3401 600 $150 $90,000 0.11 TOTALS 54259 $8,138,850 10.28

Table 3-16. Estimated Costs of Wetlands Restoration (WRP) Construction and Maintenance Activities by Subwatershed and Aggregated for Watershed as a Whole.

Total Length Width Area Area Cost Total WRP WS Stream Name Reach_ID (LF) (LF) (SF) (ac) (ac) Cost (ac) SB Centerville Creek CC16/CC17 5250 500 2625000 60.26 $1,225 $73,821 60.26 SB South Branch Codorus Creek SB36/SB34 1745 500 872500 20.03 $1,225 $24,537 20.03 WB Hawksbill Pond Trib CC1503 500 500 250000 5.74 $1,225 $7,031 5.74 WB Stoverstown Branch ST04 1390 500 695000 15.96 $1,225 $19,545 15.96 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC08 860 500 430000 9.87 $1,225 $12,093 9.87 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC1902 500 500 250000 5.74 $1,225 $7,031 5.74 WB West Branch Codorus Creek WBCC801 560 500 280000 6.43 $1,225 $7,874 6.43 TOTALS 10805 3500 5402500 124.02 $151,930 124.03

3-55 Codorus WIP 4.0 Implementation Schedule 12/6/2007

4. Implementation Schedule

This section identifies the parties responsible for meeting implementation milestones. Consideration of local priorities for restoration, availability of funding, personnel and equipment, seasonal weather conditions, and coordination opportunities is given. Responsible parties and a schedule are indicated for monitoring and progress reporting.

4.1. Parties responsible for meeting implementation milestones

Parties responsible for meeting implementation milestones are summarized below (table 4-1). Responsible parties consist of government agencies, nonprofit organizations, watershed groups, and other stakeholder groups. Their individual and collective contributions are also described.

Table 4-1. Parties Responsible for Meeting Implementation Milestones

Parties Responsible Planning Coordination Education Funding Design Construction Monitoring Maintenance Aquatic Resource Restoration Company Y Y - - Y Y Y - City of York Y Y Y Y - - Y Y Codorus Creek Improvement Partnership Y Y Y Y - - Y Y Codorus Creek Watershed Association Y Y Y Y - - Y Y Codorus Implementation Committee Y Y Y Y - - Y Y Glatfelter Y Y - Y - - Y Y Izaak Walton League - York Chapter 67 Y Y Y Y - - Y Y PA Department of Environmental Protection - Y - Y - - - - Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission - Y - Y Y - - - PennDOT District 8 Maintenance - Y - Y - Y Y Y Penn State York - Y Y - - - Y - Trout Unlimited, Codorus Chapter Y Y Y Y - - Y Y U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Balt. District - Y - Y Y Y Y - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Y - Y - - - - Watershed Alliance of York (WAY) Y Y Y Y - - - - York County Conservation District Y Y Y Y Y Y - - York County Parks and Recreation Y Y Y Y - - Y Y York County Planning Commission Y Y Y - - - - - York County Community Foundation - - - Y - - - - York Water Company Y Y - Y - - Y Y

4-1 Codorus WIP 4.0 Implementation Schedule 12/6/2007

4.2. Consideration of local priorities for restoration, availability of funding/ personnel/ equipment, seasonal weather conditions, coordination opportunities, etc.

Consideration of local priorities for restoration, availability of funding, personnel and equipment, seasonal weather conditions, and coordination opportunities are discussed below.

Local priorities to restore an ecosystem as complex as the Codorus Creek Watershed will require everyone to address numerous and extremely unique issues. Commitments important to the Codorus Creek Watershed restoration are organized into five strategic focus areas:

• Protecting and Restoring Living Resources – Aims to restore, enhance and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living resources, their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem.

• Protecting and Restoring Vital Habitats - Aims to preserve protect and restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital to the survival and diversity of the living resources of the Bay and its rivers.

• Improving Water Quality - Improving water quality in the Codorus Creek and Susquehanna River is the most critical element in ensuring the future health of Chesapeake Bay.

• Managing Lands Soundly - Because pollutants on land are easily washed into streams and rivers, our actions on land ultimately affect the watershed and Bay.

• Engaging Individuals and Local Communities - To contribute to watershed restoration, we have to be concerned about resource stewardship in our own communities, homes and backyards.

Funding is the most limiting factors of the watershed restoration process. Sources of funding include public and private grants, donations of cash, materials, equipment and supplies matched in-kind, and volunteer time committed to landowner meetings, planning, public education and outreach, grant writing and administration, technical advisory meetings, construction, monitoring, and maintenance activities. Grants programs typically require a cash match ranging from 15% to 50%. The remaining 50% to 85% can be a local match of in-kind products and services.

4-2 Codorus WIP 4.0 Implementation Schedule 12/6/2007

restoration progress long-term, a minimum of three restoration contract teams will be necessary, one each working in the East, South, and West Branches, year-round.

Construction activities in stocked trout streams from March 1 through June 15, in wild trout streams from October 1 through December 31, is prohibited unless approval is obtained from the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s Division of Environmental Services, seasonally.

The Codorus Implementation Committee was previously identified as the existing advisory group best positioned to implement this plan, as time and resources allow.

4.3. Schedule and parties responsible for monitoring and reporting progress

Below, an interim schedule and parties responsible for monitoring and reporting progress is given (table 4-2). The interim schedule is based on typical grant funding cycles and reporting requirements. Parties responsible for monitoring will report progress to the Codorus Implementation Committee (CIC), individually and separately. The CIC will evaluate monitoring and progress reporting and publish these results in a report, annually.

Table 4-2. Schedule and Parties Responsible for Monitoring and Reporting Progress. Responsible Party Monitoring Progress Reporting Aquatic Resource Restoration Company Quarterly Annually City of York Quarterly Annually Codorus Creek Improvement Partnership Quarterly Annually Codorus Creek Watershed Association Quarterly Annually Codorus Implementation Committee Quarterly Annually Glatfelter Quarterly Annually Izaak Walton League of America, York Chapter 67 Quarterly Annually Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Annually Biennially Protection Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Annually Biennially PennDOT District 8 Maintenance Annually Biennially Penn State York Quarterly Annually Trout Unlimited, Codorus Chapter Quarterly Annually U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Baltimore District Annually Biennially U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Annually Biennially Watershed Alliance of York (WAY) Quarterly Annually York County Conservation District Quarterly Annually York County Department of Parks and Recreation Quarterly Annually York County Planning Commission Quarterly Annually York County Community Foundation Quarterly Annually York Water Company Quarterly Annually

4-3 Codorus WIP 4.0 Implementation Schedule 12/6/2007

The interim schedule of priority restoration activity by subwatershed and aggregated for the watershed as a whole is given below (Table 4-3). Stream priorities are based on the three watershed assessment stream reach scores. Priorities of high (1), medium (2) and low (3) are based on stream impairments of severe, moderate and slightly to none, respectively. Subwatershed streams are numbered from 1 to X, from highest to lowest priority, by watershed. The interim schedule is based on watershed restoration activities in three phases: 1) design, 2) construction (including permitting), and 3) monitoring and maintenance. Planned starting dates are given for each of the three phases. Also, consideration is given to local priorities for restoration, availability of funding, personnel and equipment, seasonal weather conditions, and coordination opportunities as time and resources allow.

Table 4-3. Implementation Schedule of Priority Restoration Activity by Subwatershed and Watershed EAST BRANCH CODORUS Priority 1 Priority 2 Monitor Priority Priority Priority CREEK Other Total Design/ Design/ & 1 2 3 WATERSHED Build Build Maintain Reaches Short- Mid- Long- Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Term Term Term (≥5 (<2 yr) (<5 yr) yr) 1. East Branch CC-3 (Lower) EBCC-77 20,793 45,128 16,288 949 83,158 2008 2010 2013 2. Dunkard Valley Trib DVT-31 11,025 9,016 15,728 366 36,135 2007 2009 2012 3. Seaks Run SR-31 8,995 13,471 16,137 3,366 41,969 Done - - 4. Barshinger Creek BC-52 7,924 45,553 2,053 0 55,530 2009 2011 2014 5. Inners Creek IC-47 6,257 11,255 21,500 1,045 40,057 2009 2011 2014 6. Graydon Road Trib GRT-11 3,327 7,103 0 0 10,430 2010 2012 2015 7. Ridgeview Road Trib RRT-10 1,991 3,902 816 0 6,709 2010 2012 2015 8. Blymire Hollow Trib BHT-52 1,985 42,431 29,482 500 74,398 2011 2013 2016 9.Winterstown Boro S Trib WBST-8 1,975 1,247 4,280 0 7,502 2011 2013 2016 10.Winterstown Boro N Trib WBNT-18 1,302 9,265 8,965 0 19,532 2011 2013 2016 11. Jacobus Boro N. Trib JBNT-5 1,176 3,000 0 0 4,176 2012 2014 2017 12. Dallastown South Trib DST-21 759 13,558 2,465 0 16,782 2012 2014 2017 13. Nixon Park Trib NPT-37 234 21,168 18,114 0 39,516 Done - - 14. Reynolds Mill Trib RMT-4 210 1,291 1,548 0 3,049 2012 2014 2017 15. Mt. Zion Trib MZT-10 0 11,661 1,119 0 12,780 2013 2015 2018 16. Arlington Park Trib APT-17 0 11,078 4,074 0 15,152 2013 2015 2018 17. Hametown Trib HT-15 0 9,084 6,262 135 15,481 2013 2015 2018 18. East Branch CC-2 (Mid) EBCC-17 0 9,022 7564 0 16,586 2014 2016 2019 19. I-83 Exit Three Trib ETT-12 0 7,028 2,611 0 9,639 2015 2017 2020 20. Jacobus Boro W. Trib JBWT-7 0 4,359 198 0 4,557 2015 2017 2020 21. I-83 Exit Four Trib EFT-8 0 3,245 1,280 640 5,165 2015 2017 2020 22. Jacobus Boro E. JBET-7 0 1,974 3,337 0 5,311 2016 2018 2021 23. Rehmeyer Hollow Trib RHT-9 0 1,089 7,306 521 8,916 2016 2018 2021 24. Spartan Road Trib SRT-5 0 265 3,646 0 3,911 2016 2018 2021 25. Mt. Olivet Trib MOT-13 0 41 12,914 181 13,136 2016 2018 2021 26. Leaders Heights S. Trib LHST-2 0 0 2,392 0 2,392 - - - 27. East Branch CC-1 EBCC-1 0 0 0 0 0 - - -

4-4 Codorus WIP 4.0 Implementation Schedule 12/6/2007

SOUTH BRANCH Priority 1 Priority 2 Monitor Priority Priority Priority CODORUS CREEK Other Total Design/ Design/ & 1 2 3 WATERSHED Build Build Maintain Reaches Short- Mid- Long- Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Term Term Term (≥5 (<2 yr) (<5 yr) yr) 1. South Branch CC SBCC 31,125 44,759 68,820 358 145,062 2007 2009 2012 2. Fishel Creek FIC-38 7,752 11,220 29,407 0 48,379 2008 2010 2013 3. Foust Creek FOC-15 2,914 4,973 12,056 0 19,943 2009 2011 2014 4. Glen Rock Valley Trib GRVT-25 2,735 17,848 18,309 0 38,892 2009 2011 2014 5. Travis Trib TT-22 2,518 5,761 12,995 0 21,274 2009 2011 2014 6. Pierceville Run PR-47 2,485 33,290 38,529 0 74,304 2010 2012 2015 7. Centerville Creek CC-64 2,336 24,163 51,398 0 77,897 2010 2012 2015 8. Stricthouser Trib ST-21 940 31,898 15,862 0 48,700 2011 2013 2016 9. Hungerford Trib HuT-18 898 2,204 9,560 942 13,604 2011 2013 2016 10. Seven Valleys N. Trib SVNT-10 436 2,523 8,244 0 11,203 2011 2013 2016 11. Trout Run TR-28 227 8,421 25,403 204 34,255 2011 2013 2016 12. Krebs Valley Trib KVT-26 0 33,412 13,893 0 47,305 2012 2014 2017 13. Hanover Junction Trib HJT-16 0 19,476 0 0 19,476 2013 2015 2018 14. Wangs Trib WT-7 0 13,821 0 0 13,821 2014 2016 2019 15. Zeiglers Church Trib ZCT-17 0 10,367 5,725 0 16,092 2015 2017 2020 16. Brush Valley Trib BRVT-11 0 5,642 13,567 0 19,209 2016 2018 2021 17. New Freedom Trib NFT-2 0 4,745 0 0 4,745 2016 2018 2021 18. Cherry Run CR-10 0 4,203 12,367 0 16,570 2016 2018 2021 19. Bens Trib BeT-1 0 4,153 0 0 4,153 2017 2019 2022 20. Buffalo Valley Trib BUVT-9 0 2,730 25,079 0 27,809 2017 2019 0222 21. New Freedom Ch Trib NFCT-13 0 2,350 23,944 0 26,294 2017 2019 2022 22. Seven Valleys S. Trib SVST-19 0 2,291 14,523 0 16,814 2018 2020 2023 23. Larue Trib LT-17 0 1,839 10,643 0 12,482 2018 2020 2023 24. Glen Rock South Trib GRST-6 0 1,437 1,966 2,228 5,631 2018 2020 2023 25. Railroad Trib RRT-6 0 989 2,786 845 4,620 2019 2021 2024 26. Golf Course Trib GCT-7 0 626 4,247 0 4,873 2019 2021 2024 27. Peter & Paul Trib PPT-4 0 254 4,963 0 5,217 2019 2021 2024 28. North Railroad Trib NRT-4 0 0 2,619 0 2,619 - - - TOTAL 54,366 295,395 426,905 4,577 781,243 WEST BRANCH CODORUS Priority 1 Priority 2 Monitor Priority Priority Priority CREEK Other Total Design/ Design/ & 1 2 3 WATERSHED Build Build Maintain Reaches Short- Mid- Long- Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) Term Term Term (≥5 (<2 yr) (<5 yr) yr) 1. Mill Creek MC-147 44,130 58,069 79,084 18,865 200,148 2007 2009 2012 2.Upper Codorus Creek UCC-98 39,021 52,694 91,122 0 182,837 2008 2010 2013 3. Codorus Creek CC-114 32,478 90,252 173,459 7,445 303,634 2009 2011 2014 4. Willis Run WR-18 20,528 5,449 0 0 25,977 2010 2012 2015 5. Oil Creek OC-75 16,368 86,053 39,362 206 141,989 2005 2007 2010 6. Long Run LR-86 14,684 58,471 50,508 0 123,663 2011 2013 2016 7. Spring Garden Park Trib SGPT-7 7,883 1,367 412 5,449 15,111 2012 2014 2017 8. Violet Hill Trib VHT-40 6,262 31,896 18,144 0 56,302 2012 2014 2017 9. Furnace Creek FUC-36 5,518 32,446 6,510 0 44,474 2013 2015 2018 10. Stoverstown Branch SB-30 5,057 12,597 23,105 0 40,759 2013 2015 2018 11. South Branch CC SBCC-4 4,990 0 18,601 0 23,591 2014 2016 2019

4-5 Codorus WIP 4.0 Implementation Schedule 12/6/2007

12. Porters Creek PC-15 4,404 6,051 6,574 0 17,029 2014 2016 2019 13. Old Paths Trib OPT-26 3,384 8,369 42,383 0 54,136 2015 2017 2020 14. West Branch CC WBCC-56 3,319 34,357 56,881 0 94,557 2015 2017 2020 15. Leaders Heights Trib LHT-20 3,168 24,468 12,155 0 39,791 2015 2017 2020 16. Lightners School Trib LST-15 2,988 10,555 8,226 1,452 23,221 2016 2018 2021 17. Lehman Trib LHT-23 1,927 5,903 24,404 0 32,234 2016 2018 2021 18. New Salem Trib NST-24 1,874 13,659 15,581 0 31,114 2016 2018 2021 19. Nashville Trib NT-5 1,431 9,192 1,352 0 11,975 2016 2018 2021 20. Prospect Hill Trib PHT-7 1,151 2,798 2,445 0 6,394 2017 2019 2022 21. Swimming Pool Trib SPT-14 703 11,236 7,392 0 19,331 2017 2019 2022 22. Emigsville Trib ET-31 491 7,704 33,174 564 41,933 2017 2019 2022 23. Bunch Creek BC-11 0 16,278 20,302 0 36,580 2017 2019 2022 24. Dee Run DR-9 0 16,236 9,493 0 25,729 2018 2020 2023 25. Lincolnway Trib LT-10 0 15,412 9,203 0 24,615 2018 2020 2023 26. Spring Grove Trib SGT-5 0 7,096 1,356 0 8,452 2018 2020 2023 27. Starview Trib SVT-9 0 3,316 11,972 0 15,288 2018 2020 2023 28. Sunnyside Trib ST-3 0 2,867 3,347 0 6,214 2019 2021 2024 29. Lischy Church Trib LCT-11 0 1,352 12,155 0 13,507 2019 2021 2024 30. Gitts Run GR-13 0 528 23,037 0 23,565 2019 2021 2024 31. Trout Run TR-2 0 0 8,806 0 8,806 - - - TOTAL 221,759 626,671 810,545 33,981 1,692,956

4-6 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

5. Interim Milestones to Track Implementation of Management Measures

Interim milestones to track implementation of management measures are described in this section. Documentation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) already implemented or planned in the watershed and assessment their effectiveness is provided. Designated and mapped target areas for additional controls are shown. Selected appropriate BMPs based on nature and magnitude of the pollutant, nature and location of the source, engineering feasibility, and cost effectiveness are given. Finally, model performance of selected BMPs to estimate operational efficiencies, load reductions achieved, maintenance requirements, etc. are presented.

