Conestoga River and Cocalico Creek, Lancaster Co., and Crum Creek, Delaware Co

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Conestoga River and Cocalico Creek, Lancaster Co., and Crum Creek, Delaware Co Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Biologist Report Conestoga River and Cocalico Creek, Lancaster Co., and Crum Creek, Delaware Co. 2012 and 2013 Warmwater Stream Survey In November, 2012 and October/November, 2013 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Area 6 personnel sampled Crum Creek, Delaware County (2012), Conestoga River, Lancaster County, and Cocalico Creek, a tributary to the Conestoga, Lancaster County (2013). Warmwater streams in southeastern Pennsylvania and statewide are gradually being surveyed to document warmwater fish communities as part of a greater project that would eventually characterize warmwater stream fish communities throughout the state. At the present time, results also provide anglers with information on new streams or stream segments to explore and fish. Two, four, and six sampling sites measuring 330-440 yards in length were electrofished in Crum Creek, Cocalico Creek, and the Conestoga River, respectively. The sampling sites occurred within stream segments listed in Table 1. Most stream segments except for Crum Creek near Ridley Park and the Conestoga River near Churchtown were characterized as being slow moving with moderately deep runs and glides, sluggish pools and only occasional riffles. Additionally, the majority of the pools ranged from three to four feet deep, but pools were sometimes as deep as 6.5 feet, providing the best habitat for larger smallmouth bass when pool substrates were firm. Sampled stream segments ranged from 20-80 feet in width, with a portion of the Conestoga study reach from Union Grove/Goodville east to Morgantown being the narrowest of the three streams. Sportfish communities primarily consisted of Smallmouth Bass, Rock bass and Redbreast Sunfish. As shown in Figure 1, Cocalico Creek had the highest electrofishing catch per hour (CPUE) for Smallmouth Bass, Rock Bass, and Redbreast Sunfish, with catch rates of 28 per hour, 91 per hour, and 50 per hour, respectively. Legal size Smallmouth Bass (≥12 inches) were most numerous in the Conestoga River, which also produced the largest smallmouth, a 16 inch fish. Three legal size Smallmouth Bass were also seen or captured in Cocalico Creek, the largest fish captured being 12 inches. Two larger Smallmouth Bass escaped the electrical field, however. Bass populations in all three waters were dominated by 6 to 9 inch fish. Rock Bass eight inches in length and larger were captured in Cocalico Creek and the Conestoga River. The Conestoga River produced the lone Redbreast Sunfish that was approximately seven inches in length. In all twelve to thirty-one unique fish species were captured in the three streams sampled (Table 2). Sixteen warmwater streams have been surveyed by Area 6 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission biologists since 2007 with the following links identifying past results: 2008 Warmwater Streams Report, 2009 Warmwater Streams Report. The highest electrofishing CPUE for Smallmouth Bass during that time span was 201 per hour from the East Branch Perkiomen Creek. The levee section of Codorus Creek, located within the city limits of York, yielded the greatest CPUE for Rock Bass at 157 per hour and Maiden Creek, Berks County produced the greatest abundance of Redbreast Sunfish, represented by a catch rate of 111 per hour. Small numbers of Largemouth Bass were captured in Crum Creek, Cocalico Creek, and the Conestoga River, primarily in impounded stream reaches with aquatic vegetation present. Six young-of-the-year Largemouth Bass were netted in Crum Creek, three in Cocalico Creek, and five in the Conestoga River. The Conestoga River produced a few adult Largemouth Bass as well, the largest, a 14 inch fish; but most specimens ranged from 7 to 10 inches in total length. Isolated areas of better habitat known to local anglers may have held larger