5.1. Documented Best Management Practices (BMPs) already implemented or planned in the watershed and assessment of their effectiveness

Documented agricultural and stream restoration Best Management Practices (BMPs) already implemented and planned in the watershed are listed in tables 5-1 and 5-2, respectively. The source of these data is Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Program’s Implementation Strategy. These BMPs include agricultural and nonagricultural practices implemented between 1985 and 2005, and planned from 2006 to 2010.

The York County Conservation District and Natural Resource Conservation Service design and implement BMPs that meet T = ≤4.0 tons/acre per year.

Stream restoration efficiencies have been documented, based on stream bank and channel erosion rates in the East and South Branches of Codorus Creek, between 0.45 and 0.50 tons per foot of streambank per year. A conservative average soil loss value of 0.40 tons (800 pounds) per foot of streambank per year was used to estimate pounds of sediment loading to streams reduced. Effectiveness of stream restoration efforts was determined to be 99.7 percent based on a stream restoration efficiency 2.55 lbs/ft from the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Implemented and planned stream restoration projects in the East and South Branches listed in table 5-2 were previously shown in figures 2-13 and 2-14, respectively.

5-1 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-1. Agricultural Best Management Practices Implemented (1985-2005) and Planned (2006-2010) in Codorus Creek Watershed.

Implemented Implemented CBP Tributary Codorus WIP 319 Best Management Practice Units CBP CBP Strategy Targets Projects Planned

1985-20021 2002-20051 20101 2006-2010 Animal Waste Systems AEU 4001 0 3059 0 C Sequestration acres 0 0 9160 9160 Conservation Plans acres 15633 566 56540 40907 Conservation Tillage acres 28062 0 33513 5451 E&S Control acres 672 0 533 0 Forest Buffers acres 71 0 1747 1676 Grass Buffers acres 5 0 1505 1500 Horse Pasture Management acres 0 0 4939 4939 Land Retirement acres 648 0 8947 8299 Precision Ag acres 0 0 28683 28683 Non-Urban Stream Restoration feet 0 0 9982 9982 No-till acres 0 0 16083 16083 Nutrient Management Plans acres 17755 0 9940 0 Off Stream Watering & Fencing acres 170 0 3989 3819 Off Stream Watering w/o Fencing acres 37 0 2393 2356 Precision Rotational Grazing acres 0 0 957 957 Rotational Grazing acres 124 13 638 514 Septic Denitrification EDU 0 0 8442 8442 Street Sweeping miles 0 0 619 619 SWM Filtration acres 0 0 4936 4936 SWM Infiltration acres 0 0 4936 4936 SWM Wet Ponds/Wetlands acres 0 0 4936 4936 Tree Planting acres 272 0 274 2 Urban Growth Reduction acres 0 0 114 114 Urban Nutrient Management acres 0 0 9713 9713 Wetland Restoration acres 10 0 97 87 Yield Reserve acres 0 0 9940 9940 Note: 1. Source DEP Chesapeake Bay Program 1985-2002. Extrapolated to Codorus Creek Watershed

5-2 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-2. Stream Restoration Best Management Practices Implemented (1995- 2005) and Planned (2006-2010) in Codorus Creek Watershed Pounds Linear Year Best Management Practices Sediment Feet Stream Status Documentation Reduced 1994 Habitat improvement 1,000 EBCC Implemented NA 319 Program 1999 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,600 SBCC Implemented 2,080,000 Growing Greener 2000 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 400 EBCC Implemented 320,000 Growing Greener 2000 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,100 SBCC Implemented 1,680,000 Growing Greener 2001 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 650 EBCC Implemented 520,000 Growing Greener Seaks Run 2001 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 11,000 Implemented 8,800,000 319 Program EBCC 2001 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 4,500 SBCC Implemented 3,600,000 319 Program 2003 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 4,300 EBCC Implemented 3,440,000 319 Program 2003 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 14,000 SBCC Planned 11,200,000 319 Program 2003 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,400 Oil Creek Planned 2,720,000 319 Program 2004 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 4,000 SBCC Planned 3,200,000 319 Program 2004 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 4,000 EBCC Planned 3,200,000 319 Program Pierceville 2005 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,300 Implemented 1,840,000 319 Program Run SBCC 2005 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,300 EBCC Planned 2,640,000 319 Program Mill Creek 2005 Streambank rehabilitation and protection 150 Implemented 120,000 HELP-Streams CC 2006 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,200 EBCC Planned 1,760,000 319 Program 2006 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,350 EBCC Planned 2,680,000 319 Program Pierceville 2006 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,270 Planned 1,816,000 319 Program Run SBCC Mill Creek 2006 Streambank rehabilitation and protection 300 Implemented 240,000 HELP-Streams CC UNT 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,000 Planned 1,600,000 319 Program EBCC Mill Creek 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 1,500 Planned 1,200,000 319 Program CC Poorhouse 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,500 Planned 2,800,000 319 Program Run CC 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 6,000 EBCC Planned 4,800,000 319 Program 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,250 EBCC Planned 2,600,000 319 Program DVT 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 8,400 Planned 6,720,000 319 Program EBCC 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,400 SBCC Planned 1,920,000 319 Program 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 1,900 SBCC Planned 1,520,000 319 Program Mill Creek 2007 Stream stabilization 500 Planned 400,000 Growing Greener II CC Mill Creek 2007 Stream stabilization 1,500 Planned 1,200,000 Growing Greener II CC Pieceville 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 5,000 Planned 4,000,000 319 Program Run SBCC Hollow 2007 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 2,000 Planned 1,600,000 319 Program Trib EBCC 2008 Stream stabilization & riparian forest buffer planting 3,400 SBCC Planned 2,720,000 319 Program 2008 Stream stabilization 1,600 SBCC Planned 1,280,000 Private TOTAL 108,770 86,216,000

5-3 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

5.2. Designate and Map Target Areas for Additional Controls

Designated and mapped target areas for additional controls are described in the section and were previously shown in figure 5-1. Opportunities for stream restoration are fairly uniformly distributed across the watershed. The West Branch has the most opportunities and East Branch the least.

Figure 5-1. Stream Restoration Opportunities in Codorus Creek Watershed

5-4 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

5.3. Selected BMPs for designated and mapped areas targeted for additional controls

Appropriate BMPs for designated and mapped targeted areas listed in table 5-3 and shown in Figure 5-1. These BMPs were evaluated and selected based on nature and magnitude of the pollutant, nature and location of the source, engineering feasibility, cost effectiveness of each BMP, individually and separately. Additionally, they were used to model restoration effectiveness using PRedICT. They include both agricultural and nonagricultural BMPs. These nonpoint source pollutant Best Management Practices that have been Peer-Reviewed and CBP-Approved for Phase 5.0 of the Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model (Revised 1/12/06) are included in the appendices.

Table 5-3. Selected Agricultural BMPs for designated and mapped areas targeted for additional controls. Implemented Implemented CBP Tributary Codorus WIP 319 Best Management Practice Units CBP CBP Strategy Targets Projects Planned 1985-20021 2002-20051 20101 2006-2010 Animal Waste Systems AEU 4001 0 3059 0 C Sequestration acres 0 0 9160 9160 Conservation Plans acres 15633 566 56540 40907 Conservation Tillage acres 28062 0 33513 5451 E&S Control acres 672 0 533 0 Forest Buffers acres 71 0 1747 1676 Grass Buffers acres 5 0 1505 1500 Horse Pasture Management acres 0 0 4939 4939 Land Retirement acres 648 0 8947 8299 Precision Ag acres 0 0 28683 28683 Non-Urban Stream Restoration feet 0 0 9982 9982 No-till acres 0 0 16083 16083 Nutrient Management Plans acres 17755 0 9940 0 Off Stream Watering & Fencing acres 170 0 3989 3819 Off Stream Watering w/o Fencing acres 37 0 2393 2356 Precision Rotational Grazing acres 0 0 957 957 Rotational Grazing acres 124 13 638 514 Septic Denitrification EDU 0 0 8442 8442 Street Sweeping miles 0 0 619 619 SWM Filtration acres 0 0 4936 4936 SWM Infiltration acres 0 0 4936 4936 SWM Wet Ponds/Wetlands acres 0 0 4936 4936 Tree Planting acres 272 0 274 2 Urban Growth Reduction acres 0 0 114 114 Urban Nutrient Management acres 0 0 9713 9713 Wetland Restoration acres 10 0 97 87 Yield Reserve acres 0 0 9940 9940

5-5 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

5.4. Model performance of selected BMP’s to estimate operational efficiencies, load reductions achieved, maintenance requirements, etc.

Modeling performance of selected BMPs to estimate operational efficiencies, load reductions achieved, and maintenance requirements was performed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Watershed Management. The Department used the Pollution Reduction Impact Comparison Tool (PRedICT) developed by Penn State University. A companion software tool for use with the ArcView Generalized Loading Function (AVGWLF), PRedICT has been developed for evaluating the implementation of both agricultural and non-agricultural pollution reduction strategies at the watershed level. PRedICT allows the user to create various “scenarios” in which current land uses and pollutant loads (both point and non-point) can be compared against “future” conditions that reflect the use of different pollution reduction strategies, such as agricultural and urban BMPs, the conversion of septic systems to centralized wastewater treatment, and upgrading of treatment plants from primary to secondary to tertiary. This tool includes pollutant reduction coefficients for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment, and also has built-in cost information for an assortment of pollution mitigation techniques. Two different cost- accounting approaches are used in the present version to help a user identify the most efficient reduction strategy in terms of both pollution reduction and cost. While information for PRedICT can be compiled manually, the most efficient way to accomplish this task is to use the AVGWLF watershed modeling system. Among others things, this tool automatically creates a scenario file that can be used as input to PRedICT. This input file contains useful information on watershed conditions and pollutant loads that can serve as the “initial” conditions from which future scenarios can be developed.

5.4.1. PRedICT Model Inputs

Table 5-4 lists conditions assessed and categorized, units, and sources of data PRedICT uses to calculate load reductions in a watershed. The existing input file for the first run is taken from the AVGWLF model used to develop TMDLs.

5-6 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-4. PRedICT Model Data Fields Conditions Assessed and Categorized Units Sources of Data 1. Crop residue management & cover crop acres (ac) Chesapeake Bay Program 2. Strip cropping/contour farming ac Chesapeake Bay Program 3. Crop rotation and cover crops ac Chesapeake Bay Program 4. Crop rotation, residue management & strip ac Chesapeake Bay Program cropping/contour farming 5. Terraces & diversions on Ag-land ac Chesapeake Bay Program 6. Nutrient management ac Chesapeake Bay Program 7. Grazing land management ac Chesapeake Bay Program 8. User defined BMPs ac Growing Greener Assessments 9. Stream miles w/vegetated buffer strips mi Growing Greener Assessments 10. Stream miles with fencing mi Growing Greener Assessments 11. Stream miles with bank stabilization mi Growing Greener Assessments 12. Constructed wetlands in high density urban ac Growing Greener Assessments areas 13. Detention basins in high density urban areas ac Growing Greener Assessments 14. Detention basins in high density urban areas qty Growing Greener Assessments 15. Peak flow In/hr Defined by the model 16. Drainage area/wetland area ac Defined by the model 17. Settling velocity Defined by the model 18. Constructed wetlands in low density areas ac Defined by the model 19. Detention basins in low density urban areas Ac Defined by the model 20. Detention basins in low density urban areas qty Defined by the model 21. Streams in high density urban areas with mi Growing Greener Assessments buffers 22. Streams in low density urban areas with mi Growing Greener Assessments buffers 23. Number of persons on septic systems qty Act 537 Municipal Sewerage Plans (normal & failing) 24. Number of persons on public sewer qty Act 537 Municipal Sewerage Plans 25. Septic systems converted by treatment type qty Act 537 Municipal Sewerage Plans (secondary & tertiary) 26. Distribution of pollutant discharges by qty Act 537 Municipal Sewerage Plans treatment type (primary, secondary & tertiary) 27. Distribution of treatment upgrades: Primary % Act 537 Municipal Sewerage Plans to secondary; Primary to tertiary; Secondary to tertiary 28. Hay/pasture area as defined for land ac Defined by model based on GIS coverage imagery 29. Total row crop area as defined by land cover ac Defined by model based on GIS imagery 30. Ag-land on slopes >3% defined through GIS ac Defined by model based on GIS 31. Streams in ag-areas defined by GIS qty Defined by model based on GIS 32. Total stream length defined by GIS mi Defined by model based on GIS 33. Streams in high density urban areas defined Mi? Defined by model based on GIS by GIS 34. Streams in low density urban areas defined mi Defined by model based on GIS by GIS

5-7 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

5.4.2. PRedICT Model Limitations

There are several flaws or limitations are in the PRedICT model that could have far reaching consequences for this plan. Because of the vast amount of agricultural BMPs that are out there not the entire are listed in the model or results. This is for a number of reasons, the BMP is not used enough, no efficiency values for the BMP are available, the BMP is locally specific and not really needed in a general model, etc. DEP ran into this problem with agricultural waste systems, facilities, and barnyard control BMPs. All of these BMPs are vital for controlling nutrients in a watershed but they are not represented in the model thus there is no place to include there value. Also, these nutrient reduction BMPs have been conservation practices the Conservation District and Natural Resource Conservation Service have really promoted because of all the excess nutrients from concentrated animal operations, in York County. Waste systems, facilities, and barnyard controls have really been embraced by the agricultural community because it not only controls nutrients on their operations but also frees up valuable time for the farmer instead of spreading manure every day. Although in the grand scheme of BMPs these practices might not seem vital compared to conventional cropland BMPs nutrient management in a small watershed like the Codorus Creek is important.

The two TMDLs in the Codorus Creek Watershed are not accurate representations of current or future conditions. While preparing this plan significant flaws were encountered in the TMDL process. For instance, in the South Branch Codorus Creek TMDL stream bank erosion was not considered as a significant source of sediment and phosphorus impairment to the watershed, when in essence a vast majority of the issues in the watershed stem from this area. As discussed earlier, in the Piedmont area of Pennsylvania where rich alluvial soil is easily moved from one point to another, legacy sediment contained behind old historic milldams is a major source of impairment. To not include this in a TMDL is saying it does not exist when in reality it should be one of the main components of the TMDL.

Certain BMP assumptions were included in the PRedICT model that might be difficult to attain, e.g. precision agriculture. These assumptions were needed to meet the goals in the TMDL. Every effort will be made to attain these BMP assumptions, but because of the sheer volume of farms in the watershed and the amount of outreach that is needed for some of the TMDL requirements, achievability will be challenging.

5.5 PRedICT Model Results

Three PRedICT model runs were used for this plan, one each for the South Branch Codorus Creek subbasins 1 and 2 and one for Oil Creek.

A total of eight model scenarios were used, and they are: 1) TMDL implementation of Ag-BMPs 2) TMDL implementation of Ag-BMPs plus Stream Restoration BMPs, and

5-8 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

3) Non-TMDL implementation of Ag-BMPs or Stream Restoration BMPs in those areas of the watershed not covered by the three TMDLs.

PRedICT model run inputs for the South Branch Codorus Creek and Oil Creek and their respective implementation scenarios are summarized in table 5-5 and 5-6. The results of model runs for all South Branch and Oil Creek scenarios, both in TMDL and Non-TMDL area, are given tables 5-7 through 5-14.

In all South Branch Codorus Creek model runs, for both subbasins 1 and 2, both sediment and phosphorus load reductions were met or exceeded for TMDL implementation scenarios 1 and 2, with one exception. The phosphorus load reduction was not achieved in subbasin 2, which is the upstream basin and considered the prime source of sediment and phosphorus impacting subbasin 1 downstream. This is due, at least in part, to the fact that the TMDL grossly underestimates actual phosphorus loading to Subbasin 2 from a point source discharge. Prepared in the fall of 2002, the TMDL assumes an NPDES permit limit of 4,562.5 pounds of total phosphorus load per year for the New Freedom wastewater treatment plant. Due to significant facility expansion since that time, however, the current permit limit is actually 13,687.5 pounds per day of total phosphorus, making the TMDL waste load allocation for that facility unrealistically low.

In Oil Creek model runs all three model scenario runs for TMDL implementation achieved the sediment reduction loadings.

5-9 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-5. PRedICT Model Scenario Inputs for Ag-BMP Implementation in the Codorus Creek Watershed Complete Complete Complete Oil Creek Codorus Future Future Watershed Watershed Oil Non- Complete Complete Non- Oil Future Future Future Codorus BMP Category Units Complete Planned TMDL TMDL S B 1 S B 2 TMDL TMDL Oil Non S B 1 S B 2 Non Land Retirement Ag to Forest Acres 0 8947 0 0 0 0 0 179 805 2147 1968 3937 Wetland Restoration Ag to Wetland Acres 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 22 21 44 Off Stream Watering w Fencing Buffers Acres 0 3989 0 0 0 0 0 40 359 917 917 1795 Conservation Conservation Tillage Tillage Acres 0 33513 0 0 0 0 0 670 3016 7708 7373 15081 Conservation No Till Tillage Acres 0 16083 0 0 0 0 0 322 1447 4342 3538 7237 Pasture Mgt. Graze Land Mgt. Acres 0 4939 0 0 0 0 0 49 445 1185 1136 2124 Rotational Grazing Graze Land Mgt. Acres 13 625 0 1 4 2 6 6 56 150 144 275 Precision Ag Nutrient Mgt Acres 0 28683 0 0 0 0 0 574 2581 6597 6310 12907 Nutrient Mgt. Nutrient Mgt Acres 0 9940 0 0 0 0 0 99 895 2286 2187 4374 Urban Nutrient Mgt. Nutrient Mgt Acres 0 9713 0 0 0 0 0 291 0 97 680 8645 Non Urb Stream Restoration Streambank Feet 0 9982 0 0 0 0 0 200 898 2296 2196 4492 Forest Buffers Veg Buffers Acres 0 1747 0 0 0 0 0 35 157 402 384 786 Grass Buffers Veg Buffers Acres 0 1505 0 0 0 0 0 30 135 346 331 677 Conservation Plans Acres 566 55974 11 51 153 96 255 1119 5038 12874 18471 24629 Off Stream Watering w/o Fencing Acres 0 2393 0 0 0 0 0 48 215 550 526 1077 SWM Filtration Hi Int Acres 0 4936 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 49 4739 SWM Filtration Lo Int Acres 0 4936 0 0 0 0 0 444 99 49 346 3998 SWM Infiltration Hi Int 0 4936 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 49 4739 SWM Infiltration Lo Int Acres 0 4936 0 0 0 0 0 444 99 49 346 3998 SWM Wet Ponds/Wetlands Lo Acres 0 4936 0 0 0 0 0 444 99 49 346 3998 SWM Wet Ponds/Wetlands Hi Acres 0 4936 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 0 49 4739

5-10 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-6. PRedICT Model Scenario Inputs for Stream Restoration BMP Implementation in the Codorus Creek Watershed

FGM Load Reductions Project Notes (feet) Sed - Tons Sed - pounds Soil/p Soil/n P N Shed Timeframe ebcc26 Myers as built-est 650 145 289,840 0.00085 0.003 246 870 Codorus - Non Current ebcc III, I estimate 1,230 200 400,000 0.00085 0.003 340 1,200 Codorus - Non Future ebcc III, II as built 640 115 230,000 0.00085 0.003 196 690 Codorus - Non Current ebcc III, III as built 2,220 213 426,000 0.00085 0.003 362 1,278 Codorus - Non Current ebcc IV monitored 4,400 981 1,962,000 0.00085 0.003 1,668 5,886 Codorus - Non Current ebcc V estimate 2,000 445 890,000 0.00085 0.003 757 2,670 Codorus - Non Future ebcc Hollow Trib estimate 3,800 100 200,000 0.00085 0.003 170 600 Codorus - Non Future Codorus Non TMDL 4,397,840 3,738 13,194

Oil Creek TMDL estimate 3,000 6,948 13,895,968 0.000827 0.003 11,492 41,688 Oil TMDL Future

sbcc27 Hanover Junction estimate 150 25 50,000 0.000908 0.003 45 150 Sub1 TMDL Future sbcc McClelland estimate 2,271 700 1,400,000 0.000908 0.003 1,271 4,200 Sub1 TMDL Future sbcc Granary Road as-built 1,830 4,238 8,476,540 0.000908 0.003 7,697 25,430 Sub1 TMDL Current sbcc IV estimate 11,395 26,391 52,781,520 0.000908 0.003 47,926 158,345 Sub1 TMDL Future sbcc V estimate 3,300 7,643 15,285,564 0.000908 0.003 13,879 45,857 Sub1 TMDL Future South Branch Sub 1 TMDL 77,993,624 70,818 233,981

sbcc16 Koski as-built 1,000 600 1,200,000 0.000845 0.003 1,014 3,600 Sub2 TMDL Current sbcc Dise estimate 1,550 550 1,100,000 0.000845 0.003 930 3,300 Sub2 TMDL Future South Branch Sub 2 TMDL 2,300,000 0.003 1,944 6,900

5-11 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-7. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMPs Implemented in SBCC-1 TMDL Area Estimated Load Reductions

Existing (lbs) UPLAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 27868000 124616 26185 Hay/Pasture 849600 4974 831 High Density Urban 0 0 0 Low Density Urban 1600 3 1 Unpaved Roads 38000 815 39 Other 87600 35240 79

STREAMBANK EROSION 296994 160 135 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 245864 4724 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 52911 1754

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 405 105

TOTALS 29141794 464988 33853

Future (lbs) LAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 4316642 21498 7477 Hay/Pasture 739152 2835 548 High Density Urban 0 0 0 Low Density Urban 1139 3 1 Unpaved Roads 38000 815 39 Other 87600 35240 79

STREAMBANK EROSION 162250 107 72 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 245294 4696 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 52911 1754

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 405 105

TOTALS 5306782 358292 14732 PERCENT REDUCTIONS 81.8 23.0 56.5 TOTAL SCENARIO COST $7,557,687.00 Ag BMP Cost (%) 82.8 WW Upgrade Cost (%) 0.0

Urban BMP Cost (%) 1.7 Stream Protection Cost (%) 15.5 Unpaved Road Protection Cost (%) 0

5-12 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-8. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag Plus Stream Restoration BMPs Implemented in SBCC-1 TMDL Area Estimated Load Reductions

STREAMBANK EROSION 296994 160 135 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 245864 4724 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 52911 1754

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 405 105

TOTALS 29141794 464988 33853

STREAMBANK EROSION 159871 105 71 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 245294 4696 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 52911 1754

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 405 105

TOTALS 5304403 358290 14731 PERCENT REDUCTIONS 81.8 23.0 56.5 TOTAL SCENARIO COST $8,349,687.00 Ag BMP Cost (%) 75.0 WW Upgrade Cost (%) 0.0

Urban BMP Cost (%) 1.6 Stream Protection Cost (%) 23.5 Unpaved Road Protection Cost (%) 0

5-13 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-9. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMPs Implemented in SBCC-2 TMDL Area Estimated Load Reductions

Existing (lbs) UPLAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 16936800 89953 486 Hay/Pasture 532400 4009 15299 High Density Urban 1200 15 0 Low Density Urban 12200 70 455 Unpaved Roads 6400 119 7 Other 68000 27446 60

STREAMBANK EROSION 196092 123 86 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 170319 3220 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 162529 5032

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 255 79

TOTALS 17753092 454839 24724

Future (lbs) LAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 2162491 13277 119 Hay/Pasture 510252 2150 11573 High Density Urban 731 12 0 Low Density Urban 6073 55 330 Unpaved Roads 6400 119 7 Other 68000 27446 60

STREAMBANK EROSION 112357 84 48 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 169830 3126 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 162529 5032

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 255 79

TOTALS 2859904 375639 20366 PERCENT REDUCTIONS 83.9 17.4 17.6 TOTAL SCENARIO COST $13,399,448.20 Ag BMP Cost (%) 84.3 WW Upgrade Cost (%) 0.0

Urban BMP Cost (%) 8.9 Stream Protection Cost (%) 6.8 Unpaved Road Protection Cost (%) 0

5-14 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-10. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag Plus Stream Restoration BMPs Implemented in SBCC-2 TMDL Area Estimated Load Reductions

STREAMBANK EROSION 196092 123 86 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 170319 3220 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 162529 5032

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 255 79

TOTALS 17753092 454838 24724

STREAMBANK EROSION 98754 76 42 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 169830 3126 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 162529 5032

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 255 79

TOTALS 2846301 375630 20360 PERCENT REDUCTIONS 84.0 17.4 17.7 TOTAL SCENARIO COST $14,545,048.20 Ag BMP Cost (%) 77.6 WW Upgrade Cost (%) 0.0

Urban BMP Cost (%) 9.5 Stream Protection Cost (%) 12.8 Unpaved Road Protection Cost (%) 0

5-15 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-11. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag Plus Stream Restoration BMPs Implemented in Non-TMDL Area Estimated Load Reductions

Existing (lbs) UPLAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 27399241 114391 16157 Hay/Pasture 7647151 27102 4220 High Density Urban 137465 101611 11067 Low Density Urban 768730 14066 2344 Unpaved Roads 25 96 14 Other 3526622 13248 2028

STREAMBANK EROSION 38048941 1902 837 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 360379 4385 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 769684 33366

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 811 224

TOTALS 77528175 1403290 74643

Future (lbs) LAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 4363713 8386 3396 Hay/Pasture 7587503 26403 4134 High Density Urban 76101 82102 8358 Low Density Urban 411271 11253 1746 Unpaved Roads 25 96 14 Other 3526622 13248 2028

STREAMBANK EROSION 25391009 1436 551 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 359174 4008 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 769684 33366

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 811 224

TOTALS 41356218 1272496 57811 PERCENT REDUCTIONS 46.7 9.3 22.6 TOTAL SCENARIO COST $56,933,418.40 Ag BMP Cost (%) 34.2 WW Upgrade Cost (%) 0.0

Urban BMP Cost (%) 62.4 Stream Protection Cost (%) 3.4 Unpaved Road Protection Cost (%) 0

5-16 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-12. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMP Implemented in Oil Creek TMDL Area Estimated Load Reductions

Existing (lbs) UPLAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 1086800 5662 1140 Hay/Pasture 235800 1384 264 High Density Urban 8533 62 7 Low Density Urban 21300 23 3 Unpaved Roads 0 0 0 Other 500 5 0

STREAMBANK EROSION 196686 295 82 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 20672 350 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 0 0

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 922 11

TOTALS 1549619 29025 1857

Future (lbs) LAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 274497 1888 491 Hay/Pasture 229056 1253 244 High Density Urban 4478 44 5 Low Density Urban 12303 17 2 Unpaved Roads 0 0 0 Other 500 5 0

STREAMBANK EROSION 168406 264 70 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 20651 350 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 0 0

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 922 11

TOTALS 689240 25044 1174 PERCENT REDUCTIONS 55.5 13.7 36.8 TOTAL SCENARIO COST $3,407,030.40 Ag BMP Cost (%) 26.5 WW Upgrade Cost (%) 0.0

Urban BMP Cost (%) 72.8 Stream Protection Cost (%) 0.7 Unpaved Road Protection Cost (%) 0

5-17 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-13. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMP Implemented in Oil Creek TMDL Area Estimated Load Reductions

STREAMBANK EROSION 196686 295 82 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 20672 350 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 0 0

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 922 11

TOTALS 1549619 29025 1857

STREAMBANK EROSION 133055 211 55 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 20651 350 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 0 0

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 922 11

TOTALS 653889 24991 1159 PERCENT REDUCTIONS 57.8 13.9 37.6 TOTAL SCENARIO COST $4,515,830.40 Ag BMP Cost (%) 20.0 WW Upgrade Cost (%) 0.0

Urban BMP Cost (%) 55.0 Stream Protection Cost (%) 25.1 Unpaved Road Protection Cost (%) 0

5-18 Codorus WIP 5.0 Interim Milestones 12/6/2007

Table 5-14. PRedICT Load Reductions for Ag-BMP Implemented in Oil Creek Non- TMDL Area Estimated Load Reductions

Existing (lbs) UPLAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 4296872 19204 3032 Hay/Pasture 1352840 4941 887 High Density Urban 0 0 0 Low Density Urban 13954 5 1 Unpaved Roads 3 11 2 Other 2527106 8380 1627

STREAMBANK EROSION 575875 29 13 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 63045 694 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 35646 569

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 96 23

TOTALS 8766650 131357 6848

Future (lbs) LAND EROSION/RUNOFF Total Sed (lbs) Total N (lbs) Total P (lbs) Row Crops 1004127 1766 739 Hay/Pasture 1300079 4304 797 High Density Urban 0 0 0 Low Density Urban 5908 4 1 Unpaved Roads 3 11 2 Other 2527106 8380 1627

STREAMBANK EROSION 267960 18 6 GROUNDWATER/SUBSURFACE 62674 612 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE 35646 569

SEPTIC SYSTEMS 96 23

TOTALS 5105181 112886 4373 PERCENT REDUCTIONS 41.8 14.1 36.1 TOTAL SCENARIO COST $5,331,655.60 Ag BMP Cost (%) 85.2 WW Upgrade Cost (%) 0.0

Urban BMP Cost (%) 4.9 Stream Protection Cost (%) 9.8 Unpaved Road Protection Cost (%) 0

5-19 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

6. Criteria to Measure Progress Toward Meeting Watershed Goals

This section describes criteria to measure progress toward meeting our watershed goals. Milestones were developed for pollutant load and water quality leading to achievement of DEP standards for water quality and recommended use. Tailored milestones are included to the character and magnitude of impairments in each subwatershed, specifying parameters, location and frequency of sampling. Consideration of local priorities for implementation, availability of funding, personnel, analytic capability, seasonal weather conditions, coordination with existing monitoring programs, etc., is given. Finally, a schedule and parties responsible for monitoring and reporting progress is indicated.

6.1. Milestones for pollutant load and water quality leading to achievement of DEP standards for water quality and recommended use

Table 6-1 gives milestones for pollutant load reduction and water quality improvements leading to achievement of DEP standards for water quality and recommended use. Sediment and phosphorus load reductions were derived from the existing TMDL for the South Branch Codorus Creek, and from Oil Creek’s TMDL for sediment only. Consistent with the Chesapeake Bay model, both sediment and phosphorus load will be determined on a pounds per year basis for tracking and evaluation purposes.

6.2. Milestones tailored to the character and magnitude of impairments in each subwatershed, specifing parameters, location and frequency of sampling

Table 6-2 gives milestones tailored to the character and magnitude of impairments in each subwatershed, specifying parameters, location and frequency of sampling. For all subwatersheds, restoration effectiveness indicators for streambank erosion rates and stability, in-stream pebble counts, and live riparian buffer plants per acre will be monitored annually for at least three consecutive years. Additionally, Penn State York’s Biology Department operates and maintains dedicated, in-stream monitoring stations at Graydon Road in the East Branch Subwatershed and Larue Station in the South Branch. Both sampling stations monitor stream flow, discharge, turbidity, specific conductivity, nitrate, phosphate, and temperature. The PADEP’s unified watershed assessment program will be conducting in-stream macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis again on a 5-year cycle, beginning in 2006 and ending in 2010, which will be used to evaluate attainment with water quality standards.