individuals of the aforementioned species in any of these streams, but the electrofishing sites were selected to be representative of typical habitat for each stream. Some pools on Cocalico Creek and the Conestoga River were unwadable and could have harbored larger bass. Yellow and Brown Bullheads were found in two of the three streams sampled in 2012 and 2013. Moderate populations of predominantly Yellow Bullhead were present in the Conestoga River near Goodville and Hinkletown (CPUE =19 and 17 respectively). Also, fair numbers were seen in Cocalico Creek near Denver, Ephrata and Rothsville (9 per hour). Bullheads ranged in size from 2 inches to 10 inches, with the largest found in the Conestoga River. No Bullheads were found during the sampling of Crum Creek. An unusual find was a lone Slimy Sculpin from a small spring along the Conestoga River near Churchtown. Low-head dams continue to block or inhibit movement of fish within the Conestoga River and Cocalico Creek system despite progress made in removing some of the dams over the past decade. The mill dams on these and many other streams in Lancaster County and elsewhere were once associated with agricultural practices. Dams slow the downstream movement of water, which creates a sluggish stream flow that can be favorable to species such as Common Carp, Largemouth Bass, and bullheads. The movement of resident and migratory species, such as White Suckers and American Eels, however, is significantly impeded by numerous dams throughout this system. American Eels, which migrate from the Sargasso Sea as juveniles and utilize rivers and streams as nursery water before returning to the Sargasso Sea to spawn, were present in each of the streams surveyed, but only Crum Creek supported eels of all life stages. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission biologists documented only a few, adult American Eels in Cocalico Creek and the Conestoga River, but this was surprising in that eels are largely blocked from entering the Conestoga system by power dams on the Susquehanna River. These fish may have been some of the relatively few eels that enter the Susquehanna River power dams’ fish lifts along with American shad and other species in spring. While fishing access on some warmwater streams is limited, kayakers and canoeists can navigate segments of the Conestoga River. As always, with safety in mind and before setting out, kayakers and canoeists should familiarize themselves with the waters that they intend to float, including the location of dams, private lane bridges that may not be passable without portaging and access points facilitating take-out and put -in. Figure 1. Smallmouth Bass, Rock Bass and Redbreast Sunfish electrofishing catches per hour(CPUE)from Crum Creek (2012), Conestoga River (2013), and Cocalico Creek (2013). Table 1. Upper and Lower Survey Limits of Conestoga River, Crum Creek and Cocalico Creek. Stream Upper Survey Limit Lower Survey Limit Immediately South of Confluence with Cocalico Conestoga River Morgantown Creek Crum Creek East of Media Head-of-tide Cocalico Creek Denver, North of Ephrata Mouth of Stream Table 2. Species Occurrence in elecrofishing samples from the Conestoga River (2013), Crum Creek (2012) and Cocalico Creek (2013). Conestoga River Crum Creek Cocalico Creek Smallmouth Bass X X X Redbreast Sunfish X X X Rock Bass X X X Largemouth Bass X X X Green Sunfish X X Bluegill X X Pumpkinseed X X X White Sucker X X X Northern Hogsucker X X Margined Madtom X X Banded Killifish X X X Blacknose Dace X X Swallowtail Shiner X X X Common Carp X X Cutlips Minnow X X Common Shiner X X Tesselated Darter X X X Creek Chub X Spottail Shiner X X Longnose Dace X X Satinfin Shiner X X Slimy Sculpin* X Yellow Bullhead X X Brown Bullhead X Spotfin Shiner X X Golden Shiner X Hatchery Brown Trout X Bluntnose Minnow X X River Chub X X Greenside Darter X X Banded Darter X Yellow Perch X American Eel X X X Fallfish X X *Slimy Sculpin collected from a stream-side spring John Buzzar Area 6 Fisheries Biologist 9 inch Rock Bass Two Smallmouth Bass .
Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • York County Natural Areas Inventory
    YORK COUNTY NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY A COMPONENT OF THE YORK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVEPLAN YORK COUNTY NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY York County Planning Commission www.ycpc.org September, 1997 Amended - October 27, 2004 The original Natural Areas Inventory was funded in part by a Keystone, Park and Conservation Fund Program Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and a Community Development Block Grant from York County. PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Preface ..................................................................... iii Chapter I - Introduction ..........................................................1 Uses For The York County NAI .............................................3 Chapter II - Natural History Overview of The County ....................................5 Physiography and Geology ..................................................5 Soils ..................................................................6 Vegetation ..............................................................8 Disturbance ............................................................11 Chapter III - Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory Data System ........................13 Natural Areas Inventory Methods ............................................14 Information Gathering .....................................................14 Map and Air Photo Interpretation ............................................14 Field Work ............................................................15 Data Analysis ...........................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Initiatives Master Spreadsheet Prelim Final 061813.Xlsx
    Summary of Lebanon County Clean Water Initiatives Land use where BMP applied (crop, pasture, pervious Implementation related Subwatershed where Organization responsible General recommendations Document Name Document Date Prepared For BMP/Project Amount of BMP Watershed(HUC10) Municipality of Proposed BMP Developed land, impervious Priority Ranking Watershed Threats to:Outreach, Public Education, Notes BMP implemented for implementation for action Developed land, Policy ag/suburban/urban) Lancaster Dauphin and Lebanon Counties. Majority of focus is Provides a list of restoration increased res. And non‐res. Chiques and East within Lancaster County. Headwaters of these streams located within Lebanon Chiques and East $75000 to develop restoration plan for the Chiques/Susquehanna Tri‐County Conewago protection initiatives and development/ stormwater, 2003 1 Restoration Plan Conewago Creek (State Municipalities within the Co. They are attaining their designated uses. Conewago Creek WRAS Conewago Creek River Creek Association (TCCCA funding when the report was increase water demand Water Plan Subbasin 07G) watersheds in Lebanon are South Provides TMDL info written (2003). affecting stream baseflow Londonderry, West Cornwall and Cornwall stream restoration ‐ all other Chiques Creek Chiques Creek Watershed stream restoration (identified in report as 2002 1200 Chiques Chiques West Cornwall forested reaches identified were in geomorphic and habitat assessments performed Watershed Assessment Association reach C11) Lancaster County Soil conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Discharge at Partial-Record Stations and Miscellaneous Sites
    290 DISCHARGE AT PARTIAL-RECORD STATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS SITES As the number of streams on which streamflow information is likely to be desired far exceeds the number of stream-gaging stations feasible to operate at one time, the Geological Survey collects limited streamflow data at sites other than stream-gaging stations. When limited streamflow data are collected on a systematic basis over a period of years for use in hydrologic analyses, the site at which these data are collected is called a partial-record station. Data collected at these partial-record stations are usable in low-flow or floodflow analyses, depending on the type of data col- lected. In addition, discharge measurements are made at other sites not included in the partial-record program. These measurements are generally made in times of drought or flood to give better areal coverage to those events. Those measurements and others collected for some special reason are called measurements at miscellaneous sites. Records collected at crest-stage partial-record stations are presented in the following table. Discharge measurements made at low-flow par- tial-record sites and at miscellaneous sites and for special studies are given in separate tables. Crest-stage partial-record stations The following table contains annual maximum discharges for crest-stage stations. A crest-stage gage is a device which will register the peak stage occurring between inspections of the gage. A stage-discharge relation for each gage is developed from discharge measurements made by indirect measurements of peak flow or by current meter. The date of the maximum discharge is not always certain but is usually determined by comparison with nearby continuous-record stations, weather records, or local inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy
    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Bridges with T.I.P. Funding
    LOCAL BRIDGES WITH T.I.P. FUNDING RETTEW MILL ROAD OVER ASHMEAD ROAD OVER FOREMAN ROAD OVER COCALICO CREEK BRIDGE TOOKANY CREEK BRIDGE AMTRAK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT REPLACEMENT Ephrata Township, Lancaster Cheltenham Township, West Donegal Township, County, PA Montgomery County, PA Lancaster County, PA RETTEW provided surveying, RETTEW is currently providing RETTEW provided preliminary engineering, and environmental engineering services to replace engineering, final design, and permitting for a two-span the structurally deficient construction management replacement bridge on Ashmead Road Bridge located services for this bridge Rettew Mill Road. Services over Tookany Creek. RETTEW replacement over Amtrak railroad included complete bridge will use formliners to replace the lines. RETTEW also provided and roadway engineering ornamental stone arch aesthetic environmental clearances and environmental analyses aspects of the existing bridge— including a wetland investigation involving wetland investigation, an important feature to the and delineation, cultural resource cultural coordination, categorical Township. coordination, and a categorical exclusion evaluation, and a exclusion evaluation and Section RETTEW is also providing PA DEP Chapter 105 permit 4(f) evaluation. roadway and bridge design, application. The new 130-foot- hydrology and hydraulic analysis, The new Foreman Road Bridge long prestressed-concrete and environmental and historical over Amtrak is a single, 94-foot bridge replaced the existing permitting. In addition, RETTEW span consisting of a prestressed- timber-covered bridge at the site. is coordinating closely with five concrete I-beam bridge structure. RETTEW obtained all required utility companies that have utility RETTEW designed the bridge approvals from PennDOT through lines attached to the underside of on a horizontal curve using the local match reimbursement the existing bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Parks & Recreation
    Lancaster County has made a commitment to conserving greenways, including abandoned railroad lines H Conewago An Outdoor Laboratory suitable for hiking trails. Because of its rich history of rail- Recreation Trail roading, Pennsylvania has become one of the leading states Lancaster County The county’s parks provide in the establishment of rail trails. In fact, in Pennsylvania In 1979, the county acquired the Conewago Recreation opportunities for educational alone there are over one hundred such trails extending Trail located between Route 230 and the Lebanon County field trips, independent study, Parks & more than 900 miles. line northwest of Elizabeth town. This 5.5-mile trail, and numerous outdoor formerly the Cornwall & These special corridors not only preserve an im portant and environmental educa- Recreation Lebanon Railroad, follows piece of our heritage, they also give the park user a unique tion programs. Programs view of the countryside while preserv ing habitats for a the Conewago Creek include stream studies, ani- Seasonal program listings, individual park maps, and variety of wildlife. While today’s pathways offer the pedes- through scenic farmland mal tracking, orienteering, facility use fees may be obtained from the department’s trian quiet seclusion, these routes once represented part of and woodlands, and links GPS programming, owl website at www.lancastercountyparks.org. the world’s busiest transportation system. to the Lebanon Valley Rail- Trail. A 17-acre day-use prowls, moonlit walks, and area, which in cludes a interpretive walks covering For more information, call or write: small pond for fishing, was wildflowers, birds and tree Conestoga Lancaster County G acquired in 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Pennsylvania Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws PERMITS, MULTI-YEAR LICENSES, BUTTONS