6-1 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

Table 6-1. Milestones for Achieving Pollutant Load and Water Quality Standards by Subwatershed and Watershed Short-Term Mid-Term Long-Term EAST BRANCH CODORUS (<2 yrs) (<5 yrs) ≥ CREEK Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Other Total P-1 Sediment P-2 Sediment ( 5 yrs) WATERSHED Load Load TP Load Reductions Reductions Reductions Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1. East Branch CC-3 (Lower) 20,793 45,128 16,288 949 83,158 16,634,400 18,051,200 693,712 2. Dunkard Valley Trib 11,025 9,016 15,728 366 36,135 8,820,000 3,606,400 248,528 3. Seaks Run 8,995 13,471 16,137 3,366 41,969 7,196,000 5,388,400 251,688 4. Barshinger Creek 7,924 45,553 2,053 0 55,530 6,339,200 18,221,200 491,208 5. Inners Creek 6,257 11,255 21,500 1,045 40,057 5,005,600 4,502,000 190,152 6. Graydon Road Trib 3,327 7,103 0 0 10,430 2,661,600 2,841,200 110,056 7. Ridgeview Road Trib 1,991 3,902 816 0 6,709 1,592,800 1,560,800 63,072 8. Blymire Hollow Trib 1,985 42,431 29,482 500 74,398 1,588,000 16,972,400 371,208 9.Winterstown Boro S Trib 1,975 1,247 4,280 0 7,502 1,580,000 498,800 41,576 10.Winterstown Boro N Trib 1,302 9,265 8,965 0 19,532 1,041,600 3,706,000 94,952 11. Jacobus Boro N. Trib 1,176 3,000 0 0 4,176 940,800 1,200,000 42,816 12. Dallastown South Trib 759 13,558 2,465 0 16,782 607,200 5,423,200 120,608 13. Nixon Park Trib 234 21,168 18,114 0 39,516 187,200 8,467,200 173,088 14. Reynolds Mill Trib 210 1,291 1,548 0 3,049 168,000 516,400 13,688 15. Mt. Zion Trib 0 11,661 1,119 0 12,780 0 4,664,400 93,288 16. Arlington Park Trib 0 11,078 4,074 0 15,152 0 4,431,200 88,624 17. Hametown Trib 0 9,084 6,262 135 15,481 0 3,633,600 72,672 18. East Branch CC-2 (Mid) 0 9,022 7564 0 16,586 0 3,608,800 72,176 19. I-83 Exit Three Trib 0 7,028 2,611 0 9,639 0 2,811,200 56,224 20. Jacobus Boro W. Trib 0 4,359 198 0 4,557 0 1,743,600 34,872 21. I-83 Exit Four Trib 0 3,245 1,280 640 5,165 0 1,298,000 25,960 22. Jacobus Boro E. 0 1,974 3,337 0 5,311 0 789,600 15,792 23. Rehmeyer Hollow Trib 0 1,089 7,306 521 8,916 0 435,600 8,712 24. Spartan Road Trib 0 265 3,646 0 3,911 0 106,000 2,120 25. Mt. Olivet Trib 0 41 12,914 181 13,136 0 16,400 328 26. Leaders Heights S. Trib 0 0 2,392 0 2,392 0 0 0 27. East Branch CC-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 67,953 286,234 190,079 7,703 551,969 54,362,400 114,493,600 3,377,120

Short-Term Mid-Term Long-Term SOUTH BRANCH (<2 yrs) (<5 yrs) ≥ CODORUS CREEK Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Other Total P-1 Sediment P-2 Sediment ( 5 yrs) WATERSHED Load Load TP Load Reductions Reductions Reductions Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1. South Branch CC 31,125 44,759 68,820 358 145,062 24,900,000 17,903,600 856,072 2. Fishel Creek 7,752 11,220 29,407 0 48,379 6,201,600 4,488,000 213,792 3. Foust Creek 2,914 4,973 12,056 0 19,943 2,331,200 1,989,200 86,408 4. Glen Rock Valley Trib 2,735 17,848 18,309 0 38,892 2,188,000 7,139,200 186,544 5. Travis Trib 2,518 5,761 12,995 0 21,274 2,014,400 2,304,400 86,376 6. Pierceville Run 2,485 33,290 38,529 0 74,304 1,988,000 13,316,000 306,080 7. Centerville Creek 2,336 24,163 51,398 0 77,897 1,868,800 9,665,200 230,680 8. Stricthouser Trib 940 31,898 15,862 0 48,700 752,000 12,759,200 270,224

6-2 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

9. Hungerford Trib 898 2,204 9,560 942 13,604 718,400 881,600 32,000 10. Seven Valleys N. Trib 436 2,523 8,244 0 11,203 348,800 1,009,200 27,160 11. Trout Run 227 8,421 25,403 204 34,255 181,600 3,368,400 71,000 12. Krebs Valley Trib 0 33,412 13,893 0 47,305 0 13,364,800 267,296 13. Hanover Junction Trib 0 19,476 0 0 19,476 0 7,790,400 155,808 14. Wangs Trib 0 13,821 0 0 13,821 0 5,528,400 110,568 15. Zeiglers Church Trib 0 10,367 5,725 0 16,092 0 4,146,800 82,936 16. Brush Valley Trib 0 5,642 13,567 0 19,209 0 2,256,800 45,136 17. New Freedom Trib 0 4,745 0 0 4,745 0 1,898,000 37,960 18. Cherry Run 0 4,203 12,367 0 16,570 0 1,681,200 33,624 19. Bens Trib 0 4,153 0 0 4,153 0 1,661,200 33,224 20. Buffalo Valley Trib 0 2,730 25,079 0 27,809 0 1,092,000 21,840 21. New Freedom Ch Trib 0 2,350 23,944 0 26,294 0 940,000 18,800 22. Seven Valleys S. Trib 0 2,291 14,523 0 16,814 0 916,400 18,328 23. Larue Trib 0 1,839 10,643 0 12,482 0 735,600 14,712 24. Glen Rock South Trib 0 1,437 1,966 2,228 5,631 0 574,800 11,496 25. Railroad Trib 0 989 2,786 845 4,620 0 395,600 7,912 26. Golf Course Trib 0 626 4,247 0 4,873 0 250,400 5,008 27. Peter & Paul Trib 0 254 4,963 0 5,217 0 100,800 2,016 28. North Railroad Trib 0 0 2,619 0 2,619 0 0 0 TOTAL 54,366 295,395 426,905 4,577 781,243 43,492,800 118,157,200 3,233,000

Short-Term Mid-Term Long-Term WEST BRANCH CODORUS (<2 yrs) (<5 yrs) ≥ CREEK Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Other Total P-1 Sediment P-2 Sediment ( 5 yrs) WATERSHED Load Load TP Load Reductions Reductions Reductions Stream Priority (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) (lbs/yr) 1. Mill Creek 44,130 58,069 79,084 18,865 200,148 35,304,000 23,227,600 1,170,632 2.Upper Codorus Creek 39,021 52,694 91,122 0 182,837 31,216,800 20,848,800 1,041,312 3. Codorus Creek 32,478 90,252 173,459 7,445 303,634 25,982,400 36,100,800 1,241,664 4. Willis Run 20,528 5,449 0 0 25,977 16,422,400 2,179,600 372,040 5. Oil Creek 16,368 86,053 39,362 206 141,989 13,094,400 34,421,200 950,312 6. Long Run 14,684 58,471 50,508 0 123,663 11,747,200 23,388,400 702,712 7. Spring Garden Park Trib 7,883 1,367 412 5,449 15,111 6,306,400 546,800 137,064 8. Violet Hill Trib 6,262 31,896 18,144 0 56,302 5,009,600 12,758,400 355,360 9. Furnace Creek 5,518 32,446 6,510 0 44,474 4,414,400 12,978,400 347,856 10. Stoverstown Branch 5,057 12,597 23,105 0 40,759 4,045,600 5,038,800 181,688 11. South Branch CC 4,990 0 18,601 0 23,591 3,992,000 0 79,840 12. Porters Creek 4,404 6,051 6,574 0 17,029 3,523,200 2,420,400 118,872 13. Old Paths Trib 3,384 8,369 42,383 0 54,136 2,707,200 3,347,600 121,096 14. West Branch CC 3,319 34,357 56,881 0 94,557 2,655,200 13,742,800 327,960 15. Leaders Heights Trib 3,168 24,468 12,155 0 39,791 2,534,400 9,787,200 246,432 16. Lightners School Trib 2,988 10,555 8,226 1,452 23,221 2,390,400 4,222,000 132,248 17. Lehman Trib 1,927 5,903 24,404 0 32,234 1,541,600 2,361,200 78,056 18. New Salem Trib 1,874 13,659 15,581 0 31,114 1,499,200 5,463,600 139,256 19. Nashville Trib 1,431 9,192 1,352 0 11,975 920,880 1,119,200 40,802 20. Prospect Hill Trib 1,151 2,798 2,445 0 6,394 1,144,800 3,676,800 96,432 21. Swimming Pool Trib 703 11,236 7,392 0 19,331 562,400 4,494,400 101,136 22. Emigsville Trib 491 7,704 33,174 564 41,933 392,800 3,081,600 69,488

6-3 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

23. Bunch Creek 0 16,278 20,302 0 36,580 0 6,511,200 130,224 24. Dee Run 0 16,236 9,493 0 25,729 0 6,494,400 129,888 25. Lincolnway Trib 0 15,412 9,203 0 24,615 0 6,164,800 123,296 26. Spring Grove Trib 0 7,096 1,356 0 8,452 0 2,838,400 56,768 27. Starview Trib 0 3,316 11,972 0 15,288 0 1,326,400 26,528 28. Sunnyside Trib 0 2,867 3,347 0 6,214 0 1,146,800 22,936 29. Lischy Church Trib 0 1,352 12,155 0 13,507 0 540,800 10,816 30. Gitts Run 0 528 23,037 0 23,565 0 211,200 4,224 31. Trout Run 0 0 8,806 0 8,806 0 0 0 TOTAL 221,759 626,671 810,545 33,981 1,692,956 177,407,280 250,439,600 8,556,938

Sampling locations and frequencies where know are shown below. For those projects not yet planned, these locations will be decided during the design phase of the project. In all cases, one or more latitudinal stream cross-sections will be sampled annually and monitored for a minimum of 3 years.

Table 6-2. Milestones to the character and magnitude of impairments in each subwatershed, specifying parameters, location and frequency of sampling. EAST BRANCH CODORUS CREEK Impairment Parameters WATERSHED Location Frequency Magnitude Stream Priority Character Biological Chemical Physical Other (Feet) X-section Visual Annually 1. East Branch CC-3 (Lower) Sediment 83,158 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 2. Dunkard Valley Trib Sediment 36,135 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 3. Seaks Run Sediment 41,969 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 4. Barshinger Creek Sediment 55,530 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 5. Inners Creek Sediment 40,057 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 6. Graydon Road Trib Sediment 10,430 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 7. Ridgeview Road Trib Sediment 6,709 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 8. Blymire Hollow Trib Sediment 74,398 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 9.Winterstown Boro S Trib Sediment 7,502 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 10.Winterstown Boro N Trib Sediment 19,532 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 11. Jacobus Boro N. Trib Sediment 4,176 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 12. Dallastown South Trib Sediment 16,782 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 13. Nixon Park Trib Sediment 39,516 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 14. Reynolds Mill Trib Sediment 3,049 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 15. Mt. Zion Trib Sediment 12,780 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 16. Arlington Park Trib Sediment 15,152 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 17. Hametown Trib Sediment 15,481 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years

6-4 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

Dissolved X-section Periphyton oxygen Pebble count Macro- Nitrate-N Discharge Visual Annually 18. East Branch CC-2 (Mid) Sediment 16,586 Riffle invertebrates Ortho-P Sed-load assessment 3-Years (optional) Temperature Turbidity X-section Visual Annually 19. I-83 Exit Three Trib Sediment 9,639 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 20. Jacobus Boro W. Trib Sediment 4,557 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 21. I-83 Exit Four Trib Sediment 5,165 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 22. Jacobus Boro E. Sediment 5,311 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 23. Rehmeyer Hollow Trib Sediment 8,916 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 24. Spartan Road Trib Sediment 3,911 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 25. Mt. Olivet Trib Sediment 13,136 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years 26. Leaders Heights S. Trib Sediment 2,392 ------27. East Branch CC-1 Sediment 0 ------TOTAL 551,969

SOUTH BRANCH CODORUS CREEK Impairment Parameters WATERSHED Location Frequency Magnitude Stream Priority Character Biological Chemical Physical Other (Feet) Dissolved X-section Periphyton oxygen Pebble count Sediment Macro- Nitrate-N Discharge Visual Annually 1. South Branch CC 145,062 Riffle Phosphorus invertebrates Ortho-P Sed-load assessment 3-Years (optional) Temperature Turbidity X-section Visual Annually 2. Fishel Creek Sediment 48,379 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years Sediment X-section Visual Annually 3. Foust Creek 19,943 - - Riffle Phosphorus Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 4. Glen Rock Valley Trib Sediment 38,892 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 5. Travis Trib Sediment 21,274 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years Sediment X-section Visual Annually 6. Pierceville Run 74,304 - - Riffle Phosphorus Pebble count assessment 3-Years Sediment X-section Visual Annually 7. Centerville Creek 77,897 - - Riffle Phosphorus Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 8. Stricthouser Trib Sediment 48,700 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 9. Hungerford Trib Sediment 13,604 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 10. Seven Valleys N. Trib Sediment 11,203 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 11. Trout Run Sediment 34,255 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years Sediment X-section Visual Annually 12. Krebs Valley Trib 47,305 - - Riffle Phosphorus Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 13. Hanover Junction Trib Sediment 19,476 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 14. Wangs Trib Sediment 13,821 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 15. Zeiglers Church Trib Sediment 16,092 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 16. Brush Valley Trib Sediment 19,209 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 17. New Freedom Trib Sediment 4,745 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years 18. Cherry Run Sediment 16,570 - - X-section Visual Riffle Annually

6-5 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 19. Bens Trib Sediment 4,153 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years Sediment X-section Visual Annually 20. Buffalo Valley Trib 27,809 - - Riffle Phosphorus Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 21. New Freedom Ch Trib Sediment 26,294 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 22. Seven Valleys S. Trib Sediment 16,814 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 23. Larue Trib Sediment 12,482 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 24. Glen Rock South Trib Sediment 5,631 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 25. Railroad Trib Sediment 4,620 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 26. Golf Course Trib Sediment 4,873 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 27. Peter & Paul Trib Sediment 5,217 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years 28. North Railroad Trib Sediment 2,619 ------TOTAL 781,243

WEST BRANCH CODORUS CREEK Impairment Parameters WATERSHED Location Frequency Magnitude Stream Priority Character Biological Chemical Physical Other (Feet) Dissolved X-section Periphyton oxygen Pebble count Macro- Nitrate-N Discharge Visual Annually 1. Mill Creek Sediment 200,148 Riffle invertebrates Ortho-P Sed-load assessment 3-Years (optional) Temperature Turbidity Dissolved X-section Periphyton oxygen Pebble count Macro- Nitrate-N Discharge Visual Annually 2.Upper Codorus Creek Sediment 182,837 Riffle invertebrates Ortho-P Sed-load assessment 3-Years (optional) Temperature Turbidity Dissolved X-section Periphyton oxygen Pebble count Macro- Nitrate-N Discharge Visual Annually 3. Codorus Creek Sediment 303,634 Riffle invertebrates Ortho-P Sed-load assessment 3-Years (optional) Temperature Turbidity X-section Visual Annually 4. Willis Run Sediment 25,977 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 5. Oil Creek Sediment 141,989 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 6. Long Run Sediment 123,663 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 7. Spring Garden Park Trib Sediment 15,111 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 8. Violet Hill Trib Sediment 56,302 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 9. Furnace Creek Sediment 44,474 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 10. Stoverstown Branch Sediment 40,759 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 11. South Branch CC Sediment 23,591 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 12. Porters Creek Sediment 17,029 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 13. Old Paths Trib Sediment 54,136 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years Periphyton Dissolved X-section Visual Annually 14. West Branch CC Sediment 94,557 Macro- oxygen Pebble count Riffle assessment 3-Years invertebrates Nitrate-N Discharge

6-6 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

(optional) Ortho-P Sed-load Temperature Turbidity X-section Visual Annually 15. Leaders Hieghts Trib Sediment 39,791 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 16. Lightners School Trib Sediment 23,221 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 17. Lehman Trib Sediment 32,234 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 18. New Salem Trib Sediment 31,114 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 19. Nashville Trib Sediment 11,975 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 20. Prospect Hill Trib Sediment 6,394 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 21. Swimming Pool Trib Sediment 19,331 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 22. Emigsville Trib Sediment 41,933 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 23. Bunch Creek Sediment 36,580 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 24. Dee Run Sediment 25,729 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 25. Lincolnway Trib Sediment 24,615 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 26. Spring Grove Trib Sediment 8,452 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 27. Starview Trib Sediment 15,288 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 28. Sunnyside Trib Sediment 6,214 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 29. Lischy Church Trib Sediment 13,507 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years X-section Visual Annually 30. Gitts Run Sediment 23,565 - - Riffle Pebble count assessment 3-Years 31. Trout Run - 8,806 ------TOTAL 1,692,956

6.3. Consideration of local priorities for implementation, availability of funding/personnel/analytic capability, seasonal weather conditions, coordination with existing monitoring programs, etc.

Consideration of local priorities for restoration, availability of funding, personnel and equipment, seasonal weather conditions, and coordination opportunities are discussed below.

6-7 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

• Protecting and Restoring Vital Habitats - Aims to preserve, protect and restore those habitats and natural areas that are vital to the survival and diversity of the living resources of the Bay and its rivers.

• Improving Water Quality - Improving water quality in the Codorus Creek and Susquehanna River is the most critical element in ensuring the future health of Chesapeake Bay.