    2018PENNSYLVANIA FISHING SUMMARY Summary of Fishing Regulations and Laws 2018 Fishing License BUTTON WHAT’s NeW FOR 2018 l Addition to Panfish Enhancement Waters–page 15 l Changes to Misc. Regulations–page 16 l Changes to Stocked Trout Waters–pages 22-29 www.PaBestFishing.com Multi-Year Fishing Licenses–page 5 18 Southeastern Regular Opening Day 2 TROUT OPENERS Counties March 31 AND April 14 for Trout Statewide www.GoneFishingPa.com Use the following contacts for answers to your questions or better yet, go onlinePFBC to the LOCATION PFBC S/TABLE OF CONTENTS website (www.fishandboat.com) for a wealth of information about fishing and boating. THANK YOU FOR MORE INFORMATION: for the purchase STATE HEADQUARTERS CENTRE REGION OFFICE FISHING LICENSES: 1601 Elmerton Avenue 595 East Rolling Ridge Drive Phone: (877) 707-4085 of your fishing P.O. Box 67000 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000 Phone: (814) 359-5110 BOAT REGISTRATION/TITLING: license! Phone: (866) 262-8734 Phone: (717) 705-7800 Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. The mission of the Pennsylvania Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday PUBLICATIONS: Fish and Boat Commission is to Monday through Friday BOATING SAFETY Phone: (717) 705-7835 protect, conserve, and enhance the PFBC WEBSITE: Commonwealth’s aquatic resources EDUCATION COURSES FOLLOW US: www.fishandboat.com Phone: (888) 723-4741 and provide fishing and boating www.fishandboat.com/socialmedia opportunities. REGION OFFICES: LAW ENFORCEMENT/EDUCATION Contents Contact Law Enforcement for information about regulations and fishing and boating opportunities. Contact Education for information about fishing and boating programs and boating safety education.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • The Future”: Stream Corridor Restoration and Some New Uses for Old Floodplains
    A LandStudies Policy Report March 2004 “Back to the Future”: Stream Corridor Restoration and Some New Uses for Old Floodplains A Policy Report March 2004 Compiled by LandStudies, Inc. analysts The following LandStudies, Inc. report attempts to inform municipal leaders, community residents, and local developers how innovative techniques in floodplain or stream corridor restoration can help accommodate a wide range of recent state and federal regulatory and legislative directives. Mark Gutshall, President LandStudies, Inc. 315 North Street Lititz, PA 17543 Tel: 717-627-4440 Fax: 717-627-4660 A LandStudies Policy Report March 2004 Table of Contents Introduction......................................................................... 3 Section One: New Environmental Order............................. 6 NPDES Phase II...................................................................... 7 Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener Grants Program ................. 8 Other Rules and Regulations .................................................. 9 Section Two: Challenges and Obstacles............................10 Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay..................................11 Current Types of Pollution.......................................................12 New Development and Floodplains.........................................13 Section Three: Best Management Practices .....................14 Riparian Zones........................................................................15 Planting Success.....................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • Pollutant Reduction Plan
    DRAFT POLLUTANT REDUCTION PLAN FOR AKRON BOROUGH, LANCASTER COUNTY Prepared by: 20 C Snyder Lane Ephrata, PA 17522-9101 Phone: 717.721.7444 Fax: 717.721.7447 HanoverEng.com Hanover Project AKR17-14(CBP) Introduction Akron Borough is located in northern Lancaster County, PA within both the Cocalico Creek and Conestoga River Watersheds. Akron Borough is comprised of approximately 832 acres; and includes—but is not limited to—residential, commercial, institutional, recreational and agricultural land uses. The Borough is within the Susquehanna River Watershed and therefore drains into the Chesapeake Bay. The entire area of the Borough is located within the 2010 Urbanized Area (47530- Lancaster, PA). The Borough is located northeast of the City of Lancaster and is bisected by PA Route 272. 100% of the Urbanized Area includes components of the MS4 (e.g. piping, outfalls, etc.). The regulated MS4 discharges to the following waterways: • Cocalico Creek (western side of the Borough) • Conestoga River (eastern side of the Borough) Approximately 562 acres of the Borough drain to the Cocalico Creek Watershed while the other 270 acres drain to the Conestoga River. A. Public Participation Public participation is an important component for a successful MS4 program. The enclosed combined Pollutant Reduction Plan for the impaired waters of Cocalico Creek and the Chesapeake Bay was published for public review and comment on July 26, 2017. Notice of the public review period was advertised in the Ephrata Review on July 26, 2017. A copy of the public notice is provided in Appendix A. The public was provided with 30 days to review and comment on the Pollution Reduction Plan at which point the comments were considered and a copy of the Borough’s record of consideration is included in Appendix B.
    [Show full text]