• Managing Lands Soundly - Because pollutants on land are easily washed into streams and rivers, our actions on land ultimately affect the watershed and Bay.

• Engaging Individuals and Local Communities - To contribute to watershed restoration, we have to be concerned about resource stewardship in our own communities, homes and backyards.

Human resources are considered to be adequate for the successful implementation of the plan, both short- and long-term. Short-term limitations include one qualified contractor with experienced personnel and equipment. In order to sustain watershed restoration progress long-term, a minimum of three restoration contract teams will be necessary, one each working in the East, South, and West Branches, year-round.

The Codorus Implementation Committee will use this plan as its primary coordination tool for implementation opportunities as time and resources allow.

6.4. Schedule and parties responsible for monitoring and reporting progress

A schedule and parties responsible for monitoring and reporting progress is given in table 6-3.

6-8 Codorus WIP 6.0 Measuring Progress 12/6/2007

Table 6-3. Schedule and Parties Responsible for Monitoring and Reporting Progress. Responsible Party Monitoring Reporting Progress Aquatic Resource Restoration Company Quarterly Annually City of York Quarterly Annually Codorus Creek Improvement Partnership Quarterly Annually Codorus Creek Watershed Association Quarterly Annually Codorus Implementation Committee Quarterly Annually Glatfelter Quarterly Annually Izaak Walton League of America, York Chapter 67 Quarterly Annually Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Annually Biennially Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Annually Biennially PennDOT District 8 Maintenance Annually Biennially Penn State York Quarterly Annually Trout Unlimited, Codorus Chapter Quarterly Annually U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Baltimore District Annually Biennially U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Annually Biennially Watershed Alliance of York (WAY) Quarterly Annually York County Conservation District Quarterly Annually York County Department of Parks and Recreation Quarterly Annually York County Planning Commission Quarterly Annually York County Community Foundation Quarterly Annually York Water Company Quarterly Annually

6-9 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

7. Monitoring Component

This section describes the monitoring component of the watershed implementation plan. Criteria for judging results of implementation and water quality monitoring against prescribed milestones are identified. Finally, it provides for re-evaluation of implementation efforts, project milestones, restoration measures, and TMDLs if progress is less than expected.

7.1. Criteria for judging results of implementation and water quality monitoring against prescribed milestones

The stakeholders helped to select indicators that will be used to measure the current health of the watershed and to provide a way to measure progress toward meeting the watershed goals. Indicators are direct or indirect measurements of some valued component or quality in a system. Indicators are also extremely useful for assessing and communicating the status and trends of the health of a watershed. Indicators, however, do not tell us the cause of the problem. For example, we might use a thermometer to measure stream temperature. An elevated temperature might indicate a problem, but it does not specifically tell us what the problem is, where it is, or what caused it. Our stakeholder group identified the indicators that will be used to quantify existing conditions in the watershed.

Indicators are selected, refined, added to, and modified throughout the watershed planning and implementation process. As we completed the characterization phase and developed goals and management objectives, we shifted our indicators from those that assess current conditions to those that quantitatively measure progress toward meeting our goals. For example, in the Codorus Creek watershed, the goal is to reduce sediment loadings to meet water quality standards and support all beneficial uses. Table 7-1 shows indicators that may be used and related target values for measuring progress toward reducing the sediment load.

Table 7-1. Environmental Indicators Used to Identify Relationships Between Pollutant Sources and Watershed Conditions

Issue Indicator Target Value Use Sediment Pebble counts (% <20% Pebble count provides an indication of the type and distribution of fines <2mm) streambed material. Too many fines can interfere with fish spawning and degrade the habitat for aquatic invertebrates. Stream Channel No significant risk Channel stability uses a qualitative measurement with associated Stability of bank erosion mathematical values to reflect stream conditions (Rosgen 1996). Total Suspended Monthly average Suspended solids can adversely affect stream ecosystems by filling pools, Solids (TSS) concentration <40 clogging fish gills, and limiting sunlight penetration and transparency of the mg/L water column critical to aquatic flora. Turbidity <25 NTU Turbidity measures the clarity of water and can also be used as an indirect measurement of the concentration of suspended matter.

7-1 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

7.1.1. Selected Quantitative Indicators

In developing the Codorus WIP, we conducted watershed assessments and analyses to quantify source loads, characterize impacts, and estimate the load reductions needed to meet our goals and objectives. Sometimes the source loads and load reductions will be expressed in slightly different terms, such as the number of miles of eroded banks and the miles of vegetated buffers needed to address the problem. Regardless of the approach, the important point to remember is that quantification is the key to remediation. If we can’t somehow measure the problems we’re facing, it will be almost impossible to know whether we’re making any headway in addressing them.

For watershed planning purposes, indicators need to be quantitative so that the effectiveness of management measures can be predicted. For example, one of the goals identified by stakeholders is “restore aquatic habitat to meet designated uses”. We believe the habitat has been degraded because of elevated levels of sediment entering the Codorus Creek, and indicators for sediment loading will be used to measure progress toward achieving that goal.

Where TMDLs exists, important indicators have already been defined and we have incorporated them when selecting appropriate management actions to implement the load reductions cited in the TMDL. Where no TMDL exists, selected indicators are linked to our water quality restoration or protection goals, such as pollutant concentrations or other parameters of concern (e.g., channel instability, eroding banks, channel flow, flow cycles). The indicators selected will consider the impacts, impairments, or parameters of concern in the Codorus Creek and the types and pathways of watershed stressor sources that contribute to those impacts.

7.1.2. Monitoring: Pre- and Post-Construction

Monitoring is conducted to measure success, and success in the field of natural stream channel restoration can be two-fold in purpose: 1) to meet permit conditions and measure the success of a project’s specific objectives, and 2) to measure the performance of natural stream channel designs over the long term. Monitoring also provides baseline conditions and a measurement of change over pre-construction conditions.

A natural channel develops a particular form over a long period of time. It makes continual adjustments in width and depth as it experiences a wide range of storms and low flow events. Monitoring for short periods of time (only one or two years) implies that stability is established or should be established the day the channel is built. Therefore, monitoring over a period of at least three years is recommended to provide time for the stream channel to become more fully established.

7-2 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

In measuring project success, objectives expressed in terms of measurable stream conditions provide the basis for monitoring the success of the project. Define monitoring parameters to match your objectives and make sure your objectives are both achievable and measurable.

It’s important to build monitoring components into the assessment phase of your project. Establish pre-construction monitoring components and locations. Monitor the poorest sections early on -- aim to document before and after construction and those conditions at the worst sections of impacted stream reaches.

Remember that the three main objectives of natural stream channel design are sediment transport, habitat restoration, and bank and channel stabilization. Determine ways to monitor for each of these three objectives, keeping in mind that there will be varying degrees to which these objectives are sought. Identify your MAIN objectives and plan to monitor accordingly.

Remember also that the reference site establishes baseline conditions to provide an accurate basis for measuring change.

Our monitoring plan includes pre-construction, as-builts, and post-construction monitoring to show whether the project was successful in meeting stated objectives. The plan should define monitoring parameters, sampling frequency, sampling locations and analytical procedures. Documentation on structures (their size, length, slope, rock size, etc.) should be part of your monitoring strategy. It’s a good idea to involve the project designer in the selection of monitoring parameters.

Reference worksheet: • Morph Chart (Appendix I) includes a column for as-builts. • Field Survey Procedures for Characterization of River • Morphology (Appendix I)

We’re taking an adaptive management approach -- monitoring and evaluation teaches us new things in natural stream channel design. Unforeseen problems may require midcourse corrections either during or shortly after implementation.

We plan to use volunteers from watershed organizations, sportsman clubs, and senior volunteer organizations, such as the Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASI) to assist with short and long term monitoring tasks.

Monitoring Recommendations • Duration of monitoring period: minimum of three years

• As Built Surveys: As Built surveys, which are now required by DEP, should be done within 60 days post-construction. Following construction, an as-built site plan should show: 1. Any field adjustments in plan -- additions/deletions

7-3 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

2. Post-construction cross-sections (monumented) and longitudinal profile 3. Elevations and placement of structures 4. Constructability -- discuss access to project, utilities, selection of equipment 5. Breakdown of costs (optional: materials, construction, design, construction management) 6. Photos: take at monitoring stations and cross-section areas, upstream and downstream of project. Reference documents: Morph Chart (Appendix I) and Field Procedures for Characterization of River Morphology (Appendix I)

• Frequency of monitoring: During first year post-construction, a minimum of two times/year plus several bankfull storm events (as-built plus one more time unless there is not a bankfull event). For 2-5 years postconstruction, a minimum of 1x/year plus several bankfull storm events.

• Monitoring reports: Long term monitoring reports should include comments on structures (erosion at structures, narrative on any tweaking done), survivorship or percent cover of riparian vegetation or wetlands (this is often specified in the 404 permit special condition), and an evaluation of whether goals/objectives have been met. Note any monitoring requirements as part of required permits.

• Monitoring components: Parameters should reflect those measures needed to meet the project’s objectives. It’s also important to consider the capability and dedication of people who will be involved in conducting the monitoring activities.

Channel characteristics • Monumented cross-sections (required by DEP) o Longitudinal profile o Slope o Riffle/pool characteristics • Pebble Count o Bed particle size distribution • Pattern o Sinuosity, meander lengths, radius of curvature • Bank stability (optional) o Bank pins o Scour chains for measuring aggrading or degrading streambed o BEHI (bank erodibility index) o Bank stability (Pfankuch Stability Rating)

Biological characteristics • EPA’s RBP (Rapid Biological Assessment Protocol) assessment form • PA Modified RBP (Rapid Biological Assessment Protocol) assessment form • Penn State University’s AVStrEAMS (Appendix II)

7-4 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

Currently, the Citizen Volunteer Monitoring Program under DEP is developing monitoring guidance for natural stream channel restoration projects. For an update, contact CVMP at 717-772-5807.

7.1.3. Minimum NSCD Monitoring Criteria for Volunteer Groups

The as-builts and permanent cross sections need to be set-up by the designer/ consultant Reports must be submitted as specified in permit conditions or as required in grants. (Discussion with 105 permitters should take place before monitoring begins so that everyone understands what is needed to meet permit requirements.)

Reports should include the following: • State permit number • Project name, location, and county • State objectives of the project and project completion date • Project monitoring contact person with phone number • Project map with structure locations and photo locations • Label structures from upstream to down stream, and left to right is as you look down stream

Project walk through (minimum of once per year, few times per year better) • Make notes of structures (i.e.; are all the rock there, rocks missing, etc) • Note any erosion along stream and/or structures. • Note vegetation (i.e.; well established, somewhat bare, etc.) • Note anything out of the ordinary

Establish photo points (with designer/consultant): • Take photos from same established points each visit (indicate location, date and time) • Take extra photos in areas of concern (i.e.; new eroding area, bank failure, structure rock missing, etc) • Label photos and include a brief explanation of content and details

Complete cross section information using the “Cross-section Measurement Procedure” attached (or similar methodology). A minimum of two cross-sections, one riffle and one pool, that has been located in an area of concern should be completed.

7.1.4. Optional Monitoring

The following monitoring protocols are considered to be optional and may be employed as needed:

7-5 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

• Water chemistry (depends on available resources, may include lab analysis, meters, field kits like EASI HACH method) • Stream flow volume/discharge (EASI method) and/or staff gauge reading (USGS gauge or constructed staff gauge) during project inspection • Bank profile using toe pin (useful if no cross section is present) • Riparian vegetation analysis (Adopt-A-Buffer Toolkit: Monitoring and Maintaining Restoration Projects, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, PA or DEP Watershed Snapshot Riparian Zone Survey) • Invasive plant identification (Adopt-A-Buffer-Toolkit or similar methodologies)

7.2. Selected Combination of Indicators

We’ll use different types of indicators to reflect where we are in the watershed management process and the audience with which we are communicating. We’ll first select environmental indicators to measure the current conditions in the watershed and help to identify the stressors and the sources of the pollutants. As we developed our management objectives and actually assembled our watershed plan, we’ll add performance indicators, such as social and programmatic indicators, to help measure progress toward meeting our goals. Table 7-2 provides indicators used throughout the watershed plan development and implementation effort.

Table 7-2. Logical Model for Water Quality Improvements of Codorus Creek SITUATION INPUTS OUTPUTS OUTCOMES Water quality of Short-term Mid-term Long-term What we invest What we do Whom we reach Codorus Creek Results Results Results is not meeting its • Funding for • Landowners • Landowners • Landowners • Landowners • Meet designated uses restoration • Resource adjacent to learn benefits cooperate and designated due to efforts managers Codorus of riparian allow uses of impairments by • Agency • Water users Creek and its management, restoration Codorus sediment and partnerships tributaries i.e., buffers, and assume Creek nutrients • Local fencing, maintenance • Ensure social, primarily from expertise crossings, etc. responsibility economic and stream bank and • Volunteers • Landowners • Landowners environmental channel erosion, discuss install sustainability and secondarily options and additional from upland benefits with BMPs sources. neighbors and including colleagues buffers, fencing, crossings, etc.

The Audience

Indicators provide a powerful means of communicating to various audiences about the status of the watershed, as well as demonstrating the progress being made toward meeting goals. Selected indicators will help to communicate these concepts to non- technical audiences. For example, using a pounds per day/year sediment loading rate to demonstrate reduction in sedimentation of the Codorus Creek won’t mean much to most people. But using the number of fish and/or macroinvertebrates that have been

7-6 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

reported because of the reduction of sediment inputs is easier to understand. Or being able to count the number of failing septic systems that have been located and repaired shows people how the sources of pathogens are being reduced.

Environmental Indicators

Environmental indicators are a direct measure of the environmental conditions that plan implementation seeks to achieve. The indicators will be directly related to the indicators selected for our management objectives. By definition, the indicators are measurable quantities used to evaluate the relationship between pollutant sources and environmental conditions. Targets goals are defined by the values of the selected indicators. Frequently these targets reflect water quality standards for designated uses. In other cases, qualitative standards for water quality and habitat protection need to be interpreted to establish the criteria. For example, the indicator phosphorus is used to target reductions of the instream sediment concentration value or a total allowable load that is expected to protect the resource.

Programmatic Indicators

Programmatic indicators are indirect measures of resource protection or restoration (e.g., the number of management practices or the number of point source permits issued). These don’t necessarily indicate that we’re meeting our load reductions, but they do indicate actions intended to achieve a goal. When we developed the WIP, we looked for important programmatic actions that can be tracked over time. Programmatic indicators include measures such as recording the number of people attending workshops, the number of projects approved, the number of monitoring samples taken, and dollars spent.

Social Indicators

Social indicators measure changes in social or cultural practices, such as increased awareness on watershed issues, and behavior changes that lead to implementation of management measures and subsequent water quality improvements. Indicators may include the percent of landowners along the stream corridor that know what a watershed is or the number of homeowners that sign a pledge to reduce fertilizer use. Consider the methods you’ll use to collect this information, such as pre- and post- surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews. Table 7-3 provides indicators that may be used to measure progress or performance. Regardless of the type of indicators and targets you develop, you should establish some means for tracking, storing (e.g., database), and reporting progress against these values.

Table 7-3. Performance Indicators Used to Develop Targets to Measure Progress in Meeting Watershed Goals

Environmental Programmatic Social • Number (or percent) of stream • Number of BMPs implemented in • Participation rates public miles that meet w ater quality the watershed education and o utreach programs

7-7 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

standards about solving NPS problems • Number (or percent) of stream • Number of approved or certified • Increase in the awareness, miles that meet one or more management plans (e.g., E&S knowledge and actions designed designated uses control, GP-3, NPDES, to change social behavior patterns Conservation, Nutrient Management, Stormwater Management) • Number (or percent) of stream • Number of ordinances developed • Participation rates in various miles that meet one or more and implemented to restore and watershed-related volunteer numeric water quality standards protect watershed stewardship activities (e.g., assessments, monitoring, restoration, etc.) • Demonstrated improvement in • Number of visits to watershed • Increase in participation at water quality parameters (e.g., pH, groups, agencies and nonprofit watershed stakeholder forums DO, TSS) web sites • Demonstrated improvement in • Number of municipalities • Increase in number of biological parameters (e.g., increase implementing septic system stakeholders practicing watershed in numbers and diversity of management programs stewardship macroinvertebrates) • Demonstrated improvement in • Number of illicit stormwater • Increase in the number of physical parameters (e.g., channel discharges identified and corrected stakeholders cleaning and miles stabilized, increased riparian inspecting septic systems every 3- habitat) 5 years. • Number (or percent) of stream • Number of permits issued • Increase in participation of locally miles removed from “threatened” led watershed planning, list restoration and protection initiatives • Number (or percent) of stream • Number of public water systems miles removed from TMDL lists with source water protection plans • Reduction in nonpoint source • Minimization in the amount of pollutant loadings impervious surfaces to ≤10 of total watershed area • Reductions in frequencies of peak • Increase in number of locally led flows downstream of developing watershed planning, restoration areas and protection initiatives • Increase in the number of acres of floodplains and wetlands restored or protected • Reduction in the amount of trash collected in stormwater systems and streams

7.3. Codorus Creek Restoration Efficacy Program (CCREP)

The Codorus Creek Restoration Efficacy Program (CCREP) at Penn State York (PSY), in partnership with local watershed organizations and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), is assessing the outcome of stream restoration efforts on aquatic ecosystem health and water quality in the Codorus Creek Watershed, York County in southcentral Pennsylvania. In addition to this research mission, the program is committed to educational outreach to promote public awareness of watershed issues in York County including why many of our streams require restoration, what stream restoration entails, and what benefits are expected locally and downstream to the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay. This website, once completed, will provide an interface for learning about the Codorus Creek Watershed, restoration efforts initiated by local watershed organizations, current CCREP research and results, and ways you can get involved in helping your watershed.

For more information, the reader is referred to the follow web site:

7-8 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

http://www2.yk.psu.edu/~mph13/CCREP%20Index.htm#

7.4. Provisions for reevaluation of implementation efforts, project milestones, restoration measures and/or TMDLs if progress is less than expected

There are two primary reasons to evaluate our watershed program. First, we want to be able to prove, or demonstrate, that by implementing the management measures, we are achieving our water quality and other environmental goals. Second, we want to be able to continually improve our program in terms of efficiency and quality. This adaptive management process is built into our program before implementation so that we ask the right questions and use the answers to strengthen our program during implementation. Collecting information does no good if we don’t use the information to improve our watershed program.

We developed an evaluation framework to use once we begin to implement our watershed plan. The framework was developed before implementation so that we can effectively identify what measures we want to evaluate and determine how we will obtain the information. We should recognize that we’ll continue to build on the initial characterization, filling information gaps and refining the connections between sources, pollutants, and load reductions. We’ll adapt our implementation efforts on the basis of new information collected, changes in the operational structure of our partnership, emerging technologies, and monitoring results.

7.4.1. Structure of Evaluate Framework

In general, we will evaluate three major parts of our watershed implementation program to be able to demonstrate progress and make improvements in our program. We need to structure our evaluation framework to consider all three components and developed indicators that will measure each. The components are inputs, outputs, and outcomes. When “filling in” these components, we’ll work backward, starting with our desired outcomes (goals) and working toward identifying the specific inputs needed to achieve those outcomes.

1. Inputs: the process used to implement your program. This includes inputs to your program such as resources of time and technical expertise, organizational structure and management, and stakeholder participation. Evaluation questions are: a. Are the human and monetary resources allocated sufficient to carry out the tasks? b. Did stakeholders feel they were well represented in the process?

7-9 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

2. Outputs: the tasks conducted and the products developed. This includes the implementation activities such as installing management practices, developing brochures, holding workshops, preparing fact sheets, and so forth. Evaluation questions are: a. Are we meeting our implementation schedule? b. Are we meeting our milestones? c. Did we meet our milestones sooner than expected? d. Did we reach the appropriate target audiences with our I/E materials?

3. Outcomes: the results or outcomes seen from implementation efforts. This includes increased awareness and behavior changes among the watershed community, as well as environmental improvements such as water quality, habitat, and physical changes.

Outcomes can be further broken down into short-term outcomes and long-term outcomes. Sample evaluation questions: a. Did the target audience increase its awareness of watershed issues? b. Did the behaviors of the target audience change as a result of implementing the watershed plan? c. Are we meeting our interim targets for pollutant load reductions? d. Are pollutant loads being reduced?

Once we’ve determined the questions we want to answer, we set up the framework to collect the necessary information. One approach to setting up an evaluation framework is to use a logic model.

7.5. Logic Model Used to Develop an Evaluation Framework

Many programs use a logic model (Figure 7-1) to set up and evaluate their programs. The model is an important tool in the adaptive management process because it allows you to better document the results you find and helps you determine what worked and why. Logic models have been used for years in social programs and are now being used in the context of watershed management.

7-10 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

Figure 7-1. Logical Model Components

Basically, a logic model is a picture or visual representation of our program, showing the inputs needed to implement our program, the expected outputs to be performed, and the anticipated outcomes from implementing these activities. Using a logic model can help us to better document the outcomes, discover what works and why, and continually make changes to our program based on our evaluation results.

There are several benefits to using a logic model. First, the model puts all the information about our program in one place and can summarize a complex program in a simple picture. This is particularly helpful when communicating key activities to stakeholders. A logic model also shows the connections that link the inputs to results so that you can readily identify any gaps in the sequence. Finally, a logic model provides a “to do” list for evaluation, signaling what needs to be evaluated and when. The basic structure of a logic model includes stating our situation or problem, recording the inputs or resources needed, listing anticipated outputs from activities, and ultimately outlining the expected outcomes from the program. As we move from the inputs through the outputs and to the outcomes, there should be a direct link between the steps. These links are called “if...then” relationships. For example, if we invest the required staff time and resources (inputs), we’ll be able to conduct the outlined activities (outputs). If we conduct those activities, we’ll see the expected results (outcomes). Setting up a logic model this way can help us to identify gaps and revise some of the parameters as well as assist us with measuring and evaluating progress towards achieving implementation of management measures and watershed goals. Table 7-4 below lists the actual indicators that will be used to develop targets to track progress.

Table 7-4. Target Indicators Used To Track Implementation Progress Concern: Little or no quality sportfish in streams due to heavy sedimentation Goal: Reduce sedimentation into streams to meet designated uses Objective: Install BMPs streamside and upland to reduce sedimentation by 25 percent Type of Indicator Sample Indicators Methods

7-11 Codorus WIP 7.0 Monitoring 12/6/2007

Environmental (baseline Turbidity, flow, suspended solids, channel Direct water quality measurements, conditions) stability photographs, watershed assessments Programmatic # Stakeholders educated through outreach Internet, e-mail, mailings, public forums, activities etc. Programmatic # Stakeholders educated through direct Interviews , # signed landowner contact during assessments cooperator agreements Social # Stakeholder phone calls requesting E-mail, mail and phone records information Social Increased public awareness and knowledge Pre- and post-surveys, focus groups, locally of watershed concerns and issues led initiatives Social # Stakeholders requesting assistance to E-mail, mail and phone records install BMPs Social # Stakeholders aware of financial and # Requests for assistance, # signed technical assistance available for BMP landowner cooperator agreements, installation stakeholder $ leveraged Programmatic # BMPs installed Tracking database Environmental (measure Channel stability, habitat quality & quantify, Direct water quality measurements, implementation progress) turbidity, flow, TSS photographs, watershed assessments

7-12 Codorus WIP 8.0 Information/Education 12/6/2007

8. Public information and participation

The public information and education component of this plan is described in this section. Stakeholders and sources of information and influence in the watershed are identified. A watershed advisory group from those stakeholders identified to sponsor projects, review planning products, set priorities, gain landowner cooperation, and secure funding is designated. Finally, a strategy for informing citizens about watershed issues and soliciting their involvement in plan development and implementation (e.g., press releases, web site development, presentations, public meetings, etc.) is outlined.

8.1. Stakeholders and sources of information and influence in the watershed

Key stakeholder groups and the roles they may play in restoring the Codorus Creek watershed are listed in Table 8-1. These stakeholder groups were previously identified by the Conservation District during the organizing and forming phases of the Watershed Alliance of York, Inc. (WAY) in 2000 and 2001.

Table 8-1. Stakeholders and Their Roles in the Codorus Creek Watershed

Stakeholder Groups Influence in Watershed • Coverage of watershed events • Human interest stories Media • Understanding of local information needs • Ability to get information out quickly

• Trustworthy information sources Landowners & Managers • Role models • Peer pressure • Influence over management decisions • Linkage with landowners Financial Institutions • Prestige for partnerships • Funding for programs

• Distribute information and influence decisions • Sponsor field days and demonstrations Business & Industries • Donate equipment and services • Funding for programs

• Credibility and visibility for programs Farmers & Farm Organizations • Existing communication channels • Knowledgeable of environmental constituencies • Awareness of problems and issues Conservation & Environmental Organizations • Committed and knowledgeable memberships

• Political leadership and credibility Local Elected Officials • Land use and resource management decisions • Financial support for projects

• Financial and technical support • Policies and decisions that affect watershed Local Governing Agencies • Logistics, equipment and related support • Data collection and analysis expertise

8-1 Codorus WIP 8.0 Information/Education 12/6/2007

• Compatible, broader goals for local economy Chamber of Commerce • Concerns and interests of businesses • Influence over efforts in the future Students • Time and energy for action and tasks • Influence over values and beliefs Teachers • Ability to shape future generations • Source of information • Influence over family decisions Women's groups • Interest and concern for health issues • Ability to mobilize and motivate members • Time and talent for team work Retired Persons • Understanding of local conditions and trends • Credibility in community • Ongoing program activities Civic Organizations • Interest and concern for community • Fundraising skills • Commitment to stewardship Religious Leaders • Ability to appeal to higher values • Credibility and legitimacy

8.2. Designated watershed advisory group from those identified to sponsor project, review planning products, set priorities, gain landowner cooperation and secure funding for implementation

A watershed advisory group has been assembled from stakeholders identified above to sponsor projects, review planning products, set priorities, gain landowner cooperation, and secure funding for implementation. The organizations and individuals represented in this group are given in Table 8-2. Formally, it is known as the Codorus Implementation Committee.

Table 8-2. Designated Watershed Advisory Group

CODORUS IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE NAME ORGANIZATION James Gross City of York, Dept. of Public Works Matt Leisses Codorus Creek Improvement Partnership Jim Leaman Codorus Creek Watershed Association John Klunk Codorus Monitoring Network Tom Feninez Codorus Chapter Trout Unlimited Tom Foust Codorus Watershed Endowment Tim Fulton Codorus Watershed Endowment Linda Davidson Conewago Canoe Club Skip Missimer Glatfelter Daniel Meckley III Independent Researcher Lee Irwin Izaak Walton League – York Chapter Mark Platts Lancaster-York Heritage Region Michael Helfrich Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Dave Raver Manchester Township

8-2 Codorus WIP 8.0 Information/Education 12/6/2007

Stewart Graybill North York Borough Matt Hoch, PhD Penn State York – Biology Dept. Greg Maust Spring Garden Township John Holman Springettsbury Township Barbara Sweitzer Springfield Township Jake Romig Watershed Alliance of York, Inc. Carol Hill-Evans York City Planning Commission Michael Black York City Redevelopment Authority Joe Crosswhite York County Community Foundation Gary Peacock York County Conservation District Darrell Auterson York County Economic Development Corp Bruce Grove York County Farm Bureau Jackie Kramer York County Farm & Natural Lands Trust Tom Warman York County Rail Trail Authority Scott Depoe York Township, Public Works Dept. Jeff Hines York Water Company Louise Heckert York County Senior Environment Corps Tom Wolf Codorus Watershed Endowment Deb Busch City of York Judy Hilliard Manchester Borough Genevieve Ray Codorus Watershed Project Felicia Dell York County Planning Commission Bill Clifton Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA

8.3. Strategy outline for informing citizens about watershed issues and soliciting their involvement in plan development and implementation (e.g. press releases, web site presentations and public meetings)

Public relations include ongoing activities to ensure that the Codorus Watershed Restoration Project has a strong public image. Public relations activities include helping the public to understand the key players and the project. Effective public relations depend on designing and implementing a well-designed public relations plan.

The plan includes description of the following:

1. What we want to convey to whom – “The benefits of landowner cooperation with stream bank and channel stabilization, riparian buffer restoration and habitat improvements.”

2. How we plan to convey it: a. Project brochures b. Newsletters c. News Releases

8-3 Codorus WIP 8.0 Information/Education 12/6/2007

d. Conferences & Workshops e. Web Sites f. Forming Partnerships g. Individual landowner contacts and public education and outreach through existing channels, local news media and other means. h. The Codorus Creek Watershed Association was approached by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and offered a 319 Watershed Implementation Program grant to prepare the Codorus Watershed Implementation Plan. Responsibility for forming a Technical Advisory Team was deferred from CCWA to the Codorus Watershed Endowment, due to time and resource constraints. The watershed advisory team was formed in 2004 in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) Sections 206 and 1135 feasibility studies for restoring the watershed and flood control improvements. The Codorus Implementation Committee has agreed to initiate implementation of the Plan once approved by DEP and EPA-III, and will be responsible for managing implementation and evaluating progress annually from 2007 to 2010, and beyond. i. Anticipated annual costs for these public education and outreach activities include the following are summarized in Table 8-3.

Table 8-3. Anticipated Annual Costs for Information/Education Activities

Public Education & Outreach Activity Estimated Cost Advertising & promotion $2,500 Printing I/E materials $2,500 Newsletter (including printing & postage) $5,000 Web site operation & maintenance $150 Other (public meetings, programs, etc.) $2,500 Total $12,650.00

8-4 Codorus WIP 9.0 Financial & Technical Assistance 12/6/2007

9. Technical and Financial Assistance Needed to Implement BMPs

This section gives estimated costs of design, installation and maintenance. An evaluation of sources of funding for plan implementation is included. Additionally, implementation shortfalls are identified and addressed.

9.1. Estimated costs of design, installation and maintenance

Cost estimates for the design, installation and maintenance of restoration activities outlined in the previous section are given in Table 9-1. Design, installation and maintenance costs were estimated from past and present watershed restoration project experiences. Maintenance costs include projected expenses for minor repairs, replacements and other expenses over a 3-year period.

Table 9-1. Cost estimates for seven selected BMPs for designated and mapped targeted areas Area BMP Total BMP BMP Total Restored/ Unit BMP BMP Length Width Area Selected Appropriate BMPs Protected Cost Cost Sites (feet) (feet) (SF) (acres) (Dollars) (Dollars) Riparian Forest Buffer 306 436,277 70 30,539,390 701.09 $2,000 $1,402,176 Livestock Stream Crossing (LF) 51 5,100 16 81,600 1.87 $2.50 $204,000 Stream Bank Fencing (LF) 94 137,295 - 0 110.32 $2.00 $274,590 Nutrient Management Plan (ac) 98 139,735 100 13,973,500 320.79 $0.01 $9,620 Stormwater Management (LF) 24 1,200 70 84,000 1.93 $25 $2,100,000 FGM Stream Restoration (mi) 22 54,259 - 0 10.28 $150 $8,138,850 Wetlands Restoration (ac) 7 10,805 3,500 5,402,500 124.03 $1,225 $151,930 Totals 602 784,671 - 50,080,990 1270.31 - $12,281,166

9.2. Evaluation of sources of funding for plan implementation

Estimates of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and the sources or authorities that will be relied on to implement the entire plan are given below (table 9-2) and potential sources of funding are listed (table 9-3).

State and federal governing agencies are the most viable sources of financial assistance for restoration implementation measures. These dollars can be used to leverage additional financial resources from private landowners, business and industry, nonprofit organizations, and individuals who live. Work and play in the Codorus Creek Watershed.

Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has committed $5,000,000 to designing and implementing it’s Water Resources Development Act Feasibility Study under Section #206. The Corps requires a 65%/35% match between it and the York City and County.

9-1 Codorus WIP 9.0 Financial & Technical Assistance 12/6/2007

Table 9-2. Evaluation of sources of technical and financial assistance needed for plan implementation Technical Financial Assistance Assistance Sources or Authorities Implementation Tracking BMPs Needed Needed Riparian Forest Buffer Planning $1,402,176 Chesapeake Bay Small Codorus Creek Watershed Design Watershed Grants Association National Fish & Wildlife NRCS Foundation York County Conservation Conservation Reserve District Enhancement Program Livestock Stream Crossing Design $204,000 Chesapeake Bay Program, NRCS Permitting PADEP York County Conservation District Stream Bank Fencing Planning $274,590 Chesapeake Bay Program, NRCS Design PADEP York County Conservation Conservation Reserve District Enhancement Program Nutrient Management Plans Planning $9,620 Nutrient Management NRCS Design Program, PADEP York County Conservation District Stormwater Management Design $2,100,000 Act 167 Stormwater Local Municipalities Permitting Management, PADEP York County Planning Growing Greener Program Commission FGM Stream Restoration Design $8,138,850 Growing Greener Program Izaak Walton League York Permitting 319 Nonpoint Source Program, Chapter PADEP York County Conservation WRDA Sec. 206, USACE District Wetlands Restoration Design $151,930 Growing Greener Program Izaak Walton League York Permitting 319 Nonpoint Source Program, Chapter PADEP NRCS Environmental Quality York County Conservation Incentives Program, NRCS District WRDA Sec. 206, USACE USACE Totals $12,281,166

9-2 Codorus WIP 9.0 Financial & Technical Assistance 12/6/2007

Table 9-3. Evaluation of other sources of funding for plan implementation Stream Corridor Protection Funding Options PENNSYLVANIA Eligibility Program Funding Areas What's Offered * Project Eligibility local other Examples Program name individuals govt. orgs capital plan edu maint Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) X X X 50/50% cost share and payments ag,rb,w farmers Reforestation Tax Credit X X 10% tax credit rb private Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) X X X cost share 75% up to $10,000 ag,er,rb,w private forests grants for wetland construction and individuals, public private, Wetlands Replacement Program - DEP X X X X plant materials rb,w private agencies

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) X X X X cost share of 75% up to $50,000 er,rb ag or livestock producers Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) X X X X easement cost share and incentives rb,w private land Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) X X X X cost share up to 75% ag,rb,w private land Woodland Incentive Program (WIP) X X X X cost share 50% for forest practices rb private forest State Revolving Loan Fund - Water Quality (SRF) X X X X X low interest loans er,np local govts Stream Improvement Program - DEP X X planning & design assistance np,er local govt Partners for Fish & Wildlife - USFWS X X X X grants to $25,000 to restore habitat w,rb private landowners Advance Funding Program - PENNVEST X X X X low interest loans & limited grants er,np,rb,w govt, public, private orgs Water Quality Cooperative Agreements - CWA (Clean state/local govt, orgs, Water Act) section 104(b)(3) - EPA X X X X X X grants -point source pollution np individuals Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) X X X formula grant np local "central cities" Stormwater Project Loans - PENNVEST X X X low interest loans ag,er,np,rb,w govt. agencies Flood Protection Program - DEP X X X grants er,np,rb local govts Coastal Zone Management Program - Pennsylvania X X X X matching grants ag,er,np,rb,w state/local govts, univ Construction Loan Program - PENNVEST X X X X low interest loans, supplemental grants np local govt & agencies Community Grant Program - DCNR X X X X 50% cost share, 100% for small towns er,rb,w municipalities (for parks) Small Watershed Program - (Public Law 566) X X X X X grants to to 65%, and loans np state/local govt Stormwater Management Program - DEP X X X X X grants to 75% & technical assistance ag,er,np,rb,w counties, municipalities

State Planning Assistance Grant (SPAG) Program X X 50% local match required ag,er,np,rb,w counties and municipalities Small Communities Planning Assistance Program X X grants ag,er,np,rb,w small local govts grants to $50,000, and small seed Watershed Restoration & Assistance Program (WRAP) X X X X X grants ag,er,np,rb,w org's and public agencies matching funds to local aquatic local govt, nonprofit orgs, Community Based Restoration Projects - NOAA X X X X X X restoration efforts er,rb,w watershed groups Chesapeake Bay Trust Grants X X X X mostly < $5000 ag,er,np,rb,w local govt, orgs, nonprof

Rivers Conservation Grant Program - DCNR X X X X up to 50% cost-share, max $50,000 er,rb,w local govt & organizations

Sustainable Development Challenge Grant (SDCG) X X X X X up to $250,000. 20% local match req. er,np,rb,w local govt & organizations state/local govt, nonprofit, Chesapeake Bay Program Subcommittee Grants X X X X X X 1:1 nonfederal match ag,er,np,rb,w university 9-3 Codorus WIP 9.0 Financial & Technical Assistance 12/6/2007

grants for planning and nonpoint state/local govt, cons dist, 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Grants - DEP X X X X X X source pollution control ag,er,np,rb,w univ, watershed orgs

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) X X X X X X 50% nonfederal match required w local govt, other orgs state/local govt, univ, Environmental Education Grants - EPA Region 3 X X X grants to nonprofits, to 75% of costs ag,er,np,rb,w nonprofit orgs Community Forestry Program - DCNR X X X X X match grants: gov-50%, orgs-90% er, rb, np municipalities, orgs Land Trust Grants X X up to 50% of cost ag,er,np,rb,w land trusts, etc. Environmental Education Grants - Pennsylvania DEP X X grant up to $10,000 ag,er,np,rb,w schools, nonprofits, orgs *project examples: ag = agricultural, er = erosion, np = nonpoint source pollution, rb = riparian forest buffers, w = wetlands

Watershed-based methods are discussed in the "Financing Alternatives" report (118 These state and Federal programs may be supplemented by local or regional fund-generating initiatives. Innovative financing ideas to pages), $5 from the EFC, to address nonpoint and point source water pollution. A improve water quality are described in "Financing Alternatives for Maryland's Tributary Strategies." summary with funding categories is available on our web site.

9-4 Codorus WIP 9.0 Financial & Technical Assistance 12/6/2007

9.3. Implementation shortfalls identified

Implementation shortfalls identified are in three key areas:

1) Financial

2) Technical, and

3) Human resources.

Funding shortfalls are the most critical limitation to implementing the plan. The current environment of federal and state budget deficits and the economy is not encouraging. Competition for limited grants and funding among stakeholder groups is increasing in all areas.

Technical shortfalls of skilled and knowledgeable restoration and protection professionals may occur if all projects are funded and proceed on schedule. This shortfall may be overcome by hiring and training more restoration technicians and professionals locally or hiring them externally.

Finally, a shortfall of human resources in terms of volunteers to do office and field work is already a problem with existing projects. Most construction-related field work will be done by hired professionals.

9-5 Codorus WIP References 12/6/2007

References

Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM). Analysis of data collected by the Codorus Creek Monitoring Network March 1991-December 1999. 2000. Environmental Studies Department, Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA.

Codorus Chapter Trout Unlimited. Upper West Branch Codorus Creek Conservation Plan. 2002.

Codorus Creek Watershed Association. Assessment of the West Branch and Main Stem Codorus. 2001.

Codorus Creek Watershed Association. Oil Creek Restoration & TMDL Implementation. 2003.

Codorus Creek Watershed Association. Codorus Watershed Conservation Plan. 2005.

Dudley, Judith L and Hall, Timothy J. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Codorus Creek and Oil Creek (York County, PA). Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 75(1): 27-34, 2001.

Guidance for Developing Watershed-Based Plans for Impaired Waters—Draft Outline, United States Environmental Protection Agency. November 15, 2002

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. East Branch Watershed Assessment. 1998.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. East Branch Stream Restoration Phase I. 2000.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. East Branch stream restoration Phase II. 2001.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. South Branch Watershed Assessment. 1999.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. South Branch Stream Restoration Phase I. 1999.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. South Branch Stream Restoration Phase II. 2000.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. East Branch Restoration Implementation Phase II. 2001.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. East Branch Restoration Implementation Phase IV. 2002.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. East Branch restoration Phase V. 2004.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. East & South Branch Restoration Monitoring & Maintenance. 2004.

a Codorus WIP References 12/6/2007

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. South Branch Restoration Implementation Phase III. 2001.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. South Branch Restoration Implementation Phase IV. 2002.

Izaak Walton League – York Chapter. South Branch Restoration Implementation Phase V. 2003.

Meckley III, Daniel G. The Codorus. 2000. York College, York, PA.

Natural Resource Conservation Service – USDA. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Assessment. 1996.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Environmental Futures Planning List of Causes and Issues. 2001.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Pennsylvania Gazetteer of Streams (Draft). 2001.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Pennsylvania’s Water Quality Report 303d/305b Listings. 2000.

Pennsylvania Senior Environment Corp (PASEC). Water Quality Monitoring Data 1999- 2001.

Penn State York. East & South Branch Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 2003.

Spring Garden Twp. Rehabilitation of Former Brownfield Site to Park. 2001.

Spring Garden Twp. Rehabilitation of Former Brownfield Site to Park. 2002.

United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of York County, PA. 2000.

United States Geologic Survey. Design and Implementation of Water Quality Studies, 1992-95. Water Quality Assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland. 1997. National Water-Quality Assessment Program.

United States Geologic Survey. Sources, Characteristics, Analysis, and Limitations of Nutrient and Suspended Sediment Data, 1975-90. Water-Quality Assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland. 1997. National Water-Quality Assessment Program.

b Codorus WIP References 12/6/2007

United States Geologic Survey. Bacteriological Quality of Ground Water Used for Household Supply, 1996. Water-Quality Assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland. 1997. National Water-Quality Assessment Program.

United States Geologic Survey. Environmental Setting, 1996. Water-Quality Assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland. 1997. National Water-Quality Assessment Program.

United States Geologic Survey. Summary of Factors Affecting Pesticide Concentrations in Stream and Shallow Wells of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1993-95. 2001.

United States Geologic Survey. Water-Quality Assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland. 1997. National Water-Quality Assessment Program.

United States Geologic Survey. Water Quality Assessment of the Lower Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland Maps, 1996. 1997. National Water-Quality Assessment Program.

Watershed Alliance of York. York County Citizen Volunteer Monitoring Program Study Design. 2001.

York County Conservation District. Chesapeake Bay Program Agricultural Conservation Needs Assessment. 1992.

York County Conservation District. East Branch In-Stream Habitat Improvement. 1994.

York County Parks & Recreation. Streambank Improvement on the East Branch Codorus Creek. 2000.

York County Planning Commission. Act 537 Sewage Facility Plans (72).

York County Planning Commission. Act 167 Stormwater Management Planning: South Branch Codorus Creek. 2000.

York County Planning Commission. Community Facilities. 1995.

York County Planning Commission. York County Comprehensive Plan. 1997.

York County Planning Commission. York County Natural Areas Inventory. 1997.

York County Planning Commission. York County Growth Trends. 1995.

York County Planning Commission. York County Growth Management Areas. 1997.

c Codorus WIP References 12/6/2007

York County Planning Commission. York County Natural Areas Inventory. 1997.

York County Planning Commission. A Strategy for Agricultural Land Preservation in York County, Pennsylvania. 2000.

York County Planning Commission. Heritage Rail Trail County Park Development Plan. 2000.

York County Planning Commission. York County’s Water Resources. 2003.

Yorktowne Senior Environment Corps. Citizen Volunteer Monitoring Program Study Design. 2000.

d Codorus WIP Glossary 12/6/2007

Glossary

The following terms are used throughout this plan. Refer back to this list if you need to determine the meaning of any of these terms.

Baseline – An initial set of observations or data used for comparison or as a control; a starting point.

Best management practice (BMP) – A method that has been determined to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources.

Biocriteria – The biological characteristics that quantitatively describe a waterbody with a healthy community of fish and associated aquatic organisms. Components of biocriteria include the presence and seasonality of key indicator species; the abundance, diversity, and structure of the aquatic community; and the habitat conditions required for these organisms.

Calibration – Testing and tuning of a model to a set of field data not used in developing the model; also includes minimization of deviations between measured field conditions and output of a model by selecting appropriate model coefficients.

Clinger richness – A metric used to measure the diversity of macroinvertebrates that have the ability to attach to the substrate in flowing water.

Criteria – Standards that define minimum conditions, pollutant limits, goals, and other requirements that the waterbody must attain or maintain to support its designated use or uses. Criteria describe physical, chemical, and biological attributes or conditions as measurable (e.g., parts per million of a certain chemical) or narrative (e.g., no objectionable odors) water quality components.

CWA section 303(d) – Section of the Clean Water Act under which states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters.

CWA section 305(b) – Section of the Clean Water Act under which states are required to prepare a report describing the status of their water quality every 2 years.

CWA section 319 – Section of the Clean Water Act under which EPA has developed guidelines to help states, territories, and tribes implement nonpoint source pollutant management programs and provide grants to fund the programs.

Delineation – The process of identifying a watershed boundary on the basis of topographic information.

Designated use – Simple narrative description of water quality expectations or water quality goals. A designated use is a legally recognized description of a desired use of the

1 Codorus WIP Glossary 12/6/2007

waterbody, such as (1) support of communities of aquatic life, (2) body contact recreation, (3) fish consumption, and (4) public drinking water supply. These are uses that the state or authorized tribe wants the waterbody to be healthy enough to fully support. The Clean Water Act requires that waterbodies attain or maintain the water quality needed to support designated uses.

Eutrophication – Enrichment of an aquatic ecosystem with nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus) that accelerate biological productivity (growth of algae and weeds) and an undesirable accumulation of algal biomass.

Geographic information system (GIS) – A tool that links spatial features commonly seen on maps with information from various sources ranging from demographics to pollutant sources.

Hydrologic unit code (HUC) – A unique code, consisting of two to eight digits (based on the four levels of classification in the hydrologic unit system), that identifies each hydrologic unit.

Information/education (I/E) activities – Public outreach.

Impaired waterbody – A waterbody that does not meet the criteria that support its designated use.

Indicator – Direct or indirect measurements of some valued component or quality in a system. Can be used to measure the current health of the watershed and to provide a way to measure progress toward meeting the watershed goals.

Management measure – A group of cost-effective practices implemented cooperatively to achieve more comprehensive goals, such as reducing the loads of sediment form a field to receiving waters.

Management practice – A method that is effective and practical for preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources. Management practices, which are the building blocks of management measures, are similar to best management practices.

McNeil core – A streambed sample collected with a McNeil core sampler and used to characterize the composition of the substrate.

Model – A representation of an environmental system obtained through the use of mathematical equations or relationships.

Model application – The use of a model or models to address defined questions at a specific location.

Modeling system – A computer program or software package that incorporates a model and input and output systems to facilitate application.

2 Codorus WIP Glossary 12/6/2007

Narrative criteria – Nonnumeric descriptions of desirable or undesirable water quality conditions.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – A provision of the Clean Water Act that prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a state, or, where delegated, a tribal government on an Indian reservation.

Nine minimum elements – Components that EPA has identified as critical for achieving improvements in water quality. EPA requires that these nine elements be addressed for section 319-funded watershed plans and strongly recommends they be included in all watershed plans that are intended to remediate water quality impairments.

Nonpoint source – Diffuse pollution source; a source without a single point of origin or not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. The pollutants are generally carried off the land by stormwater. Common nonpoint sources are agriculture, forestry, urban areas, mining, construction, dams, channels, land disposal, saltwater intrusion, and city streets.

Nonstructural practice – A practice that prevents or reduces runoff problems in receiving waters by reducing the generation of pollutants and managing runoff at the source. This type of practice may be included in a regulation or may involve voluntary pollution prevention practices.

Numeric criteria – Criteria or limits for many common pollutants that are based on laboratory and other studies that test or otherwise examine the effects of pollutants on live organisms of different species.

Point source – A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged; any single identifiable source of pollution, such as a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, or factory smokestack.

Pollutant – A contaminant in a concentration or amount that adversely alters the physical, chemical, or biological properties of the natural environment.

Pollutant load – The amount of pollutants entering a waterbody. Loads are usually expressed in terms of a weight and a time frame, such as pounds per day (lb/d).

Stakeholder – Individual or organization that has a stake in the outcome of the watershed plan.

Structural practice – A practice, such as a stormwater basin or streambank fence, that requires construction, installation, and maintenance.

3 Codorus WIP Glossary 12/6/2007

Targeted sampling – Sampling in which sites are allocated to specific locations of concern (e.g., below discharges, in areas of particular land use, at stream junctions to isolate subwatersheds) for the purpose of trying to answer site-specific questions.

Threatened waterbody – A waterbody that is meeting standards but exhibits a declining trend in water quality such that it will likely exceed standards.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) – The amount, or load, of a specific pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the water quality standard for its designated use. For impaired waters the TMDL reduces the overall load by allocating the load among current pollutant loads (from point and nonpoint sources), background or natural loads, a margin of safety, and sometimes an allocation for future growth.

Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) – An equation used to predict the average rate of erosion of an area on the basis of the rainfall, soil type, topography, and management measures of the area.

Validation – Subsequent testing of a precalibrated model to additional field data, usually under different external conditions, to further examine the model’s ability to predict future conditions. Same as verification.

Water quality standards – Standards that set the goals, pollution limits, and protection requirements for each waterbody. These standards are composed of designated (beneficial) uses, numeric and narrative criteria, and antidegradation policies and procedures.

Watershed – Land area that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, or ultimately the ocean.

Watershed approach – A flexible framework for managing water resource quality and quantity within specified drainage area, or watershed. This approach includes stakeholder involvement and management actions supported by sound science and appropriate technology.

Watershed plan – A document that provides assessment and management information for a geographically defined watershed, including the analyses, actions, participants, and resources related to development and implementation of the plan.

4 Appendices

Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

Appendix A – Best Management practices Typical Drawings

2 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

3 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

4 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

5 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

6 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

7 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

8 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

9 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

10 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

11 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

12 Codorus WIP Appendix A – BMPs 12/6/2007

13 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets

CONTENTS WORKSHEET 1: Identifying Stakeholder’s Skills and Resources WORKSHEET 2: What Do We Already Know? WORKSHEET 3: Building a Conceptual Model WORKSHEET 4: Identifying Concerns, Goals, and Indicators WORKSHEET 5: What Data Analyses Do We Need to Conduct? WORKSHEET 6: Identifying Existing Management Efforts WORKSHEET 7: Documenting Management Measure Opportunities and Constraints WORKSHEET 8: Template for Implementation Plan Matrix WORKSHEET 9: Developing Criteria to Measure Progress in Meeting Water Quality Goals WORKSHEET 10: Basic Components of a Watershed Plan WORKSHEET 11: Checklist for Reviewing Section 319 Work Plans WORKSHEET 12: Nine-Element Watershed Management Plan WORKSHEET 13: Watershed Stakeholder Advisory Committee Evaluation WORKSHEET 14: Questions to Ask Implementation Team at Quarterly Review of Plan

1 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 1: Identifying Stakeholder’s Skills and Resources

Name:

Phone: E-mail:

Skills/resources Check skills Comments possess or access to these resources

SKILLS Accounting Graphic design Computer support Fundraising Public relations Technical expertise Facilitation Other – Monitoring RESOURCES Contacts with media Access to volunteers Access to datasets Connections to local organizations Access to meeting facilities Access to equipment Access to field trip locations Other

Please identify any other skills or resources you bring to the group:

2 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 2: What Do We Already Know?

1. What are the known or perceived impairments and problems in the watershed?

2. Do we already know the causes and sources of any water quality impairments in the watershed? If so, what are they?

3. What information is already available, and what analyses have been performed to support development of a TMDL, watershed plan, or other document?

4. Have the relevant contributions from major types of sources of the pollutants or stressor causing impairment been estimated?

5. Are there any historical or ongoing management efforts aimed at controlling the problem or stressors?

6. Are there any threats to future conditions, such as accelerated development patterns?

7. Have any additional concerns or goals been identified by the stakeholders?

3 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 3: Building a Conceptual Model

The conceptual model is essentially made up of three parts – the sources (at the top); the impairments (at the bottom); and the stressors or the steps/relationships between the sources and impairments (in the middle).

1. Start at the end: Define the impairments

The impairments are the endpoints for the conceptual model. Add the impairments in boxes at the bottom of the next page. Put each impairment in its own box on the worksheet. Be as specific as possible. Keep the impairments on the same sheet (don’t make a separate sheet for each impairment). You might find that the impairments share common sources and are linked in unexpected ways.

2. Go to the top

Start listing the most likely sources of impairment. In general, you will identify many more sources than impairments. List the sources in boxes at the top of the next page.

3. Identify the stressors and impacts that link sources to impairments

These boxes provide the links between the sources and the impairments. Draw in as few or as many stressors and impacts as are needed to show cause and effect between sources.

4. Connect the sources, stressors, impacts, and impairments

Start drawing arrows between the sources, linages and impairments. You might have arrows that go from sources to sources (e.g., between logging and unpaved roads), from sources to linkages, and finally from linkages to the impairments.

4 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 3: Building a Conceptual Model (continued)

Protected Agriculture Aquatic Life Drinking Other Uses Water

Impairments Nutrients Sediment Turbidity Temperature Toxics

Impacts Water Habitat Public Health Biodiversity Quality

Stressors Nitrogen & Dissolved Turbidity & Thermal Phosphorus Oxygen Toxics

Sources Cropland & Streambanks Stormwater POTWs & Livestock & Channels Runoff IWTW

5 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 4: Identifying Concerns, Goals, and Indicators

What are the How can we What would you How will we problems/ What do you assess current like to see for measure progress concerns in the think caused the conditions? your watershed? towards meeting watershed? problems? (Indicators) (Goals) those goals? (Indicators)

6 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 5: What Data Analyses Do We Need to Conduct?

Questions to Help Determine What Kinds of Data Analyses Are Needed

Question Answer 1. Are water quality standards being met? If so, are they maintaining existing levels?

2. Is water quality threatened?

3. Is water quality impaired?

4. Are there known or expected sources causing impairment?

5. Where do impairments occur?

6. When do the impairments occur? Are they affected by seasonal variation?

7. Under what conditions (e.g., flow, weather) are the impairments observed?

8. Do multiple impairments (e.g., nutrients, bacteria) coexist?

9. Are there other impairments that are not measured by water quality standards?

Questions to Answer Based on the Results of the Data Analysis

1. What beneficial uses for the waterbodies are being impaired? What pollutants are impairing them?

2. What are the potential sources, nonpoint and point, that contribute to the impairment?

3. When do sources contribute pollutant loads?

4. How do pollutants enter the waterbody (e.g., runoff, point sources, contaminated groundwater, land uses)?

5. What characteristics of the waterbody, the watershed, or both could be affecting the impairment (e.g., current or future growth, increased industrial areas, future NPDES permits, use of septic systems)?

6. Revisit the conceptual model showing the watershed processes and sources, and revise it if necessary.

7 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 6: Identifying Existing Management Efforts

Wastewater Discharges (Source of information: state water quality program administering NPDES permits) 1. Where are wastewater discharges located in the watershed? If possible, map them.

2. What volume of wastewater is being discharged?

3. What are the parameters of concern in the effluent?

4. For each permit, what are the existing requirements?

5. What is the recent (5-year) history of permit compliance? How severe are the violations, and what caused them?

6. Are significant treatment plant upgrades being planned? If so, will the future discharge show a net increase or decrease in pollutant loading?

7. Have potential threats to diminishing water supplies been identified in a source water assessment?

On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (Source of information: local municipalities) 8. Where are concentrations of on-site systems located? If possible, map them)

9. Are there known concentrations of failing on-site systems? If so, where?

10. Is there a homeowners’ education program for proper maintenance of on-site systems? Is there an inspection program?

11. What is the depth of the water table?

Urban Stormwater Runoff (Source of information: county stormwater management plans) 12. Are borough and municipalities in the watershed covered by a NPDES stormwater permit? If so, what are the conditions of the permit?

13. Do local governments in the watershed have stormwater ordinances? If so, what are the requirements?

14. Do the regulations address stormwater volume and pollutant loading?

15. Do the stormwater requirements apply to redevelopment of existing developed areas?

16. Does the local government have a public education program for pollution prevention?

17. Does the local government have a stream restoration and BMP retrofit program? Are projects being located in your watershed? 18. Are any new ordinances or programs being developed or planned?

Agricultural and Forestry Practices (Sources of information: local NRCS, Conservation District and Forest Service) 19. Are there areas with active farming or logging in the watershed? If so, map them.

8 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

20. Are management plans in place where these activities are occurring?

21. What percentage of the area uses management practices for controlling sediment and other pollutants? Are these practices effective? If not, why? Are monitoring data available? 22. For areas not using management practices to control runoff, what have been the obstacles to their use? 23. Are there existing stream side buffers? If so, how wide are they?

Wetlands and Critical Habitat Protection (Sources of information: DEP, YCEMA, YCPC, PFBC, PGC) 24. Have wetlands been identified and evaluated for the habitat value, water quality benefits, and flood control contributions? 25. To what extent do natural buffers and floodplains remain in the watershed?

26. What projects have gone into create or restore wetlands and wetland formations?

9 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 7: Documenting Management Measure Opportunities and Constraints

Sources: (e.g., streambanks, urban stormwater, failing septic systems, livestock in streams)

Causes: (e.g., eroding streambanks, unlimited access of livestock, undersized culverts)

Name of management program or measure (NRCS Std.):

Data Source: (i.e., where you obtained information on the management measure)

Description: (what it is and what it does)

Approximate Unit Cost: (including installation, operation and maintenance costs; may be expressed as a range)

Approximate or Relative Load Reduction for Each Parameter of Concern: (could be high, moderate or low, or unit reduction per acre per year)

Planning Considerations: (e.g., project factors such as site size and contributing watershed area; physical factors such as slope, depth to water table, and soil type limitations or considerations; operation and maintenance requirements)

Skills: (needed to implement the management measures e.g., engineering, landscape design, construction)

Permits:

Other: (e.g., stakeholders willingness to use measures)

10 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 8: Template for Implementation Plan Matrix

Note: Prepare one worksheet for each management objective identified.

Watershed Goal:

Management Objective:

Implementation Activities

Management Who Needs to Be Costs (Annual/Total Schedule/Milestones Measures Involved? Funding Sources) Short Med Long Remain MM1 Benefits/estimated load reduction MM2 Benefits/estimated load reduction MM3 Benefits/estimated load reduction Information/Education (I/E) Activities I/E 1

I/E 2

I/E 3

Monitoring Component

11 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 9: Developing Criteria to Measure Progress in Meeting Water Quality Goals

Note: Complete one worksheet for each management objective identified.

Management Objective:

Indicators to Measure Progress Target Value Interim Targets or Goal Short-term Medium-term Long-term

12 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 10: Basic Components of a Watershed Plan

Key Watershed Planning Components Done Comments Include the geographic extent of the watershed covered by the plan. Identify the measurable water quality goals, including the appropriate water quality standards and designated uses. Identify the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve the water quality standards. Break down the sources to the subcategory level. Estimate the pollutant loads entering the waterbody. Determine the pollutant load reductions needed to meet the water quality goals. Identify critical areas in which management measures are needed. Identify the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions. Prepare an information/education component that identifies the education and outreach activities needed for implementing the watershed management plan. Develop a schedule for implementing the plan. Develop interim, measurable milestones for determining whether management measures are being implemented. Develop a set of criteria to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved and progress is being made toward attaining (or maintaining) water quality standards, and specify what measures will be taken if progress has not been demonstrated. Develop a monitoring component to determine whether the plan is being implemented appropriately and whether progress toward attainment or maintenance of applicable water quality standards is being achieved. Estimate the costs to implement the plan, including management measures, I/E activities, and monitoring. Identify the sources and amounts of financial and technical assistance and associated authorities available to implement the management measures. Develop an evaluation framework.

13 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 11: Checklist for Reviewing Section 319 Work Plans

Watershed:

Plan(s): Document(s) reviewed and dates. a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed-based plan (and to achieve any other watershed goals identified in the watershed-based plan), as discussed in item b immediately below. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility, Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control, or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation). Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

b. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures described under paragraph c below (recognizing the natural variability and the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time). Estimates should be provided at the same level as in item a above (e.g., the total load reduction expected for row crops, or eroded streambanks). Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

c. A description of the BMPs and techniques (nonpoint source management measures) that are expected to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under item b above (as well as to achieve other watershed goals identified in this watershed-based plan), and an identification (using a map or a description) of the critical areas (by pollutant or sector) in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan. Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, monitoring and I&E cost, associated administrative costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied on to implement the entire plan (include administrative, I&E, and monitoring costs). Expected sources of funding, states to be used section 319 programs, State Revolving Funds, USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Reserve Program, and other relevant federal, state, local, and private funds to assist in implementing this plan. Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

14 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007 e. An information/education component that will be implemented to enhance public understanding of the project and enable the public’s early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS management measures that will be implemented (cost needs to be included in item d above). Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

f. A schedule for implementing the activities and NPS management measures identified in this plan. Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

g. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management measures or other control actions are being implemented and what will be done if the project is not meeting its milestones. Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

h. A set of environmental, social, and administrative criteria that will be used to determine whether the implementation schedule is being met, loading reductions are being achieved over time, and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standard. These criteria provide the basis for determining whether the watershed-based plan needs to be revised or whether the nonpoint source TMDL needs to be revised. Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

i. A monitoring and evaluation component to track progress and evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under items g and h above. Plan(s) meets element as demonstrated. Plan(s) does not meet element. The following additional information is required:

15 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 12: Nine-Element Watershed Management Plan

The following worksheet provides guidance for the development of a watershed management plan that meets the requirements of the EPA to be eligible for certain grant funding. It is designed to help the user find basic information to begin the development of the watershed management plan, as well as providing information about the nine-elements that are required by the plan. The completion of this worksheet should provide the user with the basic necessary information from which an approved watershed management plan can be developed and ultimately implemented.

Completing the Worksheet: This worksheet must include the Waterbody Identification Number (WBID) of the impaired waterbody that the planning effort will address.

If a Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) has been written for the watershed, the Watershed Management plan must be designed to achieve the reduction in pollutant load called for in the Non-Point Source TMDL. If a TMDL has not been developed for the waterbody, the plan must include implementation practices to remove the waterbody from the 303(d) list.

Project Information Project Name: Waterbody Name(s) Waterbody ID Number

Project Sponsor: Address:

Project Manager:

Phone: E-mail: Watershed Identification Name of Watershed: HUC odes for all 14-Digit Watersheds in the planning Effort: Total Area Encompassed in Planning Area (Acres): Approved TMDLs with NPS Waterbody WBID Size Pollutants Source impairments, if any (See Attachment B) Does the area encompass a Yes Name(s): Public Water Supply? No

16 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

Elements of the Watershed Management Plan (See Attachment C) Element A Pollutant Category (See Attachment D) Element A Pollutants Addressed in Mark all that apply Quantify Sources of the Plan Ag Ag Silv C U/ HM LD RE Pollutants (e.g., #, acres, CP LS SW miles, etc.) Sediment Nutrients Pesticides Fecal Coliforms Dissolved Oxygen Metals pH Temperature Other/Unknown Notes: Ag CP Ag Crop Production; Ag AP Ag Livestock; Silv Silviculture (Forestry); C Construction; U/SW Urban Stormwater; HM Hydologic/Habitat Modification; LD Land Disposal; RE Resource Extraction

NPS Management Measures – Element C BMP to be implemented (NRCS Stds. Electronic Filed Office Estimate of Pollutant Load Technical Guide) Total # or Acres Unit of Measure Reduction – Element B

Describe Methods Used to Estimate Pollutant Load Reduction

17 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

Estimate of Assistance Needed – Element D Agency Providing Technical Assistance (See Appendix J of NPS Management Plan) Technical Assistance to be Provided

Agency Providing Financial Assistance (See Appendix J of NPS Management Plan) Amount of Financial Assistance to be Provided

Schedule for BMP Implementation – Element F Anticipated Date of Completion BMP to be Implemented 25% 50% 75% 100%

Description of Interim Milestones – Element G Describe interim, measureable milestones:

Method Used to Determine Load Reduction – Element H Pollutant Types Fixed Station Network Intensive Surveys Toxics Monitoring Program Biological Monitoring Program Fish Tissue Analysis Volunteer Monitoring Program Other

18 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

Monitoring Program – Element I Describe monitoring component(s):

Information/Education Component – Element E Describe I/E component(s):

19 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 13: Watershed Stakeholder Advisory Committee Evaluation

Purpose: To determine how the level of participation in the Watershed Stakeholder Advisory Committee has changed over the past 2 years and why, and to assess the usefulness of the Committee.

Name/Affiliation:

PARTICIPATION

1. How many Watershed Stakeholder Advisory Committee meetings have you participated in over the past 2 years?

2. If you have not participated in all the meetings, what factors would have increased your participation? Hosting the meetings closer to where I live in the watershed. Hosting the meeting at a time that was more convenient for me, such as ______. Providing more advanced notice of where and when the meeting was to be held. Including topics for discussion that were more relevant to my interests. Other (Specify):

GROUP STRUCTURE

3. Do you feel the size of the group was adequate? If not, please explain.

4. Do you feel the composition of the group was representative of the watershed community?

GROUP INPUT

5. Do you feel the meetings were held to optimize participation from the attendees? If not, please explain.

6. Do you feel that your input was incorporated into the watershed management planning process? If not, please explain.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

7. What do you think are the most useful aspects of the Watershed Stakeholder Advisory Committee?

8. What do you think can make the Watershed Stakeholder Advisory Committee more useful?

9. Would you like to be involved in future watershed protection efforts?

20 Codorus WIP Appendix B – Project Planning Worksheets 12/6/2007

WORKSHEET 14: Questions to Ask Implementation Team at Quarterly Review of Watershed Management Plan

Review Administrative and Management Activities

1. Are we on track with resources and expenditure?

2. Do we have any gaps in skills or do we need additional technical assistance?

3. What implementation activities have occurred since the last quarterly meeting?

4. Are we meeting our implementation milestones?

5. What are the next management measures to be implemented?

6. Do we have the resources/skills/authorities to proceed?

Review I/E Activities

7. Are we getting participation at the events?

8. What materials have been produced?

9. How were they distributed?

10. What are the upcoming I/E activities?

Review Monitoring Activities

11. Are we meeting our interim load reduction targets?

12. When is the next round of monitoring?

13. How will we publicize the monitoring results?

Additional Issues

14. Are there any upcoming initiatives or new regulatory requirements of which we need to be aware of?

15. Are there any additional issues that we need to discuss?